McCain Plays Dirty By Choosing a Woman as His VP

Is that why you voted for Bush in 2004? Oh, wait, you voted the liberal ticket, didn't you? The one that wanted to add additional weapons to the ban list? Kerry, wasn't it? LMAO!

Yeah, right... all talk as usual!

I like to watch you expose your hypocrisy. BRB, need some more popcorn!

Calling google a liar because your post wasn't indexed? Typical grim

 

It's unfortunate that he has to resort to reporting posts when people won't agree with him. One of those long standing traditions. Moderators don't come down to the section, unless posts are reported. It's a shameful tactic used by some to silence others, when they can't bully them to be subservient.

Sometimes he'll even get one to delete posts entirely.

 

Nope I supported Kerry who had pretty much the same stance as Bush on the assault weapons ban as he was the lesser of two evils. 2004 was several years ago if I'm not mistaken, 4 years can change a person. I believe someone else used to always vote democrat but now rags on 'liberals' non stop.

My vote was for the lesser of two evils, nothing more nothing less. I this time around am not demeaning myself to the 'lesser of two evils' I have grown.

But that's right it's ok for you to change from a democrat to a new found republican, but you should only be known for your republican views you recently embraced. Talk about 'hypocrisy'.

BTW I'm 31 years old, 4 years ago I was only 27. I have matured on many levels and strengthened my positions, I have posted on this very forum about how I was wrong for 'voting for the lesser of 2 evils' and not supporting the person I truly supported.

Keep watching, too bad it's you exposing your own.

Nope I'm calling YOU a liar. Why would anyone use a search from google when the VB forum has a much better built in search system? Hmmm unless perhaps they tried the VB version and found my gun stance from back then, that would not support your BS claims.

 

Just catching up on the thread. I find this to be an utterly ridiculous argument, that owning a gun somehow makes one "stronger" on the second amendment than someone who doesn't. By this same logic, one is "stronger" on the subject of the first amendment by standing in a crowd of people and shouting obscenities all day, or stronger by any other personal "test" of rights under the constitution. The two things, execution of rights under the constitution, and belief in the tenet of the constitution, are utterly unrelated. This is common sense.

Further, to say one supports the constitution "for [one's own] selfish reasons" is necessarily a weaker stance than someone who supports the constitution whether they personally benefit or not. I may never break the law, will never commit a capital crime, but I sure as hell believe in the tenets of Amendment V. In fact, this should be a test for "support" - to do so in cases where one stands to gain nothing by the particular constitutional right.

Whatever one believes the 2nd Amendment means, to say gun ownership somehow imparts more "street cred" to support for the amendment is flatly wrong, in my opinion. Grim is right.

Oh, my saying "in my opinion." Wade, we've enjoyed a good web friendship here, and I continue to be enriched by the exchange, and the new thoughts gained because of them; but in terms of Grim, how he posts, etc., I would have to say that in my experience, you've gotten him wrong.

To take one example: in my opinion, saying "I find," or "In my opinion," or any other qualifier is quite the opposite of egomania or narcissism; it simply shows the poster is not averring he or she has an incontrovertible, divinely ordained truth, but simply making a statement of his or her position, based on his or her best understanding. If these kinds of makes one an egomaniac, then I'm the poster child for egomania, since I use them all the time.

I have no right to preach anything - I obviously know it's tough to drop the fists (and all its tools - the name calling, and all the rest), as my presence here over the last several months attests. I also obviously rest in another ideological camp from both of you, but I would never presume either one of your loves your land any the less; in fact, quite the opposite: I believe both of you love your country, and want the best for its people. I appreciate thinking on the posts that both of you make, and I hope the both of you can find a way out of the morass sooner rather than later.

 

Palin's speech last night was quite impressive. She is a great role model for women and men around the world. When Palin leaves this world, she will have made it a better place than when she arrived.

 

Palin's speech last night was very large on pablum, very short on substance, and intermixed with the most disgusting display of cynical, disingenuous attacks on a standing nominee I've ever seen out of a convention. It may have electrified "the base," (read: the extreme right wing) of the GOP, but she lost the country, in my opinion. As with so much else with this candidate, I predict a tremendous backlash coming to the McCain ticket.

 

Extremely well stated, perhaps that was my problem, I am not as good as conveying my thoughts as some, which includes you

 

I hate to start it back up, but if two man have pretty much equal standings on the second amendment, and one actually owns a gun, and the other does not, i still stand by my original thought, that the man who owns a gun, has more of a vested interest, which means the right to bare that weapon would me a tad more important to him, than the one that doesn't own a gun.

 

Thank you for repeating what you've already said, without any further logical basis to support your point. Since we seem to be into merely repeating our points please allow me to say again:

And now let me add a couple of questions: did you have a logical basis to support the notion that just because you have a personal interest in the right to gun ownership, this somehow supplants the notion that it is support for the constitution itself, and not whatever selfish reasons (your words) lent satisfaction by that constitution, that makes the former "weaker" in support for the constitution, and the latter stronger?

In other words, are you sure you want to contend that murderers and other would-be criminals subject to capital law are "stronger" on the constitution than law abiding citizens, who believe in the constitution as a general principle? You sure you want to stay with this line of reasoning?

 

I think there is a certain degree of vested interest. I don't know if you have children or not, I do, but for the sake of argument lets assume that I don't and that you do. If a statement comes out by a psychologist that children should in no manner be disciplined using the timeout method because parents tend to leave their children alone for too long. If I agreed that it was on the verge of child abuse, would you think that you had a more vested interest than myself? I would say that you would.

You probably would be using that form of discipline, you have seen no negative impacts on your children, and you simply think that while some parents can get out of control with it when it is taken to an extreme degree, you know that when done properly that it is fine the way it is. Wouldn't you say that you have a more vested interest in seeing that not ruled as child abuse?

Its essentially the same concept as trying to write a book on raising children when you have none. Guns aren't far off. People who don't own them seem to think that they know how they are handled in most households that do have them.

 

Number 1, we aren't talking about the constitution in general or as a principle, we are talking about a specific amendment. The majority of gun wielding criminals dont even know what the second amendment is, and could care less about any law, hence their criminal status. This makes your example quite irrelevant.

Secondly, Let me break it down for you a bit more

Grims second amendment view + My second amendment view = Very Similar

Grims vested interest = 0
My vested interest = 1
_______________________
My vested interest > Grims vested interest

In conclusion, I care more if our second amendment rights were stripped, it would effect me more.

The logic you call ridiculous is quite simple to understand, apparently your trying to hard.

 

That's an improper analogy, PHP, since you are here posing a scenario where two people, one group with a "vested interest," and one without a "vested interest," differ on whether the ruling is right or wrong; or, to take the instant debate, take a different position on what exactly the 2nd Amendment means.

Which differs from the debate in this thread. In fact, the argument being attempted above is to say that somehow the gun owner is, prima facie, more authoritative on a "pro" stand for the 2nd Amendment than a non gun-owner.

Which makes no sense, for the reasons I've shown. Again, it is to the merits of the constitution that must be spoken to, not whether one has a "vested" or selfish interest in realizing the benefits implied or stated.

I think my Amendment V analogy is pretty accurate. By Simply's logic, one has to also conclude that capital criminals are necessarily more pro-constitution than any law abiding citizen, regardless of that citizen's views of the Amendment.

And such a logic fails.

 

I grew up with guns, I had a .22 Winchester lever action, double barrel shotgun 'an antique that nobody could figure out it's origin, but I had shot it', .303 british infantry rifle, 2 different pump 12 gauges, a semi auto 12 gauge that was loaned to me for a bit and others. I took all the safety classes, both via the local government and boy scouts.

Giving this even 'if' your logic was correct on some, in my case it fails.

I grew up with guns, I simply do not have one in my house at this time. I know how to handle them, clean them, shoot them, hell I've even reblued mine on occasion.

 

North you seem to be ignoring the fact, that Grim and our constitutional views are nearly identical the only real difference being, that i have the vested interest, which i feel does put me one notch over

 

As a general rule of thumb though, most people don't care or care very little until it hits home for them on any topic. It is the single reason we still have starving people around the world. We have plenty of food and money to feed the hungry, but most don't actually care all that much. The single reason is simply because it isn't anything that impacts us. I'm not going to make the comment that you shouldn't care about Amendment V, but I know i'm selfish enough to say that until that really impacts me, I won't have as much of a true apprecation for it.

Gun owners do have a vested interest in the second Amendment. I can see why non-gun owners couldn't care less about it. I work with someone who says exactly that. He admits that he doesn't own a gun, has never had his house broken into, therefore, he doesn't care much about the second amendment. I'm not ridiculing people like him for that but thats just the way the vast majority of people are.

 

Actually we do differ, you appear to stop at just guns, where I support tanks and any item short of a nuke

 

However we do agree that your view is a bit extreme

Now if we were at war, and tanks is what it took to defend your home, i would be right there with you

 

Good lord, it does get muddy here.

Simply, if you're going to try logic, you should use it - sincerely. You look foolish when you confuse so many lines of reasoning that add up to nothing, in my opinion.

I'll do this once, because I have had enough dealing with this kind of thing in the "creationist" thread, when the other end isn't trying.

Precisely. Hence my pointing to both Amendment II and V, as specific examples.

No, what is utterly irrelevant is your horrible attempt. The law is the law, and the constitution is the constitution. Criminals - or law abiding citizens' - ignorance of the constitution says nothing about the constitution itself. I aver again, it is to the merits of the constitution that we must turn.

If you are going to be a smartass, then you should be prepared to deal with the egg on your face when you fall so ingloriously over the most asinine misapplication of formal logic I've seen in a long, long time. Your statement above is true. And says nothing about whether you hold a superior position to Grim, or me, for example, as I no longer own any guns, respecting the constitution. You've merely restated, for the third time, that you own a gun, and therefore, you have a "vested," or, in your word, "selfish" interest in the 2nd Amendment.

You have yet to see that logic demands you to see this doesn't amount to a hill of crap in terms of whether a non-gun owner is, on the face of it, "less" in support of a given amendment than yourself, as a gun owner. Please revisit the Amendment V analogy, if you haven't already.

Or, to stay in the world of your illogical position:

A law against stealing exists.

My money in the petty cash account at the bank: $1,300,000*** As long as the law above applies to me, I'm good. I couldn't care less who else it applies to, though it claims to apply to every citizen in the land.

Yours: $3.12. You earned your money while interning for the renowned constitutional scholar, Eye V. Gotitright. You believe the law applies to everyone, because, simply, the law is legally, ethically, and every which way under the sun, well, sound; and, regardless, the very principle endemic to the law is that the Law, capital "L," applies equally to all, as written.

I have more "authority" as to my support for the law, because I have more money.

This is your logic.

You will miss this, I'm quite sure, at best, calling it a "way extreme example," or something like that, and as you're seemingly more interested in "breaking it down for me" than slowing down, reading very slowly, and seeing the hole you dug. Others might not.


***True story. I'm loaded. Just ask my two dogs, who get cheetohs once a week.

 

I admit it's 'extreme'

Being at war or not being at war has no bearing on the 2nd or the reason for it. Not to forget what good does it do even using your stance 'if at war', when you're at war and you do not have the arms necessary at the time of war.

The point behind the 2nd is to give the people the same arms as the military has, be it to defend foreign invaders 'or' even to defend the citizens from an oppressive government.

 

Here's the essence of the problem: it doesn't matter. That non-gun owners may or may not care less about the amendment than gun owners says nothing about the "authority" or "pro-stance" of those non-gun owners who do care about the Amendment. It is precisely this latter point that Simply was trying to make, and he's simply wrong. There is no basis whatsover for his contention.