[macosxnerd101]

Quote

I'm not interested in convincing them.

It's not about you convincing them. It's about respecting the rules of this forum. It's quite possible to disagree with someone passionately without degenerating into personal attacks. That's the point that everyone is trying to make.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

I'm not interested in convincing them.

You're doing a good job of convincing me that people like Craig are more reasonable than you are. That takes some doing.

Trust me, nobody that you are interested in convincing is going to find your "my opponent is clearly insane" approach to be an effective argument. If you can't make a reasonable argument, please at least stop trying to out-crazy your opposition.

And please - temper tantrum downvotes are pretty childish. Please try to grow up.

Quote

It's an important issue, and worrying about feelings does no one any good.

You're right, it's an important issue. That's why making a convincing case matters. Calling people names is not going to help.

Put simply: bring an argument, or go yell at the radio.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 03 November 2013 - 03:18 PM

[farrell2k]

jon.kiparsky, on 03 November 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

You're right, it's an important issue. That's why making a convincing case matters.

If you can't see the unhealthy, irrational paranoia in someone who believes that the government, "criminals", and God knows who else is always out to get them is a mental problem, I don't know what to tell you other than not challenging that ridiculousness is why so many people embrace it, which only further compounds the problem. You do none of us any favors by ignoring disturbed ramblings.

As for the -1, I gave you one because I did not agree with your assessment of my behavior. I am sure you gave me one for a similar reason. Maybe we should both just follow the rules and not -1 someone for things they say?

macosxnerd101, on 03 November 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

Quote

I'm not interested in convincing them.

It's not about you convincing them. It's about respecting the rules of this forum. It's quite possible to disagree with someone passionately without degenerating into personal attacks. That's the point that everyone is trying to make.

You have a strange definition of a personal attack. Pointing out irrational, paranoid behavior for the mental issue it is is a not a personal attack, but an observation.

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

I don't know what to tell you other than not challenging that ridiculousness is why so many people embrace it, which only further compounds the problem. You do none of us any favors by ignoring disturbed ramblings.

Yoo hoo! There is a way to argue with people, and there is a way not to argue with people! I don't understand what about that is so hard. Calling people delusional is not okay. Calling an argument unfounded is okay. You're an adult- I don't understand why it's necessary to stress playing nicely with others. If your coworker says something stupid, do you call him delusional and a moron in a meeting with your supervisor and his supervisor? Anything that goes in terms of social norms and courtesies when dealing with people in person should go when dealing with people on the interwebz.

Quote

You have a strange definition of a personal attack. Pointing out irrational, paranoid behavior for the mental issue it is is a not a personal attack, but an observation.

I don't really care. The moderation team is on board with this definition.

[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 03 November 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

This is that irrational paranoia that I wrote about in my previous post. The "criminals" again... No one is out to get you, especially the government. I can see just by the way you write that you are filled with irrational paranoia. It's a mental issue, man.

This is exactly why people like you are dangerous, especially when armed. In your sick minds, everyone is out to get you...

Huh. Well, take a break, come back here, read this and experience unsurprise of a magnitude great enough to collapse stars. I think the challenge with someone like you is to find the avenue where rational thought processes continue to function and see if the argument can be made along those lines. I'm assuming those functions exist and have existed before...so let's try this tack for a moment.

Consider that "government" does not equal "Barack Obama". I get that you like the guy and think more of him than the majority these days (considering his current job approval rating). On an obvious level you likely understand that come January 2017, someone else will take the oath of office. Now keeping that in mind, consider that the government formed by this administration has set precedents in many areas that are troubling to most thinking folks (the ones who value what's normally considered typical liberties by most informed Americans). Precedents that other, following administrations may consider to be the new "norm". If that's not troubling to you then conduct this quick mental exercise: how would you have felt had some of the things that's been done during this administration were done by Obama's predecessor Bush? Let me help you out and list what those would sound like:

• having someone in the White House bribe a Tea Party candidate to drop out of tight race with the promise of a White House staff position
  
• ignoring the KKK intimidating black voters in Ohio
  
• giving half a billion dollars to a petroleum exploration company that donated heavily to his campaign...and then that company declares bankruptcy and closes
  
• having the ATF exposed running illegal guns into Canada (aka: "Calm and Canuck") resulting directly in the deaths of 4 US Border Patrol agents
  
• having Roberto Gonzalez lie during Congressional testimony that he knew nothing about the previously mentioned "Calm and Canuck" scandal
  
• bypassing Congress when they're in recess and appointing dozens of conservative cronies to various bureaucratic positions within the government
  
• having the FBI spy on Americans inside our borders
  
• using the IRS to deny non-profit status to groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and such
  
• having the Justice Department seize the phone records of reporters for the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post after they reported on something that made Bush look bad
  
• having Roberto Gonzalez again lie directly to Congress when asked about his knowledge of seizing such records about journalists
  
• having the Justice Department sidetrack Freedom of Information requests from groups like Air America or Rachel Maddow
  
• be discovered collecting data from companies like Google and Yahoo without their knowledge
  
• asking for and getting hundreds of millions of phone log records for ordinary Americans

You see, the problem is that once an administration does something, it's like a line has been crossed and later crossings of that line will be met with less outrage than before. This is the nature of government in general. Not Obama, not Bush. Government. The trouble is that people (like you seemingly) view politics only at the most immediate and current level when the real threat isn't immediate but rather in the long term.

Someone will succeed Obama (hopefully) and that someone may not share your political viewpoints on anything. Do you like that the government has successfully surveilled Americans and, by all reports, continues to do so? Are you okay with the next guy saying "hey, Obama did it and it was okay...let's see how much further we can push this"? How about how the IRS has been used as a tool of governmental coercion? You okay with someone like Marco Rubio (an even more wet-behind-the-ears puppet than Obama was in 2008...and I've met Rubio) or Rand Paul or Ted Cruz thinking that using the IRS to punish progressive or liberal groups would be okay? I mean, after all, Obama's crew did it...why wouldn't it be okay?

This is why blindly, gullibly trusting that your government always has your best interests at heart is patently naive...because the people running that government today may not be the one's running it tomorrow. That's why "reasonable people" wish to retain the means to ensure their own protection and to ultimately change their government if the situation so demands.

This post has been edited by Craig328: 03 November 2013 - 04:01 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

On an obvious level you likely understand that come January 2015, someone else will take the oath of office.

Um... what?

[Craig328]

jon.kiparsky, on 03 November 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

Quote

On an obvious level you likely understand that come January 2015, someone else will take the oath of office.

Um... what?

My bad...typo. 2017. I'll fix it.

[jon.kiparsky]

Just checking. I hadn't heard about any impeachment movements....

Anyway, yes, I don't think we expect a coup or a constitutional change, so Obama will not get a third term. I wonder who the republicans will sacrifice against Clinton. They haven't really left themselves any viable candidates, have they?

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

If you can't see the unhealthy, irrational paranoia in someone who believes that the government, "criminals", and God knows who else is always out to get them is a mental problem, I don't know what to tell you other than not challenging that ridiculousness is why so many people embrace it, which only further compounds the problem. You do none of us any favors by ignoring disturbed ramblings.

Okay, so you believe that Craig's view of the world is incorrect. Can you make a convincing argument for that position? Simply asserting it - no matter how rudely or childishly - is not going to get you anywhere.

Quote

As for the -1, I gave you one because I did not agree with your assessment of my behavior. I am sure you gave me one for a similar reason. Maybe we should both just follow the rules and not -1 someone for things they say?

I think you can maybe see the difference between "Was this post helpful? No, calling people crazy is not helpful" and throwing a temper tantrum. If you get some pleasure out of hitting the little red hissy fit, go for it - rep points are free, I don't mind - but again, it really does make you look a bit childish.

[Craig328]

You think Hillary is a viable candidate after Benghazi? She took responsibility for the security lapse there which lead to the death of the American ambassador. That's probably the single biggest thing she'll be remembered for during her stint as Sec State. I doubt other Democratic nominees will let her skate on it and if she did win the nomination, the Republican nominee certainly won't.

I'd expect to see someone like Martin O'Malley or other effective Democratic governor compete well for the nomination over Hillary.

[jon.kiparsky]

I think it's unlikely that anyone is going to make any mud stick on a charge that the Secretary of State wasn't personally infiltrating terrorist organizations and finding out when they were going to attack an embassy.

As for the repo field, I don't see much hope for them. Anyone who has a chance of winning a national election will be destroyed by the no-hoper wing, so it's a pretty clear field for Clinton. Especially since the Republican home ground will have lots of young unwed mothers with a particular beef against the Reds by the time people are voting. Creating your own opposition seems to be a specialty of the anarchist party these days.

But we'll see how things shape up, it's early days yet.

[Craig328]

I think you read too much into the party eating it's own. If a year from now Obamacare has caused the damage that...well...math pretty much says it's going to have to, I think any Democrat nominee is going to have a tougher row to hoe with the electorate. If the Dems push forward a caucasian male, that'll make it tougher still. The Democrats have increasingly relied upon the minority voter in their recent elections. They've steadily lost the white vote for the past 4 elections and the last one they got just 39% of the largest racial bloc in the country. It's not very PC to say it but had Obama not been black, I doubt the Democrats would have been able to rally the minority vote in '08 and '12 as they did. I don't know if someone like Hillary can motivate that bloc.

It also doesn't help to have the laundry list of scandals and such from this administration. Hillary is tied to it, so is Biden. Almost by default a winning Democrat nominee will need to be someone not in the current administration. I'm betting the taint from the final 4 years will be too much for anyone to overcome...what with the media kind of turning on Obama already. Three straight years of mediocre press will make any Democrat nominee's road tougher. Add to that that the nominee will pretty much need to be a female or non-white candidate. A white male Democrat from outside the administration would make it a too close race. I just don't know of a viable, non-administration female or minority candidate the Democrats can push forward. Mind you, there is still plenty of time but Gore failed and Kerry failed against, what I personally believe to be the weakest Republican candidate in quite awhile.

If the Republicans can pull their head out of their collective asses long enough to court someone like Susana Martinez or Condoleezza Rice then they may have something. That, however, remains a skill to be proven they can master.

[NeoTifa]

farrell2k, on 03 November 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

KYA, on 03 November 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

You know bad guys don't follow the laws right?

So then what do we do? Do we just shrug out shoulders and say "Ah, well, bad guys don't follow laws anyway!".

Why even have laws then?

If current laws are inadequate, which by our nation's gun violence record, they clearly are, we change of replace them.

Doing nothing, or ignoring or trying to deflect the issue accomplishes nothing. These shootings happen because guns are too easily accessible, plain and simple.

OH MY FUCKING GOD. Okay, I couldn't read past this and NOT comment. Are you even looking at what you're writing? Jesus tittyfucking Christ, man! "Bad people break laws, therefore we shouldn't have any". That is seriously the single most stupid thing I've read on this forums yet, and I even read my own posts (*rimshot on myself?* ) The reason we have laws is to lay down how people should go about their lives in the least assholish manor as possible, while making sure everybody has equal quality of life as the next person. Every society has the same basic laws: don't kill people, don't steal things, don't rape people, don't hit other people, etc. How they expound on those basic things is what makes different governments different. People murder other people still, despite having laws against it. Should we then dissolve the law against killing? People still murder people, then why have laws against it? Shit, man, think! A gun is a weapon, as is a knife, spoon, fork, car, straws, bare fists, etc. If someone is determined enough to kill someone else, they're gonna do it regardless of laws. That's what laws do, define criminals. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Seriously, that's the oldest saying in the book ffs! Guns are perfectly fine in responsible hands, as are knives, forks, spoons, cars, bare fists, etc. Anything can be a weapon used to hurt people if you're determined enough. England doesn't allow guns, but yet there are still shootings. Sheesh.

farrell2k, on 03 November 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Craig328, on 03 November 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

You trust your government. That's it and that's all. No amount of exposure to history, current events or simple objective deductive logic will sway you in this belief. That much is clear. You have a wish to have your life laid out for you, have your actions observed and approved by a bureaucracy that, at the same time, is spying on you, your friends and neighbors and our allies while blithely ignoring investigating its own apparent crimes for running guns to known criminals in a neighboring (supposedly friendly) country and suppressing political speech it finds onerous. The government you so love displays an absolute disdain for your rights as an individual and you want to reward that with a desire to let them do even more.

This is that irrational paranoia that I wrote about in my previous post. The "criminals" again... No one is out to get you, especially the government. I can see just by the way you write that you are filled with irrational paranoia. It's a mental issue, man.

This is exactly why people like you are dangerous, especially when armed. In your sick minds, everyone is out to get you...

You are in the fast lane on the highway to bansville with this talk, yo diggity.

[jon.kiparsky]

Well, as I say, it's early days yet but right now I see Clinton versus it-doesn't-matter-because-he-loses. And it will be a he on the other side.

You seem to think that the "scandals" you bring up are things that matter to anyone. The trouble with that theory is, I only hear them brought up - in hushed, so-very-shocked tones - by people who start out with an axe to grind. They don't seem to be catching on except with the dedicated team players, and there aren't enough of those to swing an election.

(Rice? Seriously? You think she wants to get back into that? I don't think that's likely. Rice doesn't run. Martinez - well, she could, but who would notice? Same problem as O'Malley - it's sort of hard to run for president if nobody's heard of you)

[NeoTifa]

jon.kiparsky, on 03 November 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Just checking. I hadn't heard about any impeachment movements....

not so Fun fact: my hometown (not C-Bus) is super religious, tea-party boner-getting radicals for the most part (schade!) and they had a protest in town all weekend with giant posters saying "impeach Obama" and had a Hitler moustache on his upper lip.