Any Centrists?

[TheWhiteBull]

And where I see your blind dogma throwing you off the rails in what you post about liberals is the ridiculous notion that liberals don't care about Islamic fundamentalism. I think you are a slave to your extremist dogmatism.

Actually I said both sides are generally concerned about it, just acknowledged your own statement that you dont care about it as much in the sense that it has less chance of personally affecting you.

What I in fact said is that Liberals not caring about it is what Conservatives perceive to be true. I thought we were having a nice, civil conversation and then you mistrue something that I said and start resorting to name-calling and character attacks. I also mentioned earlier that I am center-left. I did not vote for Trump and have only occasionaly voted for Republicans because where I live some of them are actually better than our Blue Dog Democrats who run. Please point to what I said that is dogmatic.

The last time we sparred you made an unfair accusation about which words I had used and didnt respond to my follow-up that it was clear and demonstrable which ones I had. I would prefer to continue keeping this time more polite.

 

[sr71plt]

Granted you cited the perception of being that of conservatives. Unfortunately the posts I have read from you (I only read a few) gives me the perception that you are to the right of conservatives (I don't demonize the word "conservative" as automatically being the rightist crazies I see hanging out here a lot). So, there you go.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

Granted you cited the perception of being that of conservatives. Unfortunately the posts I have read from you (I only read a few) gives me the perception that you are to the right of conservatives (I don't demonize the word "conservative" as automatically being the rightist crazies I see hanging out here a lot). So, there you go.

Then you need to back and re-read those "only a few" posts as well as my others and please tell me where in the world you get the impression that I am far to the right. Our interactions to date consist of:

1. In Chris's thread about the White terrorist, you accused me of moving from absolute terms like "always" and "every time" to less absolut such as "generally, usually, and often". I pointed out that you that that was untrue and asked you to quote me on it. You did not respond, but elsewhere in the thread you did call me "dogmatic" because I posited that it is not unreasonable, albeit not necessarily true to assume someone commiting an act in the name of Isis had converted to Islam.

2. I told you if you dont like Chris's threads to stop giving them attention and he'll probably stop making them. You called me a loser.

3. I politely asked a question about one of your statements in "Why Liberals Defend Islam", merely asking you to clarify a point. You did not respond.

And 4. This conversation, where after mainly conversing in agreement about religious extremism, I mentioned how I think Conservatives perceive something and you proceeded to go on this rant about how far to the right of them I am.

My political posts outside of this have mainly revolved around my dislike of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, in fact the only other Pol thread Ive made besides this one (you know, the one about being a Centrist and in which I stated Im center-left), was one detailing my disagreement with Churche schools successfully getting their hands on taxpayer money.

Im not sure if youre just incredibly eager to jump to conclusions, not to mention what youre basing said conclusions on, or being obnoxious, or paranoid, or facetious, or stupid, but what is becoming clear is that you do not actually intend to meaningfully or politely engage in conversation with me.

 

[dan_c00000]

God, I'm agreeing with you. I'm checking my temperature now...

But seriously, I think this is where "centrist" comes in and this is yet another issue most of us can agree on.

Everyone agrees big business is bad but only a few people were/are willing to do anything about it. The astonishing thing is if you look at those numbers just how cheaply someone like Ted Cruz can be bought. Goldman Sachs gave him (his wife worked for them too don't forget) $90k and he's ready to literally blow up the economy again for them.

It was an interesting time. Have you read Liberty's Exiles by Maya Jasanoff?

I'd also suggest Iron Tears by Stanely Weintraub and Redcoats and Rebels by Christopher Hibbert.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

I'd also suggest Iron Tears by Stanely Weintraub and Redcoats and Rebels by Christopher Hibbert.

The 2nd one looks particularly promising. Have you read Crucible of War by Fred Anderson? It covers the 7 years war and gives great attention to how events in it were such large catalysts for the Revolution.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Everyone agrees big business is bad but only a few people were/are willing to do anything about it. The astonishing thing is if you look at those numbers just how cheaply someone like Ted Cruz can be bought. Goldman Sachs gave him (his wife worked for them too don't forget) $90k and he's ready to literally blow up the economy again for them.

Yep, and another reason why I regard Trump as more centrist than not.

But aside from that, yeah, big business. Me, I do my best to buy from small or locally owned businesses. It's hard but if everyone made the effort we'd all be better of.

 

[dan_c00000]

The 2nd one looks particularly promising. Have you read Crucible of War by Fred Anderson? It covers the 7 years war and gives great attention to how events in it were such large catalysts for the Revolution.

Yup I've read that one. For a few years there was a little cottage industry of books on the Seven Years'/French and Indian War.

Just a sampling:

1759, The Year Britain Became Master of the World by Frank McLynn (2005)

Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763 by William Fowler (2005)

The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North American by Walter Borneman (2007)

Yep, and another reason why I regard Trump as more centrist than not.

He sits firmly on the GOP side of pro-business/anti-regulation. If you look at what he's done and said about Dodd-Frank Trump is in favor of making it easier for the same bankers who destroyed his base's 401ks and foreclosed on their houses.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

Yep, and another reason why I regard Trump as more centrist than not.

But aside from that, yeah, big business. Me, I do my best to buy from small or locally owned businesses. It's hard but if everyone made the effort we'd all be better of.

His "wealth" and "non-need" were definitely used to try and make him appear more centrist and less influenced by money but non-need is not non-desire. Everybody always wants more money, myself included, Trump included.To think that he won't at the very least push policies which favor his businesses and practices seems misguided.

 

[DrDelirium]

The whole left-right paradigm just doesn't make any sense in American politics. The major parties both cater to big corporations and activist fringe groups, and most of the people who vote for the candidates of either do so out of habit or the mistaken impression that the 'other' party is the only one doing the things they hate. Both parties love war when they are in power and hate it when they are out of power. Both parties give huge economic incentives to big corporations and neither gets 'Good Paying American Jobs' in return. Both parties tax the middle and the almost-poor to pay for social programs for the poor and massive subsidies for the rich. Where is the 'middle' of this mess? We're all arguing about whether to play craps or roulette in someone else's casino- the house wins either way.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

This is the attitude that gave us Trump.

The whole left-right paradigm just doesn't make any sense in American politics. The major parties both cater to big corporations and activist fringe groups, and most of the people who vote for the candidates of either do so out of habit or the mistaken impression that the 'other' party is the only one doing the things they hate. Both parties love war when they are in power and hate it when they are out of power. Both parties give huge economic incentives to big corporations and neither gets 'Good Paying American Jobs' in return. Both parties tax the middle and the almost-poor to pay for social programs for the poor and massive subsidies for the rich. Where is the 'middle' of this mess? We're all arguing about whether to play craps or roulette in someone else's casino- the house wins either way.

 

[DrDelirium]

This is the attitude that gave us Trump.

No, the attitude that gave us Trump is that we have to participate in a rigged system in which the house always wins. The arc of American policy is very consistent since WWII, regardless of which party is in power.

http://kickfailure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ttt_WOPR.png

 

[TheWhiteBull]

This is the attitude that gave us Trump.

In part yes, along with many other factors.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

I've added a poll to see what/who we're all dealing with here.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Well, you're entitled to your beliefs, but I don't agree.

There are huge, important differences between D and R. If you just throw up your hands and give up, well great, now we'll never get real gun control. See you at the next mass shooting.

No, the attitude that gave us Trump is that we have to participate in a rigged system in which the house always wins. The arc of American policy is very consistent since WWII, regardless of which party is in power.

http://kickfailure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ttt_WOPR.png

 

[TheWhiteBull]

Well, you're entitled to your beliefs, but I don't agree.

There are huge, important differences between D and R. If you just throw up your hands and give up, well great, now we'll never get real gun control. See you at the next mass shooting.

While I am in favor of stricter gun control I don't think it will actually help us much with our mass shooting problem. More with everyday crime.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Well, the statistics say otherwise.

In any case, it's an example of very deep, core differences in the parties.

Do you want to do something about climate change and embrace the actual scientific facts about the world and transition to the future, or NOT? Should we have HC for all or not? Should we have charter schools or not?

Thanks to all these people whining that there's "no difference" between the parties, we have Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos and a crazy man-child running the country.

While I am in favor of stricter gun control I don't think it will actually help us much with our mass shooting problem. More with everyday crime.

 

[ChloeTzang]

This is the attitude that gave us Trump.

I was going to say much the same, but from the perspective that Trump was the only candidate that came from outside the established political class, a class that's yes, screwed us regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republican with very few exceptions. Trump is a screw you gesture to the establishment. And every single other candidate from all sides was worse.

 

[ChloeTzang]

While I am in favor of stricter gun control I don't think it will actually help us much with our mass shooting problem. More with everyday crime.

To be brutal about it, if we took black related gun crimes out of the equation, we'd have a lower gun death / crime % occurrence than most other western countries. So if you really want to do something about gun related deaths, there's something to shoot for. But then there's the second amendment.....

And our mass shooting problem is mostly mental health related.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

To be brutal about it, if we took black related gun crimes out of the equation, we'd have a lower gun death / crime % occurrence than most other western countries. So if you really want to do something about gun related deaths, there's something to shoot for. But then there's the second amendment.....

And our mass shooting problem is mostly mental health related.

More than just mental health, I don't think gun control will solve it because they can always somehow get their hands on a gun if they really want to and it seems to me that we've entered into a time where mass shootings are now just a part of our culture. Once upon a time such shootings were rare occurences, now theyre just much more fixed in everyones minds a a possibility, particularly for those who end up committing them.

 

[ChloeTzang]

More than just mental health, I don't think gun control will solve it because they can always somehow get their hands on a gun if they really want to and it seems to me that we've entered into a time where mass shootings are now just a part of our culture. Once upon a time such shootings were rare occurences, now theyre just much more fixed in everyones minds a a possibility, particularly for those who end up committing them.

And if there's no guns you can always find a way. In China and the UK it just seems to be knives. Ban knives and it's forks. And speaking as someone who trains with improvised weapons, sharpened chopsticks or a credit card with one side sharpened (yes I do carry one) all make pretty lethal weapons. Gun control ain't no magic fix. Look at chicongo.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yes they would have to use knives, or perhaps bombs, or whatever. Still, MASSIVELY fewer deaths. And we're not just talking mass shootings. This past week how many people died uselessly from guns? Accidents, crime, etc.

Essentially, America is full of angry, stupid, unstable people, and downright psychos with a grudge who are going to commit violence, that's a given.

Hey, here's an idea, let's SHOVEL as many high-powered weapons that we can into their crazy, psycho hands!

The argument that Well, people are crazy anyway, is an argument for massive restrictions on who can get their hands on a gun, not a rationale for the status quo.

There's simply no way around the stats that countries without our insane gun laws don't have nearly the number of deaths.

More than just mental health, I don't think gun control will solve it because they can always somehow get their hands on a gun if they really want to and it seems to me that we've entered into a time where mass shootings are now just a part of our culture. Once upon a time such shootings were rare occurences, now theyre just much more fixed in everyones minds a a possibility, particularly for those who end up committing them.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Idiot response.

Hmmm.

How many kids could the Newtown shooter have killed with a fork, hmm, I wonder.

Forks and knives vs. semi-automatics, hmmm, let's think about that one

And if there's no guns you can always find a way. In China and the UK it just seems to be knives. Ban knives and it's forks. And speaking as someone who trains with improvised weapons, sharpened chopsticks or a credit card with one side sharpened (yes I do carry one) all make pretty lethal weapons. Gun control ain't no magic fix. Look at chicongo.

 

[sr71plt]

And if there's no guns you can always find a way. In China and the UK it just seems to be knives. Ban knives and it's forks. And speaking as someone who trains with improvised weapons, sharpened chopsticks or a credit card with one side sharpened (yes I do carry one) all make pretty lethal weapons. Gun control ain't no magic fix. Look at chicongo.

Only bombs would compare with guns on the ability to kill many quickly and at a distance. I'm all in favor of tight restrictions on access to bombs too.

You're pushing a pretty lame and tired defense for rapid-fire guns in the hands of private citizens. Welcome to the NRA's "who cares about anyone but me?" division.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Idiot response.

Hmmm.

How many kids could the Newtown shooter have killed with a fork, hmm, I wonder.

Forks and knives vs. semi-automatics, hmmm, let's think about that one

Read your Chinese and British news and learn a bit more about the rest of the world. Knives seem to work quite well for mass murders. So do trucks.

And usually it's weapons vs nothing coz most mass shooters pick, surprise surprise, gun free zones. Knives work just as well as our Islamic friends are so good at demonstrating.

 

[ChloeTzang]

You're pushing a pretty lame and tired defense for rapid-fire guns in the hands of private citizens. Welcome to the NRA's "who cares about anyone but me?" division.

Nope, just pointing out that if the reason for gun control is to cut down on gun crime, there's no need to restrict everyone. If the reason for gun control is to cut gun crimes, well, let's look at the demographic that commits about 90% of them and then, voila, magically we remove their guns by passing a law coz, you know, when you pass a law it's instantly obeyed. Problem solved. Of course it's not going to happen and even if was tried it'd be a complete failure. Witness Chicago.

So if that's not the reason for gun control, what is? Mass shootings? Statistically insignificant. Worried about schools? Let properly trained teachers carry guns.

Me, you know my views on the Second Amendment

And, uh, this was a thread on centrists and things we could agree on. I think empirically we've just established it ain't happening on this issue. Coz where I live most people think like me on that one. So rather than turn White Bulls thread into an argument on gun control that we'll never agree on, let's just agree to disagree and move on. Plenty of ther threads where we can debate ad nauseum on this one.