The left doesn't want to take your guns!

[Dill]

(03-30-2018, 06:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally couldn't have baited that hook any more obviously, yet you swallowed it whole.  It's your actions and words that dictate what you are, not what you self proclaim.  You could do yourself a favor and read the entirety of the article, it's quite good.  You may then realize your error.  Also, it's not me calling him liberal, it's the author of the NYT's article and pretty much everyone else.

Looks like we agree on something.  I've always said that someone who consistently defends right wing positions and constantly deploys right wing definitions and rhetoric against "leftists" may not credibly proclaim himself a "centrist."  I agree that if Stevens consistently (i.e., not occasionally) defends left wing positions or liberal positions then for all practical purposes he is a "leftist" or a "liberal."  But a question still remains.  What is a "leftist/liberal" then?  What "actions and words" make one recognizably one or the other or both?

(03-30-2018, 08:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Among people who have no knowledge about firearms the definition varies considerably.  It appears to be an arbitrary mix of meaningless features, such as a vertical fore grip, a pistol grip, a telescoping stock, etc. all of which have zero effect on the firearms lethality.

You prize exact definitions here and scorn inexact, the kind that "vary considerably" relying upon an "arbitrary mix."

Can we extend this commendable standard a little further, into the political sphere, where definitions also vary considerably and arbitrarily?  Stevens thinks of himself as a conservative Republican.  Some agree.
http://www.newsweek.com/actually-john-paul-stevens-conservative-213206

Some think he is best described as "independent."
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=nulr
https://epic.org/privacy/justice_stevens.html

But this is not really a matter counting pundits votes, or shouldn't be.

What actions and words, in your view, make someone a "leftist" or a "liberal"?  Does it makes sense to conflate the terms or use them interchangeably? Are both "assault weapons" or is one better described as simply some kind of "long gun"?  What are the criteria you use to place actors on the political spectrum and, just as importantly, what is the source of those criteria?  Clarifying that would surely minimize the obfuscation you impute to people disagreeing with your views on Stevens and the 2nd Amendment.

Clarification of your definition would help people understand if it matters at all whether this retired Justice was left, liberal, independent or conservative when he argued law.  It might also provide more solid footing for some of your claims about the "real" intent of people supporting gun control--or not.  Let's see.

[BmorePat87]

(03-30-2018, 10:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he is, so what?  I'll answer with the same point that continues to elude GMDino, what you consider yourself is immaterial, your words and actions show others what you truly are.  Not a single person, aside from Stevens, considers him anything but a former liberal justice.



I never said they did.  My OP made no such claim nor could anyone logically infer that it did.  What it did say is that they engaged in extreme rhetoric which was popinted out in my post, as well as subsequent posts.


No, they called for a ban on semi-automatic "high velocity" rifles.  I've already addressed this point.



Absolutely nothing new here, there have been buybacks for years.  They don't seem to be very successful.


No thanks.  If we can't ask someone's citizenship status on a census out of fear then I certainly think asking people to register their legally bought property is far too much to ask.

I just find it interesting that you picked one retired Republican to make your point about "the left". The mischaracterizing the aims of the march doesn't help either. 

The foundation of your thread is based on gross mischaracterizations. I'm not sure where you go from here as you try to salvage a reasonable argument. 

[Dill]

(04-02-2018, 11:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Please link me to a thread where it is claimed that ALL white people are white supremists just because of the actions of a minority of white people.

I'll be happy to do so as soon as I make this claim.  I don't get why you pull this tactic so often; claiming a person made an argument or claim they didn't make.  Everyone knows you do it and I don't understand why you think it helps your arguments.

Just to clarify.  Fred is not claiming you argued that "All white people are white supremacists."  He is arguing by analogy, the common denominator being that you are inferring something about a larger demographic based on the words and actions of a subgroup which does not speak for the whole. 

I.e., Fred is arguing that your argument has the same logical/inferential flaw AS FOUND in the argument that because a minority of whites espouse White Supremacy then all or most do. Just as that logic is invalid in the white supremacist example, so is it in yours. That invalidity is what Fred attributes to your argument, not anything about white supremacy.

Someone who so frequently invokes "logic" in support of his views should then address the point actually made--e.g., by showing how his inference from part to whole is valid--rather than digress into accusations based on misreading. 

I doubt there is a single person on this thread besides yourself who sees the "tactic" you attribute to Fred above. But Fred is at least the FIFTH person on this thread to have questioned your method, your inference from part to whole.  Addressing that weak link directly would be productive.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 12:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seems like when I claim you made this argument you get upset with me for "putting words in your mouth" or accuse you of making an argument that you never did.

So, are you claiming that a poll which shows that only a MINORITY of democrats support repealing the 2nd amendment somehow proves you are correct?

Do you have anything other than you own imagination that show that a majority of "the left" are in favor of repealing the second amendment or confiscating all guns?

I need to know exactly what you are trying to claim before I can address what you are trying to claim.

I always know when you find yourself struggling because you stop actually arguing the current point and attempt to change the current argument.

(04-02-2018, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When asked if they support a ban on all guns only about 10% support something that extreme.

Let me ask you something, would repealing the 2nd amendment make is easier or harder to enact severe gun control measure?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it? What you're seeing is a false dichotomy being presented. What I mean is that the question asked was about the repeal of the second, but that doesn't mean everyone who says yes to that wants no guns or confiscation. Were there follow-up questions regarding a more narrowly defined amendment? Did the pollster ask anything other that that dichotomy? If not, then they themselves skewed these results. What would it have looked like with multiple options?

Matt, please.  We both know this is true of almost every poll ever cited in the media.  Even if I'm overstating the frequency, we both know this is nothing new.

Quote:In looking at the poll (here, if you're interested: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h8n9gvrqyj/econTabReport.pdf), I can definitely say that the way the question is presented skews the answer. Were you to present those people with choices, those choices being repeal, replace, modify, or do nothing, most of the people who would go for the middle two options.

Again, this is rather common and I believe we are all aware of the fact that polls can skew responses.  I just find it very interesting that the value of polls seems to vary by how much our posters agree with the poll's findings.

Quote:In addition, this survey being conducted during this timeframe is also going to increase the positive responses to appeal.

I've been assured by Fred that there is no such thing as political momentum so you cannot be right about this.

Quote:To sum up, both the question construction and timing allow for an inflated affirmative response to the question of repealing the 2nd Amendment. It was bad polling, it was bad journalism for outlets to really put as much stock in it as they did, and it has been used to stoke fears in the minds of those that put much more stock into this issue than others.

I don't disagree with a single thing you just said.  I also firmly believe that the true end game for many anti-gun types is confiscation.  They won't admit it, but it comes out during times like this.  At the very least you have to admit that the calls for repealing, at the level they are being made, are a rather new thing.  Couple this with the severe gun laws in deep blue states like CA, and what person wouldn't come to the conclusion that the Democrats want this for the entire country?  Note, wanting something and thinking you'll get it are two separate things.  The distance between them, in this instance, appears to be shrinking.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 03:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like we agree on something.  I've always said that someone who consistently defends right wing positions and constantly deploys right wing definitions and rhetoric against "leftists" may not credibly proclaim himself a "centrist."  I agree that if Stevens consistently (i.e., not occasionally) defends left wing positions or liberal positions then for all practical purposes he is a "leftist" or a "liberal."  But a question still remains.  What is a "leftist/liberal" then?  What "actions and words" make one recognizably one or the other or both?

You constantly vomit up this accusation and I've consistently challenged you to prove it.  Cite all the right leaning arguments I make and then cite the left leaning arguments I make.  Unless you do so, kindly cease your inane accusations based on a single topic. 

Quote:You prize exact definitions here and scorn inexact, the kind that "vary considerably" relying upon an "arbitrary mix."

Quote:Can we extend this commendable standard a little further, into the political sphere, where definitions also vary considerably and arbitrarily?  Stevens thinks of himself as a conservative Republican.  Some agree.
http://www.newsweek.com/actually-john-paul-stevens-conservative-213206

Some think he is best described as "independent."
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=nulr
https://epic.org/privacy/justice_stevens.html

But this is not really a matter counting pundits votes, or shouldn't be.

What actions and words, in your view, make someone a "leftist" or a "liberal"?  Does it makes sense to conflate the terms or use them interchangeably? Are both "assault weapons" or is one better described as simply some kind of "long gun"?  What are the criteria you use to place actors on the political spectrum and, just as importantly, what is the source of those criteria?  Clarifying that would surely minimize the obfuscation you impute to people disagreeing with your views on Stevens and the 2nd Amendment.

Clarification of your definition would help people understand if it matters at all whether this retired Justice was left, liberal, independent or conservative when he argued law.  It might also provide more solid footing for some of your claims about the "real" intent of people supporting gun control--or not.  Let's see.

Is RGB considered a liberal justice?  If the answer is yes, and many found Stevens to be to the left of her then you have your answer.  If you disagree that Stevens was a left leaning justice that is certainly your prerogative, it's just a minority opinion.

(04-02-2018, 03:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to clarify.  Fred is not claiming you argued that "All white people are white supremacists."  He is arguing by analogy, the common denominator being that you are inferring something about a larger demographic based on the words and actions of a subgroup which does not speak for the whole.

The fact that you even took away that I was insinuating this means you're so beyond the topic actually being discussed as to make your intended contribution meaningless.  Please stop wasting my time.

Quote:I.e., Fred is arguing that your argument has the same logical/inferential flaw AS FOUND in the argument that because a minority of whites espouse White Supremacy then all or most do. Just as that logic is invalid in the white supremacist example, so is it in yours. That invalidity is what Fred attributes to your argument, not anything about white supremacy.

Someone who so frequently invokes "logic" in support of his views should then address the point actually made--e.g., by showing how his inference from part to whole is valid--rather than digress into accusations based on misreading. 

I doubt there is a single person on this thread besides yourself who sees the "tactic" you attribute to Fred above. But Fred is at least the FIFTH person on this thread to have questioned your method, your inference from part to whole.   Addressing that weak link directly would be productive.

Seriously, your obsequious defending of Fred is disturbing.  I'm sure you'll snitch me out for making this point, but how you ignore the consensus opinion on how Fred conducts his "debates" on this site is beyond me.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 03:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I just find it interesting that you picked one retired Republican to make your point about "the left". The mischaracterizing the aims of the march doesn't help either.

Wait, is that the only person I pointed to? 

Quote:The foundation of your thread is based on gross mischaracterizations. I'm not sure where you go from here as you try to salvage a reasonable argument. 

How about a very simple set of easily answered questions?

1.  Have there been calls to repeal the 2nd amendment of late?

2.  Has the frequency of those calls, if you feel they are being made, increased over past periods?

3.  Was there not a call for strict gun control measures at a rally attended by numerous Democratic members of Congress?

4.  If yes to 3, did you not see that one of the speakers stated, if they give us an inch we will take a mile?

5. If yes to 5, should not every politician who attended that rally disavow such a statement if they disagree with it?  As a follow up, if a member of congress attended a rally in which Farrakhan made anti-Semitic remarks would their failing to condemn such remarks be taken as at the very least tacit approval?

6. Of the two parties, which party pushes gun control as a platform issue?

7. Have blue state government imposed gun control measure far in excess of those put in place by the federal government?

8.  Lastly, given the above, should anyone who believes in the right for private citizens to own firearms logically trust the Democratic party when they claim they want "common sense" gun control and nothing more?

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2018, 04:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Matt, please.  We both know this is true of almost every poll ever cited in the media.  Even if I'm overstating the frequency, we both know this is nothing new.

Oh, I know. It doesn't discount what I said, though.

(04-02-2018, 04:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, this is rather common and I believe we are all aware of the fact that polls can skew responses.  I just find it very interesting that the value of polls seems to vary by how much our posters agree with the poll's findings.

And again, this doesn't discount my point. Of course, you making this argument with me is a bit different than most people. I'm one that actually likes to read the questions, the sample size, methodology, etc., before putting stock into a poll. It's one of the reasons I prefer meta-analyses for things like the approval rating stuff. Even though that methodology can be a bit more straightforward, the meta-analysis will provide a better picture than any individual poll. In this instance, they added those questions to the poll because of the political climate (I only looked at the preceding questions for February and there was no mention of them), so it's more difficult to see any sort of trends.

Edit: I should specify, one bad question does not a bad poll make. Some of the questions on the poll were good, that one just isn't good for anything, really.

(04-02-2018, 04:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with a single thing you just said.  I also firmly believe that the true end game for many anti-gun types is confiscation.  They won't admit it, but it comes out during times like this.  At the very least you have to admit that the calls for repealing, at the level they are being made, are a rather new thing.  Couple this with the severe gun laws in deep blue states like CA, and what person wouldn't come to the conclusion that the Democrats want this for the entire country?  Note, wanting something and thinking you'll get it are two separate things.  The distance between them, in this instance, appears to be shrinking.

You're still making a lot of assumptions, here. I would bet you my entire net worth that if there was a methodologically sound survey conducted that asked respondents whether or not they wanted to see a ban on private firearm ownership and confiscation of firearms currently in the hands of private owners, that the result would be less than 15% of Democrats/liberals in favor (both strong and somewhat).

Granted, my net worth isn't a high number (I don't even think it is a positive one), but I'd make that bet either way.

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2018, 04:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, is that the only person I pointed to? 


How about a very simple set of easily answered questions?

1.  Have there been calls to repeal the 2nd amendment of late?

2.  Has the frequency of those calls, if you feel they are being made, increased over past periods?

3.  Was there not a call for strict gun control measures at a rally attended by numerous Democratic members of Congress?

4.  If yes to 3, did you not see that one of the speakers stated, if they give us an inch we will take a mile?

5. If yes to 5, should not every politician who attended that rally disavow such a statement if they disagree with it?  As a follow up, if a member of congress attended a rally in which Farrakhan made anti-Semitic remarks would their failing to condemn such remarks be taken as at the very least tacit approval?

6. Of the two parties, which party pushes gun control as a platform issue?

7. Have blue state government imposed gun control measure far in excess of those put in place by the federal government?

8.  Lastly, given the above, should anyone who believes in the right for private citizens to own firearms logically trust the Democratic party when they claim they want "common sense" gun control and nothing more?

No, you also cited Larry King, but using a washed up TV host who can only get airtime on RT was kind of sad. 

1. Yes, there are calls constantly for it. The two biggest ones are from people far out of the limelight
2. Over past mass shootings? No.
3. Yes, gun control =/= repeal 2nd Amendment
4. See above
5.See above
6. See above
7. See above
8. See above

Your argument is a retired Republican and a host on RT want to repeal the 2nd Amendment so it's now a big push for the left because people want to ban assault weapons...  come on, man, you're better than that.

[*michaelsean*]

DWS would like a background check on ammo. But her words about it are a little scary.

You do not have the right to bear bullets,” Wasserman Schultz said at a news conference at the Pembroke Pines Police Department

Now that statement sounds like someone who doesn’t necessarily want to stop at background checks for ammo.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 06:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, you also cited Larry King, but using a washed up TV host who can only get airtime on RT was kind of sad. 

1. Yes, there are calls constantly for it. The two biggest ones are from people far out of the limelight
2. Over past mass shootings? No.
3. Yes, gun control =/= repeal 2nd Amendment
4. See above
5.See above
6. See above
7. See above
8. See above

Your argument is a retired Republican and a host on RT want to repeal the 2nd Amendment so it's now a big push for the left because people want to ban assault weapons...  come on, man, you're better than that.

First, I appreciate you, somewhat actually answering.  I disagree with your answer to #2, but that's fair.  When you hit three you went a bit off the rails as I'll explain.

First, the thread is not about fear of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, it never was and I never made the argument that this will actually happen.  The argument of the thread is that confiscation and repeal is a goal of people who claim that it is not.  While appealing the 2A is a herculean task, confiscation is not.  As I've stated numerous times, to which no one has an answer for, they are already confiscating firearms in CA from law abiding citizens.  So, your answer to #3 is pointless as no one is saying that gun control and repeal of the 2A are synonymous. 

Your answer to #4 is predicated on #3, so we'll leave that one alone.  You didn't even attempt to answer #5, which makes me wonder why.  There were calls for very extreme measures at that rally.  If you're a politician at that rally you are showing support for the positions expressed during it.  If you do not disavow any statement you find personally disagreeable then you are agreeing with it.

Your answer to #6 is nonsensical and appears to be predicated on the utterly erroneous idea that this thread is predicting a 2A repeal.  It honestly makes me wonder if people actually read these thread or just see the topic and decide to respond with a pre conceived post.  If you were being honest and actually answering my questions as asked then your answer would have been Democrats.

The answer to #7 is also predicated on your mistaken assumption.  The answer would be an obvious yes.  Why couldn't you just say yes?

You didn't even attempt to answer #8.  I'm wondering if it's because you know that an honest answer would actually bolster the point of the thread.


I'll summarize for all the mistaken assumptions being made here.

Some left anti-gun types would like to repeal the 2A.  Said repeal will not happen today, tomorrow or any time in the foreseeable future.  This does not change the fact that a not insignificant number of these people would like to see it happen and will actively work towards that goal.

Even among those not advocating for repeal desire far stricter laws than are currently in place, to the point of banning all semi-automatic rifles.  This is a even more sizable percentage of anti-gun types.  The extent of desired bans seems to increase as the anti-gun crowd feels the wind at their back.

Based on what has happened in blue states why would any pro gun owner trust the Democratic party on this issue?  A lot of noise was made over Lamb winning in PA.  Lost in that was the fact that Lamb put about as much distance between himself and the party as a whole in regards to gun ownership as you could conceivably do.


So, for those of you countering by shouting "fear monger", take two seconds and actually consider the point being made, not the point you want to argue against

[Dill]

(04-02-2018, 04:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You constantly vomit up this accusation and I've consistently challenged you to prove it.  Cite all the right leaning arguments I make and then cite the left leaning arguments I make.  Unless you do so, kindly cease your inane accusations based on a single topic. 

Is RGB considered a liberal justice?  If the answer is yes, and many found Stevens to be to the left of her then you have your answer.  If you disagree that Stevens was a left leaning justice that is certainly your prerogative, it's just a minority opinion.

Lol,  and what is "the majority opinion" on what constitutes an assault rifle? Shall we go by that?

No no, I do not have an answer to my question: What is a "leftist/liberal" then?  What "actions and words" make one recognizably one or the other or both?    

You've shown yourself ready to define what is or is not an assault weapon--not to accept what "many" think one is.
And you are ready to deploy the terms "leftists" and "liberal" to classify arguments and political actors--which is an implicit claim to understand what those terms mean.

So kindly stop with the "many found" alibi and lay out whatever definition you are adopting from this nameless "many".  If someone asked me what an assault rifle was I wouldn't offer "many think it more dangerous than a hunting rifle" and similar definition-begging gestures.

"Left leaning" is a weasel term.  Reagan was "left-leaning" compared to Ted Cruz, but that doesn't make Reagan a leftist. I don't recall any "leftist" argument you have ever made. No point in citing all your "right leaning arguments" until we have a clear idea of what you think constitutes left and right wing arguments, "leaning" or not. 

[Dill]

(04-02-2018, 07:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First, the thread is not about fear of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, it never was and I never made the argument that this will actually happen.  The argument of the thread is that confiscation and repeal is a goal of people who claim that it is not.  ........

I'll summarize for all the mistaken assumptions being made here.

Some left anti-gun types would like to repeal the 2A.  Said repeal will not happen today, tomorrow or any time in the foreseeable future.  This does not change the fact that a not insignificant number of these people would like to see it happen and will actively work towards that goal.

Even among those not advocating for repeal desire far stricter laws than are currently in place, to the point of banning all semi-automatic rifles.  This is a even more sizable percentage of anti-gun types.  The extent of desired bans seems to increase as the anti-gun crowd feels the wind at their back.

Based on what has happened in blue states why would any pro gun owner trust the Democratic party on this issue?  A lot of noise was made over Lamb winning in PA.  Lost in that was the fact that Lamb put about as much distance between himself and the party as a whole in regards to gun ownership as you could conceivably do.

So, for those of you countering by shouting "fear monger", take two seconds and actually consider the point being made, not the point you want to argue against

(03-29-2018, 10:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, perfect timing for my time on the naughty list.  I've been told numerous times that the anti-gun types (let's be honest, which consists almost entirely of the left) don't want to confiscate our firearms or repeal the 2nd amendment.  Then this happened................

No slippery slope kids, remember correlation does not equal causation...............................

So do please remember, the "common sense" bans they want should not be opposed by anyone and no one should fear they'd lead to even more restrictions.  ..................................

I could go on, but the point is made.  Please don't waste our time claiming the ultimate goal isn't confiscation and repeal.  You all got too excited and the mask slipped, a lot.    

[Dill]

(04-02-2018, 04:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would bet you my entire net worth that if there was a methodologically sound survey conducted that asked respondents whether or not they wanted to see a ban on private firearm ownership and confiscation of firearms currently in the hands of private owners, that the result would be less than 15% of Democrats/liberals in favor (both strong and somewhat).

Granted, my net worth isn't a high number (I don't even think it is a positive one), but I'd make that bet either way.

 As a gun owner, who has voted Democrat in the last three presidential elections, I would agree with you on that.

I wouldn't bet my net worth because it could be 17% of Democrats.  What percentage of ALL voters would that be?

[Belsnickel]

Since we're talking about the movement going on since Parkland, this article from WaPo's Monkey Cage is an interesting read on the march. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/28/heres-who-actually-attended-the-march-for-our-lives-no-it-wasnt-mostly-young-people/?utm_term=.164460ee0fd4

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 07:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol,  and what is "the majority opinion" on what constitutes an assault rifle? Shall we go by that?

I don't know, is there a "majority opinion" on this?  As I've said before the term appears to be sued to make something sound scary and therefore we should ban the scary thing.  I have supplied the origin of the term, that being a select fire, magazine fed, non pistol.

Quote:No no, I do not have an answer to my question: What is a "leftist/liberal" then?  What "actions and words" make one recognizably one or the other or both?  

  
What is a conservative/rightist?  Are you really confused on this?

Quote:You've shown yourself ready to define what is or is not an assault weapon--not to accept what "many" think one is.
And you are ready to deploy the terms "leftists" and "liberal" to classify arguments and political actors--which is an implicit claim to understand what those terms mean.

Have any of these actors given you the impression that they are right leaning or conservative?

Quote:So kindly stop with the "many found" alibi and lay out whatever definition you are adopting from this nameless "many".  If someone asked me what an assault rifle was I wouldn't offer "many think it more dangerous than a hunting rifle" and similar definition-begging gestures.

Wait, are you asking me to actually define what makes a person be considered liberal or conservative?  Is there not a rather broad consensus on what constitutes a liberal or conservative opinion or topic?

Quote:"Left leaning" is a weasel term.  Reagan was "left-leaning" compared to Ted Cruz, but that doesn't make Reagan a leftist.

It's only a "weasel term" to someone trying to be a weasel.  As stated above there is broad consensus in this country on what constitutes a liberal vs. a conservative issue or opinion.

Quote:I don't recall any "leftist" argument you have ever made. No point in citing all your "right leaning arguments" until we have a clear idea of what you think constitutes left and right wing arguments, "leaning" or not. 

Then you've clearly not been paying attention.  Enough of your high jacking this thread though, please return to the thread topic or stop wasting my time with your twaddle.

Also, if you think you actually proved something with that second post I'm highly amused.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 08:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since we're talking about the movement going on since Parkland, this article from WaPo's Monkey Cage is an interesting read on the march. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/28/heres-who-actually-attended-the-march-for-our-lives-no-it-wasnt-mostly-young-people/?utm_term=.164460ee0fd4

Thank you, I was hoping someone would post this instead of having to do it myself.  The march was essentially the moms demand action and women's march dressed up as a new, engaged and youthful crowd.

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2018, 08:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, are you asking me to actually define what makes a person be considered liberal or conservative?  Is there not a rather broad consensus on what constitutes a liberal or conservative opinion or topic?

I don't know if this helps your argument in the age of Trump.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2018, 08:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know if this helps your argument in the age of Trump.

Haha, touché.  I don't think Trump is either, he's an opportunist who cares about what's important to him and that's it.  I still think there's a very broad consensus on what constitutes a liberal or conservative position on an issue.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-02-2018, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Haha, touché.  I don't think Trump is either, he's an opportunist who cares about what's important to him and that's it.  I still think there's a very broad consensus on what constitutes a liberal or conservative position on an issue.

Do you watch Big Bang Theory and someone asks Sheldon a question and everyone else is like “No no no. Ah dammit”. That’s kind of like talking liberal/ conservative with Matt.