What do you hate about the left and the right?

[stephen90]

Right:Wants guns handed out any and everybody. Thinks that prayer will solve everything. Only looks out for the one percent. Tries to scare gun nuts into thinking that everyone out to get their guns.

Left:screwed Bernie Sanders for a hack like Hillary. Tries to scare minorities into thinking everyone is out to get them. All the sudden praises George W Bush because he bashed Trump. Blames everyone but Hillary for her loss.

 

[Phelly2]

Left - That they believe you can fix society without fixing the individual. (collectivism, identity politics, etc) Like you can have a gang of rapists and murderers, but they're not bad people, they just need a helping hand (I.E., some rich white man's money) and for those damn police to stop harassing them. And all will be well.
Those terrorists wouldn't have to kill people if you would just stop drawing their prophet Muhammad.

Right - When they use religion in politics. Ben Shapiro made a great point when he said religious arguments are appeals to authority, and not everyone believes in the authority you're citing. And even if I did, there are infinite interpretations of "His word", so I still can't take a religious arguments seriously. It's a personal thing, a subjective thing. Don't try to turn your subjective beliefs into objective legislation.

Both sides - Their belief that the other side has nothing to bring to the table--that our disagreements on policy have to do with a lack of concern or a hate for America. Or mental illness. Or whatever other crap people tell themselves when they live in an ideological bubble.

 

[PlayswellwithLawnDarts]

The right:The wanna be hard asses that think somehow they’re more American than other people. Use of the word snowflake makes them sound like homosexuals. Also their misguided belief that while not following the teachings of Christianity they are the party of god.

The left: a bunch of whiney ass cucks that dont have any kind of common sense and are more swayed by emotion to try and come up with solutions that don’t address real problems. The constant evening the scales to make the world fair is an unrealistic ideology.

 

[sleepwalk]

The right will, to appease or pander to their base, propose and support policies ignoring that everyone is supposed to have the same rights.

The left will, to appease or pander to their base, propose and support policies that ignore the rights that everyone is supposed to have.

 

[Prefect]

But what defines a side? thats my issue.

Left or right are meaningless nowadays.

You have been making on average 17 post a day for 7 years. How about making fewer post and putting a little thought it to them before you post push the button?

 

[funcrusher2007]

It's never up to the members of the unions (public sector) of how much their fees are, their services provided, who to support in elecrions, or how much to donate to their campaigns. The Union bosses make those decisions, not the members.


O.M.G... 'common sense' gun control, meaning everyone with common sense is in favor of gun control?

Yes, we need to ban scary black firearms and keep the ones with wood on them because they look less threatening.

And we need to ban ever firearm that can shoot more than 4 rounds a minute, because that would make them high-capacity.

In short, I'm not going to trust corrupt beurocratic politicians that has never held a gun in their lives to determine the means I have to defend myself.



Oh, you mean if the cops and FBI had reported Nicholas Cruz into the neccessary background check registrations, to legally deny him the right to own a firearm?

And criminals get guns by stealing them and buying them on the street, both are illegal and no one is trying to get them legalized. So how is the NRA at fault for criminals getting guns?

1) I’m not a fan of public sector unions..we agree here.
2) you assumed my common sense gun control comment meant extreme liberal view points...no..
comprehensive background checks.
Proper vetting..mental history evaluation
I wouldn’t change anything about what type of guns people have..just what type of people are able to get guns.
3) the fbi aswell as all government organizations need a better universal system of checks.
Something the nra has went out of its way to block:

Private gun sales loophole
Under existing federal law, unlicensed gun sellers are allowed to sell weapons without a background check of the buyer at gun shows and other private sales. Paradoxically, only licensed dealers are required to conduct such background checks, which gun control advocates see as crucial in cutting off the supply of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable individuals. The NRA strongly opposes legislation that would close this glaring loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales.
Tracing guns used in shootings
In 2004, a Republican congressman from Kansas, Todd Tiahrt, a long-time ally of the NRA, added an amendment to bill regarding the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (ATF). Until that point, data had been kept on the history of guns used in murders and shootings, which allowed police and policymakers to trace them back to corrupt dealerships and other holes in the system. The rule change, known as the Tiahrt amendment, made this data much harder to acquire. It also forced the justice department to destroy within 24 hours the records of any gun buyer whose background check was approved. The overall impact of the amendments was to make it much harder for police to clamp down on illegally distributed guns.
Terror watch list
The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.
Revoking licences from corrupt dealers
The NRA has made several attempts to usher through Congress an "ATF reform bill" that would make it much harder – some say virtually impossible – to revoke the gun-selling licenses of crooked dealers. If the bill passed – and the NRA is expected to try again soon – the ATF would have to prove the dealer's state of mind, in terms of his or her premeditated intention to break the law.


To answer your last question... if some of the above copy pasta were passed, a lot of criminals wouldn’t be able to get guns aswell as hold accountable the people that make it easier for said criminals to get guns.

Is it a one size fits all answer? .not at all but it’s a start and progress toward some common sense gun control....

Something the nra does a great job of suppressing.

Because the nra supports 2nd amendment rights, it shouldn’t earn them a pass for directly contributing to a social issue that has mass death as a consequence.

Unions and there politics are in no way parallel to the nra and it’s lobbying...


One ends with people killed.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

1) I’m not a fan of public sector unions..we agree here.
2) you assumed my common sense gun control comment meant extreme liberal view points...no..
comprehensive background checks.
Proper vetting..mental history evaluation
I wouldn’t change anything about what type of guns people have..just what type of people are able to get guns.
3) the fbi aswell as all government organizations need a better universal system of checks.
Something the nra has went out of its way to block:

Private gun sales loophole
Under existing federal law, unlicensed gun sellers are allowed to sell weapons without a background check of the buyer at gun shows and other private sales. Paradoxically, only licensed dealers are required to conduct such background checks, which gun control advocates see as crucial in cutting off the supply of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable individuals. The NRA strongly opposes legislation that would close this glaring loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales.
Tracing guns used in shootings
In 2004, a Republican congressman from Kansas, Todd Tiahrt, a long-time ally of the NRA, added an amendment to bill regarding the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (ATF). Until that point, data had been kept on the history of guns used in murders and shootings, which allowed police and policymakers to trace them back to corrupt dealerships and other holes in the system. The rule change, known as the Tiahrt amendment, made this data much harder to acquire. It also forced the justice department to destroy within 24 hours the records of any gun buyer whose background check was approved. The overall impact of the amendments was to make it much harder for police to clamp down on illegally distributed guns.
Terror watch list
The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.
Revoking licences from corrupt dealers
The NRA has made several attempts to usher through Congress an "ATF reform bill" that would make it much harder – some say virtually impossible – to revoke the gun-selling licenses of crooked dealers. If the bill passed – and the NRA is expected to try again soon – the ATF would have to prove the dealer's state of mind, in terms of his or her premeditated intention to break the law.


To answer your last question... if some of the above copy pasta were passed, a lot of criminals wouldn’t be able to get guns aswell as hold accountable the people that make it easier for said criminals to get guns.

Is it a one size fits all answer? .not at all but it’s a start and progress toward some common sense gun control....

Something the nra does a great job of suppressing.

Because the nra supports 2nd amendment rights, it shouldn’t earn them a pass for directly contributing to a social issue that has mass death as a consequence.

Unions and there politics are in no way parallel to the nra and it’s lobbying...


One ends with people killed.

Saw your post, and thank you for going into detail.

Can't reply back right now, but I will later when I have more time.

 

[Quequeg]

The SJW nonsense on the left, the authoritarianism and corruption on the right.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

The Left is full of self-righteous, whiny, cowards.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My issue is with the suggestion that gender refers to a person's identity beyond what's between their legs. It doesn't.

It does, though. That's the definition of the word.

I'm not even sure what your point is. You think that the word "gender" shouldn't exist?

And what kills me is people want to express this "gender freedom" by using whatever stereotypes are attached to it. Men can identify as women by wearing girl clothes and makeup. Women can identify as men by playing sports and cutting their hair short.

It is physically possible for men to wear clothes normally worn by women or for women to cut their hair, though. You might think that it's wrong, and that's fine (seems weird to even care to me, but whatever--as long as you're not talking about arresting them or assaulting them, that's your business). But that has no bearing on the meaning of words.

I don't believe there's a man named Allah in the sky waiting with virgins. In the same regard I have no issue with transgendered people who are good people, but the logic they've used to arrive at their chosen identity is flawed to say the least.

What's the logic, and what's the flaw? Seems to me it's just: "I feel like this way of dressing, acting suits me better and I want to do it" is the "logic," and there's no flaw to that. If you think it represents an abuse of freedom for people to behave that eccentrically, that's similarly just a matter of subjective preference and not either logical or logically flawed. I do think that if you're advocating being meaner to them socially, that's kind of fucked up, but it is your right.

 

[Shoemaker]

This is actually a very good quote that requires a little more deep thinking. In fact I would bet that almost every single horrendous idea, started out as a good idea at its source

The path the hell is paved with good intentions and all that.




edit: or the CS Lewis quote "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

 

[Devout Pessimist]

This is surprisingly difficult. The parties actually have a lot of the same detestable characteristics. They both pander, distort the truth, gerrymander, refuse to compromise, display selective outrage, ignore facts that go against their narrative, talk down to people, assume their political opponents have immoral intentions, etc.

Thinking of traits that just one or the other shows is actually pretty hard to do. I guess the right is shockingly anti-intellectual, which is obviously a problem. The left focuses too much of their attention on very small groups, and is dismissive or insulting towards other groups.

In general, I think both parties have some good ideas, but they tend to take those good ideas too far. When the good ideas go too far, they become bad ideas.

To poorly paraphrase Aristotle, "A virtue taken to an extreme becomes a vice."

 

[Devout Pessimist]

The right will, to appease or pander to their base, propose and support policies ignoring that everyone is supposed to have the same rights.

The left will, to appease or pander to their base, propose and support policies that ignore the rights that everyone is supposed to have.

The Left talks a lot about rights and entitlements, but I never hear them mention the word responsibility. You cannot have rights without responsibility.

 

[Rod1]

You have been making on average 17 post a day for 7 years. How about making fewer post and putting a little thought it to them before you post push the button?

I do put it thought on them and im seeing conservatives being treated as RINOs by people who are against free trade.

Again, its meaningless nowadays, because identity politics just overpowered every other single issue.

Thats how you get Le Pen being cheered at CPAC while Merkel and Macron are called far left.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

It does, though. That's the definition of the word.

No, it's not. If I say "I identify as a box of cereal" my gender isn't suddenly "box of cereal".

"The state of being male or female" isn't further qualified with "depending on how you feel". Gender is defined by your biological sexuality, not feelings.

I'm not even sure what your point is. You think that the word "gender" shouldn't exist?

No, I just prefer we use it by it's definition.

It is physically possible for men to wear clothes normally worn by women or for women to cut their hair, though. You might think that it's wrong, and that's fine (seems weird to even care to me, but whatever--as long as you're not talking about arresting them or assaulting them, that's your business). But that has no bearing on the meaning of words.

You've completely misinterpreted me. All of that is fine, and I have no problem with it at all. My problem comes when a woman wants to have short hair and wear sports jersey's because she "identifies as a man". To me that's specifically using gender specific stereotypes to form an identity, and is completely counter-intuitive to the entire idea that gender isn't defined by stereotypes.

I want a world where girls play sports and boys can put on makeup. I just prefer they all still stick to the gender they are. Why does a boy have to say "I identify as a girl so my gender is female" just because he likes dresses and make up? He still has a dick and male hormones, so why does he have to pretend he doesn't? That's my issue here. To comfort people who've made a tough choice, we're redefining words. That shouldn't be.

What's the logic, and what's the flaw? Seems to me it's just: "I feel like this way of dressing, acting suits me better and I want to do it" is the "logic," and there's no flaw to that. If you think it represents an abuse of freedom for people to behave that eccentrically, that's similarly just a matter of subjective preference and not either logical or logically flawed. I do think that if you're advocating being meaner to them socially, that's kind of fucked up, but it is your right.

Where did I advocate being meaner to them? At no point have I said I'm against men becoming women, dressing like women or anything on the opposite had. My issue is with them suggesting our definitions of men and woman are formed by something beyond their sex. It's not. Males are males because of their biological make up, and the same goes for women.

We should never be throwing out science and the meanings of words to make people feel better, or more accepted. Especially when there's gonna be a generation of kids who, because of a "push for no stereotypes" will now think a boy who wears a dress must identify as a girl. I think that's what's frustrating more than anything, they're taking steps AWAY from their stated goal with this "gender-fluid" bullshit. Now it's the stereotypes that can define who you are. That's scary.

 

[Prutfis]

That they make dumb generalizations about the other side as a cohesive group.

"Leftists do this", "conservatives do that". Those that do that mostly sound like morons.

Absolutely correct.

The reason both sides get away with the shit that they do is that in 2018 the age old strategy of divide and conquer actually still works. Just look at the WR tribalism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, it's not. If I say "I identify as a box of cereal" my gender isn't suddenly "box of cereal".

Webster's:

Definition of gender
: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass: an inflectional form (see inflection 3a) showing membership in such a subclass
2a : sex

• the feminine gender

: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

"The state of being male or female" isn't further qualified with "depending on how you feel". Gender is defined by your biological sexuality, not feelings.

That should be the last word on the issue. I understand that you don't *like* for gender to mean something different from sex, but factually, it does. So your argument is that you don't think that there should be a term of what "gender" is defined as.

No, I just prefer we use it by it's definition.

By the new definition that you want to give the word rather than the current definition.

My problem comes when a woman wants to have short hair and wear sports jersey's because she "identifies as a man". To me that's specifically using gender specific stereotypes to form an identity, and is completely counter-intuitive to the entire idea that gender isn't defined by stereotypes.

So you don't like the terminology that people use to describe their preferences.

Why does a boy have to say "I identify as a girl so my gender is female" just because he likes dresses and make up? He still has a dick and male hormones, so why does he have to pretend he doesn't? That's my issue here. To comfort people who've made a tough choice, we're redefining words. That shouldn't be.

1. He doesn't have to say it. It's just an easy way to communicate.
2. Obviously, no one is pretending that a boy who prefers a feminine gender expression doesn't have a dick, etc. You are egregiously (and humorously) misunderstanding the discussion.

We should never be throwing out science and the meanings of words to make people feel better, or more accepted.

Again, there's no scientific dispute here (much less "throwing out science"). It's purely semantic. Your view seems to be that we should change our language to make it harder to discuss the issue.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

i used to despise the Religious Right and how it controlled certain views/aspects of the GOP platform (namely abortion, but censoring things too)

now it's just the corporate/neocons and neoliberals that have replaced constituency concerns w/ donor concerns

any politician (Sessions) that supports weed criminalization w/ a straight face while saying nothing about the legality of tobacco and alcohol and pharmaceuticals is a POS too

 

[Quequeg]

i used to despise the Religious Right and how it controlled certain views/aspects of the GOP platform (namely abortion, but censoring things too)

now it's just the corporate/neocons and neoliberals that have replaced constituency concerns w/ donor concerns

any politician (Sessions) that supports weed criminalization w/ a straight face while saying nothing about the legality of tobacco and alcohol and pharmaceuticals is a POS too

Sessions is a huge fan of civil forfeiture as well.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Sessions is a huge fan of civil forfeiture as well.

session is a massive POS

i think they should have focused less on 'he's racist' and more on 'look at what this clown supports' to try and defeat him

does anyone alive like Sessions, seriously?