2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

You were the one that brought up cars, so I agree it's not really relevant.

 

Sure you can say most if not all liberals don't want to ban guns. Doesn't make it right. I can say most liberals/socialists want to severely restrict gun sales. Doesn't make it right. That's the beauty of freedom that some are advocating taking away.

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about freedom.  But one that both sides seem to share on various issues is the bizarre belief that freedom, within the context of a society, means getting to do whatever the hell you want, other people be damned.

 

And that just isn't true.  

[USMCTwin]

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about freedom.  But one that both sides seem to share on various issues is the bizarre belief that freedom, within the context of a society, means getting to do whatever the hell you want, other people be damned.

 

And that just isn't true.  

 

I have a hard time understanding how forcing me to buy something or not allowing me to buy something falls into the other people be darned category...

[USMCTwin]

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about freedom.  But one that both sides seem to share on various issues is the bizarre belief that freedom, within the context of a society, means getting to do whatever the hell you want, other people be damned.

 

And that just isn't true.  

 

To me it seems like, and like I said previously both sides are guilty of this, freedom is declared by both sides unless it is sacrificed because something we perceive to be good or morally correct. The difference lies in what both parties determine is good and correct. I prefer more of a Rand Paul type government hands off approach, but truthfully my faith in big government is somewhat non-existent.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I have a hard time understanding how forcing me to buy something or not allowing me to buy something falls into the other people be darned category...

No one's forcing you to buy anything.  Keep your freedom and pay the fine/tax.  You have a choice, just like driving or not driving (if you don't like having car insurance).   We are obligated to pay taxes and fines throughout our society; and we debate how we should spend those taxes, but tax-obligations really don't implicate your freedom.  If we had universal health insurance, there would be no mandate, it would simply be a tax--so you must prefer that solution because it doesn't implicate your freedom as much?

 

As for guns there's always been restrictions on what we can legally own, buy and sell.   Just because you want to buy your very own nuclear submarine doesn't mean that society should just let you enact your second amendment rights in such way.  There's always been line-drawing in regard to fundamental rights whether it's speech, hand guns, or the right of privacy.    Conservatives and liberals debate about where the line should be, but no one in their right mind suggests there shouldn't be a line, or some reasonable restrictions on how we enable our rights. 

[USMCTwin]

 

No one's forcing you to buy anything.  Keep your freedom and pay the fine/tax.  You have a choice, just like driving or not driving (if you don't like having car insurance).   We are obligated to pay taxes and fines throughout our society; and we debate how we should spend those taxes, but tax-obligations really don't implicate your freedom.  If we had universal health insurance, there would be no mandate, it would simply be a tax--so you must prefer that solution because it doesn't implicate your freedom as much?

 

As for guns there's always been restrictions on what we can legally own, buy and sell.   Just because you want to buy your very own nuclear submarine doesn't mean that society should just let you enact your second amendment rights in such way.  There's always been line-drawing in regard to fundamental rights whether it's speech, hand guns, or the right of privacy.    Conservatives and liberals debate about where the line should be, but no one in their right mind suggests there shouldn't be a line, or some reasonable restrictions on how we enable our rights. 

 

Exactly. However, I think drawing the line by forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine is an overstep by big brother and you don't. That's fine, but it amazes me that people can't imagine a scenario where that makes someone feel it infringes on their freedom. What if the government decided everyone should eat potatoes because it is a good source of potassium so you must either by potatoes or pay a fine? Would that be an overstep in your world? Is it really that hard to see that someone would consider both an overstep? Just because some liberals consider health care a necessity and morally good, doesn't necessarily mean we should all be subject to it. Just because some Republicans consider heterosexual marriage morally good doesn't necessarily mean we should all be subject to it. The thing that baffles my mind on both sides people refuse to see things for what they are and only blame the other side instead, because well that's easier and the other side must be evil.

[USMCTwin]

 

No one's forcing you to buy anything.  Keep your freedom and pay the fine/tax.  You have a choice, just like driving or not driving (if you don't like having car insurance).   We are obligated to pay taxes and fines throughout our society; and we debate how we should spend those taxes, but tax-obligations really don't implicate your freedom.  If we had universal health insurance, there would be no mandate, it would simply be a tax--so you must prefer that solution because it doesn't implicate your freedom as much?

 

As for guns there's always been restrictions on what we can legally own, buy and sell.   Just because you want to buy your very own nuclear submarine doesn't mean that society should just let you enact your second amendment rights in such way.  There's always been line-drawing in regard to fundamental rights whether it's speech, hand guns, or the right of privacy.    Conservatives and liberals debate about where the line should be, but no one in their right mind suggests there shouldn't be a line, or some reasonable restrictions on how we enable our rights. 

 

And no I'm not an advocate of universal health care. I was privileged to the sensational VA care that was run by the government. I left free health care to pay for it on my own, because after all I would rather pay for health care than receive no care at all, free of charge of course. It's embarrassing to me that is how we take care of our troops that fought for the freedoms we are discussing trivial or not. So I would just assume the government remain far away from my health care.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Exactly. However, I think drawing the line by forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine is an overstep by big brother and you don't. That's fine, but it amazes me that people can't imagine a scenario where that makes someone feel it infringes on their freedom. What if the government decided everyone should eat potatoes because it is a good source of potassium so you must either by potatoes or pay a fine? Would that be an overstep in your world? Is it really that hard to see that someone would consider both an overstep? Just because some liberals consider health care a necessity and morally good, doesn't necessarily mean we should all be subject to it. Just because some Republicans consider heterosexual marriage morally good doesn't necessarily mean we should all be subject to it. The thing that baffles my mind on both sides people refuse to see things for what they are and only blame the other side instead, because well that's easier and the other side must be evil.

 

that's such a perfect example of a logical fallacy it should be on wikipedia. 

 

on another topic:

so, you are saying, we should let sick people die, I guess. Or, if not, how should they pay for care if they can't afford insurance. You don't see how healthcare is different than choosing to buy Doritos or not?

[Mike Sixel]

 

And no I'm not an advocate of universal health care. I was privileged to the sensational VA care that was run by the government. I left free health care to pay for it on my own, because after all I would rather pay for health care than receive no care at all, free of charge of course. It's embarrassing to me that is how we take care of our troops that fought for the freedoms we are discussing trivial or not. So I would just assume the government remain far away from my health care.

 

It is embarrassing....of course, that is largely because every time Democrats try to fund it better, Republicans vote no.......

[USMCTwin]

 

It is embarrassing....of course, that is largely because every time Democrats try to fund it better, Republicans vote no.......

 

Mike, this is a poor effort on your part. If only Democrats had control at all the same time they could fix health care to no ends. Oh wait.  Speaking of logical fallacies.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mike, this is a poor effort on your part. If only Democrats had control at all the same time they could fix health care to no ends. Oh wait.  Speaking of logical fallacies.

 

I didn't say that. Where did I say that?

 

I said we under fund the VA because every time Dems try to fund it more, Reps vote it down. If you starve a function, it usually is a self fulfilling prophecy that it is bad.....

 

I did not imply anything else.....

[USMCTwin]

 

that's such a perfect example of a logical fallacy it should be on wikipedia. 

 

on another topic:

so, you are saying, we should let sick people die, I guess. Or, if not, how should they pay for care if they can't afford insurance. You don't see how healthcare is different than choosing to buy Doritos or not?

 

Gosh. I can't believe our country let all those people die before Obamacare. How was this not in the news?

[USMCTwin]

 

I didn't say that. Where did I say that?

 

I said we under fund the VA because every time Dems try to fund it more, Reps vote it down. If you starve a function, it usually is a self fulfilling prophecy that it is bad.....

 

I did not imply anything else.....

 

Except Democrats had complete control and failed to fix it. Almost like it's not any one side that is the problem. Imagine that.

[USMCTwin]

Sometimes the other side is not always evil. Just a different perspective.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Gosh. I can't believe our country let all those people die before Obamacare. How was this not in the news?

 

Actually, people die every day from lack of good access to healthcare. The data is on the internet if you want to look

 

You and I and every one with insurance pays a super high price for people w/o HC. They go to the ER instead of a regular doctor. They don't get treatment fast enough, so they get more sick and more expensive before getting help. 

 

I really can't see how anyone that has looked at the very detailed data on line, comparing our system to the rest of the world, can determine our system works for the population (as opposed to only the well employed or the elderly, to some extent).

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sometimes the other side is not always evil. Just a different perspective.

 

Another thing I never said.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Exactly. However, I think drawing the line by forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine is an overstep by big brother and you don't. That's fine, but it amazes me that people can't imagine a scenario where that makes someone feel it infringes on their freedom. What if the government decided everyone should eat potatoes because it is a good source of potassium so you must either by potatoes or pay a fine? Would that be an overstep in your world? Is it really that hard to see that someone would consider both an overstep? Just because some liberals consider health care a necessity and morally good, doesn't necessarily mean we should all be subject to it. Just because some Republicans consider heterosexual marriage morally good doesn't necessarily mean we should all be subject to it. The thing that baffles my mind on both sides people refuse to see things for what they are and only blame the other side instead, because well that's easier and the other side must be evil.

 

 

Entering into a society means you accept a mutually agreed upon level of care and concern for others that sometimes infringes on what you want or feel comfortable with in return for the greater goods you receive for being a part of it.

 

And, seriously, unless someone is making you marry another man you aren't being subjected to a god damn thing about gay marriage.  Get a grip.

 

 

I have a hard time understanding how forcing me to buy something or not allowing me to buy something falls into the other people be darned category...

 

 

 

Like it or not, your purchase of a firearm potentially endangers the citizens around you.  A classroom full of first graders were murdered because of a responsible adult who had such a cache of weapons that her homicidal son needed only to open the door and armed himself with the means to kill dozens of children.

 

The proliferation of firearms in this country is at such a ridiculous number that what is really shocking is that we don't have a daily outburst of mass deaths.  So, sorry, just like you don't get to buy a bazooka to get your jollies - you don't get to own whatever the hell you want, everyone else be damned.

[USMCTwin]

And, seriously, unless someone is making you marry another man you aren't being subjected to a god damn thing about gay marriage. Get a grip.

Either you misread my comment or you just fabricated an argument. Fairly surprising coming from you.

[USMCTwin]

Meh. My intention was not to quibble or cause problems. I'll check out.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Meh. My intention was not to quibble or cause problems. I'll check out.

 

Please don't, or do, but I enjoy the discussion. Most of my friends are so much more liberal than me, it is nice to discuss with rational people on the other side.

 

We don't agree, but we can maybe help each other get closer to agreeing.

 

or not, up to you. Hopefully I have not offended you.....

[biggentleben]

USMC, whether or not you and I agree on topics on this forum, I will 100% give you this respect. I have never come away from a discussion with you feeling like you were not willing to at least consider my point of view, and that's refreshing in a discussion on political grounds, because all too often in this country, we attach ourselves to a label (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist, Nudist, wait, how did that slip in there?, etc.), and we will go down fighting for anything and everything associated with our particular label. What is refreshing, regardless of beliefs at the end of the day is someone willing to at least listen to the point of view, challenge the status quo (because, let's face it, many on this board lean more toward the left than the right, so there's often more strength in numbers in that direction), but at the end of the day separate personal feelings from the discussion and hopefully both leave the discussion more informed in our own beliefs on a particular issue, even if neither party changes a single bit on those beliefs.

 

I'd like to thank you for that.

[Mike Sixel]

 

USMC, whether or not you and I agree on topics on this forum, I will 100% give you this respect. I have never come away from a discussion with you feeling like you were not willing to at least consider my point of view, and that's refreshing in a discussion on political grounds, because all too often in this country, we attach ourselves to a label (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist, Nudist, wait, how did that slip in there?, etc.), and we will go down fighting for anything and everything associated with our particular label. What is refreshing, regardless of beliefs at the end of the day is someone willing to at least listen to the point of view, challenge the status quo (because, let's face it, many on this board lean more toward the left than the right, so there's often more strength in numbers in that direction), but at the end of the day separate personal feelings from the discussion and hopefully both leave the discussion more informed in our own beliefs on a particular issue, even if neither party changes a single bit on those beliefs.

 

I'd like to thank you for that.

 

100% this. You've never belittled anyone here, ever. Or called them names. 

 

Plus the whole you served our country thing is big.

[formerly33]

 

 

The proliferation of firearms in this country is at such a ridiculous number that what is really shocking is that we don't have a daily outburst of mass deaths.  So, sorry, just like you don't get to buy a bazooka to get your jollies - you don't get to own whatever the hell you want, everyone else be damned.

In Sexual Politics, Kate Millett sums up marriage laws by saying (this is probably a paraphrase unless I suddenly amaze myself by discovering that I have a photographic memory), "Fortunately marriage and the people who make it are better than the law, but every danger remains inherent in such a law."

 

I think you can apply the same to guns/gun laws as well. That would explain the shocking data. Does that mean we should just pass it by with a wave of the hand and say, "It works"? Of course not.

[TheLeviathan]

Either you misread my comment or you just fabricated an argument. Fairly surprising coming from you.

You said you were being "subjected to Gay marriage", no?

 

By all means clarify, but I think you will find, when you do, what I was railing against.

 

I can't stand whiny liberals complaining about being "subjected" to viewpoints that offend them and the same goes for conservatives.

[formerly33]

 

You were the one that brought up cars, so I agree it's not really relevant.

 

Sure you can say most if not all liberals don't want to ban guns. Doesn't make it right. I can say most liberals/socialists want to severely restrict gun sales. Doesn't make it right. That's the beauty of freedom that some are advocating taking away.

So because I'm the person who said it, it's not relevant?

 

And you're not getting my point. I didn't justify banning guns because most if not all liberals don't want to; what I said was, liberals don't want to ban guns. I wish people would stop twisting it back to that. It gets old (you're not so bad, but there is a straw that breaks a camel's back; I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude - I'm trying not to).

 

If your "doesn't make it right" comment(s) meant something else, I apologize for my misunderstanding and would be more than happy to hear the explanation.

[USAFChief]

USMC: I'll second the thank you's for your service. No need to leave the conversation.

 

I also say I'm truly ashamed of our country if your VA healthcare wasn't what it should be. You deserve better. I'd also say, if you can access it somewhere else, give it another shot. My own experiences with the VA have been largely positive. I've been pleased with the care, with the caveat that it is sometimes hard to access it. When I talk with other vets, I find their opinion on the VA is often tied to their location. Maybe I'm just lucky here in Tucson.

[Hrbowski]

 

So because I'm the person who said it, it's not relevant?

 

And you're not getting my point. I didn't justify banning guns because most if not all liberals don't want to; what I said was, liberals don't want to ban guns. I wish people would stop twisting it back to that. It gets old (you're not so bad, but there is a straw that breaks a camel's back; I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude - I'm trying not to).

 

If your "doesn't make it right" comment(s) meant something else, I apologize for my misunderstanding and would be more than happy to hear the explanation.

Than why did the late Senator Moynihan want to put a 10000% tax on ammunition? There are plenty of Democrats who want to bring that back up, and if it were passed, it would effectively take away the right to keep and bear arms from blue collar workers, who own most of the guns in the country.

[TheLeviathan]

Than why did the late Senator Moynihan want to put a 10000% tax on ammunition? There are plenty of Democrats who want to bring that back up, and if it were passed, it would effectively take away the right to keep and bear arms from blue collar workers, who own most of the guns in the country.

Perhaps such radical measures wouldn't be necessary if we agree you can have one rifle, sufficiently fulfilling that right rather than a cache the Punisher approves of.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Than why did the late Senator Moynihan want to put a 10000% tax on ammunition? There are plenty of Democrats who want to bring that back up, and if it were passed, it would effectively take away the right to keep and bear arms from blue collar workers, who own most of the guns in the country.

That sounds like politics - to make a point, rather than pass a law.  It is true that many liberals think guns in the home is generally a bad idea, but we also value being reasonable people.  So we negotiate.  I don't know Senator Moynihan's politics, but looks like he's marking the goal post, rather than the fifty yard line--the spot where the deal gets done.   

 

Such a strategy is akin to the conservative/NRA no more gun-control laws what-so-ever mantra, which, of course, is equally--and pervasively--a nonstarter.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 What if the government decided everyone should eat potatoes because it is a good source of potassium so you must either by potatoes or pay a fine? Would that be an overstep in your world? Is it really that hard to see that someone would consider both an overstep?

Your instincts are just right. The government can't make you buy potatoes and they can't make you buy insurance.  But they can tax you.  The truth is the current system gives you a choice - freedom to - (1) pay a tax/fine (2) buy any insurance of your choosing.  The way the rest of civilized earth does it provides no choice at the cost of paying less.   Let's remember Obamacare is born out of the Heritage Foundation's think-tank. 

 

On healthcare.  We live in a democracy and we decided that healthcare should be more robust.  On the subject of the morality of healthcare; I absolute think morality holds accountable how we treat the weak highest of all.  If your religion teaches you different, I guess bully for you.

 

On marriage.  You dare to complain about *literally* how you cannot limit the freedom of others to marry, and yet center your argument on the complaint about your supposed infringements of freedom?  It seems you believe in line-drawing just fine, and have no problem restricting the freedoms of others when it suits your beliefs.

[mikecgrimes]

 

That sounds like politics - to make a point, rather than pass a law.  It is true that many liberals think guns in the home is generally a bad idea, but we also value being reasonable people.  So we negotiate.  I don't know Senator Moynihan's politics, but looks like he's marking the goal post, rather than the fifty yard line--the spot where the deal gets done.   

 

Such a strategy is akin to the conservative/NRA no more gun-control laws what-so-ever mantra, which, of course, is equally--and pervasively--a nonstarter.

 

Hmm?  I could make more of a point, but i think Hmm and a question mark sums it up.  Ah all the people who say certain things are bad at politics or just stupid in general so my point would be written off anyways.  I guess it's good that this kind of stuff works for at least one side.  I haven't said this in a while, it must be nice to be a Democrat.