The liberal v right wing mentality...

[birch]

Libtards are only interested in virtue signaling and recreational outrage, they don't even know what rational thought, intellectual consistency, or freedom of speech are.

Conservotards. Sometimes, i do wonder if the world would be better without conservatives. hopefully, they will die out soon. the things they say are so dishonest, it's often like you are getting punked or you are conversing with satan. it's just the extreme dishonesty and gall of them. the lack of shame and conscience but pure self-righteousness. it's like a reptilian brain but they are very strong, ya know, like one. the amygdala is strong in them. heh

freedom of speech? they are the most oppressive hypocrites. their way or the highway. their truth or no truth. they only whine (always hypocritically) which is their virtue signaling and recreational outrage (always hypocritically) when they don't have the upperhand (because they are allergic to fairness) and can force their regime and will on others, including controlling the media.

conservatives should stick to what they are good at and it's not thinking. oh, that's right. they are masters at hypocrisy, lies, dishonesty, and deception. oh, and they LOVE to squeeze, like a boa constrictor, the life and liberty out of anyone different or doesn't fit into their mold (even for the most benign of reasons) and they are just as lovable as one.

 

[birch]

And there we find numerous exceptions - such as greed, bigotry, intellectual laziness, powerlust, the desire to punish, and the attraction to big-talking male authoritarians as political leaders. Keeping those aspects of human nature in check is not in the Republican agenda.

this describes my stepfather to a T. white supremacist, republican, religious, narcissistic, controlling, dishonest, extraordinarily manipulative, jealous, malignant bigot.

Do conservatives know that they undermine and victimize others and then blame them for failing? i think they are pure evil. they victimize and blame. this is because they really do not want fairness, they are the ones who want to stand on the shoulders of others they have subjugated with their god complex. they want people they can suppress, oppress and control to feel better than and inflate their sick ego.

oh and what a communist, if it's in the reverse. no one is allowed to supercede him. his ego can't take it. nothing about truth or fairness. these people don't play fair but dirty, they will pull out all the stops to trip you up and weaken you behind any shade available and just as quickly put on the airs of a respectable and righteous, pillar of society with ease and no guilt/conscience but self-assurance in public. it's just all about power.

ironicly, the conservative types are the ones responsible for the welfare system the most. There mind is a convoluted and twisted maze.

Let's see: this fuker did not want me to be more educated than him, make more money than him, be happier than him, or do/have anything that would bruise his ego. Conservatives are not live and let live and they are not the type to just let people flourish and see where the chips fall. they have to control everything. they are smothering, supressing, controlling and the true parasites. once they've fuked you over enough, they can point the finger back at you and rail with the other devils and satanists in disguise how liberals are the problem and they are self-righteous upholders of dignity and all that is right in the world.

and why conservatives are evil is because they are like malignant sociopaths in their thinking process. that ' freedom of speech' thing really makes me angry that they have the nerve to blame liberals for what they are most guilty of. they are like the proverbial devil. they really need to die off.

anyone growing up in a conservative household knows those fukers don't respect freedom of speech or the rights of others to have their thoughts or opinons or their rights period because theirs is the only one that counts. and if they aren't doing that, it's because they are not showing their true colors at the moment for whatever reason. you have to remember that a conservative mind is always thinking in strategies, devoid of ethics. it's how to win and gain power. they are dogmatic and top-down.

 

[Syne]

Wait, you are calling me a stereotyping bigot? Aren't you the one who just declared all black people as being "left" without any proof whatsoever?

Again, ad nauseam, show me where I said all black people are left. You can't, because it never happened...other than in your obviously fertile imagination (continuing to read things that simply are not written). You seem to miss operative words like "tend" so you can be a bigot and paint others as the stereotypes you imagine. There are Republican blacks, you know. Or would you claim those blacks are either somehow "less black" or "less conservative" than other blacks?
If you think black Republicans are less black (Uncle Tom) or somehow undifferentiated from the majority of black voters, you're a racist bigot.
Period.

Aren't you the one who just crowed about how good the right are, when it comes to just how good they are at killing others who do not believe as they do?

And again, ad nauseam, show me where I "crowed about how good the right are, when it comes to just how good they are at killing others". If you weren't too blinded with your bigoted rage, you'd see that a mockery of leftist incompetence does not equate to praise for right-wing lunacy or murder.

Aren't you the one who kept referring to me as "woman" despite being asked not to? And you call others a bigot? Really, that's rich!

Seems like a non-sequitur. I'm not sure what referring to you by your gender is suppose to prove. And if you go back and look, I haven't referred to you as "woman" since you explicitly said "If you are going to refer to me or address me, I'd suggest using my name."

There was this brilliant article in a scientific blog a few years ago, discussing denial and just how people such as yourself, "ask questions" to push a particular narrative, in your instance, denial.

"...people such as yourself" is exactly what a bigot would say (i.e. "you people")....always inferring some negative characteristics based solely on race, politics, or some other superficial trait. Notice how it's the bigot who claims they can decide when a question isn't really a question. Again, assuming negative things not in evidence other than by their stereotyping assumptions.

Your claims that I never asked you to refer to me by name? I did it in this thread:

What part of that was so hard to understand, that you just went right on referring to me as "woman" when addressing me?

Despite my repeatedly making my disgust known for how you referred to me, from "deary" to "woman", you just can't seem to get that I have repeatedly advised you that I wanted you to refer to me by my name. And you have consistently refused to do so.

See, the rules are pretty open in that regard. If someone tells you that they want you to refer to them by name, when you decide to use nicknames and use them in a way that is designed to demean them, then it's a pretty safe bet that you will be moderated if you keep refusing to refer to them by their name. You were never invited to refer to me by a nickname, Syne. In fact, I had on numerous occasions made you aware that your use of "deary" and "woman" when addressing me, was not welcome and you deliberately chose to keep referring to me that way. What part of you don't get to refer to me as that, didn't you understand, exactly? My friends here? I have no problem with them referring to me by nicknames. You? No. And I made that clear a long time ago. Respecting people's wishes is hard for you to understand?

Respecting my request that you stop, did not compute for you?

Just follows the pattern of your personality, I suppose.

Go look again, Bells. After your explicit suggestion, e.g. "If you are going to refer to me or address me, I'd suggest using my name", I have not referred to you in any other way. I may have earlier in that post, having not read to that point, because I read posts as I reply. Before this suggestion, you never made that explicit, nor did you repeat it. You've now clarified the rules...that don't allow ANYTHING but referring to others by user names. I appreciate that clarification immensely, as it will stop a lot of under the radar trolling around here. If it took me getting an infraction, that's a price worth paying.

If your disgust alone were compelling, I wouldn't be allowed to post here at all, so you can see why I wouldn't take that alone very seriously.

And you are being deceptive in your interpretation. Environmental and animal rights groups tend to march to the beat of their own drums and will vote for politicians who give them what they want, regardless of the ideology espoused by the politician.

And which politicians pander to them the most?

From the National Review, a very conservative news site, as one example:

Joining the animal-protection movement as a conservative can feel a little like being a defector. There’s a necessary period of assimilation and some nearly anthropological intel-gathering as you attempt to make sense of your surroundings. Veganism, body art, knowing what a pangolin is: These are common trappings of a culture much removed from that of many red-state residents and from my own as a former Republican Senate staffer. But as I’ve grown more familiar with the issues over time, one thing has become abundantly clear: Animal welfare is a fundamentally conservative cause.

As a conservative, I value small government and individual liberty. Though I teeter on the precipice of libertarianism, I believe that state intervention is essential to defend the nation and to conserve our natural resources, including wildlife. For any right-leaning voter, clear entry points to the animal-welfare movement are respect for tradition and for the covenant between present and unborn generations, and a belief in personal responsibility for the environment (property). Ideologically and etymologically, conservation and conservatism derive from the same wellspring.
​

Mr Cleveland argues that animal rights and welfare are deeply conservative and should be supported by the right. Mary Eberstadt, also from National Review, argues that conservatives are embracing the animal welfare and animal rights causes, because of a shared value in the sanctity of life.

I guess the right are trying to buy into every group, to garner votes. These individuals believe that the right should embrace these groups, specifically because they, the right, are anti-abortion.

And you still wish to keep arguing that it is a 'left' cause?

Animal rights and environmental groups will go where they get what they want, regardless of the political ideology spouted.

And there are activists in animal rights groups, for example, who believe that they should be leaning to the right of the political spectrum..

As I said, these groups tend to go where they get what they want, regardless of political ideology.

If it were an equally right/left issue, as you seem to be asserting, why would anyone feel like a "defector"?
Why would anyone need to argue that "animal rights and welfare ... should be supported by the right" if it were already supported to the same degree as on the left?
Even granting a minority of right-wing animal right activists, where have you made any connection between those and activist terrorism?
The left is obviously mired in identity politics, and has pandered to these sorts of groups for ages. Denying that is just barking.

The long term goals of most animal activists are completely at odds with capitalism, conservatism, mainstream politics, or with most religions. Animal activists, given the opportunity, would ban all animal consumption. They would ban animal exploitation and murder. They would end animal ownership and replace it with conservatorship, where the best interests of animals is the primary consideration. Those goals are in keeping with a future Socialist society, and defy the very roots of Capitalist economics.
- https://speciesandclass.com/2014/08/04/animal-rights-is-a-leftist-movement/​

You mean the one by Christopher and Wade Lay?

Again, is displeasure with the government enough to qualify as right-wing?
Are leftists never anti-government? They certainly seem to be right now.

 

[Syne]

All of which were proven to be panic headlines..

For example, the first link you provided. The one that said that had this for their headline: "Senate votes to repeal Obama’s ban on gun sales for certain Social Security recipients"

The reality of that story:

A new Social Security Administration rule would add Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs to the federal background check system for gun purchases.

[...]

The rule would require that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”:

Criteria for inclusion in the NICS include that an individual is disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the mental disorders listings. These listings consist of medical conditions that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, regardless of age, education, or work experience. Individuals whose impairments meet a listing are the most severely disabled individuals we serve. If we find an individual to be disabled based on a listing-level mental impairment, and he or she satisfies all of the remaining requirements, we are required to report them to the NICS. If we do not find an individual to be disabled based on a mental impairment, he or she has not met the reporting requirements and we will not report them to the NICS.​

Unless of course you wish to argue that people who are mentally unable to manage their own affairs, due to being mentally ill, for example, should be in a position to purchase firearms?

Where in the Bill of Rights does it exclude those with subnormal intelligence or disease?
How does that denial of basic rights differ from Democrat literacy tests during Jim Crow?
How does "Obama’s ban on gun sales for certain Social Security recipients" exaggerate it in any way?
And like "No fly, no buy", what other Constitutional right can be removed until you try to exercise it, find out you can't, and must petition the government to get back?

Your second link: "Obama Calls for Assault Weapon Ban, New 'No Fly, No buy' Law "

He did not call for outright bans as you tried to badly insinuate. He asked to re-instate an already existing ban that had recently expired to apply for those on the terrorism watch list and he asked to make it harder for terrorists to obtain firearms.

But no, the right deemed it an outright ban.

You're ignorantly conflating the two, BELLS. He did call for the Clinton era assault weapon ban to be reinstated, AND for those on the "no fly list" to be barred from purchasing firearms without due process. Those are two separate actions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
The Clinton era ban expired in 2004, if you call that recent.
"No fly, no buy" is a completely separate issue, that deprives people of their Constitutional right without due process, contrary to both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Your third link: "Obama's final shot: Ban on 'traditional ammo'"

Umm, did you read the article? The ban was aimed at using traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle in national parks and waterways to prevent further contamination.

Those on the right carried on as though he as banning all ammunition. Even the headline was deceptive in the extreme. When it was not that at all.

Moral panic for no good reason. And instead of protecting your wildlife and environment, the right responded by overturning the ban.

And? Everyone knew that it was what little he could do as a parting shot. At least, everyone knowledgeable about gun rights. That you interpret the headline as more than it was simply tells me you aren't knowledgeable about gun rights.

Professor James Craig, now retired, and Rimstidt looked first at lead corrosion and whether lead is leaching into the water table or streams. "Lead metal is unstable when it is in contact with air and water. It corrodes and forms hydrocerrussite, the white coating seen on old bullets in museums. That slows corrosion," Rimstidt said.

However some lead escapes, he said. "But we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that," Rimstidt said. "Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."
...
Fisheries and Wildlife professor Pat Scanlon was an investigator on the project until his death in 2003. "He found no evidence that birds were eating shot, but this portion of the research was not completed," Rimstidt said. "We are not saying that wildlife would not ingest lead, but it does not appear to be a problem on this range. Other shooting ranges may be different."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041104005801.htm​

And that's confined to a shooting range, not hunters over hundreds of acres.

And now onto the final giant bold link you posted.. "Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle"

This one was my favourite, because it just showed the level of dishonesty from those on the right.

ATF director Todd Jones was an Obama appointee that operated under Obama's attorney general and DOJ.
And maybe you don't know the difference between an executive action and order.

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders
Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But many executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable.

Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted.
- https://www.thoughtco.com/executive-actions-versus-executive-orders-3367594​

You cannot deny that the BATF action under Obama's administration was not on his "wish list".

 

[Syne]

Nope. They are not liberals. Your claim that they are liberals because they vote Democratic is silly - whether you are really that ignorant, or simply dedicated to avoiding the issue of why black people do not vote Republican very often, is something only you can determine.

But this is interesting: you know that many black people are economically and demographically much like white Trump voters - same economic circumstances, same patterns of church attendance and education, all that stuff. You do know that, right? But you assume they are liberals. So the question is why? The topic of the thread is rightwing mentality, and here we have an opportunity to learn: how does somebody with rightwing mentality assume black people who are otherwise much like Trump voters got to be "liberals", in the first place?

47 percent of blacks identify as liberal and 45 percent as conservative.
...
Black voters use the group’s well-being as a proxy for their own interests; the “black utility heuristic.” Other studies suggest racial identity and social pressure shape blacks into an electoral monolith. The idea is that blacks vote similarly as a show of solidarity.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-black-voting-data/?utm_term=.682a20a4154c​

So yes, more blacks self-identify as "liberal", and social pressure, such as calling black Republicans Uncle Toms, probably helps skew more toward Democrats. Just like social pressure against "being white" or "not a real black" keeps many from pursuing an education.

Are you trying to say the majority of blacks don't identify as liberal?
Or are you just trying to blame it all on white racism, as if blacks do not have any motivations independent of white folks?

 

[iceaura]

Where in the Bill of Rights does it exclude those with subnormal intelligence or disease?

Same place it says "due process of law" and "self defense".

How does that denial of basic rights differ from Democrat literacy tests during Jim Crow?

By not discriminating, and instead treating all citizens equally before the law.

And? Everyone knew that it was what little he could do as a parting shot. At least, everyone knowledgeable about gun rights.

You mean every panicky wingnut hyperventilating about a black President. What an embarrassment that was, to your fellow American men.

However some lead escapes, he said. "But we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that," Rimstidt said. "Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."

Yeah, that lead shot is a permanent part of the landscape right at the surface - it doesn't wash away. That's why it's still killing ducks and geese twenty five years after being banned for waterfowl shooting, accumulating in eagles and condors and crippling or killing them, and even in people: https://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/Fact Sheet Lead in Ground Venison.pdf

And which politicians pander to them the most?

The same ones who "pander" to science and reality based matters in general. Non-Republicans, mostly, since the 1980s when the Republican Party started winning elections by campaigning against science and reason ("elites").

 

[iceaura]

47 percent of blacks identify as liberal and 45 percent as conservative.

So?

So yes, more blacks self-identify as "liberal", and social pressure, such as calling black Republicans Uncle Toms, probably helps skew more toward Democrats.

So you agree that at the most conservative estimate (self-identifying against social pressure, you claim) about half of US blacks are not only not "left", but actually conservative.

And so we are never again going to see you try to claim BLM, or the black Democratic vote, or any of the trouble associated with black people as a race, is "left" - agreed? You are going to stop making that claim?

 

[Bells]

Again, ad nauseam, show me where I said all black people are left. You can't, because it never happened...other than in your obviously fertile imagination (continuing to read things that simply are not written). You seem to miss operative words like "tend" so you can be a bigot and paint others as the stereotypes you imagine. There are Republican blacks, you know. Or would you claim those blacks are either somehow "less black" or "less conservative" than other blacks?
If you think black Republicans are less black (Uncle Tom) or somehow undifferentiated from the majority of black voters, you're a racist bigot.
Period.

Oh sorry, "overwhelmingly vote Democrat"..

I really love it when you try to switch your arguments around. Funny as hell to watch, because you are simply so bad at these games. And I never said anything about African American Republicans, so why are you saying what I think or believe and apparently something something makes me a bigot? I mean, you are leaping ahead like a sasquatch on speed, trying to make connections and arguments that haven't even been made..

And again, ad nauseam, show me where I "crowed about how good the right are, when it comes to just how good they are at killing others". If you weren't too blinded with your bigoted rage, you'd see that a mockery of leftist incompetence does not equate to praise for right-wing lunacy or murder.

Guess the part where you compared murderers by way of political affiliation and crowed about how incompetent the left are, you know, in comparison to the right in a discussion about murderers and terrorists.

Bigoted rage? Syne, I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. Are you clutching those straws hard enough?

Seems like a non-sequitur. I'm not sure what referring to you by your gender is suppose to prove. And if you go back and look, I haven't referred to you as "woman" since you explicitly said "If you are going to refer to me or address me, I'd suggest using my name."

And now the lie.. Actually, you did.

Post 62:

Yeah, I didn't make that claim, woman.

Post 65:

You have this repulsive habit of referring to me as "woman" instead of using my name. It just makes you look like an even bigger sexist pig, Syne. If you are going to refer to me or address me, I'd suggest using my name. This has come up repeatedly in my conversations with you on this site and you are well aware that your manner of conversing with me is not appreciated or welcome. I would suggest you rectify it, otherwise I will moderate you.

Post 67:

Go read my post again, woman. I asked you questions. I didn't deny anything at all.

Stop lying.

"...people such as yourself" is exactly what a bigot would say (i.e. "you people")....always inferring some negative characteristics based solely on race, politics, or some other superficial trait. Notice how it's the bigot who claims they can decide when a question isn't really a question. Again, assuming negative things not in evidence other than by their stereotyping assumptions.

Oh, I was addressing it at you and your behaviour, Syne. You do this sort of crap often. It is a common trait with you. So when I say "people such as yourself", I mean people like you, who behave in such a repulsive manner.

Go look again, Bells. After your explicit suggestion, e.g. "If you are going to refer to me or address me, I'd suggest using my name", I have not referred to you in any other way. I may have earlier in that post, having not read to that point, because I read posts as I reply. Before this suggestion, you never made that explicit, nor did you repeat it. You've now clarified the rules...that don't allow ANYTHING but referring to others by user names. I appreciate that clarification immensely, as it will stop a lot of under the radar trolling around here. If it took me getting an infraction, that's a price worth paying.

If your disgust alone were compelling, I wouldn't be allowed to post here at all, so you can see why I wouldn't take that alone very seriously.

Oh, you mean you forgot when you started calling me "deary"?

And I told you how it was coming across and told you that if you called me deary, I'd simply call you a twat (I think you even filed a report about that), because apparently that wasn't enough of a hint for you that it was not welcome and that my directly telling you it was condescending and patronising was also not enough for you to know or understand it wasn't welcome? One can assume that you are not allowed to mingle with the general population enough to be able to know or understand how to refer to others and how responses to you indicate displeasure.. Is that what the problem is, Syne?

You then started to refer to me as "woman".

So cut the crap, Syne. No one is buying it.

 

[Bells]

And which politicians pander to them the most?

Well both sides do. Read the articles linked.

If it were an equally right/left issue, as you seem to be asserting, why would anyone feel like a "defector"?
Why would anyone need to argue that "animal rights and welfare ... should be supported by the right" if it were already supported to the same degree as on the left?
Even granting a minority of right-wing animal right activists, where have you made any connection between those and activist terrorism?
The left is obviously mired in identity politics, and has pandered to these sorts of groups for ages. Denying that is just barking.
The long term goals of most animal activists are completely at odds with capitalism, conservatism, mainstream politics, or with most religions. Animal activists, given the opportunity, would ban all animal consumption. They would ban animal exploitation and murder. They would end animal ownership and replace it with conservatorship, where the best interests of animals is the primary consideration. Those goals are in keeping with a future Socialist society, and defy the very roots of Capitalist economics.
- https://speciesandclass.com/2014/08/04/animal-rights-is-a-leftist-movement/

The point, Syne, is that they aren't left or right. They just are in their own little realm or sphere. So your listing them as being "left" terrorism, for example, is incorrect. The FBI don't even classify their eco terrorism as being "left". They have their own classification, I guess.

Again, is displeasure with the government enough to qualify as right-wing?
Are leftists never anti-government? They certainly seem to be right now.

They would be just as anti-Government as the tea-party were and are anti-Government.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it exclude those with subnormal intelligence or disease?

I guess your Bill of Rights has no sub section dealing with common sense.

No, really, you are going to argue that 'he took our guns' because of a proposal or legislation that prevented people who are mentally ill or mentally incapacitated to the point where they are unable to understand or care for themselves or their own affairs, from obtaining firearms? Really?

How low are you going to go, Syne?

Ah wait, you answered that question already..

How does that denial of basic rights differ from Democrat literacy tests during Jim Crow?

Are you trying to compare black people to those who are mentally incapacitated or mentally ill, Syne?

I'll give you some advice, you are treading dangerous waters, Syne.

How does "Obama’s ban on gun sales for certain Social Security recipients" exaggerate it in any way?

Exaggerate what?

And like "No fly, no buy", what other Constitutional right can be removed until you try to exercise it, find out you can't, and must petition the government to get back?

Well, you can ask your fellow conservatives. Those laws were brought in initially under them. Other Governments have simply expanded as necessary.

If your disgust alone were compelling, I wouldn't be allowed to post here at all, so you can see why I wouldn't take that alone very seriously.

Oh don't worry.. It's not just me who sees you as being repulsive.

You're ignorantly conflating the two, BELLS. He did call for the Clinton era assault weapon ban to be reinstated, AND for those on the "no fly list" to be barred from purchasing firearms without due process. Those are two separate actions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
The Clinton era ban expired in 2004, if you call that recent.
"No fly, no buy" is a completely separate issue, that deprives people of their Constitutional right without due process, contrary to both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

I didn't say they were the same issue...?

And? Everyone knew that it was what little he could do as a parting shot. At least, everyone knowledgeable about gun rights. That you interpret the headline as more than it was simply tells me you aren't knowledgeable about gun rights.

It wasn't a parting shot or the least he could do.

I mean honestly, anyone who cares about fishing and hunting understands the dangers of lead tackle and gun pellets. But the reaction was as though he was doing it on purpose, as a parting shot. Oh noes, he's taking your ammo away. He wasn't. You could still hunt with guns and fish with tackle that did not contain lead. So the reaction was as expected from the right.

It was blown out of proportion, the right acted as though he was taking "traditional ammo" away, and wording it as though he was taking all bullets and ammunition away, when the reality was that he was not.

The desire to ban lead fishing tackle and ammunition has been there for years, even under Bush, because of the harm it does to wildlife. Obama tried to implement it at the start of his administration. It has been banned for use against certain types of wildlife since the 1980's. And yet, when Obama tries to ban it on federal lands, the reaction from the right is immediately about gun control?

So again, stop with the utter crap.

ATF director Todd Jones was an Obama appointee that operated under Obama's attorney general and DOJ.
And maybe you don't know the difference between an executive action and order.

You didn't read the whole of the link, did you?

 

[Syne]

Where in the Bill of Rights does it exclude those with subnormal intelligence or disease?

Same place it says "due process of law" and "self defense".

In the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Well...go ahead and show us where. Or...just keep spouting utter nonsense.

How does that denial of basic rights differ from Democrat literacy tests during Jim Crow?

By not discriminating, and instead treating all citizens equally before the law.

Disenfranchisement by IQ or health is discrimination.

You mean every panicky wingnut hyperventilating about a black President. What an embarrassment that was, to your fellow American men.

Apparently all you know about real American men is what liberal rags tell you.

Yeah, that lead shot is a permanent part of the landscape right at the surface - it doesn't wash away. That's why it's still killing ducks and geese twenty five years after being banned for waterfowl shooting, accumulating in eagles and condors and crippling or killing them, and even in people: https://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/Fact Sheet Lead in Ground Venison.pdf

Your link doesn't support your argument. For instance, where's info on lead ammo "banned for waterfowl shooting"? Evidence that surface lead is killing ducks and geese? Is your link just non-sequitur arm-waving?
https://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/Fact Sheet Lead in Ground Venison.pdf

The same ones who "pander" to science and reality based matters in general. Non-Republicans, mostly, since the 1980s when the Republican Party started winning elections by campaigning against science and reason ("elites").

Thanks for affirming the Democrats are the pandering identity politicians.

So?

It refutes your nonsense that most blacks are conservative.

So you agree that at the most conservative estimate (self-identifying against social pressure, you claim) about half of US blacks are not only not "left", but actually conservative.

And so we are never again going to see you try to claim BLM, or the black Democratic vote, or any of the trouble associated with black people as a race, is "left" - agreed? You are going to stop making that claim?

Apparently, you didn't bother reading the linked article.

"4. Conservative positions on social issues actually didn’t matter."
Conservative positions on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion are common among regular churchgoers, including black churchgoers. But for the most observant black voters — defined here as those who attended church weekly — the candidate’s stances on these social issues had virtually no effect on their voting choices.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-black-voting-data/?utm_term=.b682164b6f7d​

If conservative social issue don't effect their voting, even if they are socially conservative, it makes no difference. In actual results, they are liberal.

 

[iceaura]

Apparently all you know about real American men is what liberal rags tell you.

Embarrassing, wasn't it - all those liberal rags being right about your ignorance and gullibility and cowardice and immaturity and lack of adult competence. Making a complete and undignified fool of yourself in public does sting. Doing it continually for twenty years - W and then Obama and now Trump - and suddenly waking up, does more than sting - it can cripple. You guys are famous now, and that's hard to live down: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/26479-get-a-brain-morans

But your denial phase has strung out for too long, and has made big trouble of its own. Man up, and get over it. This Trump mess you got us into is going to get worse before it gets better, and your country needs you to grow up. Now.

You don't want this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-04YDfMt5vHQ/Ti9ugeSd-MI/AAAAAAAAGdE/CeJXPIvpyIw/s1600/moran3.jpg

Thanks for affirming the Democrats are the pandeing identity politicians.

The "identity" they pander to is that of responsible and informed American citizen - any race, any religion, any basic ideology (conservative, liberal, whatever). You can join that identity any time.

It refutes your nonsense that most blacks are conservative.

What it proved, to you, is that BLM is supported by millions of conservative, rightwing black Americans, who vote Democratic.

Apparently, you didn't bother reading the linked article.
"4. Conservative positions on social issues actually didn’t matter."

That was my point. I read it in the article, and linked it so you could read it too. Voting Democratic does not mean black people - or any other people, actually - are "Left". Your claim to the contrary is false.

If conservative social issue don't effect their voting, even if they are socially conservative, it makes no difference. In actual results, they are liberal.

They are not liberal. Repeat that until it sinks in: these black people are not "left", they are not "liberal", they are rightwing conservative people. And if they vote they vote Democratic, nine times out of ten. They often don't vote, but they almost never vote Republican when they do.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[Syne]

Oh sorry, "overwhelmingly vote Democrat"..

Wow, you actually managed to admit to your wild imagination run amok.

I really love it when you try to switch your arguments around. Funny as hell to watch, because you are simply so bad at these games. And I never said anything about African American Republicans, so why are you saying what I think or believe and apparently something something makes me a bigot? I mean, you are leaping ahead like a sasquatch on speed, trying to make connections and arguments that haven't even been made..

From what argument do you imagine I "switched"? You seemed to argue that most blacks weren't effectively liberal, so pointing out the distinction between most blacks and their Republican outliers seemed apropos. Maybe if you hadn't misrepresented what I had actually said, it wouldn't have come off as if you were making broad and bigoted generalizations about a whole race.

Guess the part where you compared murderers by way of political affiliation and crowed about how incompetent the left are, you know, in comparison to the right in a discussion about murderers and terrorists.

Bigoted rage? Syne, I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. Are you clutching those straws hard enough?

Your assumption of praise for murder was due solely to your bigotry toward your political opponents. I simply commented on the apparent incompetence...and even said it was a good thing.

And now the lie.. Actually, you did.

Post 62:

Post 65:

Post 67:

Stop lying.

No lie.
I'll assume you haven't gotten to the part of that post saying, "I may have earlier in that post, having not read to that point, because I read posts as I reply."

Oh, I was addressing it at you and your behaviour, Syne. You do this sort of crap often. It is a common trait with you. So when I say "people such as yourself", I mean people like you, who behave in such a repulsive manner.

Again, "Notice how it's the bigot who claims they can decide when a question isn't really a question. Again, assuming negative things not in evidence other than by their stereotyping assumptions."

Oh, you mean you forgot when you started calling me "deary"?

And I told you how it was coming across and told you that if you called me deary, I'd simply call you a twat (I think you even filed a report about that), because apparently that wasn't enough of a hint for you that it was not welcome and that my directly telling you it was condescending and patronising was also not enough for you to know or understand it wasn't welcome? One can assume that you are not allowed to mingle with the general population enough to be able to know or understand how to refer to others and how responses to you indicate displeasure.. Is that what the problem is, Syne?

You then started to refer to me as "woman".

So cut the crap, Syne. No one is buying it.

Lots of people whine about how things come across on the internet. It's called tone policing, and it's a form of trolling, much like how concern trolls try to hide their real intent. If you think "deary" and "twat" are equivalent, you're daft. In the US, "twat" is profanity and nothing but insult, while "deary" can be friendly or mildly condescending. After you made it clear you didn't like it, I stopped, assuming you took it as the latter.

Now that I've already stopped calling you "woman", you want to bring up "deary" again, like you're addicted to being offended.

As you can see, I didn't lie. I stopped calling you "woman" as soon as I got to the part in your post explicitly saying to only call you by your name. "Suggestions" and offense are not the same as clarifying forum rules or making an explicit request. It's done now, Bells. Get over it already. Otherwise, I'll have to assume I have a much greater impact on you than I've heretofore assumed.

Don't worry, I'm sure I'll find other ways to offend you.

Well both sides do. Read the articles linked.

None of your links make that argument.

The point, Syne, is that they aren't left or right. They just are in their own little realm or sphere. So your listing them as being "left" terrorism, for example, is incorrect. The FBI don't even classify their eco terrorism as being "left". They have their own classification, I guess.

Again, not "traditionally" right or left is not the same as totally nonpartisan. You keep reading more into this than what is actually written.

They would be just as anti-Government as the tea-party were and are anti-Government.

Again, does that alone make them right-wing? You seem to keep dodging a direct answer.

I guess your Bill of Rights has no sub section dealing with common sense.

No, really, you are going to argue that 'he took our guns' because of a proposal or legislation that prevented people who are mentally ill or mentally incapacitated to the point where they are unable to understand or care for themselves or their own affairs, from obtaining firearms? Really?

How low are you going to go, Syne?

Ah wait, you answered that question already..

Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue.

“Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations.”

Rosen said some [people] may avoid seeking help for mental health problems out of fear that they would be required to give up their guns.

Ari Ne’eman, a member of the National Council on Disability, said the independent federal agency would oppose any policy that used assignment of a representative payee as a basis to take any fundamental right from people with disabilities.

“The rep payee is an extraordinarily broad brush,” he said.
- http://www.snopes.com/social-security-recipients-barred-from-owning-guns/​

There are already restrictions against the mentally ill buying guns, but any additional restrictions would have to be much better targeted than social security records alone and offer due process beforehand...not afterwards. That's the common sense of the Constitution's due process clauses.

Again, if you were even half-informed on gun rights, you'd already know all this.

Are you trying to compare black people to those who are mentally incapacitated or mentally ill, Syne?

I'll give you some advice, you are treading dangerous waters, Syne.

You don't even seem to realize that people who can't manage their money are not necessarily mentally ill. So this comparison is a straw man.

Exaggerate what?

What he actually did. Duh.

And like "No fly, no buy", what other Constitutional right can be removed until you try to exercise it, find out you can't, and must petition the government to get back?

Well, you can ask your fellow conservatives. Those laws were brought in initially under them. Other Governments have simply expanded as necessary.

Support that claim...or at least quit dodging the question.

Oh don't worry.. It's not just me who sees you as being repulsive.

And apparently you're silly enough to think I care. Believe me, the feeling is mutual.
You're too willfully ignorant to see the damage your own policies do to people like black families.

I didn't say they were the same issue...?

From your lack of further argument, I'll assume your former one moot.

It wasn't a parting shot or the least he could do.

I mean honestly, anyone who cares about fishing and hunting understands the dangers of lead tackle and gun pellets. But the reaction was as though he was doing it on purpose, as a parting shot. Oh noes, he's taking your ammo away. He wasn't. You could still hunt with guns and fish with tackle that did not contain lead. So the reaction was as expected from the right.

It was blown out of proportion, the right acted as though he was taking "traditional ammo" away, and wording it as though he was taking all bullets and ammunition away, when the reality was that he was not.

The desire to ban lead fishing tackle and ammunition has been there for years, even under Bush, because of the harm it does to wildlife. Obama tried to implement it at the start of his administration. It has been banned for use against certain types of wildlife since the 1980's. And yet, when Obama tries to ban it on federal lands, the reaction from the right is immediately about gun control?

So again, stop with the utter crap.

Still reading more than what's written, huh?
"considered more restrictions" is not a "desire to ban".
It has been banned for waterfowl since 1991, not the 1980's.

So again, stop reading imaginary crap into everything.
And you seem to be conflating the response to lead ammo in federal lands with the proposed ban on AR-15 ammo.

You didn't read the whole of the link, did you?

Where's your argument?

 

[iceaura]

Your link doesn't support your argument. For instance, where's info on lead ammo "banned for waterfowl shooting"? Evidence that surface lead is killing ducks and geese? Is your link just non-sequitur arm-waving?

So what we learn here, by that remarkable post, is that you posted a proposed expansion of the ban on lead ammo as indicating a nefarious Obama gungrabbing agenda, without any idea of what was going on.

You had, and have, no idea why anyone did or would want to restrict lead ammo in the first place.

What the hell are the adults in this country supposed to do with you guys? You're crashing around like belligerent drunks at a wedding, but you're family - just whamming you with 2X4 and kicking you to the curb is not an option.

 

[Syne]

Man up, and get over it. This Trump mess you got us into is going to get worse before it gets better, and your country needs you to grow up. Now.

I didn't vote for Trump, so quit being a stereotyping bigot.

The "identity" they pander to is that of responsible and informed American citizen - any race, any religion, any basic ideology (conservative, liberal, whatever). You can join that identity any time.

BLM burning their own communities, welfare incentivizing single motherhood that is the single largest predictor of criminal behavior, drug use, and depression, abortion to deincentivize paternal responsibility, etc, etc..
Yeah, "responsible and informed".

What it proved, to you, is that BLM is supported by millions of conservative, rightwing black Americans, who vote Democratic.

No such creature. Do you believe in bigfoot too?

That was my point. I read it in the article, and linked it so you could read it too. Voting Democratic does not mean black people - or any other people, actually - are "Left". Your claim to the contrary is false.

No, voting Democrat means what conservative values they may have don't matter enough to them. That makes them defacto left.
And where, pray tell, did you link that article?

They are not liberal. Repeat that until it sinks in: these black people are not "left", they are not "liberal", they are rightwing conservative people. And if they vote they vote Democratic, nine times out of ten. They often don't vote, but they almost never vote Republican when they do.

Why is that, do you think?

They are either socially liberal, don't care that much about their conservative social issues and prioritize liberal welfare, and/or believe the liberal propaganda.
How do you explain the difference between them and the blacks who do vote Republican? You know, if they're all really conservative anyway.
Can blacks not think for themselves, as individuals?

 

[iceaura]

I didn't vote for Trump, so quit being a stereotyping bigot.

You guys got us into this Trump mess, you need to grow up and help get us out.

BLM burning their own communities, welfare incentivizing single motherhood that is the single largest predictor of criminal behavior, drug use, and depression, abortion to deincentivize paternal responsibility, etc, etc..
Yeah, "responsible and informed".

So you obviously have not yet chosen to become informed and responsible, instead posting Repcore blathering. But you can change - you have no identity barrier to that status, as the Dem Party is not as rigidly identity based as the Rep Party is and has been since Reagan.

No such creature. Do you believe in bigfoot too?

You posted proof of that creature's existence - your link, your evidence. Do the arithmetic - more than half of black people are not liberal, almost none of them vote Republican.

No, voting Democrat means what conservative values they may have don't matter enough to them.

They are rightwing, conservative, people. Your claim that they are "left", was false.

And where, pray tell, did you link that article?

Referred to it, sorry - you apparently hadn't read you own link carefully, so I referenced it.

They are either socially liberal, don't care that much about their conservative social issues and prioritize liberal welfare, and/or believe the liberal propaganda.

You posted proof that they are not liberal, and that they care enough to identify themselves as "conservative - that also eliminates them believing liberal propaganda. So according to your link, which agrees perfectly with my posting here and so forth, you need another explanation.

How do you explain the difference between them and the blacks who do vote Republican?

I don't. I simply point to the fact that your claim that they are "left" was false.
And if you are assuming that the ones who vote Republican therefore do not support BLM - you have yet more to learn about the world outside the wingnut bubble.

 

[Syne]

You guys got us into this Trump mess, you need to grow up and help get us out.

Again, I didn't vote for Trump, so you can quit your bigoted "you guys" nonsense.

BLM burning their own communities, welfare incentivizing single motherhood that is the single largest predictor of criminal behavior, drug use, and depression, abortion to deincentivize paternal responsibility, etc, etc..

So you obviously have not yet chosen to become informed and responsible, instead posting Repcore blathering. But you can change - you have no identity barrier to that status, as the Dem Party is not as rigidly identity based as the Rep Party is and has been since Reagan.

Notice how iceaura patently fails to refute even a single point.

You posted proof of that creature's existence - your link, your evidence. Do the arithmetic - more than half of black people are not liberal, almost none of them vote Republican.

The majority of blacks say they are liberal, so where are you getting your info?
Remember? It was from that same link:

"47 percent of blacks identify as liberal and 45 percent as conservative."
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-black-voting-data/?utm_term=.682a20a4154c​

I think iceaura has confused himself.

They are rightwing, conservative, people. Your claim that they are "left", was false.

Unsupported assertion.

You posted proof that they are not liberal, and that they care enough to identify themselves as "conservative - that also eliminates them believing liberal propaganda. So according to your link, which agrees perfectly with my posting here and so forth, you need another explanation.

Read it again. It literally said more blacks identify as liberal.

I don't. I simply point to the fact that your claim that they are "left" was false.
And if you are assuming that the ones who vote Republican therefore do not support BLM - you have yet more to learn about the world outside the wingnut bubble.

Every black Republican, and even some Democrat, I know of does not support BLM. They're all over YouTube denouncing BLM nonsense. Go look for yourself...at least if you're not afraid to have your denial refuted.

 

[iceaura]

Again, I didn't vote for Trump, so you can quit your bigoted "you guys" nonsense.

Why would I care who you guys voted for?

The majority of blacks say they are liberal, so where are you getting your info?

From your link, where 47% of the blacks surveyed said they were liberal. That's not a majority. A majority would be over 50% - do you need me to post link about that? Ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority

"They are rightwing, conservative, people. Your claim that they are "left", was false."
Unsupported assertion

It's supported by arithmetic, using your posted numbers and your inveterate confusion of "liberal" and "left": 45% conservative, less than 15% voting Republican, c'mon - even you can do that one.

Every black Republican, and even some Democrat, I know of does not support BLM. They're all over YouTube denouncing BLM nonsense

Comedy. Every Hawaiian I know plays the ukelele - they're all over Youtube, playing the ukelele.

Most black conservatives vote Democratic or unaffiliated, remember? That's, like, the point - you can't use Party voting to indicate "left" among black people.

btw: denouncing BLM's tactics or whatever is not the same thing as not supporting BLM. This is a subtle point, and I know you guys have trouble with this, but here's a way to think about it: you know how some white guys object to some of the NRA's tactics or positions, but they support the NRA anyway? Or how they might not agree with blockading and bombing Planned Parenthood offices, but they otherwise support the churches and organizations responsible? Imagine if you can that black people are complicated and multi-faceted like that, almost as if they were white.

But I can't be too hard on you - as illustrations of the rightwing mentality, especially with regard to statistics and facts and stuff like that, your posts are excellent contributions to the thread.

 

[Syne]

Why would I care who you guys voted for?

Bigot. When your little accusation about supporting Trump fails, you're happy to just resort to lumping anyone who disagrees with you in with anyone else you dislike. That is definitive bigotry. Look it up.

From your link, where 47% of the blacks surveyed said they were liberal. That's not a majority. A majority would be over 50% - do you need me to post link about that? Ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority
Colloquially, majority simply means the greater number, but formally it would be a plurality. Either way, it still refutes your hogwash that most blacks are conservative. Seriously, you should go tell that to some actual blacks and see how well they like it. Go tell them they are conservative, regardless of how they vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority

It's supported by arithmetic, using your posted numbers and your inveterate confusion of "liberal" and "left": 45% conservative, less than 15% voting Republican, c'mon - even you can do that one.

Again, you need to learn the difference between social and fiscal conservatives.

Comedy. Every Hawaiian I know plays the ukelele - they're all over Youtube, playing the ukelele.

Most black conservatives vote Democratic or unaffiliated, remember? That's, like, the point - you can't use Party voting to indicate "left" among black people.

Why don't you EVER support your claims with facts? Show me all these conservative blacks who vote democrat, and demonstrate why they do. You won't because you can't.

btw: denouncing BLM's tactics or whatever is not the same thing as not supporting BLM. This is a subtle point, and I know you guys have trouble with this, but here's a way to think about it: you know how some white guys object to some of the NRA's tactics or positions, but they support the NRA anyway? Or how they might not agree with blockading and bombing Planned Parenthood offices, but they otherwise support the churches and organizations responsible? Imagine if you can that black people are complicated and multi-faceted like that, almost as if they were white.

But I can't be too hard on you - as illustrations of the rightwing mentality, especially with regard to statistics and facts and stuff like that, your posts are excellent contributions to the thread.

Nope. Go look for yourself. They expressly denounce the notions that blacks are oppressed/disenfranchised by whites and that white privilege/institutional racism exists. Those are the crux of BLM. Do you have the nerve to go see if your assumptions hold water?

 

[iceaura]

Bigot. When your little accusation about supporting Trump fails,

My "accusation" stands. You guys gave us Trump, just like you gave us W.

Colloquially, majority simply means the greater number, but formally it would be a plurality.

Formally, plurality and majority are different words with different meanings. 10% of the population can be a plurality. A majority means more than 50%.

Either way, it still refutes your hogwash that most blacks are conservative.

I said no such thing. Why do you confuse your rhetorical twistings with my posts? Do you forget what you typed, different than what I typed?

Why don't you EVER support your claims with facts? Show me all these conservative blacks who vote democrat, and demonstrate why they do. You won't because you can't

You did. You posted the stats, I pointed at them. According to your stats, at least 2/3 of the black people who label themselves "conservative" voted Democratic in the last election.
Before that, I simply directed your attention to an obvious demographic situation you had mentioned earlier: a higher percentage of blacks than whites are demographically identical with typical Trump voters, but they vote Democratic as you said. (This has been true of other racial groups as well - Latinos and Hispanics are quite conservative socially and socioeconomically typical Republican core voters, but they also vote Democratic in general). Your attempted explanation made no sense. You have had time to think - have you come up with anything better?

Or are you going to double down on your claim that blacks conservatives voting Democratic are as rare as Bigfoot sightings, and prove it with Youtube videos? (By the evidence a higher percentage of white people believe in Bigfoot than black people vote Republican - and they make lots of Youtube videos).

Nope. Go look for yourself. They expressly denounce the notions that blacks are oppressed/disenfranchised by whites and that white privilege/institutional racism exists.

Typical rightwing mentality: faced with overwhelming evidence, you guys post Youtube videos. Before that, it was talk radio rants. And you probably got them wrong anyway.

Some do. Most don't - according to your posted statistics. Do you assume all Hawaiians play the ukelele? Lots of Youtube videos.

 

[birch]

this is conservative type of thinking. anything predatorial is fine as long as they are on top. conservatives like the idea of debt slavery in addition.