Forget rifles, we have to ban hammers !

[dogtowner]

Obviously D's promote the passage of laws where some are good and some are bad. I posted a list of laws where I think a large majority are very good. I disagree that most D's laws are bad, but I'm not going to spend time here to argue which ones and what percentage are good.

We have to agree to disagree on global warming.

As far as violating the constitution, I already said that gun control is allowed by the second Amendment.

Just as you believe that most D's laws are lunacy, I believe that R's are trying to dismantle many good laws. Especially in Roe vs Wade, Obamacare, and many environmental laws. And they are trying to hinder the enactment of good laws, such as finance industry regulation and environmental.

i think there are two facets of difference between l&r.

first is disagrement on good/bad laws taken in whole

the second is a question of degree. where either camp likes it in part but disagree on whether it does enough
or too much.

take food safety... my vegan niece is aghast that FDA is doing nothing while i feel ok with food inspection and drig safety but they go too fsr in some wsys and not enough in others.

 

[TheJPRD]

Obviously D's promote the passage of laws where some are good and some are bad. I posted a list of laws where I think a large majority are very good. I disagree that most D's laws are bad, but I'm not going to spend time here to argue which ones and what percentage are good.

If you're speaking of those laws you listed in your Post #111, I'll concede that those laws are far less egregious than most laws passed by Democrats.

As far as violating the constitution, I already said that gun control is allowed by the second Amendment.

You indeed stated that "gun control" is allowed by the 2nd Amendment. However, if you truly believe what you said, you're at the very least.... Greatly Misinformed! Debate of The 2nd Amendment could get cumberson. Nevertheless, I'm VERY willing to engage you in that debate if you like? If so, I suggest we debate our positions in a separate thread?

On second thought, you may have accidentally used the word "control" when you meant "ownership"? If that's the case, we needn't discuss "gun control" anymore, do we?

Just as you believe that most D's laws are lunacy, I believe that R's are trying to dismantle many good laws. Especially in Roe vs Wade, Obamacare, and many environmental laws. And they are trying to hinder the enactment of good laws, such as finance industry regulation and environmental.

I fear that the eventual proof of the lunacy of Obamacare will only be realized when it's fully implemented.

I'd ask you a question about Roe v. Wade. IF we allow women to abort babies on the sole basis of their "financial convenience", shouldn't the equal-protection clause allow the father of an unborn child to simply pay the cost of an abortion for his "financial convenience" if the woman wishes to bear and raise the child. His "financial convenience" may not include paying child support? Or is Roe v. Wade nothing but a get-out-of-responsibility pass for women?

On the many occasions when I've asked this question of leftist females, the dialogogue is always the same. I pose my question. The leftist female then responds with an Emphatic "NO". When I then ask, "Why doesn't a male have the same right as a female in this situation?", their answer is always the same too. "The father has to pay child support because it's His RESPONSIBILTY". Apparently, Democrats see Rights and Responsibilities as applying only to those they choose!

We have to agree to disagree on global warming.

It's always fine with me to agree to disagree. Additionally, you'd have one awfully-tough time trying to answer the questions I'd ask you on that subject! As with most everything else, the debate is a No-Winner for Democrats!

 

[Lagboltz]

i think there are two facets of difference between l&r.

first is disagrement on good/bad laws taken in whole

the second is a question of degree. where either camp likes it in part but disagree on whether it does enough
or too much.

take food safety... my vegan niece is aghast that FDA is doing nothing while i feel ok with food inspection and drig safety but they go too fsr in some wsys and not enough in others.

The first time I have agreed 100% with you.

 

[dogtowner]

The first time I have agreed 100% with you.

ta-dah !

I would love if we could move away from hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole around here.

Not intended to mean that people who hold strong views shouldn't voice them but its no more helpful for one side to accuse the other of being the re-incarnation of Hitler/Stanin/fill in the blank.

There need not be any requirement that the other guy 'sees the light' but everyone can learn a little something new so why not give it a shot ?

The interwebs are supposed to be fun or at least diverting, right ?

 

[Lagboltz]

If you're speaking of those laws you listed in your Post #111, I'll concede that those laws are far less egregious than most laws passed by Democrats.

You indeed stated that "gun control" is allowed by the 2nd Amendment. However, if you truly believe what you said, you're at the very least.... Greatly Misinformed! Debate of The 2nd Amendment could get cumberson. Nevertheless, I'm VERY willing to engage you in that debate if you like? If so, I suggest we debate our positions in a separate thread?

On second thought, you may have accidentally used the word "control" when you meant "ownership"? If that's the case, we needn't discuss "gun control" anymore, do we?

I fear that the eventual proof of the lunacy of Obamacare will only be realized when it's fully implemented.

I'd ask you a question about Roe v. Wade. IF we allow women to abort babies on the sole basis of their "financial convenience", shouldn't the equal-protection clause allow the father of an unborn child to simply pay the cost of an abortion for his "financial convenience" if the woman wishes to bear and raise the child. His "financial convenience" may not include paying child support? Or is Roe v. Wade nothing but a get-out-of-responsibility pass for women?

On the many occasions when I've asked this question of leftist females, the dialogogue is always the same. I pose my question. The leftist female then responds with an Emphatic "NO". When I then ask, "Why doesn't a male have the same right as a female in this situation?", their answer is always the same too. "The father has to pay child support because it's His RESPONSIBILTY". Apparently, Democrats see Rights and Responsibilities as applying only to those they choose!

It's always fine with me to agree to disagree. Additionally, you'd have one awfully-tough time trying to answer the questions I'd ask you on that subject! As with most everything else, the debate is a No-Winner for Democrats!

I will leave the debate of gun control to the Supreme Court if or when it comes down to debating the meaning of "A well regulated militia."

Any inequity of Roe v. Wade would be very hard to judge because there is a strong asymmetry in the role of the father and the role of the mother, who has to bear a nine month pregnancy, and a few years of very close supervision and caring of the child.

As far as global warming, I will have to decline because I had gone through a very long dialog already with someone here who claimed to know the science involved, but didn't understand many simple concepts. To argue global warming requires a great deal of understanding of physics modeling. I have not nor intend to study the details of that science, but am willing to accept the findings of the IPCC a large body of scientists set up by the UN.

Reports produced by the IPCC must have the agreement of all the leading climate scientists and the consensus of every one of the 130 participating governments. If you search Wikipedia for "global warming" you will find the science that I accept. There is a diagram there that summarizes the thermodynamics. If you search wiki for IPCC you will get ideas of the veracity of the scientific community.

 

[Lagboltz]

ta-dah !

I would love if we could move away from hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole around here.

Not intended to mean that people who hold strong views shouldn't voice them but its no more helpful for one side to accuse the other of being the re-incarnation of Hitler/Stanin/fill in the blank.

There need not be any requirement that the other guy 'sees the light' but everyone can learn a little something new so why not give it a shot ?

The interwebs are supposed to be fun or at least diverting, right ?

Would you stop it. You are scaring me. For the second time I agree 100% with you. I'm scared that I might find my self voting for Ron Paul some day.

One reason I came here was to try to understand the conservative mind and not so much to try to change it. But of course I haven't been totally successful, having been sucked into some head butting battles.

 

[dogtowner]

Would you stop it. You are scaring me. For the second time I agree 100% with you. I'm scared that I might find my self voting for Ron Paul some day.

One reason I came here was to try to understand the conservative mind and not so much to try to change it. But of course I haven't been totally successful, having been sucked into some head butting battles.

Ease up there hotrod... I'm not a Ron Paul guy . While the good doctor is libertarian and in many ways so am I, there is much that I can't support with his thinking.

Well the head butting is just part of the fun isnt it ? You have to throw a sitcom into the mix cant be deadly serious ALL the time. thats why I like Steveox, you can never tell just whats going to come out of his keyboard.

I'm afraid understanding conservatives is not simple. I'm actually a tree hugger b ut I can see where getting acid rain is important I also see that ill advised forestry management (prohibiting underbrush clearing which led to those massive wildfires) is a dangerous overreach.

 

[TheJPRD]

As far as global warming, I will have to decline because I had gone through a very long dialog already with someone here who claimed to know the science involved, but didn't understand many simple concepts. To argue global warming requires a great deal of understanding of physics modeling. I have not nor intend to study the details of that science, but am willing to accept the findings of the IPCC a large body of scientists set up by the UN.

You may find that my "take" on the global-warming debate is somewhat unique? I freely admit that I am not knowedgeable on the meteorological and oceanographic sciences, and I stay out of debating the scientific aspects of global-warming. I'm usually willing to accept the scientists numbers IF they're as comprehensive as I know is necessary, and if I see no signs of "playing" with the numbers.

My approach to debating the issue is one that addresses (1) the mathematical-modeling required to comprehensively assess the necessary scientific data, (2) the algorithims and assumptions used in the models, (3) the specific variables used in the models themselves, (4) the variables that MUST be included if the model is to arrive at meaningful conclusions, and (5) the financial costs and impacts of the "solutions" that are being recommended.

Several years ago, I prepared a list of questions that require answers before any proposed "solution(s)" to global-warming is/are budgeted and implemented. My questions related to the specific, scientific data available, the variables included in the analytical models, the sources for those numbers, the estimated end-item effects on the world of the perceived warming, the timeline on which those effects are expected to occur, the recommended "solution(s)" to the perceived problem, the effect upon warming once those solutions are implemented, the cost of implementing those solutions, etc. NOT ONE scientist has provided ANY answers to my questions. IF global-warming is a serious concern for the future, those persons who are now recommending solutions are criminally negligent in their scientific and mathematical responsibility to provide solutions that will WORK!!

 

[dogtowner]

You may find that my "take" on the global-warming debate is somewhat unique? I freely admit that I am not knowedgeable on the meteorological and oceanographic sciences, and I stay out of debating the scientific aspects of global-warming. I'm usually willing to accept the scientists numbers IF they're as comprehensive as I know is necessary, and if I see no signs of "playing" with the numbers.

My approach to debating the issue is one that addresses (1) the mathematical-modeling required to comprehensively assess the necessary scientific data, (2) the algorithims and assumptions used in the models, (3) the specific variables used in the models themselves, (4) the variables that MUST be included if the model is to arrive at meaningful conclusions, and (5) the financial costs and impacts of the "solutions" that are being recommended.

Several years ago, I prepared a list of questions that require answers before any proposed "solution(s)" to global-warming is/are budgeted and implemented. My questions related to the specific, scientific data available, the variables included in the analytical models, the sources for those numbers, the estimated end-item effects on the world of the perceived warming, the timeline on which those effects are expected to occur, the recommended "solution(s)" to the perceived problem, the effect upon warming once those solutions are implemented, the cost of implementing those solutions, etc. NOT ONE scientist has provided ANY answers to my questions. IF global-warming is a serious concern for the future, those persons who are now recommending solutions are criminally negligent in their scientific and mathematical responsibility to provide solutions that will WORK!!

an interesting take and a bit different than most.

you will find some, maybe many of these looked at in the rather lengthy thread between Lag and palerider.

 

[TheJPRD]

an interesting take and a bit different than most.

you will find some, maybe many of these looked at in the rather lengthy thread between Lag and palerider.

I watched that thread as it was developing. I thought I'd responded to it, but apparently not. I began a new thread in the Science Forum with a related article I wrote for another site early last year. Anyone interested can read it at https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...ion-who-are-the-scientists.16379/#post-207269.

 

[dogtowner]

I watched that thread as it was developing. I thought I'd responded to it, but apparently not. I began a new thread in the Science Forum with a related article I wrote for another site early last year. Anyone interested can read it at https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...ion-who-are-the-scientists.16379/#post-207269.

I dont recall if you bobbed up in there or not and lets face it, its too long to go idly look. just saw the new one here.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

^ Am I right or wrong that many liberals support what they see as a "Right To Die"? If I'm correct about that, I'm surprised liberals are so heartless when it comes to allowing folks a gun in order to take their lives more quickly and more easily. By denying such folks a firearm, liberals are forcing those citizens to take their lives by cutting their throats with a knife or hitting themselves over the head with a hammer??? That's intellectually inconsistent, and it seems very cruel to me.

Whack that Straw Man!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I watched that thread as it was developing. I thought I'd responded to it, but apparently not. I began a new thread in the Science Forum with a related article I wrote for another site early last year. Anyone interested can read it at https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/global-warming-evolution-who-are-the-scientists.16379/#post-207269.[/quote]

conservitives can't read threads about Science I thought...it was Witchcraft.

 

[Iolo2]

Gunmen kill. Take their guns away and the murder-rate falls like a stone. Fact.

 

[cashmcall]

Criminals and or sick kill. Take their guns away and the murder-rate falls like a stone. Fact...gunmen don't kill another fact..