Quote of the Day...So now we can really Drop the Whole thing

Playboy,

California is an example of where improper gun use went to such an extreme that anti-gun laws were able to take hold because every punk was carrying a weapon and every day people where being shot in drive bys and on streets. Maybe if the NRA, GOA, etc had put more time and effort into trying to stop mass gun sales and illegal gun sales and made a point to be visiblly trying to help the problem instead of just freaking.....
Click to expand...

Yeah you said its illegal gun sales and criminal misuse of firearms.

If that is what you think I said then I suggest you re-read my post and think a little harder.
Click to expand...

Seem pretty plain.

I am starting to doubt you have never dealt with a liberal in your entire life if you really think this. Liberals by definition can be reasoned with and are easy to win over if you present a good argument. You might want to learn the difference between a leftist (or righty or any other extremist) and a liberal.
Click to expand...

I manage a pawnshop. We get a high percentage of liberal democrat customers. Occasionally I debate them especially during election season. They cannot be reasoned with even with the truth in writing. If you doubt it oh well.

A perfect example is WMD's. I printed up quotes by Clinton, Kerry, and many other Democrats all saying that Iraq had WMD's yet the liberals I debated still believed Bush lied.
 
Threegun,

You obviously are not getting the meaning of what I said. I will explain it to you.

The reason a leftist mentality was able to take hold in California was because a situation existed that allowed leftists to prey on peoples fears and pro-gun groups did little to help make people feel like the problem was being addressed. Instead of people seeing groups like the NRA, GOA, etc trying to come up with ideas of how to help stop the violence or even trying to educate people as to the true cause of the violence all they saw was a reactionary group of gun lovers that stepped in screaming every time someone tried to suggest a solution that might involve tightening gun laws. They aso made the mistake of aligning themselves so tightly with the republican national convention that people saw them as right wing extremists and tuned out what they said without even listening. They appeared unwilling to compromise and therefore public opinion turned against them allowing the pendulum to swing fully to the left.

As for the liberal issue. If you aren't able to successfully argue an issue with a liberal then one of two conditions exist. Either you have incorrectly labeled that person as a liberal when they are not, or you are just not able to produce a good argument.
 
"If you aren't able to successfully argue an issue with a liberal then one of two conditions exist. Either you have incorrectly labeled that person as a liberal when they are not, or you are just not able to produce a good argument."

You are assuming that a good argument will always sway a liberal. That is demonstrably incorrect.

Tim
 
Tim,

By definition to be liberal someone must be open minded, flexible, dedicated to adavancement through truth and be free from prejudice and bigotry.

If someone meets these standards then they can be reasoned with.

That being said, just because you can make one or two good points does not mean you will win an argument if history and relevent fact can counter your argument.

If you argue that most gun owners are rational people willing to work with both sides for fair conclussions to gun related issues but they constantly are dealing with good 'ol boy gun owners that have a rabid mentality about gun ownership and align themselves with the more hateful segments of the republican party then you will not be able to convince them. Especially when they do not see the "responsible gun owners" stepping up to help control the "good 'ol boys" and conspiricy wack jobs that do more damage to gun rights than any leftist ever could.
 
Last edited:
Playboy, I totally understand what you said. I disagree. The liberals like Dianne Feinstein couldn't be reasoned with by groups like the NRA. Proof that gun bans don't work couldn't sway liberals like Dianne Feinstein. Even worst proof that tough punishment worked in dramatically stopping violent crime failed to convince the liberals. Now I ask you sir, if facts prove that gun control doesn't work but tough punishment does why would the liberal choose the option that doesn't work? Because they have an agenda and they cannot be reasoned with.

As I said you just can't reason with a liberal despite what you believe. I have proof to back my claim.
 
BTW, Does this liberal sound like she wants reasonable gun control or is even capable of reason????

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
Click to expand...

The great liberal voice of reason has spoken.
 
By definition to be liberal someone must be open minded, flexible, dedicated to adavancement through truth and be free from prejudice and bigotry.
Click to expand...

You've described the perfect, rational being. As with all such things of perfection, they don't exist.

My personal experience has been that the majority of those who call themselves politically liberal that I have discussed things with, as the term is used these days most places other than gun boards or political history texts, are generally not open to rational discourse or correction.
 
PP, That may be a dictionary meaning of "liberal", but it is NOT a political definition of Liberal as used in this country. They are far from open-minded and open to truth and far from being free of bigotry. Their elitist and selish mentalities typically do not allow for it.
 
so if there's a "good" definition of liberals as well as a "bad" one, what's the "bad" definition of conservative to go along with the "good" one?
 
what's the "bad" definition of conservative to go along with the "good" one?
Click to expand...
Uh, how about "big central government, big spending, cozy contracts, religion-pusher", vs "small government, tax cuts, mind-your-own-business".

Maybe I think of the current president as a not-so-good conservative. One of his good points: he's not Kerry.

Regards.
 
"big central government, big spending, cozy contracts, religion-pusher"
Click to expand...
there we go :P so on this board we're only supposed to use the good definition of conservative and only the bad definition of liberal? now that ain't fair ;)
 
"By definition to be liberal someone must be open minded, flexible, dedicated to adavancement through truth and be free from prejudice and bigotry."

Does that mean that a conservative, commonly held to be the opposite of a liberal, cannot be all those things? If that's what you're saying, I most emphatically disagree.

Tim
 
I think the answer to Redworms question is the Neocon. An ultra conservative who's beliefs would conflict with the rights of gays, abortionists, and atheists.
 
Does that mean that a conservative, commonly held to be the opposite of a liberal, cannot be all those things? If that's what you're saying, I most emphatically disagree.
Click to expand...
Right there is an issue that hurts alot of us. Liberal and conservative are not opposite despite what the right wing has tried to drill into your head. The right wing has spent alot of time trying to label leftist as liberals because if people knew what true liberalism is they woul dhave a hard time disagreeing with the idea. When you are an extremist the best tactic you can take it to try and convince the common man that the farthest opposite side is actually the middle. That way you seem less extreme.

Just as the have twisted the definition of conservative. The political definition of conservative used to mean that you were against oversized govt, lack of oversight, rampant spending, big deficits, give away programs, etc. Now it seems like alot of neo-cons want to make conservative mean that you are a right wing christian that wants to tell women what to do with their bodies, hate people because of what gods they worship or who they love, and a ton of other social prejudices.

I myself am a republican, I am a conservative. But I am first and foremost a liberal. Being a liberal means I approach situations with an open and rational mind. it means I try to put myself in another persons shoes and understand where they are coming from. it means I try to deal with fact and experience in an unbiased fashion allowing myself to alter my own opinions if sufficent evidence warrants it.

Am I perfect at this? No...of course not. Do I sometimes loose my temper and shut out another persons argument? Yes, of course...I have a very hot temper sometime. I am half greek for goodness sake. Still, I do my best and that is all I could ask of anyone.
 
Right there is an issue that hurts alot of us. Liberal and conservative are not opposite despite what the right wing has tried to drill into your head. The right wing has spent alot of time trying to label leftist as liberals because if people knew what true liberalism is they woul dhave a hard time disagreeing with the idea. When you are an extremist the best tactic you can take it to try and convince the common man that the farthest opposite side is actually the middle. That way you seem less extreme.
Click to expand...

I realize it's chic to place all blame on the "right wing" but the left wing spent years making every leftist position one that any good "liberal" would take. Those who are clear leftist by any definition openly characterize themselves as liberal. So, saying the right has polarized the issue is false. Only in recent years have the leftists realized (as you state) that they can do better by sellling themselves as centrists and moderates, and make fiction reality by swinging the nation further and further to the left. They did this because they made liberal equal radical leftist, not because the Republicans told everyone that's what it meant.
 
Buzz Knox, Amen.

Playboy, As was stated earlier what liberal means in the dictionary and in the public today are two different animals. By your definition then I too am a liberal. My use of the word liberals is intended to describe the left of center democrats such as Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi etc. Right or wrong that is how I used the word for the sake of this debate. Simply replace "liberal" with whatever you like that describes the people listed above and then respond to my rebuttal...........if you are so inclined.
 
Buzz-knox,

Tell me where liberals have adopted the leftist platform? Then tell me how this platform is based soley on leftist beliefs and not true world facts and need.

It is true that some dems are often forced further left because of the rabid mentality of some people. If you cannot reason with someone about an issue and you need support from somewhere you often have to court their enemies.
 
Playboy,

Tell me where liberals have adopted the leftist platform? Then tell me how this platform is based soley on leftist beliefs and not true world facts and need.

It is true that some dems are often forced further left because of the rabid mentality of some people. If you cannot reason with someone about an issue and you need support from somewhere you often have to court their enemies.
Click to expand...

Oh my god! Forced to the left??????????LOL. Come on you are joking right?
 
Tell me where liberals have adopted the leftist platform? Then tell me how this platform is based soley on leftist beliefs and not true world facts and need.

It is true that some dems are often forced further left because of the rabid mentality of some people. If you cannot reason with someone about an issue and you need support from somewhere you often have to court their enemies.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? The Dems are being forced to the left because of the right wing and the need to court the right wing's enemies?
 
No, I am not kidding in the slightest. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of politics can understand this fact. Elections are all about the numbers. If some people cannot be won over no matter what you do then you have to go after the ones that can be won. Since the right already consolidated it's hold on the NRA and such groups (just read one of the monthly mags around election time or any other time to see how eveident that is) the middle had to court the left.

Now, back to the question I asked you in my previous post. I am eager to see your views on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top