Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote powerful authoritative government, weak national defense, enforcement of economic equality, support of socialist/communist economic policies that take from the working and give to the non working on the basis of need rather than merit, promote reliance on government rather than the private sector (which empowers government to justify doing yet more and more as people learn to expect more and more), etc. Of course part of "reliance on government" means disarming the public and conditioning them to the philosophy that only the government can do those things.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer free markets, minimum non interfering government, individual choice and responsibility, and the absolute right to private property and the fruits of ones labor, and willingness to accept the risk inherent to absolute freedom in that some will abuse their unsupervised freedom to prey on others. (obviously many so called conservatives in our government are not). The ability to defend property relies upon the means to do so, and free markets means free markets (ie: even guns are free market items for those who wish to have them).

You forgot that conservatives shit ice cream and liberals torture puppies at parties.

Hey, at least he didn't pull out that old gem about how conservatives are more authentic Americans because they drink Coors beer instead of Napa Valley wine.

Here's a point for point reiterration with a liberal bias:

In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote a strong federal government, place rational limits on defense spending and utilize military force as an option of last resort when all diplomatic efforts have failed, promote anti-discrimination policies, helping the poor and disadvantaged, inform the public of the benefits government brings, etc. Of course the public is free to choose to access the private sector but the government stands ready to assist those who cannot afford to or choose not to.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer slave and child labor, anarchy, and the absolute right to pay zero taxes, and willingness to accept that some people are just shit out of luck. Oh, and they shit ice cream.

 

[exdeath]

Protecting someone who is poor because racial discrimination prevents him from getting an equal paying job for equal skill is commendable.

Taking from someone without their consent because of envy and giving it to someone else who fits YOUR criteria of who is poor and disadvantaged, is not.

And being free to choose to access the private sector is an absolute lie. If that was the case I could stop paying for social security and public schools right now because I have my own retirement accounts and support home schooling (and I'm hardly wealthy, I'm just smart with what I do have and I didn't go have 5 kids before graduating high school then cry that I need an Escalade or spend my rent money on weed or DVDs).

And helping people in need is a far cry from indefinitely supporting people.

Maybe if liberals didn't act like every alcoholic and sex addicted teenage mother deserved a plasma TV and 22" rims, some of THOSE policies would be acceptable to conservatives for helping people who are actually victims of circumstances they couldn't prepare for.

Perfect example is the housing bust. Not the governments fault that people with shady financial management history decided to use their home equity to buy a BMW or SUV and live the MTV glamor life paycheck to paycheck and then end up upside down when their property value dropped... let them sink or swim on their own.

Another example is Katrina. If baffles me how people waited there for TWO YEARS doing absolutely nothing but sitting in the same spot, but it's the governments fault. My ass would be moving to another city with whatever I had left and putting in applications at Burger King if that's what it took to get the ball rolling again, not waiting for a $100 check from the government for two years and complaining how needy I am.

If you teach a man to fish... etc.

And conservatives don't mind paying taxes. F-22s and paved roads are nice things to have. But being asked to pay for something, then being told you don't quality to benefit from the things you paid for, is communistic wealth redistribution under the guise of "helping the needy".

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote powerful authoritative government, weak national defense, enforcement of economic equality, support of socialist/communist economic policies that take from the working and give to the non working on the basis of need rather than merit, promote reliance on government rather than the private sector (which empowers government to justify doing yet more and more as people learn to expect more and more), etc. Of course part of "reliance on government" means disarming the public and conditioning them to the philosophy that only the government can do those things.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer free markets, minimum non interfering government, individual choice and responsibility, and the absolute right to private property and the fruits of ones labor, and willingness to accept the risk inherent to absolute freedom in that some will abuse their unsupervised freedom to prey on others. (obviously many so called conservatives in our government are not). The ability to defend property relies upon the means to do so, and free markets means free markets (ie: even guns are free market items for those who wish to have them).

You forgot that conservatives shit ice cream and liberals torture puppies at parties.

Hey, at least he didn't pull out that old gem about how conservatives are more authentic Americans because they drink Coors beer instead of Napa Valley wine.

Here's a point for point reiterration with a liberal bias:

In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote a strong federal government, place rational limits on defense spending and utilize military force as an option of last resort when all diplomatic efforts have failed, promote anti-discrimination policies, helping the poor and disadvantaged, inform the public of the benefits government brings, etc. Of course the public is free to choose to access the private sector but the government stands ready to assist those who cannot afford to or choose not to.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer slave and child labor, anarchy, and the absolute right to pay zero taxes, and willingness to accept that some people are just shit out of luck. Oh, and they shit ice cream.

Cleaned you post up a little bit

In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote a strong socialist government, place limits on military spending and utilize military force only in election years, promote communistic and socialist big government policies, keep the poor and disadvantaged down and out by giving them everything and not helping them get back into the workforce, inform the public of the benefits that a nanny-state brings, etc. Of course the public is free to choose to access the private sector because the government's will suck big hairy donkey balls.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer freedom from socialism and a free-market society, punishing criminals, and the absolute right to not have to pay for lazy POS who are too lazy to work, and willingness to accept that some people just have no clue and have been misled by lies and empty promises from the liberal left. Oh, and they shit ice cream....get real....conservatives don't shit, they have a bowel movement

 

[exdeath]

Just an additional two cents, I never attack beneficial liberal policies you bring up such as civil rights and discrimination, neutrality in government, limiting government spending, promoting consumer awareness of misleading advertising or poor quality products produce by shady companies, etc. So you do not need to go out of your way to bring up the positive aspects. Instead I'd rather you try to defend the flawed philosophies of the negative traits I am vocal about.

I naturally only focus on the negative things like socialism, violation of the bill of rights ('shall not be infringed' is clear as day), excessive taxation of the working class to support the lower class (and thus making the middle class poor while not hurting the upper class at all and keeping people trying to transcend classes from doing so as they face more and more taxes that cancel out their pay raises), etc.

When you work an extra few hours to save extra money for a car or a down on your first house or to pay some medical bills off and thought you were finally getting ahead, and your check ends up being the same or less because you jumped a tax bracket, you'll understand what "tax the rich" actually means... I bet you thought it meant only punishing people who live in mansions and drive around in limos huh?

And when you are driving around in your beater with 200k miles for another month because your plans to put in overtime to get your new car a month earlier backfired because your $FICA number went up also, and you see some poor Mexican immigrant pulling out of the DES parking lot in a brand new fully loaded Escalade fresh with temp tags (and nearly hitting you in the process as they sling their 8,000 lb truck around you in an assertion of their superiority over your beater), you'll know what 'helping the poor' means.

When you know a family friend who is for all intents and purposes trailer trash, who wins a several hundred thousand dollar accident settlement, brags about their new lifestyle, then in 5 years needs help paying the rent on their trailer lot or face eviction, and want sympathy for their plight, you'll understand why handouts are inherently flawed why no amount of taxing or increasing of social services will ever EVER help the poor.

When you reluctantly apply for unemployment after all other avenues have been exhausted, when the company you work for disappears overnight, to help with the bills for the month it will take before you start your new job, and you are denied while minorities in the same exact position are handed checks, you'll understand what helping the unfortunate really means.

When you are in the lower class you envy the upper class but when you enter the middle class for the first time, you'll have your eye on the lower class, your hands full just trying to bust your ass enough to justify your efforts and differentiate yourself from the lower class who always seem to be better off than you are for some reason... makes me want to give up and jump on the government dollar sometimes. Who wants to work for a living when the neighbors single daughter with 3 kids who works at McDonalds part time has a better car than you and free school on top of it?

And for all the talk about "people with families to support" I bet you've never overheard someone talking about having more kids or inducing labor by the end of December so someone can get another tax credit... while the rest of the kids are filthy and in rags (if that tax cut is to provide for the kids where is that money going?)

Are these the poor and needy you are talking about when you are sticking your hand in my wallet and stealing from me, slowing my pursuit of happiness, and asking me to give someone else a chance?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote powerful authoritative government, weak national defense, enforcement of economic equality, support of socialist/communist economic policies that take from the working and give to the non working on the basis of need rather than merit, promote reliance on government rather than the private sector (which empowers government to justify doing yet more and more as people learn to expect more and more), etc. Of course part of "reliance on government" means disarming the public and conditioning them to the philosophy that only the government can do those things.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer free markets, minimum non interfering government, individual choice and responsibility, and the absolute right to private property and the fruits of ones labor, and willingness to accept the risk inherent to absolute freedom in that some will abuse their unsupervised freedom to prey on others. (obviously many so called conservatives in our government are not). The ability to defend property relies upon the means to do so, and free markets means free markets (ie: even guns are free market items for those who wish to have them).

You forgot that conservatives shit ice cream and liberals torture puppies at parties.

Hey, at least he didn't pull out that old gem about how conservatives are more authentic Americans because they drink Coors beer instead of Napa Valley wine.

Here's a point for point reiterration with a liberal bias:

In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote a strong federal government, place rational limits on defense spending and utilize military force as an option of last resort when all diplomatic efforts have failed, promote anti-discrimination policies, helping the poor and disadvantaged, inform the public of the benefits government brings, etc. Of course the public is free to choose to access the private sector but the government stands ready to assist those who cannot afford to or choose not to.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer slave and child labor, anarchy, and the absolute right to pay zero taxes, and willingness to accept that some people are just shit out of luck. Oh, and they shit ice cream.

Cleaned you post up a little bit

In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote a strong socialist government, place limits on military spending and utilize military force only in election years, promote communistic and socialist big government policies, keep the poor and disadvantaged down and out by giving them everything and not helping them get back into the workforce, inform the public of the benefits that a nanny-state brings, etc. Of course the public is free to choose to access the private sector because the government's will suck big hairy donkey balls.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer freedom from socialism and a free-market society, punishing criminals, and the absolute right to not have to pay for lazy POS who are too lazy to work, and willingness to accept that some people just have no clue and have been misled by lies and empty promises from the liberal left. Oh, and they shit ice cream....get real....conservatives don't shit, they have a bowel movement

I think you missed my point, which was a satire of ex's characterization of basic party values. You satirized satire, thats redundant. And repetetive. And it's saying the same thing more than once in slightly different ways.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Protecting someone who is poor because racial discrimination prevents him from getting an equal paying job for equal skill is commendable.

Taking from someone without their consent because of envy and giving it to someone else who fits YOUR criteria of who is poor and disadvantaged, is not.

And being free to choose to access the private sector is an absolute lie. If that was the case I could stop paying for social security and public schools right now because I have my own retirement accounts and support home schooling (and I'm hardly wealthy, I'm just smart with what I do have and I didn't go have 5 kids before graduating high school then cry that I need an Escalade or spend my rent money on weed or DVDs).

And helping people in need is a far cry from indefinitely supporting people.

Maybe if liberals didn't act like every alcoholic and sex addicted teenage mother deserved a plasma TV and 22" rims, some of THOSE policies would be acceptable to conservatives for helping people who are actually victims of circumstances they couldn't prepare for.

Perfect example is the housing bust. Not the governments fault that people with shady financial management history decided to use their home equity to buy a BMW or SUV and live the MTV glamor life paycheck to paycheck and then end up upside down when their property value dropped... let them sink or swim on their own.

Another example is Katrina. If baffles me how people waited there for TWO YEARS doing absolutely nothing but sitting in the same spot, but it's the governments fault. My ass would be moving to another city with whatever I had left and putting in applications at Burger King if that's what it took to get the ball rolling again, not waiting for a $100 check from the government for two years and complaining how needy I am.

If you teach a man to fish... etc.

And conservatives don't mind paying taxes. F-22s and paved roads are nice things to have. But being asked to pay for something, then being told you don't quality to benefit from the things you paid for, is communistic wealth redistribution under the guise of "helping the needy".

You know, I don't think it's possible for you to have missed the point by a larger margin. Yeah, I get it, you hate liberal views, blah, blah, blah, same lame-ass talking points we've all heard 11 million times from every pinhead conservative with access to a microphone. And that's swell, I'm sure someone, somewhere, gives a shit.

But here's the real problem...we were talking about gun control and self defense. And we were coming to some common ground and having a reasonable discussion, at least I thought so. But apparently that was boring, so out of the blue, we get some elitist rant about liberals, conservatives and freedom. What the hell that has to do with this specific issue? You got me...but damn sure did it derail what was up to this point a good discussion.

THAT is the problem, everyone is so in love with "their" ideology that the individual issues couldn't matter less. The only thing that's important is getting the focus group tested one-liners out there as fast as possible. Bullshit like this is why the country is so divided, because people like you can't get past their intellectual masturbation long enough to discuss an issue. 99% of political discussion in this country is "I hate liberals" or "I hate conservatives", just with different words each time. But it's the same message, and it's so stupid. Why we can't discuss gun control or self defense is beyond me, but apparently we can't. Instead, what we REALLY need to focus on is defining the sides in such a way as to give ourselves the maximum ego boost and make the other side into some caricature that's easy to argue against.

I'm a liberal, and I don't support any of the things you're talking about in your post. But then, you knew that already.

 

[exdeath]

There really is no common ground on many conservative vs. liberal issues. Many of the philosophies are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable (ie: communism vs. capitalism).

If I support the death penalty for certain crimes, and you don't support it at all, what are we going to do, agree to only half kill rapists?

There are certain fundamental principles that I will not comprimise on. Now heres the catch. You (not you personally, but in the generic sense) are free to feel the exact opposite. Just don't force it as a matter of national policy. Unlike people who want to ban guns and take them away from me, I do not feel compelled to force those people to own a gun if they choose otherwise. See the difference?

As I said above there are fundamental liberal vs. conservative ideologies that are simply not compatible and there is no middle ground. Searching for such middle ground is futile and nothing more than an attempt by both sides to gain a foothold and begin a slippery slope of incremental progressivism (ie: ban semi auto rifles for now because thats all we can get away with... with eyes on the long term goal of a total ban later). So why don't we just leave these issues alone and stop trying to make public policy out of them and accept that everybody is going to handle it differently and there is no single law that will suit everyone? If liberals support socialized health care, fine, there should be enough liberals who can implement and use a national health care system amongst themselves. But leave me out of it and respect my rights to not participate. And if conservatives want to praise fairies and ban abortions, they need do nothing more than go to church themselves and not have abortions themselves; stop using law to force your lifestyle on everyone else.

I'm really not sure how we get derailed either and don't feel like reading back pages, but I recall I implied that anti-gun and pacifist "power only in the hands of the police" ideologies are predominantly liberal (predominantly, as in yes there are exceptions to the rule) and someone got into a hissy fit about conservatives in retaliation and the ball went rolling from there, as it always does in a politically loaded topic.

 

[jonks]

Still pending...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5346880.html

Pasadena police spokesman Vance Mitchell said the department will turn over its case to the Harris County District Attorney's Office in seven to 10 days. From there it is expected to be presented to a grand jury.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Just an additional two cents, I never attack beneficial liberal policies you bring up such as civil rights and discrimination, neutrality in government, limiting government spending, promoting consumer awareness of misleading advertising or poor quality products produce by shady companies, etc. So you do not need to go out of your way to bring up the positive aspects. Instead I'd rather you try to defend the flawed philosophies of the negative traits I am vocal about.

I naturally only focus on the negative things like socialism, violation of the bill of rights ('shall not be infringed' is clear as day), excessive taxation of the working class to support the lower class (and thus making the middle class poor while not hurting the upper class at all and keeping people trying to transcend classes from doing so as they face more and more taxes that cancel out their pay raises), etc.

When you work an extra few hours to save extra money for a car or a down on your first house or to pay some medical bills off and thought you were finally getting ahead, and your check ends up being the same or less because you jumped a tax bracket, you'll understand what "tax the rich" actually means... I bet you thought it meant only punishing people who live in mansions and drive around in limos huh?

And when you are driving around in your beater with 200k miles for another month because your plans to put in overtime to get your new car a month earlier backfired because your $FICA number went up also, and you see some poor Mexican immigrant pulling out of the DES parking lot in a brand new fully loaded Escalade fresh with temp tags (and nearly hitting you in the process as they sling their 8,000 lb truck around you in an assertion of their superiority over your beater), you'll know what 'helping the poor' means.

When you know a family friend who is for all intents and purposes trailer trash, who wins a several hundred thousand dollar accident settlement, brags about their new lifestyle, then in 5 years needs help paying the rent on their trailer lot or face eviction, and want sympathy for their plight, you'll understand why handouts are inherently flawed why no amount of taxing or increasing of social services will ever EVER help the poor.

When you reluctantly apply for unemployment after all other avenues have been exhausted, when the company you work for disappears overnight, to help with the bills for the month it will take before you start your new job, and you are denied while minorities in the same exact position are handed checks, you'll understand what helping the unfortunate really means.

When you are in the lower class you envy the upper class but when you enter the middle class for the first time, you'll have your eye on the lower class, your hands full just trying to bust your ass enough to justify your efforts and differentiate yourself from the lower class who always seem to be better off than you are for some reason... makes me want to give up and jump on the government dollar sometimes. Who wants to work for a living when the neighbors single daughter with 3 kids who works at McDonalds part time has a better car than you and free school on top of it?

And for all the talk about "people with families to support" I bet you've never overheard someone talking about having more kids or inducing labor by the end of December so someone can get another tax credit... while the rest of the kids are filthy and in rags (if that tax cut is to provide for the kids where is that money going?)

Are these the poor and needy you are talking about when you are sticking your hand in my wallet and stealing from me, slowing my pursuit of happiness, and asking me to give someone else a chance?

WOW! What an example of the Conservative Right's mass paranoid delusion!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: exdeath

There are certain fundamental principles that I will not comprimise on. Now heres the catch. You (not you personally, but in the generic sense) are free to feel the exact opposite. Just don't force it as a matter of national policy. Unlike people who want to ban guns and take them away from me, I do not feel compelled to force those people to own a gun if they choose otherwise. See the difference?

What is your stance on abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research?

Are you for bans on any/all of the above topics that are in line with what your apparent political/ideological beliefs seem to be? If the answer is yes to any of the three listed above...

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: exdeath

There are certain fundamental principles that I will not comprimise on. Now heres the catch. You (not you personally, but in the generic sense) are free to feel the exact opposite. Just don't force it as a matter of national policy. Unlike people who want to ban guns and take them away from me, I do not feel compelled to force those people to own a gun if they choose otherwise. See the difference?

What is your stance on abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research?

Are you for bans on any/all of the above topics that are in line with what your apparent political/ideological beliefs seem to be? If the answer is yes to any of the three listed above...

Pot, meet kettle.

My stance is that it's none of the governments business. I wouldn't support any laws restricting or promoting any of the above activities. That is my ideological perspective.

Backing that up with my actual beliefs would go something like this:

Abortion:

There would be less gang bangers, prostitutes, and drug addicts on the street if crack whores could have abortions... those kids aren't going to have a life anyway. Spare me the "what ifs" unless you want to listen to me rant about quantum mechanics, uncertainty, and infinite possible universes, to show you how stupid "what if" games are.

I and my significant other would like to have that option available should we end up with a "child" with 3 legs and no arms, half a brain, etc. We both realize biophysics is an inexact science and sometimes even mother nature makes mistakes. There is a difference between a person and a respirating and metabolizing piece of meat, and we will in no way participate in putting our family or that failed attempt at life through a needlessly poor life in order to satisfy our own morality. Making someone live like that so you can absolve yourself of moral guilt is and feel righteous is selfish. Don't agree? Don't have an abortion (and don't think you are entitled to free income off the backs of everyone else for choosing to sustain a chunk of breathing drooling meat). No laws needed.

Gay marriage:

I'm all for equal rights and have no problem with this, but something about marriage at it's fundamental definition and tradition, indicates male+female for the biological purposes of spawning offspring and raising a family, something gay couples will never be able to naturally do. The solution isn't to change the definition of a traditional medium to cater to the minority, a principle I am strongly opposed too in all facets (same concept as having to press two for English in an English majority nation/world). We didn't change the status quo and make everyone slaves just to make slavery go away. Nor did we change he definition of "free" to accommodate slaves.

The issue here isn't "getting married" like so many believe it is; the issue is equal rights and representation. For example, gay couples can't file jointly on income taxes and would have to be "married" in order to do so. The solution I feel instead is to address the industries and laws that discriminate against non-married couples. Why does a couple living together and earning and spending the money of a household together have to be "married" in order to be allowed to file jointly on taxes or benefit from one another's medical coverage? The pursuit of "getting married" is merely a legal loophole that the gay movement pursued in order to bypass those industries and their regulations that discriminate in favor of married couples.


Stem cells:

See views on abortion. My view is that life is the active "data" and "processes" in the brain, the cells and stuff are just the physical substrate that carries it. When an embryo becomes life is one of the few political grey areas that actually exists because there is no instant on/off switch when those cells become capable of sustaining a higher level sentient life entitled to Constitutional extension of equal rights, however it is certainly not in the cellular stages where stem cells would be taken. We don't try a murderer with 10 million counts of murder for killing a woman with functioning ovaries do we? No. Life and law are not based on "what ifs". Religious folks need to get with the 21st century. If you don't agree with me, then don't donate embryos for research, simple as that. No laws needed.


As conservative as I am, I'm actually quite centrist save for any "equal wealth" or "power only in the hands of the police" views of the left that I vehemently oppose. Basically take the best of conservatives and take away the bigotry, discrimination, racism, and religion and I'm whats left.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: exdeath
Just an additional two cents, I never attack beneficial liberal policies you bring up such as civil rights and discrimination, neutrality in government, limiting government spending, promoting consumer awareness of misleading advertising or poor quality products produce by shady companies, etc. So you do not need to go out of your way to bring up the positive aspects. Instead I'd rather you try to defend the flawed philosophies of the negative traits I am vocal about.

I naturally only focus on the negative things like socialism, violation of the bill of rights ('shall not be infringed' is clear as day), excessive taxation of the working class to support the lower class (and thus making the middle class poor while not hurting the upper class at all and keeping people trying to transcend classes from doing so as they face more and more taxes that cancel out their pay raises), etc.

When you work an extra few hours to save extra money for a car or a down on your first house or to pay some medical bills off and thought you were finally getting ahead, and your check ends up being the same or less because you jumped a tax bracket, you'll understand what "tax the rich" actually means... I bet you thought it meant only punishing people who live in mansions and drive around in limos huh?

And when you are driving around in your beater with 200k miles for another month because your plans to put in overtime to get your new car a month earlier backfired because your $FICA number went up also, and you see some poor Mexican immigrant pulling out of the DES parking lot in a brand new fully loaded Escalade fresh with temp tags (and nearly hitting you in the process as they sling their 8,000 lb truck around you in an assertion of their superiority over your beater), you'll know what 'helping the poor' means.

When you know a family friend who is for all intents and purposes trailer trash, who wins a several hundred thousand dollar accident settlement, brags about their new lifestyle, then in 5 years needs help paying the rent on their trailer lot or face eviction, and want sympathy for their plight, you'll understand why handouts are inherently flawed why no amount of taxing or increasing of social services will ever EVER help the poor.

When you reluctantly apply for unemployment after all other avenues have been exhausted, when the company you work for disappears overnight, to help with the bills for the month it will take before you start your new job, and you are denied while minorities in the same exact position are handed checks, you'll understand what helping the unfortunate really means.

When you are in the lower class you envy the upper class but when you enter the middle class for the first time, you'll have your eye on the lower class, your hands full just trying to bust your ass enough to justify your efforts and differentiate yourself from the lower class who always seem to be better off than you are for some reason... makes me want to give up and jump on the government dollar sometimes. Who wants to work for a living when the neighbors single daughter with 3 kids who works at McDonalds part time has a better car than you and free school on top of it?

And for all the talk about "people with families to support" I bet you've never overheard someone talking about having more kids or inducing labor by the end of December so someone can get another tax credit... while the rest of the kids are filthy and in rags (if that tax cut is to provide for the kids where is that money going?)

Are these the poor and needy you are talking about when you are sticking your hand in my wallet and stealing from me, slowing my pursuit of happiness, and asking me to give someone else a chance?

WOW! What an example of the Conservative Right's mass paranoid delusion!

You reply with one line with emotional rhetoric to attempt to discredit me because you can't refute any of the real world examples that I have given that affect normal non-elite people just trying to make a living and move up in the world.

 

[jonks]

Since robbing a house in Texas is clearly a sure way to get yourself killed, do you think Joe could get indicted for assissted suicide? I'm just sayin.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: exdeath
Just an additional two cents, I never attack beneficial liberal policies you bring up such as civil rights and discrimination, neutrality in government, limiting government spending, promoting consumer awareness of misleading advertising or poor quality products produce by shady companies, etc. So you do not need to go out of your way to bring up the positive aspects. Instead I'd rather you try to defend the flawed philosophies of the negative traits I am vocal about.

I naturally only focus on the negative things like socialism, violation of the bill of rights ('shall not be infringed' is clear as day), excessive taxation of the working class to support the lower class (and thus making the middle class poor while not hurting the upper class at all and keeping people trying to transcend classes from doing so as they face more and more taxes that cancel out their pay raises), etc.

When you work an extra few hours to save extra money for a car or a down on your first house or to pay some medical bills off and thought you were finally getting ahead, and your check ends up being the same or less because you jumped a tax bracket, you'll understand what "tax the rich" actually means... I bet you thought it meant only punishing people who live in mansions and drive around in limos huh?

And when you are driving around in your beater with 200k miles for another month because your plans to put in overtime to get your new car a month earlier backfired because your $FICA number went up also, and you see some poor Mexican immigrant pulling out of the DES parking lot in a brand new fully loaded Escalade fresh with temp tags (and nearly hitting you in the process as they sling their 8,000 lb truck around you in an assertion of their superiority over your beater), you'll know what 'helping the poor' means.

When you know a family friend who is for all intents and purposes trailer trash, who wins a several hundred thousand dollar accident settlement, brags about their new lifestyle, then in 5 years needs help paying the rent on their trailer lot or face eviction, and want sympathy for their plight, you'll understand why handouts are inherently flawed why no amount of taxing or increasing of social services will ever EVER help the poor.

When you reluctantly apply for unemployment after all other avenues have been exhausted, when the company you work for disappears overnight, to help with the bills for the month it will take before you start your new job, and you are denied while minorities in the same exact position are handed checks, you'll understand what helping the unfortunate really means.

When you are in the lower class you envy the upper class but when you enter the middle class for the first time, you'll have your eye on the lower class, your hands full just trying to bust your ass enough to justify your efforts and differentiate yourself from the lower class who always seem to be better off than you are for some reason... makes me want to give up and jump on the government dollar sometimes. Who wants to work for a living when the neighbors single daughter with 3 kids who works at McDonalds part time has a better car than you and free school on top of it?

And for all the talk about "people with families to support" I bet you've never overheard someone talking about having more kids or inducing labor by the end of December so someone can get another tax credit... while the rest of the kids are filthy and in rags (if that tax cut is to provide for the kids where is that money going?)

Are these the poor and needy you are talking about when you are sticking your hand in my wallet and stealing from me, slowing my pursuit of happiness, and asking me to give someone else a chance?

WOW! What an example of the Conservative Right's mass paranoid delusion!

WOW the intellectual masturbation in your reply is amazing!

 

[Nebor]

http://www.khou.com/news/local...burglars.69d89aae.html

Looks like these guys were serious criminals. With fake identities, involved in illegal weapons and a home break in ring.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I think exdeath is the only sane person in this thread. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: exdeath

As conservative as I am, I'm actually quite centrist save for any "equal wealth" or "power only in the hands of the police" views of the left that I vehemently oppose. Basically take the best of conservatives and take away the bigotry, discrimination, racism, and religion and I'm whats left.

Good to see that you are sensible in your beliefs. I would say that I am the opposite but equal counterpart to you. As liberal as I am, I'm actually quite centrist save for any "trust the government to protect you" or "capitalism is the solution to all the world's ills". Basically, take the best of the liberals and take away the political correctness, the belief that we can and should solve all the world's problems, the appearance of wanting a quasi-socialist government and the desire to guilt people into being good and I'm what's left.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I think exdeath is the only sane person in this thread. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: exdeath
I personally would rather see more criminals killing people to steal their stuff. Then more citizens would arm themselves and start taking responsibility for themselves and their lives and property and start exercising their Constitutional rights rather than sitting on their hands and losing those rights one at a time by putting their trust in Big Nanny.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I think exdeath is the only sane person in this thread. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: exdeath
I personally would rather see more criminals killing people to steal their stuff. Then more citizens would arm themselves and start taking responsibility for themselves and their lives and property and start exercising their Constitutional rights rather than sitting on their hands and losing those rights one at a time by putting their trust in Big Nanny.

Not my preferred way to deal with it, I'd rather people just stopped stealing period... but if that's what it takes to get victims to put their foot down and say "no more" so be it. Americans are a bunch of lazy bastards that like to make public policy from the bench until tragedy strikes them personally; I.e.: want to ban guns so they can feel cozy inside until they face an armed intruder in their home who *gasp* has a gun anyway and *gasp* the police aren't there yet!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I think exdeath is the only sane person in this thread. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: exdeath
I personally would rather see more criminals killing people to steal their stuff. Then more citizens would arm themselves and start taking responsibility for themselves and their lives and property and start exercising their Constitutional rights rather than sitting on their hands and losing those rights one at a time by putting their trust in Big Nanny.

Not my preferred way to deal with it, I'd rather people just stopped stealing period... but if that's what it takes to get victims to put their foot down and say "no more" so be it. Americans are a bunch of lazy bastards that like to make public policy from the bench until tragedy strikes them personally; I.e.: want to ban guns so they can feel cozy inside until they face an armed intruder in their home who *gasp* has a gun anyway and *gasp* the police aren't there yet!

Originally posted by: exdeath
I've commented to the contrary (ie: said I wish more criminals would kill to steal so people would start growing a pair and defend themselves) but I don't mean it literally.

So you're serious, then you're just being figurative, then you mean it again. Do you want innocent people killed to further your agenda or not?

I'm just playing btw.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.khou.com/news/local...burglars.69d89aae.html

Looks like these guys were serious criminals. With fake identities, involved in illegal weapons and a home break in ring.

That article absolutely does not say that.

Nowhere does it accuse them of those crimes. It pretty much says that the DPS was "keeping and eye on them" because they were suspected of trying to obtain DLs with Puerto Rican birth certificates. They were both Columbian.

The rest that you attribute to them was a back story on previous crimes. It does not say that they were invoved in it.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.khou.com/news/local...burglars.69d89aae.html

Looks like these guys were serious criminals. With fake identities, involved in illegal weapons and a home break in ring.

That article absolutely does not say that.

Nowhere does it accuse them of those crimes. It pretty much says that the DPS was "keeping and eye on them" because they were suspected of trying to obtain DLs with Puerto Rican birth certificates. They were both Columbian.

The rest that you attribute to them was a back story on previous crimes. It does not say that they were invoved in it.

Regardless, it was the official position of the Department of Public safety that these men needed to be shot.

 

[kmmatney]

If the burglars were armed, then I don't see him getting any jail time.

Edit: Looks like they were unarmed - but I still don't see any serious jail time. Burglary is a risky business.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: exdeath
Just an additional two cents, I never attack beneficial liberal policies you bring up such as civil rights and discrimination, neutrality in government, limiting government spending, promoting consumer awareness of misleading advertising or poor quality products produce by shady companies, etc. So you do not need to go out of your way to bring up the positive aspects. Instead I'd rather you try to defend the flawed philosophies of the negative traits I am vocal about.

I naturally only focus on the negative things like socialism, violation of the bill of rights ('shall not be infringed' is clear as day), excessive taxation of the working class to support the lower class (and thus making the middle class poor while not hurting the upper class at all and keeping people trying to transcend classes from doing so as they face more and more taxes that cancel out their pay raises), etc.

When you work an extra few hours to save extra money for a car or a down on your first house or to pay some medical bills off and thought you were finally getting ahead, and your check ends up being the same or less because you jumped a tax bracket, you'll understand what "tax the rich" actually means... I bet you thought it meant only punishing people who live in mansions and drive around in limos huh?

And when you are driving around in your beater with 200k miles for another month because your plans to put in overtime to get your new car a month earlier backfired because your $FICA number went up also, and you see some poor Mexican immigrant pulling out of the DES parking lot in a brand new fully loaded Escalade fresh with temp tags (and nearly hitting you in the process as they sling their 8,000 lb truck around you in an assertion of their superiority over your beater), you'll know what 'helping the poor' means.

When you know a family friend who is for all intents and purposes trailer trash, who wins a several hundred thousand dollar accident settlement, brags about their new lifestyle, then in 5 years needs help paying the rent on their trailer lot or face eviction, and want sympathy for their plight, you'll understand why handouts are inherently flawed why no amount of taxing or increasing of social services will ever EVER help the poor.

When you reluctantly apply for unemployment after all other avenues have been exhausted, when the company you work for disappears overnight, to help with the bills for the month it will take before you start your new job, and you are denied while minorities in the same exact position are handed checks, you'll understand what helping the unfortunate really means.

When you are in the lower class you envy the upper class but when you enter the middle class for the first time, you'll have your eye on the lower class, your hands full just trying to bust your ass enough to justify your efforts and differentiate yourself from the lower class who always seem to be better off than you are for some reason... makes me want to give up and jump on the government dollar sometimes. Who wants to work for a living when the neighbors single daughter with 3 kids who works at McDonalds part time has a better car than you and free school on top of it?

And for all the talk about "people with families to support" I bet you've never overheard someone talking about having more kids or inducing labor by the end of December so someone can get another tax credit... while the rest of the kids are filthy and in rags (if that tax cut is to provide for the kids where is that money going?)

Are these the poor and needy you are talking about when you are sticking your hand in my wallet and stealing from me, slowing my pursuit of happiness, and asking me to give someone else a chance?

WOW! What an example of the Conservative Right's mass paranoid delusion!

WOW the intellectual masturbation in your reply is amazing!

Just a knee-jerk reaction to conservative hyperbole. Though it pegs that post dead.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
There really is no common ground on many conservative vs. liberal issues. Many of the philosophies are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable (ie: communism vs. capitalism).

If I support the death penalty for certain crimes, and you don't support it at all, what are we going to do, agree to only half kill rapists?

There are certain fundamental principles that I will not comprimise on. Now heres the catch. You (not you personally, but in the generic sense) are free to feel the exact opposite. Just don't force it as a matter of national policy. Unlike people who want to ban guns and take them away from me, I do not feel compelled to force those people to own a gun if they choose otherwise. See the difference?

As I said above there are fundamental liberal vs. conservative ideologies that are simply not compatible and there is no middle ground. Searching for such middle ground is futile and nothing more than an attempt by both sides to gain a foothold and begin a slippery slope of incremental progressivism (ie: ban semi auto rifles for now because thats all we can get away with... with eyes on the long term goal of a total ban later). So why don't we just leave these issues alone and stop trying to make public policy out of them and accept that everybody is going to handle it differently and there is no single law that will suit everyone? If liberals support socialized health care, fine, there should be enough liberals who can implement and use a national health care system amongst themselves. But leave me out of it and respect my rights to not participate. And if conservatives want to praise fairies and ban abortions, they need do nothing more than go to church themselves and not have abortions themselves; stop using law to force your lifestyle on everyone else.

I'm really not sure how we get derailed either and don't feel like reading back pages, but I recall I implied that anti-gun and pacifist "power only in the hands of the police" ideologies are predominantly liberal (predominantly, as in yes there are exceptions to the rule) and someone got into a hissy fit about conservatives in retaliation and the ball went rolling from there, as it always does in a politically loaded topic.

Obviously not everyone is going to agree, and I'm adult enough to admit that there are perfectly valid points of view that don't agree with my own. In fact, my point WASN'T to turn this into a "who's better" pissing contest, it was to point out that issues are best dealt with as individual issues without trying to turn everything into a position in some grand, cosmic battle between opposing ideologies.

You are someone I'd call a conservative, and you appear to be pro-choice. I'd say I'm pretty liberal, and I support gun ownership and the right to defend yourself. This may not fit with the broad stereotypes assigned to our respective political philosophies, mostly by people trying to make political hay, but we believe these things nonetheless. And in a civilized world, it seems like we should be able to discuss these issues without cartoonish representations of our supposed political views getting in the way.