Here’s my response to this:
Now THAT is something I would pay serious money to see.
I would be taking one for the team - for all of humanity, really. I’m not sure if I have the heroism needed for the mission, but I’ll take it under consideration.
Here’s my bias. I am liberal enough to believe Obama is a conservative. Personally, I don’t believe it’s a bias, I think it’s the truth, but you can take it as evidence of my boas if you like.
But, I have a real problem with your OP
You say:
(bolding mine)
Then you paraphrase Oakminster:
Aside from the hyperbole about Lennon, that is exactly what you did. and since you’re apparently unable to see this, I have to wonder whether Oakminster has a point. Not about his politics – I’m sure I’m much closer to your politics than his. But about your logical procsses and debating style.
Just as there are a bunch of posters who will reflexively defend the rightest of the right, there are those here who will just as reflexively defend the leftest of the left. And as left as I am, I hope I’m not considered one of them. I have my own mental list of both, which I’m not going to share.
Why don’t you try doing what I do? I choose to believe that everyone has crazy and wrong beliefs because they were poorly educated, abused as children. and brainwashed by cults like Catholics, Baptists, Jews, and such. Nothing I say will change their minds, in fact I’m concerned that if I say the wrong thing I will trigger mouth frothing and mass killings.
That’s why, even though I have my own opinions and beliefs, I won’t defend them to any great extent.
And now I’ve lost track of the point of whatever I meant to say. So good day to you sir!
Your gotcha ya is just wrong.
I’m not painting all right-wing or conservative people with a broad brush. I’m very specifically painting the people who are smart enough and decent enough to internally understand that Angle/Palin/etc. are wrong and evil (at least on the specific issues relating to my post), but have made the concious decision that presenting a unified front and supporting their side no matter what is more important than acknowledging that those people are wrong.
This is a specific belief system, and a specific pattern of behavior, and I’m giving reasons for criticizing it. When I say “no one”, I was accurate for that thread - all of the right wing apologists were rushing in to explain why it’s totally okay when right wing politicians invoke imagery of violent revolution and label their opponents traitors, and no one was saying “yep, I’m conservative, but I’m ashamed when someone on my side does that”
My statements were targeted specifically at a certain behavior, and you can clearly see that the behavior I described was happening in that thread. My original statement of “which is absurd, because I’m specifically calling out Angle/Beck/Bachman/etc, and only people who choose to support them.” is accurate.
Well, it’s POSSIBLE that Bricker and Angle just got the Second confused with the First. Barely possible.
As if we’d swallow that whole.
What hogwash.
No one actually voted for Biden. Except maybe Mrs. Biden.
Yes, of course literally, the phrase refers to arms. But that’s not how she meant it. She meant to refer to to purpose behind the Second Amendment, not the literal use of firearms… which is why I made a point of saying “metaphorically.” As in: the right to firearms is a METAPHOR for the right of the people to act against government they abhor.
If someone says that we need to clear out the dead wood in Washington DC this election, I assume no one fears that axe-wielding men and chainsaw bearing women will descend on the capital city – because that’s the way you clear out dead wood.
Nitpick: A-shootin’. They’s gonna go a-shootin’ at somethin’.
So please, Bricker, explain to me the purpose of mentioning brisk ammunition sales in this metaphor?
I think it’s time for one of those “After further consideration” type posts so as to keep a handful of posters believing you are a thoughtful poster rather than a partisan hack. Personally, I hope you keep up the clowning. Most amusing.
Hi Brick. Generally I can see your viewpoint, but this is nuts. It’s so off the wall that it doesn’t lend itself well to intellectual refutation. One of my posting rules is not to get suckered into “Blue Sky” arguments. That means that if I say the sky is blue, then I don’t care that it’s possible for someone else to deny it convincingly --and with rigorous logic-- and argue the position for hours on end.
The Second Amendment is about carrying guns. A Second Amendment solution is one achieved by use of guns. The problem that might (regrettably) require the use of guns is the political policies of Harry Reid and his cohorts.
To say that a Second Amendment solution might be necessary is to say that normal, non-violent political measures might be inadequate.
To assert another meaning for “Second Amendment solution” is a BS argument.
Seeing the exact quote now, I think I’d back away from this being a specific threat to Reid. I think she’s talking about “we” as in Republicans in general, based on her mention of what is going on all over the country. And “they” did win at the ballot box, even though Angle didn’t.
Still, it is a wildly irresponsible thing to say, and clearly a reference to armed resistance.
Yeah!
Well, the point is moot. In the thread specifically devoted to this topic, someone drew my attention to a specific quote of hers that I hadn’t noticed or absorbed before, and prompted this post:
Okay, so she wasn’t talking about firearms. Capiche.
The purpose of the Second Amendment being… what, exactly? Preserving the right of the people to keep and bear firearms, yes? But apparently not literal firearms.
Well, this is interesting. The right to firearms is a metaphor for the right to “act against government they abhor”, and doesn’t actually have anything to do with firearms.
I’ll make you a deal, Bricker: I will (on behalf of leftists, liberals, Democrats, Harry Reid and all other ne’er-do-wells, who have granted me such authority) exonerate Sharron Angle. The charges of threatening armed insurrection if she and/or the Republican Party lost the election will be dropped.
In exchange, you (on behalf of the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment Foundation and conservatives generally) agree that the Second Amendment doesn’t actually have anything to do with firearms, so we can go back to regulating them properly.
Shake?
ETA: Fuck you for getting all reasonable and ruining my master plan!
Okay, good, we have a release valve in that thread over there to discuss the Angle/apologist/etc. issue.
Which means we can resume Oakminster not showing up at his own pit thread to tell us how manly he is and how he could arm wrestle us so hard across the internet that it would tear a hole in time and space.
Interesting point - if Oakminster has such a hard-on for you, why is he ignoring your Pit thread?
Maybe he will show up later.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe he hasn’t seen it. He’s been on a few times since I posted this, and I did post to the other thread where he was yelling at me to come here. I guess I could send him a PM.
But… when he was going on his crazy rant about me in the original thread that brought this up, I said basically “wtf is all this? Pit me if you want” and he decided instead not to pit me, but to go into another thread in which I wasn’t involved at all and snipe me again instead. Which seems cowardly to me.
Too cowardly for a supreme internet tough guy surely.
The 2nd amendment is about owning guns, not shooting people. So, when people exercise the right - they buy guns, they don’t shoot people. She wanted people to fight back by buying guns and then… well, ya know, like stuff and whatever.
I think the problem is that you didn’t light the Oak Signal, i.e. either insult the SEC or rednecks in the south.
If anything, he should be embarrassed by his behavior in that fantasy football thread. I’ve never seen anyone act so childishly in a league discussion in my life.