Jump to content

Gun or Guitar? Desisions,decisons!


KATMAN

Recommended Posts

  • Members

No one has "implied" anything of the sort, and you know it. More of your attempts to vilify and discredit anyone who differs with you.

 

Well, there's this, from you:

 

The need to defend oneself from the government is not as farfetched as you might think, assuming you do think. Look around the world. It happens all the time. The US government is stable now, but who knows what a few more years of liberal influence will do to it.

 

And what about valentsgrif's argument that we should have high-powered weapons because the folks in Warsaw could've have made good use of them in WWII? Doesn't that imply that we may face a similar threat?

 

No, it doesn't lead to Timothy McVeigh and militias, but you also know that. Down the slippery slope huh? Your deceptive giant leap of logic FAILS.

 

Explain this? Fear of the government has degrees, of course, and TMcV/militias are at an extreme, but it's the paranoid view that government is (or will or may be) coming to get me that underlies the urge to stockpile (sorry, let's say collect) high-powered weapons. Is this incorrect? Many of the statements above (including your own) seem to support this idea. I'm simply calling it paranoid, because I believe it is--the case for seeing the federal govenment as a danger to freedom and American values seems overstated to me. I'm using paranoid in a clinical term, as irrational fear, not as simple name-calling.

 

Your definition of a "reasoned argument" is very distorted. You have been shown wrong on numerous occasions, but you choose to attempt to discredit the person disproving your arguments instead of really presenting any real fact. Don't ask me to itemize this. Your post history is pretty conclusive.

 

Sorry, no credit without evidence. If you can't produce an example or two, I can't take this charge seriously. Presentation of ideas and evidence to back them up is the essence of reasoned argument, and this is what I strive to do.

 

Exhibit A for your "demonizing". You try to label anyone who objects to unlimited welfare as a heartless bastard.

 

No, I'm simply asking a question. If one doesn't believe in helping people in need through some kind of redistribution of wealth, one either has to believe that people in need brought this on themselves (e.g., they're lazy) or be unconcerned about human suffering (e.g., tough {censored}, they lost). If there's a third option, explain it to me. But remember that I'm talking here only to people who oppose in principle any redistribution of wealth.

 

Exhibit B for your "demonizing". You try to label anyone who does not support Obama as believing he is a "socialist."

 

Perhaps true. But do note the conditional IF in my sentence. If you don't believe Obama is a socialist, the sentence doesn't apply to you.:wave:

 

I for one, see through your smoke screen of discrediting, demonizing, and just plain deception. These are not "reasoned arguments" or "discussions" They are lame attempts at justifying your radical views.

 

Sorry, but I don't recognize myself here. :confused: If I'm engaging in demonizing, name-calling, or other stuff, I will apologize and retract. For the record, I'm not that radical. I was wrong, for instance, about Clinton's decision to end welfare as we knew it. In retrospect, I believe he was right.

 

How's that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

"And the problem with capitalism is that you borrow everyone elses money" . . . Garthman




Paying it all back is going to be tricky, huh?

 

 

Yes indeed. But I would not fault capitalism, as we have been socialist for many years (by my definition, not yours). The foolish borrowing of money is to prop up our socialist entitlements. There can be no good end to this.

 

Mental note: "Get more guns and stockpile food..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

:blah:
:blah:
:blah:
How's that?

 

You have yet to directly answer a question.

You have exaggerated or deliberately misinterpreted any statements in opposition to your views in order to discredit them.

You skillfully make tangential comments that deviate from a key point you might be cornered on.

And you do all this subtly, of course. So you can piously deny it later.

 

You have dodged and danced around in so many circles that I'm dizzy. :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Cant find the quote about europe in the 20s anyway..

 

"I missed the 14 -18 war

But not the sorrow afterwards

With my father dead

my mother ran off

my brothers took the pay of hoods

 

The 20s told an awful tale

The hunger march came marching south

But at the garden parties not a word was said

As ladies lifted cake to their mouths."

 

Joe Strummer ..."Something about England"

 

 

 

The Jarrow march

 

Try reading "The road to Wigan pier" by George Orwell

 

But yeah I guess some were dignified and entranced by the roaring 20s.

 

 

Im not trying to curb any gun laws, dont have a view, just think Id be the wrong kind of person to own one.

 

 

Jean Charles De Menendez was the Brazilean electrician shot, a week after a bus was blown up in London.

 

The popular gutter press reported that he was running from armed police in the underground, these details have been contested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...