Box, start a website and raise some money for the Brady Campaign to fight the evil NRA. With 90% of America's supporting stricter gun control, you should be able to rake in TENS OF MILLIONS. One dollar donations for 100 million people nets you a cool $100,000,000. That kind of money would CRUSH the NRA's three or four million they get annually.
The writting's on the wall box...Strike while the iron is hot! Public support is on your side.
LOL @ Cicero's naivete!!! "the NRA's three or four million they get annually" ... as if the NRA were actually supported by it's members!!!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
LOL @ Cicero's naivete!!! "the NRA's three or four million they get annually" ... as if the NRA were actually supported by it's members!!!
I know they send me enough garbage, either way why don't you take ciceros advice, you and you (chuckle) 90% outraise the NRA, it should be simple unless you don't think you have the support.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The NRA and the Republican Party Made It Easier For The Boston Bombers to Get Weapons
Quoted Text
Republicans served the NRA dutifully for decades, and their unwillingness to protect Americans now, and in the past, certainly made it easier for the alleged bombers to engage in gunfights with law enforcement and detonate improvised explosive devices at the Boston marathon. With Republican support, the NRA successfully created an environment that made access to firearms easier for the alleged bombers, and tracing the gunpowder used in “pressure cooker” bombs and homemade hand grenades impossible.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The NRA and the Republican Party Made It Easier For The Boston Bombers to Get Weapons
LMAO a story only a liberal could believe
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Libs have no shame. First they stand on the graves of Sandy Hook victims and now the graves of Boston victims.
Again, they blame an inanimate objectinstead of the person behind the action.
Cissy... Read my post. Cissy got it wrong yet again (and again and again and again..... ) My posts are clearly directed at THE PERSON (AND PERSONS) BEHIND THE ACTION! The NRA & their GOP supporters like YOU!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Libs have no shame. First they stand on the graves of Sandy Hook victims and now the graves of Boston victims.
Again, they blame an inanimate object instead of the person behind the action.
Its fun watching box fall apart isn't it, I'm wondering what he will resort to next, get the popcorn.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Its fun watching box fall apart isn't it, I'm wondering what he will resort to next, get the popcorn.
This board, or at least the national political section of this board, is mostly manned by anti govt posters, who act as if their view were some how mainstream. In the overall population of our country, this view would not represent .01% of the nation. The majority of voters agree with Barack Obama, and the minority of voters sided with Mitt Romney in the last election. There is always a "fringe" who exist outside the mainstream, and on this board, the anti govt group are that "fringe".
My guess is that most Republicans and most Democrats would find the "anti group" to be laughable... right up there with believers of Bigfoot, UFO abductions and Fake Moon Landings. The 'anti group' seem to find strength in their numbers... not in their facts. One will open with a conspiracy theory, the next will add to the paranoia, the the third will confirm that they agree, making a consensus of the board. Armed with their 'numbers' on this board, they are confident that they have reached the "TRUTH". Of course their "fringe truth" is just that. A consensus of outlier opinions, that would be labeled "extreme" in the general population.
I welcome an "opposing view". An opposing view can inform, or it can entertain, or it can strengthen your own views. These opposing views are consistently out of the norm, so much so that they seem that any conventional view is almost always rejected just because it is conventional.
On this board, FACTS are a suspect view. Creationism is as valid as evolution. Crime is never committed by criminals, it is committed by the government... any data that suggests that crime is committed by an actual criminal is suspect. The #1 suspect in any event is the government first, and only after the government is ruled out, can another suspect be allowed into the conversation.
By the posts of some on this board, I suspect some to be mentally ill. Rational thought escapes them, and delusions seem to be the norm.
Others on the board seem to be just 'obstinate'... rejecting facts and accepting the least likely scenario.
I would love to see a selected collection of posts submitted to a psychological review... I expect the results would be very enlightening.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box is king of the counter factual. If there were just more liberty eliminating laws passed these things would never happen.
I'd like to hear his explanation of how the 7/7 bombings in London happened in a country with strict gun laws.
Is Cicero so backward thinking that he believes a law passed will totally eliminate crime???
Do red lights reduce traffic accidents at an intersection? Of course they do. Do they eliminate accidents there? No... by Cissy's thinking, even one accident at the light or even one person running a red light means that the light is unnecessary or ineffective.
Come on Cissy... you aren't even trying.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box, I don't recall that all crimes are committed by government. There are crimes the happen weekly in Schenectady that are committed by the mundane. But these crimes are not used to launch a war or are used to push sweeping legislation to restrict liberty, or to conduct random searches and seizures.
There are people that are armed and dangerous daily in cities across America, but they don't empty the streets, flood the city with armored personel carriers, and randomly detain citizens and search people's property.
These are EXTREME and UNCONSTITUTIONAL measures taken.
This board, or at least the national political section of this board, is mostly manned by anti govt posters, who act as if their view were some how mainstream. In the overall population of our country, this view would not represent .01% of the nation. The majority of voters agree with Barack Obama, and the minority of voters sided with Mitt Romney in the last election. There is always a "fringe" who exist outside the mainstream, and on this board, the anti govt group are that "fringe".
My guess is that most Republicans and most Democrats would find the "anti group" to be laughable... right up there with believers of Bigfoot, UFO abductions and Fake Moon Landings. The 'anti group' seem to find strength in their numbers... not in their facts. One will open with a conspiracy theory, the next will add to the paranoia, the the third will confirm that they agree, making a consensus of the board. Armed with their 'numbers' on this board, they are confident that they have reached the "TRUTH". Of course their "fringe truth" is just that. A consensus of outlier opinions, that would be labeled "extreme" in the general population.
I welcome an "opposing view". An opposing view can inform, or it can entertain, or it can strengthen your own views. These opposing views are consistently out of the norm, so much so that they seem that any conventional view is almost always rejected just because it is conventional.
On this board, FACTS are a suspect view. Creationism is as valid as evolution. Crime is never committed by criminals, it is committed by the government... any data that suggests that crime is committed by an actual criminal is suspect. The #1 suspect in any event is the government first, and only after the government is ruled out, can another suspect be allowed into the conversation.
By the posts of some on this board, I suspect some to be mentally ill. Rational thought escapes them, and delusions seem to be the norm.
Others on the board seem to be just 'obstinate'... rejecting facts and accepting the least likely scenario.
I would love to see a selected collection of posts submitted to a psychological review... I expect the results would be very enlightening.
Keep going this is getting good
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Is Cicero so backward thinking that he believes a law passed will totally eliminate crime???
Do red lights reduce traffic accidents at an intersection? Of course they do. Do they eliminate accidents there? No... by Cissy's thinking, even one accident at the light or even one person running a red light means that the light is unnecessary or ineffective.
Come on Cissy... you aren't even trying.
The right to drive through intersections isn't an enumerated right in the Constitution.
Come on Box, give up the weak analogy. When you are making arguments to subvert the Bill of Rights, you have to do better than the traffic light argument.
Logged
