Sciencescienceconservativesillogicunreasonilliteracy

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 07:32 PM

So is it a Lack of Logic, or Simple Illiteracy in Today's Conservatives?

Okay, so an obvious conservative created an OP about a number of Democratic legislators who staged a sit-in after Republicans refused to allow a vote on a bill that would prevent people on the Terrorist Watch List from buying certain guns.
The post insinuated that because those certain Democrats that wanted to prevent potential terrorists from buying guns owned guns themselves, they were somehow 'hypocrites'.

Now, we've known for a long time that cons are very bad at making basic distinctions, but I'm curious here.... which is it?
0 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Illiteracy. They don't know what the word 'hypocrisy' actually means, but throw it around anyway because it gets tossed at them... so they just throw it back without regard for its actual meaning.
0 (0%)
They can't make the distinction between lawful gun owners wanting to prevent potential terrorists from owning guns, and gun owners who aren't potential terrorists.
0 (0%)
Childhood malnutrition/eating lead paint chips.
0 (0%)
NO! They're RIGHT! Everyone who owns a gun is a potential terrorist!
0 (0%)
Same as above, but ONLY if they are a Democrat! Even though virtually all mass shootings are perpetrated by conservative terrorists.
0 (0%)
Democrats are terrorists! (No, I don't do research or deal with facts)
0 (0%)
I'm still waiting for Fox and Rush to tell me what to think on this issue.
0 (0%)
Frostlight pisses me off by making distinctions and using logic, facts, and definitions of things, so I'm alerting.
0 (0%)
I'm alerting because Frostlight's words hurt me, but I'll tell myself those words must be wrong and my con buddies will tell me it's okay and metaf, meteph, meataphorically cradle my head in their hairy bossoms.
0 (0%)
No, I'm a gun-owner who can agree that there is not hypocrisy here. I wish other conservatives would stop reaching like this.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

46 replies, 3671 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply So is it a Lack of Logic, or Simple Illiteracy in Today's Conservatives? (Original post)
Frostlight Jun 2016 OP
Frostlight Jun 2016 #1
Sassyspop Jun 2016 #2
Frostlight Jun 2016 #3
Sassyspop Jun 2016 #7
Rae Jun 2016 #5
Rae Jun 2016 #4
Frostlight Jun 2016 #15
AZ0 Jun 2016 #23
foia Jun 2016 #6
Frostlight Jun 2016 #16
foia Jun 2016 #18
Frostlight Jun 2016 #19
foia Jun 2016 #22
Frostlight Jun 2016 #29
foia Jun 2016 #34
AZ0 Jun 2016 #38
AZ0 Jun 2016 #35
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #8
Frostlight Jun 2016 #13
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #17
Frostlight Jun 2016 #20
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #21
Frostlight Jun 2016 #26
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #28
Frostlight Jun 2016 #30
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #31
Frostlight Jun 2016 #32
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #33
Transcendence Jun 2016 #39
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #44
Transcendence Jun 2016 #46
AZ0 Jun 2016 #24
Muddling Through Jun 2016 #25
Frostlight Jun 2016 #27
AZ0 Jun 2016 #37
Transcendence Jun 2016 #40
Frostlight Jun 2016 #41
Transcendence Jun 2016 #42
Frostlight Jun 2016 #43
Transcendence Jun 2016 #45
quad489 Jun 2016 #36
Da Mannn Jun 2016 #9
Argentina Jun 2016 #10
Frostlight Jun 2016 #14
RATFINK_5.0 Jun 2016 #11
island4diver Jun 2016 #12

Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 07:37 PM

1. Sorry Juan, I added another choice just for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 07:43 PM

2. It wasn't a terrorist watch list....the bill was No fly no buy

 

That same "list" Ted Kennedy took months to get off of.

What I'm lovin' the hell out of is YOU endorsing rights restrictions based on Bush era lists...talk about hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:04 PM

3. Bush isn't in office. The lists aren't targeting political enemies anymore.

Now that the grown-ups are in charge, we're actually trying to prevent potential terrorists from getting guns and on planes.... instead of people we simply don't like.

Why don't you people please grow the fuck up? Why? (Actually, I know the answer.... and it's sad.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:18 PM

7. "Potential terrorists"....who exactly makes that determinination?

 

"The lists aren't targeting political enemies anymore." ..BULLSHIT and you know it.
Who exactly is it targeting? When a Republican is POTUS ...you will be cool being denied rights?

"we're actually trying to prevent potential terrorists from getting guns and on planes."
When EXACTLY was a gun used on a plane by a terrorist...say since the '70s?

What is a "potential" terrorist? I know what you mean...ANY gun owner..just say it.

You admit you are are a pre-crime authoritarian...deny rights before adjudication... guilty until proven innocent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:07 PM

5. John Lewis was on it too

The irony is too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:06 PM

4. Lol. Bad weeks for the libs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rae (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:00 PM

15. Okay, another one for "Okay with potential terrorists buying guns".

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 07:48 PM

23. Potential terrorists?

Isn't everyone a potential terrorist just like all women are potential prostitutes? Just like you could be a potential pedophile. Once one acts towards being a criminal, instead of just putting one on a list how about starting a criminal investigation leading to a criminal indictment and providing 5th amendment protections of due process before infringing on 2nd amendment rights. It's the constitution, if you don't like it try to repeal the 5th and 2nd amendments. Good luck with that.

Better yet, let's repeal the 3rd amendment so that we can quarter troops in homes of people on the no fly list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:09 PM

6. Why do liberals like to take away constitutional rights without due process?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:02 PM

16. No one is for that.

But maybe we should check into whether someone is a terrorist sympathizer or not before letting them buy guns?

Why are you okay with suspected terrorists buying guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:19 PM

18. Everyone on the no-fly list is a suspected terrorist?

That is simply not true.

I am against taking away peoples' rights without due process.

The San Bernardino shooters weren't on any lists.

Mateen was taken off of the terrorist watch list after the FBI concluded their two investigations of him.

Oh, and there's plenty of "terrorist sympathizers" who will never go on a killing spree. (DU has lots of them.)

Dylan Roof?

Or the whacked loser in Southern California who stabbed his roommates and then continued his killing spree.

Boston bombers?

How did strict gun laws keep Paris from happening? They didn't.

Name some mass shooters who were on the no-fly list or terrorist watch list.

I do support enforcing immigration laws, both for people who enter illegally as well as those who overstay visas. And I don't think people who can't be vetted should be allowed in the US, "refugee" or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:40 PM

19. That's the point of the list.

This concept is apparently beyond you. Try to grasp it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:41 PM

22. Are you ready to surrender your rights without due process?

I am not nor am I willing to let that happen to others.

I'll bet you'd sing a much different tune if you ended up on the no-fly list and had no due process or other means to get yourself off of it.

You cannot name a single person on either list who has committed an act of terror because they can still buy firearms.

Why do you hate due process? Why do you condone taking away people's rights without it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:34 PM

29. So you're okay with restricting someone's FREEDOM to move around,

but their freedom to buy a gun and kill people is sacrosanct until after they kill people.

Y'all don't have much of a handle on sanity here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 12:56 AM

34. Never said that.

I'm with the ACLU in being opposed to the lack of due process for one's being on the no-fly list as well.

I suppose that the case can be made that flying isn't a right per se but I don't agree and think that restricting one's ability to fly without due process is also anti-constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 05:10 PM

38. There is no constitional right to commercial flights.

The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct per se. Don't like it, petition the government to repeal the 5th and 2nd amendment.

Although I do believe that the no fly list is bullshit for US citizens. I don't have a problem with restricting persons from known terrorist supporting countries from flying into the US and freedom of movement within the same.

Truly sane and educated US citizens understand the Bill of Rights and constitutional protections that limit governments power over God given rights, obviously you do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 01:54 AM

35. I was born free, try to take that away from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:29 PM

8. Conservatives stand by the Constitution. Liberals spit on the Constitution.

Due Process
Innocent until proven guilty

The Bill itself was unconstitutional. It would never stand any test.
The problem with watch lists is anyone can be out on them and there is no way to challenge them. People are on the no fly list just because they criticized the TSA.

Can we really trust a govt that discriminated against Conservative groups with the IRS?
Obama identified Christians and vets as potential terrorists early in his administration.

Blocking a deeply flawed bill was the right thing to do.

The democrat sit in merely amused me. Had a good laugh at the feeble uselessness of it all. Whats next? Will elected Democrats block traffic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 09:57 PM

13. So you're okay with people on the terrorist watch list getting guns.

Check and bookmarked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:17 PM

17. So you're OK with denying muslim citizens basic rights

innocent until proven guilty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:43 PM

20. Nope. I'm for denying suspected terrorists, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise

from obtaining guns.

Everyone else who is not a terrorist suspect, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, should have access to implements of self-defense.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:52 PM

21. Innocent until proven guilty, and Due Process

suspicion is not guilt. Denial of basic rights should only come with due process

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:28 PM

26. So you're okay with terror suspects getting guns.

Okay.

Why is it you were okay with GITMO prisoners not ever getting a trial then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:34 PM

28. You cannot punish free men without a trial.

"Innocent until proven guilty" seems to be such a burden for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:38 PM

30. Nice selective perception. Again...

WHY are you okay with people being held at GITMO without ever being charged?

Especially after you have the unmitigated gall to say this: ""Innocent until proven guilty" seems to be such a burden for you".

So why are you such a flaming hypocrite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:48 PM

31. Citizens have RIGHTS. Prisoners of War have none.

the educated understand the difference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:51 PM

32. The 'educated' are familiar with the Geneva Convention.

You are not educated in the very, very least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:55 PM

33. Obama Doctrine: "We can hold people indefinately without a trial."

Your man did that. Own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 06:41 PM

39. Why do you keep on limiting it to "Citizens"?

You've made the distinction several times now, and I'm wondering why. You do realize that the Bill of Rights applies to all people in the country, not just citizens right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 08:25 PM

44. Only citizens can vote. Only citizens have a say in how this coutry is run.

That's why

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 11:28 PM

46. Just to be clear

Are you saying that non-citizens have no 2nd amendment rights? Because if you are, the simple fact is that you are wrong. The courts have ruled numerous times that legal immigrants who reside in this country but have not become citizens DO have 2nd amendment rights.

On the other hand, if you agree that non-citizens have 2nd amendment rights, then I have to ask why you keep on limiting the scope to citizens. It wouldn't have anything to do with GITMO, would it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 08:15 PM

24. I remember when liberals were against

the government running rough shod over citizens civil rights. Apparently not so much anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:22 PM

25. That's because they feel they will be in power

when the dust settles and the laws no longer apply.

Hence the disdain for the 14th Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:29 PM

27. So you're okay with radical extremists getting guns.

Fine.

I get your argument just fine, but I'm curious why you're okay with people being held without due process at GITMO and other sites.

Care to explain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 03:57 PM

37. It all depends on your definition of "radical extremist"

If they are US citizens with political views contrary to the current administration, then yes they should not have their 2nd amendment rights deprived without due process provided by the 5th amendment. If the authorities know that a person is planning a terroristic mass shooting, they should be arrested, criminal charges pressed and a judge put them on the NICS no buy list while criminal charges are pending.

So now do you get my argument just fine? You know constitutional protections for US citizens and legal residents like the 5th and 2nd amendment. If you don't like that, try to repeal the 5th and 2nd amendments. I'd prefer to see the 3rd amendment repealed so that we can quarter troops in the homes of "radical extremists."

GITMO detainees are unlawful enemy combatants and have no constitutional rights and should have been summarily executed years ago. You are trying to compare apples with avocados.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 06:47 PM

40. You are distorting the debate

The debate is NOT about whether or not radical extremists should be allowed to have guns. The debate is about what process needs to happen in order to classify a person as a 'radical extremist'. Is a person classified as a radical extremist simply because some FBI or CIA computer algorithm spit their name out, or do they need to be proven as such by due process of law.

THAT is what this debate is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #40)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 07:07 PM

41. Not really. It's very, very simple...

Why should we trust someone with guns if we can't trust them to get on a plane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 07:14 PM

42. To answer your question: No

We should not trust someone with a gun if we can't trust them to get on a plane.

Now you answer my question:

What process should be required to deny someone the right to get on a plane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 07:45 PM

43. Whatever it is should be more than mere suspicion.

At the very least, anyone under investigation by the feds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #43)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 11:20 PM

45. Your answer is bit vague

"Investigation by the feds"? What department? The FBI? The CIA? The ATF? Does the Judicial branch need to be involved? Does the investigation need to be public, or will you deny people their right to face their accuser?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 10:30 AM

36. That's only when liberals are the minority party in charge...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:30 PM

9. and one more thing. Is it illiteracy that put this Political OP in Science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:53 PM

10. Good question. Maybe the author of the OP thought his/her poll was scientific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Argentina (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 09:59 PM

14. This is going to be difficult for you two lovebirds, but yes, polls are more about science

than about politics. I know that Fox told you otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 09:43 PM

11. Illiteracy. It could be the lead paint chips ...

as in my south central very red state, the majority of those getting WIC & who are also gov dependents, are very poor & live in Section-8 multifamily residential units.

They are fiercely pro republican b/c they probably sit around all day listening to AM radio & learn the scripts through audio listening & repetition. They are work averse & hate libraries & shelves with books on them.

I partly blame the internet for that.

What do you do as a well to do Democratic Voter ? I think a lot of these people are good @ the bottom of their hearts.

How can you deny a single mother with dependant children ?

As a Dem who has empathy toward humanity, you can't deny them.

You learn to keep your mouth shut, don't argue & get on with your own life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 09:44 PM

12. Lewis should know better

because he was on the no fly list. There are very few if any people who are actually terrorists on the list, and most of them are not US citizens, who can't legally buy gun anyway. The issue is taking away the fifth amendment right to due process. Being put on a secret list simply because you have a name similar to someone in the IRA, or accidentally tried to book a flight with and expired CC should not be used to deny you of a Constitutional right.
Is it hypocrisy? Maybe. Here is a question, why did Democrats vote against the two bills that had due process protections? None of them were intended to pass, it was all distraction and fund raising. In Europe and Israel, if there is a terrorist attack close to and election, the right of center candidate wins. Democrats know that, and Obama's incompetence and Hillary's corruption doesn't help.
My question is, what would they do if he didn't use a gun? What if he used a couple of petrol bombs and killed everyone? What if he used an automatic weapon like they do in Europe? Not only would that help Trump, it was also show the ineffectiveness of gun control laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescienceconservativesillogicunreasonilliteracy