Sandy Hook Truthers

[AmsterNat]

Oh, I get it. I'm ignorant for disagreeing with you. How high minded. How enlightened.

You tell me right now how right leaning Bernie is.You lay that out for us. List the points out.Be specific.

I'll wait.

Oh, and the insults and baits are indicative of the kind of quality person you are. So just stay classy, and we'll all try to be as cool and enlightened as you in the future.

Seriously, though, go ahead and tell me one more time how much of a right wing nutjob Bernie is. I can't wait.

EDIT:

And yes, Feinstein is a left wing nutjob. She's been after the second amendment to ban all guns since the early nineties, and is quoted numerous times to that effect. So yes, she;s a nutbag. That's not my problem, but if you want to insult me for thinking differently than you on the subject, all that indicates is that your a real class act.

Second, you weren't talking about "mainstream". you have said in more than one thread that the US moved to the far right, but you repeatedly use other countries as some kind of sliding scale. I disagree. Many countries vasilate between left and right leaning governments. Or have you forgotten Margeret Thatcher? The former PM of Australia? If other countries have totalitarian governments as many do, of course anything by comparison would have less authoritarian.

1. No, you're not ignorant because you disagree with me. You're ignorant because you posted patently ignorant bull. I didn't 'insult' you for disagreeing with me. If you thought I was insulting you it was only because you were posting clear and evident stupidity that displayed your ignorance on the subject matter. I will elaborate with specifics.

2. I listed my view of the US political spectrum in my previous post on the last page. I specifically listed the "mainstream" as represented in elected office. That's the first thing you're wrong about.

3. We can go back and forth about Pelosi and Feinstein and we'll still disagree. I maintain that only someone on the far right who has no grasp of political realities can call either of those two 'lefties', or a "left wing nutjob". Feinstein is a typical old school Dem machine politician. Calling her what you did only shows where you're coming from, namely from the extreme right. Bernie Sanders is probably the single most honorable member of Congress, and he is certainly the furthest 'left' of any US politician in elected office. But, he is one man, and to me at least, the existence of this one man does not constitute a 'left wing' in US politics. And as much as you don't like me comparing US politics with Europe, not even he is particularly left wing by modern, non-US standards of what is 'right' or 'left'.

4.

Secondly, once again, comparing us to Europe is once again laughable. The political spectrum doesn't shift based on relative position to other nations, or people. That's why we call ti a spectrum. We move on the spectrum. Of course we are further right then most of Europe. That's why we don;t still live in Eurpoe. We didn;t want to live like those folks anymore. That, and we were shipped here as slaves or convicts.

I can't believe that anyone who's actually been through school can write this kind of stupidity. Comparing the US political spectrum to other, similar, western democracies is far from laughable. It provides a meaningful framework for comparison, and clearly indicates that the US has moved further and further to the right during recent decades. It is relevant to point out that the vast majority of views held by conservatives in western Europe, Canada and Australia would be considered left wing in the US context.

But, the bit that I have bolded really takes the cake. It demonstrates for all to see that you know nothing about history, and understand even less. Early immigrants to the US fled oppression by despots. Despots are right wing. The people who fled wanted to live somewhere that was less right wing, not more so. Slaves came from Africa, not Europe, and are therefore irrelevant to this particular discussion. Convicts were sent by the British almost entirely to Australia and the Caribbean. They were not sent to the US. They are also irrelevant to a discussion about how right wing the US political spectrum is.

5.

Many countries vasilate between left and right leaning governments. Or have you forgotten Margeret Thatcher? The former PM of Australia? If other countries have totalitarian governments as many do, of course anything by comparison would have less authoritarian.

What in the name of all that is holy is this gobbledygook supposed to mean? I have certainly not forgotten Maggie Thatcher as I lived in Britain when she was in power, so I daresay that I know rather more about her and what she stood for than you do. What does she or some unnamed ex PM of Australia have to do with anything? Or do you think that Maggie Thatcher was PM of Australia?

So, other countries do, on occasion, change direction at an election. What's your point? The US changes from very right wing when the Reps are in power to slightly less right wing when the Dems are in power. Some difference.

Your last sentence makes even less sense than the rest, and is also just plain wrong. You can count the number of First World countries that might be called totalitarian on less than the fingers of one hand, so "many" is simply wrong and not true. These countries are all in eastern Europe and are not the kind of countries anyone would ever compare the US to. We do not compare the US to Third World dictatorships. The only meaningful comparison is with countries of a similar nature, i.e. modern, western, 'civilized' and democratic. By those standards, the US is a very right wing country, with millions of unrealistic reactionaries who believe that you can either live in the past, or turn the clock back to a time when the world was a very different place.

6. Your arguments fail on all counts.

[homestarunner93]

How have we not figured this out yet?

When crazy things happen (9/11, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc), things are reported before they can be verified, and so unrelated events are incorrectly attached to the main event, details that are simply not true are reported, etc., etc. Maybe there was a guy arrested in the woods wearing camo pants, and it turned out he wasn't remotely involved in what happened. Were that the case, no one is going to care enough to waste time reporting about a random guy that's not involved when so many people were scrambling around just trying to figure out who the hell the actual shooter was.

I definitely don't disagree with you.

There is no "left" in the US anymore. In the words of Bill Maher "at some point the left moved to center and the right jumped on the short bus to crazy town".

If you want to see real "left" go to Europe. Watch an entire country go on strike when they attempt to change the retirement laws or minimum wages. Here "left" is wanting a ban on assault weapons or asking for people who can't afford to have their disease treated to be allowed medical attention.

Hopefully our political spectrum is never, ever like Europe's. I'm not sure why emulating Europe is a good thing.

[AmsterNat]

Hopefully our political spectrum is never, ever like Europe's. I'm not sure why emulating Europe is a good thing.

Because despite Europe's many shortcomings, citizens in all major countries except the UK have a wide variety of parties to choose from at an election, from conservative to democratic socialist, which means that on the whole people can vote for a party that actually represents how they think, rather than being forced into choosing from only two options. This is not very democratic. Europe also has proportional representation, which is also far more democratic than first past the post winner takes all. Europe also does not know the obscene and cynical practice of gerrymandering, which ensures that Reps keep control of the House with a minority of the popular vote. There's real democracy for you.

Will these reasons do for starters, or shall we just keep a spectrum that starts on the right, and then moves all the way over to Attila the Hun batshit crazy right? Definitely sounds more democratic to me.

[natepro]

So, are we allowed to use the word "ignorant" now? I see it all over the place and just laugh and laugh.

[AmsterNat]

So, are we allowed to use the word "ignorant" now? I see it all over the place and just laugh and laugh.

I'm still pretty new around here and was not aware that 'ignorant' was a banned word on PSD. I shall stop using it if that's the case. What alternatives are acceptable?

[Steel Curtain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzMtYWvvnQ4

Truther dolt's debunked!

[natepro]

I'm still pretty new around here and was not aware that 'ignorant' was a banned word on PSD. I shall stop using it if that's the case. What alternatives are acceptable?

It's only sometimes a banned word, it seems. Stay on their good side and you'll be fine.

[Patsfan56]

1. No, you're not ignorant because you disagree with me. You're ignorant because you posted patently ignorant bull. I didn't 'insult' you for disagreeing with me. If you thought I was insulting you it was only because you were posting clear and evident stupidity that displayed your ignorance on the subject matter. I will elaborate with specifics.

Once again, no rebuttal, only insults, which have been once again reported to the mods.

2. I listed my view of the US political spectrum in my previous post on the last page. I specifically listed the "mainstream" as represented in elected office. That's the first thing you're wrong about.

Well, then, if I am incorrect here, then I was thinking of the other thread where you specifically stated otherwise. Be consistent.

3. We can go back and forth about Pelosi and Feinstein and we'll still disagree. I maintain that only someone on the far right who has no grasp of political realities can call either of those two 'lefties', or a "left wing nutjob". Feinstein is a typical old school Dem machine politician. Calling her what you did only shows where you're coming from, namely from the extreme right. Bernie Sanders is probably the single most honorable member of Congress, and he is certainly the furthest 'left' of any US politician in elected office. But, he is one man, and to me at least, the existence of this one man does not constitute a 'left wing' in US politics. And as much as you don't like me comparing US politics with Europe, not even he is particularly left wing by modern, non-US standards of what is 'right' or 'left'.

Ask Dbronc, Cab, BMD, or anyone else that's been in here for three years and take a poll. I am not what you are painting me to be. And its becasue you can't tolerate an opinion other than your own, and you are in the wrong place for that.

4.I can't believe that anyone who's actually been through school can write this kind of stupidity. Comparing the US political spectrum to other, similar, western democracies is far from laughable. It provides a meaningful framework for comparison, and clearly indicates that the US has moved further and further to the right during recent decades. It is relevant to point out that the vast majority of views held by conservatives in western Europe, Canada and Australia would be considered left wing in the US context.

The show me how its relevant. I don't think it is. You've done nothing to assert or reinforce the validity of your point, other than to once again insult me as is bolded. I would assert US politics and US social issues and how they are appraoched by its constituents is far different than that of other countries.

But, the bit that I have bolded really takes the cake. It demonstrates for all to see that you know nothing about history, and understand even less.

Early immigrants to the US fled oppression by despots. Despots are right wing. The people who fled wanted to live somewhere that was less right wing, not more so. Slaves came from Africa, not Europe, and are therefore irrelevant to this particular discussion. Convicts were sent by the British almost entirely to Australia and the Caribbean. They were not sent to the US. They are also irrelevant to a discussion about how right wing the US political spectrum is.

When did I assert slaves came from Eurpoe???????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????
So now Africa's out of the discussion?

5.

What in the name of all that is holy is this gobbledygook supposed to mean? I have certainly not forgotten Maggie Thatcher as I lived in Britain when she was in power, so I daresay that I know rather more about her and what she stood for than you do. What does she or some unnamed ex PM of Australia have to do with anything? Or do you think that Maggie Thatcher was PM of Australia?

Nice. more classiness.

So, other countries do, on occasion, change direction at an election. What's your point? The US changes from very right wing when the Reps are in power to slightly less right wing when the Dems are in power. Some difference.

I made my point. You chose to ignore it.
Your last sentence makes even less sense than the rest, and is also just plain wrong. You can count the number of First World countries that might be called totalitarian on less than the fingers of one hand, so "many" is simply wrong and not true. These countries are all in eastern Europe and are not the kind of countries anyone would ever compare the US to. We do not compare the US to Third World dictatorships. The only meaningful comparison is with countries of a similar nature, i.e. modern, western, 'civilized' and democratic. By those standards, the US is a very right wing country, with millions of unrealistic reactionaries who believe that you can either live in the past, or turn the clock back to a time when the world was a very different place.

6. Your arguments fail on all counts.

No they don't, you just ignore them, or insult your way into feeling superior rather than trying to respond to them in good faith. You could have actually chosen to engage me in discussion, and ask me why I said what I did, and I might have been happy to respond with respect had you done so. But you chose to repeatedly insult me from the start. And that's fine. Be that guy Its better we all understand that that's who you are up front, right?

The absurdity of this is actually kind of funny. I haven't been called a right wing nutjob ever. Im staunchly for gay rights, I'm pro choice, anti death penalty, against DOMA, for improved national education programs, pro foreign aid (non military), for reduced military spending, and a very active conservationist. So your assessment, even from those amongst our peers in this forum seems to be strangely unique from the opinions of every poster in here for the last four years. So you just keep being who you are, you, and keep on insulting your way throgh life and see where that takes you.

[Patsfan56]

Forgive me Nate, but I am pretty sure what this super awesome guy says goes beyond the usage of the word ignorant. Its one thing to ahve a discussion. Its another entirely to just start swinging at people unprovoked. If the mods don't do something about this, then we'll know the rules have changed, and if that's the case, I have a whole slew of things I'd like to say to this awesome individual for being such a swell, warm, and caring individual.

[natepro]

Forgive me Nate, but I am pretty sure what this super awesome guy says goes beyond the usage of the word ignorant. Its one thing to ahve a discussion. Its another entirely to just start swinging at people unprovoked. If the mods don't do something about this, then we'll know the rules have changed, and if that's the case, I have a whole slew of things I'd like to say to this awesome individual for being such a swell, warm, and caring individual.

There hasn't really be consistent enforcement of the rules before now, so I don't think this will be a sign of much either way.

[AmsterNat]

No they don't, you just ignore them, or insult your way into feeling superior rather than trying to respond to them in good faith. You could have actually chosen to engage me in discussion, and ask me why I said what I did, and I might have been happy to respond with respect had you done so. But you chose to repeatedly insult me from the start. And that's fine. Be that guy Its better we all understand that that's who you are up front, right?

The absurdity of this is actually kind of funny. I haven't been called a right wing nutjob ever. Im staunchly for gay rights, I'm pro choice, anti death penalty, against DOMA, for improved national education programs, pro foreign aid (non military), for reduced military spending, and a very active conservationist. So your assessment, even from those amongst our peers in this forum seems to be strangely unique from the opinions of every poster in here for the last four years. So you just keep being who you are, you, and keep on insulting your way throgh life and see where that takes you.

I responded to, and debunked, the points about which I disagreed point by point. How can you say that I didn't and 'only' insulted you? This is simply not true.

Comparing the US political spectrum to similar countries is entirely relevant to establishing the general context.

What do slaves and convicts have to do with how right wing US politics are?

What does Maggie Thatcher have to do with it?

I applaud your liberal outlook on many important issues as you detail here above. I really do, I'm not being cynical. But, this makes a lot of the previous stuff you posted, and about which we have been arguing, even more inexplicable and baffling. Why are you then disputing the evidence about how right wing US politics in general are?

[homestarunner93]

Because despite Europe's many shortcomings, citizens in all major countries except the UK have a wide variety of parties to choose from at an election, from conservative to democratic socialist, which means that on the whole people can vote for a party that actually represents how they think, rather than being forced into choosing from only two options. This is not very democratic. Europe also has proportional representation, which is also far more democratic than first past the post winner takes all. Europe also does not know the obscene and cynical practice of gerrymandering, which ensures that Reps keep control of the House with a minority of the popular vote. There's real democracy for you.

Will these reasons do for starters, or shall we just keep a spectrum that starts on the right, and then moves all the way over to Attila the Hun batshit crazy right? Definitely sounds more democratic to me.

Giving people more choices will not shift the spectrum leftward. That doesn't even begin to make sense. Proportional representation makes no sense to implement in this country. Gerrymandering does not only benefit Republicans, regardless of what you've conditioned yourself to think. Sorry, but European systems do not suit the US better than our current system. It is widely flawed, but still preferable to what you've just described.

[Patsfan56]

The slaves comment was an aside, an explanation that I understood not every early immigrant into the US did so voluntarily. I think it is important to recognize that.

My point with regard to Thatcher and the former PM of Australia was to illustrate that societies move along the political spectrum. But to me, that spectrum is just a measuring stick that you could put any government in history on. IMO, politics varies, but when we analyze where someone is on that spectrum, you have to look at it in temrs of the spectrum, and not relatively with other countries. My debate with you is in terms of how you reference where we are. I do not deny we are less authoritarian than other countries. I think that is a good thing, becasue I value individual freedoms over government control. I am not socially conservative. I am socially libertarian, and fiscally conservative. However, I accept it is more complicated than this simple kind of ideology, and that becasue we live in a prosperous and free nation, if people need help, we should help them.

My assertion wasn't against where we are on the spectrum. My argument is that I do not believe we should look to where we are relative ot other nations to determine if we are doing the right thing or not.

[AmsterNat]

Giving people more choices will not shift the spectrum leftward. That doesn't even begin to make sense. Proportional representation makes no sense to implement in this country. Gerrymandering does not only benefit Republicans, regardless of what you've conditioned yourself to think. Sorry, but European systems do not suit the US better than our current system. It is widely flawed, but still preferable to what you've just described.

I am not touting a multi-party system because I expect it to shift the spectrum more towards the center, though it might. I have not mentioned anything about shifting the spectrum at all, so telling me that something I never said makes no sense - makes no sense. I am touting a multi-party system because it is infinitely more democratic and representative than the US two party one. It really is very simple and just basic common sense.

I agree, PR makes no sense under the current US system. But, PR also achieves a much fairer representation of the wishes of voters, at least there where voters have a choice.

I have never claimed that gerrymandering 'only' benefits Reps. Don't presume what I may have 'conditioned myself' to think. I'll give you some indisputable facts, though - facts that the Reps either feign ignorance about, or simply ignore when making the specious claim that you have made here.

The facts are that gerrymandering benefits Reps FAR MORE than Dems. It is a fact that this vile practice has enabled the Reps to thwart democratic election results and produce an unjustified and undeserved Rep majority in the House on a minority of the popular vote! Here are some more facts for you.

The maps are amazing: Ohio and Pennsylvania, states that went blue for Barack Obama, have congressional delegations that are heavily red. As David Weigel pointed out Wednesday, the maps show how gerrymandering saved the Republican majority in the House. (Even though Obama won Pennsylvania by 5 points, Republicans took 13 of 18 House districts. In Ohio, Obama won by two and the GOP kept 12 of 16 House seats.*) It’s outrageous. It’s also perfectly legal, and Democrats do it too, when given the chance—just ask the Republicans in Illinois. Gerrymandering is an American game both parties play because the courts allow it and the voters don’t punish them for it.

That’s the legal backdrop for the safe districts Republicans have drawn for themselves since the statehouse gains they made in 2010—which, happily for them, was also a giant redistricting year because it followed the latest census. Take a look at this map: It shows that Republicans control the legislature and the governor’s office in 18 states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina. The Democrats have the same hold on only six states. In the others, power is divided or commissions draw the districts. The upshot, in light of population distribution, Persily said, is that Democrats control the line drawing for 44 congressional seats and 885 state legislative seats, while Republicans control the line drawing for 210 congressional seats and 2,498 state legislative seats.* No wonder the House stayed safely in Republican hands even though the presidency and the Senate did not.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...mandering.html

Call it a gaffe: a slip-up that accidentally reveals the truth.

A recent memo by the Republican State Leadership Committee emphasizes the party’s 2010 victories in state legislatures as central to the House GOP retaining its majority in the 2012 elections.

The reason? Redistricting — or more precisely, gerrymandering.

In the memo — titled “How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010 Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013” — RSLC boasts that it “raised more than $30 million in 2009-2010, and invested $18 million after Labor Day 2010 alone” to ensure statehouse victories in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

“The rationale was straightforward,” reads the memo. “Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”

The plan worked: even as they took a beating in the races for Senate and the White House, House Republicans ended up with a 33-seat majority, thanks to friendly district maps drawn by their own state colleagues. As the RSLC memo admits, “Democratic candidates for the U.S. House won 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ty.php?ref=fpb

So yeah, gerrymandering benefits both sides.

And for sure, the thoroughly rotten and corrupt US electoral system must be preferable to one of those suspicious foreign inventions, a multi-party system with PR, where the big money that subverts and perverts all of US politics has been removed from the electoral equation.

[AmsterNat]

The slaves comment was an aside, an explanation that I understood not every early immigrant into the US did so voluntarily. I think it is important to recognize that.

My point with regard to Thatcher and the former PM of Australia was to illustrate that societies move along the political spectrum. But to me, that spectrum is just a measuring stick that you could put any government in history on. IMO, politics varies, but when we analyze where someone is on that spectrum, you have to look at it in temrs of the spectrum, and not relatively with other countries. My debate with you is in terms of how you reference where we are. I do not deny we are less authoritarian than other countries. I think that is a good thing, becasue I value individual freedoms over government control. I am not socially conservative. I am socially libertarian, and fiscally conservative. However, I accept it is more complicated than this simple kind of ideology, and that becasue we live in a prosperous and free nation, if people need help, we should help them.

My assertion wasn't against where we are on the spectrum. My argument is that I do not believe we should look to where we are relative ot other nations to determine if we are doing the right thing or not.

The first problem I have is trying to grasp that the person who wrote this is the same person who wrote the things I responded to last night. Here, we can talk.

You will also have to explain something else to me, because I seriously, honestly can't wrap my head around this enigma. You claim to hold many points of view on issues of the day that are generally considered to be 'liberal' in the US as per one of your previous posts. You now say that you are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. Here is where I have trouble. We don't have 'libertarians', this is an unknown species over here. My understanding of what people in the US usually mean by the term is that it is somewhere well to the right of mainstream Reps on certain important issues, and to the left of them on others.

Given what (little) I know about what Paul and Johnson stood for, I don't understand how you can claim to be a 'libertarian' and at the same time be liberal on all the issues you mentioned. To me, this simply does not compute. In my world, people are pretty much one thing or another because that feels natural and 'normal', as opposed to picking and choosing between issues and holding a liberal view on some, and a very conservative view on others. I just don't get that at all.

I'm sorry, but I totally fail to see how the reason or manner, whether voluntary or not, of early immigrants coming to the US has anything to do with what we're talking about, namely the right-to-far right nature of the US political spectrum in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Conservatives and Labour tend to take turns in power in the UK and Australia, pretty much like Reps and Dems do with the presidency. How far any election result there can be interpreted as an actual shift in their respective political spectrum is an entirely different debate, and not one for here.

If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that you don't think the US parameters of 'right' and 'non-right' should be in any way defined, or compared to any other western country. To me, this is a kind of sneaky way of not being willing to admit just how right wing the US is, and has been for a long time. I guess my fundamental point is that all this heavy bias to the right, which has shifted more and more towards the loony right with the rise of the Tea baggers, for example, has not really benefited the US. Debt. Virtual economic collapse. Wars. Increasing social polarization.

Look at the state of the country and society in general. How many people on all sides of the very short US spectrum are unhappy, dissatisfied, and pissed off about something? Practically everyone except the super rich and the corporations, who continue to have it better than ever before.

I abhor the fact that the US is such an awfully right wing country and that electors get a choice between two sides of the same coin. I abhor the fact that it is so undemocratic and unrepresentative of its people in so many ways. I abhor the sinister and evil influence and power of the big corporations, PACS and the NRA. I would dearly love my country to be a 'better' place, and it pains me deeply that it isn't.....and so, to get back to where all of this started out.....I am convinced that one significant contribution to making the country a better place for all would be to start doing something with the long term goal of reducing gun deaths, gun violence, and gun ownership (by restricting who has access to guns, and maybe by also setting a maximum on what any one person can own and keep around the house).

I make no bones about the fact that in an ideal world, I would have no guns in private ownership. But, I am realistic and smart enough to accept that that will never happen in the US.