Is the left engaging in salami tactics? And what should we do about it?

[Nakura Chambers]

Same with gun control. I'll argue in favor of unrestricted firearms for everyone until dawn on here, but really I'll be happy if I can just keep what I have now. And I don't want to ever have to use my guns on another person. I just don't want want to have my rifle taken away because it was a gift from my dad. And I don't want certain parts of it outlawed either, because it's an absolutely beautiful weapon and defacing it would be a crime in itself.

I absolutely agree with you 100%. I may wish to further gun rights, but I will be content if they remain the same indefinitely. Even if that means not being able to defend myself on college campuses.

[Grizzly Willy]

Low-information voters want free stuff, so they voted for the candidate who promised them free stuff.

I asked for evidence.

[Nakura Chambers]

how can you call pro life a conservative value? it seeks to expand government control over people's lives.

I'm on the fence with abortion, but I think the argument against it stems from the idea that abortion kills children, thus violating the rights of the child.

[Kalyyn]

The only reason to deny Iranians nuke would be you feel Americans are superior to Iranians.

God dammit, this is why I knew I shouldn't get involved...

No. Iran is a country with interests in direct contrast with those of America. The American government's duty is not to maintain equality among nations, but to do everything in its power to benefit the American people. All else is secondary. To end what will likely be the next argument before it starts; hypocrisy, as a concept, is entirely irrelevant in global politics. No nation on Earth gives a single fuck about fairness towards others. They act only upon what their own best interests are. To survive, America must act in this way as well. Iran having nuclear weapons is not in America's best interests. Therefore, America's best course of action is to prevent such a thing, through whatever means are deemed reasonable. This goes not just for Iran, but for all nations who would act against America and threaten it's position in the world. Superiority has nothing to do with it. America does what's best for America, Iran does what's best for Iran. If these two actions conflict, then the outcome will be decided by the more powerful entity.

[Nakura Chambers]

So you have no problem with Iran having nukes?

They can build them, but America has the right to attack them in self-defense if Iran poses a threat.

[Seezer]

People listening to Rush Limbaugh need to realize that they're just sheep in the herd. That guy made what? 65 million in 2010? Of course he wants to say radical things. People love some good drama and some radical shit they can copy pasta into their arguments. He gets paid! Most likely his personal views are far from as radical as his on air personality. He's a character. And he gets paid well for it. He would be nuts to stop cashing in on that.

[Nakura Chambers]

America is a democary.

The majority wins.

There's nothing you can do to win unless the majority agrees with your views.


I think a lot people would vote conservatively if the Republican party wasn't such a joke lately, taken over my far-left nuts.

Wrong. America is a constitutional republic.

[Catta]

God dammit, this is why I knew I shouldn't get involved...

No. Iran is a country with interests in direct contrast with those of America. The American government's duty is not to maintain equality among nations, but to do everything in its power to benefit the American people. All else is secondary. To end what will likely be the next argument before it starts; hypocrisy, as a concept, is entirely irrelevant in global politics. No nation on Earth gives a single fuck about fairness towards others. They act only upon what their own best interests are. To survive, America must act in this way as well. Iran having nuclear weapons is not in America's best interests. Therefore, America's best course of action is to prevent such a thing, through whatever means are deemed reasonable. This goes not just for Iran, but for all nations who would act against America and threaten it's position in the world. Superiority has nothing to do with it. America does what's best for America, Iran does what's best for Iran. If these two actions conflict, then the outcome will be decided by the more powerful entity.

Not to survive. To dominate. You would survive just fine without.

[Kalyyn]

What makes iranians different from americans?

[quote = Cattaclysmic]
Citizenship.[/QUOTE]

Catta hit the nail on the head.

[Catta]

Wrong. America is a constitutional republic.

And England is a constitutional monarchy. Doesn't mean jack.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Low-information voters want free stuff, so they voted for the candidate who promised them free stuff.

I love this new conservative labeling of people as "low information voters," even though study after study shows viewers of fox news to be less informed than people who watch no news at all.

I'd rather have "low information" than the wrong information.

[Daskapital]

God dammit, this is why I knew I shouldn't get involved...

No. Iran is a country with interests in direct contrast with those of America. The American government's duty is not to maintain equality among nations, but to do everything in its power to benefit the American people. All else is secondary. To end what will likely be the next argument before it starts; hypocrisy, as a concept, is entirely irrelevant in global politics. No nation on Earth gives a single fuck about fairness towards others. They act only upon what their own best interests are. To survive, America must act in this way as well. Iran having nuclear weapons is not in America's best interests. Therefore, America's best course of action is to prevent such a thing, through whatever means are deemed reasonable. This goes not just for Iran, but for all nations who would act against America and threaten it's position in the world. Superiority has nothing to do with it. America does what's best for America, Iran does what's best for Iran. If these two actions conflict, then the outcome will be decided by the more powerful entity.

This is fine. But, if this is the case as I am sure it is for most nations, then you do not get to cloak your politics in the rhetoric of "inalienable human rights" which Swazi's very academic and very first-person-pronoun-heavy essay does.

[Nakura Chambers]

Pretty sure that was debunked?

It was somewhat debunked. The program does exist, but it wasn't started under Obama.

[Kalyyn]

Not to survive. To dominate. You would survive just fine without.

Without acting towards our own best interests? Maybe for awhile, but being indifferent or actively working against our own interests would kill us eventually.

[Giants41]

OP you are brave saying you listened to Rush. The people here won't look past that, you will just get criticized.

[Nakura Chambers]

And England is a constitutional monarchy. Doesn't mean jack.

It means something, because we aren't a "democracy," which is mob rule. We are a country where elected representatives are supposed to respect and follow the constitution.

[Catta]

It means something, because we aren't a "democracy," which is mob rule. We are a country where elected representatives are supposed to respect and follow the constitution.

Democracy is a colloquialism in this sense. Finland is a republic, England a monarchy, etc etc etc. We still call them democracies.

[Wells]

It means something, because we aren't a "democracy," which is mob rule. We are a country where elected representatives are supposed to respect and follow the constitution.

Then why do you keep going on about how you think your causes are more popular?

[vastx]

He's also much more popular and well-known than left-wing commentators like Olbermann, Shultz and Maddow. Plus he's right-wing, so he'll automatically receive (often times undue) hatred from liberals and the media.

My contention is that the MSNBC crew isn't listened to or watched as much because they're so hateful. Maddow isn't really hateful, she can be snide..but Shultz's hatred is foamful and zealous.

[Catta]

You seem to be coming to the conclusion that what guns we have in our revolution don't matter then, since the government's army won't shoot us.

It will be a peaceful revolution... But with mobs with guns. But no one to shoot at.