Charleston shooting

[s_stabeler]

and if it was made a criminal issue? there is no right of appeal to Federal courts over State law, except in certain narrow circumstances that i'm not sure would apply.

[Hyena Dandy]

and if it was made a criminal issue? there is no right of appeal to Federal courts over State law, except in certain narrow circumstances that i'm not sure would apply.

That narrow circumstance does include 'When you travel across state lines.'

[Gravekeeper]

Look, I can't fault you as a pro-choicer for believing that a woman who wishes to have an abortion to be able to freely get one no questions asked...but why do "abortion services" (which would be the most proper and neutral term) have to hide behind terms like "women's health/reproductive clinics" and the term "reproductive rights/freedom" is bad enough but now I'm hearing it lately called "reproductive justice"??

Jester already covered it. But I'd just like to add: How is what's going on in a women's uterus and the most prominent feature of the female of the species NOT "women's health" or "reproductive"?

Also, the term "Reproductive Justice" has been around since the 80s and is defined as follows:

“Reproductive Justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality, and reproduction for ourselves, our families, and our communities in all areas of our lives.”

So, seriously, how about you stop randomly attacking terms based on what you "think" they mean? 5 seconds on Google would spare you the embarrassment of declaring yourself opposed to the well being of half of the human race. >.>

[Estil]

You mean the ones that were a direct response to yours? Like I said, you can't be antagonistic than act surprised when you succeed.

There is a major difference. Some of the ones you and others gave here were against me personally (for example me personally being repeatedly stereotyped as being against women's rights in general just because I happen to be pro-life (I had a much longer message to rebut those stereotypes but I didn't want to get this even worse off the original topic), or even a more flagrant example, being presumed as just going along with "right wing/Republican/Fox News" talking heads when I have so far only given my views on a few issues and my takes on LGBT and organized religion for example don't exactly match up too good on the right side of the political spectrum). My so-called "antagonism" were against the issues/groups/leaders, not anyone here personally. Look up the rules here and you tell me which are allowed and which are not. Not to mention it's far more effective to go after the "big fish" anyway.

[Estil]

actually, the UK uses first-past-the-post to vote for our MPs.

As for Conservatives and Labour being equivalent to your Democrats and Republicans, not really. First of all, they BOTH tend to be right-of-center these days, and drifting further right. ( which, being left-of-center myself, tends to irritate me.)

But seriously, Estil, if you want to be accepted here, it's probably best to argue a topic on the strength of the arguments- not on the basis of who is arguing it. ( the unfortunate fact is that your opinions sounded like you were quoting Fox News- which isn't really considered much of a news source around here)

Oh, and don't be discouraged if people don't agree with you- this being a debate site, it's quite rare that we do get unanimous agreement on a topic, and some of the arguments can be legendary. ( if you want to start a massive argument that can span 20 pages, then bring up guns. The arguments can be pretty epic.)

Seeing as how there doesn't seem to be a lot of conservatives or pro-lifers here, yeah it does get discouraging when it sometimes seems like I'm outnumbered 4-5 to one. But didn't Alan Combs (in response to those who dismissed him as just a "Fox News liberal") once say it's no fun to just preach to the choir? And I happen to live in a very not just politically conservative but religiously conservative part of the country as well, and if they knew how I felt about about say, LGBT rights, organized religion for example, they'd insist I'm gonna burn in hell for it.

[Gravekeeper]

There is a major difference. Some of the ones you and others gave here were against me personally

Ahem.

Your very first post in this thread stereotypes liberals in an absurd way. Your second post in this thread immediately claims persecution for being stereotyped as a conservative. You came into this thread and threw the gauntlet at an entire political spectrum. Then whined when it replied.

You entered the discussion in an antagonistic manner. You don't get to claim woe is me when you're replied to in kind. If you're going to argue like an asshole, you're going to be treated as one. Trying to now argue that technically you're within the rules with your antagonism is even more hypocritical.

You can't walk into a room full of black people and go "Man, wtf is with black people being on welfare and lovin' friend chicken?" then act like you're the victim when the inevitable backlash occurs. By your own repeated statements you think this website is a bastion of liberalism so you knew full well what making such a statement meant and would cause.

So don't give us this persecution complex bullshit. We're perfectly willing to debate any topic you like regardless of political leaning. But if you can't be respectful enough, in your first post in the thread no less, to not be antagonistic towards your peers here then please go back to CS and leave us be.

And this has nothing to do with political leanings or left vs right. Though if it makes you feel better you can tell yourself you're being outnumbered and run off by ebil liberals.

[Estil]

Your very first post in this thread stereotypes liberals in an absurd way. Your second post in this thread immediately claims persecution for being stereotyped as a conservative. You came into this thread and threw the gauntlet at an entire political spectrum. Then whined when it replied.

I'm presuming you mean this one: "What blows my mind is how quickly liberal politicians/groups take advantage of tragic situations like this one to further their political agenda."

My point in that first post was that in situations such as school shootings or other gun crimes, strict gun control activists/politicians will take advantage of a tragic situation to make political hay. Now, I'm not talking about those who were into tighter gun control laws all along. I'm talking about the ones who jumped on the bandwagon after the fact to try to make themselves look good and look politically popular. Now personally I think that was a very valid and fair point.



* This has, unsurprisingly, sent conservatives into a tizzy as they worry Obama and his socialist thugs (tm) will start coming for their guns any day now. They're also openly wondering why no one at the church was armed and able to stop the shooter.

* What blew my mind is the right wing talking heads claiming this is a hate crime against Christians, not black people.

* Just what is it about Texas governors? (plus in another post where someone said "Why doesn't Texas secede already?" and in response other(s) said Austin (the most liberal part of Texas) is okay/the exception)

Just in this thread alone were examples (all of which are before I even stepped up to the plate on this topic) of precisely what you're complaining of me doing, yet no one here seems to have a problem with these, and for the first statement in particular, that is FAR more "antagonistic" than anything I've ever said here.


You entered the discussion in an antagonistic manner. You don't get to claim woe is me when you're replied to in kind. If you're going to argue like an asshole, you're going to be treated as one. Trying to now argue that technically you're within the rules with your antagonism is even more hypocritical.

So now you've claimed I'm a whiner, asshole, antagonistic. How exactly did I "enter the discussion" in an antagonist manner when as I pointed out above the same thing was already occurring against conservatives/right wing/etc. Yet you don't seem to mind that kind of antagonism. Go figure.


You can't walk into a room full of black people and go "Man, wtf is with black people being on welfare and lovin' friend chicken?" then act like you're the victim when the inevitable backlash occurs. By your own repeated statements you think this website is a bastion of liberalism so you knew full well what making such a statement meant and would cause.


If you had kept it to only the second statement you could've had at least a fairly valid point. But then you post a blatant strawman argument in the statement before it. At no point was I "acting like a victim" whatsoever. My so called "antagonism" was no different and certainly no worse than that toward conservatives that goes on in this thread and this topic (including the examples I gave earlier that were before I even replied to this one). So what gives you the right to blast me personally for antagonism regarding liberalism while clearly there is no problem with antagonism regarding conservatism or pro-lifers or other groups that are not favored here?

And I think you're also missing my point regarding your second statement. Now if this were most any other circumstance, any other forum/group that deals with politics or other controversial sorts of things, you would be absolutely right on that one. But this particular forum is affiliated with/sponsored/what-have-you by CS...and at CS itself it seems like a pretty diverse group. I mean, people of all kinds that work in customer service fields have dealt with SC's, so when people like myself hear all about this "take it to Fratching stuff" they probably figure this place too will be pretty well balanced. When I first tried Fratching out in 2010 or so regarding the Tim Tebow pro-life commercial, I don't think there were any fellow pro-lifers anywhere. And upon me trying here again, I again don't see hardly any other pro-lifers, or conservatives, or libertarians. That was my only concern all along was CS members who hear about Fratching and think they'll get a fair shake as fair as whatever side of the political spectrum they happen to be.


So don't give us this persecution complex bullshit. We're perfectly willing to debate any topic you like regardless of political leaning. But if you can't be respectful enough, in your first post in the thread no less, to not be antagonistic towards your peers here then please go back to CS and leave us be.

And this has nothing to do with political leanings or left vs right. Though if it makes you feel better you can tell yourself you're being outnumbered and run off by ebil liberals.

At no point did I have any problems with any of "my peers here" on a personal individual level. I never once personally attacked anyone here (yet you most of all couldn't jump to your "right wing talking heads" conclusion fast enough about me; how can you be so certain what kinds of TV or news I watch, or where I stand on issues that I've yet to even bring up? Now if I had specifically said I only protake in Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/etc then you reply that I'm too agreeable/trusting of "right wing talking heads" then that would've been a totally valid point.

As for being respectful, how is what I've said any worse than what is typically said around here? Remember how you claimed earlier that you don't mind debating conservative view points but you insist I'm doing it all wrong? And I replied by asking for some examples of it being done right (especially here at Fratching)? No really, I really want to know. Let's see, how about some that I personally most identify with...John Stossel? Bernard Goldberg? These guys aren't really what I'd call screamers (such as Bill O'Reilly or Howard Dean...an example from both sides just to be fair) and they seem to make pretty convincing cases and I don't think (especially Mr. Stossel) they're hardly "antagonistic" at all. As for those on the liberal side, I happen to think Leonard Pitts (whose editorial column we happen to get among a few others in our local paper) is a pretty good columnist, makes some good points and does so in a pretty respectable manner, even if I disagree with him more than I agree.

So how about it Gravekeeper? You are obviously not satisfied with how I make my points...I really honest to goodness want you to show me those who you think do it right. Especially here at Fratching. You already made clear what you don't like, now is your chance to give some examples of it being done right. That is, is there a pro-life activist/group that you think does it right in your view? Is there a conservative or libertarian columnist/group who does it right in your view? Or how about this, there is currently a WIDE open field of contenders for the Republican nomination next year...any you personally could "live with" more than others?

[Gravekeeper]

My point in that first post was that in situations such as school shootings or other gun crimes, strict gun control activists/politicians will take advantage of a tragic situation to make political hay.

You leveled that point specifically at liberal groups and liberal politicials. Its apolitical behaviour and frankly seems to occur more with the GOP. They line up like a parade on TV every time there's a mass shooting. Hell, Jindal is already out of the running because of the most recent one.

What blew my mind is the right wing talking heads claiming this is a hate crime against Christians, not black people.

Yes, talking heads. As in, the vapid idiots you see on Fox News. The left has talking heads too and they're all dipshits as well ( The left ones tend to be pretentious assholes instead of tone deaf idiots ). But they don't tend to make statements that profoundly tone deaf and idiotic. I did not say conservative politicians or conservative groups.

This has, unsurprisingly, sent conservatives into a tizzy as they worry Obama and his socialist thugs (tm) will start coming for their guns any day now. They're also openly wondering why no one at the church was armed and able to stop the shooter.

If you look above this in the same post, you will also note the term "talking heads".

Just what is it about Texas governors?

and the second line just under that from the same person was:

In fairness, it appears that he meant "incident," and simply misspoke. Which is good, because I cannot imagine how anybody could accidentally shoot nine people.

Then Greeday went off about it and I also agreed:

Its not even the politicians so much. The media needs something to fill the 24/7 "news" cycle of bullshit.

(plus in another post where someone said "Why doesn't Texas secede already?" and in response other(s) said Austin (the most liberal part of Texas) is okay/the exception)

I can't find either of those in this thread? Plus, Texas being crazy is, well, Texas. ;p

Just in this thread alone were examples (all of which are before I even stepped up to the plate on this topic) of precisely what you're complaining of me doing, yet no one here seems to have a problem with these, and for the first statement in particular, that is FAR more "antagonistic" than anything I've ever said here.

I think its pretty clear exactly what type of "conservatives" everyone in the thread ( and the site in general honestly ) is talking about. Its the Fox News / Tea Party / Get a Brain Morans type. If you are not that type of conservative and you don't need to take offence on their behalf. Honestly, its best to just distance yourself from them as much as possible and let them continue their path of self destruction. >.>

When you fired back, you aimed quite broadly at liberal groups and politicians, and with a statement that to be blunt, requires citation. Plus, when viewed against the lens of what conservative politicians and groups get up to, is pretty hypocritical if you're going to play the sports team game with the us vs them politic designations.

Its the kind of statement that we have heard before, repeatedly I might note, from Fox News talking heads.

You then went on to make a secondary argument that was, to be honest, kind of tone deaf and asinine given the situation. One that again, is the exact sort of shit you hear from talking heads.

At this point, whether you intended it or not, you got into "if it quacks like a duck" territory. I even told you as such earlier in the thread. You'll forgive us if "I don't watch Fox News I just happen to say everything they do" didn't fly as an explanation.

I likewise gave you a list of some of your greatest hits. Allow me to repeat it in case you forgot. Because this thread does not exist in a vacuum:

so-called tolerant progressive open minded left

While I certainly don't believe Obama is any kind of bad guy or has any real malicious intent (good luck getting most of the left back during the Bush years to concede that point)

My point being is that for people who traditionally are supposed to be the ones championing tolerance, diversity, open mindness for all, they sure do often seem to be very nasty and intolerant towards those who are not fellow liberals.

You were taken to task for this kind of commentary already in other threads.

At no point was I "acting like a victim" whatsoever.

Would you prefer the term martyr instead? -.-

You have, from the onset, set yourself apart from and against "us" on this site. Where "us" is just the team you have defined everyone else as being on. I am not a Democrat. I'm not even American. American politics as a whole are right of the rest of us in the modern world so to speak. But the spectrum doesn't just go in two directions like that. It also splits between authoritarian/libertarian for example.

Like it or not, the American conservative is right wing, authoritarian and socially conservative. Anyone that doesn't fit that mold they reject as RINOs or other such terms. There's a whole list of pejorative terms the GOP has for Republicans that are not sufficiently conservative enough or don't agree with them 100% on everything.

Yes, there aren't really any pro-lifers around here. But we already covered that argument. As for libertarians, yes, they are here. All around you. I'm one for example. The problem is that the term libertarian is often incorrectly used in American politics and/or the idea is only paid lip service too.

That is, is there a pro-life activist/group that you think does it right in your view?

No, there is not. Because the pro-life stance is demonstrably harmful to women and society as a whole and pro-life activists tend to go about their objective in completely the wrong ways. A pro-life activist that "does it right" would not be a pro-life activist. They would be pro-choice ( simply because pro-life defines everyone that does not completely agree with them as pro-choice. There's no middle position allowed. ).

I also feel compelled to point out that pro-life is directly contrary to libertarianism.

Is there a conservative or libertarian columnist/group who does it right in your view?

Not as many these days. Republicans have veered so sharply from the center since the 90s that there's not a lot of sensible ones left. The moderate ones are demonized by their own party. There is a small group of moderates within the GOP right now but the split tends to be along social conservative lines with the moderates coming from, well, moderate states.

Unfortunately, Republics like Olympia Snow feel like a vanishing breed though and the moderates don't/can't make as much unending noise as the fringe monkeys within the party do.

Or how about this, there is currently a WIDE open field of contenders for the Republican nomination next year...any you personally could "live with" more than others?

That's a trick question, we both know the current GOP line up is a clown car. >.>

Sadly, in the GOP's current state a moderate would never get the nomination. Even now most of them are petrified that if they veer off the Approved Script they'll lose votes. So they're basically saying the same things on the same positions.

Well, except Trump. But, well, Trump.

[HYHYBT]

You'll forgive us if "I don't watch Fox News I just happen to say everything they do" didn't fly as an explanation.

It could. After all, Fox News is hardly the only place that stuff is spouted; there are any number of websites which echo along the same lines. And even if you don't listen to any of it directly, if it's the sort of view that resonates with you and those you talk with do listen to those sources, you wind up with the same thing while legitimately being able to say you don't watch that channel (or the other places.) You might not even know that's where your friends are getting it.

[Estil]

Well seeing as how nobody bothered to even ask me what my usual sources for news are (Yahoo, AOL, Wikipedia are a few of the main ones, and none of those are what you'd call "conservative friendly"). I also growing up liked to watch the newsmagazine shows a lot (mostly the ABC ones and where I discovered one of my favorite guys in that regard, John Stossel...we didn't get cable/satellite back then you see and this was the 90s...it wasn't until about mid decade that both the Internet OR Fox News even got started). Whenever I'm with my wife at one of her doctor appointments or whatever (I have to push her wheelchair; I'm her caregiver 24/7) Time and Readers Digest are pretty good to read (and popular in waiting rooms). Yes I do for the record like Rush Limbaugh *ducks at the tomatoes thrown at me*, Bill O'Reilly, Bernard Goldberg (I actually like his website/forum better) and some of the other conservative guys on Fox (so sue me)...BUT that was more in my college days I really did either one regularly. If I do feel like checking in on Rush or any of those other guys it's just easier to go to the website and read the articles. It's just easier for me to use the Internet to read the articles or see the videos on YouTube (such as the Stossel program, he does make a pretty good one). And some of the syndicated columnists we get in our local paper are pretty good, if you want an example of a liberal one I like Leonard Pitts makes some good columns. And these aren't news places exactly but Cracked.com, Mental Floss, and List25 I check into regularly. And during election season I find the Real Clear Politics place is great for finding out how all the races are going.

So yeah that's just a few of the many places. Still it wouldn't have hurt to ask me instead of certain members here just jumping to conclusions. :P

[Gravekeeper]

Yes I do for the record like Rush Limbaugh *ducks at the tomatoes thrown at me*

This is legitimately unforgivable. That man as a cancerous rectal growth on American society. >.>

Bill O'Reilly

A loud, hypocritical herpes on American society. -.-

Bernard Goldberg and some of the other conservative guys on Fox (so sue me)

...Wait, so, you're saying you don't watch Fox News, you just listen to / read / like a bunch of people on Fox News? How exactly is that any different? That means the "assumptions" and "conclusions" you're complaining being made about you were legitimately correct. =p

The only person you mention not related to, starring on or has their own show on Fox is Limbaugh. And that's only because Limbaugh doesn't do a TV show anymore ( when he did it was produced by the owner of Fox News ;p ) and at this point is probably too toxic for even Fox to put on the air.

So you can save the jab at people just jumping to conclusions. >.>

[Estil]

Not exactly, you were making it sound like I ONLY do the "right wing talking heads" and as I clearly pointed out that's just not true. Just because I do like some conservative guys/chicks doesn't mean that's the only (or even main) place I get my news.

While we're on that subject what is up lately with some people having Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert their go-to news places? I mean news commentary people are one thing but those two are just comedians.

PS: I can't believe I forgot to mention the late Paul Harvey among my favs...now that was a really good man right there.

[Gravekeeper]

Not exactly, you were making it sound like I ONLY do the "right wing talking heads" and as I clearly pointed out that's just not true. Just because I do like some conservative guys/chicks doesn't mean that's the only (or even main) place I get my news.

Keep moving those goalposts. You also just freely admitted to liking some of the literal worst ones in the country. FYI, if you have to fall back on technicalities, your position isn't strong enough to be rolling your eyes at us. -.-

While we're on that subject what is up lately with some people having Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert their go-to news places? I mean news commentary people are one thing but those two are just comedians.

Oh wow, you're going to pull out that old turd? Seriously?

God, even if you do want to throw that one out there, you know its bullshit, right? The Daily Show / Colbert are/were, sadly, pretty effective news sources. To the point where even the PEJ acknowledges the Daily Show. Whats worse, is that even the opposite on the right ( O'Reilly style shows ) are more effective news sources than the typical network bullshit.

Which raises a lot of sad questions about TV network news in general regardless of political leaning. -.-

[wolfie]

Yes I do for the record like Rush Limbaugh

This is legitimately unforgivable. That man as a cancerous rectal growth on American society. >.>

Gravekeeper, your post is an unwarranted insult to ass tumours.

Bill O'Reilly

A loud, hypocritical herpes on American society. -.-

I see you also believe in insulting venereal diseases.

[Estil]

Agreed. I don't care how much one dislikes/disagrees with someone's political views, that someone is most likely a good person behind the scenes on a personal level (key words being most likely) and calling anyone a "cancer" (I remember at the University of Kentucky someone thoughtlessly wrote "HAL MUMME IS A CANCER!!" on a fold out poster board sort of deal meant for people to write down their thoughts/feelings regarding cancer) is not, not cool. This clip from the West Wing sums up my feelings on that matter about as well as you can get, and if more people (especially our leaders, regardless of party or ideology) could get this through their thick skulls, the much, much better off we'd all be (one really good example would be Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill...they were really intense rivals "on the court" so to speak but "off the court" they were actually quite good friends):

https://youtu.be/SJd37-rU2qY

PS: I must say for a show that some dismiss as "The Left Wing" they do have really, really good conservative characters on here. Even that fat guy from Roseanne who was Speaker of the House and had to be Acting President for a few days was really razor sharp regarding knowing his history.