Eris wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:39 pm

AndyH wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:18 pm No, snowflake

Could we please avoid insults? They don't help.

Before someone can hear, they have to realize they've been found out. Feeding this person's methods back at them is one way to get his attention. I've already tried being friendly and got it stuffed back in my face. So no, on this we won't agree, Eris.

AndyH wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:03 pm

Eris wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:39 pm

AndyH wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:18 pm No, snowflake

Could we please avoid insults? They don't help.

Before someone can hear, they have to realize they've been found out. Feeding this person's methods back at them is one way to get his attention. I've already tried being friendly and got it stuffed back in my face. So no, on this we won't agree, Eris.

I've tried being very friendly, genuine and respectful I'm sorry if you've taken it another way.

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 pm

Bardo wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:33 pm Conservatism is what happens to people when propaganda ruthlessly and deliberately appeals to the worst instincts hardwired into human neurology.

I completely and respectfully disagree.

I think Conservativsm has its virtue in that people should get what they earn based on what they deserve on their merit and accomplishments, that the individuals freedom is paramount. I believe in minimal government interference and the freedom to make my own decisions and choices.


I think the contrary of following propoganda for the collective and the greater good is misleading or mis represented at best and evil at its worst.

And I am a hard-core Liberal and Progressive, but do not consider myself a Socialist (I know far too much about Marxism to believe in it), but I do see social welfare, which is NOT Socialism at all, as crucial to a healthy and compassionate society.

So, Koolaidblue, here's how you and I can, and cannot get along. If we walk outside and it's raining in "stair-rods" (as my UK friends put it) and we both agree it's raining, we have a basis for discussion. If, however, you (or I for that matter), insist it's a lovely, sunny day, then we can't even get to first base in a discussion.

More concretely: We all saw the crowds for Obama's inauguration and for Trump's. Clearly Obama's were roughly 3x larger, yet Trump insisted HIS were much larger. If you, despite the evidence of the pictures and your eyes, insist, with Trump, that his crowd was larger, again, we have no basis for discussion.

Further, the rules have to be the same for both sides. When Obama's work brought down unemployment from nearly half of what it was when Bush left it to him, Conservatives INSISTED that those weren't the real numbers, that they were much higher. But when those same Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers favored Trump (3.9%) all that criticism of it being "fake" vanished. The goal posts have to be the same and the rules for BOTH sides have to be the same, or, again, there's no basis for discussion.

I fight like hell--most of us here do, and that's OK. But when the facts are against you, I, and most of us admit to being wrong. It's hard, it's painful, it's grudgingly, and we all insist that for each of us it's VERY rare, but it does happen. I just did it the other day, confusing one member's MOS with another's. I apologized. That's what we do.

I think, if you can play by these fair rules that apply to everyone, you can thrive and have fun here as a Conservative. You may learn something and so may some of us.

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 pm
I think Conservativsm has its virtue in that people should get what they earn based on what they deserve on their merit and accomplishments, that the individuals freedom is paramount. I believe in minimal government interference and the freedom to make my own decisions and choices.

I think the contrary of following propoganda for the collective and the greater good is misleading or mis represented at best and evil at its worst.

For my part, I agree that individual freedom is (almost) paramount. ("Almost", because I would suggest that survival of the species is of greater importance, but that isn't something that comes into play very often.) However, I think the proper role of government is to ensure that the decisions of others do not limit my freedom (and vice versa). Hence, my support for non-discrimination laws. We've always had some form of non-discrimination laws - religious non-discrimination by the government is built in to the Constitution, for example, and the 14th amendment goes even further and says that "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" are protected. But as we all know, the Constitution has not always been fairly enforced. Despite the 14th amendment, black people were routinely denied their rights until the 1960's and some people argue that they still are denied their rights. Gay people have also been denied their rights and the struggle to rectify that is still going on.

I generally vote for liberal politicians because I think they do the most to protect the rights of the most people. Conservatives aren't necessarily out to strip people of their rights (though some are) but conservatives generally favor tolerating discrimination as long as it is not done by the government. This leads, for example, to laws exempting religious groups from non-discrimination laws. I would say that even if the government is not actively engaging in discrimination itself, by tolerating discrimination by private citizens the government is failing to protect the rights and freedoms of all people.

Of course, I'm not universally happy with liberal politicians. Most of them are very eager to strip people of the right to bear arms, and every election season this leads me to be unsure of how I will vote until the last minute. It really does always come down to choosing the lesser evil, for me. I generally end up voting in a way to try and ensure a divided government, where neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a free hand to enforce their agendas.

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 pm

Bardo wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:33 pm Conservatism is what happens to people when propaganda ruthlessly and deliberately appeals to the worst instincts hardwired into human neurology.

I completely and respectfully disagree.

I think Conservativsm has its virtue in that people should get what they earn based on what they deserve on their merit and accomplishments, that the individuals freedom is paramount. I believe in minimal government interference and the freedom to make my own decisions and choices.


I think the contrary of following propoganda for the collective and the greater good is misleading or mis represented at best and evil at its worst.

I don't agree with Bardo's view of the world. That being said, I think you're suggestion that conservatism is about people earning based on merit and accomplishments isn't conservative, and neither is freedom. I say that about freedom because there's a difference between freedom and liberty. It's actually human to expect to be treated fairly and to be rewarded for their accomplishments. It's human to want liberty and rights. Conservatives might try to claim ownership but I think we both know that's not right. One thing that today's conservatives forget or ignore is that our Founders were not conservatives - they were liberals. While the 3%ers and 'oathkeepers' want to say that only conservatives are worthy of being a 'minuteman', the reality is that during our revolution the conservatives either remained allied with the crown or fled to Canada.

As for propaganda (speaking as someone that spent part of their military career working in information warfare), it's not useful to suggest that working for the greater good is propaganda, and it's damn near horrific to suggest that it's evil for people to want to work for the common good. If you truly feel that way, what do you think about military service? When I joined and served more than 21 years, it was because I absolutely believe that our Constitution and our citizenry were worth defending. We worked 24/7 for the common good. For now we should probably ignore that the entire US military structure, pay, and benefits process is Democratic Socialist and not 'dog eat dog capitalism'.

Thing is, we've had these conversations all over this board. Do some searching and reading. And yes - do some shooting!

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:07 pm

AndyH wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:03 pm

Eris wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:39 pm

AndyH wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:18 pm No, snowflake

Could we please avoid insults? They don't help.

Before someone can hear, they have to realize they've been found out. Feeding this person's methods back at them is one way to get his attention. I've already tried being friendly and got it stuffed back in my face. So no, on this we won't agree, Eris.

I've tried being very friendly, genuine and respectful I'm sorry if you've taken it another way.

Yes you have! What Eris called me out on was a side conversation with willjr75. No worries, koolaidblue.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:18 pm

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 pm

Bardo wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:33 pm Conservatism is what happens to people when propaganda ruthlessly and deliberately appeals to the worst instincts hardwired into human neurology.

I completely and respectfully disagree.

I think Conservativsm has its virtue in that people should get what they earn based on what they deserve on their merit and accomplishments, that the individuals freedom is paramount. I believe in minimal government interference and the freedom to make my own decisions and choices.


I think the contrary of following propoganda for the collective and the greater good is misleading or mis represented at best and evil at its worst.

And I am a hard-core Liberal and Progressive, but do not consider myself a Socialist (I know far too much about Marxism to believe in it), but I do see social welfare, which is NOT Socialism at all, as crucial to a healthy and compassionate society.

So, Koolaidblue, here's how you and I can, and cannot get along. If we walk outside and it's raining in "stair-rods" (as my UK friends put it) and we both agree it's raining, we have a basis for discussion. If, however, you (or I for that matter), insist it's a lovely, sunny day, then we can't even get to first base in a discussion.

More concretely: We all saw the crowds for Obama's inauguration and for Trump's. Clearly Obama's were roughly 3x larger, yet Trump insisted HIS were much larger. If you, despite the evidence of the pictures and your eyes, insist, with Trump, that his crowd was larger, again, we have no basis for discussion.

Further, the rules have to be the same for both sides. When Obama's work brought down unemployment from nearly half of what it was when Bush left it to him, Conservatives INSISTED that those weren't the real numbers, that they were much higher. But when those same Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers favored Trump (3.9%) all that criticism of it being "fake" vanished. The goal posts have to be the same and the rules for BOTH sides have to be the same, or, again, there's no basis for discussion.

I fight like hell--most of us here do, and that's OK. But when the facts are against you, I, and most of us admit to being wrong. It's hard, it's painful, it's grudgingly, and we all insist that for each of us it's VERY rare, but it does happen. I just did it the other day, confusing one member's MOS with another's. I apologized. That's what we do.

I think, if you can play by these fair rules that apply to everyone, you can thrive and have fun here as a Conservative. You may learn something and so may some of us.

I think I can make a business analogy.

In comparing performance you need standards or metrics as a benchmark. If you have nothing to measure against you're only going from a position of perception or feel which is highly susceptible to inaccuracies.

AndyH wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:23 pm

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 pm

Bardo wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:33 pm Conservatism is what happens to people when propaganda ruthlessly and deliberately appeals to the worst instincts hardwired into human neurology.

I completely and respectfully disagree.

I think Conservativsm has its virtue in that people should get what they earn based on what they deserve on their merit and accomplishments, that the individuals freedom is paramount. I believe in minimal government interference and the freedom to make my own decisions and choices.


I think the contrary of following propoganda for the collective and the greater good is misleading or mis represented at best and evil at its worst.

I don't agree with Bardo's view of the world. That being said, I think you're suggestion that conservatism is about people earning based on merit and accomplishments isn't conservative, and neither is freedom. I say that about freedom because there's a difference between freedom and liberty. It's actually human to expect to be treated fairly and to be rewarded for their accomplishments. It's human to want liberty and rights. Conservatives might try to claim ownership but I think we both know that's not right. One thing that today's conservatives forget or ignore is that our Founders were not conservatives - they were liberals. While the 3%ers and 'oathkeepers' want to say that only conservatives are worthy of being a 'minuteman', the reality is that during our revolution the conservatives either remained allied with the crown or fled to Canada.

As for propaganda (speaking as someone that spent part of their military career working in information warfare), it's not useful to suggest that working for the greater good is propaganda, and it's damn near horrific to suggest that it's evil for people to want to work for the common good. If you truly feel that way, what do you think about military service? When I joined and served more than 21 years, it was because I absolutely believe that our Constitution and our citizenry were worth defending. We worked 24/7 for the common good. For now we should probably ignore that the entire US military structure, pay, and benefits process is Democratic Socialist and not 'dog eat dog capitalism'.

Thing is, we've had these conversations all over this board. Do some searching and reading. And yes - do some shooting!

First. Thank you for your service, I am a veteran as well.

Military service is different from regular citizenship as the "greater good" has different implications and outcomes. In the military one must place the unit and mission above themselves. There is no other way to maintain unit cohesiveness and effectiveness. But the military is made up of volunteers who willingly give up their individuality for the benefit of the nation.

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:47 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:18 pm

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 pm

Bardo wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:33 pm Conservatism is what happens to people when propaganda ruthlessly and deliberately appeals to the worst instincts hardwired into human neurology.

I completely and respectfully disagree.

I think Conservativsm has its virtue in that people should get what they earn based on what they deserve on their merit and accomplishments, that the individuals freedom is paramount. I believe in minimal government interference and the freedom to make my own decisions and choices.


I think the contrary of following propoganda for the collective and the greater good is misleading or mis represented at best and evil at its worst.

And I am a hard-core Liberal and Progressive, but do not consider myself a Socialist (I know far too much about Marxism to believe in it), but I do see social welfare, which is NOT Socialism at all, as crucial to a healthy and compassionate society.

So, Koolaidblue, here's how you and I can, and cannot get along. If we walk outside and it's raining in "stair-rods" (as my UK friends put it) and we both agree it's raining, we have a basis for discussion. If, however, you (or I for that matter), insist it's a lovely, sunny day, then we can't even get to first base in a discussion.

More concretely: We all saw the crowds for Obama's inauguration and for Trump's. Clearly Obama's were roughly 3x larger, yet Trump insisted HIS were much larger. If you, despite the evidence of the pictures and your eyes, insist, with Trump, that his crowd was larger, again, we have no basis for discussion.

Further, the rules have to be the same for both sides. When Obama's work brought down unemployment from nearly half of what it was when Bush left it to him, Conservatives INSISTED that those weren't the real numbers, that they were much higher. But when those same Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers favored Trump (3.9%) all that criticism of it being "fake" vanished. The goal posts have to be the same and the rules for BOTH sides have to be the same, or, again, there's no basis for discussion.

I fight like hell--most of us here do, and that's OK. But when the facts are against you, I, and most of us admit to being wrong. It's hard, it's painful, it's grudgingly, and we all insist that for each of us it's VERY rare, but it does happen. I just did it the other day, confusing one member's MOS with another's. I apologized. That's what we do.

I think, if you can play by these fair rules that apply to everyone, you can thrive and have fun here as a Conservative. You may learn something and so may some of us.

I think I can make a business analogy.

In comparing performance you need standards or metrics as a benchmark. If you have nothing to measure against you're only going from a position of perception or feel which is highly susceptible to inaccuracies.

Sure. Say a company is working on a generic version of a drug coming off patent. It either works like the original drug (sometimes called the "Ethical Medication" ) or it doesn't. No amount of opinions, slut-shaming, name-calling or anything else is going to change whether the generic works like the ethical. All that can happen is the generic manufacturer can fake the testing, adulterate the tested compounds--or do it honestly. And, yes, some generic companies HAVE faked their test results, sneaking in the ethical drug instead of the generic, "fixing" test results, etc. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.

koolaidblue wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:53 pm Military service is different from regular citizenship as the "greater good" has different implications and outcomes. In the military one must place the unit and mission above themselves. There is no other way to maintain unit cohesiveness and effectiveness. But the military is made up of volunteers who willingly give up their individuality for the benefit of the nation.

Yes - we put the unit and mission above ourselves. But why the unit and what's the mission? To support and defend the Constitution of the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic, obey laws and orders, etc. The reason for the units and the point of the mission is to work for the greater good of the country and sometimes the greater good of our host nations. I worked disaster relief in Germany when there, and worked severe flooding on the Mississippi river when in Illinois. Getting food and medical supplies into the Balkans, or the Lake District in Africa, hurricane relief to various parts of the US as well as central and south america. The military mission is much more than just bombs on target.

The whole point is that we voluntarily sacrifice for the greater good. It's not different from regular citizenship - it is regular citizenship.

Why did Republicans negotiate and sign the Montreal Protocol that banned CFCs and stopped the destruction of atmospheric ozone? Why did the same Republicans start the EPA and sign laws to protect our air and water? It was because destroying our environment harmed the greater good. Folks weren't happy when their kids were being poisoned by nearby superfund sites, or when their rivers were burning. But that was the old Republican party. That was when a time when Conservatism still meant something. The Republican party went off the rails in the early 1980s with Reagan's 'morning in America' psyop and the core now has been infiltrated a number of times, first by Koch's TEA Party and now by Gorka's white nationalism. There are still sane folks in the party, but with the passing of Sen McCain the party is diminished.

I'm 55. Maybe you're younger. Maybe you never knew the real Republican party. I don't know, so can't say. What I can say is that this excerpt from The Newsroom makes me miss my grandparent's party.

Friends don't let friend click-bait!!!

While I am happy that at least one NY forum visitor is not a complete dickhead, I need to remind him and his less polite colleagues, we aren’t here for you. We don’t exist to make conservative gun owners feel better about liberal, progressive or democratic gun owners. We exist for our colleagues who have found that 2a issues are civil rights. That arbitrary bans are arbitrary and don’t solve problems. And the litany of well documented positions and press appearances to our credit.

Much to the chagrin of some of our Facebook followers, building bridges with people who find us funny isn’t one of our missions.

So what would I ask a conservative? Nothing. Read our posts, our blogs, and our allies’ material and the ask yourself how are we alike.

If you can’t get past the lack of a penis on our friend Eris, or the fact we care about society beyond what a tax cut can give us, I’m not wasting any breath debating you.

The exercise is not in good faith. We are not here to be saved. We are not your science experiment. Maybe you can be saved, but that’s your problem.

Inquisitor wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:05 pm While I am happy that at least one NY forum visitor is not a complete dickhead, I need to remind him and his less polite colleagues, we aren’t here for you. We don’t exist to make conservative gun owners feel better about liberal, progressive or democratic gun owners. We exist for our colleagues who have found that 2a issues are civil rights. That arbitrary bans are arbitrary and don’t solve problems. And the litany of well documented positions and press appearances to our credit.

Much to the chagrin of some of our Facebook followers, building bridges with people who find us funny isn’t one of our missions.

So what would I ask a conservative? Nothing. Read our posts, our blogs, and our allies’ material and the ask yourself how are we alike.

If you can’t get past the lack of a penis on our friend Eris, or the fact we care about society beyond what a tax cut can give us, I’m not wasting any breath debating you.

The exercise is not in good faith. We are not here to be saved. We are not your science experiment. Maybe you can be saved, but that’s your problem.

Ya know...

I think I've behaved pretty well, I've deliberately avoided politics outside of this specific thread, I wasn't forcing my opinions on anyone else or forcing debates on people. Thats the while reason I've avoided politics elsewhere on your forum (except this thread) if someone doesn't want to participate it's pretty easy to ignore and it will eventually just fade away to obsurity.

I've been honest and transparent and on top of it I've tried to make contributions in other threads. Look at my post history in other threads.

But yes sure this is your forum you can do whatever you want so if you want to take out some frustration on me with immunity since you can just ban me at will and there's nothing I can do about it then sure, Thats your right. Its your forum, your rules your the boss here. I get it.

It’s as much for your knuckleheaded friends.

We’ve been doing this for years. You aren’t the first and won’t be the last. Sometimes they even stick around and contribute.

Most of the time they flame out like your buddy Will.

By all means engage. Just don’t be surprised if people tell you to FOAD. We’ve played this game before with “concerned” visitors.

You are the guest.

Truth be told anyone, including myself, can be told to FOAD for stepping on toes in this club. A real community exists based on shared history and trust. It takes time and mutual respect to grow that and become part of a community. Any feelings of entitlement for immediate acceptance based on propriety or personal expectation is one's own problem to overcome, Koolaidbue.

But (as an analogy) if you walk through the front door of a temple and expect to convert everyone inside to your one true religion because you love people and don't wish to see anyone there go to hell after they die, how much time do you spend learning anything about them? What is the nature of your interest in them? Do you really care about said community or is it just proselytizing?

These are questions worth considering before you engage any new established groups of people. For far too long have westerners walked into a new land honestly desiring to save the natives only to decimate the local population and overrun their lands. This isn't due to lack of love or respect for the local population as much as because of lack of self-knowledge.

Bisbee wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:12 am Truth be told anyone, including myself, can be told to FOAD for stepping on toes in this club. A real community exists based on shared history and trust. It takes time and mutual respect to grow that and become part of a community. Any feelings of entitlement for immediate acceptance based on propriety or personal expectation is one's own problem to overcome, Koolaidbue.

But (as an analogy) if you walk through the front door of a temple and expect to convert everyone inside to your one true religion because you love people and don't wish to see anyone there go to hell after they die, how much time do you spend learning anything about them? What is the nature of your interest in them? Do you really care about said community or is it just proselytizing?

These are questions worth considering before you engage any new established groups of people. For far too long have westerners walked into a new land honestly desiring to save the natives only to decimate the local population and overrun their lands. This isn't due to lack of love or respect for the local population as much as because of lack of self-knowledge.

After reading all these posts, from the looks of things, it didn't look like anyone was trying to change anyone. It looked like intolerance to me.

Ask a Conservative doesn't mean change to a Conservative. It just means ask a Conservative. If you didn't want to ask a Conservative, you should have just gone to another thread.

That's how I see it anyway.

Meh, I see differently. Welcome back, junior.

TolerantOne wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:17 am
After reading all these posts, from the looks of things, it didn't look like anyone was trying to change anyone. It looked like intolerance to me.

Ask a Conservative doesn't mean change to a Conservative. It just means ask a Conservative. If you didn't want to ask a Conservative, you should have just gone to another thread.

That's how I see it anyway.

Did you read our rules before you decided to jump in, on your first post, and criticize our members as "intolerant"? Because you violated the first rule.

You didn't post an intro post, which is a rule, no "hello", no "Here's where I am, Here's what I shoot, Here's why I shoot."

Not an auspicious beginning. I'm not a moderator or admin, and I didn't report you to them, but someone did.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:31 am

TolerantOne wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:17 am
After reading all these posts, from the looks of things, it didn't look like anyone was trying to change anyone. It looked like intolerance to me.

Ask a Conservative doesn't mean change to a Conservative. It just means ask a Conservative. If you didn't want to ask a Conservative, you should have just gone to another thread.

That's how I see it anyway.

Did you read our rules before you decided to jump in, on your first post, and criticize our members as "intolerant"? Because you violated the first rule.

You didn't post an intro post, which is a rule, no "hello", no "Here's where I am, Here's what I shoot, Here's why I shoot."

Not an auspicious beginning. I'm not a moderator or admin, and I didn't report you to them, but someone did.

I tried, but someone beat me to it.
Look up “Concern Troll” and know thyself.

"Concern Troll"? Wazzat?

I dig the screen name TolerantOne. It is amusing in its pretension.

But I have a sincere question for Mr. Koolaid, per the OP. Well, a two-parter, really. First, do you feel concern about the 'violent left?' Second, what specifically is it about the left that you feel is violent and/or threatening?

I ask because of what I see and hear from our president, from those slickly-produced Dana Loesch videos the NRA puts out, and from any conservative media I tune into. I ask because I don't see it. Anywhere. Oh: Portland. But I am genuinely curious about the specific incidents of left-violence that has seemingly everyone on the right talking about it.

Sorry. I confess to not reading the rules here and not making a introductory thread. I've never had to do that before. Will do.

Please do. Save me the trouble of looking, are you from the NY forum as well?

:crickets:

Koolaidblue is disciplined, unlike his friends. From his NY Gun Forum post in the “In Case You’re Bored...” thread:

Drinkthekoolaid, Oct 18, 2018 #24
All right I'm in.

Koolaidblue

And...

Drinkthekoolaid, Oct 18, 2018 #25
I've started posting over there. Nothin too juicy yet just trying to get my post count up a little so they don't immediately ban me.

And....

Drinkthekoolaid, Friday at 8:13 AM #39
I've started the infiltration.

Im gradually posting more "triggering" material and ideas.

I see @GOPerfect is already starting. Lol

I might make a glorious post "outting" myself as a conservative and asking then if they will use their tolerance on me or ban me when I'm being quite civil and respectful. I think it will be interesting if they immediately default to suppressing ideas they are not comfortable with.

Let’s find out. Little by little ratchet it up. Moderators are standing by.

Drinkthekoolaid, Friday at 9:11 AM #50
This huckleberry character is already picking up

Yup. And this Huckleberry character is such an asshole too. On this everyone agrees.