juansavage1

I'm generally of liberal/progressive orientation, but I'm not a card-carrying Democrat. A subtle but crucial difference. But I basically agree with the Democratic platform in most areas.

 

I haven't investigated Rubio too much, but if I had to choose a Republican candidate to be the next president it would probably be Rand Paul, then Rubio or Kasich, and then maybe Christie. These three don't scare me like the others - especially Cruz, Bush, Carson, and Trump, not to mention Graham, Santorum and Huckabee. Fiorina is kind of between those two groups.

You're a liberal who is sometimes embarrassed by Democratic politicians. We've all been similarly embarrassed. You also seem to be most concerned with social issues revolving around sex, based on your choices. 

If you're truly not a Dem, however, you'd have to say where you disagree with the Dem platform. 

I would search the house of the people who were Islamophobic against clock boy. 

You guys are probably looking in the wrong place. Maybe less people are doing things that keep them in the middle class. 

Two large factors, I bet, are broken or never-formed homes and immigration.

I'd like to compare the rates for native, married Americans today and fifty years ago.

Does anybody else find it funny that leftists like Hillary Clinton mock Americans for fearing gun confiscation while they praise countries like Australia that have confiscated guns?

If you ever wonder why people don't take you seriously, reread your last paragraph.  In less than 100 words you pack in so much idiocy, base speculation, and unfounded doomsday predictions.

Yet another example of criticism without examples. It's a very common reaction and one that I DON"T TAKE SERIOUSLY because of that fact. I always provide examples. 

Can you name established democracies that have experienced non-democratic (violent) revolutions? Please, go ahead, Mr. Serious. 

Also, I"m sure you're not aware that there have been many Dems who have supported gun rights. Guns were not an issue in recent campaigns. What does Hillary Clinton say, â€œThe NRA of thirty years ago is not the NRA of today,” Clinton said. “Today they want people to think the black helicopter is landing in your yard” to “take them away.”

Why did she want to distinguish the NRA of thirty-years ago with today? Go ahead, Mr. Genius. Why? Might it be because she's trying to get people to think that there's some new, unacceptable quality to the NRA not present in the past (when many Dems weren't so antithetical to guns)? It's clear to me that just like they tried to do with people who hold a certain position on marriage or whether guys can be girls by an act of will, they're trying to make gun owners seem hateful or crazy and supporting gun rights as outside the bounds of decency. 

This kind of analysis is obviously not a strong point of yours. 

*watch the name calling please

If you guys notice, democracies rarely have revolutions (I can think of Chile and Spain, which were new democracies). Think about it: How would a group of people with minority support take over a country. 

Hillary said something about the NRA today. I think this means that the demonization process is underway.Soon, all remaining leftists who are ambivalent or pro-gun will be forced to choose between being within the pale or the focus of evil. 

But the coalition has two parties in it so they are forced to compromise.

Right now, the two parties have to negotiate between the different factions internally. If you had multiple parties, you'd have three center-right parties: Libertarian, mainstream pro-market, and a religious, socially conservative one. You'd have two or three center-left parties: Green, union, and a general left one. 

It would be the same thing because any vote on any bill is either "yes" or "no." 2 choices. One party would bring something up and they'd scramble to get 51%. 

Even in countries with multiple parties, there are de facto two parties since they have to form coalitions.

SJWs always get their way in the end...

Anyone who fights back are labeled as racists or misogynists.

There's that factor and the fact that administrators ARE SJWs who just haven't caught up tot he latest lefty trends. Once they're told what's hip, they fall in line. 

My plan of action, most of which would be based on data analysis. 

1. Figure out why gun violence has decreased and continue those policies and/or trends that aren't immoral (you can abort babies that have a higher chance of committing gun violence). 

2. Figure out how criminals get guns (gun shows?) and close those opportunities. 

3. Gun rights are an extension of the natural right of self-defense. People are born with that right, just like they're born with the right to vote. However, one can lose that freedom. Therefore, no guns for felons or people proven to be unstable in some way, which is different than voting since you don't lose that by being crazy. 

4.  Harshly persecute people who misuse guns. 

5. Correlate gun violence with those people and groups most likely to commit violence and see if we can encourage a cultural change in those groups and subgroups. Are hunters committing a lot of crime? "Inner-city youths?" Fatherless boys? Atheists? Church-attending Christians? Muslims? What is it about those groups that make gun violence more or less likely? 

5. Insist on standards of discourse. For example, do we want to include suicide, which is a human right according to some, with armed robbery and mass shootings? Do we want to compare Japanese violence with Americans in general or Japanese-Americans? 

Funny that white dudes invent the idea of a university, found many of them, and produce most of what's taught, but are the most hated group on campus

Lets assume there's a gun show loophole, which people deny exists. How many crimes are commited with guns purchased from gun shows? Whats the crime rate among people who go to gun shows? Is there a lot of violence at gun shows?

I like classical music, but I only listen to works performed by white musicians. 

First, I don't like Asians appropriating European culture. Second, if they are appropriating it, it's because it was forced down their throats by white supremacists. 

Hey guys, last post. Promise. In the spirit of the last few posts, I want to say that you can think something means something without hating deviations. I think this is both the major concern and confusion.

Nothing like a beautiful woman beating some commie ass. 

She likes pole too. 

Reminded me of the best fitness video on earth: 

Also, I don't think the administrators are acting purely out of cowardice. They mostly agree with the protesters. I bet if some conservative students invaded the administration office asking to resegregate the bathrooms by sex, spend money on lowering tuition instead of finding more black professors, or have a Columbus day breakfast, the dean would release the hounds and rent some water cannons. 

Dude, I think you are a solid AW poster and would gladly share a beer or 7 with you if we ever hung out. So I say this with all due respect: Putting someone on ignore is not the right move. It's like those college protestors. Out of sight and out of mind does not mean gone.

Dude is a Mexican and a closet homo. He's fun!

Correction: My wife's Mexican and my kids are half Mexican. My neighborhood is all Mexican, however. I tried being gay, but couldn't consistently wake up early enough to go to the gym. 

OK, fair enough. And of course it is worth mentioning that polling has consistently shown increasing support for gay marriage in the American public. According to this gallup poll it was at 60% in May, up from 27% in 1996. Whether you like it or not, the US has become a more tolerant place and the trajectory isn't changing. There's a minority that has become increasing vocal, but it is shrinking.

 

But yeah, there is a scenario where a Republican gets elected, appoints conservative justices, and we return to the Dark Ages for a time....but that wouldn't last too long. And it would probably inspire social revolt.

 

p.s. What gun rights would need to be overturned? I was under the impression that gun laws are pretty lax.

We'll see. These things change, as you mentioned. Abortion was more popular in the 70s than it is now. I think after the rush of being nice to your gay neighbor fades, people may realize that society gained nothing.

I dropped my son off at Cal this summer. He seems to be holding up well. He still likes girls and texted me that he went to mass the other week. You can inoculate them by explaining the different ideas he will encounter. The trick for young people is to not fall for the, "You're mean (or racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc.) for not wanting [this extreme policy position that makes no sense and goes against your values]" 

I'll debrief him during Thanksgiving. 

According to Juan the cultural marxists want you to believe 20-30% of the world is gay.

 

Then he claims its 2-3%

 

But it's still against natural law.

First, do you know what the natural law is? It's roughly the philosophy of the founding fathers, Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas It's not "naturally occurring." Murder isn't sanctioned because it occurs. Look it up. 

Second, I was talking about this: 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

PRINCETON, N.J. -- The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans' 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year.

Where do people get this dumb idea? 

He really is the best Troll we've ever had. Plenty have come and gone (rip Bakunin) but I think we should keep him.

Isn't a troll somebody who sits back and makes stupid insults to make people mad, like you just did? I mean, other people disagreed with an actual argument. You know, like facts, statistics, reasoning. 

Meh... he's a f*cking c*unt who made his way to my ignore list. That's quite an accomplishment, considering Justin, Nuggs, Deniz et al never ended up on my iggy list.

Man, I'd like for you to call me a **** to my face, you stupid piece of shit. Now, to be precise, you may not be stupid at giving hand jobs or whatever job you have, but about anything you talk about, you simply DO NOT know what you're talking about. The pain of having to deal with things you have no idea about make you feel a painful dissonance which you squelch by ignoring it. 

Yes. Very good. And, I was about to say the same thing about repeating myself and being at an impasse.

One correction: The 5 liberals on the supreme court agreed with you and the 4 conservatives agreed with me. Depending on three next president, we could see this, abortion as a right, or gun rights overturned.

Juan, you're basically repeating yourself. That's OK, but we're at an impasse.

Anyhow, you and I define "marriage" differently. You see it as a social and legal commitment between a man and a woman: I see it as a social-legal commitment between two people. You see it as inviolable, I see it as adaptable.

And guess what? The Supreme Court agrees with me and not you, and that is unlikely to change. So you either continue grumbling about it, saying it is against "natural law" (which is, as nate implied, your own ideological construct) and "destroys the bedrock of civilization", or you accept that the world is a changing place and try to be open to why this change occurred.