65 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1751
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
CVC wrote:
Yeah, I saw that - it is a new person. They are dredging up lots of old posts.

They're new so it wouldn't be fun to give them any guff. You on the other hand Big smile

Yeah, it's cool. What would you do without your friendly neighborhood liberal to poke fun at? Laugh

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
SoCoKHntr wrote:
CVC wrote:
Yeah, I saw that - it is a new person. They are dredging up lots of old posts.

They're new so it wouldn't be fun to give them any guff. You on the other hand Big smile

Yeah, it's cool. What would you do without your friendly neighborhood liberal to poke fun at? Laugh

Hey, even Hannity has Colmes.

Offline
Location: Kingston, MI
Joined: 01/16/2007
Posts: 648
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson

Since this started with an old post, I'll bring up some old news:

On August 28, 2007 Rev. Jesse Jackson organized an anti-gun protest in up to 25 cities nationwide. Not willing to lay the blame for crime on criminals, Jackson and his cronies claimed, "people who buy guns from gun shops kill people." Since the sale of every firearm from every licensed gun dealer is subject to a background check, it is unclear how the millions of law-abiding Americans who go through this mandated check and legally "buy guns from gun shops" are responsible for killing people. Then again, though, Jackson is never one to let the facts get in the way of a misguided PR opportunity.

This isn't a right vs. wrong (oops, I mean left) argument. It's just meant to be information in which one can draw their own conclusions.

For the record. differing viewpoints is part of the reason why I like Hannity and Colmes.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson

Narrow minded attacks...HA. Narrow minded in SoCo's mind means exposing flaws in facts and logic. Of course, in his world refusing to answer challenges to his position doesn't make him "narrow minded." He's so busy railing on the Right that he doesn't realize how incapable of discourse he's become.

Here's his playbook:

1. Repeat liberal rhetoric.

2. Substitute emotion for facts.

3. When faced with a question about his position's validity, attack the questioner instead of defending his position. This consists of either a) attacking the questioner's intelligence; b) accusing the questioner of being unable to think for himself; c) twisting the debate to try to pigeonhole the questioner and thus shift the debate away from the subject at hand.

4. If #3 fails, claim victimization for being on a crusade to rid the world of closed-mindedness.

5. Repeat.

The important thing to remember in the process is to never actually engage an opponent point for point.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1751
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
expatriate wrote:
Narrow minded attacks...HA. Narrow minded in SoCo's mind means exposing flaws in facts and logic. Of course, in his world refusing to answer challenges to his position doesn't make him "narrow minded." He's so busy railing on the Right that he doesn't realize how incapable of discourse he's become.

Here's his playbook:

1. Repeat liberal rhetoric.

2. Substitute emotion for facts.

3. When faced with a question about his position's validity, attack the questioner instead of defending his position. This consists of either a) attacking the questioner's intelligence; b) accusing the questioner of being unable to think for himself; c) twisting the debate to try to pigeonhole the questioner and thus shift the debate away from the subject at hand.

4. If #3 fails, claim victimization for being on a crusade to rid the world of closed-mindedness.

5. Repeat.

The important thing to remember in the process is to never actually engage an opponent point for point.

In my view you are the one who claims victimization. You are the one claiming an evil left movement is out to steal what you have and make you dependent on the state. Funny how every label you hang on me you yourself are guilty of.

Do you not just repeat right wing rhetoric?

Don't you get angry and respond emotionally when you refer to my posts? Hell, one person claimed I made up who I was. That's pretty emotional!

Engage point for point, huh? Instead of looking at the whole spectrum of an issue you study only the ones that bolster your view and then repeat, repeat, repeat them ad infinitum. You then only accept as right others that repeat exactly the mantra you do. If a person dares shows the desire to form their own opinion and share that opinion you deride them as part of the evil left out to castrate you.

The sad thing is that's not honest intellectually or otherwise. Maybe it makes you feel good or gives you a purpose and a target to direct your frustrations at.

How are you so capable of discourse? All you do is say here, here is my proof now believe me and tell me I'm right. You are as close minded as anyone else who gets on a forum to argue political ideology.

Offline
Location: Kingston, MI
Joined: 01/16/2007
Posts: 648
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson

Wow expatriate, you couldn't have been more "right." That was items 1 through 5 just as you predicted.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1751
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
Whelland wrote:
Wow expatriate, you couldn't have been more "right." That was items 1 through 5 just as you predicted.

Well isn't that an earth shattering surprise whelland agreed with expat who used the exact talking points Rush taught him to say about 'Democrats'. Laugh Nobody saw that one coming.

Offline
Location: Puyallup, WA / Grand Rapids, MI
Joined: 10/24/2007
Posts: 96
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
SoCoKHntr wrote:
expatriate wrote:
Narrow minded attacks...HA. Narrow minded in SoCo's mind means exposing flaws in facts and logic. Of course, in his world refusing to answer challenges to his position doesn't make him "narrow minded." He's so busy railing on the Right that he doesn't realize how incapable of discourse he's become.

Here's his playbook:

1. Repeat liberal rhetoric.

2. Substitute emotion for facts.

3. When faced with a question about his position's validity, attack the questioner instead of defending his position. This consists of either a) attacking the questioner's intelligence; b) accusing the questioner of being unable to think for himself; c) twisting the debate to try to pigeonhole the questioner and thus shift the debate away from the subject at hand.

4. If #3 fails, claim victimization for being on a crusade to rid the world of closed-mindedness.

5. Repeat.

The important thing to remember in the process is to never actually engage an opponent point for point.

In my view you are the one who claims victimization. You are the one claiming an evil left movement is out to steal what you have and make you dependent on the state. Funny how every label you hang on me you yourself are guilty of.

Do you not just repeat right wing rhetoric?

Don't you get angry and respond emotionally when you refer to my posts? Hell, one person claimed I made up who I was. That's pretty emotional!

Engage point for point, huh? Instead of looking at the whole spectrum of an issue you study only the ones that bolster your view and then repeat, repeat, repeat them ad infinitum. You then only accept as right others that repeat exactly the mantra you do. If a person dares shows the desire to form their own opinion and share that opinion you deride them as part of the evil left out to castrate you.

The sad thing is that's not honest intellectually or otherwise. Maybe it makes you feel good or gives you a purpose and a target to direct your frustrations at.

How are you so capable of discourse? All you do is say here, here is my proof now believe me and tell me I'm right. You are as close minded as anyone else who gets on a forum to argue political ideology.

I hate to get identified with the left-wing side, but this is too much.

You say that SoCoKHunter is ignoring reasoned debate and instead making personal attacks, repeating rhetoric from his side, and using emotional appeals.

That may be true (in more recent posts), but:
In this post, aren't you doing that too?

At the beginning of this, SoCoKHunter stated his view on gun control, but you never debated that view. I've read every word of this, and I still don't know your view of the issue or where you disagree. Everything written has been emotions and personal attacks.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Re: I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
SoCoKHntr wrote:
I own many guns and I hunt so, I am not in favor of any idiotic gun control legislation. That being said I believe most who are in favor of some forms of gun control are not extremists who want to take everyones guns away.

Hmmm... so what defines idiotic? Clearly any law that takes "your guns", whatever that may be, away is extremism, but what about my guns? Please do tell what constitutes idiotic?

SoCoKHntr wrote:
Rather I think after incidents like the Virgina Tech Massacre or Columbine they would like some measures put into place so mentally ill or mass murdering intent people can't easily get their hands on high capacity killing machines and succesfully kill high numbers of innocent people.

Lets think about this wide reaching statement just for a minute, because here in lies the heart of the gun control movement. First, lets take Cho at VT, he was adjudicated mentally defective a condition for which the laws already takes into account.

Cho lied on the 4473, the government however did not forward his adjudication to NICS and therefore was not denied at transfer time. No new laws are needed or were needed to stop Cho, enforcement of the laws on the books is what is needed. You should also note that a bill was passed by a bipartisan majority, backed by the NRA, and signed by Bush in order to make the adjudications more available to the NICS.

This topic is covered in an old forum thread here:

http://www.biggamehunt.net/node/22005

Now lets talk about Columbine. The weapons used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by Klebold's 18 year old girlfriend at a Colorado gun show. Two things happened, for one it was a straw purchase, two Colorado has since moved to require background checks at gun shows. Beyond that what other legislation would you propose?

Now about "mass murdering intent" people, it would also be great if we could know in advance about rapists, murders, robbers, and other lesser crimes. The problem is there is not a system that I'm aware of that could achieve this without throwing out a good deal of our other basic rights. No law can root out intent without tramping on rights.

Rather let responsible people arm themselves so they may at least defend themselves when the unfortunate and inevitable happens and evil comes knocking.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson

GBoyd, I actually did make repeated attempts to engage SoCo on the gun control issue in the presidential poll thread, I believe. The issue was his assertion that Obama is not anti-gun, and that we're wrong to say that he is. I (and a few others) pointed out Obama's record on the issue, complete with facts to back the position. He responded much the same way he responded to my last post here -- no debate, just duck, dodge, howl, and personal attacks instead of addressing the points at hand.

The best analogy I've heard was that gun owners voting for Obama is like chickens voting for Col Sanders. Obama's legislative record and public statements back that analogy. SoCo blusters, but won't debate on any sort of academic level that focuses on positions derived from factual evidence.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Jesse Jackson coordinates anti-gun demonstrationsWhelland308/28/2007 20:31 pm
First Bear for Jesse Vidlynx007/03/2009 13:56 pm
BLM management.. Thought this might be of interest for some in the area.hunter25610/11/2011 09:19 am
Taurus .44?OZSTRIKER22103/24/2004 12:34 pm
Another Newb...Slackjaw509/23/2007 22:36 pm