BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: onan on March 15, 2013, 02:08:53 PM
It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the best presented argument is always the better resolution. And because someone uses a claim to authority doesn't mean they have no authority.
The constitution isn't clear on private ownership of firearms... And the debate/discussion on what is an appropriate firearm is a worthy discussion. Even if it includes those that are diametrically opposed to another's viewpoint.
If anyone thinks the constitution is speaking about more than muskets... their position is tenuous at best. I do not think anyone here would with straight face suggest ground to air missiles are guaranteed by the constitution.
I do think "assault" weapons are by and large no more threatening than a snub nose 38. And I am not in favor of limiting ownership of said weapons.
All that being said, if anyone is pandering and using emotions to sway the public... check the NRA... that shit is off the hook.

Good job onan, you've done a better job than the senior senator from California.  And before you tell me I am being condescending, I am serious.  However, I do have some questions.

QuoteIt is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the best presented argument is always the better resolution.

  Why?  Help me understand that. If an argument has a fallacy can it be presented better than one that doesn't have a fallacy? It really seems to me that it is irrelevant on how an argument is presented, whether it is presented the best or not, but if it has fallacies.  That is the true strength of an argument.

QuoteAnd because someone uses a claim to authority doesn't mean they have no authority.

She has been in Washington a long time, and she said has studied the Constitution. I wonder to what end Mrs. Feinstein has studied the consitution.  Here is a quote from 2000, "I don't look at the Constituion as a static document," Feinstein said. "I look at it as a living document, and it has to adapt to changing  circumstances."  Other than that quote there is little else from Feinstein concerning her understanding of the constitution.  Normally, in cases such as these one would look for what a person has written on the subject, but I don't seem to be able to locate and journal articles etc etc. to show that she is an authority on the Constitution.   Perhaps though, she is a arm chair expert, and is too involved in other activities to show her expertise. 

Pretty rare, a person from congress that talks openly about following the constitution:


Gun battle: Dianne Feinstein And Ted Cruz Debate Assault Weapons Ban


Feinstein right off the bat has to rely on ad misericordiam arguments, and then does not answer the question.


She also uses another fallacy: Appeal to Age

Quote from: onan on March 07, 2013, 01:51:37 PM

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2010/03/rand-paul-unprincipled-warmongerer.html


Start there.

hahah,  I'm sorry, I read it, and cannot take that seriously. 


This was the best one

QuoteHow can I throw my support behind a candidate that advocates the continued murder of innocent farmers and children in foreign lands? And it is that simple.

I thought the left liked to argue how complex things are.

Quote from: onan on March 07, 2013, 11:58:14 AM
I just don't think Rand Paul is all that and a bag of chips.

You seem to be a man of the left.  If you are that is likely the reason you if the way you do, or is there some other reason?

Do you care if it is new or old?

Quote from: Artsy on February 13, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
Here's what I really, really miss...

"Frommmmmm the high desert....."

End of an era, get over it.

Quote from: Treading Water on February 10, 2013, 03:35:10 PM

Yes, they do carry it.  But not on the "cheap" option.  Mine expires this month and I'm not going to renew.  They follow the cable TV business plan.

I looked into satellite radio for about 5 mins about 2 years ago.  Unless you're on the road a lot, I don't think it is worth it.  With all the stuff that is streamed over the Internet it becomes redundant.

Quote from: somatic hypermutation on January 21, 2013, 11:10:18 PM

I love some of the old news and adverts.

I also like the old news reports and advertisements.  I think, though, we're in the minority.

Quote from: ClayNation on February 08, 2013, 05:45:47 AM
I thought he was a chip off the ole block, but it looks like he's gone full neocon.  His statements on spending "100 years in Iraq" to fight "Islamic radicalism" made me facepalm.

Then you need to read a little bit more closely.

Tyranny  in America

Naperville Police Assist Smart Meter Installers

Quote from: Sardondi on February 03, 2013, 03:13:40 PM
Of course. But it's not responsive to what valdez said. It's as if he wrote, "I like chocolate", and you responded, "Tuesday".

He was actually referring to freedom of the press. 'Freedom of speech' was used has a general term for the 1st amendment. 

Quote from: Sardondi on February 03, 2013, 02:31:53 PM
? But there is nothing about valdez's statement which is "contrary to the 1st Amendment". There is a disconnect between your first statement and your second. onan has it right, below...

No, you're wrong. It is called a free press. When a reporter feels obliged (because of favors etc...) not report certain facts, the press is not free. 

Quote from: valdez on February 03, 2013, 06:51:49 AM

     I thought that "dead air" thing also odd.  Stringing together a bunch of words before actually formulating a thought is Wells' thing, but the "what do you think?" question from David Seaman completely short circuited him.  My first impression of Micheal Hastings was that he's a weasel.  He was the guy who hung out with Gen. McCrystal in Afghanistan, wrote a piece about it for Rolling Stone, and got the general fired.  I've never thought much of these journalist who tag along with our troops, are protected by them (not in some esoteric "they defend our rights" way, but literally, as in the "somebody is shooting at us" way) and then they write stuff that brings the heat on our guys.  Yeah, I know, freedom of speech, whatever.  McCrystal should have also known better.  After the interview my impression of Hastings was that he's a snickering weasel who says "you know" a lot.  I think he was high.

Your idea is so contrary to the  1st amendment.  We need a free press to report the honest truth.

Aha! Thar tis

If there was a way to do this it would be really helpful.

Chinese New Year bash planned for NBA
The NBA will welcome the Year of the Snake with 23 live games shown and streamed on the internet in China from February 7-14. Five clubs will host Chinese-themed tributes in their arenas.  All teams playing on February 8 will wear specially designed shirts for Chinese New Year.

Quote from: Marc knight on January 31, 2013, 06:51:34 AM
Are we certain that Art will return with a paranormal talk show.  Maybe he'll mix it up a little.

Art has always mixed it up a little.

FBI Director: I Have to Check to See If Obama Has the Right to Kill Americans On U.S. Soil

I'm watching the Clinton hearing right now.  Not more than five minutes into her testimony she is already misleading the people's representatives. Still waiting to see if any of the senators are going to go after the truth or let the lies live on.

Quote from: somatic hypermutation on January 19, 2013, 01:23:46 PM

Dennis Kucinich is nuts, he is so far left he fell off the table.

We have not had an Act of War for a long time, and we have had alot of wars.  Which wars are you mad about, here is the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Alright, so you're response is fallacious, and not based on logic.
For example, Dennis  Kucinich is a left wing nut, therefore he cannot be correct about the need for declaring war (which the constitution demands).
Okay so this is going off topic; but failure by others does not mean it becomes legally acceptable for present or future leaders to break laws.  It is laughable that Barack Obama was lauded with having taught constitutional law, so that he might follow the constitution. He failed to acknowledge the congress. Thus, President Obama took actions outside the constitution.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya
As Prepared for Delivery



Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya 1



Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 2



Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 3



Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 4



Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 5

Quote from: somatic hypermutation on January 19, 2013, 04:58:20 AM
"Given Obama's history of of arbitrarily taking actions outide the Constitution" - provide concrete examples

He went to war without consent of the congress.




Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya 1


I'll post the rest in Politics on YouTube

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on January 16, 2013, 01:57:28 PM.I don't see how any of that can be argued against, unless someone insists every nutjob should have access to guns and enough rounds to begin a small war? It's a start anyway.

haha good straw man.

I think this week showed that he has improved a lot over the course of the past year.

Quote from: Gay on January 10, 2013, 11:50:16 PM
Is Art in Philippines or USA?

USA

Quote from: BobGrau on January 08, 2013, 07:36:10 PM

Er, perhaps it's... BECAUSE they live in a brutal totalitarian regime? ie they have no choice?

"oh, well why don't they have a revolution? We here in america had one, threw off the shackles and stood proud etc"
-except you freed yourselves from a government half a world away which couldn't afford to keep you or fight you. Things are very different for the chinese, north koreans and so on.

You skipped your lesson on the Chinese revolution of 1911?
   Oh, thats right the communists, after they won the civil war in 1949, took all the guns away.   

Quote from: BobGrau on January 08, 2013, 03:34:08 PM

Good idea! Let's see a quick show of hands: How many people, left or right, are in favour of living in a brutal totalitarian regime that forces its citizens to live in a particular way?

None? Great, then you're all on the same side. Happy New Year!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to take a dump here...

  If nobody wants to live in a brutal totalitarian  regime, why do 1 billion people (in the Chinese) put up with one?  Is it because they knew one day they would be able to buy the Iphone, same as most anyone else in the world? Or, is there some other reason people put up with brutal  totalitarian regimes?

Quote from: BobGrau on January 07, 2013, 07:19:36 PM
I think I'll print out this thread for toilet paper. I'll be sure to use both sides.

And anytime you want to actually and to the discussion, please go ahead.

Quote from: CrabbyOld Bat on January 06, 2013, 09:44:33 PM
What would you call them then?

Like the Clintons, they are neo conservatives (globalists). 


I think Paper Boy points out something crucial.  Stalin and Hitler, rivals, were both huge supporters of big government.  True conservatives favor a minimum of government. 

Quote from: CrabbyOld Bat on January 06, 2013, 08:36:07 PM
Hitler and the Nazis were not leftists. There is no question that Hitler hated socialism, communism, homosexuals and Jews.  Those aspects of his political and personal views alone should rule out any leftward leaning attributed to Adolf & company, IMO.  But if you're saying he wasn't exactly rightwing, there's some argument to be made for that as well. The fact is, Hitler was a very unique crackpot with neither side being precisely where his cold, psychotic heart called home.   All that considered, it's interesting that the conservative (rightwing) Bush family made a large part of its fortune by helping to launder money for the Nazis. And I don't think anyone would disagree that today's neo-nazis are definitely rightwing extremists. So there are at least some connections, past and present, to Nazis and the rightwing.

(If you're not familiar with Prescott Bush and the Nazi connection, here's an interesting article just to give you an idea of what I'm referring to: http://rense.com/general26/dutch.htm )

The Bushes are not conservatives.