Instead of getting worked up over the UN stealing your guns, why don't you get outraged over a legitimate threat (conspiracy, carry)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
80% of the funding for Super-PACs have come from 186 people -- .000063% of Americans. How can you give a rats ass about some symbolic gesture to the UN that holds no weight, when our entire political process is being usurped by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people w/ money?
This isn't some nebulous threat. This is people deciding what you know and care about, and as a result, who you vote for. And the fact that you're buying into the UN hype shows how narrow-minded and easily misled you are by other people telling you what to care about. It's amazing how the people who say they're vigilant about making sure the gov't doesn't get too powerful and tyrannical, are perfectly okay w/ a few people having most of the say in our politics...
Both are pretty much waste's of time. Gun owners are not going to care one whit what the U.N. says and if you allow advertisements decide for you who to vote for, well...........
80% of the funding for Super-PACs have come from 186 people -- .000063% of Americans. How can you give a rats ass about some symbolic gesture to the UN that holds no weight, when our entire political process is being usurped by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people w/ money?
This isn't some nebulous threat. This is people deciding what you know and care about, and as a result, who you vote for. And the fact that you're buying into the UN hype shows how narrow-minded and easily misled you are by other people telling you what to care about. It's amazing how the people who say they're vigilant about making sure the gov't doesn't get too powerful and tyrannical, are perfectly okay w/ a few people having most of the say in our politics...
This post deserves a little disection:
1) Since you brought up the UN/gun debate, you are inarguably targeting conservatives, and by extension, conservative leaning Super PACs in the rest of your post.
2) Since the connection is clear, there's really no reason to entertain any further debate because you conveniently have not leveled any consternation or angst towards liberal SuperPACs.
3) Dead thread. Objectivity is nowhere to be found.
1) Since you brought up the UN/gun debate, you are inarguably targeting conservatives, and by extension, conservative leaning Super PACs in the rest of your post.
2) Since the connection is clear, there's really no reason to entertain any further debate because you conveniently have not leveled any consternation or angst towards liberal SuperPACs.
3) Dead thread. Objectivity is nowhere to be found.
Your failure is in seeing a partisan attack when there isn't one. The article doesn't separate Conservative PACs from Liberal PACs. They're all lumped together and it's still a few hundred people deciding the direction of our political discourse, a few hundred people that are buying the allegiance of our government to them. Isn't this the plutocracy you're always afraid we're slipping into?
And what do you do when it's pointed out? Cry like an idiot about it being a partisan attack. I don't want rich Liberals deciding the direction of the country anymore than I want rich Conservatives to b/c either way my voice and the voice of people like me are irrelevant.
But that's okay. As long as you can keep the guns that no one's threatening to take away, you're happy being oblivious and irrelevant.
Your failure is in seeing a partisan attack when there isn't one. The article doesn't separate Conservative PACs from Liberal PACs. They're all lumped together and it's still a few hundred people deciding the direction of our political discourse, a few hundred people that are buying the allegiance of our government to them. Isn't this the plutocracy you're always afraid we're slipping into?
It's easy. Quit voting for those whose loyalty they are buying.
Quote:
But that's okay. As long as you can keep the guns that no one's threatening to take away, you're happy being oblivious and irrelevant.
Nobody is setting the agenda unless you allow them to.
Your failure is in seeing a partisan attack when there isn't one. The article doesn't separate Conservative PACs from Liberal PACs. They're all lumped together and it's still a few hundred people deciding the direction of our political discourse, a few hundred people that are buying the allegiance of our government to them. Isn't this the plutocracy you're always afraid we're slipping into?
And what do you do when it's pointed out? Cry like an idiot about it being a partisan attack. I don't want rich Liberals deciding the direction of the country anymore than I want rich Conservatives to b/c either way my voice and the voice of people like me are irrelevant.
But that's okay. As long as you can keep the guns that no one's threatening to take away, you're happy being oblivious and irrelevant.
The article is 100% irrelevant to my comments. In case you didn't notice, YOU injected the partisanship with your UN/gun snatch diatribe. That makes your thread pretty worthless from an objectivity standpoint. If you didn't want partisanship, then you shouldn't have injected it. But carry on. I'm sure all 47 of your liberal colleagues on this forum will be more than happy to dwell in the Kumbayah Of Ignorance™ that you so obviously want to engage in.
Your failure is in seeing a partisan attack when there isn't one. The article doesn't separate Conservative PACs from Liberal PACs. They're all lumped together and it's still a few hundred people deciding the direction of our political discourse, a few hundred people that are buying the allegiance of our government to them. Isn't this the plutocracy you're always afraid we're slipping into?
And what do you do when it's pointed out? Cry like an idiot about it being a partisan attack. I don't want rich Liberals deciding the direction of the country anymore than I want rich Conservatives to b/c either way my voice and the voice of people like me are irrelevant.
But that's okay. As long as you can keep the guns that no one's threatening to take away, you're happy being oblivious and irrelevant.
You are error to assume that he even read the article.
The article is 100% irrelevant to my comments. In case you didn't notice, YOU injected the partisanship with your UN/gun snatch diatribe. That makes your thread pretty worthless from an objectivity standpoint. If you didn't want partisanship, then you shouldn't have injected it. But carry on. I'm sure all 47 of your liberal colleagues on this forum will be more than happy to dwell in the Kumbayah Of Ignorance™ that you so obviously want to engage in.
So b/c the believers of an insane conspiracy theory are predominantly Conservative nutjobs, attacking that insane Conspiracy is partisan... If that's how your twisted little mind works...
If Liberals suddenly decided to take up the banner to oppose the UN gun grab too, guess what? I'd still think it was a stupid insane conspiracy theory! And I'd still be yelling at the retards holding the banner to pay attention to the real threat to our democracy! But like I said, it's not my fault that the crowd holding up the banner is predominantly Conservative nutjobs.
I've never had the pleasure of dealing w/ someone who's head is simultaneously buried in the sand and their own a22.
You are error to assume that he even read the article.
The article is 100% irrelevant to the partisanship he injected. If he wanted an objective discussion on SuperPacs, then he should have never mentioneed the UN/gun grab tripe. But he didn't....instead he chose to muddy the waters on the influence of SuperPacs with a not-so-veiled jab at conservatives when in fact liberal SuperPacs are just as dangerous.
It looks like the Kumbayah of Ignorance™ that I mentioned in the last post is carrying on as planned!
So b/c the believers of an insane conspiracy theory are predominantly Conservative nutjobs, attacking that insane Conspiracy is partisan... If that's how your twisted little mind works...
If Liberals suddenly decided to take up the banner to oppose the UN gun grab too, guess what? I'd still think it was a stupid insane conspiracy theory! And I'd still be yelling at the retards holding the banner to pay attention to the real threat to our democracy! But like I said, it's not my fault that the crowd holding up the banner is predominantly Conservative nutjobs.
I've never had the pleasure of dealing w/ someone who's head is simultaneously buried in the sand and their own a22.
The article says NOTHING......I repeat NOTHING.....about the UN or gun policy. YOU chose the tone of this thread by making a bi-partisan issue partisan.
What were you saying about "twisted little minds?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that's how your twisted little mind works...
