mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
To: NON-posters Options
TheParser
Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:59:15 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
To: Members who never start "Politics" threads and who never reply to "Politics" threads.

I thought that you might like this quotation that seems to compliment you on your discretion.


If you think, don't speak.

If you think and if you speak, don't write.

If you think, and if you speak, and if you write, don't sign your name.

If you think, and if you speak, and if you write and if you sign your name, don't be surprised .


*****


That quotation is attributed to an anonymous person who supposedly gave that advice to members of the clergy who wanted to advance their careers at the headquarters of a major religious denomination.
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:03:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,935
Neurons: 16,461
I laughed so heartily. witty.
isaaac
Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:23:12 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/20/2014
Posts: 88
Neurons: 42,671
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Into the Gut & across the Bow...Boo hoo! Boo hoo!
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:59:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 6,874
Neurons: 1,301,432
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
If you think, and if you speak, and if you write and if you sign your name, and if you are not surprised, you are qualified to be a journalist.

If you do not think, and if you speak, and if you write and if you sign your name, and if you are not surprised, you are qualified to be a politician.
TL2OTA
Posted: Friday, June 17, 2016 1:30:38 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 4/18/2016
Posts: 53
Neurons: 33,707
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Audiendus wrote:
If you think, and if you speak, and if you write and if you sign your name, and if you are not surprised, you are qualified to be a journalist.

If you do not think, and if you speak, and if you write and if you sign your name, and if you are not surprised, you are qualified to be a politician.

Well said, Audiendus. Exactly like Donald Trump. However, some politicians are successful because they do use their brains to think.
Bareskin2000
Posted: Friday, June 17, 2016 4:08:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/28/2014
Posts: 192
Neurons: 471,878
Location: Ramsgate, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Not just good advice for the clergy, many of us, including me, could do better to follow this advice.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, June 17, 2016 11:29:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,643
Neurons: 69,802
Audiendus wrote:


If you do not think, and if you speak, and if you write and if you sign your name, and if you are not surprised, you are qualified to be a politician.


It seems to me that this more accurately describes a journalist. It is expressly because of this inane thinking that I purposefully turn off the news for a week or so whenever a situation such as Orlando occurs. I have no desire to be drawn into the maelstrom of irrational and illogical thinking that attend such events.

I see also that the forum erupted in similar kind, judging by the topic headings, so avoid reading any of that also. It is always the same old repeated nonsense. We were attacked by an enemy, so the obvious solution is to call for gun control of OUR citizens. Right. This would be the equivalent of calling for gun control after Pearl Harbor.

There are a little over 1.1 Million people in Orange county, Florida. According to the L.A. Times, there are 1,640 people licensed to carry a firearm in the county. So what was the level of danger from those 1,640 people for the folks in the Pulse club? Zero.

So what was the danger? The danger lay in an insane religious belief that caused the believer to think he could kill innocent people in the name of his god, and that would be okay. He could have done as much, or perhaps more, harm with a five-gallon can of gasoline, or a twenty-gallon tank of propane, but he chose a gun. But it was not the weapon that was the danger, it was the insane and irrational religious belief.

This is not an indictment of Islam for he no more represents Islam than he does gun owners. Yet the political Left in this country always wants to affirm that any such shooter represents all gun owners, and therefore gun control is necessary, while denying he represents all Muslims. They can’t have it both ways.

Blaidd-Drwg
Posted: Friday, June 17, 2016 9:58:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,249
Neurons: 495,946
Location: Cambridge, Minnesota, United States
Back to the OP. If you do not think, lash out, be afraid, be hateful...then whine...loudly about how the world is against you. Because you hate.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, June 17, 2016 11:45:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,707
Neurons: 55,571
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
This might work as caution to members of the clergy protecting their careers, or to someone who is afraid to speak out at untruths and injustices.

I critically and objectively as possible with facts to back me up, think, speak, write, sign my name, and am not surprised any more.

Hope123
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:23:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,707
Neurons: 55,571
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Since I already responded to the OP and since this thread IS in the Politics section, I shall address FD's digression about gun control...

Quote FD - "Yet the political Left in this country always wants to affirm that any such shooter represents all gun owners (emphasis mine) and therefore gun control is necessary, while denying he represents all Muslims. They can’t have it both ways."

I disagree with this statement. The Left do not say that the shooter represents all owners.

Obama distinctly said it is almost impossible to stop a lone shooter. (once he has access to an easy method and if he didn't have an automatic, there would at least be fewer fatalities.)

What the Left are saying is 1. they want better background checks to try to weed out a few owners. The mentally unstable as well as the extremist. NOT ALL owners. It took seven minutes for a woman to see how long it would take to buy an assault rifle. 2. They want people on the no-fly list to be your only 'gun controlled' citizen. NOT ALL owners. Even though the FBI had investigated this shooter, they had no teeth to stop the sale.

It's all about prevention so these kinds of shootings and the discussions afterwards do not happen. A little longer questionaire and a few days wait seem to be a terrible impositiion to those against any changes, with the benefits to the group as a whole being ignored.

(Obama did refuse to indict Islam which infuriated Trump and the McCain, who accused Obama of being "directly complicit" in the shooting. Or maybe they just pretended to be infuriated and used this shooting as a political football. (I used to respect John McCain but he just blew it in his haste to do the knee-jerk party line.)

Yes, it is the Democrats and an awful lot of Republicans, even reasonable NRA members, who are asking for those two things - two reasonable things. They are not asking for blanket 'gun control' or to take away rifles and handguns from ALL citizens.


They aren't even asking for assault rifles to be banned. Why might you, FD, want an assault rifle that is meant to slaughter people to be in the hands of someone who is not in the 'militia'? You do if you oppose any changes to the laws. Methinks if you use it for hunting, there would be nothing left of the animal and no sport at all. I have been told sport hunters do not use assault rifles. Unless the sport is to kill humans. A homeowner does not need an assault rifle to protect himself or his home, which is always the argument for guns and this is not even in contention. These assault rifles are the weapons of choice in the mass killings since the ban on them was not renewed in Bush's time. 2005 or thereabouts, I think. We are not talking about handguns and regular rifles.

And of the 67 shooters in the last thirty years, 65 had mental issues - something being ignored in this case (wife beater) - and 55 obtained the guns legally.

Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, led a filibuster for almost fifteen hours yesterday until the Republican leaders agreed to hold votes on amendments to expand background checks and ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

It would be nice if they would pass them, but with NRA contributions... I can't vet the accuracy of these sites, but it is known that it is happening. There is even a list on the one website of politicians who (disclaimer for me - allegedly) take money and it must be legal?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/records-show-nra-top-political-earners-article-1.2390811


Even Donald Trump says he is going to talk to the NRA about passing legislation, so I guess the NRA really are running the country with their money. He's not going to talk to the legislators. The NRA spends loads of money and works hard to lobby Congress, influence elections, and make sure the Right enforces their message of no changes to gun control laws at all. (In fact the NRA promoted their products for Father's Day! )

And this is democracy in action!?

Some limits on election campaign contributions would seem to solve the problem? I don't understand why that cannot be done in the USA.


Hope123
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2016 1:16:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,707
Neurons: 55,571
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
https://youtu.be/TOMnOWkG-qM

Mind boggling unless you own one of these.
TheParser
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2016 7:07:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
Many thanks for all the very nice and interesting replies.

I am so glad that the quotation resonated with you, as it did with me.

Hope123
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2016 9:53:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,707
Neurons: 55,571
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Thank you, Parser.
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2016 2:07:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,643
Neurons: 69,802
I know we're never going to agree on this subject, but thought to add my thoughts to some of your points.

Hope123 wrote:

Since I already responded to the OP and since this thread IS in the Politics section, I shall address FD's digression about gun control...

Quote FD - "Yet the political Left in this country always wants to affirm that any such shooter represents all gun owners (emphasis mine) and therefore gun control is necessary, while denying he represents all Muslims. They can’t have it both ways."

I disagree with this statement. The Left do not say that the shooter represents all owners.
You may disagree, but by their actions, this is exactly what they are saying. If one person commits an act such as in Orlando, and the political Left then wants to adopt policies that affect ALL who would own a gun, it is the equivalent of treating ALL owners the same, i.e., any one of them might be mentally ill, or a terrorist.

Obama distinctly said it is almost impossible to stop a lone shooter. (once he has access to an easy method and if he didn't have an automatic, there would at least be fewer fatalities.)
Since it is impossible to stop a lone shooter, then gun control will not work. It is, however, easier to stop him once he begins, if his victims are armed. Like the fellow in your video, for example. Had I been standing in front of him, I could have stopped him before he got his rifle out of his pants. It would also have been easy to stop him in any one of his reloading moments had I come upon him doing so. It is impressive in how silly it is to think that would be a real life scenario in a room of armed potential victims.

It appears you are ignorant of a few facts about automatic weapons. I do not use ignorant in a pejorative way, but to mean lacking knowledge. No person may legally purchase an automatic weapon. A criminal might smuggle one into the country, or a terrorist such as the insane religious fanatic I spoke of might be trained in how to convert to one, but they cannot be purchased. All guns sold fire only one bullet at a time. An assault weapon fires ALL its bullets when the trigger is held down. No one may own one.

What the Left are saying is 1. they want better background checks to try to weed out a few owners. The mentally unstable as well as the extremist. NOT ALL owners. It took seven minutes for a woman to see how long it would take to buy an assault rifle. 2. They want people on the no-fly list to be your only 'gun controlled' citizen. NOT ALL owners. Even though the FBI had investigated this shooter, they had no teeth to stop the sale.
But to “weed out” a few, they must investigate ALL. Odd, however, that the Left is happy to investigate ALL citizens, yet allow entry to anyone, with no vetting whatsoever, from the area where these fanatics have declared war on the West. The FBI has no “teeth” because, in my opinion, they were not permitted to, because he was Muslim, and Muslims are favored so as not to offend any.

It's all about prevention so these kinds of shootings and the discussions afterwards do not happen. A little longer questionaire and a few days wait seem to be a terrible impositiion to those against any changes, with the benefits to the group as a whole being ignored.
But, as the President said, it is almost impossible to stop a lone shooter. And if he or she doesn’t say anything, it becomes totally impossible, so a background check and investigation accomplishes nothing.

(Obama did refuse to indict Islam which infuriated Trump and the McCain, who accused Obama of being "directly complicit" in the shooting. Or maybe they just pretended to be infuriated and used this shooting as a political football. (I used to respect John McCain but he just blew it in his haste to do the knee-jerk party line.)
They were correct. These insane religious fanatics have declared war on the West, and Obama refuses to acknowledge that. He tries to treat an act of war as a criminal act. Who is behind these attacks? Christians? Bhuddists? Taoists? Shinto? No, it is radical Muslims who hold to an insane religious belief. Yet the President refuses to acknowledge this, and puts our citizens in danger by bringing in people with no way to vet them for their potential danger to us.

Yes, it is the Democrats and an awful lot of Republicans, even reasonable NRA members, who are asking for those two things - two reasonable things. They are not asking for blanket 'gun control' or to take away rifles and handguns from ALL citizens.
Again, a more intelligent approach would be to investigate Muslims who may hold radical beliefs. It is this group who pose the greatest threat. After all, if the Left is willing to investigate all our citizens to “weed” out a few, why not be willing to investigate Muslims to weed out their few? Why is this an offensive question to the Left?

They aren't even asking for assault rifles to be banned. Why might you, FD, want an assault rifle that is meant to slaughter people to be in the hands of someone who is not in the 'militia'? You do if you oppose any changes to the laws. Methinks if you use it for hunting, there would be nothing left of the animal and no sport at all. I have been told sport hunters do not use assault rifles. Unless the sport is to kill humans. A homeowner does not need an assault rifle to protect himself or his home, which is always the argument for guns and this is not even in contention. These assault rifles are the weapons of choice in the mass killings since the ban on them was not renewed in Bush's time. 2005 or thereabouts, I think. We are not talking about handguns and regular rifles.
And again, NO ONE may own an assault rifle. No hunter would use one, for it would destroy the very game he hunts. No home owner may own one, and cannot purchase one. And no one advocates using one for home defense. Furthermore, NO assault rifles have been used in mass killings, since they are NOT available.

Some information on the subject to increase your knowledge:
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

And of the 67 shooters in the last thirty years, 65 had mental issues - something being ignored in this case (wife beater) - and 55 obtained the guns legally.
And if guns had not been available, then acid, knives, clubs, or some other weapon would have been used. How would you screen for those? The fact is, no system will ever stop mentally ill people from committing crimes. This is a specious argument.

Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, led a filibuster for almost fifteen hours yesterday until the Republican leaders agreed to hold votes on amendments to expand background checks and ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.
How will they ban gun sales to suspected terrorists when there is no policy for doing so? That would mean screening Muslims, and the Administration won’t do that. How will they even know who they are when they have no border prevention system to keep them from illegally entering the country, such as the ONE that was caught 150 miles into the US, leading to the question of how many have not been caught?

It would be nice if they would pass them, but with NRA contributions... I can't vet the accuracy of these sites, but it is known that it is happening. There is even a list on the one website of politicians who (disclaimer for me - allegedly) take money and it must be legal?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/records-show-nra-top-political-earners-article-1.2390811

Politicians take money on both sides of the isle – Republicans and Democrats – irrelevant because it proves nothing.

Even Donald Trump says he is going to talk to the NRA about passing legislation, so I guess the NRA really are running the country with their money. He's not going to talk to the legislators. The NRA spends loads of money and works hard to lobby Congress, influence elections, and make sure the Right enforces their message of no changes to gun control laws at all. (In fact the NRA promoted their products for Father's Day! )

And this is democracy in action!?
Yes, it is. And as above, ALL politicians take money from those who support pet positions – not just the NRA.

Some limits on election campaign contributions would seem to solve the problem? I don't understand why that cannot be done in the USA.
Not likely now that the system is in place. Newly elected people quickly find that they are neutered unless they play the game.

Blaidd-Drwg
Posted: Sunday, June 19, 2016 12:03:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,249
Neurons: 495,946
Location: Cambridge, Minnesota, United States
The gun discussion is continued here.

To continue the OP's discussion here.

If you do not think.
Lash out.
Be afraid.
Be hateful...then whine...loudly about how the world is against you. Because you hate.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, June 19, 2016 3:45:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,707
Neurons: 55,571
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Hope123 wrote:
This might work as caution to members of the clergy protecting their careers, or to someone who is afraid to speak out at untruths and injustices.

I critically and objectively as possible with facts to back me up, think, speak, write, sign my name, and am not surprised any more.

Hope123


Or continue it here, Progpen. Boo hoo!

Notice the addition of crtical, objective, and facts to tell you what to think. Nobody can be perfectly objective, but it helps to try to put emotion aside when forming opinions, especially emotions like like hate and anger, and especially if you are too close to the subject.

According to someone who knew him, the Orlando shooter had a perpetual anger problem and used it to project hate to everyone, especially women and the gay. He could not think properly.


Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.