Anyone start an RNC discussion thread yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

Did you listen to the whole thing?

---

Mostly, it seemed to be the MSNBC guardians of truth blathering about "angry white people", and being shocked to hear someone who didn't share their ideology.

Less "shocked" and more "appalled" and/or "offended"...

And not so much about difference in ideology but by purposeful ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Mostly, it seemed to be the MSNBC guardians of truth blathering about "angry white people", and being shocked to hear someone who didn't share their ideology.

---

That was my take-away as well. Dividing people into groups and sub-groups seems to be very popular with progressives, maybe they think they own it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

Less "shocked" and more "appalled" and/or "offended"...

---

I think that's a virtue-signaling method on the left. Unless you're "appalled" or "offended" or better yet "terrified" by a contrary opinion, how can you be sure of your moral supremacy?

Do you find any opinions appalling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

Do you find any opinions appalling?

---

What is the practical use of signaling that one is apalled? What doesvthat accomplish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

Do you find any opinions appalling?

---

I find some actions appalling. For mere opinion, I have real trouble whipping myself up into a lather.

I do get a little emotional about the designated hitter rule sometimes, though. If you want to play the game, you should swing your own bat.

From opinions often come actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

So, would you be in favor of someone like myself being able to nullify your individual rights such as due process, protection against unreasonable search & seizure or the right not to incriminate yourself? Should you be flexible on these points if I think it's reasonable?

---

Alan......I understand what you're saying, but my rights don't kill people so easily. I know the constitution is written in stone supposedly, but when should a society think about changing it, in order to get a handle on the violence? I mostly likely trust you and a couple of the others on this forum who own guns, and I wouldn't want to take your rights away. But there are so many bad people out there who are abusing the right. Can't we figure out a way to be just a little flexible in order to strive to work towards a less violent nation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyA

Alan......I understand what you're saying, but my rights don't kill people so easily. I know the constitution is written in stone supposedly, but when should a society think about changing it, in order to get a handle on the violence? I mostly likely trust you and a couple of the others on this forum who own guns, and I wouldn't want to take your rights away. But there are so many bad people out there who are abusing the right. Can't we figure out a way to be just a little flexible in order to strive to work towards a less violent nation?

---

Yes, we should encourage people not to be violent. A good starting point might be to blame the actor rather than blame the tool.