Cugalabanza
-
Posts
7,927 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cugalabanza
-
-
Just now, njbuff said:
Yeah, one that says liberalism is a mental disorder.
Oh good, you ruined it.
-
2 minutes ago, njbuff said:
There is no law that says you can’t bang a slut.
You should make a t-shirt. I'd make that my go out drinking shirt.
-
7 minutes ago, Taro T said:
On your own property, you do have a right to drive a car.
On public land, such as public roads & highways, people are granted the PRIVILEGE of driving.
There is a difference between a right & a privilege.
Correct
-
This is an automated response. The title of this thread is misleading. Please change the thread title to “All Time Lamest Dimwit Snaps Battle Ever.” Thank you.
-
7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
I wind down with woodworking.
Judging by my scars, that's probably more harmful to the body than pot or alcohol.
Better to be a 9 fingered 90 year old than a scarless corpse at 65.
-
I wish I liked marijuana more. My go-to vice is drinking. And although I don't think I drink to excess, it has done damage to my health. I have a lot of friends who smoke pot regularly and I think it helps them as a wind-down aid after work and I don't think it's as harmful to the body over the years as booze is.
Pot just doesn't agree with me as much. It tends to make me anxious.
And if you use a vaporizer, I think it's a lot healthier for your lungs.
-
12 hours ago, LA Grant said:
Since you brought up the gun debate — and you're interested in finding common ground, and you're talking about the relationship between freedom, responsibility, and fear — What do you support for gun reform?
You're correct that compromising seems to be more & more difficult to come by these days. Especially in this area. Where any proposal for reform is seen as the beginning of a slippery slope to take away individual rights. And so then it becomes abstract to the point of meaninglessness.
Yet it seems to me that the best solution is "a fair compromise" — the proposals for Universal Background Checks appear to have the most support & make the most sense for all. Guns are more controlled, or "well regulated" and the individual American still has "the right to bear arms."
Personally, I'd even be willing to put a time-limit on it — say, 10 years, enough for at least two different presidential administrations. Re-evaluate after that with the new data. Did it make a difference in reducing mass shootings? Are legal gun owners more oppressed than they were before; are they unable to hunt or defend themselves? If it seems satisfactory, it can be renewed. If there are problems, it can be revised.
What do you think?
Well, I haven’t gotten into the nuts and bolts of gun reform. I’ve never been a gun guy and I don’t know the ins & outs. For example, the semantics of what constitutes an “assault” rifle and the technical difference between automatic and semi-automatic… I’m no expert.
Generally, I think you have to accept that gun ownership is a part of the USA. The 2nd amendment is with us for good. And gun owners need to concede that some level of regulation is necessary and reasonable.
I don’t have any specific proposals. But this is the conversation that needs to happen. What you’re talking about with background checks is definitely in the ballpark. What’s the right level of intrusion, I don’t know. I like the cars analogy. Yes, you have the right to drive a car, but we don’t let little kids do it and you have to show that you’re competent and you have to follow some rules. Because the fundamental concern, of course, is Safety. I remember as a kid how pissed people were when seatbelt laws started getting passed. Many saw it as a serious threat to civil liberty. And car companies had spent a lot of money to further those arguments and to block & stall those laws. Kind of like how the NRA is running interference today. People have (for the most part) a different perspective on the seatbelt debate now.
Also, I feel like GUNS have kind of been a red herring for a lot of societal ills. What tools are available to maniacs who want to commit mass killings is part of the discussion, but it’s not the whole discussion. And I feel like gun owners have (understandably) some resentment that the arguments made from the other side have demonized responsible gun owners and tried to place the blame on them for violent acts committed by a few crazy people. That’s just one example of how divisiveness gets bred and the conversation gets derailed.
-
1 hour ago, Azalin said:
He stays on - who would willingly give up this kind of power?
Wow, I would in a second. Power’s overrated. I’ll just take those assbaskets of cash on my way out and live in peace. The only things I need power over are the alarm clock and tv remote.
I guess that explains why I’ll never be faced with a choice like that.
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
I think I wasn't being clear when I spoke of "culture". I was more speaking to political cultures and histories. I, and most others I would imagine, couldn't care less about a person's manner of dress, what holidays they observe, what sorts of wedding ceremonies they prefer/require, etc.
What I care deeply about is if, and how, their core belief structures differ from those of traditional America. Are those cultures compatible with ours.
I hope that makes more sense.
That’s something I haven’t given much thought to. Honestly, it’s not something I would lose sleep over. I trust that people who come here want (fundamentally) the same things we do. Maybe that’s naïve. It’s something I should give more thought too. At this moment, my relatively unexamined take is that human nature would cause things to remain balanced enough that our democracy would not be threatened. I mean (half seriously), what are they gonna do, establish a paralyzing corporatocracy in order to obliterate the middle class? That’s already been done.
I hasten to point out, I do not believe in unlimited immigration.
-
26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Also important questions which are certainly part and parcel to the culture and heritage portion of the discussion.
I'd ask anyone forwarding those concerns to define the idea of a melting pot, which requires cultural assimilation of immigrants; vs. that of a tapestry which does not, and instead serves to protect the immigrants pre-existing culture which they are importing.
I'd also ask anyone making that case to speak to differences in the cultures of those we have allowed to immigrate in the past, vs the culture of those we are examining today, as well as accounting for differences in volume, and how increased volumes may or may not lead to more cultural dilution than in the past.
I'd also ask about the difference in relative standard of living, educational levels, immunization levels between those immigrating in the past to Americans of those time periods to today's situation.
And finally I'd ask about any differences in economic impacts to the existing citizens both in the past and today dictated by differences in social safety nets.
Again, these are all important questions, and they all need to be examined honestly by all parties involved in the discussion.
I agree, those are all good questions. Some on the left have been guilty of implying that it's somehow inappropriate to ask some of those questions.
I'll say, on the idea of "melting pot": For me, assimilation is not a huge concern. At least, I don't think it's something worth trying to control. Where I come from on this point is: People are people and how they fit in with others is a fluid thing. As long as it's understood that the rule of law applies to everyone, I'm ok with groups of people defining their cultural identity how they please. How the ingredients come together in that soup, I'm willing to let myself be surprised how it turns out. Whether it's more of a consommé or bouillabaisse, I'm ok with it.
EDIT: Full disclosure... I did in fact google "kinds of soups" in order to help make my point.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
My initial thoughts are: What is the purpose of a nation state? Whose interests should a nation state serve?
Secondary thoughts, built on the foundation the initial ones established: Is culture important? Are heritage and identity important? Are they valuable enough to deserve protection? How are they best protected?
Yes. That's a good beginning!
Following your questions: Specifically with our nation's "melting pot" history, how does an evolving cultural identity increase or threaten our security?
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
So how does immigrantion fit into our shared values?
It's a big question, so it's hard to say where to begin.
My first thought is that immigration is unique in that it has the "border" (us/them) component. That freedom vs. responsibility equation is in play, but also the question of whether and how much do we extend consideration to those outside of our [current] national identity. And that's where it would be valuable for people to make clear where they're coming from. For some people, the fundamental value is this nation and its Sovereignty. Also, to what extent is that national identity a fluid thing. Others view it more globally than nationalistically (sorry to invoke those loaded terms).
In other words, how the hell do I know?
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
I would ask that you consider the idea that on the issue of gun control you have, likely completely unintentionally, skipped over the part examining exactly what I was talking about: what are the end goals of your policy preferences, and what are the under-pinning moral philosophies foundational to their implementation? On the gun debate people are completely talking past each other. You're talking about "reasonable levels of regulation", and yet I'm still back on what fundamental moral philosophy we should construct our system of laws upon. We need to start there, because if we don't, again, there's no point in having the conversation because we're having different conversations.
As to what sorts of questions we should be asking in the wake of parkland, I'll add a few for you to consider:
I’m not able to watch videos at the moment, but I think I hear you.
When I used the word “principles” before, I should have put it in quotes because I was talking about the divisive ideological schemes that obfuscate real issues, not actual fundamental moral principles that many people might be surprised to find are generally shared in common.
I’m not sure how fundamental you want to get, but at the heart of it, those axiomatic values would be the well-being & security of those that I care about and simultaneously preserving the liberties we enjoy and expect as Americans. I think the more deeply people look at what are the foundations of their beliefs, the more they would realize that they value the same things as the people they’re arguing with.
When you talk about “structural systems and accompanying foundational belief systems” I have to admit I get a bit lost. How people build these constructs and make them work in the world—that’s complicated ****. It’s hard for me to explicate. It’s also how institutions and political parties and platforms come about, which are things that limit actual understanding and dialectic.
I’m more interested in the ideas themselves. The heart of these issues, for me, is the tension that exists among the ideas of Freedom (to do whatever I want), Responsibility (including compassion and acknowledging the freedoms of others to somewhat trespass upon me) and Fear (of vulnerability and harm coming to me/us).
Not sure if that’s what you’re getting at, but I do agree that it’s important for people to say what it is they are trying to do when they advocate a position. And what it is that they think is important fundamentally, worth preserving or fighting for. I think the more people do that, the less divisive the conversation becomes because it tends towards humanizing and finding common ground.
Ok, I realize I’ve probably gotten a bit too abstract about it all. Sorry if I’ve gotten off track or misrepresented anything you were trying to say.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
I think it's incumbent on individuals like you and I to attempt to force this to the forefront.
Much like the gun debate, people aren't talking about the same things. They are advancing different moral philosophies, and disguising the tenants of those philosophies in hot button issues without talking about the structural systems, and accompanying foundational belief systems that are necessary to their policy preferences.
Policy doesn't happen in a vacuum. It must be purposed towards something, and procedure is more important than individual outcomes. All policy will be better for some people, and worse for others; it's the end goals the policy is both intended to incentivize, and it's unintended consequences which must be examined and debated first.
Otherwise, there's no point in having the conversation.
Well said.
The gun debate as an example: Both sides dig in on a principle and it's ALL OR NOTHING! There's a huge expanse of middle ground in there, uninhabited. There's no discussion about what LEVEL OF REGULATION would be reasonable. Not everyone who wants to keep guns out of the hands of children and the criminally insane is trying to do away with the 2nd amendment.
And lost in the war of principles is that the low hanging fruit of this particular problem (school shootings) would be to take a frank look at the security measures that were either not in place or not followed. For example: Why was the Parkland security footage on a long DELAY, making it impossible to see what was happening in real time? That's asinine. And why is it so easy for anyone to enter a school and bypass the front desk without signing in? And why was that resource officer so clueless, unprepared and unwilling to intervene?
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
I think, in the interests of intellectual honesty, that those individuals seeking out changes to our immigration policy should outline the end goals of the policy changes they are advocating.
And I don't mean bumper sticker slogans, I mean what structural goals is the policy forwarding.
I agree, but I don't see it happening. Those end goal principles, on both sides, have been so thoroughly demonized that it would be an instant partisan slapfight.
It's one of the true hot button issues of this time. It's very unlikely that we'll see any rational conversation about it or any compromise.
-
-
Just now, DC Tom said:
Seriously? Have you even read my posts?
It does take some skill, but if you choose your words carefully and are concise you can achieve pedantry and blowhardistry in a small space. In a sense, that is what poetry is. So, congratulations, you are a poet!
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
More bad news for those thinking this thing hasn't boomeranged:
https://saraacarter.com/bombshell-secret-texts-show-fbi-doj-may-have-rushed-anti-trump-fisa-warrant/
oops, 44 is in trouble.
I don't think this is a good example of a "bombshell." It's not clear that this means anything at all.
Some of the other things you've posted have been more compelling. This particular piece seems like a stretch. I can't see anything concrete in it. Am I missing something?
-
9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
He's a troll with aspirations towards becoming a God level troll, IMO.
Agreed. He's a true monster of a person.
-
1 hour ago, garybusey said:
Haven't read this yet... but apparently Roger Stone has written an editorial for Artvoice... that came out today...
WTF?
I honestly don't know what did or didn't take place between any of these guys. But Roger Stone is fascinating to me. He's like the answer to the question, what would happen if Bert from Sesame Street grew up to be a hard line Republican power player?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, row_33 said:
please do go on....
He’s already under scrutiny for excessive travel spending. He’s being looked at for getting a sweatheart deal on a nice condo from the wife of an energy lobbyist. Now it’s reported that the EPA approved a pipeline project for that lobbyist’s firm, during the time of Pruitt staying at the condo. Also, he reportedly used dept. resources (an EPA aide) to help him shop for housing. And he gave big raises to his favorite aides after the White House declined his request for those raises.
So far Trump is standing by him, but I don’t think it will hold out. Today even a couple of Republican congressmen publicly called for Pruitt to resign.
I’ll be surprised if he makes it to the weekend.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, row_33 said:
that would be the slim minority reading exegesis of what I typed.
No. You said Mueller admitted there is nothing at all here (presumably meaning on collusion).
Where did Mueller make this admission?
No exegesis—just asking for a link.
-
1 hour ago, row_33 said:
is this over yet, Mueller has admitted there is nothing at all here?
Wow, I certainly haven’t seen this. I tried to find a story on it and couldn’t. Can you provide a link?
-
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:
Don't you love how Trump completely co-opted the Democratic Party's "fake news" crusade for his own purposes? You gotta admit, he plays that stinkin' party like a harp from hell.
He has a natural skill as a shyster, yes.
5 minutes ago, GG said:People who are supportive of the news narrative pushed down by the big 4 naturally had an issue with that.
I think it's possible (and reasonable) to be dissatisfied by the mainstream media and still have an issue with the Sinclair move.
Well? Have You Checked Her Out? Stormy Daniels!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I can answer that. It’s going to continue to limp along in its dysfunctional state, with the political center identifiable as the charred barren patch chewed up by all the grenades thrown from the opposing sides which all fell short of their target.