DiscussMormonism.com

Black Moclips wrote:Wow, what a social warrior Kevin is.

"Just think of what the children will think when they see a beautiful first lady!"

I can tell you with almost certainty, that the First Lady (no matter who she is) will have practically ZERO influence on some child's life. ZERO! Unless she messes with school lunches like Michelle did. That is the only thing I've ever heard a child say with reference to a First Lady - she was responsible for the largest waste of food in the school system EVER, by pushing a program what forced kids to take food they hated, which they then proceeded to throw away. That is the hallmark of a liberal program. All heart and purpose with a large does of "we know better than you" - with horrible execution.

Just think of the children!

Nice derail. You have no idea whether first ladies have had influences on children's lives. None at all.

Res Ipsa wrote:
That leads me to wonder, what does pointing out GOP hypocrisy get us, other than a sense of moral superiority that certainly doesn't help us win elections? I'm beginning to think that the whole hypocrisy issue is a red herring for Democrats.

If calling women "bimbos" gives us moral superiority than I don't want it.

I'm also gonna call out Kevin on his claim that he would say the same things about a First Gentlemen. No he wouldn't. He wouldn't use the words bimbo, stepford, trophy, plastic. None of those things are "rightful criticisms." WTH, dude? If you want to talk about how she lied about her education than do that. No need to resort to Trump level bullying. Just because he's a bigger devil doesn't mean you need to be a little devil.

Res Ipsa wrote:Have you every seen a right-winger respond by saying "You know, you're right. You've convinced me?"

I've pointed out to several conservative friends, for instance, that wanting to expand the military is the same as wanting to expand government, and I know it's turned some wheels in their heads.

I remember one time I was talking to a friend about guns. He was saying that if he were in one of those mass shooter situations, he'd want his gun. I said to him, "So who do you think is the first person the shooter's going to aim at? People huddling in the corner or the big guy who stands up with his gun?" The look on his face was priceless.

You're likely never going to convert someone away from their party, but if you contribute little things for them to think about, and enough of those little things pile up, maybe they'll come to question their philosophy on their own.

At the very least, we can't let the GOP get away with it without calling it what it is when it happens.

Some Schmo wrote:

Res Ipsa wrote:Have you every seen a right-winger respond by saying "You know, you're right. You've convinced me?"

I've pointed out to several conservative friends, for instance, that wanting to expand the military is the same as wanting to expand government, and I know it's turned some wheels in their heads.

I remember one time I was talking to a friend about guns. He was saying that if he were in one of those mass shooter situations, he'd want his gun. I said to him, "So who do you think is the first person the shooter's going to aim at? People huddling in the corner or the big guy who stands up with his gun?" The look on his face was priceless.

You're likely never going to convert someone away from their party, but if you contribute little things for them to think about, and enough of those little things pile up, maybe they'll come to question their philosophy on their own.

At the very least, we can't let the GOP get away with it without calling it what it is when it happens.

This is hilarious, because I could write the same thing aimed at liberals and it would be just as true. I have several die hard liberal friends and not once have they conceded a point, even when it stares them in the face. Personally, I have a loathing for all politicians. Right and left. I'm just waiting for the system to collapse from the power and greed so we can rebuild again.

And by the way, your gun story is truly moronic. Who wouldn't want to be armed in a violent encounter when the other party has a gun? Yes, snowflakes do feel safer laying down among the other snowflakes. As a concealed carry permit holder, I would rather step up and try to protect others and die doing it than laying down and hoping the shooter doesn't pick me.

Black Moclips wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:I've pointed out to several conservative friends, for instance, that wanting to expand the military is the same as wanting to expand government, and I know it's turned some wheels in their heads.

I remember one time I was talking to a friend about guns. He was saying that if he were in one of those mass shooter situations, he'd want his gun. I said to him, "So who do you think is the first person the shooter's going to aim at? People huddling in the corner or the big guy who stands up with his gun?" The look on his face was priceless.

You're likely never going to convert someone away from their party, but if you contribute little things for them to think about, and enough of those little things pile up, maybe they'll come to question their philosophy on their own.

At the very least, we can't let the GOP get away with it without calling it what it is when it happens.

This is hilarious, because I could write the same thing aimed at liberals and it would be just as true. I have several die hard liberal friends and not once have they conceded a point, even when it stares them in the face. Personally, I have a loathing for all politicians. Right and left. I'm just waiting for the system to collapse from the power and greed so we can rebuild again.

And by the way, your gun story is truly moronic. Who wouldn't want to be armed in a violent encounter when the other party has a gun? Yes, snowflakes do feel safer laying down among the other snowflakes. As a concealed carry permit holder, I would rather step up and try to protect others and die doing it than laying down and hoping the shooter doesn't pick me.

The problem with the "good guy with a gun" concept is that actual law enforcement, coming upon the chaos of a shooting, cannot easily determine which gun wielder is the "good guy". "Good guys" are not necessarily good or accurate shots, either. LEO may be as likely to shoot the vigilantes as the original criminal, and the more crossfire, the more danger to bystanders.

Kevin Graham wrote:But what I'm more concerned about is the unprecedented example she sets for the children of America.

How many children of America care about the example she sets?

If you're unsure of yourself, even if you're already attractive, just dodge your education and focus on outer beauty so you can land a sugar daddy who was seven years into his first marriage on the day you were born.

Donald Trump got married when he was 17?

Black Moclips wrote:And by the way, your gun story is truly moronic. Who wouldn't want to be armed in a violent encounter when the other party has a gun? Yes, snowflakes do feel safer laying down among the other snowflakes. As a concealed carry permit holder, I would rather step up and try to protect others and die doing it than laying down and hoping the shooter doesn't pick me.

Is today, "Moclips proves he's an idiot day" or something?

Yes, please... take your guns into the line of fire. That's would be just dandy. I'm sure you'd be doing everyone a favor.

Some Schmo wrote:

Res Ipsa wrote:Have you every seen a right-winger respond by saying "You know, you're right. You've convinced me?"

I've pointed out to several conservative friends, for instance, that wanting to expand the military is the same as wanting to expand government, and I know it's turned some wheels in their heads.

I remember one time I was talking to a friend about guns. He was saying that if he were in one of those mass shooter situations, he'd want his gun. I said to him, "So who do you think is the first person the shooter's going to aim at? People huddling in the corner or the big guy who stands up with his gun?" The look on his face was priceless.

You're likely never going to convert someone away from their party, but if you contribute little things for them to think about, and enough of those little things pile up, maybe they'll come to question their philosophy on their own.

At the very least, we can't let the GOP get away with it without calling it what it is when it happens.

I like your approach, Schmo. I think what you did there is productive. But what you didn't do was shriek about them being hypocrites. I think that makes all the difference.

Res Ipsa wrote:I like your approach, Schmo. I think what you did there is productive. But what you didn't do was shriek about them being hypocrites. I think that makes all the difference.

Well, true. There's something to be said for Obama's suggestion that, if you're tired of talking to people on the Internet, go talk to a real person. There might be a difference.

The problem with the "good guy with a gun" concept is that actual law enforcement, coming upon the chaos of a shooting, cannot easily determine which gun wielder is the "good guy". "Good guys" are not necessarily good or accurate shots, either. LEO may be as likely to shoot the vigilantes as the original criminal, and the more crossfire, the more danger to bystanders.

All of this can be true, absolutely. There are risks to carrying concealed and making a decision to draw and get involved. I've taken classes from experts (former military special forces, law enforcement, etc) they talk about this specifically - what to do after getting involved and how not to get shot by cops. So yes, there are risks, and carrying concealed isn't for everyone. In a nutshell, I'd rather have a choice if ever put in that situation, rather than just being another victim and expecting someone to come save me.