“Your opinion of mine is certainly succinct and absolutely worth the effort you put into it! It is easy to point a finger when you have little to say...
I would have been interested in the "why" of what you considered "drivel": pointing out that the two concepts mentioned are not related, my hope that we all might become more interested in substance than fluff, or my criticism of the NRA?
Failure to expound and clarify renders you comment a bit of drivel itself and the response equivalent of "Oh yeah!"... congratulations on achieving minimal effect.”
“"Joe the Plumber's" comment was certainly insensitive, but even more; it was inaccurate in that it equated the two concepts: death of kids, and constitutional rights. His phrase "does not trump" is the problem. What he might have more appropriately said was that an emotionally stressed individual's actions with a gun does not relate to any constitutional right regarding gun ownership. It is not a matter of trumping... this is not a game!
I do believe that the perpetrator of this heinous act would likely have found another way to harm those he targeted, whether with a car, a knife, a bat, a bomb, or whatever.
“Joe” has unwittingly equated two disparate concepts and, as so often is the case with people trying to speak above their capacity, needlessly perpetuated a fruitless argument.
Additionally, to respond to the emotional laden comment of a grieving parent was not just harsh, but reflective of someone that fails to understand… well… pretty much anything relating to losing a child. He should have held his poorly stated opinions for another, more appropriate time.
“This is truly sad! However, the “answer” to an emotionally tilted person’s actions vs general gun ownership is impossible to determine: there is no good answer to a poorly posed question. To relate the actions of a distressed individual to any constitutional right always leads to a specious conclusion.
Consider: a disturbed person drives into a crowd, killing and injuring many. Sad? Of course! But, equating that act to individuals acquiring a vehicle would be silly and ineffective, as would any conclusion that assumes denied legal access to vehicles (or guns) can eliminate heinous acts of that sort. There are too many cars (and guns, bombs, knives, bricks...) for that approach to be truly effective… besides, that’s not really the issue.
With the current and similar cases, the only reasonable approach is a focus less on gun ownership, and more on the opportunity and duty we all have to create an atmosphere of well being and positive personal growth instead of one supportive of the apparent tendency to value superficial over the meaningful; to develop positive purpose rather than negative attitudes so often displayed. Won't solve everything, but it at least focuses on the actual mental issues at play.
I strongly support mandatory background checks and gun education for all, and find some of the tactics and attitudes of the NRA and their political supporters counterproductive and often abhorrent. As for this current act, sad it is, it does not change the actual issues.
A reasonable comment. Who among us has never mis-spoken? And, what Celeb. has never used a word or phrase that has intended meaning and application different from the one the media and much of the public wishes to assign?
I agree with your assessment as to him being the front runner this season... especially after listening to his rendition of McCartney's "Maybe I'm Amazed": Amazing!
“Personally, I am going to jump all over him for one verbal faux pas just as soon as I stop making them myself. People in public life are held to standards well beyond those most others apply to themselves... how convenient!
His apology was appropriate and addressed both fans on twitter and the nut brigade that lives in twitter-land... I can't blame him for his reaction, but will advise him to keep it to himself in the future... of course I could say the same for most of the comments herein.
“I found your opinion dripping with envy or maybe ignorance... or both. Taylor is a talented, smart, self-directed entertainer that embodies the rare ability to see and direct her own destiny. The fact that she has so many fans is a testament to the 'rightness' of her decisions and the efficacy of her behaviors.
You not liking her is of little importance and seems to reveal more about your shortcomings than hers.”
Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06:14
“This is a remarkable and promise filled concept: rebuilding body parts through technology. But, you've got to know that there will be some politician who believes his god fearing constituents will line up behind him or her, agreeing with the contention that "rebuilding" with technology is against god's will, or something silly like that, which will lead to a subsequent effort to pass a law banning 3D re-creations... sad :(
... then again, just think what 3D technology might do for the porn industry!!! :)”
“Did I miss the apparently long lost 11th commandment??? You know, the one that said "Thou shalt not do business with those with which you disagree!" ... that seems to be the final end of this misguided logic: "I believe one way and if you don't agree you cannot buy my product of partake of my services. And, in order to codify and ensure the "right" to keep those disagreeing with me at bay, I want the government to establish laws to that end."
Let's take a pause here... why is the government messing about in religion stuff, and what about separation of church and state? And finally, since when is religion a capitalistic endeavor, and if it is, let's change the rules about the relationship between religion and taxes.
When you open a business to the public, the public gets to come on in... regardless!
Just a couple of thoughts... :)
JoyceWomlib on Feb 26, 2014 at 23:03:14
“Yes, hope all these businesses who think the color of gay money is different, lose all of their business. Never will go into AZ if this law passes and hope all who conform go out of business.”
“Cute comment but ultimately lame in support and specious in connectivity. The apparent 'need' so many have to kill animals for entertainment cannot be compared to the need animals have to kill to survive. However, you are right about things not changing soon... unless we find a way to convert both humans and kitties to vegans!”
Interesting comment, but the facts and stats have little to do with the 'need' so many have to kill animals for entertainment. Though there may be room for disagreement on the stats, there is no variance in your comment that hunters don't care.”
“This woman sounds like so many I have suffered listening to that howl about the government intruding into their lives, yet they never seem to pass up the chance to stick their noses into the lives of others.
What she fails to see is that the world she lives in is not the one her son will have to deal with; that's the way it is with changes from one generation to the next!
And then there is her sad assumption that her actions will actually have any influence of note beyond the negative effect it may have on her son. Then again, there are so many who believe as she does and end up with gay kids, some of which are raising kids... What 'cha gonna do then lady???
There are different types of ignorance: simple "not knowing," and the more complex "rejection of knowledge" based on contrary prior beliefs.
You may be right about the willful aspect, because the problem with ignorance is that the hardest damn thing to do is teach someone something they think they already know. Therein is the reason ignorance is passed from one generation to the next.
To me it's more about clinging to some belief you think to be right, even in the face of buckets of contradictory evidence: that may be willful, it may just be stubborn ego at work, regardless, the result is the same sad story.
But, are you wrong? Let's hope so... :)
magpie411 on Dec 6, 2013 at 19:35:45
“Beautifully stated and accurate to boot. Cheers!”