Forget rifles, we have to ban hammers !

You are correct. "Right to Die" generally means "assisted suicide". I was thinking about he concept of "Do Not Resuscitate." However, I personally would also like the option of "Right to Die" if I were in the position of my father-in-law who was totally incapacitated, bedridden, in diapers, and was fed with a stomach tube for a full year. An OD of some strong sedative would be fine. Not a gun or knife as you or your friends suggested.

I don't know why you think I should address the question of left-wing demagogues. If you are referring specifically to me, you will have to remind me of you biggest concerns of my demagoguery, and where I attacked your motives.

1. Shared fault. No child left behind is a disaster.
2. Better off.
3. Better off. Reduces court costs and lawyer fees.
4. Better off, but The feds raided several trillion from the SS trust, spent it and screwed it up.
5. Millions are better off.
6. Shared fault.
7. Shared fault. We are worse off.

Here is a list of what liberals and democrats have done. I haven't checked it for veracity. I know you will not agree that all were without disaster, but you said, "Everything liberalism is responsible for, in our nation, has resulted in disaster." If you find a few things in this list that were without disaster, then your use of the qualifier "Everything" was much too broad.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/14/156663/-What-Have-Liberals-and-Democrats-Ever-Done-For-Us#

Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
The GI Bill
Endangered Species Act
Environmental Laws
The Space Program
The Peace Corps
Americorps
The Civil Rights Movement
Earned Income Tax Credit
Family & Medical Leave Act
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Americans With Disabilities Act
Freedom of Information Act
Women's right to control their reproductive future
Allowing citizens to view their own credit records
The Internet
Balancing the federal budget
The Brady Bill (5-day wait on handgun purchases for background checks)
Lobbying Disclosure Act
"Motor-Voter" Act
The Voting Rights Act
Unemployment Insurance
Food Stamps/WIC
Peace between Israel and Egypt
Peace between Israel and Jordan
The Department of Education
The Department of Energy
The Department of Transportation
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
Labor Laws
The Marshall Plan
Winning World War II
Food Safety Laws
Workplace Safety Laws
The Tennessee Valley Project
The Civilian Conservation Corps
The Securites and Exchange Commission
Women's Right to Vote
Universal Public Education
National Weather Service
Product Labeling Laws
Truth in Advertising Laws
Morrill Land Grant Act
Rural Electrification
Public Universities
Bank Deposit Insurance (FDIC)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Public Broadcasting
Supporting the establishment of Israel
The United Nations
NATO

"Assisted suicide" is one issue that's been difficult for me to establish a morally-comfortable position for myself. I understand your point of view, for I've seen examples that would cause me to embrace that view myself. I still cannot estabish a position about it in which I'm 100% comfortable. Because of my own uncertainty about the issue, I am not comfortable debating it. The problem I had with Kevorkian was that he seemed to enjoy helping people kill themselves.

I wasn't accusing you of being a demogogue. My question was an attempt to solicit your agreement with me that such tactics when aimed at Conservative pro-gun advocates and anti-abortion advocates are Wrong and should be condemned. IF the practice is wrong for Conservatives to employ, then it should be wrong when employed by the left.

My primary question, however, remains an important one that I hope you'll answer for us. Why does the "logic" used by liberals to justify gun control, child obesity, and global warming not apply across-the-board on all other issues? If such "logic" is sound, it should be applicable universally.

You do realize that this link refers to an article published in 1991, right?
At that time, the "official" number of firearms in the US was around 200 millions. Today it is greater than 270 millions.

Kovorkian was a brazen idiot who was out for publicity. His grandstanding degraded the very thing he was striving for. He really should have stayed quiet about it.

Many conservatives and liberals on this board often uses tactics of a demagogue. And also there are too many posts that say, "ALL {liberals, conservatives} {are, do, think} X." I don't often respond to blanket statements like that, except that Gipper had specific examples that made it an easier response as in post #102.

I don't know what you mean by the "logic", as if the same logic applies to all three issues. It seems that different logic is used for each issue.
We have covered gun control already - a constitutional issue.
The New York ban on large cups was a bit silly, and seemed to be intended to bring the problem out in the open.
Global warming involves data analysis and scientific modeling.

I don't see a commonality in the "logic".

Oh, My bad..(I think your number is low)if you read the whole thing you would know that what you and others want to do, the new numbers only make it harder...I m not going to go thru and read it again just to prove it to you...

First, (and for the X number of time) I have NEVER said that I thought all guns should be banned. . .as I am fairly realistic and (as much as I would love never to hear or see a gun in my life again) I realize it is not possible in this country at least.

Second, I am glad that you are so thorough as to be willing to revisit that article. That's a good omen of your honesty.
But don't bother doing it for me.

I'm gone.

BUT, you have to admit 2/3 of those were by classical Liberals (which is what I used to be) and a lot of the others I disagree with in some form...to manny to go into..Oh the Liberals of the past...I miss-em

You are obviously terribly misguided. You say shared....shared with whom??? If you are trying to claim Rs are NOT liberals, you really do not know much. The difference between Rs and Ds has been very slight for decades. This only proves what a radical leftist you are. The progressive Rs just aren't progressive enough for a radical like you. For example, W was a progressive like you. So why do progressives dislike him so????....just another example for their confused thinking.

50 million dead babies is good. Sick. Very sick. You and the Nazis, Soviets, Chicoms and all eugenicists have much in common... ironically they are leftists like you.

And to think our p-schools are better today, after 50 years of liberalism, is delusional. But then, I have long thought libs are delusional...how else could one find favor in the numerous failures of liberalism unless one is delusional.

I didn't go through them all either. The idea was not for gipper to find the ones he disagreed with, but to find any he might agree with. Then his challenge that every liberal policy failed would be answered. However in his post he didn't adddress the challenge that he made.

Sorry you didn't understand my post. It was rather terse. Gipper, this was your statement. "Everything liberalism is responsible for, in our nation, has resulted in disaster". You gave 7 points and I addressed what I think is disaster and what is not. I will restate the more puzzling items with more clarity:

1. Yes public schools are a disaster, but the blame for the disaster is shared by both Rs, and Ds. One example of the R side of disaster is No Child Left Behind which is one of the more serious today.

6. The huge deficit is a disaster shared by both Bush and Obama.

7. The huge growth in government is a disaster which is also caused by both Rs and Ds. The only recent exception of course is Clinton.

The other points such as Roe vs Wade, was met with your usual Nazi, Soviet, singsong (you forgot to include Murder) etc.

I won't repeat it here, but if you look at my post to cashmcall, you will see that you didn't answer my retort concerning other liberal programs that may not have been a disaster. For example do you think any of the following things that liberalism is responsible for is not a disaster?

Product labeling laws
Food safety laws
Workplace safety laws
National weather service
Allowing citizens to view their own credit records
Lobbying disclosure act.

Remember the objective is not to rant Nazi stuff at things on the list that you don't like, but to honestly see that we libs have had good programs too. Yes. I realize this is futile on my part, but I am simply curious what direction your response will take.

Since the title of this thread contains the word "rifles" I keep seeing ads on these pages for body armor.
Amusing.

First, I did not state, "Everything liberalism is responsible for, in our nation, has resulted in disaster". Please read and comprehend better.

Though I would agree that most things liberalism is responsible for, and certainly the big issues I listed, have been a disaster.

Sorry I did not get your terseness.

And I have no desire to change and lessen the debate, as you do. The debate is on the failures of liberalism, which you apparently fail to see and wish to lessen the debate by citing issues of much less importance. I have no interest in that, but liberals must find something to hold their hat on.

You literally said, "Everything liberalism is responsible for, in our nation, has resulted in disaster" in Post #91, page 4 of this thread. That was the whole crux of my response. Now you are saying, "... most things liberalism is responsible for..." That is a step back and is not as absurd. That is why I cited liberal programs that were good such as Product labeling laws, Food safety laws, etc. -- to show that the word Everything was too broad.

The items we disagree on have been covered ad nauseam, but I want to remark about abortion. Let me do an argument with simplifying premises that aren't totally true.

Population of the US is 300 million.
150 M are liberal and are pro-choice.
150 M are conservative and don't do abortions.
There were 50 M abortions. It follows that all were done by liberals.
Assume the progeny of liberals are always liberal.
If the liberals did not have abortions, there would be 150+50 = 200 million liberals by now.
200 M liberals would out-vote 150 conservatives almost every time.
The government would become overpoweringly liberal, (then socialist, then communist??)
Ergo abortions avoid rampant liberalism and are therefore good.

Of course things wouldn't be that bad, for you guys, but there is an unmistakable validity to the gist of the conclusion.

I'm happy to explain the commonality in both the logic and the tactics applied by most leftists to each of the above issues, and to most issues for that matter.

(1) The far left typically begins by oversimplifying their problem-statement, and/or by restricting the scope of that problem-statement to one or two elements of the problem, those that are consistent with their political views.

(2) The far left then jumps from that oversimplified problem-statement to an ill-considered “solution” that’s virtually unsupported as being a valid solution.

(3) During the process, the far left is often willing to violate our Constitutionally-guaranteed Rights in order to implement their “solutions”.

(4) The far left then spends our hard-earned tax dollars on those “solutions”. However, as they’ve oversimplified both the problem and the solution, those tax dollars are wasted.

That is a lot of commonality I think, don’t you?

Gipper: One of the biggest errors we Conservatives make in terminology is our use of the word "liberal" to describe today's leftists. I frequently make that same faux pas myself. We're then faced with those leftists of today taking credit for the accomplishments of yesterday's "liberals". They'll tell us that liberals were instrumental in eliminating slavery, exploitative child-labor practices, segregation, etc.

What today's leftists either forget or fail to mention is that yesterday's "Liberals" are today's "Conservative Republicans"! Terms like "Liberal" and "Conservative" are both time-sensitive and culturally-sensititive terms. Republicans, not Democrats, were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, the anti-segregation movement, and the civil-rights movement. Most Democrats opposed those movements! When you pulled-off a KKK hood in the 1860s-1960s, you'd find a Democrat. The Democrat Party today claims credit for the successes of yesteryears Liberal Republicans.

The only thing that's changed in the Democrat Party in recent years is their electorate. They no longer demonize blacks, atheists, and gays, for those are key demographics of the Democrat electorate. The tactics of today's Democrat Party, however, remain the same as in the 1860s-1960s. The only change is that their demogogues today attack different targets than in the past. Instead of attacking and demonizing blacks, atheists, and gays, they now direct their hateful bigotry toward "old, white males" and Christians. As for those tactics of today's Democrat Party, however......The Song Remains The Same!

I still don't see it. Steps 1 and 2 are fairly common to all politicians, and forum posters here, so I wouldn't consider they are unique and be specifically called out in the "logic" of the left. In my opinion step 3 has not been done for the three examples you cite. Step 4 is a matter of opinion.

Expanding on that, I don't see any aspect of the constitution that would impact drinking cups and global warming legislation. Gun control is obvious, but I sincerely believe that gun control is demanded in the constitution through the opening phrase, "A well regulated militia..." Regulation means arms control. And current gun laws are very relaxed.

As far as your step (4), tax dollars on drinking cups, I believe it is NY tax which is wasted.

However in global warming there are large amounts capital affected. Is that wasted? It depends on if you believe in global warming, and how lower carbon foot prints will affect it. I happen to believe it, so I am not a person that you could expect to agree with your step (4).

In gun control there are minimal tax dollars to enforce current gun laws I don't think that is wasted. I would think that the state auto licensing would currently use far more tax dollars in view of the tracking or handling of VIN plates, license plates, drivers licenses, registration and titles.

In fact not having tax dollars in gun control makes tracing a gun very cumbersome and expensive in law enforcement. It is not like an all encompassing database you see on TV. When law enforcement tracks a gun by serial #, the manufacturer is the only one who can help. They tell police who the first seller was. That seller can tell them who they sold it to, and if it is another federal firearm license holder, that person can tell them who they sold it to. The trail stops when a private sale is made unless the seller can remember who they sold it to or unless the gun is stolen. I trust cashmcall will correct me if I'm wrong.

One problem here is that the thought processes of the left and right are quite different, and you are intuitively thinking that the left has the same intuitive thinking as you.

I agree that MANY politicians oversimplify problems, and jump to solutions before they think, research, determine with high certainty that the solution will actually work, and that the real problem is what they think it is. Democrats have turned such failures into an art form, and apply such lunacy to virtually everything. My statement #4 is correct. I'll explain my logic about that when I address your favorite issue in this thread, that is "global warming" I believe?

I'm not just speaking of "drinking cups", but of other restrictions on children's lunchtime "bag meals", California's attempts to dictate McDonald's menu, etc. IF a right of privacy does exist as Democrats tell us, then what justification is there for dictating what foods we or our children eat, and restricting our free access to businesses that provide such food? Personal privacy and control over one's own body only applies to those issues that Democrats tell us??

I've reviewed as much data on this issue as is generally available to the American public. What I've discovered is this: I believe it's "probable" that some warming is occuring. However, the data used to support the claim that the warming is human-caused are sadly insufficient, and highly misleading. There are MANY variaibles that may well be involved in warming, among them being changing ocean currents and the Sun. I've found NO descriptions of any model being used that's sophisticated enough to support man-caused warming as being a big "driver" with any certainty! I'm not discarding the possibility that some (perhaps even much) of the warming is human-caused. Nonetheless, there is NO model of which I'm aware that has comprehensively evaluated the variables such that the conclusion is anywhere near certain. I've not even seen reliable statistics that confirm that the warming is a planet-threatening problem!

Assuming that global-warming is indeed occuring, thorough analysis must be performed to determine each and every variable that is significantly "driving" that warming. Such comprehensive analyses have NOT been performed, the left opting instead to blame the entire phenomena on humans. The left jumps to that unsupported conclusion, and then proposes to impose carbon taxes, destroy our coal and natural-gas industries, makes us buy more expensive light bulbs, throws more billions of dollars into "green" energy that's yet to become viable, endangers our entire economy, and ...... proposes to spend trillions of dollars addressing a "cause" that may or may not be the right one, and even if implemented won't lower their estimated temperature increase to any significant degree. That logic and approach is Insane!

My position on this is what you'd expect. IF violating our Constituion is ok in one instance, then it's ok in ALL instances. That's an unacceptable premise in my book!

I fully agree with your statement. Many Conservatives, like leftists, tend to go on gut-instinct at times. I seldom if ever do that. I've found, however, that the gut-instincts of Conservatives are right more often than wrong. Needless to say, I find that the gut-instincts of leftists are far more often wrong than right.

Obviously D's promote the passage of laws where some are good and some are bad. I posted a list of laws where I think a large majority are very good. I disagree that most D's laws are bad, but I'm not going to spend time here to argue which ones and what percentage are good.

We have to agree to disagree on global warming.

As far as violating the constitution, I already said that gun control is allowed by the second Amendment.

Just as you believe that most D's laws are lunacy, I believe that R's are trying to dismantle many good laws. Especially in Roe vs Wade, Obamacare, and many environmental laws. And they are trying to hinder the enactment of good laws, such as finance industry regulation and environmental.