Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on January 08, 2013, 09:24:35 AM
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/mcchrystal-backs-gun-restrictions-85888.html?hp=r7
According to Politico McChrystal has gone full monty AWB. The way I read the article I wonder if McChrystal understands what is being debated. He claims he carried an M-16 and an A-4. Then follows up with “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”
Seems to me the quote regurgitates every shibollith of the anti-gun crowd.
So what is McChrystal up to? Is he ignorant of the real debate? Is he ignorant of certain constitutional issues? Is he sucking up to the anti-gun establishment seeking a paying job? Is he an elitist formerly in camo? It will take a while to flesh out what is really at play here. Strange article!
-
we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population.
We have to protect... our police? :rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:laugh:
:'(
-
This attitude is not uncommon.
-
Follow the money:
McChrystal, who resigned as the top commander in Afghanistan after a Rolling Stone article portrayed him criticizing President Barack Obama, was promoting his memoir, “My Share of the Task.”
Our education system has failed so miserably and our culture has become so materialistic (in the philosophic meaning) that it is only natural an elitist oligarchy should rise up to shepherd the stupid blind masses.
Nobody really believes in natural inalienable rights any longer, only social constructs.
Disarming the public is necessary for the social engineering projects coming to our nascent dystopia.
-
Only the right people should really have rights. Isn't that what he's saying? A common enough attitude these days.
-
Only the right people should really have rights. Isn't that what he's saying? A common enough attitude these days.
For some reason, it's an attitude commonly held by upper brass in the military.
I'm for a constitutional amendment that you shouldn't be allowed to promote past field-grade ranks without having the constitution memorized.
-
For some reason, it's an attitude commonly held by upper brass in the military.
I'm for a constitutional amendment that you shouldn't be allowed to promote past field-grade ranks without having the constitution memorized.
We already have a constitutional scholar as president. Knowledge isn't the problem; the heart of humans and their quest for money and power is the problem.
-
We already have a constitutional scholar as president. Knowledge isn't the problem; the heart of humans and their quest for money and power is the problem.
That, being the essential nature of people, is unlike to change.
Heck, if not for that, communism would probably work out pretty well.
I believe that our constitution took this into account; the checks and balances. IMO where it fell apart is when then "checks" gave a free pass to abuses of power, as long as it was their side doing it.
-
The problem is even the altruists see government, power and money as the path to fix things.
Our allies are often also proponents of huge government, huge corporations and massive institutions. None of which are good for individual liberty.
We no longer have a cultural consensus that the best government is the government that governs least.
No room for the individual that wants to be left alone anymore.
-
Heck, if not for that, communism would probably work out pretty well.
If you look at the theory of communism, it would work out very well. You have to have a population of programmed robots though. Once you insert humans and emotions like greed into it, you have the real world communism that we have seen over the last 75 or so years. Sadly, the proponents all want to try it again, because "we just need to change this one thing..." and before you know it, you have another million dead people.
-
No, Communism is stupid, even in theory. It's akin to a theory of aviation that assumes gravity causes apples to float above the Earth's surface.
-
McChrystal is a Democrat and, of course, a General. He is almost by definition an elitist of the highest order. That may sound more angry than I intend it, I don't dislike the man, but that is who he is.
-
McChrystal is a Democrat and, of course, a General. He is almost by definition an elitist of the highest order. That may sound more angry than I intend it, I don't dislike the man, but that is who he is.
Not off-base at all. Assuming successful generals are paragons of civic virtue parallels expecting athletes and entertainers to set moral examples. Nonsensical.
(edit for speling eror.)
-
Every country has Generals. The title means nothing. Character means everything.
-
He's proven that he has no problem obfuscating the truth to fit an agenda (eg Pat Tillman incident). I'm sure he has a bright future ahead of him as the director of a three-letter agency.
-
No, Communism is stupid, even in theory. It's akin to a theory of aviation that assumes gravity causes apples to float above the Earth's surface.
How much actual communist theory have you read???
I find that commentaries by Americans on communism are usually about as informed as European socialists commentaries on American capitalism.
-
How much actual communist theory have you read???
I find that commentaries by Americans on communism are usually about as informed as European socialists commentaries on American capitalism.
And just where do you find fault in the belief that communist theory is inherently stupid?
-
How much actual communist theory have you read???
I find that commentaries by Americans on communism are usually about as informed as European socialists commentaries on American capitalism.
[popcorn]
-
Oh this ought to be good...
-
And just where do you find fault in the belief that communist theory is inherently stupid?
It's not actually that different from some of the things Ron Paul and hard core anarcho-capitalists envision, for one. The end game is for people to choose freely what they'll give to others and who they'll spend their time on, without laws or coercion to force them into economic activities they don't volunteer for.
I think there's certainly an argument to be made, but I'm not convinced that most who make the argument actually understand the theory and like to see some details.
-
Oh this ought to be good...
It is a bit of a diversion, but the meme gets tossed out so often it's worth exploring if you ask me.
Funny, sometimes I cruise far left media and read things that essentially could have been written here...except that "radical right" is substituted for "looney left."
I don't think many people realise that at least some hard core leftists supported Ron Paul on economic and budgetary principles, as opposed to just social ones.
Edit: in case it's not clear, I'm saying that Ben's post above is reasonable and that fistful's response doesn't appear to be.
-
It's not actually that different from some of the things Ron Paul and hard core anarcho-capitalists envision, for one. The end game is for people to choose freely what they'll give to others and who they'll spend their time on, without laws or coercion to force them into economic activities they don't volunteer for.
Wait...wut?
What the hell free choice is involved in government control, redistribution, and government allotment?
-
How much actual communist theory have you read???
Which Communist theory?
I am certainly familiar with the works of Marx and Lenin, but if you want to pull out some Proudhon and tell me that this is 'true communism', while Lenin was just a fake, this debate will immediately end.
-
Which Communist theory?
I am certainly familiar with the works of Marx and Lenin, but if you want to pull out some Proudhon and tell me that this is 'true communism', while Lenin was just a fake, this debate will immediately end.
I only know something of Marx, and he's the most likely candidate for anyone talking about "communist theory" in America. I'd certainly welcome your informed view on this topic.
-
Save it for a new thread.
This one's about former General McChrystal.
-
Um since when have we ever stayed on topic? Thread drift is something we are known for.
Besides I want to hear De Selby articulate how libertarianism is nearly identical to communism.
-
And a direction the thread took based on the comments of two mods.
I'd like to here De Selbys responses as well.
-
New thread started - no need for drift
-
DRIFT! DRIFT! DRIFT!
-
DRIFT! DRIFT! DRIFT!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_XfIOmHIDA5A%2FTUmrrRqwfxI%2FAAAAAAAAATY%2FGY7NjtUnB68%2Fs1600%2FSnowdrift-Pines.jpg&hash=da5de082b428fdd6f61448bfb8509e0506f2edbe)
-
DRIFT!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.autoblog.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F10%2Fdriftingwithtfoust_14_opt.jpg&hash=40a4b2c5438035525ac06577dc518003dcc3b841)
-
No, Communism is stupid, even in theory. It's akin to a theory of aviation that assumes gravity causes apples to float above the Earth's surface.
It's rare but I agree with fistful. People think economics is about money but it's not. Money has no intrinsic value. You could take half the dollars in America and burn them and, as long as the burning was evenly distributed, it really wouldn't change much.
Money is simply a mode of communication. It's a way of speaking credibly about how badly you want something. In the communism model you have a committee deciding how much everything costs. In communist Russia they literally had a dozen people deciding 100 million prices. The conduit of communication that is called "price signaling" was broken.
People demonize money, but in all reality it is the greatest form of communication devised by man.
-
It's rare but I agree with fistful. People think economics is about money but it's not. Money has no intrinsic value. You could take half the dollars in America and burn them and, as long as the burning was evenly distributed, it really wouldn't change much.
Money is simply a mode of communication. It's a way of speaking credibly about how badly you want something. In the communism model you have a committee deciding how much everything costs. In communist Russia they literally had a dozen people deciding 100 million prices. The conduit of communication that is called "price signaling" was broken.
People demonize money, but in all reality it is the greatest most efficient form of communication devised by man.
-
Only the right people should really have rights. Isn't that what he's saying? A common enough attitude these days.
For some reason, it's an attitude commonly held by upper brass in the military.
My Dad, a 31 year Navy Captain (O-6,) the same man who brought home a target rifle, accessories, and memberships in the NRA and a junior rifle club rather than see me buy a BB gun, floored me one day with a tirade about only the right guns for the right people. (He said that, had I declined his 1903 Colt Pocket Hammerless, he would have borrowed an oxy-acetylene torch and burned it down to slag.) I never decided whether he had changed with age, or simply felt less need to maintain the facade as I aged. McChrystal, too, is getting old.
-
Communism reminds me of a scene in "The Bicycle Theif" where the main characters decide to raise some cash by selling their bedsheets. Which is kind of odd, because how much can bedsheets cost? And why does such a poor family have them? So anyway, they take their bedsheets down to what appears to be some kind of commissary and the officer looks up the price in a big price book, quotes them a price, and gives them their cash. The clerk then takes the sheets to the back where there is a colossal pile of bedsheets in inventory.