Print Page - I am voting for Obama

I am a "multiple" gun owner. I support every aspect of the right to bear arms. In fact, for the most part, I think we should be able to own any gun that the governement owns. And, I will be voting for Barack Obama. I give Barack money and support. I also try to influence every undecided voter I meet to vote for Barack Obama.

Here is why:
I agree with his stance on the Iraq war. He made a good judgement call on that topic when no one else was thinking independently.
I am a huge fan of his anti-corruption agenda. He has had a good intiative and legislation on campaign finance transparency. I believe he is really dedicated to eliminating the special interest choke hold of corruption on Washington.
I like his single payer health plan formula for children and under-priveldged families. It is the most like Mitt Romney's successful Massachusetts state health care system.
The only thing that I am not sure of is how well he will do on the economy. However, I believe in his good judgement enough to think that he will surround himself with the right people to advise him. Also, he will not allow the special interests, oil companies and defense contractors to continue to rob us blind.
I like that the vast majority of Barack's campaign finance is coming from everyday people like us and not special interest.

Now here is why I don't think Barack will be a problem for gun owners:
I think any threats to gun owners and gun rights will have to come from congress. They are the legislators. I believe that even if Barack goes for 8 years that he has far too many hot topics on his plate to champion anything on the gun ownership topic. Obviously, I am not certain of this, but I believe this will prove true.

My main gripe with Mc Cain is not his past track record. In the past he has been firmly in the middle on most issues and I feel like he has always voted his concious in congress. My gripe with Mc Cain is that I think he has sold out his own ideals in order to get elected. He was tough on the Washington Lobby and he did not buckle to the whims of special interest groups. Now there are lobbyists throughout his campaign and he is kissing up to all of the special interest groups that he used to shun. I think he is taking big money from powerful people who will expect reciprication when he is in office..

There you have it. That is how I feel about the upcoming election. I look forward to hearing how each of you feel. It would be great if we could just all state how we feel and why and avoid spin, smears and attacks.

Quote

There you have it. That is how I feel about the upcoming election. I look forward to hearing how each of you feel. It would be great if we could just all state how we feel and why and avoid spin, smears and attacks.

That's about par for the Obama course. Do you know his voting record? His past associations with terrorists and radical racist hate-mongers? Have you noticed his numerous lies, and the way he speaks on the stump as opposed to the way he speaks in private? Does it bother you that a man who is constantly speaking of his ability to unite us was the most radical leftist during his brief time in the Senate?

Of course not. Very few people who love Obama actually know what he stands for. But he makes them feel good. That's just not enough.

I am interested in hearing about any specifics you have on those votes

you do know he flipped flopped today on his "pledge" for public finance

I never got past the "anti-corruption" bit in the before I burst out laughing.

Seriously, he is a machine pol from Chicago.

Good try, Seminar Poster, but no cigar.

How about "no."

Obama comes from a background that is generally hostile to our interests. I dont believe that he truely supports the 2nd, he is only paying lip service to it at the moment.

I'm more worried about congress at the moment, right now they wont risk things because it would get vetoed, but with a Democrat Congress and President bad things could happen.

I've got no problems with McCain, he has repeatedly stated that the 2nd amendment isnt about hunting as Obama and the like claim its about.

Obama's Revisionist History
By KARL ROVE
May 29, 2008; Page A15

This week's minor controversy about Barack Obama's claim that an uncle liberated Auschwitz was quickly put to rest by his campaign. They conceded that it was a great uncle whose unit liberated Buchenwald, 500 miles away.

But other, much more troubling, episodes have provided a revealing glimpse into a candidate who instinctively resorts to parsing, evasions and misdirection. The saga over Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Exhibit A. In just 62 days, Americans were treated to eight different explanations.

First, on Feb. 25, Mr. Obama downplayed Rev. Wright's divisiveness, saying he was "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." A week later, Mr. Obama insisted, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," suggesting that Rev. Wright was criticized because "he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that."

The issue exploded on March 13, when ABC showed excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons. Mr. Obama's spokesman said the senator "deeply disagrees" with Rev. Wright's statements, but "now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

The next day, Mr. Obama offered a fourth defense: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation." Mr. Obama also told the Chicago Tribune, "In fairness to him, this was sort of a greatest hits. They basically culled five or six sermons out of 30 years of preaching."

Then, four days later, in Philadelphia, Mr. Obama finally repudiated Rev. Wright's comments, saying they "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But Mr. Obama went on to say, "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother. . . ."

Ten days later, Mr. Obama said if Rev. Wright had not retired as Trinity's pastor, and "had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended . . . then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church." (Never mind that Rev. Wright had made no such acknowledgment.)

On April 28, at the National Press Club, Rev. Wright re-emerged not to apologize but to repeat some of his most offensive lines. This provoked an eighth defense: "[W]hatever relationship I had with Rev. Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we are trying to do in this campaign . . . ." Self-interest is a powerful, but not noble, sentiment in politics.

The Rev. Wright affair is just one instance where the Illinois senator has said something wrong or offensive, and then offered shifting explanations for his views. Consider flag pins.

Mr. Obama told an Iowa radio station last October he didn't wear an American flag lapel pin because, after 9/11, it had "became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues . . . ." His campaign issued a statement that "Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol." To highlight his own moral superiority, he denigrated the patriotism of those who wore a flag.

Yet by April, campaigning in culturally conservative Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama was blaming others for the controversy he'd created, claiming, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us . . . ." A month later Mr. Obama was once again wearing a pin, saying "Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don't."

The Obama revision tour has been seen elsewhere. Last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet personally and without precondition, during his first year, the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Criticized afterwards, he made his pledge more explicitly, naming Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela strongman Hugo ChÃ¡vez as leaders he would grace with first-year visits.

By October, Mr. Obama was backpedaling, talking about needing "some progress or some indication of good faith," and by April, "sufficient preparation." It got so bad his foreign policy advisers were (falsely) denying he'd ever said he'd meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad even as he still defended his original pledge to have meetings without precondition.

The list goes on. Mr. Obama's problem is a campaign that's personality-driven rather than idea-driven. Thus incidents calling into question his persona and character can have especially devastating consequences.

Stripped of his mystique as a different kind of office seeker, he could become just another liberal politician only one who parses, evades, dissembles and condescends. That narrative is beginning to take hold. If those impressions harden into firm judgments, Mr. Obama will have a very difficult time in November.

Quote from: O.F.Fascist on June 20, 2008, 06:16:29 PM

How about "no."

Obama comes from a background that is generally hostile to our interests. I dont believe that he truely supports the 2nd, he is only paying lip service to it at the moment.

I'm more worried about congress at the moment, right now they wont risk things because it would get vetoed, but with a Democrat Congress and President bad things could happen.

I've got no problems with McCain, he has repeatedly stated that the 2nd amendment isnt about hunting as Obama and the like claim its about.

I am hoping the congress learned their lesson after the last time we booted them all out over gun rights. I saw a couple interviews of deposed representative were very lucent about why they lost thier seat. I hope our message was loud and clear. If not, I guess we shall have to throw them out again so that they know we are not going away anytime soon.

Quote

I agree with his stance on the Iraq war. He made a good judgement call on that topic when no one else was thinking independently.

There were MILLIONS of people opposing the Iraq War from the very beginning. Unless you have some more specific information, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Obama was thinking independently, rather than going along with other people he respected, or simply playing to the crowd. And if he was exercising such considered and independent judgment, where is this great wealth of foreign policy wisdom today? He's not exactly wowing us with his expertise on that topic.

1. Obama has stated clearly that he opposes concealed carry, as well as ownership of handguns. Congress seems to be holding back for now on the gun control measures, but give them Obama in the white house, and we will get no rest staying on top of the bills they will be pushing. Sooner or later, something horrible will be passed in the wee hours of the night.
2. I will NEVER vote for any politician who has been a part of Chicago politics.
3. He's quite clearly lied about personal issues, in order to gain favor in this election.
4. His past associations show him to be either an astonishingly poor judge of character, or a racist on par with the KKK.
5. He is a hard core socialist.

Quote from: Fjolnirsson on June 20, 2008, 07:18:42 PM

5. He is a hard core socialist.

Exactly... If you study the man he is a charismatic socialist. Appeal to the ignorant masses, gives them hope and change. What a freaking dill-weed.

I call a spade a spade and Obama is a socialist through and through.

Quote

There were MILLIONS of people opposing the Iraq War from the very beginning. Unless you have some more specific information,

Uhhhhh, the 'specific information' is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So, the question is, 'why are we there' Huh?

Quote

Exactly... If you study the man he is a charismatic socialist. Appeal to the ignorant masses, gives them hope and change. What a freaking dill-weed.

I call a spade a spade and Obama is a socialist through and through.

Really, charby? Please explain, in detail, how Obama is a 'socialist, through and through'. Can you do that, or do you just throw the same pejoratives that you hear on rightwing talkradio?

I have a hard time seeing how Obama is all that different from John McCain-their policies are fundamentally the same, they just have arguments about how to implement them.

Quote

I have a hard time seeing how Obama is all that different from John McCain-their policies are fundamentally the same, they just have arguments about how to implement them.

Obama will end the Iraq occupation. McCain won't. That's reason enough.

Quote from: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 08:32:31 PM

Quote

I have a hard time seeing how Obama is all that different from John McCain-their policies are fundamentally the same, they just have arguments about how to implement them.

Obama will end the Iraq occupation. McCain won't. That's reason enough.

That's a good point-but the problem is that Obama has been waffling on that lately, perhaps only to bolster his "tough guy" credentials, but still, he's definitely indicating that he won't decisively end the charade as originally promised.

67% of the American people favor ending this 'war'. I'm amazed that 33% are still caught up in some kind of patriotic bullshit. Bush has already admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So why are we there?

Quote from: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 08:39:45 PM

67% of the American people favor ending this 'war'. I'm amazed that 33% are still caught up in some kind of patriotic bullshit. Bush has already admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So why are we there?

Because we're building the infrastructure to make Iraq into the Japan of the middle east-ie, a nearby striking point for anyone who challenges US authority over the expansive natural resources.

There really is no other sane explanation for what's happening there.

There is no 'sane' explanation. The American people have been taken for a ride, by Bush and a spineless Congress. All that has really happened is that trillions of dollars have been transferred from the public treasury into private pockets. Bush couldn't care less about the 4000 Americans (let alone the 500,000+) Iraqis that have died so far. And I'm sure fed.gov expects us to pay for it. I got news. I'm not paying for squat. I'm 62. I want my Social Security cash. I want my Medicare. I want my Rx drugs. I want every effing thing this administration has promised me. And there are 76 million (or so) behind me. So, go ahead, screw with us. We're about 25% of the U.S. population. We've got most of the money, most of the property, and probably most of the guns.

Quote

We've got most of the money, most of the property, and probably most of the guns.

Most of the dementia, too... laugh

Quote from: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 08:39:45 PM

67% of the American people favor ending this 'war'. I'm amazed that 33% are still caught up in some kind of patriotic bullshit. Bush has already admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So why are we there?

Maybe its more that 33% of people are actually intelligent enough to understand that you cannot just walk away from the mess without doing your best to clear it up?

Quote from: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 08:39:45 PM

67% of the American people favor ending this 'war'. I'm amazed that 33% are still caught up in some kind of patriotic bullshit. Bush has already admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So why are we there?

I'm amazed that you still think you can trot out that line about "Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11" as if you were actually making a point. When did Bush "admit" that fact, and better yet, when did he say that Iraq was responsible for 9-11?

Or were you just trying to help out this oldschool guy with his rather weak attempt at stirring the pot?

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 20, 2008, 05:41:05 PM

you do know he flipped flopped today on his "pledge" for public finance

Well, of course he did. He needs the hundreds of millions that George Soros will provide through individual "donors" without transparency.

Quote from: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 08:28:05 PM

Quote

Exactly... If you study the man he is a charismatic socialist. Appeal to the ignorant masses, gives them hope and change. What a freaking dill-weed.

I call a spade a spade and Obama is a socialist through and through.

Really, charby? Please explain, in detail, how Obama is a 'socialist, through and through'. Can you do that, or do you just throw the same pejoratives that you hear on rightwing talkradio?

I think Charby's just been paying attention to what Obama actually has said. You, obviously, have not.

Barry is a charming socialist, but his wife is a high-octane Marxist, and not that charming. grin

Barry's anti-corruption agenda? shocked

He is an agent of the Chicago Machine. He bought a house from a bagman of the Chicago Mob.

Campaign finance? His money comes from Soros and the Radical Chic (lead by IED maker and user Billy Ayers).

Health care? Obama is a hard core smoker who wants you to be beholden to the government for medical care so the government can tell you what to do? Need an operation? Just sign here allowing us to search your home for anything we do not like, Bibles, guns, homeschooling supplies.

Barry has no understanding of how the economy works. He is completely clueless on how business is conducted and prone to the magical thinking of socialists (go back and look at how he answers the capital gains tax cut questions).

Barry is a hypocrite on everything in his life. He drove an SUV from Chicago to Springfield everyday when he was a state senator, commuted everyday from his condo on 54th in Chicago to Springfield. And now he lectures us on how we cannot drive SUVs.

I'm no fan of McCain either, but an Obama Administration will bring criminals, terrorists, communists and all the fellow travellers of the Left into power. McCain may be less than optimal and no Ronald Reagan, but he is not Obama.

Quote from: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 08:28:05 PM

Quote

Exactly... If you study the man he is a charismatic socialist. Appeal to the ignorant masses, gives them hope and change. What a freaking dill-weed.

I call a spade a spade and Obama is a socialist through and through.

Really, charby? Please explain, in detail, how Obama is a 'socialist, through and through'. Can you do that, or do you just throw the same pejoratives that you hear on rightwing talkradio?

We don't need rightwing talkradio. The man has said it hisself:

Quote

Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

That is socialisim. I don't care how you cut it. Socialisim is the belief that the government has the right to take from the haves, give to the havenots. Its anti-american, unconstitutional, and quite frankly, immoral.

Quote

Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

Obama is all for reducing the government debt. Hey, me too!!
He's also for Socialist programs.
How the hell do you pay for both at the same time???
Why, tax the ever loving hell out of anyone that makes a decent living in this country!!
That, that right thre is socialisim. Sorry you don't understand the concept, but of course, living in Kalifornistan you think its normal.

I was curious how this thread would go. The question was: would people be able to actually discuss the issues and beliefs without degrading to smears, attacks and swiftboat folklore.

That really is the challenge in these types of discussion. The thing is, there is so very much to be gained if we can share our thoughts and ideas. Our politics and government is truly our greatest responsibility. Yet, many times as a people, we treat it with our lowest level of integrity.

I realize that it is not likely that what I say will compel people to take thier politics more seriously and abondon the childish need to strike out at any opposition, but I think it has to be said. We really could take our country back from the massive corruption that has infiltrated it at every level.

The real bad guys are the special interest and corporate lobbyists who buy off our representatives destroy the very foundation that our county was built on. Those are your REAL enemies and they love to see us squabble about stupid and pointless issues. They love this because they know we are so easily distracted by menial garbage. They love it because we know we are weak when we are divided.

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 03:54:35 AM

I was curious how this thread would go. The question was: would people be able to actually discuss the issues and beliefs without degrading to smears, attacks and swiftboat folklore.

Tell that to MoveOn and Daily Kos. They'd be the most egregious offenders by far, there. They even celebrate when an opponent meets with personal misfortune.

The rest of your posts sound suspiciously like the fluff and attempts at mind-clouding semantics that the Obama people have been trying to use, with great success on the "followers", and with little success on those who question every facet of who a politician is.

That is not going to change.

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 03:54:35 AM

The real bad guys are the special interest and corporate lobbyists who buy off our representatives destroy the very foundation that our county was built on.

Can you clarify this a bit? As the "foundation that our county was built on" are you referring to equal representation?

I am refering to the fact that we the people are suppose to elect representative that we believe in and hold them accountable to do OUR bidding while in office.

What it has degenerated into is quite sad. Politicians snuggling up to lobbyist and special interest groups for campaign funding only to owe a huge debt these people once in office. This means that it is not you or me that is influencing our representatives but the sugar daddys who funded them.

It does not end there either. Once in office, they are looking for these people to fund this or that. They are looking for jobs for thier family members and careers when they leave office. Even non elected officials like FDA employees are becoming "friendly" to drug companies. You would be shocked to see how many ex FDA employees have high paying lucrative jobs waiting for them when they leave the administration.

Ever wonder why so many congressmen who went into office with modest means leave as multi-millionaires? I sure do.

This is all a direct result of our stupidity as citizens. We will get emotional and irrational about non issues and semantics while they destroy our country and steal us blind right before our eyes.

Alright - and what is Obama's proposed fix?

Quote from: Nick1911 on June 21, 2008, 05:13:53 AM

Alright - and what is Obama's proposed fix?

Fixing corruption is up to you and me. That post was in regards to how easily we, as a country, are distracted by squabbling over non issues and semantics. How we get so caught up in taking shots at each other that we forget who our real enemies are.

I will say that Obama does champion the elimination of corruption far more vocally than any other person during his presidential campaign. He has passed transparency laws during his congressional term and he has said he intends to be aggressive on the topic if elected.

Increased transparency and the elimination of corruption is my number on priority as a voter right now. If we can't wake people up on this issue and take back our country, we are a doomed republic.

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 05:31:22 AM

I will say that Obama does champion the elimination of corruption far more vocally than any other person during his presidential campaign. He has passed transparency laws during his congressional term and he has said he intends to be aggressive on the topic if elected.

Increased transparency and the elimination of corruption is my number on priority as a voter right now. If we can't wake people up on this issue and take back our country, we are a doomed republic.

Congressional term? I thought he spent a year in the Senate before he started his presidential campaign. Which "transparency law" did he co-author? How about at least co-sponsor? Vote for?

I wonder if old school is part of obama's "anti smear" campaign. He sounds like an obama hack: throwing out general platitudes that everyone would agree are good ideas, without any specifics on what his guy plans to do to make those good ideas happen, not to mention ignoring specific examples that his guy is being disingenuous on those ideas rolleyes

Quote from: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 08:28:05 PM

Quote

Exactly... If you study the man he is a charismatic socialist. Appeal to the ignorant masses, gives them hope and change. What a freaking dill-weed.

I call a spade a spade and Obama is a socialist through and through.

Really, charby? Please explain, in detail, how Obama is a 'socialist, through and through'. Can you do that, or do you just throw the same pejoratives that you hear on rightwing talkradio?

Universal healthcare, otherwise known as socialized medicine, isn't socialist enough for you?

Don't worry Nico, I won't be sucked in to your personal attacks on me. After all, that is my point exactly isn't it?
I also won't be chasing aroung looking up votes, bill and laws for your approval either. I fully understand powerplay and all of the political art tactics that people will employ to attempt to get their percieved enemies dancing to their beat. Not gonna happen.

The purpose of thread was to invite people to have a very real discussion on their political choices and THEIR reason for their choices. If you can function on that level, let's hear it.
How you participate defines who you are.

If you are so upset with "special interests", why support Obama as he is beholden to the Radical Chic, terrorists like Ayers, and the Chicago Machine?

Isn't the way to battle political corruption is to shrink the power and authority of government as the Supreme Court said, like water, money will always find it's way into politics as long as there is something to carve up.

Quote from: old school on June 20, 2008, 05:32:12 PM

I am a huge fan of his anti-corruption agenda. He has had a good intiative and legislation on campaign finance transparency. I believe he is really dedicated to eliminating the special interest choke hold of corruption on Washington.

You do understand he is wholly owned by the most corrupt political machine ever, don't you?

Quote

Universal healthcare, otherwise known as socialized medicine, isn't socialist enough for you?

This is a valid point. However, I offer to you that it is not an absolute. Just as we don't live in an absolutely capitalist country. We have capitalist trade but we have myriads of social programs. Social Security, medicare, welfare, unemployment and even your local fire department are socialistic.

The most successful countries and societies in the world are a mix of capitalistic and socialistic ideals. The fact is that this mix is neccessary. We should take care of our old, our sick and disadvantaged. It helps control crime, disease, and our dignity. Not to mention, it is just the good and moral thing to do.

Many people try to make the socialism a scary absolute threat poised to destroy capitalism and the american way. It is just not reality. All progressive and successful countries know that the formula of a capitalistic and socialistic blend is the best government. We have been a the shining example of this for years.

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 06:08:35 AM

Don't worry Nico, I won't be sucked in to your personal attacks on me. After all, that is my point exactly isn't it?
I also won't be chasing aroung looking up votes, bill and laws for your approval either. I fully understand powerplay and all of the political art tactics that people will employ to attempt to get their percieved enemies dancing to their beat. Not gonna happen.

The purpose of thread was to invite people to have a very real discussion on their political choices and THEIR reason for their choices. If you can function on that level, let's hear it.
How you participate defines who you are.

Translation:
"I can't be bothered to examine the man's actual record. I will not allow you to harsh my mellow with silly facts."

Any government powerful enough to give you want you want is powerful enough to take everything away from you. Anything given to you by government is inferior to what the private market provides.

We tried this inane moralistic '60s attitude by taking "care" of everyone in Obama's Chicago, Ida B. Wells, Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes were all disasters--cesspools of crime, disease, immorality and an abolition of hope. Something given has no value. Socialised medicine will be a disaster just as in other nations and just as big a disaster as the housing projects of Obama's Chicago.

If you want to improve health care, get the government out of the way and allow the market to correct services. Just look at the amazing benefits in cosmetic surgery or even corrective eye surgery. Market driven services lower cost and improve services. Allow doctors to practise medicine and allow them to make money for everyone's benefit.

Quote from: El Tejon on June 21, 2008, 06:40:33 AM

Any government powerful enough to give you want you want is powerful enough to take everything away from you. Anything given to you by government is inferior to what the private market provides.

We tried this inane moralistic '60s attitude by taking "care" of everyone in Obama's Chicago, Ida B. Wells, Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes were all disasters--cesspools of crime, disease, immorality and an abolition of hope. Something given has no value. Socialised medicine will be a disaster just as in other nations and just as big a disaster as the housing projects of Obama's Chicago.

If you want to improve health care, get the government out of the way and allow the market to correct services. Just look at the amazing benefits in cosmetic surgery or even corrective eye surgery. Market driven services lower cost and improve services. Allow doctors to practise medicine and allow them to make money for everyone's benefit.

This is a key point and very obviously true. That is why most of the smarter legislators including Barack Obama are suggesting a single payer insurance program as opposed to the government run healthcare that Hilary championed at one point.

I find it interesting that folks who would be up in arms if someone declared an industry ought to be a monopoly, have no problem whatsoever with a monopsony.

Quote

I am hoping the congress learned their lesson after the last time we booted them all out over gun rights.

"Hoping" ? Me too, but I'm not going to trust them to have learned their lesson. It is RKBA suicide to elect such a hugely anti-gun politician like Obama as president when Congress and the Senate are both Democrat majorities.

Quote

even your local fire department are[sic] socialistic

Our local fire departments are all volunteer. undecided

I am totally astounded that anyone would support either of the two major candidates. Voting for one or the other as a lesser evil I can understand, but anyone who actually believes the bovine scatology that they profess is an idiot or seriously deluded. rolleyes

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 06:27:13 AM

Quote

Universal healthcare, otherwise known as socialized medicine, isn't socialist enough for you?

This is a valid point. However, I offer to you that it is not an absolute. Just as we don't live in an absolutely capitalist country. We have capitalist trade but we have myriads of social programs. Social Security, medicare, welfare, unemployment and even your local fire department are socialistic.

The most successful countries and societies in the world are a mix of capitalistic and socialistic ideals. The fact is that this mix is neccessary. We should take care of our old, our sick and disadvantaged. It helps control crime, disease, and our dignity. Not to mention, it is just the good and moral thing to do.

Many people try to make the socialism a scary absolute threat poised to destroy capitalism and the american way. It is just not reality. All progressive and successful countries know that the formula of a capitalistic and socialistic blend is the best government. We have been a the shining example of this for years.

Whatever it is that is "socialized" should be backed up by a constitutional mandate. Police powers, Emergency services, the military, courts are all founded on solid constitutional mandates. AFAIK, there is no constitutional mandate for a right to free health care. Admittedly, there are benefits that citizens (and non citizens) enjoy that are also without constitutional mandates. We should all strive to have these entitlements limited (if not removed entirely) rather than to vote to have more entitlements.

Quote from: Tallpine on June 21, 2008, 07:25:09 AM

Our local fire departments are all volunteer. undecided

Wow, that must be a pretty small town. I came from a small town too but even our little 2500 people town had full time fireman. I never minded my tax dollars going to them one bit.

Let the man finish his waffle. He's clearly in love. grin

It is obvious that oldschool is only here to pimp obama. I think you will see a lot more of that between now and November.

Quote from: scanr on June 21, 2008, 09:33:04 AM

It is obvious that oldschool is only here to pimp obama. I think you will see a lot more of that between now and November.

Why the horror! The horror! People disapproving of our preferred political candidates! What shall we do?

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 21, 2008, 10:35:22 AM

Quote from: scanr on June 21, 2008, 09:33:04 AM

It is obvious that oldschool is only here to pimp obama. I think you will see a lot more of that between now and November.

Why the horror! The horror! People disapproving of our preferred political candidates! What shall we do?

I disapprove of all the "preferred" political candidates and I think scanr is still correct. This "person" appears to be a seminar Obama poster. IIRC, the Obama campaign even talked about having people whose purpose was to refute his negatives on the webz.

Did you ever have somebody talk about you as if you aren't in the room? LOL

Actually you will find me with the same username on THR. I just learned of this forum from a link there........

I am so very glad to meet you to Wink

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't obamas position on the war shift with his buds government contracts there? mr transparency is just another hack

My first thought was "The Kool-Aid is Strong in this One." shocked

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 03:54:35 AM

I was curious how this thread would go. The question was: would people be able to actually discuss the issues and beliefs without degrading to smears, attacks and swiftboat folklore.

That really is the challenge in these types of discussion. The thing is, there is so very much to be gained if we can share our thoughts and ideas. Our politics and government is truly our greatest responsibility. Yet, many times as a people, we treat it with our lowest level of integrity.

I realize that it is not likely that what I say will compel people to take thier politics more seriously and abondon the childish need to strike out at any opposition, but I think it has to be said. We really could take our country back from the massive corruption that has infiltrated it at every level.

The real bad guys are the special interest and corporate lobbyists who buy off our representatives destroy the very foundation that our county was built on. Those are your REAL enemies and they love to see us squabble about stupid and pointless issues. They love this because they know we are so easily distracted by menial garbage. They love it because we know we are weak when we are divided.

No, the real bad guys are the people like Mayor Daley, Gov. Blagojevich, ex-Gov. Ryan, Kjellander, Celleni, Rezko (aka Obama's Real Estate Fairy) who strong arm companies into paying bribes and kickbacks in Illinois' Pay-to-Play politics. If he's so anti-corruption then why has he flip-flopped on his committment to a publicly financed campaign and is now out there shaking down those special interests and corporate lobbyists for campaign cash ??

Old School, I live in Illinois, just outside of Chicago in fact. I know what a cesspool of corruption the City of Chicago is, having worked there. I'll believe Obama is anti-corruption when he throws Daley, Blago, et al. under the bus and in jail.

You think he's pro-2A, have you looked at his voting record while in the Illinois Senate?? Tell me one time that he vote for RKBA ??

Quote

That is why most of the smarter legislators including Barack Obama are suggesting a single payer insurance program as opposed to the government run healthcare that Hilary championed at one point.

And just who would this "single-payer" be, praytell ??

I've studied Obama and his positions on the issues. If he's not a Marxist, then he's a far left Socialist. And I disagree with him on just about all of his positions.

So which old school are you at THR. The one who's been a member since Feb 2004 and has 88 posts and hasn't posted anything since May 2008 or the one that just joined about a week ago on 13 Jun ??

Quote

I am a "multiple" gun owner.

Okay, I call and raise. Why the "quotes" around multiple, and how about a list of and features of the gun you own.

"Single payer" is a joke. The single payer will be the US .Gov....you, me, paddy, and the guy down the street. All of us. Its what Britan and Canada use. Yeah, I'm excited about waiting weeks just to get into see a doctor. I'm excited about paying so much in taxes to cover it, that being poor would be more profitiable. It is just an empty promise that sounds great! Just like Obama...full of empty promises of a worker's paradise!
Newsflash! Single payer HI is socialisim! Obama is a Socailist, and you are his tool.

Quote from: JamisJockey on June 21, 2008, 12:01:09 PM

"Single payer" is a joke. The single payer will be the US .Gov....you, me, paddy, and the guy down the street. All of us. Its what Britan and Canada use. Yeah, I'm excited about waiting weeks just to get into see a doctor. I'm excited about paying so much in taxes to cover it, that being poor would be more profitiable. It is just an empty promise that sounds great! Just like Obama...full of empty promises of a worker's paradise!
Newsflash! Single payer HI is socialisim! Obama is a Socailist, and you are his tool.

In fairness, not all socialist medicine systems are bad-I know firsthand that for the vast majority of the population, Australia's is far superior to this one. And all the indicators on paper (death rates, length of time without treatment, missed diseases due to lack of diagnosis) France is way out there ahead of the United States....so whatever you want to complain about, the results they get are certainly better than ours.

Old School, one other thing. There'll be and CCW/RKBA rally at the Thompson Center on 11 July at 11:00am, could you do us a favor and ask your candidate to come and show his support for the 2A, especially since this will be the day after the SCOTUS releases the Heller decsion.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 12:03:56 PM

In fairness, not all socialist medicine systems are bad-I know firsthand that for the vast majority of the population, Australia's is far superior to this one. And all the indicators on paper (death rates, length of time without treatment, missed diseases due to lack of diagnosis) France is way out there ahead of the United States....so whatever you want to complain about, the results they get are certainly better than ours.

At what cost? Increased taxes and reduced freedom.

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 06:08:35 AM

Don't worry Nico, I won't be sucked in to your personal attacks on me. After all, that is my point exactly isn't it?
I also won't be chasing aroung looking up votes, bill and laws for your approval either. I fully understand powerplay and all of the political art tactics that people will employ to attempt to get their percieved enemies dancing to their beat. Not gonna happen.

The purpose of thread was to invite people to have a very real discussion on their political choices and THEIR reason for their choices. If you can function on that level, let's hear it.
How you participate defines who you are.

lol, personal attacks? The only think that could be construed as personal in my post is that I said you sound like an Obama hack; although your subsequent posts have done quite a bit to show that you just might be one. You've typed so much in this thread, but you haven't said anything of substance. You've made general claims, but ignore specific challenges to those claims. I don't expect you to do anything to get my approval, but it'd be nice if you provided something to substantiate your claims (not that I think you'll do that either).

If you want to have a "very real discussion" but aren't prepared to defend your platitudes, you've come to the wrong place to troll.

About "perceived enemies," how should one perceive a person who openly advocates taking away their right and means to self defense (through theft) as well as socializing their livelihood (healthcare)?

Quote from: JamisJockey on June 21, 2008, 12:36:33 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 12:03:56 PM

In fairness, not all socialist medicine systems are bad-I know firsthand that for the vast majority of the population, Australia's is far superior to this one. And all the indicators on paper (death rates, length of time without treatment, missed diseases due to lack of diagnosis) France is way out there ahead of the United States....so whatever you want to complain about, the results they get are certainly better than ours.

At what cost? Increased taxes and reduced freedom.

It's true that it costs money to do it that way-but so does insurance and dealing with the monstrosity that is insurance company claims review in the medical industry. It's not hard to find people who are bankrupted here in America by medical debts-that is unknown for all practical purposes in Australia, even in cases where people use private treatment (that they are required to pay for out of pocket) or where they end up required to pay a share of the state's cost.

The freedoms are reduced there for other reasons-the medical system has nothing to do with their lack of firearms rights, for example.

Obama's officially supported a federal ban on CCW. His campaign webpage touted a ban on all semi-automatic guns.

I think the website has removed both of these positions since I first saw them.

That tells you all you need to know about the lack of respect this person has for RKBA.

Quote from: BTR on June 21, 2008, 01:02:27 PM

Obama's officially supported a federal ban on CCW. His campaign webpage touted a ban on all semi-automatic guns.

I think the website has removed both of these positions since I first saw them.

That tells you all you need to know about the lack of respect this person has for RKBA.

You're supposed to meditate, clear your mind, and remove all those revisions from your consciousness each time. Just inhale the mind-muddling vapors and believe in chaaaange... Wink

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 21, 2008, 01:05:45 PM

Quote from: BTR on June 21, 2008, 01:02:27 PM

Obama's officially supported a federal ban on CCW. His campaign webpage touted a ban on all semi-automatic guns.

I think the website has removed both of these positions since I first saw them.

That tells you all you need to know about the lack of respect this person has for RKBA.

You're supposed to meditate, clear your mind, and remove all those revisions from your consciousness each time. Just inhale the mind-muddling vapors and believe in chaaaange... Wink

Exactly. On his website it says " I'm asking you to believe."

Sorry, I prefer to THINK.

Quote

Obama's officially supported a federal ban on CCW. His campaign webpage touted a ban on all semi-automatic guns.

Those have been "Memory-Holed". You just need to believe in the "Hope of Change".

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 08:41:42 AM

Quote from: Tallpine on June 21, 2008, 07:25:09 AM

Our local fire departments are all volunteer. undecided

Wow, that must be a pretty small town. I came from a small town too but even our little 2500 people town had full time fireman. I never minded my tax dollars going to them one bit.

County seat is a little less that 2000 people. They have a volunteer fire dept, plus there are several "satellite" departments that mostly do wildland fires (not structures). There is some tax support for equipment.

I don't live in any town. Our rural dept gets more than half its financial support from donations (501c3).

Quote from: Tallpine on June 21, 2008, 01:40:39 PM

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 08:41:42 AM

Quote from: Tallpine on June 21, 2008, 07:25:09 AM

Our local fire departments are all volunteer. undecided

Wow, that must be a pretty small town. I came from a small town too but even our little 2500 people town had full time fireman. I never minded my tax dollars going to them one bit.

County seat is a little less that 2000 people. They have a volunteer fire dept, plus there are several "satellite" departments that mostly do wildland fires (not structures). There is some tax support for equipment.

I don't live in any town. Our rural dept gets more than half its financial support from donations (501c3).

Careful, Obamatons don't believe in any donation unless it's compulsory. They think that people must be forced to "donate" through taxes. That no donation exists outside that.

For liberals, it really doesn't. Except for the arts, donation records show that they're pretty selfish bastards.

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 11:46:18 AM

Okay, I call and raise. Why the "quotes" around multiple, and how about a list of and features of the gun you own.

Okay Scout, I will share that with you.
Newest aquisition to the oldest.

Beretta PX4 in .45 f model I intend to convert to a g model decocker.
Springfield M1A Loaded with synth stock. I want to convert it to the wood stock because the are beautiful in wood. I also want to learn from some other THR members about the best optics mounts.
Ruger P345 blue - My goto "peice" and what I use if I start to CC again. Maybe get one in stainless too.
Remington 11-87 Premier 12 gauge
Winchester 1894 30-30 -A gift from my father
Norinco NHM-91 - Probably my favorite. I modified the thumbhole stock so that it is incredibly comfortable to shoot.
Marlin Model 60 semi auto .22 - replaced my old winchester semi auto .22 from my childhood. The marlin just works better and is more accurate.

A few guns I have traded off.
Glock 23 - we just never really made friends
Remington 1100 lt-20 - upgraded to the 11-87
winchester semi auto .22 - Had it for 30 years but it just wasn't that great of a gun.
Ruger p90 stainless- great gun but it was a huge heavy brick
Ruger p95 blue - It was ok, but I wasn't into it much.
Sig p229 stainless - Nice gun but I used the money from the sale to get the M1A

PS. I would be interested in you experiences with Obama in your district. Feel free to PM me with the details of the people that you mentioned. I do want to know.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-johnkass,1,5488029.columnist?coll=chi-navrailnews-nav

John Kass has done a pretty good job of picking up where Mike Ryoko left off.

Google Anthony Rezko, Hired Truck, Shakman Decree, Chicago Zoning, Millinium Park cost overruns, O'Hare cost overruns, Grant Park Children's Muesum, Chicago Police SOS and CAGE, Hispanic Democrat Organization etc. Obama was raised in the Chicago Democrat machine. Google that too.

You have much to learn about "The Chicago Way".

Oh, and thanks for answering my question about your firearms, interesting collection. I'm sure that BATFE boys appericate it also. You can check out how long I've been a member both here and at THR, so which old school are you over there ?

Let's go through what Obama would do:

Quote

Beretta PX4 in .45 f model I intend to convert to a g model decocker. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Springfield M1A Loaded with synth stock. I want to convert it to the wood stock because the are beautiful in wood. I also want to learn from some other THR members about the best optics mounts. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Ruger P345 blue - My goto "peice" and what I use if I start to CC again. Maybe get one in stainless too. BANNED SEMIAUTO, NO CCW FOR ANYONE BY FEDERAL LAW
Remington 11-87 Premier 12 gauge BANNED SEMIAUTO
Winchester 1894 30-30 -A gift from my father COP-KILLER CALIBER
Norinco NHM-91 - Probably my favorite. I modified the thumbhole stock so that it is incredibly comfortable to shoot. BANNED EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE
Marlin Model 60 semi auto .22 - replaced my old winchester semi auto .22 from my childhood. The marlin just works better and is more accurate. BANNED SEMIAUTO

A few guns I have traded off.
Glock 23 - we just never really made friends BANNED SEMIAUTO
Remington 1100 lt-20 - upgraded to the 11-87 BANNED SEMIAUTO
winchester semi auto .22 - Had it for 30 years but it just wasn't that great of a gun. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Ruger p90 stainless- great gun but it was a huge heavy brick BANNED SEMIAUTO
Ruger p95 blue - It was ok, but I wasn't into it much. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Sig p229 stainless - Nice gun but I used the money from the sale to get the M1A BANNED SEMIAUTO

You could keep your lever-action, or "level action" as the AWB II worded it. And even then, 30-30 was considered a "dangerous" caliber by Kennedy, worthy of a BAN.

You okay with that? Then by all means, vote away your guns. Go ahead.

Because OBAMA AND A DEM CONGRESS WOULD MAKE EVERY FREAKING GUN YOU EVER OWNED BUT ONE ILLEGAL FOR SALE OR TRANSFER, EVEN OWNERSHIP.

Is that clear enough?

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 21, 2008, 02:42:11 PM

Let's go through what Obama would do:

Quote

Beretta PX4 in .45 f model I intend to convert to a g model decocker. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Springfield M1A Loaded with synth stock. I want to convert it to the wood stock because the are beautiful in wood. I also want to learn from some other THR members about the best optics mounts. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Ruger P345 blue - My goto "peice" and what I use if I start to CC again. Maybe get one in stainless too. BANNED SEMIAUTO, NO CCW FOR ANYONE BY FEDERAL LAW
Remington 11-87 Premier 12 gauge BANNED SEMIAUTO
Winchester 1894 30-30 -A gift from my father
Norinco NHM-91 - Probably my favorite. I modified the thumbhole stock so that it is incredibly comfortable to shoot. BANNED EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE
Marlin Model 60 semi auto .22 - replaced my old winchester semi auto .22 from my childhood. The marlin just works better and is more accurate. BANNED SEMIAUTO

A few guns I have traded off.
Glock 23 - we just never really made friends BANNED SEMIAUTO
Remington 1100 lt-20 - upgraded to the 11-87 BANNED SEMIAUTO
winchester semi auto .22 - Had it for 30 years but it just wasn't that great of a gun. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Ruger p90 stainless- great gun but it was a huge heavy brick BANNED SEMIAUTO
Ruger p95 blue - It was ok, but I wasn't into it much. BANNED SEMIAUTO
Sig p229 stainless - Nice gun but I used the money from the sale to get the M1A BANNED SEMIAUTO

You could keep your lever-action, or "level action" as the AWB II worded it.

You okay with that? Then by all means, vote away your guns. Go ahead.

Because OBAMA AND A DEM CONGRESS WOULD MAKE EVERY FREAKING GUN YOU EVER OWNED BUT ONE ILLEGAL FOR SALE OR TRANSFER, EVEN OWNERSHIP.

Is that clear enough?

And the one you had left you couldn't get ammo for because Ted Kennedy would ban .30-30 ammo because it's "Armor Piercing.".

I added that, yes...I'd forgotten, 30-30 is lethal armor-piercing ammo whose only purpose is killing police.

I am absolute astonished that this guy doesn't realize that Obama and his minions would probably have the police take him down for even owning the Norinco MAK, since owning an AK derivative automatically means you want to commit mall rampages. rolleyes

Did he miss Obama's WEBSITE statement that that gun only "belongs on foreign battlefields, not on our streets"?

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 02:12:10 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-johnkass,1,5488029.columnist?coll=chi-navrailnews-nav

John Kass has done a pretty good job of picking up where Mike Ryoko left off.

Google Anthony Rezko, Hired Truck, Shakman Decree, Chicago Zoning, Millinium Park cost overruns, O'Hare cost overruns, Grant Park Children's Muesum, Chicago Police SOS and CAGE, Hispanic Democrat Organization etc. Obama was raised in the Chicago Democrat machine. Google that too.

You have much to learn about "The Chicago Way".

Oh, and thanks for answering my question about your firearms, interesting collection. I'm sure that BATFE boys appericate it also. You can check out how long I've been a member both here and at THR, so which old school are you over there ?

Thanks for the info. I will read about it. I lived many years outside Toledo but I have only been to Chicago once. I used to play tennis with an ex chicago cop. He told me that there was alot of "stuff" that goes on in that town.
As far as the BATF, not gonna happen. If anyone wants to take my guns they can have the ammo first. I did not mind answering your question. Your post was specific, reasonable and informative.
I did not know there could be more than one member with the same ID. You can tell me because my signature is currently the same at both boards.

I will request Obamas campaign to give me a statement regarding his official position and intentions on gun laws. I have been a regular contributor. I would like to think I will get an answer. I will share the response in it's entirety when and If I get it. However, I do beleive what I said in my origional post. I have never seen a speech of his where he sounded like a member of the "brady bunch". If anyone has any links to youtube or such where he speaks on the topic, please share it.

Why can't you just read Barry's old website?

oldschool, I've collected some of what I'm calling "dubious claims," you've asserted in this thread.

oldschool is here to introduce us to a higher, purer political discourse, and to help us all to achieve that higher level.
Not the best way to start your tenure here. Such a tone is arrogant and insulting.

Publicly-funded fire departments are socialist.
I think you should know that if you could substantiate that claim, most of us here would respond by calling for the privatization of fire departments.

Obama is a champion of transparency and probity in government. "Also, he will not allow the special interests, oil companies and defense contractors to continue to rob us blind."
Why should I believe that Obama is less prone to the vices of other politicians? Or if Big Oil and Big Defense are "robbing us blind," what makes anyone think that Obama has any idea how to deal with that? And since the choice is between Obama and McCain, how does Obama's record compare to that of the man who brought us the Campaign Finance Reform called McCain/Feingold? Not that I'm promoting McCain or his bill, but what does Obama have to offer in this regard, that McCain don't got?

I also have to register my befuddlement at the notion that corruption could be anyone's No. 1 Issue. Is that honestly the biggest issue we face? Could it be you're just harping on that, because it is the one thing Obama has attempted to deal with?

"I like that the vast majority of Barack's campaign finance is coming from everyday people like us and not special interest."
Not a dubious claim, so much as a bit of demagoguery so old, it's got whiskers. "Special interest" is nothing but a pejorative term for anyone with whom one has a political disagreement. Even the NRA, with its 4 million members, is referred to as a special interest group.

Obama has "good judgment."
Just sounds dubious to me, that's all. I wonder if there are some examples of that. And no, the Iraq War thing won't be terribly convincing for some of us. Backing up a controversial claim with another controversial position is called "begging the question." Look that up under logical fallacies.

Obama was a lone voice in the wilderness on the Iraq War.
This is simply a myth, as anyone who was politically aware in 2002/2003 can tell you. Opposition to the Iraq War was widespread and vocal, especially among those who currently comprise Obama's base. So it's puzzling how Obama's voicing a fairly popular viewpoint could demonstrate independent thought.

This last is not a dubious claim, just something with which I take issue.

Quote

My gripe with Mc Cain is that I think he has sold out his own ideals in order to get elected. He was tough on the Washington Lobby and he did not buckle to the whims of special interest groups. Now there are lobbyists throughout his campaign and he is kissing up to all of the special interest groups that he used to shun. I think he is taking big money from powerful people who will expect reciprication when he is in office.

In other words, McCain is a politician running for the oval office. The idea that Obama is somehow different from McCain in this respect is, well, dubious.

A few people have mention what Obama's website used to say but has been changed.
Any situation like this where you want to see previous versions of a website is actually stored in a web archive. It is refered to by the geeks as "the way back machine".
You can see the old version of any website at: www.archive.org

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Read and Learn.....

Old School,

I think you will find that many on this board are so far to the right, politically, that they absolutely cannot see a legitimate reason for someone to vote Obama. That's why you are having people question whether or not you are a secret agent of the campaign, etc. Obviously the polls make it likely that some people on this forum will support Obama-he wouldn't have the numbers he does if that weren't the case.

old school, Barry wants to ban your guns and then come confiscate them with a federal version of CAGE just as his puppetmaster, Richie Daley, and his Cover Man, Blago, want to do.

Quote from: El Tejon on June 21, 2008, 04:05:00 PM

old school, Barry wants to ban your guns and then come confiscate them with a federal version of CAGE just as his puppetmaster, Richie Daley, and his Cover Man, Blago, want to do.

True-but McCain wants to spy on me and make me subject to punishment without any right to challenge the government's claims. My guns are important, but they won't protect me from an executive branch that doesn't need a reason to detain me for life.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 04:01:22 PM

Old School,

I think you will find that many on this board are so far to the right, politically, that they absolutely cannot see a legitimate reason for someone to vote Obama.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And name one legitimate reason to vote for Obama.

The vast majority (Fistful excluded grin

) have taken the time to fully examine the issues and by applying reason and logic have arrived their conclusions. Which is why the vast majority of people here are dis-satisfied with BOTH candidates. We expected the Democrats to nominate a ~~communist socialist~~ far-left liberal, and were hopeing for the Republicans to nominate someone closer to Reagan, then Ford or Bush I. Alas it was not to be......

(and I do not now support and never was a Ron Paulian....)

"(and now I did not support and never was a Ron Paulian....)"

wanna make sure that up front huh i fully understand

If you're serious about your gun rights - I don't think a vote for Obama would be very wise. Obviously, he can't do much on his own but the judges he chooses for the SCOTUS will be a problem.

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 03:59:22 PM

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Read and Learn.....

Excellent resource Scout. You are the real deal.
I read Obamas page from top to bottom. Next I will read Mc Cains.

Now tell me about your collection. I don't work for the BATF, I promise.

old school,

Since I live in Illinios and Mayor Daley still has his CAGE police

unit, all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident. sad

Quote from: Pyle on June 21, 2008, 04:29:11 PM

If you're serious about your gun rights - I don't think a vote for Obama would be very wise. Obviously, he can't do much on his own but the judges he chooses for the SCOTUS will be a problem.

That is one part of the our system that is unsettling for me. I can see how it is a part of the checks and balances, but I just hate how judges are chosen with an agenda instead of on their experience and merits.

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 04:40:43 PM

old school,

Since I live in Illinios and Mayor Daley still has his CAGE police

unit, all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident. sad

That happened to me next year too. Oops! I mean last year.

Quote from: old school on June 21, 2008, 04:43:18 PM

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 04:40:43 PM

old school,

Since I live in Illinios and Mayor Daley still has his CAGE police

unit, all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident. sad

That happened to me next year too. Oops! I mean last year.

You think I'm kidding. A while back my club did a group buy on some 1911 clones. Some of the people in the group buy live in Chicago. On the day we picked up the guns these guys (fortunately) gave their guns to other people who live outside the city of Chicago for storage. However when they got home, CAGE was waiting for them on their front porches wanting to know "Where's the gun you just bought ??" But not in a nice, polite, Officer Friendly kinda way....

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 04:11:33 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 04:01:22 PM

Old School,

I think you will find that many on this board are so far to the right, politically, that they absolutely cannot see a legitimate reason for someone to vote Obama.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And name one legitimate reason to vote for Obama.

The vast majority (Fistful excluded grin

) have taken the time to fully examine the issues and by applying reason and logic have arrived their conclusions. Which is why the vast majority of people here are dis-satisfied with BOTH candidates. We expected the Democrats to nominate a ~~communist socialist~~ far-left liberal, and were hopeing for the Republicans to nominate someone closer to Reagan, then Ford or Bush I. Alas it was not to be......

(and I do not now support and never was a Ron Paulian....)

One legitimate reason is that Obama opposes allowing the executive to detain people for life without giving them any chance to appeal their cases.

McCain does not.

That's a very serious civil liberties issue. At a minimum, I think we can rely on Obama to abolish this "we'll call you an enemy combatant and you'll never see the light of day again...and we won't have to prove anything to anyone to do it" business.

Maybe that isn't deciding for many voters, but it is certainly key. The hysteria that has come with terrorism is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers made juries for-and American juries have proven themselves more than willing to acquit when the Government's evidence doesn't prove a crime. I think that's a big part of the reason that the administration doesn't want these defendants in courtrooms-they don't have enough to convince a jury that a crime occurred.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 04:01:22 PM

Old School,

I think you will find that many on this board are so ~~far to the~~ right, politically, that they absolutely cannot see a legitimate reason for someone to vote Obama.

FTFY

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 06:38:30 PM

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 04:11:33 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 04:01:22 PM

Old School,

I think you will find that many on this board are so far to the right, politically, that they absolutely cannot see a legitimate reason for someone to vote Obama.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And name one legitimate reason to vote for Obama.

The vast majority (Fistful excluded grin

) have taken the time to fully examine the issues and by applying reason and logic have arrived their conclusions. Which is why the vast majority of people here are dis-satisfied with BOTH candidates. We expected the Democrats to nominate a ~~communist socialist~~ far-left liberal, and were hopeing for the Republicans to nominate someone closer to Reagan, then Ford or Bush I. Alas it was not to be......

(and I do not now support and never was a Ron Paulian....)

One legitimate reason is that Obama opposes allowing the executive to detain people for life without giving them any chance to appeal their cases.

McCain does not.

That's a very serious civil liberties issue. At a minimum, I think we can rely on Obama to abolish this "we'll call you an enemy combatant and you'll never see the light of day again...and we won't have to prove anything to anyone to do it" business.

Maybe that isn't deciding for many voters, but it is certainly key. The hysteria that has come with terrorism is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers made juries for-and American juries have proven themselves more than willing to acquit when the Government's evidence doesn't prove a crime. I think that's a big part of the reason that the administration doesn't want these defendants in courtrooms-they don't have enough to convince a jury that a crime occurred.

We know your key issue is getting certain activist groups who make their point with explosives off the hook, yes.

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 21, 2008, 06:46:08 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 06:38:30 PM

Quote from: scout26 on June 21, 2008, 04:11:33 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 04:01:22 PM

Old School,

I think you will find that many on this board are so far to the right, politically, that they absolutely cannot see a legitimate reason for someone to vote Obama.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And name one legitimate reason to vote for Obama.

The vast majority (Fistful excluded grin

) have taken the time to fully examine the issues and by applying reason and logic have arrived their conclusions. Which is why the vast majority of people here are dis-satisfied with BOTH candidates. We expected the Democrats to nominate a ~~communist socialist~~ far-left liberal, and were hopeing for the Republicans to nominate someone closer to Reagan, then Ford or Bush I. Alas it was not to be......

(and I do not now support and never was a Ron Paulian....)

One legitimate reason is that Obama opposes allowing the executive to detain people for life without giving them any chance to appeal their cases.

McCain does not.

That's a very serious civil liberties issue. At a minimum, I think we can rely on Obama to abolish this "we'll call you an enemy combatant and you'll never see the light of day again...and we won't have to prove anything to anyone to do it" business.

Maybe that isn't deciding for many voters, but it is certainly key. The hysteria that has come with terrorism is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers made juries for-and American juries have proven themselves more than willing to acquit when the Government's evidence doesn't prove a crime. I think that's a big part of the reason that the administration doesn't want these defendants in courtrooms-they don't have enough to convince a jury that a crime occurred.

We know your key issue is getting certain activist groups who make their point with explosives off the hook, yes.

My key issue is getting innocent people off the hook, and in having the government prove that individuals are guilty of crimes before throwing them in a dungeon for life.

You should note, by the way, that all the groups you love to hate: CAIR, Al Arian and his co-defendants, have been acquitted on all the most serious charges, and hung their juries 10-2 or close on the few collateral charges that remain.

But I don't expect you to apologize, even though a jury of your peers said the government had no proof they committed crimes. I just expect that we all uphold the system so that the government is required to prove its case before it jails people for crimes.

And Obama is the most promising candidate in that regard. McCain is certainly not. That's important, if you ask me.

shootinstudent has a good point.

No way in hell am I voting for Obama, but I'd much rather suffer through .gov health care than disappear some day with no trial.

Quote from: Dntsycnt on June 21, 2008, 08:08:30 PM

shootinstudent has a good point.

No way in hell am I voting for Obama, but I'd much rather suffer through .gov health care than disappear some day with no trial.

So you'd trust someone who is beholden to the Chicago corruption machine, where they don't just put people in prison, they do far, far worse to them, and nobody saw anything.

Okay.

I don't trust him at all. But when it comes to the "lesser of two evils" I'm not so sure McCain is it.

Quote from: Dntsycnt on June 21, 2008, 08:12:38 PM

I don't trust him at all. But when it comes to the "lesser of two evils" I'm not so sure McCain is it.

Study Chicago politics more. Daley makes Boss Tweed look like a shoplifter. Very nasty things happen to people who speak up about it. And Obama, with his involvement with aforementioned mob bagman Tony Resko, is involved in it up to his fake grin.

You know oldschool, you still haven't answered any of my questions. You state you want to discuss how Obama makes us feel, yet you refuse to disclose your feelings about some serious issues in his past.

Obama acknowledges being friends with an unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers. Are you ok with that?

Obama sat for over 20 years under the leadership of Jeremiah Wright, a racist who thinks the fed.gov invented AIDS to kill blacks and that 9/11 was just America's "chickens coming home to roost." He even named his book after a speech this man gave. Are you ok with that?

Obama says he will be a uniter, yet his voting record shows him as the most far-left Senator we had during his brief tenure. Do you find that inconsistent?

When Obama is giving a private speech he thinks no one will know about, he calls the very people he's been trying to convince to vote for him in PA ignorant xenophobes bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. How does that make you feel?

Obama has publicly stated he supports reasonable restrictions on the 2nd; he cites the DC gun ban as a good example of the restrictions he has in mind. How does that make you feel?

We've done a very good job of politely answering your questions. You have yet to address our concerns in a meaningful way. All of the above statements are verifiably true. If you really want to have a discussion about our feelings, maybe you could start by telling your feelings about the above true statements.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 04:01:22 PM

Old School,

I think you will find that many on this board are so far to the right, politically, that they absolutely cannot see a legitimate reason for someone to vote Obama. That's why you are having people question whether or not you are a secret agent of the campaign, etc. Obviously the polls make it likely that some people on this forum will support Obama-he wouldn't have the numbers he does if that weren't the case.

Of course there would be a few people on here and any other gun forum that would support Obama, but unless they were extremely ignorant of his positions they wouldnt be doing so because they think the supports their gun rights.

Unfortunately not all gun owners are place the RKBA at the top of their most important list. Apparently to some of them care about things universal healthcare, and other social programs, or they would rather see us withdraw from Iraq and think those kinds of things are more important.

Personally I'm almost completely a single issue voter when it comes to guns, and McCain has been pretty staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. He voted against the assault weapon ban when it first came up, and he voted against its renewal. So thats good enough for me. As an added I'm against most social programs so I wouldnt vote for Obama anyways.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 21, 2008, 04:07:40 PM

Quote from: El Tejon on June 21, 2008, 04:05:00 PM

old school, Barry wants to ban your guns and then come confiscate them with a federal version of CAGE just as his puppetmaster, Richie Daley, and his Cover Man, Blago, want to do.

True-but McCain wants to spy on me and make me subject to punishment without any right to challenge the government's claims. My guns are important, but they won't protect me from an executive branch that doesn't need a reason to detain me for life.

Thats why you have your guns, so you can decide when its time for you to fight.

But I guess you would rather have Obama with a democrat congress come in and pass more bans, so that later when they decide that spying and detaining people for thought crimes is a good idea you would have to worry about having to make that tough decision to fight or not because you wont have anything to fight with anyways so why fight.

Quote

True-but McCain wants to spy on me and make me subject to punishment without any right to challenge the government's claims. My guns are important, but they won't protect me from an executive branch that doesn't need a reason to detain me for life.

This is a very real concern. This is not only just as important as the right to bear arms, it is more important. Here is why:

Imagine the day when some doesn't like what you said about politics or someone decides that you have bought too many guns and suddenly you are in jail as a terrorist. No one is contacted to let them know that you have been taken, no one will admit you have been taken, no phone call, no attorney, no rights - you are just gone for good and completely at the governments mercy and completely helpless.

Forget about your cowboy fantasies of fighting them off with you arsenal of guns too. It won't go like a western shootout where the sherriff calls you out at high noon. You won't see them coming and when you realize what is happening it will be too late. Your gone.

Forget the idea of your fellow gun owners rising up to save you too. They won't even know your gone and what has happened to you for months. And once they do, the details of your arrest will be filled with terrorist rhetoric that they might even believe.

Even in the rare chance that they do believe in you and think that your arrest is an injustice, money back gaurentee that none of them will actually physically do anything to help you. Their closet full of semi autos and high capacity mags is not much of a match for our police, fbi, cia or military is it? Not to mention the fear they will feel about their association with you getting them taken away themselves.

Now lets be clear. I want both due process and the right to bear arms. So, that begs the question, how do we get both? I think the answer lies not just in being politically active on gun rights, but on due process too. That is why I am willing to have Obama in the whitehouse. I truly believe we will gain far more on due process and other issues than we will loose on gun rights.

Quote from: old school on June 22, 2008, 03:45:44 AM

Now lets be clear. I want both due process and the right to bear arms. So, that begs the question, how do we get both? I think the answer lies not just in being politically active on gun rights, but on due process too. That is why I am willing to have Obama in the whitehouse. I truly believe we will gain far more on due process and other issues than we will loose on gun rights.

I'm afraid that this is where we differ. I don't believe Obama will do jack-squat for civil rights. I believe what politicians do, not what they say. Why should I believe that the man who voted for the patriot act would be all for protecting civil liberties?

The real party to have your cake and eat it too is the libertarians. Unfortunately, they are not a viable party on the national level.

Quote from: old school on June 22, 2008, 03:45:44 AM

Quote

True-but McCain wants to spy on me and make me subject to punishment without any right to challenge the government's claims. My guns are important, but they won't protect me from an executive branch that doesn't need a reason to detain me for life.

This is a very real concern. This is not only just as important as the right to bear arms, it is more important. Here is why:

Imagine the day when some doesn't like what you said about politics or someone decides that you have bought too many guns and suddenly you are in jail as a terrorist. No one is contacted to let them know that you have been taken, no one will admit you have been taken, no phone call, no attorney, no rights - you are just gone for good and completely at the governments mercy and completely helpless.

Forget about your cowboy fantasies of fighting them off with you arsenal of guns too. It won't go like a western shootout where the sherriff calls you out at high noon. You won't see them coming and when you realize what is happening it will be too late. Your gone.

Forget the idea of your fellow gun owners rising up to save you too. They won't even know your gone and what has happened to you for months. And once they do, the details of your arrest will be filled with terrorist rhetoric that they might even believe.

Even in the rare chance that they do believe in you and think that your arrest is an injustice, money back gaurentee that none of them will actually physically do anything to help you. Their closet full of semi autos and high capacity mags is not much of a match for our police, fbi, cia or military is it? Not to mention the fear they will feel about their association with you getting them taken away themselves.

Now lets be clear. I want both due process and the right to bear arms. So, that begs the question, how do we get both? I think the answer lies not just in being politically active on gun rights, but on due process too. That is why I am willing to have Obama in the whitehouse. I truly believe we will gain far more on due process and other issues than we will loose on gun rights.

This is nonsense - what will happen is that you will lose gun rights, then lose civil liberties should there be a terrorist attack / rumours of a terrorist attack. One seems to recall Jefferson had an appropriate quote.

On the subject of unlawful combatants, this is of course something that some of us on THR pointed out when Gitmo was first in the news. There was a relatively easy way of detaining for as long as necessary those people who were fighting against US and Coalition forces, which the Bush administration (as part of its early mismanagement of both wars) declined to do - recognize those detained as POW (which allows them to be detained for as long as the conflict lasts) and prosecute in a civilian court those POW who had committed crimes. They decided not to do this in favour of a hodgepodge of a system which the Supreme Court has (rightly) thrown out.

Quote from: agricola on June 22, 2008, 05:11:44 AM

This is nonsense - what will happen is that you will lose gun rights, then lose civil liberties should there be a terrorist attack / rumours of a terrorist attack.

You are talking about the order in which you think things "will" happen.
What you have missed is that the loss of due process has already happened.
Not to mention loss of privacy and the rest of the Patriot Act concessions.

You know, if I really believed that Obomba would bring all our troops home the day after his inagauration, I might possibly consider voting for him. But over the past 100 years, the democrats have not exactly proven themselves to be the "anti-war" party rolleyes

More likely he would just get us involved in more foreign conflicts.

As far as "civil liberties" I consider gun rights to be right at the top of the list. Obama doesn't rate very high on that one Sad

I just don't get it with the democrats Huh?

The past two elections they have had the chance to nominate somebody reasonably moderate, but they insist on nominating the most far out extreme leftists. They could have beaten Bush easily in 2004 had they picked almost anyone but Kerry. Same this year. It's going to be close. It's almost as if both parties are trying to lose the election shocked

I'm still waiting to see who gets picked for running mates. If McCain picks Bloomberg then to hell with him. angry

I will "throw my vote away" to Barr.

Quote from: El Tejon on June 21, 2008, 03:26:59 AM

McCain may be less than optimal and no Ronald Reagan, but he is not Obama.

Which is a really good reason to vote for McCain, as suboptimal as he is.

The thing that is really scary about Obama is he is another Jimmy Carter but with no military experience, no governing experience, and even less of a clue that the rest of the world is full of bad people who want to harm us.

McCain is not just less than optimal. He's horrid.

Quote from: old school on June 22, 2008, 03:45:44 AM

Now lets be clear. I want both due process and the right to bear arms. So, that begs the question, how do we get both? I think the answer lies not just in being politically active on gun rights, but on due process too. That is why I am willing to have Obama in the whitehouse. I truly believe we will gain far more on due process and other issues than we will loose on gun rights.

So instead of just possibly losing your civil rights, you want to vote to definitely lose your gun rights, then your rights to free speech, and then your civil rights when you can't do anything about it at all.

You can't even see that the reason why any government is afraid to squeeze a socialist iron fist is due to the fact that the population is armed, and would resist not with silly "Red Dawn" charges, but with single cracks of scoped shots from here and there and everywhere, unfindable and unstoppable.

Your sort is the problem, that you would vote this way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and you're just blindly looking at the sky while driving.

So instead of just possibly losing your civil rights, you want to vote to definitely lose your gun rights, then your rights to free speech, and then your civil rights when you can't do anything about it at all.

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 22, 2008, 05:56:45 AM

McCain is not just less than optimal. He's horrid.

I'm honestly glad you can't vote in our election this time. I'll just say that.

Because your valuing of making a statement instead of taking the needed action is literally p*ssing in the wind, and is completely disconnected from the reality we're facing here.

Maybe one day you'll understand the reality of having to make a choice that's the lesser of two evils, because you're not offered another choice. Then again, maybe you won't.

I've never said anything about "making a statement", or at least not in the sense you use the term.

Maned: So you don't think McCain is horrid?

Myself, I can't see much difference between the pusher robot and the shover robot, but that doesn't mean I don't have an obligation to try to make the best decision for my country. I "feel" that McCain might be least bad for the country.
Both of them want me to go down the stairs, but pushed, or shoved?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E0ot9iJm_k

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 22, 2008, 06:07:39 AM

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 22, 2008, 05:56:45 AM

McCain is not just less than optimal. He's horrid.

I'm honestly glad you can't vote in our election this time. I'll just say that.

Because your valuing of making a statement instead of taking the needed action is literally p*ssing in the wind, and is completely disconnected from the reality we're facing here.

Maybe one day you'll understand the reality of having to make a choice that's the lesser of two evils, because you're not offered another choice. Then again, maybe you won't.

And how exactly is the "lesser of two evils" method working out for you? Socialism quick, or socialism fast - fantastic. I'm not saying that we have other options - just that the "lesser of two evils" is a failed policy.

Quote

You are talking about the order in which you think things "will" happen.
What you have missed is that the loss of due process has already happened.
Not to mention loss of privacy and the rest of the Patriot Act concessions.

And what is Obama going to do to fix that? Make NSA snooping on telephone lines illegal? Repeal the Patriot Act? rolleyes

Quote from: Dntsycnt on June 22, 2008, 06:19:30 AM

Maned: So you don't think McCain is horrid?

McCain sucks but is survivable. Obama would be absolute disaster.

There are no other choices at this juncture. If you think otherwise, stop smoking pot.

There's a bright line around the First and Second Amendments.

Lose those two and you no longer have America. Those are the twin palladiums of everything we have stood for since 1776.

You may have Another Civilized Nation but you don't have America. The essence of this country has been, is, and will be political liberty. It is not about more creature comforts or cheap gasoline or more welfare.

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

What has Obama promised to do, specifically, about restoring civil liberties which Bush is accused of violating or threatening? Is he likely to come through on these promises?

Regardless what the answer may be, it is absurd to hope that a liberal Democrat will be more friendly to our rights. By definition, such a person is dedicated to the destruction of liberty.

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 11:10:43 AM

What has Obama promised to do, specifically, about restoring civil liberties which Bush is accused of violating or threatening? Is he likely to come through on these promises?

Regardless what the answer may be, it is absurd to hope that a liberal Democrat will be more friendly to our rights. By definition, such a person is dedicated to the destruction of liberty.

He said that he supported the Supreme Court ruling on the subject, and that he supports giving a trial even to the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

In Contrast, McCain called the new ruling one of the worst decisions in the history of the court. That says to me that he doesn't believe every person accused of a crime should be tried and proven guilty-he supports the Bush system.

My firearms rights are important, and I can't advocate for them if I get tossed in prison and labelled whatever word the administration decides will deprive me of any right to counsel, right to trial, or right to not be tortured.

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights.

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 01:18:58 PM

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights.

Isn't it nice to know that we have people voting on what politicians say they'll do, instead of what their voting record shows they have done and will do?

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 01:18:58 PM

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights.

Okay, the question was: What has Obama promised to do to restore rights taken away by the Bush administration?

The answer was: Give trials to terrorism suspects, including Osama Bin Laden. Everyone gets tried for their crimes.

I thought that was clear in my response, so since it apparently wasn't, I signposted it for you.

Now, as for how a liberal democrat will help the situation:

Again, I was confining my comments to the importance of the right of individuals to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt before being punished. That is a hugely important freedom, because otherwise, the government can jail anyone it chooses by simply applying a label and then denying that person the means to contest the detention.

So by restoring the right and getting America back on the track of having trials, and not letting the executive jail people at will without proving anything to anyone, our human rights are protected. Doesn't matter who does it-liberal, conservative, or otherwise.

But in this election, McCain says he wants to do the opposite-continue secret detentions without trial. So that's the basis of my comment here. Obama says he wants to try every suspect and prove guilt before punishing, McCain says that's a freedom that's too dangerous for America.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 01:25:36 PM

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 01:18:58 PM

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights.

Okay, the question was: What has Obama promised to do to restore rights taken away by the Bush administration?

The answer was: Give trials to terrorism suspects, including Osama Bin Laden. Everyone gets tried for their crimes.

I thought that was clear in my response, so since it apparently wasn't, I signposted it for you.

Now, as for how a liberal democrat will help the situation:

Again, I was confining my comments to the importance of the right of individuals to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt before being punished. That is a hugely important freedom, because otherwise, the government can jail anyone it chooses by simply applying a label and then denying that person the means to contest the detention.

So by restoring the right and getting America back on the track of having trials, and not letting the executive jail people at will without proving anything to anyone, our human rights are protected. Doesn't matter who does it-liberal, conservative, or otherwise.

But in this election, McCain says he wants to do the opposite-continue secret detentions without trial. So that's the basis of my comment here. Obama says he wants to try every suspect and prove guilt before punishing, McCain says that's a freedom that's too dangerous for America.

In other words, you haven't even looked at Obama's voting record at all, you're going by a politician's promises.

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 22, 2008, 01:26:42 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 01:25:36 PM

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 01:18:58 PM

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights.

Okay, the question was: What has Obama promised to do to restore rights taken away by the Bush administration?

The answer was: Give trials to terrorism suspects, including Osama Bin Laden. Everyone gets tried for their crimes.

I thought that was clear in my response, so since it apparently wasn't, I signposted it for you.

Now, as for how a liberal democrat will help the situation:

Again, I was confining my comments to the importance of the right of individuals to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt before being punished. That is a hugely important freedom, because otherwise, the government can jail anyone it chooses by simply applying a label and then denying that person the means to contest the detention.

So by restoring the right and getting America back on the track of having trials, and not letting the executive jail people at will without proving anything to anyone, our human rights are protected. Doesn't matter who does it-liberal, conservative, or otherwise.

But in this election, McCain says he wants to do the opposite-continue secret detentions without trial. So that's the basis of my comment here. Obama says he wants to try every suspect and prove guilt before punishing, McCain says that's a freedom that's too dangerous for America.

In other words, you haven't even looked at Obama's voting record at all, you're going by a politician's promises.

No, I'm looking at his record and at his statements-but more importantly at McCain's as well.

I don't think there's any legitimate dispute about the positions of the candidates on this one: Obama is anti-secret detention without trial, McCain is not. Certainly for other issues the dividing line is not so clear, but on this one there's just no rational way to argue it.

I'm open to seeing some evidence that Obama supports the Guantanamo system, though. Maybe you know some secrets the rest of us don't-please share, if that's the case.

Actually, Maned, I was asking for what Obama had promised to do. As in, what specific legislation or policy has he put forth? And I guess promising to try OBL is a policy, implying that others will be tried as well. Now, if trying OBL is a good thing for you, I guess that's something. Completely nonsensical, but something. Like any sane person, I want him interrogated by any useful means at our disposal, then put down. If you think that's a violation of rights, well, it must be nice in your fairy tale world.

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 01:31:51 PM

Actually, Maned, I was asking for what Obama had promised to do. As in, what specific legislation or policy has he put forth? And I guess promising to try OBL is a policy, implying that others will be tried as well. Now, if trying OBL is a good thing for you, I guess that's something. Completely nonsensical, but something. Like any sane person, I want him interrogated by any useful means at our disposal, then put down. If you think that's a violation of rights, well, it must be nice in your fairy tale world.

Silly, he doesn't put forth specific policies, just feelgood platitudes and soundbite solutions.

And the gullible fall for it.

fistful,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060927-floor_statement_7/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html

The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

The real fairy tale is that governments are so honest that you can trust them to only imprison bad people, and that they'll only use the unlimited power to imprison responsibly.

I also don't believe in instutionalized savagery, and torture is savagery. It's a death penalty offense for a reason. McCain and Obama have both come out against torture though, but I'm sure if McCain is changing his opinion on that yet.

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 22, 2008, 01:34:34 PM

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 01:31:51 PM

Actually, Maned, I was asking for what Obama had promised to do. As in, what specific legislation or policy has he put forth? And I guess promising to try OBL is a policy, implying that others will be tried as well. Now, if trying OBL is a good thing for you, I guess that's something. Completely nonsensical, but something. Like any sane person, I want him interrogated by any useful means at our disposal, then put down. If you think that's a violation of rights, well, it must be nice in your fairy tale world.

Silly, he doesn't put forth specific policies, just feelgood platitudes and soundbite solutions.

And the gullible fall for it.

There are two specific policies:

1. Providing for habeas corpus to all detainees

and

2. Closing Guantanamo, so as to deprive the government of its legal fiction that there is a land beyond the reach of the law.

Edit: Another article with specific votes and statements by McCain and Obama:

http://www.ksfy.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=20575144

McCain's election would be better for our country for several important reason if the congress remains D.

There would be gridlock. The D's would never stand for him to push further to the right and he'd veto most leftist/socialist agendi. With Obama, we'd be celebrating Bastile Day. A McCain presidency and a D congress means nothing governmental happens for 4 years. In America that is a good thing.

McCain's federal judges would be centrists at the worst. Obama's picks would be marxist.

With McCain you'd get to keep and carry. With Obama you'd have to hide and bury.

A long term energy program that is at least sane and maybe a tad progressive would result with McCain. I think we'd have progress because Americans are fed up with the obstructionists and would demand it. With Obama we'd be walking everywhere and eating the furniture we didn't burn to keep warm in the winter. The D's don't give a rats ass if you freeze or can afford to drive your car. They want you to buy a windmill and grow your own organic food.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 01:38:56 PM

fistful,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060927-floor_statement_7/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html

The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

The real fairy tale is that governments are so honest that you can trust them to only imprison bad people, and that they'll only use the unlimited power to imprison responsibly.

I also don't believe in instutionalized savagery, and torture is savagery. It's a death penalty offense for a reason. McCain and Obama have both come out against torture though, but I'm sure if McCain is changing his opinion on that yet.

Excellent Posts. However that last line about Mc Cain changing his mind about torture "yet" is highly unlikely. Even as pliable as McCain has become, I cannot imagine anyone who has gone through what he went through ever endorsing torture.

you think shooting student over looked mccain being tortured? in real life too not on the net

Old school:

He endorsed torture. At least, this is how people spin the fact tht he does:
McCain voted "NO" on a bill to have the CIA abide by teh army field manual specifications for interrogations.

Mccain said, "When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques, Mr. McCain told reporters Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Problem is, the courts and the Bush Administration are constantly flipflopping on wether forms of interrogation, i.e. waterboarding meet this standard or break it. (Never mind that we prosecuted the Japanese for it.)

This election can be summed up thusly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd

Quote

Let's get out and vote!
Let's make our voices heard.
We've been given the right to choose,
between a *expletive deleted*che and a turd.
Its democracy in action!
Put your freedom to the test.
A big fat turd or a stupid *expletive deleted*che,
which do you like best?

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet. It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us. The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already. This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

Quote from: longeyes on June 22, 2008, 03:38:49 PM

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet. It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us. The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already. This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law. So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

Quote from: Nitrogen on June 22, 2008, 03:18:47 PM

Problem is, the courts and the Bush Administration are constantly flipflopping on wether forms of interrogation, i.e. waterboarding meet this standard or break it. (Never mind that we prosecuted the Japanese for it.)

They don't flip flop on it-they know it breaks the law, they only change the sham legal doctrines they use to try and excuse the flagrant violation of the law.

Everybody knows that it is torture. There is no room for reasonable disagreement on that subject. The only realistic debate is whether or not fig leaf legal justifications should be enough to allow the practice, and sadly some people think that's okay because of the nature of the torture victims' (alleged-no trials for these people yet) crimes.

Quote

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law. So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

Punition can only exist when a breach occurs within a society that embraces a pact of mutual respect. It is a violation of a compact. We have no compact with enemy aliens out to destroy us. This is not about rehabilitation, re-education, or punishment. This is about eliminating a mortal threat. Draw your own conclusions.

Quote from: longeyes on June 22, 2008, 04:22:50 PM

Quote

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law. So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

Punition can only exist when a breach occurs within a society that embraces a pact of mutual respect. It is a violation of a compact. We have no compact with enemy aliens out to destroy us. This is not about rehabilitation, re-education, or punishment. This is about eliminating a mortal threat. Draw your own conclusions.

The problem is that you're inventing a new law-certainly that view is not American law, and never has been. Maybe you believe in some worldwide "law of natural order" or something like the globalists you despise, but certainly this view has absolutely nothing to do with what the law requires here, in America. There is also no American rule of "mortal threats" that excuses Americans from American law-you have to obey the law, even in self defense. That's always been the case, and you would have a very different America if that were not so.

The Government cannot criminally punish people who have violated no law. That's pretty clear-even in the constitution, via the ban on ex post facto laws.

There is no American law of "no compact equals no law" or whatever it is you were theorizing. Maybe in some globalist paradise where the presumed "law of natural order applicable to all!" applies this could be the case, but I'm talking about a sovereign America, where the government enforces American laws.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 03:47:07 PM

Quote from: longeyes on June 22, 2008, 03:38:49 PM

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet. It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us. The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already. This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law. So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

SS, you are making what I like to call "The Pinhead Lawyer" mistake.

Pinhead Lawyers(1) seem to think that every aspect of human existence is and ought to be governed by intricate layers of law(2). No room for unwritten law, no room for social convention, no room for activities that are not legal or illegal, but a-legal.

War is a part of human interaction where law takes a back seat to reality and purpose.

(1) Not all lawyers are pinheads. See Andrew McCarthy's Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad for a cogent, non-pinheaded lawyer who understands that a law-enforcement approach to war is a recipe for disaster. "While our enemies were waging a war, we were prosecuting them as mere criminals." "The legal system circa 1993 was woefully unprepared for radical Islam."

(2) Thus requiring a legion of lawyers to do just about anything.

Quote

The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

That is a lie. I have never clamored for the abolition of habeas corpus. But since the constitution allows for the SUSPENSION of habeas corpus under certain circumstances, I will too. For now.

Quote from: jfruser on June 22, 2008, 05:29:58 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 03:47:07 PM

Quote from: longeyes on June 22, 2008, 03:38:49 PM

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet. It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us. The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already. This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law. So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

SS, you are making what I like to call "The Pinhead Lawyer" mistake.

Pinhead Lawyers(1) seem to think that every aspect of human existence is and ought to be governed by intricate layers of law(2). No room for unwritten law, no room for social convention, no room for activities that are not legal or illegal, but a-legal.

War is a part of human interaction where law takes a back seat to reality and purpose.

(1) Not all lawyers are pinheads. See Andrew McCarthy's Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad for a cogent, non-pinheaded lawyer who understands that a law-enforcement approach to war is a recipe for disaster. "While our enemies were waging a war, we were prosecuting them as mere criminals." "The legal system circa 1993 was woefully unprepared for radical Islam."

(2) Thus requiring a legion of lawyers to do just about anything.

Actually, I don't think every area should be governed by intricate laws-my standard here is pretty basic: Government should have to prove the guilt of an individual before punishing the individual.

That is basic to civil society, not "far reaching pinhead lawyerism." All of this business about how the "law can't handle terrorists" is complete bunk-we have handled many an enemy who was waging war against the U.S. It's very simple: If you are committing crimes, you get tried and punished. If you are not committing crimes, you don't-and that principle has worked even in wars against the likes of the Nazis and Japanese fascists.

Andrew McCarthy is not only a partisan player on the issue, he's a bigtime supporter of using torture. Considering that he thinks savagery such as torture is legitimate, I'm not surprised that he doesn't believe the law applies to crimes.

Making war take the front seat for everything is what the Nazis and Fascist Japanese did-that's why they got tried as war criminals, and it's what should happen to anyone else who is willing to violate all the basic principles of civilized behavior in warfare.

Quote from: fistful on June 22, 2008, 05:31:33 PM

Quote

The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

That is a lie. I have never clamored for the abolition of habeas corpus. But since the constitution allows for the SUSPENSION of habeas corpus under certain circumstances, I will too. For now.

"Suspended until the war on terror is over" is an abolition; there is no definite end point to the "war", and of course, you can rely on governments to use that to their advantage..."Hey folks, we're still working on security-no need for habeas to interfere with that!"

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 05:41:56 PM

Actually, I don't think every area should be governed by intricate laws-my standard here is pretty basic: Government should have to prove the guilt of an individual before punishing the individual.

I agree, for citizens governed under that counties criminal laws.

I see a difference in international law. For instance, I am not a Russian citizen, and as such I have no social contract with Russia. Therefore, if Russia decides that I am a threat, and it is worth pissing off the US government, the Russians can abduct me and hold me indefinitely, torture me, and kill me. As an enemy of the state, I do not have the protections that Russian citizens do under their constitution.

Is this not the case? Constitutional protections only apply to citizens of that said nation, no?

Quote

I see a difference in international law. For instance, I am not a Russian citizen, and as such I have no social contract with Russia. Therefore, if Russia decides that I am a threat, and it is worth pissing off the US government, the Russians can abduct me and hold me indefinitely, torture me, and kill me. As an enemy of the state, I do not have the protections that Russian citizens do under their constitution.

Is this not the case? Constitutional protections only apply to citizens of that said nation, no?

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it. That's clear from your example. If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan. Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

Whether the constitutional protections of a nation apply to people who aren't citizens depends on the nation, of course: in America, they clearly do, because constitutional protections are restraints on what the Federal Government may do, not affirmative grants.

The issue here isn't whether we should give something to non-citizens; it's whether the Federal government should be required to follow its own laws and the laws of the Constitution.

There are also international law considerations (like your example raises), but you don't have to consider those to settle this question. The U.S. constitution and laws settle it easily.

Quote from: jfruser on June 20, 2008, 05:50:04 PM

I never got past the "anti-corruption" bit in the before I burst out laughing.

Seriously, he is a machine pol from Chicago.

Ditto here... grin

Quote from: longeyes on June 22, 2008, 09:54:27 AM

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

Look. The purpose of political change is to move towards an objective. In the case of conservatism, it is to move towards less and less government. Even if you disagree with me on the distance we must travel, this is the case.

The Truman Doctrine applies here - "If we merely attempt to remain where we are, we will be driven back."

The problem with McCain is that he abandons any sort of desire of moving towards less government and more individual liberty. The only difference between McCain and Obama is the speed at which he wants to take you all towards less freedom.

Remember Reagan? "There is on left or right, there is only up or down..."

If McCain wins, you will be resigned to a European-like political reality where all you have is Statist A and Statist B.

And if you think that the Democrats will oppose McCain's expansions of the State, I have a bridge to sell you.

LEt me restate this:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as a vehicle of conservative reform.

No reform means the party is meaningless.

A party that rendered itself meaningless deserves to lose the election.

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 22, 2008, 06:57:56 PM

Quote from: longeyes on June 22, 2008, 09:54:27 AM

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

Look. The purpose of political change is to move towards an objective. In the case of conservatism, it is to move towards less and less government. Even if you disagree with me on the distance we must travel, this is the case.

The Truman Doctrine applies here - "If we merely attempt to remain where we are, we will be driven back."

The problem with McCain is that he abandons any sort of desire of moving towards less government and more individual liberty. The only difference between McCain and Obama is the speed at which he wants to take you all towards less freedom.

Remember Reagan? "There is on left or right, there is only up or down..."

If McCain wins, you will be resigned to a European-like political reality where all you have is Statist A and Statist B.

And if you think that the Democrats will oppose McCain's expansions of the State, I have a bridge to sell you.

LEt me restate this:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as a vehicle of conservative reform.

No reform means the party is meaningless.

A party that rendered itself meaningless deserves to lose the election.

Once again, I'm just glad you can't vote here. Because you're not living in the reality, and you don't get it.

It's like talking to a wall.

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 23, 2008, 03:05:43 AM

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 22, 2008, 06:57:56 PM

Quote from: longeyes on June 22, 2008, 09:54:27 AM

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

Look. The purpose of political change is to move towards an objective. In the case of conservatism, it is to move towards less and less government. Even if you disagree with me on the distance we must travel, this is the case.

The Truman Doctrine applies here - "If we merely attempt to remain where we are, we will be driven back."

The problem with McCain is that he abandons any sort of desire of moving towards less government and more individual liberty. The only difference between McCain and Obama is the speed at which he wants to take you all towards less freedom.

Remember Reagan? "There is on left or right, there is only up or down..."

If McCain wins, you will be resigned to a European-like political reality where all you have is Statist A and Statist B.

And if you think that the Democrats will oppose McCain's expansions of the State, I have a bridge to sell you.

LEt me restate this:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as a vehicle of conservative reform.

No reform means the party is meaningless.

A party that rendered itself meaningless deserves to lose the election.

Once again, I'm just glad you can't vote here. Because you're not living in the reality, and you don't get it.

It's like talking to a wall.

You have not answered my previous questions about the nature of your political goals and beliefs.
You have not even attempted to disprove my statements - neither now, nor previously.
You have at least twice deliberately misrepresented my position (here, and in the threads on Israel where you claimed I want Israel to 'lay down its arms').
All you've done is try to intimidate me.

How am I to be persuaded? All you've shown me is all stick (and the existence of your stick is debatable) and no carrot. If McCain were to be supportive of even slight systemic change, I'd be all for him.

It's not that I'm one of those OMG RON PAUL OR BUST people whom you profess to hate so much.

"Making the perfect the enemy of the good," seems to sum up the attitude of some.

Maybe terms like "damage control" and "risk mitigation" will help some folks understand.

No, it has nothing to do with that. Had Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, or Thompson been nominated, we'd not be having this argument, or if we would be, I'd be siding with you.

Quote

Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

This is the the key thinking that is missing from the rabid dog mentality. "Biggest fist rules" is a great slogan when you have the upper hand. However, when the same bully that you were cheering for turns on you, suddenly it is not such a great philosophy.

It is just like the guy who drinks and drives because he thinks he is in control. When it all goes wrong and he is sitting in the drunk tank charged with manslaughter, suddenly everything is clearer. Just 12 hours ago the same individual was certain he was in complete control. How could he be so stupid? Simple, he was drunk. Being drunk with power is the same thing.

Americans have the convenience of being drunk with power. Because of our dominance, most of us have had this comfort for our entire lives. So, it is no surprise the we could display a lack of humility and a lack of compassion for people who are powerless. We just don't think the shoe could ever be on the other foot. When the day comes when the bully turns on you, you will be wondering how you could be so stupid too.

Quote from: old school on June 23, 2008, 04:26:11 AM

Americans have the convenience of being drunk with power. Because of our dominance, most of us have had this comfort for our entire lives. So, it is no surprise the we could display a lack of humility and a lack of compassion for people who are powerless. We just don't think the shoe could ever be on the other foot. When the day comes when the bully turns on you, you will be wondering how you could be so stupid too.

Holy sh__ that sounds exactly like an Obama fluff speech. Just listen to you!

Yeah, you're just one more Obamaton, I think. You're following your messiah as a True Believer. Whatever...

I suggest you proselytize somewhere else, if that's the case. Because you won't find many converts here. The people here like to think, to question, and to doubt, and that's incompatible with any feelgood platitudes Obama has babbled, ever.

I think this is appropriate.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=12089.msg217041#msg217041

Quote from: Mike Irwin

/snip
As far as I can tell it's been quite some time since you've answered a question that has been directly posed to you.
/snip
And then you have the audacity to piss and moan because no one will answer your questions, yet when they do you immediately scuttle to the left and cry "well no one answered the question I was REALLY asking..."

That's pathological passive-agressive hypocrisy, it's a hallmark of many trolls, and it's put you on very short legs here, child.

If you want to have a discussion, answering pertinent questions might be a good place to start.

If Americans were "drunk with power," this planet would have a very different look to it. Maybe the other nations of the world would be paying us tribute or, less dramatically, America would be paid back for the military umbrella we have long provided the free world, at our expense, or we would be compensated for the illegal dumping that has raped our domestic industries and the intellectual property theft that cripples us.

Backing Reason with force is not drunken, it is honorable.

My view of what the Unholy Five on SCOTUS did can be described this way: it's like telling the gangbangers who tearing up your neighborhood to go to their rooms. It is a deluded combination of generosity-cum-arrogance. The terrorists have to be laughing their butts off at our misguided "idealism."

Agreed.

If we were truly drunk with power, we've have long ago thrown off any lingering pretext of caring what the rest of the world thought and would act unilaterally on every issue such that it benefitted the US and ONLY the US.

Don't like it?

Mind if we test fire a nuke on your capital city?

You do mind?

Tough crap, we're the United States and we're drunk with power...

Actually, I would MUCH prefer a United States like that.

I get really sick of hearing people on Monday screaming "The United States is being a bully and overstepping its boundaries" and on Tuesday, after a typhoon, earthquake, etc., strips that nation bare, the same people are screaming "The United States isn't helping me!"

Quote from: Mike Irwin on June 23, 2008, 07:22:53 AM

Agreed.

If we were truly drunk with power, we've have long ago thrown off any lingering pretext of caring what the rest of the world thought and would act unilaterally on every issue such that it benefitted the US and ONLY the US.

Don't like it?

Mind if we test fire a nuke on your capital city?

You do mind?

Tough crap, we're the United States and we're drunk with power...

Actually, I would MUCH prefer a United States like that.

I get really sick of hearing people on Monday screaming "The United States is being a bully and overstepping its boundaries" and on Tuesday, after a typhoon, earthquake, etc., strips that nation bare, the same people are screaming "The United States isn't helping me!"

If we're this all-powerful empire, where's our $1 oil? Where's the quivering representatives of other nations bearing tribute so we don't nuke them?

If we're a powerful empire "drunk with power", then we suck at it.

Quote

If we're a powerful empire "drunk with power", then we suck at it.

That would make a great tag line...

Quote

Actually, I would MUCH prefer a United States like that.

Actually, I think you have a LOT of company there, and we have only just heard the first rumblings of that.

The people who want to "cut American down to size" are going to meet a lot of resistance.

"If we're this all-powerful empire, where's our $1 oil?"

Yep, you still hear the libtards screaming about the war for oil in Iraq.

The idiots are too caught up in their tag lines, protest marches and drum circles to figure out that the United States has 100,000+ troops in Iraq and we're not suctioning them dry.

Quote from: longeyes on June 23, 2008, 05:27:56 AM

If Americans were "drunk with power," this planet would have a very different look to it. Maybe the other nations of the world would be paying us tribute or, less dramatically, America would be paid back for the military umbrella we have long provided the free world, at our expense, or we would be compensated for the illegal dumping that has raped our domestic industries and the intellectual property theft that cripples us.

Backing Reason with force is not drunken, it is honorable.

My view of what the Unholy Five on SCOTUS did can be described this way: it's like telling the gangbangers who tearing up your neighborhood to go to their rooms. It is a deluded combination of generosity-cum-arrogance. The terrorists have to be laughing their butts off at our misguided "idealism."

Okay, but what is the reasoning behind allowing the government to violate its own laws by punishing people without first demonstrating that they are in fact guilty of a crime?

No problem with force behind reason-but what's the logic here? I don't see how that's a good thing for anyone except those who want the government to have the power to eliminate anyone it wants simply by applying a label.

Quote

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it. That's clear from your example. If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan. Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

You're absolutely right. Osama did not make any claims that his henchmen did any crime. That was the case even after 9/11. Instead of calling them criminals, he praised his minions for their "heroic" act. Does that mean that they deserve no punishment? And if Russia is to abduct an innocent US citizen and torture/kill him, it can be interpreted as an act of war. And that's how the US govt. is looking at terrorist activities - acts of war - not criminal activity. You cannot treat acts of war as you would ordinary US nationals who commit crimes. Once you do, you would have to reveal your intelligence assets/methods in a civilain court where all documents are public information. This will compromise national security. That is what the left wants.

Quote from: pinoyinus on June 23, 2008, 10:45:37 AM

Quote

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it. That's clear from your example. If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan. Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

You're absolutely right. Osama did not make any claims that his henchmen did any crime. That was the case even after 9/11. Instead of calling them criminals, he praised his minions for their "heroic" act. Does that mean that they deserve no punishment? And if Russia is to abduct an innocent US citizen and torture/kill him, it can be interpreted as an act of war. And that's how the US govt. is looking at terrorist activities - acts of war - not criminal activity. You cannot treat acts of war as you would ordinary US nationals who commit crimes. Once you do, you would have to reveal your intelligence assets/methods in a civilain court where all documents are public information. This will compromise national security. That is what the left wants.

Acts of war that don't break the criminal law mean: no personal liability for the agents who carried it out.

Ie, if Russia orders an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier, you can't arrest the Russian pilot and charge him with a crime.

Acts of war can be criminal too though: for example, if Russia ordered a secret agent to blow up a bus in New York, the proper response would be to capture and try the agent for his crime, as well as to respond to the act of war.

That is how these things have always been handled-even before there was a "left" in this country. You can't punish people for acts of war that aren't also crimes; but you can punish them for acts of war that are crimes, provided that you prove them guilty of the act.

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 23, 2008, 04:14:47 AM

No, it has nothing to do with that. Had Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, or Thompson been nominated, we'd not be having this argument, or if we would be, I'd be siding with you.

Eliminate Huck from that list, and I would have been able to vote FOR a candidate rather than voting AGAINST Obama.

No one has ever mistaken me for a McCain booster. But, I can tell the difference between a poor choice (McCain) and a disastrous choice (Obama).

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 05:43:38 PM

"Suspended until the war on terror is over" is an abolition; there is no definite end point to the "war", and of course, you can rely on governments to use that to their advantage..."Hey folks, we're still working on security-no need for habeas to interfere with that!"

That's funny right there, I don't care who ya are. As long as you can read the constitution, that is.

Quote from: U.S. Constitution

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

So, the .gov is supposed to know when these things are gonna end? Ha!

I hate rewarding McCain with the Presidency after all the garbage he has pulled the last 7 years, but obama is a socialist/communist. The democrats have let it slip that they want to nationalize the oil companies. I know this country will survive 4 years of a disastrous obama Presidency, but what worries me is the Supreme Court Justices he will select. These people will sit on the Bench for 20 or 30 years. We have all been pins and needles over Heller case and that is with a Bench that slightly leans our way. No, there is no way I can vote for obama.

Quote from: fistful on June 23, 2008, 12:02:16 PM

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 22, 2008, 05:43:38 PM

"Suspended until the war on terror is over" is an abolition; there is no definite end point to the "war", and of course, you can rely on governments to use that to their advantage..."Hey folks, we're still working on security-no need for habeas to interfere with that!"

That's funny right there, I don't care who ya are. As long as you can read the constitution, that is.

Quote from: U.S. Constitution

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

So, the .gov is supposed to know when these things are gonna end? Ha!

No, the government doesn't have to know when these things will end-but it has to be in a situation where an end is foreseeable, and not foreseeably impossible (as it is in the "war on terror").

Otherwise it's not a "suspension"-it's an abolition. And in any case, suspending the right doesn't change the legal principles that guilt must be proven and that torture is a crime against humanity.

Quote

Otherwise it's not a "suspension"-it's an abolition.

I guess you can keep saying that. But it's still laughable.

Quote

suspending the right doesn't change the legal principles that guilt must be proven

Who said it does?

Quote

torture is a crime against humanity

1. Can you rephrase that with a little less drama queen? "Crime against humanity." It's a step above "social justice," though, I guess.

2. Failure to torture can also be a "crime against humanity." But not in fairy tale land, of course.

Quote from: Mike Irwin on June 23, 2008, 10:09:07 AM

"If we're this all-powerful empire, where's our $1 oil?"

Yep, you still hear the libtards screaming about the war for oil in Iraq.

The idiots are too caught up in their tag lines, protest marches and drum circles to figure out that the United States has 100,000+ troops in Iraq and we're not suctioning them dry.

More the opposite - whole lot of money going in and not much oil coming back out.

fistful,

That you find it laughable doesn't make it any less true. It doesn't appear that any further discussion of the obvious will help you on the difference between suspending for invasion or rebellion, and granting the government license to refuse habeas indefinitely to anyone for the foreseeable future so long as the government applies the magic label of "terrorist."

Quote

Can you rephrase that with a little less drama queen? "Crime against humanity." It's a step above "social justice," though, I guess.

That's not drama-that's the technical term for an act that is, at least in American and Western legal traditions, punishable even where no statute or noticed law prohibits the activity. It's one of the things the Nazis and Fascist Japanese were charged with.

<-----Captain, US Army Military Police Corps 1987-1998

Shootinstudent, Old School,

Why don't you read the following so that you understand what the Hague Convention and US Military Doctrine and policy trury is, before you scream "The guys we captured on battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq have to be tried in our courts."

http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare_ch03.html

Oh, and how many detainee's have we hacked the heads off of ??

Quote from: scout26 on June 23, 2008, 07:09:37 PM

<-----Captain, US Army Military Police Corps 1987-1998

Shootinstudent, Old School,

Why don't you read the following so that you understand what the Hague Convention and US Military Doctrine and policy trury is, before you scream "The guys we captured on battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq have to be tried in our courts."

http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare_ch03.html

Oh, and how many detainee's have we hacked the heads off of ??

If you read my comments, you will find that I'm not saying they have to be tried in civilian courts.

They have to be tried though, that is the point. I think there are very good grounds for trying combatants captured on the battlefield in military courts-but those military courts still have to provide minimum fact-finding potential. This latest Supreme Court ruling was a result of the administration trying to escape previous rulings to that effect by creating sham "reviews" with no real opportunity for the case to be tried.

The administration didn't just try to keep them out of civilian courts-it tried to deny them any review, trial, or right to have crimes proven against them.

As far as we know, we haven't hacked any detainees heads off, but we have without a doubt broken both the Military's own laws and the civilian laws of the United States by using what amounts to the chinese water torture on them. I really never imagined I'd ever live in a country where people defend the practice of ramming a plastic bag down prisoners' throats and pumping water in to simulate drowning. That truly shocks the conscience-even more than the idea that people can be jailed for life without any sort of finding of guilt.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 23, 2008, 07:47:14 PM

They have to be tried though, that is the point. I think there are very good grounds for trying combatants captured on the battlefield in military courts-but those military courts still have to provide minimum fact-finding potential.

Ummmm, no. We detained over 400,000 German and Italian soliders here during WWII, and the only time there were trials was when they had committed an offense against other prisoners or their captors. Not for what they had done on the battlefield.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 23, 2008, 07:47:14 PM

This latest Supreme Court ruling was a result of the administration AND THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS trying to escape previous rulings to that effect by creating sham "reviews" with no real opportunity for the case to be tried.

The administration AND THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS didn't just try to keep them out of civilian courts-it tried to deny them any review, trial, or right to have crimes proven against them.

Fixed it for you......

And no, we've been trying to establish Military Tribunals to have their cases tried, but the "America Must Lose" crowd has insisted that they to have criminal law trials in US courts. And the SCOTUS agreed.

From http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare_ch03.html

Quote

80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.

82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.

Like a long stay at Club Gitmo.........Now how many of those nice, poor innocent people down there have we executed again ??

Quote

Ummmm, no. We detained over 400,000 German and Italian soliders here during WWII, and the only time there were trials was when they had committed an offense against other prisoners or their captors. Not for what they had done on the battlefield.

Yeah-but they also weren't punished. The Bush administration has completely rejected this model. POW's have to be released as soon as their home governments surrender, have to be housed in humane conditions, have access to the red cross, have the right to receive mail and care packages from the other side, etc. etc. There are all kinds of rights that come with this model that Guantanamo detainees don't have.

If you want to treat them as POW's, you have to accept that they cannot be mistreated, and that they cannot be punished in any way. POW's are only POW's so long as they are innocent of any crime-otherwise they go on trial and get punished.

The "democrat controlled congress" did not create guantanamo-the Bush administration did, and this whole plan has been primarily its doing.

The update to your post is exactly the legal requirement I'm pointing to: If you're not entitled to POW status, you can be tried and punished. If you are entitled to POW status, you cannot be punished. Again, to make this clear, you posted an authority that says exactly what I've been saying on this thread: if you're a POW and have not violated the law, you cannot be tried or punished. If you did violate the law, then you lose the immunity from prosecution that POW status affords-ie, law breakers are not immune, so if the government so chooses, it may try them and punish them where it would otherwise (due to POW rules) be prohibited from imposing any punishment at all.

Again, I don't know if anyone's been killed at Guantanamo-but certainly people have been tortured in violation of the laws of governing the armed forces, and the laws governing citizens of the United States. Torture is a crime under every legal regime that considers the subject.

One more edit:

Quote

And no, we've been trying to establish Military Tribunals to have their cases tried, but the "America Must Lose" crowd has insisted that they to have criminal law trials in US courts

Uh, that is not what the Supreme Court said. Not even close.

SS,

I guess you failed to read the parts 80 and 81 in the Law of Land Warfare that states that they are NOT EPW's.

And it says you MAY be tried and punished, not you MUST be tried.

Quote

but certainly people have been tortured in violation of the laws of governing the armed forces, and the laws governing citizens of the United States.

Ummm wrong again. When several of the current Democrats *cough* Nancy Pelosi *cough* were given a briefing about Gitmo and Waterboarding.

Here's an article about it from that Stalwart Founding Member of the VRWC, the Washingate Pest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

Quote

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all aspects of the detention and interrogation program." (By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press)

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general.

GOP lawmakers and Bush administration officials have previously said members of Congress were well informed and were supportive of the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques. But the details of who in Congress knew what, and when, about waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that is the most extreme and widely condemned interrogation technique -- have not previously been disclosed.

U.S. law requires the CIA to inform Congress of covert activities and allows the briefings to be limited in certain highly sensitive cases to a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings.

It only became "torture" when it became another way to beat up GWB.

Quote

And it says you MAY be tried and punished, not you MUST be tried.

Uh, yeah-that's because the Government always has the option not to prosecute. Ie, if you commit a crime in violation of the laws of war, the government has the option to punish you where previously it had no option to punish. What it does not say, and what has never been the law, is that the government "may punish" in the absence of a trial.

At least, that's what all the legal treatises on the subject say, what all the supreme court decisions on the subject say (every opinion that's ever considered the subject, throughout the history of America-not just the recent ones), that's what every single Attorney I've ever heard speak on te subject say, including a fairly senior AUSA, and every professor of U.S. criminal and international law I've ever heard speak on the subject say.

There's really no legitiamate debate here: the law on this subject has always been clear-no trial, no punishment allowed. The question is whether or not we should compel the government to follow the law; some think terrorism is a good enough excuse to ignore it.

Quote

It only became "torture" when it became another way to beat up GWB.

Uh, sorry, but congressmen don't get to decide if someone is guilty of a crime. We have laws that define torture, and here they are:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

Quote

1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

And here's the UCMJ law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000893----000-.html

Quote

Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Courts martial rule on the military definition, and juries rule on the civilian one. Given the text of the statute, it beggars belief that anyone could read these rules and conclude that waterboarding is not torture. That was the whole reason they picked Guantanamo-to escape the laws of the United States on this subject.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 23, 2008, 08:45:07 PM

Quote

And it says you MAY be tried and punished, not you MUST be tried.

Uh, yeah-that's because the Government always has the option not to prosecute. Ie, if you commit a crime in violation of the laws of war, the government has the option to punish you where previously it had no option to punish. What it does not say, and what has never been the law, is that the government "may punish" in the absence of a trial.

At least, that's what all the legal treatises on the subject say, what all the supreme court decisions on the subject say (every opinion that's ever considered the subject, throughout the history of America-not just the recent ones), that's what every single Attorney I've ever heard speak on te subject say, including a fairly senior AUSA, and every professor of U.S. criminal and international law I've ever heard speak on the subject say.

There's really no legitiamate debate here: the law on this subject has always been clear-no trial, no punishment allowed. The question is whether or not we should compel the government to follow the law; some think terrorism is a good enough excuse to ignore it.

Hence the reason for the Military Tribunials as approved by both the Congress and President TWICE. But the SCOTUS has basically said "No, use the US Courts." which are not designed to to deal with enemy combatants, Ex parte Quirin (aka "settled Law") be damned.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 23, 2008, 08:45:07 PM

Quote

It only became "torture" when it became another way to beat up GWB.

Uh, sorry, but congressmen don't get to decide if someone is guilty of a crime. We have laws that define torture, and here they are:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

Quote

1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

And here's the UCMJ law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000893----000-.html

Quote

Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Courts martial rule on the military definition, and juries rule on the civilian one. Given the text of the statute, it beggars belief that anyone could read these rules and conclude that waterboarding is not torture. That was the whole reason they picked Guantanamo-to escape the laws of the United States on this subject.

You right on one thing, Congress doesn't determine who's guilty.

Re: the laws that define torture. Congress writes the laws and the members of oversight intelligence committee's determine what is torture, and in 2002 those members (including Ms Pelosi) said that waterboarding is NOT torture.

And you're right again, they picked Gitmo, to try to keep the liberals out of the way of winning the war.

Quote

If we were truly drunk with power, we've have long ago thrown off any lingering pretext of caring what the rest of the world thought and would act unilaterally on every issue such that it benefitted the US and ONLY the US

This is not the context I was trying to convey. What I was trying to say is that alot of individual americans and many people on this thread are drunk on the power of the US government. They revel in the power of thier government over other individuals. And, because they enjoy this so much they overlook the peril for them when they give up their personal rights so quickly.

To be specific, we are willing to give up due process to get the "bad guys". Undoubtably, under the right circumstances, this can ease and speed the process of getting bad buys. Obviously, this surrender of rights and due process is being given with an implicit trust. We are saying: "please take our hard earned rights and laws away from us - we trust you to be fair".

This attitude surprises me coming from a group that do not trust our government from taking thier right to bear arms. Understand that the very same valid concerns you have about certain candidates and
people already in office in regards to gun rights should be the same concerns about certain government officails taking away our due process, privacy and rights. As everybody knows, it is much harder to get rights back after they are given up than it is to keep them when you already have them.

My main point is that giving up due process, privacy and personal freedoms is MORE DANGEROUS than even giving up gun rights. People on here seem to entertain the fact that if they have their guns, no one in the government will dare tread on them. Lets get real. If you say that, you are saying that you are going to shoot it out with the police, cia, fbi or military if they try to imprision you without due process. We all know that is not how it is gonna go. That cowboys fantasy is not gonna happen.

The other thing is that alot of people entertian the idea the having guns will allow militia to rise up and overthrow the unjust government if it gets out of control. While this is exactly what our founding fathers suggested we should do in that case, it is not gonna help the violated individual. Why? because it never has.

What happens in the real world is that some law enforcement agency comes and takes a citizen away. Family members are helpless, friends are surprised and strangers say: "did you hear about so and so? Yep, that is a shame". Whamo, that is the end of it. Eventually, if there is enough pressure, there will be a statement released declaring you guilty of something and that will be how you were rememberd. Close the book, story over.

Quote

The other thing is that alot of people entertian the idea the having guns will allow militia to rise up and overthrow the unjust government if it gets out of control. While this is exactly what our founding fathers suggested we should do in that case, it is not gonna help the violated individual. Why? because it never has.

What happens in the real world is that some law enforcement agency comes and takes a citizen away. Family members are helpless, friends are surprised and strangers say: "did you hear about so and so? Yep, that is a shame". Whamo, that is the end of it. Eventually, if there is enough pressure, there will be a statement released declaring you guilty of something and that will be how you were rememberd. Close the book, story over.

Um militia members helped win the Revolutionary war, which helped a lot of people violated by due process. And even if I am wrong, and you are right, how exactly has Obama proved that he will restore due process? IIRC he did vote for the patriot act, and I dont know of a single case he has shown to restore due process, or even write/support a bill that does. Historically speaking, centralizing and strengthening a government is about the best way to take away rights and due process. Both candidates want to do this, so I don't see this as a valid argument for supporting Obama.

Quote

"please take our hard earned rights and laws away from us - we trust you to be fair".

Rights are not earned, privileges are. Which are you referring to in this passage?

Quote

y main point is that giving up due process, privacy and personal freedoms is MORE DANGEROUS than even giving up gun rights. People on here seem to entertain the fact that if they have their guns, no one in the government will dare tread on them.

I don't think this is absolutely true to all. The means for self defense are the first thing an authoritarian needs to take before they can take anything else. So it makes sense to defend said means at all costs, not so much to fulfill some SHTF fantasy, but to prevent step 2 from happening.

Alex, I think he means "earned" in the sense of "fought for."

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 23, 2008, 05:34:49 PM

fistful,

That you find it laughable doesn't make it any less true. It doesn't appear that any further discussion of the obvious will help you on the difference between suspending for invasion or rebellion, and granting the government license to refuse habeas indefinitely to anyone for the foreseeable future so long as the government applies the magic label of "terrorist."

Well, at least now you're drawing a distinction that makes sense. Still, even an indefinite suspension for certain cases is clearly not an abolition. So long as habeas is in effect for 99.9999% of us, it's hard to make a case that it has been abolished. So come on, laugh at yourself. It will do you some good.

Crime against humanity is a technical term now? Still wish we could use a term with less melodrama.

Quote

Historically speaking, centralizing and strengthening a government is about the best way to take away rights and due process. Both candidates want to do this, so I don't see this as a valid argument for supporting Obama.

I just have to say, I loved you on Jeopardy. LOL, couldnt help myself

I can agree with this part of your statement. And, yes, I do believe Obama will unwind the patriot act either in part or in full. I don't believe Mc Cain will. I think Mc Cain has been completely reprogrammed for the Bush agenda. I really just don't trust him. No spin, No BS made up facts swift boat attack, I just sincerely don't trust Mc Cain.

Quote

I don't think this is absolutely true to all. The means for self defense are the first thing an authoritarian needs to take before they can take anything else. So it makes sense to defend said means at all costs, not so much to fulfill some SHTF fantasy, but to prevent step 2 from happening.

Hey, lets be clear. I think the right to bear arms is essential to protect us from our own government too. I just think that Due process and Liberty outrank the single aspect of gun rights. However, I think you do entertain the cowboy fantasy. I think we all do. But it is essential that we understand that without due process, in these modern times, we are massively hopelessly outgunned as individuals. And you must realize the if they pick on you individually, all of your fellow gun rights advocates won't help you. This is what they will say:
You remember Alex?
Oh yeah, I remember Alex, he is that guy that got busted for having too much black powder in the reloading room. They said he was planning to build a bomb and plan a terrorist act.
Wow, he seemed normal, who would have guessed he was some kind of nut..................................
End of your story.
That is what can happen when we surrender all of our rights and trust the governement to do the right thing. And yes, it can happen to you.

Quote

And, yes, I do believe Obama will unwind the patriot act either in part or in full.

I don't since he voted to renew it.

Quote

I don't believe Mc Cain will. I think Mc Cain has been completely reprogrammed for the Bush agenda. I really just don't trust him. No spin, No BS made up facts swift boat attack, I just sincerely don't trust Mc Cain.

I don't trust him either. I wouldn't say he is completely reprogrammed. I think a lot of it is him trying to pander to far right republicans, a lot of it is probably his view. I am not supporting him at all, I just don't see how Obama is the solution to the problem.

What specifically is "the Bush agenda," and in what areas has McCain been reprogrammed?

Quote

I wouldn't say he is completely reprogrammed. I think a lot of it is him trying to pander to far right republicans

I really truly hope you are right. If he just uses the far right to get elected and then turns out to be a moderate while in office, I would be thrilled. However, I don't think that is what will happen. I think he will be surrounded by the same people while in office that are directing his campaign. But, as I said, I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 23, 2008, 10:49:13 AM

Quote from: pinoyinus on June 23, 2008, 10:45:37 AM

Quote

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it. That's clear from your example. If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan. Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

You're absolutely right. Osama did not make any claims that his henchmen did any crime. That was the case even after 9/11. Instead of calling them criminals, he praised his minions for their "heroic" act. Does that mean that they deserve no punishment? And if Russia is to abduct an innocent US citizen and torture/kill him, it can be interpreted as an act of war. And that's how the US govt. is looking at terrorist activities - acts of war - not criminal activity. You cannot treat acts of war as you would ordinary US nationals who commit crimes. Once you do, you would have to reveal your intelligence assets/methods in a civilain court where all documents are public information. This will compromise national security. That is what the left wants.

Acts of war that don't break the criminal law mean: no personal liability for the agents who carried it out.

Ie, if Russia orders an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier, you can't arrest the Russian pilot and charge him with a crime.

Acts of war can be criminal too though: for example, if Russia ordered a secret agent to blow up a bus in New York, the proper response would be to capture and try the agent for his crime, as well as to respond to the act of war.

That is how these things have always been handled-even before there was a "left" in this country. You can't punish people for acts of war that aren't also crimes; but you can punish them for acts of war that are crimes, provided that you prove them guilty of the act.

I think you fail to make the distinction between attackers who are acting on behalf of a soveriegn power (soldiers wearing the uniform/colors of that sovereign power) and terrorists who are answerable to no one. A soldier acts under orders while a terrorist acts on his own free will. This is one of the reasons why a soldier cannot be prosecuted criminally. You cannot equate a soldier to a terrorist. For the left however, our brave men and women in the military are terrorists who deserve to be hated.

I agree that you cannot punish people unless you prove them guilty. This still applies to this day and this is the principle of habeas corpus. I contend however, that this only applies to US citizens/residents. Other people may disagree and take the position that they apply to all people regardless of citizenship and residence. But if that were true, how come we're not collecting taxes from all the people who are protected by US laws? If all people are covered by the US constitution, then they should be made to pay US taxes, right?

Quote from: old school on June 24, 2008, 05:56:11 AM

My main point is that giving up due process, privacy and personal freedoms is MORE DANGEROUS than even giving up gun rights. People on here seem to entertain the fact that if they have their guns, no one in the government will dare tread on them. Lets get real. If you say that, you are saying that you are going to shoot it out with the police, cia, fbi or military if they try to imprision you without due process. We all know that is not how it is gonna go. That cowboys fantasy is not gonna happen.

Lemme see:

1. Obama voted FOR the PATRIOT Act.

2. Obama voted FOR the recent FISA bill that was essentially a logroll over the Dems and made the ISPs & phone companies immune from lawsuits when they lie about their privacy policy and hand over all your records to fed.gov without even a warrant.

From my point of view, Obama talks big about the rights of foreign enemy combatants, but is pathetically willing to sell US citizens for his 30 pieces of silver.

Yeah, why is it that Democrats always seem to want to protect terrorists and abuse Americans?

Shouldn't that be, you know, the other way around?

Quote from: pinoyinus on June 24, 2008, 08:15:53 AM

I think you fail to make the distinction between attackers who are acting on behalf of a soveriegn power (soldiers wearing the uniform/colors of that sovereign power) and terrorists who are answerable to no one. A soldier acts under orders while a terrorist acts on his own free will. This is one of the reasons why a soldier cannot be prosecuted criminally. You cannot equate a soldier to a terrorist. For the left however, our brave men and women in the military are terrorists who deserve to be hated.

I agree that you cannot punish people unless you prove them guilty. This still applies to this day and this is the principle of habeas corpus. I contend however, that this only applies to US citizens/residents. Other people may disagree and take the position that they apply to all people regardless of citizenship and residence. But if that were true, how come we're not collecting taxes from all the people who are protected by US laws? If all people are covered by the US constitution, then they should be made to pay US taxes, right?

Again, this is why the decision not to allow these detainees POW status was so incredibly foolish. POW can be held for as long as the war lasts (which in this case is pretty infinite) and they could be held accountable for their crimes in military courts and could have had the death penalty.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Quote from: fistful on June 24, 2008, 07:14:53 AM

Alex, I think he means "earned" in the sense of "fought for."

Quote from: shootinstudent on June 23, 2008, 05:34:49 PM

fistful,

That you find it laughable doesn't make it any less true. It doesn't appear that any further discussion of the obvious will help you on the difference between suspending for invasion or rebellion, and granting the government license to refuse habeas indefinitely to anyone for the foreseeable future so long as the government applies the magic label of "terrorist."

Well, at least now you're drawing a distinction that makes sense. Still, even an indefinite suspension for certain cases is clearly not an abolition. So long as habeas is in effect for 99.9999% of us, it's hard to make a case that it has been abolished. So come on, laugh at yourself. It will do you some good.

Crime against humanity is a technical term now? Still wish we could use a term with less melodrama.

The point is that habeas can be denied not by some strict standard that by its operation excludes 99.9999 percent of us, but rather at the sole discretion of the executive-hence, in reality, all of us who have it only have it so long as the executive decides not to label us with the magic label. So if you trust the government not to abuse its powers, it makes sense, but for realists who believe that government tends to overuse its authority for its own purposes, this is clearly a disastrous state of affairs.

"Crime against humanity" has been a technical term at least since Nuremburg-the nazis were charged with it.

Scout26,

I think we're on the same page here-you're saying that enemy combatants shouldn't necessarily get civilian trials. I agree, and not only that-the Supreme Court agrees. I think the problem here is that you are not clear on the details of how Bush's guantanamo system worked.

Quote

But the SCOTUS has basically said "No, use the US Courts." which are not designed to to deal with enemy combatants, Ex parte Quirin (aka "settled Law") be damned.

Ex Parte Quirin specifically raised the issue of detainees right to challenge the process by which they are tried; the Court pointed to it but then moved on since the Quirin plaintiffs didn't litigate that subject. Read Ex Parte Quirin.

But anyway, that is NOT what the Supreme Court said. You are simply wrong in stating that the recent decision said "use US courts." What it said was: US courts can review the processes used to try detainees at Guantanamo. So now a person convicted by a Guantanamo trial can claim that the government used a sham process designed to rubber stamp the executive decision to detain these people. That is the extent of the ruling-it says absolutely nothing about "civilian trials."

Quote

Re: the laws that define torture. Congress writes the laws and the members of oversight intelligence committee's determine what is torture, and in 2002 those members (including Ms Pelosi) said that waterboarding is NOT torture.

Yeah, but we agreed already that Congress does not judge guilt or innocence-how can anyone honestly read those statutes and conclude that water boarding does NOT meet the definition???

The big picture you're missing here is that obviously the white house concluded that it was torture-else there was absolutely no reason to come up with Guantanamo and "enemy combatant status." That's literally the only reason for this entire scheme-to skirt torture laws that they knew would ban the practices they wanted to use (that fact is public already) and to skirt the laws requiring trial before imposing punishment (also public.) Even the White House knew that these things were the law-but because of pinheaded lawyerism, they convinced themselves that just doing all this illegal stuff in Guantanamo would put them beyond the power of the courts to judge their illegal conduct.

Quote from: agricola on June 24, 2008, 09:05:07 AM

Quote from: pinoyinus on June 24, 2008, 08:15:53 AM

I think you fail to make the distinction between attackers who are acting on behalf of a soveriegn power (soldiers wearing the uniform/colors of that sovereign power) and terrorists who are answerable to no one. A soldier acts under orders while a terrorist acts on his own free will. This is one of the reasons why a soldier cannot be prosecuted criminally. You cannot equate a soldier to a terrorist. For the left however, our brave men and women in the military are terrorists who deserve to be hated.

I agree that you cannot punish people unless you prove them guilty. This still applies to this day and this is the principle of habeas corpus. I contend however, that this only applies to US citizens/residents. Other people may disagree and take the position that they apply to all people regardless of citizenship and residence. But if that were true, how come we're not collecting taxes from all the people who are protected by US laws? If all people are covered by the US constitution, then they should be made to pay US taxes, right?

Again, this is why the decision not to allow these detainees POW status was so incredibly foolish. POW can be held for as long as the war lasts (which in this case is pretty infinite) and they could be held accountable for their crimes in military courts and could have had the death penalty.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

See, you're presuming that all they wanted to do was hold them-that isn't the case. They also wanted to torture them for information, and then give them sentences ranging from life imprisonment to death without having a genuine trial to assess guilt.

When you factor that motive in, then the decision not to treat them as POW's makes perfect sense: POW's have fairly well defined legal rights, and the practices the white house wanted to employ violated all of them.

Quote from: old school on June 24, 2008, 07:52:11 AM

Quote

I wouldn't say he is completely reprogrammed. I think a lot of it is him trying to pander to far right republicans

I really truly hope you are right. If he just uses the far right to get elected and then turns out to be a moderate while in office, I would be thrilled. However, I don't think that is what will happen. I think he will be surrounded by the same people while in office that are directing his campaign. But, as I said, I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Wait a minute. You're saying the Bush agenda is "far right"? undecided

You really think Bush is "far right"? Huh?

shootinstudent,

Regardless whether Bush's approach to habeas corpus is good or bad, (and I'm reserving my opinion on that for now) it does not amount to an abolition. To say it does, is fear-mongering.

Quote from: fistful on June 24, 2008, 11:24:26 AM

shootinstudent,

Regardless whether Bush's approach to habeas corpus is good or bad, (and I'm reserving my opinion on that for now) it does not amount to an abolition. To say it does, is fear-mongering.

It is perfectly accurate to say that Bush's approach to habeas is this: Bush may deny habeas corpus by applying the label "enemy combatant" to any American citizen he chooses. No judicial review or independent fact finding is necessary for an individual to be denied the right to habeas corpus.

Can we agree on that?

Quote

So if you trust the government not to abuse its powers, it makes sense, but for realists who believe that government tends to overuse its authority for its own purposes, this is clearly a disastrous state of affairs.

Absolutely true to the point that it is even understated.

Quote

It is perfectly accurate to say that Bush's approach to habeas is this: Bush may deny habeas corpus by applying the label "enemy combatant" to any American citizen he chooses. No judicial review or independent fact finding is necessary for an individual to be denied the right to habeas corpus.

And SCOTUS's approach to habeas corpus is to extend it to any enemy alien who breathes, giving them in effect the rights of American citizens and, de facto, derogating actual American citizenship by dilution?

Quote from: longeyes on June 24, 2008, 02:13:01 PM

Quote

It is perfectly accurate to say that Bush's approach to habeas is this: Bush may deny habeas corpus by applying the label "enemy combatant" to any American citizen he chooses. No judicial review or independent fact finding is necessary for an individual to be denied the right to habeas corpus.

And SCOTUS's approach to habeas corpus is to extend it to any enemy alien who breathes, giving them in effect the rights of American citizens and, de facto, derogating actual American citizenship by dilution?

No-in fact that's not even close to what happened.

But yeah, aside from that, the right to have crimes proven before you can be punished is not a special privilege of American citizenship. That's called basic human decency-you can't be thrown in jail for life and waterboarded every day at the whim of someone else.

I think I understand what basic human decency is. Do the detainees at Guantanamo? How many American citizens have been indefinitely detained?

I refuse to look narrowly at the recent SCOTUS ruling outside the context of where the Fab Five have been trying, decision by decision, to take America. Just examine the deep underlying premises of the ruling. Leave the Magna Carta; take the cannolli.

Wow, this thread has survived this long?

IBTL

This thread has survived because it has somehow turned into a great discussion. No IBTL needed here. I have learned quite a bit I did not know as a result of this discussion and I bet others have too.

Quote

But yeah, aside from that, the right to have crimes proven before you can be punished is not a special privilege of American citizenship. That's called basic human decency-you can't be thrown in jail for life and waterboarded every day at the whim of someone else.

I am not, as you may have already guessed, arguing for inhumanity. I am arguing for recognizing when we are at war and for letting our military and military courts do what they are supposed to do in times of war.

Quote

Hey, lets be clear. I think the right to bear arms is essential to protect us from our own government too. I just think that Due process and Liberty outrank the single aspect of gun rights. However, I think you do entertain the cowboy fantasy. I think we all do. But it is essential that we understand that without due process, in these modern times, we are massively hopelessly outgunned as individuals. And you must realize the if they pick on you individually, all of your fellow gun rights advocates won't help you. This is what they will say:
You remember Alex?
Oh yeah, I remember Alex, he is that guy that got busted for having too much black powder in the reloading room. They said he was planning to build a bomb and plan a terrorist act.
Wow, he seemed normal, who would have guessed he was some kind of nut..................................
End of your story.
That is what can happen when we surrender all of our rights and trust the governement to do the right thing. And yes, it can happen to you.

Ok. As I understand it, your argument is that the right to fair trial and freedom from unreasonable detention is more essential than the right to bear arms. Thus, you feel that Obama is a better choice than McCain.
I disagree, and this is why:
So, Obama signs into law a bill that says we can have single shot pistols in out homes for home defense, and nothing more. Or shotguns, or whatever. He also gets rid of the Patriot act, provides free room and board for hippies, immigrants and the old and infirm. He gives everyone detained by the US military the right to a trial by a jury of americans. He makes the oil companies release the decades worth of technology they've been sitting on, and we become non dependent on foreign oil. The economy is great, everyone has enough food, and the US becomes a beacon of light and hope. With me so far?

Now Obama dies/resigns/serves his terms/whatever. He's finished being president. Terminally stupid, the Dems run Kerry again, and he loses to Jeb Bush. Ole Jeb longs for the days of yore, when Republicans roamed the land, raping old ladies and stomping kittens to death. He reinstates the patriot act, gives tax breaks to the rich, sets up detention facilities and begins wholesale execution of anyone that crosses him. Hundreds of thousands take to the streets in protest, and the tanks roll over them, just like Tianamen Square. Nobody has private arms, because even the single shots have been banned, for the children. What do we do? Now we've lost all of our rights, because The Lightbringer, hallowed be his name, has an old school Chicago fear of guns.

Sure do wish we had 80 million privately owned weapons, don't we? Sure would be a nice time for a good ole' "cowboy fantasy" of untraceable rifle shots aimed at prominent oppressors, huh? Too bad, it's the new dark ages, where the biggest and the strongest have their way.

The 2nd amendment guarantees all the others. If you don't think privately owned weapons in the hands of a determined populace with a knowledge of local terrain and supply depots among the people can cause hell for the oppressors, you haven't studied much history. Sure, might not be a winning tactic, and the feds might mow everyone down anyway. But isn't the chance to die like a man important? I certainly wouldn't want to get it execution style if I had the chance to take a few of my oppressors with me.

That was probably one of the best posts yet Fjolnirsson. Made your point and was absolutely entertaining. I think it is an absolute depiction of the fantasies that people entertain on this issue.
Also, The America that you describe sound an awful lot like Iraq is right now.

For me, I envision something more along the lines of the movie Vendetta. In that film, whenever someone speaks out or against the government, they are taken away and branded a traitor and anarchist. They are never seen again. In that scenario, individuals are powerless against the government because they gave complete control to the government because of fear of terrorism. Seems amazingly relevant doesn't it?

Great post.

Quote from: old school on June 25, 2008, 05:05:31 AM

For me, I envision something more along the lines of the movie Vendetta. In that film, whenever someone speaks out or against the government, they are taken away and branded a traitor and anarchist. They are never seen again. In that scenario, individuals are powerless against the government because they gave complete control to the government because of fear of terrorism. Seems amazingly relevant doesn't it?

Great post.

But what's worse? The fear that that might happen...or the reality of the character assassination that occurs right now whenever someone dares to speak their mind in a way that the leftists (like Obama) consider un-PC? People not only get called "bigots" or "racist" or "closed-minded" or "violent" or "neanderthals" for daring to disagree with any aspect of leftist agendas, they even lose their livelihoods.

The Hollywood line of "You'll never work in this town again" has now become nationwide and all-pervasive due to the leftist intolerance for anyone who does not completely agree with them.

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 25, 2008, 05:13:01 AM

Quote from: old school on June 25, 2008, 05:05:31 AM

For me, I envision something more along the lines of the movie Vendetta. In that film, whenever someone speaks out or against the government, they are taken away and branded a traitor and anarchist. They are never seen again. In that scenario, individuals are powerless against the government because they gave complete control to the government because of fear of terrorism. Seems amazingly relevant doesn't it?

Great post.

But what's worse? The fear that that might happen...or the reality of the character assassination that occurs right now whenever someone dares to speak their mind in a way that the leftists (like Obama) consider un-PC? People not only get called "bigots" or "racist" or "closed-minded" or "violent" or "neanderthals" for daring to disagree with any aspect of leftist agendas, they even lose their livelihoods.

The Hollywood line of "You'll never work in this town again" has now become nationwide and all-pervasive due to the leftist intolerance for anyone who does not completely agree with them.

MW beat me to it. One utterance in protest against PC/lefty policy in a corporation can get you canned and labeled in your industry.

Quote

But what's worse? The fear that that might happen...or the reality of the character assassination that occurs right now whenever someone dares to speak their mind in a way that the leftists (like Obama) consider un-PC? People not only get called "bigots" or "racist" or "closed-minded" or "violent" or "neanderthals" for daring to disagree with any aspect of leftist agendas, they even lose their livelihoods.

The Hollywood line of "You'll never work in this town again" has now become nationwide and all-pervasive due to the leftist intolerance for anyone who does not completely agree with them.

Quote

MW beat me to it. One utterance in protest against PC/lefty policy in a corporation can get you canned and labeled in your industry.

Where in the world do you all live? I have lived, traveled and worked in many places around the United States for 30 years and I have never experienced or witnessed any persecution of the right or even the far right at the level of losing jobs or being ostracized.

Now I will tell you that initiating aggressive political discussion in a business setting or workplace has always been a foolish endeavor. Rather it is now, or 30 years ago. And you better believe that starting a political or religious discussion with anyone that you are attempting to do business with can absolutely influence thier perception of you and has never been a wise practice for a business man.

Now, just because I have never seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I am well traveled and I can certainly catagorically state that it is not commonplace.

You don't work in the film or video industry, do you?

Quote from: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 09:10:39 AM

You don't work in the film or video industry, do you?

No, I have never worked in that industry. Is that the industry where you were fired and ostracized?

Quote from: old school on June 25, 2008, 09:15:07 AM

Quote from: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 09:10:39 AM

You don't work in the film or video industry, do you?

No, I have never worked in that industry. Is that the industry where you were fired and ostracized?

Pretend you, as a public face, say, "Global warming is a scam."

Guess what happens.

Quote from: old school on June 25, 2008, 07:42:08 AM

Quote

But what's worse? The fear that that might happen...or the reality of the character assassination that occurs right now whenever someone dares to speak their mind in a way that the leftists (like Obama) consider un-PC? People not only get called "bigots" or "racist" or "closed-minded" or "violent" or "neanderthals" for daring to disagree with any aspect of leftist agendas, they even lose their livelihoods.

The Hollywood line of "You'll never work in this town again" has now become nationwide and all-pervasive due to the leftist intolerance for anyone who does not completely agree with them.

Quote

MW beat me to it. One utterance in protest against PC/lefty policy in a corporation can get you canned and labeled in your industry.

Where in the world do you all live? I have lived, traveled and worked in many places around the United States for 30 years and I have never experienced or witnessed any persecution of the right or even the far right at the level of losing jobs or being ostracized.

Now I will tell you that initiating aggressive political discussion in a business setting or workplace has always been a foolish endeavor. Rather it is now, or 30 years ago. And you better believe that starting a political or religious discussion with anyone that you are attempting to do business with can absolutely influence thier perception of you and has never been a wise practice for a business man.

Now, just because I have never seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I am well traveled and I can certainly catagorically state that it is not commonplace.

I remember when Bob Novak went to a University to speak in front of conservative students. One of the questions was "what would be your advice to young aspiring journalists who are conservative?". Bob Novak said that the industry is heavily biased towards the left. He advised students not to expose their conservative beliefs until they've made some headway into their careers. He made it clear that being branded a conservative closes may doors for you as far as trying to get into the major news networks.

I also wonder why liberals out-number conservatives 10 to 1 in the university/college faculties.

Quote from: pinoyinus on June 25, 2008, 10:35:03 AM

I also wonder why liberals out-number conservatives 10 to 1 in the university/college faculties.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, become college professors.

Quote

I also wonder why liberals out-number conservatives 10 to 1 in the university/college faculties.

This statement is definately true. Higher education, philosophical types are most often "lefties".
They will be quick to tell you it is because they are smart. I would agree that many of them are smart but I say smart combined with being quite naive.

I personally think they are naive because most of them have lived their whole lives in a civilized, safe society. They really think that they have the illusion that the rest of the world is as gentile and logical as they are. It is my belief that this is where the fundamental difference from many of the people on the far right is rooted.

Conversely, my impression of many people on the far right is that they think everyone who does not look like they do and go to their same church and share their very same view of right and wrong is evil and dangerous. Often this ends in the dehumanization of anyone they percieve as enemies.

They're smart but not as smart as they think--by a long shot. Listen to great academic minds get shredded by some of the sharper talk radio jocks. They can't argue persuasively except in a venue congenial to their assumptions about the world.

On the whole I'll take a good re-piping guy.

Quote from: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 01:38:14 PM

Listen to great academic minds get shredded by some of the sharper talk radio jocks.

Most if not all of those jocks are loud mouth ego maniacs who weave a tapestry inflamatory rhetoric and misrepresented facts into a self justifying circular logic. The lost people who listen to them as if it were gospel are the legions of ignorant being led by the town fool.

I don't know who you are listening to but your description does not fit any of the conservative radio hosts I follow. I suspect you are operating on liberal hearsay.

Perhaps you find CNN, the NY Times, NPR, and the BBC to be evangelists worthy of devotion?

Unthinking and slavish acceptance of anyone's opinions is a mistake. That much we can agree on.

I was referring specifically to on-air debates I have heard where various academic "experts" could not justify statements they'd made in articles and books. It was clear they had never really been questioned before by someone with a skeptical intellect.

Quote from: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 04:41:21 PM

I don't know who you are listening to but your description does not fit any of the conservative radio hosts I follow. I suspect you are operating on liberal hearsay.

Perhaps you find CNN, the NY Times, NPR, and the BBC to be evangelists worthy of devotion?

Unthinking and slavish acceptance of anyone's opinions is a mistake. That much we can agree on.

I was referring specifically to on-air debates I have heard where various academic "experts" could not justify statements they'd made in articles and books. It was clear they had never really been questioned before by some with a skeptical intellect.

Honestly, I don't like any of the news channels. They have degraded to the point that I would consider them comedy if they weren't such a disgrace to the legacy they have defiled. It truly nauseates me to see some ditzy department store make up clerk trying to deliver clever opinionated punchlines on a channel that is supposed to be dedicated to the most important national and global events.

As far as the academic experts go, I would like see them participate in some debates much like politicians do. Unfortunately, even if they did, our weak excuse of a media wouldn't cover it anyway. They would be too busy telling us about some celebrities latest drama.

As far as the whole liberal heresy thing goes.... I don't need somebody else to give me my opinion. As you can see I have plenty of that. What most people don't like is that I won't join anybodies club. I often disagree with both sides of the isle. To me that is a characteristic of an independant thinker. I have seen quite a few posters here at APS that display the same independence. And, I am glad to find them.

Conversely, my impression of many people on the far right is that they think everyone who does not look like they do and go to their same church and share their very same view of right and wrong is evil and dangerous. Often this ends in the dehumanization of anyone they percieve as enemies.
[/quote]

Nothing like painting with a wide brush, eh? A + B = C. End of exercise!

My experience (55 or so years of sentience) has shown that much opinion coming from the right usually proves correct over time. There are not many left wing notions that have proven successful over time that didn't forcibly take from one to give to another. Maybe that's why the term right is used to describe some opinion or thought. Truth is...well...truth. Some folks just want to bend it into their own version of "whatever works or is fair." I'd like someone to define fair. In a free society one can achieve what one is motivated to achieve. Fairness is a term that describes taking from the achiever and giving to the non achiever imho.

I listened to an old man once that had spent most of his life traveling around and experiencing many cultures. He made a comment about the willingness of many people to naively believe what they see or hear that stuck with me. "It's not whether something works or not, it's really about whether it is true."

Quote from: grampster on June 26, 2008, 03:35:51 AM

Nothing like painting with a wide brush, eh? A + B = C. End of exercise!

Absolutely grampster. They have their closed mind made up. It reminds me of a quote my mother used to say tongue and cheek when she did not feel like being reasonable: "Don't try to confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind"

Quote from: old school on June 25, 2008, 05:43:41 PM

As far as the academic experts go, I would like see them participate in some debates much like politicians do. Unfortunately, even if they did, our weak excuse of a media wouldn't cover it anyway. They would be too busy telling us about some celebrities latest drama.

CSPAN. I am enough of a political/history/current events/etc junkie that I stream it while, say, cleaning up the house.

Also, The Heritage Foundation slaps is discussions up on the web.

Quote from: old school on June 25, 2008, 12:13:44 PM

Conversely, my impression of many people on the far right is that they think everyone who does not look like they do and go to their same church and share their very same view of right and wrong is evil and dangerous. Often this ends in the dehumanization of anyone they percieve as enemies.

Wow, that's a broad brush. And an incorrect one.

I'm a conservative because I feel that's the only just and honorable way to be. I do not want to take what is not mine, I want to earn what I have, and I do not want other people to take it from me. I believe that everyone has the right to decide their own welfare, and should not be protected from themselves via helmet laws and other silliness. I believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions, their own decisions, and their own self-defense.

I have friends of many races and nationalities.

And I am not religious. At all.

I go where the light comes in. There have been times when that seemed to me to be "on the Left," but that was a while ago, and these days the open minds seem to me to be mostly toward the other end of the spectrum. Anyway, it is neither "right" nor "left" to believe in freedom of inquiry. One should, in all cases, remain skeptical even while adhering to a few high principles.

To "old school:" No, I was never fired and ostracized by "Hollywood," but that could be because I no longer enjoy talking up matters political with people I know in this town. It's pointless, too many closed minds, and I get tired of the emotional and ad hominem responses. Most of my work, fortunately, hasn't been political, although, interestingly, flood control--a subject on which I labored for some years--has now become so.

Quote from: longeyes on June 26, 2008, 06:40:51 AM

One should, in all cases, remain skeptical even while adhering to a few high principles.

I sure like that statement. High principles seem to be in short supply these days. Just turning on the television leaves me astounded at what I see. It seems like a strange and surreal world where anything goes. Ethics, morality and etiquette gone.

Quote

turning on the television

There's your problem.

Quote

I also wonder why liberals out-number conservatives 10 to 1 in the university/college faculties.

Due to the large number of young people in universities, the median age at universities is substantially lower that it is in society in general. Professors never have to grow up because they spend most of their time with adolescents and young adults who have never had to take care of themselves.

Back to the OP, I will not vote for the Democratic Party as long as it advocates treating white middle class and working class men like second class citizens.

Quote

Conversely, my impression of many people on the far right is that they think everyone who does not look like they do and go to their same church and share their very same view of right and wrong is evil and dangerous. Often this ends in the dehumanization of anyone they percieve as enemies.

Yes, I hate heterosexual non-Jewish males. How have you noticed?

i also wonder why liberals out-number conservatives 10 to 1 in the university/college faculties.

its a refuge for folks avoiding working for a living

Because what professors do is not actually work, somehow?

i was referring to some of the students though i do know a couple proffesional students who when all else failed took up teaching to avoid the real world and were quite open about it.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. My ambition, as you know, is to become a professor one day.

Teaching is hard work, actually. It is nearly impossible to do effectively when the state mandates that professors should teach lies.

Quote from: nobody's_hero on June 30, 2008, 08:09:36 AM

Teaching is hard work, actually. It is nearly impossible to do effectively when the state mandates that professors should teach lies.

I saw an HBO special by comedian/actor Robert Wurl who debunked a lot of popular history. It was called: Assume the Position.
He said that a lot of the things that they taught us in history class was actually not factual at all. Many things he mentioned were stories of convenience that slowly became accepted as fact. Such as: Betsy Ross did not sew the first American flag and Paul Revere was not the actual man who made that midnight ride. I don't know how solid his research was, but it does make me wonder. An old friend of mine always used to say, history is told by the winners.

Quote from: nobody's_hero on June 30, 2008, 08:09:36 AM

Teaching is hard work, actually. It is nearly impossible to do effectively when the state mandates that professors should teach lies.

What lies are you required to teach in America?

Pic didn't make it: Edited

Something about a position on 'anti-corruption'?

Tony Resko.

The matter of Barack Obama's involvement with Tony Resko and Resko's financing in certain 'public housing' projects in Chicago is rather illuminating. The interplay of how as a Illinois state legislator, Barack Obama supported payments to Tony Resko to renovate and manage a 'public housing' project in Barack Obama's district. The projects failed - primarily because no maintainance was ever performed - and Resko and his company left the projects and began a high value housing business; funded by the proceeds from not maintaining the public housing project. It was during this time or shortly after Barack Obama obtained the special 1.3 million dollar loan for the house he and his wife currently own. Odd. He wasn't making that much money from his job.

Not to mention Barack Obama is pro-abortion, anti-marriage and pro-taxes.

To believe Barack Obama offers 'hope' and 'change' in any decent and desirable sense of the words requires an incredible leap of faith.

Quote

Those who can, do. Those who can't, become college professors.

As someone here (or TFL or THR) said, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue."

Quote

Obama will end the Iraq occupation. McCain won't. That's reason enough.

No he will not.
He states he's against at one time, then for it another.
Typical flip flopping politician.

So, accept his words at face value...then:
He's elected, proves he lied about the war effort,
reverts to being a gun grabber
bans means of self defense
implements selective socialism.

Socialism with preferential treatment given freely to "under-privileged families" at the expense of everyone else's paycheck.
In the mind of his associates and today’s politicians, "under-privileged families" are "Minorities" only.
One select race of minorities only.
How is that in any way beneficial to society?

He has no credentials of leadership.
He has proven his willingness to be absent from voting.

When he is present, he has not paid enough attention to be capable of voting yes or no.
MOST of his votes are recorded as "Not voting"

We are paying him to be present, study everything across his desk and decisively vote.
He is NOT doing that job...what gives any indication that he can or will do the job of president?

It's funny but I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights about families... Individuals, yes; families, no.

The focus on families, as important as it for social cohesion, leads to tribalism or, in more advanced states, tribalist socialism.

Family values are not something we need to have imposed on us by "government."

Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: old school on June 20, 2008, 06:32:12 PM