209 posts
Apparently, the two are no different.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/tea-party-movement-produces-new-political-organization/
Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform. If a particular candidate meets the proposed criteria he or she would be eligible for fundraising and grassroots support.
Seems like this is basically an attempt to run an end-around the tarnished Republican brand. But I'm not sure how attracting a smaller subset of the Republican party by making an even more conservative group is going to accomplish anything except some sort of semi-useless "purity test." If this was a legitimate third party option, they wouldn't use the RNC platform. We'll see how many people eat up the bullshit regardless...
i don't see it as bullshit. to me it is a way for people to voice their frustrations with the republican party. to many RINO's (republican in name only) have been elected that the constituents feel don't represent their vote. they continue to get the vote due to lack of options (only 2 realistic party platforms). i don't consider myself one of them, but i can see what they are about. as for the palin=spokesperson thing, i think it is a mistake. just my opinion though
I wonder if they thought to Google the term "Tea bagging" before they adopted their party name? :D
On a more straight-forward note, I'm guessing that these Tea Party types will probably end up screwing the Republicans, not helping (depends on if they promote their own candidate or not).
Of course, since the Republicans are almost as fucked up as the Democrats right now anyway, it doesn't really matter much. Either party that gets elected in 2012 will continue to grow the government, over tax the people, distribute the wealth, remove freedoms and liberties, then fuck around with some other country if it's still favorable in public opinion to do so. ::)
This is kinda off subject but.....
Our economy and situation today, kinda resembles the last year of the Bush era. We were in a recession, but didn't know it.
Today, we hear talk of our country being broke, bankrupt, in the very near future if we keep spending the way we are today.
I've got news for ya, our country is literally bankrupt right now.
We have no where to turn right now. We're broke. We can't trust the democrats or the republicans. Both parties are spending money and growing government like drunk sailors, literally. The repubs and dems are fighting each other instead of working together with the good of the country in mind.
Obama spoke of change. There hasn't been any fucking change. Fucking none, 0.
This tea party shit just promotes the republicans cause under a different name. Means nothing.
What does mean something, whether you agree with them or not, is that the American people are taking notice of our governments stupid reckless actions etc....through things like the tea parties. Thats a plus. That may be our last resort to get government under control, although it will probably take even more drastic action on both sides of the fence. JMO.
It was real smart of Obama to suggest a spending freeze and pay as you go and in the same breath lay a buget on the table that spends enough money to last 5 fucking years. Perfect example of incompetence on the governments part. Insanity.
Just a side note...I think we also need to hold our news media to a higher level. Fox and MSMBC are just pitiful news sources. Their entertainment at best. Pitiful. And people just eat the shit up. Crazy stuff.
chase — Feb 06, 2010i don't see it as bullshit. to me it is a way for people to voice their frustrations with the republican party. to many RINO's (republican in name only) have been elected that the constituents feel don't represent their vote. they continue to get the vote due to lack of options (only 2 realistic party platforms). i don't consider myself one of them, but i can see what they are about. as for the palin=spokesperson thing, i think it is a mistake. just my opinion though
Ummm... how can they call themselves a separate party if they are expected to adhere to the RNC platform? That was my point.
A true third party would have different ideas. They don't. They are just Republicans, but angrier.
I think he means some republicans are pissed enough to form another, more perfect.......Union, Chase.
if palin runs obama will win another term
We voted in Bush twice. 2 times.
Americans now know that a smooth talker doesn't always equal good results and action, or even honesty or reality.
Palin could easily win. I may take that bet, if you'd like..
Hookbender — Feb 09, 2010We voted in Bush twice. 2 times.
Americans now know that a smooth talker doesn't always equal good results and action, or even honesty or reality.
Palin could easily win. I may take that bet, if you'd like..
it wasn't a bet. besides the fact that a recent poll showed her to be "unelectable"; i fully agree with this article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21425.html
Yeah, i know. But I'd like to bet with you on this one.
No one has experience being the President, except the President, of course.
Poloitics have gone hollywood. She's a star right now. She's dangerous. That's why she's attacked so much by democrats.
She'll be better prepared if she runs for President, and know what to expect and how to deal with the media etc.
If she runs for President, the only thing the Repubs will demand to hear is the same kinda shit Bush said all the time, concerning the war. What else do repubs care about except religion? They just want to blow shit up and win the war at any cost. You don't need much policy knowledge run on that platform.
I'd consider her if she ran agaist Obama, depending on who she surrounded herself with. Hopefully I won't have to make that decision.
Hookbender — Feb 09, 2010Yeah, i know. But I'd like to bet with you on this one.
No one has experience being the President, except the President, of course.
Poloitics have gone hollywood. She's a star right now. She's dangerous. That's why she's attacked so much by democrats.
She'll be better prepared if she runs for President, and know what to expect and how to deal with the media etc.
If she runs for President, the only thing the Repubs will demand to hear is the same kinda shit Bush said all the time, concerning the war. What else do repubs care about except religion? They just want to blow shit up and win the war at any cost. You don't need much policy knowledge run on that platform.
I'd consider her if she ran agaist Obama, depending on who she surrounded herself with. Hopefully I won't have to make that decision.
Man, I hope you are kidding.
Hookbender — Feb 09, 2010Yeah, i know. But I'd like to bet with you on this one.
No one has experience being the President, except the President, of course.
Poloitics have gone hollywood. She's a star right now. She's dangerous. That's why she's attacked so much by democrats.
She's attacked because she's retarded. Democrats are such pussies they don't beat up on strong opponents, just the retards. The GOP has a LOT of retards these days.
And as a parent of what could be called a retarded son, I'm comfortable using that term, I don't consider it a slur, and anyone who doesn't like it is a fucking retard.
She'll be better prepared if she runs for President, and know what to expect and how to deal with the media etc.
Bullshit. She's not smart enough. She still fucks up all the time, and she's had two years in the public eye to learn this shit. She's a retard.
If she runs for President, the only thing the Repubs will demand to hear is the same kinda shit Bush said all the time, concerning the war. What else do repubs care about except religion? They just want to blow shit up and win the war at any cost. You don't need much policy knowledge run on that platform.
They don't have any. Chase is an aberration on the right - he actually knows shit (though sometimes his sources are suspect) and cares to learn.
I'd consider her if she ran agaist Obama, depending on who she surrounded herself with. Hopefully I won't have to make that decision.
If this is true in any way, YOU'RE a RETARD.
But I still love you... :)
Tripper
No, I'm not kidding.
Look, Obama has been in office one year. Only one year, I understand that. He speaks very well, I get that too.
The bottom line is though, he hasn't done anything he said he would do. 0 change and maybe it's worse now than ever before.
I had many concerns about Obama durring the election. The people he chose to surround himself with, the fact that he hasn't really done shit in politics, his voting record in the senete, etc. I still have those concerns today. They are showing up in his every move. The concerns I had are now biting me in the ass.
Now to be honest with you, one of the very reasons I voted for Obama was because of Palin. Maybe it will take a tough Bitch with little sense to deal with the senete and congress. Obama can't do it. Bush didn't do it. One thing I'll give Obama, we really do need change in Washington. Real change. Not just a good public speaker.
Yeah, I'd hate to vote for Palin. But I would consider her if she ran agaist Obama, seriously.
Our government is completely fucked right now. It's growing way the fuck out of control. Spending money out the ass we don't have and who the fuck knows if we can even pay it back. Our credit rating with the world as far as paying back our debt is in question for the first time I can ever remember.
If Obama keeps spending money like he's spending, growing the government like he's doing, how the fuck could you vote for him?
But, he has at least 3 more years left. Wonder if that's a good thing?
Hookbender — Feb 09, 2010We voted in Bush twice. 2 times.
Bush was only voted in once. He was forced in by the Supreme Court in 2000, when they threw their "States' rights" and "strict constructionist" shit out the window to piss on the Constitution and "deliver" Florida. That's a fact of history, no matter how you care to spin it or be revisionist. And this current court is even worse...
Americans now know that a smooth talker doesn't always equal good results and action, or even honesty or reality.
Oh, really? Find me some abject dishonesty from our President recently. There's been some number fudging, which all politicians do, but he's been BRUTALLY honest about the conditions in this country. He hasn't delivered on all his campaign promises, which is a bit annoying, but when someone enters office with a big mess to clean up and we haven't even had enough time to see results from the actions that have already been taken, it's a little premature to think that none of it's never going to happen.
Palin could easily win. I may take that bet, if you'd like..
Palin doesn't have a prayer of winning in 2012. She will be eviscerated by the press repeatedly for her retardedness in public, much as the GOP got their asses ripped open by Obama last week in that Q&A session, shockingly (to only the retarded) sans teleprompters (and hand notes).
25% of the public (tops) thinks she has a brain. Everyone else knows she's a waste of sperm and egg. I don't see how that can change, since Palin only seems to be good at making herself look MORE stupid, and 25% does not win Presidental elections - EVER.
Give President Obama a chance to fail or succeed. You and all the other "Obama sucks" haters haven't done that.
A little patience would serve you bitches well. The man inherited an economic shit storm created by people slightly less retarded than Palin, and is trying to fix it his way and do right by the people of this country by pushing forward reforms that will only end up helping the economy in the long run.
Tripper
Yeah Trip, she is a bit of a retard. But fucking up behind a podium and fucking up making decisions as President are two different things. The results of actions is what I'm interested in. Not a smooth talker who can read well. :P Couldn't resist that one. :D
Were you implying that I'm unwilling to learn? Have you forgot the Hook who first started here, and the Hook I am today so quickly?
If Palin runs for President, she'll get plenty votes unless the dems really get with the program and Obama can really pull off some change the next 3 years.
Yeah...I still love you too Trip. :)
Hookbender — Feb 10, 2010No, I'm not kidding.
Look, Obama has been in office one year. Only one year, I understand that. He speaks very well, I get that too.
The bottom line is though, he hasn't done anything he said he would do. 0 change and maybe it's worse now than ever before.
I had many concerns about Obama durring the election. The people he chose to surround himself with, the fact that he hasn't really done shit in politics, his voting record in the senete, etc. I still have those concerns today. They are showing up in his every move. The concerns I had are now biting me in the ass.
Now to be honest with you, one of the very reasons I voted for Obama was because of Palin. Maybe it will take a tough Bitch with little sense to deal with the senete and congress. Obama can't do it. Bush didn't do it. One thing I'll give Obama, we really do need change in Washington. Real change. Not just a good public speaker.
Yeah, I'd hate to vote for Palin. But I would consider her if she ran agaist Obama, seriously.
Our government is completely fucked right now. It's growing way the fuck out of control. Spending money out the ass we don't have and who the fuck knows if we can even pay it back. Our credit rating with the world as far as paying back our debt is in question for the first time I can ever remember.
If Obama keeps spending money like he's spending, growing the government like he's doing, how the fuck could you vote for him?
But, he has at least 3 more years left. Wonder if that's a good thing?
HOOK IS BAAAAAAACK!!!!!!
...now where's Pick, mofo?
Hookbender — Feb 10, 2010Yeah Trip, she is a bit of a retard. But fucking up behind a podium and fucking up making decisions as President are two different things. The results of actions is what I'm interested in. Not a smooth talker who can read well. :P Couldn't resist that one. :D
Did you watch that Q&A with the Republicans? Yeah, they showed up to a gun fight with plastic spoons, and got their asses handed to them by a far superior intellect. Needless to say, they won't be doing that again any time soon. CUT THE FEED!!! ;)
Were you implying that I'm unwilling to learn? Have you forgot the Hook who first started here, and the Hook I am today so quickly?
Not at all. I just think so many people in this country refuse to be patient and give this guy a chance.
If Palin runs for President, she'll get plenty votes unless the dems really get with the program and Obama can really pull off some change the next 3 years.
If that dipshit even comes close to winning a primary, it will mean that America is fucked forever and all the smart people should leave. :)
Of course I'm being hyperbolic. ;)
Tripper
if she runs for president i don't know what i will do. my head might explode trying to figure out who to vote for. it would be a record year for mickey mouse on the write in ballot, i'm sure.
"Give President Obama a chance to fail or succeed. You and all the other "Obama sucks" haters haven't done that."
Damn, you do like to throw that hate word around. don't you? I don't even come close to hating Obama and I don't think he "sucks". ::)
I just don't agree with some of his decisions, which to be honest with you, I probably don't fully understand either. Now that's pure retarded honesty right there. ;D
I actually have sincere hopes that he does amazingly well the next 3 years or more. I do hope his actions do prove to be successful. And, I hope one day to be able to take the time to correct my typing and mispelled words.
Obama being successful means our country and situation will improve. I want America to be a better place, I hope Obama can achieve that. I even hope the bitch Nancy P. is successful if it betters our country, other countries as well for that matter.
if you want to see an example of an intelligent republican woman who i could get behind in the next decade check out Debra Medina. she is running for governor of texas and is incredibly intelligent.
http://www.medinafortexas.com/
and some debate footage...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2eMIZcPy0
I don't care about republican and democrat. I just want what's best for our country. Either way, repub or dem, there are things I dislike about both parties. So fuck the parties.
Anyway, she does look to be pretty sharp. I'll read more about her later. Keep her away from Crawford, if you can. ;D
You can blame Obama if you want, but anyone with any sense can see that it's the minority that has prevented him from doing much of what he intends to do. Sure, you can blame him for not making change, but that's an uneducated position. Look at the shit that happened already:
EVERY GOP house member voting against the stimulus package. There are many, many examples of these guys voting "no" then going out the next day to their home districts and bragging about the jobs the stimulus was bringing to their districts. These people don't vote NO on principle. They vote no as a mindless block.
They want Obama to fail. Even though they actually like the legislation for their districts.
Now, you think that Palin will come in--the most polarizing figure in American politics, maybe ever?--and somehow she will unite the Senate and Congress? Even if she had a Republican majority in both houses--which is not likely, given the overwhelming numbers in each houses--she would also need 60 fucking votes in the senate to pass anything. A democratic minority could fuck her just like the Republican minority is fucking Obama.
And he is actually an intelligent man, who is willing to hear both sides of an argument. Imagine what tactlessness one-track Palin would bring to the situation.
Now, you can blame the president, or you can call it for what it is, and stop applauding dumbly from the sidelines as the sore losers stop every bill that comes through the channel and try to destroy our country so they can win some seats back.
Chase, Hook, of course there are intelligent Republicans. But Obama is the president for at least three more years. It's too fucking LATE to give us a new candidate for 2008. That election is over.
Now, are you going to sit on your hands and gripe, and propose alternatives, and tacitly endorse the downfall of our country because you found what you think is a great candidate for next time? Or are you going to support the fucking country? It's always easier to say no, and throw up arguments, then to find a way to help. But the bottom line (Chase) is, the people spoke, overwhelmingly, and Obama gets those four years. There's no do-overs unless he gets shot or pulls a Palin and resigns, which isn't likely. So, are you just going to support more roadblocks for three more years? Is it worth it to you for our country to do well? Or is that too much to hope for, if it happens under the wrong guys' watch?
Palin is a phenomenon and the embodiment of partisan politics taken to extremist levels.
She is an absurdly unsuitable candidate for president.
But she might serve a purpose in American politics.
You need a third party, a fox news party.
Maybe it will suck in 10-15% of the wacko vote
Stick in a place where it can no longer do any damage.
This would affect the rep vote most in the short term, probably make a democrat a shoo in at the next election.
But the party bases would realign after that and republicans would go back to being a party that can appeal to the middle ground, a lot of blue dog dems would cross the ailse.
Then some sort of rationality will come back within the partisan stuff that is always part of politics.
80% of the sane electorate will decide who is president.
And the loonies can vote for the other parties who will still have a say.
Just not play with actual power.
The traditional conservative republicans need to reclaim the party back from the wacko wing by jetisoning it.
charger — Feb 10, 2010Chase, Hook, of course there are intelligent Republicans. But Obama is the president for at least three more years. It's too fucking LATE to give us a new candidate for 2008. That election is over.
Now, are you going to sit on your hands and gripe, and propose alternatives, and tacitly endorse the downfall of our country because you found what you think is a great candidate for next time? Or are you going to support the fucking country? It's always easier to say no, and throw up arguments, then to find a way to help. But the bottom line (Chase) is, the people spoke, overwhelmingly, and Obama gets those four years. There's no do-overs unless he gets shot or pulls a Palin and resigns, which isn't likely. So, are you just going to support more roadblocks for three more years? Is it worth it to you for our country to do well? Or is that too much to hope for, if it happens under the wrong guys' watch?
i was looking to 2012. and as far as looking out for our country I'm in the Army now...
You signed up to serve under commander-in-chief Obama? Wow. Kudos.
I'm in the goddamn Navy, burrrrrrrp......I like boats and shit.
Charger
As to the first part of your post.....you mean Washington hasn't changed and could perhaps be worse than ever under his leadership? Close??????
I said I'd consider her if she ran for President agaist Obama. Consider her agenda, consider who's surrounding her, hear what she has to say and her ideas, goals as President etc. including voting for her. I then would see what she could do to better the country, through the senate and congress. If I voted for her.
Last thing, I'm not blaming Obama for anything, I'm judging his first year in office. Pretty logical act in my opinion, since we're talking about Obama. Is there a rule against that or something? I don't think people blame the republicans for Obama's failures. I blame Obama. Do you blame the Democrats for Bush's failures?
Is it worse than ever? Why, actually, yes. The Republicans have used the filibuster to stop legislation more than in any other Congress ever. However, does that mean that Obama is a failure, or that Republicans, as a whole, are a bunch of poor losers who are probably also shadow racists, and who would rather see our country fail than Obama do well?
I know what I believe, you are free to make up your own mind. One thing's clear to me. The Democrats worked better with Bush, who was far less conciliatory and far less open-minded than Obama. So to me this is really a de-evolution of Congress and it will, hopefully, change when these idiots get their come-uppance. As far as I am concerned, less than a third of the sitting Congress deserves to keep their jobs.
However, I do believe that Obama will be successful despite the Republicans. I believe it because I believe that he has the charisma and the ideas to turn this on its head. And because I have hope that he can lead us out of this crisis that the last administration left us.
Do I blame the Democrats for Bush's failures? I blame them for voting to go into Iraq, pretty much unanimously. That was a cowardly vote. Many of them would have lost elections if they voted against it, and shame on them for not doing the right thing anyway. I blame the entire Congress and the legislative branch for the way that greed was allowed to nearly destroy the world's financial system. But that wasn't just on Bush's watch. Iraq was. Bush is 90% responsible for that. Congress, 10%.
chase — Feb 10, 2010i was looking to 2012. and as far as looking out for our country I'm in the Army now...
I thank you deeply for your service, Chase.
One thing, though: watch out for all the uncloseted homos that are coming. ;)
I will say, though, I live in Texas. I'm politically aware. I actually pay attention to this crap. I've seen Debra Medina a bunch - she's not nearly as smart as you think. She's just a lot nicer than most dopey Teabaggers that share her warped take on reality and the issues. I like her personally, but she's a kook like the rest of them.
Thankfully if she was able to sneak into the Governor's mansion she wouldn't be able to do much, since the Governor of Texas doesn't have all that much power compared to other officials.
But perhaps she'll dilute and screw up the GOP side enough and make them look hapless enough that a non-Republican can actually win.
Tripper
Charger.......
Bullshit man.
Bush alone is one opinion. He can't do shit romotely close to Iraq without Congress.
I think it's Repubs vs. Democrats, Obama just happens to be the President right now. It's not repubs against Obama, they couldn't give a fuck less who's President.
I would damn sure want all guns licensed, or taken off the street period. And I don't know what good could come from eliminating property taxes and raising other taxes. Are people stupid enough not to know they'll just get it elsewhere? :D She did seem to take control of the debate. She may be God. :o
charger — Feb 10, 2010You signed up to serve under commander-in-chief Obama? Wow. Kudos.
The commander in chief is not who I serve, it's the country. I might bitch alot but I'm willing to do something about it.
As to the army I applied for officer candidate school and was just recently approved and accepted. I'll find out my ship date later this month as all OCS slots are booked for fiscal 2010. I'll be in training for 8 months to become an infantry lieutenant
Good for you Chase! Congrats. And thank you! :)
Hookbender — Feb 11, 2010I would damn sure want all guns licensed, or taken off the street period.
seriously? show me in history where disarmament has led to peace and or a meaningful reduction in violence.. especially in a country with 100,000,000 gun owners owning approximately 300,000,000 guns. the best "case study" we have to look at is australia. after instituting tight gun control showed no effect on lowering the amount of violent crime committed WITH firearms.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html
to be blunt, their are some many weapons on the streets today that removing them voluntarily would only take the weapons away from the people that need them the most. there is no practical way to get a meaningful percentage of guns out of the hands of violent offenders. going back hundreds of years people have recognized the value of an armed society.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.
-Alexander HamiltonThe strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
-Patrick HenryNever Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
-Alexander Hope
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
-Robert A. Heinlein,
I really don't want to debate gun control. Let me rephrase my statement. If their were a way to get all guns out of citizens hands, I'd be in favor of it. That would mean law enforcement would have to get serious about crime. The gangs would have to be taken off the street etc. Never be done anyway. At least we can force a delay in gun purchases and ensure no criminal buys a new weapon be requiring background checks and license. I know, the bad guys can still purchase guns.
Times have changed a good bit since your quotes were made Chase.
maybe it was a difference in how we were raised. i was brought up to look at guns as just another tool to do a job. i was shown how to use them, how not to use them, and how to be safe. if a person is brought up outside that environment i can see it being hard to understand the "gun mentality". throughout history weve seen populations attempted to be disarmed. success usually leads to tyranny, oppression, and or genocide. three hundred million firearms in civilian hands gives crazy people second thoughts about doing something stupid.
Now if you could find a way to only disarm the criminals... ;)
Hookbender — Feb 11, 2010Charger.......
Bullshit man.
Bush alone is one opinion. He can't do shit romotely close to Iraq without Congress.
And that's where you are totally and completely wrong. The president can send troops anywhere he wants at any time, as long as he doesn't declare war. If he declares war he has to get Congress to approve. There hasn't been a declared US war since WWII.
However, the Congress often feels the need to get up and vote their tacit approval, so they can win their next fucking election.
Bush would have gone into Iraq with 5 votes. That he got 99 is truly staggering to me.
to be blunt, their are some many weapons on the streets today that removing them voluntarily would only take the weapons away from the people that need them the most. there is no practical way to get a meaningful percentage of guns out of the hands of violent offenders. going back hundreds of years people have recognized the value of an armed society.
Imagine if we did this for everything.
"There are so many bad loans that are going to fail, we should just leave the houses with the people, for free."
"There are so many bankers who expect huge bonuses they don't deserve, that capping their bonuses would just take bonuses out of the hands of the ones who need them most."
I also have to argue with that last portion of the sentence: "
guns out of the hands of the people that need them most."
What is this, 1830 on the American prairie? Who are these people that need guns so badly to survive? And why don't we work on fixing that issue, instead of just leaving them to defend themselves?
charger — Feb 11, 2010to be blunt, their are some many weapons on the streets today that removing them voluntarily would only take the weapons away from the people that need them the most. there is no practical way to get a meaningful percentage of guns out of the hands of violent offenders. going back hundreds of years people have recognized the value of an armed society.
Imagine if we did this for everything.
"There are so many bad loans that are going to fail, we should just leave the houses with the people, for free."
"There are so many bankers who expect huge bonuses they don't deserve, that capping their bonuses would just take bonuses out of the hands of the ones who need them most."
I also have to argue with that last portion of the sentence: "
guns out of the hands of the people that need them most."
What is this, 1830 on the American prairie? Who are these people that need guns so badly to survive? And why don't we work on fixing that issue, instead of just leaving them to defend themselves?
more like
"there are so many bad loans that are going to fail; we should let them"
"there are so many bankers who expect huge bonuses they don't deserve. we should let the market sort it out"
face it, the current path the financial sector is on is headed for the dumpster. Obama and or any politician currently in office doesn't have the stones to do anything remotely close to what it is going to take to remedy the problems.
charger — Feb 11, 2010And why don't we work on fixing that issue, instead of just leaving them to defend themselves?
here is where you and I have a very fundamental difference in political viewpoints and why we will probably never agree on anything of substance as far as policy goes. i don't think it is the government's place to create a nanny police state. if i wanted that i would go to britain and live where people get tossed in jail on a regular basis for defending themselves and their home. as far as i'm concerned the Swiss have the model of gun control down pat. they issue a fully automatic rifle to all legal males of age to be used in their militia. concealed handguns are legal and require no license, and guns are freely available. guess what, their crime rates and murder rates tied to firearms are much lower than in the US as well. it's a cultural problem we have here that removing guns simply won't solve
Not sure why the "remove all guns" line keeps coming up. It's flat out not possible and the only thing an attempt would accomplish is to unarm the citizens who, for the most part, aren't part of the problem anyway. The few that could become a problem will simply use something else as a weapon (crimes of passion, spontaneous type stuff).
This reminds me of the Cold War when people would say "If only we would disarm all of our nukes than the Russians can too!" These idiots almost make you want to try it just to show them how fucked up that thinking is. The very moment the U.S. was disarmed the Russians would have launched without fear of retribution.
"nanny police state".
BS. That's not an argument, that's a talking point.
You compare us to countries that are nothing like us... Britian, Switzerland, Australia. You wouldn't gladly adopt ANY policies from these countries. Unless it's one that suits you.
I'm not concerned about guns out of politics. I'm concerned about them because I believe in freedom. The last thing I want is to think that someone might hear me saying something they don't like, that doesn't fit with their view, and that person might have had a bad week, or year, and that person might be carrying a gun, and decide to settle the argument. Or that some redneck racist who lost a relative in 9/11 might hear my name and decide to shoot me with his concealed weapon.
I'm not concerned about YOUR freedom to shoot things. I'm concerned about my freedom to feel safe, and to feel like I can say and believe what I want. And I feel pretty confident in the belief that a state where everyone believes that everyone else MIGHT be carrying a gun is not more "free"--it is less free. Nothing kills civil disagreement faster than a gun.
chase — Feb 11, 2010
i don't think it is the government's place to create a nanny police state.
A police state is governing by enforced organisation using the sharpest tools of the state, the security forces employed by state organisation.
if i wanted that i would go to britain and live where people get tossed in jail on a regular basis for defending themselves and their home.
britain is still running as a civillian peace time state, so if you maim or kill someone and get caught, you get tried for it.
Protecting your home is a mitigating defence and is judged - erm - in a trial.
Have you ever felt nervous in the united states - at least of the idea - the possibility that you get invited to the home of someone you don't know that well, but know well enough that you should go - be impolite to refuse.
They could shoot you and claim self defence - automatic "vacate my lawn" defence.
Nope - well chances are it won't happen in your circles, never occurred to me living in the parts of the us I inhabited, more like friends and frasier territory.
I guess it would matter to me if I was an ex-pat working in a us slum as there was a skill shortage.
The I would wonder about some of my co-workers and clients ;)
But it happens - like murder does and automatic defences are a bad idea legally, democratically and morally.
as far as i'm concerned the Swiss have the model of gun control down pat. they issue a fully automatic rifle to all legal males of age to be used in their militia.
Yes they are free to be organised by the government.
The glory of it. ;)
Gun Control.
type it into google,
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Gun+Control&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
it is dominated by results supporting the NRA.
it is one of the most US dominated search sets possible.
I used to think it was due to deliberate action - which to some extent it is clearly the NRA affiliation has disseminated shit loads of guns are social nirvana.
But the power of google means they would not include themselves in the spell checker let alone the NRA to dominate the results.
The true reason is really banal.
Gun Control in most countries is a non-issue - they don't debate it because it would be like having a Bazooka control debate.
The debate is more focused on getting guns off the streets.
It isn't an argument about Gun Control as a law it is about enforcement of the law.
which is ultimately a debate about the level of militia the state needs to recruit and enforce the law.
recruiting everyone and giving them a rank and gun is only one option.
I prefer letting the civilian solution run a little longer before according to the NRA we succumb to the sheer weight of murder and mayhem that we are subject to through a lack of guns as personal defence.
tis pretty tough :)
btw - you need to travel Chase.
And I see you are in the Army.
Honourable, wish you the best.
Afghanistan ?
That country is one place where arms control is out of control.
and "civilising" means arms control eventually being in the hands of a government.
peace breaks out when that happens and soldiers can leave.
Gun control is just part of a continuum, the point you yell at is not an objective principle it is just a subjective comfort zone.
The "right to bear arms" should entitle missiles and nukes in the hands of the "well armed militia"
how else is the "well armed militia" supposed to oppose a despotic government that has such weapons ?
it is simply a water temperature test.
The "No Guns" argument at least has an absolute principle to defend.
The one argument I am moved by is the sheer number of weapons in circulation and the fact it is endemic.
It is impossible to remove the weapons surgically, it is more akin to removing the healthy cells and leaving the cancer.
That just implies that the problem is a cancer and it has metastasised to the point that treatment will kill the patient.
which is defeatist.
chase — Feb 11, 2010maybe it was a difference in how we were raised. i was brought up to look at guns as just another tool to do a job. i was shown how to use them, how not to use them, and how to be safe. if a person is brought up outside that environment i can see it being hard to understand the "gun mentality". throughout history weve seen populations attempted to be disarmed. success usually leads to tyranny, oppression, and or genocide. three hundred million firearms in civilian hands gives crazy people second thoughts about doing something stupid.
What fucking job requires a gun today? You don't need to hunt to feed your family. Deer meat sucks and pork will kill you. What job would require a average citizen to have a gun. And your fixing to learn that it isn't a gun, it's a weapon. It's a weapon. Why not focus on getting criminals off the street versus putting more guns in untrained average citizens hands where an accident could happen any second?
You may need to check the number of people killed with guns in the U.S. I'd say a pretty high number of crazy folk aren't thinking twice like you think they are.
You seem to like charts and shit, compare the murders in the U.S. with guns to other countries. And remember, you can have plenty and all the guns you want right now in the U.S.
I've been shot before. An attempt to steal my cousins car blah blah blah. I was hit in the shoulder. I guess I was in a little shock or something, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I assume people react differently when shot, but I was pissed as hell instantly. I pulled the lead out of my shoulder right away myself. this is my point, and a important one.
If I had a gun under the seat of the car or something, I would have instantly tried to shoot the shooter. One or more of his friends may have had a gun and they may have started shooting at us also.
My cousin could have been killed, myself also, and the shooter and some of his friends.
Instead, I got patched up and was absolutely fine and he got to brag a while and be a tough guy. No real serious injury and no one was killed.
I am a example of why the average person doesn't need guns by my own experience and admission.
I was shot....and the reason me and possibly my cousin are alive today was simply because we had no guns, weapons. Think about it!
I wasn't really raised around actual guns, but my dad (a decorated Army officer in Vietnam) made sure we respected their power, and instilled in us a great understanding of safety. My brothers and I all had BB/Pellet guns at one time or another, and none of us were ever shot, even though we'd shoot them all the time.
I think that the arguments for gun ownership are pretty stupid, as are the arguments against.
It all comes down to something very simple: how armed do you allow the people to be? Can they own handguns? Bazookas? Tanks?
Back when our Constitution was written, the way I understand it, the idea was that people would be armed so that we wouldn't need a standing army - we'd have well-regulated militias, which is the whole reason that people should never be denied the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, we now have police forces and a standing army. We don't need for the citizenry to be armed. It's not a necessity anymore.
Do I have a problem with people owning guns, fundamentally? Absolutely not, especially if there are requirements for registration, use, and training (like driving a car).
But I do have a problem with historical revisionists that think that they'd be "protected from tyranny" by owning an assault rifle. Um, yeah, try that one in this century. It's worked great for most of the anti-government movements in this country. Waco? Ruby Ridge?
Face reality: That time is over, and unless you support the average citizen owning the firepower only allowed to be owned by the armed services, you are just at a different level of supporting the "nanny police state", and your indignation about the topic is mere self-flagellation and conservative chest-puffery.
You really think the framers anticipated how devastating weaponry would become and how little power a rifle actually gives the holder?
I think there's a place we can meet in the middle, and I think we're mostly there. I don't think gun nuts need to worry about anyone taking their guns, and I don't think anti-gun people need to worry so much about getting shot because some people own guns.
It's a very unimportant issue, in my view (which is not to be confused with reality).
Tripper
I'd like to revise my statement. Rednecks shouldn't have guns either! ;D
Here's my gun Tripper! :D
