OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"
Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.
"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.
But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance. Over the last year, tea party groups across the country have staged rallies and pressured politicians to protest big government and demand reduced public spending.
In strongly conservative states like Oklahoma, some legislators have also discussed further action to fight federal policies, such as state legislation and lawsuits.
State Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a Republican candidate for governor who has appealed for tea party support, said supporters of a state militia have talked to him, and that he believes the citizen unit would be authorized under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."
Another lawmaker, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance of introducing legislation for a state-authorized militia next year.
Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets."
"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."
State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized, but have not been used in recent times, said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment. "Whether someone should get a militia to go toe-to-toe with the federal government ... now, that strikes me as kind of silly," he said.
Some conservative legislators in Oklahoma say talk of a militia, which would be privately recruited, armed and trained, goes too far.
"If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard," said Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution."
Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's communications director Paul Sund also discounted the militia discussion, saying the National Guard handles state emergencies and security.
Federal authorities say that radical militia groups have not emerged in Oklahoma, unlike many other states, in part because of the legacy of the Oklahoma City bombing. On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Tim McVeigh exploded a truckbomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.
Last month, FBI agents conducted a raid on the Hutaree militia group in southern Michigan and accused members of plotting to kill law enforcement officers.
Tea party member compares tea party to rebels here.
JACKSON, Miss. – Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour drew criticism for proclaiming April as Confederate Heritage Month without mentioning slavery, the second governor this month to come under fire for the omission.
Rep. Robert Johnson, D-Natchez, who is black, said Monday that people need to learn about the "abhorrent, violent, depraved actions of slavery."
Virginia's Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, also named April as Confederate History Month but his original proclamation didn't mention slavery. After coming under national criticism, McDonnell last week revised it to denounce slavery as "evil and inhumane."
Barbour, also a Republican who helped campaign for McDonnell last year, said Sunday on CNN that slavery was bad but a fuss over McDonnell's original proclamation "doesn't amount to diddly."
Barbour's office on Monday did not respond to a request by The Associated Press for a copy of his 2010 Confederate Heritage Month proclamation. The Rev. Cecil Fayard, chaplain in chief for the national Sons of Confederate Veterans, faxed a copy to AP.
The proclamation, signed March 15, said it is "important for all Americans to reflect upon our nation's past to gain insight from our mistakes and successes."
Fayard said he agrees with Barbour's proclamation, which called on Sons of Confederate Veterans and other groups to publicize the "rich heritage" of the Confederacy.
"The War Between the States was fought for the same reasons that the tea party movement today is voicing their opinion. And that is that you have large government that's not listening to the people, there's going to be heavy taxation," Fayard said Monday from his home in Duck Hill, Miss. "And the primary cause of the war was not slavery, although slavery was interwoven into the cause, but it was not the cause for the War Between the States."
Actually militias are a daily and central part of American life. You need to be in a militia to shop at certain stores or pull tickets for sporting events.
All militias ever do is sit around in a log cabin, drink beer, clean guns and complain about liberals and the gubermint. I don't know why anyone is concerned.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may be wrong (and I usually am!) but I was under the impression that you lot could only form militias if the British were attacking.
That is incorrect. Here's the complete list found in the Texas Constitution, to wit militias may be formed to protect against:
*Dern Fereners
*Tribbles
*Leichtensteinians
*Damnyankees (see Dern Fereners)
*Revenuers
*Santa Anna
*Microsoft
*Daleks
*Tom Cruise
*Picante sauce made by Damnyankees
*Vegetarians
*Al Gore
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may be wrong (and I usually am!) but I was under the impression that you lot could only form militias if the British were attacking.
That is incorrect. Here's the complete list found in the Texas Constitution, to wit militias may be formed to protect against:
*Dern Fereners
*Tribbles
*Leichtensteinians
*Damnyankees (see Dern Fereners)
*Revenuers
*Santa Anna
*Microsoft
*Daleks
*Tom Cruise
*Picante sauce made by Damnyankees
*Vegetarians
*Al Gore
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may be wrong (and I usually am!) but I was under the impression that you lot could only form militias if the British were attacking.
That is incorrect. Here's the complete list found in the Texas Constitution, to wit militias may be formed to protect against:
*Dern Fereners
*Tribbles
*Leichtensteinians
*Damnyankees (see Dern Fereners)
*Revenuers
*Santa Anna
*Microsoft
*Daleks
*Tom Cruise
*Picante sauce made by Damnyankees
*Vegetarians
*Al Gore
Damn yankees?!
Them to, but anyone born north of Waco. This would include Dallas, but in the event this is invoked Houston and Dallas will immediately have a giant tug of war across the Brazos River to decide if Dallas should be included in Texas or not. My money's on Houston. We eat better. Plus we cheat.
In other news, I'd worry about this, but college students and "community organizers" typically get up at the crack of noon, and by then the tea party will have already done their protest or whatever for the day.
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic.
Jason Levin, creator of http://www.crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15—tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.
"Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn't an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, 'That's right, he's an alien from outer space!'" Levin said.
Tea party members said the backlash comes from ignorance.
"They can't actually debate our message and that's their problem," said Bob MacGuffie, a Connecticut organizer for Right Principles, a tea party group that also has members in New York and New Jersey.
The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically.
Levin says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.
"Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not," Levin said. "Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely."
The site manifesto says they want to dismantle the Tea Party by nonviolent means. "We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies," the site said.
Another tea party organizer said the attempt to destroy the movement was evidence its message is resonating.
"We've been ignored, we've been ridiculed. Well, now they're coming after us," said Judy Pepenella, a co-coordinator for the New York State Tea Party. "Gandhi's quote is one we understand: 'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.'"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may be wrong (and I usually am!) but I was under the impression that you lot could only form militias if the British were attacking.
Well we can sort that out for them. Get a yaught and a couple of shotguns (other guns having been banned) and shoot a few rocks on the US shoreline. Set up a nice legal precedent for the boys in Oklahoma, should be fun.
Kilkrazy wrote:This was tried in 1861-5 with results that were not necessarily strongly in favour of the States' Rights supporters.
Ah yes, but this time the liberals in north that generate the vast majority of wealth for the country will cut the southerners loose without a fight. Biggest mistake in U.S. history was waging a war to keep rednecks part of the country.
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic. Jason Levin, creator of http://www.crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15—tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.
"Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn't an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, 'That's right, he's an alien from outer space!'" Levin said.
Tea party members said the backlash comes from ignorance.
"They can't actually debate our message and that's their problem," said Bob MacGuffie, a Connecticut organizer for Right Principles, a tea party group that also has members in New York and New Jersey.
The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically.
Levin says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.
"Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not," Levin said. "Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely."
The site manifesto says they want to dismantle the Tea Party by nonviolent means. "We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies," the site said.
Another tea party organizer said the attempt to destroy the movement was evidence its message is resonating.
"We've been ignored, we've been ridiculed. Well, now they're coming after us," said Judy Pepenella, a co-coordinator for the New York State Tea Party. "Gandhi's quote is one we understand: 'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.'"
I really hope that none of these are the same people who denounced the conservatives for "astroturfing".
Kilkrazy wrote:This was tried in 1861-5 with results that were not necessarily strongly in favour of the States' Rights supporters.
Ah yes, but this time the liberals in north that generate the vast majority of wealth for the country will cut the southerners loose without a fight. Biggest mistake in U.S. history was waging a war to keep rednecks part of the country.
True statement except that every facet of it is...wrong.
I'll put Texas's 8.2% unemployment against any Yankee state anytime. How's that Rust Belt working out for you?
Kilkrazy wrote:This was tried in 1861-5 with results that were not necessarily strongly in favour of the States' Rights supporters.
Ah yes, but this time the liberals in north that generate the vast majority of wealth for the country will cut the southerners loose without a fight. Biggest mistake in U.S. history was waging a war to keep rednecks part of the country.
True statement except that every facet of it is...wrong.
I'll put Texas's 8.2% unemployment against any Yankee state anytime. How's that Rust Belt working out for you?
Confederate States GDP 2008 total: $4,111,101
California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio GDP 2008: $4,178,236
I could add in Massachusetts and the rest but the point is already made. Oh, since we've established the superior productive and wealth generating capacity of the Union should we compare north/south in terms of literacy and life-expectancy? Any predictions?
So what we've established here then is that the south employs a lot of low wage workers whereas the south employs higher wage and banking workers. Or something. Whatever. This conversation is stupid.
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Doctoral
Degrees:
(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
Actually he is right Frazz. I had to look it up myself. California joined the Union in 1850. They sent volunteers and gold to aid the Union effort. It was also interesting to note that California almost split into two states, Northern and Southern California over secession.
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Less Than
a High School Diploma: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
olympia wrote:Texas has two in the top ten on this list!
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Less Than
a High School Diploma: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
olympia wrote:Texas has two in the top ten on this list!
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Less Than
a High School Diploma: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
In fairness immigration rates and minority graduation issues kind of skew that.
he's right. Brownsville and Laredo are border towns. they are not worried about HS diplomas there. They are hwoever, worried about ducking the gunfire coming from the cartels shooting it out across the river. Pomona, Salinas, and East LA have massive populations of imigrants. Santa Ana is mixed. Same for El Monte (El Monte, Santa Ana, East LA, and Pomona are the greater LA areas they don't show in the movies. Does Pomoona still have Crips or did MS-13 wipe em out?). Whats interesting is that I have been to all the locations on the list except the Florida and NJ ones. Coincidence?
Dumb hicks never cease to amaze me. They want to form militias but have no definite plan as to the organization of it? "YEEEE HAAAAW GOO GIT THE SHOTGERN SON WE GOTTA DEEFIND OUR LAND!"
Guitardian wrote:Dumb hicks never cease to amaze me. They want to form militias but have no definite plan as to the organization of it? "YEEEE HAAAAW GOO GIT THE SHOTGERN SON WE GOTTA DEEFIND OUR LAND!"
"um.. against what, dad?"
"I DUNNO... VARMINTS AND NEGROES OR SUTTIN!"
Zombies.
'Nuff said.
Liberals will die first since they hate guns and don't know which end to point at the zombies.
ShumaGorath wrote:Or something. Whatever. This conversation is stupid.
Compared to people talking about forming militias to fight the Federal government over healthcare reform and college students talking about infiltrating militias... this thread is genius level stuff.
Quite a few states already have legal militias outside of the National Guard. Ohio for example has the Ohio Military Reserve and the Ohio Naval Militia. To be fair, they usually support the National Guard in Ohio, but they are not the same as the National Guard (and I'm sure they wouldn't be used for the purposes being talked about in Oklahoma - they're primarily used for disaster relief and stuff like that).
I don't know, the American Civil war 2.0 would be pretty cool in my opinion. It would cetainly make a cooler video game than all the "Lets go kill some upstart Russkies!" that have been coming out lately. Plus, if there was a civil war, who won would largely depend on who the various army bases sided with.
Ratbarf wrote:I don't know, the American Civil war 2.0 would be pretty cool in my opinion. It would cetainly make a cooler video game than all the "Lets go kill some upstart Russkies!" that have been coming out lately. Plus, if there was a civil war, who won would largely depend on who the various army bases sided with.
Not to mention the movie rights and tie-in merchandise; T-shirts! Mugs! Bumper stickers! Profit!!!
I would guess it would be more like City versus Country. Just a view from a few of the places I have lived: Im pretty sure Chicago could take on the rest of podunk farmland downstate Illinois by itself, and NYC (just one burrough probably) could take on all of upstate New York by itself too. Detroit could demolish the rest of michigan (and write a rap about it). I believe most of the gun-happy hicks come from rural areas (is there anywhere in Oklahoma that isn't? I've been to Tulsa and it's not that big) but the Nat'l Guard armories tend to be in the dense population areas. So you can go ahead with your right to bear arms out here in the sticks, but the city people have the tanks. It's called progress. Progress doesn't happen with a right to bear arms, just an understanding of why not to.
"They can't actually debate our message and that's their problem," said Bob MacGuffie
Wait, the Teabaggers have a MESSAGE?!? When did this happen?
How do you debate "I'M ANGRY AND HATE...erm...LIBERALS...LIKE OBAMA!!!"? They actually have a point, although not in the way they think.
The various groups involved with this so-called "movement" are ultimately too disparate to hang together for long, let alone actually develop a real message or platform.
RustyKnight wrote:Wait, I'm fairly liberal and I know how to shoot. Are you saying that I'll be the sole liberal male left after the zombie apocalypse?
I'm basically a moderate, although more socially liberal, and I know my way around a firearm. Surviving the zombie apocalypse will require firepower AND brains, so I don't expect the YEE-HAW segment of the conservative base to last either.
Fateweaver wrote:North would win a civil war...just dig in and let winters get them.
Pansy southerners couldn't tolerate sub-zero temps for more than a few hours.
True, although have you ever experienced Southern heat? Like southern Georgia hot and/or Miami humid. Us Northerners would want no part of fighting there in that stuff.
How we'd beat invading Southerners during the winter months is by icing up our roads a little and watching them wrap themselves around trees. Bye bye supply lines. Heck, we'd just need a flurry before the road chaos ensued.
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Doctoral
Degrees:
(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
Mind you, half the Ph.Ds in Tallahassee, Durham, and Athens-Clarke County are all transplants from the North East.
Ah, well. I see you've taken statistics for politicians. "Three southern locations are in the hallowed halls reserved for the superior North and West? Well obviously they all came from the North." Nice job there,
olympia wrote:Texas has two in the top ten on this list!
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Less Than
a High School Diploma: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
And the fact that five locations alone are in California and a sixth is in New Jersey is obviously of no significance in your crusade to decry the stupidity of the South?
Good lord man, if you're going to start throwing up stats don't ignore them in the very post you put them in.
olympia wrote:Texas has two in the top ten on this list!
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Less Than
a High School Diploma: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
olympia wrote:Texas has two in the top ten on this list!
Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of People 25 and Over With Less Than
a High School Diploma: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
RustyKnight wrote:Wait, I'm fairly liberal and I know how to shoot. Are you saying that I'll be the sole liberal male left after the zombie apocalypse?
I think voting with idiocracy mindset is probably very prevalent in less-than-educated communities. I don't want to start a dems vs. repubs thing here, because there are two types of repubs so it is hard to remember to keep them apart. You have your fiscaly responsible type republicans, and you have your god-fearin, gun totin', ten-kid-havin, lynch mobbin' YEE HAAW kill all them sand [see forum posting rules]... kind of republicans. It just so happens that some of the Republican platforms stances appeal to the lower echelon of the gene pool. That's where this 'tea party movement' comes from. Dumb people who don't know squat about what they are yelling about but just want to be heard anyway.
Tyyr wrote:
And the fact that five locations alone are in California and a sixth is in New Jersey is obviously of no significance in your crusade to decry the stupidity of the South?
Good lord man, if you're going to start throwing up stats don't ignore them in the very post you put them in.
I never said southerners were stupid, just less educated.
Tyyr wrote:
Ah, well. I see you've taken statistics for politicians. "Three southern locations are in the hallowed halls reserved for the superior North and West? Well obviously they all came from the North." Nice job there,
Random department at Duke selected...http://www.cee.duke.edu/fds Three or Four southern Ph.Ds out of almost two dozen faculty.
I just checked three departments randomly at UNC-Chapel Hill. No surprise, of course, vast majority of the faculty are Ph.Ds from the north-east or California. Why are southern Ph.D. less competitive on the job market I wonder.
I was going to interject into this conversation, but it's apparently harder to get national certified college graduation rates beyond 2002 than I thought it would be. I hit my limit of five minutes of wandering around google. I found plenty of individual schools, but no aggregate comparisons by state that weren't just comparing sports program graduation rates.
According to the 2000 census the South had the lowest rate of high school graduation, the lowest rate of partial college completion, the lowest rate of advanced degree completion, and the 2nd lowest rate of Bachelors degree completion (behind the Midwest by .2%) Of course, the only statistically significant differences are between the most educated region, and the least educated region(s).
Frazzled wrote:Because you don't imbreed your degrees with similar schools?
Your mastery of statistics and examples is...interesting.
Wait UNC Chapel Hill/ Who the hell cares about UNC Chapel Hill. Is that even an accredited school?
If frazzled was correct then we would expect to see many southern Ph.Ds on the faculty in NE universities. This is not the case. Why, then, are Ph.Ds from the south less competitive? Is it because the Scopes trial resulted in an aversion to teaching modern science? Who knows?
Frazzled wrote:Because you don't imbreed your degrees with similar schools?
Your mastery of statistics and examples is...interesting.
Wait UNC Chapel Hill/ Who the hell cares about UNC Chapel Hill. Is that even an accredited school?
If frazzled was correct then we would expect to see many southern Ph.Ds on the faculty in NE universities. This is not the case. Why, then, are Ph.Ds from the south less competitive? Is it because the Scopes trial resulted in an aversion to teaching modern science? Who knows?
Guitardian wrote:I think voting with idiocracy mindset is probably very prevalent in less-than-educated communities.
Like inner city dwellers and low income type voting for the politicians that give them the biggest handouts? Check.
Guitardian wrote: It just so happens that some of the Republican platforms stances appeal to the lower echelon of the gene pool. That's where this 'tea party movement' comes from. Dumb people who don't know squat about what they are yelling about but just want to be heard anyway.
Biased much? I'd be glad to go toe to toe on the IQ meter with you any day of the week.
Could it be, just maybe, that the Tea Party goers know exactly what they are yelling about, and that's why they want to be heard? Because they are tired of getting every last dime wrung out of them by the Fed? They are tired of Bureaucrats using their money to solicit votes for themselves?
Like inner city dwellers and low income type voting for the politicians that give them the biggest handouts? Check.
Those checks go to your trailer parks just as much as his projects.
Biased much? I'd be glad to go toe to toe on the IQ meter with you any day of the week.
I'll stand in for him!
Could it be, just maybe, that the Tea Party goers know exactly what they are yelling about, and that's why they want to be heard? Because they are tired of getting every last dime wrung out of them by the Fed? They are tired of Bureaucrats using their money to solicit votes for themselves?
Liberals are edumacated peeples and so we dum rednek conservatives only yell to be herd, wee half no idea what the Constitution means because apparently we can't read nor right so we only yell about tings because we are tired of slappin' around our girlfriends who also happen to be our sisters.
As to inner cities taking on entire states themselves them guys don't even know how to shoot. Only in rap videos do you hold a gun sideways and shoot it. Oh wait, they aren't really shooting that gun, it's all for show. fethers probably can't even aim to save their lives.
Send the mean streets of Chicago to Northern Minnesota and they'd be running back home like the Redcoats did when we whooped their asses 200+ years ago.
Liberals are edumacated peeples and so we dum rednek conservatives only yell to be herd, wee half no idea what the Constitution means because apparently we can't read nor right so we only yell about tings because we are tired of slappin' around our girlfriends who also happen to be our sisters.
As to inner cities taking on entire states themselves them guys don't even know how to shoot. Only in rap videos do you hold a gun sideways and shoot it. Oh wait, they aren't really shooting that gun, it's all for show. fethers probably can't even aim to save their lives.
Send the mean streets of Chicago to Northern Minnesota and they'd be running back home like the Redcoats did when we whooped their asses 200+ years ago.
I think sending people to northern Minnesota is awar crime or something. When Alaskans say "no way that place is too cold" you know something's wrong.
Your right fraz! Maybe the guys bringing guns to presidential rallies were actually secret liberals!
Hell, they've already infiltrated the comments to that article!
Er, what? those weren't tea party protests. You're confusing rallies again.*
*they were nuts though, but not secret liberals. We all know secret liberals would never touch a firearm, or even a water gun because its not nurturing. Its just too icky and would besmirch their birkenstocks.
Your right fraz! Maybe the guys bringing guns to presidential rallies were actually secret liberals!
Hell, they've already infiltrated the comments to that article!
Er, what? those weren't tea party protests. You're confusing rallies again.* *they were nuts though, but not secret liberals. We all know secret liberals would never touch a firearm, or even a water gun because its not nurturing. Its just too icky and would besmirch their birkenstocks.
I was under the impression that they were tea party parishioners. Didn't they reference the tea parties typical standing platforms of constitutional rights, socialism, and general flying rodent gak conspiracy insanity when they were interviewed? I suppose they can't really be proven as such without someone scrounging up an interview where they identify themselves as such. I suppose they're just going to have to occupy the same category of people as the tea partiers without actually being teapartiers for now.
No. Are you talking about the guys just in, pardon the pun, rifle distance of Obama pre election? Those were 2nd Amendment/right to carry advocates/nutjobs.
I do believe this is one of the events where I was called a commie pinko on another thread...
Frazzled wrote:No. Are you talking about the guys just in, pardon the pun, rifle distance of Obama pre election? Those were 2nd Amendment/right to carry advocates/nutjobs.
I do believe this is one of the events where I was called a commie pinko on another thread...
Yeah, thos're the one. The way I understood it a few of them were vanguards for the fledgeling teaprties. Not the initial guys, but once it became slightly more commonplace and more wackjobs started to think it was a good idea.
Frazzled wrote:No. Are you talking about the guys just in, pardon the pun, rifle distance of Obama pre election? Those were 2nd Amendment/right to carry advocates/nutjobs.
I do believe this is one of the events where I was called a commie pinko on another thread...
Yeah, thos're the one. The way I understood it a few of them were vanguards for the fledgeling teaprties. Not the initial guys, but once it became slightly more commonplace.
No there may have been other protesters about, but this guy was specifically a RTC dude. It is Arizona. They are too close to the sun and too far from sweet tea.
Frazzled wrote:No. Are you talking about the guys just in, pardon the pun, rifle distance of Obama pre election? Those were 2nd Amendment/right to carry advocates/nutjobs.
You must be talking about this racist Right Wing Extremist visible about 20 seconds in:
Yea I didn't get past the whole taking a rifle thing to where a presidential Candidate was going to show up* (not including NRA rallies of course). Really. Really?
Frazzled wrote:No. Are you talking about the guys just in, pardon the pun, rifle distance of Obama pre election? Those were 2nd Amendment/right to carry advocates/nutjobs.
You must be talking about this racist Right Wing Extremist visible about 20 seconds in:
The Green Git wrote:Well yeah... he was asking for it.
Frankly I'd have expected the front line news to be "Bi-racial outrage at government grows" rather than "Angry rifle toting White boys".
I don't remember it being angry guntoting whiteboys at the time, though I also don't get my news from youtube or the talking head idiots on msnbc at 3pm.
Guitardian wrote:I think voting with idiocracy mindset is probably very prevalent in less-than-educated communities.
Like inner city dwellers and low income type voting for the politicians that give them the biggest handouts? Check.
Guitardian wrote: It just so happens that some of the Republican platforms stances appeal to the lower echelon of the gene pool. That's where this 'tea party movement' comes from. Dumb people who don't know squat about what they are yelling about but just want to be heard anyway.
Biased much? I'd be glad to go toe to toe on the IQ meter with you any day of the week.
Could it be, just maybe, that the Tea Party goers know exactly what they are yelling about, and that's why they want to be heard? Because they are tired of getting every last dime wrung out of them by the Fed? They are tired of Bureaucrats using their money to solicit votes for themselves?
Oh please. Personal attacks and challenges aside, I suppose I shall explain my point of view further. (by the way, I'm not sure exactly how one goes about going 'toe to toe' on an IQ test anyways...)
The Civil War was about trade regulation, that helped the northern industrial economy and hurt the southern raw-materials economy. They tacked on slavery later to make it into a 'noble' bout of idiocy. That is essentially the difference between cities and country nowadays. Country has the cornfields and wheat fields, cities have wall street, communication centers, and factories. The difference between then and now is technology. Of course nobody would want to go to northern Minnesota (I did, but I stuck to Minneapolis and thought it was a pretty cool town, even in the dead of winter) in an invading army travelling on foot... but OH YEAH THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO MARCH THROUGH IT ON FOOT ANY MORE WOULD THEY?. The National Guard has access to all the military technology as the regular armed forces. And they are usually located around state capitals and population centers, not near uncle Jebs moonshine shed. That is what I meant about cities having the power.
I am not biased against the country except by my own observation. Having lived in both environments (and currently in a country one) I can say that I had never heard stuff like " I won't vote for Obama because my pastor says that if a muslim gets in the White House, the end times are upon us..." or other utter nonsense like that until I got out here. (yes I actually heard someone say that to me as a democratic minority meeting up here in Podunk OH.)
The origional concept of the right to bear arms was to stand up against a tyrannical government should the need arise. Those days are long gone. Nobody is going to take their little militia firearms from podunk nowhere against the National Guard's Stykers, Helicopters, trained soldiers, communications, satelite access, and general technologically superior capability. It is simply that gun owners love their guns. Perhaps its compensating for something.
Whatever the reason for it, it definitely wont make a whiff of a difference to the National Guard if farmer Joe and his AK decide to start the second Civil War with their completely underpowered little militia groups that get together on weekends because they like drinking beers and shooting cans, and want to feel like that makes a difference, or it's "patriotic" or something. Owning a gun for 'patriotism' is just a dumb idea nowadays. Owning a handgun for personal protection, or a rifle for hunting is one thing, but pretending its your patriotic duty is just delusional.
The tea party movement scares the hell out of me, but stereotyping them as stupid or regressive or whatever is just going to drive people into it. People would do better to respond with reason.
Also, please keep in mind the tea party movement is not what the right to bear arms is about. What I worry is that a few extremists are going to affect the rights of more moderate people. I realize I'm one of the few gun enthusiasts that sympathizes with leftist ideas, but still.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:
The Green Git wrote:
Guitardian wrote:I think voting with idiocracy mindset is probably very prevalent in less-than-educated communities.
Like inner city dwellers and low income type voting for the politicians that give them the biggest handouts? Check.
Guitardian wrote: It just so happens that some of the Republican platforms stances appeal to the lower echelon of the gene pool. That's where this 'tea party movement' comes from. Dumb people who don't know squat about what they are yelling about but just want to be heard anyway.
Biased much? I'd be glad to go toe to toe on the IQ meter with you any day of the week.
Could it be, just maybe, that the Tea Party goers know exactly what they are yelling about, and that's why they want to be heard? Because they are tired of getting every last dime wrung out of them by the Fed? They are tired of Bureaucrats using their money to solicit votes for themselves?
Oh please. Personal attacks and challenges aside, I suppose I shall explain my point of view further. (by the way, I'm not sure exactly how one goes about going 'toe to toe' on an IQ test anyways...)
The Civil War was about trade regulation, that helped the northern industrial economy and hurt the southern raw-materials economy. They tacked on slavery later to make it into a 'noble' bout of idiocy. That is essentially the difference between cities and country nowadays. Country has the cornfields and wheat fields, cities have wall street, communication centers, and factories. The difference between then and now is technology. Of course nobody would want to go to northern Minnesota (I did, but I stuck to Minneapolis and thought it was a pretty cool town, even in the dead of winter) in an invading army travelling on foot... but OH YEAH THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO MARCH THROUGH IT ON FOOT ANY MORE WOULD THEY?. The National Guard has access to all the military technology as the regular armed forces. And they are usually located around state capitals and population centers, not near uncle Jebs moonshine shed. That is what I meant about cities having the power.
I am not biased against the country except by my own observation. Having lived in both environments (and currently in a country one) I can say that I had never heard stuff like " I won't vote for Obama because my pastor says that if a muslim gets in the White House, the end times are upon us..." or other utter nonsense like that until I got out here. (yes I actually heard someone say that to me as a democratic minority meeting up here in Podunk OH.)
The origional concept of the right to bear arms was to stand up against a tyrannical government should the need arise. Those days are long gone. Nobody is going to take their little militia firearms from podunk nowhere against the National Guard's Stykers, Helicopters, trained soldiers, communications, satelite access, and general technologically superior capability. It is simply that gun owners love their guns. Perhaps its compensating for something.
Whatever the reason for it, it definitely wont make a whiff of a difference to the National Guard if farmer Joe and his AK decide to start the second Civil War with their completely underpowered little militia groups that get together on weekends because they like drinking beers and shooting cans, and want to feel like that makes a difference, or it's "patriotic" or something. Owning a gun for 'patriotism' is just a dumb idea nowadays. Owning a handgun for personal protection, or a rifle for hunting is one thing, but pretending its your patriotic duty is just delusional.
I really don't want to get started in this, but keep in mind terrain can make effective force multipliers. Also look at the history of partisans in WWII and how they could be quite effective in certain circumstances. Or just look at Vietnam. It is also worth noting that guerrilla or partisan warfare is a horrific, ugly, nasty form of warfare. I don't think the tea party folks would really consider something like this, I think they're making a lot of noise.
Perhaps I'm projecting my own views on others, but I would assume most gun enthusiasts look at it as an engaging hobby, like myself, or are hunters or what not.
Just to chime in on the civil war issue: widespread ownership of firearms would absolutely make a difference in the government's ability to keep control of the country. All of the logistics and technology the military relies on comes under question during a civil war; the loyalty of the military itself comes under question. Combat would be even less conventional than it currently is in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the problems we have there would be compounded immensely. You can't occupy territory with missiles and gunships, and hunting rifles and hand guns distributed among much of the population will certainly be a threat to the under-equipped, demoralized, thinly spread forces that would be attempting to combat them.
Of course, as Grignard said, the concept of a real civil war in the United States is quite ridiculous at the present. Any talk of it is bluster, or a half-baked plan to to form a roving gang that will get themselves shot within the first week of their crusade. If the right to bear arms is a protection of liberties in the United States, we wouldn't see any fruit from it unless things were to get much, much worse.
Grignard wrote:The tea party movement scares the hell out of me, but stereotyping them as stupid or regressive or whatever is just going to drive people into it. People would do better to respond with reason.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. There are a lot of factors driving people into the tea parties, but a considered review of the state of the nation is just not one of them. This thread was started by people talking about starting a militia to resist healthcare reform - we're miles away from reason.
Fortunately, when reasons are deeply felt and poorly realised they tend to burn themselves out fairly quickly. The biggest issue would be if the GOP decides to lurch further into the realm of the crazy right to pick up tea party votes, that could end up affecting policy for a while to come. But if they're left to their own devices they'll slowly wander back towards reality.
Commissar Molotov wrote:I think the Tea-Tards are proof that DEVO was right, and that we are indeed de-evolving...
Obvious parody and tea party CRASHER. The smirk is the betrayal of his true intent... splatter mud on honest expression of opinion.
Libs are great at holding up the First Amendment when it's them doing the expressing. If it's a dissenting voice then they pull out all the stops to squelch the noise and if that doesn't work, discredit it. This is how I know the Tea Party movement is getting to these people. They are pulling out all the stops.
This is a well known shop. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Code Pink has about as much legitimacy as certain segments of the Tea Party.
The others are real. The Si Se Puede protesters are usually pretty tame, though. Its less about socialism, and more about immigration reform. Though the socialist rhetoric doesn't do them any favors in terms of progress, it does tend to attract a lot of immigrant interest due to the political biases they carry from their countries of origin.
sebster wrote:Fortunately, when reasons are deeply felt and poorly realised they tend to burn themselves out fairly quickly. The biggest issue would be if the GOP decides to lurch further into the realm of the crazy right to pick up tea party votes, that could end up affecting policy for a while to come. But if they're left to their own devices they'll slowly wander back towards reality.
Yep. As the economy continues its recovery, some of the "angry because we're angry" people will lose interest in tea parties.
I say "some" because the black helicopter, new world order crazies will still be going strong, just like they were during the booming '90s.
Frazzled wrote: Whats interesting is that I have been to all the locations on the list except the Florida and NJ ones. Coincidence?
I don't know. You tell me, Mr. Durden. Sir.
The Green Git wrote:Obvious parody and tea party CRASHER. The smirk is the betrayal of his true intent... splatter mud on honest expression of opinion.
The crazy eyes say otherwise. He's a JARN* for sure.
*Just Another Reactionary Nutjob
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:There wont be a civil war. Liberals dont have guns, and those without guns will always be slaves to those with them.
All hail our redneck, inbred, slack-jawed, banjo-playing wingnut masters!!!
You know I watched an interesting interview last night on Frontline. It was an interview with a TeaParty member from Tampa, Florida. He made well reasoned and articulate arguments regarding the reduction of the size of government. I was actually impressed, and this is the kind of thing I am used to, from republican/conservative thinkers. Notthing like the kind of lunacy I see from the tea partiers, where I currently live in Appallacia.
generalgrog wrote:You know I watched an interesting interview last night on Frontline. It was an interview with a TeaParty member from Tampa, Florida. He made well reasoned and articulate arguments regarding the reduction of the size of government. I was actually impressed, and this is the kind of thing I am used to, from republican/conservative thinkers. Notthing like the kind of lunacy I see from the tea partiers, where I currently live in Appallacia.
GG
I live in a major Metropolitan area and tea party types here are people of all walks of life. Most in my experience are above average in intelligence and are far from radical. Most just want to get on with their lives without onerous Federal regulation.
Now the rabid "Social Justice" and Lib supporters, those are the toothless hill dwellers and inner city yoofs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:
The Green Git wrote:Obvious parody and tea party CRASHER. The smirk is the betrayal of his true intent... splatter mud on honest expression of opinion.
The crazy eyes say otherwise. He's a JARN* for sure.
*Just Another Reactionary Nutjob
I would counter that his outfit color coordination, hint of eyeliner and snappy dress place him squarely in the metro-sexual phony tax protester camp. No self respecting tea party goer would coordinate like that.
Tea Party stuff is getting pretty big on my campus. Alot of students (predominately White Males) are pretty motivated for everything they stand for. Its getting kind of weird, knowing that the last time I heard of this much civil unrest over government was the early 20th Century.
generalgrog wrote:You know I watched an interesting interview last night on Frontline. It was an interview with a TeaParty member from Tampa, Florida. He made well reasoned and articulate arguments regarding the reduction of the size of government. I was actually impressed, and this is the kind of thing I am used to, from republican/conservative thinkers. Notthing like the kind of lunacy I see from the tea partiers, where I currently live in Appallacia.
GG
He must have been a phony. We all know that the pot-smoking, liberal asshats who feel that the US would be better off being socialist with all of us holding hands and singing Kumbaya would be a better US are so "with the times" and "normal".
Not all tea-partiers are loons, just as not all liberals are asshats (only most of them).
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Tea Party stuff is getting pretty big on my campus. Alot of students (predominately White Males) are pretty motivated for everything they stand for. Its getting kind of weird, knowing that the last time I heard of this much civil unrest over government was the early 20th Century.
See this is why the younger generations are going to .
Back in my day, our protests were full of hot blooded chickas who believed in the minimum level of clothing required by law.
The worst part is people who fantasize about a second civil war have forgotten that warfare has progressed to favor the high-tech force, in conventional operations. There wont be any Chancellorsville's if gak goes down a second time.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The worst part is people who fantasize about a second civil war have forgotten that warfare has progressed to favor the high-tech force, in conventional operations. There wont be any Chancellorsville's if gak goes down a second time.
If you actually think a second civil war would feature anything close to conventional operations....well, that'd be a pretty ridiculous thought. I'm not saying a second civil war is actually going to happen, but conventional operations? No way. It would be guerrilla warfare x10. The only way there would be anything close to conventional operations is if the military split or fragmented (which isn't unlikely), in which case the argument is basically moot anyway as multiple factions would then have access to high-tech equipment.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The worst part is people who fantasize about a second civil war have forgotten that warfare has progressed to favor the high-tech force, in conventional operations. There wont be any Chancellorsville's if gak goes down a second time.
If you actually think a second civil war would feature anything close to conventional operations....well, that'd be a pretty ridiculous thought. I'm not saying a second civil war is actually going to happen, but conventional operations? No way. It would be guerrilla warfare x10. The only way there would be anything close to conventional operations is if the military split or fragmented (which isn't unlikely), in which case the argument is basically moot anyway as multiple factions would then have access to high-tech equipment.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The worst part is people who fantasize about a second civil war have forgotten that warfare has progressed to favor the high-tech force, in conventional operations. There wont be any Chancellorsville's if gak goes down a second time.
If you actually think a second civil war would feature anything close to conventional operations....well, that'd be a pretty ridiculous thought. I'm not saying a second civil war is actually going to happen, but conventional operations? No way. It would be guerrilla warfare x10. The only way there would be anything close to conventional operations is if the military split or fragmented (which isn't unlikely), in which case the argument is basically moot anyway as multiple factions would then have access to high-tech equipment.
I like you Hordini. You get it.
Yeah, it's quite fortunate than that our military has been practicing police actions and insurgency warfare since we first invaded afghanistan! Now instead of sending in troops the reaper drone can just see your militia set up a roadside bomb before waiting for you to return to your clubhouse and shooting you with a hellfire missile.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The worst part is people who fantasize about a second civil war have forgotten that warfare has progressed to favor the high-tech force, in conventional operations. There wont be any Chancellorsville's if gak goes down a second time.
If you actually think a second civil war would feature anything close to conventional operations....well, that'd be a pretty ridiculous thought. I'm not saying a second civil war is actually going to happen, but conventional operations? No way. It would be guerrilla warfare x10. The only way there would be anything close to conventional operations is if the military split or fragmented (which isn't unlikely), in which case the argument is basically moot anyway as multiple factions would then have access to high-tech equipment.
I like you Hordini. You get it.
Haha, thanks. I do what I can.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, it's quite fortunate than that our military has been practicing police actions and insurgency warfare since we first invaded afghanistan! Now instead of sending in troops the reaper drone can just see your militia set up a roadside bomb before waiting for you to return to your clubhouse and shooting you with a hellfire missile.
That's true, but it gets more complicated when you have more than one militia and more than one clubhouse (see Afghanistan). And if the military fragments (as would be reasonably likely in a civil war), then all bets are off.
Kilkrazy wrote:This was tried in 1861-5 with results that were not necessarily strongly in favour of the States' Rights supporters.
Ah yes, but this time the liberals in north that generate the vast majority of wealth for the country will cut the southerners loose without a fight. Biggest mistake in U.S. history was waging a war to keep rednecks part of the country.
QFT. Give them 5 years alone with a poor economy, sweet tea, fried everything, and a lot of guns....they'll be begging to come back into the Union.
The Green Git wrote:
Obvious parody and tea party CRASHER. The smirk is the betrayal of his true intent... splatter mud on honest expression of opinion.
Libs are great at holding up the First Amendment when it's them doing the expressing. If it's a dissenting voice then they pull out all the stops to squelch the noise and if that doesn't work, discredit it. This is how I know the Tea Party movement is getting to these people. They are pulling out all the stops.
Nice try, Git - but that picture was taken at a protest well before the call to "crash" Tea Party activities.
Kilkrazy wrote:This was tried in 1861-5 with results that were not necessarily strongly in favour of the States' Rights supporters.
Ah yes, but this time the liberals in north that generate the vast majority of wealth for the country will cut the southerners loose without a fight. Biggest mistake in U.S. history was waging a war to keep rednecks part of the country.
QFT. Give them 5 years alone with a poor economy, sweet tea, fried everything, and a lot of guns....they'll be begging to come back into the Union.
Mmm, the Southern economy is stronger. You get to keep California and Michigan. We keep the refineries...
Kilkrazy wrote:This was tried in 1861-5 with results that were not necessarily strongly in favour of the States' Rights supporters.
Ah yes, but this time the liberals in north that generate the vast majority of wealth for the country will cut the southerners loose without a fight. Biggest mistake in U.S. history was waging a war to keep rednecks part of the country.
QFT. Give them 5 years alone with a poor economy, sweet tea, fried everything, and a lot of guns....they'll be begging to come back into the Union.
Mmm, the Southern economy is stronger. You get to keep California and Michigan. We keep the refineries...
This conversation is dumb. Everyone in it is dumb. This forum is dumb.
As an aside, isn't a lot of refining done on the east coast?
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The worst part is people who fantasize about a second civil war have forgotten that warfare has progressed to favor the high-tech force, in conventional operations. There wont be any Chancellorsville's if gak goes down a second time.
If you actually think a second civil war would feature anything close to conventional operations....well, that'd be a pretty ridiculous thought. I'm not saying a second civil war is actually going to happen, but conventional operations? No way. It would be guerrilla warfare x10. The only way there would be anything close to conventional operations is if the military split or fragmented (which isn't unlikely), in which case the argument is basically moot anyway as multiple factions would then have access to high-tech equipment.
I like you Hordini. You get it.
Yeah, it's quite fortunate than that our military has been practicing police actions and insurgency warfare since we first invaded afghanistan! Now instead of sending in troops the reaper drone can just see your militia set up a roadside bomb before waiting for you to return to your clubhouse and shooting you with a hellfire missile.
Shuma its cute when you talk about that. Good thing no more roadside bombs ever get planted. Must you constantly put the DICK in contradictory?
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The worst part is people who fantasize about a second civil war have forgotten that warfare has progressed to favor the high-tech force, in conventional operations. There wont be any Chancellorsville's if gak goes down a second time.
If you actually think a second civil war would feature anything close to conventional operations....well, that'd be a pretty ridiculous thought. I'm not saying a second civil war is actually going to happen, but conventional operations? No way. It would be guerrilla warfare x10. The only way there would be anything close to conventional operations is if the military split or fragmented (which isn't unlikely), in which case the argument is basically moot anyway as multiple factions would then have access to high-tech equipment.
I like you Hordini. You get it.
Yeah, it's quite fortunate than that our military has been practicing police actions and insurgency warfare since we first invaded afghanistan! Now instead of sending in troops the reaper drone can just see your militia set up a roadside bomb before waiting for you to return to your clubhouse and shooting you with a hellfire missile.
Shuma its cute when you talk about that. Good thing no more roadside bombs ever get planted. Must you constantly put the DICK in contradictory?
As long as you put the uhh.. I dunno. Reamwo in dreamworld. You posited that a civil war wouldn't feature conventional operations and I agreed with you stating that our military had been practicing unconventional counter insurgency warfare for close to a decade. Pretending like the military institutions would somehow not decide the fate of an american civil war is paramount to hallucinogenic idiocy.
Kilkrazy wrote:This was tried in 1861-5 with results that were not necessarily strongly in favour of the States' Rights supporters.
Ah yes, but this time the liberals in north that generate the vast majority of wealth for the country will cut the southerners loose without a fight. Biggest mistake in U.S. history was waging a war to keep rednecks part of the country.
QFT. Give them 5 years alone with a poor economy, sweet tea, fried everything, and a lot of guns....they'll be begging to come back into the Union.
Mmm, the Southern economy is stronger. You get to keep California and Michigan. We keep the refineries...
Texas, yes. The deep south? No.
I lived in Charleston, SC from when the economy first tanked, until recently. Between the massive unemployment there...and the social backwardness...zero fun.
As an addendum: the federal government gives a LOT of money to projects/bases in the South. Military, and not...without those, the situation below the Mason-Dixon would be far worse.
Some things you all are forgetting. While it is true that the heavy tanks are made in Michigan we make the high tech fighter jets in the south. And the Naval shipyards are in both the North east(Maine) and South(Virginia).
So we could just send our F-22's and JSF's to take out your Abrams and ships!!
Yeah, see that girl on the right? That's why the left wing will always be the best. Our women our so much hotter.
Meanwhile, every political group has it's wingnut fringe, which is why the 'look at this crazy he makes your whole political faction illegitimate' is a losing game - the other mob will just go and find some of your crazies. The issue of substance is whether the core of a movement is crazy. That's a pretty solid charge to level at the Tea Party.
I really hope the gop stops straying into the extremism side, I used to like McCain he was one of the few senators that was more then willing to reach across party line but now he said he was never a maverick, what the hell.
He's one of yours. Keep it real for 5 minutes out of your entire day and admit it. You can do it.
Your list of "hot" conservative women wins the point for the liberals. Talk about a motley crew of old women, "not it" girls and "never was it" girls. Coulter lives in a stable next to Sarah Jessica Parker.
It was posted in December of 2009, might not know when the picture was taken but it had to have been taken sometime before that.
Oh... so until the official "Crash the Tea Party" web site launched no one tried discrediting the tea party goers?
That's a bit naive, don't you think?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Yeah, see that girl on the right? That's why the left wing will always be the best. Our women our so much hotter.
That's not a woman... that's a girl.
These are women!
And so are these:
The Conservative Women fail utterly! Most of them are ugly as all hell! Laura Bush....???
As a plus to the "Hot Liberal side"....I'm going to play the "Most of Hollywood" card. Che-Vito +1
I dont think that photo comparison was very fair, but to tell you the truth, all those conservative 'hotties' kind of look like plastic barbie dolls with way too much hair maintenance going on. Not hot. Gimme a chick in a leather 'misfits' jacket with a mohawk and a sports bra going to a protest any day.
Something tells me those leather-clad rock women don't vote republican...
Hey if you like frumpy soccer moms and ogres (that's what I call the morbidly obese ladies out here in the country with 5 snot nosed kids and a plastic jesus on their dashboard, you run into them at walmarts across small towns everywhere, they vote republican because they love Jesus, hate black people, or something like that) then I guess we just have differences of opinion of what constitutes 'hot'.
Hey if you like frumpy soccer moms and ogres (that's what I call the morbidly obese ladies out here in the country with 5 snot nosed kids and a plastic jesus on their dashboard, you run into them at walmarts across small towns everywhere, they vote republican because they love Jesus, hate black people, or something like that) then I guess we just have differences of opinion of what constitutes 'hot'.
That post had so much FAIL it curved in on itself to be some sort of evil WIN.
I'd bet good money you haven't even graduated high school yet.
EDIT: Re-opened.
I cleared the offending passages. Lets move forward in a positive manner and remember Dakka RUle #1. We almost had a member permanently banned just now.
Frazzled wrote:EDIT: Re-opened. I cleared the offending passages. Lets move forward in a positive manner and remember Dakka RUle #1. We almost had a member permanently banned just now.
And to think; I would have gotten so much more work done!. I fail to see the difference in what I said and your direct implication that someone hasn't finished highschool yet. Both seem somewhat offensive. Is it ok to break the rules when we post pictures from DS9?
Close to what? Saying the same things you do daily? There's a pretty vicious double standard there.
Damn, I was hoping to read said post before it got deleted.
You actually didn't miss much. I didn't see what GGs response was, but my comment at least was pretty tame. Hence my confusion over frazzelds double standard here. He's like a parent that swears all the time then tries to tell his kids the words are bad.
One states their belief that a high school education has not been receieved yet. the other states that a fewllow poster likely failed several classes. Lets move on now before I change my mind.
Frazzled wrote:One states their belief that a high school education has not been receieved yet. the other states that a fewllow poster likely failed several classes. Lets move on now before I change my mind.
So you stated that someone not smart enough to have left highschool. I stated that someone did poorly in highschool. You imply that someone wasn't smart enough to have graduated yet and I implied the exact same thing. Neither one of us have a factual basis for the belief, and we both just used it as a form of insult and dismissal. We even used the same casual referral to highschool. Climb off your high horse Captain Sisko can clearly see this double standard, look at him.
Frazzled wrote:One states their belief that a high school education has not been receieved yet. the other states that a fewllow poster likely failed several classes. Lets move on now before I change my mind.
So you stated that someone not smart enough to have left highschool. I stated that someone did poorly in highschool. You imply that someone wasn't smart enough to have graduated yet and I implied the exact same thing. Neither one of us have a factual basis for the belief, and we both just used it as a form of insult and dismissal. We even used the same casual referral to highschool. Climb off your high horse Captain Sisko can clearly see this double standard, look at him.
He's staring at it.
Ya know, mostpeople haven't graduated high school because they aren't seniors yet? Do I really have to point these sorts of things out ?
THATS IT THE WEINER DOGS ARE COMING OUT!
Ya know, mostpeople haven't graduated high school because they aren't seniors yet? Do I really have to point these sorts of things out ?
Most people in the world or america? I'm pretty sure most american citizens have high school degrees or ged equivalents (most being 51%+). By that same "logic" most people fail courses that they are clearly bad at .
Well, I don't think my high school graduation status is really an issue here frazzled... Just a different taste in what constitutes 'hot' I suppose. I didn't take offense to what you said, I am proud to be an eternal child, and my gutterpunk background gives me different standards than the next guy I guess.
So anyhoo, someone can bring up that Leann Rimes is a conservative and someone else can say "yeah well the dixie chicks are liberal" and so on. We can go comparing celebrities forever but it is kind of not the point.
I thought before this whole thing got derailed into taste in women and high school kids (there are plenty of other websites for that) the conversation was something about what teapartiers hope to achieve with such a threat of an active anti-federal militia. They can't hope to actually win an armed conflict so what is the point? SHOUTING just to be heard.
I understand the frustration people have that they aren't really heard, and feel they are having their money taken in taxes and spent on things they don't want or need... but to put it in perspective, I DON'T HAVE KIDS SO I DON'T WANT TO PAY MY LOCAL TAXES FOR YOUR SNOT NOSED RUG RATS AND THEIR STUPID SCHOOL EITHER! AND I'M SHOUTING SO YOU HAVE TO LISTEN BECAUSE I HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR YOUR SCHOOLS! GOVERNMENT GET OUT OF MY LIFE!
Now of course I do pay my taxes, but that is the nature of taxes. Not everyone benefits specifically from every government program, but we all benefit as a whole and those in charge do their best to use our money wisely for the good of the population in general.
Opposing tax increase is a virtue of the shortsightedly selfish. Discussing how those taxes are used for the benefit of everyone who chips in, as best as possible, is a more sensible way of approaching it. I don't own a car, for instance, but I still pay just like everyone else for highway maintenance. Because it's a good thing to have highways even if I am not using them. No highways = no shipping = hunter gatherer local communities. See?
Same goes for health insurance, schools, military... none of which I need personally, but all of which I respect the value of a society's needs, and know that there are some things that benefit me out of it (I don't want you kids to be uneducated idiots for instance, because stupid kids bug the hell out of me).
Ya know, mostpeople haven't graduated high school because they aren't seniors yet? Do I really have to point these sorts of things out ?
Most people in the world or america? I'm pretty sure most american citizens have high school degrees or ged equivalents (most being 51%+). By that same "logic" most people fail courses that they are clearly bad at .
Guitardian wrote:Well, I don't think my high school graduation status is really an issue here frazzled... Just a different taste in what constitutes 'hot' I suppose. I didn't take offense to what you said, I am proud to be an eternal child, and my gutterpunk background gives me different standards than the next guy I guess.
I was hoping you had not graduated yet, and merely had no experience in life. Your blanket statements about Republicans, women, etc. etc. indicate limited experience.
Ya know, mostpeople haven't graduated high school because they aren't seniors yet? Do I really have to point these sorts of things out ?
Most people in the world or america? I'm pretty sure most american citizens have high school degrees or ged equivalents (most being 51%+). By that same "logic" most people fail courses that they are clearly bad at .
Would Shuma argue with a fence post?
You're the one threatening to ban me for doing something you did two posts earlier. Sorry for pointing out the double standard while you plug your ears and hum.
Guitardian wrote:Now of course I do pay my taxes, but that is the nature of taxes. Not everyone benefits specifically from every government program, but we all benefit as a whole and those in charge do their best to use our money wisely for the good of the population in general.
"From each according to their means; To each, according to their need"... where have I heard that before?
Guitardian wrote:Opposing tax increase is a virtue of the shortsightedly selfish. Discussing how those taxes are used for the benefit of everyone who chips in, as best as possible, is a more sensible way of approaching it.
I love they hypocrisy of how the people that are benefiting from the work of others call the workers names when they are asked to pull their own weight. The attempt to shift the argument from the morality of theft by government force to one of selfishness on the part of the person wanting to retain the fruits of their own labor is not missed.
OK, since you brought it up let's discuss how "everyone who chips in" really works. You have a tax system structured so that half of tax filers pay NOTHING into the system and the top 25% of filers pay 86% of the taxes collected.
Tell me again how everyone chips in as best they can? In reality you have half the population freeloading off the other half for those roads and government services.
The Green Git wrote:I love they hypocrisy of how the people that are benefiting from the work of others call the workers names when they are asked to pull their own weight. The attempt to shift the argument from the morality of theft by government force to one of selfishness on the part of the person wanting to retain the fruits of their own labor is not missed.
OK, since you brought it up let's discuss how "everyone who chips in" really works. You have a tax system structured so that half of tax filers pay NOTHING into the system and the top 25% of filers pay 86% of the taxes collected.
Tell me again how everyone chips in as best they can? In reality you have half the population freeloading off the other half for those roads and government services.
"From each according to their means; To each, according to their need"... where have I heard that before?
You do realize that in large part due to social reforms and government wealth redistribution the soviet union became one of the premiere industrial and scientific centers of power on the planet, and they did it damn fast. Chinas currently on the way to doing something similar though with an eye towards a sustainable economy the likes of which the soviets forgot to make. Oddly enough america didn't become an economic powerhouse until AFTER the depression and the new deal. It's as if your just blowing smoke around.
I love they hypocrisy of how the people that are benefiting from the work of others call the workers names when they are asked to pull their own weight. The attempt to shift the argument from the morality of theft by government force to one of selfishness on the part of the person wanting to retain the fruits of their own labor is not missed.
As soon as you start to make your money outside of a system that provides you significant benefits including fire safety, law enforcement, healthcare, national and criminal defense, courts, judges, business and scholastic regulations, roads, scientific advancements, infrastructural improvements and so on you get to bitch about getting your "money stolen".
OK, since you brought it up let's discuss how "everyone who chips in" really works. You have a tax system structured so that half of tax filers pay NOTHING into the system and the top 25% of filers pay 86% of the taxes collected.
Yes, and the bottom tax bracket also works significantly more hours per dollar per capita than the top. Capitalism isn't fair. Deal with it.
Tell me again how everyone chips in as best they can? In reality you have half the population freeloading off the other half for those roads and government services.
Yes and the top percentage that has the majority percentage of american wealth clearly worked so damn hard alone to get all that money. It's not like they surf on the backs of the poor freeloaders who spend their lives toiling so that big money pockets can retire to a 2 million dollar bonus.
The Green Git wrote:The attempt to shift the argument from the morality of theft by government force to one of selfishness on the part of the person wanting to retain the fruits of their own labor is not missed.
By equating taxation with theft you've already assumed a moral stance. If you were really interested in the issue of morality and the state, you would as the question "Is taxation tacit to theft?"
The Green Git wrote:
OK, since you brought it up let's discuss how "everyone who chips in" really works. You have a tax system structured so that half of tax filers pay NOTHING into the system and the top 25% of filers pay 86% of the taxes collected.
Does that fact represent a significant difference in terms of quality of life?
The Green Git wrote:
Tell me again how everyone chips in as best they can? In reality you have half the population freeloading off the other half for those roads and government services.
Raw percentages do not indicate that the argument you're attempting to criticize is invalid. It is entirely possible that the 53% of the nation that does not pay taxes cannot afford to do so in terms relevant to the living wage.
One of my philosophy professors and a poli-sci professor and I were at lunch together a while back, and the poli-sci guy said something along the lines of:
"taxes and social programs are just a bribe from the 'haves' to the 'have-nots' so the 'have-nots' are satisfied with their station and don't upset the system which lets the 'haves' 'have'."
something like that. Look what happened in Cuba... The poor people decided they no longer wanted to be poor people, since the system that made the rich people 'rich' was the same one that made them 'poor'. So they just TOOK what they wanted, and the rich were no longer rich, and an entire economic and political system reset itself and all those 'poor' rich people who got their property confiscated by communists. That's what happens when a government doesn't take care of its people.
Living in Oklahoma, the thing that just cracks me up is that we have socialized medicine in the InsureOklahoma debacle. Meanwhile, instead of looking in their own backyards to clean things up in the state to stop waste and abuse, these thinking-challenged individuals want to point fingers and actually sue the Federal Govt. Nevermind Oklahoma is one of the, if not the, poorest states in the country and nearly dead last in education spending and other things.
You're right, lets ignore how screwed up our state is and point fingers at the federal government, who gives us tons of money each year. Makes complete sense.
I think it was established in a supreme court case (I forget the name it was a long time ago) that you cannot actually sue the federal government, you can only petition it for repairations. Kind of makes sense, since they own the courts.
Guitardian wrote:I think it was established in a supreme court case (I forget the name it was a long time ago) that you cannot actually sue the federal government, you can only petition it for repairations. Kind of makes sense, since they own the courts.
You can sue them under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 346(b), 2671 - 2680. It's a stretch though.
Its flows from old English common law. You cannot sue the Crown, absent specific exemptions found in common law or permitted under statute (for example suing to protect one of your rights under the Bill of Rights). Spanish (read Napoleonic Code) law is actually similar.
The issue is Green git, People are too poor to pay taxes. all in the past decade, Everybody borrowed. People living in the suberbs were able to hid the dept rot for years, and people in inner-cities farm lands and old mill towns suffered badly. If 52% of people don't pay taxes, then the system in broken not the tax code. Poor people don't make enought to live, try living on 8$ an hour with a family) and CEOs make millions more than they should
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.
If everybody who worked got enough pay to live above poverty then they would be taxed.
Under ideal socialist conditions that pot smoking liberals want to live under a CEO would make the same income as a garbage collector.
That's great if you are the garbage collector but if you own a business that nets greater than $20,000 per year (or whatever a garbage collector in a large city makes) you will feel ripped off and less inclined to actually do your own thing and be your own boss as the incentive is not there.
Working as cashier at a gas station is not a glamorous job but if I was doing that and making the same income as a lawyer or a bank president I'd make good money but I'd also be on the side of the fence saying it's not right.
Capitalism is not perfect but it's far better than what socialism is. Maybe not all liberals are socialists but I've seen enough videos from DNC rallies that the majority thought is "socialism good, capitalism bad". Either the left are bigger idiots than they claim to be and don't actually know what true socialism is or they actually do know and want a true socialist government anyway.
Like it or not if it wasn't for capitalism your big-shot Berkeley grads wouldn't make the salaries they make because capitalism allows men like Matt Damon to get $20M for a movie. If he is so against capitalism he should start donating 80% of his income to charity (which I very much doubt he does).
Fateweaver wrote:
Under ideal socialist conditions that pot smoking liberals want to live under a CEO would make the same income as a garbage collector.
There is no single, ideal, socialist world. If you put three socialists in a room, and ask them to describe their utopia, you'll get three different answers. About the only necessary point of agreement would relate to the maintenance of equal opportunity, though the methods by which that might be achieved will vary a great deal. Socialism and Capitalism aren't as far apart as some people believe, in general they have similar goals and differing methodologies.
Fateweaver wrote:
That's great if you are the garbage collector but if you own a business that nets greater than $20,000 per year (or whatever a garbage collector in a large city makes) you will feel ripped off and less inclined to actually do your own thing and be your own boss as the incentive is not there.
That depends on several factors, including, but not limited to: the extent to which you believe you deserve more money than a garbage collector, the difficulty of your job, the degree to which you enjoy your job, and the social expectations surrounding work as a whole.
Fateweaver wrote:
...don't actually know what true socialism is or they actually do know and want a true socialist government anyway.
I've seen enough DNC rally videos to see that most, admittedly, pothead lefties think that capitalism should be axed and that socialism should be the NWO and that everyone should be equal as far as pay.
While I may not find it fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire 59 times over (his net worth last year) because my IQ is probably as great as his and I'm probably as educated with computers as he is does not mean that I should make as much as he does answering the phone as a tech support guy when he built M$ from the ground up and I'm just a peon who answers questions asked by idiots who can't turn the power on.
If I felt my hourly wage was too low I'd ask for a raise but I sure as hell don't believe, and I know I don't speak for everyone, that I'm worth as much as Bill Gates.
People with entitlement issues feel that way and from what I've seen most of the entitlement mongers are liberals.
People with entitlement issues feel that way and from what I've seen most of the entitlement mongers are liberals.
I'd disagree with that. Most entitlement mongers are narcissists, but not necessarily all liberals. I've plenty of repugs, teabaggers, and commie pinkoes who were entitlement monkeys, including a millionaire. but i've seen the reverse as well.
Where would all the real-estate moguls be without farmers? Oh yeah... starving. Ask what is important, what NEEDS to be done factored in with how difficult it is to do, and I think you'll get a happy medium between socialism and capitalism. I got paid 10 bucks an hour to slave away in the hot sun building a house that sold for 1.3 million dollars to some guy who buys and sells stocks for his own gigantic profit margin so his spoiled kids can each have their own private bathroom when they come home from spring break before going back to 'business' school. Who was doing something constructive and who was just playing the system? I think that is an analogy to the common view of people who want a more 'socialist' system and the way they view 'capitalism'. "We work harder at crummier jobs while you rake it in and look down on us... but you still need to eat cappie, and you still need a place to live... etc... and that's why we are valuable, because we actually do the work that you feel is above you." I've met many co-workers in former shitjobs who feel like that.
Fateweaver wrote:I've seen enough DNC rally videos to see that most, admittedly, pothead lefties think that capitalism should be axed and that socialism should be the NWO and that everyone should be equal as far as pay.
Does that mean that all the Tea Party rally videos I've seen accurately describe the opinions of all small government conservatives? And that those Tea Party protesters who chanted the N-Bomb in the direction of certain black, democratic Congressmen indicate that all small government conservatives are racist?
Fateweaver wrote:
People with entitlement issues feel that way and from what I've seen most of the entitlement mongers are liberals.
Many of the arguments for a flat tax turn on the entitlement to fairness in an unfair system. Similarly, there are many argument from dessert with respect to wages which devolve into an overzealous belief in individual entitlement. Of course, that isn't always the case.
While I may not find it fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire 59 times over (his net worth last year) because my IQ is probably as great as his and I'm probably as educated with computers as he is
While I may not find it fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire 59 times over (his net worth last year) because my IQ is probably as great as his and I'm probably as educated with computers as he is
Are you trying to be funny Shuma? Because you suck at it. There are many people in this world who are far smarter than Bill Gates, Bill just knew how to use his.
Fateweaver you are taking me waaay out of contex. Try to look at it from another poit of view.
Bush pushed the bail outs. Both sides agreed it was the right thing to do at the time.
Then as the country got angeru at wall street for taking the bail out as they paied thier CEOs huge million dollar bonuses. "Remeber Where is Main streets bailout?"
The Irony is, you are now defending the same CEOs who were bailed out and trash the Main street bail out like unemployment and food stamps.
Next, nowhere did I say everybody should be paid the same amount. I said if 52% of people don't make enough to pay taxs something is wrong. Taxing to poor won't get you much money and goes against the conservative line of lower taxes. Two things must happen. either wages must go up enough for poor people to live or the cost of living must go down.
I do not think yu have a grasp of how bad things can get, Here is how the cost of living cab break down.
You need a place to stay, unless you live in the Ghetto you are spendin 600+. Own a house? 1000+
Car? 250$ a month ad 100 for full coverage insurance. Lets not talk about tag fees and upkeep. gas is about 3.00$ a gallion
Electric water and heating is about 200$ (this is very low)
phone is 50$ (no internet or cable)
food is 100$ a week for an average family
health/dental 125$ for a family
now try to spread 8$ an hour over that. you cant, so you have to take a second morgage, or get a payday love or title loan.
Then your car lease ballons, your car lease does likewise.
Joined: 2009/06/03 03:11:58 AM Online
ShumaGorath wrote:
While I may not find it fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire 59 times over (his net worth last year) because my IQ is probably as great as his and I'm probably as educated with computers as he is
Are you trying to be funny Shuma? Because you suck at it. There are many people in this world who are far smarter than Bill Gates, Bill just knew how to use his.
-------
(sawree still trying to figure out the whole 'quote' thing, and not really caring enough to investigate further.)
so anyhooz...
(I think he's good at it, but maybe that's because I have no value ascribed to comparative I.Q. testing, especially by modern standards.)
Sorry the facebook ap IQ test doesn't count (by that standard I have 181! bigger than Einstein! oh.. wait I read it upside-down.. oh yeah... 181...), and Bill Gates wasn't a genius, he was just smart about how he played a market. Windows still sucks and everyone knows it, but uses it anyways because everyone else does. Quit picking on Shuma.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do like the rundown sexy_hero had on this. There's the reason why people don't like paying taxes. It is kind of circular to be charging me 2 bucks out of every 8 that I make per hour, without some kind of comeback. That's why I think social programs are necessary. I'm not proporting that the playing field should be totally leveled, but that government handouts for the poor should be no less frowned upon than government bailouts for the, shall we say, not-so-poor.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:There are many people in this world who are far smarter than Bill Gates, Bill just knew how to use his.
There have been many studies into Bill Gates' intelligence. Most of them using correlative results to produce an IQ score, as Bill Gates has never taken a legitimate IQ test. The highest number ever offered was 178, which would be absurd, if true, as a genius level IQ is considered to be anything above 140.
That being said, IQ scores are better considered in term of phyla. It isn't like anyone will notice the difference between a 90 and a 100, or a 130 and a 140 in general parlance.
The highest IQ ever recorded was 210, owned by Kim Ung-Yong.
To quote, you just do this, but while removing the #:
[qu#ote]What you want to be quoted.[/qu#ote] or [qu#ote=Name of Person]What you want to be quoted.[/qu#ote]
I'll just chime in to say that most taxes are shiftable; just because billionaire Billy needs to write a check to the government doesn't mean it's all his money going into it. An employer is going to want to respond to a tax increase by lowering the wages of his employees. Those employees may look for work elsewhere, but if every employer is being taxed they'll all be doing the same thing anyhow. The actual amount of taxes payed by the employer will depend on how much leverage he has in contrast to his employees. Thus, much of the 52% who don't pay any taxes directly probably do foot some of the bill, but likewise it's not a good idea to assume that just because a tax increase is being levied on the rich it will leave everyone else unaffected (which is not to say the tax increase may not still be of net benefit to the poor, as this obviously depends on what the money is spent on).
Poor people don't pay as much tax because they don't reap the benefits of the system they would be paying to support. Rich people like Bill Gates have a more real interest in maintaining things the way they are. So they pay the taxes for that maintenance.
On a brighter note: Teabaggers smell funny. No, seriously...I met one today. It reminded me of the last time that I was caught in a Waffle House in southern West Virginia at 2 am. Not only did it lead me to question the bathing habits of the person that I was talking to, but I was also unswervingly sure that they had been making $8 an hour for the past 15 years.
On a realistic note: The Tea Party is quickly becoming the socially acceptable form of joining the KKK
On another brighter note: Ron Paul for President!
On a final note: take all of the above into consideration with several grains of morphine and sarcasm.
No they're just underground racists who hate everything Obama does and bring guns to presidential speeches, is that it? I think it must go deeper than that culturally.
I'm SURE there's no racist animosity existant there. For a bunch of gun owning crap talking angry patriots, at least they could show some balls and say what's really on their minds... but that wouldn't be politically savvy now would it? They want to yell like they have the big nads, but it still just looks like angry dumb mob to me puffing its chest but getting nothing done. But that's all of politics I guess. What is more disturbing is some of the reasons behind some of these people's actions.
They never said anything OVERTLY KKKish. Just the disguised hint and knowing nods and smiles that other cowards just like them can nod and smile back at as they finger the safety on their M-16. So the KKK evolved... into this? Guns at political speeches? Angry mob violence against gay marriage laws passing or failing? accusations of Obama being a 'white-hater'? or mexican immigrants taking the job that you just didn't want to work anyways that's why it was available? AND THEN having people to listen to Palin babble about how her kids love their guns, as icing on the cake... I wouldn't be surprised if the roots are, if not directly related, at least intertwined. It takes the finest of people to make a revolution, dunnit?
Fateweaver wrote:I've seen enough DNC rally videos to see that most, admittedly, pothead lefties think that capitalism should be axed and that socialism should be the NWO and that everyone should be equal as far as pay.
While I may not find it fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire 59 times over (his net worth last year) because my IQ is probably as great as his and I'm probably as educated with computers as he is does not mean that I should make as much as he does answering the phone as a tech support guy when he built M$ from the ground up and I'm just a peon who answers questions asked by idiots who can't turn the power on.
If I felt my hourly wage was too low I'd ask for a raise but I sure as hell don't believe, and I know I don't speak for everyone, that I'm worth as much as Bill Gates.
People with entitlement issues feel that way and from what I've seen most of the entitlement mongers are liberals.
As you are someone who benefits personally from a social program, you amuse me endless with your rants against socialism.
sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.
Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.
No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Dog thinks your are benevolent for giving it something, you think dog is dumb enough to dupe it like that. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.
sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.
Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.
No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.
I'm fairly certain social programs didn't arise due to fear of revolt but are rather simply the macro effect of standard practices in human societies throughout history. Humans have always engaged in socialized communal wellfare it's part of forming societies.
Then why this "I've got mine..." sort of attitude towards Health Care? (as evident in the recent senatorial seat turnover in a state where they already have state funded health care, not wanting it going federal....)
Guitardian wrote:Then why this "I've got mine..." sort of attitude towards Health Care? (as evident in the recent senatorial seat turnover in a state where they already have state funded health care, not wanting it going federal....)
Disinformation, the general ignorance of the american people, local political issues, a purveying sense of entitlement and the greed of other states, etc. You want me to give you a one word synopsis summing the psychology of probably millions of unnamed people in nebulous groups that you haven't really strongly outlined?
A very good point sir. Really the whole Tea Party thing just seems to me like a lot of people who really don't own guns for their protection, so much as just because they can, and want everyone to know it. I simply don't think the feds take their little threat very seriously though. Sorry Oklahoma, feds:1 nra:0 in this case.
Guitardian wrote:A very good point sir. Really the whole Tea Party thing just seems to me like a lot of people who really don't own guns for their protection, so much as just because they can, and want everyone to know it. I simply don't think the feds take their little threat very seriously though. Sorry Oklahoma, feds:1 nra:0 in this case.
The tea parties aren't really a gun focused group, I think your lumping them in with the forming militias. The tea parties are largely either A. racist, B. virulently anti socialist, or C. Small government conservatives. Unfortunately like with most protests the well reasoned individuals are outnumbered greatly by the fringes with no jobs and way too much time on their hands. The tea parties are largely populated by idiots but then so is code pink and the g20 protests. Protests in general are reactionary and reactionary people are generally morons.
sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.
Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.
No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Dog thinks your are benevolent for giving it something, you think dog is dumb enough to dupe it like that. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.
Which is not exactly what I meant.
It's not exactly true though an much greater nuance can be used, but what it works out to is simple.
By a minor redistribution you can prevent popular uprising, by preventing the masses from becoming too disenfranchised. The bribe is not the bone but the prospect that meat may someday be obtained, by being good and obeying the social order. It's about keeping the dream alive.
But ultimately when you really examine the first social programs you tend to discover that their writers were strong Christians who really believed God wanted the Socail betterment of the underclass. Ironic in today's context.
sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.
Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.
No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Dog thinks your are benevolent for giving it something, you think dog is dumb enough to dupe it like that. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.
Which is not exactly what I meant.
It's not exactly true though an much greater nuance can be used, but what it works out to is simple.
By a minor redistribution you can prevent popular uprising, by preventing the masses from becoming too disenfranchised. The bribe is not the bone but the prospect that meat may someday be obtained, by being good and obeying the social order. It's about keeping the dream alive.
But ultimately when you really examine the first social programs you tend to discover that their writers were strong Christians who really believed God wanted the Socail betterment of the underclass. Ironic in today's context.
That sounds less like a reasoned and nuanced position and more like a pessimistic view of current economic and social underpinnings.
Personally, I don't care if it was self-proclaimed 'Christians' or not. WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners. Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.
Guitardian wrote:Personally, I don't care if it was self-proclaimed 'Christians' or not. WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners. Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.
and they require abortion concessions in order to pass the bill too... talk about facepalm when I found that out. GO CHRIST GO! CHRISTIAN INFERNO......
Guitardian wrote:and they require abortion concessions in order to pass the bill too... talk about facepalm when I found that out. GO CHRIST GO! CHRISTIAN INFERNO......
(um I believe it's fairly obvious what it was directed towards. The fact that our imaginary friend still dictates the common sense of these delusional mobs...)
Guitardian wrote:(um I believe it's fairly obvious what it was directed towards. The fact that our imaginary friend still dictates the common sense of these delusional mobs...)
Guitardian wrote:WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners.
This has nothing to do with anythign in this thread.
Guitardian wrote:
Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.
Sure it can. Its something which easily disposes itself to moral reasoning. That's generally what motivates social movements.
I don't know why you would ever think that religion is incapable of motivating social change; especially given that its done it many times before.
Oh. sorry Shuma. yeah it was directed at the above post to mine that made a point of how the origional laws were written by good christians with good intentions. Well times change and that's just another political party as far as I can tell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Guitardian wrote:WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners.
This has nothing to do with anythign in this thread.
Guitardian wrote:
Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.
Sure it can. Its something which easily disposes itself to moral reasoning. That's generally what motivates social movements.
I don't know why you would ever think that religion is incapable of motivating social change; especially given that its done it many times before.
Guitardian wrote:WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners.
This has nothing to do with anythign in this thread.
neither did my high school status but nobody seemed to object to that derailment. Oh yeah wait someone did, and got threatened to be banned for it.
Oh, you were making a qualitative judgment. You should refrain from referencing possibility when you really mean to indicate desirability. It makes it look as if you don't understand the language you're using.
That sounds less like a reasoned and nuanced position and more like a pessimistic view of current economic and social underpinnings.
In what way Shuma? It's what happened. All the major Western country's including the United States adopted some social programs in the years that followed the Russian Revolution, in the same way that democracy spread in the wake of both the American and French Revolutions. Social order is maintained by watching the trends and hijacking them when required to insure the continuity of social order. When you see a good example of a failure to act beside you you make the changes required to ensure survival.
It's not pessimism, it's realism. Social programs are a tool, in the same way that the police or military are too ensure that the social order which most people are comfortable with survives and grows. When something happens that disturbs that order things that are not to anyone's advantage can occur.
Remember talking about the dog in the earlier post. What happens when you take a starving dog's bone? Even a tiny dog might try to bite. Now you can alleviate that behavior in a dog by training and that will work even in the context of the great unwashed masses. They can be trained to accept that they don't deserve the bone. It's why you have a percentage of tea partiers who are opposed to a program that would obviously benefit them. Here's the thing though the more dogs whose bones you try to take the more chance there is of them biting you, and the more dogs there are biting the better chance that they might not stop (even Frazz's wiener dogs)... Thus it is that social programs bring a net positive benefit to society, as they act as a stabilizing factor. They ensure that the people have the basic requirements, though just enough to ensure that they remain a little hungry. This is good though from the perspective of social order, as it gives them hopes and dreams, within the established system... because if they start looking outside that system they may just decide to try something different.
Thus it is that social programs bring a net positive benefit to society, as they act as a stabilizing factor. They ensure that the people have the basic requirements, though just enough to ensure that they remain a little hungry. This is good though from the perspective of social order, as it gives them hopes and dreams, within the established system... because if they start looking outside that system they may just decide to try something different.
This is the part. The part that makes it sound like there's some sort of dynastic power system intentionally toeing the line between anarchy and actual achieveable social utopia in order to maintain power and avoid the outward looking populace. We don't really have any vampire overlord monoliths keeping us just above the poverty line in order to keep us occupied with something other than summoning fourth dimensional beings from beyond the walls with our collective malaise. You take a rather simple issue, that being the difficulty in maintaining order and prosperity in a nation state and go all glen beck on us by connecting some weird dots and coming to the conclusion that we could be doing better but our shadowmasters don't want that because we might develop psychic powers or something if we were to have a lot of free time.
ShumaGorath wrote:
This is the part. The part that makes it sound like there's some sort of dynastic power system intentionally toeing the line between anarchy and actual achieveable social utopia in order to maintain power and avoid the outward looking populace. We don't really have any vampire overlord monoliths keeping us just above the poverty line in order to keep us occupied with something other than summoning fourth dimensional beings from beyond the walls with our collective malaise. You take a rather simple issue, that being the difficulty in maintaining order and prosperity in a nation state and go all glen beck on us by connecting some weird dots and coming to the conclusion that we could be doing better but our shadowmasters don't want that because we might develop psychic powers or something if we were to have a lot of free time.
No. That's what you're perspective (and desires) does to you. It's not a dynastic system, it's a chaotic system. But any system will work with balance and counterbalance to try and survive. Think of it as a top if you'd rather then use the dog analogy. Too much weight on the bottom, the top stops spinning. Too much weight on the top the top stops spinning. Societies constantly struggle to maintain that balance. No evil overlords or anything complicated (indeed evil overlords tend shift stuff to the bottom to such an extent that the system stops working).
There are no shadowmasters (though I'm sure there are people trying to be so). Just people mostly with good intentions trying to maintain that balance.
The majority of the people at the top like their comforts and don't want to lose them. Social disorder will cause that to happen, so there are efforts to ensure that the social order is maintained. Social programs are one of the tools deployed to help maintain that order, and is no different then the police in the effort to ensure that the system continues to survive.
Do you think you could be doing better? I kinda think you do.
No. That's what you're perspective (and desires) does to you. It's not a dynastic system, it's a chaotic system. But any system will work with balance and counterbalance to try and survive. Think of it as a top if you'd rather then use the dog analogy. Too much weight on the bottom, the top stops spinning. Too much weight on the top the top stops spinning. Societies constantly struggle to maintain that balance. No evil overlords or anything complicated (indeed evil overlords tend shift stuff to the bottom to such an extent that the system stops working).
There are no shadowmasters (though I'm sure there are people trying to be so). Just people mostly with good intentions trying to maintain that balance.
The majority of the people at the top like their comforts and don't want to lose them. Social disorder will cause that to happen, so there are efforts to ensure that the social order is maintained. Social programs are one of the tools deployed to help maintain that order, and is no different then the police in the effort to ensure that the system continues to survive.
Do you think you could be doing better? I kinda think you do.
You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.
Do you think you could be doing better? I kinda think you do.
Doing better than what? Nothing in these statements is qualified. It's all adjectives and no nouns.
You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.
.
It doesn't prevent progress Shuma unless you consider anarchy a form of positive progress. Human societies do historically try (and generally fail) to avoid collapse. It is an inherent human social trait to try to ensure the survival of the community. That's why you thought I was being Glen Beck crazy, but I really don't feel I am. Conservatism is not an inherently bad trait in a measured amount. Neither is liberalism. Too much of either is ultimately destructive, and that is what societies of all sizes attempt to avoid.
It's about trying to maintain balance (which is where my poorly worded top analogy came from ).
You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.
.
It doesn't prevent progress Shuma unless you consider anarchy a form of positive progress. Human societies do historically try (and generally fail) to avoid collapse. It is an inherent human social trait to try to ensure the survival of the community. That's why you thought I was being Glen Beck crazy, but I really don't feel I am. Conservatism is not an inherently bad trait in a measured amount. Neither is liberalism. Too much of either is ultimately destructive, and that is what societies of all sizes attempt to avoid.
It's about trying to maintain balance (which is where my poorly worded top analogy came from ).
I think I thought you were crazy because of all the poorly worded analogies, not because of the implications those analogies make. You still haven't elucidated a very clear point.
hmm... I just thought you were crazy because you are crazy =P ... (that was crazy-guy-drool...)
now enough of the silliness: 'anarchy' and 'utopia' are not foreign to each other, just scary in how similar they are. They could match fine. The idea being that human intentions are towards both ends. Complete freedom = completely benevolent society; which in turn makes possible complete freedom. So anarchy and utopia are very related as far as I see it.
You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.
.
It doesn't prevent progress Shuma unless you consider anarchy a form of positive progress. Human societies do historically try (and generally fail) to avoid collapse. It is an inherent human social trait to try to ensure the survival of the community. That's why you thought I was being Glen Beck crazy, but I really don't feel I am. Conservatism is not an inherently bad trait in a measured amount. Neither is liberalism. Too much of either is ultimately destructive, and that is what societies of all sizes attempt to avoid.
It's about trying to maintain balance (which is where my poorly worded top analogy came from ).
I think I thought you were crazy because of all the poorly worded analogies, not because of the implications those analogies make. You still haven't elucidated a very clear point.
1. Society is unstable.
2. Social controls are imposed to try and stabilize society. These include both Social programs and enforcement programs, as well as non-governmental institutions including religion, and the media.
3. The people who impose the social controls do so out of a combination of both personal interest and desire to reach their utopia (which may not be the same for next person or persons).
4. There are two major forces in any society- one conservative in nature which tries to prevent or reduce change, one which is change orientated in nature.
5. Those two major forces are complicated by secondary sets of factors. Poverty and wealth. The more poverty that there is the more people who might benefit from a change in social structure. Historically a change in social structures is rarely good for the wealthy so the wealthy have an inherent tendency towards wanting to reduce the risk of change. The wealthy historically (and to some extent today) do control the great majority of the social controls.
It's not about trying to prevent anyone from creating a utopia it's about trying to avoid a revolution which is rarely desirable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:hmm... I just thought you were crazy because you are crazy =P ... (that was crazy-guy-drool...)
now enough of the silliness: 'anarchy' and 'utopia' are not foreign to each other, just scary in how similar they are. They could match fine. The idea being that human intentions are towards both ends. Complete freedom = completely benevolent society; which in turn makes possible complete freedom. So anarchy and utopia are very related as far as I see it.
Guitardian wrote:...just scary in how similar they are. They could match fine.
If thing A could align with thing B, then thing A cannot be similar to thing B. In order for two things to be considered similar they must hold in common at least some necessary properties. As anarchy is a political model, at least in the sense you're using it, and Utopia is an expression of an ideal type, there is not necessary overlap.
Anarchy could be considered to be a component of a sort of Utopia, because any sort of political model could be considered to be a component of a sort of Utopia. However, anarchy is not tacit to Utopia as there is no reason to presume that the absence of a commanding authority is a prerequisite for an ideal society.
I think it is a backwards applied implication. Anarchy is not necessary for a utopian society, just that it becomes a sort of natural state to a utopian society. If it is utopian, then, law is rendered obselete by mutual agreement of what is 'right'. Law would be unnecessary in a utopian society. Absence of law is anarchy. Anarchy doesn't create a utopia as of itself, but a utopian society would naturally not give a crap about laws since it would be obselete if everyone was just cool with each other and caring and loving... that is where you get the idea of utopian anarchy.
Guitardian wrote:If it is utopian, then, law is rendered obselete by mutual agreement of what is 'right'.
Not necessarily. There are no rules that govern what is required with respect to any sort of ideal type. Short of those restrictions which are contextually definitive.
Guitardian wrote:
Law would be unnecessary in a utopian society.
Yes, that's true. However, there is no reason that the law need not exist, either.
Guitardian wrote:
Absence of law is anarchy. Anarchy doesn't create a utopia as of itself, but a utopian society would naturally not give a crap about laws since it would be obselete if everyone was just cool with each other and caring and loving... that is where you get the idea of utopian anarchy.
Social conventions through acceptance can be considered a form of natural law, thereby negating your conclusion.
Guitardian wrote:No they're just underground racists who hate everything Obama does and bring guns to presidential speeches, is that it? I think it must go deeper than that culturally.
This is what bothers me. If someone is not a socialist and actively participates in the democratic process by campaining against such programs, somehow they are racists. This is like saying every liberal is a commie. When people make statements like this , it completely discredits their point, but effective slander campains are rarely credible. They rely upon an unquestioning knee-jerk reaction, which unfortunately, too many people are willing to oblige the muck-slingers with.
In this thread, I've seen just about every form of negative stereo-type about the south. The attempts to pass off these cultural myth's as hard fact by some whom have obviously never traveled and others readiness to accept such nonsense is deppressing. The statistics that have been bandied about just prove the old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Seriously, I am astounded at the lack of thorough research and inability of some to recognize when they are using a double standard to bash another group.
Both sides have engaged in this behavior, which only proves that there really is not much of a difference between each side. Sadly, this similarity means that we as a people will continue to argue while our national ship does the ol' Titanic.
The point I'm getting to, is that across the US we are the same. We clique off into the same groups and do mostly the same things. We even engage in good natured geo-centric rivalry and teasing. It is when we start believing these jest and jokes that it becomes a problem. Here is something to think about when attempting to engage in the myth's of superior culture:
In 1970, Texas population was 9 million
In 1980, Texas population was 18 million, despite having an average of 2.2 kids per househols that was in line with the national average.
In 1990, Texas population reached 20-21 million
In 2000, Texas population was over 25 million.
The prinary reason for Texas's population growth was not the nearly stagnate birth rate but rather people migrating in from other areas. On the 1970's the largest percentage of population growth came from California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, New york, Massachusettes,band Mexico(Not necessarily in that order) Currently, a very large portion of this states population is not native and the same goes for many other states.
Now, I expect someone to cone along and tear this post's grammar and spelling apart in order to lighten the mood and to discredit what I'm saying. To that I say, have fun. Later
P.S.- Guitardian, this was not intended as a slam against you. Your post just happened to be convenient.
no slam intended. no slam taken. I don't think it has so much to do with a 'native northern' or 'native southern' perspective. But to put it in perspective, you don't see gun-toters at protests in NYC, only terrorist attacks. Somewhere out in the boonies however... (which is the point I was trying to make earlier about city versus country) you might just get that crazy militia movement with poorly informed members just wanting to be heard about islamic kenyan presidents who kill grandma or other such nonsense. You rarely see such behavior in more populated areas. Reason being? Oh yeah, they aren't wilfully ignorant.
Guitardian wrote:You rarely see such behavior in more populated areas. Reason being? Oh yeah, they aren't wilfully ignorant.
Uh, what? I take it you've never had a conversation with impoverished city dwellers regarding the classist/racist/corporatist conspiracy that actively works to insure the continuation of their impoverished status.
Oh yes indeed I have and I agree that they are willfully ignorant too (I live near Detroit, trust me I know) and all the nonsense about "the white man keeping us down" and so on... however, you can't get away with toting guns around in large groups in a densely populated area. That's why militias always seem to form out in the sticks, instead of at the corner of 183rd street. There are willfully ignorant people everywhere. Out in the country they can get away with becoming an armed mob much more easily.
Guitardian wrote:Oh yes indeed I have and I agree that they are willfully ignorant too (I live near Detroit, trust me I know) and all the nonsense about "the white man keeping us down" and so on... however, you can't get away with toting guns around in large groups in a densely populated area. That's why militias always seem to form out in the sticks, instead of at the corner of 183rd street. There are willfully ignorant people everywhere. Out in the country they can get away with becoming an armed mob much more easily.
Because protecting the Constitution is willfully ignorant?
You must live in a gakky city if you aren't allowed to form a mob of armed civilians in a peaceful protest. I did just say peaceful protest, as yes you do have to have permission from the city to protest. Where I'm at, so long as you aren't on Federal property when you protest every man, woman and child can have a gun.
Fateweaver wrote:Under ideal socialist conditions that pot smoking liberals want to live under a CEO would make the same income as a garbage collector.
You should try reading. Even at its most extreme the USSR had significantly different wages for farm hands and doctors.
What you've said is utter gibberish, and until you start actually reading about what socialism means you'll do nothing but rail against a strawman and make youself look silly.
Capitalism is not perfect but it's far better than what socialism is.
It isn't an either/or situation, you can choose a hybrid system taking on elements of each. I would argue this is a popular option that needs to be considered, given that it's been accepted by every single developed nation on Earth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:I've seen enough DNC rally videos to see that most, admittedly, pothead lefties think that capitalism should be axed and that socialism should be the NWO and that everyone should be equal as far as pay.
The presence of left wingers with hopelessly simplistic worldviews does not excuse you taking an equally simplistic opposing view.
Well, I'm all for the belief that our country was founded as a Democratic Republic, protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Socialism, no matter what parts of it you pick and choose, flies in the face of those 2 documents.
That's why the Tea Party and Conservatives are against most socialist ideals. It's not what this country was founded on or based on.
You can argue for it's merits all day long but you won't change the minds of people who are against it for all the reasons listed above.
Our government is too powerful. It's not just PresO pushing the boundries of what the Constitution grants the Fed. Government in power. Bush did it too (yes I did just say that), Clinton did it but Obamanation is trying to increase it's power and influence and that's what the Tea Party people are against.
They aren't gun-toting anti-government. They are gun-toting, federal government needs to keep itself in check because it's too intrusive, too powerful, protectors of the founding principals.
The 1st Amendment, no thanks to Liberals and their forcing political correctiveness down our throats, has more or less been eliminated. Before Obama is out of office in 2 years he'll try doing something as President to feth with the 2nd Amendment as well (he said so himself last year, it just wasn't on his agenda for his first year in office).
So hell, lets let the liberal left and especially actors in Hollywood change the rest of the Constitution to be more "with the times". That would make this country so great, wouldn't it? Make the Constitution politically correct. Awesome.
efarrer wrote:In what way Shuma? It's what happened. All the major Western country's including the United States adopted some social programs in the years that followed the Russian Revolution, in the same way that democracy spread in the wake of both the American and French Revolutions. Social order is maintained by watching the trends and hijacking them when required to insure the continuity of social order. When you see a good example of a failure to act beside you you make the changes required to ensure survival.
Social programs in a substantial, uniform sense were first initiated in the 19th Century, such as the UK's New Poor Law, or Germany's Health Insurance Bill. I don't think there was any meaningful spike following the Russian Revolution, and if one was to exist I would think the wake of WWI would be a bigger contributor.
Meanwhile the argument of social policy as a means to keep control reminds me of the story of two committed communists walking down the street who come across a beggar, so the first goes to give him some change. 'No brother!' yells the second, 'you'll delay the revolution!'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:Well, I'm all for the belief that our country was founded as a Democratic Republic, protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Socialism, no matter what parts of it you pick and choose, flies in the face of those 2 documents.
That's why the Tea Party and Conservatives are against most socialist ideals. It's not what this country was founded on or based on.
You're confusing Representative Democracry with economic structure. They're different.
You can argue for it's merits all day long but you won't change the minds of people who are against it for all the reasons listed above.
You're assuming that an argument's merit is defined by it's ability to convince some random person. An argument is based on facts and reason and stands on those grounds. Claiming it doesn't convince you and therefore isn't balanced is a fail.
Our government is too powerful. It's not just PresO pushing the boundries of what the Constitution grants the Fed. Government in power. Bush did it too (yes I did just say that), Clinton did it but Obamanation is trying to increase it's power and influence and that's what the Tea Party people are against.
I think that'd have a lot more validity if the Tea Partiers were out in force protesting the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, but they weren't. In fact they voted the dude back into office.
And yes, the silence among the left wing when Obama extends Bush policies such as the Patriot Act and Guantanamo is just as bad.
What exactly is the fed doing to these angry people? Yeah I said it too... Bush went over their heads and behind their backs for 8 years with his "I am the decider" thing and none of them reared their heads up to strike then. "obamanation" has been doing executive things that don't involve bombing the middle east with all the gun totin god fearin power that Bush displayed, but trying to make it possible for poor people to have some level of health care. Ummmm... priorities? Yes, he abuses his executive presidential power, but to what end? I would rather get fatass macdonalds dude some diabetes treatment than send a bomb to a bunch of peasant goat herders just cuz it makes me feel badass.
Automatically Appended Next Post: so why are all these anti-feds just stepping up now that Bush is gone? sounds like pussy talk to me. If they stepped up in the Bush administration, toting guns to political rallies... that would be a lot of work for the secret service and a lot of local jails crammed full of angry ignorant gun owners. They didn't step up then. Doesn't that say something about the Obama'nation that such behavior is even tolerated now (and made into a media circus)? Either they are too scared of the armed mob (doubtful), or they are just nodding and smiling and patting the kid on the head saying "sure that's fine, we just don't care because your gun doesn't really matter bud"
You overlook the fact that in ANY city in the US it is not illegal to have guns at protest rallies so long as you have the proper permits and are not on or in Federal property.
Bush admin wasn't trying to strip people of their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun toters are trying to prove to Obama and the DNC that those of us who love our Constitutional rights will do what we can, legally, to ensure the message gets across.
Nothing wrong with wanting people to have healthcare but health insurance is a privelage. You have the right to live but the right to live DOES NOT equal the right to health insurance.
Let's use the pro healthcare argument of "it ensures that someone can afford to pay their hospital bill if they get sick". Okay, that's all good. What happens though to the millions in this country who die every year for no apparent reason and never make it to the hospital? Like say a 23 yo track runner who one day collapses during a race because his heart exploded. He'll never see a hospital and unless he had a pre-existing condition (in which case he wouldn't even be allowed to run in track) never once used that healthcare that you and I are paying for. How then did healthcare benefit him? Or the 40yo out for a sunday drive gets t-boned by a tractor/trailer and is so mangled up that they can only identify that person through dental records. How again does forcing that person to buy health insurance benefit that person? They paid for something every month they never got a chance to use.
Bush never forced people to do anything. He didn't tell us we MUST install our own wiretaps in our phones, he didn't tell us we must all take up arms and go into Iraq with the military and fight over there. BushO never did anything to make the gun-toters angry because he didn't try ramming things down our throats.
The Tea Partiers have realized Obamanation HAS gone too far. Forcing us to do something that is a privilege first and foremost is stepping over the line. Living is a right. Social programs used to ensure the right to live are a privilege, not a right unto themselves. Driving is a privilege. Most peoples must have insurance but that is more to protect the other guy in case you get dumb behind the wheel. Health insurance is only there for YOU. If Jane Doe, your neighbor, falls and breaks her arm in her front yard it's not YOUR insurance paying for her medical care, it's on HER shoulders to pay the bill in that case.
So again. Tea Partiers are not Anti-government, gun-toting rednecks with little to no education. They KNOW what is in the Constitution, they know their Rights and they want them protected. Just because the leftists think the Constitution and the BoR are just pieces of paper written during a time when the US was different does not make them any less important in this day and age.
Kilkrazy wrote:The very fact that a government was set up to protect certain rights and ideals, is socialist.
The very idea that guns should be in the hands of the people instead of a special government elite, is socialist.
That's the most ignorant thing I've heard since I plonked Shuma.
Socialism is a political economic theory that seeks to redistribute wealth in some sort of "fairness" that is sought by the workers. The word "Socialist" means to advocate Socialism.
Per Webster:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I think you'll find that protecting individual rights including that of owning arms is directly counter to definitions 1, 2a and 2b of the word "Socialism".
Thank God we live in a Constitutional Republic that protects the individual right to own property and seek to earn a living outside of State control.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Okay, you stick to Laura Bush while we stick to hot protest chicks.
Eh... showing your tits is easy. I'd prefer a woman that can string a few words together in an intelligent sentence.
Keep the airhead bimbos. It's just proving our point.
DUDE! just cuz you CAN have a gun doesn't mean you NEED one! A presidential speech is not a way to flout your pathetic exuse for manhood, sorry Bush, but we saw through it. Where were the tea partiers when the WMD stuff was going on in the nice whiet dumb Bush Honor Value America yoo hoo administration was going on... oh yeah... they were sitting at home saying "yuup". to each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post: there I said it. tea party people have no frakkin clue what they are argueing about, they just hate paying taxes, and love brandishing guns to make themselves a valid force-to-be-reckoned-with. As a liberal minded fella I say go for it. Suits my purposes. Split the repubs down the line as to who has slowed religious and uneducated conservatism versus who has extremely well planned fiscal conservatism. Nader did it to Kerry, maybe the people from the sticks will finally get their plastic dashboard jesus prayers answered when they lose all their jobs to mexicans or something, and of course it will be Obama's fault... vote Huckabee (I hea he plays bass.. not well.. but hey its a start)
Tea party is splitting the conservative ideal into ("I hate abortion clinics and love mah shotgeen") versus ("I got my savings and stocks and real estate investments and don't want anyone messing with my gak")... how these two interact after a while, remains to be seen, but its the same kind of rift that the Nader hing did to Kerry in '04
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Fateweiner
So the HS basketball star has a heart attack, or track star, whatever. rethink sports man. I cannot fault skydivers for their risk taking lifestyle either. Just what they do. PLease don't attribute sports and politics, as I fear there may just be a connection, and finding that, I shall be sad.
Just because you CAN have the internet doesn't mean you NEED it.
Just because you CAN go to McDonalds as often as you want doesn't mean you NEED to.
The liberals see what they want to see. They see socialism as a good thing because they feel even the lazy should be "part of the circle". Socialism, as GG point out also means no private property. Guess what Guitardian? That means in a socialist society I could enter your house whenever I feel like it without fear of repercussion because it's not YOUR house, it's the governments house and if they don't care that I'm there in YOUR house you can't do gak about it.
Hmm, in a socialist society I'd get to take your car whenever I wanted because it's not YOUR car. It belongs to the collective and I'm part of the collective so YOUR car would be as much mine as it is yours, even if you bought it.
Poke fun at the uneducated but post like someone who, from all appearances via your posts, doesn't seem very educated him/herself.
Gold Star.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:DUDE! just cuz you CAN have a gun doesn't mean you NEED one! A presidential speech is not a way to flout your pathetic exuse for manhood, sorry Bush, but we saw through it. Where were the tea partiers when the WMD stuff was going on in the nice whiet dumb Bush Honor Value America yoo hoo administration was going on... oh yeah... they were sitting at home saying "yuup". to each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post: there I said it. tea party people have no frakkin clue what they are argueing about, they just hate paying taxes, and love brandishing guns to make themselves a valid force-to-be-reckoned-with. As a liberal minded fella I say go for it. Suits my purposes. Split the repubs down the line as to who has slowed religious and uneducated conservatism versus who has extremely well planned fiscal conservatism. Nader did it to Kerry, maybe the people from the sticks will finally get their plastic dashboard jesus prayers answered when they lose all their jobs to mexicans or something, and of course it will be Obama's fault... vote Huckabee (I hea he plays bass.. not well.. but hey its a start)
Tea party is splitting the conservative ideal into ("I hate abortion clinics and love mah shotgeen") versus ("I got my savings and stocks and real estate investments and don't want anyone messing with my gak")... how these two interact after a while, remains to be seen, but its the same kind of rift that the Nader hing did to Kerry in '04
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Fateweiner
So the HS basketball star has a heart attack, or track star, whatever. rethink sports man. I cannot fault skydivers for their risk taking lifestyle either. Just what they do. PLease don't attribute sports and politics, as I fear there may just be a connection, and finding that, I shall be sad.
But under Obamacare by 2014 that 23yr old (who I'd hope isn't in HS so I'll just take that as a typo on your part) has to have health insurance even though he is probably in a hell of a lot better shape than most Americans his age. He MIGHT need it in the future but if he doesn't he is paying for something (even if it's say $50/month) that he won't ever use.
How the hell is that right? How the hell is that anything similar to supposed "illegal wiretaps" or starting a war because of WMD that did or did not exist? Oh right, it's not.
But tanks and missiles ensure that you have the rights that you have; the rights that we bible-thumping, apparent nut-jobs have ensured that you get to keep these past 2 centuries plus change.
That's the most ignorant thing I've heard since I plonked Shuma.
What does plonk mean? When did you plonk me?
The liberals see what they want to see. They see socialism as a good thing because they feel even the lazy should be "part of the circle". Socialism, as GG point out also means no private property.
No, thats communism or collectivism. GG is either trolling or (more likely) just doesn't know what words mean.
Fateweaver wrote:But tanks and missiles ensure that you have the rights that you have; the rights that we bible-thumping, apparent nut-jobs have ensured that you get to keep these past 2 centuries plus change.
Technically we haven't had a defensive war in nearly 70 years and realistically no war after WW2 had anything to do with maintaining American internal security and you bible thumping apparent nutjobs (the south I guess, I have no idea what you two are talking about, your arguments have nothing to do with eachother or reality) were the ones fighting to retain slavery rights in the deadliest war this country has ever had.
But under Obamacare by 2014 that 23yr old (who I'd hope isn't in HS so I'll just take that as a typo on your part) has to have health insurance even though he is probably in a hell of a lot better shape than most Americans his age. He MIGHT need it in the future but if he doesn't he is paying for something (even if it's say $50/month) that he won't ever use.
18-24 year olds have the highest incidence of vehicular injury in america. Same with most sport related injuries. They are in great shape, but with that comes the increased prevalence of injuries inflicted while using that physicality. They are also fairly prone to having dental issues (braces, crowns, cavaties) and issues relating to corrective issues with eyesight. Certainly no where near the same level of issues seniors have, but then there is no age group that is immune to health issues.
Fateweaver wrote:So the answer would be to disband the military?
I'll gladly pay taxes to ensure our military stays one of the best, if not the best, in the world.
Buy health insurance so some lazy slob can get care for a bad heart from doing nothing all day? feth him/her. Let them die.
I don't understand why it has to be black and white. The u.s. spends more on it's military per year than the rest of the world combined. A reduction in the somewhat extreme levels being spent wouldn't reasonably reduce our ability to defend ourselves or our interests and would allow us to start paying down a bit of the debt and likely improve our economic standing. Why's it gotta be all or nothing? If you're so against spending more on health care why aren't you against the year over year increase in military spending? It all comes from the same taxes and the people we bomb don't really help our economy out.
Guitardian wrote:... however, you can't get away with toting guns around in large groups in a densely populated area. Out in the country they can get away with becoming an armed mob much more easily.
A street gang can easily be considered an armed mob.
The Green Git wrote:
Socialism is a political economic theory that seeks to redistribute wealth in some sort of "fairness" that is sought by the workers.
Its actually a large collection of political economic theories. Its a very difficult word to provide a singular definition for, as there is a lot of contingency present with respect to individual authors and projects.
The Green Git wrote:
The word "Socialist" means to advocate Socialism.
No, the word socialist is an adjective, not a verb.
The Green Git wrote:
Per Webster:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I think you'll find that protecting individual rights including that of owning arms is directly counter to definitions 1, 2a and 2b of the word "Socialism".
No, that's false.
Definition 1 only mentions that socialism deals in state ownership and control over the means of production. It does not specify that the state must control all the means of production in order to be socialist, therefore there is no contradiction.
Definition 2 does not necessarily contradict the protection of individual rights, as not all individual rights are related to property. It would, however, prevent the protection of any rights that turn on ownership. Of course, its worth noting that no state broadly considered (in the US) to be operating under a socialist system (the Nordic states, England, France, etc.) actually governs in a manner consistent with the definition in question.
Definition 3 does not preclude the protection of individual rights, except in the sense that those related to property must be negated in order to proceed to a state of communism. However, this is a poor definition as it really only applies to Marxist theory (as noted), and therefore is of little use when considering socialism independently of that project.
You can have a socialist society with lots of individual protections, and you can have a capitalist society with virtually none. Rights are not intrinsically connected to a given economic system; excepting those rights which are required in order for the basic assumptions of the economic model to hold true. For example, the right to property under a system containing capitalist influences.
I got one request to lock the thread. I'm WAY too lazy to read an eight-page OT political monstrosity, so I'll wait and see if we get more Mod Alert complaints.
Fateweaver wrote:Speaking of gun-toting rednecks I traded my Tyranid army for a Ruger SR9.
So now I have 2 handguns and a shotgun to defend myself. Next on my list: An AK-47 and an AR-15.
Aren't you unemployed? Why are you buying more guns?
Trade Shuma, trade.
For fun shooting. Can actually hunt with an AR-15 (so long as I don't get trigger happy spewing all that dakka).
Wouldn't it have been better to sell the army and use the money for food or transport to job prospects? Didn't the army cost nothing while the ammo will cost money?
Also an AR15 isn't a very good hunting weapon, expensive to feed maintain and the 5.56 round wont take down big game very well.
I'm also working part time now starting Monday and Obama just extended my UI payments 2 more months (bout the only thing I can give him credit for) so with my part time job and the UI I can claim for the hours I don't work I'm set for now until something better comes along.
5.56 will take out a deer. Though I'm thinking of trying bow hunting this year. It's apparently more challenging than rifle hunting.
@Guitardian: It apparently makes you a man to attack my posts about guns. I hope you never find yourself in a situation you have to defend your life. At least I can if I have to. More power to you if you stay safe.
I'm also working part time now starting Monday and Obama just extended my UI payments 2 more months (bout the only thing I can give him credit for) so with my part time job and the UI I can claim for the hours I don't work I'm set for now until something better comes along.
Well its good to hear that you're getting back on your feet.
5.56 will take out a deer. Though I'm thinking of trying bow hunting this year. It's apparently more challenging than rifle hunting.
It will take out a deer with a good shot, but without a clean one it has a chance of getting a good distance before expiring. Bow hunting is significantly more challenging. The weapon is less accurate and shorter ranged forcing you to be an all around better hunter.
@Guitardian: It apparently makes you a man to attack my posts about guns. I hope you never find yourself in a situation you have to defend your life. At least I can if I have to. More power to you if you stay safe.
Your posts attacking pot smoking socialists aren't really any different than his attacking crazy gun nuts.
If he's a pot-smoking socialist than it'd be personal.
I don't consider myself a gun-nut Bible thumper (as I'm not actually far right, I do disagree with the hard right on a few things) but comments like "it makes him a man" is a personal attack, not a blanket attack like mine is about pot-smoking socialists.
I would suggest you look into the Ruger mini-14,it's much more affordable then either an AK-47 or AR-15,it chambers the same round as the AR-15,10 round magazine plus mounts scopes for hunting,and will also accept 20 and 30 round mags for target shooting.
That being said,perhaps you should sell one of your pistols and use the money for more important needs,at least until you are in a better finacail situation.
And Shuma brings up some excelent points concerning bow hunting.
isthatmycow wrote:true, instead of buying guns, i sez buy food. you can't eat guns, but you can eat food.
You can eat a gun. I tell people to do exactly that all the time. It just doesn't really do the same thing as food.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:Except he made it personal.
If he's a pot-smoking socialist than it'd be personal.
I don't consider myself a gun-nut Bible thumper (as I'm not actually far right, I do disagree with the hard right on a few things) but comments like "it makes him a man" is a personal attack, not a blanket attack like mine is about pot-smoking socialists.
You get personal all the time with your implications and insults.
I'm handling bills fine now. I can't afford 40k but that is more expensive than owning a gun. That and I'm kind of holding off to see what summer brings. Hoping for DE by Aug/September as rumors seem to indicate.
Dogma: I see what you did there. You won't give up until you are satisfied that I'll agree socialism is a good thing. It's not a good form of government, even with the "little" handouts I get.
You pointed out yourself that socialists ideals of "sharing the wealth" is a fallacy. In Soviet Russia the millionaires were still millionaires and the poor still starved.
Again, most of the "social reforms" liberals want go against the Constitution. I'm also not anit-social help. I'm anti-getting-help-for-doing-nothing. I don't get UI unless I work at a job, meet certain qualifying conditions and the employer does not try to deny me payment (which, whether I qualify or not the employer can choose do to). Welfare, in and of itself, is utter bs. Oh, I just turned 18, I've never worked a day in my life but now I get a few hundred dollars a month for food, free MA, free phone and reduced rates on cable tv (yes, here where I live you get free land line from one of our providers and cable tv at reduced rate from our cable company if your income is below a certain level) and oh look, I have 3 kids so I get even more money for doing nothing, get WIC as well, and free pediatric care and free daycare.
I could technically apply for welfare, even with my now reinstated UI and my part time job. I don't because I didn't do anything to deserve all the other benefits except be born here (or not born here as is the case of all the illegals getting help) and so I would, in essance, be leeching off peoples hard work. You might see it as leeching now but I had to work 60 hours a week at some point to make what I do collecting UI.
One requires actually working and not losing your job through fault of your own, the other just requires you be 18, not making so much a month and that's it. Kids are a bonus and add more to your coffer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
isthatmycow wrote:true, instead of buying guns, i sez buy food. you can't eat guns, but you can eat food.
You can eat a gun. I tell people to do exactly that all the time. It just doesn't really do the same thing as food.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:Except he made it personal.
If he's a pot-smoking socialist than it'd be personal.
I don't consider myself a gun-nut Bible thumper (as I'm not actually far right, I do disagree with the hard right on a few things) but comments like "it makes him a man" is a personal attack, not a blanket attack like mine is about pot-smoking socialists.
You get personal all the time with your implications and insults.
It takes two people to sling mud Shuma and your hands aren't clean so I'd look in the mirror before saying I sling insults all the time.
I was also talking to Guitardian. I've not attacked him on a personal level yet. Nice try though.
You pointed out yourself that socialists ideals of "sharing the wealth" is a fallacy. In Soviet Russia the millionaires were still millionaires and the poor still starved.
Aren't millionaires millionaires wherever they are? It's part of being a millionaire.
It takes two people to sling mud Shuma and your hands aren't clean so I'd look in the mirror before saying I sling insults all the time.
I was also talking to Guitardian. I've not attacked him on a personal level yet. Nice try though.
Gold Star.
You'll notice though that I never develop the persecution complex that you post with often.
I've come to learn that those people who attack and belittle everyone around them daily hate themselves inside.
So deep down inside you feel more persecuted than I do. You just try not to show it.
I have a feeling you've reported me more than I've reported you so who's feeling persecuted Shoom?
Bow hunting: I'll be able to try it this fall at least. Uncle goes bow hunting on occasion. I'm a good shot with a gun. Sure a bow is different but if I can win trophies for my gun skills I should learn quick how to aim a bow.
Fateweaver wrote:I've come to learn that those people who attack and belittle everyone around them daily hate themselves inside.
So deep down inside you feel more persecuted than I do. You just try not to show it.
I have a feeling you've reported me more than I've reported you so who's feeling persecuted Shoom?
Actually I think I've reported you three times ever and usually it was for one sentence posts that had nothing to do with the context of the thread. By contrast I reported green bow fly like I was getting a dollar per report to do it. As for my self hate, I think you have it backwards. I love me. I hate a lot of things. A lot. More than is healthy. But i'm not one of those things.
You have me fooled. On one hand you act like the Earth revolves around you, on the other I get a feeling like you cut yourself every night and listen to emo music and ask the ceiling why the world hates you.
It's not healthy Shuma. Perhaps a visit to a gun-toting redneck state like Mn would do you some good.
Just make sure you get a good life insurance policy first and make sure the beneficiary is someone you really want to have the money. Lots of gun-toting rednecks and peat bogs in Mn.
Fateweaver wrote:
Dogma: I see what you did there. You won't give up until you are satisfied that I'll agree socialism is a good thing. It's not a good form of government, even with the "little" handouts I get..
I don't expect you to state that socialism is a good thing. I don't actually expect you to do anything. What I expect is for others, and perhaps yourself, to recognize that there is no line one crosses to move from a capitalist system to a socialist one. In all successful cases you will find that capitalist and socialist theory are leveraged to a varying extent in order to produce a desired outcome.
Realistically, it doesn't even make much sense to separate the two in a rigid, spectral fashion. As, in general, those discreet projects of economics which serve to generate ideas for the future tend to incorporate elements of both in order to account for all potential difficulties. Once you pick those projects apart, the assumptions and countermeasures which support no longer hold true, and the theory falls apart.
Fateweaver wrote:You have me fooled. On one hand you act like the Earth revolves around you, on the other I get a feeling like you cut yourself every night and listen to emo music and ask the ceiling why the world hates you.
It's not healthy Shuma. Perhaps a visit to a gun-toting redneck state like Mn would do you some good.
Just make sure you get a good life insurance policy first and make sure the beneficiary is someone you really want to have the money. Lots of gun-toting rednecks and peat bogs in Mn.
Again, you misunderstand my wish to cut other people, such as tea party protesters with a wish to cut myself. If Im mutilating myself it would make it hard to do it to the people that need it!
Hey fateweaver it wasn't meant personally. Just yet another generalisation of why people THINK they need guns. Gee I hope I never have to defend my life hanging in the balance with TWO assault rifles and a couple handguns handy for backup because I don't live in a Bruce Willis action movie, it is unlikely to ever come to such a travesty of "to defend myself" rationale. Maybe some folks do, I dunno, but it never got double assault-rifle tough when I lived in the South Bronx, or Detroit. Maybe a handgun for personal protection, but TWO ASSAULT RIFLES??!! That goes beyond personal protection and into the realm of psycho-therapy.
Guitardian wrote:Hey fateweaver it wasn't meant personally. Just yet another generalisation of why people THINK they need guns. Gee I hope I never have to defend my life hanging in the balance with TWO assault rifles and a couple handguns handy for backup because I don't live in a Bruce Willis action movie, it is unlikely to ever come to such a travesty of "to defend myself" rationale. Maybe some folks do, I dunno, but it never got double assault-rifle tough when I lived in the South Bronx, or Detroit. Maybe a handgun for personal protection, but TWO ASSAULT RIFLES??!! That goes beyond personal protection and into the realm of psycho-therapy.
People say that about owning armies of little toy tanks too.
very good point sir. But your Leman Russ ain't going to give you a delusion that you can stop the federal government, only a horde of little toy bugs from a fictional galaxy. Hmmm... kind of the same delusion I guess.
Guitardian wrote:very good point sir. But your Leman Russ ain't going to give you a delusion that you can stop the federal government, only a horde of little toy bugs from a fictional galaxy. Hmmm... kind of the same delusion I guess.
Would you quit bashing people that own guns? Owning guns and wanting to form militias are two different things.
@Fateweaver- Why an AK? Why not get something classy, like an FAL, or something neat, like an M1?
I've thought of an M1. AK can be thrown off a cliff, dropped out of a pickup truck and still fire.
Garand would make a very good hunting rifle for this fall. I've actually gone hunting with one. We'll see what I can afford come August or September.
Guitardian: I did not say I was going to have assault rifles to defend myself. I said for sport shooting and for general coolness. Buddy of mine has an M16 with a 100 round mag. It's fun to go knock out a few rounds (few hundred) on occasion.
Anyone that knows guns (and you apparently don't) knows you don't use an assault rifle in your house for defense. Too big, too unwieldy and too much risk of stray bullet killing innocent civilian.
Guitardian wrote:very good point sir. But your Leman Russ ain't going to give you a delusion that you can stop the federal government, only a horde of little toy bugs from a fictional galaxy. Hmmm... kind of the same delusion I guess.
Would you quit bashing people that own guns? Owning guns and wanting to form militias are two different things.
@Fateweaver- Why an AK? Why not get something classy, like an FAL, or something neat, like an M1?
NO I WONT! because you can shoot me.
duh.
I don't know if you are dumb or not, but I do know that if you DO happen to be dumb, your gun becomes a problem for me.
.
