Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, the republicans are trying to prevent interference in trade and commercial business by the government.

Sure, a militia applies to a GROUP of persons with weapons. Althought the second ammendment says that private citizens NOT in a militia may have firearms.

So even the feds say that there's a difference between a militia and a citizen with a gun.

Oh, and don't say anything against republicans. The KKK was considered a democratic(as in democrats) paramilitary group.

halonachos wrote:No, the republicans are trying to prevent interference in trade and commercial business by the government.

A concept which is generally referred to by the shorthand "big government".

halonachos wrote:
Sure, a militia applies to a GROUP of persons with weapons. Althought the second ammendment says that private citizens NOT in a militia may have firearms.

That depends on how you interpret it.

halonachos wrote:
So even the feds say that there's a difference between a militia and a citizen with a gun.

That depends on who you talk to. The current interpretation is one which grants the broadest possible freedom, but it isn't universally supported.

halonachos wrote:
Oh, and don't say anything against republicans. The KKK was considered a democratic(as in democrats) paramilitary group.

I didn't say anything against Republicans. I made a comment, albeit a snarky one, about one of the foundational components of their platform.

I know about the big government thing, but I interpreted your previous statement as one criticizing the republican party for trying to fight against a ficticious thing.


Recently in 2008, the whole court case about D.C. citizens being able to keep a fully intact weapon in their house, stated that citizens, regardless of association in a militia, may be able to keep weapons.

However, this again shows that the fed. may not have complete control as in D.C they had to have an unloaded and unassembled weapon in their homes prior to this decision while were I live we may keep a fully loaded weapon in our house.

Also, some states require special permits for transferring weapons, while in other states they do not.

So your point is that the Fed doesn't have complete control? That's not really a ringing endorsement of our educational system.

Dude wtf does the educational system have to do with Firearms?

Seriously, stop digging for an argument.

Don't make me channel Shuma.

Frazzled wrote:I think we're on the same page Sebbie. Its one proposal but the purpose is in conjunctionwith your statement.

Yeah, I think we agree largely on the problem. I just think that the solution is a lot more complicated than bringing in one hard and fast tax rule.

I'd have to disagree, not on their amount of spending, but what they are doing with it. So far their major international efforts have consisted of threatening Taiwan with thousands of missiles and some small anti pirate efforts. They're not leaping out to patrol, heck they're not even reigning in NK.

As China is expanding it is developing the muscle to control new regions. The first of these is the oil supplies from the middle east. There'll be plenty of others.

Again, where is Europe, Japan, Brazil, India-why just the US, and sometime UK/Australia (you guys do a lot)? Why just us?

See, then it all depends what you consider overseas force projection. Are we just talking about bases, or are we talking about committing troops overseas to maintain peace? Because if the latter counts then you have to look at UN peacekeeping operations first and foremost, at which point about 1% of troops involved are US troops (the majority are from developing nations).

But if we're just talking about bases I don't see them impacting budget as much as you claim. Do all those bases combined cost as much as one carrier group? Do they cost as much as 5% of one carrier group? You could have all those bases, or maybe one more Raptor, two more Raptors?

And no, Australia doesn't do much. We headed the East Timor operation, contributed to Afghanistan, and sent token forces to Iraq, but just because we always show up when you ask us to doesn't mean we're actually all that useful. The heavy lifters, surprisingly, are India and Pakistan (though this is more to do with UN compensation for a soldier being a lot more than Indian and Pakistani soldiers cost their government).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Oh, and don't say anything against republicans. The KKK was considered a democratic(as in democrats) paramilitary group.

Yeah, in 1960 the Democrats were the party of the old white man, and that included extremist groups on the fringes like the KKK. But then came the civil rights act, at which point the Republicans saw a significant demographic was open for targetting. So the Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy, attracting racist white voters to their party.

So yeah, what you said is true, and totally relevant if this was 1960. Times and politics and platforms move on so please stop repeating GOP talking points without learning a bit about historical context.

So the Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy, attracting racist white voters to their party.

Thats not entirely accurate. It was the Democratic party that has a former KKK leader in its ranks as US Senator, not the Republican party. He's still there and a major power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Frazzled wrote:

So the Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy, attracting racist white voters to their party.

Thats not entirely accurate. It was the Democratic party that has a former KKK leader in its ranks as US Senator, not the Republican party. He's still there and a major power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

I think the point being, that while the Democratic party used to be the party of the racist, the pendulum has swung the other way.

I disagree with that entirely. One side just has a media supporting them.

Frazzled wrote:I disagree with that entirely. One side just has a media supporting them.

Sorry, I meant to say that the perception was as such.

Again I have to disagree but that itself is a preception thing. I can understand your view.

Frazzled wrote:Again I have to disagree but that itself is a preception thing. I can understand your view.

You think I think that the Republicans are perceived as being racist more so than the Democrats? Uhm, I hate to break it to you but that isn't what I think, it is a political reality (not to be confused with actual Reality™). Maybe one of the problems with Republicans at the moment is that they don't even see their own perception problems. Fair or not many Americans see it this way, whether you do or I do, and it effects elections. If you think this is my own personal view about the Republicans then you need to pay more attention. *folds arms*

First you have to define it. Are you including race/division spoils politics or not?

Sometimes the OT forum just begins to meld into one giant thread... as seen here. .

I agree with Ahtman on this one BTW, but it depends on how "rigged" you think things are behind the scenes in the government.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not entirely accurate. It was the Democratic party that has a former KKK leader in its ranks as US Senator, not the Republican party. He's still there and a major power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

What's not entirely accurate? That the GOP began a strategy of courting the formerly Democrat voting racists in the South? Because what I said is quite accurate.

You're right that that didn't suddenly purge racism from the Democrats, but no-one is saying that. I am saying that looking at decades old events and assuming the politics of the parties were the same then as they are now, as halonachos had done, is bad political analysis.

And yes, there is more racism in the Republican party right now, the number of bizarre reactions to Obama stand as sad evidence to this. Limbaugh's 'Barack the magic negro'. The fake money printed by California State Republicans showing Obama's head next to fried chicken and watermelon. The GOP state official that compared Michelle Obama to a gorilla. The Tenessee state senator that emailed an image showing pictures of each president through history, which then showed for Obama's image a purely black image with a pair of eyes. Republican congressman Steve King claiming that al-Quaida would be dancing in the streets if Obama won, because his middle name is Hussein. The entirety of the secret Muslim idiocy.

It would be wrong to claim racism is only an issue in one party. It would be just as wrong to draw a false equivalency, and pretend racism is just as common in both parties.

How exactly are you informed that the Republican Party is more racist, being that you're what 15,000 miles away?

I'm kind of bewildered by the fact that you've even arguing this. The Republican Party clearly falls more easily into the classical paradigms of racism which define the concept in the national, political arena. You could argue that the Democrats are just as racist as the Republicans because they have an innate bias against Caucasians, but its exceedingly rare for such prejudice to have any affect on political reality.

dogma wrote:I'm kind of bewildered by the fact that you've even arguing this. The Republican Party clearly falls more easily into the classical paradigms of racism which define the concept in the national, political arena. You could argue that the Democrats are just as racist as the Republicans because they have an innate bias against Caucasians, but its exceedingly rare for such prejudice to have any affect on political reality.

bull t

Honestly, this seems more like a case of you arguing for what you want to be true, rather than what evidence tells you is true.

Frazzled wrote:How exactly are you informed that the Republican Party is more racist, being that you're what 15,000 miles away?

How exactly do you know people in Washington set the laws, given they're a thousand miles away from you? The pony express has mysteriously shut down so I'm not sure how information is reaching you. And then I have to wonder how you know that North Korea is in fact a hell-hole, given they're many thousands of miles away, with an ocean in the way... and I'm not even sure ponies can swim? However does the information reach you?

It's a mystery and it's one that's going to take a long time to solve, considering how long its going to take a pony to carry this message to you.