Thrawn's Revenge
Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on September 01, 2008, 11:39:51 AM
-
Please watch this video. These are all facts, I hope that this will cause some of you to rethink your opinions. The connections that Obama has are very suspicious and also made me think. Please note that I support neither McCain or Obama.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036 (http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036)
-
connections- you mean that rezko guy and religious nut?
-
Here's my take on that video, and its "facts". For some of my points, remember im speaking as a non-american.
1] What is it with people and their obsession with Obama's name? Would it make him any more/less electable if he were called Harry Potter, Bill Gates, or Jesus Christ?
2] Obama is a Christian, the fact that one of his parents is Muslim, and as a young child he attended an Islamic school doesnt change that. In fact, that he is knowledgeable in Islam could be beneficial, what with all the furore about Islam, etc. Also, since America has no official religion, and freedom to practice any religion is enshrined in the Constitution, i dont see what difference it would make if he were Muslim.
3] The not-wearing a US flag pin is a complete non-entity. Does not wearing it make him "less patriotic"? People say he is "indoctrinated" by Rev. Wright against America, i say America is indoctrinated to a false belief in its own importance. Also, im sure those "home grown" terrorists that are starting to be mentioned in the news all wear said pin in public, it doesnt stop them wanting to attack their country..
4] Not saluting the flag is again, in my opinion, a non-entity. The obsession with saluting the flag strikes me as particularly odd in a nation defined by freedom and liberty, surely being forced to recite the pledge of allegiance and salute the flag is a limitation of the people's freedom?
5] Obama's 20 years of attendance at the United Trinity Church of Christ show his religious beliefs (denying those who claim he is Muslim), and doesnt necessarily mean he agrees with Rev. Wright's politically agitative sermons. I mean, do you always agree with the people who lecture to you (teachers, religious leaders, etc)?
6] Michelle Obama's statement doesnt mean she doesnt love her country, rather i think she's referring to the historic significance of Barack's campaign, as the first successful Black Presidential nominee. Also, how many people can truly say they are 100% proud of their country, and what it does?
7] Those clips from Rev. Wright's sermons show only a tiny glimpse of his teaching (most would probably be perfectly suited to any other church across America, and the world), and personally i think the "God damn America" statement was more aimed at making a point (that America, and the US government isnt perfect) than actually trying to incense hatred, etc.
8] What is wrong with National Healthcare? Ensuring that everyone has equal access to good healthcare is surely included within the remit of government, as part of the "general welfare of the United States" (mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution)? Paying slightly higher taxes to ensure the health of you, your family and your fellow citizens is surely reasonable? And it would remove the need for such expensive health insurance (which many millions are unable to afford).
9] Welfare is a major aspect of what the government is for, to provide for those in need, for those to whom circumstances have been unkind. At the moment the US has the highest poverty levels of all industrialised nations, yet Americans claim it to be the richest, most powerful nation in the world?
10] I wont argue Gun Control here, but i dont believe the Second Amendment enshrines the right for citizens to own and carry a firearm, so gun control is actually legal, and (in my opinion) desirable.
11] Talking to terrorist groups isnt necessarily a bad thing. Diplomacy is a more powerful weapon than the armed forces. As such, talking to them could be a way forward towards a peaceful future.
-
i agree with everything you just said.
the problem with the USA is it's filled with bigots who hate Obama because he's not republican
(no offence meant)
the worst of this obama paranoia was when obama and his wife bumped fists together and people thought it was a terrorist thing.
one tabloid called it "Hezbollah hand-slapping."
-
That was a long post Slornie. but personally, i think McCAin and Obama both have their goods and bads. i would rather have McCain lead the US because i dont trust Obama with Iraq. if the war is over by the next election, I think Obama may be better suited for the job. But during war, McCain all the way
-
the problem with mccain is that he is simply another Bush. he claims to be a war hero, but what did he do? get made a POW for half the war. he's a veteran. not a hero.
also, even if he was a war hero, that does nothing but make you electable. it isn't a true sign of political ability.
-
Also with McCain, his policies will put us more indebt than ever before.
And just drilling for more oil will make OPEC increase the prices on oil making gas prices go up, while Obama's could decrease/stabilise the price.
And McCain being a war hero? I'd barely even call him a veteran. He was a crappy pilot and got treated very well by those commie bastards because he'd give them information.
-
he crashed his plane and got caught. that's the end of his vietnam experience.
-
Which doesn't really count as "war experience"
-
Getting captured by the enemy and being tortured is more war experience then he needs. For you guys to sit there and claim hes hardly a veteran is just sickening, before you can say that why dont you go spend a couple years in a communist prison camp? He and the rest of the pows are more veterans than anyone else.
-
Torture? Hardly. not from what my dad said, who was also in Vietnam.
-
He was subject to beatings several times per day, i'd call that torture
-
the same thing americans do in Guantanamo. but on topic. personally I prefer Obama. McCain is only going to be a puppet for Bush. And Obama is going to bring american forces out of Iraq. I think that alone makes him way better than his opponent who wishes to continue something that is completely futile.
-
in the end it doesnt matter what non-americans think (no offense meant to you guys you guys have valid and acceptable points and good ideas and i know he asked for all opinions) the fact is that whether or not McCain is a war hero or not is not for you to decide, sure your dad says he was treated good...but does your dad's opinion matter in the long run? not really, no offense meant to your father i am speaking on basic principles here, the fact is we have two men running for an office, two MEN and i stress that fact because human can be perfect and the way you can say one man is not a war hero or not doesnt matter, the end fact is you choose one or the other for personal reasons and you alone control your vote. it doesn't really do anything to spread around your opinions no matter what they are.
-
Getting captured by the enemy and being tortured is more war experience then he needs. For you guys to sit there and claim hes hardly a veteran is just sickening, before you can say that why dont you go spend a couple years in a communist prison camp? He and the rest of the pows are more veterans than anyone else.
being tortured doesn't make you a hero.
i didn't say he's hardly a veteran. he's definitely a veteran, but not a war hero.
and war experience is not political experience.
i believe john mccain said he would stay in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it took. That alone is enough to make him a bad choice.
Junot, we're all entitled to opinions.
all i'll say is Mccain wouldn't get elected in any country other than the USA. In polls, only 15% of the UK would vote for Mccain. and international relations is an important thing. we may not vote, but it indirectly affects us. For example, under Blair, he pretty much sucked up to Bush. this led to us going into Iraq, amongst other things.
and just a passing comment, do you control your vote? the last time i checked, the electoral college just votes who they want, regardless of voting. e.g. 2000.
-
It's just my opinion of McCain and all, but some of my Dad's friends who came out of Commie captivity do not look nearly as good as McCain does and they're only in their mid-fifties. Now if you want McCain in office, that's fine, you'll regret it in about 2-3 weeks.
-
It's just my opinion of McCain and all, but some of my Dad's friends who came out of Commie captivity do not look nearly as good as McCain does and they're only in their mid-fifties. Now if you want McCain in office, that's fine, you'll regret it in about 2-3 weeks.
well, Mccain is unable to lift his own arms above his head.
-
I'm not saying he didn't get tortured, just not nearly as bad as he makes it out to be.
-
He doesnt make it out to be anything, unlike what others do he doesn't use that as his basis, he uses being in captivity a useful bonus
-
i don't see what being in captivity has to do with politics.
it's the media who allude to all the "war hero " and captivity more than mccain, although i haven't seen much of mccain's speeches.
however, what i have heard from the past is a bit worrying seeing he may be the next president.
a few years ago on the radio, he was asked "what is your opinion on Iran?
to respond he sung "bomb Iran" to the tune of "barbara ann by the beach Boys.
he's also told a new mexico senator to fuck off for criticising one of his policies.
-
Being in captivity and fighting a war gives you experience. He knows what it feels like to be a warrior and to be captured. Also, were you or your dad with McCain at all in Vietnam? Also as I said earlier I do not support McCain or Obama, he would change his opinion to get 1 vote in an instant, if he could.
Have you ever been to Guantanamo? How do you know what happens there? Not that I know (because you could be right) just don't make such accusations about other people's countries.
Finally, it is a fact that Obama's budget increase is 60% larger than any other President before.
-
Being in captivity and fighting a war gives you experience. He knows what it feels like to be a warrior and to be captured.
it doesn't mean anything politically. it makes you electable, but that's it. and only in the USA.
-
Can i hear your reasoning Scarecrow as to why you support McCain, because, i want to hear this. And don't give me the "Obama's not experienced enough" crap, i want to hear what McCain has to offer.
[/quote]Also, were you or your dad with McCain at all in Vietnam?
Sorry, hadn't noticed your post, had to modify this. first off, i'm fifteen, couldn't have fought in Vietnam. I asked my dad if he remembered seeing McCain in Vietnam, and he said yeah and then just kinda stared off and i could tell it was a bad memory, so i left it at that.
-
What makes you think I support McCain? Because I defended a veterans war record?
And why is the "Obamas not experienced enough" view crap? Tell me, what experience does he have that qualifies him to be the leader of the country?
-
Sorry, just that's what i had thought from reading your posts.
I will admit, Obama does not have an above average amount of experience, but that's what Biden and the rest of his cabinet are for. Experience is not everything when you have a great idea.
-
I'm sorry, but in my opinion the leader of the country should have above-average experience.
And whats this "great idea"? Change? what change?
-
Biden does not make decisions for Obama and I am sure that Obama will "change " what he wants without considering others opinions. Also, Obama does have experience with something McCain does not have... DRUGS. :crrry:
-
Being in captivity and fighting a war gives you experience. He knows what it feels like to be a warrior and to be captured.
I dont see how being held in captivity gives McCain any useful experience for high office, its not like the Oval Office is a prison cell..
The only benefit i can see from McCain's wartime experience is his commitment to fair treatment of prisoners (including those in Guantanamo Bay) and military personnel. McCain has also stated that Waterboarding is a form of torture, and hopefully would have it banned if he attained office.
And why is the "Obamas not experienced enough" view crap? Tell me, what experience does he have that qualifies him to be the leader of the country?
Obama's experience:
- A BA in Political Science (specialised in International Relations).
- Worked at Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group.
- Director of the Developing Communities Project for three years.
- Editor, then president of the Harvard Law Review while studying there (graduated with a JD in Law).
- Director of Illinois Project Vote for six months.
- Lectured at University of Chicago Law School for eight years.
- 11 years with a law firm.
- Founding member of the Public Allies non-profit organization.
- Served as a director for the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Joyce Foundation, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, among others.
- Eight years in the Illinois Senate, now three in the US Senate.
McCain's experience:
- A BS from the US Naval Academy (no major/specialism).
- Military service from 1958 to 1981, as a naval aviator.
- Combat duty from '67 to '73 (including 5 1/2 as a POW).
- Graduated from National War College.
- Three years with a training squadron, including one as CO.
- Four years as Navy liason to US Senate.
- One year as VP of Public Relations at Hensley & Co.
- Chairman of the International Republican Institute.
- Board member of Project Vote Smart.
- Four years as a US Congressman, then 21 in the US Senate.
In terms of who i support, i am somewhere between McCain and Obama, because i support a mixture of their policies.
-
the worst thing about mccain is Palin. she is the physical embodiment of every negative republican stereotype i can think of.
-Fundamentalist christian
-anti-abortion in ALL cases (including rape and incest)
- lifelong NRA member.
-denies global warming
-on,and on and on.
she even threatened to sue a wildlife organisation for classifying polar bears as endangered so she couldn't hunt them.
PLUS, republicans are fucking hypocrites for criticising obama for a lack of experience when palin has been in a high-up place for only TWO years.
I dislike mccain. i despise palin.
-
But under current law, all the tax cuts expire and the deficit disappears completely. Democrats in Congress have vowed to preserve the Bush tax cuts only if they can cover the cost and keep the budget in balance. Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits. According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.
Something from early August that you might wanna keep in mind
-
Yeah, but McCain's budget plans are just as bad, from the Washington Post article your link was sourced from:
According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plans would increase the national debt by at least $5 trillion over the next 10 years.
-
One of Obama's main selling points is the fact that he is excellent in economics and will bring positive changes to America. I don't see a positive sign next to him. McCain's specialty isn't in economics; it lies in foreign policy and national security. Now who would this damage more then? We know McCain will spend more to protect us from foreign threats. We know that Democrats dislike the military and the use of military force. The money will be put to better use with McCain.
I agree about Palin though, she is just dragging McCain down.
-
You mean McCain will tax less, and try to spend less.
As for foreign policy, like i mentioned in an earlier post, Obama specialised in International Relations in his politics degree.
Palin certainly doesnt enhance McCain's foreign policy expertise - She's only been outside of the States twice in her life!
-
McCain's just gonna end up dragging this country farther down then his predesessor has.
-
This is a comparison of Obama's and McCain expierience.
Obama- black guy with good speech.
McCain- 20 or so years in senate and vietnam.
(not to be racist about the obama comment. im about as black as him since im part brazilian
-
McCain's specialty isn't in economics; it lies in foreign policy and national security.
what policy? attack every country that doesn't like USA? And McCain is a supporter of american double standards.
-
This is a comparison of Obama's and McCain expierience.
Obama- black guy with good speech.
McCain- 20 or so years in senate and vietnam.
Again, what use is McCain's experience in Vietnam? I dont see how being a POW for 6 years makes him suited to lead a country.
Obama has had a much more varied career: in politics, law, education, business, community groups. Surely this gives him a better grounding for the many and varied issues that a President faces?
The VP's on the tickets balance the experience off considerably in any case: McCain has Mrs Palin with only two years experience as a governor, while Obama has Mr Biden with 35 years experience in the Senate.
-
Well, obma going to law school doesnt mean anything when we are currently in a war. And if we pull out of iraq like what obama wants us to do, things could fall apart in iraq again and who knows how stupid the U.S. is going to look if we have to go to iraq again because we didnt finish the job the first time.
-
I dont see that McCain's 6 years as a POW is any better than Obama's legal expertise. You cant exactly say that Obama is any less qualified than George W Bush was when he achieved high office, either. Anyhow, i thought the President has an army of military analysts, strategists and commanders in the Pentagon to advise on matters of security, etc?
As for Iraq, Obama's timetable of withdrawal (all combat brigades out within 16 months, depending on the situation) is pretty close to the desires of the Iraqi government (who are in the process of drafting a security agreement with the US) - They want all US forces to be out of urban areas by 2009, and a full withdrawal by 2011.
-
Well, obma going to law school doesnt mean anything when we are currently in a war. And if we pull out of iraq like what obama wants us to do, things could fall apart in iraq again and who knows how stupid the U.S. is going to look if we have to go to iraq again because we didnt finish the job the first time.
Okay, you think pulling out of there is a bad idea? How idiotic can you be. Have you ever heard about the Soviet occupation of Afganistan? This is the exact same thing. And on another note, Invading Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism, it was Bush finishing his old man's dirty work. And finally, who cares about Iraq, it's just a place for the US to destroy itself, as of right now.
-
in my o[pinion, it's more to do with nationalistic purposes than pure anti-west terrorism. once the troops leave, the terrorism should cool down a little, although likely not completely. iraq is an absolute warzone between sunni and shia muslims.
-
It was a bad idea to even enter that area.
We could have easily taken down Sadam, and then left a small force to train the Iraqis.
-
the job should have been finished 1st time round, but this is about obama.
-
Yeah, go OBAMA!!!!! and to a smaller extent anybody but McCain!!!!
-
go obama.
as long as that bitch palin doesn't get in any power.
-
my opinion on iraq is that if we dont give the iraqis all their training before we leave, iraq is going to end up as a terrorist ran country again, we could have another 9-11 and we would have to go back in to iraq again. that would look pretty stupid.
-
Please don't let this topic become a mindless bashing zone for senseless comments. It is about Obama. Go bash any conservative you can somewhere else.
-
Pulling out of Iraq before it completely stabilizes is a bad idea. Country would have a civil war between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds. They would probably split Iraq into different regions for each group, disrupting the flow of oil from Iraq and negatively impacting the global economy.
-
my opinion on iraq is that if we dont give the iraqis all their training before we leave, iraq is going to end up as a terrorist ran country again, we could have another 9-11 and we would have to go back in to iraq again. that would look pretty stupid.
The invasion of Iraq was to do with the supposed WMD's that Saddam (a ruthless dictator, not a terrorist) supposedly had, which could supposedly hit the US/Western Europe. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever, i think you're getting it confused with Afghanistan.
Please don't let this topic become a mindless bashing zone for senseless comments. It is about Obama. Go bash any conservative you can somewhere else.
So you think this thread should return to discussing a biased video bashing the Democratic Presidential Candidate? Personally, i'd rather it remained a general debate about the merits of the two main Presidential Candidates, and their respective policies (i know we had a similar thread in the past, but that was for the primary season).
-
i originally supported mcCain but recently with his choosing Palin as his VP and his leaving moderate positions for more conservative ones i dont trust him anymore. I agree with obama's energy policy and getting out of iraq but idk how effective his economic policy will be. McCain's foreign policy scares me because he sees the US as better than anyone else. Running a country this way is dangerous, its why people hate the US and that is y terrorists like to attack us. McCain has recently stooped to spreading false rumors to try and hurt obama's campaign which lost any respect i had for him. I believe that if mcCain becomes president, we will end up will at least another 4 years of something like bush.
-
That's it!!!! Good man! That is what i've been saying to everyone, but to hear it from someone else is awesome
-
I'd rather have a god damn Milf (Palin) in Office than Obama.
I think (And hope) Obama will get shot if/when he's elected.
-
Well, even if Obama was shot, you'd still have someone with experience in charge of the country. Thats more than can be said of the Republican ticket.
Off topic, i love this Russell Brand quote from the MTV Music Awards:
Some people, I think they're called racists, say America is not ready for a black president. But, I know America to be a forward-thinking country, right, because otherwise, you know, would you have let that retarded cowboy fella be president for eight years? We were very impressed. We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go, because, in England, he wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors.
:P
-
Is Russel Brand a freakin cereal company because russel sounds like a cereal my grandpa eats. jk i know who he is and is a fagget because all the british are because they r gun control freaks. go NRA(if obama becomes president maybe they will hire some top assasin to take out the president,vp and speaker of the house. that would be great)
-
Is Russel Brand a freakin cereal company because russel sounds like a cereal my grandpa eats. jk i know who he is and is a fagget because all the british are because they r gun control freaks. go NRA(if obama becomes president maybe they will hire some top assasin to take out the president,vp and speaker of the house. that would be great)
I'll try to not take offence to your post..
I could just as easily say that "all americans are idiots because they love guns." Or "america is an evil country for promoting war, maybe the UN will impose sanctions on them for crimes against humanity?"
-
I'd rather have a god damn Milf (Palin) in Office than Obama.
I think (And hope) Obama will get shot if/when he's elected.
hmm... so you'd rather biden than obama if democrats get in?
can you merge posts?
-
Is Russel Brand a freakin cereal company because russel sounds like a cereal my grandpa eats. jk i know who he is and is a fagget because all the british are because they r gun control freaks. go NRA(if obama becomes president maybe they will hire some top assasin to take out the president,vp and speaker of the house. that would be great)
STFU.
don't call all the british faggots.
we don't need guns. you CAN get a gun for hunting if you want, but it's really not needed to have a gun. it doesn't make us faggots. saying having a gun makes you awesome really shows how insecure you are.
russell brand's a faggOt because all british are? where the fuck would the USA be without the British? we colonised you, and gave you a foothold. maybe, just maybe, Russell brand's campness is an act? just maybe?
go play with all your "awesome" republicans like David Duke. we don't want bigots here.
negrep for your ignorance and xenophobia.
-
Hey hey hey, the british aren't faggots. They certainly have moral superiority to the US, even with all the atrocities they commited over the years. I mean, they came up with Concentration Camps! Then the Germans (the best race in my opinion) did it better. Then Americans came up with how to commit Genocide on an entire Native people. Then the Germans did it on a smaller scale. Anyway, i kinda got off topic, but you're an idiot if you call the BRITISH faggots.
-
if the british are faggots, you are second generation faggots. You'd be NOWHERE without us.
we're not faggots.
there's a reason the UK doesn't have so many school shootings. we don't have guns to the same extent.
the UK has 1/5 the population of the USA, yet we definitely don't have 1/5 the number of school shootings. this is because the UK has gun control. there is knife crime, and the occasional gun crime, but that is different. in the USA, people like delta feel naked without a gun. this is quite honestly, pathetic.
-
Yes, but I will say that your not the nation you once were. I'll argue against the greatness of Russia (because of size and cheap US knockoffs) or China (because of population and hard-working-ness, trust me I know alot of Americans are bums). But the chance of most powerful nation for Great Britain is non-existent.
Anyways back to topic. Barrack Saddam Hussein Obama Bin Laden.
-
Anyways back to topic. Barrack Saddam Hussein Obama Bin Laden.
If you're gonna be like that, what about John Wilkes Booth McSame?
See? We can do it with him too. Except John is even more common, so there's probably a lot more jackasses named John. A name is just a name, it means nothing.
-
i hate how people do that.
the name doesn't matter. saddam hussein wasn't a tyrant when obama was born, nor was bin laden. even if they were, does it really matter? just makes them less electable due to the idiot 12% of americans who think he's muslim.
-
It wouldn't matter if he was born when anybody was a tyrant, Hussein is a common name, and Obama is his last name so nobody even picked it. It wouldn't matter if he was a muslim either, nobody said you have to be Catholic/Protestant to be president, religion is supposed to be kept separate from the state.
-
It wouldn't matter if he was born when anybody was a tyrant, Hussein is a common name, and Obama is his last name so nobody even picked it. It wouldn't matter if he was a muslim either, nobody said you have to be Catholic/Protestant to be president, religion is supposed to be kept separate from the state.
i completely agree. the problem is, most people are too narrow-minded about politics and hate politicians for non-political reasons.
-
i completely agree. the problem is, most people are too narrow-minded about politics and hate politicians for non-political reasons.
Theres nothing wrong with letting a politician's religion influence your voting stance towards him.
-
well, in the u.s. we take religion in to account in to voting, or at least a lot of us do. I really dont care about a persons religion as long as they dont favor there religion over an other religion.
-
It wouldn't make sense to not favor your religion over someone elses.....
-
I think he means to be completely bias towards yours over all the others
-
(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2276/palinvsobamafb7.jpg)
Here's a nice comparison.
-
and how much of that is actually true and not your own opinions?
-
very little. i was sad enough to read the whole thing ;)
-
Ok, here are a few points from Dr. Nick's list:
So Palin was Mayor of a town, big deal. It only had 5000 inhabitants. Obama's experience as a "community organiser" was much more varied, and involved far larger communities.
Exactly what foreign experience does Alaska's borders give Palin? Relations would be determined at national level by the President. Plus she's only travelled outside the States twice in her life.
Palin's record for earmarks isnt exactly good either. She was excellent at obtaining such funding for Alaska, and originally supported the so called "Bridge to Nowhere". Then, when federal support was drying up, she changed her mind and persuaded them to scrap the project and give her the $400m in grants to spend at her discretion.
-
u forgot palin's beliefs on abortions- she doesnt believe those pregnant from rape should be allowed to have them
her views on global warming- it doesnt exist
and evolution- what?
any change palin brings will be even further to the right than bush, he brought plenty of change too...
i support whoever the most moderate canidate turns out to be, but McCain/Palin are going far right while Obama/Biden are leaning alot closer to the center
-
I'm only supporting obama/biden because they're closer to the left wing(the best wing) than the stupid republicans.
-
better be communist than be fascist.
-
Uh-huh. Communism leads to anarchy and fascicm is closer to capitalism. Anyways, i favor it because it makes more sense to me personally than anarchy and the corporations owning everything.
-
I mean, if senior Republicans are saying she has no foreign policy experience, and would be a liability..
-
better be communist than be fascist.
in democracy, many have fun
in dictatorship, one has fun
in communism, no one has fun
remeber that.
-
lol, poor communists
-
better be communist than be fascist.
in democracy, many have fun
in dictatorship, one has fun
in communism, no one has fun
remeber that.
TBH, most communist states there have been (russia, china, cuba, north korea) which were big in media were not true communist states.
russia-leaders, as far as stalin and Khruschev were more of autocrats than communists.
in N.korea, much the same.
Castro was a nationalist, which is not communist, as a communist must break down national borders and bring people together.
china's becoming less and less communist.
so while communism should ideally be "no one has fun", most communist states, past and present, are closer to dictatorships in conduct of rule.
-
So are you supporting them or just stating a fact?
-
So are you supporting them or just stating a fact?
just stating a fact.
due to the impossibility of an unchanging situation, and that all humans think differently, commmunism is impossible. although it is theoretically perfect, due to problems, it won't work. i'm not communist, just centre-left.
in fascism, you're unlikely to be the one having "fun". so, it makes little difference.
-
I personally do not understand any of Obama's plans. They do not work, will not work, and have not worked for other countries. They will cost a lot of money (and already have), yet it is okay because he will be able to lower taxes, but still spend more money. ??? ???
-
(How could a newb post be well written. I'll never know.)They need a high-five smilie. Anyways, yes indeedy. First major thing he does as president. he goes on an apology tour. He apologizes for the American people. He told the world that "The American people were arrogant."!!!!! He is going to control your life. He will tax whatever he wants and tell you what kind of car you can drive, but wait there is more. Before you can sell your house there must be an inspection to see if it is approved. This Global Warming thing is for, as Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor says it, "More power!" Oh, ho ho ho ho. GM no longer stands for General Motors, but Government Motors.
Also, for this:
Uh-huh. Communism leads to anarchy and fascicm is closer to capitalism. Anyways, i favor it because it makes more sense to me personally than anarchy and the corporations owning everything.
Capitalism is closer to anarchy. Capitalism is supposed to allow people to make their own decisions in life while still allowing for civilization. Capitalism is FREEDOM, which is closer to anarchy than Communism is. The more left is closer to fascism. The left wants a more totalitarian government. With so many rules and regulations being decided for so many by so few in Washington. The left has tried to suppress foreign ideas, the obviously left-biased media allowing for no criticism against their people. They say that the liberals and the conservatives need to come together and compromise. Only the naive conservatives that do end up making all the compromises. The left tries to say that they need to "come across the aisle" or something. Well all they have done is helped the ones across it to a seat on their side. What the point is is that they want a one-party nation (fascism). What you see as capitalism or conservatism, is the "new age" stuff. The ones that have compromised for more votes. This makes them closer to fascism than the true conservatism.
BTW, communism leads to anarchy because it eventually destroys itself, not because of policy.
-
First major thing he does as president. he goes on an apology tour. He apologizes for the American people. He told the world that "The American people were arrogant."!!!!!
Whats wrong with that? What he said was perfectly true, you've just had 8 years of Bush.
He is going to control your life.
And the government didn't already do that? *cough*Patriot Act?*cough*
"A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations, control and direct the actions or behavior of the individuals within the organization and deal with everyday administrative issues." ~ Wikipedia
He will tax whatever he wants
Did you miss the part where he's cut taxes for 95% of the population? All he has done is remove some tax breaks for big business and the extremely wealthy. (Seriously, do you think a few % tax break is going to encourage Bill Gates to spend more money?)
and tell you what kind of car you can drive
That has always been the case. There has always been legislation concerning roadworthiness and safety of cars. You can't even say that the environmental legislation is new, its just increasing standards set down in previous legislation.
Besides, surely the new legislation makes sense? Improved fuel efficiency means you get more distance for your dollar. It means you have to import less oil (which as everyone keeps saying, largely comes from countries that don't particularly like the US). As a bonus, it helps to save the environment.
This Global Warming thing is for, as Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor says it, "More power!" Oh, ho ho ho ho.
Global Warming is a widely accepted fact, get used to it. If the whole world lived like America, we would need dozens if not hundreds of Earths. America uses China as the basis of its argument against CO2 cuts. You keep neglecting the fact that China has four or five times the population of the US, yet only pollutes as much.
GM no longer stands for General Motors, but Government Motors.
So you would have preferred it if Obama had let GM go to the wall? Closure of all its factories and dealerships, closure of its suppliers. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost? (inc. all those that relied upon the workers of said businesses for their custom)
If GM can be reorganised in its bankruptcy protection it can return as a successful business, saving jobs and helping the US economy. Obama has said that as soon as it is feasible, he wants to return the business to private ownership.
Btw, Obama isn't the only nationalising figure in recent American history. If you've forgotten, Bush started the bailouts to the banking system. If he hadn't, the entire US economy would have collapsed, along with most of the capitalised world.
"Capitalism can't live with government, but it can't survive without it" ~ My university lecturer
-
I tried hard to stay out of this discussion ;), though I could not resist when I read this:
Global Warming is a widely accepted fact, get used to it.
Global Warming may be a widely accepted 'fact', but it is NOT a reality. If you haven't noticed, just a few years ago, it was trouble in the ozone layer of the atmpsphere, but you don't hear a lot about that anymore. Global warming is just a passing trend that environmentalists have managed to weave into our society, trying to gain support for their pointless cause. The only reason we are even aware of this "threat" is because of the media, which, if you haven't noticed, is highly leftist and liberal, no matter where in this world you live.
The government (America's and others') loves the very idea of global warming. Why? because it makes the people even more dependent on them. Remember, the purpose of government is not to provide for man's every need, but only "to do for man what man CANNOT do for himself." (-Abraham Lincoln) Notice the "cannot", not "will not" or "does not". The government thrives today because people aren't willing to work for themselves to the degree that they should when the gov. can and will pay to keep them on their feet. Global Warming is a cause that, if heeded by the general public, will make the feds lots of money. High-tech 'eco-friendly' stuff is NOT cheap, and the government can put taxes on anything it wants to, if it feels there's a need. Making us less dependent on foreign oil will make us more dependent on American oil companies, which, like GM and AIG, come under control of the state when it hits "financial crisis". This crisis very well could come with the invention of newer, more innovative ideas like hydrogen cars. Ever wonder why both causes are being championed?
All of this is a move towards socialism, even (and especially) the 'tax-cuts' to 95% of the population. It's a small step towards the goal of creating a "middle-class" society, which is what socialism is all about. If America, or any other nation, ever reaches that point, that nation will be doomed, it's future smashed.
Here's the simple fact. Only 17% of all American scientists ever actually believed in global warming in the first place. Our government and the media simply amplify that small number to suit their own purposes. In the end, anyone who actually invests in the global warming cause will find that their time and money was wasted.
-
Whats wrong with that? What he said was perfectly true, you've just had 8 years of Bush.
What is wrong with it is is that criticizing, which by the way includes apologizing for, other presidents is "widely accepted" no-no. Also, I do not feel like I, or my family and friends, have been overly arrogant in the past eight years. What President Obama did was totally unnecessary, and it was only to gain the adoration of the rest of the world, which the media allowed him to breeze through in America. If you stop and think about it, you will understand that you would not like it if the same was done for you.
And the government didn't already do that? *cough*Patriot Act?*cough*
No. That was monitoring suspicious calls during a national crisis against a nearly unforeseeable threat. I am happy to allow them to do that because a.) it was necessary to protect life (the most important job of the government) and b.) it was in no way controlling.
"A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations, control and direct the actions or behavior of the individuals within the organization and deal with everyday administrative issues." ~ Wikipedia
I will give you a dictionary definition of the word 'government':
the governing body of a nation, state, or community
Now the word 'govern':
conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of state, organization, or people
What you had was a "sub-definition." Therefore, conditional. While I often do use Wikipedia, since it is open to everyone sometimes it is not correct.
Did you miss the part where he's cut taxes for 95% of the population? All he has done is remove some tax breaks for big business and the extremely wealthy.
The tax cuts were pathetic. The tax increase on the middle class (Which, by the way, he promised he would not do.) will be huge. See the Cap and Trade Bill.
Oh, and here is a solution to the taxing the rich and not over taxing the middle- and lower-classes: SALES TAX. Everyone has to buy. Everyone has essentials that cost money. That way, whoever buys more stuff-Who does that sound like? Oh yaaaa...-the rich will be taxed more. Then the middle- and lower-classes are not taxed as much, because naturally they don't as much as, the rich.
Global Warming is a widely accepted fact, get used to it. If the whole world lived like America, we would need dozens if not hundreds of Earths. America uses China as the basis of its argument against CO2 cuts. You keep neglecting the fact that China has four or five times the population of the US, yet only pollutes as much.
As I said, many of the 'scientists' who used to claim Global Warming as a 'fact' are deciding that it is not true anymore. Beside the point, Global Warming is not fact like all theories of the beginning of life(Including my own belief: Creationism.), it is a theory. Which by the dictionary means: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
So you would have preferred it if Obama had let GM go to the wall? Closure of all its factories and dealerships, closure of its suppliers. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost? (inc. all those that relied upon the workers of said businesses for their custom)
If GM can be reorganised in its bankruptcy protection it can return as a successful business, saving jobs and helping the US economy. Obama has said that as soon as it is feasible, he wants to return the business to private ownership.
What I meant was was that any office of government should never control any part of the private sector, period. And that they should have hired the most qualified people and let them do the private sector do what it does, or let it die.
Btw, Obama isn't the only nationalising figure in recent American history. If you've forgotten, Bush started the bailouts to the banking system. If he hadn't, the entire US economy would have collapsed, along with most of the capitalised world.
And I do not agree with President Bush on this either. But what the point is is that President Obama either knows that it won't work, which I really don't hope is true, or he is just mistaken. Either way, letting capitalism do its thing has worked before. I won't talk about this now, lets look at why President Bush felt he had to do what he did. Now, everyone blames the current problems on President Bush because he was the previous President. Now who was President before him? Clinton right? I am not playing the blame game. I am merely pointing out that his policies were painfully similar to President Obama's. Then President Bush Bush did some more of the same. So what it all comes back to is prosperity, then a slump. These slumps will wear away at the economy and eventually eradicate a chance for the cycle to continue. Causing a perpetual slump. But when did we not see a slump? The nineties. Who was President before that? Reagan right? And what were his policies? True capitalism. Only that first Clinton election with Ross Perot taking away a large part of Bush I's votes allowed him to be elected.
"Capitalism can't live with government, but it can't survive without it" ~ My university lecturer
True. But when too much government comes into play, there is no more capitalism to live or die. Capitalism requires government. But too much will destroy it. And that amount of government is the thing that we have got to stop and decide upon. Examine ourselves and say, "Is this really where the Constitution was intended to bring us, and is this direction that it was intended to take us?" or, "Are we even following it anymore? Do we want to? Do the people we elected into office want to go where we do?"
When you look at the American people, and truly understand them, (Because often they don't really know what they believe; they are told what to believe), then you will know our answers to these questions. And those answers will tell you if America is right wrong.
-
-Its funny that with some exception the people here have their information from biased sources.
ONE WORD MODERATION
-America's economy is actually not true capitalism but is considered a mixed economy.
-left wing liberals & right wing conservatives = fail, like the goto command line they'll implode into a fiery death.
-Just to clarify too I'm a history buff and History has proven that Conservatives fix the crap caused by Liberals and Liberals fix the crap caused by Conservatives.
-Its also funny that people not from America think they know more about American politics and if they do (unlikely) then thats really pathetic.
-If left wing libs or righty cons want to say that their party is better I'll be more than willing to point out all the inherent flaws in that party.
-About Obama, hes not that bad but in my opinion all of the 2008 candidates for America were less than adequate for helping the country. (Obama included)
-
just wanted to point out one thing, capitalism, the sink or swim aspect of it works when it is a series of small businesses mostly independent of each other if one fails the others will be fine, that however would not work in a massive network like what you see in a corporation, a good example would be a suspension bridge, lets say maintenance on this bridge is getting lax due to deregulation
and the engineers are not as enthusiastic about checking on structural integrity as they should be, then one day a support cable snapped, further analysis reveals that the entire left side of the bridge is ready to give way, now if we were running a sink or swim game here, we would let the bridge go because it is worn out, however the smart man would have the bridge shut down for repairs before anyone got seriously hurt...(edit for grammar if you wish,dont care atm.) see where i am going with this?
-
Mr. Cicero, (I have begun to use a title with your name because obviously a man of your privilege and intelligence deserves it.) I would like to take you up on your offer. Point out to me totally sound flaws in both "parties." (A Supreme History Buff should no that their are neither Conservative or Liberal "parties.) Also, I do not think that it would be fair to have a moderator in a thread like this as they too could have biased information, and that would not be fair. I will give you credit, though. The people who are not from this country should make sure that what they have heard is true before forming opinions.
Dre, I don't totally get where your going. Are you saying that people would get slack because of deregulation?
-
I do not think that it would be fair to have a moderator in a thread like this as they too could have biased information, and that would not be fair.
I don't think he meant a moderator. I think he was using the word as in "the quality of being moderate; restraint; avoidance of extremes or excesses; temperance." ~ Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moderation)
-
Sorry about the delay guys, Grand Admiral Pellaeon I will discuss this by tomorrow because all week I was at a camp that Liberals would consider to be a right wing extremist group "Boy Scouts of America".
Ohh and by the way Slornie is right.
-
For starters I would like to say I have nothing against Obama personally, but do not agree with most of his ideas.
1. Apologizing for America's arrogance.
When have we been arrogant? we dont go on tv and say we are superior to the world
2. All the promises that he has made will never be kept and if people actually believe them than it is further proof that Americans believe whatever they are told. Like that rain is really God taking a piss.
3. That throwing money into an economic crisis is going to help. We tried doing that during the Great Depression and it didnt work then so why should we do it now? What are economy needs is pruning and this crisis has been doing that and the gov. funding is just slowing the inevitable.
-
Cicero, I will be checkin' here. And good for you about the camp, by the way. Can't wait.
-
Im going to have to agree with Slorine here. Obama is doing what is necessary to get a girp on our recession. And, by the way, throwing money at it is one of the simple three step way to fix the economy 1) Stimulus 2) Reorganization 3) Repair.
And global warming IS fact. 96% of scientists agree on this. Its just that they let just as many people from the 4% dissent on fox news as they do the 96% assent, so it looks like there is actually significant debate within the scientific community
And if we did not bail out those car companies, millions would have lost jobs. Hundreds of thousands of autoworkers, then on top of that all the hundreds of thousands that build the parts for GM. On top of that, tens of thousands at the companies that supply the raw materials. And all those companies are obviously invested in, so it would be bad for the banks and the stock market. Even more people would loose their life savings, get forclosed, have to move (and probably loss their job). See? It all snowballs.
The government is regulating our FINANCIAL activities not our social ones (with the exception of guns, which, by the way are banned even in freaking CANADA now! See! Even the Canadians are more civilized than us!)
And, by the way, america was arrogant under the bush administration. We acted like we were the top of the world and stuck our freaking noses into everyone's business. We acted like we could operate with impunity from consequences! Look where we are now!
One thing that annoys me is that people complain about regulations, while a good 95% of regulations are FOR PEOPLE'S SAFETY. they are so compaines dont exploit workers and customers.
And as for taxes, he is only raising taxes on people with a household gross annual INCOME (not savings, income) of over, i think it was at least $160,000. That is the top 5%. As for sales taxes, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE SALES TAXES, with the exception of some excise taxes on gas, cigars, etc which are levied on producers. Sales taxes are for state and local governments. So, if you dont want those raised, would you prefer that your roads not get repaired, your schools not get updated, your bridges rust and rot, your local government go broke, and public goods generally bleed into non-existance?
-
The government is regulating our FINANCIAL activities not our social ones (with the exception of guns, which, by the way are banned even in freaking CANADA now! See! Even the Canadians are more civilized than us!)
I was going to ignore your post, seeing as how all the "facts" had no sources, but I came across this while scrolling up to leave this thread I came across this nonsense. Of course, there aren't alot of Americans (Because other nations can make policies all they want as long as they don't harm mine.) that pay attention enough to realize the magnitude of comments such as these. Which "inexplicably" resemble those of our elected officials. What they fail to realize are two important reasons of the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) 1. To be able to organize a militia in case of a totalitarian government CHANGE. 2. Self defense
I leave #1 open. I know what people will think: that that is ridiculous. But I don't find it so. Neither did the Founding Fathers or any great American president. But self-defense is what I will work with. Now lets put our thinking caps on. If a person is going to rob someone, that means that if their name is not Arb, they already know that they will be a criminal. Now the dictionary definition of a criminal: a person who has committed a crime. So what is a crime? Crime: an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. An offense? Offense: a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act So a criminal is person who commits an action or omission that constitutes a breach of a law or rule, or an illegal act. So they have already committed a crime, why not commit another one that breaks a ridiculous gun ban to aid themselves in some way? Thereby, injuring, or likely murdering an innocent person.
You guessed it! There isn't! But what if we could make sure that the innocent people had a chance to live? Well then, lets do it! Oh wait! We would be in the same "uncivilized" place.
That comment was absurd. I didn't know that owning a firearm made you not as civilized as Arb. Well then. I guess you can tell Abe Lincoln or Ronald Reagan that they weren't as civilized as everyone else.
-
Leaving aside the issue of the Second Amendment itself..
But self-defense is what I will work with. Now lets put our thinking caps on. If a person is going to rob someone, that means that if their name is not Arb, they already know that they will be a criminal. Now the dictionary definition of a criminal: a person who has committed a crime. So what is a crime? Crime: an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. An offense? Offense: a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act So a criminal is person who commits an action or omission that constitutes a breach of a law or rule, or an illegal act. So they have already committed a crime, why not commit another one that breaks a ridiculous gun ban to aid themselves in some way? Thereby, injuring, or likely murdering an innocent person.
You guessed it! There isn't! But what if we could make sure that the innocent people had a chance to live? Well then, lets do it! Oh wait! We would be in the same "uncivilized" place.
If, as you assume, a person knowingly prepares to commit a crime, why make it easier for them to acquire the lethal tools to aid them? If guns were banned, they would be much harder to acquire and be prohibitively expensive, making it less likely that the individual would have access to one to use in the crime (and dont give me the "they'll be smuggled from Mexico" crap - Almost all of the weapons trade across that border is from the US to Mexico, fuelling the drug cartels, etc).
Easy access to guns also fuels opportunist crime. If the "criminal" didn't have easy access to a gun, would they hold up the local bank or gas station, etc?
Banning guns would also reduce suicides, accidents and injuries. Surely suicide is much more attractive when you can just point a gun to your head? I mean, its so much more daunting to have to jump off a building or bridge. And how about all those kids who get shot by accident while playing with a parent's gun, etc?
It would also cut down on the shooting sprees by those mentally unstable individuals. Without a gun, would that person be able to go out in a blaze of media glory at their local school or shopping mall?
Final point, if guns were banned it would make the job so much easier for the security forces: Person has gun = Breaking the law.
-
Wall-of-text time! Slornie, while ideologically secure, your argument contains one very major flaw, probably the most overlooked flaw in our world today. That flaw is the purpose and place of government itself, which would be the tool used to ban and confiscate those weapons (and a gun is not the only weapon used to commit crimes, btw. If you ban them for the people, you ban them for the police as well. It doesn't discourage crime at all; it just takes a single kind of weapon completely out of the question legally). Governments worldwide (America's included) are trying very hard to find ways to regulate and restrict and control people's lives. They sugar-coat their actions by saying that they are making life better for everyone, but the leaders of these governments are socialists and will not be satisfied until they have socialism. (We can see that by the way Obama guaranteed recently that "we will have healthcare reform". It doesn't matter how he does it, Obama will push healthcare reforms through, because they accomplish his own goals.) The primary goal of socialists, which we can see clearly through (1) healthcare bill (2) gun-control, as well as (3) the mocking of those who voice their concerns at town hall meetings, is to create an easy-to-manage middle man. They're trying to eliminate the rich and the poor at the same time in Robin Hood fashion. Why? Because generic, middle-class citizens who don't control their medical welfare and who don't have the means to defend themselves are ridiculously easy to control and rule. Communism is the goal, my friend, and if you don't believe that, then take a peek at the lives of some of these 'czars' Obama is appointing. Sometimes a person's friends can speak volumes about his character, as well as his intentions.
Now as for Corusca Fire:
Im going to have to agree with Slorine here. Obama is doing what is necessary to get a girp on our recession. And, by the way, throwing money at it is one of the simple three step way to fix the economy 1) Stimulus 2) Reorganization 3) Repair.
I resist the great urge to get into an argument over this, as it's quite obvious that the only thing accomplished thus far is a dramatic increase of our national debt.
And global warming IS fact. 96% of scientists agree on this. Its just that they let just as many people from the 4% dissent on fox news as they do the 96% assent, so it looks like there is actually significant debate within the scientific community
Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made on the spot? ;) This one is entirely without a reliable source, as well as any credibility whatsoever, and therefore, will be ignored by me.
And if we did not bail out those car companies, millions would have lost jobs. Hundreds of thousands of autoworkers, then on top of that all the hundreds of thousands that build the parts for GM. On top of that, tens of thousands at the companies that supply the raw materials. And all those companies are obviously invested in, so it would be bad for the banks and the stock market. Even more people would loose their life savings, get forclosed, have to move (and probably loss their job). See? It all snowballs.
It does all snowball, which is exactly what our leaders want. They've been waiting for this moment for decades, and now that it's here, they're not going to waste it. Now that GM is being fed lots and lots of money, they, as well as anyone tied to them, are indebted and obligated towards the government, and specifically, the Obama administration. They (the administration) now have a lot more of a grip on this country's economy. They've got millions of jobs to wave in people's faces (secretly, of course), jobs they could let go of at any moment they chose.
The government is regulating our FINANCIAL activities not our social ones (with the exception of guns, which, by the way are banned even in freaking CANADA now! See! Even the Canadians are more civilized than us!)
So far, you're right. They have only regulated our financial activities. So far. But pal, it's not going to stop at the financial level, especially since sometimes, financial and social can be woven together. We can already see places in which the government IS trying to regulate or preparing to regulate the social aspects of our lives. Want some examples? Gun control is one of them. Removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses, and prayer from schools, are two others. Branding preachers and others opposed to homosexuality and other controversies as hate criminals is yet another, a very abominable one which will not be overlooked when the leaders of this government face an Almighty God one day. They ought not to be overlooked now.
And, by the way, america was arrogant under the bush administration. We acted like we were the top of the world and stuck our freaking noses into everyone's business. We acted like we could operate with impunity from consequences! Look where we are now!
I won't argue about this, as it's really a pointless debate. Obama's apologies to the world were simple tactics to increase his own popularity among the international community. A great many people in this world hate America, and not because we're arrogant. Getting an apology makes them feel good, especially towards Obama. It's got nothing to do with today's major issues.
One thing that annoys me is that people complain about regulations, while a good 95% of regulations are FOR PEOPLE'S SAFETY. they are so compaines dont exploit workers and customers.
I find this to be a matter of opinion among most people, it really is debatable though. The regulations I've listed so far don't seem to be for people's safety. The statistic is rather unlikely, and exploiting companies so that they won't exploit their workers is hardly a good management policy. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And as for taxes, he is only raising taxes on people with a household gross annual INCOME (not savings, income) of over, i think it was at least $160,000. That is the top 5%. As for sales taxes, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE SALES TAXES, with the exception of some excise taxes on gas, cigars, etc which are levied on producers. Sales taxes are for state and local governments. So, if you dont want those raised, would you prefer that your roads not get repaired, your schools not get updated, your bridges rust and rot, your local government go broke, and public goods generally bleed into non-existance?
The reason he is raising taxes for such "qualified" (a.k.a. rich) people, is to slowly drain them of their acquired wealth. It is, in effect, stealing their riches to use for their own purposes. Ultimately, it will still end up the same way: one across-the-board middle class. Besides, the point still stands that Obama IS raising taxes for more than just the rich. He has admitted that (in a meeting with the people of Montana), saying that providing 46 million people with healthcare will not be free or cheap. He promised people during his campaign that he would not raise their taxes, and he is now going against his word. That's a serious thing, especially for the president of the United States.
Here it is. The great error of the way you're viewing current issues is that you're only looking at what it's doing now and how people are changing our lives today. People have to start considering the long-term ramifications of the decisions that are being made in these times, because we experience the benefits today. We face the consequences tomorrow.
-
Slornie, while ideologically secure, your argument contains one very major flaw, probably the most overlooked flaw in our world today. That flaw is the purpose and place of government itself, which would be the tool used to ban and confiscate those weapons
I was under the impression that the purpose of government is, in the words of your Constitution, to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". Therefore, it could be argued that the ability to ban and confiscate weapons (aside from the debated interpretation of the Second Amendment) would come under the remit of domestic tranquility and general welfare.
(and a gun is not the only weapon used to commit crimes, btw. If you ban them for the people, you ban them for the police as well. It doesn't discourage crime at all; it just takes a single kind of weapon completely out of the question legally)
I never said that guns were the only weapon used to commit crimes, nor did i suggest that the police and security services should be denied them. I was pointing out that easy (legal) access to guns can cause more dangerous situations and benefit the criminal more than the law abiding citizen.
Governments worldwide (America's included) are trying very hard to find ways to regulate and restrict and control people's lives. They sugar-coat their actions by saying that they are making life better for everyone, but the leaders of these governments are socialists and will not be satisfied until they have socialism. (We can see that by the way Obama guaranteed recently that "we will have healthcare reform". It doesn't matter how he does it, Obama will push healthcare reforms through, because they accomplish his own goals.)
I don't see any evidence of this claim whatsoever. Obama was elected on a mandate of reform, and your healthcare system is one of the prime candidates for such reform. As a nation you spend over twice the western average GDP on healthcare, yet your system shows no greater quality and 15% of the population has insufficient or no health cover. The situation is steadily worsening and without reform the burden of healthcare could bankrupt your government and society. Obama is not trying to introduce what you would call a "socialised" health care system like Canada or Britain, he is merely trying to ensure that costs are controlled and that everyone has access to healthcare. Personally, i would consider that well within the bounds of government authority, since it clearly concerns the welfare of the people.
The primary goal of socialists, which we can see clearly through (1) healthcare bill (2) gun-control, as well as (3) the mocking of those who voice their concerns at town hall meetings, is to create an easy-to-manage middle man. They're trying to eliminate the rich and the poor at the same time in Robin Hood fashion. Why? Because generic, middle-class citizens who don't control their medical welfare and who don't have the means to defend themselves are ridiculously easy to control and rule. Communism is the goal, my friend, and if you don't believe that, then take a peek at the lives of some of these 'czars' Obama is appointing. Sometimes a person's friends can speak volumes about his character, as well as his intentions.
This is utter nonsense. Obama is a capitalist, and his political position and policies are far from leaning to towards socialism or communism. Besides which, i must have missed the relationship between socialism/communism and your "easy to control middle class", would you care to explain it?
So far, you're right. They have only regulated our financial activities. So far. But pal, it's not going to stop at the financial level, especially since sometimes, financial and social can be woven together. We can already see places in which the government IS trying to regulate or preparing to regulate the social aspects of our lives. Want some examples? Gun control is one of them. Removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses, and prayer from schools, are two others. Branding preachers and others opposed to homosexuality and other controversies as hate criminals is yet another, a very abominable one which will not be overlooked when the leaders of this government face an Almighty God one day. They ought not to be overlooked now.
Gun control is merely a fulfilment of the government's role to maintain public safety and welfare, not a sinister encroachment upon society.
Surely having the Ten Commandments on display in courthouses shows a bias towards Christianity, which goes against the grain of a secular government and freedom to religion? (I would also have thought that having "under God" in the pledge of allegiance breaches the First Amendment too, but this would come under the split topic concerning government and religion)
While freedom of speech is enshrined in your constitution, surely people also have the right to be free from persecution over their personal lives?
-
Democrats (I think to myself) are liberals who believe the people are basically good, but that they need government help to organize their lives. They believe in freedom so fervently that they think it should be compulsory. They believe that the poor and ignorant are victims of an unfair system and that their circumstances can be improved if we give them help. Republicans (I think to myself) are conservatives who think it would be best if we faced the fact that people are no damned good. They think that if we admit that we have selfish, acquisitive natures and then set out to get all we can for ourselves by working hard for it, that things will be better for everyone. They are not insensitive to the poor, but tend to think the poor are impoverished because they won't work. They think there would be fewer of them to feel sorry for if the government did not encourage the proliferation of the least fit among us with welfare programs.
-Andy Rooney
The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.
-Dave Barry
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
-George Washington
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
-JFK
Most liberals never lost sight of the potential for evil in big government. They have consistently opposed government power in matters of personal and political belief. Liberals are not unconcerned with economic liberty, but they have come to believe that the common good requires that social justice be given a higher priority than absolute economic freedom. Conservatives are—and always have been—on the other side of both questions. They are much more prone than liberals to limiting personal and political liberties, but they place the freedom of an individual to do as he pleases in the economic realm at the top of their concerns. Social justice has held a lower priority for conservatives, from the days of Alexander Hamilton when they favored strong government as a means of protecting their economic privileges to the days of Ronald Reagan when they see government as an instrument of social justice and therefore a threat to their economic position.
-Robert S. McElvaine
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
-Adlai Stevenson
I was raised the old-fashioned way, with a stern set of moral principles: Never lie, cheat, steal or knowingly spread a venereal disease. Never speed up to hit a pedestrian or, or course, stop to kick a pedestrian who has already been hit. From which it followed, of course, that one would never ever -- on pain of deletion from dozens of Christmas card lists across the country -- vote Republican.
-Barbara Ehrenreich
and...
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
-Aristotle