Who will McCain choose for vice president?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not confused, you're being bigoted and unaccepting, probably as an attempt to illustrate to me how ridiculous I'm being. Either that, or you're refusing to accept that gender and sex are two distinct things (Emotional and Biological). In that case, I'm glad you're comfortable in the gender role you were assigned at birth, but you would do well to understand and accept that some people are not so lucky.

Here's the deal, I've illustrated why the republican party platform is actively sapping the strength of America and destroying our future for the personal short term gain of 5% of the population.

Anyone who votes for that platform is either evil (defining that as greed to the detriment of the rest of the society), or being duped into voting for it for other reasons. The primary categories the Republicans Pander to are the NRA, Evangelicals, and Xenophobes. They toss these groups the small bones they seem so intent on getting in order to motivate them to vote them into office so they can lower the taxes the upper 1% of the population pays, raise the national debt because they've failed to fill the tax coffers, and throw funding at faith based initiatives to insure the continued compliance of the evangelicals.

There's nothing wrong with having faith in whatever you need to make it through the day, but organized evangelical religions preach more a message of hating the sinner rather then loving your fellow man and accepting him for who he is. All religions agree on one thing, it's not up to you to judge your fellow man. If you their lifestyle doesn't agree with yours, you are to "turn the other cheek."

The simple act of pulling a republican lever in a voting booth is a viscious attack against me and anyone who lives outside your black and white definition of gender, family, sexuality, race. Pulling that lever is saying that kids in the inner city don't deserve the same education as your kids because they had the misfortune of being born to poor parents. Pulling that lever is saying that we have the right to fight an aggressive war with the intent of seizing control of resources. Pulling that lever implies that you'd rather spend that money on taking the remaining resources of this planet by force, instead of investing in research for clean renewable energy.

Pulling a Republican lever is an act of evil or ignorance, it's short sighted, and it will eventually lead us into another world war as China catches up to us on the military front. We can either become self sufficient now, or start fighting China for resources in 20 years.... and probably losing that battle, because their people are more motivated, better educated, and learning to compete in global marketplace at a much more rapid pace then we are.

So yes, the Republican platform is evil at it's core.

And no, this isn't intolerant bigotry on my part, this is an honest assesment of their actions, their policies, and their track record. They're attempting to bleed America dry so that when they kill it, they're rich enough to escape the rotting corpse of a once great nation.

The truly evil Republicans might make up 5% of the party, the evangelicals and NRA members are unwitting pawns being manipulated into voting the evil empire into power through the use of the dangling carrot. So most of them fall under the delusional category. Whether the delusion is that the Republican power base actually cares about them, or the delusion is that their insignificant single issue vote is more important then the future of America and the world we hand to our children.

We voted an oil man into office, we went to war in the middle east. Who are his constituents? Evangelicals (I went from a coke snorting party boy to a born again saved christian!) NRA members (Because Republicans like to shoot (Dan) Quayle, and other random folks that get in the way. (Only Dick Cheney could shoot someone in the face and have *them* apologize to him.)

So, let me amend the most outrageous statement that most of you seem to take umbrage too. Republicans are either actively evil, or silently condoning evil in order to maintain a questionable right they probably shouldn't have in the first place, or to illegally make the state a sponsor of religious activities.

If you want more faith based initiatives, don't fund them from public coffers. Pay your 10% tithe and you'll have the funding for your programs.

If you want guns, register them and be reasonable about what you actually need. No one needs AK47 or an M16 to go hunt rabbits.

If you make a sweeping statement like no child left behind, fund the program.

Don't cut taxes to the rich when it impoverishes the nation as a whole, and puts our grandchildren in debt to pay for our excess.

Education, research and maintaining the infrastructure while providing for the basic human needs of all Americans should be the top priority of our country and our government.

Now, after I have pedantically enumerated my beliefs and revised my former statements that all Republicans are inherently evil, now refute my points.

HOORAY!

That's a lot of theory my friend, but let me give you a few more facts to swallow it down.

Income tax doesnt pay for anything accept debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.. I doubt you knew this.. hospitals and school can still be paid for with gas taxes and stuff like that. So learn your tax system before assuming things. Income tax does not NEED to be replaced, because we do not need the Federal Bank Reserve, it's owned by the gangster Bankers, and THEY'RE the ones taking your money.. they own half the world for christs sake! personally I dont care if they stop geting rich, do you?

So your theory on their destruction of the economy, is in fact dillusional.. Once you understand how it works, you'll see why it's a great solution.. the government is full of unnecessary ways, because of their ultimate goal of New World Order.. they are TRYING to bankrupt america, and they are already on their way.. once America is Bankrupt.. the people rely COMPLETELY on the government, therefore become a slave or die..

Let me also say that please do not lump ALL republics together to respond.. I dont care what McCain or any other ret*d Republic has to say.. the only one I've ever cared for was Ron Paul, and he's the only one in my opinion that truly is a man of the people. And he does NOT sponsor any unecessary programs that is none of the government's business in the first place.

Could you explain further why you think the NRA is evil? I'm not a member but I do own firearms. Does that make me evil? You mentioned something about AK-47s - does that mean you think some firearms/weapons are ok but others are not?

Also - are you endorsing a particular political movement or view or just criticizing ones you don't like?

You must never have noticed that little pie chart on the back of the tax pamphlet about 'where your taxes go.'
Here it is again, in case you missed it.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm

Flutter, reading you reminds me of reading a New Atheist: I wouldn't say it that way, but I can't really disagree.

I don't believe the average citizen needs an assault weapon, rifles for hunting, shotguns and handguns for personal/home defense, and registration and background checks required for all of them.

And I'm not nessecarily pro-democrat, just anti-Republican.

I'm a far left liberal, so to me, the democrats are centrist.

You're dodging the discussion. Once again you've laid out something that is unacceptable to you without specifying what is acceptable.

But if I take the statement as is, here's my opinion:
1) I don't believe the average citizen _needs_ much more than food, water, and shelter. But I don't think ill of them for wanting more.
2) I have no problem with the government banning ownership of certain weapons based on characteristics of the weapon. But the government needs to come up with a single definition and pass 1 law instead of the hundreds of gun control laws on the books currently.
3) According to 2006 Crime Statistics there was 1 burglary per 138 people in the US. What is your solution for home security? Having a firearm at home seems like the safest place to have it - much safer than having the population walk around with concealed weapons. Law enforcement is not a realistic solution as their response times can be incredibly long in rural areas.
4) I live on a small ranch. We use firearms for: rodent population control (in situations where natural predators no longer hunt them), euthanizing ill livestock, and keeping predators away from our birds. Certainly I could go out with rocks or sticks or poison and figure out a way to accomplish the same goals. But I don't think the injured deer or horse or cow would prefer me jumping on it and smashing it's skull in.

You don't need an AK-47 to shoot gophers or put down a horse with a broken leg. You don't even need an AK-47 to take out a mountian lion after your sheep.

Friend, the 2nd Amendment ain't about hunting. Scary looking guns (we gun people call them "EBRs", Evil Black Rifles) are easy to get people riled up about, but in reality are very seldom used in crime. They're simply not practical for the vast majority of criminal purposes, being bulky, expensive, heavy and loud. If your motivation for gun control is truly to save lives, there are much better ways to go about doing so.

Poor punctuation in my previous post.

I can understand a person having a lawful use for a rifle, a hand gun, or a shot gun.

There is no lawful use for a concealed weapon.

There is no lawful use for a machine gun, a rocket launcher, and any form of light assault weapons. You aren't going to have to put down an entire herd of cattle with broken legs at the same time. If you do, it's probably because you shot their knees out with the machine gun.

There is no reason for a private citizen to need high explosives that wouldn't warrant at the very least a building permit.

Guns should be licensed and registered and tracked. Background checks should be done on the people buying them, and the three day rule is appropriate.


To Dox47 - What purpose do the ERB's serve outside of the armed forces or police units?

Our enemies have already shown us the form their attacks will take. There's not going to be anyone to shoot at. They're going to blow up buildings or crash planes into things. Red Dawn isn't going to become a reality.

When the second amendment was written, it was intended that a man should have a right to own a musket for home defense and to stand against enemies to this land in times of crisis. The framers of the bill of rights had no way to conceive of the advances that would be made in firearms, and so their intentions are left to the courts and the legislators decide.

Give me one good reason the average citizen needs an assault rifle that doesn't involve overthrowing the government through violent means or repelling invaders that are never gonna come.

Let's see, the trickle down theory is that by decreasing the taxes on investments, high levels of income, and corporations, you foster increased productive effort. If investments provide higher returns more people will invest, if labor provides more return then more people will seek to work, and if corporations have more money, they will reinvest it. As for how this theory works out, well, cutting taxes on corporations and stocks is a good idea in terms of promoting economic growth. Corporate taxes are considered somewhat inefficient, and most other nations have actually made remarkable progress in reducing them, with the US now having relatively high corporate taxes compared to the norm. Stock tax reductions also end up with more capital accumulation, which is also a good thing. I would say that the real Achilles heel ends up being that Republicans focus on the income tax, and rather than making it more efficient, they just reduce it, and well... labor is actually less flexible in the desired fashion than the others because of the fact that labor supply curves bend backwards too. The issue of outsourcing though is something I would consider to be outside of the tax system here, as companies will outsource no matter what.


Well, it is a fine theory, but in practical application, when are the politicians going to get rid of their favorite tax loop-hole? The real issue that flat taxers often hate is the fact that taxes are very convoluted. A simpler tax would just be a lot more efficient.

Well, all systems ask members to support the burden of the tax load. The issue is just whether the system of taxation is seen as desirable. Now, as for these things the rich receive less than what they pay for their contributions, and must for they pay for most of the government as a group, but their benefits are not much different than those of other people in some ways, and perhaps less in other ways(many wealthy groups provide their own security, and a number of corporations engage in private legal provision). If the government disappeared, they would likely create their own order rather effectively as they are used to doing such things. Thus it seems to me that the middle class or poor could potentially benefit the most from the government as some receive net financial benefit for their taxes(but one could even argue that they do not benefit too much from their government) and because their existence will be more tied to that of an order providing government(especially in the case of the middle class, which depends on governmental order but does not have the power to directly create it for itself)


I doubt they really do, but I already put this forward. The rich groups can privatize a number of governmental services already. The issue of responsibility though is what we are arguing, I would also argue that society did not maintain the rich so much as allowed for a variety of individual efforts that included accumulation of a large amount of wealth.

Well, the issue with educating the masses is the mechanism, couldn't the rich argue that because private schools are good enough for them, they should be good enough for everyone and thus push for a voucher system? Also, couldn't the rich just say to healthcare that all that is necessary is a private market for that so that way people get an optimal amount of healthcare depending upon their benefit to others/the economy.

I would think you are asserting what you are trying to prove. Not only that, but how are they looting if they already own everything?

I'll just go with one of the more famous arguments against this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hu ... of_parents

Quote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Instead she watched as Hennard killed her parents and twenty-one other persons. He also wounded some twenty others.

Well, the text states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and given that the term "shall not be infringed" is included, and some of the commentaries on this Amendment include the notion that the militia could be a check on the government(remember, the Amendments were put in place by people who were afraid the new government would replace the evil of the old). I don't think that there is a limit, and I think that suggesting so is a deviation from the literal interpretation of the Amendment. I mean, the notion of leaving something up to the courts to decide seems to violate the notion of "rule of law" which is essential to Western liberal republicanism.


Why do I have to give a good reason other than the first? I mean, James Madison wrote in the Federalist in relation to the kind of militia desired by him: "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." I mean, so obviously if we follow the founding fathers, we *should* have the power to overthrow the government at will. Saying otherwise is a corruption of the original intent of the laws.

What definition of "concealed weapon" are you using here? It doesn't normally refer to a type of weapon, but a mode of carry. Incidentally, no state that has introduced concealed carry has seen an increase in crime, and most have seen drops. Your statement is patently untrue, self defense is lawful in this country.



Machine guns and rocket launchers are already highly regulated or illegal, depending upon state law. "Light assault weapons" is a nebulous term, I suspect you are referring to detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles in military configuration, where regulation also varies state by state. I'm also beginning to think you don't know what the word "lawful" means, I think the word you are looking for is "legitimate".


No one is arguing this, and explosives are already highly regulated and require blasting permits and identification.



Registration has historically been a precursor to confiscation, which is why it will be fought tooth and nail here in the states. Licensing is already done in most states with regard to concealed carry, which is in line with auto licensing. You don't need a license to buy the item, but you need it to operate the item in public, I have no problem with that. Background checks are already performed on all firearms purchases in the US, waiting periods are state by state. Here in Washington there is a 5 day wait on handguns, but it is waived for me because I have a concealed carry permit.




Well, they're a lot of fun to shoot! Quite frankly, I don't have to prove any sort of "need" to own something, even a firearm. Given that they are used in a minuscule number of crimes, there is no rationale for civilians NOT to own them, other than playing politics.




No, if that was the case they wouldn't have put it in the Bill of Rights, as their #2 priority no less. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was at least in part to provide a check upon the possibility of a tyrannical government, something that shouldn't seem too far fetched to you given your opinions on Republicans. In order for that to work, civilians need access to modern weaponry, and there is no compelling reason not to give it to them.



LA riots
Katrina Looting
3 Gun Matches

That's three more than I really needed to give you, since I think I addressed the issue of need above. It's you who wants to take rights away from others, so it's you who needs to provide the compelling reasons.

The second ammendment is about a militia to protect the citizens from armed outside forces (Native Americans, the French, and the English at the time of the writing). However, do we really want American citizens armed well enough to repel a modern invading army? It would require legalizing grenade launchers, surface-to-air missiles, land mines, anti-tank explosives, etc - and that's assuming that the invaders don't have nukes. Same goes for the argument about making the Feds respect the citizens a bit more: it would require some pretty heavy armament just to successfully take on the average big city's swat team, much less the U.S. Army in the event of an illegal declaration of martial law. The line has to be drawn somewhere, in terms of firepower; the only question is where.