- This topic has 87 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Bulwark:
Unfortunately, Bulwark, despite the sincere and honest effort of Obama not to make race an issue in his election and Presidency (which I thoroughly commend him for) there can also be little doubt he did appeal to many black Americans many of whom voted for the first time and feel that (not before time, I might add) Obama represents a fair shout for them.
The problem is he doesn’t. And neither does Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright, all of whom supported Obama and have influence in the black community.
You cannot enslave a race for so long, then have them in fear for their lives for decades as second class citizens and expect fifty years of Government legislation to put everything right and create a much needed level playing field.
Yet, that is the bill of goods that sadly much of the civil rights movement has amounted too
Fifty plus years after the integration of the school system we still have many more first generation black students heading for college who are breaking new ground in the civil rights movement and as a nation we should be behind them.
Instead, we sell them short shrift and the likes of Jackson, Sharpton and Wright have seized on this for years. But their power base is dependent on keeping the black people impoverished and exactly where they are, so they can have an en-masse "voiceless" base of people to "lead" while they follow their own agendas which although sound good ultimately keep the people exactly where they are.
I go to school with and help to teach many of the black teenagers who as I mentioned are first generation college students, the ones who tend to succeed are the ones who either had parents (who although not often educated know the value of education) or have had support networks through their life and have been able to take part in academic programs where the emphasis has been on personal responsibility to get results.
Sadly, though to promote such values through the school system (especially if you live in a low income black neighborhood) is often seen as a form of racial profiling by liberal educators who prefer just to get the students through the system and do not provide the help needed so students have the chance to excel. Their solution is weighed entry exams and such like, which always come back to bite the student (unless the student has an "aha" moment) and of course by then those teachers are working over the next group of school age children.
It’s not fair and it’s not right and I happen to believe is the cause of much dissatisfaction within the black community (rightly so) and leads to crime and other delinquency because the challenge seems so hopeless. Yet, there are many black leaders who are trying to fight this and they get labeled as "Uncle Tom’s" and "Sell-outs to the man" by other black leaders.
Obama may be the guy to overcome this and I hope he does. But to do so, he is going to have to do it through example and not burdensome Government legislation that already restricts the chances of many (especially the impoverished minorities) of succeeding.
Bulwark, you really cannot judge the character of the American people by documentaries which look for extremists, weirdos and offensive people. Sure, there are some nutters out there, but there are also rationally minded people. Sadly, the weirdo’s are usually doing the will of God (in their eyes) and want to create some kind of utopia which has no practical value at all. They still have their second amendment rights though and until they break the law they have the right to spew their hatred just as I (and millions of others) have the right to laugh and mock them.
And another thing, I do not appreciate being told I appear to be a paranoid racist just for mentioning a statistic that is easily researched and I do not think my assessment that many black people feel Obama is "one of their own" is in any way racist. Just a reality in the social fabric of 21st century America.
Craig.
What some people see as hesitation when speaking, is in actual fact a person who thinks before he speaks, unlike some people I can think of.
I would rather someone chose their words wisely and moderately than someone who just talks the talk but has no substance about them.
Being a great orator does not maketh the man. Clinton might be an accomplished public performer but in private I think he lacked certain moral fibre befitting of a truly great leader. That’s not to say I dislike the guy. Give me a Mandela type of person any day.Hi Ken!
I agree entirely about that last statement. Clinton will go down in history as the most talented yet self destructive President we had. The John Daly of Presdients.
Craig
Bulwark, you really cannot judge the character of the American people by documentaries which look for extremists, weirdos and offensive people. Sure, there are some nutters out there, but there are also rationally minded people. Sadly, the weirdo’s are usually doing the will of God (in their eyes) and want to create some kind of utopia which has no practical value at all. They still have their second amendment rights though and until they break the law they have the right to spew their hatred just as I (and millions of others) have the right to laugh and mock them.
I dont judge the entire american people on what I see on TV. There are clearly a slight majority of perfectly sane americans over the mentalists (possibly even more if you include the borderline sane).
However IMO no rational person would want a gun, if it meant that complete nutbars also got to carry them. No responsible society can seriously condone giving guns to lunatics, so that they can have them themselves to protect themselves from lunatics. Violence is self perpetuating.
Here there has been extensive attempts at decommisioning firearms which were already illegal from the paramilitary groups, but both sides are fearful of doing so in case the other side still has some.
I’m sure that there are plenty of borderline rational people in the US that have guns, however, IMO, in 99.9% of cases the only the only times they will ever be used is when said people are at their least rational.
I know very few people who are rational all of the time, but luckily most of those I know dont have guns.
Hi Bulwark:
I can honestly say in my time in America I have never felt threatened knowing people may be carrying a gun.
What I can’t understand about your point is this…if the law is on your side and someone armed came on your property to do damage to your property, yourself or your family, would you not want to have something to defend yourself with?
Outlaw guns and criminals will be the only people who have them and then we have to be more reliant on Government officials such as Police for our protection when a lot of the time through being overstretched the Police are of no use, anyway.
Not to mention the millions of Americans who enjoy hunting with guns as a sport, the millions of Americans who hunt to put dinner on the table and the millions of Americans who need to use a gun to defend their property from predators in rural areas.
And very few of these people are likely to have a criminal record. Gun safety and correct gun use is heavily emphasized here ,especially in rural states like West Virginia, where I live.
Craig
What I can’t understand about your point is this…if the law is on your side and someone armed came on your property to do damage to your property, yourself or your family, would you not want to have something to defend yourself with?
Thats the way it is here, if that were to happen then I’d deal with it as I saw fit. However I would feel a little annoyed if it was my own fear and paranoia that had armed them in the first place.
Outlaw guns and criminals will be the only people who have them and then we have to be more reliant on Government officials such as Police for our protection when a lot of the time through being overstretched the Police are of no use, anyway.
There are other ways of dealing with things than shooting someone. My father served 30 years in the RUC during the Northern Ireland troubles (where he was effectively a walking target) he was shot at several times, and close to several bomb attacks, he also had nail bombs, petrol bombs and all sorts of other things thrown at him, and was present when several people were shot, yet never once did he ever shoot anyone. A gun is not the answer, its the problem.
IMO there are areas of the world where a gun is an essential part of maintaining control, such as areas of Africa, where the indigenous population would kill you for 10 pence in your pocket. That is a different kettle of fish to america however.
Not to mention the millions of Americans who enjoy hunting with guns as a sport…
I have no sympathy for anyone that kills animals for sport.
The millions of Americans who hunt to put dinner on the table
Really, anyone in such a situation (it must be a percentage of a percentage of the population who find themselves in such a position) should really go and get themselves an education and a job, and if obama could reintegrate such people into normal society then that would be progress. However most people who hunt for food are trappers or fishermen (a much more efficient method), very few people hunt for food with guns unless they are on a staple diet of game birds and venison.
and the millions of Americans who need to use a gun to defend their property from predators in rural areas.
Just how many of these predators are there in areas like The Bronx, South Central Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Texas, Arizona, etc and about 95% of the rest of the country. Not only that but Tazers, cattle prods and tranquilizer darts etc would be just as effective in most cases where there is a high risk of animal attack.
Lets face it, in about 95% of areas in America there is absolutely no call for anyone to have a gun, and in the remaining 5% there are other solutions to those reasons people believe that they need one.
Bulwark:
I have two deer in my freezer right now entirely killed for food. it is a staple of many Americans lives.
But you are wrong. People in this country have a right to defend themselves. it is part of our constitution and as long as the majority of gun owners are responsible, respectable citizens, I have no problem with that. I would rather that be the case than have to bother about making "criminals feel paranoid that they might need one if they came into my home." Talk about apportioning the guilt onto the victim,
What exact measures would you take if an armed intruder came into your home? He is not likely to want to talk about it.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this. I felt the same way by and large when I came to live in the USA. As I got to understand the culture, I now see it as something worth preserving. Just two polarizing cultural approaches…
Craig.
"But it comes down to this, under Obama, if you do not share the view of his Government and if you publicly stand against it, his Government is threatening to observe you and consider you as a right wing hate monger, just for disagreeing with the "chosen Messiah" who as we have sen on here, for no good reason, whatsoever, is highly regarded in the UK! "
I’m afraid this is typical of your rants, Craig. You seem to be completely out of touch with anything remotely resembling political reality. Have you not noticed the propensity of some of your libertarian right-wingers, not so infrequently, veterans, such as Timothy McVeigh, to go on killing sprees? Here is a Google site on McVeigh:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= … =&aq=f&oq=
If necessary, cut and paste the link.
You know, perhaps, the strangest thing of all is that not only does it make discussing American politics with you, like discussing it with a man who thinks the moon might be made of cheese (simply impossible to know where to start), but it must seem the same way to you! Because you are not only on a different planet from the vast majority of us in the UK, at both ends of the political spectrum, but also from the vast majority in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and I’m equally certain the scientific researchers in Antarctica.
Obama has quite simply brought an enormous intelligence, effective diplomacy, and appreciable empathy to a task that now, after the Bush years, now needs them more than ever before.
In these dire economic times, for all that he has to struggle against those who, after the right-wing politicians such as Gramm, caused the crisis in the first place, even while using the inside knowledge they are able to provide Obama is a godsend; and yet he would have been a godsend in the good times, too, such appear to be the qualities of the man. I wouldn’t quite rate him as highly as Nelson Mandela, as a man, but right now I can’t think of anyone I would. But as a US President, I expect him to prove to be a great as F D Roosevelt; possibly greater.
Obama is an absolutely brilliant man, the first and only African American to be elected as Editor of the Harvard Law Review, yet you try to cast him as a person with learning difficulties. I mean how stupid is that? Lawyers as a breed may not inspire a lot of confidecne in us, yet they basically run the world – albeit on the instructions of billionaires, who tend to be among the very worst malefactors in our world (if only because, most powerful).
That sort of irrationality, clearly, blind hatred, ought to be viewed by the authorities as threatening, in your violence-drenched American society.
I’ve heard no response from you regarding your views on the radio hate-jocks, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage? Nor your explanation of your use of the term, "of his own kind" in relation to Obama’s African American origins, as though the latter segregated them from "Americans", presumably, in your terms, "properly so-called".As I say, what we write, must seem like "mumbo jumbo" to you, just as yours does to us, although one of us is going to be substantially right and the other, woefully wrong.
Personally, I don’t care for Obama’s oratory, but that doesn’t matter to me one iota. I just switch off. And the reason why it doesn’t matter to me is because, when he wants to impart substantive information to the public, he uses his staffers. That is probably his one Achilles heel, in as much as he has one at all: he prefers to keep the vapid platitudes and all too familiar cadences of his rhetoric, as his own preserve, while hiving off the task of providing the public with substantive information to his staffers. Well. you know. There’s a little bit of loopiness in all of us. I prefer the thoughtful conversational tone that would be natural to him, had he not chosen politics as his career. But he clearly works tirelessly and with great astuteness.
The best I can do to set you on the right track, Craig, is to suggest you immerse yourself in the writings of Joe Bageant (joebageant.com) and read the article at this link – which I very much hope you will be able to access:
http://www.freewayblogger.com/funwithha … e%20Report
The last one is an absolute classic!
For all the chasm between you and me in terms of our political views, I’m sure all of us here will continue to appreciate your views on horse racing. And, heck, some may like to discuss US politics with you!
But you are wrong. People in this country have a right to defend themselves. it is part of our constitution and as long as the majority of gun owners are responsible, respectable citizens, I have no problem with that. I would rather that be the case than have to bother about making "criminals feel paranoid that they might need one if they came into my home." Talk about apportioning the guilt onto the victim.
But as a gun carrier you are not the victim, you are part and parcel of the problem, because it is your pro gun views that are arming every licensed gun criminal in the country.
Whether you like it or not, everytime an innocent man, woman or child is gunned down in the USA by a licensed (or once licensed) firearm, you share the blame with every other pro gun person for arming the assailant. Those people are the victims in the whole thing.
I myself have carried a gun in the military, but to get that gun I had to pass extensive screening, and military training, and even then I was only allowed to sign it out of the armoury on the few occasions where it was deemed necessary for the course of my duties, and if I am under any sort of recognised stress then I will removed from duties where I must carry a firearm. In the USA so many people have guns that it is virtually impossible to screen them to any significant level, sure a criminal record check and a check that you are american born etc, but how good is that?
Not only that but after minimal screening, once they have been approved for a gun license that is their’s 24/7/365, for richer for poorer, better or worse, in sickness and in health.
What exact measures would you take if an armed intruder came into your home? He is not likely to want to talk about it.
I would expect that if I had an intruder then either they would only be after my belongings (they wouldnt get much worth taking) in which case I have insurance and would let them work away.
However on the offchance that they were armed and hell bent on killing me the either they would either
a) be there to assasinate me, and would probably be significantly well trained with their firearm inn such an instance.
b) be a complete loony toon psychopath, however most psychopaths prefer other more sadistic means of finishing people than using a firearms.
In all the above situations I would be constantly looking for an opportunity to wrap something round their head. However, there is more chance I would die in a car crash and I still drive.
However the main reason for purchasing a gun is PERCIEVED POWER, and the main reason for most murders, rapes and attacks is also PERCIEVED POWER, so most people who actually commit such offences in the US were probably licensed and armed long before they ever reached the stage of their derangement where they felt the need to commit such offences, which is nice.
I agree that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Im off to bed, nighty night.
Hi Bulwark:
Thank you also for your military service.
I do not see how my Pro Gun views are arming every unlicensed criminal in the country. Criminals will get guns if they want them, regardless of my view.
No, I do not share the blame because I have no personal responsibility there. I do not own a gun nor do I carry one nor do I have a gun license. Because I support the second amendment as have hundreds of millions throughout the history, you are saying we share the blame every time somebody decides on their own to shoot someone or use a gun irresponsibly.
Using your logic anyone who happens to imbibes alcohol, drives a car, (but doesnt involve in illegal drunk driving) is partly to blame for every drunk driver caused fatality! It does not stand up to logical reasoning.
As a Libertarian, my stance on it is simple. Can we question the majority of people to govern themselves properly and using the laws of the land punish those who break the law with the minimum of Government intrusion, regulation and interference in our lives?
I believe overwhelmingly the answer to that is Yes. Your experience, i dare say, in the British Military and in the UK in general means you have a differing opinion. That’s fine, just as I do not think the UK would benefit from adopting many American outlooks, similarly, I am not sure the USA would benefit from many UK outlooks.
Although, it does seem our current administration want people to fall in line with what they think with the minimal amount of fuss. As a Libertarian, I do not agree with that and never will. The Government (regardless of who is President) needs cutting down to size, and as a nation, the people have to shape our nations destiny using the tools of Government, not the Government using the people as tools in their plans to create their own brand of utopia.
Have a good night.
Craig.
That’s a great post Craig
The Government (regardless of who is President) needs cutting down to size, and as a nation, the people have to shape our nations destiny using the tools of Government, not the Government using the people as tools in their plans to create their own brand of utopia.
.. that bit is brilliant.
I disagree with the part about having guns. I think the murder rate would be much higher here than in the US, if we armed all of our nut cases.
Hi Grimes!
First of all a Libertarian is not a right winger. Of all my beliefs, the only one that is remotely right of center is my belief in the second amendment. The majority are far left of center. Again for the benefit of clarity, here is my stance on a number of political and social issues:
Gay Marriage and Equal Rights for Homosexuals: Totally in favor of. I am active on a political and social front regarding theses issues.
Religion: Atheist. Strong believer in separation of Church and State and if you think being an Atheist and expressing those views is easy in a "Bible Belt" state, you are sadly mistaken.
Abortion: Pro-Choice.
Government: I believe in a minimalist Governmental machine.
Taxation: The Tax System should be abolished and The Fair Tax should be introduced.
Environmental Issues: In favor of finding alternative fuels to oil.
Immigration: The USA is big enough for everyone to immigrate legally if they so desire. Illegal immigrants with no criminal record should be allowed to stay if they sign up to become residents. Illegal immigrants with criminal records get kicked out (which is the same for legal immigrants, btw)Now, how they heck can those views be described as right-wing or extremist? No-one I have spoken too on these threads has been able to answer this but I still get called a right winger, an extremist, a bigot and a racist and now my beliefs to a piece of murdering scum like Timothy McVeigh. So, please tell me how these views constitute right wing extremism? Because so far in various threads, people have thrown around highly evocative words with several negative connotations but not substantiated their arguments or backed up their accusations towards me with any proof or evidence. As we say in America (though not really referring just referring to you) "Put up or Shut up!"
Timothy McVeigh was not a Libertarian. And frankly it is unfair to millions of citizens (including my wife) who is a veteran, to suggest that military service is a red flag to be watched for as they may have a propensity to go on a killing spree. The beliefs of Timothy McVeigh came from extremely right wing and twisted people. For example have you read "The Turner Diaries."
It is totally inaccurate and unfair to in any way associate the views I have with those of right wing extremism and especially people like Timothy McVeigh and the associations and beliefs he had.
Again, a Libertarian is not a right wing extremist. As a Libertarian, I believe in minimal Governmental interference in the lives of people, I believe in the free market economy and I believe peoples morality and religious choice should not infringe on the rights of others.
You said: Obama has quite simply brought an enormous intelligence, effective diplomacy, and appreciable empathy to a task that now, after the Bush years, now needs them more than ever before.
In these dire economic times, for all that he has to struggle against those who, after the right-wing politicians such as Gramm, caused the crisis in the first place, even while using the inside knowledge they are able to provide Obama is a godsend; and yet he would have been a godsend in the good times, too, such appear to be the qualities of the man. I wouldn’t quite rate him as highly as Nelson Mandela, as a man, but right now I can’t think of anyone I would. But as a US President, I expect him to prove to be a great as F D Roosevelt; possibly greater.
Obama is an absolutely brilliant man, the first and only African American to be elected as Editor of the Harvard Law Review, yet you try to cast him as a person with learning difficulties. I mean how stupid is that? Lawyers as a breed may not inspire a lot of confidecne in us, yet they basically run the world – albeit on the instructions of billionaires, who tend to be among the very worst malefactors in our world (if only because, most powerful).
That sort of irrationality, clearly, blind hatred, ought to be viewed by the authorities as threatening, in your violence-drenched American society
My Reply: I have never questioned Obama’s intelligence nor have I claimed or tried to cast him as a man with "learning-difficulties." Please produce the proof of that.
The legacy of F D Roosevelt is the rise of the big governmental machine. I actually think at the time it was needed. But as we saw, it was never stopped, it just grew and grew and Obamas answer is to grow ithe behemoth further. Roosevelt is a hero to many Democrats because it achieves their goal of the Government using the tools of the people to build a world as they see it versus the people using the government as a tool to build a world as the people see it.
I struggle to think of a political leader in history who has done more with less and overcome more injustice than Nelson Mandela. And despite being an atheist, I also have a lot of time for the teachings and religious views of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
So again, how I am I being irrational and full of blind hated that I should be seen as threatening to authorities in America???
My apologies if I missed your post about radio hate-jocks as you call them.
Rush Limbaugh: I cannot stand him. The worse kind of Republican Elitist. I have no good to say about him whatsoever nor do I see any attraction of listening to his show.
Michael Savage: An interesting guy. Definitely egotistical beyond belief. Has no discernible consistency in his views and is very good at self promotion to his audience. He promotes his own ideas and does not allow people to disagree with him, therefore his only value is to those who already like him and believe him to reinforce their somewhat wayward ideas.
I think Hannity is is "Rush Jr." Although I often disagree with him I do like listening to O’Reilly, but he has to learn secularism does not equal the downfall of religion and morality. Glenn Beck is an idiot who breaks out into tears (as a lot of Mormons do) when talking about God ,which he does a lot of.
My favorites are Neal Boortz and Free Talk USA, the latter is probably the most Libertarian of the talk radio shows but Neal is good as well.
I know this appears to contradict my ideas about having a minimalist Government but i think one of the wisest things Obama has done is to pass on the substantive info to his staffers. I think his natural conversational tone if he discussed issues in depth would be a huge winner for him. Despite his umm’s and err’s, the subject matter and his undoubted intelligence and presence would overcome that. But as you say if he keeps to the vapid platitudes and his own rhetoric it will become an uphill struggle.
One of the most challenging aspects of going to live in a country as vast as America is you never learn it all. I came here with very different views to the ones I have now. And you never stop learning if you open your ears and mind to people in this country. I have spent thousands of hours talking and thinking about my new home, yet the part of the overall American experience i have to share with others is so small!
Regards,
Craig.
Using your logic anyone who happens to imbibes alcohol, drives a car, (but doesnt involve in illegal drunk driving) is partly to blame for every drunk driver caused fatality! It does not stand up to logical reasoning.
No, using my logic, everyone who agree with the right of people to drink drive, is partly reponsible for the death of people killed by drunk drivers…
I do not see how my Pro Gun views are arming every unlicensed criminal in the country. Criminals will get guns if they want them, regardless of my view.
No, I do not share the blame because I have no personal responsibility there. I do not own a gun nor do I carry one nor do I have a gun license. Because I support the second amendment as have hundreds of millions throughout the history, you are saying we share the blame every time somebody decides on their own to shoot someone or use a gun irresponsibly.
Yes Craig, it is those that have supported the second amendment ever since it became unnecessary that have armed every licensed gun criminal in US history since. That is pretty obvious really, if you give someone a gun and they kill someone with it, then you are partly to blame, because you gave them the gun.
I cannot see how you can agree that there are nutters in the US but that everyone has the right to carry a gun. It is the same logic as the US used when arming (amongst a hell of a lot of others) Saddam and the Afghanis and then distancing themselves when they started to commit attrocities against their own people.
As a Libertarian, my stance on it is simple. Can we question the majority of people to govern themselves properly and using the laws of the land punish those who break the law with the minimum of Government intrusion, regulation and interference in our lives?
I believe overwhelmingly the answer to that is Yes.
So by the same logic Craig, do you think that Iran and North Korea should have Nuclear arms? What about Robert Mugabe’s zimbabwe, or sierra lione, or the republic of congo, or somalia? By your logic of "everyone has the right to bear arms but they have to act responsibly, but all are trustworthy until such times as they go nuts", you must surely agree with the rights of all countrys to have nuclear arms.
I think the reason you come across as very right wing is that you’ve referred to Obama as "one of them" and have blamed the blacks for being the main perpetrators of gun crime, and you believe in the shooting of burglars. By UK standards, where a vote for the tories is right wing, that it is what we would see as extreme right.
Before even finishing reading your post, Craig, I have to tell you that your designation of flat taxes as the "Fair Tax" is grotesque beyond belief. The only remotely fair tax is income – and even when our highest tax band was 95% just after WWII, on those super-rich who paid it, it was a fraction of the burden of the tax paid by the poorer folk then and ever since. But you know, it is typical of your inability to set the glaringly obvious.
You claim to be a left winger. Well, I can see that is true in terms of your social/sexual views, like those of NuLab(c), but they too are to the right of Thatcher in terms of their economic policies, who, together with Reagan, caused this looming mega economic crisis. In short, like you, NuLab(c) presents us with the worst of all possible worlds: policies that have led to an economic looting of our country by the super-rich, and simultaneously, "anything goes", liberal policies on matters of personal morality; most notably sexual, but more wide-ranging, and leading to an accelerating breakdown of our society.
The plain fact of the matter is, that, whatever an individual’s religious or atheist persuasion, "By their fruit you shall know them" indicates all that we need to consider, as to the relative merits of a society basing itself on its historically Christian religious culture, and an atheist culture adducing a putative tolerance and freedom of the individual to do what he/she wants; and if the laws are inconvenient, change them.
The plain fact of the matter is that our society, starting with ours schools, has become increasingly ungovernable. And, ironically, since it has made even the inadequate policing of our society (and now some of our schools!!) more and more expensive. And why wouldn’t it, since it is atomised by this so-called "libertarianism", who are held to have personal ever-wider rights without reference to wider society, and less and less responsibility for their actions?
About to read the rest of your post, now.
To resume: you’ve been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the economic far right, Craig, that you could not be more comprehensive deluded. Your vast military-industrial complex is so incredibly "big government " as to be surreal! You fund an arms budget bigger than the rest of the world put together – and, yes, that includes Russia and China. Your rich are the ultimate "welfare queens", sucking on the teats of big government.
No your so-called "Fair Tax" is straight from Forbes list of the richest billionaires. It was what Forbes, himself, I believe was touting when he entered the political fray; flat taxes, which inevitably hit the poorest the hardest.
Under Bush, big government became Big Brother. Going through one of your airports is said to be something else again. Under the so-called Patriot Act, you could be made to disappear, without even the right to speak to a lawyer. Everything has been excused even torture, as Donaghue put it, "because we’re afraid!"
As for Mcveigh, as you must know, he was only one in an growing number of libertarians, survivalists, far-right nut-jobs, either ex-service or wannabes. Here’s another:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di … 118×210223
..and another:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di … 89×5160681
When you’re so concerned about big government – surely a code term for higher taxes for welfare – your "open door" policy on immigration (not very practical, by the way, if you’re a working man and don’t want your wage reduced by immigrants from poor countries working for pennies), makes no sense at all. But perhaps, it’s the thought of the cheap labour, rather than the bill for welfare for the unemployed that makes sense to you.
Be that as it may, Brits who are hostile to immigrants who are already in this country, and who blinded by hatred for them, rather than sympathising with them, would be far less likely to go on an anti-immigrant rampage with a gun – if only for want of a gun, which are far less readily available. Also, of course, the big government that gave us in the UK a national health service and a welfare state, has reduced the level of stress of the average citizen.
Bulwark:
I never referred to Obama as "one of them" I referred to the fact many black people took an interest in politics for the first time and were supportive because they saw him as "one of their own" That is a huge difference. If you can’t see that difference for yourself – there is little more I can say. I really resent your insinuations that I am in any way racist. Again, bring it to the table, if you have proof, bring it to the table and we will discuss it. Until then, please refrain from labeling me in such a way.
Oh, and stating a statistical fact that black people are more likely to be involved in gun crime according to national statistics does not make me a racist. That is a pathetic assumption along the lines of "Well, if he says anything in any way that is less than totally positive he must be in some way prejudiced."
As for believing in the shooting of burglars…I believe where it is legal to do so, people have the right to defend their property, possessions and property. How the hell is that right wing?
I have no problem with tighter gun regulations so there is less likelihood "nutters" (your term) have access to them. But in the American system of Government you cannot phase out an amendment to the constitution. As I live in rural America, I see the need for people to use guns. I did not see the need when I first came to live here, but my view has changed as I have become more immersed in the culture.
And when I was in England I never once voted Tory and am not a Republican either.
Craig.
Grimes!
Please listen. I am not right wing, I am not left wing, I am not in the middle. I am a LIBERTARIAN. I have clearly and concisely explained what a Libertarian is and what my beliefs are.
Grimes: The Fair Tax is not the same as a flat tax.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServerThe fair tax puts money in peoples pockets. Does away with the burdensome and bloated governmental tax system we currently have and gives people the choice to spend their money and pay tax on that expenditure as they see fit. it encourages self reliance and sensible purchasing. The beauty of the free market in this is it self regulates. You only pay higher taxes if you have the money to spend on expensive items in the first place!
To paraphrase Jack Regan: "I am totally and abjectly pissed off that people in any political discussion I take part in are so quick to label me as right wing or left wing, or more nasty labels that they do not have the guts to back up with a substantive argument and some evidence backing their assertions."
Craig.
I never referred to Obama as "one of them" I referred to the fact many black people took an interest in politics for the first time and were supportive because they saw him as "one of their own" That is a huge difference
"Even with one of their own in charge, the violent crime rate among blacks continues to grow and I predict will do so throughout Obama’s term as he doesnt want to do anything that will in any way criticize his "brothers and sisters" who see him as one of their own."
In the context I read "One of them" and "One of their own" as pretty much the exact same thing.
Oh, and stating a statistical fact that black people are more likely to be involved in gun crime according to national statistics does not make me a racist. That is a pathetic assumption along the lines of "Well, if he says anything in any way that is less than totally positive he must be in some way prejudiced."
No, it read to me as a useless statistic used to connect Obama with a negative aspect of those with the same colour of skin, where the real reason for that negative statistic has more to do IMO with the conditions in which those people live rather than having F*** all to do with their skin colour or Obama, who just so happens to also be of ethnic origin.
As for believing in the shooting of burglars…I believe where it is legal to do so, people have the right to defend their property, possessions and property. How the hell is that right wing?
Because it is an extreme take on crime and punishment, even under the British Military rules of engagement you are not allowed to shoot someone simply because they represent a threat to property, only if they represent a threat to life (ie self defense). If someone trys to steal and you kill them for it, thats murder IMO, and under British Law aswell.
I hope you understand Craig that I do not have a problem with yourself or your views I just dont agree with them, and as this a forum for discussion, am disagreeing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.