-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
WOOOT BARRACK OBAMA
- Thread starter chemical69
- Start date
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
I have found that, basically, Republicans want to legislate your morality to their standards, and Democrats want to grab your money and redistribute it, and make you "politically correct". Of course, both parties may do some of each at times. But the key thing is that they both want as much control over as many people as possible. I see them both as just sides of the same coin.
Libertarians truly believe in the smallest government, with the least interference possible, while still keeping order. Pretty much what the Republican politicians SAY, but don't actually do. And Libertarians truly believe in "live and let live", as much as possible. Pretty much what Democratic politicians SAY, but don't actually do.
Most people who disagree a lot with Libertarians are those who feel that the government knows best how we should live our lives and spend our money, and that we should all cede our individual freedoms to government "wisdom" in MANY matters that are most important to us.
Libertarians truly believe in the smallest government, with the least interference possible, while still keeping order. Pretty much what the Republican politicians SAY, but don't actually do. And Libertarians truly believe in "live and let live", as much as possible. Pretty much what Democratic politicians SAY, but don't actually do.
Most people who disagree a lot with Libertarians are those who feel that the government knows best how we should live our lives and spend our money, and that we should all cede our individual freedoms to government "wisdom" in MANY matters that are most important to us.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
The Libertarian party has a very short quiz to take to find out whether you are really conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. It is here, and takes only a couple of minutes:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
A LOT of people are libertarian and don't even know it. Unfortunately, a LOT of people are libertarian when it comes to a subject that THEY hold dear, but not quite so libertarian about protecting the rights of others who hold dear something uninteresting or even a bit distasteful to themselves. But if you don't protect THEIR rights, who will be there to protect YOUR rights when they are gone? All persecuted minorities (animal keepers, gun hobbyists, gays, smokers, and many others) need to band together and help each other, whether you particularly like the other causes or not. That is not to say that you can be irresponsible with your guns or animals, or blow smoke in my face. But we have to all help each other attain reasonable laws, not bans. The Libertarian party is the only one I know of that is interested in ALL of those minorities, and others, as long as they can manage their "thing" with little impingement on the rest of society.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
A LOT of people are libertarian and don't even know it. Unfortunately, a LOT of people are libertarian when it comes to a subject that THEY hold dear, but not quite so libertarian about protecting the rights of others who hold dear something uninteresting or even a bit distasteful to themselves. But if you don't protect THEIR rights, who will be there to protect YOUR rights when they are gone? All persecuted minorities (animal keepers, gun hobbyists, gays, smokers, and many others) need to band together and help each other, whether you particularly like the other causes or not. That is not to say that you can be irresponsible with your guns or animals, or blow smoke in my face. But we have to all help each other attain reasonable laws, not bans. The Libertarian party is the only one I know of that is interested in ALL of those minorities, and others, as long as they can manage their "thing" with little impingement on the rest of society.
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
Libertarian here as well, figured as much. Why don't we ever have candidates with a chance at election. Oh yeah, That's right, the only thing the Dems and Pubs agree on is to keep it a two party system...they would rather lose an election than allow another political party into the picture.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
I have always seen the "Republocrats" as kind of like Coke and Pepsi - battle each other for 1st place, but try to shut out other contenders as much as possible!
Libertarians have been winning A LOT of local races, and even some state races, around the country. But it is really difficult to go up against the "big guns" when it comes to the big Federal races. If only all of the "persecuted minorities" that I mentioned earlier would all push for Libertarian candidates, it could really put a scare into the Big Government guys. But if a voter isn't willing to think logically about the outcome of "feelgood" legislation that does little or no good (like a lot of our drug laws, among others), and they continue to vote emotionally, then Libertarians will have no chance of hitting it big.
A true Libertarian will vote for your rights to keep snakes in a responsible way, even if that voter HATES snakes themselves. Of course, I am not saying that EVERY Libertarian is quite that enlightened, but they are the only political group that even believes in that philosophy, and most strive towards that goal.
Libertarians have been winning A LOT of local races, and even some state races, around the country. But it is really difficult to go up against the "big guns" when it comes to the big Federal races. If only all of the "persecuted minorities" that I mentioned earlier would all push for Libertarian candidates, it could really put a scare into the Big Government guys. But if a voter isn't willing to think logically about the outcome of "feelgood" legislation that does little or no good (like a lot of our drug laws, among others), and they continue to vote emotionally, then Libertarians will have no chance of hitting it big.
A true Libertarian will vote for your rights to keep snakes in a responsible way, even if that voter HATES snakes themselves. Of course, I am not saying that EVERY Libertarian is quite that enlightened, but they are the only political group that even believes in that philosophy, and most strive towards that goal.
Ricky87
New member
I agree with a lot of what you say, and you make great point's. The only thing with me is that I voted straight democratic, and it's not that I didn't vote liberal because I believe government knows best. I just think it's important, for me anyways, to vote Democratic for the overall agenda. Thing's like President Obama's tax plan were very important for me, and I know a lot of people think it's way too much government interference, but I do believe in spreading the wealth, to an extent. For way too long, capitalism has forced personal wealth to the extremes. The rich get richer, and the poor stay poor, with little to no voice in society.
I do think your right about a lot, though, including Democrats and Republicans being 2 sides of the same coin, and it is extremely important that we fight for ideals we feel strongly about, but at this particular point in history their are way too many feelings about sensitive issues for our highest branch of government to get to involved in them. For now the biggest hurdles are the economy, foreign affairs, healthcare, and education. I feel like the best party to tackle these problems are the Democrats, and though it's tough, sometimes we may have to set aside small party interests for the better of a greater population. I mean, I really, REALLY, do hope HR669 isn't passed, but ultimately I do have faith and I think everything will turn out okay. Either way, though, I couldn't be happier with our president and I'm glad I voted for him!.
KJUN
Well-known member
Why should I have to pay for you being lazy (not you personally unless it applies) just because I was lucky enough to work harder, get higher education, and earn a job that pays more money. Why should I have to give ANYONE anything because they are too lazy to work as hard as I did? Why should ANYONE get ANYTHING for free (i.e., welfare without earning it!) in this country?
By the way, it isn't LUCK that gets a person to work their way through college or to succeed more than someone else who is lazy. That's just called getting what you earned. Getting tax dollars for free because you are too lazy to work is just another form of stealing! Lazy people deserve to have less. Period.
I don't mean you personally - unless it applies to you - since I'm just using that as a generalization. If you want more, EARN IT. People that are too scared to take risks are just JEALOUS of those that do take risks - AND WIN! That doesn't mean its right for a citizen to steal from another with more money...even if the government is the one doing it for them.
Libertarians say that if you reach in someone's pocket and TAKE money against their will, you are a thief. Libertarians believe it is thievery whether a person does it or a government does it.
How is it fair that a person who didn't over-extend themselves and bought a house they could afford are now paying the mortgages for people that bought houses that they should have known they couldn't afford to own. Why is it that smart people with less are paying so that DUMB people can have more? What makes sense in this....unless you are the lazy one getting more and paying less thanks to the government stealing it from me to give to you. Humbug!
If it does, everyone that voted for the current administration got EXACTLY what they asked for - the opposite of the previous one: instead of too lax environmental laws, an EXTREMELY STUPID over-the-top law as far from the previous administration's environmental policy as possible. Both sides of that coin are stupid with their extremity, but anyone not expected such things to be attempted are blind. Anyone could have predicted it coming, and this won't be the last attempt whether it passes or not. I don't think it will, but I think America is getting exactly what we asked for if we do get it. Go figure.
KJUN
Well-known member
Banning reloading in the US because we need to kiss Mexico's arse? Yeah, this makes a LOT of sense coming from someone that "doesn't want to take out guns away."
Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?
Well, guess what?
Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he
didn't hate.
A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and
bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the
political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that
didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun
owners.
It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.
First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit" manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?
1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as "assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."
Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."
Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit manufacturing."
And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it
could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy
definition of "illicit manufacturing."
2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.
"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.
So, is a BB gun a "firearm"? Probably.
A toy gun? Possibly.
A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.
If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:
* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.
Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.
* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.
We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its
streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico
to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of
the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty
to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.
Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful
American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute
through "other means of peaceful settlement."
Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on
the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision
in a pro-gun manner?
* Microstamping. Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on
firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be
used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a
requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are
not technologically possible or which are possible only at a
prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records,
for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be necessary
to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a
national registry or database.
ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are
either stupid or virulently anti-gun -- or both.
This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put
new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly,
even ban BB guns!
There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this
letter. The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America
at:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm
Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by
the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it. We do not
expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize -- the U.S. -- has stepped into the trap.
For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of
the treaty.
Sincerely,
Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?
Well, guess what?
Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he
didn't hate.
A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and
bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the
political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that
didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun
owners.
It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.
First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit" manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?
1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as "assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."
Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."
Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit manufacturing."
And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it
could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy
definition of "illicit manufacturing."
2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.
"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.
So, is a BB gun a "firearm"? Probably.
A toy gun? Possibly.
A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.
If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:
* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.
Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.
* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.
We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its
streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico
to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of
the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty
to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.
Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful
American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute
through "other means of peaceful settlement."
Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on
the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision
in a pro-gun manner?
* Microstamping. Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on
firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be
used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a
requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are
not technologically possible or which are possible only at a
prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records,
for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be necessary
to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a
national registry or database.
ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are
either stupid or virulently anti-gun -- or both.
This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put
new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly,
even ban BB guns!
There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this
letter. The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America
at:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm
Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by
the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it. We do not
expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize -- the U.S. -- has stepped into the trap.
For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of
the treaty.
Sincerely,
Michael823
New member
I think you forgot to say LAZY. And their is plenty of hard working people that have lost their jobs, so not everyone negatively affected by the economic crisis is "lazy". Also the redistribution of wealth affects those in the top 5% of the income bracket, and no one is jealous of you (not you personally unless it applies) just because you may be in that top %.
If you take student loans are you lazy, because someone else is helping pay for your tuition? No, it's just a boost to help you further your career until you can pay it back. I have no problem with hard working people being prosperous, but to call those who are less fortunate lazy isn't right. I work hard, pay my own mortgage, and don't have a very large income, but I wouldn't have a problem helping those who need help if I had the income that this redistribution affects. The CEO's of the companies going under aren't the hardest working people in the world, and they collect just as much money as all of the welfair recipients combined.
If you take student loans are you lazy, because someone else is helping pay for your tuition? No, it's just a boost to help you further your career until you can pay it back. I have no problem with hard working people being prosperous, but to call those who are less fortunate lazy isn't right. I work hard, pay my own mortgage, and don't have a very large income, but I wouldn't have a problem helping those who need help if I had the income that this redistribution affects. The CEO's of the companies going under aren't the hardest working people in the world, and they collect just as much money as all of the welfair recipients combined.
jazzgeek
The Rule Of Thirds.
At this point, the Republican Party is devouring itself.
Hey now. They're Patriots for standing up to Obama.
Of course, four years ago, we all had Bush Derangement Syndrome.
I love irony.
Dale
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Straight party voting seems incredibly lazy to me, or at least naive. Do you really believe that every member of your party is a better candidate?
I'd bet my house that if everyone's wealth was redistributed to the point everyone has the exact same amount of capitol, in twenty years the rich people would be rich again and the poor poor, for the most part. Why? Rich people keep doing what makes them rich, poor people keep doing what makes them poor. I don't mean to condescend, but you are young. You should be idealistic. Most left-leaning 21 year olds sway to the right to some degree with age, it's the politics of obtaining stuff! I'll happily explain that concept if needed.
KJUN
Well-known member
Right click on the target and save. Then post like normal. I couldn't figure out how to do it directly (if possible), but that worked for me. If I remember right, it was a png image file. Just treat it like another normal image.
KJ
