Listen to NPR's 'Here and Now' on Monday


PDA






roscoe
April 8, 2006, 03:41 AM
Hey - to all you who don't start frothing at the mouth every time someone mentions NPR.

On Friday I heard on 'Here and Now' that they are going to do a story Monday on how Democrats plan to start winning elections by changing their position on gun control.

Man, you can really tell this country is coming around on guns. If I were a Democratic candidate I would be seen wearing a leather flap holster. Nothing is cooler.

If you enjoyed reading about "Listen to NPR's 'Here and Now' on Monday" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gunsmith
April 8, 2006, 05:43 AM
you don't need an AK47 to go hunting and some reasonable restrictions are needed:barf:

oh and john nam vet kerry is the great white hunter.

mr_dove
April 8, 2006, 05:53 AM
"changing their position" = lying more

Honestly, I doubt dems will ever believe in the 2nd amendment but if they can get more votes by telling people that they do...

ACP
April 8, 2006, 08:53 AM
At least John Kerry served is country, unlike current chicken Republicans like Bush, Cheney, Hastert, etc.etc.

TexasRifleman
April 8, 2006, 10:09 AM
At least John Kerry served is country, unlike current chicken Republicans like Bush, Cheney, Hastert, etc.etc.

How exactly is it service to your country to come back and denounce what your fellow soldiers are doing while they are still in harms way? Spending Christmas in Thailand on a beach helped the cause in Vietnam I am sure huh? Please, he is as dishonest as the rest of them.

And no I don't think I'll listen to NPR. The Democrats, like the Replublicans, will tell us anything they can to get elected. There is no way to hold them to promises made or spin put on their actions after an election.

Kerry was anti gun, I have no doubt the next Democrat candidate will be as well.

Bush claimed to be pro gun, then did nothing but sit there and let Congress expire the AWB. He has done exactly zero for the pro side. Clinton was anti. Bush Sr claimed to be pro but did nothing.

It's been decades since there has been an actual pro 2A pres, I think we can consider that office as anti from now on and spend time and money on more important Congressional races, both state and Fed.

Stiletto Null
April 8, 2006, 10:14 AM
AKs for hunting? You must be mad. :p

roscoe
April 8, 2006, 06:47 PM
HA HA! I was wonderig if ANYBODY would just say "thanks - I'll listen on Monday". Oh well. I should of known that all the angry anti-Democrats would be first.

If the Democrats support gun rights, then what? What'll we talk about in this forum?

Malone LaVeigh
April 8, 2006, 07:26 PM
http://www.here-now.org/

Appears to be a local program out of Boston. Most of us will have to catch it on the web if they make it available.

JohnBT
April 8, 2006, 07:33 PM
"If the Democrats support gun rights, then what?"

I think the problem is that we don't believe they will support gun rights.

I was doing my NPR announcer routine at work Thursday - talking slowly in a well modulated, deeply melodious voice with a touch of conspiratorial whisper in it - and the liberal NPR groupies were cracking up. They came right out and admitted that I had it pegged, right down to the I'm-smarter-than-you-are-and-don't-you-forget-it inflections.

John

Kim
April 8, 2006, 09:21 PM
I watched "Meet The Press" today. Two southern accented democrats on with a new book called "Foxes in the Hen House". Another what the Democrats need to do to win book. Well they were doing the darnest to sound sane but then they let out the truth. After talking about how Democrats need to acknowledge and respect rural culture and gun ownership and OH YES YOU GOT IT hunting Russert said yea but what about those "Automatics" and the good ole boys both said NO those are not used for hunting. Yea they really have it down pat how they are going to try and fool the good ole boy hunters. It will probably work with some. Oh if they could just say the 2nd amendment is as important as the beloved 1st amendment and we are going to make sure the Federal Goverment and the Judicary protect that individual right and then prove they mean it then I might look at some of their other crap. But till then. Forget it. :neener:

Kim
April 8, 2006, 09:25 PM
NPR persons sound like they are broadcasting a golf tournment except for that lady that does "All things Considered" she sounds like someone is forcing her to suck on a green persimmon. And to keep it gun related if she says firearms she sounds like she is gagging on one.:eek:

AJ Dual
April 8, 2006, 09:45 PM
There is no way to hold them to promises made or spin put on their actions after an election.

When all else fails, it's called the Second Amendment.

Standing Wolf
April 8, 2006, 11:29 PM
If the Democrats support gun rights, then what? What'll we talk about in this forum?

There's no such thing as "gun rights," since firearms have no rights.

I'm sure a few individual representatives of the Democratic (sic) party do support the nation's Second Amendment civil rights; the party as a whole, however, remains deeply committed to disarming every last law-abiding American citizen.

That could, indeed, changeóbut I'm personally not going to believe a single word of it until I've seen rock-solid, incontrovertible proof over a substantial period of time. Representatives of the Democratic (sic) party need to take what you might call "affirmative action" regarding the Second Amendment.

Manedwolf
April 8, 2006, 11:31 PM
Man, you can really tell this country is coming around on guns. If I were a Democratic candidate I would be seen wearing a leather flap holster. Nothing is cooler.Man, you can really tell this country is coming around on guns. If I were a Democratic candidate I would be seen wearing a leather flap holster. Nothing is cooler.

There were an awful lot of southern Democrats who survived the Katrina aftermath or had relatives who did, and saw just how bad human scavengers can be, and how an inept government can't appear like superheroes to save them.

Guess what sort of legislation they're voting for now? It's not for disarmament!

gunsmith
April 9, 2006, 05:37 AM
I would vote for Bill Richardson or Harry Reid over Guilianni and McCain.

anti gun loon bloomburg is a repub

Erebus
April 9, 2006, 07:17 AM
If the Democrats support gun rights, then what? What'll we talk about in this forum?

About how Democrats are lying about supporting gun rights.

jdkelly
April 9, 2006, 09:07 AM
If the Democrats support gun rights, then what? What'll we talk about in this forum?
How cold it is in hell!


Respectfully,

jdkelly

BigFatKen
April 9, 2006, 09:16 AM
In '92 the D canidate promised to lower taxes. He later raised them. 38%/28% = ~40% increase. Who believed that promise.

garyk/nm
April 9, 2006, 09:36 AM
I would vote for Bill Richardson

While it would appear that Big Bill is gun friendly, he is also one of the most blatantly corrupt politicians (IMO) you will ever see. Bill only does what is in Bill's best interest. If a new law looks like it will gain him election points, it gets signed; if not, pass.
Do not trust anything this man says.
The "state of emergency" on the border thing was just a pre-election ploy for some camera time.
I'm hoping that we can de-elect him in November and put a real crimp in his Presidential plans.

the Juggernaut
April 9, 2006, 02:13 PM
you don't need an AK47 to go hunting and some reasonable restrictions are needed

oh and john nam vet kerry is the great white hunter.The second amendment is not about hunting or shooting a piece of clay. It's about defending the country from enemies foreign and domestic. A pistol isn't going to be that great if there ever comes a confrontation with the government or an invading army. I hope it never happens but if it does then give me the 7 P's.

Prior
Proper
Planning
Prevents
Piss
Poor
performance

TheEgg
April 9, 2006, 02:37 PM
Never pay any attention to what politicians SAY. Pay attention to what they DO.

TonkinTwentyMil
April 9, 2006, 03:37 PM
... unlike Bush and chicken Republicans..."

Dear ACP:

I see you've bought that tired old mantra still pushed by the militarily-ignorant news media, academics, and the LibDonkeyLeft.

The facts are these:

1. Bush was an officer and pilot in the Air Nat'l Guard, not a regular grunt (not to disparage ANY grunt who also did his duty).

2. To become a pilot meant that he was virtually on active duty in the U.S. Air force for over 18 months (including Officer Training school AND rigorous pilot training). And THEN his years in the A.N.G. commenced. You don't learn to fly jets doing one weekend per month.

3. Bush eventually qualified to fly the F-102 jet fighter aircraft -- and THAT is quite different than driving a helicopter or cargo a/c carrying 'taters and toilet paper to the troops.

4. If you examine the non-combat accident rate -- and mortality rate -- for the old F-102, you'll discover that it was an entirely diiferent (i.e., far more dangerous) game than the "gentlemanly weekend warrior" picture that the ever-hostile-to-Republican snots (previously mentioned) like to portray. Military aviation, in war OR peace, has always been frought with unpublicized dangers. Even during the Vietnam War, for example, I lost more squadron mates (pilots) and friends to various accidents/malfunctions than to hostile fire.

Both Republicans and Democrats have their share of Chicken-Hawks. However, when you get your facts straight and are able to tell your own @ss from Cyndy Sheehan's, you might be able to sing from a different playbook.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 9, 2006, 03:47 PM
I'll tell you what. on the national level I definetely don't trust it yet. Why? Billy Boy Clinton proved that a Southern Democrat is soon parted from gun rights when in Washington.

On the state level, oh yeah I trust it. But here is what the Dems would need to do to prove they are now "pro-gun"

Introduce, support, and get passed a bill which takes away some gun control. Alot of people are talkin' about Mark Warner, Gov of Virginia.

I won't believe his "pro-gun" stance until he says he will repeal the '89 Import Ban, or set up restrictions of ATF practices and set up a program to have more gun dealers. That happens, (b/c the Republicans will almost surely pick a hated neo-con) I would vote for him under the idea, well it probably can't get worse. (I'd love to see the supposedly pro-gun Republican answer to Warner saying something like that)

beerslurpy
April 9, 2006, 03:51 PM
The AK is an excellent hunting weapon. As I pointed out elsewhere, 122-154 grain commercial projectiles are suitable for deer and hog. If you handload you can go up to 220 grains for large game and down to 90 grains for small game. The rifle has unlimited capabilities.

If the democrats and republicans are supposedly pro-gun, where are all the bills to repeal gun control? No, instead we get STRONG RESISTANCE to a bill that merely moves laws from appropriations bills to the US Code without actually changing anything. Sorry, it still quacks and waddles like an anti-gunner.

Leanwolf
April 9, 2006, 04:14 PM
GUNSMITH - "I would vote for Bill Richardson or Harry Reid over Guilianni and McCain."
_________________________________________________________________

Rudy Guilianni is EXTREMELY anti-guns owned by us worker peasants. He's a hypocritical one-eyed-jack if there ever were one.

As for McCain, he's no different than Guilianni.

When it comes to the four listed above, I'd as soon eat a plate of barbed wire as to vote for any one of them!

L.W.

ACP
April 9, 2006, 10:07 PM
Tonkin TwentyMil

Please don't insult me with your "militarily-ignorant news media, academics, and the LibDonkeyLeft" argument. It's not true, and all the name calling in the world can't change the fact that Kerry was in-country, wounded and decorated while Bush and other cowards took every opportunity to avoid combat. Bush was AWOL for a good period of his Natl. Guard duty, was given a pass due to his political and social connections, and he and his ilk are an INSULT to America's military.

Husker1911
April 9, 2006, 10:33 PM
Your arguments about Kerry/Bush are ridiculous. Either one would sell you out in a heartbeat. ACP, you stomped onto this thread in the first place, what did you expect? That a gun board would support your Kerry rant? Puhleeze. What was Kerry doing "in-country"? Filming his exploits (sic) to further his political career!

Me, I'm voting for a candidate that supports Second Amendment rights. I'm marking the square next to the "Libertarian" candidate.

gunsmith
April 9, 2006, 11:46 PM
I put the barf:barf: that should make it obvious what I was trying to say, that the dems allways sing the same old song ....to make it crystal clear for the sarcastic impaired. I am all for private ownership of both semi auto and class three AK's....

uh leanwolf...I am saying that democrat harry reid and democrat bill richardson are better then gulianni and mccain....I know how bad guilianni is...I am an ex new yorker!!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

gunsmith
April 9, 2006, 11:51 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out
The medical description of his first wound.

Some critics of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have questioned the circumstances surrounding the first of three Purple Hearts Kerry won in Vietnam. Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished.

Kerry was treated for the wound at a medical facility in Cam Ranh Bay. The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. (Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party.) What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it.

I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay.

John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.

ACP
April 10, 2006, 03:04 PM
It was not my intention to hijack this thread, so I will conclude my comments by saying you are all free to Google the military records of Kerry, Bush, Cheney and Hastert. Please be honest and consult various sources, both partisan and neutral. Then draw your own conclusions. I believe my assertions will win the day.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
April 10, 2006, 03:26 PM
All I need to know is which one of them hung out with Jane fonda after the war. FYI, it wasn't Bush, Cheney or Hastert.

It's not Military service alone that dictates who is a better politician. ALL of these men have prior held positions in Gov't and/or Business, and I'll tell you that Massachusetts is absolutely NOT the model I would choose for my nation, or state, for many, many reasons.

Otherguy Overby
April 10, 2006, 04:18 PM
Please don't insult me with your "militarily-ignorant news media, academics, and the LibDonkeyLeft" argument. It's not true, and all the name calling in the world can't change the fact that Kerry was in-country, wounded and decorated

FACT: Many military records are not verified and few are actually cross-checked.

Hey, I was in the military (US Army.) I can only reason that since I used some clerical legerdemain for three of my very own promotions, JFKerry could have easily typed up one or more his own medal commendations/recomendations. Or, he could have paid some clerk to type it up for him. All one needed was a typewriter, a stencil sheet or two, a mimeograph machine and some knowledge of how paperwork moves through personnel files.

K-Romulus
April 10, 2006, 05:51 PM
I guess this is the show:

http://www.here-now.org/shows/2006/04/20060410_2.asp

A Democrat's Strategy for Republican Success
Story aired: Monday, April 10, 2006

A new AP-Isos survey shows almost 70 percent of Americans (an all-time low for the Bush presidency) think the nation is headed in the wrong direction. The poll also gives Democrats a 49-33 percent edge over Republicans on which party should control Congress.

A new book, "Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run 'Em," written by democratic strategists Dave Saunders and Steve Jarding doesn't quite go that far, but it does sketch out a blueprint for democratic success in areas now dominated by the GOP.

Guests:

Steve Jarding, co-author of "Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run 'Em"



It seems to be 38 minutes long, so I will have to listen when I get home . . .

MechAg94
April 10, 2006, 07:03 PM
I would have a little more respect for Kerry if he would publicize his original discharge papers instead of the document he has on his website that was done after Jimmy Carter's pardon. He has never been up front about that. It taints whatever service he might have done.

gunsmith
April 11, 2006, 06:02 AM
show that GW got better grades, they were released after the election (natch)
with zero fanfare from MSM

Vermont Guy
April 11, 2006, 01:42 PM
I listened to that show. It is available at www.nro.org.

The guys thesis was: No hunting gun has ever been banned. But the NRA has all these hunters convinced that the government is out to get their bird gun. So the Democrats have to support the hunters, especially in the south and west. One way he suggested was to open National Park Land to hunters. This would only cost the other park users a couple of weeks and would cut the hunters out of the NRA.

If NYC wants to ban assault weapons that is perfectly alright.

Just a heads up for when you see that line coming.

benEzra
April 11, 2006, 02:08 PM
I emailed the author and pointed out that only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter. The Democratic party leadership have been under the misconception that "gun owner = hunter" for more than a decade now...

I don't CARE if I'm "allowed" to own a skeet gun or a bolt-action deer rifle; I don't OWN any, and neither do most of the gun owners I work with. We mostly own handguns and intermediate-caliber nonhunting rifles, though there are a few shotguns in the mix.

Fastlane
April 11, 2006, 02:34 PM
I own guns, I don't hunt. My weapons/guns are used for target pratice and protection. Democrats need to read the 2A it dose not mention hunting.

Colt
April 11, 2006, 02:45 PM
Wow. Many of my fellow brothers-in-arms would be surprised to learn that that their guard service is cowardly. I wonder what comprises ACP's military experience/service.

*Yawn*

I also don't know many "idiots" who completed USAF fighter training, graduated from Yale and Harvard, or rose to the office of POTUS. Like 'em or hate 'em, you don't get to be President by being stupid, no matter who your father is.

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 03:17 PM
Wow. Many of my fellow brothers-in-arms would be surprised to learn that that their guard service is cowardly.
Yeah but Colt, I'm guessing you and your brothers in arms have to actually show up from time to time.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/05/national_guard/print.html

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 04:14 PM
I just heard the show...

gunsmith-- you get the official "Carnac the Magnificent" award as you saw the future 100% +1

Vermont--
Yeah, his argument is really bizarre. He states that guns aren't evil per se they just become evil geographically so democrats should ban them in New York (and by extension San Francisco/LA/etc), but not in Iowa/Virginia/South Dakota etc. I suppose that means we should be able to suspend freedom of speech in Kentuky, or the 4th amendment in Harlem just 'cause some local places "don't need it"

And people are supposed to believe that they won't take guns away later?!

Also I love his usage of "hunting gun," especially for me a non-hunter, who isn't terribly interested in shooting furry things, pulling their legs off and eating them. Isn't every gun a "hunting gun." I suppose he means that we shouldn't ban single-round break-action shotguns or goofyly big .44mag revolvers, but everything else is for terrorists.

So what are Democrats going to today? The same thing they do everyday, Pinky. Try to take over your guns.

robctwo
April 11, 2006, 04:26 PM
I'm a Democrat. I'm a gun owner. I have hunting rifles, an "assault rifle", shotguns and hand guns. I don't agree with all things said by all Democrats. My goal is to get my party to support the right to bear arms in the constitution. Let's move on to some other important issues like getting the super rich to pay taxes. Lots of taxes.

DRZinn
April 11, 2006, 04:39 PM
Let's move on to some other important issues like getting the super rich to pay taxes. Lots of taxes.They already do. Let's move on to some important issues like equitable distribution of the burden of supporting the government.

Better yet, forget that and let's just get the government out of my life. How's that?

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 04:49 PM
They already do.
Yeah, there's a few accounts at Cayman Islands Bank and Trust that would disagree with you on that.

robctwo-- as a liberal I agree about taxing the uber rich. As a parent, I also agree with preserving the environment for my kids. But damn democrats always try to take the guns. This guy on NPR said we should give up going after guns was still selling the same giant horse-pill to swallow, leave "hunting guns" alone but ban everything else, everywhere else. :banghead: IT'S SO FRUSTRATING.

geekWithA.45
April 11, 2006, 04:50 PM
Let's move on to some other important issues like getting the super rich to pay taxes. Lots of taxes.

They do.

http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2003/images/indiv3-big.gif

http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2003/factsfigs.html

In fact, people who make less than 50k only pay 15.7% of the total tax burden.

That means that 84.3% of the tax burden is paid by those who make > 50k.

In fact, 55% of the tax burden is paid by people who make > 100k, which isn't that hard a hurdle for two professionals filing jointly to cross.

So, put redristributionist "the rich are getting richer and squeezing the middle class" mantra back where it came from.

The reality is that the few pay the most to the many.

carlrodd
April 11, 2006, 05:02 PM
"changing their position" = lying more

Honestly, I doubt dems will ever believe in the 2nd amendment but if they can get more votes by telling people that they do... -mr dove


bingo. here's what perplexes me.....if a politician openly admits that he is going to change his position on ANY issue simply to get into, or stay in office, shouldn't the buzzers in everybody's head start going off, warning people that maybe this person doesn't have the integrity to represent other people, since he simply stands for whatever will keep him in power. the republican party sucks too, but at least they have enough sense to lie without telling you they're doing it. with that said, i'll be voting for neither.

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 06:28 PM
http://www.geocities.com/whatisthisnewdevilry/image.jpg

So, put your "the rich are impoverished by the welfare socialist programs" mantra back where it came from.

The reality is that the few make a lot of money off of the many.

Daniel T
April 11, 2006, 07:47 PM
What in the hell does yacht ownership have to do with the percentage of taxes that people pay?

Would it be your socialist dreamworld to have everyone make $20k a year no matter what job they did?

F4GIB
April 11, 2006, 07:49 PM
When it comes to the four listed above, I'd as soon eat a plate of barbed wire as to vote for any one of them!

Actually, any of the four would just as soon PUT every independent thinking person behind the barbed wire. D's for your own good (social re-education) and R's because you broke some new stupid law (punish the criminal). That's why I love gridlock. Let 'em accomplish nothing at all.

Hawk
April 11, 2006, 08:20 PM
And no I don't think I'll listen to NPR.

Aw, man, and right in Fort Worth too.

I don't know about what's coming up but Glenn Mitchell did interviews with both John Lott and Abigail Kohn in the same year. I'm going to miss that guy. :(

'Course, it's a Texas public radio station - guess I shouldn't have been that surprised they had a couple of overtly "pro" interviews.

Boats
April 11, 2006, 08:29 PM
Isn't a yacht a type of boat? If so, I am soon to be a yacht owner and I make less than $200k per annum.:D

http://www.bandbyachtdesigns.com/princsailing1.jpg

Of course, the above is a representation of the do-it-yourself yacht I began making in my shop last winter. It should be ready for launch by summer '07 if I want all of the interior appointments finished up before launch.

Where there's a will there's a way.

Kim
April 11, 2006, 08:43 PM
Imagine --yea I don't mean that John Lennon crap but just imagine if all the people who make over 100,000 a year just decided to strike ie not work for 6-months to a year. Wonder if that would put a crimp in the socialist plans or will they just try to pass a law and force people to work for the government or the social welfare state or the common good. I would love to see that strike happen. Maybe it wil someday. Maybe it will. :what: Like I said in my earlier post I saw these farcical gun owners on Russert Meet the Press same ole crap re packaged with a shiney bow and glitter.:barf:

ElTacoGrande
April 11, 2006, 08:50 PM
You know, the Dems used to be the party of states' rights. That used to be their numero uno plank in their whole platform. That's a major philosophical point and they have done a 180 on it. They could change their others, too.

They have been cutting open their own wrists on this gun control issue for the past ten years. They had control of Congress for decades until Clinton's AWB.

They're not dumb.

I wouldn't TRUST them, but then again, I also wouldn't trust the Repubs. They (all of them) need to be constantly reminded that we have no loyalty and if we are betrayed, we don't forget.

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 09:16 PM
Would it be your socialist dreamworld to have everyone make $20k a year no matter what job they did?

No.

Really rich people pay taxes and yet somehow remain rich. Did I say, "If you make $25,000 you'll be taxed 20% and if you make 600,000 you'll be taxed 96.6%" so as to always arrive at $20,000?

Have fun arguing with your strawman friend.

And remember, April 15 is coooming :eek:

'Card
April 11, 2006, 09:30 PM
I wouldn't ever mock or demean John Kerry's military service. He volunteered to go, he did what he did, and if he picked up a medal or two that he may not have shed a few buckets of blood to earn, then that doesn't mean he was trying to decieve anyone. Pretty much anyone who's spent any time in a combat zone can tell you that most of the medals they hand out are meaningless anyway. The sole fact that you went, and you did your job is all the recognition that really matters in the long run.

My problem is that if you go perform your military service, and then you come back to the US and throw your medals over the White House fence as an act of protest and claim you're ashamed of what you did, then it's an act of staggering hypocrisy to then try to go back and rewrite history, and paint yourself as a war hero 30+ years later. It's an amazingly clear demonstration of a person who will do or say virtually anything to anyone at any time in order to achieve power.

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 09:31 PM
Boats--

It's not a yacht until you sail it into the Monaco marina wearing a white tuxedo. =)

BTW that's a nice boat. Good luck with the launch.

mountainclmbr
April 11, 2006, 09:33 PM
To all who vote for Democrats, I have an even more progressive idea!

Let ME rule your life. I don't pander to the trial lawyer crowd so I will tell the truth straight up!

Your guns are now mine as they should be. If you don't trust yourself with the important decisions in your life you can't be trusted with a gun anymore. I will keep you as safe as I decide you should be.

Send me all of your money. I will redistribute it to all Democrats so everyone has the same amount regardless of their intelligence or work ethic. People won't get lazy and stop working because, remember, I will have lots of guns and they wont (hint, hint). I make a solemn promise not to keep more than 50% of money I redistribute so you won't even notice a difference from what many now pay.

Just remember I will be ELITE and will be treated as a GOD compared to you. No more need for religion as I will be jealous and filled with rage (and will have many guns, hint, hint).

It will be a worker's paradise, by definition.

Any takers from the left???

Sorry I didn't have impossible, sugar coated promises like the trial lawyer crowd. I have not learned to spin and blurted out the truth. Does this disqualify me?

Art Eatman
April 11, 2006, 09:37 PM
Mr. V, the "uber rich" will never have to pay much of a percentage in the way of taxes. They never have.

They don't work for salaries. they don't generate much "ordinary income", to use IRS parlance.

They own things which have value. They have enough tax-free or low-tax-rate income to support a lifestyle.

While I'm not all that rich, I can tell you that I pay more tax on my Social Security income than I do on that portion of my income which is much greater than SS: Tax-free municipals. When it comes to serious money, though, I'm ignorant when compared to those who study tax shelters.

Regardless, as has been found, when you raise the tax rates that would affect the very rich, total government income goes down. For instance, if you raise the capital gains rate, folks quickly quit investing in the stock market except safe long-term equities, and quit selling at all. No sales, no taxes. You mess with inheritance taxes, folks set up trust funds and divest more than three years ahead of anticipation of death. I suggest you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

What's ironic is that the Democratic Party has fewer total donors than the Republicans. The Dems get larger checks, per person, on average; the Repubs get smaller checks, on average. Yet, the Repubs generally get more total money. I forget the URL; there's some outfit that publishes info about all donations to political parties, using government data.

Art

Husker1911
April 11, 2006, 09:39 PM
"You know, the Dems used to be the party of states' rights. That used to be their numero uno plank in their whole platform. That's a major philosophical point and they have done a 180 on it. They could change their others, too."

The Reps used to be the party of less government, too. What happened there?

Look how many years of US civillians outcry and outrage has it taken to finally perhaps see some illegal immigration reform? Far too many. How many years will it take to see action if we all start a grassroots movement to return to Constitutional governmental restraints? Far too many.

But for this to turn into a urinating match of Rep versus Dem is schlock. It's exactly the kind of thing these congresscritters thrive on. www.fairtax.org

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 09:42 PM
I will redistribute it to all Democrats so everyone has the same amount regardless of their intelligence or work ethic.
Oh, I forgot that all democrats were also registered members of the communist party.

Comrades! ZEY'VE FEEGYURED UZ OUT! VEE MUST RETURN TO ZE MOZER RUSSIA!!!

Mr.V.
April 11, 2006, 10:10 PM
Art--

I understand your argument. And I'm not going to support as excessive a tax on the rich as Europe has. Clearly recent events in France have highlighted that an excessively socialist system is silly too.

However, the libertarian economic system seems to paint the late 19th century as a paradise and ignore the 1930s entirely. So when some conservatives argue that liberal/socialist programs will cause economic collapse and poverty, was having no social programs paid for by taxes good either?

I suppose the real worry for both sides is that as the population size increases, will there be enough new jobs to either create enough wealth that social programs don't need to grow, or if not, will the socail programs become so big that the European nightmare (or according to mountainclimber --- my $20,000 per person dream) will come true, or will we do away with social programs and just have a lot of poor people with crappy education and no healthcare growing angrier and angrier?

Art Eatman
April 11, 2006, 11:52 PM
Mr.V, I would thoroughly enjoy discussing/debating all this over at http://www.armedpolitesociety.com

:), Art

Mr.V.
April 12, 2006, 12:17 AM
Sorry! This poor thread...It's so easy to drift the topic off the edge of the world.

Somewhere between a two year old debate about John Kerry's military service and socialist tax agendas the point that the democrats are singing the same tune about "hunting guns" was lost.

So in regards to that issue...:banghead:

Meta
April 12, 2006, 01:15 AM
I will make this as simple as possible for those on the left who haven't gotten what is obvious to those of us who are not idealogically blinded by socialist pathology:

The government CANNOT redistribute wealth. Wealth is something that is sustainable, that is grown and nurtured by an individual who is an active participant in its creation. The government, in an addle-brained left socialist approach that conveniently buys votes at the same time, redistributes MONEY from one group to another.
If you give most people who are chronically poor, making 15k per year, another 20k to spend, what will they MOST LIKELY do with it? Will they save some for their kids education? Will they make investments in real estate? Will they buy some bonds to lock in a rate of return that will likely beat inflation? What will that person do? They will likely SPEND that money on useless junk that will NOT increase their chances of sustaining a better way of life in the future. Most poor people are poor for one of two reasons, and I really hate to boil it down to this: They are either lazy, stupid, or some combination of both. No matter what the dream of the redistributionist mentality, the reality is that we were not all created equal. There are smart people and there are dumb people in the same way that there are tall people and there are short people. Short people usually have short kids, tall people usually have tall kids. Smart people usually have smart kids. Smart kids grow up to be smart adults to most likely outwit and outproduce people who don't have the same ability. Do some research, theres plenty out there on this.
The smarter you are the more in demand you are in the labor market. If you have specialized skills, or are extremely adept at what you do, someone will be willing to pay you more. People with special skills or talent are more RARE than people without. For the same reason that people pay MORE for some THINGS that are rare, the labor market prices their skills accordingly and in the same manner. Its called capitalism and it works EXTREMELY well for getting goods and services to the greatest number of people at the cheapest possible price with the greatest efficiency.
Oh, says the lefty-socialist-would be communist, lets just pay doctors and proffessionals the same as we pay the guy who mows your lawn. Yeah, well, if you haven't learned by now that this kinda FAILED miserably then there is no hope for you. Yeah, lets trade in a vibrant middle class, a small underclass, a small upperclass, for a massive group where basically everyone has very little and a few people have control and power. Yeah, thats a great trade. Sadly, that is the direction that socialism takes you. Look to Europe in the next few decades to see what socialism will get you. Hell, look at France now! Cradle to grave nanny-state nonsense where even the most sensible labor laws are protested in the streets by leftist students who are basically kissing any hope of a future goodbye.
End of rant.

mountainclmbr
April 12, 2006, 10:55 PM
Meta,

Couldn't have said it better! I have a college education (worked 3 jobs and made it through engineering school in 5 years), Never unemployed for over 35 years because of really hard work during tough times, frugal (10 year old SUV not paid for yet because I bought it very used, 19 year old car paid for), save for retirement because I don't trust the Socialists. I am married, middle class. And yet:cuss: John Kerry paid a much, much lower tax rate than I did. Just the Senate salary is so much more than I make. And Kelo???? If anyone trusts these socoalist clowns to do anything more than to fleece the productive class then I have a bridge to sell them. When being productive does not pay anymore, the formerly productive will sit down and hold out their hand. This is shown repeatedly in just the last century. And the intelectual socialists are simply so "stooopid" that they don't see it. They just wish on magic. I would like to see reverse Kelo to restore money to the productive class and see the intellectual socialists forced to get their hands dirty or starve. That is what I really think of the democrats. The modern republicans are not too far behind. I would Kelo them too. If dims really believed their propaganda they would move to cuba or n. korea and bask in paradise with all the guns the intellectual governments would bestow on them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Listen to NPR's 'Here and Now' on Monday" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!