Liberal with guns.


PDA






doctorhumbert
July 20, 2003, 08:42 PM
It seems that many of the liberals/Democratics are Antis, and are frequently bashed by pro guns. Well, I consider myself a Liberal (as apposite to conservative), yet I love enjoy shooting and belive in the right to bear arms. When harsh words are spoken against liberals I get pretty uncomfortable.

I opposed war in Iraq. I listen to NPR. I hate Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reilly for their rudeness and bias. And yes, I am one of the majority of American who voted for Gore :what: . (please do not try to correct my political stance. This is not a place to discuss it. plus, it's like converting Christian to Muslim, that is if you think there is major difference between those two...)

AND I AM A GUN NUT. (I skp meal to buy ammo.)

Am I a freak of a nature? Is a Liberal Assualt Rifle Owner an oxymoron?
Are there other gun nuts who consider themselves a liberal?

If you enjoyed reading about "Liberal with guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sean Smith
July 20, 2003, 08:52 PM
I can tell you the answer is "no," even though I'm about as much a liberal as I am a three-headed beetle named "Clarence." :D

I guess it boils down to how important you consider your right to keep and bear arms compared to your other rights/concerns/what-have-you. I could also make a joke about it doesn't surprise me that a Liberal wouldn't know to put this kind of post in Legal and Political, but that would be too easy.

:evil:

Of course, I'm not a very good Republican either. But then, what good are Republicans anyway? :p

Peter Gun
July 20, 2003, 08:54 PM
Depends on what you call liberal. If used as currently, as an epithet for anybody who thinks the Bush party is full of sh00, then it includes me.
I am a liberal in the sense that I believe that the government helping its less fortunate citizens is in our own self interest. However I also believe that the Dems have completely screwed this philosophy up by not including any incentive for personal responsibility. I beleive that any system has room for improvement. I believe government should have nothing to do w/ religion. I believe religion stands in the way of logical thought. I believe you do not need religion to be moral. I believe the second amendment is as important and individual as the others. I believe guns are fun and useful. I leave it up to someone else to make my label.

Wanderer
July 20, 2003, 09:04 PM
Hi Clarence :D :neener: You can be both, believing in your rights has nothing to do with your political assertations.

4v50 Gary
July 20, 2003, 09:11 PM
What Wanderer sez. The gun control debate has to get away from Republican & Democrats. Republicans dealt us some pretty heavy blows (George Bush Sr.) and I don't really trust any of the major parties.

Keith
July 20, 2003, 09:21 PM
It's sometimes difficult to quantify people as liberal or conservative.

I consider myself a conservative because I believe in small government that doesn't stick its nose in my business or its hands in my wallet. Basically, that would make me a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I don't care what you do in your doctors office, your bedroom or on your property. And... I don't want to pay for your lifestyle, no matter what it is.

Since the Republicans have taken control we've seen government continue to grow and take a more active role in sticking its nose in peoples business.

So, are Republicans conservatives? I think not.

The only thing worse for liberty than a Republican, is a Democrat.

Keith

Teufelhunden
July 20, 2003, 09:23 PM
I tend towards the convervative because the Democrats so often seem to be bliss-ninnies completely bereft of any desire to assume responsibility for their own actions and well-being, but everytime I think I'm a Republican, they do something greedy, and everytime I think I'm a Democrat, they do something stupid.

Thank goodness for the Independant checkbox...


-Teuf

Mastrogiacomo
July 20, 2003, 09:24 PM
I thought I was a liberal Democrat and I voted Gore too. I wouldn't today though...and this is why I don't know where I fit in. I'm a gun nut that is pro choice -- but not when it's used as a form of birth control on a regular basis, and never for partial birth abortions. I support gay marriages -- or at least the right for partners to have medical say over one another, share health coverage, adopt children, and have the same protection under the law that married people do. It's none of my business what goes on in a person's private life as long as no one is doing anything illegal or hurting anyone....

I support weed being legalized -- but only for medical purposes and not for private use by teens and hippies just because it's there. I support prostitution being legalized so we can regulate it and crack down on offenders that exploit children.

I'm not too thrilled these days with the politicans and although I supported this war, it's time to bring our men and women home now. We're not the police officers of the world nor should we linger where we're not welcomed. I can honestly tell you I don't know how to refer to myself. Maybe what I'm listed as when I go to vote -- Independent...

:cool:

Jerrywahid
July 20, 2003, 09:37 PM
I may not appreciate your beliefs but you have the right to believe as you wish. You may call yourself a liberal but your individual beliefs may not fit my conception of liberalism. Similarly my conservative beliefs might differ from whatever conservative stereotypes you might hold.

On this forum the most important issue is that of the second ammendment. If you believe in the conservation of the second ammendment I consider you to not be a liberal in that regard.

Baba Louie
July 20, 2003, 09:48 PM
Ya know, now that I think about it, I too am "Liberal with Guns." Not "A" liberal with guns, but more of a "Generous in amount; ample" sorta way. I think everyone should be, don't you?

Adios

Moparmike
July 20, 2003, 09:49 PM
All you Gore supporters, dont feel too bad. I was a Clinton supporter(0) when I was young and ignorant (read 9-17 yrs of age) and didnt have many negative comments about his second term, besides all the press it got (stupid reporters droning on and on:cuss: ). I will tell you now that if I had the choice, I would have voted for Gore then. I just couldnt hold my nose (even if I was 18 then) and vote for Bush. I would vote for Bush now (unless a Libertarian candidate stood a serious chance of winning) as he has improved quite a bit in the past two years (especially the "Bring 'em on", I loved that:D ).

I of course fully supported then and support now the 2nd. No question about it, but didnt realize at age 11 what the AWB did. At 11, I couldnt see why anyone needed a full-auto in their house, and believed the rhetorical mantra of "keep them off the streets".:banghead:

(0) Please keep any comments and qestions on my stance regulated to PM's, as this really isnt the place for a heated debate/argument. I hate having someone's thread locked because of thread drift that I contributed to.

Justin
July 20, 2003, 09:51 PM
Don't sweat it. From where I stand, there is essentially no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Mastrogiacomo
July 20, 2003, 10:40 PM
I voted for Clinton twice. We all have made mistakes or been lied to and mislead by politicans. The second time though I knew I had made a mistake but I didn't like the alternative either. Hopefully we all learn by our from the past -- unlike politicans -- and don't repeat them. I didn't buy Hillary's book, I won't buy Bill's and although I respect our President, I disagree with him keeping our soldiers there and say it's time for him to honor his word and bring them home safe.

Mark Tyson
July 20, 2003, 10:42 PM
Yes, I am also a liberal (or maybe moderate) gun nut. I've always thought that the government ought to help out the underprivilaged and support programs to advance the sciences. I think religion has no place in government. Unlike a lot of people on this board, I was pleased with a lot of recent supreme court decisions. I think the government for all its problems has still done a lot of good to make people's lives better.

That said, I don't like the Democrats at all. They go way too far, and it's completely unfair to lay the recession at the feet of the president. Their obsession with gun control is dismaying. I consider RKBA a human right, and is not to be messed with. Democrats need to drop the gun control agenda.

WR Olsen
July 20, 2003, 10:45 PM
"Don't sweat it. From where I stand, there is essentially no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats"

From where I stand the difference appears to be:

"The moochers vrs. the misers"

BryanP
July 20, 2003, 10:52 PM
Hi Doc,

If listening to (and enjoying, and contributing $ to) NPR makes you a liberal then I guess that makes me one, but I don't really consider myself to be one as such. I jokingly refer to myself as a "moderately liberal conservative" in that I am conservative in many areas but not tied to the party line.

I don't hate Fox News, but I do think that anyone who considers them to be unbiased is foolish. They're as far to the right as ABC is to the left. Me, I listen to the left and the right and figure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

As for the negative traits that liberals and conservatives like to label each other with, I know people of either persuasion that fit all the Standard Bad Stereotypes. I know people at the other end of that as well. One good friend of mine is so conservative he jokingly says that he "walks with a distinct list to starboard" while another equally good friend is a self-described socialist. Each of these people has the ability to discuss their beliefs without getting upset and starting a yelling match which is a trait lacking in many. (to be fair, I've never discussed politics with both of them in the same room :D )

There was a point in there somewhere, but I seem to have lost it. Oh well. Good night all.

goon
July 20, 2003, 10:54 PM
I actually have nothing against Liberals per se.
If and when I bash liberals, I am actually bashing the anti-gun liberals only.
I come closer to being a liberal than a conservative.
I personally think that you should pretty much be able to live your life as you choose without any interference from any government, ever, period.
Just don't hurt anyone else.
That is more than less the hallmark of a libertarian.

As far as the AWB thing, it is bad. It is bad from the standpoint that it is an infringement on what an American can do with his life.
Banning an "assault weapon" is stupid anyhow.
I personally feel that one of my old C&R rifles is a better weapon than an AK. I only own an AK because there are people hellbent on restricting my right to own one. I can't hit crap with it, but it is the ultimate slap in the face of the anti-gun people.

El Tejon
July 20, 2003, 11:05 PM
Hey, l listen to National People's Radio, but only to monitor the enemy's communications. It's not easy, most of the broadcasts start out "boo hoo hoo . . . the children . . . boo hoo hoo.":D

Liberals/leftists own guns. Far more than we suspect. Look at Oprah's or Di Fi's or the Clintons' armoury. Liberals may not hate guns, but they do hate us huckleberries out here in flyover country.

It's O.K.; I hate them right back, plus I know how to use them and am not giving them up.:D

Standing Wolf
July 20, 2003, 11:13 PM
I was a leftist once upon a time, too, but I grew up.

mec
July 20, 2003, 11:23 PM
Althought I like Fox News, I agree that they have a definate conservative slant. Not as bad as the total liberal kant of what used to be the major networks. Fox has some liberals on staff where as CBS is completely leftist.

Fox provides the "equal time" we never got before. Somebody once said, " If you're not a socialist when you're 20, you have no soul. If you're still a socialist when you're 40, you have no brain." Might just be that both mindsets have some merit and keeping an open mind is the best course.

Don Gwinn
July 20, 2003, 11:27 PM
Standing Wolf, you have a PM.

Doc, no offense, but if you're going to write an entire thread about how you're a liberal, discuss your liberal views and which particular right-wing talk-show hosts you don't like, you can't be too serious when you ask people not to discuss that topic or "try to convert" you. You've got to know people are going to try. If you didn't want them to, you wouldn't have challenged them on a public forum. ;)
Have fun.

doctorhumbert
July 21, 2003, 12:00 AM
Every one has right to their own opinions. My primary question was to find others who consider themselves as a Liberal Gun Supporter as I am.

Jrob24
July 21, 2003, 12:23 AM
During my first year of college I was turning into a liberal. I even got involved with one of the main liberal groups on campus. At the same time I was discovering the RKBA. I stopped to reevaluate my beliefs and decided to make an effort to base my beliefs on logic and not emotion. Later I concluded that I'm mostly a libertarian.

Monkeyleg
July 21, 2003, 12:25 AM
If anyone considers himself a "gun-totin' liberal," then the best thing he can do is to come down hard on the local leaders of the party: the state Democrat party, the union stewards, and so on.

"Liberalism"--at least in the form that I knew it years ago--got hijacked by the likes of Josh Sugarman and the former Republican Sarah Brady. The last presidential election should prove to the power brokers that gun control is a losing cause.

If the Dem's would kick Sarah lose, it could make for more interesting politics, just as the idea of the Repub's jettisoning Pat Roberts might make for a more interesting mix.

As gunowners, we've been forced to accept one camp because the Sarah's on the other side won't let us in their tent. As a so-called "conservative," that just ain't my problem. It's the problem of the party that champions the Sarah's of the country.

Here's a quote from an old-line liberal. Imagine any one of the current crop of presidential wannabe's saying this:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Any guesses as to who the author of that quote was?

Malone LaVeigh
July 21, 2003, 12:35 AM
My definition of "liberal" includes support for all of the constitutional, and maybe a few more, human rights.

We've had this discussion many times here and on TFL. You could do a search and find out where a lot of people stack up. I defined myself on one such thread as a green, civil libertarian, market-economy, social democrat.

roscoe
July 21, 2003, 01:44 AM
Another gun-toting liberal here. Except for my gun-rights stance, I am an ACLU-card carrying, environmentalist liberal right on down the line. Not that a belief in the right to bear arms is in any way contradictory with those positions, despite what you might read around here.

Mike Irwin
July 21, 2003, 01:57 AM
"My definition of "liberal" includes support for all of the constitutional, and maybe a few more, human rights."

So, that would mean virtually no one associated with today's iteration of the Democratic Party, correct?

Malone LaVeigh
July 21, 2003, 02:14 AM
So, that would mean virtually no one associated with today's iteration of the Democratic Party, correct?Correct. Slightly more than the Republican, but we're talking about insignificant numbers, in any case.

only1asterisk
July 21, 2003, 03:03 AM
Doc,

Listening to NPR doesn't make you a liberal; it just means you either have fine taste in music or that you like your news just as full of ******** as anything FOX puts out. If you know much about guns and believe in your rights, how does it make you feel when NPR starts spouting lies, BS and nonsense about them (as they often do)?

Don't get me wrong, I have friends across the political continium, but I'm curious what aspects of the liberal ideology would make you vote for people that don't respect your basic human rights.


David

HBK
July 21, 2003, 03:04 AM
I don't know what I am any more. I KNOW I'm not a Democrat, I don't think anyone else should take care of me and I shouldn't have to take care of anyone else. I thought I was a Republican, but I voted for Bush to have LESS government, Less spending, and to preserve the RKBA, as well as undo all the riduiculous executive orders that Clinton signed. Now I guess I lean more toward the Libertarian point of view, but I supported the war. I believe Islamic fundamentalist terrorists should be exterminated like cockroaches. If Bush signs one piece of pro gun legislation, I will probably vote for him. I believe abortion to be wholesale legalized murder. I don't really know what that makes me, I guess independent.

only1asterisk
July 21, 2003, 03:10 AM
HBK,

You don't know what you are? You're just like me! or maybe I'm just like you! I Imagine there are quite a few of us without a political shoe that fits. Good thing for the Democrats and Republicans!


David

chaim
July 21, 2003, 03:24 AM
With guns? You can say that. I have a few now (hmm, under 20 over a dozen).

Am I a liberal? I used to be. I now consider myself a moderate, leaning (sometimes) strongly to the left or right depending upon the particular issue (other than guns I tend to like to avoid conversatations here as to particulars). I do currently consider myself a conservative Democrat. Whether or not I stay that depends very strongly upon what happens in the upcoming primaries (after the way the conservative wing of the party was treated after the last midterm election then made even worse by selection of Palosi I'm not sure if I fit anymore). If Kerry wins the primary at all (the man is a traitor to the country for how he disgraced his Medal of Honor after Vietnam and doesn't deserve a job flipping burgers let alone the White House) I'm no longer a Democrat. I also may leave the Democratic party if we (conservative/moderate Democrats) are mistreated again like the last midterm- i.e. a liberal wins and we are completely bad mouthed or ignored.

Travis McGee
July 21, 2003, 11:20 AM
Yes, you are a freak of nature.

10-Ring
July 21, 2003, 12:03 PM
Liberals w/ guns...okay, so you're not all bad ;)

Mike Irwin
July 21, 2003, 12:13 PM
Hum...

Maybe we need to develop some criteria...

Such as:

Socially Liberal, Constitutionally Liberal, Socially and Constitutionally Moderate, Socially and Constitutionally Conservative, etc.

Socially liberal would be the way many Democrats are right now -- large(ish or er) and more pervasive government-funded social services programs.

Constitutionally Liberal would be advocacy of large Federal governemnt, supportive of many of the new laws that have been enacted, and not necessarily a friend of all of the Amendments, while the farther toward the Constitutionally Conservative side you get the more true to the Framers original intentions the individual is.

Judging myself on those two criteria, I'd have to day that I'm Socially Conservative, and Constitutionally Moderate leaning into the Conservative camp.

The rest of you are just plain liberal. :)

Keith
July 21, 2003, 12:26 PM
Mike,

The problem is that we tend to think of politics in a very simplistic linear form; like this: left<----------->right

When in fact, political "leanings" are better thought of in terms of the face of a clock with the left-right component as above, but then the top and bottom filled by Authoritarian or Libertarian. In other words, a "liberal" with authoritarian leanings might have a lot more in common with a "conservative" with the same leanings, than with another liberal who has a libertarian outlook.
This link is to a political quiz using that model: http://www.lp.org/quiz/

Many people taking this quiz are surprised at where they fall. It's rather simplistic, but it forces you to examine your true idealogy.

Keith

Mike Irwin
July 21, 2003, 12:49 PM
Keith,

Yep, that's the short of it. I attribute that political lack of attention span is probably due in large part to the fact that we have a two party system, as opposed to say Germany or Israel, both of which have multiple political parties and which defy categorical descriptions.

I've taken that quiz.

For some reason every time I do, my computer says "Mein Furher!" and I hear its chips click...

Keith
July 21, 2003, 12:55 PM
The problem with multi-party systems is that they tend to form coalitions to gain a majority. You end up with the same compromises as our two party system.

Keith

Mike Irwin
July 21, 2003, 01:22 PM
"The problem with multi-party systems is that they tend to form coalitions to gain a majority. You end up with the same compromises as our two party system."

That's why it's called a SYSTEM instead of a DICTATORSHIP.

Sometimes, reading some of these threads, it seems as if people tend to loose sight of that fact...

MicroBalrog
July 21, 2003, 01:42 PM
Doctorhumbert? What a name... (I read Nabokov too much...)

No. You're not a freak of nature. I'm the freak of nature here.:evil:

I'm a pro-gun liberal too.

doctorhumbert
July 21, 2003, 02:01 PM
Heh, Heh, Aren't Nabokov books banned in Israel:D ?
You are the first to one to decipher my demented cognoman. Most of the folks here thinks that I am a Jewish Physician of some sort.
'Oh, how you have to cringe and hide! '

whoami
July 21, 2003, 02:14 PM
I think a comedian I heard over the weekend on Comedy Central said it best:

"I don't know where I fit in, politically. I'm not a Democrat, because I want to be able to spend ALL the money I make. But I'm not a Republican, because I want to spend ALL the money I make on DRUGS and HOOKERS!"

GSB
July 21, 2003, 03:11 PM
. I hate Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reilly

Hate? What happened to all that famed liberal tolerance of diversity and love of mankind? I thought only eeeeevil conservatives "hated" people.

doctorhumbert
July 21, 2003, 03:25 PM
Well, like Clinton would say, I guess that depends on the definition of 'hate'.

Mark Tyson
July 21, 2003, 06:09 PM
Monkeyleg, your quote is from Hubert Humphrey if I'm not mistaken.

Chaim, I believe you are thinking of the other Senator Joe Bob Kerry, the one from Nebraska. He's the SEAL who was awarded the Medal of Honor. The Kerry from Massachusetts was also Navy (not a SEAL), did not get the MOH, and became very anti-war after his return home. Both Kerrys are no friend to gun owners.

So, how many liberals do we have here besides me?

Doctorhumbert
Microbalrog
Roscoe

Who else? Labels aren't really that important, but I think it's safe to say you're a liberal if you support a majority of the following:

Some kind of welfare/social safety net
Environmental protection laws
Progressive taxation, where the wealthy pay more
Occupational health/safety laws
Clean food/drug laws
Consumer protection laws
Government involvement in the market
Gay or "alternative lifestyle" rights
Some form of drug decriminalization, or "harm reduction"

CZ-75
July 21, 2003, 06:24 PM
Progressive taxation, where the wealthy pay more

Good thing you didn't mention "equality under the law." ;)

wqbang
July 21, 2003, 06:31 PM
Try the political compass...

Classical Liberalism is not what most Americans think its is.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html

MicroBalrog
July 21, 2003, 07:07 PM
Some kind of welfare/social safety net - Yes
Environmental protection laws - Yes, but keep it reasonable
Progressive taxation, where the wealthy pay more - NO
Occupational health/safety laws - Yes
Clean food/drug laws - Yes
Consumer protection laws - Yes
Government involvement in the market - Depends
Gay or "alternative lifestyle" rights - Yes
Some form of drug decriminalization, or "harm reduction" - Yes

Therefore, I'm are liberal.:evil:

Jerrywahid
July 21, 2003, 08:06 PM
My beef here is that just because some people say something is conservative doesn't make it so. For example...the gay rights issue. I consider myself conservative and I look at it like this. Gay folks have the same rights as everyone else. Period. No more no less. When things become liberal is when priveleges are granted above and beyond the rights of everyone else. In my opinion that would be liberal.

Also, just to take another example. I consider myself conservative and I also believe that the nature of our society is such that waste production cannot be avoided. Any legislature implemented that is not unreasonable and does not violate any of my rights is just fine with me.

The problem is politics. In my opinion (I think it was a Douglas Adams Concept) the person who least wants to be in charge is the one who would do the best job.

chaim
July 21, 2003, 08:49 PM
The Kerry from Massachusetts was also Navy (not a SEAL), did not get the MOH, and became very anti-war after his return home Yes, I know that Sen. Bob Kerry had the MOH. I remembered hearing on the news once that Sen. John Kerry did too (probably the reporter confused them) and I did remember that he served in Vietnam and was considered a decorated war hero so I believed the MOH for him too. I just looked him up and you are right, while he was fairly well decorated, he was not awarded the MOH. Still, he did disgrace his uniform and decorations after coming home and I still have absolutely no respect for him (though it isn't quite as bad since the MOH was not one of the awards he desecrated).

Oh BTW, his Vietnam service was as an officer on board one of the gunboats on the Mekong Delta (that he served on a gunboat I knew).

goon
July 21, 2003, 10:12 PM
The bottom line is this.
(Get ready. You are about to enter the hollow air-filled cavity where my brain used to reside.)
Go to Google and do a search for the US Constitution.
Find it.
Read it.
Are those rights that are recognized in the Bill of Rights individual rights that are guaranteed to every law abiding American?
Does any government, past, present, or future have any right messing with any of those rights, ever?
If the answer to the last question is "NO!" then we are on the same page.

Moparmike
July 21, 2003, 10:26 PM
goon, I have two words:

"Damn skippy!"

Jerrywahid
July 21, 2003, 11:22 PM
.

Mr. James
July 21, 2003, 11:49 PM
Mark, chaim,

John Kerry was/is, in fact, a well-decorated veteran who came back to be a leader of the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War." He staged a typical piece of leftist-sociocrat street theatre in front of the White House, where he pitched "his" medals over the fence as a gesture of abnegation and disgust.

Problem is, fast forward thirty years, and there are all of Kerry's medals proudly displayed in his Senate office in a shadow box (I believe that's the name of the wood-and-glass cases designed for display). As author Mona Charen asked, whose medals did he throw over the White House fence?

He's a piece of stuff, alright.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.


http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html

roscoe
July 22, 2003, 03:16 AM
Which part of that quote are we supposed to disagree with?

trooper
July 22, 2003, 06:03 PM
So, how many liberals do we have here besides me?

Doctorhumbert
Microbalrog
Roscoe



Count me in...

That is, if I can be a liberal without being an American :) (since you are referring to some unique American issues here).

Only one year ago I would have called myself a Sozialdemokrat, but today I'm totally disgusted with both the "liberal" (Social Democratic Party, Greens) and the "conservative" (Christian Democratic Union) side over here.

They are all anti-freedom when gun ownership is concerned. After the first term of our red-green government a spokeswoman of the Green Party announced in an interview that her party's greatest achievement during the last four years had been "giving gays and lesbians the prospect of a life free of fear."

Go figure.

(And no, I'm not some sort of homophobe, I just think there are much more serious issues to tackle for a government.)

It occured to me (or rather, it was posted by a clever guy on a German firearms board) that all you have to do receive attention, benefits and privilege from the liberal establishment is to present yourself as a member of any ethnic/sexual/religious minority. If you're an independent individual, you are a suspect, if you take part in a politically correct group identity, you're fine.


Regards,

Trooper

OF
July 22, 2003, 06:24 PM
It's not easy, most of the broadcasts start out "boo hoo hoo . . . the children . . . boo hoo hoo."They don't call it Boo Hoo Radio for nothin' :)

I used to be as liberal as you could get and not simply slip into a coma. Then I started to realize that I wasn't having my convictions challenged due to the fact that all the people I hung out with thought exactly like I did. Once that changed, I changed.

My only advice: be who you are in the present, but keep your mind open. Don't just tolerate opposing points of view, seek them out. Only when you fully and completely understand where someone is coming from can you even begin to make fun of them in any meaningful way.

- Gabe

Drjones
July 22, 2003, 06:48 PM
Doc, (whoa, that's wierd! Usually everyone's calling ME doc!)

If you are strongly pro-gun then you cannot possibly be a liberal.

I firmly believe liberalism to be a mental disorder.

One of the many symptoms is liberal (no pun intended) use of "isms" like "imperialism," "colonialism," etc.

I'm not 100% thrilled with Bush either, but because he's not conservative enough.

Basically Doc, you're not a liberal. You're just confused. :neener:

goon
July 22, 2003, 07:04 PM
I got ahead of myself.
Doubtless that some of you knew what I meant but I apologize for the confusion.
I edited the post for your clarification (and mine).;)

Drjones
July 22, 2003, 07:44 PM
I want to elaborate on what I said above.

I have found liberals to be completely devoid of anything that could even pretend to attempt to resemble logic.

Gun control is a bright, shiny example.

Their communistic/socialistic views on economic issues are another; tax the hell out of the rich and give it away to non-citizens, for example.

They honestly believe that Bush "stole the presidency" for the sole purpose of taking this entire country to war in order to make some money for himself and a dozen or so close friends.

If you do not think that is the most absurd statement you have EVER heard then you probably suffer from the disease known as "modern liberalism." I'm not a huge fan of Bush as I said above, but I think so far he's done a great job. My opinion of him will take a sharp turn for the worse if he gets us involved in the Liberian cesspool. I am by no means any sort of a "line-tower" or "bush-worshipper." I'll even admit that I voted for Gore. I was young and stupid, allright?

They believe this country was founded by racists, with racism and slavery, and largely still is racist and oppressive.

Liberals believe that third world murderous dictators should be given a voice in world politics via the UN.

So on and so forth.

How anyone could "get" the gun issue but have liberal (illogical) views on other issues is beyond me. :scrutiny:

Mark Tyson
July 22, 2003, 08:23 PM
Dr Jones, I think you are taking the most extreme positions of those on the far- left wing and ascribing them to all liberals.

MeekandMild
July 22, 2003, 09:20 PM
doctorhumbert, good for you. I hope you are liberal enough to stomach joining the AMA and fighting for gun owner's rights against the hoards of blissninnies who have infested the medical establishment! :D

Jonesy, nowadays the commies call themselves Progressives (I call the Pregressives) instead of liberals. The only ones left in the liberal camp are the old Moderates. :neener:

goon
July 22, 2003, 10:58 PM
Liberals are necessary.
How would you all like to goosestep down the street on your way to THE ONLY CHURCH ALLOWED? We could all then form up and file in and wait for the command to "Take... Seats!"
Yeah, your guns might be safe, but what about the rest of your freedoms?
The far right is just as bad as the far left.
If you look at the middle ground, there isn't really that much difference between the moderates in either party.
I personally lean to to both sides, depending on what the issue is.
I am adamantly pro-gun and pro-life.
I am in total support of the idea of all individual liberties.
Neither side supports both points of view so I have to see both sides.
I have found that I am a Libertarian.

Monkeyleg
July 23, 2003, 12:49 AM
"The far right is just as bad as the far left."

If, by "far right," you mean that Bill Gates and I should pay the same percentage in income taxes, then count me as part of the "FR." The so-called Progressive tax system in this country was enacted when Socialism was an interesting theory. That theory has since been disproved, but the tax system upon which it was based is still alive and bleeding us dry.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that government should not blindly give money to people who claim to be impoverished, and who often are not and who often scam the system, then once again count me as "FR." I've taken food to families whom I was told were in financial trouble, gave them rides to wherever they needed to go, and got to know them at least as acquaintances. There was no middleman, no bureaucrat, and thus no markup. 100% of my contributions went to those in need.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that the federal government should not take X amount of dollars from one state and redistribute it to another state based on the latter state's compliance with arbitrary federal regulations, well, then count me in again as part of the "FR." I have no idea as to which politician started the idea of taking my tax dollar, sending it to DC, giving 25% of it to paper-shufflers, and then sending a portion back to my own state, that portion dependent upon how closely my state adheres to that politician's pet paranoias. I do know, however, that the politician should have been hanged.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that I oppose legislation such as the "motor-voter" act, no proof of residency for voters, no ID cards, and voting rights for those who are not actually US citizens, then I plead guilty. The Democrats have become experts at abusing and hiding ballot fraud. In fact, the party has become dependent upon using illegal votes, a practice that used to be confined to Chicago and New York. Let McCain and Feingold squawk about "soft money." The real catastrophe is that we have less than 40% of qualified voters actually exercising that right and that, of those, probably 75% base their decisions upon the analysis provided by Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey and David Letterman.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that I oppose the Kyoto Accords, again I throw myself on the mercy of the court. When a conference of world governments decides that the US must adhere to strict environmental rules (and thus constrain US businesses and their ability to hire employees) while
simultaneously giving countries like India, China, Mexico, and other "emerging economies" a pass on those same environmental standards, then we're looking at a whole new dimension of Affirmative Action.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Keep the government out of my bedroom, my wallet, and my gun safe. That would be a good start.

roscoe
July 23, 2003, 02:33 AM
It is pretty clear Dr. Jones has no real idea what liberals believe. It is easy to pick a couple of straw-man positions, and by selecting gun rights as his example he tries to bias us right away. Why not freedom of the press, freedom of religious worship, civil rights, the fight against slavery, industrial pollution, abortion rights, the teaching of evolution in schools, gay rights, etc., etc.? In my opinion, conservatives are wrong about all of these issues, but are right on gun issues. What the heck, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Dr. Jones, you may have a conservative position on these issues, but I'll bet any smart liberal can go toe to toe with your 'logic'.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 12:47 PM
Liberal Logic 101 for roscoe:

- Guns are bad. Guns kill people. Let's ban them all. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children. It is better to just give your attacker what he wants. Don't resist. Ladies, just sit back and enjoy rape. It really isn't that bad.

- Tax the rich. A lot. Give it to the poor and the minorities. California demos right now still want to raise taxes. Roscoe, are you seriously trying to tell me that liberals and demos in general do NOT support higher taxes than conservatives/libertarians/repubs?

- Let women kill their babies. Oh, but it isn't really a "baby" until its born. By conveniently controlling the language (as with the contrived term "assault weapon") liberals can twist arguments to fit their needs.

- Colored people are incapable of achieving anything on their own and without special advantages from the state.

- Bush lied about all aspects of this war.

There's a start. Am I on the right track?

If not, why don't you tell me what you think liberals believe.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 12:50 PM
dochumbert:

I'm not saying that you necessarily believe in all of the things I mentioned, but when someone says "I'm a liberal" that's what jumps into my head.

I'm not going to try to change your views of course, but I don't understand...oh well...

TamThompson
July 23, 2003, 06:16 PM
No, Doctorhumbert, you aren't alone. I'm a moderate Democrat, although I have some issues with them (most notably gun control and abdication of personal responsibility.)

Here's my problem: I love the WHOLE, ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment. So I have serious problems with all the major political parties.

I see the Republicans trashing the 1st amendment by trying to silence the left (although the left does a bit of that, also, and calls it "political correctness.)

I see the Democrats trashing the 2nd amendment, which we all know about.

I see the Republicans trashing the 4th amendment (right to privacy) with abominations like Patriot Act 1 & 2.

I also see the Republicans selling out American workers BIGTIME by giving big tax breaks to companies who ship American jobs overseas. My husband might lose his high-paying software development job because some Indian is willing to do his job (in India) for $5,000/year. This angers me tremendously. They also hand out those damnable H1-B visas like candy, allowing foreigners to come over here and undercut American workers by working for 1/3 of what my husband gets, then they bring their whole extended family over here.

And don't look so smug, Libertarians: if it were up to you all, the roads and infrastructure would all go to hell since none of you want to pay taxes.

The Greens? Love their stance on the environment, but hate their gun control mindset.

Nutshell: there is NO major political party sticking up for all of our constitutional rights. Not one.

For now, I'll stick with the Democrats and lobby them to back down on gun control. What Republicans don't understand is that if their party has its way, big business will outsource more and more American jobs overseas. The second amendment becomes a moot point when you lose your job and can't afford ammunition or guns.

TamThompson
July 23, 2003, 06:19 PM
Oh, yeah--I forgot about the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments. I think those are the right ones--the ones about fair trials. The Bush administration is also trampling those for accused terrorists in the name of national security. They don't seem to quite understand that if we sacrifice all our rights in the name of national security, we will no longer be a real NATION, nor will we be secure: we will be scared sheep/slaves.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 06:22 PM
I see the Republicans trashing the 1st amendment by trying to silence the left (although the left does a bit of that, also, and calls it "political correctness.) I'd LOVE to see an example of the right trying to silence the left.

I see the Republicans trashing the 4th amendment (right to privacy) with abominations like Patriot Act 1 & 2. Agreed.

Nutshell: there is NO major political party sticking up for all of our constitutional rights. Not one.
Agreed. I think its best said that the two major political parties are like cars headed to the same bad destination. However the left/demos are going substantially faster than the right.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 06:24 PM
Oh, yeah--I forgot about the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments. I think those are the right ones--the ones about fair trials. The Bush administration is also trampling those for accused terrorists in the name of national security. How so?

Oh, and welcome to THR! :)

Moparmike
July 23, 2003, 07:01 PM
As a Libertarian, I personally have no qualms with paying for roads and infrastructure that I use or am going to use. I have no problem with paying for a national defense. I have no problem with paying for local roads and national interstates.

What I have a problem with is that the federal government has no power to tax income as outlined in the constitution (see 10th amendment). That power is given to the states.

I do have a problem with others getting extra treatment just because of their sexual orientation or the color of their skin or their immigration status. I work for my money, and they can too. If they have more money at the end of a pay period than me by earning it, kudos to them. But if they got it from a handout which I paid a percentage of, then I have a problem with it. I dont believe in anyone starting out with extra rights over another. Just because I am a heterosexual caucasian male doesnt mean that I should be given less or more rights and equal treatment than a black homosexual female. If I want to marry a woman, I should have that right. If she wants to marry a female, its her right. The "far, far, far right" wants to get in everyone's bedroom and life. I say to hell with them and their desire for control over my life or anyone elses private life.

Monkeyleg's post adequately describes how I feel about a great many things.

As a Libertarian, a majority of Tam's post also describes how I feel.

doctorhumbert
July 23, 2003, 07:02 PM
With the some of the things my country's 'regime' is doing in the name of national security, I lament for America's future. Imprisonment of suspects without a trial. Asking postman to spy on neighbors. Sensoring & SteamRolling Dixie Chic CDs (remeber the book burnings?). Going unilateralism while shunning international opinions. To name the few. Terrorist threat is real, but we cannot let fear justify the injustice.

"Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!" Lord of Flies.
"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU" Orwell, 1984.

roscoe
July 23, 2003, 08:03 PM
Dr. Jones,

It is easy to offer caricature, but tougher to counter real arguments.

Taxes - complain away, but you try to find a better tax structure anywhere in the world. You want a first-world country with roads, Social Security, and a decent military, you gotta pay for it. And tell me what substantive changes you would make in the federal budget - it is not too easy and I bet you would be surprised how much we pay for debt service. And here we go with Bush putting us in the hole again.

Abortion - well, this is a thread locker, but I think the government has no right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. That is a pretty straightforward principal.

Speaking of 'colored people' getting unfair advantage - as if that were some kind of a real problem . Conservatives fought the repealing of Jim Crow laws and desegregation tooth and nail. If I were conservative I would be real proud of that. Sorry if we have given blacks one generation of relatively minor assistance geting integrated into the mainstream economy.

We could go in uninformed circles about whether Bush was intentionaly deceptive, but more to the point are the issues you did not raise:

- Freedom of the press is virtually exclusively defended by liberals.

- Conservatives have consistently tried to impose their religious beliefs through prayer in public schools and the teaching of 'creation science'. (Talk about spin - find the science in creation science)

- Conservatives think that the state government has a right to tell me what form of consensual adult sex I can have in my bedroom. Sorry, just because it is the state government rather than the federal does not mean it is not government oppression.

- Liberals are responsible for legislation protecting clean water and air. Conservatives have consistently fought to give protection to polluting industries.

- Police powers - liberal consistently fight to protect individuals from illegal use of police power, including warrantess searches and holding suspects without arresting them. You can also add electronic surveillance, since police are prohibited from tapping your phone without a warrant thanks to liberals.

I could go on, but you get the idea. If you look carefully at these positions you will find that they are based on reasonable premises and follow quite logically from those premises. If you want to make cogent arguments against these premises, fine. But you haven't yet. And, incidentally, finding the most outrageous position held by someone on either side of the spectrum does not refute the logic of any of these positions. Check your logic text - this is known as the 'straw man argument'.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 08:15 PM
With the some of the things my country's 'regime' is doing in the name of national security, I lament for America's future. Imprisonment of suspects without a trial. Asking postman to spy on neighbors. Sensoring & SteamRolling Dixie Chic CDs (remeber the book burnings?). See! There's another problem with liberals!

1) The government sponsored the Chick-smashing sessions? Really? Actually, no. They didn't. As such, it is not infringing upon Amendment I. Sorry.

2) Liberals do not understand that the common folk have freedom of speech too. (Yes, really!) The chicks grossly offended the vast majority of their fanbase. Their fans (the common folk) are well within their RIGHTS to say anything they want about the chicks. (Don't know if death threats are covered under 1A, but you get my point...)

3) How is it "infringing" upon the 1A if someone says something stupid and another person reacts to that? If you call me a name, I'm well within my rights to call you every name in the book until I'm blue in the face, and NO, I'm not infringing upon your freedom of speech by doing so. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from reaction to your words.

4) Unless the GOVERNMENT is somehow involved in INFRINGING upon the 1A (however no infringement was taking place at all with the chicks) then you can scream "1A." Until then, the sound of those CDs cracking is the sound of freedom.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 08:25 PM
Taxes - complain away, but you try to find a better tax structure anywhere in the world. You want a first-world country with roads, Social Security, and a decent military, you gotta pay for it. And tell me what substantive changes you would make in the federal budget - it is not too easy and I bet you would be surprised how much we pay for debt service. And here we go with Bush putting us in the hole again. I agree that we may have less taxes than most of the world, but not by a whole lot. I believe that we can cut a HELL of a lot more govt. spending. The creed of libs and demos is "bigger govt = better govt."

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not against ALL taxes of course. I'm not some blind libertarian. I fully understand that SOME taxes are of course necessary for infrastructure, defense, etc.

There is MUCH room for improvement, I believe, in the way our money is spent and there is MUCH we could chop off our govt.

Abortion - well, this is a thread locker, but I think the government has no right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. That is a pretty straightforward principal. Agreed this is a thread locker and we should take this to email. I'll just say that again, when liberals control the language of the debate, its real easy to win. You consider a living human fetus a "lump of tissue according to science" and as such, fit for the woman to dispose of at will.

I do not. I can actually pinpoint the day I changed my belief on this. It was just a few months ago. I was listening to michael savage on the way home, and it suddenly clicked for me; abortion is murdering a human baby. I actually used to be pro-choice, spouting the same "its a woman's body!" line.

I now realize that the woman also enjoys the right to keep her legs closed in the first place.

I digress...I shouldn't have gone this far, and let's take further discussion to email PLEASE so we do not get locked.

Speaking of 'colored people' getting unfair advantage - as if that were some kind of a real problem . Conservatives fought the repealing of Jim Crow laws and desegregation tooth and nail. If I were conservative I would be real proud of that. Sorry if we have given blacks one generation of relatively minor assistance geting integrated into the mainstream economy. Dems were united in support of slavery, and united against abolishing it.

I also fail to see how discriminating against whites (which, by definition, all affirmative action-type programs do) is supposed to solve anything.

More evidence of liberal "logic": Discrimination against coloreds is NOT OK. Discrimination against whites is perfectly fine.

- Freedom of the press is virtually exclusively defended by liberals. How exactly?

- Conservatives have consistently tried to impose their religious beliefs through prayer in public schools and the teaching of 'creation science'. (Talk about spin - find the science in creation science) I agree here. I am not religious and do not believe in creationism. I never said conservatives were perfect, just far less evil than libs.

- Conservatives think that the state government has a right to tell me what form of consensual adult sex I can have in my bedroom. Sorry, just because it is the state government rather than the federal does not mean it is not government oppression. Again we agree. I'm rather libertarian.

- Liberals are responsible for legislation protecting clean water and air. Conservatives have consistently fought to give protection to polluting industries. The "wonderful" environmental protections liberals win also make it increasingly difficult for businesses to do business, as each year always brings MORE regulations and laws, never less.

- Police powers - liberal consistently fight to protect individuals from illegal use of police power, including warrantess searches and holding suspects without arresting them. You can also add electronic surveillance, since police are prohibited from tapping your phone without a warrant thanks to liberals. I'm not sure on this one and I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

TamThompson
July 23, 2003, 08:35 PM
Examples of the right trying to silence the left:

1. The heavy-handed policing of the Seattle protests to the big globalization conference (G8? I think it was G8.)

2. The right's vitriolic statements to the effect that anyone who dared raise a voice against us going to war with Iraq must be a traitor. Sorry, no--I'm no traitor, I'm just exercising my first amendment rights.

3. Any whistleblower in any major corporation you want to name (the Enron woman comes to mind.) They've had to make laws to protect whistleblowers, since right-wing corporate honchos *will* try to silence them.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 08:46 PM
Examples of the right trying to silence the left:

1. The heavy-handed policing of the Seattle protests to the big globalization conference (G8? I think it was G8.) If liberal "protestors" wouldn't use every event as an excuse to riot, perhaps there wouldn't be a need for so many police. Those "protestors" are jobless thugs looking for an excuse to start a fight, destroy public and private property, and disrupt the lives of uninvolved third parties. Disruption is one of their creeds. It is NOT a right.

Large police presence does not equal infringement of freedom of speech.

2. The right's vitriolic statements to the effect that anyone who dared raise a voice against us going to war with Iraq must be a traitor. Sorry, no--I'm no traitor, I'm just exercising my first amendment rights. I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Bush ordered "traitors" rounded up into camps and shot. I also do not recall Bush nor any conservative national politician calling dissenters "traitors." Just because a majority of the population is telling you you are a moron doesn't mean they nor the govt. are infringing upon your rights.

Again, do you understand that the government must be actively infringing upon your rights in order for you to scream "1A"? Media does not equal govt.

3. Any whistleblower in any major corporation you want to name (the Enron woman comes to mind.) They've had to make laws to protect whistleblowers, since right-wing corporate honchos *will* try to silence them. You are making an unsupported statement. How do you know these "honchos" are conservative?

But most importantly, you still cannot grasp that THE GOVERNMENT must be infringing upon your freedom of speech in order for it to be infringement.

And I'll bet you that conservatives had at least some part in drafting these protectionist laws.

Mark Tyson
July 23, 2003, 09:07 PM
Why don't libertarians speak out as much against corporations as they do against the government? Corporations can be every bit as cold and inimical to individual liberty as any government. If governments do not hold corporations responsible for their actions, than who will?

On another topic you brought up:

Affirmative action is an annoying but, in my opinion, necessary program to rectify one of the most disgraceful episodes in American history. Blacks are still feeling the effects of discrimination and second class citizen status, and they
will be for some time. Libertarians and conservatives offer no remedy to such severely disenfranchised groups.

One day we will not need affirmative action. Unfortunately, I don't think that day will be soon.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 09:13 PM
Affirmative action is an annoying but, in my opinion, necessary program to rectify one of the most disgraceful episodes in American history. Blacks are still feeling the effects of discrimination and second class citizen status, and they
will be for some time. Libertarians and conservatives offer no remedy to such severely disenfranchised groups.

One day we will not need affirmative action. Unfortunately, I don't think that day will be soon.

Tell me precisely why we should not then right every wrong that has been done throughout history.

Drjones
July 23, 2003, 09:15 PM
And affirmative action isn't merely "annoying;" it is blatantly racist and is even racist against certain minorities.

Asians are discriminated against under AA just as whites are.

Mark Tyson
July 23, 2003, 09:38 PM
We can't right every wrong throughout history. We can make things a little better for people who have been severely wronged in this country by giving them a fighting chance to break out of crippling poverty, poverty brought on by slavery and segregationist policies.

And by the way, affirmative action doesn't mean quotas or reparations, it means sanctions for a pattern of discrimination(apologies if you already knew that, but some I talk to on the subject don't).

What would the conservative/libertarian solution to severe racial inequity be? What will they do if blatant, serious discrimination like the kind we used to have returns in force?

doctorhumbert
July 23, 2003, 11:08 PM
My point of Dixie Chic was NOT primarly about a Freedom of speech. It was about disturbing trend of people being labeled as an unpatriotic because of their dissent stance against govt. and president. Just because one is not with Bush doesn't mean they are with Saddam.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country." (Theodore Roosevelt)

doctorhumbert
July 23, 2003, 11:15 PM
Even if I was minority, I WOULD NOT WANT an Affirmative Action upon me. Most I Asians I know have enough dignity to refuse affirmative action. They are proud and hardworking people who stands alone despite the change of land and language. I hope that someday blacks would have such dignity and dicipline also.

CZ-75
July 23, 2003, 11:52 PM
Sensoring & SteamRolling Dixie Chic CDs (remeber the book burnings?).

***? :confused:

If a bunch of PO'd folks and radio stations want to get together and burn, ban,m whatever the dixie twits, that is exercising THEIR 1st amendment rights. This is free speech - protesting what the twits have said and done. The twits can still say and do what they want, but no one has to buy their crap.

Taxes - complain away, but you try to find a better tax structure anywhere in the world. You want a first-world country with roads, Social Security, and a decent military, you gotta pay for it. And tell me what substantive changes you would make in the federal budget - it is not too easy and I bet you would be surprised how much we pay for debt service. And here we go with Bush putting us in the hole again.

I don't want socialist security b/c it takes 15% out of my check (the other 7.5% is money I never even got, since it is the employer match). The govt. could mandate that you invest it in approved low risk securities for your own retirement use, rather than pool all the funds, steal them, then use incoming contributions to cover the theft.

Speaking of 'colored people' getting unfair advantage - as if that were some kind of a real problem . Conservatives fought the repealing of Jim Crow laws and desegregation tooth and nail. If I were conservative I would be real proud of that. Sorry if we have given blacks one generation of relatively minor assistance geting integrated into the mainstream economy.


Don't forget that the "DEMOCRATIC" Party is the party of Jim Crow. Robert "KKK" Byrd is a democrat. Harry S. Truman was in the Klan.

Freedom of the press is virtually exclusively defended by liberals.

How convenient, since more than 2/3 of press members are liberals. The same folks who distort the facts to their benefit, a la the New York Times and CNN.

Conservatives have consistently tried to impose their religious beliefs through prayer in public schools and the teaching of 'creation science'. (Talk about spin - find the science in creation science)

I'm agnostic, so that doesn't really fly.

Police powers - liberal consistently fight to protect individuals from illegal use of police power, including warrantess searches and holding suspects without arresting them. You can also add electronic surveillance, since police are prohibited from tapping your phone without a warrant thanks to liberals.

I hope you don't consider Klinton a "liberal" then, since he and Reno were first on the scene to attempt to expand these powers.

Liberals are responsible for legislation protecting clean water and air. Conservatives have consistently fought to give protection to polluting industries.

Guess Nixon wasn't the one to establish the EPA then?

Monkeyleg
July 24, 2003, 12:40 AM
Roscoe: "Taxes - complain away, but you try to find a better tax structure anywhere in the world. You want a first-world country with roads, Social Security, and a decent military, you gotta pay for it. And tell me what substantive changes you would make in the federal budget - it is not too easy and I bet you would be surprised how much we pay for debt service. And here we go with Bush putting us in the hole again."

Move to Wisconsin. We've become the third-worst Tax Hell in the nation. And the services are no better or worse than other states; in fact, in many respects they're worse than other states. Our property taxes on a $200,000 home are twice what a Florida resident pays.

Where does the money go? The first item on the list is the benefits for government employees. Show me a private employer who can afford to give a 10-year veteran employee seven weeks of vacation, seven sick/personal days of leave, the finest health insurance (paid for by the government) for life, and guaranteed increases in the defined-benefits pension plan. Add to this a "bennie" for employees who retire early: they get a lump-sum distribution of cash to offset their early retirement. The numbers are staggering.

My neighbor is a retired sheriff. We're the same age, but he retired two years ago at age 50. I cannot afford the health insurance package that he's receiving. What's worse is that the county pension fund fell $20 million short last year. Seems the pension board was counting on a 10% return on investment. So was Jimmy the Greek, for cryin' out loud! But, the retired government workers got their "missing" $20 million. They took it from me and every other taxpayer.

Of course, that means that I have a bit less to contribute to my own pension. Well, silly me! Where on Earth did I get the idea that my money was mine? When I reach 65, I'll be scrubbing the floors of long-retired government employees to make ends meet. And you can rest assured they won't be paying me the Minimum Wage that their union bosses have been wailing about.

I just got my property tax assessment. It went up 35% from last year, which means my property taxes are going up 35%. At roughly $4 per $1000 of property value, that's not chump change. It's going to bankrupt the folks in my neighborhood who work for private employers and who have felt the effects of the recession. (Note: it's not the "Bush" recession, nor is it the "Clinton" recession. It's just the recession).

Wisconsin is on the cusp of what could be a near-violent taxpayer revolution. Folks who sat by idly for decades have become engaged in recall elections, finally fed up with watching government employees get fat while everyone else suffers. I've never seen anything like it.

This could be the next "shot heard round the world." I hope so. And I hope it's the end of Progressive taxation, Leon Trotsky, Lenin, FDR, Carter, Kennedy, Hillary, Rangel, Schumer, Feinstein, Daschle, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Graham, and every other enemy of the people who work to put food on their tables.

You cannot expect to take money from John, take a cut for yourself, and give the rest to Joe. At least not until John realizes he's being robbed and decides to blow your head off.

goon
July 24, 2003, 07:37 AM
You cannot expect to take money from John, take a cut for yourself, and give the rest to Joe. At least not until John realizes he's being robbed and decides to blow your head off.

Exactly.
We have 4 million people (on the books) who are out of work. We have many more who are just barely making it. Their cupboards are bare for the last three days a month.
Why are the people in other countries that our government doles our money out to any more important than these Americans?
I checked into how much money you really spend on taxes once.
It is something like 40% of every dollar. That is counting income tax, sales tax and anything else they can think of to hit you with.
If those people were only giving up 8%, or whatever it took to pay our soldiers to keep OUR BORDERS safe and keep the roads paved, they wouldn't have to live like refugees in the country that their taxes pay for.
Gee, I wonder why the economy is so bad.
Could it be that no one has any money left to spend after they manage to pay their bills?:rolleyes:

Bainx
July 24, 2003, 08:11 AM
We can't right every wrong throughout history. We can make things a little better for people who have been severely wronged in this country by giving them a fighting chance to break out of crippling poverty, poverty brought on by slavery and segregationist policies.

Sorry, but life is not "fair". Never has been, never will be. God did not design it that way. When you obtain your perfect world, please let me know, I want to buy a chunk of it.

Before you say it, I know, I know....I'm cold and evil.

MicroBalrog
July 24, 2003, 08:14 AM
Bainx: life is not fair. People should be.

cordex
July 24, 2003, 12:11 PM
Why don't libertarians speak out as much against corporations as they do against the government? Corporations can be every bit as cold and inimical to individual liberty as any government.
Because corporations cannot force us at gunpoint to follow their mandates, or to pay them a percentage of our earnings - all under the color of law.
If governments do not hold corporations responsible for their actions, than who will?
Those who patronize said corporations.


life is not fair. People should be.
You want unfair?
Okay, how about punishing me for the actions of people I'm not related to, not connected to ... many of whom have been dead for hundreds of years.

Why is no one proposing that the Irish be compensated for their years of persecution?

bobdobalina
July 24, 2003, 04:29 PM
Interesting thread so far.
I just have a couple of things to add to the discussion.

Affirmative action = not needed.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen who emigrated to this country from Colombia when I was 8. That makes me a "minority" and in this "oppressed minority's" opinion ( and by the way all of the other people like me that I know ) feel that affirmative action is extremely insulting. I feel that I am as intelligent as anyone else and I don't need any help from anybody. The only people who I have known that even think well of affirmative action are native-born "minorities" .


DEMOCRATS/Liberals = anti civil-rights.
It appears that the liberal indoctrination some of ya'll have received has done a good job of rewriting history. From what I have studied of american history it was the DEMOCRATS in the south that supported jim crow, etc. Anybody heard of the DIXIECRATS (anti-civil rights DEMOCRATS)? Republicans like Abraham Lincoln were in favor of the abolition of slavery.


Thanks, I just felt I had to set the record straight on that one.

dshimm
July 24, 2003, 04:52 PM
There really shouldn't be anything extra-ordinary about a liberal who enjoys guns. After all, defense of freedom of speech, protection of the citizen's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure are all classic liberal positions. So why shouldn't a liberal favor second amendment rights, as well?

The problem is the left wing statist nut cases who have hijacked the Democrat party who have a pathologic fear of firearms.

So, I don't want to argue with you about your politics. I encourage you to continue your involvement with whatever liberal Democrat organizations you are involved with. And I hope that you will be able to talk some sense into your fellow liberal Democrats about Second Amendment rights.

cordex
July 24, 2003, 04:55 PM
One more question.

Is hiring based primarily on race or gender always wrong? In other words, if I hire someone based first on their race/gender and second on their qualifications, should my company be prosecuted?

Shaggy
July 24, 2003, 05:09 PM
Well, this is an interesting thread. What I find odd is that people who own guns and care enough about the 2A to post on a forum like this could actually vote for people who consistantly try their best to ban as many firearms as possible and make it as difficult as possible for lawful people to own them. If you think that's BS then you go back through all the gun control and all the bills regarding gun control and look at who votes for them and who sponsors them.

Are Republicans perfect on the issue. Heck no, not even close. But when the votes come, you see 99% Democrat sponsorship of gun banner bills and you see about an 85-90% Democrat vote FOR gun control on any particular bill. Republicans in congress vote against gun control in almost the exact opposite numbers. Yes, there are national pro gun Democrats. However they are few and far between, and they are NEVER in any position of power in the congress. You will never see a liberal Democrat Senator who happens to be staunch pro gun heading up the Judiciary Committee. Zell Miller(D - GA)(good man as far as firearms go) for instance, will never hold any position of power in the Senate. NEVER!!!

We can't right every wrong throughout history. We can make things a little better for people who have been severely wronged in this country by giving them a fighting chance to break out of crippling poverty, poverty brought on by slavery and segregationist policies.

Guy, we've had 70 years of "the great society" and "the war on poverty" and 40 years of "affirmative action".

On the first 2 wars on poverty....gov't has spent gazillions and guess what. There are still poor people. I'm all for helping folks out of work or down on their luck. Any civilized society should do this. However, the Democrat Party(socialists every one of them) has taken this from help your down and out neighbor to live on the gov't dole for life in a life of poverty and despair. Things that should be a short term help get back on your feet have been nothing more than keep voting socialist(dem) and we'll make sure you keep getting paid a minimal sustinance. Democrats are big talkers on the Constitution but they can't show me one line that says the gov't has the the power to take the fruits of one American's labor and GIVE it to antoher American. This is wrong on every level.

Affirmative action is nothing more than racism. At this point in our history it is ridiculous. And though libs say it's not quotas, that's exactly what it is. How about a little affirmative action in the NBA. It's 90%+ balck players. Lets make the NBA look like America. 12% black, 70% white, and 18% Mexican, Asian etc.... How's that sound? Yeah, it doesn't sound to good to General Electric either. They'd rather just hire the most qualified person to do the job, just like the NBA wants to hire the best basketball players. Are there any Mexicans in the NBA?

You liberals need to take a good hard look at yourselves through history. Ann Coulter's book Treason is a good start for you. If your not too busy railing against corporations(without which, very few of you would earn any living at all) and GW Bush. Go to the library and check it out if you don't want to buy the book.

doctorhumbert
July 24, 2003, 05:32 PM
Some good points on this discussion. Just make sure to sort out obvious NONSENSES, NAMECALLINGS, and STEREOTYPINGS.:rolleyes:

Shaggy
July 24, 2003, 05:59 PM
You refering to my post?

If so, it's not nonsense when it's true.

It's not strerotyping and namecalling when it's true about 90% of the people in the group.

Mark Tyson
July 24, 2003, 06:39 PM
No, Bainx, I don't think you're cold and evil for opposing affirmative action. Actually, these are all very good arguments against AA, an issue on which I can see both sides.

By the way, I am not a registered democrat I'm a left-leaning independent, and I will not be a democrat until they stop pushing this victim disarmament nonsense. I don't care if the Dems save Civilization as We Know It, I will not vote for anyone who wants to disarm lawful Americans.

As for Shaggy's points, I would say that we definitely need welfare reform. I don't want to subsidize able bodied people forever, just long enough to get them on their feet.

The points about Democrats historically wanting to disarm blacks, Jim Crow, etc. are well taken. I often bring the subject up to other liberals. You should see the looks I get. Look at who the first gun control laws prohibited: blacks, immigrants, labor unions, all the groups liberals are supposed be protecting. Disgraceful.

doctorhumbert
July 24, 2003, 06:42 PM
The first lesson of any significance I've learned since my foolish youth is that all human beings are infinitely clueless and hopelessly stupid, and only the truly stupid among these consider themselves to know the truth:rolleyes: >

Hope you weren't too offended by my statements. Neither of us shall ever know the whole truth, for it's probably more complex than we can fanthom with our tiny 1500cc brain.

That's all I can say.

"Bring 'em on" (Let them continue to kill our sons and daughters in Iraq), George W. Bush.

Shaggy
July 24, 2003, 07:11 PM
No Doc, I'm not offended at all. I'd just like to know what part of my post you consider flase.

90% of Dems in legislatures across the country vote TO BAN GUNS. And all the bills are sponsored by Dems. That is true. Look it up and prove me wrong if you think you can. When was the last time we had a Democrat pro gun speaker or senate majority leader that was Democrat? Quite the contrary, if Dems ever get back in majorities of the legislature and the Presidency, the gun bans will begin in ernest. The only thing that stopped Clinton and that Dem congress was the Dem's loss of the US House in 1993.

As far as my comments on poverty. I think we can get hard numbers on that too if we take the time to look it up. I'm not going to waste time looking up numbers on an issue I know is broken. The Dems have created a welfare class. We have a significant portion of the society who has figured out they can vote themselves a portion of the national treasury. This will ultimately be the undoing and the downfall of the country. We are now rewarding failure and laziness and taxing the crap out of success. That system will eventually collapse on itself. Anyone who can't see that....well..... BTW, that is socialism and those systems have failed and continue to fail all over the world.

"Bring 'em on" (Let them continue to kill our sons and daughters in Iraq), George W. Bush.

So sorry you don't agree with standing up to evil and trying to convert the world to democracy. The world changed on 9-11-01. Fanatical muslims changed it. Let Iran, Syria, North Korea, and the rest sit up and take notice of what happend in Afaganland and Iraq. You can be dictator if you want, but if you fund efforts against America and take action against America or even act like you might....well, we're going to stop you. We will bomb you into submission if that's what it takes. I have no problems what-so-ever with that.

doctorhumbert
July 24, 2003, 09:15 PM
Our commander in theif who never was involved actually combat asking his soldiers to put up with more massacre? George was either stupid or didn't give a damn about his troops to make such insensitive statement.

Why don't you tell that to this guys who's are actually doing the fighting in the 120 degrees desert bombed out wasteland called Iraq?
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid71/p0aa60bc40eb97dbe0a8841de77cf5968/fb95286b.jpg
Enough of lying. Time to 'BRING THEM HOME'

doctorhumbert
July 24, 2003, 09:19 PM
I suppose you gonna burn my CD's too?:fire:

Mark Tyson
July 24, 2003, 09:33 PM
As much as I would like to agree with you, withdrawing from Iraq now would be a disaster. The country would remain in a state of anarchy. U.S. credibility in the world would be demolished for the next half century.

Remember Osama's own words: It was the U.S. withdrawl from Lebanon after the Beirut bombings and the withdrawal after the Mogadishu firefight that convinced UBL that we could be beaten. For the record, I was against both of those interventions.

The Baathists who are killing our soldiers now are acting out of desperation. They are losers, their ideology is bankrupt and despised, and everyone in Iraq knows it.

I'm afraid we have to stick this one out. We do not want Iraq to be the next Afghanistan. Look there for a perfect example of what happens when we simply walk away from a situation we've created.

RangerHAAF
July 24, 2003, 10:34 PM
I have several friends who are liberals and they are some of the best people you'll ever meet. Often their philosophies aren't based on real life but I love arguing with them.

I consider myself more of a Libertarian in philosophy than Republican, although I felt that I had to vote Republican in 2000 because of what Al Gore threatened to do to gun owners(licensing, weapons bans and other gun control schemes).

It's really too bad all of the Dems haven't learned the hard lessons of what pushing gun confiscation/control legislation continues to cost them. Some of them have good ideas but I cannot in good conscience vote for a person who wants to take my guns away and substitute the UN charter for the US Constitution.

The rift between the Democratic Party and gun owners can be healed if the party wants it to be; the Congressional Democrats current problems started about 10 years ago with the rifle ban and the Brady Bill and haven't let up since.

The best thing that honest Democratic Congressmen can do is to apologize for what they did in 1993 and back up their apology with public and genuine repudiation and denunciation of the rifle ban, the Brady Bill and the various other illegal gun control schemes they've tried over the last 10 years. If they do it and honestly mean it; I think gun owners will forgive them.

Shaggy
July 24, 2003, 10:47 PM
Our commander in theif who never was involved actually combat asking his soldiers to put up with more massacre? George was either stupid or didn't give a damn about his troops to make such insensitive statement.

Why don't you tell that to this guys who's are actually doing the fighting in the 120 degrees desert bombed out wasteland called Iraq?

Enough of lying. Time to 'BRING THEM HOME'


This is exactly why people who think like you should NEVER be put in charge in this country again....ever. If you don't plan on fighting in a war and possibly dying for this country...don't you dare join the armed forces.

Stop lying? Lying about what? I can't wait until the report on WMD is released 6 months from now. Of course liberals will never admit to being wrong. Didn't you hear Clinton taking up for Bush on Larry King the other night. He sure shut up a bunch of Democrats after that little display on the telephone.

I notice you must agree with me about the Democrat gun grabbers. Here is a prime example. S.659 to stop the gun industry from being sued for third party misuse of their product. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32512

54 Pro Gun Senators signed on as sponsors. 45(R) - 9(D)

46 Anti gun Senators not supporting. 6(R) - 1(I) - 39(D)

Republicans pro gun = 88%

Democrats anti gun = 81%

Who are the gun grabbers and who is not? Can you admit the Democrat party wants to disarm Americans?

You need me to produce the IRS numbers to show you who actually pays the taxes in this country? I can if you need 'em.

Shaggy
July 24, 2003, 10:57 PM
The rift between the Democratic Party and gun owners can be healed if the party wants it to be; the Congressional Democrats current problems started about 10 years ago with the rifle ban and the Brady Bill and haven't let up since.

Who are you trying to kid? Last ten years?

Every piece of gun control legislation that has ever been passed in this last hundred years(there was no gun control prior to 1934) has been proposed by Democrats and signed into law by Democrats. And Bush I's reinterpretation of the "sporting clause" is not new legislation. It is slective enforcement of words and part of the GCA1968.

The biggies -

NFA 1935 - Franklin Delano Rosevelt(D)
GCA 1968 - Lyndon B. Johnson(D)
Omnibus Crime Bill 1994 - William Jefferson Clinton(D)


Reagans snafu on machinguns didn't ban anything, just made it impossible to pay the tax on new machine guns...which is illegal IMO but that's another debate.

Now tell me again who the gun banners are and who are not. GCA1968 is the worst piece of crap. We suffer bad from two words "sporting purpose"....and folks, the 2nd Amendment IS NOT ABOUT SPORTS and the law that allows banning because a gun can't pass that test is a farse.

Malone LaVeigh
July 25, 2003, 02:03 AM
A lot of Democrats are really bad on RKBA, no doubt. But that isn't the only issue (http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=420) in the world.

Khornet
July 25, 2003, 08:10 AM
EVERYTHING is political. That is why they strive to control our very words; we must say differntly-abled instead of crippled. That is why they must control our most trivial everyday actions; schoolboy kisses schoolgirl= sexual harassment. They want to tell us what to drive. They want us to depend on the state for protection. They want to tell us what is the proper use for the wealth we generate. The most trivial college club must carefully select its members to include representatives of each faction, however rarefied. They are deeply racist, and extend their discrimination wherever they can. They think they know better than you how to raise your children (even though I had changed more diapers by age 12 than Hillary has changed in her entire life).

They'll tell you they are the defenders of free speech. Just try saying something politically incorrect. Remember the psychiatrist (Dr. Ruth?) who was drummed off the air for not toadying to the Gay lobby?

They'll tell you they defend the other amendmants. True, if you're a liberal. Mumia must go free, but wacko religious sects get roasted alive without benefit of trial.

They'll tell you they defend Equal Opportunity. But if you're Asian with a 4.0, it's back of the bus for you.

They'll tell you they are the sole defenders of the environment. But they'll bury any data that suggests their methods might be wrong. This statement was in the Third Assesment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but was buried and the public declaration of the IPCC said flatly that the earth is warming catastrophically:
"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible." The words of their OWN scientists. But try and question Global Warning. Just try, and see what you are called.

They'll tell you they are the Party of the Little Guy. That's why over 90% of their funding in the last election cycle came from donors gving $1 million or more apiece, while the Repubs got 64% of their from donors giving $200 or less.

The friend of the working man--but they don't want to cut his taxes, and they impose economic and regulatory burdens which make it unprofitable to employ him, As the man said, "I've never had a paycheck signed by a poor man."

The party of education--but heaven forbid some kid in DC gets to go to a decent school on the tax money his parents pay. While the Libs send theirs to expensive private schools.

The defenders of women's rights--who crucify military officers for consensual sex with subordinates (I have seen excellent Naval officers court martialed for this, under the Clinton Admin.) and destroy Bob Packwood for groping the help, but refuse to apply that standard to BC.

Fact is, folks, the libs are the biggest practitioners of all the sins they condemn. This has been an inflammatory post, I know, and I'm sure it has infuriated reasonable and well-meaning liberals here (yes, you, Malone), but if you don't like it, I ask you to consider that this is the tone I hear used EVERY DAY by liberals when discussing conservatives. Every day, in that tone that says "Well, we all KNOW Bush is a Nazi. No use belaboring the obvious."

I'm sure you coudl turn this around and demonstrate that conservatives are the greatest practitioners of the vices they condemn, but the question here is liberals.

Thumper
July 25, 2003, 08:44 AM
And by the way, affirmative action doesn't mean quotas or reparations, it means sanctions for a pattern of discrimination(apologies if you already knew that, but some I talk to on the subject don't).

Sanctions?!!? Mark, are you really trying to defend AA as being punitive?! Exactly who are you punishing?

Hey doctorhumbert, you seem to have pretty strong ideas about Bush (a Veteran) sending troops to fight. What were your feelings about Clinton (a draft dodger) sending 'em to fight?

I'm starting to think that lefties have learned to celebrate their own hypocrisy.

Listening to Klintoon apologists denigrate Bush's honesty is truly a source of amusement.

Mark Tyson
July 25, 2003, 11:27 AM
Thumper: Sanctions was the wrong word. My mistake. But I do think that given the historically deplorable treatment of blacks in this country, giving them a leg up in things like school admissions(for example) is necessary for now.

Regarding Clinton's escapades: while you can wag your finger at Clinton for evading the draft, the fact is that many, many people did that back then. As for our current CINC, the reason you went into the National Guard in the 1960's was to evade active duty service. Sorry, but it's hard to deny.

Jaguar
July 25, 2003, 12:37 PM
I don't like paying for other people mistakes forever, but will gladly help them get back to their feet.

I don't like the government telling me what I can and cannot do on my own property, but I don't want my neighbor to cover his land in garbage.

I would rather own any guns I want without having the government know which ones I do have, but I don't want gang bangers to have any.

I have no interest in what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. I don’t want any laws that regulate their sexual conduct, and I don’t want them punished if they sit out in the back yard under the stars at night puffing on some marijuana.

I don't want to pay for or receive social security, if I can't take care of my own retirement then too bad for me.

I want to be free to establish my own relationship with my employer. No minimum wages. No mandated benefits. I want to negotiate my own employment contract with my employer, but I don't want to be screwed around by an employer.

I do not believe that I have a right to health care. I do not wish to use the police power of government to force someone else to provide me with medications or medical services. I am perfectly willing to assume the total and complete responsibility for acquiring my own health insurance, all I want the government to do is eliminate the mandates and allow me to shop for just the coverage I desire. Might I add that in the event I get sick without insurance, or I can’t cover the costs, I absolutely do not want the government to step in and spend one dime of someone else’s money on my care.

I want to be free to make my own consumer choices, and that includes choices of which professional I want to use for medical and legal services. I am perfectly willing to rely on my own judgment, or the judgment of private accrediting agencies when it comes to selecting an attorney or a doctor. I don’t like the idea that you have to go to the government to ask who may and who may not clip my fingernails or cut my hair.

Obviously I am not a republican or democrat, I prefer the libertarian party because although I don't agree with them 100%, I am closer to them than any others.

Molon Labe - JAG

Drjones
July 25, 2003, 12:48 PM
Affirmative action = not needed.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen who emigrated to this country from Colombia when I was 8. That makes me a "minority" and in this "oppressed minority's" opinion ( and by the way all of the other people like me that I know ) feel that affirmative action is extremely insulting. I feel that I am as intelligent as anyone else and I don't need any help from anybody. The only people who I have known that even think well of affirmative action are native-born "minorities" . Racist democrats and liberals do not agree. You don't know that minorities are stupid and incapable of succeeding at anything on their own without help from benevolent, enlightened whites? Hmmmm.... it just occurred to me that this sounds an AWFUL lot like "The White Man's Burden" of the 21st century....Courtesy of demos and libs.


DEMOCRATS/Liberals = anti civil-rights.
It appears that the liberal indoctrination some of ya'll have received has done a good job of rewriting history. From what I have studied of american history it was the DEMOCRATS in the south that supported jim crow, etc. Anybody heard of the DIXIECRATS (anti-civil rights DEMOCRATS)? Republicans like Abraham Lincoln were in favor of the abolition of slavery. Indeed. The libs have done a fantastic job at indoctrinating people and revising history, as is evident by the comments of some here.


Thanks, I just felt I had to set the record straight on that one. Thank you very much! We need more good people like you in this country!!! :)

Drjones
July 25, 2003, 01:10 PM
We can't right every wrong throughout history. We can make things a little better for people who have been severely wronged in this country by giving them a fighting chance to break out of crippling poverty, poverty brought on by slavery and segregationist policies. Exactly; we cannot right every wrong that has been done throughout history. So why precisely is it acceptable then to give indians land back and give blacks reparations and AA, but not go back a bit further? And what about all the white immigrants who were wronged in some way or other?

What about these people: http://www.kued.org/productions/greeks/history/encyclopedia.html

What, aren't they dark-skinned enough to get reparations? You agree that we cannot right every wrong throughout history, but then go on to advocate just that! We either do it or we don't. Selective righting of historical wrongs is simply indicative of an agenda.

Food for thought: around the turn of the century, after the end of slavery, the black illegitimacy rate was around 24%. After the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's, it skyrocketed to around 70+%, where it still remains.

One last point; blacks who would benefit today from AA, reparations, etc. are NOT the people who were actually wronged, nor are the people paying reparations or losing jobs to them the ones who wronged blacks.

Reparations to Japanese and Jews, however, are perfectly justifiable since those who recieved the monies were ACTUALLY INTERNED in camps. My family came to this country waaaaaaaaaay after the end of slavery, yet I should have to pay in some way for the wrongs of unrelated folk hundreds of years ago???? :scrutiny:

And by the way, affirmative action doesn't mean quotas or reparations, it means sanctions for a pattern of discrimination(apologies if you already knew that, but some I talk to on the subject don't). I know that liberals will not admit that, by definition, AA programs require quotas.

Example; if, in a company of 25,000 employees there is ONE (1) black employee, liberals will scream "discrimination" and that the company is not "diverse enough." They obviously have SOME number in mind at which "diversity" magically occurs. I have no clue what that number is, but someone sure as heck does.

What would the conservative/libertarian solution to severe racial inequity be? What will they do if blatant, serious discrimination like the kind we used to have returns in force? The exact same thing Martin Luther King advocated and so many people are all to quick to forget: True color blindness. We cannot end racism and discrimination by making an issue out of it. We cannot teach people that it is wrong to judge people by the color of their skin and then turn around and admit them to schools and give them preference for jobs based on exactly that.

Why can't liberals see the hypocrisy inherent in such programs??? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Shaggy
July 25, 2003, 01:41 PM
A lot of Democrats are really bad on RKBA, no doubt. But that isn't the only issue in the world.

Yeah, it's not. And if the Dems are lying so blatently about guns and the use of guns and the lawful people who use guns and lying to everybody to get guns banned and to demonize lawful users of firearms.......this is an issue I know more about than any and they are just unbelievable on the gun issue.....

Imagine how wrong they are and how much they are lying about taxes, social security, medicare, welfare, education, defense spending, war on terror....pick your issue. I don't trust any body or any party who is so damn set on disarming the population. Think about it.

CZ-75
July 25, 2003, 02:17 PM
You don't know that minorities are stupid and incapable of succeeding at anything on their own without help from benevolent, enlightened whites?


The term for this is called "Plantation Socialism."

Khornet
July 25, 2003, 02:40 PM
I'm tired of talking the way I just did. But I'm tired of being talked to that way too. It would be so sweet to get rid of the accusatory language, like when Dems say "They don't say 'n***r' or 'sp*c' anymore. Now it's 'Let's cut taxes'."

Or when Julian Bond says Repubs idea of justice is "pardoning war criminal Jefferson Davis"...who, by the way, was pardoned on the reccomendation of the then-Demo controlled congress, signed into law by....Jimmy Carter.


We could really elevate this debate by getting over the habit of equating those who disagree with libs with Satan or Hitler. I'm just responding to what I'm hearing, folks.

brookstexas
July 25, 2003, 03:04 PM
Anyone else here belong to the NRA and PETA?
BT

Drjones
July 25, 2003, 03:23 PM
Anyone else here belong to the NRA and PETA? Now that's just plain WIERD!!! :scrutiny: :p

Moparmike
July 25, 2003, 07:36 PM
PETA??

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals? Sure, I'm a member!

:D :neener:

roscoe
July 26, 2003, 12:19 AM
Well, i was away from a computer and ready to let the thread be, but I saw a couple of people getting passes for factual errors that set my teeth on edge:

CZ-75:
Don't forget that the "DEMOCRATIC" Party is the party of Jim Crow. Robert "KKK" Byrd is a democrat. Harry S. Truman was in the Klan.

Uuummm . . . the Democrats used to be the conservative party. Remember "Dixiecrats" and Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond and all that? It is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln and Teddie Roosevelt - both liberals of the distant past. This is a thread about liberals. And as to membership in the KKK, this issue was pretty thoroughly thrashed out in the controversy over Justice Hugo Black. Membership was pretty much incidental in many places in the country and remember, Truman desegregated the Army (something else fought by conservatives).

Guess Nixon wasn't the one to establish the EPA then?

You are trying to give Nixon credit for the EPA? Wow! Actually, he tried to create a pro-industry with no powers to enforce environmental laws (Environmental Quality Council) but was so thoroughly criticized for it that he was shamed into signing the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, which ultimately was responsible for creation of the EPA.

I hope you don't consider Klinton a "liberal" then, since he and Reno were first on the scene to attempt to expand these powers.

Actually, that was well under way during the 80s as part of the "War on Drugs" led by William Bennett. Plus, the Reagan-Bush years saw the federalization of many drug crimes that were properly under states' jurisdictions. But, I am no fan of the increase of police powers under Clinton, or Bush.

However, the most important point is that liberal groups like the ACLU are the ones fighting against such grotesque excesses. And they are not just putting out policy papers, they are there in court, and often winning .

And Dr. Jones, about the fight against the expansion of police powers:
I'm not sure on this one and I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Find me a conservative equivalent to the ACLU. It doesn't exist because conservatives are traditionally pro- law and order. They might talk vaguely about the rights of the citizens, but when the rubber hits the road, only the ACLU and like groups are getting cases to the Supreme Court.

Shaggy:
Yeah, it's not. And if the Dems are lying so blatently about guns and the use of guns and the lawful people who use guns and lying to everybody to get guns banned and to demonize lawful users of firearms.......this is an issue I know more about than any and they are just unbelievable on the gun issue.....

Imagine how wrong they are and how much they are lying about taxes, social security, medicare, welfare, education, defense spending, war on terror....pick your issue. I don't trust any body or any party who is so damn set on disarming the population. Think about it.

I think that the whole point of this thread is that thinking like that is overly generalistic and simply inaccurate. People on this thread have been agreeing and disagreeing about virtually every issue you listed yet they all agree in the RKBA. And incidentally, the logic simply does not follow.

I think Monkeyleg had it right,
If anyone considers himself a "gun-totin' liberal," then the best thing he can do is to come down hard on the local leaders of the party: the state Democrat party, the union stewards, and so on.
and hopefully gun control will wither as a cause, leaving us all at THR to talk about ballistics and holsters.

If you enjoyed reading about "Liberal with guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!