A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate:

[chieftain]

Hairless,

Quit pickin on the boy.

He is here to educate us dumb, country red necks.

Yall hear!

I need all the education I can get. I ain't no genius like him and those other folks that know more than all the rest of us hicks put together. You know they know it all.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Big Boomer]

first, why in the world would you need gun registration for FELONS? They can't buy them anyhow!!!:banghead: Mental checks? That's why we have the NICS...good lord she is dumb!

____________________________________________________ANYONE BUT HILLARY 2008

 

[fearless leader]

Hillary is a National Socialist in my estimation, which leaves little doubt she would follow in the footsteps of other National Socialists. The Germans shortend that "National Socialist Party" to "Nazi".

I wonder if she'll make us do the Hail Cesar salute to her at her acceptance speech like the other national socialist did.

Don't look at me like I'm nuts, Sen. Joe McCarthy tried to warn everybody.

The really scary part is that theres not a nickel's worth of difference between her and Obama. Gulliani wants to pass the AWB and so does Mitt Romney.

When National Socialism threatened to engulf the Globe, the Allied Forces, composed in large numbers by Americans, put a halt to it.

If it rears it's ugly head here and takes over, who then will put an end to it?

Ok, Ok. I'll go put my tin foil hat on now and sit in the basement

 

[fearless leader]

Quote: Hillary probably has no idea what the AWB did

I beg to differ.

As a Socialist, which would mean we the people, should rely on the Government for education, food, clothing, shelter, protection.

The people having arms, takes power away from the Government to control that aspect of your life; after all, THEY know what is best for you because they studied it. What do you, the great unwashed know.

Make no mistake, POWER is what it is all about. Ask anyone who was raised or grew up in a socialist/communist culture.

Ask survivors from Nazi Germany. They want to control religion, culture, mating habits, where you live (ever hear of the SS race and resettlement bureau?), your health care, your protection, everything.

Socialists want 2 classes, the Social Elite, and peasants.

I would say that she should really look hard at the second and tenth amendments, but I don't really think she cares.

If you were to run the Bill of Rights through Congress now, it would never pass.

Her claim to fame is apprenticing a corrupt, immoral president.

What more could you want?

 

[jcoiii]

So, Madam Senator, what percentage of police officers that have been killed since the old AWB expired, and killed by firearms, were killed by "assault weapons"?

As I recall, it's something like less than 1% (for the total murder by firearm category) of victims were murdered by a perp with an "assault weapons."

 

[Mojo-jo-jo]

Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

This is no problem. VISA has a database of every VISA credit card, it's owner's information and available balance. Their database is capable of handling all of the simultaneous retail sales transactions on the Saturday before Christmas.

I have no idea the number of VISA cards vs. the number of firearms, but I would conjecture that there are several times more VISA cards than firearms in the U.S.A.

If VISA can do it, than so can the BATFE with your unlimited tax dollars.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Chieftain: How can you tell when a Dimocrat is trying to reduce your use of or completely take you guns from you

Of course, their mouth is moving.

Go figure.

Fred

I dont think it is just "dimocrats" as you mistakenly typed for Democrats. Look at the GOP leaders. Bush is a confirmed anti-gunner. Not to mention the candidates. They are all anti-Bill of Rights except for Ron Paul. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain don't inspire confidence as they are pretty much confirmed anti. Huckabee is more tolerable than the rest but he releases rapists and criminals back into the streets because his religion tells him to.

 

[RobTzu]

 

[Tokugawa]

ROBTZU-- that is a great sticker! And that is exactly the problem, too many eating at the public trough. Get enough folk dependent on the Gov. money, and you have a self sustaining vote for more more more. Some would argue that welfare was a massive failure- I would argue it was a total success- it has accomplished exactly what the perpetrators wanted-it created a dependent class who will always vote for them.
And now they want to tax the responsible who were careful and conservative with their money, to pay off the ones who took loans they cannot repay.
And inject more $$ into the money supply and lower interest rates so those with savings are slammed even harder.

NO NANNY STATE!

 

[duck911]

I want a candidate who supports my following beliefs:

1) American Independence and Sovereignty is non-negotiable
2) Border Security is critical
3) The belief that each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms
4) NO socialized health-care
5) The free-market economy should not, and CANNOT be compromised


Oh, wait..... There's ALREADY a candidate this election season who supports all of these points...

 

[Ultrachimp]

Well maybe they should invest the money in getting the FBI out of the 1980's instead and track down real criminals.

 

[TwitchALot]

I do like Paul on the constitution, but the rest of his agenda is as if he fell off the edge of the world.

People say that, but I'd bet those same people have little understanding of US foreign policy, for example, over the last 70 years. His economic policy is a Constitutional one, so I'm not sure what else you'd be talking about.

 

[The_Shootist]

Grin

I just think of Canada when talking gun registries. The politicians said it might take a couple of million to implement - bit even before it was remotely close it sucked up 1 billion C$ - and counting.

If Canada couldn't do it - then probably there isn't the money available in the entire world to pay for a similiar system in the US.

Or hell, just Texas at that

 

[XD-40 Shooter]

Hillary will never publicly advocate gun registration on the campaign trail, to do so would destroy her chances at the white house, look what happened to Kerry and Gore. Hillary will just wait untill a super majority democratic congress sends the bill up to her desk, she will sign it in a New York minute. It doesn't take much to see through Hillary's calculated double talk.

Obama has come out in support of national legislation to ban concealed carry, that's great, lets just override state laws that were passed with large majorities in the state legislatures, the will of the people. That doesn't matter to a socialist, we are the peseants, they are the "enlightened ones". Hillary and Obama make me want to puke every time I see them.

I'll get flamed for this, but right now, my candidate is McCain. I think he is best equipped to go up against Hillary. Hillary touts her "experience", compared to McCain, that is laughable at best....lmao!

 

[Foontgrindle]

fireflyfather said:
The registry part is easy, even child's play. Keeping it updated/accurate/out of the wrong hands, now that's a different story.

The problem is, the government's hands are the wrong hands! Can you say 'fox guarding the henhouse'?

"Any person capable of getting themselves elected president should on on account be allowed to do the job."
-The wise, very funny and late Douglas Adams

 

[ceetee]

Hey, Fred,

We're on the same side in this fight. All the same, you shoul dbe a little more careful in throwing around labels. Here's a great page that has pretty identified all the hallmarks of a fascist regime, Nowhere does it identify fascists as being equal (or even believing in) socalism. A few traits of a fascist regime:

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Kind of like what I posted. Corporations control the government (or at least the major movers and shakers) while government protects the corporations in return. As for private armies - When anyone with enough cash can hire out a military force equipped with weapons that are not available to the general populace, I call that a private army. As for our government hiring private armies, haven't you ever heard of Blackwater? Remember the aftermath of Katrina?

The reason our government hires privately-owned schools, and jails, and prisons, and armies, is that those corporate leaders can do the same tasks more efficiently, paying better wages, and still make a profit. If it just appens that those same corporate leaders make decent-sized campaign contributions, who can say if those contracts are payback or honest competition? On, yeah, except that for the most part,those contracts are no-bid contracts written on a cost-plus basis. So I guess they're NOT honest competition...

Question: Does this happen under Republican administrations?
Answer: Where you been for the last seven years?

Question? Does this happen under "Dimocrat" administrations? (BTW - way to keep to the high road there.)
Answer: Where you been for the last fifteen years?

Graft and corruption have been with us for as long as we have been gathering together in tribes. Same goes for dishonesty and untruths. I'm sick of seeing it from both sides. If you were to ask me, I'd paint all the candidates with the same brush, no matter if you're talking about Clinton, Obama, Romney, Huckabee, or whoever. When I hire someone for a job, I insist that they be honest, hard-working, and capable of doing the work. The problem that I see most these days is that we want to hire these guys based soley on the fact that they belong to the "right" club.

Not acceptable to me.

 

[chieftain]

Bush recently proved that republican's don't want you armed either.

Sigh!!!!
How did he PROVE IT? In a manner that most people would accept? Don’t bring weak cheese either.

I dont think it is just "dimocrats" as you mistakenly typed for Democrats. Look at the GOP leaders. Bush is a confirmed anti-gunner. Not to mention the candidates. They are all anti-Bill of Rights except for Ron Paul. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain don't inspire confidence as they are pretty much confirmed anti. Huckabee is more tolerable than the rest but he releases rapists and criminals back into the streets because his religion tells him to.

First, I didn’t misspell anything.

Who confirmed Bush as an Anti-gunner? Hillary is anti gun. Bush just ain’t pro Gun. Believe it or not, there is a big difference.

I agree about the folks being very light about the bill of rights, of course Ron Paul is a little light on being rational. I would also give some credit to Fred too. If the folks putting their money and heart into the Paul campaign, had done the same for Fred, he would have a REAL chance of winning. But I understand.

I want a candidate who supports my following beliefs:

1) American Independence and Sovereignty is non-negotiable
2) Border Security is critical
3) The belief that each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms
4) NO socialized health-care
5) The free-market economy should not, and CANNOT be compromised

Oh, wait..... There's ALREADY a candidate this election season who supports all of these points…

Who? It sure ain’t Ron Paul. His foreign policy will not allow him to cover Numbers 1,2 or 5. Can’t do any of those without a Foreign policy. And that’s before we start inventing conspiracy theories. Most of the others are no better either. This is a very subjective least worst situation.

People say that, but I'd bet those same people have little understanding of US foreign policy, for example, over the last 70 years. His economic policy is a Constitutional one, so I'm not sure what else you'd be talking about.

Boy is that a non sequitur. Better clear that up a little. And get back to me. Obviously I have “little understanding”.

Hey, Fred,

We're on the same side in this fight. All the same, you shoul dbe a little more careful in throwing around labels. Here's a great page that has pretty identified all the hallmarks of a fascist regime, Nowhere does it identify fascists as being equal (or even believing in) socialism. A few traits of a fascist regime:

This guy ain’t saying nothing. These are exactly the same for a Communist regime except number one. That is the difference. Fascism is national Socialism, and Communism is World Socialism. And you can’t tell most Communists from a fascist except when they are fighting each other.

That’s it.

Kind of like what I posted. Corporations control the government (or at least the major movers and shakers) while government protects the corporations in return. As for private armies - When anyone with enough cash can hire out a military force equipped with weapons that are not available to the general populace, I call that a private army. As for our government hiring private armies, haven't you ever heard of Blackwater? Remember the aftermath of Katrina?

May be what you posted, but it ain’t true. That is true most any totalitarian government too. Both the Communists and Fascists are socialists first. How they drive their version of socialism is why they hate and fight each other so much.

I know in capitalistic systems there is a symbiotic relationship between government and corporations. When the Corporations are profitable, the people have work, and the economy is improved. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. Not like some Communists/Dimocrats/Socialists/Liberals/Progressives would have you think.

In a Fascist country, if the corporate heads don’t play ball, they get handed their heads, literally. In a Communist country, the reason for the systemic incompetence is that the government is running everything. In those Communist countries that allow some autonomous companies, if the head of the company doesn’t play ball, they hand him his head, literally. True in most Totalitarian countries.

Not true in ours. Many Corporate officers openly and actively work against the administration. They get to vote on election day too, just like you and me.

By the way, why don’t you like corporations. I don’t particularly like their size, but they are just folks like me, trying to make a living.

Now the second part of your statement.

Under the governments approval special security groups used only OUT SIDE OF THE COUNTRY. Were/are authorized. Okay, you call it a private army. Just call it one outside of the country. Yup, I am very familiar with Blackwater, I am still waiting for the point?

Yup, remember Katrina. Those Blackwater boys, excuse me, rent a cops, were not as well armed as I was after several of the hurricanes that hit our family home in Florida during 2004, (got hit 3 times) or Andrew in 1992 . Again, your Point?

The reason our government hires privately-owned schools, and jails, and prisons, and armies, is that those corporate leaders can do the same tasks more efficiently, paying better wages, and still make a profit. If it just appens that those same corporate leaders make decent-sized campaign contributions, who can say if those contracts are payback or honest competition? On, yeah, except that for the most part,those contracts are no-bid contracts written on a cost-plus basis. So I guess they're NOT honest competition..

In your world who is allowed to make decent sized campaign contributions? Only certain people, no one? Can you say if they are honest or not? I do know corruption takes place. But it is truly the exception, not the rule. If you feel a need to commit class warfare, go ahead and join Hillary, McCain, Obama, and Edwards, they along with Bill will feel your pain.

Nope, most of those contracts are bid. Not many no bid contracts at all. Usually when there is a time element is the no bid used.

Question: Does this happen under Republican administrations?
Answer: Where you been for the last seven years?

Does what happen under a Republican administration. If you had to get folks to New Orleans within days. Would you have sent out a request for bids instead?

Question? Does this happen under "Dimocrat" administrations? (BTW - way to keep to the high road there.)
Answer: Where you been for the last fifteen years?

I know where I've been, speak for yourself.

Graft and corruption have been with us for as long as we have been gathering together in tribes. Same goes for dishonesty and untruths. I'm sick of seeing it from both sides. If you were to ask me, I'd paint all the candidates with the same brush, no matter if you're talking about Clinton, Obama, Romney, Huckabee, or whoever. When I hire someone for a job, I insist that they be honest, hard-working, and capable of doing the work. The problem that I see most these days is that we want to hire these guys based soley on the fact that they belong to the "right" club.

Maybe you vote by club, I don’t. I vote on the only group that has, and maybe in the future work for things I am interested in. The only group that has worked for my interest is generally Republicans. Unlike you, they are like me, less than perfect.

Not acceptable to me.

When are you going to go in to politics and make it acceptable to you? If not, you had better find someone that ain’t perfect that you can live with. I have.

America, we have choices, ain’t it grand!!!!!

We have a political revolution in this country every 2 years. Join it and Vote. Don't like the candidates running, get out there and either become one, or get one to run.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[ceetee]

Okay, so by not addressing the majority of points I made in my post, and by addressing the rest with opinion, and obfuscation, you're trying to prove exactly what? And by gifting me with attitudes that I don't have (who says I don't like corporations?) you're actually lying about what I said. Thanks.

In a Fascist country, if the corporate heads don’t play ball, they get handed their heads, literally.

Not true. The source I provided says that the corporate heads are actually running the show, not being beheaded. You're not speaking truthfully. Go figure.

Under the governments approval special security groups used only OUT SIDE OF THE COUNTRY. Were/are authorized. Okay, you call it a private army. Just call it one outside of the country. Yup, I am very familiar with Blackwater, I am still waiting for the point?

Yup, remember Katrina. Those Blackwater boys, excuse me, rent a cops, were not as well armed as I was after several of the hurricanes that hit our family home in Florida during 2004, (got hit 3 times) or Andrew in 1992 . Again, your Point?

My point was that our government hires private armies, which you agree with. Another point I made is that those private armies have been hired for duty inside our own borders. They also have access to weapons which the general populace does not. This makes me aware that our government will hire mercenaries, who have sworn no oath to our Constitution, to combat anyone they deem as an enemy. These mercenaries have no loyalty to the people, have no duty to act in accordance with the Constitution, and take orders from whoever is paying them. You're okay with this?

Nope, most of those contracts are bid. Not many no bid contracts at all. Usually when there is a time element is the no bid used.

I suggest you do some research. One film you might want to watch in particular is "Iraq For Sale." In it, you'll see statements and testimony from ordinary folks, "like you and me", that got so sick of the government's corruption in bidding and spending that they were willing to go public and let the chips fall where they may.

In your world who is allowed to make decent sized campaign contributions? Only certain people, no one? Can you say if they are honest or not? I do know corruption takes place. But it is truly the exception, not the rule. If you feel a need to commit class warfare, go ahead and join Hillary, McCain, Obama, and Edwards, they along with Bill will feel your pain.

One issue is that those with large amounts of money are allowed to start and/or fund Political Action Committees (PAC's). While I might be able to send my favorite candidate a few dollars, a person or corporation that can afford it can fund a PAC with enough money to choke a whole stable of horses. Not only that, but there are always ways for scammers to get around the campaign contribution laws. Do I have the same kind of voice in government as the land developer that just bought a candidates house for 2 million dollars more than it's worth? I don't have a way to fix campaign finance issues - I'm not smart enough. That's why we have elections - so we can hire those folks that ARE smart enough to fix these issues. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a politician born that will vote to cut off his own money supply.

Maybe you vote by club, I don’t. I vote on the only group that has, and maybe in the future work for things I am interested in. The only group that has worked for my interest is generally Republicans. Unlike you, they are like me, less than perfect.

You just showed that you do, indeed, vote by club. You vote fo ranyone with an "R" after his name, no matter what his character or record. I never claimed to be perfect, either. Nice underhanded way of belittling my point, and my intelligence. This is The High Road, isnt it?

We have a political revolution in this country every 2 years. Join it and Vote. Don't like the candidates running, get out there and either become one, or get one to run.

Really? When was the last time we really had someone running that was for change? Or for "revolution"? The only candidate I can recall that didn't absolutely toe the party line (even though he came pretty durn close to it) was Bill Clinton... I've already said that I'm nowhere near smart enough to run things (although I could probably do a much better job than George W. Bush has). Problem that I see is, no one that's running is smart enough either.

 

[chieftain]

Not true. The source I provided says that the corporate heads are actually running the show, not being beheaded. You're not speaking truthfully. Go figure.

Better vet you source a lot better. Instead of quoting him, you should be questioning him.

You obviously didn’t listen to folks that lived under fascism, vs. those who are desperately trying to justify the Soviet model of fascism. It just ain’t so. If it is that obvious to you, please state some examples where what a corporate head said was law. Not that from time to time what a corporate head wanted to become law didn’t. Sure that happened. It is supposed to happen, in a free state. Not a fascist state.

Just remember, the first requirement of any fascist state is for it to be a Socialist state too. Don't ever forget that. That is an absolute.

My point was that our government hires private armies, which you agree with. Another point I made is that those private armies have been hired for duty inside our own borders. They also have access to weapons which the general populace does not. This makes me aware that our government will hire mercenaries, who have sworn no oath to our Constitution, to combat anyone they deem as an enemy. These mercenaries have no loyalty to the people, have no duty to act in accordance with the Constitution, and take orders from whoever is paying them. You're okay with this?

Our government has hired private armies since the late 1700’s under Jefferson IIRC. Do you think Presley O’Banion and his 7 Marines took those Barbary pirates by themselves? NO, they bought the cooperation of local troops/leaders. Sheesh.

What do you consider our troops serving under the UN banner are? They are no longer Under US command and control!

I don’t mind using mercs outside the country at all. Yup, I am alright with that. Why aren’t you?

Can you point out where those private armies have been hired? Now there are a lot of security guys, I call them rent a cops are hired by government. Nothing wrong with that. They usually carry worse or less cutting edge weapons than I do.

What private Army IN SIDE the United States is carrying better weapons than I am? Please don’t come with Blackwater. They don’t carry anything I cannot, inside the country.

I suggest you do some research. One film you might want to watch in particular is "Iraq For Sale." In it, you'll see statements and testimony from ordinary folks, "like you and me", that got so sick of the government's corruption in bidding and spending that they were willing to go public and let the chips fall where they may.

After watching one conspiracy film about 35 years ago, I stopped watching such trash. I know folks like you and me working in Iraq, and returned from Iraq that I don’t need to have a propagandist do it for me.

I will guarantee that corruption is taking place. Has been since the first government paid for war in history. That is why many American are already under indictment for corruption. It will happen and we need to keep going after them.

Two things happen. Some times it is corruption, sometimes it is the result of wasteful government habits. Hasn’t made a difference who or what party was running things either. It is the nature of any bureaucracy. Never ending story.

One issue is that those with large amounts of money are allowed to start and/or fund Political Action Committees (PAC's). While I might be able to send my favorite candidate a few dollars, a person or corporation that can afford it can fund a PAC with enough money to choke a whole stable of horses. Not only that, but there are always ways for scammers to get around the campaign contribution laws. Do I have the same kind of voice in government as the land developer that just bought a candidates house for 2 million dollars more than it's worth? I don't have a way to fix campaign finance issues - I'm not smart enough. That's why we have elections - so we can hire those folks that ARE smart enough to fix these issues. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a politician born that will vote to cut off his own money supply.

Interestingly enough, PAC’s came around because people like you didn’t like corporations, and such from directly contributing to politicians. So you don’t like that fix. What fix do you want?

So you believe only certain folks should contribute. They aren’t allowed to contribute as much as you can? Why. Why should they be limited to your limitations? Because you want it. If that is true get enough folks like you to vote for it. It really is that simple. You will have to work very hard to succeed. Your choice.

Many PAC’s are funded by people just like you banding together. Think about the NRA and it’s contributions just for one example, as we are on THE HIGH ROAD.

You just showed that you do, indeed, vote by club. You vote fo ranyone with an "R" after his name, no matter what his character or record. I never claimed to be perfect, either. Nice underhanded way of belittling my point, and my intelligence. This is The High Road, isnt it?

I cannot belittle your point or intelligence. Only you can do that. I am belittling those of the opposition that control the mass media, academia, and many of our elected positions.

The ‘club’ you attempt to belittle me of voting for is the only hope of my keeping my firearms, to use an example that applies to this thread and THE HIGH ROAD, doesn’t it.

No Dimocrats will appoint any Supreme Court Justices that will vote with my interest. The Justices the Dims will appoint will vote against my civil right to keep and bear Arms in any reasonable manner. The Republicans may too, but some of those Republicans WILL vote in a manner that is in my interest.

Now understand. All Republicans ain’t perfect on this stuff either. Just much better than the Dimocrat alternative:

Dimocrats want more of my tax money, then the Republicans do.
Dimocrats want to give my money to folks I don’t want to get it. Some republicans want to do that too. I work against them in the primaries as I can.
Dimocrats want to restrict more of my personal activity, than the Republicans do.
Dimocrats want to dictate the vehicles I drive, the light bulbs I use, and how I sort my garbage.
Dimocrats want to make successful corporations unsuccessful.
Dimocrats want to make my government as socialistic as it can.
Dimocrats want people that want my children dead, to be rewarded for that belief.

You may continue the list if you wish. There are many more examples like this.

Some Republicans want that too. Most do not. I made my choice, apparently you have too.

I don’t want any of that for my country or my children. Apparently you do.

You just showed that you do, indeed, vote by club. You vote fo ranyone with an "R" after his name, no matter what his character or record. I never claimed to be perfect, either. Nice underhanded way of belittling my point, and my intelligence. This is The High Road, isnt it?

Now you are repeating yourself.

I have voted for Dimocrats on extremely rare cases. Not on any national level though.

And apparently for your edification, YES THIS IS THE HIGH ROAD.

Really? When was the last time we really had someone running that was for change? Or for "revolution"? The only candidate I can recall that didn't absolutely toe the party line (even though he came pretty durn close to it) was Bill Clinton... I've already said that I'm nowhere near smart enough to run things (although I could probably do a much better job than George W. Bush has). Problem that I see is, no one that's running is smart enough either.

I don’t want change for changes sake. I only want change that will improve things. Not for any class or group, but for the country as a whole. The GENERAL WELFARE.

You have said you are not smart enough several times now. I believe you.

If you think Clinton was an answer. I am desperately trying to figure out the question.

Bush was smart enough to beat a lot of people who thought they were smarter than him. He had better college grades than everyone that ran against him. Inspite of that, many folks think they are smarter even as they continue to be defeated by this supposedly inferior intellect. Maybe, if his opponents were as smart as they think they are, they may come to the conclusion that their assumption is wrong. But that could only happen if THEY were smart enough, wouldn’t it?

Most of the real screw ups by Bush were when he acted most like a Dimocrat. Excessive spending, Illegal Aliens, And even on gun issues, where he did nothing to hurt shooters, but said he would. Even though he was pretty sure the congress would not send him the renewal of the AWB ban. May have been an election ruse. I don’t know, and am glad he didn’t have to be tested. But I do know he didn’t work to have it reinstated either. Not like a bunch of Dimcrats.

But I presume you would have preferred sKerry on the issue. Or maybe ALGORE.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[ceetee]

Wow... how long did it take you to type out all those untruths, and half-truths?

Here are some things that you attribute to me, that I never said:

state some examples where what a corporate head said was law

people like you didn’t like corporations, and such from directly contributing to politicians. So you don’t like that fix

So you believe only certain folks should contribute.

They aren’t allowed to contribute as much as you can? Why. Why should they be limited to your limitations? Because you want it.

I made my choice, apparently you have too.

I don’t want any of that for my country or my children. Apparently you do.

Now you are repeating yourself.

If you think Clinton was an answer

But I presume you would have preferred sKerry on the issue. Or maybe ALGORE.

You argue like my wife: Make up a whole bunch of crap I never said, then get all ticked off about it.

You vet my source. If you're so sure he's wrong, prove it.

The first requirement for a fascist stte is NOT to be a socialist state. In fact, the fascists were actually fighting against the socialists not too long ago... remember WWII?

I don’t mind using mercs outside the country at all. Yup, I am alright with that. Why aren’t you?

My question was are you okay with using mercs INSIDE OUR COUNTRY that have no loyalty to our country or it's constitution, who have access to better arms and ordinance that the ordinary population does, and who take orders from whoever is paying them? Or are you doubting that those "rent a cops" have access to better weapons than the average citizen? Don't answer the question if you don't want - but don't pretend you have answered it when you haven't.

So because you saw something 35 years ago that may or may not have been "propagandist", you've closed your mind off to everything you don't see personally? Harumph. What kind of person lives entirely within the bounds of their own personal universe?

As for corruption and campaign finance, what fix are you offering? Tell me your plan, and I'll tell you if it stinks or not. My position is that we hire people to be honest, and then reward them for being lying scum. Apparently, you think this is okay. Of course, you also think that it's okay to call people derogatory names by altering their proper titles, like this is an elementary school playground. What's next? Can your Daddy whup my Daddy? Grow up, Fred.

Dimocrats want more of my tax money, then the Republicans do.

Why has our budget gone from balanced (under a Democrat) to being extremely out of balance (under the Republicans)?

Dimocrats want to give my money to folks I don’t want to get it. Some republicans want to do that too. I work against them in the primaries as I can.

All politicians want to give our tax money to folks we don't want to get it. All except the Libertarians, maybe. Gonna vote Lib next time round?

Dimocrats want to restrict more of my personal activity, than the Republicans do.

Republicans came up with TSA and "Homeland Security". How restrictive are those?

Dimocrats want to dictate the vehicles I drive, the light bulbs I use, and how I sort my garbage.

I really want to see proof of that! (Hold my beer while I laugh).

Dimocrats want to make successful corporations unsuccessful.

I want to see proof of that, too!

Dimocrats want to make my government as socialistic as it can.

That's debatable. Democrats are certainly not winning my heart with their policies.

Dimocrats want people that want my children dead, to be rewarded for that belief.

Which Democrats want to kill your children? And when are you going to press charges?

I think you're talking about this phony "War on Terror" the Republicans started, to which I only have one thing to say: "Where's Osama?"

This "War on Terror" should just as well be called the "War on the American Treasury", because the only goal of it seems to be spending our tax dollars as fast as humanly possible.

 

[Justin]

This one's gone completely political.