TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ron Paul 2008 Revolution
- Thread starter zappafan
- Start date
My wife and I are both conservative Christians..
so you would think Huckabee is our guy right?
not even close..I cant stand Huckabee..the "Mormon issue" has soured me on him..
anyone who uses religion as a weapon to gain power has no respect from me..
We have watched all the debates so far..
our favorite guy, by FAR, is Joe Biden.
He seems like the only canidate who actually knows anything and could actually make a decent president.
but unfortunately he wont have a chance..
because its not expeience that counts, its money and connections.
the best man for the job will NOT be our next president.
My fear is the race will come down to Huckabee and Hillary,
if that happens, Hillary might actually win, which would be a disaster..
I dont think Huckabee could win..
he has screwed his chances by inserting religion into the race..a very bad move..people wont stand for that. (except for a religious kook minority..but they wont be enough.)
so if it comes down to Huck Vs. Hillary, either choice is a menace to society..
I think no matter who becomes the next president, we are screwed..
IMO we only have one good option, (Biden) and he doesnt stand a chance.
I like Biden first,
Rudy second.
Scot
so you would think Huckabee is our guy right?
not even close..I cant stand Huckabee..the "Mormon issue" has soured me on him..
anyone who uses religion as a weapon to gain power has no respect from me..
We have watched all the debates so far..
our favorite guy, by FAR, is Joe Biden.
He seems like the only canidate who actually knows anything and could actually make a decent president.
but unfortunately he wont have a chance..
because its not expeience that counts, its money and connections.
the best man for the job will NOT be our next president.
My fear is the race will come down to Huckabee and Hillary,
if that happens, Hillary might actually win, which would be a disaster..
I dont think Huckabee could win..
he has screwed his chances by inserting religion into the race..a very bad move..people wont stand for that. (except for a religious kook minority..but they wont be enough.)
so if it comes down to Huck Vs. Hillary, either choice is a menace to society..
I think no matter who becomes the next president, we are screwed..
IMO we only have one good option, (Biden) and he doesnt stand a chance.
I like Biden first,
Rudy second.
Scot
man i accelerating nothing as far as global warming. if we were we would be causing the greenhouse effect....its actually fairly easy to test for but was only done recently. in order for the greenhouse effect to be going on the air needs to be warming up faster than the earth, and the hot air warms up the ground. that is how the greenhouse effect and things like methane and Co2 and such cause the earth to warm up BUT the air IS NOT warming up faster than the earth its warming up at the exact same rate. there for it has to be the sun that is warming up the earth.....NOT MAN!
as far as guns killing ppl. they dont. the availability of guns has jack chit to do with murder rates. that has been proven time and time again. psychotic SOB's kill ppl. i live 20 miles from the town with the highest murder rate per capita some years, in a state that has some of the least amount of gun laws, in a part of the state where 70% plus households have firearms..............do you have any clue how rare it is for someone to get shot(taking hunting accidents out of the picture)? hell i can only think of one in the last 5 years and i work for the newspaper and its my business to know. knives are the perfered weapon for killing ppl, followed by beating someone to death, than prolly vehicles......hell burning down the damn house someone is in to kill them is ahead of ppl shooting ppl to kill them.......
as far as guns killing ppl. they dont. the availability of guns has jack chit to do with murder rates. that has been proven time and time again. psychotic SOB's kill ppl. i live 20 miles from the town with the highest murder rate per capita some years, in a state that has some of the least amount of gun laws, in a part of the state where 70% plus households have firearms..............do you have any clue how rare it is for someone to get shot(taking hunting accidents out of the picture)? hell i can only think of one in the last 5 years and i work for the newspaper and its my business to know. knives are the perfered weapon for killing ppl, followed by beating someone to death, than prolly vehicles......hell burning down the damn house someone is in to kill them is ahead of ppl shooting ppl to kill them.......
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
To me, saying a gun kills is like saying a pencil can write an essay or knife will cut your steak without you touching it. I support people owning guns. We all have our hobbies. My dad has an elephant gun. He has no intention of ever shooting an elephant, he just thinks it's cool. People like to collect things. I do support gun control. Background checks and the like.
Making guns illegal will not stop people from getting them. It will stop good people from enjoying their hobbies. Look at the war on drugs. In a lot of instances, little old ladies can't get their pot for their glaucoma, but we have lots of crack heads running around. Why is this, you may ask? Criminals don't care about the law in the first place, and it's as simple as that.
Making guns illegal will not stop people from getting them. It will stop good people from enjoying their hobbies. Look at the war on drugs. In a lot of instances, little old ladies can't get their pot for their glaucoma, but we have lots of crack heads running around. Why is this, you may ask? Criminals don't care about the law in the first place, and it's as simple as that.
DrWurm
Californian in DC
Knives have other uses besides killing people. They're something we could not easily live without. M-16s are made to kill people. I highly doubt anyone is cutting their T-bone with an MP5.
Notice that I have never said "no guns". Just that the second amendment should be revised. The fact that people can obtain guns illegally has nothing to do with the matter. People can pick up prostitutes or buy drugs illegally. We're not offering those in stores.
Gun control is a step in the right direction. Even though bad people will continue to get weapons, we at least make it harder for them.
If a gun collector really wants guns, perhaps he could get a license to have automatic weapons and no ammunition. If they never intend to use it, then that should be alright, shouldn't it? Or perhaps they would only be able to get ammunition at gun ranges, and they'd have to spend all of it there. Id be absolutely fine with that. But NOBODY needs a fully loaded automatic weapon in their closet.
As for global warming. I'm going to go with the thousands of scientists from 130 different countries on this one.
Notice that I have never said "no guns". Just that the second amendment should be revised. The fact that people can obtain guns illegally has nothing to do with the matter. People can pick up prostitutes or buy drugs illegally. We're not offering those in stores.
Gun control is a step in the right direction. Even though bad people will continue to get weapons, we at least make it harder for them.
If a gun collector really wants guns, perhaps he could get a license to have automatic weapons and no ammunition. If they never intend to use it, then that should be alright, shouldn't it? Or perhaps they would only be able to get ammunition at gun ranges, and they'd have to spend all of it there. Id be absolutely fine with that. But NOBODY needs a fully loaded automatic weapon in their closet.
As for global warming. I'm going to go with the thousands of scientists from 130 different countries on this one.
on the global warming.....check the recent study.....none of the 130 scientists you speak of looked at the difference between the air temp and the land temp....they have only looked at the fact that land temps have been rising, coincidentally along with the rise of the industrial age and that is ALL they have looked at. they claim its a greenhouse effect without actually looking for a greenhouse efect.
on the guns SUCH F"ING LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE YOU MORON! YOUR TRYING TO ARGUE FOR LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS................if your going to argue gun control with me please come to the arguement with facts and not bullchit
on the guns SUCH F"ING LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE YOU MORON! YOUR TRYING TO ARGUE FOR LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS................if your going to argue gun control with me please come to the arguement with facts and not bullchit
let me break this arguement apart.....the nuber one thing you need to realize is that a full auto M16 shoots the same dang cartridge as my bolt action coyote rifle. a 5.56x45 NATO, also known as the 223 Remington....are they EXACTLY the same? no but in 99% of guns they are interchangeable though i wouldnt use a 5.56x45NATO in a tight chambered 223 target rifle....that might not be good though i doubt you could blow up the target rifle with such a small round. the fully auto tommy gun uses the same round as the Colt 1911, a semiauto pistol that normally holds 7 rounds, hell some revolvers and rifles are chambered in the round. the UZI or MP5 or MAC 10 all use the same round that is so popular with current police guns, and personal hand guns(both semi autos and more rarely though easily found revolvers)
you do not know enough about firearms to debate this subject with me. if you wish to learn about firearms i would be happy to provide you with all the info you want about alot of guns, from black powder to the Hellfire. but dont try to argue guns and gun control with me cause you dont even seem to have a basic knowlege of current gun laws, let alone the guns you suggest be outlawed.
Settle down, Rattler! There are good arguments for and against the right to bear arms, made by intelligent people. It's just a matter of which way you want to go - there are successes on both sides of this question. I happen to agree with you, though. There are enough scenarios where I'd like to have a gun that I support this right - which IS a right until the Constitution is amended to the contrary. You can't pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights are in effect, much as Bush and his cohorts want to abolish all of them except the 2nd. In any case, there are liberals and conservatives who are on both sides of this issue. I'm a staunch liberal who is also a gun owner.
On the Hillary issue - she is as far from being Socialist as Nixon was. That label is grossly misapplied to Hillary Clinton, who is at best a centrist moderate Corporatist. Like all industrialized nations, we have a mix of capitalism and "socialism", in the sense that we have public schools (a very, very necessary thing), public roads, fire departments, social security, and so on, as well as capitalism. But unfortunately, we are losing the capitalist side NOT to the socialists (there aren't any), but to the corporatists. These cretinous new zombies are all about consolidation, mergers, monopolies, and corporate control of everything. Giant monopolistic corporations are NOT capitalism! The American dream is opening your own business, and succeeding on the basis of your merits. It is NOT working middle management at WalMart because it's the only employer in town. But that's what our country is becoming. We don't have candidates who are pushing for helping small businesses and killing the monopolies because we have a system wherein those monopolies determine, in great part, who we vote for and who gets elected. Corporate money has ruined our political system, and people like Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, are products of that system. Hillary Clinton is no socialist, she's the farthest thing from it. Listen to her speeches - is she proposing massive investment in our social structure? Nope. She's a Patriot Act voter and a pro-war voter (despite the duplicitous rhetoric).
Around the world, we are notable for our neurotic and self-destructive opposition to anything that could be called "socialist" - probably a relic of our anti-Communist period of the 50s. But the rest of the world has moved on and has things that are obviously good ideas like universal health care. We spend more on health care by a long shot that any other nation on earth, yet don't have the best care. Why? Because we are enriching to the tune of billions of dollars an inherently dishonest and wasteful "insurance" industry that stands between us and health care. Why? Because the corporatists have convinced people that doing the obviously smart thing is "socialist". So they get their billions, we have 40 million Americans without insurance, and our health care system pretty much sucks. Great.
What we need to do in this country is stop legislating morality (bans on gays having normal lives, etc.), stop letting corporations get away with crimes (wiretapping immunity, monopolization, etc.), get corporate money OUT of our elections for good, and start investing in small businesses, innovation, and policies designed to strengthen and build our middle class. The present system is looting our treasury and selling out the future to help the top 1% of Americans, whose INCREASE in wealth in the last few years is greater than the TOTAL income of the bottom 20% of Americans. The ultra-rich don't need tax breaks and sacrifice from the rest of us. Really. They don't.
But you won't hear much of this from ANY candidate. Because their corporate benefactors won't let them even if they wanted to. We need to take our country back for the hard-working, innovative, entreprenurial, middle class of America, and stop the Corporatist neo-fascists from taking our prosperity and selling it out to the highest bidders.
Capslock <--- not enjoying politics these days.
On the Hillary issue - she is as far from being Socialist as Nixon was. That label is grossly misapplied to Hillary Clinton, who is at best a centrist moderate Corporatist. Like all industrialized nations, we have a mix of capitalism and "socialism", in the sense that we have public schools (a very, very necessary thing), public roads, fire departments, social security, and so on, as well as capitalism. But unfortunately, we are losing the capitalist side NOT to the socialists (there aren't any), but to the corporatists. These cretinous new zombies are all about consolidation, mergers, monopolies, and corporate control of everything. Giant monopolistic corporations are NOT capitalism! The American dream is opening your own business, and succeeding on the basis of your merits. It is NOT working middle management at WalMart because it's the only employer in town. But that's what our country is becoming. We don't have candidates who are pushing for helping small businesses and killing the monopolies because we have a system wherein those monopolies determine, in great part, who we vote for and who gets elected. Corporate money has ruined our political system, and people like Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, are products of that system. Hillary Clinton is no socialist, she's the farthest thing from it. Listen to her speeches - is she proposing massive investment in our social structure? Nope. She's a Patriot Act voter and a pro-war voter (despite the duplicitous rhetoric).
Around the world, we are notable for our neurotic and self-destructive opposition to anything that could be called "socialist" - probably a relic of our anti-Communist period of the 50s. But the rest of the world has moved on and has things that are obviously good ideas like universal health care. We spend more on health care by a long shot that any other nation on earth, yet don't have the best care. Why? Because we are enriching to the tune of billions of dollars an inherently dishonest and wasteful "insurance" industry that stands between us and health care. Why? Because the corporatists have convinced people that doing the obviously smart thing is "socialist". So they get their billions, we have 40 million Americans without insurance, and our health care system pretty much sucks. Great.
What we need to do in this country is stop legislating morality (bans on gays having normal lives, etc.), stop letting corporations get away with crimes (wiretapping immunity, monopolization, etc.), get corporate money OUT of our elections for good, and start investing in small businesses, innovation, and policies designed to strengthen and build our middle class. The present system is looting our treasury and selling out the future to help the top 1% of Americans, whose INCREASE in wealth in the last few years is greater than the TOTAL income of the bottom 20% of Americans. The ultra-rich don't need tax breaks and sacrifice from the rest of us. Really. They don't.
But you won't hear much of this from ANY candidate. Because their corporate benefactors won't let them even if they wanted to. We need to take our country back for the hard-working, innovative, entreprenurial, middle class of America, and stop the Corporatist neo-fascists from taking our prosperity and selling it out to the highest bidders.
Capslock <--- not enjoying politics these days.
DrWurm
Californian in DC
Rattler, when you make an outburst like that on the internet, it kind of ruins your argument. If you want to have an intelligent debate, fine. But I'm not willing to stoop to personal insults. I grew out of that a long time ago. Also, your profanity is against forum rules.
I'll have you know that I do know that ammunition is shared between different weapons. I've played enough video games, and lived around enough gun owners in my time to gather basic information about weaponry. Obviously it's a tough issue, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at.
And as a clarification, it's over 2500 scientists from over 130 countries that say mankind has largely or entirely influenced global warming.
"What we need to do in this country is stop legislating morality (bans on gays having normal lives, etc.), stop letting corporations get away with crimes (wiretapping immunity, monopolization, etc.), get corporate money OUT of our elections for good, and start investing in small businesses, innovation, and policies designed to strengthen and build our middle class. The present system is looting our treasury and selling out the future to help the top 1% of Americans, whose INCREASE in wealth in the last few years is greater than the TOTAL income of the bottom 20% of Americans. The ultra-rich don't need tax breaks and sacrifice from the rest of us. Really. They don't."
I agree 100% with all of that. Legislating morality, that's a good way to put it.
I'll have you know that I do know that ammunition is shared between different weapons. I've played enough video games, and lived around enough gun owners in my time to gather basic information about weaponry. Obviously it's a tough issue, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at.
And as a clarification, it's over 2500 scientists from over 130 countries that say mankind has largely or entirely influenced global warming.
"What we need to do in this country is stop legislating morality (bans on gays having normal lives, etc.), stop letting corporations get away with crimes (wiretapping immunity, monopolization, etc.), get corporate money OUT of our elections for good, and start investing in small businesses, innovation, and policies designed to strengthen and build our middle class. The present system is looting our treasury and selling out the future to help the top 1% of Americans, whose INCREASE in wealth in the last few years is greater than the TOTAL income of the bottom 20% of Americans. The ultra-rich don't need tax breaks and sacrifice from the rest of us. Really. They don't."
I agree 100% with all of that. Legislating morality, that's a good way to put it.
you say:
than you say:
if you know that non automatic firearms fire the same rounds as fully automatic weapons how in the hell do you propose to only allow the shooting of fully auto firearms at gun ranges when a guy will have a bolt action hunting rifle sitting next to it in the closet that fires the EXACT SAME ROUND. your arguement holds about as much water as a window screen. do me a favor, since your not inclined to believe me. look up how many ppl have been killed with LEGAL machine guns owned by PRIVATE CITIZENS since the "ban" went into effect in 1934. note its not a true ban cause you can get them with special permission from the US treasury department which requires a complete background and fingerprint check and the signature of your local sheriff and a $200 tax to buy one.
the only gun control arguement that makes any sence what so ever is the "guns are evil arguement" and that arguement ONLY holds water if you also believe pencils cause misspelled words and spoons make ppl fat. cause you giving inanimate objects the ability to think. you have to be able to reason to be evil. so if you are infact psychotic i will accept a statement from you that machine guns are evil and shouldnt be allowed in the hands of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to do as they wish with.
than you say:
if you know that non automatic firearms fire the same rounds as fully automatic weapons how in the hell do you propose to only allow the shooting of fully auto firearms at gun ranges when a guy will have a bolt action hunting rifle sitting next to it in the closet that fires the EXACT SAME ROUND. your arguement holds about as much water as a window screen. do me a favor, since your not inclined to believe me. look up how many ppl have been killed with LEGAL machine guns owned by PRIVATE CITIZENS since the "ban" went into effect in 1934. note its not a true ban cause you can get them with special permission from the US treasury department which requires a complete background and fingerprint check and the signature of your local sheriff and a $200 tax to buy one.
the only gun control arguement that makes any sence what so ever is the "guns are evil arguement" and that arguement ONLY holds water if you also believe pencils cause misspelled words and spoons make ppl fat. cause you giving inanimate objects the ability to think. you have to be able to reason to be evil. so if you are infact psychotic i will accept a statement from you that machine guns are evil and shouldnt be allowed in the hands of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to do as they wish with.
As already stated, guns don't kill people, psychotic people kill people. Strangling, stabbing, beating, etc. Someone being shot to death is rarer than the above, except when gangs are involved. IIRC, almost every serial killer uses something besides a gun (with the exception of Zodiac and son of sam). Zodiac and the Unibomber may have been the same person though, in which case his most effective method was a bomb, not a gun.
"Guns for show, knives for a pro"....
"Guns for show, knives for a pro"....
DrWurm
Californian in DC
I already agreed with the gun motto in a previous post. But again, because guns are made for killing people, there is an inherent problem. I may not have the answer, but I do know there is a problem. I'm coming up with this stuff on the fly, cut me a little slack.
You can't simply say that just because there haven't been that many deaths, there's no problem.
You can't simply say that just because there haven't been that many deaths, there's no problem.
let me get this straight DrWurm, your saying that in 73 years, out of the over 240,000 machine guns currently in the possesion of individuals(roughly half with police, half with private citizens) only 1 death from a legally owned machine gun by a off duty cop and 0 from private citizens isnt statistacally significant to my arguement? if you refuse to accept that fact as evidence it does no good to discuss this with you cause you refuse to look at facts......good day to you, i dont see any point to discuss this with you further.
"Guns don't kill kids, KIDS kill kids!"
That's the best rebuttal to the question I've heard. I still don't agree with the anti-gun position, but it puts to rest the notion that guns themselves don't contribute to violence. They clearly do and are clearly responsible in part for our high murder rate in this country. But in my opinion, it's worth it, and besides, banning guns would mean a LONG period where only criminals have guns, and that's problematic. Besides, with the rampant lawlessness in government, the shredding of our Constitutional rights, and growing social unrest, I think it's wise to protect yourself and your family.
Capslock
That's the best rebuttal to the question I've heard. I still don't agree with the anti-gun position, but it puts to rest the notion that guns themselves don't contribute to violence. They clearly do and are clearly responsible in part for our high murder rate in this country. But in my opinion, it's worth it, and besides, banning guns would mean a LONG period where only criminals have guns, and that's problematic. Besides, with the rampant lawlessness in government, the shredding of our Constitutional rights, and growing social unrest, I think it's wise to protect yourself and your family.
Capslock
Caps, most the high murder rate is directly related to social ills in the inner cities and nothing to do with the availibility of guns.........i have long said, laws only affect the law abiding citizen. cause they are the only ones that will pay attention to the laws, the criminals sure in the hell wont.
Rattler, I'd say the murder rate is due to both the social ills AND the easy availability of guns. Hell, I can get a gun easier than I can get a nepenthes!
I agree that enacting gun laws now will pretty much only hurt the law-abiding citizen who owns guns. It would take a LONG time to weed out the bulk of the illegal firearms, and therefore a long time where only criminals are armed. I don't think it's worth it, especially since an armed populace has certain benefits. The Taliban would have a hard time running their intimidation campaigns here, for example.
Capslock
I agree that enacting gun laws now will pretty much only hurt the law-abiding citizen who owns guns. It would take a LONG time to weed out the bulk of the illegal firearms, and therefore a long time where only criminals are armed. I don't think it's worth it, especially since an armed populace has certain benefits. The Taliban would have a hard time running their intimidation campaigns here, for example.
Capslock
and if you are shot chances are it will be with a gun quite similar if not exactly like what the cops are carrying.........more likely to win the lottery than be shot by even an illegal machine gun. law abiding citizens with machine guns do not commit crimes with them.....they jumped through to many hoops and have to much invested to be commiting crimes with them....same with silencers.....you have to jump through the same hoops to get one of those as you do a machine gun
I thought it was the gay-agenda that wanted to modify the definition of marriage? I don't think anyone thinks it's fair they are denied the same civil rights, and they should get the same civil rights. However they want more than that, they want to modify the definition of marriage as an attempt to be more socially accepted. Which leads to the paradoxical question do gays really want the same civil rights or do they really want to use the law to gain social acceptance. If you answer social acceptance, then who's trying to shove what down who's throat?
As for abortions, it's funny how people claim this country was founded on rights and freedoms, yet neglect this famous quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In case it was forgotten, the first unalienable right is LIFE! Abortions kill a life...
Remember, not very long ago "marriage" was modified to allow people of different races to marry. Keeping gay people from having the financial and legal protections of marriage is just as wrong as it was to keep interracial couples from having them, as we did for hundreds of years. Sometimes "tradition" is a crock.
Capslock
Capslock
