PDA

View Full Version : Kerry, in his own words



Bill
29 Jul 04,, 22:50
http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

phalanx
30 Jul 04,, 18:23
ROFL

I try laughing but in reality my blood is boiling listening to that socialist.

I hate to even think about the US military under this man's control.

ChrisF202
30 Jul 04,, 19:39
If he wins he will be the doom of America. I really fear election night. I will be totallu ashamed in my country if that man is elected.

Ray
30 Jul 04,, 19:56
The US election doesn't affect me but still I like all the speeches given so far (at least those that I follow on Larry King Live). The US time and mine are so distant that I get bleary eyes in the morning!

I await Bush with a 'God Save America' speech :)

Confed999
07 Aug 04,, 01:10
I await Bush with a 'God Save America' speech :)
My hopes are on a 'God Save The World' speech.

barrowaj
23 Aug 04,, 06:47
ROFL

I try laughing but in reality my blood is boiling listening to that socialist.

I hate to even think about the US military under this man's control.

That's truly a great video, but Kerry is not a socialist. I am a socialist, and I am thinking about voting for Bush. Once the world is engulfed in chaos, and the American middle class is eliminated, we will have a much more fertile ground for the growth of American socialism.

Confed999
24 Aug 04,, 01:00
That's truly a great video, but Kerry is not a socialist. I am a socialist, and I am thinking about voting for Bush. Once the world is engulfed in chaos, and the American middle class is eliminated, we will have a much more fertile ground for the growth of American socialism.
Yes, ripe with class warfare, huh? Sounds more like comminism than socialism.

jjacobs43
26 Aug 04,, 18:36
http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Here's a video made of many, many quotes taken out of context and, when I watch it, I still don't see any major shift in his philosopy. He certainly isn't 100% consistent with his statements over the course of many years but what I see is a man who voted to give Bush the authority for war feeling like Hussein was bad for America's interests and then is upset with the way it all happened.

What that video tries to imply from those quotes is really insulting our intelligence on the matter. Catchy flipper tune though! :redface:

Praxus
26 Aug 04,, 19:01
That's truly a great video, but Kerry is not a socialist. I am a socialist, and I am thinking about voting for Bush. Once the world is engulfed in chaos, and the American middle class is eliminated, we will have a much more fertile ground for the growth of American socialism.

Socialism does not work! Get over it for Christ sake.

Ludwig Von Mises has proven that Socialism makes economic calculations impossible.

Don't you even dare to pretend that George Bush is a Capitalist.

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 01:27
Don't you even dare to pretend that George Bush is a Capitalist.
Or a conservative...

Purdah
27 Aug 04,, 07:14
Actually, I don't really know much about the elections in the US but I do know that I am not really in favour of John Kerry. He STILL would be a better President than George Bush though.

Lets get this straight, George Bush is NOT a good president and he DOES NOT deserve to get re-elected. What is so great about this man? A struggling economy? High unemployment rates? Unnecessary war in Iraq? Far from a good president.

Bush for the American People? He lies to us about having CONCRETE evidence when going to invade Iraq!!! Where are the WMD? Thats what you went in for. And on top of that you are needlessly getting American soldiers killed for no reason. And Saddam Hussein, sure he was a tyrant and deserves to burn in hell, but he never had any significant terrorist connections at all. The guy was a control freak. Do I smell oil?

Didnt I hear from the Bush administration that you're no longer going after Bin Laden because he is considered no longer to be a threat? That is a insult to the 3000 people who have died on 9\11. The war in Iraq was partly necessary for the Bush administration to get the American public's attention off of the fact that we DID NOT get Osama Bin Laden.

Horrido
27 Aug 04,, 07:29
Actually, Purdah, Kerry would be a crippling mistake if elected...

He was handed a struggling economy by Clinton, it began to faulter in August, 2000, five months BEFORE Bush took office, unemployment rates are cyclic, and ours are still much lower than most other developed nations, granted, Iraq was unnecessary and against conventional wisdom, but the democrats were spouting the same evidence from the same sources, so there's no choice, there. Currently, the only thing I can really fault the Bush administration on are Cheney and Rumsfeld and their defense planning, and the ABYSMAL after-action planning for Iraq. But, the democrats are historically even worse, so no option for improvement, there.

I beg to differ on the Hussein-terror link. He had terrorist camps operating all over Iraq training foreign nationals. I know this for a fact, as my sister's boyfriend participated in destroying several of them.

We are most certainly going after Bin Laden, and I would not believe for a second statements to the contrary, if even spoken by George W. himself.

All I know is, Kerry will cut defense, jack-up taxes, leave our policy to Europe, and erode my constitutional rights.

jjacobs43
27 Aug 04,, 17:20
All I know is, Kerry will cut defense, jack-up taxes, leave our policy to Europe, and erode my constitutional rights.

I don't think that in this climate Kerry would cut defense at all and I don't think he'd leave our policy to Europe quite like you think. He's actaully a lot more Hawkish than most liberals are comfortable with.

As far as eroding your constitutional rights, how is Kerry worse than Bush? Other than gun control, the battle over constitutional rights goes to Kerry hands down. I think the Patriot act says it all about the Bush administration.

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 22:15
I think the Patriot act says it all about the Bush administration.
Really? What right(s) have you lost to the Patriot act? BTW, the Dems voted for that too, and Kerry had a part in it's design.

Horrido
27 Aug 04,, 22:29
I don't think that in this climate Kerry would cut defense at all and I don't think he'd leave our policy to Europe quite like you think. He's actaully a lot more Hawkish than most liberals are comfortable with.

As far as eroding your constitutional rights, how is Kerry worse than Bush? Other than gun control, the battle over constitutional rights goes to Kerry hands down. I think the Patriot act says it all about the Bush administration.


Umh, Kerry's ALREADY voted to cut defense and intel SINCE 9/11 and OIF! Have you listened to his statements regarding Europe, even? Frightening! He literally does want them to dictate US foreign policy. How is he hawkish? Can you provide evidence for that statement?! He's about as hawkish as Nevel Chamberlain! Umh, how does the battle over constitutional rights go to Kerry? Again, can you back that up? I believe he voted for the Patriot Act, as well, did he not? And the Patriot Act in its current form is temporary.

So, tell me, jjacobs...Why are you supporting Kerry again?

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 22:36
Why are you supporting Kerry again?
Most Kerry supporters are quite uninformed about his stands, but I can't blame them, since his positions change on a weekly basis.

Gio
27 Aug 04,, 23:22
Most Kerry supporters are quite uninformed about his stands, but I can't blame them, since his positions change on a weekly basis.
LOL true

jjacobs43
27 Aug 04,, 23:41
Really? What right(s) have you lost to the Patriot act? BTW, the Dems voted for that too, and Kerry had a part in it's design.

How about my rights that I was granted with the fourth admendment.



Umh, Kerry's ALREADY voted to cut defense and intel SINCE 9/11 and OIF! Have you listened to his statements regarding Europe, even? Frightening! He literally does want them to dictate US foreign policy.

I'll freely admit that I could be wrong, but I don't believe that he has 'cut defense' and intelligence. I know he has talked about cutting costs for missles and for other specific items but not as a whole. You can read what he says himself with the following link. I'm sure you don't trust him but this is what he is saying...

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html




How is he hawkish? Can you provide evidence for that statement?! He's about as hawkish as Nevel Chamberlain!

I said that he is more hawkish than most liberals would like him to be based on what liberals are saying. He is not the 'anti-war' candidate that some liberals want him to be and it is turning off some liberal voters. He voted for the war and he has yet to say that it was a mistake for him to do so. That's not "Nevel Chamberlainish".

Personally, I'm not supporting either stance. I have mixed emotions. I'm just telling you what liberals are saying.




Umh, how does the battle over constitutional rights go to Kerry? Again, can you back that up? I believe he voted for the Patriot Act, as well, did he not? And the Patriot Act in its current form is temporary.

I don't have a voting records but I know that it was the democrats that were trying to repeal portions of the Patriot Act that they feel go too far. I'm assuming that Kerry would back up the Democrats on that. Kerry, along with all Democrats, made a mistake in voting for the Patriot Act in the original form. But, after 9/11 that's the way things went.



So, tell me, jjacobs...Why are you supporting Kerry again?

Mostly I'm supporting Kerry because he's not George Bush.

Confed999
28 Aug 04,, 00:20
How about my rights that I was granted with the fourth admendment.
You mean:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How has that been violated? The wiretapping part? Kerry voted "yes" to add that part. Still, I don't see that as unreasonable, and I don't see what right was taken from you.

I don't believe that he has 'cut defense' and intelligence.
That's how he's voted for the last 20 years. Oh, and the page you posted states he'll "Streamline", that means cut, "Various Large Weapons Programs". ;)

I'm sure you don't trust him
How can we? I'm not sure he even knows where he stands. BTW, that page once told about how he would bring the troops back within 6 months of his election. That's gone now, what happened?

he has yet to say that it was a mistake for him to do so.
Actually, he very recently said he would have voted for the war, even if he had known there were no WMD.

Kerry, along with all Democrats, made a mistake in voting for the Patriot Act in the original form.
No way, all it does is give power to investigate suspected terrorists. If you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

Horrido
28 Aug 04,, 01:25
Care to tell me how the Patriot Act violates the 4th Ammendment, regarding citizens of the US? You still need a warrant without immediate, probable cause, just as it's always been.

Kerry on defense, before 2001. This demonstrates a severe lack of foresight on his part. Granted, hindsight is 20-20, but I'd been waiting for airliners to hit the Twin Towers since 1996, and actually discussed how it would happen, quite accurately, in July of 2001.

http://www.kerryquotes.com/votingrecord.htm

Here's a recent voting record, happy hunting...

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1

This issue is actually now driving me nuts, because it should be posted, one way or the other, by either party (ie, the dems should post what he has supported, the reps what he has voted against, and any list post-2001 in nowhere to be found, apparently). Granted, I don't like what Rumsfeld has done, but I remember the Klinton era far too well for the damage it caused. There's also no way they can implement everything stated in that website, despite the fact that they are doing their best to achieve it, already. It would be far too costly. The resources just aren't there, period. While the ideas are nice, let me see the plan on how to implement and fund them.


Regarding the liberal stance on Kerry's war policy, they need to look at history, and that vascilating can get you into very bad straights, very quickly. Dictators that aren't broken, are encouraged to create further mayhem. Never, EVER, appease.


Both democrats and republicans worked to repeal portions of the PA. I believe even the Supreme Court knocked aspects of it down. Such is how our government should work.

The "anyone but Bush" crowd need to take pause and reflect on the folly of that attitude. It's like saying "anything but cancer" when the alternative is AIDS. They need to take a cause-and-effect look and compare the records, the actual voting records and actions, of the two individuals. Words aren't worth the paper they're written on. While the Bush administration certainly hasn't been perfect, they've handled some very difficult situations well after being handed a raw-deal. The only major fault I can lay at their feet is the current Iraqi situation.

jjacobs43
28 Aug 04,, 01:34
You mean:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How has that been violated? The wiretapping part? Kerry voted "yes" to add that part. Still, I don't see that as unreasonable, and I don't see what right was taken from you.

The Patriot Act allows for the "sneak and peak" searches. No warrant needed.
It also allows infiltration and surveillance of private groups. It allows people to be arrested with no trial. It allows the President to conceal records. All of this affects me and our country.




That's how he's voted for the last 20 years. Oh, and the page you posted states he'll "Streamline", that means cut, "Various Large Weapons Programs". ;)


Yes - he's talking about cutting large weapon programs because he thinks the focus should be elsewhere.

There's no way he's going to be talking about cutting defense in this climate. He knows it would be political suicide.




How can we? I'm not sure he even knows where he stands. BTW, that page once told about how he would bring the troops back within 6 months of his election. That's gone now, what happened?

He said that a reasonably goal would be to start reducing the US troop size within 6 months. Supposedly by getting more help from allies. This is another statement that Bush decided to run with and talk about how Kerry is helping the enemy by telling them we plan on retreating basically.




Actually, he very recently said he would have voted for the war, even if he had known there were no WMD.


Which is why I said he is more "Hawkish" than most liberals would like him to be. Was that in this thread or a different one? I can't remember, but somebody didn't like the fact that I called Kerry Hawkish. Technically, that quote is out of context too but, it either way, it certainly would seem to imply he is not the anti-war candidate that some hoped he was.



No way, all it does is give power to investigate suspected terrorists. If you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

"Terrorist" in who's opinion? That word is open for interpretation. Now that the government can monitor what I do on the internet and the books I check out form the library maybe I do having something to worry about. I really don't know.


I'm sorry to just jump in this group and start arguing away. I just stumbled accrossed it and found the discussions interesting. And couldn't help but to get my say in! :)

Confed999
28 Aug 04,, 02:09
The Patriot Act allows for the "sneak and peak" searches. No warrant needed.
It also allows infiltration and surveillance of private groups. It allows people to be arrested with no trial. It allows the President to conceal records. All of this affects me and our country.
The government can conceal records without the Patriot Act. To the best of my knowledge Horrido has this one correct: "regarding citizens of the US? You still need a warrant without immediate, probable cause, just as it's always been."

Yes - he's talking about cutting large weapon programs because he thinks the focus should be elsewhere.
That's cutting defence spending. Personally I think with places like North Korea making threats it would be nice to have a missle defence system, don't you?

This is another statement that Bush decided to run with and talk about how Kerry is helping the enemy by telling them we plan on retreating basically.
I read it on Kerry's website, but you're right it wasn't "within", it was "starting in". Not when the job is done, just starting in 6 months, so our enemies know all they have to do is hold out until July if Kerry is elected.

that quote is out of context too but,
It's not a quote, it's paraphrased.

I'm sorry to just jump in this group and start arguing away. I just stumbled accrossed it and found the discussions interesting. And couldn't help but to get my say in! :)
You're allowed, as long as you're not mean about it. ;)

Horrido
28 Aug 04,, 04:50
I'm sorry to just jump in this group and start arguing away. I just stumbled accrossed it and found the discussions interesting. And couldn't help but to get my say in!

No need to apologize, that's what this board is for. Hopefully, we will keep our discussions civil, open each other's eyes to opposing viewpoints, and keep each other honest, observant, and introspective.

Thank you for finding the discussions interesting, and welcome to the board. ;)

jjacobs43
30 Aug 04,, 17:11
To the best of my knowledge Horrido has this one correct: "regarding citizens of the US? You still need a warrant without immediate, probable cause, just as it's always been."

I think I was a bit mistaken but not completely. I think the no warrant needed part I've heard about was about scanning somebody's library reading history. There was a recent bill to remove this part of the Patriot Act and it the attempt failed. So, they can scan your library records with no search warrant.

On the other hand, it sounds like the "sneak & peek" operations still need a warrant. However, they do not have to show the person the warrant until after they've done the search. This goes against the fourth admentment.

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l102301b.html


Thanks for the welcome to the group. :)

Horrido
30 Aug 04,, 20:34
Regarding a library search or check-out history, I would imagine it would come under the same heading of your luggage being searched at an airport: by using those facilities, you are essentially agreeing to the terms and conditions of use, which may include a search. Of course, you could argue it should fall under the same heading as searching federal mail. Either/Or, I feel the government is much more invasive in more critical ways than looking into my library records.

Any "authorities" found in violation of the 4th Ammendment in my vicinity will rapidly be reminded of the purpose for the 2nd. Security is, first and foremost, the responsibility of the citizens themselves.

Dragoon
30 Aug 04,, 22:06
Regarding Patriot act and Libraries.

Public libraries are Government, either state or local owned institutions
I believe that random searches of records is still barred and the officers still require some probable cause to search any government records.

Scanning Email and Chat rooms. If you look on your internet service agreement you have no expectaion of privacy online. the internet is a public venue, since it is partialy supported by the federal government and open to anyone who wants to acess it.

Sneak and Peek Warrants still require a judges permission and are not new, they have been upheld by the supreme court on several occasions... I do believe thats accurate anybody else willing to back me on that.

national security cases and the secret courts have rules that give them less power than Grand juries in many cases. and in all cases some probable cause and enough evidence to warrant suspiscion of a group or individual is still required.

Dragoon
30 Aug 04,, 22:08
remeber Kiddies without the second ammendmant all other amendments are fair game.

Citizens are armed Subjects aren't

Dragoon

Confed999
31 Aug 04,, 00:51
Citizens are armed Subjects aren't
Sometimes even subjects are armed, but it's usually to help keep them fighting each other, instead of the ruling power.

barrowaj
31 Aug 04,, 00:58
remeber Kiddies without the second ammendmant all other amendments are fair game.

Citizens are armed Subjects aren't

DragoonI'm not for the abolition of this ammendment, but I don't really understand this viewpoint. Could you please elaborate?

If you are talking about the government coming to people's homes and imprisoning them or something, I don't see how having a rifle is going to stop an M1 tank or sqaud of soldiers. And where do you draw the line where a weapon is considered an arm? An automatic weapon? A bazooka? A tank?

Also, other countries (like GB) that have strict gun control policies have other equivalent citizen's rights as us.

Just this weekend in my hometown a 10 year old boy shot his father with a pistol he found in his mother's drawer. He brought it in the car and shot his dad in the back. Granted, the mother should have had the gun locked up, but if the weapon was a rifle, it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Confed999
31 Aug 04,, 01:21
Granted, the mother should have had the gun locked up, but if the weapon was a rifle, it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.
So it's both the Mother's fault, and the gun's fault?

Praxus
31 Aug 04,, 01:37
I don't understand how anyone can moraly judge a non-volitional object. Blaming killing on guns is like blaming food because people are fat. Something that can not make a choice can be neither good or bad.


And where do you draw the line where a weapon is considered an arm? An automatic weapon? A bazooka? A tank?

Why shouldn't I be able to own a tank or even a dozen tanks (assuming I could afford the upkeep, the feul, tank crews, not to mention actually buying them)?

You mean to say that a single tank or a dozen tanks for that matter can take on the entire US military and threaten the power of the state?

jjacobs43
31 Aug 04,, 01:55
I'm not for the abolition of this ammendment, but I don't really understand this viewpoint. Could you please elaborate?

If you are talking about the government coming to people's homes and imprisoning them or something, I don't see how having a rifle is going to stop an M1 tank or sqaud of soldiers. And where do you draw the line where a weapon is considered an arm? An automatic weapon? A bazooka? A tank?


I have to agree somewhat with barrowaj on this one. I've oftened wondered the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that people should be able to own guns. But, I think the right is similar to the right to smoke pot or to have a gay lover (i.e. individual freedoms). Not in the sense of the second amendment. To me, the whole concept of the second amendment seems a little odd in the 21st century. At least, the way I understand it.

barrowaj
31 Aug 04,, 23:09
So it's both the Mother's fault, and the gun's fault?No, I never said it was the gun's fault. If the gun had faults, they didn't stop it from working properly. The fact is if the gun wasn't there in the first place (or replaced with a more 18th century like weapon) then the child wouldn't have been able to get away with it.


I don't understand how anyone can moraly judge a non-volitional object. Blaming killing on guns is like blaming food because people are fat. Something that can not make a choice can be neither good or bad.What you are saying makes sense, but when people assign judgements to inanimate objects, they are talking about the intention with which that object is to be used. People always say "Fatty food is bad, drugs are bad, pollution is bad, etc." Your example of blaming food for people being fat is an interesting one. In the past people were not as fat as they are now for reasons of diet and lifestyle. Have people's genetics changed since then to make them fat? No. So what's to blame? Industrialization? Society? Food?

My point is that moral judgements are relative to the person. The only absolutes we have to draw from are what experiences all people have in common.


Why shouldn't I be able to own a tank or even a dozen tanks (assuming I could afford the upkeep, the feul, tank crews, not to mention actually buying them)?Lets take this to an extreme. Why shouldn't you be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Because if you had a bad day sometime, and just said "to hell with it all" and blew it up, many people besides you would have to suffer the consequences. Same goes for anything between nukes and including automatic weapons.


You mean to say that a single tank or a dozen tanks for that matter can take on the entire US military and threaten the power of the state?That's irrational, and I never said that. But its a good question to pose back to Dragoon, for why he thinks that the second amendment is crucial to the protection of all the others.

In the 1700's, having a population that had guns may have stopped the government from taking away people's rights. That is no longer true today (just look at Iraq pre-"liberation").

Praxus
01 Sep 04,, 02:08
What you are saying makes sense, but when people assign judgements to inanimate objects, they are talking about the intention with which that object is to be used. People always say "Fatty food is bad, drugs are bad, pollution is bad, etc." Your example of blaming food for people being fat is an interesting one. In the past people were not as fat as they are now for reasons of diet and lifestyle. Have people's genetics changed since then to make them fat? No. So what's to blame? Industrialization? Society? Food?


I would say the fault lays soully on the person who choose to eat so excessively. Sure genes are part of it, but that is by no means an excuse to be obese.


My point is that moral judgements are relative to the person. The only absolutes we have to draw from are what experiences all people have in common.


I disagree. But let's keep this subject seperate from this thread.


Lets take this to an extreme. Why shouldn't you be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Because if you had a bad day sometime, and just said "to hell with it all" and blew it up, many people besides you would have to suffer the consequences. Same goes for anything between nukes and including automatic weapons.


This is not an answer. I asked why we should not be able to own a tank. Now why shouldn't we?

As for a nuclear weapon, no one has a right to own a nuclear weapon because of it's nature. It is a weapon for one purpose the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property and thedeath of millions of people. So it's exsistence in your house is a threat of force against the lives of everyone that would be effected if it is to be detonated. Similar in nature to pointing a loaded gun at someone elses house.

Confed999
01 Sep 04,, 05:10
The fact is if the gun wasn't there in the first place (or replaced with a more 18th century like weapon) then the child wouldn't have been able to get away with it.
Dude, seriously, it's not the gun's fault, it's the gun owner's fault. My guns are all locked up, and I don't even have kids. Why should I not be allowed to own any firearm I wish? Why semi-auto, and not automatic? You do much shooting? Any knowlege of guns? I know alot more people who have died from power tools than anything else, so should they have to be 18th century too? Sorry about the rant, but the safety nazi thing pisses me off more than the politically correct thing does. Soon we're going to be so "safe" we won't be allowed to do anything even slightly dangerous.

Horrido
01 Sep 04,, 06:49
Bicycles kill more children than guns do.

Praxus
01 Sep 04,, 15:38
A lot more then bicycles kill more children each year then guns do, not that guns kill people.

jjacobs43
01 Sep 04,, 16:53
Why should I not be allowed to own any firearm I wish?

I agree with this statment but when someone uses this as the argument, isn't it contradictory to take away wishes from others? How can people be for the right to own a firearm and against the right for other personal freedoms? How can conservatives be so convinced that smoking pot not be legal, that gambling be prohibited, or that a law against sodomy is needed yet use an argument such as the 'right' to own firearms? And the opposite is true also of any liberals who would oppose the right to own a firearm. A 'war' against gun ownership would just turn into a 'war' against drugs. That gets you nowhere.



A lot more then bicycles kill more children each year then guns do, not that guns kill people.

And even fewer people are killed by the act of sodomy. Well, I can't actually back that up with stats or anything but, to my knowledge, no innocent bystander has even been killed by a gay couple getting it on in their bedroom. But I guess I can't completely rule that out! :)

Praxus
01 Sep 04,, 17:06
I agree with this statment but when someone uses this as the argument, isn't it contradictory to take away wishes from others? How can people be for the right to own a firearm and against the right for other personal freedoms? How can conservatives be so convinced that smoking pot not be legal, that gambling be prohibited, or that a law against sodomy is needed yet use an argument such as the 'right' to own firearms? And the opposite is true also of any liberals who would oppose the right to own a firearm. A 'war' against gun ownership would just turn into a 'war' against drugs. That gets you nowhere.

I am for the legalization of all drugs for adults. If they want to ruin their lives they have every right in the world to do so.



And even fewer people are killed by the act of sodomy. Well, I can't actually back that up with stats or anything but, to my knowledge, no innocent bystander has even been killed by a gay couple getting it on in their bedroom. But I guess I can't completely rule that out! :)

I have no problem with gay marriage as I do not believe it is the Governments job to hand out marriage lisences to anyone.

Trooth
02 Sep 04,, 00:51
http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

An excellent video.

I think some of the problems stem from the collateral damage of 11/09/2001 - that of the temporary death of criticism.

Put yourself in the shoes of a politician on the 12th - anybody who voiced any sort of criticism or comments that all out war with, well anyone, had a lot of abuse hurled at them. From what i remember of the (D) / (R) stance it all went "non-partisan" and "fully supportive" etc. The reason is that to do anything else (as either a D or an R) was political suicide. There were politicians of both parties that did make noises that they felt some of the policies weren't 100% but they took a lot of heat for it.

Clearly time has enabled people to speak out more clearly now - which i think is some of the reason for the flip-flopping.

But my personal favourite is "I voted for it, before i voted against it".

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 02:15
I am for the legalization of all drugs for adults. If they want to ruin their lives they have every right in the world to do so.

I have no problem with gay marriage as I do not believe it is the Governments job to hand out marriage lisences to anyone.
Yep...

barrowaj
02 Sep 04,, 02:43
I would say the fault lays soully on the person who choose to eat so excessively. Sure genes are part of it, but that is by no means an excuse to be obese.True. But if genes have something to do with it, do you think that they could influence someone's "choice?" So do you think that in reality freedom of choice is really an illusion created by the brain? Even though a person knows that overreating is an irrational choice, he will still continue that course of action until some event causes him to change his mind.


I disagree. But let's keep this subject seperate from this thread.no problem.
I think you are being contradictory when you say that "no one has a right to own a nuclear weapon because of it's [destructive] nature." According to your earlier post, non-volitional objects cannot be ascribed a moral value. If you are banning nukes because of their nature, than you are making a moral judgement about them.

And also note that I never called guns bad. If we got rid of all guns because they were bad, we would have no military, and therefore be in danger.


This is not an answer. I asked why we should not be able to own a tank. Now why shouldn't we?I thought that was obvious from my previous response. Your reasoning (given below) against nuclear weapons is the same though. Just divide the numerical figures by about 10,000 and changed "detonated" to "used."


As for a nuclear weapon, no one has a right to own a nuclear weapon because of it's nature. It is a weapon for one purpose the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property and thedeath of millions of people. So it's exsistence in your house is a threat of force against the lives of everyone that would be effected if it is to be detonated. Similar in nature to pointing a loaded gun at someone elses house.Well I think pointing a loaded gun at your neighbor's house would be more like thumbing the trigger for your nuke, but that's a technicality.

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 02:49
Well I think pointing a loaded gun at your neighbor's house would be more like thumbing the trigger for your nuke, but that's a technicality.
A gun can be used safely to defend said home, a nuke can't.

barrowaj
02 Sep 04,, 02:58
Dude, seriously, it's not the gun's fault, it's the gun owner's fault. My guns are all locked up, and I don't even have kids. Why should I not be allowed to own any firearm I wish? Why semi-auto, and not automatic? You do much shooting? Any knowlege of guns? I know alot more people who have died from power tools than anything else, so should they have to be 18th century too? Sorry about the rant, but the safety nazi thing pisses me off more than the politically correct thing does. Soon we're going to be so "safe" we won't be allowed to do anything even slightly dangerous.Confed, I'm totally with you on the safety nazi thing. People should be warned about dangerous things, but regulations protecting people from themselves are really irritating. (Note: I ride a motorcycle, so I'm no safety Nazi)

I don't really have that much experience with guns, I've just fired my friend's semi-auto pistol (9 mm).

The thing about power tools though is that they are designed for a constructive purpose. Many types of guns are purely designed to kill people.

And as for bicicles, kids use those a lot more than they use guns. If they used both equally, it would probably be a different story. For example, motorcycles kill fewer people than cars, but does that make them more safe?

I would say that there are people who could justify having a rifle, possibly semi-automatic, for protection from wild animals, drug traffickers, etc. along the TX-Mexico border.

barrowaj
02 Sep 04,, 03:02
A gun can be used safely to defend said home, a nuke can't.Sure it can, I'm sure you've heard of nuclear deterrence, or mutually assured destruction.

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 03:05
The thing about power tools though is that they are designed for a constructive purpose. Many types of guns are purely designed to kill people.
My guns are designed for defence and entertainment, both are quite constructive.

I would say that there are people who could justify having a rifle, possibly semi-automatic, for protection from wild animals, drug traffickers, etc. along the TX-Mexico border.
What about sport shooters, and people who don't have a police station 50 yards or less from their home? You're talking to someone who has had to defend their home from an intruder, and I'm glad I had the gun. What would you do to protect your family? Call the cops and hope they get there in less time than it takes for the bad guy to kill them? Not me...

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 03:06
Sure it can, I'm sure you've heard of nuclear deterrence, or mutually assured destruction.
That would require a delivery system too, without it it's not defence, it's scorched earth.

barrowaj
02 Sep 04,, 03:16
My guns are designed for defence and entertainment, both are quite constructive.

What about sport shooters, and people who don't have a police station 50 yards or less from their home? You're talking to someone who has had to defend their home from an intruder, and I'm glad I had the gun. What would you do to protect your family? Call the cops and hope they get there in less time than it takes for the bad guy to kill them? Not me...Right, I understand your point. But you would have to take in mind that if the intruder were unarmed, then you would feel that a rifle would be sufficient to defend your home.

I'm not advocating banning all guns, just the ones that are likely to kill innocent people or lots of them.

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 05:07
I'm not advocating banning all guns, just the ones that are likely to kill innocent people or lots of them.
Guns don't kill people, period.

Trooth
02 Sep 04,, 21:04
Guns don't kill people, period.

Rappers do.

Trooth
02 Sep 04,, 21:10
I would say the fault lays soully on the person who choose to eat so excessively. Sure genes are part of it, but that is by no means an excuse to be obese.

Generally speaking i would agree with you. But, lets be honest, marketing must work or people wouldn't do it, and look at some of the unhealthy stuff marketed by thin people.

When was the last time you saw a fat person on the side of a can of Pepsi or in one of their commercials?

Food labelling is getting better, but i remember being at school and was lucky enough to have explained to me exactly how much suger was in Coke. At the time, if you weren't lucky enough to have such teaching where would you get the information?

Confed999
03 Sep 04,, 04:52
Rappers do.
LOL, yep, some do. ;)

barrowaj
03 Sep 04,, 05:25
Guns don't kill people, period.
I guess that would be the bullets that really do the killing.

Saying that guns don't kill people is like saying danerous automobiles don't kill people, innattentive drivers do. It completely marginalizes the affect of auto safety on the mortality rate. Human nature is a constant and will not change. There will always be bad drivers, and there will always be people who decide to shoot someone when they get angry. But by minimizing the effect those people can have on destroying the lives of others, you protect the rights of other human beings. The right of others to live far superscedes your perceived need for the availibility of automatic weapons.

Note that the constitution says you have the right to bear arms, it doesn't specify which weapons. And furthermore, the second ammendment says that the reason people have the right to bear arms is that "A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Since I doubt that an armed population really has much to do with the security of the state, it would be possible to question the relevance of the ammendment in modern times.

Confed999
03 Sep 04,, 06:06
I guess that would be the bullets that really do the killing.
Never heard of a bullet just jumping up and killing someone, maybe you could share the story you have of the sentient murderous ball of lead and copper.

Saying that guns don't kill people is like saying danerous automobiles don't kill people, innattentive drivers do.
Dangerous how? Design flaws, things like that? If that's what you're saying then it's not the same thing. My guns operate within specs, to the best of my knowledge, no problems or defects found. This reminds me of the old saying "Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than my guns".

you protect the rights of other human beings.
You protect liberty by taking liberty away... That's funny. You have yet to show me how my owning a gun harms the rights of anyone else anywhere.

your perceived need for the availibility of automatic weapons
The difference you've perceived between semi-automatic and automatic is vast compared to the reality. What right have I taken from anyone anywhere with my ownership of an automatic weapon? I don't even want one in particular, but it would be fun to have one of my own on the gun range.

it would be possible to question the relevance of the ammendment in modern times.
Question it all you want. The militias were allowed long, and short, arms as good as the military posessed, and were made up of armed civilians called to fight in times of need. Until that time of need though, they were just armed citizens, thus the end of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". When modern times are devoid of tyrants and criminals, I'll agree with you.

barrowaj
10 Sep 04,, 00:40
Never heard of a bullet just jumping up and killing someone, maybe you could share the story you have of the sentient murderous ball of lead and copper.At this point you are being absurd. Bullets do the killing when they penetrate someone's fleshh and inflict massive tissue damage. When I say that "bullets kill people" it is a factual statement that doesn't take into account what put the bullet into motion.


Dangerous how? Design flaws, things like that? If that's what you're saying then it's not the same thing. My guns operate within specs, to the best of my knowledge, no problems or defects found. This reminds me of the old saying "Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than my guns".No, they are dangerous by design. If we could design cars so that they couldn't fall off bridges and sink into the Potomac, then surely we would. The difference between guns and cars is that guns were designed to kill people, and the latter were not.


You protect liberty by taking liberty away... That's funny. You have yet to show me how my owning a gun harms the rights of anyone else anywhere.
Does owning weapons of mass destruction violate anyone's rights? No, but you aren't allowed to.

Remeber Luby's, Killeen TX?

The difference you've perceived between semi-automatic and automatic is vast compared to the reality.Actually, I know this is true. If you are pretty quick at pulling the trigger you can unload a semi-auto M16 pretty fast.


Question it all you want. The militias were allowed long, and short, arms as good as the military posessed, and were made up of armed civilians called to fight in times of need. Until that time of need though, they were just armed citizens, thus the end of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". When modern times are devoid of tyrants and criminals, I'll agree with you.So just because they were allowed to own whatever weapons they wanteed in the past, they should be allowed to now? Times change, law has to keep up with technology while still preserving its original principals. I still don't see how a militia is effectively defending against any of the modern tyrants. I think that the National Guard serves that purpose.

Confed999
10 Sep 04,, 01:58
At this point you are being absurd.
No, you are. There is virtually no way for an inanimate object to kill someone, I guess if a big stack of bullets in cases fell on someone... Like it or not, people kill each other.

someone's fleshh and inflict massive tissue damage.
I can do the same with a sharp stick, did the stick kill too?

The difference between guns and cars is that guns were designed to kill people
Mine were designed for defence and entertainment.

Does owning weapons of mass destruction violate anyone's rights?
Sure they do, WMD use kills indescriminately.

If you are pretty quick at pulling the trigger you can unload a semi-auto M16 pretty fast.
Yikes! Did you just agree with me? ;)

Times change,
What has actually changed?

I still don't see how a militia is effectively defending against any of the modern tyrants.
So you don't think guerilla warfare is effective? Come on now...

I think that the National Guard serves that purpose.
The NG is controlled by the government, the ones we're trying to keep in check.

barrowaj
12 Sep 04,, 17:24
No, you are. There is virtually no way for an inanimate object to kill someone, I guess if a big stack of bullets in cases fell on someone... Like it or not, people kill each other. I can do the same with a sharp stick, did the stick kill too?I would say yes, the stick did kill him. While it was not the instigator, it was the ultimate cause that led to his death.

I dislike the idea of the government trying to tell people what they can and can't do. However, I think that there are cases where weapons are too destructive to put into the hands of ordinary citizens. There is some point on the spectrum of weapon power that you would say cannot be entrusted with a private individual. For you it is probably high explosives. I argue that automatic firearms are that limit because they are excessive for self defense.


What has actually changed?
So you don't think guerilla warfare is effective? Come on now...
The NG is controlled by the government, the ones we're trying to keep in check.I think that modern warfare has advanced to the point that regular arms are not very effective against a well equipped army. Just look at Najaf, the militia couldn't hold out against the less numerous US Army.

Don't get me wrong, I don't beleive that the right to bear arms is not just, I just think that the militia argument is weak.

Confed999
12 Sep 04,, 19:14
ultimate cause that led to his death.
I suppose you could look at it that way, but I'm still going with 'someone stabbed him' as the cause.

I argue that automatic firearms are that limit
I would be happy with automatics being the limit, because there is really little difference between auto and semi-auto.

the militia argument is weak.
Millions of armed civilians would make a huge difference, even against a well equiped army. If every Jew in Germany were armed, how many less Nazis would there have been after the round-ups began? Today, anyone can make explosives and chemical weapons, with a few dollars and a little reseach, to supplement any partisan action.

barrowaj
13 Sep 04,, 00:27
I would be happy with automatics being the limit, because there is really little difference between auto and semi-auto. Agreed. I think while in reality the difference may not be great, I think its a lot harder to justify having an automatic weapon for self defence.


Millions of armed civilians would make a huge difference, even against a well equiped army. If every Jew in Germany were armed, how many less Nazis would there have been after the round-ups began? Today, anyone can make explosives and chemical weapons, with a few dollars and a little reseach, to supplement any partisan action.Good point. While I don't think this would have stopped the Nazis, they would not have been able to get away with it as easily.