DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote: and stupid white guys with guns.

Guess I'm stupid then

CUDA wrote:well if reports are right things aren't looking too promising for Holder. it appears Conservative Democrats are planning on voting for contempt of Congress.

The big problem if the vote goes against Holder, is his job opportunities after he leaves office will be greatly diminished if he has a confirmed contempt charge sitting on his shoulder. Perhaps his buddy Obama promised him a golden parachute but I hope Holder remembers what happened to Obama's long time spiritual mentor.

It's not the stupid white guys with guns I fear

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: and stupid white guys with guns.

Guess I'm stupid then

(Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

ya you and the other 6 out of 10 people that own guns too

Interestingly enough Russia, Iran and China are near the bottom of the list in Guns per Capita. Go figure

Ok CUDA and woodchip, READ THESE LINKS (the first one is conservative too):

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... verbruggen

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 ... ous-truth/

A conspiracy theory made up by the NRA and fomented by Issa, Fox News and other deluded white guys just to attack liberal politicians and get them removed from office.

CUDA wrote:well if reports are right things aren't looking too promising for Holder. it appears Conservative Democrats are planning on voting for contempt of Congress.

....because they are being threatened by the NRA, possibly the most anti-American organization extant(including Al Quaeda).
Little matter, of course, because the DC courts aren't going to touch either the civil or criminal charge, so nothing will come of this except another ideological smokescreen.

thanks, TC, I was going to post those. Of course, that leftwing rag, Fortune, is not to be trusted. Interesting from the whole article in Fortune was the fact that the only reason any guns got away from the system is the Arizona gun laws. In other words, with an ID, a short, incomplete background check and the bucks, you can buy limitless firepower in AZ. You do have to certify that your purchase is for yourself solely. HOWEVER, should you change your mind in the gun store parking lot and decide to sell 20 guns to a total stranger, that is not against AZ law. You just changed your mind..........yeesh.

And the people who ok’d this lame brained plan, didn’t see that coming….

“I’m going to jump into that pool”
“But there isn’t any water in that pool”
“That’s ok, I will just blame someone else for that”

well you'd have to apparently check with the folks from the previous administration. The plan was put into motion in early 2008.

And that's where this idiotic idea should have stayed. Maybe the reason some of this crap is continuing under Obama is due in part to Bush's policy of drilling far down into civil servant jobs, purging or making life difficult for those who didn't do what he wanted and hiring unqualified, republican sycophants as replacements to further his agenda, even AFTER he was gone. Bush cronies are probably still in there like festering boils in all aspects of government, coming up with all sorts of crap to taint Obama Administration. Bush apparently did this civil service purging far deeper in all areas of government than other presidents.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm ... isid=00340

cue obama hate in three, two, one...

Why…when Bush hate is still so much fun.

callmeslick wrote:...because they are being threatened by the NRA, possibly the most anti-American organization extant(including Al Quaeda).
Little matter, of course, because the DC courts aren't going to touch either the civil or criminal charge, so nothing will come of this except another ideological smokescreen.

and how is the NRA "threatening" the Democrats any different then the Unions threatening the Republicans?? I haven't heard any members of the NRA leadership saying "let's take these sons-of-bitches out." like a Union leader said towards Republicans. and you're really going to compare the NRA with Al Queda??? are you kidding me?????????

CUDA, the NRA and unions support their respective parties. No argument there. But I don't see the NRA being kneecapped like what's being done to ALL unions right now in Republican controlled states. That doesn't include all the voter suppression tactics they've been doing either. The playing field is no longer level, so quit yer bitchin'. Republicans and Plutocrats have skewed things their way, perhaps permanently, or at least until the next great Depression and people finally figured out they've been snookered.

The NRA can now kowtow moderate Dems (an oxymoron) in rural states (where the dumb white guys live) into voting their way, whereas unions would never, ever get a Republican to do their bidding in the present climate. And people (mostly white, uneducated and rural) that believe the Dems would be stupid enough, or competent enough, to take away their guns just proves they're either suggestible, or .................. ABSOLUTE IDIOTS, who probably shouldn't be carrying guns in the first place! Gun control is just another Republican canard to rile their base.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/c ... ll-cite-ag

Spidey wrote:Why…when Bush hate is still so much fun.

Apparently, even a children's book writer didn't like ol' Bush/Cheney and crew either.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... wonderful/

callmeslick wrote:well you'd have to apparently check with the folks from the previous administration. The plan was put into motion in early 2008.

Yes and with tracking devices placed in them so , you know....they could actually be tracked. Then again there was only a couple hundred involved instead of thousands. Unlike Holders plan, under Bush the Mexican Govt. was actually informed as to what was going on. Perhaps the biggest difference was under Wide Receiver no one was killed and the project was pulled at the first sign of danger. So for the desperate Obama lovers to try and equate Fast and Furious with Bush's plan is ludicrous.

woodchip wrote: So for the desperate Obama lovers to try and equate Fast and Furious with Bush's plan is ludicrous.

but woody, if you took away that little gem then two or three members of this board would never get a chance to post here, they'd never have anything to say. we'd never hear any more. Bush, Bushie, Bush/Cheney, Darth Cheney or any of the other terms we've come to know and expect

tunnelcat wrote:Gun control is just another Republican canard to rile their base.

You might have something there if it weren't so plainly on the agenda. The U.N. wants us gun-free, and so do the Liberals in our own country. That means we have a problem, and if we take it lying down we will wake up in a country where you can only own single-shot shotguns for bird-hunting. Thank goodness for the foresight of our founding fathers in giving us the 2nd amendment, or we may already be there.

Again I point to Russia China and Iran as to What great democracies they are

woodchip wrote: So for the desperate Obama lovers to try and equate Fast and Furious with Bush's plan is ludicrous.

There it is ladies and gentlemen.. Let's give him a big hand for his right-on-time spectacular showing.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Gun control is just another Republican canard to rile their base.

You might have something there if it weren't so plainly on the agenda. The U.N. wants us gun-free, and so do the Liberals in our own country. That means we have a problem, and if we take it lying down we will wake up in a country where you can only own single-shot shotguns for bird-hunting. Thank goodness for the foresight of our founding fathers in giving us the 2nd amendment, or we may already be there.

The UN has no influence on the U.S., and it shouldn't. And I'm a liberal-leaning person who doesn't want to see restrictive gun controls, ever. Not all of us are deluded hippy dippy peaceniks that think that we can trust the police and government to protect us from ourselves, OR THEM, so don't label all liberals as your enemy. Besides, I may need my gun to protect myself from all those homeless, marauding, starving poor people who used to be comfortable and happy in the middle class. The way things are heading, especially if Romney gets elected, I may have to arm myself with some better firepower and build a barbed wire-topped wall just to sleep at night.

tunnelcat wrote:The UN has no influence on the U.S., and it shouldn't.

You're right about the second part. However, the U.S. government has an interest in an organization like the U.N. in its dealings with other countries. With the U.N. making resolutions about gun control and other bull★■◆● topics, the U.S. won't be able to hold its head up in the U.N. and reap the benefits without accepting some of these resolutions. The U.N. can't force the U.S. to adopt anything against it's will, but the U.S. may be forced by its own conflicting political aims to embrace something that it otherwise never would. To the degree that Obama has been courting the U.N., even serving contrary to U.S. law as head of the U.N. security council, I absolutely wouldn't put it past this administration (or the next).

The UN can't even piss in it's pants. It's about as inept and neutered as you can get. It has no clout because none of the member nations can come to a consensus on anything.

And yet they pass resolutions... And all the U.S. must do to prove that they're serious about international relations is to begin to go along with it, when we've clearly already made a commitment to the U.N. Of course, no one's going to allow our hand to be forced (even by our own interests) that much unless it's part of their agenda anyway, or at least not very important to them, but last I checked the federal government wasn't exactly a champion of the people... If they were they would have closed our borders a long time ago... Also I think the U.S.'s present level of involvement in the U.N. is evidence enough of our investment.

So?

So I think that anti-gun laws are so far into the works you probably should pay attention instead of badmouthing people or organizations who make a big deal out of it. It's not like there aren't countries where it has already happened.

I'll believe it when I see it. No liberal I've talked to wants to have super restrictive gun controls. Those that do are in the minority. By the way, it wouldn't be only liberals who create these gun laws. It'll be a government that either becomes afraid of the people, or wants to control them in some way, and that government can just as easily be run by politicians from either party. More likely with today's politicians would be from the New Plutocracy that's getting entrenched now. The rich have the most to loose if the poor masses armed themselves, attacked the government, the rich in their homes or corporate America. That's the only reason guns would be controlled or restricted, to prevent an insurgence by the people against a controlling power.

That's the only reason guns would be controlled or restricted, to prevent an insurgence by the people against a controlling power.

You understand this is the whole reason for the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights?
Because without an armed populace it would be impossible to throw off an oppressive, out of control government. No matter what you think of personal ownership of firearms, as soon as that happens, you are forever at the mercy of.........Mitt Romney, George Bush Sr/Jr, Bill and Hillary, and what ever wierdo that manages to fanagle his way in. The reason the second amendment was created was for out of control government that gets so huge and powerful, NO ONE can fix it.

That's true. But when a government becomes too powerful and paranoid, they would find a way to nix the Second Amendment for their own self preservation. My point is that we shouldn't label liberals with the anti-gun stigma. Besides, there are so few liberals in Washington that they're an endangered species, so someone else is behind the anti-gun propaganda for some other gain. I'm more worried about the Corporatocracy that our government's becoming and how they will go about cementing their power.

Just like this:

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." - CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." - Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

"We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." - Arthur Schlesinger Jr., 'The CFR Journal Foreign Affairs', August 1975.

"A world government can intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any nation when it disapproves of their activities." - Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General

[youtube]zBgzjbxGlX4[/youtube]
Our current president spends a great deal of time building the UN and lending to it's credibility, even serving as Chair of the Security Council

Who do you think is more powerful? Global Corporations or the UN? Who do you think will eventually control the planet, global corporations or the UN? Obama can kiss the UN's rear end all he wants, but it will never amount to any type of global government. There are far too many nationalistic tendencies to overcome. Plus the growing power of global capitalism may affect things in unexpected or unpleasant ways.

The U.N. is a tool, tunnelcat, not a power in and of itself. As a power it is a joke, but as a means of harnessing international peer pressure it will be more and more effective as leaders like Obama lend creditability to it for their own purposes.

There you go chasing the capitalism bogeyman again. It's not capitalism that's the problem, it's greed. Sooner or later you're going to have to take the blinders off and realize that you cannot create a paradise, governmentally, made up of evil people. It's an impossibility. You need to deal with evil people justly, decisively, and on a social level you need to put a stop the encouragement of things that degrade society.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The U.N. is a tool, tunnelcat, not a power in and of itself. As a power it is a joke, but as a means of harnessing international peer pressure it will be more and more effective as leaders like Obama lend creditability to it for their own purposes.

There you go chasing the capitalism bogeyman again. It's not capitalism that's the problem, it's greed. Sooner or later you're going to have to take the blinders off and realize that you cannot create a paradise, governmentally, made up of evil people. It's an impossibility. You need to deal with evil people justly, decisively, and on a social level you need to put a stop the encouragement of things that degrade society.

Like you said, the U.N. is not a power in and of itself. So what's the threat? There just aren't enough nations that can agree long enough to enforce anything globally. I'm far more afraid of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership than the spineless U.N.

And why do all you conservatives worship the God of Capitalism as if it is NEVER subject to the vagaries of human nature? You CANNOT separate greed and evil from Capitalism anymore than you can from any type of government. I no more worship absolute governmental control anymore than absolute Capitalistic control. In fact, Capitalism will always work towards it's intended solution, the aggregation of wealth into the hands of the few, if left to it's own devices, just as any government will work towards absolute control over it's citizens, if left to it's own devices. Every system needs to follow some restrictive rules for things to be made somewhat fair to everyone in a society and Capitalism is no exception. I'm not against Capitalism, I'm against unregulated and unfettered Capitalism. Things work better when there are rules to follow.

Right now, those at the top are writing their own rules for their own massive gains, to everyone else's detriment. Every day, I swear, we hear of another bank doing some shady or illegal practice, manipulating something to their benefit or losing massive amounts of other people's money. Does that seem like a fair system for the rest of us peons to you?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... 8S20120704

Ok, tunnelcat, let's pretend for a moment that capitalism deserves the spotlight you persistently turn on it as the source of economic woe. What should replace it? Is there a system that encourages personal excellence in reality, and is also immune to criminal abuses?

flip wrote:

That's the only reason guns would be controlled or restricted, to prevent an insurgence by the people against a controlling power.

You understand this is the whole reason for the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights?

um, no, it isn't. The facts are this: at the time, the nation had NO standing Army. Thus, to be prepared for military threats, they depended upon formation of militias. Now, go back and read the Amendment again............yeesh.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Ok, tunnelcat, let's pretend for a moment that capitalism deserves the spotlight you persistently turn on it as the source of economic woe. What should replace it? Is there a system that encourages personal excellence in reality, and is also immune to criminal abuses?

I didn't say replace it. It needs to be incorporated into our Republic as part of the whole, but not be as the sole means to an end. Capitalism needs boundaries and rules that need to be followed and enforced, namely through regulation and smart laws, the rules that the game needs to be fair. Who wants to play in a rigged game? All systems need a good set of rules that don't allow any one person or group to unfairly take advantage over everyone else. If no limits are set and followed, then even Capitalism will degrade into a brutal morass of winner take all. It's basic human nature. I prefer my society to be stable, safe and equitable for anyone who wants to work hard enough to do so without fighting an uphill battle in an unfair playing field, just like you do. And yes, the system needs to make sure that laziness doesn't get coddled and rewarded either. But all I hear is Republicans saying we need to get rid of "regulations" and "taxes" and magically, everything will take care of itself. Well, the constant banking scandals that we've seen have shown that the ability of the marketplace to self-police, follow rules and be honest, is an outright farce.

But I think where we disagree is with those things that affect everyone, the so called "commons". I personally don't think private enterprise is the solution for that. Things that serve us all in the background, like schools, police protection, fire protection, infrastructure, clean water and air to live in, the military, basic old age retirement protection and yes, basic healthcare, are better served through government functions that don't make a profit off of it. That's where "taxes" come in and where most Americans seem to baulk. The government is supposed to serve the people and we need to take it back from special interests, the elites and the corporations, who are turning it into their own private playground. So in order to keep a national stable society and ensure that people don't die in the streets when they get sick or old, ensure that we have decent roads for commerce and travel, have protection from crime, fires, foreign aggression and make sure help is there when disaster strikes, we need a government that is of the people, for the people and responsive to the people, not the profit motives of the few elite and wealthy. The government shouldn't be the boogeyman, it should be the gatekeeper. If government was made up of people who had the health, prosperity and safety of everyone as a whole in this country in their own interests, instead of pursuing power and money, it wouldn't be something we now fear. Buuuuuuuuuut, maybe I'm putting too much faith in the human condition to think this would ever work any different than it does now..................

2nd Amendment wrote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What is the security of a free state? Is it security only from outside threats? Don't folks in the military swear to protect America from enemies "both foreign and domestic"?

Declaration of Independence wrote: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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think callmeslick is mostly right, but the 2nd amendment certainly does not exclude the idea that an armed people is not a people that the government can exterminate or otherwise oppress, and if that notion isn't supported by our constitution it is by this declaration, and history shows us that it certainly ought to be.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

2nd Amendment wrote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What is the security of a free state? Is it security only from outside threats? Don't folks in the military swear to protect America from enemies "both foreign and domestic"?

Yeah, but now it's been "privatized" and has become a self-serving and very expensive monster that's out for profit, not national protection, which means that they "require future wars" for making those "future profits". The whole system takes in young men and women, uses them up and throws them out when they get home. Disposable soldiers. Halliburton's made some people a fortune, but a lot of returning soldiers are either homeless, severely disabled or mentally ill with PTSD and living in poverty, with little help from the government that hired them.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Ok, tunnelcat, let's pretend for a moment that capitalism deserves the spotlight you persistently turn on it as the source of economic woe. What should replace it? Is there a system that encourages personal excellence in reality, and is also immune to criminal abuses?

I didn't say replace it. It needs to be incorporated into our Republic as part of the whole, but not be as the sole means to an end. Capitalism needs boundaries and rules that need to be followed and enforced, namely through regulation and smart laws, the rules that the game needs to be fair. Who wants to play in a rigged game? All systems need a good set of rules that don't allow any one person or group to unfairly take advantage over everyone else. If no limits are set and followed, then even Capitalism will degrade into a brutal morass of winner take all. It's basic human nature. I prefer my society to be stable, safe and equitable for anyone who wants to work hard enough to do so without fighting an uphill battle in an unfair playing field, just like you do. And yes, the system needs to make sure that laziness doesn't get coddled and rewarded either. But all I hear is Republicans saying we need to get rid of "regulations" and "taxes" and magically, everything will take care of itself. Well, the constant banking scandals that we've seen have shown that the ability of the marketplace to self-police, follow rules and be honest, is an outright farce.

Without defending the shortcomings of the Republicans, it was the Democrats that enabled the biggest scandal that comes to mind AGAINST the better judgment of Republicans. I don't buy your argument. It's not adding up. Less regulations and less taxes is better than the alternative, unless the regulations are basic, common-sense based regulations which are necessary, and the taxes really benefit everyone. If you are able to get more specific maybe I would feel differently in some instances.

tunnelcat wrote:But I think where we disagree is with those things that affect everyone, the so called "commons". I personally don't think private enterprise is the solution for that. Things that serve us all in the background, like schools, police protection, fire protection, infrastructure, clean water and air to live in, the military, basic old age retirement protection and yes, basic healthcare, are better served through government functions that don't make a profit off of it. That's where "taxes" come in and where most Americans seem to baulk. The government is supposed to serve the people and we need to take it back from special interests, the elites and the corporations, who are turning it into their own private playground. So in order to keep a national stable society and ensure that people don't die in the streets when they get sick or old, ensure that we have decent roads for commerce and travel, have protection from crime, fires, foreign aggression and make sure help is there when disaster strikes, we need a government that is of the people, for the people and responsive to the people, not the profit motives of the few elite and wealthy. The government shouldn't be the boogeyman, it should be the gatekeeper. If government was made up of people who had the health, prosperity and safety of everyone as a whole in this country in their own interests, instead of pursuing power and money, it wouldn't be something we now fear. Buuuuuuuuuut, maybe I'm putting too much faith in the human condition to think this would ever work any different than it does now..................

Just a few thoughts on this one, basic healthcare would have to be metered out, or you have a system of redistribution which causes the haves to medically support the bad decisions and bad life-styles of others. The dangerous alternative is that in order to keep things fair you have to control people's lives to ensure they're making healthy choices, which isn't freedom.

Retirement... I might be open to that, but it would have to also be met out evenly to everyone, with the option to opt out entirely.

My biggest gripe with both of these, is that there is no economic justice when you want to hit a wealthy person with a higher tax rate than a middle-income person.

tunnelcat wrote:If government was made up of people who had the health, prosperity and safety of everyone as a whole in this country in their own interests, instead of pursuing power and money, it wouldn't be something we now fear.

This is a naive thought. The reasons for restriction on government is that people cannot be trusted to have our best interest in mind, but MORE IMPORTANTLY even the most well-intentioned people can institute well-intentioned policies which end up having very negative, unintended results. Welfare is a good example of this. I wouldn't give the most well-intentioned person in government free reign to infringe on my individual libertiies, no matter how bright the end results might seem from here. Even the most well-intentioned person CANNOT have OUR INTERESTS at heart, because they are OUR INTERESTS, not theirs.

Thorne, valid point on the 'foreign and domestic' part, but remember, the nation was hardly settled in the late 18th century, even within its borders(Indians, Canadian traders, various ne'er do wells). As for the premise that the 2nd Amendment provided recourse for an oppressive central government, there were some key founders who held that view, but it was hardly unanimous, nor was it anywhere near the intent of the Amendment. Further, in this day and age, the thought that any number of gun owning citizens could overthrow the central government is ludicrous. They would be so completely outgunned and technologically overmatched as to be laughable.

callmeslick wrote:Further, in this day and age, the thought that any number of gun owning citizens could overthrow the central government is ludicrous. They would be so completely outgunned and technologically overmatched as to be laughable.

Not only would it be a fools errand, but with the way our government is structured--the federal/central government given its power by the states, which are given their power by the smaller even more local governments--such a coupe should be put down. It is the place of state government to reign-in central/federal government, and the place of counties/cities to reign in the states. As long as we have our local governments functioning as they were intended to, there is no just place for a group of armed individuals seizing control of central the federal government.