#288418 - 20/10/2006 13:14
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: rob]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Anyone declaring themselves anti-liberal is literally stating their opposition to democratic process, personal freedoms and capitalism. Perhaps this is why so much of the world thinks America is full of facists!
"Liberal" has different meanings.
In the US, liberal is associated with a certain set of political views: pro-abortion, higher taxes, general socialism, and anti-guns.
The term "classical liberal" means basically just the opposite in the US: equal rights for all (including unborn babies), free economy (no stealing from the rich to give to the lazy), and pro-gun (in accordance with the Constitution that the country was founded on).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288419 - 20/10/2006 13:19
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Back in 1776, the state of the art in weapons technology was the flintlock rifle and the cannon. Today, it's the Abrams battle tank and the ICBM-delivered nuclear warhead. The lack of a ban on fully automatic weapons really isn't going to do you any good. Or are you suggesting that people should have tanks and missile silos at home?
In 1776 the best way for people to exercise their right to free speech was to gather in the local church. Today, we have modern printing presses and electronic communications technology. Or are you suggesting we should allow people to have access to newspapers, tv's, radios, and internet? 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288420 - 20/10/2006 14:43
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14478
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Did you know that it was illegal for Jews to own firearms in Nazi Germany?
Dunno. But that was true of USA citizens of Japanese ancestry during that same war -- they weren't really allowed to own anything other than a bedroll in the prison camps. Same story up here, by the way. Ugly.
-ml
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288421 - 20/10/2006 15:05
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 21/05/1999
Posts: 5335
Loc: Cambridge UK
|
So you believe that bearing arms is a practical and realistic protection for the constitution? At what stage would you personally start shooting? Presumably if a group of politicians successfully lobbied to remove guns from the populace you would be compelled to execute those people? Furthermore having killed them there could be no ramification as you would have acted entirely constitutionally? What if a group of civilians backed the gun control - would they have to be killed also, or just contained? What if it was the majority of the population that opposed your constitutional rights?
Rob
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288422 - 20/10/2006 15:12
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: mlord]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
Quote:
Quote:
Did you know that it was illegal for Jews to own firearms in Nazi Germany?
Dunno. But that was true of USA citizens of Japanese ancestry during that same war -- they weren't really allowed to own anything other than a bedroll in the prison camps. Same story up here, by the way. Ugly.
-ml
My dad was in WWII and I talked to him briefly about the Japanese interment before he died. His remarks were that it was a different time. I think what he was getting at is that when you’re worried about being invaded by an army that is taking over other countries one after the other you take precautions were you can. War is definitely UGLY.
It is a sham it had to happen but if it stopped one spy. The interment may have saved thousands of lives. Unfortunately we don’t have an alternative scenario time machine to know for sure.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288423 - 20/10/2006 16:11
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: Redrum]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
At the same time, there were no internment camps for the German-Americans. But that's okay. They were white.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288424 - 20/10/2006 16:18
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Glib answers just undermine your point by showing that you have no valid response.
Should the average American citizen have access to an Abrams tank?
Ignoring that, what is the likelihood that someone could own an Abrams tank? I'm guessing that there are less than a thousand people nationwide who could afford one. Would you rather have a plutocracy than a republic? Based on your laissez-faire comments, maybe yes. Even so, the US government has many more, and they have much stronger weapons on top.
Basically, I can understand your point, but the notion that you could reasonably defend yourself against the US government simply by having access to a Tommy gun is absurd.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288425 - 20/10/2006 16:29
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
Quote:
At the same time, there were no internment camps for the German-Americans. But that's okay. They were white.
You really should think these things through and not just jump to the race card. Maybe that would work today because whites are the minority. Back then they were not. .
However the race lines are fading in every country. I don't think it would work again.
And like I said I have no time machine so maybe it did no good. No one knows, or ever will.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288426 - 20/10/2006 16:33
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Why is the civil liberty to carry guns the only one Republicans seem to care about while it's the only one Democrats don't seem to care about?
Do you have an answer in mind for this, or is it an honest question? Just curious because I do think it's a good question on both sides (assuming you mean "only" in a hyperbolic sense).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288427 - 20/10/2006 16:49
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why is the civil liberty to carry guns the only one Republicans seem to care about while it's the only one Democrats don't seem to care about?
Do you have an answer in mind for this, or is it an honest question? Just curious because I do think it's a good question on both sides (assuming you mean "only" in a hyperbolic sense).
I agree it does work for both side. His “only” annoyed me so I didn’t respond.
One possible answer if you take everything to extremes:
Republicans - are for the rich
Democrats - are for the poor.
Rich people like to be able to protect their belongings from the poor so they want guns
Poor people often get shot robbing the rich or each other.
So, the democrats figure if there are no guns no one gets shot. The republicans figure if there are no guns all their riches will be plundered.
If you look at cases where anarchy has broken out (riots,, and the like) this usually plays out. The store owner with a gun comes out ahead of the one without. You can also use this with war or invasions. Basically the rich want to protect their way of life.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288428 - 20/10/2006 17:06
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1522
Loc: Arizona
|
Quote:
At the same time, there were no internment camps for the German-Americans. But that's okay. They were white.
Yeah, ignore the fact that Germany had absolutely no chance of staging an assault on the mainland US while Japan was expected to - especially after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It all came down to their color. Everything other than color or race were just convenient circumstances.
Edit: Missed an 'en' in convenient.
Edited by Tim (20/10/2006 17:07)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288429 - 20/10/2006 17:10
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: rob]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
At what stage would you personally start shooting?
When the MIB goes door-to-door to install the mind control chip in my brain.
At what point would you tuck tail and run? Oh right, y'all already did that 10 years ago. And as result, your violent crime has spun out of control and England is now the Big Brother capital of the world.
Perhaps we'd lose a modern revolutionary war, or perhaps not, but I'd rather die fighting a free man than live as a castrated government subject. We can disagree on all sorts of shit from war to taxes, but if we give up our right to be armed, then we give up our freedom forever.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288430 - 20/10/2006 17:26
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Yes, obviously I'm painting with a wide brush in two directions. Not all Republicans can be lumped together, nor all Democrats. (Nor should we assume that all people fit in those two categories.) And "only" is an exaggeration, too. But I think we all understand what I'm getting at.
And, yes, I do have an argument, at least for the Democratic side. I think it's easlily demonstrable that the idea that someone could really defend himself against the US government with a stockpile of automatic weapons is absurd. No matter what, you are going to lose in a faceoff. Assuming that that is absurd, there is really no reason for people to own an automatic weapon other than to kill other people. None. Okay, it's neat. I'll give you that. But the repercussions on society at large are significant. Bank robberies become that much easier unless the bank guards also have automatic weapons. And then you start getting into an arms race that's just going to leave more people dead.
So the argument I have is that it simply does much more harm than good to society, without any real benefit in the check against the government area. If the most effective weapons that were available were assault rifles, then I'd reconsider, but they're not, and there's no way you're going to convince me that everybody should or even could own the types of weapons that the government has.
You can make the argument that that makes the US into a nanny state, and while I understand that argument and agree with it a little, I think you have to make the distinction between protecting society from individuals and protecting individuals from themselves. I think the government has a responsibility for the former and not the latter.
I also believe that the Democrats believe that, while it may screw up, the goverment is there to serve and protect the people and society, not steamroller over them. There may be a certain amount of naivete in that notion.
As far as the Republican point of view: I really don't get it. People make the argument that it's what allows us to prevent the government from removing our other civil liberties, but our civil liberties are getting removed right now, and none of the Republicans are jumping up in arms to defend their country. To me, it seems like an ameliorant: "As long as we don't take away your guns, you're going to let us do anything else, right?"
What bothers me in this case is not the fact that Republicans are pro-gun and Democrats are anti-gun. That's a legitimate political argument. What bothers me is the fact that a number of other civil liberties are being removed and the Republicans don't seem to care. They always claimed to be about civil liberties, and the gun issue was just the most immediate concern. But now that others are being trampled on, guns are still the primary concern, to the point where many argue that the liberties being removed are irrelevant.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288431 - 20/10/2006 17:36
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I'd rather die fighting a free man than live as a castrated government subject.
Assuming that you're a US citizen, why would you wait until the last possible minute? Is it an issue that you find none of your civil liberties relevant except the one that allows you to have guns? Why are you defending the Bush administration's trampling of every other civil liberty?
You can call us hypocrites if you wish, but if we are, so are you.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288432 - 20/10/2006 17:36
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Glib answers just undermine your point by showing that you have no valid response.
Should the average American citizen have access to an Abrams tank?
Did you know Mein Kampf is banned in Dutch bookstores? Hell, it's on highschool summer reading lists in the US. Also, Nazi insignia is banned in Germany. Did you know that the German police, in the weeks leading up to the World Cup, were threatening 3 year prison sentences for anyone immitating a Nazi goosestep or the Nazi salute?
We can both find a million reasons why Nazism and anything related to it is bad. But I'm sure we can both see that outlawing it is a grave affront to freedom of speech. The German police, in their efforts to rid the World Cup of intolerance, became that which they tried to stop. The negatives of free speech far outweigh the negatives of limited speech.
And so I believe the same applies to the right to bear arms, and yes, I believe citizens should have the right to own a tank, which they currently do.
Liberals have successfully banned the manufacture of fully-automatic firearms, by "piggy-backing" (you know that thing we all hate?) a bill in 1986. This is despite the fact that there has never been a crime a committed with registered automatic firearms since registration was first required in 1934. There has also never been a crime committed with a .50 BMG rifle, which is the new "evil" arch-enemy of the anti-gun activists. There is no logic in banning these weapons, since they are involved in no crimes, except that their logic is to incrementally ban as many weapons as they can. Yesterday it was the full-auto, today it's the .50 caliber, tomorrow it's the .30-06 hunting rifle, and then we will no longer be free. We will be harmless, obedient government workers.
FYI, no crime has ever been committed in the US with a legally owned tank, except for one occasion where a stolen tank was used in a rampage.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288433 - 20/10/2006 18:00
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'd rather die fighting a free man than live as a castrated government subject.
Assuming that you're a US citizen, why would you wait until the last possible minute?
I wouldn't necessarily. But for now, things can still be changed through the political system.
Quote:
Is it an issue that you find none of your civil liberties relevant except the one that allows you to have guns?
No, but I do think that the right to bear arms is the most important right, because it guarantees all other rights by empowering individuals.
Quote:
Why are you defending the Bush administration's trampling of every other civil liberty?
I'm not. But I fail to see the importance of the rights of "enemy combatants" (eg., Non-americans fighting a war against american soldiers).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288434 - 20/10/2006 18:07
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I think it's easlily demonstrable that the idea that someone could really defend himself against the US government with a stockpile of automatic weapons is absurd. No matter what, you are going to lose in a faceoff.
One person can't, but 200 million can.
Do you think the police could ever conduct a house-to-house search of all US homes? The police would be shot dead in every US city for committing treason. That is, unless we were conditioned to believe that guns are unnecessary and evil, and then allow them to be incrementally taken away over time.
Do you think the police could conduct a house-to-house search in England? Now that pointy sticks are outlawed there, yes, I believe that they easily could, and with little protest, much less armed resistance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288435 - 20/10/2006 18:27
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Those are all legitimate arguments for why banning guns is bad.
Where are your arguments for why imprisoning people without recourse is bad?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288436 - 20/10/2006 18:29
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I fail to see the importance of the rights of "enemy combatants"
Because the President has been given unilateral authority to declare anyone he wants to as an "enemy combatant", including US citizens, and detain them without recourse forever.
I have other arguments, but those are the ones that are relevant to you.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288437 - 20/10/2006 20:10
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: Redrum]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5539
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Why are the liberals getting so bent (we'll maybe just foreign liberals) over the passing of a law to define the treatment of prisoners of war,
Could it be because that law not only defines treatment of prisoners of war, it also defines (or, rather, undefines) just who those prisoners are?
Anybody (and I do mean anybody) that Bush and his sycophants dislike is now fair game, without recourse to legal assistance or constitutional protection. That includes you and me, not just those terrorists in Iraq with their weapons of mass destruction.
Hmmm... can a puppet have sycophants?
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288438 - 21/10/2006 00:51
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
There has also never been a crime committed with a .50 BMG rifle, which is the new "evil" arch-enemy of the anti-gun activists.
You know, if you had even mediocre research skills, you'd probably find more support for your stance, Billy. Could you explain to me under what epistemology Albert Petrosky's use of a .50 BMG rifle does not constitute a crime? You'll need to scroll down to read his particular case. This happened not 10 miles from where I was living at the time.
Don't get me wrong. I covet a Ferret 50 rifle (because I used to be into long-range shooting and would like to return to it) and I don't support the banning of any weapons. But when you try to strengthen your arguments by spouting absolutes (which also happen to be easily deterrmined false), you do nothing but hurt the efforts of those of us who, at least in practice (ie. against gun bans), tend to agree with you.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288439 - 21/10/2006 02:03
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: furtive]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Unbelieveable.
Oh, I don't know. I think this is *great*. In what other country can you freely ask "Just how much torture is torture?" I mean, In Kazhakstan, if you asked "Hey, can I take this guy and pretend to drown him?", they would probably take you out back and stab you to death. Likewise, in Syria, if you said "Hey, is it OK if I I slowly remove this guy's fingers with a blue-rubber-handled, stainless steel Channel-Lock nibbler?" I expect that the secret police would take you out back and put one in the base of your neck.
So, I think it is great. Here in America, we are free to ask the big questions: "Just how much torture is torture?" We have elevated ourselves above all of those nasty, backwards countries with lots of hard-to-understand dark people. Enlightened denizens of the BBS like Redrum have already perceived this.
I mean, in what other country could you spend your time carefully contemplating just how much you can torture somebody...before it is torture?
God Bless the USA!
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288440 - 21/10/2006 05:27
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: webroach]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Could you explain to me under what epistemology Albert Petrosky's use of a .50 BMG rifle does not constitute a crime?
Ok, the VPC found one instance that may or may not have involved the .50 during the .50 BMG's 85 year history. None of his victims were shot by the .50, but the cops apparently found three empty casings.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005_05_01_johnrlott_archive.html
Big deal. I bet can find more crimes involving ice picks, ladders, swimming pools, ammonia, glass bottles, hammers, screwdrivers, nail guns, piano wire, blunt objects, etc etc. And that's just within a few years. It doesn't take a rifle to kill someone.
I'm sure you know that most of the info on the VPC's site is complete BS anyways. It's even on wikipedia that "no violent crime has ever been committed with a .50 BMG rifle in the United States." I'm not saying that that means it's true, but it is at least the common perception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG#Legal_controversy
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288441 - 21/10/2006 09:22
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
veteran
Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Quote:
In what other country can you freely ask "Just how much torture is torture?" I mean, In Kazhakstan, if you asked "Hey, can I take this guy and pretend to drown him?", they would probably take you out back and stab you to death. Likewise, in Syria, if you said "Hey, is it OK if I I slowly remove this guy's fingers with a blue-rubber-handled, stainless steel Channel-Lock nibbler?" I expect that the secret police would take you out back and put one in the base of your neck.
OK, yes, US is slightly better than Kazhakstan or Syria. Great.
Let me give you a couple of reference points from some other countries:
Quite recently, two ministers of the Dutch government had to resign because a report showed they had not been dilligent enough to protect the people in a detention center that died in an accidental fire. Last week a minister of the new Swedish government had to step down because it became public that she had not paid her TV license for 10 years. Some countries actually require their leaders to be honest and follow the rules. I know, absurd idea...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288442 - 21/10/2006 12:44
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I bet can find more crimes involving ice picks, ladders, swimming pools, ammonia, glass bottles, hammers, screwdrivers, nail guns, piano wire, blunt objects, etc etc. And that's just within a few years. It doesn't take a rifle to kill someone.
Do you even realize how often you change your argument?
All of the objects you list have uses, primary uses, beyond killing people. You might be able to make the argument that you could use a Barrett M82 for hunting (though I don't quite get the concept of hunting from a mile away), its clear primary use is for killing people, and surreptitiously, at that. That said, it's a perfectly legal weapon to own in the vast majority of US states.
But this still doesn't explain why you don't care that anyone living in the US, non-citizen and citizen alike, could be declared an enemy combatant by the President and detained and tortured for the rest of their life. You're obviously distrustful of the government if you think that you need to keep high-powered weapons around to protect yourself from them, yet you apparently assume that this won't happen to you because you're not an enemy combatant. Maybe Bush decides he wants to declare anyone who owns an M82 an enemy combatant. What then? Wouldn't it make sense, especially given your distrust, to fight this now?
I know we don't agree on the guns issue (though we're not as far apart as you probably think -- I do play devil's advocate somewhat) but I don't understand why this issue isn't at least as egregious to you.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288443 - 22/10/2006 14:34
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 27/02/2003
Posts: 770
Loc: Washington, DC metro
|
<delurk> Quote:
I think it's easlily demonstrable that the idea that someone could really defend himself against the US government with a stockpile of automatic weapons is absurd. No matter what, you are going to lose in a faceoff.
Not a someone, but many someones. cf Vietnam and (perhaps) Iraq.
(Didn't really want to get into this debate, but no one else seemed to take this one on.)
</delurk>
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288444 - 22/10/2006 14:56
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
|
Quote:
Perhaps we'd lose a modern revolutionary war, or perhaps not, but I'd rather die fighting a free man than live as a castrated government subject.
Agreed, sadly. Until we do choose to take back our country (by violent or non-violent (see below) means), we can merrily continue buying weapons of social repression for our government by paying taxes; bankrolling our own imprisonment.
Quote:
One person can't, but 200 million can.
Agreed, again. Like I said, a large enough swarm of ants can take down the human with the enormously overpowering can of nervous system destroying insecticide.
But the citizens can't take back their country because they don't understand the issues that it faces (nor do politicians?). This is why the even stronger weapon, I remember now and retract my previous statements, is education. If people were enabled to know truthfully what was going on, they'd have stepped in long ago.
I'm off to read that "law". I think this is a more accurate link to its history, and the link to "S.3930 (As passed)" is likely the final version of the law. Like Linux, if the government were more easy to understand, people would actually be involved in it. (haha, watch me butcher this thread again).
_________________________
- FireFox31 110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288445 - 22/10/2006 15:17
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: jmwking]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
You might say that, but you can't get many someones to simply vote in their best interests. Getting them to buy weapons and use them as a cohesive force seems wildly unlikely.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288446 - 22/10/2006 16:37
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 27/02/2003
Posts: 770
Loc: Washington, DC metro
|
Quote:
...but you can't get many someones to simply vote in their best interests.
That is entirely too true. Both parties depend way too much on "wedge" issues.
-jk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288447 - 22/10/2006 21:02
Re: When is Bush going to grow the little moustache do you think?
[Re: jmwking]
|
addict
Registered: 23/01/2002
Posts: 506
Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest
|
Billy and Redrum I salute you both. It takes balls to feed yourselves to the wolves and the wolves are hungry for fresh meat!
I certainly don't support Bush, I think he's an idiot. I also know that worst case he will be in office for 2 more years. Do you really think it is just him pulling the strings? Laws can be changed, it just takes time.
It would be interesting to see what history says 100 years from now. After all, history is defined tofit the times.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index