American Rifleman - Symantec - Irony

[capt. apathy]

the problem is that most of the Dems (me included) are always looking over our shoulder for some republican who wants to take away your freedoms.  (free speach,freedom of information, right of DRs to perscribe what they think will heal you,  assisted suicide)

and the republicans are looking out for dems trying to take their freedoms (guns, uhm as far as I can see thats the only personal freedom they seem to care about).

anyway what I propose is this.  we just call an open season for the next few months.  both parties stop protecting the mama's boys in their party and get rid of them.

the thing is we keep acting like it's a 2 party system, when there's actually a secret 3rd party.  the know it all POS who think they know what kind of guns I need to own, what meds my dr should perscribe, when I've lived long enough(while terminaly ill), what books I need to read, and who's opinions I need access to.

these types seem to have enough time on their hands to have taken control of both political parties.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Mini D
I'd prefer that libraries not have internet access to anything other than book related resources.

In leu of that, I fail to see how allowing access to any of the sites listed should be banned... unless you can think of a really good reason?

MiniD

That really was the point for being against the mandated use of filters. The companies that develop filtering software protect their lists with encryption and don't share. If you're using the software you almost certainly can't know what it is that you're blocking or why.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
the problem is that most of the Dems (me included) are always looking over our shoulder for some republican who wants to take away your freedoms.  (free speach,freedom of information, right of DRs to perscribe what they think will heal you,  assisted suicide)

and the republicans are looking out for dems trying to take their freedoms (guns, uhm as far as I can see thats the only personal freedom they seem to care about).

At last... someone saw the irony.

[FUNKED1]

You need to read the balance of his post.  The real irony is that there are still people who think that either party has a consistent viewpoint regarding personal liberties.

[FUNKED1]

BTW do a Google search for "PMRC" and "Gore".

[Sandman]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
BTW do a Google search for "PMRC" and "Gore".

Don't have to do a search... I know all about that one. Tipper is a harpy.

[Maverick]

Just curious here. I am not familiar with what PMRC stands for.

[capt. apathy]

The real irony is that there are still people who think that either party has a consistent viewpoint regarding personal liberties.

there ya go.


regardless of your personal opinion on an issue, tell me which party has a consistent line of thought on the following issues.

1. assisted suicide-
  dems are for it. you should have a right end your life when it no longer has value to you(assuming teminal illness and a reasonable state of mind)
  republicans are against it,  life is sacred and you should not be allowed to decide for yourself.

2. death penalty-
    dems are against it, life is sacred and you don't have the right to take it.
    republicans are for it,  some lifes aparently aren't sacred. and we should 'kill them back'

3.  abortion-
    dems are for it, babies aparently aren't some of the sacred lives.  I guess in this instance they see it as ok to kill sombody else if it will help you avoid taking responsability for your own actions.
    republicans are against it, life is sacred again.  

4. the right to own guns-
    dems are aginst it, it's an outdated amendment and we can't be trusted with this freedom.
    republicans for it,  it's a right guarenteed by the constitution and should be fought for.

5. free speach-
    dems are for it, it's a constitutional right and should be fought for. (unless you want to say things that are politicly incorect)
    republicans are against it (unless you are saying what they want to hear), it's an outdated amendment and we cant be trusted with this freedom.

6. personal freedom-
    the dems are for it as long as you want to talk about the things they find ok. don't want to use any of the rights they don't aprove of.
   republicans claim to want personal freedom but then take the stances above.  how can anyone say they are pro-deathpenalty, anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide.  to me that says "dying is ok as long as the gov't has given their ok."

7. taxation-
    dems want to take the working mans money and give it to the poor.
    republicans want to take the working mans money.


the answer to me is clear, and no suprise to most of you.  neither party gives a damn about the voter.  they have no real agenda other than to take our money and spend it as they like.  

they have no logical platform, the only logic is that they align themselves with whatever special interest group there is that can get organised well enough to do some decent fund raising.

the more I think about it I like the idea that a friend of mine had 15 or 20 years ago.

here's his premise-
there is a large percentage of our society who strongly stand behind personal freedom.  the problem is that while their intrest in getting the gov't out of our lives is the same, they don't really worry about each other.

if we could get these 2 groups together we would have the largest political lobby in the united states, and on pricipal our causes are aligned.

handgun owners belive our rights are being trampled and the gov't needs to get out of our private lives.
pot smokers also see it as a personal choice and want the gov't out of our private lives.

I' talking about
The American Pot & Pistol Assoc.-
 We're Armed, In A Laid-back Sort of Way

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Sikboy
Me too, I need a gun to keep my porn safe.

-Sik

Thank you, Sik. I needed a laugh

[Chairboy]

Y'all want a brush with greatness?  The product this article talks about is the one I manage.  Go team!

Since I'm a card carrying member of the NRA, you can probably draw your own conclusions about the supposed anti-gun slant suggested.  The fact of the matter is the list is encrypted so they have no idea whether there's a slant one way or another.  

I'm posting this as a private citizen, not as an employee, and I'm not an official spokesman for the company.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's just your perception.  I don't think computers belong in public libraries.

I'm actually quite amazed Computers are in public libraries...(and agree with you)

[lazs2]

so chairboy... are you saying that there are legitimate reasons why NRA sites would be censored but not the rabid anti gun ones?   If so... what would those reasons be?

I realize that censorship is such a dumb thing that it is impossible to justify or set standards but.... what was the "reasoning" in your opinion.  what set off the ban?
lazs

[Chairboy]

There's no ban.  The team that makes the list finds the URLs for the list by hand and adds them one by one.  They started on it years ago, so obviously high profile sites like NRA.ORG that have been around long would have a better chance of making it onto the list then a newer site.  

There's no bias, it's just a matter of time until those other sites are added.

[capt. apathy]

ok, here is a different way of asking the same question.  why would the NRA sight be on there at all, if there where no sort of bias?

[miko2d]

Would anyone post a link to any NRA page that would even remotely look like it promotes gun violence or aggression?

 miko