Author Topic: Are you Scared? (Read 2419 times)

SteveBailey · « **Reply #75 on:** October 10, 2007, 02:08:42 PM »

Quote

The natives have been soured to our soldiers and insurgents have turned this into a civil holy war

Nonsense. please quit posting this democratic party line drivel while trying to pass it off as an original thought. Propagandist nutjob.

lazs2 · « **Reply #76 on:** October 10, 2007, 02:19:58 PM »

Ok... lets get something straight.. You want a republican to appoint judges to the supreme court if you care at all about 2nd amendment rights... this thing is gonna come to a head soon enough and you don't want liberal democrat appointed judges..

arnie in kalifornia was indeed the lesser of two evils... the democrat was an anti gun commie... at best. we got the better of the deal... bad as it was.

and charon... I am pragmatic... go ahead with "both parties" this and "both parties" that but the truth is... voting independent has only helped democrats.

Voting independent does not resonate with either party... ross perrot had a huge following and... after he destroyed the republican chances.. he... and his ideas.. were never heard from again.

You have to look at what has happened not at what you would like to happen.

Bad as rudi is.. I would want him putting judges on a lot more than billary or osamabama.

lazs

kamilyun · « **Reply #77 on:** October 10, 2007, 02:42:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
Defined that way, greed is simply an instinct that drives us to continue to function even after survival has been assured.

touche'

kamilyun · « **Reply #78 on:** October 10, 2007, 02:54:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
How much money does a Nobel Prize winner get?

Slightly less than a million $$, don't know the current $ to euro ratio

No one can target a Nobel Prize in chemistry.

And the point wasn't about the field he's in. I simply do not believe that all 'good' comes from selfish motivation (a more narrow definition of greed), although as Neubob pointed out, greed can be for knowledge (or anything).

It's a philosophical point, but I don't believe all human motivation for progress is greed. I'm pretty cynical, but not that cynical. I can guarantee to you that mine motivation in life is not greed, and I don't for second think that I'm alone. You could argue that I've contributed nothing to the world in the form of innovations, etc...we could take that to PMs. It's a sad world if everything is reduced to "how much can I get out of this for helping you"

Charon · « **Reply #79 on:** October 10, 2007, 02:59:10 PM »

Quote

Bad as rudi is.. I would want him putting judges on a lot more than billary or osamabama.

That's really the only part of the lesser of two evils deal I care about today, and a valid point. Something I will have to calculate out.

However, I'm not so sure I like what the "conservative" appointments have done so far with no knock searches, roadside sobriety checks or imminent domain. In fact, I believe from the voting records (as I remember them) I side more with the liberal justices in those cases. I'm not so sure Rudi would be all that better since his big government conservative justices might not favor the 4th, etc. Plus, we haven't seen yet how Bush's appointments will react to the Parker/Heller case yet, or if they will hear it at all.

But, clearly something to consider.

Quote

You have to look at what has happened not at what you would like to happen.

I'm aware of that. But, sometimes you have to risk things getting worse in the short term to create a long term change or improvement.

Charon

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #80 on:** October 10, 2007, 04:44:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

Voting independent does not resonate with either party... ross perrot had a huge following and... after he destroyed the republican chances.. he... and his ideas.. were never heard from again.

Thing is though. If he hadnt pulled his in again/out again stunt and stayed the course the whole way through.

He argueably would have won

So the statemtn that voting independant doesnt reasonate with either party doesnt hold true.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #81 on:** October 10, 2007, 06:49:51 PM »

Perot was NOT going to win. Regardless of whether or not he could make up his mind and decide if he even wanted to run.

Skuzzy has already nailed this one. When he said change will only start at the local level and work up, he was dead on correct. It will take YEARS, maybe a couple of decades, and then only if the movement stays alive. Voting "none of the above" ain't gonna work.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #82 on:** October 10, 2007, 09:15:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Perot was NOT going to win. Regardless of whether or not he could make up his mind and decide if he even wanted to run.

Skuzzy has already nailed this one. When he said change will only start at the local level and work up, he was dead on correct. It will take YEARS, maybe a couple of decades, and then only if the movement stays alive. Voting "none of the above" ain't gonna work.

I dissagree.

I think he had a exeptionally good chance of winning.
what did him in was the Im in Im out. Im in again.

in spite of this he still managed...

In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful Independent presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); In Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%).

And to take a slice away from Laz's claim that he only stole the conservative vote

"A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually). Politics: Who Cares by Peirce Lewis, Casey McCracken, and Roger Hunt (American Demographics, October 1994, vol. 16, no. 10) p. 23."

At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).

Well above the universally accepted margin of error

I also dissagree with Skuzzy as well. It wouldnt take decades.

Its been done before.
All thats really needed is a real leader with the financial backing to get him there

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #83 on:** October 11, 2007, 07:54:37 AM »

And you'd get a President who did not have a party in Congress to back him. IF you could get lucky enough to find someone and backing. You can bet Congress would not be falling all over each other to work with him, either.

Eagler · « **Reply #84 on:** October 11, 2007, 08:32:51 AM »

like I said, it is about the lesser of two evils ..

if the girly-men bush haters here, the homos, the confused women and minorities (actually aren't the minority in many places these days) get their way - we'll see just how screwed up this country can get in a short 4 years especially if the dems maintain the majority in the house and senate in 08

I'll take ANY republican over billary and her to be announced Muslim side kick vp

Saxman · « **Reply #85 on:** October 11, 2007, 11:04:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
"Baa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa"

Fixed.

As I said, it's the party-line sheeple that are the ones to worry about.

Eagler · « **Reply #86 on:** October 11, 2007, 01:41:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saxman
Fixed.

As I said, it's the party-line sheeple that are the ones to worry about.

sry, I deal in realities - best worry about those with their heads in the clouds

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #87 on:** October 11, 2007, 02:18:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And you'd get a President who did not have a party in Congress to back him. IF you could get lucky enough to find someone and backing. You can bet Congress would not be falling all over each other to work with him, either.

That depends.
On the flip side. Without the President. congress woudnt be able to get much done either.

To a certain extent they would have to work with him like it or not or risk the ire of the people.

Which leads me to the second point.
What he would have to do is take whatever issue to the public.
Win the support of the people and you win the support of congress

It would be politically suicidal not to.

Charon · « **Reply #88 on:** October 17, 2007, 09:51:26 AM »

Been out of town a few days...

Well Lazs, Arnie (with an R, as in Republican) just signed the microstamping law and lead ammunition bans. Maybe the Republicans should have fielded an actual Republican instead of a RINO. The Brady bunch is rejoicing ... literally.

Best case scenario -- technology proves to be unworkable.

But, likely scenario... technology works but is easily defeated by criminals. So, the mfgs then refuse to sell their newer semi-auto pistol lines in California. Or, they adopt this ineffective and cumbersome technology and sell them but at a premium cost in Cali and nationally. What do you bet we will soon see regulation on existing models to eliminate the existing models and revolver loopholes? No revolver sales, just sales of approved microstamping semi auto pistols.

The death of 1000 cuts continues.

All you (we) needed was a Veto. Will Rudy wield a veto on this as national legislation? Or the AWB? He's not married to a Kennedy, but then his track record is in lockstep with Teddy so I guess well just have to hope really, really hard.

Charon

Spazzter · « **Reply #89 on:** October 17, 2007, 10:31:13 AM »

I haven't done a lot of research , but I have heard good things about the candidate Ron Paul. Check it out. He is not well funded and is excluded from many mainstream talks. Again I don't kow much about him just relaying the info.

<>
Spazz