Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on January 21, 2007, 10:14:35 AM
-
eagl got me thinking about it... about what I think is important and why..
I am an individualist... I believe, like the founders, that the individuals rights are the most important thing... this causes me to think of things from that perspective just as it makes my enemies in the blue areas think the oppossite...
Why we can never be one nation...
Guns.. the number one tool of the individualist.. without them there is no protection from tyranny. political or personal... the street thug or the socialist. The founders understood this and made it the number two amendment right after being able to talk..
Blue voter socialists hate guns in the hands of individuals.. they don't want you to be a threat to their big government takeover in your life and they don't want you to feel that you can do without their protection... that is why it is so important to me and... to the blue voters to take away from us... no individuals will be allowed..
cars... hot rods... iron horse... the ability to escape.. to be free in where you go... no strip searchs at the airport of public transportation people movers... the blue socialists hate it.. they can't control it worth a damn. They see no need... they like to be sardine people in any case.. living one on top of another and pretending they can't even see each other.....
For the individualist... if the pressure of population gets to great he can get in his car and take a trip... the loafer wearing metrosexual taxi riders can't....they can't jump in the hated cars and take off so... when the population gets to them.. when people around them start bugging them.... they pass laws.... laws to make people act like they want them to act or to make it so they can't do things they don't like or care about...
Hot rods are a slap in the face to a socialist... everything evil about the individualist is distilled in the hot rod and the gun.
and lastly... I am concerned about socialism for...well...obvious reasons... it is the mantra of the metrosexual sardine people and the enemy of the individual.
sooo... I tend to trigger on those three things.
I tend... no... absolutely see these things as black and white... I am amazed at people who think they are individuals but still want some nanny laws to protect people from themselves.
lazs
-
I've read this and thought about it and I think I need to work towards passing a law that would take your guns away, derprive you of motor vehicles and send you to a socialist re-education camp.
It's the only way to "save" you.
-
Democracy isn't all that it is cracked up to be. All it takes for half the population to get screwed is the other half of the population having one more person. This affects more and more people when you have larger units of government.
But it wouldn't be so bad if you made units of government as small as possible.
-
Hot rods are a slap in the face to a socialist... everything evil about the individualist is distilled in the hot rod and the gun......
I own 3 Hotrods , and Laz, you are right ... Al Gore fanboys, Democrats/ Socialist ( < same thing ) flat hate me & the cars . :t
I have lots of guns , they are a comfort where I live & they are at least 1 hour faster to protect me and my family and my hotrods ...
Bob/ CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Democracy isn't all that it is cracked up to be. All it takes for half the population to get screwed is the other half of the population having one more person.
thus,the electorial college, shows how smart them guys really were...
-
I disagree with you about cars. The people in "blue areas" drive hybrid's.
-
Always gonna have yin and yang, including in
health care,
welfare,
abortion,
frivolous lawsuits,
liability limits,
capital punishment,
education,
taxation,
zoning,
immigration,
immunization,
birth control,
sex in general or specifics,
gay marriage,
gay parenthood,
children's rights,
animal rights,
embryo rights,
global warming alleviation,
transportation,
energy,
defense,
gerrymandering,
religious tolerance,
nuclear control,
offshore drilling,
national park mineral and timber exploitation,
global warming,
stem cell research,
and probably several hundred more.
The 2008 elections will be among history's most interesting and possibly pivotal.
-
I wonder if the 08 General Election will prove to be the highest voter turnout in U.S. History (which when measuring voter statistics over the decades, the 08 election should top the 04 elections record #'s), or if it will be slightly lower because most American's have become burnt out and bored with politics.
-
lazs, you forgot the suffragette movement, didn't you? :)
-
Lazs are you still a member of a union? Do you still work at a public utility? Is the public still paying for the gasoline for your vehicle?
This information came out in a thread a couple years ago. Never sounded too much like an individualist to me (not that there's anything wrong with that). ;)
-
and I break out into a gary newman tune
-
Red State...Blue State....Democrat...Republica n.... If only life were so black and white.
Not all Democrats are baby killing, communist, "Anti-Americans", who'd rather save a owl than protect our citizens. Not all Republicans are fascist, dictatorial, warmongers trying to legislate morality, and impose their own unique views on everyone.
For the vast majority of us who share views on both sides of the isle...the attempt at polarizing the nation (pushed by the media) is growing very old.
Anyone who believes 100% of the rhetoric on either side of the isle...needs to get out more...and when they do they'll find more greys and less black and white.
-
That's right republic, but it's easier to live when you can fully support one side.
-
Originally posted by republic
Anyone who believes 100% of the rhetoric on either side of the isle...needs to get out more...and when they do they'll find more greys and less black and white.
your right , i'm going to vote grey in 2008.
-
All politicians are self-serving ego-maniacs. The only thing you can hope to accomplish is to find the ones who are less ego driven and less self-seving than the others.
Of course, if they really lie well, like the Billary or the Obama, they could end up in office anyways.
I absolutely do not believe a single thing anyh politician says. The media drives them, the people do not. They know they can lie and get the votes they need and then do exactly what they want with absolutely no repercussions. The only time there are any repercussions occurs when they manage to step on the toes of another politician.
But they can maul the people all they want and still get plenty of support. They can lie, the can vote to fill thier wallets, while we stand around gawking like a bunch of pie-eyed mooks.
What triggers me? Not much anymore. People having conversations about politics, like it will actually make any difference, is rather silly to me. People ranting about X brand versus Y brand versus Z brand of politician. They are all crooks, liars, ego-maniacs, and generally the lowest form of life on the planet. I would call them pond scum, but that would be an insult to pond scum. I think people who actually believe polticians have had frontal lobotomies.
And if it sounds like I have given up, then I will have to admit, I do not see any point in it anymore. They will do what they want to do regardless of what the people want. And if they happen to do anything that benefits anyone other than themselves, then it was just overflow from the benefit(s) they derived.
Yet people will continue to yell loud and long, regardless of how futile it really is. Such an enormous waste of energy.
-
Carefull here!
Take the Hot Rods away and there will be no more LA-7's!!:aok
-
halo.. Not sure I get your point except that you think global warming is so important that you named it twice... I shudder to think what the views of democrat socialist blue people think about all the other subjects you named tho... I was only naming the ones that were most important to me... we can take the others one at a time if you like... I'll start.... death penalty... for it.
oboe...odd you can dig that up from your memory but not my reply to it whenever it is brought up again... seems sorta... dishonest... Does make you realize what you would be up against in an election tho.
skuzzy.. Yeah.. I kinda give up too I figure when it gets bad enough for enough people they will act like Americans and throw all the bums out and trim down the government.
lazs
-
term limits, we don't need professional politicians.
-
People who have no weaknesses are terrible; there is no way of taking advantage of them.
-
xmarine has a point tho.. if all the democrats (or most of em) would vote libertarian then so would I.
lazs
-
Not sure what you are referring to, Lazs. IMO as long as you are employed by a public utility, you are a practicing socialist. Public utilities are socialism, period. There's just no wiggle room there.
What strikes me as dishonest is your crusade against socialism.
btw I don't disagree with all you gun views, and I appreciate seeing hot rods on the road. I think you are too quick to blame everything on socialism without giving consideration to the positive impacts public ownership has had on our society. The public schools and universities where you were educated, the wastewater and drinking water treatment facilities that serve your home (and provide you with a job), even the freeways where you drive your hot rod - all built and maintained with public money.
Socialism.
I think you should maybe narrow the focus of what you are railing against.
-
I agree, Socialism is just a word people throw around anymore as a scare tactic, or an attempt to bundle all Democrats into one little neat box. If that's true should all Republican's not be fascists?
Again, it's not black and white. Complete socialism is not a good thing, that doesn't mean that anything that could be classified as 'socialist' should be obliterated. What use is the government other than to serve the people?
I pay taxes, my tax money should be used to benefit the citizens. Help my kids through college, help with healthcare, etc. If you want to take away all the social programs fine, then give me my tax money back. :)
You can't tax and spend and then want the citizens to fend for themselves...that's government serving itself.
At some point we have to return to the economic differences between Republican/Democrat rather than the 'buzzword' differences. Anymore we have Democrats pushing for government censorship of citizens, and Republicans spending China's money like there is no tomorrow.
Democrat/Republican is beginning to mean nothing.
-
(quote) halo.. Not sure I get your point except that you think global warming is so important that you named it twice... I shudder to think what the views of democrat socialist blue people think about all the other subjects you named tho... I was only naming the ones that were most important to me... we can take the others one at a time if you like... I'll start.... death penalty... for it.
(unquote)
Didn't mean to mention global warming twice; no hidden message there.
My point is there always are many crucial issues; they usually follow Maslov's hierarchy of needs (survival on the bottom, self-fulfillment at top); and people usually disagree about what should be done and what is most important.
We usually wind up in sound bite discussions because it is so difficult to present any issue clearly enough and with alternatives distinctive enough to accurately represent what we believe at a given moment.
That's why, as others have said, overall labels like Republican or Democrat or X candidate or Y candidate at best can represent only a blurred snapshot average of all the facets of issues we believe individually.
For example, I'm a strong supporter of gun rights (Republican Red) but I also support some limitations (Democrat Blue). I believe women should have the right to manage their own bodies with abortion or anything else (Democrat Blue) but I also support some limitations (Republican Red).
Any gathering of people requires some restrictions and compromises, hence the eternal need for politics. In high school I used to effect a condescending attitude toward politics until a girlfriend's father, who ran his own small oil company, sat me down and told me if I didn't like what was going on I better become a player or I would have myself to blame if things were not satisfactory to me. No sense just railing to the heavens.
So the way to change things is to get involved at local level and make our druthers known. Look at important issues from the widest of spectrums, then work our way toward opposing viewpoints until we can pinpoint where we disagree.
Along the way we often find many more points we agree on, and sometimes realize our disagreements are much more manageable than we first thought. Somewhere compromise and tolerance will be essential. That's western world politics and democracy, a heckuva lot better than endless bloodshed.
America definitely needs to get out the vote more. It's disgraceful how cavalier we have become toward our heritage. The biggest obstacle is candidates obfuscating issues and playing chameleon so we never know exactly who we are electing and whether they truly represent us or not.
But at least we get a chance to then vote them out. It never will be easy, it often is not to our liking, but there is no escaping the importance of informed participation in democracies.
End sermon . You are now being returned to regular programming. Do not touch your dial.
-
Originally posted by RedRadr
thus,the electorial college, shows how smart them guys really were...
The electoral college is ****ed. Simple adding shows that someone can win the popular vote by an extreme margin, and still lose the electoral votes.
An extreme example. 3 Districts, each with 20,001 people in them. Each district counts for 5 electoral votes. District one votes 10,001 votes for A, 10,000 votes for B. District two does the same. District three votes 20,001 for B, none for A.
Who wins the election?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The electoral college is ****ed. Simple adding shows that someone can win the popular vote by an extreme margin, and still lose the electoral votes.
An extreme example. 3 Districts, each with 20,001 people in them. Each district counts for 5 electoral votes. District one votes 10,001 votes for A, 10,000 votes for B. District two does the same. District three votes 20,001 for B, none for A.
Who wins the election?
it depends how the state apportions the electoral votes. if it's a winner take all state like most are, A=20,002, B=40,001, B would get all 15 electoral votes,
if the state splits the electoral votes by district, A would get 10 votes, B gets 5 votes.
the states decide how to divide the votes.
it's quite simple actually
-
I am the anti lazs:
Never owned or used a gun.
Never owned a car.
Live in a Communist country.
Still having fun doing my own thing, though.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Lazs are you still a member of a union? Do you still work at a public utility? Is the public still paying for the gasoline for your vehicle?
This information came out in a thread a couple years ago. Never sounded too much like an individualist to me (not that there's anything wrong with that). ;)
WHOA, Stop the bus!!! Lazs is a card carrying pinko living off the public teat?!? :rofl :rofl :rofl
Lazs please put a stop to this ugly rumor. I know you are far to rugged an individualist with too much conviction in your beliefs to ever sink to that level. Say it ain't so, Joe!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
An extreme example. 3 Districts, each with 20,001 people in them. Each district counts for 5 electoral votes. District one votes 10,001 votes for A, 10,000 votes for B. District two does the same. District three votes 20,001 for B, none for A.
Who wins the election?
The lawyers haggling over the recount for districts 1 and 2.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Democracy isn't all that it is cracked up to be. All it takes for half the population to get screwed is the other half of the population having one more person. This affects more and more people when you have larger units of government.
But it wouldn't be so bad if you made units of government as small as possible.
A wise philosopher once said that Democracy is the worst form of government that only brings out the worst in man.
ack-ack
-
Ok... one more time... A public utility can be socialism but is not necessarily so.
Wastewater and water for instance only charge for the people they serve... no one else. everyone is charged according to their use.
In my case, the wastewater is a public or city owned facility. This is not allways the case and is not the case for many of the plants around me. they are private run. When I came to work for the city it was a city owned and run facility but has never been tax supported.. it is fee supported an only to users and... the most important point...it is an enterprise fund seperate from the general fund.
It is also vulnerable to any takeover by private companies. I have to bid against them or...at least submit a budget that reflects the advantage of keeping it within the city. It could change every year. so far... because of the type of facility, it is not hard for me to compete. I do not consider an enterprise fund with user fees and open to bid as socialism. You are not forced to participate (yet).
I work for the customer but am not tax based. If you have a septic tank and well then you are not charged. Taxes go to the general fund. Some fees do also but not ones like wastewater that go to an enterprise fund.
I also think it is really funny that the democrats and blue people here always seem to want things blurred and gray... we can compromise they say...
Oh? how do you compromise? they say you can't have this or that firearm or carry it to defend yourself or even own it... how do you compromise that? How do you compromise the death penalty?
I do not believe that public schools are a good thing and I don't believe that we can't have roads without the government. I really don't see much that they do for us that we couldn't do better without their meddling.
The major issues are black and white and very essential to one side or the other. If you think abortion is murder for instance it will be very difficult to... to what? say you are alright with a few less murders? If you think the death penalty is murder... same thing.... If you think that we should all suffer because there may be some worthwhile contribution to global warming by man and I do not.... how do we "compromise"?
How do we compromise you telling me that I need to wear a seatbelt or give health care to every loser that comes down the pike? How do we compromise you telling me what charities (social programs) that I need to support?
lazs
-
Learn to play the guitar, that's the way you do it. Harps are for girly men. ;)
-
Lazs, I can pretty much agree with your whole individualist thing but I have always wondered how far that goes to caring for the sick / disabled ?
Do you believe there is any responsibilty for an individual in a community to provide assistance to some-one who cannot care for themselves ? I'm not talking about unemployment or welfare but care of say the mentally ill and severely disabled etc.
Is there a point where the individual must become part of a social community ? and if so at what point ?
Just curious .
-
(http://www.monstropolis.org/CMS/upload/2006/02/gun.jpg)
(http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Currents/Archive/view-assets/Mar-05-2004/electric_car.jpg)
:)
-
In this case it is black and white:
socialism
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital
If it's publicly owned, it's socialism.
Laz, can you point out current day example of a successful country that doesn't have public education, public utilities or public roads?
-
Originally posted by oboe
In this case it is black and white:
socialism
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital
If it's publicly owned, it's socialism.
Laz, can you point out current day example of a successful country that doesn't have public education, public utilities or public roads?
"Industry is the segment of economy concerned with production of goods"
public education, public utilities or public roads do not produce "goods".
-
Without being patronising, Lazs, I think sometimes you worry too much, think too hard, view the world with a wary eye. Seeing only black and white is to blind yourself to the colour which makes life and our tiny part of it, interesting and sometimes fun.
No one gets to live in their ideal world, not when we have to share it with other people seeking their utopian idyll, which may or may not be your private hell. It's so easy being negative at times, that you forget the good things about life and your place in it.
I'm as guilty of it as the next man, worrying about things I cannot control and forgetting to enjoy what I have for fear that the enemy are waiting out in the darkness to take it all away when I lower my guard.
Sometimes you can just sit on the porch, dozing in the sun, with your gun and your fears, tucked away somewhere close but out of sight. Only to be used when the wolves howl in the distant forest and the 'Donkey' or the 'Elephant' start to trample your flower beds.
:cool:
-
"Sometimes you can just sit on the porch, dozing in the sun, with your gun and your fears, tucked away somewhere close but out of sight. Only to be used when the wolves howl in the distant forest and the 'Donkey' or the 'Elephant' start to trample your flower beds.'
ahh, tis a Irish poet i'm hearing.
;)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Never owned or used a gun.
Never owned a car.
Live in a Communist country.
Still having fun doing my own thing, though.
Well, its good you are making the best of it.
-
Originally posted by john9001
"Industry is the segment of economy concerned with production of goods"
public education, public utilities or public roads do not produce "goods".
OK smart guy, let's take away your educated workforce, the roads necessary to deliver the raw materials to your factory, and their electrical power and water as well. We'll see just what is 'concerned' with the production of goods.
-
Blue/Red, Left/Right. These labels are as close to meaningless as to make no difference. There's no way to accurately describe people on a one dimensional scale, you need to add at least one other axis. Nolan did this on the (often posted) Nolan Chart at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html . It's not perfect, but I assert that it's a thought provoking concept that's worth some scrutiny.
One of my favorite quips about government is that 'Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner'.
Democracy is the worst of all possible systems... except for everything else.
It has its ups and downs, but I'd rather keep my involvement and risk the terror of 'the masses' than try to roll the dice and pick an authoritarian who I _hope_ will represent my views.
-
I agree with Lazs..except the part about cars.
For me a vehicle is for getting to point B from point A..Cheaply & reliably.(preferrably a hatchback)
Money saved from this goes towards guitars & amps.
-
cpxx... of course I enjoy the things I have... Why wouldn't I? The threats are real tho. Every year more of my freedoms are taken away or restricted by socialists. I am lucky that even tho the community I am in is getting more blue.. It is a big country and I have means to move in a few years and be comfortable for another few decades... I worry about the coming generations tho.
oboe... ok...one thing at a time then? Public schools... if the country feels that education of the work force and citizens is worth while then I have no problem with collecting monies..taxes.. to pay for it. but... at present it is the worst of socialism with the worst results controlled by the socialists... In my example of a wastewater facility the same should be done for schooling...
People with children should be given vouchers to educate their children in any way that gets the desired results for learning...if they home school they could get that voucher themselves. What you like is everyone being forced to pay for a state school system rife with corruption and waste and getting worse every year... the worst possible system anyone could devise for the money..
Oh yeah... you mentioned roads... same thing... enterprise fund...tax on gasoline... lowest bidder does the operation and maintenance... we would have much better roads.
Anything else that we need big brother to run?
lazs
-
Originally posted by oboe
OK smart guy, let's take away your educated workforce, the roads necessary to deliver the raw materials to your factory, and their electrical power and water as well. We'll see just what is 'concerned' with the production of goods.
Of course. Because it is absolutely impossible for a private party to do any of that, right?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Democracy isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
This is true. Especially as it has wound up, down, or sideways during our time. It does beat over time any alternatives of which I know. Very messily too.
hap
-
Originally posted by john9001
we don't need professional politicians.
I could not agree more.
-
democracy only works if limits, peoples rights, are clearly spelled out and the sheep are not allowed to step on those rights.
lazs
-
Ooops even more of an anti-Lazs -- I don't work for a state-owned industry.
Lazs' reliance on cars for freedom is also a reliance on the state. Roads are mostly state-built and owned (ergo socialism), and driving is submitting to the will of the government: in that you are only able to go where the state lets you.
Which is why I don't have a car -- I live on an island with no roads wide enough for cars. I moved there in no small part precisely because of that: freedom from cars is a desirable luxury to me (as is freedom from guns). Which just goes to show that freedom has no absolute definition.
-
lazs2 is way outta line with this one..see rule 1- 100
I'm a blue voter and I love guns..I believe everyone shud have them and I believe we should use them more, on each other
I love my 68 impala and my 170 mph motorcycle
I'm an individualist, and I've never passed a law ( but I've broken countless ones)
I'm not religious, but if I'm not mistaken isn't part of any religion to care for all of ones neighbors, since we are all brothers and sisters? That would make anyone true to their religion a socialist...
Yes there are too many laws that are jus plane silly, but red voters voted on them too...Laws can't save someone from themselves...
The reason this country cant unite is close-minded people that are so quick to seperate themselves from others and to judge others as being less than themselves...We are all the same regardless of social standing, religion, politics, race or gender....
This ONE nation was founded on that principle...a place where u could be what you wanted and had to answer to no one but your god (if you so choosed to have one). We all should recognize this...it's the ONE thing we should all agree on, otherwise we would have stayed in whatever country we are from. We are all different...and that should be what we LOVE about each other...THAT is what makes us Americans!
-
Nice post Chance
:aok
Mark
-
chance... wrong on every level. I don't care what you do personaly... I only care how it affects me.
The fact that you vote for socialism and the removal of rights through your representitives is all I care about.. While you may be fine as an individual... your insistance, through your voting, that I pay for socialism and the removal of my rights makes you the enemy...
Many blue people are in favor of guns for themselves... all the politicians and movie stars for instance want bodyguards... that does not make them my friend or... a friend of the second... your voting record makes you the enemy of the second.
same for cars.... same thing.. your, "do as I say not as I do" way of living is not useful to me. you are the enemy by virtue of how you vote... by the representitives you elect.
religion... sorry... won't wash... you don't go to prison for not giving money to religions. just that simple. I don't think the government knows how to take care of the poor with my money better than I do... You dissagree apparently... You feel that only the government can help the poor. You are wrong.
You should understand that we are one nation founded on the principals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... It is not your job to define happiness for me or to guarantee any outcome. so stop meddling... that homeless guy? for all you know he is doing exactly what he wants. None of your business...even worse... it is not your right to take my property from me and redistribute it...
So no... according to your defenition... we can never be one country.... You want to meddle in my affairs too much... you are the enemy.
lazs
-
and dead... you are of course wrong too... you act like the only way a road can ever be built and maintained is by a socialist.
The way they get worse is through socialism. the way you get less for your money is through socialism... It is like taking bids and then seeing what company is the most wasteful and least efficient and then choosing them.
by your reasoning no railroad or airline could have ever been built without the government...
If we want good roads we simply take the gas tax and bid out the maitenance and operation... way better than what we have now.
As for guns.. we are free to not own a gun here just as you are. The difference is that we are also free (for now) to choose.
For you to say that your laws make it certain that you will never be on the wrong end of a gun or to ever be in a position to need one... well.. you have freedom only in your head. It is not real.. it is based on lack of experiance.
lazs
-
For you to say that your laws make it certain that you will never be on the wrong end of a gun or to ever be in a position to need one... well.. you have freedom only in your head. It is not real.. it is based on lack of experiance.
Bingo - Talk to the 2,600 Chinese that lost their lives in Tiananmen Square protests, they were on the wrong side of a gun, your governments gun's. Without the right to bear arms you lose the ability to revolt against power corrupted as seen and proven by your people, and thusly hand over total control to the powers that be.
With a real taste of Freedom you would not be able to accept the notion of being the anti Lazs.
-
Originally posted by Quah!
Bingo - Talk to the 2,600 Chinese that lost their lives in Tiananmen Square protests, they were on the wrong side of a gun, your governments gun's. Without the right to bear arms you lose the ability to revolt against power corrupted as seen and proven by your people, and thusly hand over total control to the powers that be.
With a real taste of Freedom you would not be able to accept the notion of being the anti Lazs.
Reality checks:
1. The students in Tian'anmen were part of a peaceful protest. So the gun ownership issue really has little bearing. Had they turned up with guns, I suspect they would have been killed on day one or day two.
3. Small arms are no defence against tanks. Ask a Palestinian.
4. Ownership of small arms is not necessary to have the ability to revolt against power corrupted. It can be taken back without the need for weaponry. Ask an Indian.
5. Ownership of small arms does not confer the ability to revolt against power corrupted even in the US. Ask a Branch Davidian.
I don't see cars or guns as freedoms. They're merely products, and have proved entirely unnecessary to own throughout my life. Freedom is entirely subjective -- I think if you believe you need a gun or a car to be free, you're already in a cage.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Reality checks:
4. Ownership of small arms is not necessary to have the ability to revolt against power corrupted. It can be taken back without the need for weaponry. Ask an Indian.
American or South Asian? ;)
-
dead... apples and oranges.. you need to look at a country who's government took over from an armed citizenry against their will... I would contend that having an armed citizenry is one of the reasons we have not been attacked from within or without.
And.. it is not just that... burglary and assault are tyranny and life threatening... are you saying that it is impossible for you to be attacked (or anyone no matter how weak) in your commie paradise? That it is not possible? if so... why is that? is it because evil people don't have guns? that it never occurs to them that guns or not... they can overpower you?
Perhaps you have not needed a gun up until now... are you saying that no one in your country has ever wanted a gun... then needed one and, because of your defenition of "freedom" was then tryranized or killed because you knew what was best for them?
are you really that stupid? Is your defenition of freedom so bizarre? Freedom is choice.. without choice you have no freedom.
Who is more in a cage... me who feels that everyone should have the ability to defend themselves if they need and that most people around me are good and capable of adult decisions or.... you who feel that people are not smart enough to make choices on an individual level and that given the choice... they would become a danger to you.... you don't even trust your fellow man with a tool.
You are correct tho that if you limit the types of firearms enough then they become worthless for anything. otherwise... they can easily defeat any government.
It shocks and amuses me that you liberal socialists all feel a few dirt poor insurgents with ancient ak47's can defeat the best efforts of a dedicated U.S. military with all the support it needs.... yet... you feel that 80-150 million gun owners and citizens couldn't stand up to a half hearted force of maybe 1 million and a few tanks.
lazs
lazs
-
Originally posted by -dead-
3. Small arms are no defence against tanks. Ask a Palestinian.
4. Ownership of small arms is not necessary to have the ability to revolt against power corrupted. It can be taken back without the need for weaponry. Ask an Indian.
5. Ownership of small arms does not confer the ability to revolt against power corrupted even in the US. Ask a Branch Davidian.
Cuba, Fidel Castro.
-
From what I´ve read, -dead- and pei are never wrong!
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Reality checks:
1. The students in Tian'anmen were part of a peaceful protest. So the gun ownership issue really has little bearing. Had they turned up with guns, I suspect they would have been killed on day one or day two.
3. Small arms are no defence against tanks. Ask a Palestinian.
4. Ownership of small arms is not necessary to have the ability to revolt against power corrupted. It can be taken back without the need for weaponry. Ask an Indian.
5. Ownership of small arms does not confer the ability to revolt against power corrupted even in the US. Ask a Branch Davidian.
I don't see cars or guns as freedoms. They're merely products, and have proved entirely unnecessary to own throughout my life. Freedom is entirely subjective -- I think if you believe you need a gun or a car to be free, you're already in a cage.
Weak.
-
slash...it is not weak if you define "freedom" as the freedom to do whatever you want and the freedom to restrict anyone you don't agree with from having the same rights.
he did admit that he believes there are different types of "freedom" a common commie mantra.
lazs
-
Originally posted by -dead-
I don't see cars or guns as freedoms. They're merely products, and have proved entirely unnecessary to own throughout my life. Freedom is entirely subjective -- I think if you believe you need a gun or a car to be free, you're already in a cage.
I dunno, I've always felt that a car, at least as an American, is the defining symbol of freedom. At 16 we are given this freedom, we can travel anywhere in our nation without paperwork, permission...or anything.
You get up one morning and want to go see the Alamo? Then go. You want to see where a random dirt road leads...you go.
I'm sure it's probably a cultural difference, I suspect in China they have more mass transit alternatives than we have here. I imagine if everyone in China owned 2 vehicles, as is common in America, they would have nothing but gridlock.
One of my favorite things in life, is to hop in my old Nissan, and see where a road goes. Really, imo....that's freedom incarnate.
-
Originally posted by republic
I dunno, I've always felt that a car, at least as an American, is the defining symbol of freedom. At 16 we are given this freedom, we can travel anywhere in our nation without paperwork, permission...or anything.
You get up one morning and want to go see the Alamo? Then go. You want to see where a random dirt road leads...you go.
I'm sure it's probably a cultural difference, I suspect in China they have more mass transit alternatives than we have here. I imagine if everyone in China owned 2 vehicles, as is common in America, they would have nothing but gridlock.
One of my favorite things in life, is to hop in my old Nissan, and see where a road goes. Really, imo....that's freedom incarnate.
It's difficult to not see a car as a symbol of freedom. I don't know that I can. But I wonder if that's just decades of media/advertising programming coming through. America has existed as a free country a lot longer than automobiles have been around. How did pre-auto Americans symbolize their freedom? A horse and buggy?
Makes me wonder if our ideas of freedom have been degraded over time and now we think of it in superficial, materialistic terms.
-
Oboe, you may be confusing two different concepts.
There's Freedom and there's freedom. If I live in a spacious prison cell where I can stretch out, I have freedom.
If I'm living in a tiny wood shack barely bigger than my shoulders but it's on land I own and no man can claim dominion over me, I might have Freedom.
-
I think republic said it pretty well... the car is a way to hit the road and see things... You are the master of your destination..
I also agree with chair but would say that if you live in a tiny apartment in a filthy city and you are at the mercy of landlords... you are not free... give me the shack every time.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
From what I´ve read, -dead- and pei are never wrong!
I think you'll find the list of people who are never wrong on this board is pretty much all encompassing.
-
Originally posted by republic
I dunno, I've always felt that a car, at least as an American, is the defining symbol of freedom. At 16 we are given this freedom, we can travel anywhere in our nation without paperwork, permission...or anything.
You get up one morning and want to go see the Alamo? Then go. You want to see where a random dirt road leads...you go.
I'm sure it's probably a cultural difference, I suspect in China they have more mass transit alternatives than we have here. I imagine if everyone in China owned 2 vehicles, as is common in America, they would have nothing but gridlock.
One of my favorite things in life, is to hop in my old Nissan, and see where a road goes. Really, imo....that's freedom incarnate.
Well freedom incarnate is a rather limited freedom:
1. You're stuck with going where the roads do, which means relying essentially on the government.
For example: you can't go anywhere on my island, because they are no roads; so hopping into your old Nissan would mean you're going absolutely nowhere out here -- ditch the car and you can walk though. So in my case a car would hugely limit my freedom.
2. Even with a huge network of government built and maintained roads (going on reality rather than the hypothetical -- and private firms charge money for you to travel, further impeding freedom) there are still great limitations to freedom they offer: you're still stuck in the US - and not even all of the US (try driving to Alaska or Hawaii without paperwork, permission...or anything). You get up one morning and want to see Honolulu? In a car, you're stuffed.
3. Owning a car is also rather limited as a freedom as you need cash to buy it and run it: paying the government tax, paying for the fuel etc etc. Hardly an inalienable right.
All in all, the car isn't the thing offering you freedom. In fact it may enslave and imprison more than it frees -- how long do you spend a week in your car? How much room do you have inside your car? Sure the car moves, but for the entire journey, you're stuck in a seat, and maybe even strapped in place. In fact it sounds a lot like some dreadful prison in a way: is the car not a bit of a gilded cage?
I like trains best as a mode of land travel because you meet lots of people, can wander about whenever you like and have fun & drinks. It's like a big bar on wheels. Ships are nice too. Cars, buses and aeroplanes are uniformly awful and boring ways to travel.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Well freedom incarnate is a rather limited freedom:
1. You're stuck with going where the roads do, which means relying essentially on the government.
My Nissan often travels where the trail would scarcely be called a road. A cow path maybe... So often I rely as much on a cow as I do the government. :)
Originally posted by -dead-
(try driving to Alaska or Hawaii without paperwork, permission...or anything)
We can drive to Alaska, just need a drivers license/birth certificate to enter and leave Canada..no permission necessary just proof of citizenship to speed the process....and if there were bridge to Hawaii...I could drive there. I suppose I can board a boat of some kind with my car and once I get there...drive without paperwork.
Originally posted by -dead-
3. Owning a car is also rather limited as a freedom as you need cash to buy it and run it: paying the government tax, paying for the fuel etc etc. Hardly an inalienable right.
We don't pay a 'government tax' but rather a state sales tax, just like buying anything. And since I work for the public education system...the tax returns to me as my salary. :)
It isn't the car itself or the logistics of getting to point A and point B, but rather the idea of individual free will and 'discovery'. I don't have to wait for a schedule and ride with 50 people to my destination, I, of my on volition, can go anywhere anytime independent of anyone else, any government permission, anything....
This is a very interesting discussion, I don't mean to say that my ideas of freedom are 'better'. This is just of the freedoms I'm thankful to have. I'm interested to hear more of your ideas.
-
dead... you need to live in a free country for a change and then compare.
Somehow.. I don't think that even living here would help tho... you would do like so many socialist blue people here do and make yourself a prisoner in a large city and try to vote away the rights of those of us who prefer to be free.
you define freedom as... freedom to not make decisions... freedom to not have choices.
lazs