Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on August 14, 2002, 09:23:19 AM
-
December 7, 1997
I like it when the party of Lincoln honors our free heritage. This nation has been blessed by the minds and mettle of many good people, and indeed Abe was among the best. A man of great moral character... a trait often lacking among our leaders. This is disturbing, but not without remedy. One good election can correct such ills.
Above all, I hope those of us gathered here tonight have more in common with Mr. Lincoln than just party affiliation. Better that we grasp a common vision than simply wear the cloak. Even our President pretends to be a conservative when it suits him. We must be more than that.
I know, I know... it is not easy. Imagine being point man for the National Rifle Association, preserving the right to keep and bear arms. Well, I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve... as a moving target for pundits who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man."
Well, I guess that goes with the territory. But as I've stood in the cross hairs of those who aim at Second Amendment freedom, I've realized that guns are not the only issue, and I am not the only target. It is much, much bigger than that— which is what I want to talk to you about.
I have come to realize that a cultural war is raging across our land... storming our values, assaulting our freedoms, killing our self-confidence in who we are and what we believe, where we come from.
How many of you here own a gun? A show of hands?
How many own two or more guns?
Thank you. I wonder—how many of you in this room own guns but chose not to raise your hand?
How many of you considered revealing your conviction about a constitutional right, but then thought better of it?
Then you are a victim of the cultural war. You are a casualty of the cultural warfare being waged against traditional American freedom of beliefs and ideas. Now maybe you don't care one way or the other about owning a gun. But I could've asked for a show of hands on Pentecostal Christians, or pro-lifers, or right-to-workers, or Promise Keepers, or school voucher-ers, and the result would be the same. What if the same question were asked at your PTA meeting? Would you raise your hand if Dan Rather were in the back of the room there with a film crew?
See? Good. Still, if you didn't, you have been assaulted and robbed of the courage of your convictions. Your pride in who you are, and what you believe, has been ridiculed, ransacked, plundered. It may be a war without bullet or bloodshed, but with just as much liberty lost: You and your country are less free.
And you are not inconsequential people! You in this room, whom many would say are among the most powerful people on earth, you are shamed into silence! Because you embrace a view at odds with the cultural warlords. If that is the outcome of cultural war, and you are the victims, I can only ask the gravely obvious question: What'll become of the right itself? Or other rights not deemed acceptable by the thought police? What other truth in your heart will you disavow with your hand?
I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear six-pointed yellow stars sewn on their chests as identity badges. It worked. So—what color star will they pin on our coats? How will the self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner yet, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive.
Now, I am not really here to talk about the Second Amendment or the NRA, but the gun issue clearly brings into focus the war that's going on.
Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens. After enough breakfast-table TV promos hyping tattooed sex-slaves on the next Rikki Lake show, enough gun-glutted movies and tabloid talk shows, enough revisionist history books and prime-time ridicule of religion, enough of the TV anchor who noodles her pretty head, clucks her tongue and sighs about guns causing crime and finally the message gets through: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or—even worse—Evangelical Christian, Midwest, or Southern, or—even worse—rural, apparently straight, or—even worse—admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning or—even worse—NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or—even worse—male working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as delightfully green as you hand them over, but your voice requires a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up and learn a little something about your new America...in fact, why don't you just sit down and shut up?
That's why you don't raise your hand. That's how cultural war works. And you are losing.
That's what happens when a generation of media, educators, entertainers and politicians, led by a willing president, decide the America they were born into isn't good enough any more. So they contrive to change it through the cultural warfare of class distinction. Ask the Romans if powerful nations have ever fallen as a result of cultural division. There are ruins around the world that were once the smug centers of small-minded, arrogant elitism. It appears that rather than evaporate in the flash of a split atom, we may succumb to a divided culture.
Although my years are long, I was not on hand to help pen the Bill of Rights. And popular assumptions aside, the same goes for the Ten Commandments. Yet as an American and as a man who believes in God's almighty power, I treasure both.
The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of those wise old dead white guys who invented this country. Now, some flinch when I say that. Why? It's true...they were white guys. So were most of the guys who died in Lincoln's name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a good thing, while "white pride" conjures up shaved heads and white hoods? Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated in the media as progress, while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with suspicion and ridicule? I'll tell you why: Cultural warfare.
Now, Chuck Heston can get away with saying I'm proud of those wise old dead white guys because Jesse Jackson and Louie Farrakhan know I fought in their cultural war. I was one of the first white soldiers in the civil rights movement in 1961, long before it was fashionable in Hollywood—believe me—or in Washington for that matter. In 1963 I marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King to uphold the Bill of Rights. I'm very proud of that. As vice-president of the NRA I am doing the same thing.
But you don't see many other Hollywood luminaries speaking out on this one, do you? It's not because there aren't any. It's because they can't afford the heat. They dare not speak up for fear of CNN or the IRS or SAG or the ATF or NBC or even W-J-C. It saps the strength of our country when the personal price is simply too high to stand up for what you believe in. Today, speaking with the courage of your conviction can be so costly, the price of principle so high, that legislators won't lead so citizens can't follow, and so there is no army to fight back. That's cultural warfare.
For instance: It's plain that our Constitution guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to own a firearm. But if I stand up and say so, why does the media assault me with such a slashing, sinister brand of derision filled with hate?
Because Bill Clinton's cultural warriors want a penitent cleansing of firearms, as if millions of lawful gun owners should genuflect in shame and seek absolution by surrendering their guns. That's what is now literally happening in England and Australia, of course. Lines—long lines—of submissive citizens, threatened with imprisonment, are bitterly, reluctantly surrendering family heirlooms, guns that won their freedom, to the blast furnace. If that fact doesn't unsettle you, then you are already anesthetized, a ready victim of the cultural war.
You know, I think, that I stand first in line in defense of free speech. But those who speak against the perverted and profane should be given as much due as those who profit by it. You also know I welcome cultural diversity. But those who choose to live on the fringe should not tear apart the seams that secure the fabric of our society.
Now I've earned a fine and rewarding living in the motion picture industry, yet increasingly I find myself embarrassed by the dearth of conscience that drives the world's most influential art form. And I'm an example of what a lonely undertaking that can be.
Nobody opposed the obscene rapper Ice-T until I stood at Time-Warner's stockholders meeting and was ridiculed by its president for wanting to take the floor to read Ice-T's lyrics. Since I held several hundred shares of stock he had no choice, though the media were barred. I read those lyrics to a stunned audience of average American people—the stockholders—who were shocked at the lyrics that advocating killing cops, sexually abusing women, and raping the nieces of our Vice-President. True, the good guys won that time though: Time-Warner fired Ice-T.
-
The gay and lesbian movement is another good example. Many homosexuals are hugely talented artists and executives... also dear friends. I don't despise their lifestyle, though I don't share it. As long as gay and lesbian Americans are as productive, law-abiding and private as the rest of us, I think America owes them absolute tolerance. It's the right thing to do.
But on the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual-rights fund-raisers but boycott gun-rights fund-raisers... and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved.
Such demands have nothing to do with equality. They're about the currency of cultural war—money and votes—and the Clinton camp will let anyone in the tent if there's a donkey on his hat, or a check in the mail or some yen in the fortune cookie.
Mainstream America is depending on you—counting on you—to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time or resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it's a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other, and all the New-Age apologists for juvenile crime, who see roving gangs as a means of youthful expression, sex as a means of adolescent merchandising, violence as a form of entertainment for impressionable minds, and gun bans as a means to lord-knows-what. We've reached that point in time when our national social policy originates on Oprah. I say it's time to pull the plug.
Americans should not have to go to war every morning for their values. They already go to war for their families. They fight to hold down a job, raise responsible kids, make their payments, keep gas in the car, put food on the table and clothes on their backs, and still save a little for their final days in dignity. They prefer the America they built - where you could pray without feeling naive, love without being kinky, sing without profanity, be white without feeling guilty, own a gun without shame, and raise your hand without apology. They are the critical masses who find themselves under siege and are long for you to get some guts, stand on principle and lead them to victory in this cultural war.
Now all this sounds a little Mosaic, the punch-line of my sermon is as elementary as the Golden Rule. In a cultural war, triumph belongs to those who arm themselves with pride in who they are and then do the right thing. Not the most expedient thing, not the politically correct thing, not what'll sell, but the right thing.
And you know what? Everybody already knows what the right thing is. You, and I, President Clinton, even Ice-T, we all know. It's easy. You say wait a minute, you take a long look in the mirror, then into the eyes of your kids, your grandchildren, and you'll know what's right.
Don't run for cover when the cultural cannons roar. Remember who you are and what you believe, and then raise your hand, stand up, and speak out. Don't be shamed or startled into lockstep conformity by seemingly powerful people. The maintenance of a free nation is a long, slow, steady process. And it is in your hands.
Yes, we can have rules and still have rebels—that's democracy. But as leaders you must—we must—do as Lincoln would do, confronted with the stench of cultural war: Do what's right. As Mr. Lincoln said, "With firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in... and then we shall save our country."
Defeat the criminals and their apologists, oust the biased and bigoted, endure the undisciplined and unprincipled, but disavow the self-appointed social engineers whose relentless arrogance fuels this vicious war against so much we hold so dear. Do not yield, do not divide, do not call a truce. Be fair, but fight back.
It's the same blueprint our founding fathers left to guide us. Our enemies see it as the senile prattle of an archaic society. I still honor it as the United States Constitution, and that timeless document we call the Bill of Rights.
Freedom is our fortune and honor is our saving grace.
Thank you.
A truly great man.
-
Click here (http://www.spleenworld.com/heston/wav/apes-gotgun.wav)
-
More liberal "boogeyman" hand wringing. :rolleyes:
While originally directed at Clinton in 97, parts of it are just as applicable to chimpy in 2002.
Think about it......
-
Evils that befall the world are not nearly so often caused by bad men as they are by good men who are silent when an opinion must be voiced
Yup....that's what I think Mr. Heston is trying to say.
Gy
-
wow weazel you really need to share your resources for those well thought out intellectual responses you always provide.
Im mean it's so enlightening "blah blah blah" thats what got me thinking about it! Then the :blah blah name calling blah name call" riveting I tell ya, absolutely riveting.
-
Thank you. I wonder—how many of you in this room own guns but chose not to raise your hand?
How many of you considered revealing your conviction about a constitutional right, but then thought better of it?
Then you are a victim of the cultural war.
Or just maybe they wanted to keep their gun ownership a private matter? But then Chuck wouldn't have had anything to talk about would he?
-
Gy!!!! :)
How's it going man? You just lurking here, or gonna give AH another shot? Da MOL needs you! :)
-
Heh, can someone please point out the difference between rabid, pistol-packing, white man pride and rabid, limp-wristed, gay pride? They look the same to me.
-
Thanks for sharing those, Hortlund. I enjoyed the read very much. It is sad there aren't more celebrities willing to espouse views deemed "incorrect" by the PC police...or just more ordinary citizens.
Sabre
P.S. The difference is, the gay person is applauded when he/she annunciates that pride in public, while the other fellow is mocked at best and savagely attacked at worst, and held up as the epitomy of evil, if he does the same.
-
Old material, look like a recycle....
Poor gun owners... hunted down by cultural gestapo just like jews were...
I see Steven Spielberg movie in making.
"Heston List"
Award winning movie about an american businessman who saves 300 gun owners from cultural re-education by hiring them in his gun-toy factory which losses money for the socialist government.
-
lol fd-ski. :D
-
So the majority of the "conservatives" can understand what I'm talking about. :p
Originally posted by Creto
wow weazel you really need to share your resources for those well thought out intellectual responses you always provide.
Im mean it's so enlightening "blah blah blah" thats what got me thinking about it! Then the :blah blah name calling blah name call" riveting I tell ya, absolutely riveting.
-
...go sip a latte'...
-
...go sip a latte'...
Hehehe Kieran,
Proud gun owner myself a STRONG supporter of the 2nd amendment. This liberal has nothing bad to say about Charlton Heston. I think his best role was Long John Silver in TNT’s version of Treasure Island.
The Democrats went waaay to far on this gun control crap. lost voters. Sure it probably lowers crime but hey... we’re Americans. Y’all better rethink all this gun control with John Ashcroft coming down your driveway.
By the way, Bush and the boys have been in office now what, 19 months?.. Have they removed any of the gun control legislation?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
[bThe Democrats went waaay to far on this gun control crap. lost voters. Sure it probably lowers crime but hey... we’re Americans. Y’all better rethink all this gun control with John Ashcroft coming down your driveway.
No kidding... Ashcroft is the best reason I can think of for owning a large calibre weapon.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Thanks for sharing those, Hortlund. I enjoyed the read very much. It is sad there aren't more celebrities willing to espouse views deemed "incorrect" by the PC police...or just more ordinary citizens.
Sabre
P.S. The difference is, the gay person is applauded when he/she annunciates that pride in public, while the other fellow is mocked at best and savagely attacked at worst, and held up as the epitomy of evil, if he does the same.
Can't remember the last time some anti-PC conservative was KILLED for speaking out can you? :rolleyes:
-
10Bears-
Actually, that was directed at one particular person. ;)
In reality, I don't see a great need for the private citizen to own guns. OTOH, I do believe the Constitution is clear about it. If a person wants to own guns, barring some disqualifying reason (such as felony arrest, armed robbery, etc.) they should be allowed to.
I am a bit torn, though. This 9/11 business makes one consider how difficult a job it is to get a handle on preventing internal terrorism in our country. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of the wackos? Somehow waiting for them to take out 15 or 20 kids in the schoolyard doesn't seem all that palatable to me.
Dunno what the answer is, but I do know what the rules say as of now.
-
My, my, my. More idiotic anti-Liberal crap.
I am a Liberal.
I support gun ownership.
Boy, that sure took a lot of courage. I'm going to get persecuted any moment now, I can just feel it.:rolleyes:
I think people who make Liberals out to be some kind of bogeyman evil are seriously unhinged and whacked. They lack any real sense of what Liberals stand for, and in place of that believe the propaganda garbage spewed by their TVs and radios. Their convictions of what a Liberal is are so distorted and flot out wrong that no argument can be offered against their "points". T be able to argue against their anti-Liberal "points" would require those points to, in at least some faint way, resemble the actual Liberal agenda.
-
It's okay Karnak... Just breath...
Way to take one for the team... :D
-
For the lefties...
I think people who make Conservatives out to be some kind of bogeyman evil are seriously unhinged and whacked. They lack any real sense of what Conservatives stand for, and in place of that believe the propaganda garbage spewed by their TVs and radios. Their convictions of what a Conservative is are so distorted and flot out wrong that no argument can be offered against their "points". To be able to argue against their anti-Conservative "points" would require those points to, in at least some faint way, resemble the actual Conservative agenda.
-
Damn dirty Rednecks!!!
-
Y’all better rethink all this gun control with John Ashcroft coming down your driveway.
That was a disturbingly logical statement for a lefty.
-
GRUNHERZ,
Really?
What I think is that Conservatives and Liberals have mostly the same goals, but different ideas on how to get there. I don't demonize Conservatives.
The kind of garbage you and others state in the OC indicates that you think we want the destruction of the USA. That's bullcrap.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The kind of garbage you and others state in the OC indicates that you think we want the destruction of the USA. That's bullcrap.
Well, the problem is that most liberals are more part of the problem than the solution when it comes to battling terrorism for example. The right to dissent is not the true mark of patriotism, even though many of you may want to believe so.
During World War II, George Orwell said of England's pacifists: "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
Example:
Arabic males are the predominant ethnical group when it comes to islamic terrorists seeking the destruction of the western civilization. Police needs to do ethnical profiling. Liberals throw a fit. Attorney General John Ashcroft is held up to be the Constitution's "main enemy." (Apparently Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein come in as a close second). Ethnical profiling is forbidden, and it gets harder for police to catch bad guys.
-
Just imagine, for a moment, the effect of concealed weapons as a legal right. 9/11 comes around, three guys pull out box-cutters, two-hundred passengers pull out 10mm Glocks.
Yeah, guns have no place on an aircraft (today), but things could have been much different if, as Heston says, people hadn't held their tongues when the issue of gun control was first raised.
Research the days of John Dillinger, Baby-Faced Nelson, and the like. Not all of them were gunned down by law enforcement. Citizens were armed and quite often shot back. Times have changed. Americans today are repressed by wackos of many descriptions. The smaller the number the louder their voice (just count the atheists to see what I mean).
It'll shock you to hear it, but it's my opinion that we truly screwed up when we gave women the right to vote. Since then, it's been a steady ride downhill.
-
Hortland,
You mistake pacifists for Liberals. The two are not synonomous. Further you asign far, far more threat value to terrorism than is warranted. By grossly over estimating the danger presented you run the risk of over reacting. Keep in mind that Governments are generally much more interested in gathering power than in relinquishing it.
Transportation Secretary Mineta is against racial profiling. I don't know how practical that is though. I know that I would watch Arab men on a flight I was on more closely than I would, say, Japanese men or Kenyan men. However, I don't think we need laws for this, we can simply use common sense in our security. Obviously ederly women from Kansas City don't need the same level of scrutiny applied to them as do young men from Riyahd.
Voss,
You make a classic pro-gun idiot argument. If guns were allowed to be carried onto aircraft the terrorists certainly would not have been using box cutters. Personally I'd rather fight terrorists armed with box cutters with my fists than terrorists armed with guns with my gun on an aircraft.
I'm not saying that the right to bear arms is something I am against. I am simply saying that I find nearly all of the arguments coming from the pro and anti gun people to be highly specious and quite silly.
-
No, Karnak, I make the argument of the many out-weighing the few. There hasn't been one single gun law that deterred bad guys from getting guns. It can't be done. They don't give a rats bellybutton what the law is, that's why they are criminals.
-
"There hasn't been one single gun law that deterred bad guys from getting guns. It can't be done."
How about a "War on Guns"... And we won't rest until the last bad guy's gun has been confiscated...no matter how long it takes, or how much it costs!!!
That should produce some results!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, the problem is that most liberals are more part of the problem than the solution when it comes to battling terrorism for example. The right to dissent is not the true mark of patriotism, even though many of you may want to believe so.
During World War II, George Orwell said of England's pacifists: "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
Since when are Liberals pacifists? More importantly, which of the protagonists in WW2 allowed more internal dissent? Which of the Protagonists won the frikin war? I'm guessing internal dissent wasn't a major deterent to success. Additionaly, Orwell's logic is kinda screwy. "Since pacifists have more freedom in a democracy, they can work more effectively FOR it too."
Voss, I feel sorry for your wife dude. You obviously have little regard for the intelligence of women.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Can't remember the last time some anti-PC conservative was KILLED for speaking out can you? :rolleyes:
Sorry I didn't clarify that MT. I meant to say verbally attacked. My bad. I stand by my statement, as clarifed.
-
Since when are Liberals pacifists? Since the 50's.
The beat generation began by toying with the anti Nuke position. After the bay of pigs things really geared up in that direction. By the late 60's they where quite proud to be called pacifist. They carry this tradition on; if only nostalgically, today. They are not as loud about it since 9.11. But what the hey, there is no draft, and most are to old anyway. The lack of personal danger has made most of them ton a large degree indifferent. They just talk the talk, these days.
-
Hey Easymo, Im not (the G word).
:D :mad:
-
Originally posted by easymo
Since when are Liberals pacifists? Since the 50's.
This liberal spent 10 years serving the U.S. military and still works for the defense department. ;)
-
senna. Just teasing ya :). You have to admit that posting pictures of half naked men is a little...odd.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This liberal spent 10 years serving the U.S. military and still works for the defense department. ;)
Most Gov't employees tend to be liberal, or rather Democrat. Theres a reason for it (Greed).
-
This liberal spent 10 years serving the U.S. military
There are exceptions to every rule. But icons rule the impressions people have. Carlton Heston, for example, is a conservative icon. I can live with that. If there ever was a liberal icon, its clinton. Its no accident that he was a draft dodger.
Must dink coffee first, then type
-
Hardly... I can assure you that I'm in the minority around here, Rip.
-
Originally posted by easymo
This liberal spent 10 years serving the U.S. military
There are exceptions to every rule. But icons rule the impressions people have. Carlton Heston, for example, is a conservitive icon. I can live with that. If there ever was a liberial icon, its clinton. Its no accedent that he was a draft dodger.
Hell... I served my time, but were I twenty years older, I think I would be in Canada. I just can't see myself supporting that cause.
-
can't see myself supporting that cause.
What cause is that; defending the constitution?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hardly... I can assure you that I'm in the minority around here, Rip.
So common sense is finally overcoming greed in the Gov't sections of the Military? Wow! Go USA! ;)
-
I know you are easymo I aint really homophobic either. Besides gay men are a boring subject. I think lesbian relationships are so much more interesting. I know some woman that I suspect are lesbians and they fascinate me. Id rather hear stories of a lesbian relationship than a normal heterolsexual one.
:rolleyes:
-
Yes
-
thanks Hortland.
wise man that Chucky.
-
One things certain, if Chuck rode a bike, it'd be a mountain bike! ;)
-
Karnak your bias is clear if you dont see how Liberals demonize Conservatives.
-
LMAO rip :)
-
Yeah,I think I'm a "Liberal" too.
But I'm from Canada so I guess that makes me a "Socialist"...
In fact,look at our flag..It's almost all red.
Our country has been run by the "Liberal Party" the last 10 years...
Same sex marriages will soon be legislation...
All guns must be registered...
Free health care for all...
Free Soylent Green for all on welfare.
-
"IT'S PEOPLE !!!!"
there he is again.... :)
-
And Canada has a lot less social problems then the US. But that might just be because we are so much cooler.:cool:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
And Canada has a lot less social problems then the US. But that might just be because we are so much cooler.:cool:
Yeah, thats why your rich flock down to the states for "good health care" or major operations.. :rolleyes:
-
colder yes, cooler no.
-
And Canada has a lot less social problems then the US.
I saw a TV magizine story that said that Canada has 10 times the bombing incidents, as the US. That sounds like a social problem to me.
-
You mean Canada hasn't outlawed bombing yet?
-
Originally posted by easymo
can't see myself supporting that cause.
What cause is that; defending the constitution?
I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with Viet Nam.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Karnak your bias is clear if you dont see how Liberals demonize Conservatives.
I said that "I" don't demonize Conservatives, not that Liberals don't demonize Conservatives. I can hardly answer for anybody besides myself.
Liberals seem quite happy to demonize Conservatives, there just aren't any Liberal media outlets in the USA anymore. TV and radio are all Conservative oriented now. Its quite annoying really, all you see in the main stream is the debate between the moderate Conservatives and the lunitic right Conservatives.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Voss, I feel sorry for your wife dude. You obviously have little regard for the intelligence of women.
Yeah, I feel sorry for her too. She sells herself, regularly, is addicted to needle crank, and sent her kids to her convict ex-boyfriend already convicted of child-abuse.
'Little regard' doesn't quite touch it, but then again there's what I think of you. ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
....there just aren't any Liberal media outlets in the USA anymore. TV and radio are all Conservative oriented now.
Come now Karnak... you don't really believe this?
Wonder why many feel it's exactly the other way 'round? ;)
Thrawn, old chum... look HERE, EH? (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/010719/d010719b.htm) and Here buddy! (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
and tell me why Canada is running a violent crime rate of 981.7 and those wild and violent Yanks are running a violent crime rate of 506.1 in 2000?
Is that a social problem or what? :)
-
I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with Viet Nam.
Before you put on the green suit. You take an oath to defend the constitution. AND to follow the orders of the commander and chief. Where he says go,you go. If you are a U.S. Solider, you have to have faith in the People to not put a nitwit in the White house. Remember, many of the guys were drafted. They took the oath. And they lived up to it. Despite how they might have felt about that particular war.
Back when chicken toejam was the prez, I saw an interview show on TV. It had a few military officers on. They were explaining that the reason they resigned their commission. Was because clinton was the commander and chief. While my sympathies were with them. My respect went to the guys that stayed in uniform, and continued to guard this country. Regardless of who was in office.
..." Article II, Section 2 states that "the President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States; and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States..."
-
"there just aren't any Liberal media outlets in the USA anymore. TV and radio are all Conservative oriented now"
right....
-
Originally posted by easymo
I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with Viet Nam.
Before you put on the green suit. You take an oath to defend the constitution. AND to follow the orders of the commander and chief. Where he says go,you go. If you are a U.S. Solider, you have to have faith in the People to not put a nitwit in the White house. Remember, many of the guys were drafted. They took the oath. And they lived up to it. Despite how they might have felt about that particular war.
No argument from me on this point. You take the oath, you follow the orders.
The issue is the draft and whether you owe military service or not. The non-military types take no oaths to defend the constitution nor follow the orders of the president.
-
Originally posted by Toad
nd tell me why Canada is running a violent crime rate of 981.7 and those wild and violent Yanks are running a violent crime rate of 506.1 in 2000?
Is that a social problem or what? :)
Sure I can tell you why. Our definition of violent crime, for the statistics you quoted, includes all levels of assults and sexual assults. The US stats are only for aggrivated assults and forcible rapes.
And easymo, yes we a serious bomb problem here. Yesterday when I was walking to the store, 15 of them blew near me...honestly though, I can't remember the last time a bomb went off in Canada. FLQ crisis maybe?
Edit: Just found some stats from the US Justice departments page, that include simple assults.
In the year 2000 the US violent crime rate was 2790 compared to Canada's 981.7.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/vsxtab.htm
Anyway, it was an off the cuff remark and if I offended anyone I apologise.
-
Thrawn, both Canada and the US use the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. It's standardized so you can compare apples to apples.
US:
VIOLENT CRIME TOTAL
DEFINITION
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. All violent crimes involve force or threat of
force.
Year 2000
Number of offenses: 1,424,289
Rate per 100,000 = 506.1
Source:
VIOLENT CRIME TOTAL (US/FBI) (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2_2.pdf)
Canada:
Crimes of Violence
Rate per 100,000 = 981.8
Source:
Crimes of violence (Statistics Canada) (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Justice/legal02.htm)
Remember these are both according to the UCR standard.. it's essentiallyl "apples to apples."
Canadian assaults:
"Assault level 1" is the first level of assault. It constitutes the intentional application of force without consent, attempt or threat to apply force to another person, and openly wearing a weapon (or an imitation) and accosting or impeding another person.
"Assault with weapon or causing bodily harm" is the second level of assault. It constitutes assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon (or an imitation), or assault causing bodily harm.
"Aggravated assault level 3" is the third level of assault. It applies to anyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of complainant.
US assaults:
Aggravated assault is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
Attempts are included since it is not necessary that an injury result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed.
*****
Sounds pretty close there. Anything that would be counted as "assault" in either place looks like it would show up the same way in the other place.
You have a case on the sexual assault though.
******
Canada sexual assaults:
"the definition of sexual assault was broadened in the 1993survey to better capture these incidents as defined by the Criminal Code: while the 1988 survey asked onlyabout experiences of "rape", the 1993 survey asked about forced sexual activity and unwanted sexualtouching.the definition of sexual assault was broadened in the 1993 survey to better capture these incidents as defined by the Criminal Code: while the 1988 survey asked onlyabout experiences of "rape", the 1993 survey asked about forced sexual activity and unwanted sexualtouching.
US sexual assaults:
FORCIBLE RAPE
DEFINITION
Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.
Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or
threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
********
However, if you toss out the entire "sex offenses" category...
Canada, 78 & 10 per 100,000 in those two Canadian sex categories and toss out the US sex category 32 per 100,000......
it still doesn't change the fact that Canada has significantly more violent crime than the US.
What would it be then? About 900 vs 470?
Careful slinging those rocks around your glass house, eh?
Edited for the specificity that a reply to Thrawn demands. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Canadian assaults:
"Assault level 1" is the first level of assault. It constitutes the intentional application of force without consent, attempt or threat to apply force to another person, and openly wearing a weapon (or an imitation) and accosting or impeding another person.
"Assault with weapon or causing bodily harm" is the second level of assault. It constitutes assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon (or an imitation), or assault causing bodily harm.
"Aggravated assault level 3" is the third level of assault. It applies to anyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of complainant.
US assaults:
Aggravated assault is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
Attempts are included since it is not necessary that an injury result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed.
Pretty close? Yes.
But, our Assult level one is more akin to your Simple Assaults then it is to your Aggravated Assaults.
Definition: Simple assault is an assault or an attempted assault where no weapon is used and whichdoes not result in serious or aggravated injury to the victim.
In your numbers, the Canadian stats have Assults level one included, but the US stats don't have Simple Assults included.
In mine Simple Assults are included in the US stats.
-
So where are the Canadian assault stats broken down by category so we can make it apples to apples without simple assault.
I found where you can order that report but I can't find a site that has it readily available.
What can you find?
-
the reason crime is up in the socialist countries is because socialism is destroying those countries economies.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
So where are the Canadian assault stats broken down by category so we can make it apples to apples without simple assault.
I found where you can order that report but I can't find a site that has it readily available.
What can you find?
Nothing yet.
-
Well there is that one major downside to Canada......
They have a much higher percentage of Canadians per capita.
:p
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the reason crime is up in the socialist countries is because socialism is destroying those countries economies.
lazs
Yes, that's right. And there was me thinking that even the word 'crime' is so relative that drawing absolute conclusions about it, let alone its origins was utterly futile.
:)
-
Originally posted by Voss
Just imagine, for a moment, the effect of concealed weapons as a legal right. 9/11 comes around, three guys pull out box-cutters, two-hundred passengers pull out 10mm Glocks.
You'd get 3 dead terrorists and about 200 holes in the fuselage...not to mention bullets through your martini.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So common sense is finally overcoming greed in the Gov't sections of the Military? Wow! Go USA! ;)
Let's see if I can read more into this than you might have said...
Liberals have common sense and conservatives are greedy? :D
-
Originally posted by Voss
Yeah, I feel sorry for her too. She sells herself, regularly, is addicted to needle crank, and sent her kids to her convict ex-boyfriend already convicted of child-abuse.
'Little regard' doesn't quite touch it, but then again there's what I think of you. ;)
Actually I was commenting on your stab at a woman's right to vote. But you probably knew that. I honestly have more in common with you than I would have expected. Only difference is, I took the kids and have had full custody since 1990.
I was gonna make some flip comment but this sounds way too familiar. I'm the luckiest divorcee on Earth.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So common sense is finally overcoming greed in the Gov't sections of the Military? Wow! Go USA!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't get it, I signed up for retroactively for several government jobs after ETS'ing from the Army.
Several years later I recieved a notice that one of the posistions was available, after checking into it I learned that I would make $2.00 per hour less compared to the pressroom stupidvisor posistion I held at the time. :p
-
You hit the nail on the head Weazel. I've been hearing the same story for years. We can't hire the right people because we don't pay high enough.
Then they throw numbers at us like... 75% of the workforce will retire in the next five years.
Oh... yeah... widespread panic... dogs and cats living together...
-
bounder... much rather have a little more ventalation than ram some skyscraper... but... People with concealed carry permits have a very good record for hitting what they aim at. Last I looked it was about 80%.. better than cops even. they tend to be very cautious with their shooting as they know the legal reprecusions. They also tend to be aficianados that shoot recreationaly.
I would love to know that in any place I went that 5-10% of the people around me were concealed carry permit holders. I would like to know that 5-10% of the teachers at my childs (oops, grandchilds) school were concealed carry permit holders. as for the school situation....
I would trade one concealed carry permit holder for 1, 000 good liberal debaters like SB or mt in a school shooting situation. Good intentions are worthless as are excusses and silly laws.
lazs
-
oh... the way to increase pay for government jobs is to close about 5,000 non essential agencies and then raise the pay for the essential ones. Most of the government jobs out there are nonessential so they are in effect being paid to do nothing... No... worse... they are being paid to make things worse.
Oh.. I am paid by taxpayers money and am a city employee. I was self employed for the majority of my life. My job now is paid for by taxpayers. The money is in and enterprise fund and outside contractors take a run at me from time to time. So far... I do a better job than the outside contractor are willing to do for the money so I keep my job. When people in my city pay their water bill they know exactly where the money is going.... It is not skimmed of for "wheels on meals" or "redi ride" or park bench funding or whatever. If they think it is too much they can demand an accounting.
lazs