Who'll be the better president?

[Bigjohn]

I want freedom and liberty to do what I want in my home and with my famly, and with the money I earn.

Obama want's to be my dad, and tell me that I'm too stupid to spend my money correctly...

 

[Tatty_Two]

If that's the case, you might as well just leave them legal -- or just require a permit. Problem solved.

Clearly not with the amounts of deaths you have through gun crime

So.....problem not solved! At least if it was illegal, you would know who the enemy is, this way, everyones a potential enemy

 

[Tatty_Two]

I want freedom and liberty to do what I want in my home and with my famly, and with the money I earn.

Obama want's to be my dad, and tell me that I'm too stupid to spend my money correctly...

Some would call that Anarchy....not freedom If everyone goes around "doing what they want", hey, we would all be dead......end of problem!

Can we now get back to politics and the candidates? I need to learn more

 

[mdm-adph]

Clearly not with the amounts of deaths you have through gun crime

Gun crime is not directly linked to amount of guns per population. Look at places like Canada and Finland (vastly reduced crime compared to the US).

So.....problem not solved! At least if it was illegal, you would know who the enemy is, this way, everyones a potential enemy

By this logic, then the police and government are technically enemies!

 

[das müffin mann]

Not in American states with what's called "castle laws" -- in these states, if anyone is in your home and trying to injure you or your family, you're allowed to take any means necessary to stop them, including shooting them. Doesn't matter if they're unarmed or not.

oh yes i know that law very well
my my uncle was forced to do so a while back (mid 70's) someone was stalking my aunt, well the dude got into their basement (it was a walk out), but he choose a very bad time to do so, my uncle just got off of a tour (marines) and he stopped by to pick up some of his hunting stuff, well long story slightly shortened, he heard something in the basement, headed down their with a shotgun, asked politely who the fuck was down there, no reply, cocked the gun, the guy gave up pretty quick

just thought i would share that

 

[mdm-adph]

I want freedom and liberty to do what I want in my home and with my famly, and with the money I earn.

You're always free to go off the grid and live off the land.. Many people are doing this today -- you have to do without a few luxuries, but no one tells you what to do with your money.

Obama want's to be my dad, and tell me that I'm too stupid to spend my money correctly...

I really don't think Obama's said anything of the sort -- that's why he's proposed reducing taxes for 95% of the population.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Gun crime is not directly linked to amount of guns per population. Look at places like Canada and Finland (vastly reduced crime compared to the US).



By this logic, then the police and government are technically enemies!

Lol no I agree, poverty is a big issue, but if there aint no guns....you cant shoot! No seriously, there are bigger issues, but having guns readily available has got to be one of them.

And no the Police and Government are not technically enemies because the LAW says it's legal for them to carry firearms.

 

[trt740]

i would much rather have booze than a gun on an airplane but that's just me

no I ment booze and guns.

 

[trt740]

I checked your first posted link, also including the update of it... And you think it's utterly normal it takes that much hassle to (partly) proof that Bush was not 'deserting'? Only that it actually isnt clear yet whether Bush did what he had to do or not, only the thing that documents and papers were 'found' so slowly to proof he's 'innocent' makes it all only even more weird. Almost as weird how he got in the white house

The title of that argument sounds like more that Moore is overreacting with the 'deserting', searching for sensation, than that Moore is completely talking rubbish.

Still this does not mean in anyway Moore is a total goof making fairy tales, where as I said before I dont know why that would be a problem since 75~90% of USA population lives by fairy tales.

I noticed you didn't mention the second example. The first articles says G.W did nothing wrong and followed the rules. It does look a bit fishy to me , but then so does Al Gores service and Bill Clintons refusing to serve. However 3 wrongs don't make it a right.

 

[mdm-adph]

Can we now get back to politics and the candidates? I need to learn more

The only candidate anyone need be concerned with is Dennis Kucinitch, because, even though he didn't get his party's nomination, his wife is unbelievably hot.

(Though he is about a foot shorter than her.)

Lol no I agree, poverty is a big issue, but if there aint no guns....you cant shoot! No seriously, there are bigger issues, but having guns readily available has got to be one of them.

And no the Police and Government are not technically enemies because the LAW says it's legal for them to carry firearms.

If there's no guns, then you'll just get stabbed (like you Brits are always getting stabbed). Removing the object doesn't remove the intent.

And don't tell me that a knife is any less dangerous -- there's been famous attacks where a knife-wielding maniac has killed over a dozen people before he was able to be stopped.

And just because the government says they can do a thing doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. They could just as easily make a law saying that the Police and Government are the only ones that can use computers -- doesn't make it right.

 

[trt740]

The only candidate anyone need be concerned with is Dennis Kucinitch, because, even though he didn't get his party's nomination, his wife is unbelievably hot.

(Though he is about a foot shorter than her.)



If there's no guns, then you'll just get stabbed (like you Brits are always getting stabbed). Removing the object doesn't remove the intent.

And don't tell me that a knife is any less dangerous -- there's been famous attacks where a knife-wielding maniac has killed over a dozen people before he was able to be stopped.

And just because the government says they can do a thing doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. They could just as easily make a law saying that the Police and Government are the only ones that can use computers -- doesn't make it right.

They Boy mayor who bankrupted the first major city in America, now hes a true beacon of hope. So hated by his own city he wore a bullit proof business suit to work . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

 

[mdm-adph]

They Boy mayor who bankrupted the first major city in America, now hes a true beacon of hope.

The fact that a short little elf like him can get a woman like that is hope enough for anyone.

 

[magibeg]

Gun crime is not directly linked to amount of guns per population. Look at places like Canada and Finland (vastly reduced crime compared to the US).

Except you can't carry guns around either... look at storage laws behind having these fire arms. You have to keep the gun and ammo in seperate locations and theres no way you're going out in public with it. If anyone even suspects you're outside with a gun the police are on you immediately.

Sure have your guns, just don't have them readily avaliable or bring them outside of your own home.

Also i would like to note that the rich pay more taxes for a reason, although on paper it looks like an unproportionate amount. You have to also consider certain overhead costs. The rich still have the greatest amount of disosible income hence why they pay more taxes. Certain costs of living cannot be avoid and are roughly equal throughout income levels.

There is important economical reasons behind taxing in this method which is why all developed nations have such a system.

Touching on healthcare a bit, the conutry is responsible for the well being of its citizens. In many developed nations that means a healthcare plan, despite what privitizers may have told you, a not for profit healthcare system will always be cheaper in the long run when managed properly.

 

[mdm-adph]

Except you can't carry guns around either... look at storage laws behind having these fire arms. You have to keep the gun and ammo in seperate locations and theres no way you're going out in public with it. If anyone even suspects you're outside with a gun the police are on you immediately.

Sure have your guns, just don't have them readily avaliable or bring them outside of your own home.

Those are very rational arguments, and have obviously led to lower gun crime without the need to outlaw guns completely.

 

[Bigjohn]

Some would call that Anarchy....not freedom If everyone goes around "doing what they want", hey, we would all be dead......end of problem!

Can we now get back to politics and the candidates? I need to learn more

No, anarchy is not "all dead people" because remember, you have not RIGHT to harm another...

You want to learn more about Obama?

 

[Bigjohn]

This goes back to the process of preventive "laws". They don't work. Guns don't kill people, people do. Computers don't cause Kiddie Porn, sick twisted bastards do... Outlawing computers won't solve kiddie porn any more than outlawing guns will stop gun crime...

But a crook with a gun is going to think twice about robbing an armed man...

 

[Bigjohn]

Let's talk about healthcare as a 'RIGHT'...

The standard rights guaranteed and protected by our Constitution are such things as freedom of religion and speech. The right to peacefully assemble and gripe about government. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and then there's the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The point here is that all of these rights can be recognized and honored without any other party having to give up either a portion of their lives or their property. It doesn't cost anyone anything for you to own a gun, speak your mind, worship your God, or stand on the street corner with a like-minded group to gripe about government.

Now what about this "right" to healthcare thing? Healthcare comes in the form of both treatment by health care professionals and the administration of therapies or drugs. For you to exercise your "right" to healthcare some other individual must sacrifice some of their time attending to you, and some other individuals must surrender some of their property (drugs and treatment devices) to be used in your care. So, in saying that you have a "right" to healthcare you are saying that you have a right to a portion of someone else's life as well as a portion of their property.

 

[mdm-adph]

Let's talk about healthcare as a 'RIGHT'...

The standard rights guaranteed and protected by our Constitution are such things as freedom of religion and speech. The right to peacefully assemble and gripe about government. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and then there's the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The point here is that all of these rights can be recognized and honored without any other party having to give up either a portion of their lives or their property. It doesn't cost anyone anything for you to own a gun, speak your mind, worship your God, or stand on the street corner with a like-minded group to gripe about government.

All of these things you mentioned are open for interpretation, though.

You have the right to keep and bear arms... unless those arms are automatic weapons and grenade launchers.

You have the right the right to assemble and protest... as long as it's in a "free speech zone."

Just like someone could interpret one of the unalienable rights mention in the American Declaration of Independence -- "Life" -- to mean the right to healthcare. For how is someone going to be able to enjoy life if they're dead from an easily treatable illness?

Now what about this "right" to healthcare thing? Healthcare comes in the form of both treatment by health care professionals and the administration of therapies or drugs. For you to exercise your "right" to healthcare some other individual must sacrifice some of their time attending to you, and some other individuals must surrender some of their property (drugs and treatment devices) to be used in your care. So, in saying that you have a "right" to healthcare you are saying that you have a right to a portion of someone else's life as well as a portion of their property.

Sacrifice for others is not a bad thing -- you sacrifice when you give alms to the poor. You sacrifice your time when you entertain senior citizens in a retirement home.

I don't really know why you have such a thing against people who sacrifice for others -- I, for instance, would gladly give help to others in their time of need, as long as it doesn't adversely affect me. And the tiny tax increase necessary for free health care for everyone wouldn't affect me at all.

 

[magibeg]

Now what about this "right" to healthcare thing? Healthcare comes in the form of both treatment by health care professionals and the administration of therapies or drugs. For you to exercise your "right" to healthcare some other individual must sacrifice some of their time attending to you, and some other individuals must surrender some of their property (drugs and treatment devices) to be used in your care. So, in saying that you have a "right" to healthcare you are saying that you have a right to a portion of someone else's life as well as a portion of their property.

I'm pretty sure that you have the right to life, and life and health tend to be interrelated. When you say they must 'sacrifice' some of their time attending to you, i think what you're refering to is that they have to do their job. When i'm fixing something at the base its not sacrificing my time to fix something, i'm simply serving my purpose. However that leads me to think we're not on the same page for how we're visualizing healthcare. In canada for example the hospitals are government regulated and paid for, therefor you could argue doctors are providing a service to the people while being paid by the people, using equipment bought by the people.

I was essentially saying that people have the right to life and as such should have rights to keep their lives heathly, and that may mean through government healthcare services.

 

[Triprift]

In my view everyone has a right to healthcare regardless of race religious beleif and regardless if your wealthy or poor. Dont tell me it cant be done as alot countries have and do then again America have to be different on alot of things. Im not sure why your going on about ppl sacrificing time like its a bad thing i work in a hospital here in Adelaide and i must say its the most rewarding job there is knowing that your making your client lives better and helping ppl live long and happy lives.

 

[Bigjohn]

All of these things you mentioned are open for interpretation, though.

You have the right to keep and bear arms... unless those arms are automatic weapons and grenade launchers.

You have the right the right to assemble and protest... as long as it's in a "free speech zone."

Just like someone could interpret one of the unalienable rights mention in the American Declaration of Independence -- "Life" -- to mean the right to healthcare. For how is someone going to be able to enjoy life if they're dead from an easily treatable illness?



Sacrifice for others is not a bad thing -- you sacrifice when you give alms to the poor. You sacrifice your time when you entertain senior citizens in a retirement home.

I don't really know why you have such a thing against people who sacrifice for others -- I, for instance, would gladly give help to others in their time of need, as long as it doesn't adversely affect me. And the tiny tax increase necessary for free health care for everyone wouldn't affect me at all.

Dude, I gave over 6k to charity last year.
I don't have a thing against people who help others. Sarah Palin and her family gave more to charity last YEAR than obama's VP pick Joe Biden (single man with high income..) gave in the last eight combined.

My point, and I'll repeat it, is:

Unless I am your slave, you have no right to the fruits of my labor.

Now, if I choose to give you a dollar, a sandwich, a beer, without asking anything in return, well, that's MY CHOICE, not a choice made by someone who feels extremely compassionate as long as he can be compassionate with someone else's resources! (see above- Biden = very compassionate with "taxpayer money", not so much with his own $$).

 

[Bigjohn]

Oh, and, the right to keep and bear arms should have no limit. I should be able to keep an M1 Abrhams tank in my yard if I want. Because, it costs NO-ONE anything, unless and until I use it against them - and then, I'm breaking the law by depriving someone else of their right to life and property (unless of course I'm simply defending myself.)

 

[trt740]

Oh, and, the right to keep and bear arms should have no limit. I should be able to keep an M1 Abrhams tank in my yard if I want. Because, it costs NO-ONE anything, unless and until I use it against them - and then, I'm breaking the law by depriving someone else of their right to life and property (unless of course I'm simply defending myself.)

Maybe a ak47 max but a tank humm, as far as I know if you register it and are not a felon you can have a tank as ridiculous as it may seem. If you have ever been to the Ky machine gun shoot several hundred tanks and Armour vehicles are at that show and actually fire ordinances including jets etc... that are privately owned.

 

[mdm-adph]

Dude, I gave over 6k to charity last year.
I don't have a thing against people who help others. Sarah Palin and her family gave more to charity last YEAR than obama's VP pick Joe Biden (single man with high income..) gave in the last eight combined.

Do you have a list of the charities that she contributed to? I've often found that many in the upper class who donate huge amounts of money are most of the time donating to charities that they themselves own and operate, in effect giving themselves back money.

Not saying that Sarah Palin is doing that, as I'm sure you'll prove me wrong by finding out what charities she's donating to.

My point, and I'll repeat it, is:

Unless I am your slave, you have no right to the fruits of my labor.

Now, if I choose to give you a dollar, a sandwich, a beer, without asking anything in return, well, that's MY CHOICE, not a choice made by someone who feels extremely compassionate as long as he can be compassionate with someone else's resources! (see above- Biden = very compassionate with "taxpayer money", not so much with his own $$).

And my point, and I'll repeat, is:

No one's making you give anything you don't want to give. Go off the grid and live off the land.

However, since every single Representative and Senator in Congress, of ALL political parties, both Republican and Democrat -- as well as countless districts, towns, counties and states across the US -- all agree that taxation is a necessary part of society, you have to realize that you're in the vast, vast minority when it comes to your viewpoint on taxation.

Oh, and, the right to keep and bear arms should have no limit. I should be able to keep an M1 Abrhams tank in my yard if I want. Because, it costs NO-ONE anything, unless and until I use it against them - and then, I'm breaking the law by depriving someone else of their right to life and property (unless of course I'm simply defending myself.)

Well, I'm willing to agree with you there, philosophically (since I believe that a mere object doesn't indicate intent to perform a crime) -- however, at least in this country, this has never, ever been the case, legally.

 

[magibeg]

Oh, and, the right to keep and bear arms should have no limit. I should be able to keep an M1 Abrhams tank in my yard if I want. Because, it costs NO-ONE anything, unless and until I use it against them - and then, I'm breaking the law by depriving someone else of their right to life and property (unless of course I'm simply defending myself.)

That sounds like a rather insane train of thought. I suppose a reasonable person would question WHY someone would feel so compelled to have an unlimited number of arms if they were without purpose. What you're describing there is putting yourself in a position of power due to threat of violence. Sure YOU may not descide to use an Abrhams tank however the people around you are aware you are capable of using it. This is the kind of talk that starts arms races.

You mention that criminals will 'think twice' before attacking if they think you have a gun. What you're assuming is that typical criminals are in sound mind and feel they have other options. They attack because they feel cornered in the situation they're in and look for other ways out. If they think you have a weapon they'll just be more likely to use theirs if you make any quick movements.