71 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1789
Hillary wins PA
expatriate wrote:
SoCo, believe it or not, I do have a mind of my own. Just because I'm conservative doesn't mean that I was imprinted by someone. I haven't quoted Rush anywhere here. And stop throwing the "hate" card. Disagreeing with a political position isn't hate.

Your actions illustrate my point perfectly. Rather than produce facts (or refute them) and debate civilly, you're calling names, pigeonholing, spouting emotional rants, accusing people of intellectual dishonesty without evidence, launching into stereotypes, denying a person's ability to think for himself, and throwing trump cards like "hate" around. Personally, I've always been suspicious of people who attack fhe messenger instead of the message; it looks like an inability to compete in the realm of ideas. You haven't put any facts forward or substantiated anything you've said with anything but emotion. Political discourse ought to be more than that.

As far as Obama goes, if you study history there are two things that can't be ignored:

1) When a society elects a leader who runs on charisma and dodges scrutiny on his positions (or even attempts to destroy those who question him), bad things happen.

2) Nearly every brutal dictator and despot of the last century came from the LEFT, not the right. This list includes Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, and Hugo Chavez, to name a few.

The difference between liberalism and conservatism is simple. Liberals believe that individuals should be limited for the good of the state. Conservatives believe that the state should be limited for the good of the individual. That's why human rights and personal liberty have traditionally suffered far worse onslaught from the left than from the right. If you doubt me, consider the fact that it was a Democrat who shipped over a hundred thousand Americans to prison camps during WWII solely because they were of Japanese ancestry. Jim Crow was a Democrat, too, as evidenced by people like Bull Connor and George Wallace.

Go ahead and vote for Obama -- that's your business. But as for me, I'm voting for freedom.

You paint a broad bush there pal. You are the one who is only able to think in black and white painting anyone who doesn't agree with your view as leftists on par with Pol Pot and Hitler. It's not as simple as you think it is friend. A person who is aware doesn't have such a myopic view. You say I don't proved any 'facts', but what you don't realized is anything provivded by me whether legitimate, rationale, grounded in reality, will be brushed aside by you with talking points you have probably been repeating for years. It would be an exercise in futility.

You are right we each have our right to vote and you will exercise yours as I do mine. Likely we will see Obama get elected and in a year, hell four years, we can enter this discussion again and see if we have lost our guns and hunting rights. I'm not worried about losing mine.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1789
Hillary wins PA

Something else to chew on. From Lee Iococa:

Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from
> it's death throes? He has a new book, And here are some excerpts.
>
> Lee Iacocca Says:
>
> 'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening?
> Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder.
> We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a
> cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean
> up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad,
> everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say,
> 'Stay the course'
>
> Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the
> damned Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
>
> You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and
> maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country
> anymore.
>
> The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in
> handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and
> nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms'
> instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the 'America' my
> parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How
> about you?
>
> I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not
> outraged This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
>
> The Biggest 'C' is Crisis !
>
> Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis.
> It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or
> send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield
> yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling
> down.
>
> On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other
> time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A
> Hell of a Mess So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no
> plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest
> deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to
> Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care
> costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent
> energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves.
> The ;middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry
> out for leadership.
>
> But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders
> gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the
> people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may
> be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
>
> Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making
> us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent
> billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know
> how to do is react to things that have already happened.
>
> Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina.
> Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the
> hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made
> in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers
> crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms
> happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do
> the next time.
>
> Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can
> restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed
> that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car
> companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to
> do about it?
>
> Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down
> the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem
> The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at
> our country and milking the middle class dry.
>
> I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your
> asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being
> hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody
> so afraid of? That some bonehead on the news will call them a name? Give
> me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
>
> Had Enough?
>
> Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying
> to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope; I believe in America.
> In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's
> greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the
> 'Great Depression', 'World War II', the 'Korean War', the 'Kennedy
> Assassination', the 'Vietnam War', the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent
> years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this:
>
> 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for
> somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a
> better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the
> challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to 'Action' for people who, like
> me, believe in America . It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So
> let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had
> 'enough.'
>
> Make a 'real contribution' by sending this to everyone you know and care
> about......our future is at stake

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Hillary wins PA

SoCo, your continued insistence on diminishing my intellect reflects poorly on you. You ought to have the stones to stand on the merits of your case without trying to degrade your opponent. You're also the one making generalizations, not me. I've discussed my frustrations with liberals, but I've never pigeonholed you.

Bottom line is that you don't know me, and I'm not some ignorant rube like you seem to assume. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to government and international relations, and have the degrees and experience to back it up.

I particularly like your statement that it's not worth putting up facts or arguments because I'll just refute it. That's priceless -- not only does it reflect lack of faith in your own position, but it also reflects belief that your arguments shouldn't have to withstand scrutiny. Reference my previous comments about facism. Oh yeah...and getting on the pity pot and claiming to be a victim because I "compared" you to Pol Pot and Hitler? That's an old and predictable dodge to evade the point -- that left wing politics produces more abuses to personal liberty than right wing.

As far as Iacocca goes, he's entitled to his opinion. I won't disagree with most of it, and the reason that piece is so popular is because both conservatives and liberals embrace it as their own.

I will point out, though, that there's a reason for the business with liquids and shoes at the airport. In 1994 Ramzi Yousef (who also had part in the '93 WTC bombing) smuggled liquid explosives on board a Phillipine airlines flight in a saline bottle. He then assembled a detonator out of components he had hidden in the heel of his shoe, because he knew metal detectors couldn't see that low. He left the bomb under the seat where it later killed one passenger and endangered the plane. That's why they won't allow liquids and make you run your shoes through the scanner. Mr. Iacocca may not know the story, but as for me, I'm OK with putting security in place to stop a repeat.

As for Congress, I agree with him -- they're too busy bickering for power than they are at finding solutions. Part of my frustration is that the Dems won control of both the House and Senate between '04 and '06 (and associated committee leadership) because they wanted to change things. Well guess what -- they delivered. Since they got control over both chambers, gas has gone up to almost four bucks a gallon and the economy is struggling. They have the power now -- they need to stop blaming others and take accountability for what they do.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1789
Hillary wins PA
expatriate wrote:
SoCo, your continued insistence on diminishing my intellect reflects poorly on you. You ought to have the stones to stand on the merits of your case without trying to degrade your opponent. You're also the one making generalizations, not me. I've discussed my frustrations with liberals, but I've never pigeonholed you.

Bottom line is that you don't know me, and I'm not some ignorant rube like you seem to assume. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to government and international relations, and have the degrees and experience to back it up.

I particularly like your statement that it's not worth putting up facts or arguments because I'll just refute it. That's priceless -- not only does it reflect lack of faith in your own position, but it also reflects belief that your arguments shouldn't have to withstand scrutiny. Reference my previous comments about facism. Oh yeah...and getting on the pity pot and claiming to be a victim because I "compared" you to Pol Pot and Hitler? That's an old and predictable dodge to evade the point -- that left wing politics produces more abuses to personal liberty than right wing.

The pity pot? You throw around comparisons of Democrats to the likes of them and feign astoundment someones calls you on it. I don't have a lack of fath in my position, I have a lack of faith in your ability to make one iota of an attempt to understand it. You have found a villain (the Dems) to pin all the faults of world on and that belief is entrenched like a tick. I have run into too many people who think like you do to think there is any hope of you making an effort other then to blame, blame, blame, the evil left. Other then your blame game you haven't offered anything of any real substance yourself.

I am curious though, what are your degrees and other qualifiers that give you a better understanding of it all?

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Hillary wins PA

SoCo, I ask again that you turn down the anger knob a bit.

I too, have my doubts about my ability to understand your position. However, it isn't for a lack of trying. For me to understand your position, you must articulate it. And your previous post said you're not going to do that because you think I'll shoot it down. You've talked a lot about your position, but you haven't passed on any specifics of what that position is, or facts that support it. Incidentally, this is one of my beefs with Obama, too.

There's a difference between arguing and debating. Debating is the engine of our democracy. It's based on constructing syllogisms to convince people, and that generally requires facts. That's what I'm asking you to do.

As for the dictator analogy, I'll repeat myself again -- I said a leftist political philosophy has historically led to far more attacks on personal liberty than right wing philosophy. That's the statement -- not that Democrats are Hitler, not that you're Pol Pot, etc. Try to stay focused and address the statement. If you disagree, I'd love to hear contrasting opinion of how the leaders mentioned weren't from the left, or where leaders on the right end of the spectrum committed worse abuses of personal liberty. Convince me that my statement was incorrect. But it's cheap to try to dodge the issue by playing the offense card.

As for my resume, my first advanced degree is a Master of Public Administration. My research for that one focused on the role of intergovernmental relationships between Japan's federal government and it's prefectural governments surrounding debate over military basing issues. The second Master's degree is in Military Operational Arts & Sciences, and my research for that one focused on terrorism and asymmetric warfare, how coercion theory can be applied to strategic advantage by the weaker power, and how an Iraqi adversary would use asymmetric warfare and information to advantage to try to break America's resolve (wrote that one in early 2003 before we invaded). I also recently finished another year-long academic program that focused on strategic issues affecting regional politics around the globe. Finally, I also have 19 years of federal service, to include combat deployment.

So please, don't condescend about my intellect or ability to understand anything, or insinuate that I'm an automaton spouting off empty rhetoric. As for evil, believe me -- I know firsthand that Dems aren't the source of evil in the world. But I do, however, believe that their current platform is one of hopeless naivete when it comes to confronting it.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1789
Hillary wins PA

I have not once made a derogatory comment about your intellect. My critique has been aimed at your ideology. One can be highly educated and still very dogmatic. My position is you have already made your mind up and are committed to that line of thought.

My only statement is this and time will bear it out to be true or not. Obama is going to likely win the Presidency and in four years time if we have this discussion again my belief is we will both still be enjoying our guns and hunting rights and the economy, our internal safety, and our world position, will be in a far better state then it is today.

On a side not I am also a vet and served during the first Gulf War in Intell.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Hillary wins PA

The following story comes to mind when I think about gun owners supporting Obama because they believe his rhetoric more than his record:

As a young Indian man transitioned to adulthood, he went alone on a vision quest to seek guidance on what to do with his life.

He eventually came to the base of a mountain and decided to climb it. Hours he climbed...higher and higher until he finally reached the top, lungs bursting from the altitude. He looked around him to see the entire world laid out before him. Just then, he heard a small, weak voice calling out to him.

"Help me..." it pleaded.

The young man looked around, but saw no one. The voice called again, "Help me."

He looked down on the ground and saw a rattlesnake coiled near the rocks, and was amazed to realize that the voice was coming from the snake.

"Help me," implored the snake. "It's much too cold up here, and I'll die soon. Please carry me to the base of the mountain where I can live."

"Oh, no," the young man replied. "I know who you are. You're a serpent, and if I try to touch you, you'll bite me and I'll die."

"No," said the snake. "I need you to survive. I promise you that if you carry me down to the mountain I won't bite you."

The young man decided that this may be the revelation he was looking for, so he cautiously reached down and picked up the snake. He put it inside his shirt next to his body, and the snake cozied up to him in grateful appreciation.

He then went back down the mountain carrying the snake tucked inside his shirt. He finally reached the bottom, pulled the snake out of his shirt, and set it in the sun on a pile of rocks.

"Thank you so much." Said the snake -- and then lashed out and bit the young man on the hand.

The young man jumped back, holding his already throbbing hand with a look of stunned betrayal on his face. "But...but...you promised!" He finally said.

"YOU KNEW WHAT I WAS WHEN YOU PICKED ME UP." Said the snake as it slithered away, leaving the young man to his fate.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1789
Hillary wins PA

That story is better told as the scorpion who asks the frog to give him a ride to the other side of the river and then stings him when he promised he wouldn't. Again, tell will tell my friend, time will tell.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Hillary wins PA

Will Obama "take away" your guns? Probably not. But if he wins and the Dems hold congress, watch out.

Muslims will tell you that one of the tenets of Islam is its proclaimed tolerance for other religions. If you go back in history, they'll show how Jews, Christians, etc, lived among them in peace because Islam said to be tolerant. However, non-muslims had to pay special taxes and deal with more regulation due to their status as second class citizens. No one is taking away your right to believe, but your belief has a cost.

I believe that Dems would approach gun control the same way if given a chance, and would proceed through a series of "common sense" moves. It would start by closing the gun show loophole and requiring that background checks be done on all buyers. The next step would be to require that all sales be conducted through FFL holders -- which is already required in some states. Eventually, a bone could be tossed to gun owners by offering a deal -- a federal permit based on NICS that would allow you to buy a firearm without background checks. Purchases would require the buyer to show the permit instead of running the background check. Common sense, right? No more waiting, more efficient, etc.

The next step would be to expand that permit to require you to have one to own or possess a firearm. After all, it's common sense -- if you aren't legal to buy a firearm, you shouldn't have one, right? If you resist this, then you must be in favor of allowing criminals to have guns, right?

Once the architecture is in place, restrictions could be added at will through administrative changes that don' t require congressional legislation. Thus, permits could become more expensive over time, the process to get one could be extended, limits could be placed on the number of purchases you could make, the list of disqualifiers could grow, etc. The problem at point is that the changes are implemented through executive direction, rather than by congressional legislation. So it's not like you get a vote on the matter.

So no, I don't think Obama will take away guns in the traditional sense. But I fully believe the Dems would make gun ownership an expensive and difficult hassle.

Along the way, I think you'd see a surge in media coverage of school and workplace shootings to bring back the '94 gun ban and make it permanent.

Another possibility: passing legislation to make gun owners liable for damages involving one of their firearms that wasn't properly secured. By the letter of the law, you wouldn't be required to keep them locked up. But you'll want to for fear that someone could break into your car or home and steal one. And just like the permit, the definition of "properly stored" could be changed through bureaucratic discretion once the law was on the books.

The antis have learned their lesson about gun bans. They're shifting their tactics now to go through the back door by making gun ownership a pain in the butt. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees are packed with antis. Likewise the Appropriations Committee, which oversees the BATFE, is packed with the Senate's most anti-gun leaders to include Diane Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, and Jack Reed. The one thing that's stopping them is the President. Don't think that gun-conservative congressmen will carry the day -- they're not the ones in charge.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Hillary wins PA

Will Obama take away your guns? If your guns are single shot 'sporting use' long guns that answer is probably no. Everything else (handguns, semis, 'sniper' rifles, assault anything (pistol, rifle)) is up for grabs.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Hillary Clinton's Indian name.halvtaz506/21/2007 11:45 am
Obama lays plans to kill expectations after winning electioncowgal1511/04/2008 19:44 pm
2008 Democratic National ConventionWhelland405/06/2008 20:03 pm
Hillary's gun gaffebitmasher705/15/2008 12:05 pm
2004 PredictionElkman509/20/2003 22:51 pm