Archive

From my cold dead hand

  • Heretic
    QuakerOats;1148627 wrote:That's right, attack the messenger, instead of the IRrational policy edicts of the current regime.
    Anyone as blindly partisan and biased as you would think anything is IRrational solely because the person involved has a (D) after their name.
  • stlouiedipalma
    I find it amusing that the gun lobby has everyone's panties in an uproar over an administration which has deliberately chosen to do absolutely nothing regarding gun control since they came into office. I guess if you cannot use facts, you resort to the old standby of fear.
  • superman
    stlouiedipalma;1148925 wrote:I find it amusing that the gun lobby has everyone's panties in an uproar over an administration which has deliberately chosen to do absolutely nothing regarding gun control since they came into office. I guess if you cannot use facts, you resort to the old standby of fear.
    Wait until after the election, I'll have more flexibility comrade.
  • QuakerOats
    Heretic;1148723 wrote:Anyone as blindly partisan and biased as you would think anything is IRrational solely because the person involved has a (D) after their name.

    It has nothing to do with D's or R's, it has to do with idealogy and policy.

    Sorry you were blind to that. Good luck.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1149086 wrote:It has nothing to do with D's or R's, it has to do with idealogy and policy.

    Sorry you were blind to that. Good luck.
    My problem with the article you posted was the writer never quote or referenced the actual Executive Order. Therefore, we, the reader, have no way to read the thing for ourselves. It is shoddy and elementary reporting. It's a hack article.

    If it was about policy, the author would have referenced the actual Executive Order and used texts in the article. But, that requires actual research.....
  • ptown_trojans_1
    stlouiedipalma;1148925 wrote:I find it amusing that the gun lobby has everyone's panties in an uproar over an administration which has deliberately chosen to do absolutely nothing regarding gun control since they came into office. I guess if you cannot use facts, you resort to the old standby of fear.
    If I remember right, Obama has an F grade for gun laws under the Brady Bill Association.
  • majorspark
    BoatShoes;1148617 wrote:This is why I'm particularly wary of Drones. As I understand it, the next generation Fighter after the F-35 almost certainly will not need a human pilot. I imagine more of our military will become more mechanized. A drone can't tell the difference between killing an American citizen and a terrorist (at least not yet).
    Good point. The farther one is from the one he is killing the easier it is to take the life. I know I would not be able to shoot a child intentionally with my rifle. But I could kill multitudes of them @25,000ft. With drones you can sit in a comfortable chair, in an air conditioned room, with the feel of a glorified video game, wipe out a family cause Dad is doing nasty things, go home tuck the kids in bed, and then bang the wife.
    BoatShoes;1148617 wrote:Perhaps a Drone from the future will be traveling back in time to kill Belly because his daughter will lead the human resistance against the rise of the machines?
    LOL!
  • dwccrew
    isadore;1148651 wrote:It is very interesting to get the neo confederate rational for the Civil War from an advocate of the extremist interpretation of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. The Civil War was started when a group of
    “very well educated and well placed” who thought their right to own other human beings was threatened roused a group of “ignorant hicks” to join them in their taking up arms against a popularly elected government. They were traitors.

    They didn't own human beings. They owned slaves.
  • isadore
    dwccrew;1149549 wrote:They didn't own human beings. They owned slaves.
    yeh that's pretty much the view of those "very well educated and well placed, they had a paranoid fear the government was going to take their property, so they persuaded a bunch of "ignorant hicks" to take up arms to protect them. Got some parallels today.
  • majorspark
    isadore;1149600 wrote:yeh that's pretty much the view of those "very well educated and well placed, they had a paranoid fear the government was going to take their property, so they persuaded a bunch of "ignorant hicks" to take up arms to protect them. Got some parallels today.
    [LEFT]There are some parallels today. Black Americans no longer pick cotton for the democrats instead they cast votes. Their masters no longer house them in shacks on their plantations, but in the projects of their inner cities. House slaves like the so called reverends Sharpton and Jackson get a better place in order to manage the production of their votes. Once again elements found mostly within the republican party seek their freedom.[/LEFT]
  • believer
    majorspark;1149768 wrote:There are some parallels today. Black Americans no longer pick cotton for the democrats instead they cast votes. Their masters no longer house them in shacks on their plantations, but in the projects of their inner cities. House slaves like the so called reverends Sharpton and Jackson get a better place in order to manage the production of their votes. Once again elements found mostly within the republican party seek their freedom.
    True. The shackles and whips of the plantation owners have been replaced by the Food Stamps and welfare checks of Big Government.
  • isadore
    majorspark;1149768 wrote:[LEFT]There are some parallels today. Black Americans no longer pick cotton for the democrats instead they cast votes. Their masters no longer house them in shacks on their plantations, but in the projects of their inner cities. House slaves like the so called reverends Sharpton and Jackson get a better place in order to manage the production of their votes. Once again elements found mostly within the republican party seek their freedom.[/LEFT]
    What parallels do we have. We have a party dominated by the richest people in our society, built on the support of white southerners who are motivated by their racist attitudes. The party works to limit the rights of blacks, now by working to make it more difficult for them to exercise suffrage and to have the basic economic protections. A party’s name means nothing but its membership does. The vast majority of blacks including MLK abandoned the Republican Party, while Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, David Duke, white citizen councils and Klansmen enlisted. The white man’s party of the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] just changed its label from Democrat to Republican..
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1149844 wrote:What parallels do we have. We have a party dominated by the richest people in our society, ...
    I think that should be parties as in plural.
  • HitsRus
    [LEFT]There are some parallels today. Black Americans no longer pick cotton for the democrats instead they cast votes. Their masters no longer house them in shacks on their plantations, but in the projects of their inner cities. House slaves like the so called reverends Sharpton and Jackson get a better place in order to manage the production of their votes. Once again elements found mostly within the republican party seek their freedom.[/LEFT]

    As Joe Tait used to say...Wham!.. with a right hand. The Democrats dirty little secret illuminated.
    It is very interesting to get the neo confederate rational for the Civil War from an advocate of the extremist interpretation of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. The Civil War was started when a group of
    “very well educated and well placed” who thought their right to own other human beings was threatened roused a group of “ignorant hicks” to join them in their taking up arms against a popularly elected government. They were traitors.
    Such a fundamental misinterpretation of history and how our great country came to be!
    As divided as we sometimes seem to be today, we are exponentially more homogenous than the 13 colonies who banded together to throw off the King.
    The forging together of a new nation was no simple task...it was a huge expanse of land from north to south, with equally diverse economic and politcal viewpoints. That 70 years later those differences in opinions and interests still existed should not be a surprise. It should be obvious how the political interests of the industrial North conflicted with the agricultural interests of the south...and how that simmered beneath the surface for years.

    but it is so much more convienient to take the re written view as spun by the victors and parrotted by the left wing elitists....
    that's pretty much the view of those "very well educated and well placed, they had a paranoid fear the government was going to take their property, so they persuaded a bunch of "ignorant hicks" to take up arms to protect them. Got some parallels today.
    ...it's so much easier to claim the moral high ground when you think you are dealing with paranoid "ignorant hicks".


    it is always a great epiphany when someone realizes that small government is about freedom and empowerment....and that big intrusive government is about entrapment and enslavement and dependency.
  • HitsRus
    We have a party dominated by the richest people in our society, built on the support of white southerners who are motivated by their racist attitudes. The party works to limit the rights of blacks, now by working to make it more difficult for them to exercise suffrage

    You've swallowed it all, haven't you? "The richest people" in the country are Democrats! The party that wishes to keep blacks dependent on them is the Democrats!
    Rich or poor, black or white, women's 'rights', etc etc.....to the democrats, it's about being the right kind of black person, the right kind of woman, the right kind of economic class. You have to embrace victim status...such that the people willing to help them (Democrats) can do so for their political gain.
  • isadore
    believer;1149816 wrote:True. The shackles and whips of the plantation owners have been replaced by the Food Stamps and welfare checks of Big Government.
    Now there is an analogy. On one hand the physical pain brought on by whips and shackles v the physical comfort provided to those in need by food stamps and tanf payments.
  • Con_Alma
    ...both keep man from freedom. It's sad.
  • isadore
    HitsRus;1149867 wrote:You've swallowed it all, haven't you? "The richest people" in the country are Democrats! The party that wishes to keep blacks dependent on them is the Democrats!
    Rich or poor, black or white, women's 'rights', etc etc.....to the democrats, it's about being the right kind of black person, the right kind of woman, the right kind of economic class. You have to embrace victim status...such that the people willing to help them (Democrats) can do so for their political gain.
    The Republican Party is the party in service to the rich, always serving their interests. The Democrats serve the interests of the right kind people, the other 99% with the large majority of blacks and women.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1149885 wrote:...both keep man from freedom. It's sad.
    yes whips and shackles kept people free from liberty and food stamps and tanf keeps them free from starvation.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1149891 wrote:yes whips and shackles kept people free from liberty and food stamps and tanf keeps them free from starvation.
    I don't dispute that. It's also very damning. It keeps people from being free. It's freedom that we are to supposedly offer in this country. The creation of a dependent society is counter to such ideals.
  • isadore
    HitsRus;1149848 wrote:As Joe Tait used to say...Wham!.. with a right hand. The Democrats dirty little secret illuminated.



    Such a fundamental misinterpretation of history and how our great country came to be!
    As divided as we sometimes seem to be today, we are exponentially more homogenous than the 13 colonies who banded together to throw off the King.
    The forging together of a new nation was no simple task...it was a huge expanse of land from north to south, with equally diverse economic and politcal viewpoints. That 70 years later those differences in opinions and interests still existed should not be a surprise. It should be obvious how the political interests of the industrial North conflicted with the agricultural interests of the south...and how that simmered beneath the surface for years.

    but it is so much more convienient to take the re written view as spun by the victors and parrotted by the left wing elitists....


    ...it's so much easier to claim the moral high ground when you think you are dealing with paranoid "ignorant hicks".


    it is always a great epiphany when someone realizes that small government is about freedom and empowerment....and that big intrusive government is about entrapment and enslavement and dependency.
    No rewrite is necessary. The correct interpretation of cause of the Civil War is slaveowners attempt to protect their “peculiar institution.” That was their “agricultural interest.” It can be seen by declarations of their secession conventions and from the speeches and statements of Confederate leaders, just about all of whom were slave owners. They sold a bill of goods to a “bunch of ignorant hicks,” who did much of their dying for them. Now the rich are leading on many of their descendants.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1149893 wrote:I don't dispute that. It's also very damning. It keeps people from being free. It's freedom that we are to supposedly offer in this country. The creation of a dependent society is counter to such ideals.
    They would be more free starving to death? Providing a safety net for people does not ruin people's motivation. Providing that net and the supports to better one's self encourage social mobility not undermine it.
  • HitsRus
    The correct interpretation of cause of the Civil War is slaveowners attempt to protect their “peculiar institution.”
    Of course it is 'correct'..that's the thing about elitist thought....it's all about correctness. There is no room for dissension by someone with a different viewpoint...especially ignorant hicks.
    The party works to limit the rights of blacks, now by working to make it more difficult for them to exercise suffrage
    What a crock of shit. You need an ID to drive...you need an ID to buy alcohol...you need an ID to get food stamps! There is one reason and one reason only that a person shouldn't have to show an ID to vote...and that is called FRAUD. (Which... not uncoincidentally...the Democratic Party is all about.)
  • isadore
    correct, free from error, in accordance with fact.
  • HitsRus
    There are a lot of 'facts'...and if you don't think they can be easily manipulated to come to your predetermined conclusion....I suggest you watch Michael Moore's films. Oh, wait you probably have!