Its fun to see the squirming and to hope, but who really thinks this is the beginning of the end of Bush or Rove? It should be, but it won't be. These two have gotten away with so much over the past 5 years its mind boggling. If this story is going to last it has to last through one if not two supreme court nominees, the talk of filibuster again (The Dems had better use it), the London bombings and its aftermath (to include real AND contrived terror alerts here in the US), and the next hurricane or shark attack. The Downing Street memos can't even catch a breath of air and they (and certainly others like them) are actually worthy of taking this administration down. The prosecuter will drag this out until it fades from memory or until talk of it will be considered rehashing the past (its worked already). Bush doesn't care what Democrats think, he doesn't care what the public thinks, and turn-coat Republicans can kiss his lilly white a$$. Bush and Brain are suppose to ride off into the sunset together.
My grandmother is religious, so she is a Bush believer. Her preacher tells her to be a Republican. When I go to her house thats what she has on, FOX news. That or PAX. We can't get her to watch anything else because she thinks its evil. My father early on in the election was thinking Bush was an okay guy until I convinced him otherwise. In the process my grandmother has taken to telling my dad that if she ever disappears its because she has been called up...assuming of course that my father won't be called up along with her. I'm Agnostic so I think that whole bit is a little funny. ButI digress. When I go out to eat at a place that has a TV it is usually showing FOX news. Probably because the owner is a Republican trying to spread the message. I know FOX news is pure propoganda. At one point in time I didn't know that. I just slowly became frustrated with the message and hatred on that channel [with the Anne Coulter commentators and the people who think vicious attacks on character are somehow debate]...and I watched "Outfoxed". I am now seeing that MSNBC is going the same way as FOX and even CNN and headline news are going bad though I still watch those last two. Anyway, I guess my message is that the statements referenced are good. Just like the post about how right wing blogs don't allow comments because they expose the nasty underbelly of the far right. The more statements like those mentioned the better because maybe, just maybe, my grandmother will finally see it for what it is...EVIL! (while I'm Agnostic I do believe in good and evil) I'm sure long before that she will believe some of the truly nasty statements and even believe in the message. But the wheel has to keep turning even if it has to run my grandmother over in the process. Let FOX News say these things. Don't point it out and let them feel comfortable in forming their message until they hang themselves. The more people point out their mistakes now the longer it takes for them to hang themselves. They need to go so over the top that even they can't spin themselves out of it. I'm fairly depressed with the way things are. I don't believe that the true believers on the right will ever be convinced they are wrong by people on the left or in the middle. They are too far gone, we are evil, they are good, they cannot listen to evil which is why they only listen to themselves. I will never convince my grandmother she is wrong. I think that they will go so over the top that they will never get another convert from the middle or left and then the hope is that even some of them see the light and this whole period in American history can slowly fade.
The statement mentioned by Bush, [that we are fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here at home] is simply him not working with a new script that accounts for new information. They like him to use the same sentences and phrases over and over so it sinks in. He has used the word "progess" for years now. He has a message to deliver and reality, as we all know, has nothing to do with the message. Beyond that I wouldn't read anything into it. If they had attacked Waco Texas his statement would not have changed.
and I'm reading out of context. Unfortunately I live in Florida where it is legal to own a fully automiatic weapon with a license but where the people who are suppose to sign off on the license won't...at least not in my county. This site needs the ability to delete your own post...which I would do to myself above.
I should hope its possible to buy a fully automatic weapon somewhere. Because its legal to own one if you have a license. Just like abortion is legal but they want to regulate it out of practical existence. So if its legal. I would hope you don't suggest that it also be impossible to buy them. I know, Im responding to a post 7 months old.
People that try to prevent others from burning the flag think they are in some way protecting it. The problem is that forced respect is not respect. If I have the right to burn a flag but choose not to out of love of country etc, thats respect. But if I want to burn it but dont because there is a law against it, have they really accomplished anything? Am I respecting the flag or simply denied speach, denied the ability to disrespect it. Whats next, you must stand for the national anthem, you must salute the flag when you see it raised, you must recite the pledge, every word of it---no skipping over the God silliness.
This is a political game to make those that dont support the amendment look bad to voters. It a shame too many voters are ignorant and wont see it for what it is. Key is, politically, to make sure it doesnt pass but keep it quiet doing so.
This is also a part of the process leading this nation closer and closer to full on fascism. Ive believed for a long time thats what we face here. A key part of fascism is extreme nationalism. Next thing will be the national youth movement. Oh yeah, I know, its bad to bring up the reference, thats because it hits too close to home. And thats why they use it to describe liberals, to use it so much that people become immune to the term.
The most patriotic thing Americans can do is to allow dissent in all its forms, to include those that wish to burn the flag to add exclamation to their message. Sick thing is I have no desire to ever burn it...until they ban flag burning. Then I honestly may very well do just that...and I don't want to.
So you are saying exterminate a breed. The wild population of a breed of horse that doesn't exist anywhere else. It once roamed the plains on a different continent, sure. But now its found a new home and its been there for hundreds of years. Its now NATIVE. As native as anything on earth by the way. Everything ended up where it is now through migration from somewhere else. Whether over thousands of years or hundreds, whether by hurricance or man. Not unlike the indians that migrated from who knows where to this continent thousands of years ago. The population should be controlled, as it has been, to prevent it from overrunning its environment like any other animal would without a real natural preditor. However, that control should not involve profit for meat producers or cattlemen. It should involve those horses that need to be removed from the environment being pulled into the adoption programs as they are now. If necessary make it easier to adopt or selectively sterilize.
What you are talking about, extermination without replacement by cattle herds is not realistic. Since it isn't realistic (as in never gonna happen) don't even suggest it. You give amunition to those with much more sinister motives.
You guys do know that AR-15s and AK-47s are not all fully automatic. Just because you see one on the shelf at a store doesn't mean you can buy it or that its full-auto. They are extraordinarily expensive to buy full auto. I mean many thusands of dollars. It is legal to buy just about anything as long as you have the right kind of license. The same is true of fully-automatic weapons in Florida. An assault weapon as defined by the recent assault weapons ban is not something that shoots fully automatic. Well, it includes that but isnt exclusive. In fact I suspect its rare for any state to allow the purchase of a fully-automitic weapon without a license. Of course they are for sale everywhere but only to those that have a license. The most effective reduction of the basic type of weapon everyone sees as so frightening "ooh scary" (Uzi, AR-15, AK-47) was actually a presidential order done by George Bush Sr. It basically classified weapons such as the Uzi as non sporting weapons. As a result they fell under a 1968 law that allowed them to be barred from import. Now, what does that mean? Well it means the makers of Uzis could not import them into the county anymore. Its just a presidential order that is still in effect and can be dropped. In the end though all they had to do was license their manufacture here in the states. I don't think Uzi did that but HK did and there are versions of the AK47 made here as well.
The assault weapons ban made it more difficult to obtain high capacity magazines. Of course people in the military make a habit of pilferring them and getting them out on the market. Not to mention there are millions of them on the market. So much so that the price over the last ten years or so hasn't really been a factor. Oh, its legal to own and even purchase what would commonly be referred to as self defense weapons (or by those scared of them and like to use propoganda style verbiage, "assault weapons"). So its not a black market. I purchased 2 AR15s before the ban and it was legal to own and sell them all I wanted during that period. In fact I can go out and purchase brand new versions that can do everything I want them to do. They just don't "look" as mean. Of course I enjoy using them as all law abiding citizens should be able to enjoy their hobbies as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.
The assault weapons ban also banned the placement of bayonet stubs on the end of newly manufactured weapons. Not that it matters because I dont think people are bayonetted on a regular basis during a crime. I'ld like to know of one case. So I wonder what the point of that really was.
It also banned flash suppressors, not that it does all that much either. I didn't purchase mine because they had flash suppressors and if someone were to buy an weapon such as the AR-15 they likely don't care about them outside of the look.
It also ended up causing a redesign in the receivers so they can't be converted to fully-automatic. You see its illegal to purchase a fully-automatic weapon without a license. A fully-automatic weapon is what they show you in the news footage when they talk about the ban, but thats not the true target of the ban. So people would buy them and then buy the conversion kits (legal to sell and buy so long as you never put the two together). But with the redesign you can't use the kits. No big deal. I have no interest in shooting full auto anyway. Its a waste of ammo and I prefer one shot one kill if I had to do that. Not that I ever think I will. You would appreciate it too, IF YOU HAD TO DO THAT. So don't get all high and mighty and think people that enjoy guns are all itchen to kill people.
The thing is that what gun haters are talking about doesn't accomplish anything. Since it doesn't accomplish anything why not take it out of the picture so you can capture the votes of those people that agree with everything else you have to say except that.
I suspect the poster here is very mistaken about the availability of Fully-automatic weapons. If not please point me to where I can buy one. I'm in the market.
Self defense weapons such as the AR-15 are not used in very many cases involving gun crime. I'ld venture to say that legally purchased weapons of this type are rarely used in crime. They are too expensive and basically impractical. You can't hide them in your coat pocket. You don't need to fire more than one shot to kill someone in a robbery. They are expenisive to operate. Those cases where they were used, such as the sniper case, they were the poorest choice of weapon. A standard hunting rifle would have been better. So to say that by banning them would stop crime is ridiculous. You don't enjoy them or see the potential need for them. I get it. But I don't enjoy a lot of things that are potential killers but I know in the grand scheme of things that there is a better way to stop crime. PUNISH people. Do it quickly, get it over with, stop the excessive appeals, and teach people lessons. And I support Democrats for all the other issues. Its gun control that I hate and its one of those issues that keeps a lot of people away from voting for Democrats. If you turn them off, as you have, you LOSE elections. (Obviously not strictly because of that one issue)
Gun laws do one thing and ONE thing only stop law abiding people, from enjoying them. Those that propose banning "assault" rifles are doing so because its a way to get that slippery slope started. Who cares about the people that enjoy these kinds of weapons. They are a minority among gun collectors. So attack their rights first because no one is going to stick around and protect them. Then, with the law on the books and crime still a problem, real or perceived, go after the next group of gun owners. Thats the slippery slope. You see, you'll find that the ban will do no good because a criminal can always get what he needs to do the job and will find that all he needs is the most basic of weapons that would be used by any hunter. To stop gun crime you would have to ban all guns. And at that point you would somehow have to deal with the fact that only law abiding citizens would obey those laws.
I am not proposing nukes, or hand grenades, or even fully automatic weapons (you know those things they show you in the news program when they talk about assault weapons but really should be showing you something else). No one is. You don't hear people talking about making fully automiatc weapons legal (as in not requiring a license).
If this government ever does turn against the people at large, and don't tell me there aren't cases in history where that has happened. The assault weapons are what will help bring the country back. Since the proposed gun laws won't do any good, and since there is the case to have citizens maintaining arms for the purpose of regulating this nation in the event of unfortunate events, whats the point of gun laws? The laws being talked about are touchy feely crap that accomplish nothing other than turn people who are otherwise progressives off of the party. In the meantime as I hope that never happens I'll enjoy using my AR-15 at the range knowing, comfortably, that the government doesn't know I have it.
As I've said before, people of pre-WWII Germany would have laughed at you had you told them their country would eventually do evil. As long as you think it can't happen here, it can. I'l read Lakoff, you read Orwell's Animal Farm.
I agree with the terms but only because they also match my beliefs. I used the term assault weapon and stockpile because thats the terms of the "argument" at hand. And I prefer not to play scemantics games. I'm a realist and tend to call it like it is. But I do see your point in using terms in a way that better frames my position. I will, personally, start to use better terminology. Thanks.
I purchased Lakoff recently and I'm doing my best to read more. :)
There is nothing lethal about an assaulkt weapon. Its a piece of metal. Whats lethal is the thought in the mind of the user. There is nothing illegal about stockpiling weapons. There is no limit to the number of weapons one person can own. The fact is you can only shoot one accruately at a time anyway. Assault weapons are not a big factor in crime. I suspect legally purchased assault rifles are used in a relatively small number of crimes simply because of their high cost. They look scary but thats simply the result of fear of an inexperienced user. Assault weapons may one day protect your basic rights from a government gone tragically down the wrong path. In the early 1930s I suspect Gernamns would never have believed what could happen to them and the world in ten years time. Its not about what you see today. Its about what could happen in the future. Sing your songs, pick your flowers, stay the hell away from my stockpile of assault weapons!
I'm from the South. I am not a hunter but I was raised with guns in the house. I was a rifle team member (marksmanship) in highschool JROTC. SO as other teenagers were on the footbal field or bandhall I was shooting a 22cal rifle at a target fifty feet away and proud as hell of what I was accomplishing. So I enjoy guns from a marksmanship standpoint. I also believe the Bill of Rights protects guns not for hunters but to protect the people. Our founding fathers had just overthrown a government. They did so by force of arms. I am liberal in every way except guns. I have two assault rifles in my closet. Why? Because they are fun to shoot and I am not committing a crime so why not. But most importantly because I believe that this government could one day slip down that slippery slope. In my lifetime? I hope not. But G.W. is showing that totalitarianism can rise in Amierca through control of fear and propoganda style messages. I sound radical I'm sure. But I believe our founding fathers knew that what they were creating MAY not work out. They knew that there could be flaws and that someday they may need to overthrow the government they were creating in the same way they had just overthrown British control. That means weapons in the hands of the people to protect them from the state. Not shotguns, not hunting rifles, but it includes assault stlye weapojns (though for practical purposes I can do more damage with a hunting rifle) Now the all volunteer (and at the time lack of a standing army) may make that a very remote need. But the slippery slope can change a lot of things. Fear changes a lot of things. Irrational fanatical fear can blind people. So I believe citizens should have weapons, within reason, capable of protecting us from the government we create. Does democracy protect us? Only so long as the political machine is kept in check. Tom Delay and Jeb Bush are in the process of using and making a politicial machine stronger than ever. So strong that people are afraid to question the vote for fear of being made to look silly through political spin.
From a political standpoint here in the South you have a lot of people that plain and simply love their guns. They don't drive down the street killing people, they don't break into homes murdering people. But they are law abiding citizens and they don't want the government in their business. Guns alone can swing the vote. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun and I'll vote on those issues. In the case of abortion if it were ever outlawed I know that women will fight to get it overturned. But if weapons are slowly removed I seriously doubt that anyone will fight very hard to get them back. And so I would flip more easily to someone promoting pro-gun stance than a pro-choice. The slippery slope is mnore inclined to remove weapons from citizens than anything else because once they are gone there is no stopping the machine. Now I voted against Bush and I will vote Democratic I suspect for a long time to come, simply because I see evil in the right wing at the moment. But if you drop gun control as a theme you will be doing two things 1) You will be protecting this country from itself by giving people the right to one day overthrow and restore it from control of someone/group that may pervert its core beliefs. Let us all hope it is never necessary and that somehow common sense rules and the vote continues to level the playing field from one generation to the next. 2) You will remove a great number of redneck sooutherners from the desire to vote against you even if they may not be convinced yet to vote for you. Put simply I believe IT can happen HERE and it is necessary to preserve the strength of regular citizens.
The only problem with this is that some of these things are only just now coming to light. Huge problems, that could affect the outcome, were not present at the time. Certainly not publicized. Too many people are keeping this stuff tight and not letting it out. Dems didn't want to give the perception that they were whining losers like in 2000. For the record I don't believe that was the case even in 2000. I wanted the votes counted then and I don't care what it looks like. My question is do these reports have the chance of swinging the election to Kerry. If so then the concession is not a factor. The people voted, Bush can still be told to leave in January. And wouldn't that be so perfect after declaring a mandate.
Outside of a few blogs (and it hasn't been easy for me to find info on MyDD until today) this isn't getting reported on. Olbermann last night and over the weekend on his blog on MSNBC are all I've seen (and MichaelMoore.com). I'm the average citizen (well mayybe a bit more informed), so if I am having a hard time finding out about this, so are others [and I'm specifically seeking it out]. Its public outcry that will lead to the recount necessary to prove all this out. The problem is this stuff has to leave the blogosphere and into mainstream news and do so relatively quickly or it is mute. Some say its usefull to pursue for the future. B.S. Its most important right now because if there is truth to all of this it means sticking it to Bush big time and a healthy stop to the gloating of the other side.
I do think for the future sake the vote count should not be a one night event. Vote, wait two days or even a week, then when everything is counted release the results. Put a stop to all of this nonsense.
I don't know about systematic attempts to play with the registration numbers. I will say that I attempted to change my registration from NPA to Democrat some time prior to the election and it never happened.
Another thing to note is Cheney came here. They shutdown the entire town. You couldn't cross certain roads (which in this small town means everything shuts down). I wonder how people ever got out to the fair grounds to see him? Did they have to show a ticket at road blocks? If so why is that appropriate? Only people with tickets to see Cheney get to travel freely? [All rhetorical]