navwin » Discussion » The Alley » be careful, it's about to hit the fan again
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic be careful, it's about to hit the fan again Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia

0 posted 2004-11-05 10:16 AM


From Arab news media, India news media stories this morning, not yet even mentioned in major US news online: (it is only 7AM here)
You'll no doubt hear about this within the next few hours from the US press. After all, it is still early, and some will want to triple verify this before letting the citizens know. However, IF you read the news from other countries, you will be three steps ahead of the rest of the populace.  

DUBAI, Nov 5 (AFP) - A group linked to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network threatened the United States with reprisals after the re-election of President George W. Bush, warning of "unbearable hell," in a website statement on Friday.

"The coming days will show you that the one you preferred will lead you to an unbearable hell," said the group calling itself the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades after the Al-Qaeda military chief killed in Afghanistan in October 2001.

It was not possible to immediately verify the statement. The same group claimed responsibility for the train bombings in Madrid in March this year that killed 191 people in Spain's worst attack and injured another 1,900.

"Although the criminal Bush has spilt blood of Muslims during the last four years and despite the butcheries that he committed and continues to perpetrate in Afghanistan, in Palestine and in Iraq, we see that... the applause of his people is increasing," it said.

"This shows the nature of the American people who approved the war against Islam led by criminal America," it added.

The statement comes after a message from Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden -- broadcast just days ahead of the US election -- warned the United States of new attacks similar to those of September 11, 2001.

Bush beat his rival Democrat John Kerry to win a second term in office in Tuesday's vote.

"The re-election of the criminal Bush, who is no different from the other leaders of this country who have devoted their efforts to killing Muslims everywhere in the world, will not dissuade the mujahedeen from striking the head of the line of infidelity," it said.

"Bush and Kerry are two sides of the same coin. Both have a dark history that will never be erased. It is the American people who will take the consequences of the politics of its president over the next four years.

"The next days will show that your support of the criminal will not bring you security and will not prevent the muhajedeen from hurting you where you are. The next days will prove this."


So, how much safer do you feel now?

© Copyright 2004 Kathleen Kacy Stafford - All Rights Reserved
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
1 posted 2004-11-05 10:26 AM


Just remember, most of you read it here first, or can at least see that it was available information as early as 7AM western time. It is now almost 7:30, and the major media moguls haven't picked up this story yet.
I studied to be a foreign journalist, though never actively persued this career line. But anyone with an internet connection, a bit of inquisitiveness and a desire to expand your backyard can find all this info easily. Just stay informed because you can't count on the CIA, FBI, or USA government to inform you on a timely basis.

SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676
with you
2 posted 2004-11-05 10:55 AM


"So, how much safer do you feel now?"

same as I did yesterday....same as I will tomorrow. At least with Bush as our President, I can have guns in my home to protect my family. I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.....that is my thoughts on most things in life. From having food and water put away, to having my guns.
When things are out of our hands, the best thing you can do is be proactive, not reactive.

Marge Tindal
Deputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384
Florida's Foreverly Shores
3 posted 2004-11-05 01:05 PM


quote:
So, how much safer do you feel now?
A LOT more than one might think~
There are ALWAYS other opinions, other views, other fanatics ... but here in America, UNITED WE STAND in our freedom-of-choice in having the democracy in which we re-elected a President who will stand steadfast in his belief to protect our homeland~
*Huglets*
~*Marge*~

~*When the heart grieves over what it has lost,
the spirit rejoices over what it has left.
- Sufi epigram <))><

Email noles1@totcon.com

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
4 posted 2004-11-05 01:30 PM


I just think that so many are misguided on this whole war on terror.

After all, why would you call this a war on terror? No matter had Bush, Kerry, Nader, Cobb, Peroutka, Badnarik or Mickey Mouse been elected, it would still be an issue that wouldn't cease to exist, and we're going to have to accept that there are just troubled people in the world who will always be driven by these instincts.

I truly find it saddening how three-fourths of those supporting the war still believe there are weapons of mass destruction even after all major reports contradict that argument, and about as many believe there's still a link between Saddam and 9/11. I mean, I'm anti-war on a moral and spiritual level, but even to those who aren't, it's startling to see this war being defended on the claim that Saddam was just a bad man.

This nation is just obsessed with militarization and violence, period. I just think the more and more our government fights this war, the deeper and deeper we'll slip into trouble.

51% is a majority vote, but considering this election was all a two-way race and over 55 million other Americans voted otherwise, they can't be wrong either. It only shows how polarized this nation remains, and I truly hope Bush fulfills his promise to the American people in having a bi-partisan agenda and sreaching out to Kerry voters, because a majority of Kerry voters don't approve of this war and in continuing to fight this war, I find it increasingly difficult how he'll accomplish this feat.

They say in Japan, "Fear is only as deep as the mind allows". I think our media and nation is driven ever so much by fear, and it just shouldn't be that way. It's wrong and it's unhealthy.

A majority of the world has spoken that they believe the world is less safe because of this war. I do not feel safer with Bush being re-elected, and I'm just hoping after leaving a nation where over half felt America was heading in the wrong direction through his first term, I hope he can reverse these effects in this second term.

I hope those who voted Bush are right here, I really do hope it. But I certainly have some doubt.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
5 posted 2004-11-05 01:42 PM


I don't really see how guns in the home are going to protect anybody from hijacked airplanes, or WMDs for that matter.
SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676
with you
6 posted 2004-11-05 01:51 PM


so Noah? should we have let the "bullies"(terrorists) push us around in hopes that they would leave us in peace if we do what they want? That is the way you present your thoughts hon. I just don't agree with that...they will do this no matter what, they are sick and twisted people. They laugh at people like you and call you weak. They hope for nothing BUT people like you who want us to not fight back. They don't want us to have guns....and to actually give a damn if they hurt us, they don't want us to fight back. Makes their job so much easier.

SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676
with you
7 posted 2004-11-05 01:53 PM


Hush,
if this war gets down to a personal level, which in all reality, it could...I would rather have the means to protect my family, then not. That is all. If you did not grow up understanding that concept, you probably will never get it.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
8 posted 2004-11-05 02:03 PM


I understand the concept of poeple wanting to own guns to protect their families- and as long as they are stored safely and not accessible to kids or really, anybody without the proper license and/or registration, I'm fine with gun ownership. (As far as I could tell, so was Kerry- he even shot a Goose in my state to prove it.)

I'm not so sure the general public should have assault weapons though...

And in light of the fact that our current enemey is a covert network of terrorists based across an entire ocean who have proved, time and again, that bombs, suicide bombings, and most recently hijacked planes, are their modus operandi- once again, I don't see how you figure they're going to attack in hand to hand combat here in the states. They can do so much more damage with much fewer casualties to their side by doing it their way.

SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676
with you
9 posted 2004-11-05 02:10 PM


I didn't say that I thought that it was going to come down to hand to hand, I said in all reality, it could. How can you say it won't? You can't just as I can not say for sure it will. I keep guns in my home for more than the terrorits. There are plenty of bad guys living right here in the US. And as for Kerry shooting a goose? That was for publicity only. It was, a joke. I know I laughed...

and for the record, my kids know how to shoot better than most adults. Gun safety is first and foremost in any responsible gun owners home.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

10 posted 2004-11-05 02:25 PM


I'm afraid, more terrorist attacks are inevidable, regardless of who is President...Bush being re-elected serves no more threat then if Kerry were.

These people (the terrorists)are insane...and want our country...want our freedom to rule in their own way, it's what they know, what they've been taught to believe and trust, they know nothing else.

Unfortunately, most people do not get it, or ignore it...ohhhh if we only knew what is already going on right here in our own coutry, if we'd only open our eyes, and become involved....if only we wouldn't think, It won't happen to us. It will!

If only our society would demand more astute laws....reform our social policies that have been left adrift....

I fear for all of us....not only because of Bush, but because of us

We have not progressed as a society, but have regressed...we've become very lazy and uninvolved...more concerned about the material rather then whats really important
rules and regulations mean nothing....we back our parties even when they're wrong...we're to proud to stand up and shout, hey, this is unacceptable behavior.

Our laws are corroding, along with American businesses....institutions, consideration for rules...which should apply to EVERYONE, no matter who you are or what position you own.  

Remember the old cliche Welfare breeds welfare....welp, so does lack of confidence...greed, immoral insights and perspectives....feeling like we deserve it?

Judge a countries society by it's homelessness, infostructure, beliefs...concepts...what they deem at entertainment.  We laugh and joke about what we should deem immoral and courrupt, and we fuel gossip and force our opinions and beliefs down everyone else's throats....we're a mess, and this is a great time to attack...we're not ready...we should have taken all those forces we sent over to Iraq and shurred up our holes...

We should be much further along....
We've become a nation of material need, we're forgetting moral obligation to others, concern for others...working together as a team to serve a good fit in public awareness, teaching our children manners and consequence for their actions.

We believe everything we read, the media, we assume, just as they do, without getting the facts...and we bash each other, backing up our arguments with the publishings of others.... and we need, we need, we need this and that? Gosh, if a catastrophic attack ever occured, we wouldn't know how to survive, cuz we no longer get our hands dirty, we rely on electric heat, malls 3 miles away, we've lost those old fashioned ways of survival, doing without, improvising?

Maturity, moral obligation to others, courtesy are slowly becoming prehistorically extinct.

Oh, it isn't hopeless, and it may take another hit or two (terrorist attack) before people get smart and start screaming, SEAL OFF OUR BOARDERS and fight the terrorists who are right here right now.  

They're waiting, patiently...and our government knows they're here?

It's sad, but it will take a catastrophe to wake people up....and besides, we're also a society who doen't think to ask questions....instead we bash and blame....we lack common sense and education...education to become strong again....and the money mongers like us this way.  They love our divided country....
We're experiencing the same things that happened years and years ago, only difference is more people, less ethic....we thrive on gossip, money and what's in it for us.  We allow our TV's, movies and newspapers to control not only our thinking, but the way we should think....and we're being sucked up into it....

sorry folks, I'll remain an eternal optomistic
praying that President Bush wakes up to, and changes this mess, we've all gotten ourselves into...he can't do it alone, no one can, cause he's a puppet to, in some respects....and until the people stand up side by side, together, and forget about controlling peoples beliefs....???? Sigh???

There are a lot of good people out there
who are like children, afraid to fight for whats right, it's peer pressure, people are afraid to stand up for fear of being banned from society or family, or their jobs.  So, we keep quiet...but deep down inside, we all know what's really going on, don't we?

And this hype about not owning the 10 commandments....has nothing to do with religion, but a great deal to do with organized conduct towards each other...without it, we're dead...in more ways then one....

I really do miss the old Religious Christmas Carols, I miss the caroling and the privilege of calling it Christmas....I miss knowing who my neighbors are, baking cakes when new neighbors move in....I miss it when no one comes to help shovel snow, and the guy across the street owns a snow blower.
When my foster dad was alive, he shoveled both sides of the streets, with the other husbands....I miss hearing kids reciting the Lord's Prayer...jeeze louise, at least that gave our children something to believe in?
A role model so to speak?  

OH well, down off my soap box I go...forgive me for being so long winded...

I don't believe things are hopeless, just a little out of joint is all.

SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676
with you
11 posted 2004-11-05 02:32 PM


Lee you run for President so I can vote for you!!
You rock!

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
12 posted 2004-11-05 02:41 PM


Just be careful, and alert, and don't expect someone else to come to your rescue in a disaster, even though there will always be a handful who offer their time and services selflessly, in the end, you'll often be on your own.
Lee, I do agree with some of what you've written, though I am adamant that we keep religion out of schools and government.  Religion's deep hold in other countries only deepens the belief that there will never be true freedom unless and untill everyone's rights are equally respected and upheld by the rules of law and government.
This thread was started to remind everyone to keep an open mind, open eyes, READ and LISTEN to what others are saying.
For survival's sake, please, don't stick your head in the American media proverbial sandpile and expect to maintain any degree of homeland security.

Kaoru
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892
where the wild flowers grow
13 posted 2004-11-05 02:52 PM


I feel safe, but that's because I live out in the middle of nowhere and who cares about this place?

I'm not too concerned with having a gun, really, because they'll never attack by foot.. It would take more than a million man army to do that here.

All I can think about is the fact that Cheney said that if Kerry were elected, the chance of an attack on American soil would skyrocket...as if Bush being president would save us...

It won't.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
14 posted 2004-11-05 03:09 PM


Orwell, you were sooooo right. 20 years off, but sooooo right
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
15 posted 2004-11-05 03:19 PM


Meg, maybe a good time to stay put, and hopefully safe.
Raphie, in the overall timeframe of the world, 20 years sure isn't much is it?
Yep, Orwellian thoughts creep into my day too.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

16 posted 2004-11-05 03:41 PM


Lee, I do agree with some of what you've written, though I am adamant that we keep religion out of schools and government.  Religion's deep hold in other countries only deepens the belief that there will never be true freedom unless and untill everyone's rights are equally respected and upheld by the rules of law and government.

I believe I should have emphasized, that I am against organized religion...totally, but not against faith and belief and the continued teachings of moral considerations...Organized Religions have become to controlling for me...and scares me just as much as the terrorists...they to control...and thats what I meant when I offered the point about these things have been going on since the beginning of time...and it's no ones business who does what with their body...especially when our children and young people are bombarded with sex sex sex...what in the world do parents expect them to do....my goodness, they're like little hormones with arms and legs....

What I mean to suggest is this...rules may not always seem fair, but are there for a reason...and to modify them sometimes is a good thing...but in the process, we must examine the consequeces of those modifications before we react...b/c we could open a can of worms....meaning...there is always good intentions in people's hearts, but there are those who will always bend a point in the direction of courruption...for personal gains and material wealth.  

Opps, I'm getting off the subject here of just simply maintaining a preventitive maintenance with self....holding values and concern for the hearts of others...teaching our children of great possibilities....they don't have to be married to be successful...or to be taken care of....there is a great world out there for them to offer to...teaching them some basic rules and living by them...(the commandments)  or trying to...to the best of their ability.  

We only use what 1/3 of our brains, can you imagine if we'd begin to exercise those possiblities...which are there waiting for us to explore...but...they've stagnated us...it's no one's business if I decide to get an abortion...(and believe me, I do believe that abortion is for convenience) but it is my choice....

Stem cell research....well, I can understand the Religious views on this subject..but...in the same....God gave us brains to excel, in science, in technology, etc....and I do believe anyone who was loosing a child would welcome any cure stem cell had to offer....one cannot say how they would react until they are stricken with the saddness of a child whom they may loose.  But...there will always be, as there is and was in the past, those that will abuse that particular breakthrough for money and money only, trying to blackmarket embreyos...but we can't allow that to stop us...we can't.

I hope this clears up what I didn't properly explain before...I suppose what I'm saying is what is the most dangerous of all things, are the extremes, the extreme lefts and extreme rights....and if we don't change it, it will kill us.

I've said this before and I'll die saying this....abolish the left and rights by registering independent.  Oh you can still vote for whomever you like, but at least you wouldn't be so inclined to defend corrupt and unacceptable behavior.  Can you imagine the tail spin it would put our politicians in, not to mention, force them slowly to become more honest.  

Remember, no matter who you are, human nature will undenyably defend their own...b/c we've become a nation that is more afraid of standing up and saying....Mr. so and so...you are wrong...so we follow the trends, and dig ourselves in deeper and deeper, and silence paves the way to accepting bad behavior...and it just keeps going and going on....

Our politicians actually believe they deserve pork barrel spending...?????

They're way more concerned about oil, then the welfare of mankind...and believe me, there are other fuel sources out there, a lot less expensive and more reliable...but propose a loss for the giants.

When the terrorist attack again...and they will, our money, cloths, big homes, fast cars, diamond jewerly, big screen tv's and investments will mean nothing....

What means more...is how we forgot about how to raise our children, with the firm hands of love....teaching them...instead we leave it up to day care and others and rant and rave when they don't live up to our expectations????

Look back in history, when did every great nation fall....when they became immoral and corrupt.  And the terrists will be waiting in their own Trojan Horse....Did anyone ever think that they've got us right where they want us....with our boarders unattended and our military preoccupied?  

I dunno, just my thoughts

Thanks for the opportunity to share...and believe me...I hope like anything, I'm wrong!!!!!

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
17 posted 2004-11-05 06:22 PM


Where did Kerry say he would ban guns?

He didn't.

What election were you paying attention to?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
18 posted 2004-11-05 06:47 PM


I don't understand what point you are trying to make, Kacey. Before the election you, Noah, Ron and a host of others claimed their votes would not be guided by any terrorist threat and now you phrase this in such a way that indicates that, because no one let terrorists influence their votes, it's our fault and we should feel less safe? What's your point?

Their message indicates that it would have been the same regardless of the election results so it's not a Bush vs Kerry issue. How would you have us feel?

"This thread was started to remind everyone to keep an open mind, open eyes, READ and LISTEN to what others are saying.
For survival's sake, please, don't stick your head in the American media proverbial sandpile and expect to maintain any degree of homeland security."

I confess my limited intelligence fails me as to what in the world you are saying there...could you be a touch more specific?


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
19 posted 2004-11-05 08:22 PM


I agree with Mike.

I'm not sure I understand the point here either. The Bush side said Bush would fight terrorism more strongly. The Kerry side said they would fight it better.

It makes no difference, these calls would have come anyway.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
20 posted 2004-11-05 09:19 PM


“"The re-election of the criminal Bush, who is no different from the other leaders of this country who have devoted their efforts to killing Muslims everywhere in the world, will not dissuade the mujahedeen from striking the head of the line of infidelity," it said.

"Bush and Kerry are two sides of the same coin. Both have a dark history that will never be erased. It is the American people who will take the consequences of the politics of its president over the next four years.”

They hate Americans, as unbelievers, and  supporters of Israel.  Kacy, I understand
there is a phrase in the Moslem Middle East: “After Saturday, comes Sunday”,
which means Jews first then . . .

“Just be careful, and alert, and don't expect someone else to come to your rescue in a disaster, even though there will always be a handful who offer their time and services selflessly, in the end, you'll often be on your own”

Which Israel has understood for decades and not without reason.  There was
a survey over thirty years ago that found that only twenty percent or less
of Americans would support Americans fighting for the sake of Israel.

Many of Europe have made their appeasing accommodations, almost
by necessity because of large and unassimilated Moslem populations,
(look what happened in The Netherlands).  They’re being very
practical, divorced from abstract right or good.

The fundamentalists understand without American support Israel
would quickly cease to exist.  

The fundamentalists  believe they are doing God’s
work and they have amply demonstrated their willingness to
die in order to kill for their god.   We, ( where,  I understand
one third of medical costs associate with the last few months
or weeks of life), can’t grasp that, anymore than sailors could
Kamikazes in the Pacific.

John

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
21 posted 2004-11-05 09:57 PM


Many times the American support for Israel is used as a crutch, an excuse, nothing more. Someone tell me what Israel has to do with the moslem atrocities in the Sudan or in other areas where they slaughter in the name of their god?

If the Palestinians put down their weapons there would be peace.

If the Israelis put  down their weapons there would be no Israel.

John, with all due respect, I do not believe the fundamentalists believe they are fighting for their god...nor are they willing to die for it. They are simply good at making their followers be willing to die for their cause. Let me know the next time you see a high-ranking moslem die as a suicide bomber. Ain't gonna happen...

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

22 posted 2004-11-05 10:30 PM


Not an NRA member, but those folks are a tad political and they weren't real strong Kerry backers even with the dead goose.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=162

The NRA was paying attention to a different election apparently.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
23 posted 2004-11-05 10:39 PM


Mike,

“John, with all due respect, I do not believe the fundamentalists believe they are fighting for their god...nor are they willing to die for it. They are simply good at making their followers be willing to die for their cause. Let me know the next time you see a high-ranking moslem die as a suicide bomber. Ain't gonna happen...”

Remember the now old saying:
Old soldiers never die.
Young ones do.

That’s how it has always been.  The generals on
both sides are always the last to go.

But their followers are fundamentalists who do believe
they are fighting for their god...and they are willing to die for it
if they can kill as well.  And they are killing.  And like
those sailors mentioned before, we don’t have much
choice beyond trying to kill them first.

As to the Sudan, in the Sudan it’s Sunday.

John

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
24 posted 2004-11-05 10:39 PM


Well, yeah, none of those votes abrogate you second amendment rights.

quote:
At least with Bush as our President, I can have guns in my home to protect my family
.

How do any of those votes hurt having guns in the home?



Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

25 posted 2004-11-05 10:54 PM


The NRA obviously feels otherwise, but what the hey, I have no real desire to debate NRA positions, just point out the fact other than the goose hunt which went over like a snipe hunt, Kerry is viewed by those who have an interest in gun ownership as being a foe rather than a friend.

Bottom line, Kerry's anti-NRA position in the Senate was an issue to a rather significant political force.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
26 posted 2004-11-05 11:31 PM


Still doesn't answer the question.

After four years of Kerry, would SEA still own a gun?

If the answer is yes, that's my point. If the answer is no, you're either being disingenuous or you're not living in the real world.


hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
27 posted 2004-11-05 11:56 PM


BTW sea, I wasn't trying to imply that you don't practice gun safety in the home. And I also thought the goose shooting was a joke... a rather mean one, too- that is, if you're a goose.

But I'm with Brad... who's it going to hurt if you have to wait a few extra days to get a gun? I'd rather have to wait than have a shoddy checks system where criminals slip thru the cracks. And if you need a gun so badly that you just have to have it in two days or less... I have to wonder what the urgency is... it kind of conerns me. And that vote about the national park? Well doesn't it just suck that people vote to make a natural space into a wilife preserve? Sorry, ain't gonna be no more animal killing on these here grounds.

Oh, and the NRA saved the best for last:

'Voted to commend the Million Mom March in 2000 for their march on Washington that included calls for gun owner licensing, gun registration and other restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.'

What kind of a monster would vote to commend a million mom march that was intended (solely, I'm sure) to screw over gun owners?! I'm sure it had nothing to do with concern for safety...

To be fair, there are also things I disageed with. The NRA had every right to back Bush publically- but that's politics for ya. Gun owners should not be subject ro random, unwarranted searches any more than Arab-Americans should be subjected to unwarranted searches.

But do I think guns would ahve banned under him? No- no more than I think abortion (on the whole) will be banned under Bush. It's too polar, and too divided an issue, Kerry might have been able to pass limits, just as Bush has passed limits on the gestational age of fetus that can be legally aborted, but to outlaw guns entirely? I don't think Kerry wants to outlaw them- he might, but I don't think so- but even if he did, I think a large enough majority would stand up and say "No, you really can't do that."

I'm terrified of guns and hate to even have them in my sight, and even I would stand up and say that.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
28 posted 2004-11-06 12:02 PM


Well, that's how I stopped one would-be intruder without even firing a shot when I lived in Abilene, TX.  Pump shotguns have a very distinctive sound when a shell is chambered.  Saw the sillouette on the shade testing windows, saw it freeze, saw it quickly vanish when I chambered.
Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

29 posted 2004-11-06 12:03 PM


“Where did Kerry say he would ban guns?

He didn't.

What election were you paying attention to?”

Just goes to show folks can look at the same thing and come to completely different conclusions.  Disingenuous, nope, don’t think so, I was making a point you do not wish to concede.  I still think my point is valid.  If you do not want to believe Kerry’s position on guns was contrary to the NRA’s and viewed by the NRA as restriction of their right to own guns, then you need to call the NRA disingenous or perhaps ignorant.

Are you saying Kerry is a strong proponent of the right to bear arms as interpreted under the second amendment by the NRA?

Are you trying to say Kerry’s record in the Senate as to the right to bear arms was not an issue in the campaign?

Do you think Kerry went hunting because he felt the urge to kill a goose?

Apparently we did pay attention to different elections.

And am I living in the real world?  Yep, the last time I checked.

And if you specifically want your new question answered, I don’t think Kerry would have been able to muster the Congressional  support to place restrictions on the right to bear arms, although I think philosophically he would have desired that result if he had been elected.  I think that is a fair assessment in the world I inhabit and I don’t even own any guns nor I have a desire to own any.



Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
30 posted 2004-11-06 12:10 PM


Whew, I guess I muddled this morning's post somewhat. Sorry for the confusion. That'll teach me to stay up too late and get up too early. LOL. But the main point was about the news media, and staying alert. There is a very loud rumble in the Arab press that started late last night or early this morning, and even though I read it at the crack of dawn in some ME news sources, it still wasn't being mentioned here. This isn't the first time I've found what I consider important breaking news totally ignored by the American press, or at least not reported at net speed. C'mon, if I can get the news this fast, why can't Associated Press? Google? all those sources should have had something. These new terrorist threats are real, not imaginary.
They said the same thing bin Laden said just before the election, that it didn't make much difference as to who won...except that there was a HOPE that a change in administrations MIGHT bring a change of direction.
But do you feel any safer now? Not me, I think it's going to get worse long before it gets better. Hope I'm proven wrong.
Earlier in the day I watched a series of short videotaped interviews of the Iraqui insurgents in Fallujah, and they said the only thing they think about when they go out to fight the Americans is that they are doing a holy job for Allah, that the infidels must die. I don't know how we can get past that mindset. But I do know, not all Muslims feel that way, and I have had many Muslim friends in the US and in the ME who do not support the bin Laden's of this world, and who do NOT wish to push Israel into the sea.
So, I apologize for any confusion regarding the quoted story, but I wanted to make sure everyone stays alert, and to remind you that you cannot count on getting all the info you need to CYA from just one or two sources.

As for guns for protection in every home? That's a whole other thread. After having attended three different funerals of innocents killed by accidental discharges from loaded weapons in a home? No thanks, I'll not be needing one in my home, though if I lived in Iraq, I might re-consider.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
31 posted 2004-11-06 12:25 PM


“Earlier in the day I watched a series of short videotaped interviews of the Iraqui insurgents in Fallujah, and they said the only thing they think about when they go out to fight the Americans is that they are doing a holy job for Allah, that the infidels must die. I don't know how we can get past that mindset. But I do know, not all Muslims feel that way, and I have had many Muslim friends in the US and in the ME who do not support the bin Laden's of this world, and who do NOT wish to push Israel into the sea.”

How many Germans were Nazis in the time of Hitler?
Not many really.  It doesn’t take many, and once in
control they can get the majority to live with and do many
things, because at any point of opposition they can
bring overwhelming power and terror to bear.
It's one thing to oppose at the expense of your own
life, but something else, even for the bravest,
when you whole family is subject to the blade.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
32 posted 2004-11-06 12:46 PM


It logically follows that Tom Delay, dubya, and the NRA want AK47's to be owned by drug dealers. After all, it is their right.

But even Hush is willing to consider that Kerry, in his fantasy world, would want all guns banned.

Why?

So Bush wants to be a dictator, in his deepest heart of hearts.

After all, while the both of you have only intuition to follow, he said it.




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2004-11-06 12:56 PM


Kacey, I heard that on our news station at 8 this morning while driving to work so it wasn't a secret here. They didn't mention a "loud rumble" in the Arab world like you have but perhaps you have better information....yes, I think everyone tries to stay alert, warned or not.
Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

34 posted 2004-11-06 09:16 AM


I do not begrudge your rabid anti-Bush feelings Brad, (I personally believe the American system of politics performs best when there are near equal and passionate parties),but your comments are heading a bit out into left field.

If you want to play semantics on the issue of ban versus restrictions, feel free to do so.  The fact remains, whether you support his position or not, Kerry has voted and is viewed by a significant portion of the population as anti-gun.

It was an issue in the campaign and Kerry obviously was aware of the fact.  That is the point I was making and it is clear you will not concede what I view as readily discernible and not an intuitive thought process.

btw, you did not answer my questions.

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
35 posted 2004-11-06 09:37 AM


LOL, Mike, actually, no one had to (or did except for me)use those words, all you really have to do is read what's already out there. It's on the airwaves and in the written media as well as videos. The 'rumble' has been there for a very long time, and is getting louder.
I'm impressed you heard it, for not one of the most poplular internet 'instant' news sites or front pages even mentioned it.
does that mean they (1)didn't consider it newsworthy or reliable (2) they just didn't hear about it yet (3) they guessed we already had that figured out?
Just CYA, we still need our Passion's fixes daily.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2004-11-06 03:50 PM


My guess would be number one, Kacey. Anon threats by anon people aren't that newsworth, I suppose, except for here in Florida where they can't tell the difference!
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
37 posted 2004-11-06 04:16 PM


Mike, don't kid yourself, the Abu-Hafs al-Masri brigade is for real. Abu-Hafs was al Qaida's training commander. Abu-Hafs daughter married bin Laden's son. Abu-Haf was a core member of the Jihad that assasinated Anwar al-Sadat in 1981. and though Abu-Haf was killed in a US bombing raid near Kabul in 2001, his followers vowed to carry on, and named this brigade of terrorists in his honor.
Anon? hardly. And this group is only one of many factions, and has been linked to many attacks in the last three years.
But I don't expect most Americans to know about this, most don't read the Arab news reports. I just thought I'd fill you in, but if no one wants the info, they don't have to read it. But don't kid yourself about whether or not it is real, or that it is of no consequence.
Again, stay alert....even in Florida, maybe ESPECIALLY in Florida.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

38 posted 2004-11-06 04:45 PM


The particular brigade in question takes credit for a lot of activities.  If I recall right, they claimed causing the blackout in the NE some time ago.

I do not in any way shape or form deny the danger that faces not only the U.S., but the world as a whole, however, if one has to take the American media with a grain of salt, the Arab media would require a couple salt lick blocks.

One has to live their lives and be vigilant.

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
39 posted 2004-11-06 05:02 PM


LOL, that's a very funny analogy, Tim. And that is one explanation, perhaps, for the 'news' not being news? It's true, they and a couple other groups have taken credit for things they didn't do. But I'm more concerned with what they did do and still intend to do, whether or not these are idle threats, or real. We can't afford to ignore any of it, but of course, I don't suggest you dedicate all your personal time to following this stuff. (That's what some other people are supposedly being paid to do.) But there is an information overload, and a short circuit point for many. That's exactly what some of these groups count on...our lack of attention, our misg-guided sense of security.
Anyway, I'll continue to post something new in this forum now and then, but it sure takes up a lot of my 'poetry' time. Shalom, Peace, and have a great day. CYA, it's dangerous everywhere these days.
More reasons you need to go to multiple sources, then look at everything through a screen.


*
and this, from yet another source: dated Nov 6, 2004
BEIRUT (AP) - Prominent Saudi religious scholars have called on Iraqis to support insurgents waging holy war against the U.S.-led coalition forces, saying fighting the occupation was a duty and a right.
In an open letter to the Iraqi people and posted on the Internet on Saturday, 26 Saudi scholars and religious preachers stressed that armed attacks on U.S. troops and their allies in Iraq were "legitimate" resistance.
The statement came as U.S. troops, backed by air and artillery power, were gearing up for a major assault on the militant stronghold of Fallujah.
The scholars - some of whom have been criticized in the past for their views - issued a fatwa, or religious edict, prohibiting Iraqis from offering any support for military operations carried out by U.S. forces against rebel strongholds.
"Fighting the occupiers is a duty for all those who are able," said the letter. "It is a jihad (holy war) to push back the assailants. . . . Resistance is a legitimate right. A Muslim must not inflict harm on any resistance man or inform about them. Instead, they should be supported and protected."
Among the 26 scholars who signed the letter are influential Sunni Muslim clerics, Sheik Safar al-Hawali, Sheik Nasser al-Omar, Sheik Salman al-Awdah, Sheik Sharif Hatem al-Aouni and Sheik Awad al-Qarni.


[This message has been edited by Midnitesun (11-06-2004 06:08 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
40 posted 2004-11-06 09:54 PM


Tim, my point is that it's the other side whose playing this game.

At least I can still own a gun as opposed to a five day waiting list?

I'm veering to the left? Not at all, I am using the words as Bush used them (there can be no doubt to the interpretation, I do not have to bend words to suit my purposes). The only thing I've left out is insouciance.

Did he say the words? Yes. Did he mean them as he said them? Yes. Will he act on them? No.

That's a hell of a lot more evidence than most of the things being attributed to Kerry.

I don't begrudge people for voting for Bush. I don't begrudge people with being happy with the result. I'm upset, perhaps at myself more than anyone else, for not taking these off the cuff statements more seriously.

The NRA is a far right, extremist organization.

That's what it is. It is not mainstream, it has made no effort to understand the problem, it has made no effort to compromise it's stance. It doesn't feel that it has a position, it feels it is in possession of self-righteous truth.

That, by definition, is extremist.

It is simply a mistake to look at it any other way.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

41 posted 2004-11-07 01:08 AM


Is the NRA a conservative organization? yep...  a far right extremist organization?
Only to someone who is sitting on the left.
I wonder how many NRA members you know on a personal basis?

I recognize there are conservatives and there are liberals.  They both have their points and have a tendency in the political arena to take partial truths and extrapolate them into untruths.

On the whole, most politicians I have been acquainted with, both on a local and national level, no matter their political bent, are well meaning individuals who are attempting to do what they feel is right.
Interpretation of right or wrong is not so easy when you have consequences for your actions.

Right and wrong, and internet are real easy when you face no consequences for your pronouncments.

That would appear to be our difference.  I note no one responded to my view of the election I put forth in another thread which I do not find particularly surprising, since it requires introspection.

With no disrepect, I have no difficulty in understanding that anyone who thinks the NRA is an extremist right wing organization would hold the views you do as far as denying Kerry is anti-gun.

I just believe the silent majority does indeed exist and the silent majority is not particularly enthralled with either the left or the right.

The NRA is right of center on the gun issue and Kerry was on the left.  Depending on where you are on the political spectrum determines whether you agree with that evaluation.

Most generally, folks view themselves as personally being in the epicenter of the political universe and is why the left views anyone who supported Bush as right wing and the right views anyone who supported Kerry as a ultra liberal bent on destroying the fabric of America.

I suspect most Americans fall in the middle and recognize both sides, left and right play the game.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
42 posted 2004-11-07 02:16 AM


quote:
That's what it is. It is not mainstream, it has made no effort to understand the problem, it has made no effort to compromise it's stance. It doesn't feel that it has a position, it feels it is in possession of self-righteous truth.

I feel pretty much the same way about free speech, Brad. And about unlawful search and detention. And the separation of church and state. Like your view of the NRA, I believe any compromise of those principals can only lead to an erosion of those principals.

I just wish I had their clout.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

43 posted 2004-11-07 06:25 AM


Tim,

I think this past election has shown that the silent majority has finally decided to speak out!

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
44 posted 2004-11-07 08:53 AM


­
­­I am a hunter and a fisherman, have been so since I can remember, and as an adult have always had firearms in my house...I don't like the title of sportsman as I believe that killing things is not sport, but is much more serious that that title implies..

I see the NRA as an agent of the far right that is present in our society, at least they appear that way....I do not want them to represent my rights to own guns , they embarrass me, and more so frighten me as a legitimate gun owner.

That aside, I see that readers of this thread felt threatened by John Kerry's supposed stance on gun control during the recent campaign...Perhaps influenced by the NRA ads that ran in the later part of it...

These ads were full of distortions and lies, but were believed by those who did not research their content.

First of all the ad said..."John Kerry says he’s a sportsman, so why did he vote to ban deer hunting ammunition and vote 9 times to ban guns?"

The fact is Kerry did vote for a proposal to outlaw certain types of ammunition. On that proposal it states that

"rifle ammunition designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability" should be outlawed.

The last time I killed a deer, it was with my old Winchester 30-30 It died very quickly, and I did not have to use armor piercing bullets..What the NRA said in this part of the ad is pure bull...political spin.

The NRA or anyone that believes them must not have read the actual proposed bill...the exact language of the part that pertains to this matter ..its intent is to ban

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability , that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

It goes on to say that Kerry..

"voted 9 times to ban guns?""

Six of the nine votes cited by the NRA were in favor of the 1994 assault-weapons ban.
The three other votes came in 1990 during consideration of an omnibus crime bill, and included an unsuccessful, early attempt to ban 12 specific assault weapons. The ban that later became law covered 19 specific weapons.

The ad further states...

"Why is Kerry sponsoring a bill in the Senate that would ban every semiautomatic shotgun and every pump shotgun?

"every" is a key word here and is an out and out lie...Far from banning all such weapons, the bill Kerry co-sponsored specifically exempted them..

"the ban "shall not apply to any firearm that--
(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action ;
(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
(C) is an antique firearm."

("The word "or"  shows that the exemption for pump or slide-action weapons applies independently of the other two exemptions for antique or inoperable weapons.)

As for semi automatic shotguns..it said it would ban any semi's with

"a folding or telescoping stock . . . a pistol grip . . . the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or . . . a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds."

Anyone who knows about shotguns must take from this that it meant the "Street Sweeper" types of semi's that were popular for crowd control in South Africa in the good old apartheid days...

The ad also contains a Kerry Quote

Kerry:" I think you ought to tax all ammunition. I think you ought to tax guns."

That was a 10 year old quote (CNN interview,Nov.7, 1993) and was put in the ad completely out of context of intention..The discussion was about a crime bill that was being proposed to the congress.

Kerry said he favored a punitive tax on what the interviewer described as "cop-killer" bullets designed to mushroom on impact. And he also said he favored "more" tax on ordinary ammunition, as well as the firearms that use them. The extra money was to be used to support the crime bill.

The word "more" here is very important...Kerry isn't currently proposing any new taxes on guns or ammunition.

Last statement in the ad...

"Kerry a sportsman? That dog don’t hunt. NRA-PVF is responsible for the content of this advertising."

"That dog don't hunt" something that Larry the cable guy might say?
I guess they have to appeal to the redneck crowd as well as more intelligent people concerned with this issue...

The ad is presented in the best Carl Rove tradition, distortions and out and out lies about the subject matter....spin spin, spin - it makes me dizzy...although I must admit that I found several distortions and a few lies in the Kerry ads....but he was engaged with his enemy and was fighting the psychological pounding of character assassination...The  flip flop, flip flop , crap of Mr. Rove..I think Kerry should not have joined the liars club, he may have lost by more, but he would have lost more honestly..

---------------ice/ford
     ><>


­

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

45 posted 2004-11-07 09:19 AM


And the responses of Ron and Ice in my opinion validate my position, especially ice.  
I have enjoyed the consistent theme throughout and now post election, if you were not for Kerry or have views inconsistent with the left you are an ignorant redneck.  If you support Kerry, you were intelligent.

It may well be that the base of the left is intelligent.  

I look at the socio-economic makeup of the left versus the right, or even the center, and I fail to see why everyone but the left is so ignorant.

As my dear departed grandfather always said, the best way to gain support for your position is call the other side an ignorant redneck, whoa... wait a second, that was Michael Moore, excuse me...

Those who sit in the middle often wonder how people who are so seemingly intelligent on "both" sides of the political spectrum can have such blinders on.



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
46 posted 2004-11-07 09:25 AM


Don't pretend.

You may understand the position, but you don't really understand why.

Understanding begins with us.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
47 posted 2004-11-07 09:38 AM


the apocalyse begins.


We have four years to stop it. What side are you on?

Sorry Tim, hate to ask the question?

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
48 posted 2004-11-07 10:36 AM


­Tim
I in no way insinuated that all conservatives had the same brains a rednecks...

You said...

"if you were not for Kerry or have views inconsistent with the left you are an ignorant redneck.  If you support Kerry, you were intelligent."

I suppose you gathered that I thought that way by reading this statement in my reply..

""That dog don't hunt" something that Larry the cable guy might say?
I guess they have to appeal to the redneck crowd as well as more intelligent people concerned with this issue..."

None of the words in that statement were implying like mind of the intelligent people who support the NRA, and the clods that were stirred up by the NRA's last statement in the ad.
It is in the use of those words that I find offence and sleaziness.

By the way, I think Michael Moore is a money grubbing, a-- h---, I'll censor myself, so Ron doesn't have to bother.
He belongs to the same gang as Rove and the other Madison Avenue thugs who flash their colors in modern political campaigns.

I sit in no middle, and consider myself blinder free...and have decided to only speak from a position of grounded truth, provable as much as possible by public record and transcripts of law... if anyone cares to see where the information came from,(in my first post) please ask.

I don't consider myself a lefty, in the commonly understood sense of that word..I consider myself a transcendentalist, trained in the old Emerson school of "well we tried that, it didn't work, lets try something new", and Don't repeat what I say, tell me what "you" think.

What I do ask for is honesty...Is that possible in today's political world?...I don't know, and lean towards thinking not...

As I stated in my post..

"I must admit that I found several distortions and a few lies in the Kerry ads....but he was engaged with his enemy and was fighting the psychological pounding of character assassination.."

I do not feel that he should have ok'd  his own distortions and lies...and so I added...

"I think Kerry should not have joined the liars club, he may have lost by more, but he would have lost more honestly.."

He should have told the entire truth, always....He was at war, but he fought dirty...further proving that rules of engagement are impossible and phony, and when you are losing the battle,  you bring out your big guns,  moral, or on paper laws against them or not...


Brad
"Understanding begins with us."
Yes it does, What I have intended to do is look past the jive and hype of the spin doctors..The truth is shown clearly somewhere, I hope.


Peace-brothers...

--------ice
  ><>
­­
­

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
49 posted 2004-11-07 11:48 AM


the apocalyse begins.

Into a little melodrama these days, Brad? Darn, why didn't we elect your guy and avoid armageddon? Beats me...


Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

50 posted 2004-11-07 04:59 PM




Brad, I don't really see the apocalypse occuring within the next four years.

I think the big problem is going to occur in thirty to forty years when the oil in the middle east dries up and the various despots and dictators cannot rely on oil to keep themselves in power.

Churchill some 60 years ago forewarned the danger of Islamic fundamentalism.  For the last sixty years the problem has been seething below the surface and is now bubbling to the top.

I think the world can probably handle the bubbling in the short term. The issue is whether we are going to continue the course of the last half century or seek an alternative course of action to alter the path on which we appear to be heading.

That scares the bejeebers out of me.  Not Bush nor Kerry.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
51 posted 2004-11-07 05:23 PM


Melodrama? Me?

I wasn't the one who posted an article by Hal Lindsay.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
52 posted 2004-11-07 05:25 PM


quote:
I feel pretty much the same way about free speech, Brad.


Really? So if a person screams fire in a theater and there is no fire, that's okay?

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
53 posted 2004-11-07 06:34 PM


Thank you, ice, for highlighting those documents.
It's obvious there will always be differing opinions as to the rules and regs of gun ownership. As for the politics of it? I would sure like to see everyone stick more to facts, less to rhetoric. Some days it seems that he who shouts loudest with the biggest pocket book wins. Feel free to interpret that any way you choose.
It's always been my assumption that the NRA IS made up mostly of right-wing oriented conservative elements. But since I personally know three registered gun toting members of the NRA who are liberal Voters? We get carried away with titles in this country, and both extremes of the political spectrum get the press coverage political  mainstreamers don't get.
It's always been my view that more innocents die than bad guys when homeowners keep loaded guns around. It seems there is no end to what children will do to 'play' bang-bang you're dead, and when adults get angry? If there is a loaded gun around, it's often used. I have no problem with hunting for sustenance. But no one can convince me that handguns, armor piercing bullets and AK47's and the like are for hunting deer, not even for bear protection. I know several people who keep handguns for self-protection in the city, but I've found that the 'bad guys' are rarely the ones who receiving end of the bullets, and those guns are frequently stolen during robberies.
I think when we discuss weapons and ammo,  we need to be specific and truthful, as John Kerry was in his legislative arguments.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
54 posted 2004-11-07 09:29 PM


quote:
Really? So if a person screams fire in a theater and there is no fire, that's okay?

Brad, the recognition that no freedom is (or ever can be) absolute is hardly a reason to condemn enthusiasm for freedom.

While I don't share the NRA's particular zeal, I understand it. I think it would be a real shame if you had to go through a five-day registration process every time you wanted to swear at a new politician, just so we could prevent some idiot from yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Such a cure might actually help eliminate the problem, too. But the problems it caused in return would be no less real.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
55 posted 2004-11-08 03:12 AM


And yet, don't you think something's wrong when Ron supports a screaming fire in a theater banning law and the website says:

Carnell is against Freedom of Speech

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

56 posted 2004-11-08 08:27 AM


Some would suggest that is what is happening with the Patriot Act Brad.

It again boils down to one's views and perspectives. No matter one's intellect or level of common sense, emotion and ideology play a significant role in how we view what we perceive as a position of the other side, notwithstanding our protestations that we are in the middle or independent.

And I as recall, there have been a few complaints over the years concerning Ron's infringement of 1st amendment rights.

Are those complaints valid?  I don't think so, but I was not the one effected or in some cases offended.  I do however recognize Ron exercises a degree of censorship far more than I would accept or tolerate outside of Passions if government exercised the censorship, notwithstanding the fact I would strongly disagree with the content and how the statements were made.

Had Gore been elected president and after 9-11, the Patriot Act been implemented, would the concerns of the left have been as vocal?
That is where introspection takes place.

Clearly we need to fight to protect our constitutional rights which form the foundation of our country. However, we should recognize partisanship enters into our views on even those issues.  





Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
57 posted 2004-11-08 10:16 AM


quote:
Had Gore been elected president and after 9-11, the Patriot Act been implemented, would the concerns of the left have been as vocal?

Yep, I would have squealed equally loud, as I feel it's one of the most poorly worded and downright dangerous documents we've ever had foisted on the 'free' American public. But I don't believe it would have been signed by Gore, anyway.

As for the censorship here in Pips? It's Ron's house, and even if I don't always agree, I respect his rights to boot the guest out and close the door whenever they offend him. But he rarely does that, and I feel he is mostly beyond reproach when it comes to fairness issues. Most of the time, though perhaps, not always.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

58 posted 2004-11-08 09:16 PM


To the right, that would be a left wing extremist position as to the Patriot Act.  

In any event, that view would appear to be to the same level of commitment as that held by the NRA in regards to what they view as infringements of their 2nd Amendment rights.  

It is a matter of where you sit on the political fence and those out at the end of the corral have a tendency to believe the opposite side of the corral is where the back end of the horse resides.  But the saddle sits in the middle of the horse.

Bush didn't pass the Patriot Act.  Congress did with 99 Senators in support including Kerry and Edwards.  I suppose one can speculate, but I really don't see Gore vetoing the Patriot Act if he had been President.  But what the hey, who knows.

The right lived through 8 years of Clinton and the left will live through 8 years of Bush.  Then the next generation will believe the country is irrevocably divided when we elect our first post boomer president at which time we will all still retain our constitutional rights being allowed to speak freely and own guns.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
59 posted 2004-11-08 10:07 PM


Yeah, but will social security still be there?

Clinton wasn't a leftist by the way, he was a centrist. Doesn't anybody remember workfare and NAFTA?

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

60 posted 2004-11-08 11:09 PM


I would call Clinton a triangilationist.
In simplest terms, he was going to do what it took politically.

By the same token, if you ask a true conservative, they think Bush sold them out on a lot of issues first term and is a centrist.

Clinton and the "Contract for America" did a couple of things together that ended up positive for America but neither is going to give credit to the other.

Social Security is in trouble no matter what happens because it is viewed as something it was never meant to be and something is going to have to be done because of population shifts.  Using it as a scare tactic probably isn't the solution though.


Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
61 posted 2004-11-08 11:36 PM


Clinton as a triangle LOL, what a funny image I just got. Sorry. Had to laugh a minute, and it felt good after all the months of political overload from all the party animals.
Tim, I have always been left of center. It's where I am comfortable, and I've never felt any need to apologize or see anything differently. In fact, sometimes, I feel I am dangerously too close to the middle, and not paying enough attention to what is going on in the rest of the real world. Because every time the whole planet comes into focus, I see just how parochial and narrow-minded our political spectrum really is. And even if it's more popular to go with the middle, I cannot in good conscience.
Guess I'll always be on the 'liberal' end of the comet, especially when freedom of speech and the right to dissent are at stake, as I believe they are with that (un)Patriot Act.
Oh, since you don't know me very well, maybe you didn't read in some previous posts about my ancestry. My mother's maiden name is Thornton. MY family tree includes Dr Matthew Thornton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, representing state of New Hampshire. Great great great(?) Grandpa Matt never intended for me to be silent about my rights, and would roll over in his grave if he knew his legacy was not being honored. That means something to me, and keeps me grounded whenever someone suggests I am politically off-center.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

62 posted 2004-11-08 11:45 PM


Isn't anything wrong with being liberal.  Isn't anything wrong with being a conservative.  

Over the years I have known quite a few of both persuasions, including politicians at all levels of government.  Most are pretty nice well meaning folks.

I've been accused of being a lot of things over the years and a good politician or a conservative or liberal probably aren't some of them.  I came from down by the rail mills and have had the occasion to meet up with folks from the old neighborhood over the years.

Once, a lady I knew growing up told me she was going to vote for me.  Her son, who I had sent to prison asked, how could you vote for the B#$#$#.  The mother replied, Tim may be a B#(*&$, but at least he's our B#I$(&.  In twenty-five years I have never lost an election, I guess that means I am pretty good at being a $*&^#%.


Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
63 posted 2004-11-09 12:00 PM


Then you must be making a majority of your constituents happy. Congratulations, perhaps you are one of those rare political creatures who doesn't have to split the baby down the middle in order to maintain justice and equality in your community.
So how come you aren't running for the big job?

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
64 posted 2004-11-09 09:15 AM


Easy. Tim's not totally insane. No sane person would ever want the Big Job.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
65 posted 2004-11-09 09:45 PM


Since when is stating the truth a scare tactic?

What do you think privatization means?

Hint: It means dismantling a government program.

Wait, did I misunderstand Bush again? Did he not say he wants privatization?

Hell, I thought the Right would cheer such things.


Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
66 posted 2004-11-09 10:18 PM


aha, so you admit the Pres is insane

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

67 posted 2004-11-09 10:57 PM


Lost me on that one Brad.  I don't know if I am supposed to be the "right" or if I am not supposed to be smart enough to understand what privatization means, but I do appreciate the hint.

Bush and Kerry both spoke a lot of what they indicated were truths that depending on your perspective can be viewed as scare tactics.

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans have ever tried to use Social Security as a scare tactic.  Now that is a truth for you.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
68 posted 2004-11-09 11:21 PM


"You probably think this song is about you"

I'm not asking what you want to happen. I'm not asking whether or not Kerry or Bush used scare tactics.

Did Bush say he wants to privatize social security, all or in part?

Is that really a difficult question?

If he said it, that means he wants to dismantle social security, all or in part.

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
69 posted 2004-11-10 12:42 PM


"You probably think this song is about you"
Now I'm going to be singing that song all night long!
"when I was still quite naive"
LOL

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

70 posted 2004-11-10 08:29 AM


No Brad, that is not what you asked, you have to stay on point or be more specific in what you mean.

Using your logic, Clinton dismantled welfare.  When the contract for america proposed welfare reforms, what was the view of the left?  Welfare reform is now one of the cornerstone achievements of Clinton's legacy and rightfully so.

I suppose you have read the entirety of the President's proposals concerning Social Security and how and when it is to be implemented.

You say dismantle, others would say strengthen, and others say reform.  Some of the suggested reforms as to vesting, women and contributions seem fairly liberal to me, and I think a good idea.  

In the end, S.S. is enough of a sacred cow, whatever reforms are probably needed aren't going to be fully implemented.  What are your suggestions to make S.S. viable for future generations?

[This message has been edited by Tim (11-10-2004 11:08 AM).]

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
71 posted 2004-11-10 09:35 AM


Talk about a meandering thread.
Human Services reform, encompassing Welfare, Social Security, Medicaire...
that's one helluva large umbrella that deserves a totally differrent thread from this one, which has strayed completely away from the intended national security issues and terrorist threats. The title still fits, but is someone ready to begin another thread, willing to take on these serious issues of reform as an alley topic? I've already got 36 hours of work on my list for today.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

72 posted 2004-11-10 01:29 PM


I apologize for the meandering, you can have your thread back.  *smile*  Good luck in the work.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
73 posted 2004-11-10 09:24 PM


Sorry for the meandering too.

But I don't think reform and privatization are the same thing. One is putting a program in the hands of private companies, the other is changing the way a program is done. So, no, I disagree that Clinton dismantled welfare, he changed it. And you're right the Left was against those changes.

If he changes the system, then we can call it reform. If he puts it in the hands of private companies, he's dismantled it.

If you think privatization will help people, then that's what you should argue, not that I'm using scare tactics.

My solution: a national salary


Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
74 posted 2004-11-10 10:19 PM


Brad, how much will I get in my national salary package? Seriously, I'm eyeball deep in resumes and applications and cover letters trying to find a job here in a seriously depressed job market. NO income now, and savings wiped out as of this month. And not much of a safety net these days for someone like myself who is competing with all those fresh young recent grads.
Anyway, I haven't really had any time to think about the health care system, and haven't had ANY insurance for three years now. I finally got my 17 year old on a policy last week.
But iF you're over 19 and under 60, you're out of luck when it comes to any medical insurance or assistance, even if you've paid into this amazing system one way or another since you were 18. Yippee, I only have two more years to wait until they say I can qualify. After searching all possibilities, I finally came up with a policy that will be affordable if I get a job, where the State/Feds will pay up to 95% of the premium once I find someone who'll cover me. Sounds great, eh?
Catch 22...most insurance carriers want to eliminate anything relating to pre-existing conditions. A biggie for me, with well-documented high blood pressure and two leaky heart valves, not to mention herniated disks and 'mild' arthritis symptoms. *sigh* So if you guys have some ideas that will work, I'd be more than happy to babysit this new thread whenever I can. I don't even care what they call it or who runs it anymore, as long as there is SOMETHING reasonable for the millions like myself who find themselves with no medical coverage of any kind, and a failing job market to boot.
Hey, when can I sign up for my Social Security checks? LOL, Even though I don't believe the $$$ per month I've earned will pay the rent these days.
Howz that for a running rant? LOL

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » be careful, it's about to hit the fan again

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary