...and they're off!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

kerry is doing very well right now....and it really has nothing to do with what either of them is talking about.....he is speaking into the camera...

Is he looking into the microphone?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

That assault weapons ban stuff was new . . . nice.

I wish I had seen this debate.

I'd love for Bush, when questioned about signing the AWB, to say, "Um, if Mr. Kerry's congressional colleagues and he had sent me a bill to sign, I said I'd have signed it, and I was not given the opportunity to prove myself as good as my word -- by Mr. Kerry and the rest of Congress. It is not my job as president to dictate to Congress what causes it takes up and what laws it passes. Don't you want separation of powers in your government?!"

I mean, What The Fuck, man? Why even bring that up? You know that Democrats turn to pussies when it comes election time, and will walk miles out of their way to avoid revealing that yes, they do want to increase restrictions on gun ownership, despite their bullshit camouflage as duck hunters.

I would love for Bush to have explained, calmly and succinctly, the several major points that made the AWB useless:

- It did not collect any guns that were already out there
- It did not make it illegal to sell manufacturers' inventory of banned weapons
- It did not make it illegal to own, possess, use, or transfer any of the banned weapons if they were made before the ban
- It did not have any effect on full auto weapons, which have been strictly regulated since 1934
- It banned some weapons and left others unbanned, even though they had the same action, and fired the same ammunition at the same rate, but just didn't have the same "look" or accessories
- Assault weapons were already used in a triflingly small percentage of gun crimes -- and guns are not the only weapons used in violent crime in the first place
- The CDC analyzed fifty-some gun control studies and could not find evidence that gun control laws had had a bearing on the decrease in crime

There is so much reason to question the nature of asking, "Would you support the AWB?" After all, it is not a given that it is something good. A better question is, "Do you think the AWB is a useful piece of legislation: why or why not?" Once again, he who frames the questions frames the debate, and it's not always done impartially.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>The fact that you don't believe the family serves any purpose that should
> be encouraged is your opinion and total bullshit too!

There is value in encouraging things that help with our national security (like, say, energy independence or border security.) I am against the government doing 'social engineering' and using incentives to try to skew society towards an ideal they have.

But bill, they do this regarding gun ownership.

Is it wrong then?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>Idear (as opposed to idea)!

You did indeed!

What do you call a blind deer? No idear.

How about a blind deer with no legs? Still no idear.

A blind deer with no legs and no penis? *************

(a free beer to the first person who can identify the punch line)

Note: haven't looked at responses below yours yet...

"Still no fucking idear."

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The one thing I truly don't understand about his "plan" is how he can implement so many different programs while simultaneously cutting taxes?

It's called "chicanery." It's also called "demagoguery." (I guess we could call it "chicoguery," and from now on I think I will!)

Democrats have made it their specialty. They love to pretend that just given enough money, they can make the world a wonderful perfect place. Of course, they can never be straight with you about how they're gonna get all the money...

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

But neither candidate answered how they were going to cut the deficit in half in five years - not even Kerry's tax would come close to doing that.

Mmmbut he claims he's going to do it nonetheless, right?

Just checking.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

"Me...me...me..."
"Me too!"

Jeez, won't someone POST already?!


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crwmike 0]

Quote

>The fact that you don't believe the family serves any purpose that should
> be encouraged is your opinion and total bullshit too!

There is value in encouraging things that help with our national security (like, say, energy independence or border security.) I am against the government doing 'social engineering' and using incentives to try to skew society towards an ideal they have, like everyone should be married or everyone should own a home. It's none of their business.

Philosophically and emotionially, I agree with this. I reluctantly accept, (pretty much the way I accept gravity) that there are (have been?) things that promote the continuation of a culture or society and you must admit that the govt has a valid interest in that.

Marriage has been (historically at least), one of those institutions. Married people are less threatening to a society. Their interests are more vested in stability. They own more property and accumulate more debt, thus are more locked into jobs, and less likely to view change as positive.

Regardless of my personal feelings or choices for living my life, society really cannot withstand more than a small minority of individuals thinking for themselves, challenging the seemingly meaningless (silly, at least) folkways and mores that bind us together.

Personally, I prefer Bill's values, but must accept some validity to governmental encouragement of institutions that promote our continuation as a culture. I'm not married and have no children, but I don't mind paying a little more tax for those who do. A govt's first responsibility is the welfare of it's citizens.

My acceptance of that validity does not mean I feel all warm and fuzzy about govt agents spying on it's citizens, the books we read, or the conversations we have.

Michael

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

It wasn't really a consideration back then

But assault weapons were...sorry you can't have it both ways.

"Assault weapons" weren't a concern back then? Really? Did we win the revolutionary war with rocks and sling shots? Peace marches? No, you're right; it ws tar and feathers. Citizens had the best weapons of the time in their possession -- they were used for military assaults. OMG, assualt weapons! The founding father certainly were concerned with the right to bear such arms. In fact, they put it in the Constitution.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Tf15 0]

Quote

***

Okay, what did you think of Bush's proposed social security plan to allow people private control of some of their personal assets?

.

He made the same promise 4 years ago at the 2000 RNC - what did he do about it?

Nothing.

Three times is enemy action

[Dagny 0]

Quote

Bush's proposed social security plan to allow people private control of some of their personal assets?

Quote

He made the same promise 4 years ago at the 2000 RNC - what did he do about it?

Nothing.

That's one area of unkept promises, then, that I'm not too worried about. I'm not sure it's in the best interest of the country to enable that plan with social security. I just foresee bad investments or wasted funds leaving the aging citizens of the US without any type of retirement income. I'm not saying that everyone would be irresponsible with their money, but I am saying that without a system in place to provide the retired with some form of income I believe there would be a lot more homeless and hungry elderly.

Oh! Here's my opinion on Kerry making the "senators' health care plan" available to the general public. I think it's a great idea in theory, but hell...you could show me the hope diamond, too, and just because I want it doesn't mean I can afford to buy it. If the senators have such a lucrative health care plan, I can't imagine how I'd be able to afford it. I think we need to improve the existing insurance coverage for the general public rather than provide a different, surely costly plan that no one can truly afford. (except for those people earning >$200,000 a year, maybe?)

Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.
-Salvador Dali