emaughan's page

I made the comparison (only with gun control) and it was bit tongue and cheek.

As for Felons not getting to vote as being "horrifying" - I can think of much worse. Ross you also forgot something that I think lefties forget ALL the time - people are free to choose. So if Bubba decides to steal cars, rob liquor stores, rape, kill, kidnap and/or burn down buildings, he is making a free choice. I think it would be wise to include in the potential consequences that such a person not get to vote (horrifying I know). People who make such choices in life should realize that society will no longer trust their judgement when casting a vote.

If you do not want to loose your right to vote, don't go rob the credit union down the street - simple.

Before I go to bed, here is are a couple of goodies (my appoligies to the PC crowd):

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jsYpeibhvC8&feature=related

And since I lost the thread for mentioning Hitler and Obama in the same sentence (but only on their agreement on gun control), I thought I would throw this in as well. The music is an actual song made by a group of Obamites:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jsYpeibhvC8&feature=related

Here is what I think of when I see this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gH-2Fwx5RU0&feature=related

(Also, Godwin's law, you lose the thread.)

Yea - I know, but I didn't do a direct Obama=Hitler or Nazi. Also, I added in some other libral dictators besides Hitler - Mousilini, Stalin, Pelosi. So it was not just a one on one example.

Thus I will agree that I lost, but I still hope to get runner up or at least honorable mention.

I still think guns are inherently more dangerous than cars because they are designed to maim and kill.

3500 hundred pounds of steal going 60mph with an enraged driver behind the wheel...hmmm. You obviously never played "Car Wars".

As for the felons - I believe that they broke a contract with society to properly govern themselves. So no, I do not think they have right to bear arms or vote.

Dubya was a president who relied heavily on his advisers. Enough said.

And the reports from the Clinton administration, the French, Rusian, English, German, Italian, Israeli, and Spanish intelligence agencies. Bush did a horrible job in clarifying the mision once they found few WMDs (yes some were found but not to the degree expected). The level of threat was not as high as we (and everyone else) suspected. Bush was in a catch 22 from the left. Intelligence was being ignored and this lead to 9/11; you should not have trusted the intelligence that lead to the 2nd Gulf war.

Here are somethings that the left and the MSM rarely/never mention out of ignorance and or BDS.
- The war in Iraq was a huge military success. We took over a nation that was half way around the world in an invasion that was well broadcast for many months (no surprise) in record time. The surprise attack by Germany on Poland comes close - but the Poles were right next door.
- More troops died in single battles during WW2, WW1, and the Civil War than all the troops that have lost their lives these last 5 years.
- The U.S. did not invaded "illegaly". Sadam broke multiple promises made at Iraq's surrender during the first Gulf war. We had multiple causa belli.
- Germany and Japan still have U.S. troops occupying them. The mission has greatly changed to one of strategic position vs. post war stabilization - but were still there.
- Rumsfield and Gen. Franks were right that the U.S. could easily win against the Iraqis with far less the old school planners (i.e. Powell) expected. The were wrong on the numbers in post occupation and relied on too much wishfull thinking.
- Al Qaeda did have a presence in Iraq before the war - but they were not as promenant as Sadam's conections to other terrorist groups in the Middle East.
- Al Qaeda views this as THE central battlefield against the U.S. Iraq is a key component in the war on terror (did I mention how much I hate that name?). Obama and the left are totally clueless on this issue.
- Iraq is not Viet Nam. The only simularity would be if we abondanded Iraq do to preasure from the left. This would have lead to choas and mass death - much like what happened in Cambodia and Viet Nam when a leftist congress prevented Nixon from honoring our promises to the South Vietnamese.
- Strategically the U.S. is in a fantastic location and Iran knows this - it's bad for their nuclear plans to wipe out Israel. Unforntunately we are in a horrible position politically at home due to this war and Iran knows this - it's very good for their political plans to wipe out Israel.

Oh, and Tarren is Canadian. His 'us' was responding to my allegation that Canada was Socialist.

He needs to put more "ehs" in his post.

As for speculating what extended the great depression - yes it is speculation - but it is modeled on sound economic theory. The counter argument - that many of Roosevelts policies helped - has little too support either in theory or historical examples. Socialism weakens economies, this has been shown over and over and over.

Hey Ross here is the data:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/08/murder-city-danger-forbeslife-cx_de_1108mu rder.html

Compare that with this number of 278 deaths for U.S. troops this year as of October. I realize that this is not yet complete for the year (and think it would be great if it did not go any higher) so it is not fully apples to apples.

Here is something else that I found very interesting when looking up stats - notice and compare the total death of U.S. troops starting in the 80s. It was higher in the 80s than it was during the "War on Terror" (hate that name).

U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006

1980 .... 2,392
1981 .... 2,380
1982 .... 2,319
1983 .... 2,465
1984 .... 1,999
1985 .... 2,252
1986 .... 1,984
1987 .... 1,983
1988 .... 1,819
1989 .... 1,636
1990 .... 1,507
1991 .... 1,787
1992 .... 1,293
1993 .... 1,213
1994 .... 1,075
1995 .... 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 827
1999 ....... 796
2000 ....... 758
2001 ....... 891
2002 ....... 999
2003 .... 1,228
2004 .... 1,874
2005 .... 1,942
2006 .... 1,858

Finally I'll end with something that Patton said in reguards to the death of a soldier:

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.

Tarren Dei wrote:

We were socialist?

We have had periods in U.S. history of socialism. The 30s was a decade of one socialist experiment after the other. Hoover started it by trying to control the markets (oh how sad to see history repeating) and Roosevelt continued it during his presidency. The Great Depression would not have lasted as long had Roosevelt let the markets adjust naturally, but that is 20/20 hindsight speaking and socialism was still "new". Roosevelt was trying his best to help the people and restore confidence. I do not like many of his policies but he was not working with much historical precident. Now days if we choose socialism it is a sign of national stupidity. Too much data, too many historical examples show it does not work.

Politicians though know it is a great way to pander and buy votes. Vote for me and I'll "legally" steal money from those rich SOBs and give it to you. Political Robin Hoods of social "justice".

The Government should fear its people. And I have no problem with people owning guns. I just think that it should be regulated at least to the point that, say, automobiles are. (Automobiles being way less dangerous that guns.)

Actually cars kill a lot more people than guns - except maybe in Detriot or Washington. Interesting that it is more dangerous to be in Detriot than to be a U.S. soldier in Iraq.

Also I agree in some controls like felons should not have gun rights (or voting rights).

One other thing Ross mentioned that I wanted to address. Ross is pro gun control as is Barack. Hilter, Stalin, Mousulini, Castro and Nancy Pelosi, Obama are/were all strong gun control advocates. For the government to rule over the people as opposed to the people ruling the government, guns can not be in the hands of the citizens.

One of my favorite quotes:
'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'

That was Ghandi (yes the Ghandi).

The founding fathers got it. They knew that an armed citizenry is a free citizenry. Government should fear the people not the people fearing the government. Palin gets it, McCain gets it. My fear is that Obama gets it as well - only he is on the opposite side of the issue.

You do realize that most other developed countries are socialist, right? Care to explain to me how the European Union is weak?

I had a biggy size response to all your points but when I hit the preview button the comp ate it. In retrospect that's good because it was more a book than a reply. I did want to reply to these points in particular.

The EU is not weak, but they are not growing very fast either. One of the best kept secrets of the MSM over the last 7 years is just how well the economy did after 911. Our GDP grow much faster than Europes and with the exception of this very last quarter, we have had very healthy growth. Things could have been better if the idiot Republicans had not gone a political spending spree (notice their base did not help them maintain a majority), and the democrats stupid experiments in government social engineering which lead to the Freddie Mack and Fannie May fiasco.

Socialism is not helping the nations that adopt it. I lived in Sweden for half a year and I have seen how socialism is killing a once strong work ethic. If you as a worker, go to a FREE doctor and complain of stomache pain (belly ache), severe headaches, fatigue, etc... then you the worker can get a pass from work and some free pain pills. Your boss has to keep paying you 75% of your salary and can not fire you. This game can go on as long as you wish it.

The people in the EU are waking up as many nations have shifted back to conservative leadership - even Fance :-O! Socialsm is an economic failure - look at the data not the propaganda. Ironically, we are one of the few nations ready to do a U-turn and head back toward socialism. Hello Carter years part two.

It is Aristotle that warned that democracy is doomed to fail once the people learn to vote for their own bread.

Found the edit - for some reason my browser is not showing it very well - only the top half of the text.

Oh, and sorry postmonster, as I had said, I should have cleaned up some of cut paste 'n haste.

Oh how I wish this forum had an edit button. I type fast and do not always do a good job of proofing what I wrote.

So for all the typos and misspellings, forgive me. I also noticed that when I cut and paste some of the HTLM tags I forget to remove "postmonster general".

Sad.

One other note. I like the tone of most posters on this board. Kuddos to all those who have been respectfull.

But look where having a president with the credentials similar to Palin's has gotten us.

Logical fallacy alert! Because Palin has the background as a governer - she will be Bush2!? Does this mean that all governers will lead just like Bush?

Also, your premise that Bush was awefull is something that I would disagree with, but I'll get to that below.

Bush looked experienced on paper, sure. But, put in the big chair, he surrounded himself with the wrong people, and along with his own personal judgements, drove this country into the ground.

Now this is really funny! I assume that you are an Obama supporter...? If so, who has Obama surrounded himself with in his political career thusfar and who does he look to for guidance? Those answers are scarry.

People ultimately voted against Gore, clearly the more experienced candidate, because they didn't like the idea of having a president that was "too smart" or "professorial". They voted for the good ol'boy that they identified with, the one they felt they could have a beer with.

Let's get some fallacies out of the way.

Being "one of us" isn't a good thing for president. Our president has to be "the BEST of us".

I agree with you here! I was a total Mitt man, but unfortunately Huckabee started bleeding votes away from Mitt. Huckabee's tactic - poplusist identity politics. 'I'm one of you, he is one of THEM!' Huck was the nice guy, Christian leader, while Mitt was the rich, and horror of horrors, a Mormon!!

So I know the pain of folks voting for they guy they would like to have beer with vs. the guy who is above them because he is so rich and successful.

Sarah Palin may have the "experience", but that doesn't show me that she is capable of being a good president.

Experience is a good start! What does Barack have, "words, just words" (that's a Barack quote by the way). When I hire someone at work, I do not ask them, "What would you do if...?" Instead I ask them, "What did you do when...?" You can tell more about how a person will perform based on how they have behaved in the past than you can by them telling what they would - in theory - do if confronted with a problem.

It is better to judge a man (or woman) by their deeds, not their words.

To disagree with this sentiment is frankly going against what the founding fathers "intended". If they didn't want the constitution to change, why did they create an entire process to change it?

There is a process for changing the constitution - through the legislative branch. What leftist judges are doing that is very much against what the founders wanted, is legislate from the bench. They take very "liberal" interpretations of the law and then declare whatever they d*mn well please. That is NOT the seperation of powers the founders wished nor does it follow the process for changing the constitution.

The people (legislative branch) are the ones who are supposed to make the laws - not the judiciary branch.

Hasn't Sarah Palin described herself that way? What did your wife mean by that comment. It sounds fair enough to me.

This is a case where Sara - not the best politician - let the media turn what was to be a positive into a negative. Palin was trying to show that she is outside the beltway and not an insider. The media turned that on her and made it into a false meme that she is too inexperienced to be president. The ultimate irony is that many people opine that they do not like Washington insiders and yet when given an outsider, they say she is too inexperienced.

More irony, the same media is giving Barack O. a HUGE pass on the experience issue because he is a political insider and knows how to play the media game very well. Palin has far more executive experience, and real life business experience. Barack has none. Obama has experience wasting millions of dollars of an educational grant, being a community organizer (i.e. building up the political machine in south side Chicago), a stint as a state senator then a short time as a U.S. senator before he started running for president. Never passed any major legislation, started to protect his "record" by voting present most of the time, and wrote a couple of books.

The number one on the democrats ticket is less experienced than the republicans number 2 (who I would like to see as number 1 ;-).

How does one qualify as a liberal? I think I'm too weird to be anything officially.

Liberal used to be a positive term (at least using the traditional definition). It was hijacked by the Progressives in an Orwelian move to separate the growing negative perception the majority had developed for the Progressives in the 30s and 40s.

Liberal (Progressive) has now picked up the same negative conotation do to the people it is applied to. I associate modern liberals with the following:
-Bigger government is better for the nation.
-Environment is more important than economy.
-People should have more amoral free speech but less political free speech.
-Economic fairness is achieved via forced government redistribution of wealth.
-The constitution is a "living, breathing document" thus open to change (Judicial legislation from the bench).
-Society is to blame, not the criminal thus punishments should be lessoned and/or done away with. Stronger focus on rehibilitatiion vs. penalties.
-Gun control is good, right to bare arms, bad.
-Employees are good, employers are bad.
-Quotas and affirmative action are the best way to ensure fair hiring even if more qualified people are overlooked based on their color/race/sex.
-The government needs to help individuals by taking more responsibility and protecting them from the consequeses of bad decisions; while conservatives believe the individual should be responsible for themselves.
-Liberals fail to see evil in the rest of the world, but often find evil here. They are hypercritical of the U.S.

A conservative would take the above statements and flip them around. I lothe most things "liberal" and view it as dangerous meme that has been proven to weaken nations where the majority adopts such views. Other than environmental issues (I tend more left than right on those), the liberal point of view will only help reduce our freedoms and increase dependancy on the government.

Obama is very liberal based on what he has writen, said, voted on (when he wasn't just "present"), and who he has formed his closest associations and political ties with. With the above points, I do not see Barry in disagreement with any of it. What he says during the campaign does not match his (limited) record. He has changed positions often to match the political wind, broke promises, and thrown many of his former associates under the bus as soon as they became political anchors for him.

Obama talks well, he is a slick politician, but he is not the kind of change I hope for in this nation.

What difference does it make? Obama has so much more experience than Palin that we know exactly where he stands on the issues.

Had to come out of lurking for this one.

First a disclosure - I do not like McCain, and I was considering an Obama vote as an anti-McCain vote. I do like Palin and I think the MSM has been out to get her since day 1. She truely is an outsider to the Washington game and it showed when she got slapped around by Katie Couric.

With that said she has FAR more leadership experience than Obama. Name two major pieces of legislation that Obama has past in the senate... how about one... What has Obama done?? The only thing Obama has leadership experience in is help Bill Ayers run the Annenburg Project in Chicago. Eight years, 100 million+ dollars, and there is nothing to show for it. The money was not spent on improving reading, writing or arithmatic, but on frivolis lefty projects and cementy political clout.

Palin has run a fishing busines, a small town, and a state very succesfully (highest rating of a govener in the nation). She is a doer, Barack is a talker.

I will vote for McCain even though I am not sure he can win. What changed my mind was that the more I learned about Barack, the more scared I became of him. His own past associates, his own words from "Dreams of my Fathers", and the few things that he did vote on show him to be an extremely left wing politician. Now I will vote for McCain as vote against Obama.

P.S. One other disclosure, I'm old enough to remember Carter - Obama shows all the signs of being even worse than Carter - that's BAD!