5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 1/24/08 04:41 PM, Euroc wrote: I feel like people are trying to convert me to their religion. "You need to be saved" has been replaced by "You need to save electricity."
I am in total agreement Euroc and you are most definately not alone. I am a conservationist, and have serious problems with the science behing environmentalism. Yet to question what are little more than theoretical assumptions you are treated like a heretic...or even worse a "denier".
So, am I wrong? Is this something a majority of people do care about and I am insensitive? I have heard that going green is a major issue for young voters. I consider myself a young voter, but for me I get nervous when politicians share their plans for carbon offsets.
I think Environmentalism is one more thing that will hurt the poor and middle classes while doing nothing to solve the serious environmental issues facing us.
At 1/24/08 05:59 PM, VGmasters wrote: These agencies are the big three of the intelligence community. There's also agencies like DIA, Secret Service, NCTC, and CIFA.
The DoD's intel community (inclusive of the DIA) is actually the largest intelligence community in the US. In fact the CIA is largely dependent on the Air Force (and to a lesser extent the Navy) for technical collection from sources such as U-2, the Predator (both developed jointly between the USAF & CIA) and satellites.
At 1/24/08 06:14 PM, SolInvictus wrote: ... until you can show that this results in increased violent behaviour, i don't see why everyone keeps bitching.
First person shooters are used by the military to desensitize young soldiers to the idea of shooting people. Believe it or not, even the type of person who goes into the infantry has been significantly socializied to avoid killing another human being. First person shooters and human shaped targets help overcome this socialization.
At 1/24/08 08:12 PM, Christopherr wrote: Many of the people playing the game are kids whose parents buy the games for them. Most parents don't look at ratings ever, which is a mistake. It might not be full nudity, but it's bad enough to make me wary of getting it for my kid.
As an adult, a parent and a gamer...I don't know if I'd buy this for my 16yo kid (she's 9 at the moment). It would all depend on who my child is at 16. I've played through Mass Effect and I think it is an example of responsible sexual behavior...more so than standard primetime fare...
"Do you watch the Fox Network? Do you watch Family Guy? Have you ever seen The OC? Do you think the sexual situations in Mass Effect are any more graphic than scenes routinely aired on those shows? Do you honestly believe that young people have more exposure to Mass Effect than to those prime time shows?"
I loved that quote. Two things:
1) I've always thought Fox was being hypocritical in that its News network is on the conservative side of the "Culture War" while the entertainment side is known for its sleaze.
2) This isn't just Fox. This is the crap you'd see on The View, and spun the way that psuedo-psychologist tried to spin it: "...controlled by a man..." I could see left wing media outlets giving it the same coverage due to the feminist angle here.
I've played Mass Effect and in fact I'm one mission away I think from paramour achievment. And I think that Fox totally owes Bioware and EA (did they buy Bioware?) an apology. The guy on there was absolutely correct.
1) It is a small part that comes after you develop a relationship...there is no objectification of women.
2) You cannot have sex w/multiple partners. In fact the game reinforces monogamy.
Those ppl on the panel looked about my age and I cannot watch those panel/coffee table news programs (especially Fox and The View). They just make thirty-something conservatives like me look so fucking square.
Before everyone gets all dizzy with orgasmic excitement over "OMG here's PROOF Bush lied!" or up in arms about it. Look at that story objectively.
1) It is a study by a nonprofit organization. These days it seems like "independent" or "nonprofit" organatizations (on the left and right) are touting some such study. But guess what? Just because someone puts "independent" in their title or files the nonprofit incorporation papers...does not mean that they do NOT have an agenda. You could still be seeing a significant amount of bias.
2) These guys are journalists; what special insights do they really have? Why are they more qualified than Joe Blow off the street to decree that WMDs "unequivocably" do/did not exist in Iraq? Journalists may write the first draft of history; but their words rarely withstand the test of history. 50 years from now, who knows what will be declassified?
3) The story also said "false statements". What is interesting about this is they just imply that the Bush administration lied; they do not come out and say it. The reason is they simply cannot. They do not have access to what Intel Bush had. A statement that is later proven to be false (assuming for a second that no WMDs existed), does not necessarily mean someone lied...it could just as easily mean that person was wrong.
In the end this is a useless study that is all sound and no fury; a bunch of words saying nothing that manipulate emotions.
At 1/22/08 06:11 PM, DeathAura wrote: all that Huckabee is doing, like most recent republicans, is fuck up the economy, ...
Huckabee as Arkansas gov isn't in much of a position to fuck up the economy. Furthermore it isn't just a Republican fuck up. The biggest threat to our economy right now is the deficit and social security/medicare bankruptcy. That is the fault of the Dems as well...
At 1/21/08 07:52 PM, Ravariel wrote: Excellent! Yet another bloated military budget at which to throw money we already don't have for a unit to do a job we not only don't need done, but that can be done by several forces already employed within our country.
1) The military budget isn't that bloated. Even with two wars; the military budget is less than either Social Security or Medicare.
2) We do have a need for this sort of mission; however like I just pointed out we already have guys doing it; US Army Civil Affairs.
At 1/18/08 08:12 PM, VGmasters wrote: We've had a similar force called the United States Constabulary, which was used in the occupation of West Germany after the Second World War. It was part of the Army and was used for policing functions that time. Then in the early 50s, it was disbanded after Germany created it's own police force.
I feel that we need a true gendarmerie force for military policing, but mostly outside US borders.
We actually already have that; this is a specializied body of the US Army called Civil Affairs. Policing is only one part, a big part, of what they do. They don't do it themselves however, they train the host nation's police on proper LE techniques.
Imperial Grunts is a good book to read about these special operators.
At 1/22/08 06:38 PM, DeathAura wrote:At 1/19/08 10:45 AM, AznWarlord wrote:umm, i'm not being an idiot or trolling, but where would the gangs get the guns? You only said that last don't comment thing because you knew someone like me would foil this odd illusion of yours XD
DA,
You bring up a good point and on the surface your point makes perfect sense. However, about a decade ago some Chinese nationals were caught smuggling fully-automatic AK-47s into California. Furthermore, Hugo Chavez recently bought Kalishnakovs (AK-47s) for his army. Two interesting aspects of this purchase:
1) He bought 3x as many rifles as he has ppl in his army.
2) He bought them in the 7.62x39 calibur instead of the 5.46 that has become the norm for countries arming themselves with Kalishnakov variants. This is significant because the 7.62x39 round is popular with Narco-terrorists in the region and America.
The point here is gangs will always get guns through smuggling.
The other way is that it does not take much (knowledge, machinery or materials) to build a firearm. It is conceivable that gangs could start producing their own weapons.
At 1/22/08 06:21 PM, Grammer wrote:At 1/20/08 05:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 1/20/08 03:36 AM, Grammer wrote: mmkay, I dun wanna seem like a back seat mod, so I'll take your word for it when ya say American comedy is relevant to gun control...
Someone quoted The Simpsons and this individual just happened to be someone who had panned American comedy in the past...
Now I must know how a topic on abortion somehow relates to gun control.
D2K was trying to obfuscate the issue by making a comparison between my arguments for allowing guns (specifically assault rifles I believe) and what he assumed would be my stance on abortion.
Believe it or not I am neither pro-life or pro-choice. On one hand I don't like it and would prefer adoption; on the other hand I'm not for banning it either.
Well Kucinich once saw a UFO which proved to be a very profoundly moving spiritual experience for him...
At 1/21/08 01:01 AM, WolvenBear wrote:At 1/20/08 05:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How are they the most important?Or not. None of our founding fathers were Muslim. None of our fathers quoted the Quran favorably. What a crock.
If you're basing it on numbers, Islam is more important.
1) SadisticMonkey's argument had nothing to do with our founding fathers.
2) Many of our founding fathers were Masons. One of the things about Masonry is a tolerance towards the Islamic faith since they are followers/believers in the Abrahamic God. Many where familiar with the Qu'ran and while they did not quote it favorably; this silence should not be taken as a negative view either...
At 1/21/08 01:01 AM, WolvenBear wrote:At 1/20/08 11:48 AM, TheMason wrote:I never said teh Bill of Rights was based on the 10 commandments. I simply said it was based on Christian premises. Some of it is based on European legal code (which itself was from Christian premises). Many were coded because of English abuses of Americans. The religious part of the 1st was codified because of the Church of England. The 3rd was brought up because of the abuses of teh English soldiers. But all this came from the idea that people had rights that came from God not government. Which was my original, and completely understandable, point.
No...you made the argument that the Bill of Rights was based upon Christianity. I quote:
At 1/20/08 04:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
The Bill of Rights was based on the idea that God granted certain rights to the people that could not be abridged by government. Among these were the right to defend oneself (2nd), the right to legal protection in court (4th-8th), the right to property (3rd and 4th),the right to speak ones opinion (1st) and the protection from government in non-specified areas (9th and 10th).
Now...I will grant you that you did not limit the Bill of Rights to a direct comparison to the ten commandments. However, you did link it to Christianity with no mention of European legal principles or issues with the English crown.
And yes Thomas Jefferson used the quote "all men created equal"...however this is the President who spent time cutting and pasting (literally) the Bible so that it was more rational and made more sense (in his mind). Furthermore, this is the guy who gave us the notion of "seperation of Church and State".
At 1/20/08 03:37 PM, TheMason wrote: Chris, if C-P is talking about in the general election you're right: they're not moderate.New York and California are teh bluest of the blue states. They're moderate under no definition.
However, if he's talking about during the primaries/caucuses...he's right to call them moderate.
We're talking about Republican primaries in states where there are moderates and conservatives when you leave New York, LA and San Francisco. I am absolutely correct to label these states as moderates within the context of primaries/caucuses since I am talking about a specific population rather than the general population.
At 1/20/08 03:32 PM, Christopherr wrote:At 1/20/08 03:25 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: If he comes over to a more moderate state like New York, Florida, California, Oregon, people will laugh at him. He won't even get in a primary or Caucus most likely.California and NY are moderate?
Those are some pretty damn blue states.
Chris, if C-P is talking about in the general election you're right: they're not moderate.
However, if he's talking about during the primaries/caucuses...he's right to call them moderate.
At 1/20/08 02:05 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: This is the logic that I can never understand: in the US, you have the right to bear arms 9and that one is debatable), but the right not to be killed - which I'd think would be a higher priority to every person on the planet, let alone the US - is irrelevant when placed next to it? At the very least, you'd think some Pro-Lifer would think of it (what, I'm not helping my case by bringing that one up, am I?)
You're not hurting your case as long as you're not labeling me a pro-lifer...
The US has the highest murder rate of First World nations, and isn't this a source of embarassment and/or shame?
Nope.
The other part of your argument, about a tyrant wiping their ass with the constitution if the Second Ammendment was removed, makes no sense (as with trying to blame gangs for all gun crime in the US, which isn't the case - the reverse of the UK), simply because the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and the 12th Ammendments are the ones all tyrants would want to grind to dust. After all, clinging to the 2nd Ammendment can cause on scenario: any enemy of the tyrannical state who has guns can be arrested and executed by ignoring 5-9, just for having a stash of weapons - they can invent any story they like.
The point here being the founding fathers put the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights as a means of ensuring citizens have the means to resist the government and outside invaders. They never wanted a large standing army as evidenced by the body of the Constitution...
Also, the gang argument is Cellar's. Please refrain from putting other ppl's arguments in my mouth.
And, be honest, what the hell would the average family need an M-16 for?
There are plenty - for a start, cost. According to this site, you will have to pay:
AK47: $499.00
That is actually a little expensive. I was just at a gun show and they were selling from $365-425.
Bushmaster A3: $899.95 (plus $25 shipping)
That's actually not a bad deal.
Compared to:
Remington 467L single shot: $195.00
This is a .22 calibur rifle only good for target practice and hunting small game such as squirrel. Not really anything you could feed your family on.
Not good for self/home defense.
Universal M1 carbine: $425.00 ($20 shipping)
Okay for self/home defense.
Not powerful enough for hunting.
Savage GXP3 bolt-action rifle: $480.00 ($15 shipping)
Too high power for self/home defense.
Good deer rifle (finally).
The above quotations really do little to disprove you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Actually...it goes a long way to prove you don't.
Secondly, as I said months ago, on the rare chance that anyone would actually need a gun, they should be purchasing something like a carbine rifle - they're far more accurate and have better range than a shotgun or a handgun, and won't waste ammo like an assault rifle.
1) In a self-defense situation a the M1 Carbine (and any assault rifle is essentially a carbine) sucks. You don't need the increased range or accuracy of the gun you describe. The two best weapons to use in this situation is a handgun or shotgun. Accurate enough at close quarters and will put the bad guy down.
Again...you confirm you don't know what you're talking about.
To use the excuses brought forth, these weapons can be used to hunt for food (if you don't know what a supermarket is by now, I presume that's why you'd need a gun for that purpose) or defending your home when the invaders (who crossed a massive body of water without anyone noticing, let alone the navy and air force blowing them out of the water) come, as you have a better chance of scoring a lethal shot at range than you ever would with a handgun or shotgun, and would save a lot more ammo than an automatic.
1) I've gone over this time and time again but you can't look past your own perspective/worldview to realize that there are differences between your contry and mine. I came from a poor, rural area. Many ppl saved money by hunting. Others used it as a stop gap. Still others used it as the vast majority of their protein/meat supply. Not everybody; but I knew enough ppl to realize hunting is an important activity to protect.
2) Home defense is more about criminals than invaders.
3) China knocks out our satellites; yeah an army could invade.
A rifle is easier to clean and maintain than an M-16 or AK-45, they're lighter, the ammo is light to carry and plentiful (especially if you live in rural areas), they can be used as a bludgeon, and as they're single shot they dictate that the user won't waste a shot, while an assault rifle dictates the "rock n' roll" approach.
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? An AK is known for their simplicity and easy of maintainence. An M-16 is not that much more complicated.
What rifle are you talking about? A carbine is too weak to be effective on deer and traditional rifle ammo are larger (and thereby heavier) than assault rifles.
An assault rifle, especially the semi-auto clone available to Americans, does not dictate a "rock n' roll" approach. In fact my military training has never included even 3-rd burst.
D2K; you do nothing but betray your absolute lack of knowledge on this subject. On this subject you have NO credibility to speak.
"Superficial bumper-sticker logic"? That's rich when you say there's no reason for a family not to have an expensive, heavy, ammo-wasting, overly-complicated piece of machinery.
1) Some are expensive but the AK is comparable in price and on balance less expensive than the majority of deer rifles out there.
2) With a 5rd mag (the max legal for hunting) an AK or M-16 is not that heavy. The M1 Carbine is lighter; but not powerful enough for deer hunting.
3) They are not ammo-wasting when fired on semi-auto.
4) They are not complex; a person can learn to tear down and put back together an AK or M-16 in about the same time as any other rifle. In fact, these weapons allow for a deeper cleaning which increases the life of the firearm which reduces the need to buy a new one which makes them even more cost effective.
Oh...the term "bumper sticker logic" is a term I coined to describe something that sounds good on the surface but upon further investigation of the topic is found to be false even though its original conclusion is very emotionally manipulative (like the slogans on a bumper sticker). And you are the poster who inspired it coinage...
At 1/19/08 10:50 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: No good honest civilian needs ... fucking proton cannons.
If we assume that we live in a world where proton cannons not only exist but exist in a form readily available to citizens...it is equally logical to assume that monsters such as the Cloverfield monster exists as well.
The unique thing about these creatures is that they are impervious to kinetic weapons such as bullets, rockets and bombs. Therefore, when a Cloverfield monster attacks a city or remote town then the citizens must have the means at their own disposal to protect themselves since they always prove to be useless and speaking as a guardsman; we usually cannot respond until long after the damage has been done...
So yeah...the average citizen does need proton cannons.
At 1/20/08 04:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote:At 1/19/08 12:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: But please, pray tell, what part of the remaining sound ANYTHING like the 10 Commandments other than the fact that there's 10 of them?The Bill of Rights was based on the idea that God granted certain rights to the people that could not be abridged by government. Among these were the right to defend oneself (2nd), the right to legal protection in court (4th-8th), the right to property (3rd and 4th),the right to speak ones opinion (1st) and the protection from government in non-specified areas (9th and 10th).
"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."
I don't see any of the things you mentioned about the Bill of Rights in the first commandment. Furthermore, this doesn't exactly sound like something that encourages religious plurality like the 1st Amendment does...
""Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
Again...where do you see a correlation between the 2nd Commandment and any Amendment in the Bill of Rights?
"Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
Again...a religious dictate not to take the Lord's name in vain. Where is a correlation/parallel?
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
We're at the fourth commandment...where is any correlation?
"Honor your father and your mother..."
This is something that is for the good of society and is actually universal in nature. Just look at Asia and their demands of filial piety upon the individual. Oh...where's a Bill of RIghts correlation here?
"Do not murder"
This is a legal issue not dealt with in the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, it does not say anything about defending oneself from a murder...so no 2nd Amendment correlation here. Besides, this is another universal human value. Even totalitarian regimes prohibit their citizens from murdering one another (that's a priviledge dictators reserve for themselves).
"Do not commit adultery."
So what amendment is the anti-adultery amendment?
"Do not steal."
Another universal social taboo that has been codified into law even by non-Christian cultures that at the time of codification did not have exposure to the Bible. Oh...and where is this covered in the Bill of Rights?
"Do not bear false witness against your neighbor"
Again...another legal codification that is universal in nature and not covered in the Bill of Rights...
"Do not covet your neighbor's wife"
Where is the "anti-covetry" amendment?
In sum wolvenbear...I just don't see where you draw a correlation between the ten commandments and the first ten amendments...other than there are ten of them.
I mean sure the 9th Commandment does talk about bearing false witness in court. But court trials and perjury are not things that were at the time unique to the Bill of Rights...but were steeped in European legal traditions. Traditions that, yes are based in part on Christianity...but also upon Greek and Roman influences.
At 1/20/08 10:59 AM, AznWarlord wrote:At 1/19/08 02:42 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:Let's just say you're more likely to die getting stabbed in the arm than getting shot in the arm, since knife has a higher chance of severing an artery or vessell or whatever than a bullet.
The other thing that D2K didn't think about is the heightened emotions. You are more likely to fire just one round and then leave thinking the other is dead when in fact they only suffered a non-lethal wound. However, most stabbings (and yes they happen alot) involve multiple stabbings. I had a second cousin killed by his girlfriend about a year ago...she stabbed him like 17 times until he stopped moving. I've also heard of cases where a crazed lover stabbed his girlfriend 70 times.
So in reality since domestic disputes will happen regardless maybe it is better to have a gun in the house rather than a culinary knife...
At 1/19/08 11:31 AM, Christopherr wrote:At 1/19/08 10:50 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: We're not trying to ban all guns, just the ones civies don't need. No good honest civilian needs hollow-points, nor assault rifles, nor fucking proton cannons.You must not know anything about guns, then.
In short, many hunting rifles have bullets that are WAAYYYYY bigger than an assault rifle's. Since many hunting grounds are becoming much smaller, assault rifles are becoming more favorable than longer-distance hunting rifles.
This is the thing about this argument. Ppl like Keith and D2K look at the issue and think of how guns like the AK-47 are portrayed there. On the surface their logic makes sense.
Assault rifles are made for soldiers.
Soldiers shoot ppl during war.
Soldiers use assault rifles.
Therefore, assault rifles are the most dangerous firearms.
What they do not realize is that it is not the rifle that makes the rifle dangerous, but the bullet it shoots.
Then they hear about "cop killing" hollow points and "cop killing" armor piercing rounds and think those have no civilian use. Hollow points are, however, necessary for hunting (you're trying to kill something that is often bigger than a human being). Full metal jacket rounds (which can easily go through car doors) are a cheap round to practice with and due to their ballistics the least dangerous round to be shot by (high velocity combined with dense materials produces a linear trajectory through the body that results in a MUCH less lethal wound).
But these anti-gun types lack the requisite knowledge and/or experience...yet still think their positions are perfectly reasonable...
While we're at it, let's ban alcohol, since it causes more deaths than assault rifles.
And cars...
At 1/19/08 03:22 PM, 0peth wrote:Your points were very interesting to read, however, I hope you realized I am completely against the idea of banning assault weapons any type of arm.At 1/19/08 02:46 PM, TheMason wrote:
I do.
It's just that anti-gunners tend to bring up the "founding fathers" did not know about assault rifles all the time. You just gave me an opportunity to make the case before they made the argument.
At 1/19/08 02:42 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Also, you make the fatal argument the pro-gun lobby always makes: the primary use of a gun in a murder isn't a gang-related or any other kind of crime-relateed shooting, it's within the home - where the majority of all murders takes place. The typical case involves husband and wife having an argument, one loses their cool for just a second, and that's long enough to discharge a round into the other.
In short, as it is more difficult for guns to be brought into play in these situations, that should surely have a direct effect on the murder rate. After all, a person can stop when they're choking somebody, for example - you do not have that window of opportunity with a gun.
On one hand you do have a point, and this is the best gun control point out there is domestic violence. However, I'm not sure that the American murder rate is that out of control that stripping a Constitutional right is necessitated. It is funny how the liberals in this country are harping about the first, fourth and fifth amendment freedoms stripped by the Patriot Act (something I'm not happy with either) but will gleefully talk about stripping the second amendment...something that would really make it easy for a tyrant to use the Constitution to wipe his ass with.
And, be honest, what the hell would the average family need an M-16 for?
D2K, how many times do we have to go over this? There is no reason for an average family NOT to have a M-16 or AK-47. To use this superficial, bumper sticker logic only betrays that you (and anyone who uses it) does not know enough about guns to intelligently talk about their regulation.
At 1/19/08 12:52 PM, 0peth wrote:At 1/19/08 12:20 PM, IamWeird33 wrote: You can't ban guns.When the " Freedom of Arms" in the Bill of Rights was documented a few centuries ago, there was no assault weapons.
What about the 2nd ammendment?
The founding fathers had a much better grasp of history than we do today. To them the Kentucky rifle was not a quaint frontier rifle used to provide food for settlers. It was a destructive weapon of war. And the latter reason is why they made it legal for citizens to own not just guns...but specifically used the term arms.
Throughout history various tyrants has used the arguments that a new type of weapon (that we now think of as antique) is too dangerous for the civilian population to own. Swords, bows and crossbows have all been tightly controlled by Kings and Emperors as a way of keeping the lower classes down.
The founding fathers knew that weapons technology would progress to things unimaginable to them. But they included the amendment anyway.
Furthermore, they would not be for an assault rifle ban since these firearms do not pose a threat to the population at large. Regardless of what you see in the news or entertainment media; assault rifles are used in less than 1% of firearm crime. While many gang members talk about owning an UZI or AK-47; they also point out that they would not use these weapons in crime because they suck for use in crime:
1) They are awkward and heavy in the vast majority of criminal scenarios.
2) They are not concealable.
3) They lack the killing power of a handgun or shotgun (neither of which has the above mentioned limitations).
In sum, civilian ownership of assault rifles is desirable because (I've made this point elsewhere) they are preferable and more safe in certain hunting situations and (the only real reason the second amendment exists) is a hedge against foreign invaders and an out of control domestic government.
At 1/19/08 11:34 AM, Zeistro wrote:At 1/19/08 11:23 AM, tehmaster690 wrote:Keith's an Elitist Liberal, therefore, he knows what's better for the people than themselves.
Who are you to decide what people need or don't need?
He knows better even though he is uninformed and ignorant of whate he speaks...
At 1/19/08 10:50 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: We're not trying to ban all guns, just the ones civies don't need. No good honest civilian needs hollow-points, nor assault rifles, nor fucking proton cannons.
Keith, we've been over this. The first sign that someone does not know what they are talking about and are ignorant when it comes to the topic of guns is when they start talking about civilians NOT needing hollow-points and especially assault rifles.
Without resorting to the emotional arguments that ppl like Sarah Brady has manipulated you into believing; give me one solid argument that is rooted in reality that assault rifles should be banned.
Also, hollow points are necessary for hunting as well as home defense.
At 1/18/08 11:30 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Oh come on yourself (Lol?). The Bill of Rights alone is almost 75% Ten Commandments. Huckabee was ignorant when he said that he would change the Constitution exactly to the word of God, but just because he said that does not mean that the Constitution cannot be changed. What i'm trying to get at is that if any other candidate said that he or she wanted to change the Constitution, would people react the same way that they are reacting to Huckabees statements? Would they even listen to the arguement or just shut them out completely because they want to make a change to the Constitution?
The problem is not that he wants "to change the Constitution"...whether or not the Constitution can be changed is not at issue. What is at issue is that he wants to inject God into it and make refrences to Him. We are objecting to the content of his proposed change.
Also...how do you get that the Bill of Rights are "75% Ten Commandments"? I didn't realize no quatering of troops, right to bear arms, freedom from unlawful search and seizure and freedom from self-incrimination were Biblical mandates...
At 1/17/08 11:06 PM, Saturday wrote: If Libya did not deport their asylum seekers, would the migrant workers be resented as much as Algerians in France? Is there even a parallel?
I think there is a parallel here, and it speaks to own illegal immigration problem and the China/N. Korea illegal immigration problem.
The article brought up a concern for mistreatment of illegals in Lybian jails. What about by Lybian employers and civilians? This is one thing I worry about Mexicans in our own country; abuse of their civil rights because they live in the shadows. For example in China, N. Korean women are basically selling themselves to matchmakers who then marry them off to peasant farmers who cannot find a wife. When you're talking about undocumented people who are not "one of us" (whomever that us happens to be)...there is much room for horrible abuse.
Plus it did say something about how Europe is doing everything it can to keep it's borders closed causing a bottleneck in a developing nation that probably has significant trouble taking care of its own populations. I smell culpability...
At 1/18/08 02:16 AM, Musician wrote:At 1/17/08 10:31 AM, TheMason wrote: You know, I haven't seen either of you making any points on this topic. All I've seen is name calling, trolling and flaming.Why? I've already presented my case atleast 3 times on these forums.
Musician I know you can do better.
Ah young grasshopper...
Do you know how many times I have made my case about assault rifles? Then everytime North Korea has come up...and a long list of my regular topics.
One of the things about these forums is that new people come on and they do not read every post in every topic. In fact they probably only look at the first and last pages of any long thread. Therefore, if you truly believe in what you're saying (which I think you do)...then does it not deserve repeated again and again?
Secondly, even on a well worn topic and after you've repeated yourself a thousand times; don't lower yourself to insulting the trolls. You loose credibility. Trust me; I've made that mistake on NG myself. Remember, you can call someone ignorant of what they speak (we are, one and all, ignorant...no one here knows everything about everything)...just don't call them stupid.
Now...try to snatch the pebble out of my hand before I make a fist...
On a side note, does anyone else think that banner ad of the grinning Gremlin is creeping in a perverted kindof way with the way he's bouncing back and forth?
At 1/18/08 01:31 AM, KupaMan wrote: Dennis Kucinich shares his initials with Donkey Kong, so he can't be all that bad.
...and the phrase "Don't Know"...
