One Political Mega Thread!!!

1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
http:///forum/post/2958335
I did the research on my own and from what I read about the weather underground....The bombings were not set up to intentionally hurt anyone. What they did is wrong as hell. It is a VERY serious subject. I didn't say that they didn't endanger anyones lives. The intent of the group however was to make a statement, not to kill people. I think that the bombings were totoally reckless and they were not considering the cost of human lives that they could have impacted. Like I said I did the research and I am stating what I have discovered. I never said what they did was ok. I am not making any argument, if you would pay attention.
Terrorism=terrorism
There is no such thing as a "friendly" bombing. No such think as peaceful terrorism.
Ayers, himself, said he wished they had done more. Done more of what? What is the goal of terrorism?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
http:///forum/post/2958721
On an intersting note...The Black Liberation Army was also linked to the murder of that police officer. Turns out two prominent figures in that group were 2Pacs parrents!
So this means the other deaths brought on by the WU don't matter. Your whole defense was they killed no one. We showed you they did. I also explained the magnitude of the bomb that accidentally went off killing 3 members, tell me that bomb would not have killed any service men. Please try.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
http:///forum/post/2954791
..Also, with the economy deteriorating the way things are nothing is going to get better anytime soon. Even Obama admitted that. ...
Then why the rush to pass this poorly thought out Trillion dollar Bill?
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2959056
Then why the rush to pass this poorly thought out Trillion dollar Bill?
Oh, he won't sign it today. He promised that bills would be available online for at least 5 days for public comment before he signs any bill.
He promised ;)
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2959067
Oh, he won't sign it today. He promised that bills would be available online for at least 5 days for public comment before he signs any bill.
He promised ;)
More political BS. Nothing is going to change from this point on, for it to have actually meant something. They would have had to wait from the point it was released from the conference committee till the house and senate voted on it...
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2954823
Right, let's listen to the college drop out for our political advice....smart right??
Examples?? I'm pretty sure we're ramping up efforts in the area that terrorists actually spawn......
Again...really???? Or is giving them the perception of 'strengthened ties' instead of threats actually making us safer?
One word= Bush. Really, conservatives complain about the feds but then expect their candidate to ban this or that...quite cliche.....
I really hope you didn't vote for McCain or this statement becomes hypocrisy....
If a conservative actually loved the country, yes there is. You would not agree with what was happening, but hope it worked. yes, that may make you wrong if it worked, but country over ideology...at least that should be the hope....
I've met quite a few college dropouts that have more sense than an Ivy league graduate... I bet, for instance, Rush knows how his "mentors" stand on things that President Obama seems to have missed in his 20+ year relationship with his mentor..
Obama just cut the military budget by 10%.
Iran, for one example.
What did I expect President Bush to ban? Sorry; My position on the Constitution is quite consistent.
If a Conservative really loves this country he will want liberal policies and liberal agendas to fail.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2958678
Now, on your firearms permits.......you still have the right to bear arms correct?? It doesn't say you have the right to bear arms without any regulation....i.e., a permit system to keep criminals from legally obtaining guns. I like my guns, and I have a handgun permit and will be getting a concealed carry permit soon. I have no problem with permits. It takes me a couple hours to renew my permits, just checking the criminal background, it comes up clear, and it is renewed. I also think that it is beneficial from keeping many crimes down, but of course people can still get guns illegally, but that doesn't mean permits don't prevent some crimes.
Plus, I hate to break it to ya, but those democrats that you pointed out, still need to be re-elected. I'm sure Pelosi and some of the other liberal democrats would vote for it, but I guarantee you that the more conservative democrats like Ben Nelson (D- Neb) would never vote for taking away gun rights. It would be political suicide in a gun loving state. I'm sure there are many democrats that are in the same situation.
Inside Chicagos city limits it is illegal to own, sell,or posses a Handgun.
You may find this interesting: HR 45
(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45.IH:
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2959147
What did I expect President Bush to ban? Sorry; My position on the Constitution is quite consistent.
I don't know if you expected, but conservatives in general (around here anyway) expect their conservative prez to ban gay marriage, abortion, etc.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2959147
If a Conservative really loves this country he will want liberal policies and liberal agendas to fail.
So, lets say that is the cure (hypothetical, I don't think the stimulus will work) is a liberal policy. You would rather your country die than giving it the cure???
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2959177
Inside Chicagos city limits it is illegal to own, sell,or posses a Handgun.
You may find this interesting: HR 45
(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45.IH:
I dislike this. But what are they going to do? Come to my house to take the guns that I use to hunt? And I actually do use them to hunt, I don't just say that like many people I know....
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2958783
Terrorism=terrorism
There is no such thing as a "friendly" bombing. No such think as peaceful terrorism.
Ayers, himself, said he wished they had done more. Done more of what? What is the goal of terrorism?
Again, just to stir the pot a little, not trying to defend Ayers in any shape or form:
So, if there are no "degrees" of terrorism, we could define the Confederacy as terrorists like Osama that would have been subject to getting thrown in Gitmo?
And before someone says there was no Gitmo during the civil war....I know, its just a hypothetical situation.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2959299
Again, just to stir the pot a little, not trying to defend Ayers in any shape or form:
So, if there are no "degrees" of terrorism, we could define the Confederacy as terrorists like Osama that would have been subject to getting thrown in Gitmo?
And before someone says there was no Gitmo during the civil war....I know, its just a hypothetical situation.
Actually I believe there was. If you think back to WW2 we had essentially camps that held Japanese found in country, I am sure this action is nothing new.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2959299
Again, just to stir the pot a little, not trying to defend Ayers in any shape or form:
So, if there are no "degrees" of terrorism, we could define the Confederacy as terrorists like Osama that would have been subject to getting thrown in Gitmo?
And before someone says there was no Gitmo during the civil war....I know, its just a hypothetical situation.
Dude, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war, and jailed people who didn't agree with him.
What happened "civil rights" wise during the civil war makes Gitmo look like a retreat center. And this was done to American Citizens not some terrorist picked up in the hills of Afghanistan.
But in order to understand what was happened politically before the civil war, you've got to understand that we did not have a centralized government like we do now. From the end of the revolution till they ratified the constitution, we were a loose confederation not unlike the EU today. Autonomous states with a VERY weak centralized government, states were in charge of trade, issued their own currency,controlled all taxes. The "federal" government didn't do much of anything. And although the constitution established the role of the federal government, states rights and laws essentially trumped federal law.
So when these (and this is the KEY distinction between the confederation and terrorists) democratically elected governments decided to secede. One an actual government decided too, second their was a strong argument legally for them to secede.
Fortunately Lincoln was of opinion that the USA should include the south too.
Later on they passed constitutional amendments that transferred the balance of power from the states to the federal government. And their really isn't a strong argument for succession anymore. (except for Texas, we entered through a treaty that allows us to legally secede if we decided too)
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2959067
Oh, he won't sign it today. He promised that bills would be available online for at least 5 days for public comment before he signs any bill.
He promised ;)
5 days, not business days... hmm, friday, saturday, sunday, monday, and he's set up to sign today... that's 5 days..
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2959415
5 days, not business days... hmm, friday, saturday, sunday, monday, and he's set up to sign today... that's 5 days..
And its signed.....How am I gonna explain this debt to my children....It better work.
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
speaking of the civil war, a college professor had told us that the north actually wanted the south to succede, so that constitutional amendments could get ratified without the south's opposition (such as banning of slavery, once you're in the union, you cannot leave, etc)
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2959414
So when these (and this is the KEY distinction between the confederation and terrorists) democratically elected governments decided to secede. One an actual government decided too, second their was a strong argument legally for them to secede.
Good point
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2959422
And its signed.....How am I gonna explain this debt to my children....It better work.
nah, our children are dealing with year's ago debt. this is our grandchildrens debt.
i'm just wondering something.... the govt is paying out all this money, and then will be taxing people on their income that comes from all this money. where does this tax money get put into the equation?
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
I don't think it has been put into the equation yet. You're right, if it does work, then incomes will increase=taxes increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top