Sidney.
It doesn't matter whether we send 10 million or 10 billion dollars to Haiti. Less than five dollars will end up where it is supposed to go. The rest will be deposited in somebodies bank account in Zurich.
Printable View
Sidney.
It doesn't matter whether we send 10 million or 10 billion dollars to Haiti. Less than five dollars will end up where it is supposed to go. The rest will be deposited in somebodies bank account in Zurich.
Esten and Schmoj give Laurel and Hardy a run for their money.
[quote=esten]Such tactics are common from the right. They look for opportunities to spread doubt, fear and anger in their followers, who they erroneously refer to as "The American People" as if they were the only people in the country. They deal in emotions.[/QUOTE]This one had me laughing. That's a good one. The right is ruling the country (from their pick up trucks and porch furniture) via fear mongering. This from a portion of the American People that have no representation in Washington (check back next Wednesday and again on Wednesday November 3rd to see if that situation changes) and limited access to the main stream media. Why did you leave out the facts that republicans are all racist, bigoted homophobes?
The tactic used here by Esten is to smear all republicans and conservatives with vague charges and innuendo. The left uses this tactic constantly followed by repeating the lies over and over, until the state-controlled media takes them for facts.
Schmoj, why do you attempt to quote and parse my response? You don't make any sense.
[QUOTE=Schmoj]What does THIS article have to do with the 2nd amendment? [/QUOTE]I clearly stated that I don't think it is directly relevant to the second amendment.
[quote=]Again, what does THIS article have to do with individual liberty and freedom? [/quote]
"Again?" The common definition of 'again' is: "once more, another time, anew." Why do you say again when this is the first time you posed the THIS question? Why the all caps 'THIS?' Are you trying to add emphasis? If so, are you trying to emphasize that THIS is the only article and only instance where these whackos from the right try to use the above-mentioned tactics (hat tip to Esten for the tactical information)
The relevance to the issues of individual liberty and freedom can be found in the threat that such governmental interference poses to those engaged in lawful commerce that will be effected by such a move.
[quote=]You guys keep wanting to interpret THIS article as some sort of attack against gun owners in the US.[/QUOTE]What? Are you stupid or just illiterate? I am not the only conservative or republican to respond in agreement with you that this is not a direct assault on the second amendment.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]As for the aforementioned article, it is not directly relevant to individual gun ownership, however, it is detrimental to approximately $35b of US economic output and is indicative of the contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom. That should surprise no one as this administration has declared war on the private sector.[/QUOTE]Let me quote you again Walleye, so you'll understand. You DO mention that the article is not directly related to individual gun ownership, but in the very same sentence mention 'contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom.' So, explain to me how the issue described in THAT article has anything to do with individual liberty and freedom.
I won't go as far as calling you illiterate, but you seem to either have reading comprehension problems OR you are more than happy just to make shit up to support your ideology.
Also, you are assuming that just because I point out the fact THAT article had nothing to do with your and Sydney's interpretation of it that I am a "liberal." Personally, I think most of the liberal/conservative dichotomy is smoke and mirrors. While it may be applicable to individual points of view, the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power.
Do you REALLY believe that Obama is a "liberal?"
No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):
Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.
Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.
Esten.
Very astute. I am impressed.
I have a question about people whose main concern is "Where is my welfare check"'. Should they be classfied as driven by emotion or driven by reason?
[QUOTE=Esten]No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):
Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.
Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.[/QUOTE]No smear, but just a plain and simple question:
What color is the sky in your world?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Esten.
Very astute. I am impressed.
I have a question about people whose main concern is "Where is my welfare check"'. Should they be classfied as driven by emotion or driven by reason?[/QUOTE]I think they are reasonably driven by emotion.
Or are they emotionally driven by reason?
Either way I am ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
Well I guess you can say the Democrats use "Reason" if your definition of Reason is give all your money to the government because the government knows better than anyone else how to tell you to run your life, decide what is good or bad for you, and lead you around by the nose as they spend your money (sorry it's not your money it's the government's) I guess this is the same group of "Reasoned" folks whose candidate in Mass. Told the Republican running against her how dare he try to win Kennedy's seat, didn't he know that Senate seat "belonged" to the Democrats - yea I really like that kind of "Reasoning."
At least the Republicans use to be for smaller government and free markets where no one was "too big to fail", where the hell did that come from? Probably from the same folks who gave us the "Great Society" which has become one of the colossal failures of the Democrats with the exception it created huge "entitlement" programs the Democrats milk for votes to this day.
I just love these terms "entitlement" "too big to fail". The thing I love about Democrats is they are perfectly willing to spend YOUR last dime on THEIR programs!
Someone on the board wrote a very witty post about how mongering would work if the Democrats took it over. Check it out its on point!
[QUOTE=Esten]No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):
Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.
Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.[/QUOTE]I think that it is just the opposite. Isn't there an old saying which goes something like "The Republicans have no heart and the Democrats have no brains"?
Bob
Bob.
Another saying along those lines which was coined by Jackson is (more or less)
If you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old - you have no heart.
If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old - you have no brains
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Bob.
Another saying along those lines which was coined by Jackson is (more or less)
If you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old - you have no heart.
If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old - you have no brains[/QUOTE]That may have been what I was thinking of. Although, while there may be some true philosophical differences between the parties, I think that Schmoj nailed it when he said "the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power."
Bob
I hold these truths to be self evident:
[quote] You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.[/quote]I'm overcome with emotion just reading these words.
Jackson
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJQDnAHrRY&NR=1[/url]
It appears that people are becoming disenchanted with Obama. From my limited perspective in Paraguay, Obama seems OK to me. Maybe if I saw the news everyday I would have a different take on this I. E. If I was beat over the head everyday with Obama's plans to make government bigger I probaby would be fed up with Obama as well.
On the other hand Obama has disappointed some far left supporters who want us out of Afghanistan immediately (as I do) out of Iraq and open travel with Cuba. Obviously Obama is not eating all the leftwing ideas they are trying to shove down his throat.
Where Obama will end up is a mystery. Another Reagon or Clinton (good) or another Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter (bad)