View Full Version : Differences of opinion here at the PU political forum
I'm noting what appears to be aggravation and disbelief in some of the responses to a few of my posts lately. Believe it or not, I don't intend to aggravate anyone here. Why do I post what I do?
1. Because the responses challenge me to think through my opinions, and reconsider them when warranted.
2. Because I'm responding to a post I disagree with, and sometimes even think contains an inaccuracy.
3. Because I think this country would be better off if there were less outright demonization of opposing political viewpoints.
I've heard Rush Limbaugh state on multiple occasions that it is not his purpose to coexist with Democrats/liberals/fill_in_bogeyman. It's all about "defeating" them. He'd like to leave a few liberals on college campuses so they can be gawked at.
Anyway, it's part of the natural order of things that the vast majority of posters on a forum such as this, dedicated in part as it is to discussion of a rifle than will probably continue to be on proposed "ban" lists for the forseeable future, and that once had its normal capacity magazines threatened almost to extinction, should oppose the one political party that keeps sponsoring these bills. I get that. However, it's just a fact that there are lot of pro-second-amendment Democrats, Democrats that understand the second amendment is not about hunting. True, we aren't as libertarian on the issue as some. Most of us think background checks are legitimate, for example. But speaking for myself, I am totally opposed to keeping those checks on record, totally oppose any form of registration, totally oppose any revival of the AWB in any form, totally oppose any new law regarding ammunition, I even oppose registration for concealed carry.
Yet I still usually vote Democratic and sometimes third party, and could count on one hand the number of Republicans I've ever voted for. Why? Because there are other important issues too. If I ever thought that a candidate would bring about the kinds of restrictions on firearms rights the Clinton administration did during their first term, I would not vote for that candidate. I did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 for that reason. And I'm convinced that Barack Obama in 2008 is not Bill Clinton in 1992. He's got more important things to worry about than fighting an uphill battle to further restrict firearms. He might like to, but he and most of the Democrats in congress learned the lesson since 1994 that a lot of voters that will otherwise vote for them will not vote for them if they vote for gun control. Why does Obama's record appear to be so anti-firearms rights? In large part it's because he was in the Illinois statehouse. He represented part of Chicago, and Chicago is a gun control city. He has a much larger constituency now. To me, "closing the gun show loophole" (AKA "keeping AK47's out of the hands of criminals" in Obama-speak) is a small price to pay for achieving discontinuity of the Bush administration, which is priority one. I've explained in other posts why I think that's so important, but I wanted to explain here why I can be both pro-second amendment and pro-Democratic.
Darn, my post is getting long and long posts aggravate some people, so I'll finally get to the point: Since it is not my purpose to annoy, just to debate, if enough of you tell me that my posts have become annoying to you, then this renewed period of my activity here in the Politics forum comes to a close. I see no purpose in continuing, if that's the case. If I'm going to participate, though, I'm going to participate, and that sometimes means going point by point over why I think a particular case is mistaken.
COBRADOC
08-30-2008, 15:57
The last real American Democrat president, President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".
It takes both sides to provide balance. If we can state our arguments without flaming on one another (difficult on heart felt beliefs) we are so much the better. I don't pick all my friends because they agree with me, I hang around them because they are enjoyable to be around. Political threads especially in times with the internet being so open, we can get over zealous in our views. Good arguments are enjoyable to participate in, hearing one side no matter if I agree with it or not can be very boring. Bring on the debate, of course with honesty and respect for others. I myself am quite bored with both sides, but I still read these so that I might glean from them.
I don't think anyone wants you to leave. To much entertainment value;)
But you have to understand,this is a firearms forum. Most folks don't believe in your guy. You can type all the references,quotes,yahoo,wahoo and googles you want and all your gonna get is carpal tunnel syndrome.
Can't speak for others, but you won't change my mind anymore than I will change yours. IMO the only difference between Obama and Hillary is sex and color. And all this is just for the sake of argument. We do like to argue don't we?:D
The last real American Democrat president, President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".
You know how it is, never a good idea to annoy the cook.
If I irritate everyone, who's going to help next time I have a question about my Mini 14? :D
You know how it is, never a good idea to annoy the cook.
If I irritate everyone, who's going to help next time I have a question about my Mini 14? :D
Them spam sucking trailer trash hicks........oops, :D In reality, if you look through the majority of those who participate in the other forums, the majority of members are probably the smartest because they will rarely post in the political threads, same when we had a religion thread. Most members are here about guns and the love of guns. Just a handful have enough time to pee into the wind and pontificate their own ideas, it is up to us to solve the world's problems, one post at a time:rolleyes:
Stick around, Free...we all agree to disagree. I switched from Democrat to Republican after getting out of college, going to work, and finding out how the world actually works. I tend to vote conservative, I lean constitutionalist, I'm Pro-Choice but I don't go ballistic when the choice is to have the child. I'm very pro-2A and pro-military, believe in the right to dissent but at the same time I'm pro-law and order. I believe in limited government, that the government is not always the best one to be running things or even be involved in certain things but that, as seen in the financial sector recently, someone with a baseball bat needs to be watching the hen houses. I also believe that many of the events around New Orleans during Katrina that occurred under color of law should be considered federal crimes and that dozens of order-givers at the very least should have been under indictment long ago.
I'll quit now, I don't wanna get started or anything.
..... I also believe that many of the events around New Orleans during Katrina that occurred under color of law should be considered federal crimes and that dozens of order-givers at the very least should have been under indictment long ago....
Isn't there a place in PA called Nuremburg?
Isn't there a place in PA called Nuremburg?
I'm sure they'd have to build a bigger courthouse...
There you go, acting like a liberal trying to raise taxes:lol:
metaldemon7
08-31-2008, 07:49
I think that everyone should be able to voice thier thoughts here. It gives the rest of us a different view on some things that we are hard nosed about.
I vote Rep. most of the time. Although I do not agree with everything that they stand for. One thing is that I do not believe in is a higher power. I do think that religion has it's place for the people who need it. I also think that your "Ten Comandments" are a very good moral code. The other is the pro-life thing. Women should have thier rights protected, as long as it is not beyond reason. The partial birth is just not right. I do however believe in my Country, Military, and our free way of life.
I do believe in working for what you get. If they want to give my money away, then I am not happy. I think they can find something for these people on welfare to work at to help our country, if they are going to take a hand out. I work for a factory were some of our work is done by the handicapped. The work is done with pride. There is work to be done. Anything to help our Country. Thank You
collegeb
08-31-2008, 13:04
Free you should stick around. everyone here has something they differ on except for an appreciation of firearms. That is what unties us all. And when you have a question i'm sure just about everyone can look past differences and help you get your mini in order. Besides politics are not that important. I say run your own life and don't spend time trying to run the lives of others...thats what the politicians are for. I'd just as soon leave them alone if they leave me alone.
mnottfam
08-31-2008, 17:25
Where'd SongDawg go? He was entertaining to argue with. As a typical raving liberal whose fallback for any argument kept along the lines of "but Bush this," and "but Bush that," failing to realize for a moment that HE'S NOT ON THE TICKET!!, he was the typical democrat that I've run across: unable to think for himself but for the DNC party line, and unable to come up with his own reasoning behind what he was arguing about. SW is at least intelligent to argue with, in that, though he's blinded to what Mr. Obama is really about, he argues with fervor and tries his best to defend the man. Like Mr. Clinton's press adviser ( I can't for the life of me remember his name--he's on the news proggies from time to time, but can't think of his name) did in that "town hall" meeting once--the guy showed up with a HUGE stack of papers of his doctored numbers to try to prove his point; nobody had time to put up with his "research," and he was trying to distract from the real issues before them.
I'm not surprised by SW's refusal to accept and understand what an Obama victory would do to what's left of America, but I AM disappointed. I HAVE met some intelligent liberals, and am confused as to how people who are so obviously intelligent could fail to grasp the realities presented them.
As for the religious discussions, anybody ever heard of the [I]Base Institute for Biblical Archaeological studies[I]? They're the guys who have discovered the REAL Mt. Sinai, the REAL location of the ACTUAL Noah's Ark, the current resting place of the ARK of the COVENANT, and in conjunction with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's Bob Ballard (who found the Titanic and Bismarck), they've found the Apostle Paul's shipwreck. Hard to argue with actual archeological evidence of the real thing.
COBRADOC
08-31-2008, 20:33
Where'd SongDawg go?
I think that SongDog got advised to go away.
I'm not surprised by SW's refusal to accept and understand what an Obama victory would do to what's left of America, but I AM disappointed. I HAVE met some intelligent liberals, and am confused as to how people who are so obviously intelligent could fail to grasp the realities presented them.
Being intelligent and being wise are two different things.
As for the religious discussions, anybody ever heard of the [I]Base Institute for Biblical Archaeological studies[I]? They're the guys who have discovered the REAL Mt. Sinai, the REAL location of the ACTUAL Noah's Ark, the current resting place of the ARK of the COVENANT, and in conjunction with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's Bob Ballard (who found the Titanic and Bismarck), they've found the Apostle Paul's shipwreck. Hard to argue with actual archeological evidence of the real thing.
Yes, I've seen several of these programs and they are fascinating. I was especially intrigued by the one of the true location of Mt. Sinai. One of the problems with our interpretation of the Bible is that there have been some misinterpretation and second, the people who wrote most of the works were of middle-eastern heritage and wrote from a different perspective. We, as mostly descendants from European heritage, want to interpret everything literally, but the middle-eastern society considers direct, literal commentary to be insulting.
I know that some people will consider my above statement as heresy, so before anyone wants to attack me as being anti-Christian, let me assure you that is not the case. I am a born-again Christian, baptized by immersion, and a Deacon in my church.
I keep getting told that the Bible was divinely-inspired and can't possibly have any errors in the what, thousands of hand-copies before the press was invented? I keep saying we're dealing with human beings here, recounting what they saw and heard. I don't know about any of you, but I've talked to a lot of excited people that just witnessed something and a lot of them aren't much good for accuracy. You have to remember the point of view of the writers.
COBRADOC
08-31-2008, 20:54
I keep getting told that the Bible was divinely-inspired and can't possibly have any errors in the what, thousands of hand-copies before the press was invented? I keep saying we're dealing with human beings here, recounting what they saw and heard. I don't know about any of you, but I've talked to a lot of excited people that just witnessed something and a lot of them aren't much good for accuracy. You have to remember the point of view of the writers.
Mark, well said. We also have to remember that lots of this stuff happened long before there was the written word and came down through the oral tradition to written down many years after the fact.
And here I go again with my foot-in-my-mouth, but lots of the stories in the Bible are like an old war story, the more times you tell it, the better it gets.
"There I was ..................."
One of the problems with our interpretation of the Bible is that there have been some misinterpretation and second, the people who wrote most of the works were of middle-eastern heritage and wrote from a different perspective. We, as mostly descendants from European heritage, want to interpret everything literally, but the middle-eastern society considers direct, literal commentary to be insulting.
Great answer. Christianity is a middle-eastern faith, the New Testament was written in Greek, and contains Greek thought. Greek philosophy was the main understanding throughout the region, and the early Christian writers (including the apostles) wrote using Greek terminology as a way to explain the faith. To try and use English translations (most which translated from the Hebrew or Latin translations which were translations from the Greek) to explain the meanings and ideas lead to problems which plague the Christian faith today. As far as being accurate, the Bible has many ancient copies which have shown the accuracy it has maintained. Besides that, oral tradition has been studied and shown to be accurate in many cultures i.e. Jewish. In reality, it takes faith to believe whether to believe in the Bible or not. One either believes or not, it is that simple. I cannot change your mind to either belief, free will.
Where'd SongDawg go? .
Personally, I think you are him, especially if I include the fact that you seem to like to ridicule and belittle folks that seem to have a opinion that differs from your own. That is one trait in people that I will never understand even if I live to be twice my age.
Mrblackguns
09-01-2008, 00:55
....... I switched from Democrat to Republican after getting out of college, going to work, and finding out how the world actually works.
Funny how that happens huh?,....LOL:lol:
I left school early to go to work, too. Was afraid I wouldn't get another chance at it. That was the job I stayed with for 28 years. What a rut, huh?
Gossman: Also funny how those that take the trouble to root out what problems there are in the translations, by going back to the original Greek, are sharply ridiculed as if they are threatening others beliefs. Faith is important but it should be based on the best information possible I would think. I'm basically an Agnostic Christian: I have issues with much of modern organized churches.
mnottfam
09-01-2008, 08:46
...itage and wrote from a different perspective. We, as mostly descendants from European heritage, want to interpret everything literally, but the middle-eastern society considers direct, literal commentary to be insulting.
I know that some people will consider my above statement as heresy, so before anyone wants to attack me as being anti-Christian, let me assure you that is not the case. I am a born-again Christian, baptized by immersion, and a Deacon in my church.
How could I get that from your statement? I don't find your statement to be that way in ANY way. A friend of mine, YEARS back, said he didn't believe in the Bible because it had been copied so many times over the centuries. Back then, I didn't know what I know now. Monks, doing the copying by hand over the centuries, would spend time in prayer, asking God to grant them precision in their efforts. Then they would set to copying, but not the way we would. We would read, "And God said," then write down, "And God siad," and not think twice about it. THEY would see "And God said," and would write "A" "n" "d" "space" "capital G" "o" "d" "space" "s" "a" "i" "d". If the mis-spell I did were to be found through numerous proof-reads, THE ENTIRE PAGE would be destroyed, the monk would spend MORE time in prayer asking God's forgiveness, and would start the whole page over. The big deal about the dead sea scrolls was that they were a VERY OLD copy of the Bible, and researchers were able to cross-examine them against newer copies. To their amazement, they much later copies were surprisingly accurate! The Bible is probably the only case where, in a game of "around the world," accuracy was never compromised:D.
Freesw, enjoy your Mini-14 while you can because if your man wins, he will use every "reasonable" and "sensible" law to deprive you of the right to have it. If it weren't for our state pre-emption law, don't you think that the People's Republic of Austin would have already taken your Mini-14?
Stick around. I've never voted in a Republican primary and I am more pro-gun than the NRA! Also, the McCain is Bush's third term mantra is not working for the Democrats. I have reservations about McCain because he supported the campaign finance reform laws that clearly violated the first amendment, but I will still vote for him because of the judges he may appoint. Realize that Chicago is a politically corrupt city and that Obama is indebted to that political machine.
I've got an an uncle named Jesus and he is not the Messiah and neither is Obama. Given the blind following that Obama has, one could almost compare him to a cult leader. Scary!
The big deal about the dead sea scrolls was that they were a VERY OLD copy of the Bible, and researchers were able to cross-examine them against newer copies. To their amazement, they much later copies were surprisingly accurate! The Bible is probably the only case where, in a game of "around the world," accuracy was never compromised:D.
Anything would be more accurate than something copied manually using Spellcheck.....
COBRADOC
09-01-2008, 12:23
How could I get that from your statement? I don't find your statement to be that way in ANY way. A friend of mine, YEARS back, said he didn't believe in the Bible because it had been copied so many times over the centuries. Back then, I didn't know what I know now. Monks, doing the copying by hand over the centuries, would spend time in prayer, asking God to grant them precision in their efforts. Then they would set to copying, but not the way we would. We would read, "And God said," then write down, "And God siad," and not think twice about it. THEY would see "And God said," and would write "A" "n" "d" "space" "capital G" "o" "d" "space" "s" "a" "i" "d". If the mis-spell I did were to be found through numerous proof-reads, THE ENTIRE PAGE would be destroyed, the monk would spend MORE time in prayer asking God's forgiveness, and would start the whole page over. The big deal about the dead sea scrolls was that they were a VERY OLD copy of the Bible, and researchers were able to cross-examine them against newer copies. To their amazement, they much later copies were surprisingly accurate! The Bible is probably the only case where, in a game of "around the world," accuracy was never compromised:D.
Fully understood. But there are a lot of folks out there that get really hyper if you even dare to question the absolute, literal translation of the Bible. These are people who usually approach the Word out of ignorance and fear moreso than faith. I just didn't want any misunderstanding about where I was coming from, but maybe I just stuck my foot in my mouth again?
Politics is like asking someone to exchange punches with you. You just got be careful you don't get a gang throwing punches. Maybe that's why Fox is so popular because they throw the other direction from ABC, CNN, most newspapers. All the other news has a split audience but they all carry the same message. Some news is just hard to swallow all the lies, they don't mix enough truth with it, some are better at fooling the sheep.:blink:
mnottfam
09-01-2008, 19:44
Anything would be more accurate than something copied manually using Spellcheck.....
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Being intelligent and being wise are two different things.
How wise is it, from a born again perspective, to assume the worst of someone's motives, to assume someone's words are based solely on ideology?
To claim someone lacks understanding and knowledge of reality, while stubbornly failing to be specific in any way, and sarcastically insist that's "an intellectual exchange of ideas" and not criticism?
To refuse to extend the benefit of the doubt to someone willing to rethink his views?
As for the religious discussions, anybody ever heard of the [I]Base Institute for Biblical Archaeological studies[I]? They're the guys who have discovered the REAL Mt. Sinai, the REAL location of the ACTUAL Noah's Ark, the current resting place of the ARK of the COVENANT, and in conjunction with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's Bob Ballard (who found the Titanic and Bismarck), they've found the Apostle Paul's shipwreck. Hard to argue with actual archeological evidence of the real thing.
Never heard of the Base Institute for Biblical Archaeological studies, but I do know about Bob Ballard and Woods Hole, and I've never heard anything about finding the Apostle Paul's shipwreck.
I'm familiar with the differing theories about the location of Mt. Sinai (many believe it's not where St. Catherine's monastery is, I don't know), but what about Noah's ark? Isn't that supposed to be on Mt. Ararat, if it still exists?
Interesting revelation about Ballard's Titanic mission:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080602-titanic-secret.html
If it weren't for our state pre-emption law, don't you think that the People's Republic of Austin would have already taken your Mini-14?
I'd move, but it's a doubly moot point. We have at-large council elections, and no council member would be re-elected if they voted for something like that. Now, if there were districts, there might be a central district or two that could go that way.
Austin's not Berkley.
"I like hamburgers"
I like fried spam and eggs.
mnottfam
09-01-2008, 21:06
I like fried spam and eggs.
Anybody here ever tried corned-beef-hash with applesauce on it and fried eggs?:)
Anybody here ever tried corned-beef-hash with applesauce on it and fried eggs?:)
No, but it sounds good. I really like potato pancakes with applesauce, and the corn-beef hash is made similarly to that, with corned beef plus a few extra vegetables, so yeah, I bet it would be great.
Yet I still usually vote Democratic and sometimes third party, and could count on one hand the number of Republicans I've ever voted for. Why? Because there are other important issues too.
No issue is more important than freedom. Without freedom, and the right of self defence is central to the basic concept of individual freedom, you have no rights that can be depended on.
Look at Britain: limited gun ownership - then no handguns - then no right to self defence - then no right to refuse to testify against yourself - then near universal camera surveillance in public areas - then no recourse against arbitrary arrests and imprisonment for up to a month under blanket warrants. And it still hasn't ended.
You don't seem to realize that Obama wants to go down that road and approves highly of that model of government. His anti-gun philosophy and politics are just the beginning of an attempt to destroy our freedom.
If it was just a background check of gun show purchases, fine. But none of the anti-gunners like Obama would relax the current system one little bit, and want it used on all purchases. They look on a gun show background check as a way to stop all individual non-dealer sales. The reason isn't to stop criminals but to stop gun purchases in general and harrass gun owners.
The current call in for approval setup could be replaced by a reporting system. No cost to speak of and no delays plus it'd remove the privacy problems inherent in private access to the current NICS system. if a serious criminal bought a gun, at a dealer, a gunshow, or privately the police could show up on his doorstep and arrest him for it or confiscate the gun. That's lots better, just as effective and at least as secure as the current setup where criminals resort to back alley sales, straw purchases or fake ID, but it would reduce gun buyer harrassment, not increase it, so they wont approve of it.
BTW, you can't claim that it was only Chicago politics that forced Obama to be anti-gun and he's reformed since becoming a presidential candidate. If that was true then why did he seek the support of and engineer the primary campaign participation of the front organization, the American Hunters And Shooters Association, which is controlled by anti-gun rights activists?
COBRADOC
09-03-2008, 08:58
I like fried spam and eggs.
freesw, Spam and eggs are really great on a cold morning, but you've never dined at the heighth of elegence until you have cowed down on some green eggs and ham from the old C-Ration meals.
How are things in your market area? I was in a computer store yesterday and the are swamped in the back room. Seems that lots of folks these days are repairing rather than replacing.
Maybe they want to keep the old XP box running than forcibly "upgrade" to Vista...
mnottfam
09-03-2008, 12:26
Heck, I'm still running Win 2K pro...:D
moonie42
09-03-2008, 13:57
Heck, I'm still running Win 2K pro...:D
I'm running/supporting
DOS 6.1
Windows 95
Windows 2000 Pro
Windows 2000 Server
Windows XP
Windows 2003 Server
Windows Vista
and dabbling with Linux (Ubuntu and Kubuntu). :o
COBRADOC
09-03-2008, 13:59
Maybe they want to keep the old XP box running than forcibly "upgrade" to Vista...
Both my sets, desk top and laptop, are running XP and I plan on keeping it that was as long as I can. My exposure to Vista is limited, but I've never heard anything good about it.
Actually, my favorite OS was 98 version II. I never had any problems with it.
moonie42
09-03-2008, 14:06
Both my sets, desk top and laptop, are running XP and I plan on keeping it that was as long as I can. My exposure to Vista is limited, but I've never heard anything good about it.
Actually, my favorite OS was 98 version II. I never had any problems with it.
I've been running Vista since last fall. All I really have to say about it is that it's different...not good, not bad, just different. But then again, as you can probably tell from my last post in this thread, I'm and IT guy, so my perspective is a little different. I will say it's annoying between Vista and Office 2007 that everything is in a different place!
Mrblackguns
09-03-2008, 14:13
The smart arsed "I like...etc" comments in the political forum just re-enforce what is wrong with this country and why we have so many media hyped incompetent celeb politicians elected in this country, because "I like" is all the "sheeple" are concerned about.
The smart arsed "I like...etc" comments in the political forum just re-enforce what is wrong with this country and why we have so many media hyped incompetent celeb politicians elected in this country, because "I like" is all the "sheeple" are concerned about.
More like "I want", isn't it?
I can personally confirm that it is best to avoid Vista. I tried it and don't like it at all. The user access control is annoying, especially so since it's a known fact that it can be done better (Linux does the same thing, and it doesn't nag). But I could live with that, since I needed to use Microsoft Word. The last straw was when SP1 caused my network adapter to stop working. I can live with a certain amount of Windows annoyances, but I kind of need access to the internet.
I'm currently using Ubuntu, and it's the first Linux distribution I can actually recommend to people that doesn't want to deal with a lot of minutiae.
There still may be occasions that require editing config files, but I haven't had to yet with the latest release. Nowadays, this usually amounts to changing one entry, and the steps are spelled out on the same web page as one finds the description of whatever it is one is trying to do. If you've ever fiddled with the Windows registry, for example, nothing about Ubuntu will be the least bit daunting.
It's also much easier to keep updated than even Windows with Windows Update. For one thing, all applications are upgraded with the same mechanism, you don't have to do it separately for non-Microsoft apps.
I've just been given [what for me will be] a big job, so y'all will have to do without my political opinions for awhile [shouldn't take too long]. Somehow I think you'll manage that OK ;)
COBRADOC
09-04-2008, 08:53
freesw, I can appreciate guys like you and moonie who know what you are doing with computers and software, because if you have a problem with them you know how to fix them. But us schnooks who are all excited just to get logged on correctly have to live with what we are given, and it seems for the last few years that the more we novices are given, the less we get.
Good luck on the new project. See you when you get back.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.