i found this on the NRA's website. comments?
Outrage Of The Week -- Political Hypocrisy By Obama
Friday, March 07, 2008
A March 2 commentary in National Review Online (NRO) demonstrates the hypocrisy that often abounds in the campaigns of anti-Second Amendment candidates. This time, the transgressor is Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
In his NRO column, Jim Geraghty recalls how a few years ago, Obama (then a state senator) proposed enactment of a federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from operating within five miles of a school or park. Of course, considering the geography of most cities and towns, banning a lawful business operation within a five-mile radius of a school or park would very often amount to an outright ban on those businesses.
While that endeavor certainly demonstrates his disdain for FFLs and their legitimate business, another vote demonstrates Obama's apparent tolerance for what others would no doubt consider controversial businesses. On a Senate bill to prohibit sex-related shops to operate within a five-mile radius of schools or houses of worship (which failed), Obama took a pass, and voted "present."
The Obama spin: He was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities!
Advocating a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products, while showing support for, or, at minimum, indifference to, holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard is not only hypocritical, it's outrageous
Hmmm Yeap
Two comments:
1) Has anyone fact-checked this column? The ONLY references I can find to this bill are in reposts of this same column. Obama's website says nothing of the kind, nor do independent websites listing candidate positions on various topics. Not that anyone in the right-wing would ever distort facts intentionally...
2) As far as allowing pornography, no comparison. How many people are murdered by nasty DVDs in drive-bys each year? How many children shoot themselves accidentally with dirty pictures? Obama has stated that he is concerned with inner city availability of handguns, especially from unlicensed dealers, but that's all I can find even close to this.
I will agree, there is no comparison in the two subjects. I still advocate that information is our best weapon. The more people are forced/encouraged to learn about weapons safety and proper handling before a purchase the less horrific incidents such as accidental shootings will occur. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and I do not believe it should be infringed upon, I do believe that stipulations proper for the current state of affairs should be amended unto this right.
Good lord, I'm on a rampage............
Ahhh yes unlicensed dealers, :icon_rolleyes: aka criminals who will still be in operation even when legitimate ffl dealers are put out of business and private ownership of wepons is a thing of the past.
Hmmm ask DC how the whole gun control thing is working. Seriously for a city with such draconian anti gun laws there seems to be a shitload of gun related crime and violent crime.
I won't actually argue this one with people who there is no hope of converting, but if your interested compare the violent crime rate to the population percentages carrying weapons legally in the U.S. and then take those crime numbers over the past 15 years since states began coming on line with CCW permits and see which direction they are trending. Believe it or not the fear of dying over a few dollars and a credit card or two in someones wallet has actully worked. You will have to factor out the amount of crime related to gang warfare and narcoticts though because those have been on the rise, aka criminal on criminal crime, if you are an honest citizen not up to something nefarious in Tulsa you are actually safer now then you were 10 years ago, but our criminal on criminal crime rate numbers have increased as gangs have grown and fight over territory.
I won't argue with practicality and I'm not opposed to CCL (my dad has one). I'll grant you that one, BP.
What I find interesting is the fact that Canada has as many guns per capita as we do, but a significantly lower rate of gun violence. In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore makes the argument that it's not the guns that are the problem, it's our society's tolerance and encouragement of macho attitudes and acceptance of violence at all levels.
Ahhhh the Michael Moore qoute,
I can't argue that point since I have not seen the movie, tried to watch it but I find Moore personally disgusting and offensive. An individual fullyt deserved of a good ole mob lynching if there ever was one in my opinion.
It is my understanding that he takes the lunatic fringe view of people like wilson and presents them as the mainstream views of republicans.
I am going to have to look on the canadian gun figures, my understanding was shotguns and long rifles only for civillians in canada.
BP: I couldn't agree more about Moore.
As far as the guns, you are correct, Canada, Ozzy land, and England allow long rifles and shotguns, but personal sidearms are out of the question.
if 90% of folks carry sidearms and .01% of people attempt bank/liquor store robberies, we've got em out gunned. i'm for MORE guns, MORE education, and BETTER marksmanship.
no law will ever prevent criminals from doing anything, that's why we call them criminals !
I can assure you with 100% certainty that no one will ever rob my house successfully. I like it that way.
Quote from: spcterry on March 10, 2008, 06:19:00 AM
BP: I couldn't agree more about Moore.
As far as the guns, you are correct, Canada, Ozzy land, and England allow long rifles and shotguns, but personal sidearms are out of the question.
We're allowed handguns, but limited to .38 cal or 9mm in max size, larger for black powder, no personal carry allowed.
I'm not a big Obama fan, but he's just miles ahead of Clinton in terms of character, ethics, and positions. I know their voting records are almost identical, but the two of them put together haven't even been in the Senate for a decade.
Honestly, an amalgam of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul probably best represent my interests. I dislike Kucinich's views on nuclear power, 2nd amendment, and the fairness doctrine, and Paul's views on religion's place in government and most federal agencies (the FDA in particular), but foreign policy-wise, both are just leagues better than the rest. I really want to see one or both of them get a cabinet-level position in the next administration but there's basically no chance of that happening.
The thing I like most about both of them is their willingness to do things that actually benefit the individual citizen, regardless of how unpopular those things are. Paul wants to see some accountability for what the Fed is doing to our economy - he's already starting to look like a visionary on this with the massive collapse of the dollar and the impending recession. Kucinich is pushing for impeachment of duck Cheney, and with the major gaps in White House records the only thing that I dislike about that is that the charges would never stick - these guys have shredded years' worth of their emails already.
persoanally Obama strikes me as one of them "too good to be true" kiinda things. something just seems a bit off about him. i won't vote for him. i don't like the fact that Mcain thinks we should continue on the same path we're on as a country. moron. i'm not a huge clinton fan but i must say that during bill's tour in the office our economy wasnt too shabby. :dunno_white:
Quote from: jserio on March 10, 2008, 08:55:02 PM
persoanally Obama strikes me as one of them "too good to be true" kiinda things. something just seems a bit off about him. i won't vote for him. i don't like the fact that Mcain thinks we should continue on the same path we're on as a country. moron. i'm not a huge clinton fan but i must say that during bill's tour in the office our economy wasnt too shabby. :dunno_white:
So wait...this means you're voting for Clinton? Hillary is not Bill...I also don't trust Obama to do everything he says he will do, but he's certainly a lot more trustworthy than Clinton. The amount of times she has gone back on her word to try to win this election is mind-numbing. She swore an oath not to campaign in states that violated the DNC rules for primaries, and then deliberately campaigned and left her name on the Michigan and Florida ballots - the only candidate to do so. And now she's saying she "won" those states.
Either way we Go we Are F^$%ed.What's it Matter? :dunno_white:
Think I'll stock up on Guns and Ammo before Nov. :thumb:
as i've stated in previous posts, i'd like for there to be a "none of the above" place on our ballots. f%$k, maybe i should vote for nader. damn. isn't that pathetic? if we vote mccain, well, we will still stay in iraq and the economy will still be shaZam!. if we vote for either dem then well, we may loose our guns and we'll become f%$king pansies in the eyes of our global friends/enemies. shaZam!. can i be president?
You will see anti-gun legislation come out of a McCain presidency as well, The senator runs on a republican ticket but his interpertation of the second ammmendment differs from that of conservatives.
Now some say hand Hilary or Obama the Nation and that'll tech the republican party that it needs to move back to the ideals held within it from the Reagan years. You can pencil in a vote for a cndidtae of your choice or you could vote for a 3rd party candidate. As much as I detest McCain's stance on many point's he does have some proper conservative viewpoint's and I will personally vote for the lesser of the 3 evils.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/bettingpython/cthulhu4prez.jpg)
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n261/bettingpython/cthulhu4Prez-preview-5.png)
Thank you BP I know Who I'll be Voting for in Nov. :laugh:
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2/yamahonkawazuki/hillaryg.jpg)
am in the process of starting one wiht clinton AND obama , and wil do one for mccain also, so i leave NO one out :thumb:
can harrison ford be president?
Quote from: jserio on March 14, 2008, 08:25:08 PM
as i've stated in previous posts, i'd like for there to be a "none of the above" place on our ballots. f%$k, maybe i should vote for nader. damn. isn't that pathetic? if we vote mccain, well, we will still stay in iraq and the economy will still be shaZam!. if we vote for either dem then well, we may loose our guns and we'll become f%$king pansies in the eyes of our global friends/enemies. shaZam!. can i be president?
jserio, the wisest girl I've ever met told me the same thing - she wants to see a "none of the above" option as well on the ballots because this situation arises almost every election - we're forced to choose between two terrible options.
I would really like to hear your opinion about this, because I've mentioned it to you before: I advocate approval voting (http://gstwins.com/gsboard/index.php?topic=38394.msg441913#msg441913 (http://gstwins.com/gsboard/index.php?topic=38394.msg441913#msg441913)), or "choose one or more candidates you approve of." This allows more candidates to be on the ballot with no chance of a spoiler effect. You can vote for your favorite candidate, even if they're not viable, and still cast a vote for that "lesser evil" candidate who has a better chance of winning. The reason I disagree with "none of the above" in a purely plurality voting system is that if 20% of the people in the country vote "none of the above", the candidate they thought of as the "lesser evil" is punished provided either of the candidates gets more than 20% of the votes. Your "none of the above" vote, unless enough people agree with you, helps elect the candidate you despise most.
And I prioritize my issues, since no candidate is likely to agree with me on all of them. I don't think either McCain or Obama is going to infringe upon the right to bear arms, certainly not to bear arms on your private property. Bill Clinton pushed for the federal assault weapons ban with Hillary Clinton strongly supporting it, which ought to be enough reason to conclude that she's not the one you want. Obama has said some things but I think he has many other things on his mind before he's going to worry about gun control. Has he mentioned gun control in a single speech this campaign season? I certainly haven't heard it. What I have heard is pushing for transparency and accountability in government, a sane foreign policy, and a strong economy.
okay...where to start? where do i stand on important issues? first and foremost issue has to be the economy. and i feel alot of things have an effect on our ecconomy. now, i'm not an economics major and i may tend to be a tad off on some facts and opinions but here's my thinking. illegal immigration is a problem. it needs worked on. i do believe we need "migrant" workers. say for example the farmer who can't afford the newest harvesting eqipment? i'm sure he'd enjoy getting some cheap labor together. but it shouldn't come at an expense to the rest of the country. make sure they are only here when they are needed. i do feel they take jobs from americans. i know we have some lazy folks in this country but i also know there are many, many people who cannot find work simply because comapnaies are hiring cheap labor. i feel this is wrong. companies who are so worried about their bottom line that they close down factories here and ship them to china where crappy products get produced hurts the american economy also i feel. we should focus on creating jobs in america. putting money back into the american consumer's pockets. which in turn should boost our economy. it's simple i think. the more money you have, the more you spend. also at the top of the list is the war in Iraq. we should leave. i don't think it should be an immediate all out "retreat". but it should be a swift, systematic, orderly withdrawl. we have taken the dictator out of power and shown the Iraquis the "ropes" for democracy. let them figure out the finer points on their own. healtcare is an important issue as well. costs need to be cut somewhere. that money that is saved should be passed on directly to the consumer. it is expensive to insure your family today. i've heard many people scream that taxes are a major priority. i only partly agree. i see taxes as a necessary evil. we need taxes to fund certain things. however, if you want to decrease the taxes, first you much decrease your spending. once you realize you're spending less than your making, then you have the funds and abilty to actually give the consumer a tax break. the right to bear arms is always a heated debate. it is a right, along with many others in our constitution, that needs to be upheld. as for what you've called "approval voting". let me get this straight, you think we should be allowed to "pencil in" any cadidate we choose? i am thinking maybe we should do away with our two party system. i think it creates more problems than it solves. i've heard on so many issues that many of our elected officials will vote against an item simply because the "other party" are the ones behind it. this is absurd. we are all americans. we should be working together for the strengthening and unification of our great country. we should be trying to improve our overall well being. we should work together for the overall progress and advancement of our nation. if i've skipped a topic that is dear to you, let me know. we can discuss it as adults. ask me how i feel on any subject and i'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. we may not see eye to eye but that's okay. it's gonna happen like that from time to time. we just have to learn to agree to disagree. :cheers: :thumb:
oh, and if you're wondering, i don't consider myself a member of any political party. :thumb:
anyone can, if they got enough money, and can tell enough bullshit stories to keep the us listening. theyre all like used car salesman, they wont quit, until you leave with teh car.
my wife told me once i'd make a good sales person. you think that was a compliment? :laugh:
Quote from: jserio on March 15, 2008, 11:13:40 PM
okay...where to start? where do i stand on important issues? first and foremost issue has to be the economy. and i feel alot of things have an effect on our ecconomy. now, i'm not an economics major and i may tend to be a tad off on some facts and opinions but here's my thinking. illegal immigration is a problem. it needs worked on. i do believe we need "migrant" workers. say for example the farmer who can't afford the newest harvesting eqipment? i'm sure he'd enjoy getting some cheap labor together. but it shouldn't come at an expense to the rest of the country. make sure they are only here when they are needed. i do feel they take jobs from americans. i know we have some lazy folks in this country but i also know there are many, many people who cannot find work simply because comapnaies are hiring cheap labor. i feel this is wrong. companies who are so worried about their bottom line that they close down factories here and ship them to china where crappy products get produced hurts the american economy also i feel. we should focus on creating jobs in america. putting money back into the american consumer's pockets. which in turn should boost our economy. it's simple i think. the more money you have, the more you spend. also at the top of the list is the war in Iraq. we should leave. i don't think it should be an immediate all out "retreat". but it should be a swift, systematic, orderly withdrawl. we have taken the dictator out of power and shown the Iraquis the "ropes" for democracy. let them figure out the finer points on their own. healtcare is an important issue as well. costs need to be cut somewhere. that money that is saved should be passed on directly to the consumer. it is expensive to insure your family today. i've heard many people scream that taxes are a major priority. i only partly agree. i see taxes as a necessary evil. we need taxes to fund certain things. however, if you want to decrease the taxes, first you much decrease your spending. once you realize you're spending less than your making, then you have the funds and abilty to actually give the consumer a tax break. the right to bear arms is always a heated debate. it is a right, along with many others in our constitution, that needs to be upheld. as for what you've called "approval voting". let me get this straight, you think we should be allowed to "pencil in" any cadidate we choose? i am thinking maybe we should do away with our two party system. i think it creates more problems than it solves. i've heard on so many issues that many of our elected officials will vote against an item simply because the "other party" are the ones behind it. this is absurd. we are all americans. we should be working together for the strengthening and unification of our great country. we should be trying to improve our overall well being. we should work together for the overall progress and advancement of our nation. if i've skipped a topic that is dear to you, let me know. we can discuss it as adults. ask me how i feel on any subject and i'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. we may not see eye to eye but that's okay. it's gonna happen like that from time to time. we just have to learn to agree to disagree. :cheers: :thumb:
I was actually just asking about your opinion on approval voting, but I'm glad you've chose to discuss more.
On illegal immigration: I say, go after the employers who are paying people under the table (less than minimum wage, no taxes) and fine them. If the employers have to pay minimum wages, they're more likely to hire American workers if they're available. And if they do hire illegals, at least those illegals will be paying taxes into the system. It takes two people to allow an illegal employment situation, and everyone wants to go after the side that's hard to pin down - the employee.
War in Iraq: agree.
health care: agree. I actually think Kucinich's health care suggestions made the most sense. He wants health insurance to be a non-profit industry. Not health care - let doctors make a fair market wage the same as they do today - but health insurance. Think about it - how do HMOs improve medical care? They're only there to collect payments from the employer/individual and then pay out when a procedure is needed. Why should they be incorporated and thus forced to maximize shareholder profit at all costs - including refusing to pay for certain procedures? How does their profit improve the quality of health care or quality of life in America? OK, fine, the health insurance industry has many employees and is a large sector of the economy. But I don't believe Kucinich is advocating removing them altogether; he just wants to force them to become non-profit entities so their focus is on providing care and not withholding care to make money. Any jobs lost would be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money saved by the average insured citizen who could now receive a better standard of care for less. The current situation amounts to the broken window fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window) - "a loss helps the economy".
approval voting: Yes - this is exactly what I'm saying. This system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) has been used for centuries, it is currently in use to select the UN Attorney General, and since 1976 it has been subject to increasing amounts of academic scrutiny as it was "rediscovered" by professors at Northwestern and NYU. The alternative - getting rid of the 2 party system - would be difficult. We can't even force them to open up the debate system, how are you going to get rid of them entirely? It would be preferable to change the voting system to allow the people to "vote the bums out" entirely if that's what they want.
In addition to this, if you want someone who's been bipartisan in the past, I think McCain or Obama are your best bets. I prefer Obama myself because he's in favor of withdrawal from Iraq, but both have published several bills with members of the other party in the past few years. http://factbeat.com/get_story.php?id=263 (http://factbeat.com/get_story.php?id=263) Obama is also saying much more in terms of unity, especially compared with Clinton. Clinton would obviously be a massively polarizing candidate, but given Obama's poll numbers with independents and Republicans I don't think you can say the same thing about him. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story)
Quote from: jserio on March 15, 2008, 11:29:18 PM
my wife told me once i'd make a good sales person. you think that was a compliment? :laugh:
perhaps, my thinking was along the lines of politicians