Beware Obamas So called change

imported post

Hah! Dukester gets it! :celebrate

Well, at least about the not trusting corporate entities part

imported post

Citizen wrote:

911Boss wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

As far as I am concerned both candidates are corporate stooges. I am writing in Ron Paul. Libertarian here.

Click to expand...

SNIP While I can certainly understand the principle, what is there to gain from voting for anyone other than the two major party candidates?

Click to expand...

That is what the two parties are counting on people thinking.

In my life-time it hasn't really mattered which was in power. The fedgov got bigger, things got worse, etc., etc., ad infinitum, adnauseum, ad fukmeum.

Personally, I refuse to sic a main-party candidate on my fellow Americans. There is nobody I hate badly enough to wish a big-government candidate on them.

That leaves third-party candidates. For the moment, I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate. Let the big party loser wonder about that when he sees how many votes went for the third-party candidates.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Cremator75 wrote:

In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of knotches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.

Click to expand...

Suresounds likeObama.

Remember historyrepeats itself. Vote wisely; vote for an American future, and not for catchy phrases like CHANGE from people with charismatic charm. It’s really the devil in disguise.

imported post

jbone wrote:

Cremator75 wrote:

In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of knotches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.

Click to expand...

Suresounds likeObama.

Remember historyrepeats itself. Vote wisely; vote for an American future, and not for catchy phrases like CHANGE from people with charismatic charm. It’s really the devil in disguise.

Click to expand...

Thats kind of a oxymoron type statement. For the future of this great nation you are certainly not talking about McSane who doesn't even know how to use a personal computer or anything about the Net. You guys crack me up:what:

imported post

I'd vote for Pat Paulson in a heartbeat over Barack Obama ... but then I would elect my dog president before I would vote for that socialist, self-righteous individual.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I'd vote for Pat Paulson in a heartbeat over Barack Obama ... but then I would elect my dog president before I would vote for that socialist, self-righteous individual.

Click to expand...

Nor would I vote for an Elitist such as John McSane who doesn't quite know what he is doing, kind of a confused fellow I would say...:celebrate

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Holo wrote:

SNIP If your guns are more important to you than the economy, getting our children home from war, and our looming energy crisis, you shouldn't be voting anyway.

Click to expand...

Realize its not the guns themselves.

Its whatguns protect against. The opposition you see is really opposition to what can happen if gun rights are infringed further or de factoeliminated through policy mechanisms. And what has happened repeatedly in history.

Edmund Burke said it best. Addressing Parliament prior to the American Revolution he said of the colonists:

"They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

Click to expand...

While I understand what you're saying, Citizen, I have to disagree. Holo is right. We are voting for a president--not just someone to protect one part of the bill of rights. And trust me, with the way the republicans have been running things, it's not too far off base to expect them to take gun rights along with all the other rights that they have stripped us of up to this point.

Keep in mind that, in order for Obama to pass any sort of legislation regarding the Second Amendment, he has to get Congress to go along with it. Since not all democrats are anti-gun, and Obama is looking at a pro-gun governor for VP, it seems highly unlikely that the NRA's claims are on target. If Bush couldn't pass a consitutional marriage amendment with a republican congress, do you really think that Obama would be able to delete the second amendment?

But Holo is right on another point. There are countless issues that we all must take into consideration. Gun rights are only a small piece of a very large pie. Everything has to be weighed. Think of it this way. If the president decides to use the John Warner Defense Authorization Act against all of us to declare martial law tomorrow, we have some recourse. That leaves many of us feeling much better. However, if riots break out because of the economy, we won't even have a common enemy against which to fight because most people will merely be fighting to survive. Given the choice, I'd rather have to prove myself worthy of owning a firearm than to watch Bush and Cheney try to provoke a war with Iran (there have been reports that they are holding brainstorming sessions on how to do just that) and the inevitable fallout from that. I also believe in supporting our troops and giving them what they need in the field. If you look at McCain's voting record, he has a horrible rating from two major veterans organizations. McCain also has no clue about the economy, the environment, etc. Obama, on the other hand, gets attacked on a few points: gun rights, his name, and his display (or lack of displaying) of the flag. Compared to what another 4-8 more years of the Bush-Cheney plan will get us, I'd much rather deal with the guy who would rather take some pride in the flag when it really means something. It's little more than a propoganda tool in the hands of a fascist government at this point. Unfortunately, I cannot, in good conscience, support that agenda. I'm not giving up my guns, but I don't mind proving that I'm stable enough to have them in my possession either.

OK, I know that this has gotten long, but one last thing. Recently, a bill was passed that would create a database of all citizens who had EVER been treated for any sort of mental illness, including PTSD. Those who are in the database will not be able to own or purchase firearms. The NRA supported this measure, saying that it was a good law because one's name in the database was not permanent. You can, at your own expense, go to court and have your name removed from the database. But many of us would feel that this is a violation of the second amendment. I agree that it is, so why did the NRA support it? Oh, yes, it's because they are a political machine. They make deals just like the rest of the politicians, and that makes them no better than the idiots in Washington.

Personally, I think that the best thing that we can do is to help average citizens understand why guns are necessary and why the founding fathers included the second amendment. The people need to be more aware and better informed, and we need to force the politicians to represent our interests, but that has to include all of the politicians--not just the president.

imported post

Just question everything guys. Don't take anything at face value. ESPECIALLY the people who say they're on your side. Surrounding yourself with people who agree with you is a stupid way to live.

Oh, and Scarlett, you had me at Hello. But then Jarhead is asking if a .45 or a .357 is better so I gotta be careful.

imported post

Dukester wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

I'd vote for Pat Paulson in a heartbeat over Barack Obama ... but then I would elect my dog president before I would vote for that socialist, self-righteous individual.

Click to expand...

Nor would I vote for an Elitist such as John McSane who doesn't quite know what he is doing, kind of a confused fellow I would say...:celebrate

Click to expand...

I'm not a McCain supporter an my only reason for voting for him will be to keep Obama out of the presidency. If the dems weren't running such an obvious socialist with so little comprehension of this nation, history, geography, economics, energy, taxes, and private business with nearly life time ties to leftist radicals, I wouldn't be voting for McCain. But I didn't bring that up as this thread is about Obama, not McCain.

imported post

You people really, really suck sometimes.

imported post

scarlett1125 wrote:

Keep in mind that, in order for Obama to pass any sort of legislation regarding the Second Amendment, he has to get Congress to go along with it. ... do you really think that Obama would be able to delete the second amendment?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not directly. Remember, Heller was won by one vote. Consider what will happen to firearms rights decisions in the US Supreme Court if Obama gets the opportunity to appoint a couple of justices who align with his positions on guns and who believe in a "living Constitution".

And, what makes you think Obama wouldn't use all the Presidential powers that Bush has forged to bypass Congress and the Constitution for his own purposes? The BATFE is almost out of control under a "gun-friendly" administration. I shudder to think how they will behave under an administration that is overtly hostile to firearms rights.

And as far as being a single-issue voter with respect to firearms rights? It is a touchstone for the politician's basic values. Whether or not a politican believes the people should be allowed to arm themselves is an indicator of whether or not he believes the government serves the people, or the people serve the government; of whether or not he views the people as sovereign individuals, or as cogs in a collectivist machine.

I cannot and will not trust or support a politican who believes responsible people should not be permitted arms, regardless of whether or not he thinks he can fix the economy, reduce poverty and illness, save the environment, or keep our country out of war.

I won't be voting for McCain, but I will definitely be voting against Obama.

--

imported post

vote_no wrote:

You people really, really suck sometimes.

Click to expand...

Context, plz. Which of us suck, and why? Thx.

--

imported post

Wow. Cool bumper sticker, Mr. Hardin.

imported post

Dukester wrote:

You expect me to believe what the NRA says... What makes you think the NRA is not spreading propaganda and lies like the rest of the Republican Party does?
The Democrats are not even running on a Gun Control Platform. There are a lot more important issues to run on than Gun Control e.g. Economy, the unending wars, and our energy crisis.
The NRA is nothing more thana business that has your best interest at heart, a long with your membership dues that support Pierres 6 or 7 figure salary a long with board members they will say whatever...

Click to expand...

Propaganda, "Truths, lies and half lies"

Is there a party of politician that doesn’t lie? I would tend to believe Dem’s are holding back on the issue, knowing their anti-stance would sink their chance for election. They hope to get in than comes the Oh yes we forget to mention, we are taking your guns away. You’re right! gun control is not the only issue but is of extreme importance, it deals with the rights of American’s.

Everything we spend our paycheck is going into some fat cat executive pocket, I don’t see the Oil companies doing anything with the money we spend on gas, except getting richer and making more excesses. At least the NRA is doing something with the money for gun rights, they have lobbyists like everyone else and at times must compromise like everyone else, but again they are doing something.

imported post

You see that sort of talk from Republicans every election cycle. It's why Americans are sick of fear politics.

Don't vote Democrat, they'll take your guns! Terror will be widespread! etc, etc.

imported post

Is there a party of politician that doesn’t lie?

Yes. His name is Ron Paul.

Also, none of us will be electing the president. That job falls to the delegates.

Wait; is anyone on this forum a delegate?

imported post

T-RaV wrote:

Also, none of us will be electing the president. That job falls to the delegates.

Click to expand...

ITYM "Electors", as in "members of the Electoral College". But your point is taken.

imported post

Dukester wrote:

jbone wrote:

Cremator75 wrote:

In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of knotches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.

Click to expand...

Suresounds likeObama.

Remember historyrepeats itself. Vote wisely; vote for an American future, and not for catchy phrases like CHANGE from people with charismatic charm. It’s really the devil in disguise.

Click to expand...

Thats kind of a oxymoron type statement. For the future of this great nation you are certainly not talking about McSane who doesn't even know how to use a personal computer or anything about the Net. You guys crack me up:what:

Click to expand...

You're funny. Hell my dad is McCains age and can't use a computer and I know that even he would be a better Commander in Chief for this Ole Chief then Osama Obama.So McCain can't use a computer, and Obama can't visit troops, failingto see your piont.

imported post

155gr wrote:

Wow. Cool bumper sticker, Mr. Hardin.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

If you visit my home page there are links to where you can buy the BOHICA one on Zazzle, and to where you can download large-format versions of the artwork for all of them to print your own at Zazzle, Cafepress, etc., or on a color printer. I printed one out on a color laser and pasted it inside my car's back window - no permanent damage, and nobody scraping it off!

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/

Feel free to use the thumbnails or the animated image elsewhere if you wish:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/politics/2008/Obama_Bumper_Stickers_animated.gif

--

imported post

scarlett1125 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Holo wrote:

SNIP If your guns are more important to you than the economy, getting our children home from war, and our looming energy crisis, you shouldn't be voting anyway.

Click to expand...

Realize its not the guns themselves.

Its whatguns protect against. The opposition you see is really opposition to what can happen if gun rights are infringed further or de factoeliminated through policy mechanisms. And what has happened repeatedly in history.

Edmund Burke said it best. Addressing Parliament prior to the American Revolution he said of the colonists:

"They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

Click to expand...

While I understand what you're saying, Citizen, I have to disagree. Holo is right. We are voting for a president--not just someone to protect one part of the bill of rights. And trust me, with the way the republicans have been running things, it's not too far off base to expect them to take gun rights along with all the other rights that they have stripped us of up to this point.

Click to expand...

I was trying to cool off the discussion a little bit. I was addressing Holo's comment that the gun-focused guys shouldn't be voting.

I agree with the breadth of the issues. I'd actually include more.