Anyone Still Support Obama After Ndaa?

[robb]

For the record BoTox the correct quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana 1905.

Another good one is "Only the dead have seen the end of war." George Santayana 1922.

Historians generally DO NOT accept the reasoning in the "those who cannot remember" in that historians do not believe history repeats itself.

[KittenAB]

To the "The disrespect for truth is like a disease." ... sorry but no, that's not how advancements work. Debate and discussion is actually a driver for truth. Ignoring opposing views is to admit you don't care about truth, knowledge, or learning anything. So congrats on wishing to remain ignorant. Without the balance of opposition our country would have collapsed a long time ago. I do admit that some of the non-fact based opinions are inconsequential, but even they force you to think on your own position deeper and have a place in a discussion most times. There are very few instances in which even the most outrageous of claims can be a detriment to any discussion.

In short, if you don't like your viewpoint challenged and your assertions countered, then you not using your brain at all and should relinquish it to someone who would make better use of it.

[sarah_ab]

no one said black people can't be racist...

I like the part where you said "apparently people can pick and chose the facts they want" the proceed to do just that.. I'm very glad to see you are self aware.

[KittenAB]

Apparently, everyone believes their side is the only true fact and cherry pick their results to match. As a fervent second amendment supporter, I have hard copy of NRA mailings and magazine articles describing the progress of trying to get the ban on weapons in parks overturned. It happened on Bush's watch but it actually passed under Obama's.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes over and over again. Liberalism/Socialism/Communism do not work. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Government at the Federal level is way too large, needs to be downsized and taxes need to be reduced so that the real economy, not the government propped up mess we have now will throw off the shackles of oppression and thrive again. Their is no right to someone else's money, there is no right to free healthcare, there is no right to a house, only a right of freedom to persue happiness.

As for the racist study, I didn't see reference to anything about the race of the racists. From my experience, blacks overwhelmingly voted, and say they will vote again, for Obama merely because he is black (only half at that) which begs the question, are they racists?

His life experiences and personal history are so atypical of the average black person it shows the black support is based solely on skin color and not genetic or shared history. His family, the black half, were never brought to America as slaves. He and scarce few others can rightly claim the description African American. Anyone more than two generations living on US soil can hardly claim living memory in another land. I don't call myself an Irish-English American because I have no ties to them other than maternal and paternal sur names. Either you are American or you are not. You cannot split your allegiance.

I agree to an extent, however, conservatism and democracy also do not work in the context of dominance. There must be a balance for anything to work, thus ... the Democratic Republic that is the US. At least that was it's original design. Though we are straying from it and keep jumping closer to several different dictatorships, the original design was to form a balance between all forms of thinking. Liberalism to make sure that we can enjoy a higher quality of life during booms, conservatism to make sure we remain strong during recessions. Communism to ensure that employee rights are protected, capitalism to ensure that businesses want to do business here as well as insure consumer rights. Democracy to give the people a voice, republic to ensure that the minorities have a voice as well. Statism to prevent a dictatorship, and federalism to manage inconsistencies between states.

It's all there, yet somehow too many have forgotten this. The US government was not based on liberal or conservative, not even based on moderate, it was, in fact, based on ALL of these.

[Diapered Jason]

I guess my posts fall on deaf ears or blind eyes (which ever way you want to look at it). I do not like talking about the NRA; we know they are corrupt.

[BoTox]

I guess my posts fall on deaf ears or blind eyes (which ever way you want to look at it). I do not like talking about the NRA; we know they are corrupt.

And Obama is not corrupt? He bought a piece of land 10 feet wide from a convicted felon, Rezko, to add onto this property. Unrepentant Pentagon bombers Ayers & Dorn helped launch his political career.

I am not the NRAs biggest fan but sometimes you need a big hired gun to represent your view when elements in the government attempt to subvert the most basic of human rights, the right to self defense.

[Diapered Jason]

I am not the NRAs biggest fan but sometimes you need a big hired gun to represent your view when elements in the government attempt to subvert the most basic of human rights, the right to self defense.

Why, when weapons are inauspicious instruments of ill-omen that should only be used as a last last resort and free from any greed and emotion. Besides, weapons are weak compared to the voice of a million people. Remember, power is continuously tempered by an undercurrent of humanism, not brute force. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi as well as many other important historical figures knew this well. Victory without fighting is always best.

[KittenAB]

I guess my posts fall on deaf ears or blind eyes (which ever way you want to look at it). I do not like talking about the NRA; we know they are corrupt.

What? You do realize that the NRA has actually pushed for tighter regulation, just not outright banning, how is that corrupt?

[Diapered Jason]

What? You do realize that the NRA has actually pushed for tighter regulation, just not outright banning, how is that corrupt?

They are corrupt, because they show up after every major shooting such as Columbine and promote the use of guns.

No one is saying we should ban weapons, but I really doubt they are for tighter regulation. Find me one news article where the NRA has not opposed tighter gun regulations and actually pushed for them.

[Leilin]

And Obama is not corrupt? He bought a piece of land 10 feet wide from a convicted felon, Rezko, to add onto this property.

So... buying adjacent land to your home from a corrupt person is corrupt? Living next door to a corrupt person is corrupt? You don't really have a leg to stand on with this one.

Unrepentant Pentagon bombers Ayers & Dorn helped launch his political career.

And I'll just leave this here. I expect you fully to respond to it without actually reading it. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp

[Horndog]

To the "The disrespect for truth is like a disease." ... sorry but no, that's not how advancements work. Debate and discussion is actually a driver for truth. Ignoring opposing views is to admit you don't care about truth, knowledge, or learning anything. So congrats on wishing to remain ignorant. Without the balance of opposition our country would have collapsed a long time ago. I do admit that some of the non-fact based opinions are inconsequential, but even they force you to think on your own position deeper and have a place in a discussion most times. There are very few instances in which even the most outrageous of claims can be a detriment to any discussion.

In short, if you don't like your viewpoint challenged and your assertions countered, then you not using your brain at all and should relinquish it to someone who would make better use of it.

Who said I was ignoring opposing viewpoints? I'm simply ignoring a person(s) because they said they were "right," and nothing was going to convince them otherwise. They made that abundantly clear. Why debate people who only listen to themselves? I've done a lot of time in politics. I've learned that if people aren't going to open their minds, then it's up to the enlightened to open up the world around them. I've disqualified BoToX and Redneck from the conversation that I want to have: a conversation that's not limited to partisan-fueled libel.

[KittenAB]

They are corrupt, because they show up after every major shooting such as Columbine and promote the use of guns.

No one is saying we should ban weapons, but I really doubt they are for tighter regulation. Find me one news article where the NRA has not opposed tighter gun regulations and actually pushed for them.

Honestly I can't find it again. LOL So I will simply admit to having no solid evidence to that fact. However, even if they do what you say (such as with Columbine) ... that's pretty much par for the political course. Hilary tried using Columbine as a reason to outright ban video games. Several people say it's a reason for increasing anti-terrorist policies. Many religious zealots say we need to "crack down on satanic cults" becayse Columbine was the result of those ...

The point of all that, every tragedy is abused by every political group and politician. Most are just nutjobs, a few have a good solid point. In such an instance, the NRA would be the one with the solid point on the matter of Columbine. The real problem though is that many who are pushing for "more regulation" have no clue about guns. I know I have limited knowledge on guns themselves and only know statistical data, and what little I do know just makes me see most regulations as further attempts toward outright bans.

[KittenAB]

Who said I was ignoring opposing viewpoints? I'm simply ignoring a person(s) because they said they were "right," and nothing was going to convince them otherwise. They made that abundantly clear. Why debate people who only listen to themselves? I've done a lot of time in politics. I've learned that if people aren't going to open their minds, then it's up to the enlightened to open up the world around them. I've disqualified BoToX and Redneck from the conversation that I want to have: a conversation that's not limited to partisan-fueled libel.

That is almost a logical fallacy though, ignoring the opposition just because they won't change their minds is actually worse than not changing your mind but still listening to (or reading) the opposition. The main reason being that minds are not changed by a whole argument or debate, but often by one key fact. Not to mention, there is truth in even the most insane of opinions. One must consider even the most remote possibility of being true before one can elinimate it as false, not considering that opinion is telling them (by not telling them anything) that they are correct and should not change their opinion on the matter at all. You also may miss out on how they formulated their opinion, and yours may be completely wrong, even if it sounds sane.

Evolution was once thought to be completely insane, as was relativity, even today people try to counter it unable to let go of that old way of thinking to realize ... evolution and relativity do exist and are valid scientific theories, and now they are the most beneficial scientific theories to humanity. But if people had not listened to these "insane" men ... we'd be back in the Dark Ages still.

[Diapered Jason]

The point of all that, every tragedy is abused by every political group and politician. Most are just nutjobs, a few have a good solid point. In such an instance, the NRA would be the one with the solid point on the matter of Columbine. The real problem though is that many who are pushing for "more regulation" have no clue about guns. I know I have limited knowledge on guns themselves and only know statistical data, and what little I do know just makes me see most regulations as further attempts toward outright bans.

So the ban on Assault Rifles and limitations on semi-automatic weapon magazine sizes are attempts to ban all weapons? Please, like anyone needs a kalashnikov with attached suppressor and ACOG to go hunting or for defense. No one needs a carbine with extended magazines unless they are up to no good. Sorry, but you are not making any sense.

[Diapered Jason]

Evolution was once thought to be completely insane, as was relativity, even today people try to counter it unable to let go of that old way of thinking to realize ... evolution and relativity do exist and are valid scientific theories, and now they are the most beneficial scientific theories to humanity. But if people had not listened to these "insane" men ... we'd be back in the Dark Ages still.

That really does not make any sense either. I mean, if we listened to Hitler, there would be no Jews, minorities, gays, etc. and he would rule the world. The fact he did accomplish part of that agenda is because people listened to him. I think you left something out.

[Leilin]

Jason: She's a troll. Probably best to not give her any attention.

[BoTox]

So the ban on Assault Rifles and limitations on semi-automatic weapon magazine sizes are attempts to ban all weapons? Please, like anyone needs a kalashnikov with attached suppressor and ACOG to go hunting or for defense. No one needs a carbine with extended magazines unless they are up to no good. Sorry, but you are not making any sense.

History is full of gun registration, which leads to gun bans, which leads to genocide. It has been repeated dozens of times in the last century. Former gun owners in England and Australia tell the tale of what started as "reasonable" gun control. To presume a person guilty before the crime is an offense to the constitution and does little to deter crime. Gun control literally disarms the victims as the criminals, who still have guns, are already criminals. States with good concealed carry laws have lower crime rates than the states without them.

Again, those that do not learn from history are doomed to keep making the same mistakes. I mean that in both sense of the way it can be taken.

1) As recent as in Darfur, the arabs disarmed the blacks and we had state sponsored genocide.

2) Hitler's Nazis disarmed the Jews, giving us the holocaust deaths of 20,000,000

3) Stalin introduced gun control in Russia and he killed more people than the holocaust

4) China banned private ownership and killed 30,000,000 of its own people that happened to disagree with them

5) Guatemala banned guns and killed more than 100,000 Mayans and political enemies

6) Uganda banned guns and kiled 300,000 Christians and political enemies

7) Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge killed 2,000,000 educated and political enemies after enacting severely restrictive gun laws

8) Rwanda murdered 800,000 Tutsi people afer disarming them via registration, requirements for justification and confiscation powers

America has always been safer with guns than any country in history that has tried to ban them. The Japanese did not invade mainland US because they knew Americans were well armed.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

-- Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."

-- William Burroughs

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

-- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

"I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something he will die for, he isn’t fit to live."

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Bumpersticker: Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my gun.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

– Lenin

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

— Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State."

— Heinrich Himmler

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

— Mao Zedong, Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938 (published in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 1965)

[Leilin]

I'm sure you can come up with one situation where gun registration led to gun bans, right?

[BoTox]

I'm sure you can come up with one situation where gun registration led to gun bans, right?

No, couldn't find a single one unless you count the 8 well known, well documented cases listed above that resulted in genocide and the death of between 50 and 75 million people in the last century. Not a single case other than that.

That was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. I think many here have lost their sense of humor and my sarcasm is lost to the vagaries of non-personal communications. Some totally went off on my "I'm right" statement and actually believes I'm that stubborn. LOL! Maybe I am that stubborn but give me credit for not being a moron that can't function in society, please!

As a corallary, those that don't get sarcasm may have problems with higher thinking.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Science-of-Sarcasm-Yeah-Right.html

And this is why the NRA ferociously fights any attempts to register guns and those that would support such measures.

[Diapered Jason]

You sound paranoid BoTox. That is not the right mind to have behind the barrel of a gun. Anyways, I am forced to agree with fact the only civilians who have assault rifles and machine pistols are up to know good. The aim of those guns is to kill people effectively and swiftly at medium to close range. Obviously, it is very dangerous to have an individual walking around with an automatic weapon and a large magazine size filled with armor piercing bullets. Shotguns, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc. are fine and everyone should have the right to purchase these guns, but lets be realistic when we determine the ultimate purpose of a particular design of a gun. Do we want to kill people or do we want to stop people? Hey, if they ever ban guns completely, I will protest with you.

[Leilin]

No, couldn't find a single one unless you count the 8 well known, well documented cases listed above that resulted in genocide and the death of between 50 and 75 million people in the last century. Not a single case other than that.

That was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. I think many here have lost their sense of humor and my sarcasm is lost to the vagaries of non-personal communications. Some totally went off on my "I'm right" statement and actually believes I'm that stubborn. LOL! Maybe I am that stubborn but give me credit for not being a moron that can't function in society, please!

As a corallary, those that don't get sarcasm may have problems with higher thinking.

http://www.smithsoni...Yeah-Right.html

And this is why the NRA ferociously fights any attempts to register guns and those that would support such measures.

Uh...no. Wrong again. the situations you named are cases where gun bans have been a precursor to genocide, not where gun registration has been a precursor to gun bans. Try again, with an attempt to answer the question I asked this time?

I get your sarcasm just fine, and so does the rest of the thread, but it isn't tempered well by your inability to answer a straight question or to think critically regarding anything that isn't forcefed to you. Perhaps you should stick to lower forms of situational humor, like Farrelly Brothers films.

[KittenAB]

That really does not make any sense either. I mean, if we listened to Hitler, there would be no Jews, minorities, gays, etc. and he would rule the world. The fact he did accomplish part of that agenda is because people listened to him. I think you left something out.

Actually, the inverse. Remember, the majority of the world ignored Hitler for quite some time before acting, they didn't listen to him. If they had they'd have known he was dangerous. See, even listening to the negative insanity can also benefit people. It's something we call rational thought, you listen to all the evidence, details, and facts then ... you analyze it, depending on what it is you're listening to the analysis method will vary. I'm a bit more scientific about debates than emotional, and most politics is debate.

[Diapered Jason]

Come on, the German people listened to him and that is what I was talking about. You still do not make any sense especially when you were talking earlier about how the extremes in our current government have too much of a voice.

[Leilin]

That, Kitten, makes sense. *bows head*

Jason: Perhaps that's the problem that you two meant two different things with "listen," and Kitten took a more literal meaning of the word whereas you took it as more of a "listen and accept"?

I personally also take the literal meaning. I do not stop "listening" unless the person has continuously proven that they are unable to say things that aren't completely worthless or inanely stupid (or at the very least devoid of entertainment value), at which point I save myself the headache of trying to communicate their ilk by putting them on ignore in internet forums.

Only one person has crossed that line for me on this forum, and while Kitten has neared it in many cases, it is not her. This is one case where what she has said seems completely sensible to me. Even demagogues like RDB, who seem incapable of addressing things from a factual standpoint, I don't have ignored, as they're incredibly silly, but their brand of ignorance is quite entertaining and easy to dissect while I'm doing other things.

[KittenAB]

You sound paranoid BoTox. That is not the right mind to have behind the barrel of a gun. Anyways, I am forced to agree with fact the only civilians who have assault rifles and machine pistols are up to know good. The aim of those guns is to kill people effectively and swiftly at medium to close range. Obviously, it is very dangerous to have an individual walking around with an automatic weapon and a large magazine size filled with armor piercing bullets. Shotguns, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc. are fine and everyone should have the right to purchase these guns, but lets be realistic when we determine the ultimate purpose of a particular design of a gun. Do we want to kill people or do we want to stop people? Hey, if they ever ban guns completely, I will protest with you.

Actually, I do get his fear, it's the same fear that lead us to fight against SOPA and PIPA. Give any government an inch and they WILL take a mile, that is a time tested fact. Not all paranoia is bad, as long as it is tempered with some amount of thought you can usually determine the difference. I also agree with him on the gun issue, for one important reason, the criminals will not be registering anyway so registration is literally pointless now. Many criminals are also capable of calculating the odds of a certain area where guns are likely to be carried by their targets, that's why gangbangers do drive bys instead of shoot outs, they know their target is likely to have a gun and so they want in and out as quick as possible. For those rare cases in which the gun was registered, and used by the registered person in a crime, the gun was not what lead to their capture, thus rendering that argument for registration moot as well. So he is following a logical train of thought here, though his evidence is lacking.

However, I do not care about guns enough to really vote one way or the other, much less pay attention to the outcomes. Thanks to the dependence on computers for everything today, there are even faster methods to attack the government and cause them fear. Essentially, the explosion of technology has made guns as a defence against tyranny obsolete. However guns as a defence against crime is, and will always be, logical.