News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is something strange for non-Americans to hear: that absence of gun-control is part of their essential "personal liberty and individual rights" on par with, say, freedom of speech or privacy or things like that.
This must be something that remains from nostalgia of John Wayne movies or something.
What's a gun ? A device to kill a person. Why should it belong to individual rights to walk around with such devices ? I don't know of any European nation for instance (where carrying guns is a priori forbidden, and you need to obtain a _permission_ to possesses a fire arm) where there is the slightest need for more of this "liberty". Not one single political movement has it on its agenda (not even the extreme right) as far as I know.
The only reason to allow people to have guns is when they have to take care of their own security, as depicted in the good old John Wayne movies ; but once you have confidence in police and justice, everybody carrying guns serves no purpose but makes the place just more dangerous. In a civilized place, normally you delegate force and violence to the police corps ; what can an individual with a gun then do ? So why is this perceived as an essential liberty by many Americans ?
It looks really to me to nostalgia to the Wild wild west, no ?

This is a bit off topic but there really are still places here in America where having a gun for protection is a good idea. Most of these places are off in the middle of no where and the police, or rather sheriffs or rangers in this instance, aren't able to patrol the area regularly and are unable to respond to all locations in a timely manner.
If you think about it those who fight most strongly for their right to bear arms are the hicks who live out in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Townsend]

This is something strange for non-Americans to hear: that absence of gun-control is part of their essential "personal liberty and individual rights" on par with, say, freedom of speech or privacy or things like that.
This must be something that remains from nostalgia of John Wayne movies or something.
What's a gun ? A device to kill a person.

Cars are a device to kill a person too. Of course most guns never kill anyone. In fact a random gun in America is less likely to kill someone than a random car. What gives me the right to own a car when it can kill someone and is more likely to kill someone than a gun is?

Why should it belong to individual rights to walk around with such devices ?

I don't want to walk around in public with such a device. I believe that goes against the rights of others. But this is not about that, this is about the right to own and operate a gun in a safe manner.

If your next question is why should it belong to individual rights to own such a device, then here is your answer.

Because it is not up to you to tell me what I can and cannot have and use for my personal protection, sport and anything else that does not infringe on someone elses rights. If I want to own a jet I can with all its potential harms. Why is a gun not ok then? The burden of proof is on you, not me.

where there is the slightest need for more of this "liberty".

I am happy with current laws...what I don't want is more laws that are even more restrictive.

Not one single political movement has it on its agenda (not even the extreme right) as far as I know. The only reason to allow people to have guns is when they have to take care of their own security, as depicted in the good old John Wayne movies ;

Have you ever enjoyed the trill of a sports car? How about the excitement from watching a scary movie? I experience that same level of excitement from owning and operation an impressive piece of hardware that is designed to blow big holes in things. Whats the problem with that? How does that infringe on anyone elses rights?

but once you have confidence in police and justice, everybody carrying guns serves no purpose but makes the place just more dangerous.

It will never happen...I will never completely trust any person with power.

In a civilized place, normally you delegate force and violence to the police corps ; what can an individual with a gun then do ?

What do you mean? An individual gun can do exactly what it was meant to do, fire bullets at a high speed towards a target. The same thing a billion guns and a trillion gun could do.

So why is this perceived as an essential liberty by many Americans ?

Because its like owning a sports car, I want it and I don't need other people telling me what is best for me.

It looks really to me to nostalgia to the Wild wild west, no ?

You need to experience a good day of clay pigeon shooting. Or a day at the rifle range, or the archery range. Its a lot of fun, I have been doing it my entire life and yet NO has ever been hurt in any way. I have never done anything that infringes on other peoples rights in any way. I can caused no harms by owning and operating guns. I have enjoyed them and still do. I also enjoy motorcross, sports cars and other dangerous sports. Taking away my right to own a sports car is exactly like taking away my right to own a gun. There is no difference to me.

 

[Townsend]

If you think about it those who fight most strongly for their right to bear arms are the hicks who live out in the middle of nowhere.

Hicks is a derogatory term...

 

[Townsend]

The point is that people like me are not willing to send their votes to the dems because they don't represent my views. I want someone who I feel will protect my individual liberty. Since I place this above everything else...it is the most important political issue with me. Bush could have been mentally retarded but as long as I feel my precious liberties are better protected with him then I will vote for him.

I am more than willing to vote for democrats...I have no problem with it at all. But they have to come over on a lot of issues that I value. Gun control is the epitome of the issues since it represents the balance between liberty and democracy in a lot of ways. If I knew that there was a democrat running for office who would stand up for guns (or at least promise no more laws) and personal liberties, then I and probably most of America would vote for him.

The democrat's have an opportunity to take control back, but they will have to do some party realignment if they plan on being successful.

 

[SOS2008]

The point is that people like me are not willing to send their votes to the dems because they don't represent my views. I want someone who I feel will protect my individual liberty. Since I place this above everything else...it is the most important political issue with me. Bush could have been mentally retarded but as long as I feel my precious liberties are better protected with him then I will vote for him.

I am more than willing to vote for democrats...I have no problem with it at all. But they have to come over on a lot of issues that I value. Gun control is the epitome of the issues since it represents the balance between liberty and democracy in a lot of ways. If I knew that there was a democrat running for office who would stand up for guns (or at least promise no more laws) and personal liberties, then I and probably most of America would vote for him.

The democrat's have an opportunity to take control back, but they will have to do some party realignment if they plan on being successful.

I see both side of this debate, though we've had a thread on this before... First, I agree that you need to view individual liberty in the full spectrum of definition if you want to take this stand. I believe in the right to bear arms (not necessarily assault rifles and armour-piercing bullets), but certainly the right to own hunting rifles, hand guns for personal protection, etc. However, I also believe in the right to privacy, which includes all pro choice issues--not only incidences such as Terri Schiavo, but of course abortion and certainly birth control. The problem with many Republicans is their inconsistency on these topics--abortion by itself is mind boggling (e.g., abortion is murder except in the case of incest or rape).

I feel the Dems are clear on the issues but the GOP and media facilitators continuously say they are not. I suspect many Republican citizens have not tried to research this with an open mind and draw a conclusion on their own--for example gun control. My understanding is the Dems just want it controlled--who and how weapons are purchased, and question why citizens need to own automatic weapons. But they are not against all guns. Dean comments on the Dem position all the time (it just can't be heard over all the noise).

 

[DM]

Townsend

Cars are a device to kill a person too. Of course most guns never kill anyone. In fact a random gun in America is less likely to kill someone than a random car. What gives me the right to own a car when it can kill someone and is more likely to kill someone than a gun is?

Now that is a bold statement! tell me you're not serious, please?

Townsend

You need to experience a good day of clay pigeon shooting. Or a day at the rifle range, or the archery range. Its a lot of fun, I have been doing it my entire life and yet NO has ever been hurt in any way.

That's one thing.

Townsend

Taking away my right to own a sports car is exactly like taking away my right to own a gun. There is no difference to me.

Whilst this is another. Do you actually advocate the right to own a gun when not practising "clay pigeon" or any other shooting sports?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Whilst this is another. Do you actually advocate the right to own a gun when not practising "clay pigeon" or any other shooting sports?

They did try to combine the two passtimes in LA a few years ago.

 

[Townsend]

Now that is a bold statement! tell me you're not serious, please?

How many people are murdered per year in America? How many people die in car accidents per year in America? It is not a statement of opinion, it is a statement of pure absolute fact! Deal with the fact that your daily driving is more dangerous than me owning a gun.

Just FYI there were 42,643 people killed in auto accidents last year. I cannot find a reliable number for deaths by guns but I am sure it is lower. So I rest my case...cars kill more people than guns in America.

Whilst this is another. Do you actually advocate the right to own a gun when not practising "clay pigeon" or any other shooting sports?

No... How did I manage to give you that impression? Drving a sports car is a very dangerous and deadly evolution. So is opperating a gun.

 

[DM]

Townsend

Deal with the fact that your daily driving is more dangerous than me owning a gun.

Surely not more intimidating than guns! I'm sorry for being adamant on this one but I still believe they're much more dangerous than driving.

Townsend

No... How did I manage to give you that impression? Drving a sports car is a very dangerous and deadly evolution. So is opperating a gun.

Yep, I'm afraid you did. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[Townsend]

Surely not more intimidating than guns! I'm sorry for being adamant on this one but I still believe they're much more dangerous than driving.

If you were trying to cross the California 405 during rush hour you might change you mind about that. Unless it was a million car parking lot like it usually is..

 

[SOS2008]

Here is an area of deceit that members in this forum should be very concerned about:

Is the Bush administration suppressing hard science on the environment to further its political agenda in policy areas like global warming? NOW's Michele Mitchell investigates allegations that a former energy industry lobbyist was rewriting scientific findings to support the political priorities of the White House. In the report, government insider Rick Piltz says that Philip Cooney, a lawyer and former energy industry lobbyist, was making changes to reports on behalf of the White House and that it was part of a pattern to downplay the effects of global warming. "The 'fox guarding the henhouse' aspect of it was so blatant," says Piltz. "You had somebody who was essentially an oil industry lobbyist, who now is the White House environment policy maven." The White House announced Cooney's resignation as chief staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality in June.

http://www.pbs.org/now/thisweek/index.html

A petition drive aimed at publicizing perceived abuses in the administration's use and oversight of science by the environmental advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists has gathered the signatures of 6,000 scientists — including 49 Nobel laureates and 154 members of the U.S. National Academies of Science. In addition to the stir over the climate change reports, the administration is facing accusations that reports on the environmental effects of grazing on public lands were altered to support a proposed new policy.

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/scienceandpolitics.html

In this evening's program, several scientists were interviewed, and the findings of all their studies not only were altered (not just edited), but completely changed to the opposite of what they submitted. All, including one scientist who has been a registered Republican all his adult life stated that the Bush administration is the worst ever seen in history for suppressing science.

No, not Bush!

 

[MaxS]

so townsend you would not vote for a party you feel addresses all your views but you would vote for one that doesn't think twice about lying to you and taking you into a war? (at the very least)

You would rather vote for a party that passes an act specifically designed to limit your personal liberties? (patriot act)

The enemy of the neo-con is not terrorism but the U.S. constitution and an educated public.

That should make the neo-cons the enemies of anyone who believes in some semblence of liberty and justice.

 

[Townsend]

so townsend you would not vote for a party you feel addresses all your views

...listen,what I am saying is that I will not vote for someone unless I know exactly where they stand on a lot of issues of personal liberties. Both economically and socially.

but you would vote for one that doesn't think twice about lying to you and taking you into a war? (at the very least)

Are you asking me if I would change my vote if given the chance? No...I would be happy to vote for Kerry if he took a clear position on critical views and those were in line with my views.

You would rather vote for a party that passes an act specifically designed to limit your personal liberties? (patriot act)

How does the patriot act prevent me from exercising my personal liberties in significant way? From what I understand most of the patriot act is more or less an expansion on things that already existed. I am not saying I agree with it. But honestly I don't see how it will affect me at all.

The fact that the dems are for a progressive tax, restricting gun laws even more... I can't give a vote for that...no way, no how. If the dems want to make a difference they are going to HAVE to come over on these kinds of issues. I am willing to compromise on most things but I have to know EXACTLY what is on the table in such cases.

That being said, I liked Bill Clinton for the most part. If I had a choice between another Bill Clinton and Bush Jr...well you get the point. The dems need to bring something to the table that I can swallow.

Just so you know, I am not the religious right and I am fairly representative of a very powerful part of the voting population.

The dems also need to forget about running Hilary Clinton unless they just enjoy losing. They need to look for someone that is a lot closer to the middle and has a record that shows it (no pinko commies next time). If they can do that then they will take the presidency back...I assure you.

 

[Townsend]

First, I agree that you need to view individual liberty in the full spectrum of definition if you want to take this stand. I believe in the right to bear arms (not necessarily assault rifles and armour-piercing bullets), but certainly the right to own hunting rifles, hand guns for personal protection, etc. However, I also believe in the right to privacy, which includes all pro choice issues--not only incidences such as Terri Schiavo, but of course abortion and certainly birth control.

Every thing here is agreeable by me.

I feel the Dems are clear on the issues but the GOP and media facilitators continuously say they are not. I suspect many Republican citizens have not tried to research this with an open mind and draw a conclusion on their own--for example gun control.

I have...Kerry has a very bad voting record to look at...

My understanding is the Dems just want it controlled--who and how weapons are purchased, and question why citizens need to own automatic weapons. But they are not against all guns.

The way things are is just right...I just don't want things to get unreasonable.

Dean comments on the Dem position all the time (it just can't be heard over all the noise).

I tried listening to Dean...I cannot listen to him when most of his speech is based on how bad the Republicans are. When I am listening to a politician speak I am looking for him to talk about what he or she has to offer. Not what is wrong with the other guy. I will decide what is wrong with the other guy...you worry about what is good about you.

I swear...some common sense could go a long way for the dems. Diatribe does not win elections...Dean is not a good guy to have represent the Democratic party if they want to create an image of being more moderate.

Regards,

 

[MaxS]

on the contrary diatribe DOES win the election, don't underestimate the power of pundits in electing monarchs and waging crusades.

 

[SOS2008]

Every thing here is agreeable by me.

I have...Kerry has a very bad voting record to look at...

I tried listening to Dean...I cannot listen to him when most of his speech is based on how bad the Republicans are. When I am listening to a politician speak I am looking for him to talk about what he or she has to offer. Not what is wrong with the other guy. I will decide what is wrong with the other guy...you worry about what is good about you.

I swear...some common sense could go a long way for the dems. Diatribe does not win elections...Dean is not a good guy to have represent the Democratic party if they want to create an image of being more moderate.

Regards,

Assuming you researched Bush's background along with Kerry's...let's see, the Republican platform is...oh yes, privatization of Social Security and tort law reforms or some such things. As stated earlier, what has the GOP accomplished since 2000? Oh I know, record deficits, polarization of our country, increased terrorism... We hear the same things over and over again--nothing new, mostly lies, and are you saying the GOP hasn't spent plenty of time talking trash about the Dems?

I was just watching Dean not long ago in an interview in which he was asked what the Dems stand for. He didn't have much time, but for example he mentioned the need for real support for our troops (proper equipment, compensation, etc.). On this topic, here is information extracted from the DNC site.

Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families

Democrats believe we must support our troops by modernizing our military so that it better meets the threats of the 21st century. We need to make sure we never send them to war without telling them the reasons they are being sent, giving them clear goals, supplying them with the best equipment available to keep them safe, and keeping our commitments to them when they return from war.

We will also continue to stand up for the families of those who serve our country, including income security and access to affordable health care...

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

I suspect you are too entrenched and would not sincerely vote for a Dem.

 

[Townsend]

Assuming you researched Bush's background along with Kerry's...

Bush has done nothing that has negatively impacted my liberties. At least nothing that I have noticed. I would like to keep it that way with our next president.

let's see, the Republican platform is...oh yes, privatization of Social Security and tort law reforms or some such things. As stated earlier, what has the GOP accomplished since 2000?

I would rather the government accomplish nothing rather than have the government accomplish a lot and start taking away my liberties.

Oh I know, record deficits, polarization of our country, We hear the same things over and over again--nothing new,

The republicans leave a lot to be desired I agree, so what is your point? To point that out to me?

are you saying the GOP hasn't spent plenty of time talking trash about the Dems?

I am not saying that at all.

But talking trash is not their party platform in most cases...the dems seem to be reaching out by saying, "We're not them." That's not going to work...Take this discussion for example, I am not bashing the dems. I am praising them if anything. But you have given me nothing to show me the advantages of voting for the dems except that they are not the Republicans. I don't care if you or a politican thinks the republicans are evil. I care about what the democrats are going to do to make me want to vote for them.

I was just watching Dean not long ago in an interview in which he was asked what the Dems stand for. He didn't have much time, but for example he mentioned the need for real support for our troops (proper equipment, compensation, etc.). On this topic, here is information extracted from the DNC site.

This implies that the republicans don't care about supporting the troops. That does not cut it...Why not say, I want to do X and Y for our troops. This can be accomplished this way or that? That I would listen to...that I would care about and say, "there is a party with a plan that I like."

I suspect you are too entrenched and would not sincerely vote for a Dem.

Why? Don't try to make me feel like I don't have freedom of mind and that is why I vote the way I do. I vote the way I do because the people I vote for do the most to protect the things that I fear being taken away from me. I don't think it is the governments job to regulate video game content but apparently Senator Clinton thinks it is. Don't get me wrong, I like her and all but I don't want someone who feels that way about video games running the executive office of the US.

Like I said, the democrats don't need to bring down the republicans, they can do that for themselves. They need to give the citizens of the US a candidate that will not vote along strictly liberal lines. Someone who can come over to the right on a lot of important issues. If the dems think they can stay left and win they are wrong...compromise, that is the key.

 

[SOS2008]

Bush has done nothing that has negatively impacted my liberties. At least nothing that I have noticed. I would like to keep it that way with our next president.

I would rather the government accomplish nothing rather than have the government accomplish a lot and start taking away my liberties.

You haven't noticed -- Well if you don't see the sun rise each morning, I guess it doesn't rise, right?

I gave you an example and a link to what the Dems are about. What is the Republican platform? I'm really not sure anymore, and neither are a lot of Republicans. I suspect this is why the GOP uses the particular distraction of constantly claiming the Dems don't stand for anything. I've voted Republican more often than Democratic. How many times have you voted Democratic?

In the meantime, potential candidates such as Hillary are trying to be more moderate. But guess where the criticism of her comes from? The GOP--more than the liberals (i.e., me). I know for a fact that many Republicans despise her no matter what she does--even though she is a great politician and would be a far better president than Bush could dream about.

 

[Townsend]

I've voted Republican more often than Democratic. How many times have you voted Democratic?

I have one each...one republican for Bush because Kerry's position on liberties scared the hell out of me. And one democrat for Tom Daschle...but it didn't do a lot of good.

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to the topic of this thread, in the next election I feel it will be important to address corruption.

"Coingate" the scandal that has rocked Ohio over recent revelations of corrupt politicians, big-money fundraisers, partisan gerrymandering, and most importantly a broken election system. in Ohio, an important state in national elections, one can only wonder about the effects of partisan gerrymandering on the 2004 election.

AND

This week the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ("Senate Banking Committee") will be taking up the nomination of Congressman Chris Cox (R-CA) as the Chairman of Security and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). As the SEC Chair, Rep. Chris Cox would be the nation's chief protector of the rights of investors and corporate employees.

Congressman Chris Cox championed an amendment to the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that would have made it almost impossible for investors who had been recklessly defrauded by corporate executives to get their money back. His bill would have shielded companies like Enron and their accountants, such as Arthur Andersen, from investor lawsuits.

In addition, as an attorney Rep. Cox represented clients who went to prison for defrauding investors for millions of dollars. (Michel Hiltzik, "Cox's Past Ties to Con Man Raise Questions", L.A. Times, June 9, 2005) And given the huge campaign contributions Rep. Cox has received from the financial industry, he has a serious conflict of interest. (Stephen Labaton, "Bush S.E.C. Pick Is Seen as Friend to Corporations," N.Y. Times, June 2, 2005)

 

[Rabid]

It is unfortunate that they deleted it but there used to be a thing on Comedy Central's Daily Show where they did Governor Bush debating President Bush.

It was funny as hell when they had the 'governor' stating "I don't think the US military should be used for regime change" followed immediately with president Bush stating that he was going to institute regime change in Iraq.

It used to be one of my favorite links.

Here is a link to it.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushvsbush.htm

Here is the link for Jon Stewart on Crossfire: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12
This one is hilarious.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Here is a link to it.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushvsbush.htm

Here is the link for Jon Stewart on Crossfire: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12
This one is hilarious.

You are a GOD!

 

[SOS2008]

What's Bush doing to address the problem of leaks from his administration? Oh that's right, they are blaming the leaks on the press (but how did the press get classified information?) Speaking of the press, did we add another round of suppression of our 'free' press regarding John Roberts nomination? Will Bush appoint Bolton during the recess? Stay tune for more diabolical damage to democracy...

 

[SOS2008]

Sure enough Bush appointed Bolton during recess... And Bush still has not been willing to take any action in regard to Rove. But of all things, during all this:

"Sadly, Palmeiro misplays public’s trust"
The Washington Post
Updated: 9:19 p.m. ET Aug. 2, 2005

...President George W. Bush, who owned the Rangers when Palmeiro was a star for them, said: "Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him... Still do."

...Also, in the manner of other non-confession confessions, Palmeiro sounded contrite Monday when he said: "I made a mistake and I am facing it. I hope that people learn from my mistake and that the fans can forgive me."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792516/page/2/

If it weren't for his own track record, I'd say Bush is a really bad judge of character.

 

[Skyhunter]

I tried listening to Dean...I cannot listen to him when most of his speech is based on how bad the Republicans are. When I am listening to a politician speak I am looking for him to talk about what he or she has to offer. Not what is wrong with the other guy. I will decide what is wrong with the other guy...you worry about what is good about you.

Obviously you only listened to the part of the speech where he said "maybe republicans never made an honest living".

If you listened to it all can you tell me the context and the issue he was addressing?

And what about Ken Mehlman of the RNC?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150005

Do you prefer a to listen to someone deliberately tell lies and mislead?

 

[stoned]

criminal, not even jail is enough for him and his gang.

 

[Burnsys]

Originally Posted by SOS2008
I've voted Republican more often than Democratic. How many times have you voted Democratic?

I have one each...one republican for Bush because Kerry's position on liberties scared the hell out of me. And one democrat for Tom Daschle...but it didn't do a lot of good.

Why don't you both try voting no democrats and no republicans? they are the same parites who share the power for too meny years, america looks more like a 2 party dictatorship that a democracy...

 

[Informal Logic]

Why don't you both try voting no democrats and no republicans? they are the same parites who share the power for too meny years, america looks more like a 2 party dictatorship that a democracy...

This is true. Americans believe they are a model of democracy, but in comparison to other democratic countries, the US two party system in which there is not that much difference between the two, is not the best model. It would be nice to see an Independent become a truly viable choice. Right now I am just looking forward to being rid of the Bush regime.

 

[Townsend]

Why don't you both try voting no democrats and no republicans? they are the same parites who share the power for too meny years, america looks more like a 2 party dictatorship that a democracy...

Yeah...next election I am voting libertarian -as far as presidential elections anyways- but I could vote anywhere as far as local and state elections go.

 

[SOS2008]

Yeah...next election I am voting libertarian -as far as presidential elections anyways- but I could vote anywhere as far as local and state elections go.

Libertarian seems to be what the Republican party used to be in terms of less government. I like the non-intervention foreign policy. But I believe in fair trade, not free trade. I'm not really sure what the Libertarian stand is on fiscal matters (budget versus pork spending we see now). Who do you see as a Libertarian candidate to vote for in the next presidential election?

In any event, and back to the OP, the corruption has got to go!