I never understood why the 2nd amendment hasn't been "amended" yet. I mean, it was created before there was even a police force. I thought laws were supposed to change with the times.
And considering the first amendment has been atleast regulated a bit more with Schenck vs. US, it's even more surprising.Red Forman wrote:
I never understood why the 2nd amendment hasn't been "amended" yet. I mean, it was created before there was even a police force. I thought laws were supposed to change with the times.
"Dey tuk ur guhnz!"
Not sure how you can say I do not, I pointed out in detail how the definiton fits what Obama is doing and trying to do.Poseidon wrote:
Clearly neither do you. But I knew you'd try to squirm your way out of it, just like you always do.lowing wrote:
Use over exaggerated sarcasm if you wish, it is really all you have, since yo do not have the definition on your sidePoseidon wrote:
Yeah, I know, he has total control over everything, there's no oversight and no checks and balances in place to stop him from taking over your good ol' faux conservative murrrika! It's just horrible.
I also see you don't know the meaning of antonym, awesome!
and you got me, a said antonym but was thinking synonym. Sorry 'bout that. Regardless, Obama is a liberal who has gone so far to the extreme he has become a fascist. Even your own link has a section in it where it concedes far extreme leftists can also be fascist.
And you say right there he's a liberal, which according to the dictionary is an antonym of fascist! The dictionary knows all, isn't that right lowing?
I am not "squirming" out of anything. Not even sure how you can accuse me of that "like I always do". I stand toe to toe with you all of time. A fascist is for govt. control over industry and the private sector. This is EXACTLY what Obama is trying to do.Time to come to grips with it. Like I said, even your own link shows where a far leftist can be considered a fascist.
But lowing, the dictionary says that the opposite of fascist is a liberal! What's wrong, only want to use it when it's convenient for you?lowing wrote:
Not sure how you can say I do not, I pointed out in detail how the definiton fits what Obama is doing and trying to do.Poseidon wrote:
Clearly neither do you. But I knew you'd try to squirm your way out of it, just like you always do.lowing wrote:
Use over exaggerated sarcasm if you wish, it is really all you have, since yo do not have the definition on your side
and you got me, a said antonym but was thinking synonym. Sorry 'bout that. Regardless, Obama is a liberal who has gone so far to the extreme he has become a fascist. Even your own link has a section in it where it concedes far extreme leftists can also be fascist.
And you say right there he's a liberal, which according to the dictionary is an antonym of fascist! The dictionary knows all, isn't that right lowing?
I am not "squirming" out of anything. Not even sure how you can accuse me of that "like I always do". I stand toe to toe with you all of time. A fascist is for govt. control over industry and the private sector. This is EXACTLY what Obama is trying to do.Time to come to grips with it. Like I said, even your own link shows where a far leftist can be considered a fascist.
And a far rightie can be a fascist too, what's your point? People went around calling Bush a dictator but that doesn't mean it's actually true.
Obama has moved on to a whole new level beyond liberalism, he does not only want a socialized society he now wants govt. control over every aspect of the free market, industry and private fortunes. This is beyond a welfare state. It is a fascist state.Poseidon wrote:
But lowing, the dictionary says that the opposite of fascist is a liberal! What's wrong, only want to use it when it's convenient for you?lowing wrote:
Not sure how you can say I do not, I pointed out in detail how the definiton fits what Obama is doing and trying to do.Poseidon wrote:
Clearly neither do you. But I knew you'd try to squirm your way out of it, just like you always do.
And you say right there he's a liberal, which according to the dictionary is an antonym of fascist! The dictionary knows all, isn't that right lowing?
I am not "squirming" out of anything. Not even sure how you can accuse me of that "like I always do". I stand toe to toe with you all of time. A fascist is for govt. control over industry and the private sector. This is EXACTLY what Obama is trying to do.Time to come to grips with it. Like I said, even your own link shows where a far leftist can be considered a fascist.
And a far rightie can be a fascist too, what's your point? People went around calling Bush a dictator but that doesn't mean it's actually true.
Conservatives do not want big govt. they do not want govt. control over business.
You can call Bush whatever ya want, he is old news, Obama and his fascist agenda is now current events.
Yeah, I saw such fiscal conservatism from 2001 to 2008.lowing wrote:
Conservatives do not want big govt. they do not want govt. control over business.
whatever, start a new topic if you wish regarding the right or wrong of it. It still remains true that conservatives do not want govt. intervention in the free market, industry or private affairs, thus are not fascistsPoseidon wrote:
Yeah, I saw such fiscal conservatism from 2001 to 2008.lowing wrote:
Conservatives do not want big govt. they do not want govt. control over business.
Also, it would appear there is some validity to my observation after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism..
"In the book, Goldberg argues that contrary to conventional wisdom, fascist movements were and are left-wing. He states that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States"
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-14 20:48:01)
Written off in true lowing form.lowing wrote:
whatever,
How, I said start a thread and we will talk about it. Stop trying to mis-direct the discussion. I posted a lot more than just "whatever". I have backed up my opinion and the fact that conservsatives do not like govt. intervention is pretty widely accepted. So get back on topic.Poseidon wrote:
Written off in true lowing form.lowing wrote:
whatever,
The only person straying off topic is you, as usual lowing. You love to pin it on others but this thread is about "militia groups in the US", not Obama. Discussions do stray from the original topic, you know. I forgive you though, living as secluded from reality as you are must not allow the idea of that to seep into your mind.lowing wrote:
How, I said start a thread and we will talk about it. Stop trying to mis-direct the discussion. I posted a lot more than just "whatever". I have backed up my opinion and the fact that conservsatives do not like govt. intervention is pretty widely accepted. So get back on topic.Poseidon wrote:
Written off in true lowing form.lowing wrote:
whatever,
And you don't like government spending but I don't think you've EVER criticized Bush for it. Ever.
A hypocrite to the finest degree.
no offence, but your book really isn't giving much validity to your argument.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Yes this thread is about the rising level of militia activity. Obama's fascist agenda is the very reason for that rise. A transition to a completely govt. controlled state is called fascism, and it is what he is doing. You chose to deny this, and argue everything like my posting habits, or mentioning Bush etc. basically arguing anything EXCEPT his complete govt. control agenda of which is the key to defining his fascism.Poseidon wrote:
The only person straying off topic is you, as usual lowing. You love to pin it on others but this thread is about "militia groups in the US", not Obama. Discussions do stray from the original topic, you know. I forgive you though, living as secluded from reality as you are must not allow the idea of that to seep into your mind.lowing wrote:
How, I said start a thread and we will talk about it. Stop trying to mis-direct the discussion. I posted a lot more than just "whatever". I have backed up my opinion and the fact that conservsatives do not like govt. intervention is pretty widely accepted. So get back on topic.Poseidon wrote:
Written off in true lowing form.
And you don't like government spending but I don't think you've EVER criticized Bush for it. Ever.
A hypocrite to the finest degree.
Between the 2 of us, I am, the one with a mortgage, a career, raising a family, and paying my bills (on time I might add), so please stop trying to tell me that I have no idea of what reality consists of.
On a side note, I read somewhere you are flying today, I sincerely wish you a great journey toward your flying career.
yeah, dunno what happened there try this one.FatherTed wrote:
no offence, but your book really isn't giving much validity to your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-14 23:56:42)
Well, the problem is that the Republican party is not acting in the way Americans would normally define "conservatives." Bush advocated the bail-out, increased spending, signed bills which were dangerous to our liberties, etc. Those are not the marks of traditional US conservatism.
On the flip side, the Democratic party abandoned classic liberalism before FDR took over!
On the flip side, the Democratic party abandoned classic liberalism before FDR took over!
To be honest far too many conservatives have bailed out entirely and gone LALALALA IF THE DEMS THOUGHT IT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.
Hence, their main policy platform is a lack of a policy platform - i.e. the best way forward is to do nothing.
Keep this up and next year will be a bad one, again, for the GOP.
Hence, their main policy platform is a lack of a policy platform - i.e. the best way forward is to do nothing.
Keep this up and next year will be a bad one, again, for the GOP.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well der... what do you think conservative means. To conserve. To keep things the same and not change.Spark wrote:
To be honest far too many conservatives have bailed out entirely and gone LALALALA IF THE DEMS THOUGHT IT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.
Hence, their main policy platform is a lack of a policy platform - i.e. the best way forward is to do nothing.
Keep this up and next year will be a bad one, again, for the GOP.
conservative
Adjective
1. favouring the preservation of established customs and values, and opposing change
Conservatives want things back to the "glory days" of the 50's.
That's the definition of a reactionaryAussieReaper wrote:
Conservatives want things back to the "glory days" of the 50's.
yer right, however Bush's spending over the past 8 years while fighting a war even, is nothing compared to Obama's spending over the past 7 months for no other reason than to redistribute wealth and force govt. take overs.RAIMIUS wrote:
Well, the problem is that the Republican party is not acting in the way Americans would normally define "conservatives." Bush advocated the bail-out, increased spending, signed bills which were dangerous to our liberties, etc. Those are not the marks of traditional US conservatism.
On the flip side, the Democratic party abandoned classic liberalism before FDR took over!
Honestly, you may not be very far off. With the track record of liberals in this country it is almost safe to assume that whatever the fuck they dreamed up next is probably a shitty idea and benifits no one ( except their stranglehold on power)Spark wrote:
To be honest far too many conservatives have bailed out entirely and gone LALALALA IF THE DEMS THOUGHT IT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.
Hence, their main policy platform is a lack of a policy platform - i.e. the best way forward is to do nothing.
Keep this up and next year will be a bad one, again, for the GOP.
In New Zealand, they are trying to take away our guns.
Using the hospital hill incident as justification, they tightened the rules on pistol-grip rifles & shotguns - they're now classed as military-style firearms.
The police spokesperson even said on national TV that it wouldn't affect crims at all (they buy their guns from russian fishing boats - everybody with 1/10 of a clue knows this), and that it would only impact upon law-abiding citizens. Yes, thats pretty much what they said. The guy got his AKs and his SLRs (.308 auto magfed ex army issue) in the 80s.
As a paintballer, I am worried about this course of action, as this line of reasoning may affect may affect my ability to play my chosen sport within
10-15 years.
I do not trust the common sense of - nor the corporate neutrality of - the present government of New Zealand.
Using the hospital hill incident as justification, they tightened the rules on pistol-grip rifles & shotguns - they're now classed as military-style firearms.
The police spokesperson even said on national TV that it wouldn't affect crims at all (they buy their guns from russian fishing boats - everybody with 1/10 of a clue knows this), and that it would only impact upon law-abiding citizens. Yes, thats pretty much what they said. The guy got his AKs and his SLRs (.308 auto magfed ex army issue) in the 80s.
As a paintballer, I am worried about this course of action, as this line of reasoning may affect may affect my ability to play my chosen sport within
10-15 years.
I do not trust the common sense of - nor the corporate neutrality of - the present government of New Zealand.
Last edited by Pubic (2009-08-15 06:39:26)
Yep. It's amazing really.Poseidon wrote:
And considering the first amendment has been atleast regulated a bit more with Schenck vs. US, it's even more surprising.Red Forman wrote:
I never understood why the 2nd amendment hasn't been "amended" yet. I mean, it was created before there was even a police force. I thought laws were supposed to change with the times.
"Dey tuk ur guhnz!"
How would recommend that the 2nd amendment be changed and why? We already have a boat load of gun laws, the problem is criminals already don't give a rats rear end about the law. Laws only effect those who are willing to follow them.
Like Australia.Stingray24 wrote:
How would recommend that the 2nd amendment be changed and why?
More details please? And again why.