Be Careful what you wish for

[Andreus]

chance, get real

if its not a mandate then nothing is or ever will be.

that is just intellectual dishonesty that makes your closet rebuplican ideology feel more justified.

you really need to grasp that this is only going to get worse if the more rabid conservatives like you don't pull back from the political abyss and make some changes.

if you guys dont veer towards the center soon you are going to be as relevant as a mouse fart in the breeze.

 

[chance1]

chance, get real

if its not a mandate then nothing is or ever will be.

that is just intellectual dishonesty that makes your closet rebuplican ideology feel more justified.

you really need to grasp that this is only going to get worse if the more rabid conservatives like you don't pull back from the political abyss and make some changes.

if you guys dont veer towards the center soon you are going to be as relevant as a mouse fart in the breeze.

dude - if nancy pelosi or howard dean or charlie rangel or john conyers or john kerry or ted kennedy or fill in the blanks

had run nationally . . . . . .

toast

The Republicans LOST - they deserved to be replaced

The Dems were there - the fish jumped into their boat - they did not catch them

Kudos to them for not fucking it up - and Foley really helped - usually they fuck it up

But if you honestly think that a dovish, down on America, be nice to terrorists agenda is what the American people want, they you will give up your power position very very quickly.

 

[Andreus]

dude - if nancy pelosi or howard dean or charlie rangel or john conyers or john kerry or ted kennedy or fill in the blanks

had run nationally . . . . . .

toast

The Republicans LOST - they deserved to be replaced

The Dems were there - the fish jumped into their boat - they did not catch them

Kudos to them for not fucking it up - and Foley really helped - usually they fuck it up

But if you honestly think that a dovish, down on America, be nice to terrorists agenda is what the American people want, they you will give up your power position very very quickly.

did you notice that no one ran "nationally" this election?

Ted Kennedy actually got 70 percent of his vote in his election and he was indeed up for election this time.

thats better than 6 democrats did in the senate and about 20 democrats did in the house. its probably better than most anyone did anywhere.

that is called a mandate.

 

[chance1]

did you notice that no one ran "nationally" this election?

Ted Kennedy actually got 70 percent of his vote in his election and he was indeed up for election this time.

thats better than 6 democrats did in the senate and about 20 democrats did in the house. its probably better than most anyone did anywhere.

that is called a mandate.

Andreus - Ted will be winning elections in Mass after he croaks - we both know that

Really bad example - Ted K winning in Massachusetts

Jim Webb won in Virginia because he was a moderate Dem
Tasker won in Montana becuase he was a moderate Dem

That's the diff in the Senate

you gotta do better

 

[Andreus]

Andreus - Ted will be winning elections in Mass after he croaks - we both know that

Really bad example - Ted K winning in Massachusetts

Jim Webb won in Virginia because he was a moderate Dem
Tasker won in Montana becuase he was a moderate Dem

That's the diff in the Senate

you gotta do better

ted kennedy has the support of massachussets because he never changes his ideology to support the whims of the polls.

he has integrity

and in that you will find a GREAT AMOUNT of rellevance when looking at the election results.

there was a time when Lieberman could have gotten his 70 percent from the new england voters, but he just ended the fight of hispolitical life and almost didnt survive because he was a traitor to his own beliefs and the base of his voters found him to be unpredictable

 

[Andreus]

To normal people, it's clearly a mandate. To the reactionary, ankle-biting sob sisters on the radical extreme, a MANdate is Bush's anemic 50.6% of the vote in 2004. That's whatchacall a "MAN DATE" on the far side of the political universe.

or the one from the 2000 election...lol

Bush said he won the office and had a mandate even though he didnt get the majority vote.

weird how people see things through filters

 

[chance1]

ted kennedy has the support of massachussets because he never changes his ideology to support the whims of the polls.

he has integrity

and in that you will find a GREAT AMOUNT of rellevance when looking at the election results.

there was a time when Lieberman could have gotten his 70 percent from the new england voters, but he just ended the fight of hispolitical life and almost didnt survive because he was a traitor to his own beliefs and the base of his voters found him to be unpredictable

integity would have been owning up to crashing the car that killed that poor girl - careful who dole out "he's got integity" to

he wins in Mass cause he is Mass period

if u want integity, instead turn to Joe L - who could've run with the loons, instead he stuck to his guns

You have it backwards Andreus - fully backwards

Integrity is not getting 70% of the vote. Integrity is being willing to run the risk of losing an election - that somethings are more important.

This was a good one Andreus - and points to the fundamental difference in our thinking

 

[Andreus]

integity would have been owning up to crashing the car that killed that poor girl - careful who dole out "he's got integity" to

he wins in Mass cause he is Mass period

if u want integity, instead turn to Joe L - who could've run with the loons, instead he stuck to his guns

You have it backwards Andreus - fully backwards

Integrity is not getting 70% of the vote. Integrity is being willing to run the risk of losing an election - that somethings are more important.

This was a good one Andreus - and points to the fundamental difference in our thinking

lol

so Dubyas history of drug and alcohol use really does matter? and the oil connections and shooting history of the vice president?

and i do believe there was a trial and that Kennedy was aquitted of all charges except for leaving the scene of a crime....

but you arent fond of the judicial system are ya, champ?

Kennedy and crowd deserve more than a jury of his peers decided was fair, in your opinion, but no republicans should even have to explain their actions to their peers.

and you dont understand New england politics, my friend. Lieberman did not represent his constituency when he made those choices. remember representing your constituency?

that is why people are put in office isn't it?

 

[snapcat]

integity would have been owning up to crashing the car that killed that poor girl - careful who dole out "he's got integity" to.

Oops, I thought you we talking about Laura's murderous rampage on a familiar West Texas highway.​

Nevermind ...​

 

[chance1]

lol

so Dubyas history of drug and alcohol use really does matter? and the oil connections and shooting history of the vice president?

and i do believe there was a trial and that Kennedy was aquitted of all charges except for leaving the scene of a crime....

but you arent fond of the judicial system are ya, champ?

Kennedy and crowd deserve more than a jury of his peers decided was fair, in your opinion, but no republicans should even have to explain their actions to their peers.

and you dont understand New england politics, my friend. Lieberman did not represent his constituency when he made those choices. remember representing your constituency?

that is why people are put in office isn't it?

Drug and alcohol abuse? You're the one who brought up Ted Kennedy. The guy has a long history of alcohol abuse which pales in comparison to his conduct after he went off the bridge. He left the scene of an "accident". He did not make himself available to police. The guy did not take responsibility for his actions. Until he huddled with his advisors.

You want to bring up integrity and you bring up Ted Kennedy?

Everyone knows that Massachusetts is a bought and paid for Kennedy state. I would think u would not be happy with the fact that he got preferential treatment. Oh I forgot, you only get upset when a Republican gets pref treatment or breaks the rules w/o getting caught. Such a hypocrite Andreus - you wear it on your sleeve

And a hunting accident is hardly equivalent to driving a girl into the water, leaving her there, not reporting it and evading the police

If Ted Kennedy ran in the Dem primary for Pres, he'd get zero support.

 

[snapcat]

I'm betting it won't be long before someone mentions Clinton.

 

[Andreus]

you have clumsily avoided the point put to you

The bushes have done the same thing and you make apologies for them.

you do not like what the judicial system did for kennedy, but you hardly even know the history of the time or the true events of the era

could it be that you have been listening to Rush and Oreily a bit too much?

I think it would behoove you to brush up on the era and its facts

in the meantime, you need to explain why its soo easy to forgive the republicans of crimes yet you refuse to accept the courts findings in cases that date back thirty years.

You need to explain where the judicial system fits into your convoluted explanations, becuase you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[Andreus]

Massachussets is too expensive for even the Kennedys to buy. the idea of it is just so very preposterous that it hardly requires mention.

you do remember places like harvard, MIT and Boston University? tell me how Kennedy can buy those free thinkers and thier international platforms.

you are just grasping at republican talking point straws

and you dont seem to recall Dubyas DUI Lauras little homicidal ooopsy, cheneys inability to report the crime he committed, or the presidents refusal to allow anyone he captures as political prisoners the right to council even though the supreme court has demanded that he do so

you have a hard time with the facts there, buddy

 

[NW007]

Get over it . Yes you(Democrats) won and I am glad you are happy. But let's stop slinging the mud and get on with it. Enjoy your moment, because the fun will be over soon.

People can disagree politically, but the hatred which is displayed continuously on these threads toward the opposition gets very old and tiring. That is why you guys spend most of the time just talking to yourselves, because most JUB members choose to stay away from the irrational debates that go on here.

May I suggest you start coming up with positive workable solutions that can be rationally debated. I think Snapcat is one of the few that has actually come up with ideas that can be discussed.

The U.S. is still politically divided 50/50; so let's work on moving forward.

 

[Andreus]

honestly, i dont really see the hatred.

part of the solution is analysing where we are, what needs to be done, what the voters expect, and mapping out where to go next.

If laws were broken they need to be looked into. That is called american justice.

It's not just a few political slip ups we are worried about. Torture is still considered a felony.

and so we have to let the courts keep track

of course if you would care to add something positive, rr564s, we are all ears.

i will post my list of ideas from another thread to remind you of what some of us wish for ( the topic of the thread ), what we need to be carefull about, and what good stuf can come of the elections.

My personal laundry list of hopefull topics is...

1...to undo the law that redefined torture and forgave the president and his cabinet for engaging in it. I think that if they move on that one first, while the moderate republicans are still in fear of the electorate, they will get a veto safe bill through both houses.

2. Education education education !!

3. detailed plan on what a gulf war win will look like and an evaluation of the resources available to complete the goal. it is clear that the bush team is in over thier heads and something needs to be done, even if their findings aren't binding it will prove to the voters and citizens that there are other options besides the fiasco that has developed.

4. Some strengthening of the individual constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of choice, and freedom of assembly. this will mean that parts of the patriot act will have to be undone with a new bill.

5. a legal definition of the difference between a deffensive firearm and an offensive one so that the NRA is emasculated during the next presidential campaign season. The right to bear arms never meant to include automatic weapons and a great many other guns made for the primary purpose of killing as many people as posible in as few seconds as posible.

6. Lastly... I would like to see the international prestige of america restored with MANY overseas visits of the Senate and house leadership. If they can prove that they have the ability to mend the fences that Dubya has broken it will kill the republican accusation that democrats are not good at international policy.

 

[Kulindahr]

lifted from the above post:

5. a legal definition of the difference between a deffensive firearm and an offensive one so that the NRA is emasculated during the next presidential campaign season. The right to bear arms never meant to include automatic weapons and a great many other guns made for the primary purpose of killing as many people as posible in as few seconds as posible.

The Supreme Court based its ruling in the most direct case involving the Second Amendment that the amendment intended to ensure that all the militia -- those 16 to 60 able to handle a weapon -- had access to for purposes of ownership military weapons up to the standards of the day.
It was under the canopy of the Second Amendment that both towns and groups like the Minutement continued to own not only the best military personal arms of the day, but crew-served arms.
The primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the citizenry had the materiel and ability to use it sufficient to overthrow the government, against whatever professional forces the government might be able to muster.
That's supported by the history and the writings of the people who crafted and debated the amendment.
The NRA became a political organization only because the right guaranteed by the Second amendment became imperiled by neo-liberal forces. It is on the same level as the ACLU, which came about because a number of First Amendment freedoms were being threatened.

You have your facts wrong -- and your talk of "emasculating" is just the sort of thing rr564s was referring to when he spoke of "hatred". It's the same irrational, unreasoning despite that the ReligioPublicans spew at the ACLU. And it's a dangerous path; if one of the pieces of the Bill of Rights can be emasculated, why not all the others? If we can shred the right to keep and bear arms, why complain about the shredding Bush did to the right of privacy? or that the fundies want to do to the right of freedom of association? Heck, those aren't even written down! If you want to be free to emasculate the right to keep and bear arms -- which if you actually read the amendment means the right to be free -- then shut your mouth when people want to emasculate Roe v. Wade... and attempts to get gay marriage.
If you believe in liberty, you should welcome any attempt by anyone at all to enforce any part of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, in the most rabid and extreme fashion possible. And if burning the U.S. flag can be allowed as free speech, then a howitzer in my back yard must be allowed as keeping arms.

 

[Andreus]

actually rr564s sent me a Pm and that is NOT what he was refering to, so don't try to involve someone else in your personal issues.

the founding fathers had no view of what the modern firearm would become, and frankly, until you take a bullet from one you can keep that rabid nonsense to yourself.

I don't care what the NRA's position on the topic is Kulindahr, I am quite capable of thinking for myself. thank you very much. I do not like assault rifles being readily available in the USA. I never will. I will spend a large ammount of the rest of my life trying to stop the influence of gun peddlers, their apologists, and the NRA.

this nation is out of controll because people can't say NO to their basest of angers and when they lose their tempers, rather than take the recourse of the courts, they engage in self help with a gun.

that is simply not what the founders intended, and if you really looked back to their time and their issues you would see just that.

Period.

I respect your right to your opinion, and you need to respect my right to mine.

 

[Kulindahr]

actually rr564s sent me a Pm and that is NOT what he was refering to, so don't try to involve someone else in your personal issues.

the founding fathers had no view of what the modern firearm would become, and frankly, until you take a bullet from one you can keep that rabid nonsense to yourself.

I don't care what the NRA's position on the topic is Kulindahr, I am quite capable of thinking for myself. thank you very much. I do not like assault rifles being readily available in the USA. I never will. I will spend a large ammount of the rest of my life trying to stop the influence of gun peddlers, their apologists, and the NRA.

this nation is out of controll because people can't say NO to their basest of angers and when they lose their tempers, rather than take the recourse of the courts, they engage in self help with a gun.

that is simply not what the founders intended, and if you really looked back to their time and their issues you would see just that.

Period.

I respect your right to your opinion, and you need to respect my right to mine.

Let's see:

1. there are no assault rifles available in the U.S.; there haven't been since substantially before JFK was shot.

2. The founders set forth quite plainly what they meant, and they meant "the people" to have the capacity to overthrow the government. They knew weapons would develop, and they intended that whatever developed, "the people" were to have free access to it.

3. If you believe, along with most of the Democrats in Congress, that the people should not have firearms at all, then you, with them, are pro-rape, pro-murder, pro-crime -- there is no wiggle room. "A free state" means free from oppressors of both the governmental variety and the criminal variety; taking away firearms would mean at least 2.5 million more crimes in the U.S. every year.

4. This is not a "personal issue"; it is vital to liberty. When the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment meant that military arms were to be available to the people, they made reference to that -- that liberty, in the final analysis, comes from the barrel of a gun, because that is the only way to stand up to tyranny. Ghandi knew that as well; he called the disarming of India the greatest sin of the British raj.

5. Taking a bullet from a gun is not meant to be enjoyable; that's the whole point. The founders were in basic agreement that the government should live in perpetual fear of the people -- and that means that the people should have the most effective weapons available, in case the government had formed (contrary to the Constitution) a professional army.

6. I don't even know what the NRA's position is -- they play politics too much for me to be interested in following. I do know that they correctly see that the right to keep and bear arms is the foundation of liberty, the guarantor of all other rights.

7. Have you ever heard, "An armed society is a polite society"? It's true -- as long as everyone can be armed. If the Second Amendment had read the way Patrick Henry wished, we would all be required to bear sidearms and have our rifles at home, like the Swiss do, ready to go at a moment's notice -- and we would be a much more respectful, polite society.

8. People don't take recourse to the courts because it doesn't accomplish a thing -- unless you're rich, which is what it takes to even get your case to court in the first place. Do you have any idea what it costs to file a civil action, let alone pay for a lawyer? And then you wait... and wait... and wait... and hope you don't get one of the too-common judges who just don't care.

This thread is called "Be careful what you wish for." Well, if America got what you and the gun-banners wish for, there would be no way to avoid becoming a police state. Police already handcuff people because they made them angry, and then invent a reason and fabricate plausible cause -- and people's lives are ruined, because the court says "You have enough money; get an attorney", and people do, but while they're sitting in jail to find out if they can even get bail, they lose their jobs, and then when they have to take out a loan to pay the attorney, they lose their businesses and even their homes. If they knew there was no reason to be respectful of the public, the corruption would just get worse, and worse; with the massive increase in crime due to citizens not being allowed to defend themselves, they'd grow more callous, and when some Republican, or even Democrat, president decided to declare martial law, the people would have to behave as sheep -- without ambition, without dignity, without hope... because they'd been deprived of what John Adams called, and the Supreme Court affirmed, means to "the right of insurrection".

As for respecting your right to your opinion -- I do. But it is based on falsehoods, misconceptions, and blindness. Or if you actually know the truth (doubtful, from your post above), and hold what you do, then it is plain foolishness, dangerous foolishness.

 

[Andreus]

1. there are no assault rifles available in the U.S.; there haven't been since substantially before JFK was shot.

I guess you havent heard of the black market

2. The founders set forth quite plainly what they meant, and they meant "the people" to have the capacity to overthrow the government. They knew weapons would develop, and they intended that whatever developed, "the people" were to have free access to it.

perhaps that is your opinion, but the facts and the writings of the people involved would suggest otherwise

3. If you believe, along with most of the Democrats in Congress, that the people should not have firearms at all, then you, with them, are pro-rape, pro-murder, pro-crime -- there is no wiggle room. "A free state" means free from oppressors of both the governmental variety and the criminal variety; taking away firearms would mean at least 2.5 million more crimes in the U.S. every year.

that is the most ridiculous and offensive thing that i have ever read in reference to me. You are warping the issue so much it is obvious why your party has lost power. you have offended me in ways that many people cannot. I have lost all respect for you.

and that statistic is just a guess. You know that. so the "FACTS' obviously dont mean much to you.

4. This is not a "personal issue"; it is vital to liberty. When the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment meant that military arms were to be available to the people, they made reference to that -- that liberty, in the final analysis, comes from the barrel of a gun, because that is the only way to stand up to tyranny. Ghandi knew that as well; he called the disarming of India the greatest sin of the British raj.

you keep offering opinions as if they are facts and that is just intelectually dishonest and nincompoopery

5. Taking a bullet from a gun is not meant to be enjoyable; that's the whole point. The founders were in basic agreement that the government should live in perpetual fear of the people -- and that means that the people should have the most effective weapons available, in case the government had formed (contrary to the Constitution) a professional army.

the government should live in perpetual fear of its citizens? that kind of throws the whole by the people for the people thing out the window, doesn't it? just where do you get this crap from?

6. I don't even know what the NRA's position is -- they play politics too much for me to be interested in following. I do know that they correctly see that the right to keep and bear arms is the foundation of liberty, the guarantor of all other rights.

then your avatar is misleading

7. Have you ever heard, "An armed society is a polite society"? It's true -- as long as everyone can be armed. If the Second Amendment had read the way Patrick Henry wished, we would all be required to bear sidearms and have our rifles at home, like the Swiss do, ready to go at a moment's notice -- and we would be a much more respectful, polite society.

no... statistics globally indicate that an armed society is a murderous and violent one. it really is that simple

8. People don't take recourse to the courts because it doesn't accomplish a thing -- unless you're rich, which is what it takes to even get your case to court in the first place. Do you have any idea what it costs to file a civil action, let alone pay for a lawyer? And then you wait... and wait... and wait... and hope you don't get one of the too-common judges who just don't care.

that is a lesson that your fearless leader has taught you. glad to see you really have no respect for law and order in america.

As for respecting your right to your opinion -- I do. But it is based on falsehoods, misconceptions, and blindness. Or if you actually know the truth (doubtful, from your post above), and hold what you do, then it is plain foolishness, dangerous foolishness

I think that if you attack me personally one more time in this fashion i will hit the complaint button and put you back on ignore.

but for the time being i will let it ride.

if facts are foolishness then it is no wonder that your party has been put out of office. it is also likely that with people like you in the party, it will stay mnarginalized.

in the meantime you will not be able to change reality by raving and regurgitating the pro gun lobbys talking points and tossing off back room whispers at the local militia meetings.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess you havent heard of the black market

If you want to end the black market, you will have to impose a police state that would make Stalin look disorganized and hesitant.

perhaps that is your opinion, but the facts and the writings of the people involved would suggest otherwise

Excuse me? I'm paraphrasing their writings!

that is the most ridiculous and offensive thing that i have ever read in reference to me. You are warping the issue so much it is obvious why your party has lost power. you have offended me in ways that many people cannot. I have lost all respect for you.

That warps nothing. Rapes and murders are stopped by handguns. When the people are allowed what they're supposed to be, and can carry concealed weapons, rape and murder -- indeed, all crimes against persons -- drop. Ask a felon in prison about gun control -- they favor it, almost unanimously, because it leaves them a free choice of victims with no worries about any fighting back.
So if what you want is what the gun-banners want, you're pro-crime, plain and simple. It isn't twisting anything, it's stating an obvious result.
"My party"? My party has never held power, except on a local level. If you're associating me with the goons led by Bush, that IS offensive -- whereas stating logical conclusions is only offensive to those with an attitude, or very sensitive.

and that statistic is just a guess. You know that. so the "FACTS' obviously dont mean much to you.

That statistic is NOT a guess, it comes from the government's own figures and reports. Try the FBI, for starters, who acknowledge that 2.2+ million crimes are stopped by armed citizens every year -- crimes that would NOT be stopped if those citizens were not armed. I am drawing on facts, and dismissing them as opinion doesn't change that.

you keep offering opinions as if they are facts and that is just intelectually dishonest and nincompoopery

I keep offering what's plainly in the Federalist Papers and other writings, and in works of law and history.

the government should live in perpetual fear of its citizens? that kind of throws the whole by the people for the people thing out the window, doesn't it? just where do you get this crap from?

That's from one of the founders you say I don't understand -- probably Jefferson who the Democrats claim but who would repudiate the party with revulsion.

then your avatar is misleading

I think you need to read my avatar. It's rather revealing that you didn't even get that right!

no... statistics globally indicate that an armed society is a murderous and violent one. it really is that simple

Only in societies where only parts of the population are armed, similar to our gangs in inner cities. In fact, it was from societies where everyone (okay, male, mostly) was armed that concepts of rights and equality arose. Whether a society has any respect for human life is also an element.

that is a lesson that your fearless leader has taught you. glad to see you really have no respect for law and order in america.

??? If I were to claim a "fearless leader", it would be Thomas Jefferson -- who would be nauseated by the "justice system" in America. And the futility of the courts is something I have learned watching the courts, talking with attorneys, and from knowing people involved in the whole sordid system.
Did you bother to check on the costs? Many places, it's $200 just to file, even before a judge decides whether your case will be heard. Most attorneys want at least $500 up front, more likely $1000, and if you actually have extended courtroom time, that goes up at rates on the order of $200/hour.
"...no respect for law and order...."? I have disdain for the system that exists. As Mick Jagger, I believe, said, "There is too much law and too little order"; and as some nightly comedian observed, the pledge of allegiance ought to end, "...with liberty and justice for the rich."

I think that if you attack me personally one more time in this fashion i will hit the complaint button and put you back on ignore.

When I say "If... then", that's not a personal attack. I know this dose of reality is frustrating you, but don't read your feelings into places they aren't.

if facts are foolishness then it is no wonder that your party has been put out of office. it is also likely that with people like you in the party, it will stay mnarginalized.

Again, THAT is offensive, associating me with some party that has been "put out of office". As for "people like [me]", since I take my views from the founders, from numerous philosophers who actually put thought into the dignity of man(kind), then if the people I stand with are marginalized, then liberty is being marginalized.

in the meantime you will not be able to change reality by raving and regurgitating the pro gun lobbys talking points and tossing off back room whispers at the local militia meetings.

I don't follow the "pro-gun" lobby, though I would call it the "human dignity lobby" from what I've heard. Hmm -- local militia? Too bad we aren't all required to be in one, and train, and learn some respect and discipline. We might actually end up like Switzerland, where everyone has a fully automatic military-issue weapon in the closet, and marksmanship is practically the national sport -- and there is very, very little crime.