General Music Chat

Besides the "guerilla" tactics that we used in fighting England, one of the reasons we were victorious in the American Revolution, was that our "youth" were better marksmen than most of the British military were. Their supplies were heavily limited for gun practice, to save money, whereas American youth were used to handling guns well for hunting for food, without such restrictions. They were good shots. Some of the British wrote home about this situation, bemoaning the fact that even our children were better shots than many of their professional soldiers were.

... well, I'm doing my part to ensure gb never gets the impression that things would be different today... and they'd really be in trouble if they ever try to invade using small orange disc-shaped military vehicles.

people are going to make what ever vote lets them sleep at night we've mostly been bought off with gadgets so even though we have the news sitting in our pocket or on our desk we don't really going looking for it

I have before and may again be a one issue voter! Anybody whom wants to dismantle the Second Amendment intends to destroy the whole constatution. I cant allow that to happen.

Speaking of the constitution...... I've said it before I'll say it again. I'm writing in Ron Paul. Nobody has replied to that yet.

Speaking of the constitution...... I've said it before I'll say it again. I'm writing in Ron Paul. Nobody has replied to that yet.

When GWB stole the nomination from McCain the first go around, I wrote in McCain as a protest vote. It doesn't do much good, other than making ourselves feel better.

Ralph Nader encouraged a write-in vote in 1992, declaring himself the "none of the above" candidate.

He received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans.

That's it.


But here is where you probably want to get involved with this:

http://www.writeinronpaul.com/


There is alot I like about Ron Paul, but one big thing I don't. His foreign policy. Well, I might like his foreign policy a "little" better if we were not in war.

"Quit and go home", is not a legitimate policy.

It's been tried before.

It was called Vietnam.

Our position in the world, and our confidence as a nation suffered for decades as a result. I don't see sending us back to those days as logical or desirable.

That's what I'm looking for. Educated opposition. Thanks Craig.

Craig & Paul,

I'm kinda on the same page as both you ol' Boys! (To bad we weren't
around to save the world back in the 60's! (as in 1860's )

God bless the Union!
Your good ol' 'PUB-lickin' Pal,
Howlin'J (Mason-Dixon North)

Well, I have yet to hear from anyone running that they would try to "take the guns off the street."

Out of curiousity, who here has heard this?

Isn't the Supreme Court presently deciding on whether DC's gun ban is actually consititutional? (Oh, & sans...isn't the good guv of California a REPUBLICAN? Voting republican doesn't even serve your cause anymore!)

See, that's yet another reason I won't live in DC, or visit there, or even play there, although the area pays well & I'm only 100 miles away. I won't go to Cal., either. My choice...just like the vote. Keep the dollars outta both places until they straighten up. I feel like I'm doing my part.

I have guns, & will continue to have them whether or not they outlaw them. But I intend to keep quiet about it.

I don't feel the gun bans are a big issue at this time.

I'm more worried about our foreign & domestic policies, health care in particular, cost of pharmaceuticals, Social Security, & our nation's infrastructure as a whole. Add to that the continuous erosion of our constitutional rights, yes, INCLUDING the right to arm ourselves. Party affilliation with corporate interests, most often FOREIGN-based, is also a huge issue with me. Ppl entering our country illegally, getting jobs w/out paying taxes, while getting DRIVER'S LICENSES & gov't aid also bugs me a great deal.

Gee...looking at all of this, there really IS no difference between the two parties, is there?

You can choose between supporting foreign oil interests or foreign manufacturing interests, all the while keeping the $ out of the middle & lower classes as much as possible through unfair business practices & unfair taxation & plain old bad economic policies, not to mention the lack of REAL education in the areas of math & science or even ENGLISH, cuz we would be forcing our culture & language on those poor illegals.

It's time for a new revolution. Either that or a move to a country that doesn't "claim" to be free, so I would know what to expect, at least.

I'm not sure this clusterflook is fixable.

Well, I have yet to hear from anyone running that they would try to "take the guns off the street."

Out of curiousity, who here has heard this?

Obama has addressed this throughout his political career. Now that he's running for president, he claims to support the Second Amendment, but he has proposed sweeping changes, including a 500% increase in taxes on all firearms and ammunition, and a ban on "affordable" handguns, as well as mandated "smart gun" technology.

So, while maintaining support for the Second Amendment, he is trying to basically nullify it through legislation.

I disagree with you, that this is not an important issue. Not because of the fear of government. There are so many diverse police and military organizations on county, city, state and federal levels, that it would seem improbably to have them ALL cooperate on overthrowing our republic. But I disagree simply because the right to defend yourself should be inherent.

I agree with the previously stated cliche that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". I remember seeing this slogan as a child growing up. It made sense to me then, It makes sense to me now.

In cities where guns are made illegal. Crime goes up. In cities where owning guns are mandated (yes, there are some) crime rates plummet.

I remember a survey conducted many years ago of criminals serving time for breaking into homes for stealing. They were asked what they feared most... getting caught? Tough prison sentences? Dogs? Overwhelmingly, what they feared most, was the owner of the house having a gun.

We obviously can't stop drugs from being smuggled into the country. We certainly won't stop guns from being brought in. All that will happen, is that law abiding citizens will lose the ability to defend themselves from violent criminals.

Problem is, we can't pick & choose who will handle each individual issue...it's a whole package.

Where do you draw the line? For some of us it's the gun issue. I can understand that, but I also think that ppl can be stopped from doing what we don't want with the proper push in Congress.

I'm not going to vote for someone solely on one issue...I think that would be foolish in the long run.

We need help & improvement in far too many areas at this point in time, due not only to the mistakes & tom-foolery of this administration, but also the prior dozen or so.

We need someone who's gonna tell us harsh truths, but Americans have always hated that, & it's very difficult to get elected by telling the truth. Thus we have campaigners that lie. ("I didn't inhale." "Read my lips..." etc.)

That's one of the things I liked about Gravel...he said it straight...we lost the war in Viet Nam, & we've lost this one as well, as long as we aren't gonna bomb the hell out of them until they simply stop effin' with us. Get the hell out. He said it & I agree. Too bad he looked so old, cuz we no longer want an old guy leading us.

Yeah, it might look ugly to many of us, but it would save our economy, & help our image worldwide if we admitted the mistake & tried to rectify it somehow.

As a nation, we repeatedly let our collective ego ruin our relations with the world at large, & destroy many things in our own country as well. And I am SO sick of this administration's "Hulk Hogan/pro-wrestler" approach to foreign policy. Gimme a break...I will elect anyone who wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible, no matter HOW bad the rednecks & granfalooners think it makes us look.

I will elect anyone who wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible, no matter HOW bad the rednecks & granfalooners think it makes us look.

Well, I am not a redneck by any stretch of the immagination. And this has NOTHING to do with ego for me.

As I have discussed before...

We made a committment to the people of Iraq. Many Iraqis have accepted Democratic based government, at our insistence. They have signed on. They risk their lives and families and the future of their country in doing so. As with Vietnam, if we pull out prematurely, there is NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the void will be filled by radicals, who will then systematically MURDER tens of thousands of Iraqis who supported us there.

That blood will be on OUR hands.

It is immoral.

It is unconscienable.

You want to dismiss people of principle as being rednecks? Fine.

You just listed an improved economy as the first reason we should pull out of Iraq.

I'm a redneck?

You can buy a bigger TV at the low price of tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and betraying our committments as a nation.

What does that make you?

"We made a committment to the people of Iraq. Many Iraqis have accepted Democratic based government, at our insistence.

You want to dismiss people of principle as being rednecks? Fine.

You just listed an improved economy as the first reason we should pull out of Iraq.

I'm a redneck?

You can buy a bigger TV at the low price of tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and betraying our committments as a nation.

What does that make you?"

Evidently, it makes me at odds with you, Craig, on this issue.

And I don't just think our economy is the only reason to pull out of Iraq, either. There are just as many or more ppl over there who were better off without our interference, and know it...example - they had electricity 24/7 until we arrived, & now, years after we started this junk, they have it for 4 to 8 hours a day. Is this an improvement in thier lives? I think not. Example - ppl could travel when & where they liked until we arrived. Now they cannot. Is this freedom, by any stretch of the imagination? I think not. Example - they had the right to bear arms before we arrived. Now they do not. Is this making them more free?

I could go on, but it's pointless.

I reject your assumption that I have no principles, while you do, on this, Craig. I regret that you took my redneck remark personally. It wasn't meant to be so. I was referring to a lot of ppl I know around here, where I live.

Ten years ago, I made 1/2 as much $ in this household as I do now, yet I am poorer today. Why? Because of this administration, & this damned war. Work was easier to find, too. Ppl were spending to make thier homes better, or buying new ones. That doesn't happen now. Why? Because of the war & it's outrageous costs, primarilly.

It was foolish in its inception. We wouldn't have gone if it weren't for the lies that put us there. I know a few ppl who have been & back, too, & they'll tell you that, no, we AREN'T considered saviors by these ppl.

If they need so much help, encourage the UN to SHARE the load. We are NOT the world's police, NOT the "messiahs of mankind,"no matter how much we would like to think that we are. We do not understand other cultures, & we have the audacity to think that we can change them to fit into our idea of the perfect society. Well, it doesn't work that way.

You said it yourself, Craig. "Many Iraqis have accepted a democratic form of gov't at our insistence." That doesn't necessarilly mean that they WANT it, or will continue it after we pull out, if ever we do.

We need to face the idea that democracy doesn't always work. It ISN'T the answer to all of the world's problems, & our own problems attest to that fact.

Our own gov't was written to protect minorities as well. That does NOT follow in a true democracy, where the majority rules to the detriment of the minority.

Tribal gov'ts are totally different. We don't understand them. That doesn't mean that we should just march in & take over & FORCE them to our way of life. We need to learn to leave other ppl alone, & let them live as they would.

If you want to talk about humanitarian issues, our efforts would be much better placed in areas of the world where our involvement has been ASKED for, not where some of our rich ppl stand to gain from it.

I honestly believe that we have fulfilled our "commitment" to the Iraqi ppl. We took out thier leader like we said we would. We tried to show them a way of life that they are rejecting daily. There is nothing more we can do, other than let them, & the entire civilized world, work toward a peaceful existence. It is NOT our job to force them into it, or to direct them into living as we do, which seems to be at odds with thier religious beliefs, as well as thier centuries-long established way of life. To think we have any of the answers they need is just arrogant, Craig.

I think it's a bit more of a paradox than that Craig.

Seems to me that so long as we're there, they have no initiative to walk on their own 2 feet. They have a standing army, we've given them hordes of weapons and training. There's no reason why they, after 5 years of hand-holding, cannot support themselves, in a policed capacity.

I fear that the longer we stay, the more things will stay the same.

What I think is a good proposal is for us to withdraw our troops to 2-3 central locations, like the fortified zone (create a couple more maybe), and be on demand for immediate military strikes, or air support, but force the iraqi army to handle their own issues on the ground. After 6 months or a year when they are forced to get a grip on it, then we can leave more peacefully, and even leave a few batallians and air support behind, and at least start cycling our troops so they can spend more time at home than over there.

Just a thought.

Best political discussion yet! This country was founded on revolution, but it wasn't a peoples revolution, it was land owners who had a better way to steal and wrote a "constitution" to protect what "they" owned.
The term "Redneck" originated from the West Virginian coal miner's strike, when the government ordered the miners back to work, the miners picked up their guns and wore red bandanas around their necks and positioned themselves in the hills as snipers. Federal troops overwelmed the "rednecks" and crushed the rebellion. Democrats or Republicans? that's a two headed monster! stop feeding it. The ruling class (folks raised with the understanding that they will be controlling millions of people so to keep the empire in the family) tell us what our choices are, they decide who the candidates will be, then they decide how they are going to work it, regardless of the "party" that appears to have "won"...is it Coke or Pepsi? both may be refreshing, but neither one is good for you and you go out and buy more. The Martial Arts developed out of the restriction of the common people to carry weapons, not even a stick! Just as the strategy in war is to wound a soldier so that 4 other soldiers have to put their guns down to tend to him, the rulers of this country would have us fussing with each other, rather than go to the source...( when Toto pulled the curtain back, exposing the Wizard of Oz, the Wizard said "never mind that man behind the curtain!" ...

frikin politics..
where's my pipes...

And I don't just think our economy is the only reason to pull out of Iraq, either. There are just as many or more ppl over there who were better off without our interference

(snip)

I could go on, but it's pointless.

Yes, it is pointless. But it is pointless, because like the main argument for pulling out... "The war was based on a false premise" it is not addressing the CURRENT situation, it is addressing THE PAST.

It doesn't matter whether we went in for the wrong reason. It doesn't matter whether Iraqis were better off under Sadaam. None of that matters, because it cannot now be UNDONE.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

We have to operate under NOW. Not under the past.

We created chaos in Iraq, and WE must clean it up and make it right, to the degree that this is possible. It does not mean that we should be mired down in a full-on war for 10 more years, or even another 5. It means that we should make every reasonable effort to see this through.

Is it possible that it will never succeed? Sure it is. But it is also possible that we stand at the door of a new future for the Middle East, with Iraq as a potential model of successful Democracy. If successful, we have a friend in the region, and maybe more importantly, Iraq could become a desirable model for peoples of other Middle Eastern nations to follow.

If the Middle East is not brought into the modern age under the banner of some form of Democracy, the wealth and power they are amassing could become even more of a threat to the free world than it is now. Middle Eastern nations uniting under the revolucion of some radical cleric is a nightmare scenario.

I reject your assumption that I have no principles, while you do, on this, Craig.

Your principles (on this particular subject) are not very lofty, or at the least... questionable. There are much greater issues at play here, than our "economy is suffering", or "they were better off without us anyway", both of which are debatable or remain to be seen. Economically, we are borrowing money from China for this endeavor, so a case can be made that we are saddling our future, or our children's with this debt (which may or may not be repaid) but to say that NOW, in the short term, this adversely affects our economy, is not the case, as far as I can tell. Oil prices have not risen because of Iraq, which is the main claim usually offered.

Obama is one of those, espousing this idea, that Iraq has caused oil prices to rise. How is that possible when OPEC sets the price of oil? Does he know what OPEC is? Over the last 5 years demand for oil has grown exponentially, while the supply is not being increased. This is what is peaking the price. It is a supply and demand issue, which OPEC is well aware of, and is probably why they have refused to increase production. Which drives their profits up, while making their oil last a little longer. They try and make as much money from oil as they can, and still remain viable. It is a balance they are pretty damn good at.

I regret that you took my redneck remark personally. It wasn't meant to be so. I was referring to a lot of ppl I know around here, where I live.

Well, I appreciate that. But the comment really lumps everyone together. It basically suggests... "You must be an unintelligent redneck, for supporting this war"

Personally, I don't see war as an olympic sport.

I have serious moral, ethical, economic, and security concerns with ending this war too soon. You already know some of my ethical and moral issues with this, but even just economically... Iraq happens to sit upon the third largest oil field in the world. THIRD LARGEST! For this oil to fall into the hands of radicals is NOT in our best interest, not by a long shot. I can't even begin to address all the potential consequences of that scenario. It will be a problem infintely worse, than anything you are taking issue with presently, concerning our occupation of Iraq.

We don't solve a problem by replacing it with one of immensely greater proportions. Additionally the security issues are numerous and of huge concern. Pulling out prematurely will be a DISASTER, not only to our economy, but to our security as well.

Ten years ago, I made 1/2 as much $ in this household as I do now, yet I am poorer today. Why? Because of this administration, & this damned war. Work was easier to find, too. Ppl were spending to make thier homes better, or buying new ones. That doesn't happen now. Why? Because of the war & it's outrageous costs, primarilly.

It's not the war. It plays a role, but likely a small one compared with other problems. The mortgage industry is a victim of it's own irresponsibility. Americans are victims of their desire to live a higher lifestyle than they work for and can pay for, by using credit to get what they want. This saddles them with enormous debt, unprecedented in our history. It will likely get worse, before it gets better. And Americans will have to discipline themselves and return to more sound financial principles and personal responsibility to correct this problem.

It was foolish in its inception.

It could very well have been a calculated excuse to exert some control over the world's third largest oil field, it could have been a message to other Middle Eastern nations to stay in line, it could be an attempt to break any potential of these nations from uniting and challenging the world's present status quo.

None of us are on that elite level of power, so we don't know why they do what they do. But generally, they have their reasons, and often, they are reasons which can't be divulged publicly and admitted to. Whether they are ethical reasons or not, is another question. That may have to wait for a tell-all book to be published, once the guard changes.

We need to face the idea that democracy doesn't always work. It ISN'T the answer to all of the world's problems

It is the best form of governance so-far created, in that it maximizes the value of an individual life, protects the rights of ALL religions to exist, and is a fertile field for economic prosperity and security. There is no better or fairer system than that.

Our own gov't was written to protect minorities as well. That does NOT follow in a true democracy, where the majority rules to the detriment of the minority.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "true" democracy. There are many forms of governments that we refer to as Democratic, and they generally share certain "attributes" that are common to most forms of Democracy, like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free elections, civilian control of the military, etc...

Majority rule is not strictly adhered to in an absolute sense in many, if not most democracies, recognizing the dangers of tyranny of the majority. This is also one of the reasons America has adopted a "representative" form of Democracy.

Tribal gov'ts are totally different. We don't understand them. That doesn't mean that we should just march in & take over & FORCE them to our way of life. We need to learn to leave other ppl alone, & let them live as they would.

That is liberal-speak. "Look at the cute jungle people! Their culture is so pristine, so valuable, let's take pictures, honor them, and leave them in the jungles, and go back to the comforts and security of civilization. But we'll put their pictures in books, and find ways of claiming that their society is actually superior to ours in many ways, all the while, strangely choosing the lesser path we are on anyway!"

Live as they would?

Without any impetus for change, without knowledge, experience, help, that is exactly what they will do. Live the same. Live the only way they have known, the way they have grown up in, the way they were forced into, and the way that those with power over them will keep them living.

Who knows what a person, an individual, with his own thoughts and feelings and developmental process would "choose" in life, when he is not allowed the freedom to find that out? Who knows what the world has been deprived of, because religious theocracies found evil in certain forms of music and poetry or even paintings and science? Who knows what the world has been deprived of, because women and minorities were often enslaved, thought of as less than human, or relegated to what those in power believed their "role" was?

Let them be free. Let them be exposed to all the lifestyles and philosophical or religious thought the world has to offer. Then they are making a real "choice".

Enjoying the freedom you do, yet believing everyone else should just be left in slavery or suppression, is tanamount to being in a desert where people are thirsting, and you not wanting to share the spring you know about and enjoy personally.

It is NOT our job to force them into it, or to direct them into living as we do, which seems to be at odds with thier religious beliefs, as well as thier centuries-long established way of life.

Slavery is millenia old, not just centuries. Does that make it right?

And our own government is based on one particular religious belief itself.

Namely...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Our national belief (We hold these truths to be self-evident), what we are founded upon, is that God (Creator) gives us (endowed) certain rights, which can NEVER be taken away from us (unalienable), and that these are 1) Life 2) Liberty and 3) The pursuit of happiness.

Why is it important that we recognize these rights as coming from God? Because man can take away what man gives. But no one can take away something that God gave. They are inherent, natural rights, that ALL mankind is BORN WITH! God granted them, and therefore, no man, no government, no preacher, no medicine man, no imam, has a right to take them away from any human being.

You say leave them in ignorance and deficiency of those rights?

I say, let them enjoy the gifts that God gave all human beings!