Here it is the libs are coming after our guns
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 16 of 22
Quote:I HAVE lived in REAL tyranny, the kind where there is only 1 newspaper in the country, and people disappear if they say ANYTHING against the govt, even privately. The kind where there exists no political opposition and no hope for political change, short of the death of the autocrat.
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mostly I suppose I just think it's silly--when you contrast America with REAL tyranny,....
It is my opinion that America is approaching the REAL tyranny in these countries. It's not there right now, no. But it is heading in that direction.
I know people who have been to prison. Here I am, a middle class non-colored American who is as law abiding as they come. Yet I know people, middle class acquaintances and friends, who have served time in prison. This is not normal. This is not right in a free society.
Once upon a time, Germany was a democracy too. The horrifying atrocities of the Third Reich was unthinkable to most Germans. Yet it happened.
You are all familiar with Naomi Wolf's "10 Steps to Close Down an Open Society."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_4
6695.html
As an epilogue to Wolf's essay, I should note that Obama has reversed none of these steps. Under his administration, some of these steps have actually advanced. I believe they will continue to advance with each successive administration until we eventually get there.
I hope against hope it doesn't happen. I would love to be wrong on this.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm still curious as to when Peter King (R-NY) became a "lib". After all, he's the one who proposed making it a crime to carry a firearm within 1000' of a government official. Seems pretty broad and overarching to me.
Meanwhile, that great "socialist" Obama signed such offensive, draconian, knee-jerk laws as the one that allows Americans to carry firearms in our national parks.
Damned dirty liberal! There he goes again, trying to take our guns. Trying to take them to a nice day at the park, it seems...
This Space For Rent!
Hey gayboy, just 'cause that cunt has an "R" after his name doesn't mean he can't be a liberal douche-bag. That is why we have the tea party.....what say you? Cunt.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm still curious as to when Peter King (R-NY) became a "lib". After all, he's the one who proposed making it a crime to carry a firearm within 1000' of a government official. Seems pretty broad and overarching to me.
Meanwhile, that great "socialist" Obama signed such offensive, draconian, knee-jerk laws as the one that allows Americans to carry firearms in our national parks.
Damned dirty liberal! There he goes again, trying to take our guns. Trying to take them to a nice day at the park, it seems...
This Space For Rent!
Hey gayboy, just 'cause that cunt has an "R" after his name doesn't mean he can't be a liberal douche-bag. That is why we have the tea party.....what say you? Cunt.
It's also why every teabagger in Congress has that same "R" after his or her name. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Hardware,
Your prediction seems flawed to me. I fully expect the government to create money to bridge the gap of any shortfalls. This will cause a large quantity of inflation.
I can not imagine any future where this does not occur. It should be included in your analysis.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Too many people view uprising as romantic and that it would unquestionably bring about what they want"
Hello,
As a Cuban-American, I know from the experience of history, history that exists within living memory, that revolution does not typically get you the change you want.
I have never felt that revolution is a romantic concept. It is blood without rational thought, while playing a game of dice against the devil.
However, limiting the ability to engage in revolution carries its own host of evils. They are legion.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not just Cuba, but the Communist revolutions of Russia and China, the islamic revolution of Iran, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, even the overthrow of Mobutu of Zaire/DRC.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
As a Cuban-American, I know from the experience of history, history that exists within living memory, that revolution does not typically get you the change you want.
History is replete with examples revolutions that were worse than the tyranny, cures worse than the disease, and "out of the frying pan and into the fire."
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno, Anthony, in respect to recent commentary as a whole...
You may be a piss-poor crook, but you're a pretty good Anarchist, even if you don't subscribe officially to that personal philosophy.
And I find myself much gratified by that.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Hardware,
Your prediction seems flawed to me. I fully expect the government to create money to bridge the gap of any shortfalls. This will cause a large quantity of inflation.
I can not imagine any future where this does not occur. It should be included in your analysis.
Uhm, how do you "create" money? In America the government doesn't create money. The Federal Reserve system prints our money and manages the liquidity of banks in it's system using interest rates. Banks can expand the economy, by taking cash deposits and using them to make loans. The interest on the loans is used to pay the interest on deposits and keep the bank in operation. But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation. See the Weimar republic for examples.
If you want a good example of how quickly a currency can fail, research Argentina's economic collapses. They went from a fully functional currency to a failed economy, a dissolved government and near anarchy in 4 weeks.
Oh, and more fun? If America goes down, there's a good chance the rest of you are along for the ride. We've still got the peak consumer economy on the planet. Look up the root causes for the great depression and compare them with our economic situation now. Same/same, except the US government in 1929 was not up to its eyeballs in debt.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/18/students-shot-california-high-sch
ool/
So. Pro-Gun-Control people.
Please explain how this student was able to have a gun in California (of all places)?
But heres the kicker. Since California has some of the most strict gun-control laws, and this person obviously violated a slew of them... explain how more laws would prevent anything.
How making laws stricter HAS EVER stopped ANYONE?
Ya'll know me, you know I believe that we should all have a gun with us at all times. (After 18, before 18 with a permit). We should also be able to use it in defense of ourselves and others without fear of civil or criminal penalty.
Imagine also, if everyone had a gun, the boom in innovation. Bullet-proof vests, less-leathal options etc.
But I digress.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hardware, to begin with, no, “squandered on entitlement programs” is incorrect, entitlement programs were squandered by the government. If you don’t know about that, I’m surprised; if you choose to ignore that and blame our economic mess on “entitlements” (by which, I’m guessing, you don’t mean entitlements to PRIVATE ENTERPRISE), I’m not too surprised. There are far too many who choose to do so.
Just FYI, if you're interested; if not, for any here who don't know the facts:Quote:
The rationale for cutting Social Security seems to be that, during such difficult economic times, everything should be a candidate for the chopping block, and that the public should support such cuts out of a sense of patriotism.
The flaw in this argument is that u]Social Security has not contributed a dime to the budget deficits or the soaring national debt. Social Security is funded exclusively by payroll taxes (also known as FICA taxes), paid into the fund by working Americans.
In 1983, the payroll tax was increased substantially in response to the recommendations, the previous year, of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform. Prior to 1983, Social Security had operated on a "pay-as-you-go" basis with each generation responsible for paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them.
The 1983 legislation changed the nature of Social Security funding. In addition to paying for the benefits of the preceding generation, as was customary, the baby boomers were also required to pay additional taxes to partially pre-fund their own retirement.
The net result is that the baby boomers have paid more into Social Security than any other generation. Yet they are often made scapegoats and blamed for the Social Security funding problem.
The intent of the 1983 legislation was to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years that were supposed to be saved and invested, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could later be drawn down to pay benefits to the baby boomers. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated more than $2.5 trillion that is supposed to be in the trust fund. If the trust fund actually held this amount in real assets, full Social Security benefits could be paid until at least 2037 without any changes. Unfortunately, none of the surplus revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, by the government, on wars and other government programs without making any provisions for repaying the money.
During the past 25 years, five presidents, and the members of Congress/u], have participated in the great Social Security scam. All Social Security contributions made by working Americans, except the amount which was needed to pay current retirement benefits, has been funneled into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes.
Some like to say that the government just "borrowed" the money during the time period when it was not needed to pay benefits. But borrowing implies repayment, and u]no provisions for repayment have been made.
The government did not enact future tax increases that would automatically kick in when the Social Security money was needed. Neither did they enact legislation that would end other spending programs once the Social Security money was needed so the money could be transferred to the trust fund.
The government spent the Social Security money, pure and simple, without making any provisions for future repayments. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they could not be sold to anyone even for a penny on the dollar. The Social Security trustees confirmed the worthlessness of the IOUs in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report with the following words:Quote:
"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other governmen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME