Another NRA republican mass shooting

Wow! That's really deep man.

 

Actually that's not an apples to apples comparison, and the comment about the machine guns being given/supplied to drug cartels is an unfounded claim, there was a lot of myth about that but very few substantiated facts proving that's what went on.

For all we know, some lower ranking guy in the government, was dirty and was the true origin of how guns go to cartels. But there's been no proof that came from the top as a deliberate policy.

And the context of what we're doing in foreign policy has different objectives and goals than it does when it comes to domestic policy. The culture is different there, the reasons why violence is even happening is different abroad than it is at home.

So no I can't accept those counter arguments, because it's a fallacy. I get what you're saying but you need to come up with another example to convince me personally.

 

Well, I agree and didn't say all violence is his fault. But there is a schism now I haven't felt in my lifetime. And either these really are false flags or people are snapping more at this point in time. What disappoints me is that the democrat/liberal crowd, who I usually felt camaraderie with when it came to issues of human rights and civil rights.. are just as blinded by their representative as the neocons were by Bush. Except it's even more hypocritical to me.

It's like everyone are dumbed down, complacent robots. Myself included. But what can be done? Nothing, because the people are split and arguing over stupid shit rather than being united and allowing for difference in opinions.

 

But it was ok to blame bush, And still blame bush. That's all dems do is 'blame' another for their failure. No Ball's to admit fault.

Osama drones have killed a lot of people, Im pretty sure the # will go down when he doe not have a controller.

The root of the problem is simple, Some see the light of day, Some choose to believe what they are told. When its obvious they are wrong the do their best to try and save face. Usually a lot of 'blaming' and bush's fault.

A puppet that has stepped over the line and has went nuts. His own side are start to turn and or resign before it gets worse, Like Hilary cunton, Next best thing to the tyrant himself.

 

Personally, I think you're wrong there is "no proof." Eric Holder lied to congress, and new alot more than he originally put off. Plus, I posted elsewhere, where these rebels are decapitating little children, and keeping the bodies. Those are the people Obama is sending weapons to.

But, it's whatever. I can give you more examples though, but if you're like other Obama supporters, you wont hear any of it.

Obama signed the FAA reauthorization act to put 20,000 drones in American Skies. He also signed the NDAA, giving himself permission to kill/indefinitely detain anyone who's "Suspected of terrorism." If that's not enough to convince you, look at our governments history.

They charged someone with espinouge, for printing out papers in WWII that said "This war is unjust, don't join the Army," and locked him up for life. Furthermore, our government has killed hippies during protests and, planned terrorist attacks in the USA (Operation Northwoods.)

Also, I disagree that Obama/holder weren't involved in this. Holder was already caught lying to congress, and changing his story. I think people trust the government too much- If they can't respect the Constitution, they shouldn't be leading us at all. The Constitution has been suspended by these criminals, yet, as I said, the government supports criminality worldwide.

Infact, the government in itself is a criminal racket. It allows Corperations to get anyway with bribes, waste dumping, fixing prices etc etc etc.


Anyone who thinks Obama is ANY better/different than Bush, is sadly, still brainwashed by his many many campaign lies.

 

Other foreign countries aren't any better.

Welcome to the design of the human, these problems happen in every society and it isn't any one government's fault or one society's fault.

The deaths of people anywhere in the world is sad, but the counter argument to drones and their use is that they kill less than conventional fire bombing, which is what we used to do as recently in Vietnam.

---

I admire your pursuit of peace in principle and I admire it's consistency, but I find it a bit naive and idealistic.

So here's where we differ, I don't mind the FAA, dependent on the specifics of what drones can and can't be used for.

I believe that the NDAA is not a good law, and I don't think one should be detained just because of being suspected of something. If there's proof that's another story, but that's not how I interpreted this law after I read it.

---

As for the other issues, I saw a lot of tea party spin, but not facts proving that gun trail with cartels and all that.

 

They like to rant about "team," but they're possessive & defensive about their "turf." There's stuff on the 'Net these days, including from some ret. military, that suggests the Marine Corps be dismantled: all the Corps did differently was amphibious landings & there're just not many of those these days. Confronted w/ that specter, you'll hear plenty about "team" & that other anachronism, "tradition."

 

This is the same excuse Bush lovers used to use. I guess that makes sense though, since Obama is virtually the same thing

Our government is by far the most corrupt and dishonest. The only reason our fake money is still worth anything is cause Nixon promised Oil yielding countries protection in exchange for taking our worthless paper money.

It doesn't matter- Obama drone strikes countries we aren't even at war with. (Pakistan, Yehman, Libya etc.) The Administration also killed a 16 year old American citizen, just because his father was "suspected of terrorism." I think Liberals like you gave up on civil liberties as soon as Obama took office.
---

Well gee, thanks for that backhanded compliment. I've been told this before (mostly by liberals; ) It seems more naive to me though, to think the government can control 313 million people. We are 18 trillion dollars in debt, to which liberals say "spend more." The truth is, just because you picked the other party, doesn't mean anything has changed. Liberal "Humanitarian" spending and republican war spending has made this mess. They go hand-in-hand. In fact, the Democrats were the first war mongering party.

So, why am I naive? For not believe the "other" party, out of 2?

Well, drones have heat vision and can literally see through the walls. You don't mind the government watching you whenever they wish? The government has been taking away our freedom to "keep us safe," but we're less safe now than ever. This month alone we've had 2 terrorist attacks, the government failed to stop (but were fully capable of doing so.) Still, we're losing our freedom due to fear.

Drones can even shoot batons and see at nighttime. I think if there are ANY drones in American skies, they shouldn't be available without a warrant, as they clearly violate the 4th Amendment.

This has been used to execute alleged terrorists. (Anwar Alaki) because the government claims he was part of 9/11 but the evidence got destroyed. The government is attempting to take away the American rule of law, and replace it with absolute power and control for government. And scaring us, is helping that happen faster.

I'm not a "tea partyer," I am a Libertarian. I believe in freedom for all, not just democrats of republicans. In fact, mainstream republicans ONLY care about cutting Humanitarian Programs, whereas Libertarians want to Abolish the war spending first, and let business flourish to hire more people. Anyone who knows the basics of government, know they can't create jobs, unless they're government jobs. The only way they could "create" other jobs, is to lower corporate taxes and remove stupid regulations.

This scares Liberals, but it's more dangerous to have some companies totally exempt from the law, while government puts littler business out of business, with pointless fines. A good example is Obama cracking down on the coal industry- people are saying they may go out of business. Meaning, we'll end up burning more oil, even though there's only less than 50 years worth worldwide.

 

@STP, and while I consider myself a centerist-of-left with some liberal leanings we agree on some things.

I think there are a lot of programs in military spending that should be cut, and use to either pay down the debt or be reinvested in greating new technologies and jobs at home.

We all know this country seriously needs to reinvest in math, science, and start developing a better cyber, and electrical infrastructure but we haven't even come close to doing these things yet, and they make sense form a budgeting investment standpoint.

As for the foreign policy standpoint, I'm glad that so far the Syria situation seems to be defused. We both agreed that neither of us wanted to go stir up that hornet's nest.

---

Also which 2 terrorist attacks are you referring to? I don't think a mentally disturbed guy who snaps violently one day counts as terrorism, just a tragic workplace accident tied to mental health service failures in this country, partly due to Reagan slashing spending on mental health.

---

Also, I think you think, that I am fooled by the difference between the rhetoric and image of both parties on the civil rights issue VS the actual history.

I know, that both parties have been pro-business parties on the whole, and have at times screwed the labor movement of past decades despite what they say.

I also know that despite the label of "democrat and republican" both parties to a point reversed ideological platforms on certain issues and that is why there is a shift in the colors on electoral country maps from red to blue.

The Republican party USED TO be the progressive party, but they aren't any longer, and so their label means nothing to me, and I see the Democrats as the lesser of two evils.

You also know that I am a HUGE proponent of campaign finance reform as well so we can see other parties get to the national stage LIKE the Libertarian party. But I would like to see hopefully a moderate Libertarian party emerge that promotes freedom where it can but knows it can't get all it's platforms accomplished and is willing to compromise and hopefully break gridlock we find ourselves in.

The problem is Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, are not in their own party, they're under the umbrella label of a Republican, and they have to pass Republican primaries, which means they have to cater to the Tea party voter bloc.

That's why I keep saying here in these posts the terms tea party AND libertarian values.

Also some libertarian rhetoric sounds remarkably similar to what the Tea Party is saying on a range of issues, probably because there's an overlap in the political philosophy of Strict Constructivism of the Constitution.

 

Well, there's some things I agree with Liberals on. (ending the war on drugs and, government getting out of marriage.) But I also disagree majorly on other issues like the role of Government, spending and, taxes.

We def agree there. Military spending makes up over 1/2 of the budget. Other programs could be cut too, but Liberals also approve of alot of disasterous and expensive programs. (like the EPA, who sues farmers 10,000$ per day, for something as little as having the wrong tree in their yeard.)

I don't see this being the role of government, but once we abolish the military spending and waste, we'd have more money for humanitarian purposes. This is what Libertarians believe too. But I don't like government programs because like clockwork: the price goes up, quality goes down and, distribution goes way down. Government is a monopoly, therefore they can charge what they'd like. That's why Student loans are so high; The school knows the government will pay it no matter how high, and kids get stuck with the bill!

Unfortunatly, that's just political theatrics. If they weren't still going after syria they wouldn't be arming rebels and saying Syria is Obama's "top priority."
---

I could see that. I think some people are just crazy though, and may do this type of crazy stuff with or without mental help. Only one of them was actual terrorists.
http://rt.com/news/chicago-shooting-park-wounded-116/
But the main point was that the government can't protect everyone. They're using that as an excuse to take our freedom, I believe.
---
htt

Nah, I don't think that, man. I think (like most of us,) you're trying to make sense out of politics.

Sorry, but I don't agree. I think they have a better "play" to make people think they're different. When in reality, the main finances to Bush, Romney and, Obama we're Goldman Sachs and Jp Morgan. Obama has also perpetuated the war on terror.

I'm embarrassed to say I voted for him in 2008; he's the reason I realized Liberalism is no different than the status quo we already have.

I don't know if there is much room for compromise. Compromising is what got us here. Democrats and Republicans are working together to screw the people- they just have different type of government spending, to make them that money.

I think the government spends too much, and does too little. I don't think there truly is a "happy medium," I think overspending, devaluing our currency and constant war, is going to collapse our country. As this is nearly the same way Rome collapsed.

 

Careful on what you agree on, below is a comparison of the top 3 budget items beginning with Bush and continuing through Obama
Bush:
In FY2001 Defense spending was 19% ($357.3B) of the Federal budget, following Pensions, 26% ($468.5B), and Health care 21% ($387.2B).
In FY2002 Defense spending was 20% ($391.8B) of the Federal budget, following Pensions, 25% ($498.0B), and Health care 22% ($431.4B).
In FY2003 Defense spending was 22% ($458.1B) of the Federal budget, following Pensions, 23% ($494.9B), and Health care 22% ($466.3B).
In FY2004 Defense spending was 21% ($478.1B) of the Federal budget, following Pensions, 24% ($536.6B), and Health care 23% ($505.5B).
In FY2005 Defense spending was 23% ($555.9B) of the Federal budget, followed by Pensions, 23% ($549.6B), and Health care 23% ($546.8B).
In FY2006 Defense spending was 22% ($554.2B) of the Federal budget, following Health care 24% ($614.1B), and Pensions, 23% ($581.3B).
In FY2007 Defense spending was 23% ($634.6B) of the Federal budget, following Health care 24% ($672.9B), and followed by Pensions, 23% ($625.0B).
In FY2008 Defense spending was 25% ($726.1B) of the Federal budget, followed by Health care 23% ($672.3B), and Pensions, 23% ($657.0B).
Obama:
In FY2009 Defense spending was 26% ($805.0B) of the Federal budget, followed by Health care 23% ($712.7B), and Pensions, 22% ($695.5B).
In FY2010 Defense spending was 24% ($871.9B) of the Federal budget, followed by Health care 24% ($846.8B), and Pensions, 21% ($746.0B).
In FY2011 Defense spending was 24% ($928.5B) of the Federal budget, followed by Health care 23% ($898.0B), and Pensions, 20% ($780.8B).
In FY2012 Defense spending was 25% ($925.2B) of the Federal budget, followed by Health care 23% ($866.1B), and Pensions, 22% ($805.6B).
In FY2013 Defense spending was 24% ($901.4B) of the Federal budget, following Health care 24% ($916.1B), and followed by Pensions, 23% ($878.5B).
In FY2014 Defense spending is projected to be 22% ($830.9B) of the Federal budget, following Health care 26% ($973.6B), and Pensions, 24% ($921.2B).

 

Compromise is also what got us the great years of the 1950-60's economically speaking. Civil Rights speaking that was just getting underway.

No I still think compromise is a good thing. We disagree here.

Also when I said Republicans used to be Progressive, I was talking historically speaking to the time of Teddy Roosevelt and of that time, progressive in the sense of breaking rank with business special interests because TR, was pro-anti-trust laws.

 

Really?

 

Yes. It's messed up, considering most of them are average people, and can't afford the type of money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2X5-U8Fweg


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ight-on-70-fed-agencies-with-armed-divisions/

 

I'm very careful on what I agree on. However, I was just saying we can safely cut extensive amounts of military spending, and still have the best military.

But, I went on to say, that I believe technology spending isn't the role of the government.

 

But military spending does not make up over 1/2 the budget, nor was it the greatest budgetary item until Obama became President. But by making it so, makes it easier to promote its reduction, moving the spending from the military to entitlement programs instead of reducing the spending completely.

Spending cuts need to be made nearly everywhere, the people who earn the money ALWAYS spend it more rationally than does government.

I'm not disagreeing with you, only trying to get the numbers right.