Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Woody, that’s exactly where we were 50 years ago or so before the poor states started begging the federal government to help pay for education, healthcare, and just about everything else.

The rich states were turning out college educated professionals who brought more money to their states, and the poor states couldn’t do squat. They had the worst poverty rates, the worst educations, the worst life expectancies and most deaths at childbirth, etc, etc.

Republicans may consider those the good old days, but I’m going to fight it and I’m going to encourage my representatives to do the same.

Woody-

You do realize that you are advocating huge tax cuts for the wealthy and huge program cuts for Medicare and Medicaid?

But on this line of thinking, how about we use the Blue State anger to get rid of Grants and Cooperative Agreements awarded by the Federal Government to State and Local Governments? Julia and I discussed this one a couple of weeks ago, and here is an article from Chris Edwards at CATO. Grants have grown to over 18% of the budget and are nothing more than transferring funds from one State to another and usually without regard for need.

Or, let’s have a frank and bi-partisan discussion on our Federal Tax Code in general. Because there must be a better way….

It is kind of interesting … 50 years ago the “Red” states were generally Blue and poor. the “gubmint” stepped in and funded lots of programs to aid the economy and then the Blue states went Red because of the civil rights movement. Now the Blue States of today are beginning to realize that big government isn’t in their interest and that small government isn’t really what the Republicans seem to want after all.

What a tangled web we weave….

Geesh. Another post promoting how dumb us red states are and how brilliant the blue states are.
Just because we don’t think the govt controlling our lives is right, does not mean we don’t know what is “in our best interest.”

And now the godly blue staters wish to “punish” us dumb rednecks by using their tax dollars to only support those states who agree with them.
Ooo, I’m scared now.

Take away the red states federal money and who will it hurt the most?
The BLUE city people in a red state, who depend on the govt to live?
OR the dumb ole rednecks who can fend for themselves if they have too?

Truth is, the red states need the blue states and the blue states NEED the red states in order to sustain the way of life we have come to expect.

It’s The UNITED States of America
NOT
The “force you to think like us” States of America.

Tides change! In four years it will be the red states wanting to leave the socialist hillary land.

In the words of a well-known, violent drug addict: “Can’t we all just get along?”

This is interesting stuff. I think this knowledge that has been around for sometime and is being highlighted because of the recent election could have some huge consequences.

I have a question.

Who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts? And who will benefit more if the Bush tax cuts on those over 200k become permanent? I would theorize that it would be the Blue states because incomes are higher.

Anyone have any data or opinions on that?

This information could turn some conservatives into liberals and liberals into conservatives!! (At least fiscally).

Craig

Woody -

From your article link:

“No wonder the hot topic in Blueland is federalism, which now seems a source of, ahem, salvation. It starts with getting red states off the blue gravy train. But “the new federalism,” as Jonathan Taplin of the University of Southern California writes, could go further. “Ultimately,” Taplin says, “the citizens of the blue states have a right to live with clean air, efficient automobiles, good schools, honest corporations, and universal health care. Their desire to build a sustainable civilization is not a new quest.” Think of it as virtual secession without the Gettysburgs.”

This has actually been a Liberal topic of discussion in California since the Enron debacle when Dubya ignored our pleas for assistance. The government has been bleeding California dry and when we suddenly found ourselves in financial straits after Dubya took the rate caps off and let “Kenny Boy” Lay, his good buddy and largest campaign contributor rob us blind over the course of a summer, we couldn’t help asking ourselves why we should be giving 50 billion of our tax dollars away to the federal government every year when it took a single corporation stealing 9 billion dollars from our state to bankrupt us.
And I can’t tell you how many people who I’d never have thought would say such a thing start talking seriously about state secession since they’ve learned about all the glaring problems, too obvious coincidences, or outright disenfranchisment that occured in blue counties within red states in our past election.

Like the article says - why shouldn’t Californians demand to have clean air, good schools, honest corporations, and statewide health care? We’re already ranked as being among the largest economies in the World - we could definitely become a country of our own if the majority of people living here voted to secede from the Union.

Um, Adrienne, you do realize the doctrine of secession has kind of been discredited in the 1860s? In the very least, the civil war and the constitutional changes in its wake outlaw secession (outside of the type of “secession” contemplated in the Declaration of Independence upon showing of gross violation of human rights worthy of bloodshed and violence…)
In any case, I find all of this topic great- don’t throw us into the brier patch! Please, do not cut all of the wonderful social programs…. The bottom line is that even if the blue states subsidies the red states in aggregate, EVERYONE would be better off without these social programs. That is, the incredible amount wasted on the bureaucracy in administering these semi-socialist programs far outweighs the “gains” red states make via the unequal tax burden/benefit distribution. So slash away- the red states and blue states would benefit greatly. Maybe the blue states would benefit even more, but the only real losers will the giant government bureaucracy and the small segment of the population who is truely so irresponsible that the government can spend their money on them better than they can spend it themselves.

Adrienne:

There is another foot to fall. This data does suggest some changes. We are interconnected. California makes a few dollars exporting sexual material over the airwaves. If the red states were to enforce standards of decency in movies and on TV, and embargo all the indecent pornography etc. I would imagine California would loose more than the tax dollars saved.

I live in a blue state (Washington). I am just saying that there are consequences to economic wars that need to be thought through.

All the best,

Craig

Shedding tears in Kansas City.
Instead of wanting to work together as Americans, you guys are saying “its our way or no way.”
That is not what made the USA the greatest country in the world.

Right now, I would be ashamed to call you all my fellow Americans.

Misha:
“Um, Adrienne, you do realize the doctrine of secession has kind of been discredited in the 1860s? In the very least, the civil war and the constitutional changes in its wake outlaw secession (outside of the type of “secession” contemplated in the Declaration of Independence upon showing of gross violation of human rights worthy of bloodshed and violence…)”

Um, Misha, you do realize that when elections are no longer to be trusted we’re no longer living in America at all? Voter disenfrancisment is a gross violation of human rights.

You honestly believe that the so-called “Voter disenfrancisment” in the U.S. is so harsh that it would justify violent rebellion (which is the standard for seccession)? If you do, I dont know what much I can tell you except that you are on the extreme fringe if that is really your view…

Second, your argument is a red hearing. The abuses would have to be by the FEDERAL government in order to justify violent rebellion against the federal government. Otherwise, you are justified secession from the federal government based on alleged abuses by state officials. It sounds like you are just trying to make an argument, rather than trying meet the high threshold necessary to justify destroying the constitution (which is what would be required to leave the union given the post-civil war understanding of what America is).

Wow, I have really opened up a can of worms here. Here are my actual thoughts on some topics:

1) Screwing poor people in the Red States - I really, REALLY hope that this doesn’t happen. It may not be in the narrow interest of New York to send money to Arkansas, but Arkansas needs the money. Heck, I need the money. (How’s that for enlightened self-interest?) Take my observations in the spirit of someone wetting their finger to see which way the wind blows.

2) Tax cuts for the rich - I certainly wouldn’t advocate that at all. There may be some logic to the wealthy spending more money in their own states, but even that is morally questionable.

3) Secession - This is a ridiculous idea. It is unconstitutional, and dare I say, unAmerican. As another Woody sang, “This land is your land/ this land is my land/ from California/ to the New York islands…”

Now, California keeping more of it’s money is a little more reasonable, but it could also have tragic implications.

On the bigger point: there was a proposition at the constitutional convention that those with more money should have more votes. It sounds like the liberals, in the irony of all ironies, are not trying to bring back the same LOGIC of this reasoning in this proposal- its truely breathtaking. The reason blue states “pay more” than red states, is because there is more wealth- which means more wealthy individuals.

What this post is saying is that wealthy individuals, becaues they pay more in taxes, should have more say than poor individuals in the direction of government policies. I should hope everyone can see the amazing implications of this argument, and how it is not only against the very basis of democracy (one man, one vote- regardless of wealth), but against the entire project of the left as I understand it. Amazing.

Get over this!

People pay taxes. Regions do not. The richest half of the population pays almost ALL the income taxes. As Democrats are usually quick to point out, the rich vote Republican more often than the poor. According to CNN, 63% of those making over 200K a year voted for Bush. Among the 55% of American households that make more than 50K (yes, we are a rich country) a year, Bush won a clear majority, again according to CNN.

People not regions are also the beneficiaries of tax redistribution. Among the 45% of those making less, Kerry won and Kerry won 63% of those making less than $15,000. These guys pay little or no Federal income tax. Even if a low income taxpayer paid 100% of their income, he wouldn’t pay as much tax as single person earning even a “modest” $100,000.

So let’s be clear about this. It seems more than likely that Bush supporters paid more in total Federal taxes than Kerry supporters. I don’t have a problem with that, as a Bush supporter. By I am getting sick of the silly assertions that somehow the true blue Kerry supporters are subsidizing the dirty red Bushies. Given these tortured economic analyses I have been reading on the blue side, it is easy to explain why Republicans have more money than Democrats. They understand how economics works better, (i.e. they understand that people pay taxes, not regions and people get benefits not regions).

Craig:
“There is another foot to fall. This data does suggest some changes. We are interconnected. California makes a few dollars exporting sexual material over the airwaves. If the red states were to enforce standards of decency in movies and on TV, and embargo all the indecent pornography etc. I would imagine California would loose more than the tax dollars saved.”

Wrong. Hollywood sells more than just pornography - they sell every kind of entertainment. Besides, the whole World buys from Hollywood, not just America. And I daresay, they’d be able to sell even more entertainment to that market if they made a whole lot more movies and programs geared to more sophisticated tastes rather than what appeals to Red State America.
Besides, Hollywood isn’t California’s only source of revenue - we’re one of the leading food producers in the country. We also refine oil, and raise a whole lot of cattle, make and sell computers and have a tourist industry that simply won’t quit. My office is San Francisco - one of the most visited cities in the _entire World_. In the summer there are often people lined up for blocks to ride the cable cars near Union Square downtown. On the walking path of the Golden Gate Bridge, or in the Haight (of hippie fame), or North Beach (of Beatnik fame) or the Castro District (of Gay liberation fame) you’d think you were in a European city there are so many people visiting from around the World speaking different languages. And the astounding natural beauty of this state draws even more tourism - the beaches, the desert, the mountains, the Redwood Forests, Lake Tahoe, etc…

LOL! You’re all jumping on me, even though I wasn’t saying that _I_ thought we should secede - only that I’ve heard the topic discussed by people who are fed up with Dubya’s vision for America.

Adrienne:

“…we suddenly found ourselves in financial straits after Dubya took the rate caps off and let “Kenny Boy” Lay, his good buddy and largest campaign contributor rob us blind over the course of a summer…”

Perhaps you missed the entire decade of 1990-2000, during which Enron grew from a small regional company to an international company. Most if not all of Enron’s growth occurred during this time span, yet you focus on the course of one summer during which the Bush administration did NOT help Enron.

Let’s summarize:

1) Enron’s incredible growth occurred BEFORE Bush was in office

2) Enron asked for but did not receive help from Bush while he WAS President

3) Enron declared bankruptcy in the year of Bush’s presidency, in part because Bush did NOT bail out his “pal Kenny boy”

Out of this, please tell me how Bush created and caused the Enron’s problems?

To all:

The Red state/Blue state discussion is interesting but really just sour grapes. Our UNITED states don’t work in manner where each state gets an equitable apportionment. Neither do the people. If it did, we would essentially be communistic in that regard.

For instance, I don’t want to fund certain programs, yet my tax dollars are used for them anyway. Others may not want to fund programs that I like, but their tax dollars are used in part for them anyway.

This is the same obsequious argument that people make when they suggest that if you don’t like abortions, then you should adopt an infant. Or if you agree with a war, then you should volunteer for that war, regardless of your age.

It would be silly for me to suggest that since I dont want to pay for homeless shelters, that the govt should not use MY money for them. Or for any program you might want to pick. It just doesnt work that way.

Its just sour grapes by the losing party.

kctim, SHUT THE FRONT DOOR!

Shedding tears in Kansas City.
Instead of wanting to work together as Americans, you guys are saying “its our way or no way.”
That is not what made the USA the greatest country in the world.

Right now, I would be ashamed to call you all my fellow Americans.
What about Bush’s “our way or no way” attitude. Look at what he said on the 4th of this month. It took him all of one day to change his rhetoric from “reaching out to all Americans” to “reaching out to those who share our goals”. Hey guess what, 55 million Americans do NOT share his goals.
Democrats, in the past, have been more than willing to reach out and compromise, but this Administration has done nothing but step on the salubriousness and bipartisanship the left has tried to shown ever since he took office in 2001 and ESSPECIALLY after 9/11. He has abused our good will by taking vehement actions that disagree almost EVERY ONE of our core values. 59 million Americans may have voted for Bush for differing reasons (from values to simply not “trusting” Kerry enough…this can be seen in the current issue of TIME magazine), but EVERYONE who voted for Kerry did so for one reason: they could not in good faith vote for Bush. Thats right, 55 million AMERICANS where so disgusted with our President that they were willing to take a “flip flopping liberal” over the current President. I emplore you to refute this; its impossible. The only reason people vote against a sitting President is because they are so absolutely disenfranchised by the actions that person has taken that they feel they feel somebody else would do a better job.

You are ashamed to call us your fellow Americans? well Timmy, the feeling is mutual.

Uh, Nick?
Your post would probably mean more to me if I was a Bush supporter or if I believed that Bush ignoring everyones views was the right thing to do.

I was talking about being ashamed of those speaking of how great the blue states are and how dumb the red states are. How Calif. should cede from the union and stuff. I never said the “lefties.”
Now, if you happen to one of these people like I mentioned above, one who does not agree with our Constitution and our form of govt and who would rather give up and form your own little piece of “fantasy europe”, then I could care less if your ashamed of me being an American.

Yes, I am ashamed of these people who no longer believe in America or are not willing to defend her

Thanks Nicky.

Whoa — let’s cool the jets for a second.

kctim —

You’ve been saying some pretty inflammatory things about the posters here; I know you’re not a Red but I can see how you’d be mistaken for one based on the posts you’ve left.

Nobody here is suggesting secession or keeping money from Red States. It’s all hypothetical stuff based on economics and demographics — what COULD happen. Nobody really wants the farmers to go under because we’d all starve.

Nick —

How about the “critique the message, not the messenger?” If we’re to have any real discussion we’ve got to respect each others’ rights to opinions.

Jbod:
“please tell me how Bush created and caused the Enron’s problems?”

Enron robbed Californian’s of 9 billion dollars and bankrupted the state - they couldn’t have done so without Dubya taking the rate caps off the moment he stepped into the Whitehouse. It was payback for “Kenny Boy” his personal largest contributor in his Texas gubernatorial race and one of his “money raising pioneers” in his race for the Whitehouse. When Gray Davis asked for assistance in the midst of our meltdown (when old people in Southern California had to suffer 100 degree days with constantly occurring blackouts in power) and the state was quickly going down the drain, Dubya did NOTHING to stop what everyone in the country recognized was blatant corporate theft. No doubt he turned his back because it was a blue state with a then Democratic governor.

How would you like to be mugged on a street corner in broad daylight while a cop sitting on that corner refuses to put down his donut and get out of the squad car to apprehend the criminal?
That’s what having Enron bankrupt California was like.
In the tape recorded conversations of Enron employees which were subsequently discovered, they laugh about how great it is that Bush gave the company the opportunity to rob us blind.

joebag:

obsequious- Full of or exhibiting servile compliance; fawning.
I’m sorry for playing word Nazi, but I’m studying for my GREs and can’t help myself when I see a questionable use of words.

On a related note (so my post doesn’t get deleted for being a non-sequitor), our griping may be “sour grapes”, but it still deserves merit and consideration. Obviously democrats realize SOMETHING is wrong, but it does not behoove you to write off our comments as simply complaining from the losing team. This is not a game of football; the direction of our country and our party is too important to be written of as such.

Alejo,
Duely noted, I appologize.

2000-2008 “Obviously democrats realize SOMETHING is wrong”
1992-2000 “Obviously, republicans realize SOMETHING is wrong”

In the 90’s, democrats wrote off concerns presented by republicans. Today, republicans write off concerns by democrats.
I guess it really doesn’t matter whos rights are violated anymore, as long as my parties in control, I will support it.

United we stand, divided we fall.
We are divided.

ahhhh….political discourse is fun….

the passion…the vitriole, the spark, the idealogy, the sass….

you guys make life worth living…

Adrianne-

I don’t think there were any rate caps in effect for CA when GW took office. While there had been an emergency order from DOE to keep suppliers from not selling to CA due to their financial concerns, the FERC had removed any caps in December prior to Bush entering office.

Bush did allow the emergency order to expire (it had been extended once), but that order was not price caps. They were already removed.

Misha:
“You honestly believe that the so-called “Voter disenfrancisment” in the U.S. is so harsh that it would justify violent rebellion (which is the standard for seccession)?”

Yes, I do.
With Diebold voting machines with no paper trail, this alone is reason enough think that our votes may have been stolen. (Especially since the head of the company made a statement promising to win Ohio for Bush) But there is much more - there are Democratic counties in Ohio where it is impossible to believe that Democrats would vote 75% for Bush, and it is now known that it was only in the Democratic-majority counties where there were not enough voting machines sent to those districts.
You’ll hear none of this in the press, but they now have raised the huge fee to do a recount in Ohio because people are totally freaking out. They held a meeting last week and so many people (thousands) who felt disenfranchised during the election showed up to have their statements written down, it became a total circus.

“If you do, I dont know what much I can tell you except that you are on the extreme fringe if that is really your view…”

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
Thomas Jefferson

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…
The Declaration of Independence

If I’m on the fringe, then I’m in very good company.

“the FERC had removed any caps in December prior to Bush entering office.
Bush did allow the emergency order to expire (it had been extended once), but that order was not price caps. They were already removed.”

Clinton had negotiated that extention - it was up to Bush to get the rate caps back, he didn’t.

Adrienne

I don’t believe in the blue/red formulation re taxes for reasons I have stated above, and I know this is a joke, but let’s play the game. .

If you are talking about succession, consider that during the actual succession, the State of Virginia, the most important state in the Confederacy, suffered its own partition because the western, more rural, part didn’t agree. California would be the leading State in the new confederacy and suffers the same sort of geographic divisions, except in this case the eastern part doesn’t agree.

A look at the attached (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/index.html) map of California counties shows how that might work. You don’t even get to take Orange, Ventura, San Diego and St Luis Obispo with you, not to mention Kern, Riverside and San Bernardino. But – hey – you get to keep south central Los Angles. What is all this about tax revenue?

Adr- you sound very much like my former “allies” in my more partisan years who were convinced the Bill Clinton had sold military secrets to china for campaign contributions. Maybe either you or them are right, but I have chosen to be fairer to all sides, while still maintaining my principles. I believe the approach of imputing incredibly bad motives to your political opponents and believing the most drastic theories based on circumstantial evidence (at BEST!) is a very dangerous way to be- and undermines our ability to live as a nation based on civil dicourse.

The fact that you actually advocated that the current situation would JUSTIFY armed rebellion against our government illustrates to me that you have gone a little too far down the partisan path… mabye you are right, maybe my former allies on the far right are correct- but i highly doubt it. At least, for the sake of our nation I will continue to believe that civic discourse is the best way to go, even when there are some people who refuse to listen on key issues.

I’m surprised no-one on this thread has responded to Jack’s excellent comment explaining the truth behind the statistics.

As long as the majority of Federal income sharing is on a personal basis, tax cuts will not address the regional imbalance in payouts. The only way to address it would be to give each state a block grant of appropriate size (say $XYZ per inhabitant) and let them distribute it according to state laws.

However effective that might be, it strikes me as a very un-American way to do things. We were founded on the premise of individual - not regional - equality, and our federal system of government was designed to give people maximum freedom and maximum say in their own governance. Our individual basis is true now more than ever, as people move freely and frequently from state to state.

The fallacy of regional dichotomy is a symptom of network television & their cute maps and should be debunked once and for all! As Woody will attest, almost half of Arkansans voted for John Kerry. That’s not Red - that’s Purple, just like the rest of America.

Adrienne:

Sigh. We better invent yet another way of voting. It is important for our democracy that voters have confidence in the process. In 2000 it was hanging chads, now this.

So my vote is that as a country we take another look at the voting process. Isn’t the key problem no paper trail???

Craig

jack:

“let’s play the game.”

No, I’d rather not go there. Because like I said, _I’m_ not in favor of a California secession. You’d need to have that argument with some of my acquaintances who think it might be a good idea.
All I’m advocating is the idea that we should stand up and fight if we discover that our votes haven’t been being fairly and accurately counted in _our_ United States.

what i find funny is that texas has dreamt of secession for oh, ever….

now that some folks want the liberal states to break away…everyone is in a tizzy….

it’s all just rhetoric and frustration kids…no one is gonna break away…the world is not going to end, let’s all take a deep breath…

by the way….just got my canadian citizenship infopak….way cool….did you know they have a prime minister? how sweet! it’s like england or something….

There is no real reason to believe the votes were systemically miscounted. I use the modifier because elections are not that precise. I am sure some votes were miscounted, but it as likely to have been Democratic as Republican votes.

This election worked out more or less as the opinion polls (not the exit polls) had predicted - a slight, but consistent edge for George Bush. I watched those polls carefully (as you probably did). If you took the major polls together, the Bush lead went up and down, but Kerry only led for a very short time and never got above the 50% level. Bush, on the other had led most of the time, sometimes by a lot and he did get above 50%. None of the states that went for Bush was a surprise and Bush won by nearly four million votes. Fraud big enough to change the election would have to be very large and therefore easy to detect. I know the mythmakers are already at work and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

By the way, there is something humorous about contemporary liberals advocating armed rebellion. It is like me kicking sand in Mike Tyson’s face. Are we going to have to face the vegan task force or the feminist militia first? I suppose they could renew their NRA membership before they go once more into the breach.

Misha:
“I believe the approach of imputing incredibly bad motives to your political opponents and believing the most drastic theories based on circumstantial evidence (at BEST!) is a very dangerous way to be- and undermines our ability to live as a nation based on civil dicourse.”

Bullsh*t. There is a very dangerous game being played, but it ain’t the Democrats anyone needs to worry about, now is it?

Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush should be rotting in jail right now because of election 2000. That wasn’t circumstantial, it is a fact of common knowledge that they purged the voter lists 57,700 voters from Florida’s vote registries illegally.
The official reason was that those who were targeted were felons and ex-cons who had illegally registered to vote. But the truth is, virtually every voter they scrubbed from those rolls was innocent of any crime - except for the crime of voting while
black — and we know this because Florida’s voter registration roles include each citizen’s race. We also know that in Florida, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found that a black vote was nearly 10 TIMES as likely as a white vote to be rejected in that election.
You need to read Greg Palast’s book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” to get the story in detail - no doubt that is what future historians will be reading when they want to find out exactly what happened in 2000.
As for this one, well, the Republican win for Bush is _circumstantial_ at best - SINCE THERE ISN”T A PAPER TRAIL TO VERIFY IT. Only a lot of very pissed off people, and an exit poll that tells us that Kerry might have won.

“The fact that you actually advocated that the current situation would JUSTIFY armed rebellion against our government illustrates to me that you have gone a little too far down the partisan path…”

I’m not trying to justify armed rebellion - yet.

“At least, for the sake of our nation I will continue to believe that civic discourse is the best way to go, even when there are some people who refuse to listen on key issues.”

Did you know that the 2002 “Help America Vote Act” was a radical change in our democracy?
Did you know that until it was passed, voter rolls throughout America have been maintained by county officials watched over by bi-partisan committees?
Did you know that now the job of deciding who can and can’t vote will fall to a single official, namely the “Katherine Harris” of any state?
Did you know that the “Help America Vote” money is to convince states and counties to adopt computerized ‘touch-screen’ voting?
Did you know that 300 of America’s top computer academics, led by Professor David Dill of Stanford University, have drafted and signed a petition warning of the treacherous potential of electronic voting?

Civil discourse, my ass. I think its long past time for Liberals to wake up.

Adrienne
Did you really say Greg Palast? Cool.
He is a guest on The Alex Jones show alot.
Lots of Palast, diebold and Iraq archives at:
infowars.com

By the way, there is something humorous about contemporary liberals advocating armed rebellion. It is like me kicking sand in Mike Tyson’s face. Are we going to have to face the vegan task force or the feminist militia first? I suppose they could renew their NRA membership before they go once more into the breach.

…but of course I’m not advocating violence OR succession. I just felt like I had to make a derogatory refute so jack didn’t feel alone.

I have learned the hard way that there is nothing you can say to a true believer- since they have already finished the thinking part and have now moved onto to the angry-yelling part. There are those of this type on the left and the right. I used to be one of those- i feel pretty silly about it now. Sorry I bothered.

“I have learned the hard way that there is nothing you can say to a true believer- since they have already finished the thinking part and have now moved onto to the angry-yelling part.”

More Bullshit. I can take any and all putdowns you rightwing boys dish out. I’m no shrinking violet.
True believer - rubbish. That’s why I always vote Green in all my state and local elections, because I’m such a die-hard, pre-programmed, robot for the Democrats.

“Sorry I bothered.”

Sorry you did too, since you haven’t anything to actually say about how our civil right to vote is being flushed down the toilet by a bunch of sneaky neo-con bastards.
We are heading toward dictatorship inch by inch, and few American’s seem to realize, or even care. Why is this?

Did any of you read how they just changed the law so that Tom Delay can keep his position, even if he is indicted of crimes?
If this keeps up, I may end up doing what Rob (whose posts always make me laugh) seems to be contemplating - leaving my beloved country altogether. I’ve got relatives in Scotland, I suppose I could always go there if I have to. But it really depresses me to think that I have to return to the homeland my Grandparents left after being inspired by the words of Thomas Paine.
[sigh]

Woody, I apologize if you feel I’ve derailed your article.
Carry on, gents.

Adrienne

Have you ever been to Scotland? It is a beautiful place in the middle of summer, less so other times of the year. I am not sure you could get a work permit there or find work in your chosen profession.

Nobody took away your right to vote. Your guy just lost by a relatively small, but completely decisive percentage.
As for the general civil rights, most European countries have less extravagant rights than Americans. Often you have to prove your innocence, instead of the state proving you guilty and the police have greater authority to detain and interrogate suspects. Most also have some form of national identity cards and the police can ask you to produce it. I don’t say these things to show that the U.S. is superior. On the contrary, the Euro system works better than ours in many situations and we could certainly learn from each other. I think the Euro experience shows that the U.S. could still be a free democracy if we were to be a little stricter in enforcing our laws.

Civil rights in Europe are considerably less—across the board—than in the United States. The idea that they’re greater is basically a myth of the American left, based largely on more permissive drug laws and legalized prostitution in a handful of places.

In France, as in much of Europe, you can be censored quite easily for criticizing the goverment or public figures. Under the guise of “libel” laws or “hate speech” regulations, all sorts of things are routinely banned or just made
not available as a result of self-censorship. Take Kitty Kelly’s book on the royals, for example, which has been effectively banned in the UK. In Germany, Italy and Austria (as a result of their history) voicing right-wing political views is actually illegal.

Could you imagine the US passing a law that forbids little Muslim girls from wearing headscarves? We hear little about the actual censorship policies in Europe—because, after all, it’s Europe, which means “better in every way” to the American left.

And something like this would not be tolerated for a second in the US.

Nick: Thanks for the correction on my use of the word obsequious. Even as I typed it, I wondered if it was the correct word, but was too lazy to look it up. Thanks for the catch.

Adrienne:

Wow, you do a great job of finding blame for George Bush in EVERY possible circumstance. Enron grows during Clinton’s tenure, yet it is Bush’s fault. Gray Davis is such a horrible governor that he loses a recall to an ACTOR, and you blame Bush for the California financial problems.

What’s the next headline? Bush causes cancer? Bush causes the war of 1812?

Enquiring minds want to know, and I;ll just bet you have the inside scoop, Adrienne.

ummmm…hey joe….

it’s your people trying to pass an constitutional amendment to let that ACTOR run for president….

and yes..bush caused cancer.

Reactions to various comments…

Geesh. Another post promoting how dumb us red states are and how brilliant the blue states are.

Uh, actually, I believe I referred to Blue Staters as “saps”.

Tides change! In four years it will be the red states wanting to leave the socialist hillary land.

We shall see. Actually, I hope it’s not Hillary who turns America into a Socialist paradise (haha). This royalist trend creeps me out.

[CA is] already ranked as being among the largest economies in the World - we could definitely become a country of our own if the majority of people living here voted to secede from the Union.

Taking this idea of secession seriously for a minute — it would probably be a death blow to Democratic Party. If Blue States really wanted to secede, and I don’t think this is likely or desirable, they would have to do it en masse.

People pay taxes. Regions do not.

You have point there, Jack.

People not regions are also the beneficiaries of tax redistribution.

Not exactly. I doubt that most people ever get a check from the federal government (except for their tax return) until they retire.

You didn’t mention politics, but note that states select senators and the prez.

It seems more than likely that Bush supporters paid more in total Federal taxes than Kerry supporters… Given these tortured economic analyses I have been reading on the blue side, it is easy to explain why Republicans have more money than Democrats.

You may be right about the individual level, but I think you are off base calling this a tortured analysis, and pinning it on the Dems. Our whole federal system is based on the relationship between the central government and states, and it isn’t just Democrats who analyze federal expenditures this way. Notice where the article is published: Fortune.

Its just sour grapes by the losing party.

It may strike you that way JBOD, but there are real macroeconomic forces at work here, and they are bigger than you, me, or even George Bush. If this disparity continues, something’s gonna give.

California would be the leading State in the new confederacy and suffers the same sort of geographic divisions, except in this case the eastern part doesn’t agree…

I like your idea of Blue California, Jack. It kinda looks like Chile. :) I don’t buy your premise that the red part has more money though. Look at all of the oceanfront property in Blueland. In any case, I think a North/South division is much more realistic.

The fallacy of regional dichotomy is a symptom of network television & their cute maps and should be debunked once and for all! As Woody will attest, almost half of Arkansans voted for John Kerry. That’s not Red - that’s Purple, just like the rest of America.

I actually stood in line with 6000 other Arkansans to see Bubba in Little Rock shortly before the election. He gave a great speech, but we got our ass kicked anyway.

It is true that most states are pretty much purple. Still, you have to admit that the 2000 and 2004 electoral maps are remarkably similar.

Woody, I apologize if you feel I’ve derailed your article.

No problem. It is always interesting to see how things get “derailed”. I’ll post a silly satire piece about boobs and people end up talking about gerrymandering or something.

Woody,

I’ve seen some support expressed lately for exactly this type of proposition, and I for one, am completely on board!

We should organize our own Club For Growth!!

We will go after the corporate tax loopholes, the farm subsidies and ban bailouts for airlines. We’ll certainly have support for cutting off aid to France, Germany and the UK, and if Condi Rice won’t bother going to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace, why should we send our hard earned money either?

Don’t know where you stand on a flat tax, but nothing says bi-partisan than hooking up with a Steve Forbes, right?

We could simultaneously solve the illegal immigration problem, because there will be no more social services for them to mooch off of. And, we can just liquidate Social Security, do a massive payout, and just start all over with an IPO roll out!

You in?

THE BIG PICTURE

Looking at all of the responses, I realized there are two ways to look at the paradox I laid out. There is the partisan, combative way, but as George and Bert (sarcastically?) pointed out there is also the potential for cooperation. We all acknowledge that the deficit needs to be contained (even if some like to pretend that tax cuts “don’t count”). We also all acknowledge that at least some government spending is wasteful. And as the red/blue paradox illustrates, it is in the interest of “donor state” liberals to fight red-state pork, just conservatives have battled programs that mostly benefit liberal city-dwellers. We could see some interesting coalitions forming. Maybe the next time a bloated farm bill comes up, it will be defeated by a coalition of fiscal conservatives and pragmatic New England Democrats. (Coming soon: Hillary Clinton, Deficit Hawk)

I am about to unload the mother of all political cliches, but we may actually see a coalition against business as usual in Washington.

I with you Woody; if we get the hostility pointed towards the in-the-beltway crowd and off of each other we might get something accomplished.

I was reading this post with interest when I came across a reference to Woody Guthrie, who I am a big fan of. I thought the entire text of This Land is your Land might be appropiate for those that don’t know it.

This land is your land, this land is my land
From [the] California to the [Staten] New York Island,
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters,
[God blessed America for me.]
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
And saw above me that endless skyway,
And saw below me the golden valley, I said:
[God blessed America for me.]

I roamed and rambled and followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts,
And all around me , a voice was sounding:
[God blessed America for me.]

Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing —
[God blessed America for me.]

When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
In wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling;
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting:
[God blessed America for me.]

One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple
By the Relief Office I saw my people —
As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering if
[God blessed America for me.]

Woody lived through the Depression,and the Dust Bowl and wandered from Texas to California with migrant workers. This time period had a profound effect on Americans. I think though we have collectively lost that memory. He often wrote about the hippocrasy of those of wealth and power, and their lack of Humanity that their position of privelege often led them to.

Red and Blue are to me the colors of wealth and power and neither really speak to me. Michael Moore’s movies often speak of this same message.

Most of the people that Wooody sang and wrote about didn’t vote, because there really isn’t a party that represents them. They don’t generally type out sophisticated thoughts on a computer, because neither Bush nor Kerry offered them much of anything, but power brokers fighting over territory and imagery.

Grants have grown to over 18% of the budget and are nothing more than transferring funds from one State to another and usually without regard for need.

You raise a good point here, George. Some of the people who responded to this post (and myself, to some degree) seem to be assuming that the money in question is going from the “haves” to the “have nots”. That is really a pretty naive assumption. Most farm aid, for example, goes to large agribusinesses, not the struggling family farm people like to talk about. Similarly, Social Security, while a good program, does go to a lot of people who don’t need it.* In short, you can be a progressive and be against wasteful government spending. You may want to increase total government spending, but direct more of it to the “have nots”.

Greg, you have a good point about the song “This Land is Your Land” not being as sunny as people think. As many people have observed, the dirt farmers he sang about then were largely Democrats, but their descendants are now largely Republicans. A fascinating development that I don’t think anyone completely understands.

*When Social Security was first set up, poverty was much more common in old age. Now it is really more of a problem of youth.

Jack:
“Have you ever been to Scotland?”

Yes, its a gorgeous place. I love both it, and my relatives who still live there. When I see them its always wonderful. I like how the older ones will often introduce me to their friends as “being from the Colonies”, which I think is very amusing.

“It is a beautiful place in the middle of summer, less so other times of the year.”

Its no different in the winter than, say living in Washington state. Lots of rain and wind, but I’ve never minded that. It is dark there in the winter, but thats compensated for by the people and later, by the long summer twilights, which are magical. Getting to see the aurora borealis is pretty awesome, too.

“I am not sure you could get a work permit there or find work in your chosen profession.”

Like I said, I’ll only go if I feel I _have_ to. In that event, I’d work it out - its easier when you have family who know people and will help you to do things the right way. As for work, I’d figure that out, too. I’ve got choices there, because I have family living in Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as the rural Highlands along the coast.

“Nobody took away your right to vote.”

Our votes are only good when the machines are good. And I feel we must all deal with the question the machines because they have no paper trails and are being obtained through corporations - especially when those corporations are owned by people who make no secret of their partisan leanings.
Personally, I think its time for us to monkey wrench those touch screen machines, because until they are gone, the validity of our elections will always be in question.

Then there is the “Help America Vote Act” - I consider this to be another opposite-meaning moniker like “Healthy Skies Initiative” since in each state it takes away bi-partisan committees and replaces them with a single individual with a partisan slant now having the power to determine who gets to be on the voter rolls.
This is a radical change and it is very Unamerican - we should all be demanding that they keep the bi-partisan committees.

I also think it is extremely suspicious that in a state where the voting commisioner was a Republican that only districts with a higher percentage of Democrats ended up receiving too few machines - so few in fact, that some people ended up waiting in lines for 8 to 12 hours.

All these things taken together adds up to a situation where I believe our votes are being stolen. And I don’t want to live in a country where that is considered okay.

“Your guy just lost by a relatively small, but completely decisive percentage.”

Without a paper trail, I’m not convinced and never will be.
Besides, since exit polls have historically been the most reliable ones there are, why should that suddenly not be the case?

So far only Democratic voters are asking themselves these questions, but I don’t understand why the Republicans aren’t getting upset about all this, too. I mean, do you really want to live in a country where there is no longer a balance of power? Hasn’t that been what has always kept those who rule American government from becoming too corrupt?

Misha,
The object is to never give up hope. All you have to do is just change the mind of one person. I came close to being an angry liberal zealot (kctim can attest to that in some of my posts immediately following the election). I’m glad we both were able to see the error of our ways. Even if our ideologies haven’t changed it is always a good idea to take a more magnanimous position. Our conflicts can hopefully be resolved through peaceful discourse.

Woody wrote:
“It is always interesting to see how things get “derailed”. I’ll post a silly satire piece about boobs and people end up talking about gerrymandering or something.”

Funny! And true.

Rob:

it’s your people trying to pass an constitutional amendment to let that ACTOR run for president….

Two things:

1) My “people” are my family and friends, and none of them is involved in any constitutional processes.

2) More importantly, what in the world does Arnold running for President or not running for President have to do with anything I said. Perhaps you were just looking for something clever to say. Good luck in find it.

Adrienne
“So far only Democratic voters are asking themselves these questions, but I don’t understand why the Republicans aren’t getting upset about all this, too.”

- Because their guy won.
If kerry would have won, the Republicans would be screaming about the votes and the Democrats would be the ones turning a blind eye.

Same thing happens when dealing with issues.
Democrats scream about losing their rights under the patriots acts, but yet don’t care about losing their 2nd Amendment rights.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are screaming about their 2nd Amendment rights while saying, “I don’t care about illegal searches, I’ve got nothing to hide.”

Blind party loyalty is more important than all of our “rights” in todays world.

jbod:

touche my friend…touche….

didn’t mean to attack you on that, sorry it it came out that way…

i am however, disturbed by the whole amendforarnold movement….

but i’m probably more disturbed by republicans changing the rules of their party to let delay stay in control, even if he’s convicted of a felony.

well….tom…technically you wouldn’t be able to vote anymore…but how’s about you help run the country.

god bless america….

(and yeah jbod, i’m always lookin for something funny to say….it’s a crutch…..im workin on it.)

rob —

I could be wrong about this, but didn’t they just hcange the rules so he could remain majority leader if indicted? I think if he’s convicted he goes to jail with Jim Trafficant. (I’m not saying the rule change is okay but “innocent until proven guilty” is one of our most important precepts — besides, it would be a perfect ploy by the Democrats to level false charges in order to unseat him.)

yer right alejo…my mistake.

kctim:
“If kerry would have won, the Republicans would be screaming about the votes and the Democrats would be the ones turning a blind eye.”

I don’t think so Tim, its only those of us on the Left (Democrats, Greens and Reform Party) that seem to be upset about touch-screen voting machines that can be hacked with a laptop.
Those three hundred top computer academics I cited earlier are convinced that voting fraud is beyond easy to do - and can be done in seconds.
I think that’s something everyone should be freaking out about, because if people continue to get the impression that our elections are easy to rig, and with no reprecussions because there is no proof, more and more people are going to start hacking to get the result they happen to partisanly favor. Disastrous for democracy.

“Democrats scream about losing their rights under the patriots acts, but yet don’t care about losing their 2nd Amendment rights.”

You keep saying this, but I haven’t seen any amendments to the Constitution proposed by Democrats with the aim of abridging the Second Amendment. All they wanted to do was ban assault weapons because they’re nothing but barbaric. For instance, what is the difference between them and a hand grenade - besides the fact that the grenade takes out property along with multiple human lives?
I don’t understand how you gun-lovers could want to defend those things when most of the time it is complete nutters who actually think of using them.

“Meanwhile, the Republicans are screaming about their 2nd Amendment rights while saying, “I don’t care about illegal searches, I’ve got nothing to hide.”

But they’re the only ones currently trying to pass two different amendments (Straight Marriage and Arnold for Pres.) to the Constitution, y’know? And they’re the ones who wrote the unconstitutional provisions into the Patriot Act, and made the changes that affect fair voting proceedures with the Help America Vote Act, thinking we wouldn’t notice or even care.
Its the Republicans who seem to be _actively_ trying to change the Constitution to suit themselves and their agendas.

“Blind party loyalty is more important than all of our “rights” in todays world.”

Not to me. But then, I’m not blindly loyal to a Party. I’m simply a generalized Liberal-thinker hoping that other liberal party’s will one day have a chance to rise in America.

Adrienne
Thanks for your reply.
In a way, it underlines the point I was trying to make.

Please don’t assume that the Dems and such are the only ones questioning the voting equipment. Many of us read Palast, visit sites like infowars and have been concerned about this for some time. The only reason you are not hearing more from these groups is because Bush won.

Amendments abridging the 2nd Amendment? No. Democrats have not proposed one yet. Outright violating it? Yes. In to many instances to count.
You do not care about the 2nd Amendment so therefore, infringing on it really means nothing to you. But to the rest of us, registering and banning are violating our right to bear arms. We know that without that right, the other rights will fall like dominoes.
Would it be fair for me to say that “only the complete left wing nutters are worried about their 4th Amendment rights being violated.”
No. ALL of our rights are sacred.

“But they’re the only ones currently trying to pass two different amendments (Straight Marriage and Arnold for Pres.) to the Constitution, y’know?”
- And liberal judges are constantly using their personal opinions when ruling.
I was not trying to defend the Republicans with my statements.

All I’m trying to say is that all of our rights are important.
With this two party paradigm thinking, people are willing to sacrifice some rights for others. We should not be willing to sacrifice any rights, even if our personal views do not agree with them.

2 cents about the constitutional discussion.
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms but says nothing about owning WMDs, AK47s, or military tanks in suburbia. Likewise, the 4th amendment protects our the right to be free from unreasonable searches & seizures, a right that can be, and is frequently, infringed when it is reasonable to do so (sometimes, lately, even when it is not reasonable). Similarly, the 1st amendment does not protect our speech if used to incite violence, yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, or libel our neighbor.
My point is that none of these rights are absolute or “sacred.” Rights are balanced against other rights. While registering guns and background checks may be a pain, and somewhat intrusive, so is security screening at the airport. Yet, no one suggest that we should not protect ourselves against the crazies who crash planes into buildings. We try to find the right balance, and adjustments are often made.
One problem is the “slippery-slope” fear promoting by the NRA, insisting that any regulation is really a conspiracy to take guns away completely (the domino theory). This keeps many gun supporters from engaging in a rational discussion of how best balance the rights of gun ownership against the need to keep “bad guys” from blowing away children and cops. Why is it bad to outlaw AK 47’s? Is it true that a terrorist can now go to a gun show and buy one? Who needs fingerprint-proof handles? (You cannot convince me that marketing gimmick is aimed at hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts.)
Anyway, we need to find ways to put some rationality back into the discourse. How to best keep weapons out of the hands of drug dealers, criminals, terrorists, and kids with visions of Columbine? Law-abiding gun owners, it seems to me, could add practical information for the development of sound public policy in this area.

Going back to the original topic. Something very strange IS happening but nothing like a potential civil war. Many liberals I talk to really believe that Bush will damage our country beyond repair. That is why they are so depressed right now. They don’t feel that someone has “won” the election but that we have all lost—and possibly permanently. This is what they believe and I worry that they might be right. Since the election I’ve seen my liberal friends suddenly hope for Bush to break the federal government (which he seems to be well on his way to doing). This will free up their taxes to go to their individual State and local community. We need another tax cut—cut it to the bone, they say! Bankrupt the federal government. Let’s build up the State. My liberal friends are talking about buying guns and learning how to use them! I assure you it is not for civil war. They are suddenly more interested in local and State politics in order to strengthen their own State and local community. This is a strange atmosphere that I haven’t detected before (and I’m old). All will have to learn to live with less, but this may well cause an eroding of the economy of the States with less money and heartbreaking poverty, mass migration, etc. The State I live in is quite diverse in industry and as it has been said could sustain itself. Liberals probably spend too much time thinking about our nation and not enough about their local community. We might be headed for a change here. Some may get hurt but it could happen that everyone becomes more self reliant.

kctim —

You talk about the Second Amendment a lot so I’m sure you can help me with this question (keeping in mind that I believe in protecting our right to own guns): The Amendment says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Now, reading that literally, I should be allowed to keep hand grenades, ricin, and a suitcase nuke in my garage, and mount a Howitzer on my porch. Do you agree? Because regulation of any sort can be seen as infringement.

Jo-

To own an AK 47, M-16, Uzi or any other fully automatic weapon:

-You must be a U.S. citizen over 21 years of age.
-You must live in a state that allows Class 3 weapons.
-You must be clear of any felonies as verified by an F.B.I. background check.
-You must submit a fingerprint card and two passport photos, which are kept on file by the BATF.
-You must obtain a signature from your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer verifying that you have no felony indictments pending against you, and are mentally stable.
-You must pay a one-time federal tax of $200 for each automatic weapon purchased.

Alejo-

The complete text is actually:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While the Federal Government does have the right to regulate interstate commerce, regulation of firearms is primarily a State and local issue. Let’s keep it that way.

Alejo and Jo
I was not trying to make this a 2nd Amendment topic. I was only trying to show how people care about some of their rights and are willing to sacrifice others to keep those they agree with.
This is part of the blue and red state idea problem. Two different ways of life.

I will say this though, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or targets, it was put into the Constitution to protect us against a tyrannical govt.
So yes Alejo, you should be allowed to own what arms you wish, without any govt interference.
FYI: You know adding ricin and nukes to your list is a stretch, but it is one I have seen before. Both are specialized weaponary and by using them against the people, the govt would be defeating its purpose of total control over us.
Both are also prone to leakage, thus causing harm to others without human intervention. AK47’s, handguns and yes, even howitzers do not and cannot cause harm on their own.

As I said, I’m not trying to make this topic a 2nd Amendment issue. Simply classifing people who believe in it as irrational only proves the point I was trying to make:
People are willing to give up rights they don’t agree with in order to protect the ones they do agree with.

P.S.
I only bring up the 2nd Amendment because it is one that I am very familiar with. As people on the left obviously believe it is evil and not needed anymore, I will try to avoid any further mention of this right.
As I believe in ALL of our rights, this will be hard. But I will try.

kctim —

Since it looks like this thread is about played out anyway, let’s continue the Second Amendment discussion, what do you say?

Okay, so we can infringe rights to the extent that other people are protected from lethal contamination, you agree. What if I want to keep a ton and a half of black powder in my garage? By itself, it’s pretty inert, but given a spark it could take out the whole block. Am I still within my rights? Or am I then infringing on the rights of my neighbors to live in safety?

The point I’m trying to make here is that I don’t think protecting ALL rights is as clear-cut as you’d like it to be. Given that our rights are always infringed to some extent to protect us from each other, it’s not difficult (from my point of view) to justify restrictions on, say, automatic weapons. Now, does that mean I shouldn’t be able to buy Talon rounds for my pistol? I don’t think so, because it can be argued that my regular copper jacketed 9mm round might not be enough to stop an attacker. I don’t necessarily need to blow his limbs off but it would be nice to know I’ve done more than piss him off.

Alejo
Black powder is not specialized weaponary. People store gasoline and other explosive materials in their garages all the time, but since they are not affiliated with guns, nobody minds.
How does banning automatic weapons protect us from each other?
Serial killers primarily use knives to kill their victims and more times than not, they kill alot more people than a guy with a gun does when he goes on a rampage. Why do we not ban knives?

Its only common sense to know that the founders had no clue that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons would ever be created. But those are not weapons that would be used to protect us from govt. Restricting and banning the weapons that we would need only makes the govt less afraid of the people.

I know, I’m a crazy wacko. Our “honest” govt would never do anything against the people. But let me play alittle game:
Today, many of you on the left are complaining about our facist regime lead by Bush. How its the end of our country and all of our rights. How even living in a socialist country would be better than living here.(laughable? yes, but you have read the same things I have)
Now, lets pretend that the left is even slightly correct. What can be done to stop the evil Republicans?
Registration has turned your right to own a weapon into a priviledge. The govt knows where to get them.
Banning weapons has made the playing field unequal. You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.
Sure you all could march and protest for awhile. But Kent State would look like nothing compared to what would eventually happen.

The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect all the other Amendments and to keep govt in check.
Without it, the other Amendments don’t stand a chance and the so-called fascist country that the left thinks we live in now, will become a reality.

Sorry for the rant.

kctim-
while it is a little conspiritorial in nature, your comments are actually the FIRST persuasive “evidence” I have EVER heard justifying the right to purchase automatic weaponry. Maybe its just a sign of the times or my never dying chagrin as a liberal, but I do feel a connection with the need to equip myself to the same levels of the US Military in order to protect myself from my own governement. You may be onto something. If our people have really lost the level of trust in our government to the point where we are talking about things like Civil War, there may be some merit to me having to purchase an AK-47 to protect my way of life. I mean lets be honest here, if there were to be a Civil War, I highly doubt we are all going to pull out barrel loading rifles and assemble ourselves into “target practice” lines to fight a truely “civil” (ironic choice of word, huh?) war.

kctim —

Okay, the powder was a bad example. But you get my point, right? There is no such thing as a perfect right. Every right we have is limited by the fact that other people’s rights have to be observed too.

Personally, I don’t really see much of a difference between an AK-47 — wait, let’s be American and talk about an M-16 — and a pistol. Neither is dangerous just sitting around by itself and either can kill you if someone points it at you. But there does become a point where it’s ridiculous, you know? There’s no reason at all for me to have a Howitzer on my front porch (and if I did, and the “gubmint” was planning to take over, I would be the first to go, of course).

You’re not a wacko, tim — unless I am too.

Woody,

I think you’ll agree that those pragmatists like us on the Left, have always had a deficit hawk streak ingrained in us. We are also against bloated, wasteful Entitlement programs and pork barrel spending.

Yes, my last comment was a bit over the top, but I view farm subsidies, airline bailouts and corporate tax giveaways as wasteful spending of our tax dollars, as well.

I surely hope that Congressional Democrats are smart and savvy enough to realize how potent an agenda this would be!

Alejo
“Every right we have is limited by the fact that other people’s rights have to be observed too.”
- None of my guns are “registered.” As for banned ones:)
Who’s rights am I not observing?

“But there does become a point where it’s ridiculous, you know?”
- There has never been a serious attempt to make owning a nuke legal. We simply want the means to defend ourselves against the govt.

Also, don’t keep the howie on your front porch. There are groups:) of us out here who can show you how to make it more effective. You know, just so you aren’t the first to go. Your a pretty cool cat.

Nick
What the hell are you smoking? I want some.
A crazy liberal like you agreeing with a crazy patriot like me?
There may be hope for this country afterall. LOL!
Thanks Nick

Nick-

You’re doing good, now just one more step.

Again, this is what it takes to legally own an automatic weapon in the U.S.

-You must be a U.S. citizen over 21 years of age.
-You must live in a state that allows Class 3 weapons.
-You must be clear of any felonies as verified by an F.B.I. background check.
-You must submit a fingerprint card and two passport photos, which are kept on file by the BATF.
-You must obtain a signature from your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer verifying that you have no felony indictments pending against you, and are mentally stable.
-You must pay a one-time federal tax of $200 for each automatic weapon purchased

The Federal law requiring what is now the Class 3 license has been on the books since the 1930’s, and I’ve seen no pro-gun group really calling for a repeal.

The Assault Weapons Ban had NOTHING to do with automatic weapons, only semi-automatics that looked like them.

George,
Very informative, thanks. I have some more questions, though, if you don’t mind. Why are there so many illegal assault weapons out there? You define who can legally OWN these guns, but can’t you buy guns without proof of these prerequisites? If you do so, is the gun seller held accountable, or only the owner? In my job I see kids caught with weapons, even “assault weapons” so often I can’t help wondering how and why? Lives ruined, lives gone. Solutions?

kctim,
You are probably correct that one of the reasons gun ownership was constitutionally protected in the first place was just in case the three branches of government was taken over by a group of ideologues seeking total control, undermining all checks and balances, changing laws to maintain power, demanding absolute loyalty to their cause and who, believing that their righteous ends justify any means, begin invading people’s homes, dragging enemies they alone define off to prison to be held indefinitely without legal representation or review. But surely it could never come to that.

kctim, I kind of like the assault gun ban, but not enough to argue too hard about it. As far as I’m concerned, if the cops are for the ban, then I am too.

As for protecting ourselves from the government, it’s not going to happen. What makes the military effective is not the weapons, but the training: individual, unit, and combined arms. Since most people don’t have any training, even owning a howitzer isn’t going to help.

The guns themselves didn’t help Koresh, and they didn’t help the Weavers. Rambos they were not.

If it ever did come down to civil war, the only effective resistence would come from the state’s National Guard forces or maybe police forces.

If you’re thinking about playing insurgent out in the boonies, you’d also better start thinking about logistical and political support from some outside nation or organization. Otherwise, you’re just a criminal on the run. The govt will pick you up next time you go shopping for new clothes and cartridges. :)

BTW, if I’m an unorganized militia man (in so many ways :) ), how come I never got anything official from the govt telling me so? How come I had to be informed of my militia duties and requirements by some gun nut?

In the course of finding that out, I also found out that the NRA is responsible for the passage of the NFA, among other gun legislation. Fascinating…

Hmm… To avoid any unnecessary argument, let me make my position really clear:

Like Nick, I think the only really good reason (besides the coolness factor) for owning any kind of automatic or semi-automatic weapon is to keep the govt honest.

However, since most Americans don’t have any military training whatsoever, owning one for that reason would be pointless. I’m a pretty good shot with my pistol, but I wouldn’t have any idea how to coordinate with other armed people to achieve a military goal. Basically, I’d just get myself killed really quick.

You and your buddies may do a little better, but you’re not going to beat the US Army.

Therefore, AND since the whole civil war scenario is extremely unlikely, if the cops want a ban, I’ll back ‘em up - as long as it doesn’t interfere with my target practice/home-protection or your hunting. :)

AP
Thanks for the input. While I respect your opinions, I cannot simply roll over for the govt.
There are a few things you fail to see about the overall situation in dealing with tyranny from our own govt.
1- Many of the people willing to stand up against tyranny are in fact, former military.
2- At LEAST half of the military will not support the govt if something happens.
3- I never stated I have buddies?:) that I train with. What I do have is 10 years of military special forces training. Have served in eastern europe, south America and mideast operations. If I WERE to apply this knowledge to “buddies,” somehow I don’t think we would be totally clueless.
4- The insurgents in Iraq are doing damage. Imagine how much more successful they would be if they had the total civilian populace behind them.

“As for protecting ourselves from the government, it’s not going to happen.”
- I’m very sorry to hear that. If the ever so great govt decides to detain all gays, I guess that is ok, since we can’t protect ourselves against the govt, I guess we should just let them take em away.

The NRA is a money making corp. just like the teamsters, NEA and the naacp. They do not care about our rights, just making more money.

I am not a defeatest(sp?)
I will not look the other way if my neighbors are taken away.
As far as it Never Gonna Happen, maybe, but why give up if it could?

P.S.
I may be a redneck, but I’m not all that much into hunting.
LOL!