Ring-wing americans always refer to univeral health care as 'socialist'. It's really quite humorous. Almost every forum I've read where they talk about healthcare, they call it socialized health care. What right-wing americans don't get, and probably never will, as the rest of the world who has health care (british, canadian, french, other european countries) think of it as the only way to go, a right of their citizens to live in a decent society. it's like calling garbage pickup 'socialized garbage'. it's always been humorous to me.
President Obama - what does it mean for foreign affairs?
- Thread starter gashin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
This is how americans got into this mess, with GW Bush and all these jerks stealing money out of our pockets.
Americans are afraid to talk about politics with eachother because they think it just gets "too ugly" or that it's "out of bounds". Screw it man, let's talk about it. You shouldn't be afraid to talk about your opinion with anyone. If we don't all talk about what we think about things, how are any of us going to become informed? How can we be exposed to opinions that aren't our own, and think about, and possibly assimilate those opinions into our own thinking?
I say talk about what you believe as long and as loudly as you can, otherwise your opinion will just be over-looked. That's how this country got started and i think that's still the best thing for us. Also if you are gonna talk about politics put some EFFORT into getting your FACTS straight about the PRESIDENT.
PLEASE!
There is no reason to go and spread misinformation like Obama is definitely going to ban all gun-ownership and then press compulsory military service for all citizens. This is simply conservative propaganda and has nothing to do with things Obama has actually spoken about. If you disagree with him, then fine, but you have to do what he says anyways because we all elected him together. If you want to be frustrated and say nasty things about someone, well say it about me or your neighbor who voted for Obama. Say nasty, untrue things about the millions of people that voted for him.
You're better off saying good things about him at this point, honestly. Everyone in the US needs to get together and get out of this mess, together. With the leadership of Barack Obama and his advisors (some of the greatest minds in the world) i believe we can do it. It's a shame if you don't believe that too.
Americans are afraid to talk about politics with eachother because they think it just gets "too ugly" or that it's "out of bounds". Screw it man, let's talk about it. You shouldn't be afraid to talk about your opinion with anyone. If we don't all talk about what we think about things, how are any of us going to become informed? How can we be exposed to opinions that aren't our own, and think about, and possibly assimilate those opinions into our own thinking?
I say talk about what you believe as long and as loudly as you can, otherwise your opinion will just be over-looked. That's how this country got started and i think that's still the best thing for us. Also if you are gonna talk about politics put some EFFORT into getting your FACTS straight about the PRESIDENT.
PLEASE!
There is no reason to go and spread misinformation like Obama is definitely going to ban all gun-ownership and then press compulsory military service for all citizens. This is simply conservative propaganda and has nothing to do with things Obama has actually spoken about. If you disagree with him, then fine, but you have to do what he says anyways because we all elected him together. If you want to be frustrated and say nasty things about someone, well say it about me or your neighbor who voted for Obama. Say nasty, untrue things about the millions of people that voted for him.
You're better off saying good things about him at this point, honestly. Everyone in the US needs to get together and get out of this mess, together. With the leadership of Barack Obama and his advisors (some of the greatest minds in the world) i believe we can do it. It's a shame if you don't believe that too.
Hah, let's see... socialised garbage collectors, socialised military, socialised parks and nature reserves, socialised airport security, socialised rail services, socialised courts, socialised disaster relief.... the list goes on.
Face it, the USA is a democratic socialist republic.
Face it, the USA is a democratic socialist republic.
Not a new post, or an objection to Zach. Just some reference material for my "right wing propoganda". An edit if you will. It's not unreasonable to expect my sources, I apologize for not providing them sooner. Sorry it's a bit long winded.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to
bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited
Clinton Gun Ban.2
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly
used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington,
D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal
prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in
support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce
Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and
?research.?8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5
miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun
store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of
Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms
Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure
designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which
prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being
used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued
firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for
replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements
for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the
age of 21.9
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005.
(U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization
general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this
survey were described in ?Obama had greater role on liberal survey,?
Politico, March 31, 20087.
(Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment
July 2, 2005.
(U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common sense
Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog,
http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08.
(Political Radar: Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' on Gun Owners' Rights)
5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.
6. ?Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.? Obama ?08,
December 11, 2007.
(Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need)
7. ?Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,?
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama
Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04.
(Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
(http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)
9. ?Obama and Gun Control,? The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the
Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.
(http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. ?Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,? Radio Iowa, Sunday,
April 22, 2007.
(Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, ?Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for
action,? February 15, 2008,
(The Swamp: Barack Obama: NIU shootings call for action)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: ?As president, Barack Obama would
repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .?
(Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Urban Policy.)
.
At the end of each fact is a number which corresponds to the reference point.
As for my rationale that guns in essence keep our military from getting silly with us. Here is some gun history for you:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
----------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------ -----------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to
bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited
Clinton Gun Ban.2
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly
used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington,
D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal
prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in
support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce
Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and
?research.?8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5
miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun
store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of
Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms
Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure
designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which
prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being
used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued
firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for
replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements
for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the
age of 21.9
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005.
(U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization
general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this
survey were described in ?Obama had greater role on liberal survey,?
Politico, March 31, 20087.
(Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment
July 2, 2005.
(U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common sense
Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog,
http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08.
(Political Radar: Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' on Gun Owners' Rights)
5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.
6. ?Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.? Obama ?08,
December 11, 2007.
(Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need)
7. ?Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,?
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama
Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04.
(Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
(http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)
9. ?Obama and Gun Control,? The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the
Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.
(http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. ?Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,? Radio Iowa, Sunday,
April 22, 2007.
(Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, ?Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for
action,? February 15, 2008,
(The Swamp: Barack Obama: NIU shootings call for action)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: ?As president, Barack Obama would
repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .?
(Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Urban Policy.)
.
At the end of each fact is a number which corresponds to the reference point.
As for my rationale that guns in essence keep our military from getting silly with us. Here is some gun history for you:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
----------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------ -----------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Last edited:
Nope, it was just an emotional flame somebody asked for. If your friend gets killed it´s not really that funny.
And Ronald Reagan was my hero when I was becoming an adult. Called spade a spade, escalated cold war with the evil empire and liberated my country from Soviet occupation without firing a single shot. I even though of giving my firstborn the name Ronald. Ronald Frank: sounded nice, too. Eventually I gave up to vanity, so he is Patrick, though.
Trolling off now
And Ronald Reagan was my hero when I was becoming an adult. Called spade a spade, escalated cold war with the evil empire and liberated my country from Soviet occupation without firing a single shot. I even though of giving my firstborn the name Ronald. Ronald Frank: sounded nice, too. Eventually I gave up to vanity, so he is Patrick, though.
Trolling off now
Nope, it was just an emotional flame somebody asked for. If your friend gets killed it´s not really that funny.
And Ronald Reagan was my hero when I was becoming an adult. Called spade a spade, escalated cold war with the evil empire and liberated my country from Soviet occupation without firing a single shot. I even though of giving my firstborn the name Ronald. Ronald Frank: sounded nice, too. Eventually I gave up to vanity, so he is Patrick, though.
Trolling off now
Well, I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but Reagan was one of the worst presidents. And that's saying a lot. I don't think anyone single-handedly took down a third-world nation like the crumbling Soviet Russia. He was a good spokesman for the nation's business interests at the time, but that's really about it.
I'm reading none of this. I skipped the postings here. I only post this to note that a vicious exchange earlier was the last anyone has seen of a very valued member, Nazareth. His anti-Obama rant was attacked by a pack of pit bulls. I was among the pro-Obama posters, but I value input of differing views, so I wasn't at all offended by Naz's stance. But apparently it turned him away from the forum. We all became losers then. Politics and religion -- to each his own. This is the last I'll visit this divisive topic. There are forums for such ... this isn't one of them.
Do you see what i'm saying? Americans are afraid to talk about politics. It's amazing to me. Does this happen in other countries? I don't do a lot of traveling, i've only been to canada and mexico.
It seems like people should be able to talk about politics. There' something really unhealthy about it if you can't. Bob i encourage you to read the thread and discuss your opinion.
It seems like people should be able to talk about politics. There' something really unhealthy about it if you can't. Bob i encourage you to read the thread and discuss your opinion.
It's a discussion forum, right? Politics is the best thing for americans to be talking about right now. Our problem in this country is that not enough people are involved with national politics, so the populace is misrepresented by a sub-section of the population. Inevitably this leads to a feeling of hopelessness and disenfranchisement for some, and that's not what America is (or should be, i guess) about. Talking about politics, and not being afraid to talk about politics, would not only get people more informed, but also more involved.
Or at least that's what i think.
If there's going to be "vicious attacks" on this forum (and there will be vicious attacks on any forum!) i would rather it was about politics than who rebrands their e-cigs or who is spamming in non-supplier forums under alt accounts. That **** is barely worth arguing about. The last eight years in America, now that is something to argue about.
Or at least that's what i think.
If there's going to be "vicious attacks" on this forum (and there will be vicious attacks on any forum!) i would rather it was about politics than who rebrands their e-cigs or who is spamming in non-supplier forums under alt accounts. That **** is barely worth arguing about. The last eight years in America, now that is something to argue about.
Zach,
What is boils down to is this forum's primary purpose is to discuss e-cigs. It is also international and us Europeans tend to have a very different take on things. The last political discussion / war caused Naz to stop posting, I was involved in that and I feel guilty now if the things I said caused his departure. If this had been a politics forum I would have felt no such guilt and would have been much more forceful in putting over my point of view.
I would love to engage in political debate, but I don't think this is the place.
Yeah but, the general forum is "the place for all off-topic chat." I assumed because of this we could talk about stuff other than e-cigs here.
It sucks this nazareth guy stopped posting because of a political discussion, but that was his decision and i don't see why that should prevent people from discussing politics in this forum, where it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to do so.
I know this is an international forum and that people in the EU have different opinions, i think that's the very best reason to discuss politics in this forum, actually. I don't mean to press the issue but people like Nazareth are, unfortunately, part of the problem. Whether you are liberal or conservative or democrat or republican, european or american, there should be an open line of communication between everyone about politics. If this financial crisis shows us anything, it's that we are all depending on each other.
Just being quiet about what you think, or getting ...... off and leaving because someone disagrees with you, in my opinion that's no good for any of us. Maybe you think differently, and while it is distressing that you would disagree with me, i certainly wouldn't just walk away from you because of it.
It sucks this nazareth guy stopped posting because of a political discussion, but that was his decision and i don't see why that should prevent people from discussing politics in this forum, where it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to do so.
I know this is an international forum and that people in the EU have different opinions, i think that's the very best reason to discuss politics in this forum, actually. I don't mean to press the issue but people like Nazareth are, unfortunately, part of the problem. Whether you are liberal or conservative or democrat or republican, european or american, there should be an open line of communication between everyone about politics. If this financial crisis shows us anything, it's that we are all depending on each other.
Just being quiet about what you think, or getting ...... off and leaving because someone disagrees with you, in my opinion that's no good for any of us. Maybe you think differently, and while it is distressing that you would disagree with me, i certainly wouldn't just walk away from you because of it.
Zach - I agree with you. There is a part of this forum put aside for general discussion and I've no problem at all with people posting political issues in that area. I think the sensitivity to avoiding offence is a misplaced concern - nobody is required to participate as TB has aptly demonstrated.
I read the thread that seems to have led Naz to leave and have to say that Naz had a great deal to do with how that discussion developed. He led with his chin and got chinned. If he's now chosen to leave - fine - that's his choice.
It always amazes me how those who espouse individual freedoms are the most easily offended when those freedoms are exercised.
I read the thread that seems to have led Naz to leave and have to say that Naz had a great deal to do with how that discussion developed. He led with his chin and got chinned. If he's now chosen to leave - fine - that's his choice.
It always amazes me how those who espouse individual freedoms are the most easily offended when those freedoms are exercised.
I'm with you on this one too Zach.
I was actually quite impressed with the lack of mud slinging in this discussions. There are a few varying opinions, but no personal attacks. Which is exactly how a political discussion should be.
However, this discussion has drifted far away from the original topic. A discussion about discussing politics is much more fragile than a discussion about politics.
I was actually quite impressed with the lack of mud slinging in this discussions. There are a few varying opinions, but no personal attacks. Which is exactly how a political discussion should be.
However, this discussion has drifted far away from the original topic. A discussion about discussing politics is much more fragile than a discussion about politics.
- Status