Reply #49: We Seem to be Headed That Way

[AndyTiedye]

> You seem to think I'm talking about death camps or something.

The Dominionists are not calling for death camps, they want to have
public stonings. These are the people who have taken over the
country by means of electoral fraud. They own the voting machinez
and everybody in Washington knows what that means.
That is why nobody is standing up to them.

> <How DO you want the party to respond to the issue?...

> The individual states are granted, via the U.S. Constitution, the
> right to police themselves in matters of safety, public welfare, and > morality.

Exactly the same arguments were used to ban interracial marriages a
few decades ago. Fighting that battle cost us some votes too.
Should we not have done it?

> it is not within the scope of the Federal governments rights to
> dictate the moral standards of the states.

That would seem to be a good argument against the FMA.

> A Presidential candidate should not have a position on this issue
> unless the Constitution is am mended to allow it.

The RW wants to amend the Constitution to forbid it. To "not have
a position" is to allow that to happen.

> <Increased taxes may be unattractive, but have you looked at the
> deficit lately?>

> Increasing taxes is not a winning solution to the deficit
> problem. Increasing the number of tax payers sounds like a better
> solution to me.

Nobody did that like Bill Clinton. Bring back the Clinton economy
if you want more taxpayers. And bring the troops home from Iraq.
They are paying little or no taxes when they're over there.
Better education and health care will also increase the number of
people paying taxes instead of receiving public assistance.
There are many who stay on welfare because they lose access to health
care if they work (and the jobs available often do not provide it).
Better education will help people find good jobs, as long as the jobs
are not all outsourced overseas. We must provide incentives to create
jobs in the USA, not in India or China.

All of this is vintage Bill Clinton and John Kerry.

> <But after they have carried off the gays, who will they come
> for next? Can you really not see where this is going?>

> Yes, it's going to a paranoid delusion. I know plenty of gay
> people and they're some of the more successful people that I know.

and they are all scared to death of the Talibornagains.

> LOL! I suspect it is, among other things, because they have no
> children to tie them down.

Neither do a lot of us hetero's either. These past four years I've
been really glad I don't. But my sister does, and they could well
end up becoming cannon fodder for the Crusade. I fear for them too.

> Regardless, I'm not seeing ANYBODY
> carried off and fed to the lions (except for those who freaked out a
> little too much maybe). Please feel free to elaborate on this idea
> of oppression of yours.

They seem to prefer stoning, actually.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/chrisre1.html

> <"We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately.">

> We should just get a candidate that gets a better rating from the > NRA than the Republican counterpart.

I do not think we should let the NRA choose our candidate.
They seem to only support Republicans and a few DINOs, and they'll
always prefer the Republican to the DINO anyway.

I would have stumped as hard for Howard Dean as I did for Kerry.
Unfortunately, the media was able to destroy him almost overnight
(as soon as he threatened to break them up!). He had high NRA ratings, but
I didn't see the NRA coming to his aid in the primaries. Perhaps
I missed it.
A career of supporting the second amendment meant nothing to
the NRA when Dean needed their help.

But of course! The NRA is not the lobbyist for gun owners
so much as it is the lobbyist for the gun industry,
which has an even bigger vested interest in Four More Wars
than they do in stopping gun control. To gain NRA support
you have to not only support gun control, you have to support war.
Right wars, wrong wars, even losing wars, any war, anywhere,
because nothing is as good for the arms business as war.
Republicans start more wars. Do we need to out-warmonger them too?

> Assault weapons are a wonderfully balancing thing.

Well, I suppose the fire rate would make up for being a lousy shot,
but at what cost to innocent bystanders if people are settling scores
that way in the city?

> When everybody is equally armed, everybody is equal.

Not really. It places a really big premium on fast reflexes (possibly good)
and a willingness to kill without hesitation (not good).

> Our forefathers knew this too well.

I seem to recall some reference in there to a "well-regulated militia". Why was the 2nd Amendment worded that way? The phrasing
is strange even for that time, and it is not clear which militia
they refer to or how it is to be well-regulated. One presumes
that those who settle disputes with AK47s in the middle of town,
or roving gangs of armed thugs in white sheets (or not) would
not be examples of a well-regulated militia (though each would
surely claim otherwise, right before they shoot you).

Or is it that we have the right to bear arms so we can try to
protect ourselves FROM the "well-regulated militia"?


> BTW, I'm curious about your moniker. Do you actually Tie Dye?

Yes. Mostly my own clothes (all of them).

It's obviously time for me to bring back my old avatar.
(photo courtesy of the wingnuts at protestwarrior.com,
as is the one below)


> Is it possible that I'm communicating with the Dead here? :hippie:

Very much a deadhead. Since 1972. :smoke::hippie:
Into the psytrance scene too now. Dance all weekend.


> Peace.

Ride the Music