Conquer Club

Gov demands money for registering firearms. Are firearms privileges? No. The right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our Creator silly!

I have nipples. Could you milk me Focker?

Phatscotty wrote:Gov demands money for registering firearms. Are firearms privileges? No. The right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our Creator silly!

The poor do not have the right to bear arms.

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov demands money for registering firearms. Are firearms privileges? No. The right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our Creator silly!

The poor do not have the right to bear arms.

and why/how is that?

Phatscotty wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov demands money for registering firearms. Are firearms privileges? No. The right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our Creator silly!

The poor do not have the right to bear arms.

and why/how is that?

Because the government forces them to pay taxes and registration on them.

Night Strike wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov demands money for registering firearms. Are firearms privileges? No. The right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our Creator silly!

The poor do not have the right to bear arms.

and why/how is that?

Because the government forces them to pay taxes and registration on them.

yeah that was my initial thought, but that in no way "denies" them the rite. The poor person has to work harder to organize what little money they have a little bit better, thats all. go get your gun baby!

Phatscotty wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov demands money for registering firearms. Are firearms privileges? No. The right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our Creator silly!

The poor do not have the right to bear arms.

and why/how is that?

Because the government forces them to pay taxes and registration on them.

yeah that was my initial thought, but that in no way "denies" them the rite. The poor person has to work harder to organize what little money they have a little bit better, thats all. go get your gun baby!

Only $25 dollars for a pistol on the blackmarket, so I don't wanna hear nobody saying that the poor are in a disadvantageous position.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

Doesn't that leave room for the president to get away with certain scandals and illegal activities?

Yes.

So why should he be above the law?

Obviously, it's pretty detrimental to us--sure, the faith in our executive branch would be rocked if that branch was more transparent, but isn't that what the judicial branch should be doing? Why allow the president such power to coverup things, or prevent or make his chances higher of avoiding judicial review?

You said "certain scandals and illegal activities", which includes just about anything. We don't elect perfect people to be president. The issue is whether he serves the country well, does his job.

A classic example is extra marital affairs. I certainly don't approve of them (and do NOT believe Obama is in one or has been! Nor do I believe Bush had one, while in office), but if its kept quiet (unlike the Lewinski bit), does it matter to me? No. To his wife, his family, but not me.

I am not going to get into a catalogue of what is and is not OK. As to more transparency "rocking the faith in the executive branch". I don't have particular faith in the branch. I expect our leaders to be human, but to get their jobs done despite their failings. Sometimes, because of them.

Kennedy is lauded too much. But, look at Jefferson. He had children with his slave. Yet, our country would not be what it is today, would (I feel) be far lessor without him.

Today everybody has to live in a glass bowl. But, no one is truly able to withstand that kind of scrutiny, not pop stars, not sports figures, not politicians.. not even many clergy, not for their entire lives.

You really branched out on this one...

Marital affairs is one of many things that can be covered up by one who is above the law. Jefferson lived in a way different time than today. Being above the law is still a problem, and the president shouldn't have such powers. Do you agree?

Obama was the editor of the harvard magazine but he never published a single article of his own in that magazine sooo to the person who said check his public works...there are none...

except his books about how hard it was growing up black

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The real problem, the real power, right now is in money. You and I, according to the "powers that be" no longer truly have a right to our money, no longer truly have a right to expect reasonable payment for reasonable work done. We barely have the right to reasonably safe working conditions and certainly don't seem to have the right to health care and medical treatment, except for kids (and then not in every state uniformly).

Then why can't we keep more of our money by paying less taxes?

Because so many of the things our taxes support are necessary for a long term sustained economy, as well as things percieved as "tangential" or "esoteric" by conservatives, but which are really just taken for granted.
For example, most of us cannot remember a time when Measles and whooping cough killed children in our school every year. (that day is returning, but due to ignorance and misinformation about risks of vaccines compared to risks of the diseases themselves). You are safer because slums are no longer bastions of tuberculosis, diptheria, etc. Some of those diseases are returning, but not in the levels they were present prior to all the government funded research and government funded vaccine campaigns.

You no doubt drive on a highway system funded by taxes, but now, in many places on the verge of disintegrating because of years of neglect and failure to properly repair or even to just plan for future repairs. If you think privatization is the answer, then just consider the demise of our rail system. Tracks are privately owned... and many are in notoriously poor condition, many others were decommissioned because the routes were no longer profitable.

You have dismissed a lot of scientific research as "unproductive". That is true. But, when you say that, you ignore what science is and does. Many of our best and greatest discoveries in history did not come because someone directed research into well-funded ideas with definite profitability potential. Just the opposite. Companies are notorious for taking free government research or "tangential" research (something a dedicated scientists discovers, but is not able to market well, because that is not their skill), and then make millions. The result is a system and economy, politics that are extraordinarily weighted toward those skilled purely at making money and not necessarily at making things, discovering things or fixing anything except their own personal budgets.

Understand, I realize we NEED marketers, bankers, CEO's, etc. But, this idea that its OK for a CEO to take a 6 million dollar bonus, (to pick a LOW figure), that its OK for stockholders to make profits and then lower level employees just have to deal with whatever is left after the bigwigs take what they want... that is just wrong. That ethic, that idea that only those at the top deserve what they get and the rest are just operating on the "grace" fo the leaders... only deserving whatever the economic leaders decide to give, that is market fuedalism. The difference is that we still do have more personal freedom than serfs, and certainly live amongst better "things", but... the turn of politics today is to take many of those things away from us. When even someone like Woodruff, involved in the military and rather conservative, is concerned about loss of liberties.. you know it is a real issue.

Night Strike wrote:Raising wages is not the only solution. In fact, cutting taxes will create more jobs than forcing higher, non-market wages.

ONLY in the short term. Forget that without farmers to grow food, farmers who are able to have decent lives, support themselves and their families as well as people "in town", and you lose your agriculture. We are already seeing that happen. We are still an exporter of food, but how much longer. This idea that there is some great "technology" fix out there is a mistake. In fact, many of the "technology" fixes already implemented have shown themselves to be a very, very mixed gain at best. Pesticides,irrigation and such mean fewer pests, but also polluted waterways, polluted soils (from salt accumulation, for example), health issues for the communities where food is grown. Genetic issues are not even being considered. Right now, you have a hard time finding out if the food you buy is genetically engineered (depending on where you live). The promoters claim it is "tested". Well... so was DDT, Thalamide, etc. The latest request to allow genetically altered salmon is rife with ignorant claims. We already have triploid (3 chromosome) slamon introduced to the great lakes that were not supposed to reproduce, yet they did. Fish are fairly primitive. Like the dinosaurs in Jurassic park, "nature finds a way". Except, this is not fictitious dinosaurs on a remote island, these are real fish.

Night Strike wrote:We don't have the right to our own money because the government decrees they have to take a large percentage of it.

Some, yes. Because you USE and benefit from the services the government provides. I certainly don't agree with every war we have, but I fundamentally accept that we need an army if we won't be invaded by idiots. I may not use every road in our country, but I understand that I use the roads near me and that I get food, goods, etc that travel across many roads. I understand that everything from our economy to safety, etc depend upon a fairly uniform and consistantly decent road system Not every little rural byway needs to allow 70MPH traffic, but they have to meet some basic standards.

Night Strike wrote:No one ever said you had no right to health care or treatment: you don't have a right to insurance. No one ever said those rights had to be free of charge either.

And no one said that you should be able to live outside of a fully contained, disease free unit. For, you see, diseases don't stop at poorer areas. Fighting diseases, plagues became a national, world issue because they impact EVERYONE, regardless of income or where you live.

Second, most of the people in this country DO want to live in a world where people can go to the doctor when they need. No, not everyone should get breast implants and facelifts, but a child should not have to live with a cleft pallet, no one should die because they could not afford insuline or blood pressure regulating medication. Maybe you think that world is fine. Well.. then go to Africa. You will find it there. The wealthy there get whatever they want, but the rest do not. Me... I prefer our system. OR, better yet Europe. AND, despite your claims about the terrors of socialism, the real truth is that people in those countries are generally happier than here by independent measures.

BigBallinStalin wrote:You really branched out on this one...

Marital affairs is one of many things that can be covered up by one who is above the law. Jefferson lived in a way different time than today. Being above the law is still a problem, and the president shouldn't have such powers. Do you agree?

Branch out? No, because historically, that is exactly the kind of thing very much kept secret. JFK is a prime example. Now, do I like the fact that the secret service was employed to protect his liasons? No. But, in the mix of things, I would rather have a president who has trouble "keeping his pants zipped", but who makes decent political decisions, who has the ability to rally people behind him, etc. ... one who is namely able to do the job of the president. I would rather have that president than one who has a great marriage, but cannot run the country.

As for the "above the law" being a problem.. no. Not when you make it an absolute statement like that. Generally, yes. However, there are many exceptions. I am not saying that the President is utterly above the law, but he is not contained by it in anything close to the same way ordinary citizens are contained. He is, in many ways, above the ordinary law.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:You really branched out on this one...

Marital affairs is one of many things that can be covered up by one who is above the law. Jefferson lived in a way different time than today. Being above the law is still a problem, and the president shouldn't have such powers. Do you agree?

Branch out? No, because historically, that is exactly the kind of thing very much kept secret. JFK is a prime example. Now, do I like the fact that the secret service was employed to protect his liasons? No. But, in the mix of things, I would rather have a president who has trouble "keeping his pants zipped", but who makes decent political decisions, who has the ability to rally people behind him, etc. ... one who is namely able to do the job of the president. I would rather have that president than one who has a great marriage, but cannot run the country.

As for the "above the law" being a problem.. no. Not when you make it an absolute statement like that. Generally, yes. However, there are many exceptions. I am not saying that the President is utterly above the law, but he is not contained by it in anything close to the same way ordinary citizens are contained. He is, in many ways, above the ordinary law.

Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

And, do you think the executive powers should be curbed?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:You really branched out on this one...

Marital affairs is one of many things that can be covered up by one who is above the law. Jefferson lived in a way different time than today. Being above the law is still a problem, and the president shouldn't have such powers. Do you agree?

Branch out? No, because historically, that is exactly the kind of thing very much kept secret. JFK is a prime example. Now, do I like the fact that the secret service was employed to protect his liasons? No. But, in the mix of things, I would rather have a president who has trouble "keeping his pants zipped", but who makes decent political decisions, who has the ability to rally people behind him, etc. ... one who is namely able to do the job of the president. I would rather have that president than one who has a great marriage, but cannot run the country.

As for the "above the law" being a problem.. no. Not when you make it an absolute statement like that. Generally, yes. However, there are many exceptions. I am not saying that the President is utterly above the law, but he is not contained by it in anything close to the same way ordinary citizens are contained. He is, in many ways, above the ordinary law.

Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

He has to in order to be president.

BigBallinStalin wrote:And, do you think the executive powers should be curbed?

Yes. And they are. Whether they are curbed enough is another question entirely.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

He has to in order to be president.

Why? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why must the President be above the law in any fashion?

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

He has to in order to be president.

Why? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why must the President be above the law in any fashion?

LOL, bet you Player will turn 100% hypocrite when Palin becomes president. I can just hear Player now..."The president IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!!!!"

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

He has to in order to be president.

Why? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why must the President be above the law in any fashion?

Yeah, I'm not getting her response either.

Snorri1234 wrote:man, I heard Glenn Beck killed a girl in 1990. What's up with that?

All he has to do is say he didn't do it.

Why won't he?

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

He has to in order to be president.

Why? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why must the President be above the law in any fashion?

LOL, bet you Player will turn 100% hypocrite when Palin becomes president. I can just hear Player now..."The president IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!!!!"

Pallins problem is not a failure to follow the law, it is pure stupidity. An entirely different issue.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

He has to in order to be president.

Why? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why must the President be above the law in any fashion?

We are basically arguing semantics here. I say that since the President changes the law, he is above it in some ways. I also say that since the president is representing our country, plublically, but is not perfect, some things about his life should be shielded.

But I agree that none of that is in any way absolute, or even close. It is more in legal "grey areas" and essentially minor issues.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Certainly, he is above the ordinary law, but should he be able to wield such power?

He has to in order to be president.

Why? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why must the President be above the law in any fashion?

LOL, bet you Player will turn 100% hypocrite when Palin becomes president. I can just hear Player now..."The president IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!!!!"

Pallins problem is not a failure to follow the law, it is pure stupidity. An entirely different issue.

Palin is going to be President?

Not even the Republicans would elect her, and they are batshit crazy.

angola wrote:
Palin is going to be President?

Not even the Republicans would elect her, and they are batshit crazy.

I hope you are correct. Lately.. not even sure of that. And, of course, Pallin is not talking to Republicans much any longer, she associates with the Tea Partiers.