Available at www.ThoseShirts.com Not surprisingly, people claim the shirts are racist. If one of you don't get me this shirt, I will exercise my Second Amendment right to arm bears. Sachin
....because, you see, guns themselves are evil. It's a necessary juxtapositio for the lefties because it's necesary to demonize everything and everybody they don't like. That way, it's not necessary to come up with rational, intellient arguments: "evil" doesn't require explanation. The gun issue si the quintessential expression of left wing thought: they don't really hateguns - they hate people who have them. I just read yesterday that Michael Moore, King of the "Guns Are Evil" school of thought, and whose "Bowling for Columbine" anti-gun screed set the tone for all leftist opinion on this issue, is himself surrounded by a number of armed guards. Because of course protecting HIMSELF transcends any possible issue. It's just YOU he doesn't think should have the right to b defended with handguns.
Sorry to blather on, but upon further reflection I wanted to add this: I'm not a big gun advocate. I get the point and in general I don't really think anybody much needs to carry around a trunk full of Mac 10's just because the Constitution says nobody can stop them.. But I refuse to come down on the side of more gun controls, even though they don't really frighten me. The reason is this: The left loves to yammer on about Constitutional rights. Like the right to unlimited, whenever and wherever abortion, to take an example. Now you can search the Constitution from stem to stern with a fine microscope and never once even come across the word abortion. But the left insists that it's there, and that if you are opposed to any limits whatever on " a woman's constitutional right to choose" then you are a facist oppressor. But guns are very explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. It's there in black and white. You can argue endlessly, as people have, about the meaning of the modifying clause regarding a militia, but however you slice it, the line "right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged". Period. But the same people who would lay down in the street to defend the right that is not there also claim the one that IS there doesn't really exist. So my personal philosphy has always been this: I'll agree that there is a point beyond which unrestricted ownership of certain types of guns, particularly by certain types of people, are not in the public interest on the very same day that the left agrees dragging viable babies out of a woman's womb, crushing their skulls and then sucking out the braions so they can then be declared "dead" when they are born is a savage, disgusting and morally indefensible act. Call me when you get the deal set up.
Never stopped you before! I agree. I shot a bit when I was in Boy Scouts, and when I was in ROTC in college. Since 1987, I have shot once, sometime between 1989 and 1994 (the years are very hazy). A friend was the president of a local target shooting club, and I went along with him one day. I thought about signing up, but then moved out of my parents house to go to law school or Washington. What I find interesting is that the Left claims the Bush Administration is a fascist regime but want to take away the right to bear arms. In any event, I think people should be allowed to carry weapons, provided they pass a background check AND pass safety AND proficiency classes.
It isn't the legal guns that are used in most crimes; it's the illegal ones. I support very lax gun laws, but I do not own a gun. Is that hypocrisy, or is it an otherwise viable opinion? I have just saved an excellent quote onto my hard drive. This is an excellent rebuke to the inherrant "constitional rights" argument.
I agree with you. I do not own a gun yet support relatively lax gun laws (as I said, I would view the "well regulated" part to mean the should require you know how to use a gun you own). It is not hypocrisy. It is just a belief in liberty and that others may be free to do what they want. I have never colored my hair purple but have no problem with people that do.
Actually, that would be a third trimester abortion, which except in case of saving a mother's life, the Looney Left, by and large, haven't been advocating. As for Loney, he once again shows his rather intolerant lack of a sense of humor, but I'm sure all his fellow retards on the Politics board are lined up twenty deep and five wide to give him a reputation hand-job.
I'm gonna lose even more conserative points here but I'm anti-gun and I always will be. But Eric B, how do you and topper deal with being in the same stadium at Galaxy games as that idiot Loney? And I know Anthony and CUS are good people, but I still think the Chicago Fire are scum sucking leeches. Edson Buddle rules and Ante Razov is a clown.
And you are stuck in Detroit, so the last laugh is on us. But hey, I spent a week in Hamtramack (sp?) one night.
I support gay marriage -- that causes me to lose about 50 conservative points!. Hey, I am a DC United fan! Adu to you!
We all have our non-conservative issues. I'm both an atheist and pro-abortion. In fact I was chatting with a pretty liberal friend of my girlfriend's last night that wondered how I could be a Republican, yet be not religious. Silly Libs, they have no concept of nuance. I don't usually sit with the Riot Squad, so I never really see him. The Riot Squad message board has a no political discussion policy, so he is capable of disucssing things without being his asenine self. I'm also beating him in the RS MLFS league.
The thing about Loney is that he's a jackass. I could care less about his political opinions, he's just an idiot. I've never found him to be funny even before there was a politics board here. He easily resorts to personal attacks, which I don't mind - but he uses them in lieu of an actual debate. There are liberals here on bigsoccer I respect and I enjoy reading. I like Obie for example. I disagree with him but I like his posts. I used to like Mike Lastort but something snapped inside him, he hates President Bush so much that he has become illogical and just plain silly.
Ted, how are you anti-gun? Do you believe no one should own them? Do you believe ownership should be legal but with heavy restrictions? "Anti-gun" doesn't really mean anything. Anyway, I go back and forth on gay marriage. On one hand, society has an active interest in seeing that two people who genuinely love one another and want to provide for each other be allowed to do so legally. On the other hand, allowing gay marriage explictly decouples marriage from reproduction in a way that may be irrevocable. The social stigma (if there is any left) on men walking out on their kids and women bearing children out of wedlock is completely gone. On top of all that, if two people are allowed to marry in an environment where it is virtually impossible for them to reproduce with each other - short of genetic engineering - the rationale for monogamous marriage is gone. There's no rational or legal reason to prevent polygamy, polyandry, "open marriages", and so forth. A can of worms most of society would rather not deal with will be opened. At the furthest end of the spectrum, there are those who argue that the only thing that matters is that the two (or more) people in the marriage provide consent. My response is simple: What if the two (or more) people in question are brother(s) and sister(s)? As you can see, I'm conflicted. Sachin
I am anti-gun in that I think all guns should be banned, except for the Police and Military. I'd rather not debate the issue or go into detail. I could care less about the constitutional amendment. As for gay marriage, I am opposed to it. I think a civil union should be enough but that civil union should give gay people the same rights as a married couple. Personally I could care less if gay people want to get married. However I think that so many people are offended by it - why not just comprimise and make it a civil union with all the same benefits so there is no social civil war? man + woman = marriage. man + man = civil union. now everyone should be happy. seems logical enough to me, but then people bring up "seperate but equal" even though it doesn't really apply here. There are other things I'm "liberal" about I guess. Free health care would be nice. But the thing is, I know it sounds good in theory and isn't really feasible. And the base of my "conservatism" is that I think taxes should be low and Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. I wish the Republicans would do a little more for the environment. I don't believe the green looney's that the earth is on the verge of collapse and I was against the kyoto treaty, but throwing a bone to the environmental community every now and then would be nice. I am against the Death penalty, which is something I've done a 180 on. I was a very big pro death penalty guy but I've softened on that one. Still though at the heart of it, I tend to vote republican. I'm not as conservative as most of the people who post here. However I am on your side in the whole scheme of things.
Well put, but I think that in general Conservatives (despite what our pals on the left are capable of fathoming) have varying views on a number of things. Thats the whole point though, isn't it? Conservatives have a basic understanding of the relationship they think is desirable between government and people. Within that basic framework, there's a lot of room for disagreement. Liberals have a bunch of causes to which you must subscribe. Primary among these is that Conservatives are evil. It's voodoo politics. (As for Bush on the Environment, despite what the left keeps yammering about, he's done an excellent job)
Since we're defining ourselves: And woman + woman = lemme watch Seriously, I'm with Ted on this one. I don't really care if Tiffany has two moms, just don't call it a marriage. I'm neither pro nor anti gun--I just really don't care too much. The laws we have should be sufficient. The older I get the more I dislike the concept of abortion. I was raised Catholic, but offically describe myself as agnostic.
Not to pick on you Ted, but I can't tolerate the absolute stupidity spewed here by **************, Bill Archer. When the constitution was written "arms" essentially meant a "musket". Which as you should know was a single shot innaccuate weapon. If those boys from Littleton, Colorado had muskets, they surely would have missed the first shot and would have been disarmed and beaten before they could load and fire again. If the firepower available today were around when the constitution was written they would never allow citizens the right to posess these weapons. Free healthcare is possible. We spend 10X in America what is spent in other industrialized countries, such as Canada or France, for the same procedure and quality. Because we waste so much money on bookkeeping and administrative costs. So for example if you spend 300 a month paying for your insurance and co pays, they would you rather pay a $30 "tax" instead? Now a dummy like Bill Archer will open his mouth and say "No more taxes!", but I ust told you you were saving $270 overall for the same service. I worked in many aspects of the healthcare industry and I have seen the waste first hand. Also the Healthcare Industry is just that an industry, patient care comes second to profit. As a conservative you want lower taxes. To lower taxes the government needs to do 2 essential things: eliminate debt, and reduce the size of the government. So now say thank you to Bill Clinton. He's the only president over the past 30 years or so to do just that. The economic boom during his presidency was no accident. He used the power of the VETO to cut the fat from bills the republican house tried to pass and did both eliminate the budget and reduce the size and bloat of the government. If you're for fiscal responsibility and a strong economy, VOTE DEMOCRATIC. Which is more justified in your eyes, welfare (a safety net ) for the people or welfare for massive corporations (Enron, Carlysle, Bechtel, Halliburton). You want the government to stay out of your life, but W's men are reading your posts right now! and watching what you read, what you buy, what you're watching on TV, what you're saying on the phone, and what you're doing in your bedroom. Gay marriage = bad: Britney Spears marriage = good: Rush Limbaugh 3 failed marriages = good? It's a fight over semantics, get over it, it doesn't affect you, unless you're gay. I think you would agree that we should take in consideration our environment when dealing with Energy issues. To destroy it for the profit of the very few is wrong. Abortion is NOT a policy issue it's a personal moral issue that we all need to discuss and educate each other so that it doesn't happen. But in no way should it be legislated. After reading Bill Archer's posts on soccer I thought he was an idiot and he knows absolutely nothing about the game. Now after stumbling across this, I know he's a complete ignoramus and is probably unfortuately mentaly retarded. I'd take an IQ test against him ANYDAY, but since he's a republican, he'd probably cheat and have a liberal take it for him.
Dear NeedsAfactChecker, Maybe you can tell me who headed the federal reserve under Clinton and which party he belonged to. And then tell me about the 'bubble' of the 90's. Cikowski. Out.
Wow, I must say I am popping some popcorn and getting ready for the show. I once saw some moron post on Bill's forum a 1/8th of a page diatribe against Robert E. Lee. (Bill had him as his picture icon at the time.) When Bill finished with him 1.5 pages later he had a new a$$hole. So, as Jerry Seinfeld would say, "good luck with all that". Bill, I hope you do not disappoint me tonight. I am waiting for the response to this guy.... r_y
While I above said I'm anti-gun you have completely missed the point of the amendment. The Government wanted a "militia" to be able to protect itself if there was ever a situation where the Government turned on the people. This is a simplistic answer and I don't know any better way to say it but it had nothing to do with muskets, musk cologne or 3 muskateers candy bars. While I agree that for profit health care sometimes hurts the patient again you are way off. Yes the red tape sucks but you are crazy if you think that universal health care is possible without a large spike in taxes and a drop in services. You know how many atheletes from around the world come here for medical attention (Ronaldo, Maradona before his ban, many others) it's because our medical facilities are the best in the world. Someone has to pay for that. What you fail to understand is that most people don't pay too much for health care - our employers do. The people left uncovered can get medicaid or health vouchers or go to free clinics. 1. Clinton hired a Republican to set the interest rates. 2. Clinton got lucky with the dot com boom. 3. Reagen was president within the last 30 years. Taxes were lowered, Supply side economics proved to be a boon, jobs were created. Lots of em, and not just false internet jobs. Ok I know tons of people on welfare and it's not justified in most cases. As for corperate welfare that is wrong too but I bet we define corperate welfare differently. If tax cuts to big business's helps create jobs, as it often does, then well you might want to rethink your stance. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! If people like you are anti-Bush then for certain I am voting Bush in 2004. I was undecided until I read this. Thanks. You know what's funny...the patriot act has successfully caught terrorist and it has not affected my privacy at all. In fact it only affects about 0.000075% of the population, and many of them are shady. So because some idiots don't take marriage seriously that is your argument for gay marriage? So then if gay marriage has divorce rates rise above 50% I suppose you'll be advocating marriage to animals, right? You might want to take the catholic doctrine into consideration when talking about marriage. Sure you might not think religion has any place in this, but then you are only interested in property rights and you can get a civil union to handle that. The vatican has my back on this one and all you've got is some angry chicks who don't shower. Even Kerry is opposed to gay marriage. Yes. Remember how your good friend Bill Clinton left the Kyoto papers sitting on his desk for over a year and did nothing with it? Remember how the sierra club was in basic civil war because half of them thought Clinton was bad for the environment? Why is it a moral issue? Is it because some people think abortion is ending the life of a growing, living, sentient creature? Well then isn't that murder? Isn't murder a law? Aren't laws legislatable? Personal attakcs are a violation of the bigsoccer TOS. Jackass. You areally are a fool. Nothing personal.
Here's a pretty scathing attack on health care up north. Some real problems (but, you get what you pay for): http://www.cbc.ca/healthcare/ And don't forget the tech job boom for Y2K and the expansion into foreign markets when the wall came down. Mr. Bill never thanked Reagan for THAT. IIRC, the Senate rejected the Kyoto protocol 95-0 in 1997. I need to do NO research to determine that one Mr. Kerry did not vote to pass it.