What an unsavory collection of squids and scumbags! Fitsgerald was right, "the rich are different than us". The blatant, venal, greed and damn the consequences attitudes are appaling.
God help America if Romney wins. This already decaying infrastructure mess we live with is only going to get worse. Poverty, homelessness and hunger will reach new levels and it won't just be the already boot strapped poor, but what's left of the middle class as it flails about in the wreckage of the American dream...
What is clear with Republican donors is that they rarely donate to "do the right thing" (whatever they may deem that to be). Instead, it's always that they want payback from the Republican politicians they back. Their contributions are merely business expenses that usually turn out to be great investments with huge paybacks.
Contrast that with the so-called "Hollywood elites" who contribute to Democratic candidates, backing people who don't promise to lower their taxes or allow them to get away with things that hurt the country. In other words, they do not try to benefit themselves via their contributions. They are doing what they think is right. And yet the political Right hates them.
Great point, Michael.
It's so true; these high-income Hollywood types would of course vote Republican if they only cared about, and bought into, the "Republicans lower your taxes, esp. those of the wealthy" notion (a Repub tax policy that is consistently applied ONLY to the most wealthy, actually). But so many in Hollywood want what's best for the country, not what will enhance their own personal wealth. Which is why I admire many of them.
Whereas the Repub big-donors want payback: they literally want the government they can buy and then they have expectations of exactly how those winning candidates can pay them back via policy and legislation (or lack of the latter). So scary and so true.
You guys fricking amaze me.
You don't think financial suporters of democrats get anything in return?
Yeah right. and guns cause crime too right?
And please tell us what favors Hollywood actors and directors are hitting up politicians for. These are generally high-income people who'd benefit from the tax breaks for the wealthy the Repubs try to sell every two years. Yet they usually vote Dem and support Dems in other ways.
Don't know why you brought up guns, it had nothing to do with the article. A single-issue voter, are you?? While you're at it, a 3-year-old killed his father with a gun today, per the news all over the Internet. Same thing last week, but by a 6 year-old. Last year, a 3rd-grade kid near where I live brought a gun to school and it fired from his backpack into a little girl in his 3rd grade class, nearly killing her. Guns kill accidentally something like 43 times the number of times they "protect" somebody (stats from the AMA, I believe). Knives simply cannot accomplish these numbers, especially accidentally. Wouldn't you agree?
We KNOW guns kill, or are used for killing, choose the words you like. That's what they are made to do; they are not made to "protect" anyone, as they aren't shields; they kill. Some of us would rather they not be in the hands of so many kooks, but the Right will never support any more gun restriction legislation. They just keep bullshitting America every time a Democrat wins office, "They're coming to get your guns," and then many Righties go dutifully and buy out the gun shops of guns and ammo. The Right uses politics of fear and it has worked like a charm since the founding of the country. Meanwhile, the last two times we had Democratic presidents (Obama and Clinton), they didn't try to pass any legislation to take away your guns, other than, with Clinton, as I recall, banning assault weapons and cop-killer bullets. Which was done bi-partisan, but no Righty will renew those bans today. (The NRA owns the Righty politicians. The gun manufacturers own the NRA.)
Didn't matter. The right-wing nuts convinced a large chunk of gun freaks to be afraid, and the runs were made on the gun shops, like clockwork. Now, with Obama having nearly a 4-year record of no gun restrictions, the NRA is nonetheless running ads saying, NOW if Obama gets a SECOND term, THIS TIME we'll see him assault the 2nd amendment. Wow.
The nutcakes are on the Right primarily, IMO, and guns, gays, religion, and abortion are all they care about. The economy has come out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, we're in TWO foreign wars, and while the Righties RAN on "Jobs, job, jobs" in 2010, they have yet to pass ONE jobs bill.
Instead, they've given us just the same old shit: anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation. Thanks, right-wing House of Representatives.
50 years ago it was guns, God, and gays with the Right, and 100 years from now it will be the same. That's the definition of "conservative" (in politics), at least as taught at my very conservative university: conserve the past. Don't change. True.
Hey Randy, since you're such a gun lover, why don't you provide us some examples of how guns have protected families. Then do a Google search for infinitely how many MORE times a child or adult gets killed by a child with a gun, accidentally. There's your answer, unfiltered by the NRA.
As to hunting, pardon me if I don't consider it "sport" to blow the brains out of defenseless animals-- God's creatures-- for amusement. And for freaking "male bonding." I can't imagine telling the wife, "I've got to go out and destroy some innocent animal today, hun! Maybe shoot the mother or father of some helpless newborn offspring if I'm lucky. See you at dinner." I see the sport in martial arts, where the participants are both volunteering and no one is getting killed. These animals don't have a choice when some lame brain decides to blow their heads off for fun.
Not everybody sees the sport in that, nor would get a thrill from it. Seems pretty sick to me.
The funny thing is, some of these killers of innocent animals actually have a code of honor about this stuff! I.e., they themselves knock someone who would hunt with a machine gun or using a scope from a long distance, because to them, it's only respectable-- and get this, "fair" to the animal (!!!)-- if the hunter hides in the bushes close to the animal and kills it from up close.
I'm glad I have better things to do with my time. Posting on a web site, even.
I never bought into the idea of voting for (or not voting for) a candidate because of who else supports him. You can look at any candidate and every single one will have a large collection of scumbags supporting them. Obama was supported by ACORN, Al Sharpton, every labor union, and other loosers. And I am sure that Romney has an equal number of jerks supporting him. Please understand, I have no political agenda. I voted for Obama las time and will probably sit this one out. One of Obama's biggest supporters are labor unions. Let me guess, they want nothing in return for their get out the vote efforts? They are working like hell to get him re-eleced because they just care about America. Pass the napalm, please. Find a candidate whose ideas and values best approximate your own and don't give a crap who else supports him/her or does not.
Did I touch a nerve Michael?
No, I didn't read the whole article. Thats usually the case when a Rolling Stone political article is posted. We all know Rolling Stone is unbiased. I stopped when I got to the part where in bold print they labeled William Koch a "Coke Dealer". I am sure they did that to make him look good.
Its a good thing no innocent animals were harmed filling all those little white packages of meat in the grocery store. Thats the humane way to eat protien.
I will be back in a little while. I am going trap shooting. Thats where you shoot those little clay targets that are sent flying through the air. It is very challenging and a heck of a lot of fun. Believe it or not, after we are done, we don't sit around high fiveing and making grunting sounds.
I own several guns. Not one of them has killed a human being. I guess that means they are defective?
Last edited by Wing master; 07-15-2012 at 11:58 AM.
You sarcastically call Rolling Stone unbiased, well, have you ever found them wrong on the facts? Fox News, Limbaugh, and such lie like thieves every single day, and it's pretty obvious even if one doesn't know the facts; I have never found a Rolling Stone article to be fallacious. They are biased in what they choose to report on in the first place, clearly. But they do solid research. Oh I forgot, I am sure you've never read one article of theirs all the way through.
As they say, you're entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. Wing, a major reason I simply cannot vote Righty in the last two decades is because of all the lying they do, Romney being a fine example. You see, more important to me than one's positions, usually, is 1) identifying which side the crackpots are on and going the other way, and 2) noticing if one side seems to lie frequently (as the NRA does every day). If either side does, then you have to wonder: if they believe they are so right, then why don't they just honestly state their positions? On both points, the Repubs of the last 20+ years fail miserably.
As to guns, did it ever occur to me to take a switchblade, or a stick of dynamite, or a grenade, and use it in some "sporting" way? Nope. Guns were invented to kill; not for skeet shooting, and not to polish up and mount on a wall. That's the fact. I have actually given thought to this idea of taking a weapon meant to kill and using it instead for fun, and the idea does nothing for me. Seems more like an excuse for people who worship guns to get to use them as often as possible. I had a buddy as a kid, he just loved fireworks, fire crackers, heavier stuff like M-80s, and blowing things up (mailboxes and such). He graduated to guns. LOVES 'em . . . the bigger, the better. The guy is thrilled with loud noises and also the feeling of power he gets. None of this does a thing for me, however.
Me, if I felt I needed to own a gun to protect my home, I'd get trained on it and practice on a range often enough to be sharp. That's it. I'd get no thrill from using it.
As to meat in a grocery store, there's a big difference between people eating the meat of animals that they'd get no pleasure in killing, and a guy like Dick Cheney going out and shooting 40 or 50 birds in one hunt as he's done; I doubt he'll be eating any of it. He's a typical chicken hawk: all tough guy acting and macho (he thinks), but he avoided the draft with several deferments when it was his time to serve during Vietnam. Yet he would send our kids to war at the drop of a hat, and did it twice just under GW Bush. A gun enthusiast.
Part of the problem in debating with the Far Right is when they avoid the truth and also use exceptions to prove the rule. So you skeet shoot and don't go shooting animals. Great. Are you blind to the fact that so many gun owners love hunting and love to feel like tough guys because they carry guns, and they own several guns because just the thought of guns turns them on? Many people own gun COLLECTIONS. Others collect the heads of animals . . . literally putting a stuffed head up high on a wall at home as a trophy for all to see. Me, I wonder what sick fuck first had the idea to take an animal's head and mount it on a wall, you know, for the friends and family to view and marvel at. I am sure I know which political party he votes for if he's American. Yet so many think that the Taliban and Al Quaeda are so sick to behead people (I think they're sick as well, of course). Yet beheading animals and mounting them in one's home is apparently something to be proud of??
I find it savage. You, apparently, don't even think it happens, since you are a trap shooter (so you're implying apparently that everyone with guns must be a trap shooter).
I don't even know why I debate with you. I wrote numerous facts plus a few opinions, yet you could counter none of it, just provided some sarcasm about how your guns haven't killed. You addressed none of the facts about the huge number of accidental gun deaths nor pretty much anything else. The proof you provide for your position is merely that YOU alone don't kill, you're a trap shooter.
Look, even if guns were just used for sport, couldn't kill, and weren't weapons, I'd still not get any thrill from targeting something and shooting it out of the air. Nor fixed target shooting. That's just me. I'm not into the old West and wouldn't be caught dead in cowboy boots or a cowboy hat, either, or that string with metallic ends with some turquoise and plate metal they use as a tie. Seems childish to me, I played cowboy, with boots, hat, and toy guns, myself--when I was 3-4. But this is just me. Maybe if I lived where you lived and was brought up in such a culture, I might be into it, guns and all.
I do wonder how the numerous gun owners react when their guns cause accidental deaths of their children or anyone else. Do they double down on more guns, as I suspect? Or do they, at least, realize they are irresponsible people not capable of owning a gun and locking it up as necessary?
I am trying to turn off the sarcasim for just this one post. Please do the same for just one response.
I am a gun owner and collector. The second ammendment is important to this great country because it is the right that guarantees all of the other rights we have. The second ammendment was added to the constitution to protect us from a tyrinical (sp) government. It has nothing to do with hunting. It also has nothing to do with personal protection. although that is a great side benifit.
Yes the second ammendment is my key political issue. You mentioned earlier that the NRA is "owned" by the gun manufacturers. The NRA is owned by the more than four million members of the NRA. That is more that eight times the number of people that live in the state I live in. Thats a pretty powerful group of people. The reason the NRA carries so much power as a lobby, is because four million votes really does mean something.
In reguard to the Rolling Stone articles, Have you ever read an article in Rolling Stone that supports a conservative view? Just using this article as an example, William Koch is not a "Coke Dealer". That insinuates that he is a drug dealer. This discounts this whole article as far as I am concerned. If you don't have a political agenda, just report the facts. Don't make up false accusations to make your point.
Michael, I am sorry to be the one to break it to you, but democrats do not always tell the truth. Obama promised to have our troops out of Iraq and afganistan a year after he was elected. He promised to close Guitonomo (sp) If you would like to read more examples, go here. http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
Make sure you have plenty of spare time. It will take a while to read the lies that just one democrat has told the American people.
Michael, Please try to understand that I am in no way being sarcastic when I say that I think you are being very irresponsible by having no way to protect yourself and your family. Their are people out there that are willing to do great harm to others so they can take money or other valuables. Please reconsider this. I really do hope you or your family never comes up against someone that would do harm to you, but that is not a chance I am willing to take. I refuse to be a victom. I hope you will think about this and prepare yourself so you will not be a victom. If you think gang bangers would disban without guns you are burying your head in the sand. I do practice enough to be very efficient with a firearm and have made the decision that I will take a human life if it is nessassary to protect myself or my family from deadly force. I don't think it would be good to try to make that descision while I am being attacked.
I am also a hunter. I have and plan on killing animals to feed myself and my family. Hunting is regulated by the state department of Game and Fish. They issue licenses in areas to maintain healthy numbers of game animals. Responsible hunting is why we have the number of game animals we have. If they were not hunted, they would over populate areas and disease and starvation would kill off large heards of game animals. If hunting was unlimited the number of animals would decline to distinction. This almost happend in the early 1900's. Hunters are responsible for the healthy number of game animals we all can enjoy. even non hunters.
I am not a trophy hunter. I dont hang animals heads on the wall. I really don't have a problem with someone that does, but I just don't have the desire to do that.
The meat that is available in the grocery store was killed by someone. I choose to kill the animals I eat myself. I know how the meat has been processed. The animal has not been injected with growth hormones or antibotics or fed processed feeds. It has been proven that wild game meat is lower in fat and better for human consumption than processed beef. I also prefer the taste a lot over beef. It's just better.
I am debating with you because I feel very strongly in my right to keep and bear arms. I feel like you are someone that believes guns should be taken from law abiding people. I feel it is important to make my point. You are not interested in hunting, target shooting, owning guns, or using a firearm to protect your family. Thats your choice, but Please don't try to restrict my rights to do so.
Gun ownership comes with a big responsibility. Just like owning a motor vehicle or anything that has the potential to cause a fatal accident. Accidents happen. It is very tragic when someone is killed in an accident involving a firearm just as it is tragic when a person dies from any accident or illness. Outlawing guns is not going to change this.
Like the bumper sticker says.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
A straight reply--
You make a lot of good, solid points with which I can't disagree. Even some of the ones with which I disagree (as to our personal preferences, not on the facts), I see your points. Protection of one's family is one example; maybe if I lived in either a sparsely-populated town in the middle of nowhere, or in a crime-ridden ghetto, I might want to have a gun in my house. I instead generally live in safe suburbs, which is not to say there are no robberies of stores and of cars, but virtually never a home invasion or a murder. And the police get here in a flash if called.
Would I want to have a gun if my home was invaded? Of course. On that very rare chance. But I like living a carefree life when possible, thus my choice of safe places to live. To buy a gun, train with it, then make sure I have it (loaded or not loaded, a key question) in the right room, in the right place therein . . . seems a bit much for me. And should I have one in every room, so that if someone breaks in, I have no problem in having steel in my hands within seconds? Like the reading glasses that I DO have in every room. That seems to be a scary form of overkill, and with that many guns around, if I had kids . . . God knows what would happen. And I am quite aware of the statistics on accidental gun deaths. Clearly, a child is safer in a home WITHOUT a gun-- so I'd like you to address why it's better for a kid to get killed by another kid accidentally, which is (or was) 43 times more likely than him being saved by Dad with a gun protecting the house from the much-less-likely home invader. Hence my position: I and my kids are safer with no gun in the house. That's something I believe; I can't guarantee it will bear out in all circumstances, but the statistics back me up strongly. That you might believe the stats yet choose to own guns anyway--solely (for the moment please) on home protection grounds-- is your right and your choice, and I wouldn't knock it. To each his own, esp. in matters concerning protecting one's own life. I just think the more guns we throw at a problem, the worse; not the better.
Rolling Stone and articles supporting conservative views? Why, yes, I've read many there. It used to be conservative to keep religion out of government--freedom FROM religion. To require people to pay for what they use (I'm refering to hospital emergency room care here and requiring insurance.) To keep gov't out of the bedroom. And I've read many articles in Rolling Stone supporting those positions. Even still, I'll take the bait and agree with you that it is and has always been a progressive publication. Now, compare that with a website you read that has a name like, "audacity of hypocrisy.com". I mean, please. What makes a person seek out a site that denigrates the country's fairly-elected president? And be reasonable-- would you agree with me that Rolling Stone has wholly professional journalists who do their research, using multiple sources, etc., unlike the majority of the Righty sites, where they just say ANYTHING (as long as its hateful of liberals)?
As to the 2nd amendment, I disagree highly. It is there, as it states, for a militia--and one can assume not a militia to fight its own government. Protection from a tyrannical government? Please, isn't this purely contrived, made up out of whole cloth? I understand the Right, and the further right one is in the US, the more he is suspicious of-- no, let's be honest-- the more he hates his government. Esp. his federal government. Me, I don't hate my state or federal government, never have, and I am FAR more scared of the loons with a platform who hate government, like Michele Bachman, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Peter King, Palin, etc., than I am of a government headed by a normal person, such as we have now and have always had. But please show me where protecting oneself from his government is in the 2nd Amendment. I believe this is made-up NRA bullshit that no one believes except scared gun owners and scared gun buyers who rush to the gun shops, panicked into doing it by NRA commercials, every time a Democrat wins the White House. As discussed in another post of mine. I have never seen that this right is the one that protects all our other rights, and it was never framed as such. Only by the NRA. The thought that any gun owner or any 10,000 gun owners, or 4 million, could protect the country from the armed forces if a president went tyrannical, is laughable. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee anybody's rights. Not from where I'm sitting. Just more rhetoric for the ill-informed masses, from the gun lobby.
I have no beef with hunting when people eat the meat, never have. If that meat is more healthy for you and you eat it after killing the animal, I have never had any problem with that. My issue is the sheer pleasure many "God-fearing" hunters have in killing, in destroying life. Looking at a sweet, cute animal and just blowing its head off, for fun. For "sport." And for "manliness." Sarah Palin shooting a moose dead on TV-- only to make a buck. Just blowing it away, and laughing. I sincerely wish the moose had shot her dead, and no, I won't take that back. Had the camera failed, I'm sure she would have killed another moose for this "important" scene in her TV show. Had the camera angle been bad, a 3rd moose would have had to die. All because Sister Sarah has to prove what a cold-blooded killer she is to the gun crowd. It made me sick. I value life much more highly than this "pro-lifer."
Which brings me to one of my many rifts with the Far Right. Most there claim to be "pro-life." Ha, what a joke. They are pro-life until you're alive, then they want NO social programs, NO public education, NO food stamps for the poor, NO unemployment insurance even, NO nothing. They are much more accurately "anti-Choice" or "anti-abortion"--but in no way "pro-life." Otherwise, the Right LOVES to kill; it loves ALL its wars, wants to start more of them (even now), has NO problem killing Middle-Easterners (or Vietnamese previously) by the thousands, generally doesn't give a shit about its own war dead nor the injured US vets, and usually LOVES to kill animals. And LOVES capital punishment (I'm pro-capital punishment myself.) Plenty of Righties talk of KILLING liberals, too. The Christian Right is so damned un-Christian in its attitude toward life in every venue, but that they nonetheless are anti-abortion, which for marketing purposes they call "pro-life," is truly a joke.
The thing you wrote that seems the most objectionable to me is about how Obama is a liar, and the examples you chose. Because I think he's the most honest president in our history, certainly in my lifetime, and has an honest and admirable administration. Maybe Lincoln was more so, I don't know. Anyway, you and your source point to Gitmo and the two wars. Ah, let's see, where to begin. Would you and your source care to state what YOU would prefer on these three issues? Because, the only ones who should be mad at Obama on these three issues are MY side. YOUR side, if you're a Righty, wants those wars to continue for decades more, and for us never to close Gitmo. THEN, when Obama cooperates with you on all three of these issues, your side calls him a liar. What in hell do you want from him? Seriously. If he accomplished those three things already, you'd call him (as the Right does every day), "unpatriotic." In the health care law, he took some money from Medicare, something he'd never do BUT HE WAS ACCEDING TO THE REPUBLICANS. Then, they didn't vote for the law anyway, and NOW, they bitch (and use in campaigns) that he "took money from Medicare." Your side HATES Medicare and wants it eliminated, and voted against its establishment in 1965. Can't your side admit, when he cooperates with YOU, that you shouldn't THEN complain about it?
So, please tell me, Randy, since you like to read websites that call the president of the United States a liar--such sites are DEDICATED to that-- yet I'm sure you consider yourself a patriot-- WHAT is your position on those issues which you say he lied about? Are you a "stinking, anti-American, motherfucking, please-die-now Liberal" (words I've heard from the Right for 30 years), who actually wanted us to leave the two wars fast, and to close Gitmo because it was too vicious and illegal? I sure doubt it. If so, it's pretty indecent to call Obama a liar when he compromises on his principles to cooperate with you. My side should be mad at him on those three issues-- not your side.
You know, when the country elected a 20-year drunk to the presidency, against my wishes, in 2000 (well, the Righties on the Supreme Court made GW Bush president, I almost forgot), neither I nor any Democrat I knew wished for him to fail, or hated his guts, or ANY of what the Right does EVERY time a Democrat wins an election. There IS no hatred like good-old, middle-America hatred of anyone educated, open-minded, fact-driven and not Bible-story-driven, or ethnically-challenged (non-white). But I truly wished Bush would be successful and figured maybe some good things (to my mind) would come of his presidency. I feel this way anytime a non-crazy Republican takes office. Yet, I never see a Righty hope for or expect good things from a Democrat, only "We've got to take OUR country back." From who? In the last few days, one of the nastiest, most negative Right-wing assholes of all time, John Sununu, a foreign-born Palestinian-American, called pure American Barack Obama (yes, American-born, except for those Righties who don't consider Hawaii a state) "un-American" in several ways. Then, Sununu did what the Righties often do, they insult Democrats with the most blood-curdling shit, but later apologize . . . as if they didn't mean every last word of it.
So on the issue of politics, until the Republicans reverse their hating of anything non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, or non-Republican, I will never consider voting for a Republican. I might add that I think it's not only unpatriotic, but criminal, when your entire agenda, as an elected official from the Republican party, is to cross up and defeat the president of the US on every legislative bill he supports, to invoke the filibuster on every bill (unheard of before Obama), and on every nominee for office he backs or nominates. This is today's Republican/Tea party-- just fuck up everything, gridlock Washington to a halt, and get a 7% rating for Congress. ALL at a time the country needed to work together to get out of the biggest financial crisis in 80 years; but no, the Republicans thought it was better to stand in the way of EVERYTHING because this was their shot at getting back the presidency. Country be damned.
Sick, hypocritical psychopathic assholes like Newt Gingrich calling Obama "the food-stamp president"-- how racist that is, and since it was GW Bush that caused the largest move to food stamps, how inaccurate. Yet the Repubs were willing to make that discredited creep president-- anybody but a Democrat.
Randy, in my entire life, I never heard any Lefty say they disliked Republicans as a group or sought to kill them, but I hear it all the time from the Right about Democrats. I've heard the word "liberal" used as a Righty punchline and as a pejorative, entirely derogatory, freaking curse word, for 30 years at least. Since Reagan's time. Funny, I have NEVER heard one Lefty use the word "conservative" as a pejorative, or with sarcasm dripping from his or her lips. Why is that? As Bill Maher says, not all Republicans are bigots, but if you're a bigot, you're most likely a Republican. I am positive that's true and would bet my life on it. If it is true, why is that?
Nice chatting (seriously).