HuskyCaucasian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) lulz at libertardians. If all taxation is theft, therefor there should be NO taxation, how does he propose we... pay the president? pay congress? What will he say when his local roads are nothing but gravel with deep potholes? Who will he call when his house is broken into or is on fire? Edited August 18, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Let 'em carry. I think its pathetic and cowardly - they obviously can't get their point across in any other way, so they resort to intimidation via weaponry, the hallmark of someone who has already lost. But its perfectly legal, so, let 'em be. You start trying to take their guns away, and you end up making things much, much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) If all taxation is theft, therefor there should be NO taxation, how does he propose we... pay the president? pay congress? What will he say when his local roads are nothing but gravel with deep potholes? Who will he call when his hose is broken into or is on fire? Oh man, I'd hate it if my hose was on fire. That sounds really painful. Sorry, couldn't help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) Oh man, I'd hate it if my hose was on fire. That sounds really painful. might want to see a doctor if that were the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:34 AM) Let 'em carry. I think its pathetic and cowardly - they obviously can't get their point across in any other way, so they resort to intimidation via weaponry, the hallmark of someone who has already lost. But its perfectly legal, so, let 'em be. You start trying to take their guns away, and you end up making things much, much worse. I agree, but what happens when one of them opens fire on a congressmen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:21 AM) It's completely legal in Arizona. But making a threat of any kind towards the President is grounds for instant arrest, even if it is a joke, under federal laws... which is kinda what the author was trying to insinuate in his article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) If all taxation is theft, therefor there should be NO taxation, how does he propose we... pay the president? pay congress? What will he say when his local roads are nothing but gravel with deep potholes? Who will he call when his house is broken into or is on fire? Private corporations can always take care of you better than government. Government is a failure at everything and private enterprise results in unbridled success and better conditions for everyone. /libertardianism That's just the extreme, anarchist form of libertarianism. There's also the small-government variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 10:34 AM) Let 'em carry. I think its pathetic and cowardly - they obviously can't get their point across in any other way, so they resort to intimidation via weaponry, the hallmark of someone who has already lost. But its perfectly legal, so, let 'em be. You start trying to take their guns away, and you end up making things much, much worse. I feel like they have every right to do it if the state allows it, but at the same time, why? It's so obnoxious. Yeah, I get it. You support 2A rights. You're also an attention whore. Now I'm walking around in public with my kids and I don't want to take my eyes off you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) Private corporations can always take care of you better than government. Government is a failure at everything and private enterprise results in unbridled success and better conditions for everyone. /libertardianism Under that idea, then every citizen should be taxed.... i mean... have to pay a toll every 100 feet to pay for the road you just traveled over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:50 AM) I feel like they have every right to do it if the state allows it, but at the same time, why? It's so obnoxious. Yeah, I get it. You support 2A rights. You're also an attention whore. Now I'm walking around in public with my kids and I don't want to take my eyes off you. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Hell I am one of those people who hates crowds because I am constantly watching everyone else for the one jackass anyway, this would just make it worse. USSS has said its no biggie to them, these people were not allowed inside their perimeter. So from a Presidential protection point of view, probably not a big issue. The question is more about public safety. But they are allowed, so, there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 07:59 AM) Yeah, that's pretty much it. Hell I am one of those people who hates crowds because I am constantly watching everyone else for the one jackass anyway, this would just make it worse. USSS has said its no biggie to them, these people were not allowed inside their perimeter. So from a Presidential protection point of view, probably not a big issue. The question is more about public safety. But they are allowed, so, there it is. Yeah, the Secret Service isn't stupid enough to let any of these guys get close to a clear shot. But the crowds on both sides...there's some serious emotion flowing in a legit rally...it's only going to be via luck that no one pulls the trigger if a dozen people keep showing up at every event for the next year carrying loaded weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:34 AM) Let 'em carry. I think its pathetic and cowardly - they obviously can't get their point across in any other way, so they resort to intimidation via weaponry, the hallmark of someone who has already lost. But its perfectly legal, so, let 'em be. You start trying to take their guns away, and you end up making things much, much worse. Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding cohort at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s. And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11. The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape. In July 1996, after a grand jury indicted the suspects, federal agents "seized about 90 high-powered rifles and hundreds of pounds of a bomb-making compound from the shabby bungalow of a man whom officials identified as the ordnance specialist of a local paramilitary group," the New York Times reported at the time. Hancock, who in recent years designed the famous "Ron Paul rEVOLution" graphic, was an oft-quoted defender of the militia members. The tapes of the government buildings, he said at the time, were purely "educational." ..... Reached by TPMmuckraker at his home in Arizona today, Hancock said he continued to believe the Viper Militia case was a fraud. "I was good friends with Dean Pleasant, one of the guys that did five and half years," Hancock said, who added the entire case was "made up." "I've been feeling this coming again," he continued. "It's the same people. It's Rahm Emanuel, it's Janet Napolitano. It's Hillary Clinton. All these were the same people that were doing it back then." Napolitano, who later became Arizona governor and is now secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, was the prosecutor in the Viper Militia case. "This militia scare is what got them their crime ban. It was all manufactured," said Hancock, scoffing at the term "White Al Qaeda," which he said he's been seeing in the local press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) HA! I love it. I wonder if that women realized Frank is Jewish when she called the plan he is supporting a "Nazi Plan". I'd tend to think she's rather ignorant. Edited August 19, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) I'd tend to think she's a f***ing ass clown. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 props to the media for giving the crazy assault rifle wearing whackos, birthers and deathers, and I haven't seen a single person on any of these shows asking people affected by the health care system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) HA! I love it. I wonder if that women realized Frank is Jewish when she called the plan he is supporting a "Nazi Plan". I'd tend to think she's rather ignorant. lol, Barney Frank has given plenty of reasons to say bad things about him, you don't have to make up reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Criticizing American foreign policy while on foreign soil is un-American, or at best, "apologizing for being American" is it not? At least that's what we've been told, so... why is the right pretending Huckabee's criticizing of Obama's policy while in Israel as something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) Criticizing American foreign policy while on foreign soil is un-American, or at best, "apologizing for being American" is it not? At least that's what we've been told, so... why is the right pretending Huckabee's criticizing of Obama's policy while in Israel as something else? Because everyone knows he loves America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) Criticizing American foreign policy while on foreign soil is un-American, or at best, "apologizing for being American" is it not? At least that's what we've been told, so... why is the right pretending Huckabee's criticizing of Obama's policy while in Israel as something else? ohhh good catch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) Has anyone seen Huck's birth certificate? Just curious. Shouldn't he have to prove he's an American? I will also need to personally verify its accuracy. Edited August 19, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Let 'em carry. I think its pathetic and cowardly - they obviously can't get their point across in any other way, so they resort to intimidation via weaponry, the hallmark of someone who has already lost. But its perfectly legal, so, let 'em be. You start trying to take their guns away, and you end up making things much, much worse. I've been thinking about this whole town-hall thing more than I probably should be and I've come up with a couple of thoughts: a. It's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a theatre or "Bomb!" on an airplane because it runs a pretty high risk of inciting chaos. However it's become apparent that bringing a loaded assault rifle to an already tense political event is perfectly acceptable. These people may have the right to do bring guns wherever they want, but if precedent from the 1st amendment applies they really shouldn't. b. We are seeing the comfort zone of relatively extremist individuals being expanded. Right now they feel pretty vindicated and/or proud to be bringing guns to rallies, but what happens when that becomes so commonplace that there is no longer much thrill in it? Where is the line going to be drawn here? If you let people get away with stuff like this over and over eventually they are going to push the limits... what that entails is anybodies guess at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 BTW the USSS's public comments on that situation are just putting a positive spin on an uncomfortable situation - you're crazy if you think they're happy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) b. We are seeing the comfort zone of relatively extremist individuals being expanded. Right now they feel pretty vindicated and/or proud to be bringing guns to rallies, but what happens when that becomes so commonplace that there is no longer much thrill in it? Where is the line going to be drawn here? If you let people get away with stuff like this over and over eventually they are going to push the limits... what that entails is anybodies guess at this point. Whether for good or ill...the laws state that what they're doing is perfectly legal, and it's perfectly legal for the media to egg them on. We saw where the surge of crazy militia folk wound up taking us last time a Democrat was in office in 1995. Seriously, the Obama admin better be smart about keeping an eye on things that could be used as munitions. You don't want to wind up having something major happen because you ignored a "Summer of threat" while talking about health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) Criticizing American foreign policy while on foreign soil is un-American, or at best, "apologizing for being American" is it not? At least that's what we've been told, so... why is the right pretending Huckabee's criticizing of Obama's policy while in Israel as something else? I just want to know why the left isn't saluting his patriotism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) I just want to know why the left isn't saluting his patriotism? Frankly I have no problem with it, the "Politics ends at the shoreline" thing only makes sense in the abstract. But shouldn't you be attacking him for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts