Supreme court, 2nd Amendment, gun rights [Archive]

Random

June 26th, 2008, 05:21 PM

...so, yes, I believe it's the best way to go in a society that has outrageous criminals running around in our neighborhoods and sitting in (semi?) elected seats of power.

In light of current status, it's best we all strap one on to do our daily shopping and such. I want Granny and the kids to make it home safe and sound, even if it means her having to wash the blood of some creep/s off their clothes, and a little psychological help.
It's been proven that the states that legalize sidearms quickly get a nice reduction in criminal activities because the crooks know they may be the ones that get it.
Sounds like fun to me!
That's your definition of "fun"? And I expected something more exciting from you.

Pua'i Mana'o

June 26th, 2008, 05:37 PM

I took a self-defense class several years ago which was tailored for older single women. From that opportunity, we keep cans of wasp killer everywhere in our house. If an intruder breaks in, we are taking the can, aiming for the face, ears, eyes, mouth, nose and THEN we call it a fair fight. At that time, yelling "you need to get the hospital right away so surrender now!" while doing our best to kick the intruder's ass.

We do not have guns in our home, though I was raised around them (both my parents are ardent supporters of the NRA and the Right To Bear Arms) and my husband is retired from the army. As long as we have children in our home we won't.

Random

June 26th, 2008, 05:53 PM

In light of current status, it's best we all strap one on to do our daily shopping and such. I want Granny and the kids to make it home safe and sound, even if it means her having to wash the blood of some creep/s off their clothes, and a little psychological help.
Even if the psychological help includes having to come to terms that one of her own stray bullets hit and killed one of her own kids during the incident?

Oh, well, she still have the other kids.

You can keep small-time criminals from invading your home, but sooner or later you'll come across more deviant criminals willing to bring their guns, willing to kill or worse. And I'm sure they may be expecting you to be armed as well, or at least observed you enough to know where you keep them.

TuNnL

June 26th, 2008, 06:11 PM

...so, yes, I believe it's the best way to goI’m glad you posted this Ron, because it demonstrates you have lost all credibility. In several other threads you rage against conservatives saying that left-leaning liberals are the greatest thing since sliced bread, while conservatives are never right. News flash, Ron: gun ownership rights is one of the hallmarks of conservatism.

Thank you for playing. :rolleyes:

Ron Whitfield

June 26th, 2008, 06:44 PM

As I've stated before, I'm equally liberal as conservative, and simply know right from wrong.
I have NEVER stated lefties are so great, but I'll take them any day over what's in office now, and their mind set.

It's the society we live in now that dictates stronger tactics to keep safe. Sad but true.
I want the ability to protect myself out on the streets.
I'll be happy to be without credibility, but alive and well after an attempted assault.

LocalMotion

June 27th, 2008, 12:06 PM

Since when are criminals law abiding?

Do you think criminals care if we "ban" guns from law abiding citizens?

Will the criminals say, shucks we can't get guns anymore, oh well.

Pua'i Mana'o

June 27th, 2008, 01:19 PM

I’m glad you posted this Ron, because it demonstrates you have lost all credibility. In several other threads you rage against conservatives saying that left-leaning liberals are the greatest thing since sliced bread, while conservatives are never right. News flash, Ron: gun ownership rights is one of the hallmarks of conservatism.

Thank you for playing. :rolleyes:

you have clearly not met my parents. Both are gun-owning viet nam vets (volunteered, not drafted), one works for the federal gubmint and the other is a small business owner, and they consider themselves social liberals, scorning "conservatives" as the biggest threat that faces the middle class for being willing pawns to big business domination at the expense of society.

TuNnL

June 27th, 2008, 01:36 PM

you have clearly not met my parents. Both are gun-owning viet nam vets (volunteered, not drafted), one works for the federal gubmint and the other is a small business owner, and they consider themselves social liberalsGood for them. They are living proof that even if you are a social liberal, you can take a neocon position on war and a conservative position on gun ownership. :eek:

LocalMotion

June 27th, 2008, 01:36 PM

you have clearly not met my parents. Both are gun-owning viet nam vets (volunteered, not drafted), one works for the federal gubmint and the other is a small business owner, and they consider themselves social liberals, scorning "conservatives" as the biggest threat that faces the middle class for being willing pawns to big business domination at the expense of society.

wow. most business owners i know vote republican due to the taxing of small business. a lot of small business will be getting a lot higher tax bills with dems in office.

i'm neither elephant or donkey... just vote for what i believe is the best for us.

Random

June 27th, 2008, 02:06 PM

i'm neither elephant or donkey... just vote for what i believe is the best for us.
Unfortunately, you only have two choices in this two-party democratic system. Too bad there is no donkephant, the kind that taxes the rich dry and give it to the poor (sorry, the middle-class will have to fend for themselves).

Leo Lakio

June 27th, 2008, 02:10 PM

Too bad there is no donkephant, the kind that taxes the rich dry and give it to the poorAs opposed to the present-day "elephonkey?"

Random

June 27th, 2008, 02:23 PM

As opposed to the present-day "elephonkey?"
"Elephonky" and "Donkephant" are the same thing.

What you're most probably referring to are "elephasses."

TuNnL

June 27th, 2008, 02:56 PM

Unfortunately, you only have two choices in this two-party democratic system.Au contraire. In most states, there are at least three choices, for an increasing number of offices. A partial list of politicians all recently elected within our “two-party democractic system”:

Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota (Reform)
Keiko Bonk, Hawai‘i County Council (Green)
Jim Jeffords, U.S. senator from VT (independent)
Gayle McLaughlin, Mayor of Richmond, CA (Green)
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator from CT (independent)
Myron Deitrick, Mayor of Avis, PA (Libertarian)
Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from VT (independent)
Rick Jore - Montana state representative (Constitution)

Current U.S. presidential candidates (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=15393)
Current candidates (http://hawaii.gov/elections/candidates/reports/candidate_report.pdf) for Hawai‘i political office

Leo Lakio

June 27th, 2008, 02:59 PM

What you're most probably referring to are "elephasses."Of course, you realize there are more horse's asses in the world than there are horses. :D

Random

June 28th, 2008, 08:07 PM

Of course, you realize there are more horse's asses in the world than there are horses. :D
True, but for the record, I prefer to be called a "stallion." ;)

Leo Lakio

June 28th, 2008, 09:23 PM

True, but for the record, I prefer to be called a "stallion." ;)Sorry, my friend - but you couldn't even pay me to call you that.

(Not that you had any desire or plan to do so.)

Pua'i Mana'o

June 30th, 2008, 08:17 AM

Good for them. They are living proof that even if you are a social liberal, you can take a neocon position on war and a conservative position on gun ownership. :eek:

neocon, rotfl…

my parents have a strong affinity for the populist ideals that their parents embraced.

wow. most business owners i know vote republican due to the taxing of small business. a lot of small business will be getting a lot higher tax bills with dems in office.

Maybe among younger small biz owners, but in my folk's generation, theirs are views widely-held among their peers. Look around the democratic party and notice how many older, small biz owners there are. Plenty.

sinjin

June 30th, 2008, 08:43 AM

We do not have guns in our home... As long as we have children in our home we won't.Us too but mostly for fear of a self-inflicted wound. Not the keiki, me. No rest for the wicked.:D

Pua'i Mana'o

June 30th, 2008, 08:49 AM

hehe.

I believe in the freedom to bear arms, as well as the freedom of not having to.

sinjin

June 30th, 2008, 09:05 AM

hehe.

I believe in the freedom to bear arms, as well as the freedom of not having to.Me too. I think the 2nd Amendment is clear enough allowing private ownership. I choose not to. I also think advocates need to be realistic. Something like 200,000 weapons are stolen annually from law-abiding citizens. To suggest this is not a significant source of arms for criminals is naive IMO. I get the whole Wyatt Earp thing but how often in real life are you going to have your gun when you need it unless you even take it to the bathroom with you? Watch TV with it in your lap. Unless it's a permanent fashion accessory you know you'll be without it the one time you need it. I can't live like that.

timkona

June 30th, 2008, 09:33 AM

It's the reduction in "people" crimes that is the clinching stat. It's a no brainer, and by far the biggest problem for the anti gun crowd. When society is armed, with concealed carry permitting, criminals are a little "gun-shy." What is really great about it is that not everybody needs to carry a weapon. So it's okay for libs to not have weapons. The rest of us will gladly protect you, and have no contention with the anti-gun sympathy. You are welcome to your opinion as long as you feel the same way about my opinion.

The mere suggestion that someone MIGHT be carrying is enough to deter "people" crimes.

TuNnL

June 30th, 2008, 04:46 PM

Good for them. They are living proof that even if you are a social liberal, you can take a neocon position on war and a conservative position on gun ownership. :eek:neocon, rotfl…
my parents have a strong affinity for the populist ideals that their parents embraced.Hmmmm...the Iraq War and the Vietnam War were both wars of choice. To my knowledge, neoconservatives were the first to push this type of philosophy on the American people. “Populist”? Says you. :rolleyes:

Random

June 30th, 2008, 05:26 PM

Hmmmm...the Iraq War and the Vietnam War were both wars of choice. To my knowledge, neoconservatives were the first to push this type of philosophy on the American people. “Populist”? Says you. :rolleyes:
The same could be said of the first Gulf War. Did we have no choice but to liberate Kuwait and her people? Or is it as many criticized of the Iraq War, one of many US (oil) interests?

Pua'i Mana'o

June 30th, 2008, 07:02 PM

Hmmmm...the Iraq War and the Vietnam War were both wars of choice. To my knowledge, neoconservatives were the first to push this type of philosophy on the American people. “Populist”? Says you. :rolleyes:

Tunnel, seriously dude, how young are you?

My parents are past 60. They were kids when they enlisted. Graduated in the mid-60s. Children of WWII vets themselves. "Choice"? Nobody thought like that back then. All that flower power stuff wasn't to be until years later.

As for populist, I merely parrot the term that they have long used for self-definition. It isn't a trendy term nowadays, like neocon.

Pick up a history book, babe, and get thee some context.

timkona

June 30th, 2008, 07:14 PM

Some would choose to let oppressive communism spread, and do nothing.
Some would choose to let Kuwait be overrun, and do nothing.
Some think it's okay for little girls to be denied an education.
Some would choose to do nothing while being beaten senseless.
Even in America, old men get run over, and folks do nothing.

If you think the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was wrong, how could you possibly be against the liberation of Kuwait. Times have changed.

If you think Peace is the natural order of things, you are drinking too much Kool-Aid.

Peace is caused by War. That's the history of it.

TuNnL

July 1st, 2008, 03:09 AM

My parents are past 60. They were kids when they enlisted. Graduated in the mid-60s. Children of WWII vets themselves. "Choice"? Nobody thought like that back then. All that flower power stuff wasn't to be until years later.I don’t see what time and era have to with anything. Flower power, or more accurately “liberal pacifism,” is the opposite of neoconservatism, so my description of your parents philosophy on war remains intact.

As for populist, I merely parrot the term that they have long used for self-definition. It isn't a trendy term nowadays, like neocon.Being that neocon and populist philosophies generally do not overlap, your rationale is meaningless, terminology not withstanding. It’s only been popular to be a neocon among Republicans, who knew they were in trouble after FDR’s popularity, and thus needed to bring more people into the party besides traditional conservatives. The easiest way to accomplish this was to embrace the military-industrial complex.

Pick up a history book, babe, and get thee some context.Well, let me give you some history. President Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Presidency_1913-1921) refused to get involved in World War I, even after the British vessel Lusitania was deliberately attacked, killing 120 civilian Americans. In fact, the United States did not involve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Entry_of_the_United_States) themselves until 1917, after Great Britain shared intelligence reports showing Germany’s attempt to goad Mexico into attacking the U.S., with Japan as their backup. This philosophy is known as isolationism, an ideal that has generally been abandoned by mainstream Democrats and Republicans. The last non-interventionist presidential candidate with a chance of winning anything was Barry Goldwater. Today, only a tiny minority led by Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich keep the faith. Mainstream dems like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton are a joke.

Further evidence of this is Bill Clinton’s signing of NAFTA, a multi-national trade agreement that essentially encourages businesses in the U.S. to outsource American jobs. Clinton is perhaps one of the biggest enemies of the American worker in the last half-century. It’s also important to note that, as Timkona alluded to earlier, Clinton was bombing the hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox) out of Iraq well before Dubya came along and decided to invade. Not to excuse Dubya, but the point is, neither president had a humble foreign policy — they are both globalists who subscribe to the “New World Order” agenda (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=12729).

Politics are a lot more complicated then the neanderthal Ron Whitfield chestthump: “Democrat good. Republican bad. (chimpanzee noise goes here)”

cynsaligia

July 1st, 2008, 05:15 AM

having see this:

Politics are a lot more complicated then the neanderthal Ron Whitfield chestthump: “Democrat good. Republican bad. (chimpanzee noise goes here)”

come after all of this:

...so, yes, I believe it's the best way to go in a society that has outrageous criminals running around in our neighborhoods and sitting in (semi?) elected seats of power.

I’m glad you posted this Ron, because it demonstrates you have lost all credibility. In several other threads you rage against conservatives saying that left-leaning liberals are the greatest thing since sliced bread, while conservatives are never right. News flash, Ron: gun ownership rights is one of the hallmarks of conservatism.

Thank you for playing. :rolleyes:

As I've stated before, I'm equally liberal as conservative, and simply know right from wrong.
I have NEVER stated lefties are so great, but I'll take them any day over what's in office now, and their mind set.

you have clearly not met my parents. Both are gun-owning viet nam vets (volunteered, not drafted), one works for the federal gubmint and the other is a small business owner, and they consider themselves social liberals, scorning "conservatives" as the biggest threat that faces the middle class for being willing pawns to big business domination at the expense of society.

Good for them. They are living proof that even if you are a social liberal, you can take a neocon position on war and a conservative position on gun ownership. :eek:

i quite agree with this:

Of course, you realize there are more horse's asses in the world than there are horses. :D

and add: how lovely that a self-entitled lower alimentary canal passes turds of pharisaical pronouncements.

*shakes head witheringly & points to own avatar*

Pua'i Mana'o

July 1st, 2008, 07:13 AM

I don’t see what time and era have to with anything. Flower power, or more accurately “liberal pacifism,” is the opposite of neoconservatism, so my description of your parents philosophy on war remains intact.

Being that neocon and populist philosophies generally do not overlap, your rationale is meaningless, terminology not withstanding. It’s only been popular to be a neocon among Republicans, who knew they were in trouble after FDR’s popularity, and thus needed to bring more people into the party besides traditional conservatives. The easiest way to accomplish this was to embrace the military-industrial complex.

Well, let me give you some history. President Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Presidency_1913-1921) refused to get involved in World War I, even after the British vessel Lusitania was deliberately attacked, killing 120 civilian Americans. In fact, the United States did not involve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Entry_of_the_United_States) themselves until 1917, after Great Britain shared intelligence reports showing Germany’s attempt to goad Mexico into attacking the U.S., with Japan as their backup. This philosophy is known as isolationism, an ideal that has generally been abandoned by mainstream Democrats and Republicans. The last non-interventionist presidential candidate with a chance of winning anything was Barry Goldwater. Today, only a tiny minority led by Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich keep the faith. Mainstream dems like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton are a joke.

Further evidence of this is Bill Clinton’s signing of NAFTA, a multi-national trade agreement that essentially encourages businesses in the U.S. to outsource American jobs. Clinton is perhaps one of the biggest enemies of the American worker in the last half-century. It’s also important to note that, as Timkona alluded to earlier, Clinton was bombing the hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox) out of Iraq well before Dubya came along and decided to invade. Not to excuse Dubya, but the point is, neither president had a humble foreign policy — they are both globalists who subscribe to the “New World Order” agenda (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=12729).

Politics are a lot more complicated then the neanderthal Ron Whitfield chestthump: “Democrat good. Republican bad. (chimpanzee noise goes here)”

Comes hither the babe rife with assumptions and short on intellectual honesty.

Assumption #1: I tell you that they enlisted in the military to serve in Viet Nam, ergo you think you can ascribe them a neocon position, though you have no clue what either of them have thought about the previous wars, successive wars, or the war in which they fought.

Assumption #2: I tell you that my parents "embrace the populist ideals of their parents" but you fail to understand what that term meant in the 20th century to the common man in Hawaiʻi. When you do, you will understand how unions rose in the 40s-60s here. Remember what the economy was like here. Who were the elites and who was the common man. From then until now, we are talking people who grew up and saw big business buy/sell and change everything, while the little mom&pops did their best to compete, niche out, or just keep up.

Get your framework right. You are drowning in silly post y2k labels that simply do not apply to the older generations.

"rationale is meaningless". Please.

matapule

July 1st, 2008, 07:46 AM

It's the reduction in "people" crimes that is the clinching stat. The mere suggestion that someone MIGHT be carrying is enough to deter "people" crimes.

Can you give me a link to those statistics, please? Malo 'aupito

Ofa 'atu
Mui Houma

TuNnL

July 1st, 2008, 08:43 AM

Comes hither the babe rife with assumptions and short on intellectual honesty.I’m just calling it the way I see it. My M.O. here is to debunk the idea that your parents’ life and political leanings somehow give credence to RW’s “all or nothing” argument.

Assumption #1: I tell you that they enlisted in the military to serve in Viet Nam, ergo you think you can ascribe them a neocon position, though you have no clue what either of them have thought about the previous wars, successive wars, or the war in which they fought.You also are guilty of assuming I am ascribing them a neocon position in general. I’m only ascribing a neocon position to the one they took at the time they enlisted for the Vietnam War. And that doesn’t mean they could have had a change of heart, once they were on the ground and saw what really was going on. (This is actually Lt. Ehren Watada’s saving grace — foresight) My apologies if my subsequent posts muddied the issue.

I tell you that my parents "embrace the populist ideals of their parents" but you fail to understand what that term meant in the 20th century to the common man in Hawaiʻi.I understand that most kama‘aina were utterly naïve to mainland politics. I am aware of my Hawaiian history, ‘anake. And yes I understand plantation economics, 442nd heroes, kanaka maoli disenfranchisement, and Ah Quon McElrath. I don’t agree that your timeframe is accurately represented by “20th century.” Try pre-1975. Hawai‘i was a little behind the mainland in this respect. Don’t forget there were a lot of Hawaiians who voted against statehood. Even back then, they didn’t have a majority, plain and simple. But they voted their conscience, blackballing be damned. Try that for intellectual honesty.

Get your framework right.Sorry. Ignorance is not bliss, nor an excuse. I’m not assigning blame to that generation, just clarifying my perspective.

You are drowning in silly post y2k labels that simply do not apply to the older generations.Labels, IMHO, are determined by consensus, not individual perspective. That’s not necessarily a good thing. But it is what it is. I am looking at things from a national perspective. You are looking at it from local. That doesn’t make you wrong, nor does it make my perspective “silly.” In the context of timeframe, if you’re saying I’m being a revisionist, then yes, I’m guilty as charged. Kalaniana‘ole, Kealoha, Anderson (both of them, though one couldn’t make up his mind), Aiona and Kawananakoa were/are all Republicans. Wilcox stayed even more true. What the dems got, Clayton Hee? :rolleyes:

timkona

July 1st, 2008, 09:24 PM

Aloha Matapule,

Google "Lott & Mustard". Lots of info there. But it is just the tip of the iceberg for evidence of reduced "people crimes." Try "concealed carry gun laws" and lose yourself in evidence and statistics that are pretty darned OBVIOUSLY convincing.

Better yet, travel to Dallas, Texas, or Helena, Montana, walk up to any crowded ATM, attempt to mug somebody with their fresh cash, and see if you don't get aerated, or at the very least, mess your undies.

Remember, weapons are not for everybody. And I respect anybody who chooses not to own one. But it's not nice for them to foist their beliefs upon me, when the evidence clearly shows that they are safer with more weapons around them. The trick, in society, is the mystery of who MIGHT be carrying.

matapule

July 2nd, 2008, 02:24 PM

Google "Lott & Mustard". Lots of info there.

Thank you for that reference. But what I found was that the Lott & Mustard study has been discredited. Check here to see what I mean: http://www.mppgv.org/Key%20Issues/lott%20&%20mustard%20review.htm

But it is just the tip of the iceberg for evidence of reduced "people crimes." Try "concealed carry gun laws" and lose yourself in evidence and statistics that are pretty darned OBVIOUSLY convincing.

Well in fact, I found in searching on the Internet for "concealed carry gun laws" the evidence is far from convincing. There are just as many studies (maybe more) in opposition than pro. Mighty confusing!

Better yet, travel to Dallas, Texas, or Helena, Montana, walk up to any crowded ATM, attempt to mug somebody with their fresh cash, and see if you don't get aerated, or at the very least, mess your undies.

Thanks for that. I wouldn't want to be aerated by a stray bullet as an innocent bystander. I will cross those places off my retirement Edens!

Anyway, this is all a moot point. The Supreme Court has made a 5 to 4 ruling and that's the way it's going to be.........until there are some retirements on the Supreme Court and another President will make appointments that will rule the other way by a 5 to 4 margin. And the arguments will begin anew.
http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/290.gif

Malo
Mui Houma

timkona

July 2nd, 2008, 09:37 PM

The best way to avoid a stray bullet, or a police K-9 bite, is to lay face down on the cement immediately, and keep your mouth totally shut.

Even in a pile of $#!+.

AlohaKine

July 3rd, 2008, 05:45 PM

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Funny how the ACLU and arch-liberals are all for civil rights until it comes to gun rights.

BTW I'm a non-gun owner. Same for helmet laws, and I'm a non-biker. Same for riding in the back of a pickup truck which I did only once and so on. Respect other people's own personnal choices, that's my motto.

Ron Whitfield

July 3rd, 2008, 06:36 PM

It's not a political volleyball, it's about protecting yourself in a (sometimes/some places) criminal filled environment. Doesn't matter if you're left/central/right, crime and protection from it are political free zones.

Just because the NRA and right wing have clamoured about it the most, they don't own it.

TuNnL

July 3rd, 2008, 06:54 PM

It's not a political volleyball... Just because the NRA and right wing have clamoured about it the most, they don't own it.You see how you continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth, Ron? When conservatives support something you dislike, the entire right wing is to blame. But when they support something you like, “it’s not political” and “they don’t own it.” Sheesh, what a double-standard. And I thought Mitt Romney was a waffler. :rolleyes:

Ron Whitfield

July 4th, 2008, 07:31 AM

...that's just your perception.

timkona

July 4th, 2008, 11:22 AM

I'm gonna have to agree with TuNnL on this one. And Leo is prolly falling off his chair at that admission.

It's why I call myself a RepubliCRAT, because I truly think there are good ideas on BOTH sides of the coin.

Ron Whitfield

July 4th, 2008, 02:18 PM

Ideas are one thing, acts are a whole 'nother ball game.

If you would please, jot out even a small amount of republican ideas that, from your standpoint, were actually good. Just from the last X few years.
I can't think of any.
And Bush's 'I don't really mean it' (like, going to Mars, wanting Bin laden's head on a plate...) BS rhetoric doesn't count.

I'll bet my '40 miles of bad road' list of horrific acts by republicans easily vaporates your's.

To see what your up against, go to www.truthout.org (http://www.truthout.org) and read the last 5 years worth of news, as this is an easy source that I can draw upon, just to start, for my list.
See you in a few months.

BTW,TK, love your 'music' signature. Now that's some truth!

Leo Lakio

July 4th, 2008, 04:07 PM

Well, from a longer perspective, here's some things I recall happening (and remember - I'm a proud leftie...)

Under Democratic administrations, we saw an escalation of the Vietnam War, the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion (which brought us closer to nuclear war than at any time in history), and the hostage crisis in Iran.

Under Republican administrations, we saw the end of our participation in the Vietnam War, the opening of relations with Communist China, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and the landing of the first men on the Moon.

I agree, however, that the Bush years & Clinton years have been pretty horrible ones. I also know that I was purposely being selective as to bad Demo situations & good GOP ones - but that's my point - that both parties can have their good and bad points. That's why I'm less quick to judge all members of a party as good or bad.

I would prefer a Democratic administration, not out of a hatred of the GOP, but because the Democratic Party comes closer to my ideals than the GOP. Though less so every election, I fear.

Ron Whitfield

July 4th, 2008, 08:22 PM

...the Nam war and BoP were under Dem. watches and a total embarrassment in efforts and reasoning. Unforgiveable.

But Nixon would have never stopped the VN war, and only due to extreme, escalating, and prolonged civil unrest and his own delayed sense of morality did Ford give it up, finally.
China? I've always said it - XXXX China! They are the enemy, and always will be.
USSR and The wall - they were just waiting to fall.
The moon shot? - great, but would have happened any way, no matter who was in charge.

So, the world always keeps turning, with or without us.

I've always voted for the lesser of two evils, much preferring to take a punch in the mouth from the Dems. rather than a knife in the back from 'our good friends on the right'.

Leo Lakio

July 4th, 2008, 08:46 PM

China? I've always said it - XXXX China! They are the enemy, and always will be.So, if we visited your home, we'd find no products whatsoever that were "Made In China" - or are you collaborating with the enemy?

TuNnL

July 4th, 2008, 09:55 PM

If you would please, jot out even a small amount of republican ideas that, from your standpoint, were actually good.

Historical:

The Confiscation Act
The Emancipation Proclamation (Lincoln)
13th Amendment [Abolition of Slavery]
14th Amendment [The Civil Rights Act] - every single Democrat voted against this
15th Amendment - equal voting rights - 97% of the Democrats voted against this
The Panama Canal (T. Roosevelt)
ended the Korean War (Eisenhower)
ended the Vietnam War (Nixon)
re-established diplomacy with China (Nixon)
the INF Treaty (Reagan)
ended the Cold War (Bush I)

Most recent:

Passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 – Senate Approved 80-19
Passed the SAFE Port Act - Senate Approved 98-2
Passed the Pension Protection Act of 2006 - Senate Approved 93-5
Passed a Sweeping Overhaul of the Intelligence Community (Created the Director of National Intelligence) - Senate Approved 89-2
Passed Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 - Senate Approved 64-33
Passed Amber Alert - Senate Approved 92-0
Passed Corporate Corruption Bill - Senate Approved 99-1
Passed Campaign Finance Reform - Senate Approved 60-40
Passed and Created TSA – Transportation Security Administration (Federalized Airport Screeners) - Senate Approved 100-0
Extended Unemployment Benefits - Senate Approved 85-9
Passed Income Tax Relief - Senate Approved 62-38

Current ideas (mostly proposed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas):

immediate repeal of the Revenue Act of 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913)
eventual abolishment of the income tax and elimination the Internal Revenue Service
eliminate the Department of Homeland Security
eliminate the federal reserve
repeal NAFTA and CAFTA
Immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (not phased as Obama proposes)
Stop policing the world
Immediately halt plans to build the Texas trans-national corridor, and future spurs of the North American Union (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=12729) Superhighway
reduction and eventual elimination of the federal debt
repeal the RealID Act of 2005.

Some of these ideas have bipartisan support, which only reinforces Tim’s, Leo’s, and my point that a representative democracy thrives best with differing and competing political parties participate in the discourse. Corruption in Hawai‘i is the perfect example of what happens when you don’t have a balance of power.

Ron Whitfield

July 5th, 2008, 09:06 AM

Not impressed with the historical list, with many disputable mentions.

Those from the recent column are some seriously limp wristed examples, most of which happened in spite of major and repeated republican/Bush opposition.

Who cares about Ron Paul.

Try again.

Leo Lakio

July 5th, 2008, 01:20 PM

No pleasing some folks. :rolleyes:
What about my China query?

(Ron - you know I'm interested in the discussion, right? Not trying to fight you; as noted before, you and I are not far apart politically - we just have a few areas where we see things different. Thanks.)

Walkoff Balk

July 5th, 2008, 01:30 PM

Guns don't kill people. People with bullets w/guns do.

Frankie's Market

July 5th, 2008, 06:16 PM

Guns don't kill people. People with bullets w/guns do.

True, but firearms sure make it a heckuva lot EASIER for people to kill others.

Take away the gun and replace it with a knife,.... at least other people have a chance to defend themselves.

Ron Whitfield

July 6th, 2008, 08:02 AM

On these particular matters I tend to forget to put some sugar on the oatmeal.

Yes, I'm quite stubborn on the issues, but it comes from decades of paying attention and constantly watching as one side does the devil's work while the other side meekly surrenders.
I blame the surrender monkeys as much as the bulls in the china shop, because the bulls can be stopped.

Ultimately, it's up to us. This never could have gotten anywhere near to what we've suffered thru and will be suffering to a great extent more very soon, if this country would have just said no to Bush. It was only obvious from a million miles away what was up as W surrounded himself with Reagan's old circle of criminals in 2000.
It's the ultimate in frustrating headshakers having watched as America let this all go down yet again, especially after we lived thru the Nixon, Viet Nam, 70s gas shortages, and Reagan/Contra debacles. Now we're screwed.