#21: Fresh Start?
THREAD BEGAN: November 29th, 2004
From now on, all contributions to this forum will be made by posting comments at the bottom of each thread.
(1) Click on '# comments' then on 'Post a Comment' to get to Comment Sign-In.
(2) At Comment Sign-In:
-----Those of you who have a Blog can click 'Sign In'.
-----Those who don't can click 'Get One Now' or 'Or Post Anonymously'.
-----If you are posting Anonymously begin every post with "YOURNAME:"
I will start a new thread when/if this one gets too long.
Enjoy, but remember...
- Please keep each post to under 500 words
- Try to limit the cut-and-paste (use links when possible)
- Play nice
posted by Robert @ 12:18 PM
54 comments
54 Comments:
Hey guys. Curious how you feel about Bush not working to get the 9/11 recommendations passed. Pretty sad start. I am trying to give the guy a chance, but its hard when this type of shit happens.
I agree. Bush needs to invest a little of his political capital to get this bill passed. Hunter and Sensenbrenner are willing to stop hundreds of reforms because of up to three minor details that can be fixed later.
I really think Bush could put a little more pressure on Hunter and Sensenbrener, but I am not counting Bush out just yet. Don't they vote on it Dec. 6th. Maybe we will see a change in their votes then.
Well, Chuck I'll tell you what..it's hard to get over the election. I am trying so hard to change my outlook on the War/ U.S. Casualities too but so far...nada.
I mean how can we? Bush is still Bush. Wrong is still wrong. I don't know man...i'm just trying to ignore the news. Maybe it would be a good idea to talk about some general partisan issues (I think Jay wanted to talk about Gun Rights at one point) more so than current news. Cause the news hurts too bad. Everytime that I see Bush, I wanna puke. And now we have Rice stepping up, oh lord!
Let me tell you exactly why. I can no longer go to BBQs here and defend us by saying that there is a difference between the American people and the U.S. government and that this government doesn't represent the will of the people. Its tough to swallow.
Bob, I feel exactly what you are feeling in regards to the day to day activities and news. My ability to handle my feelings sways from day to day. Sometimes I, like you, give up on the day to day news. However, other days, I want to fight these guys tooth and nail, day after day.
The Dems laid down and gave bush what he wanted after 9/11, without any analysis, and he got everything he wanted. We cannot let that happen again. That said, we still must choose our battles. We cannot just fight everything, but keeping up, day after day, is how I will stay alert and smell a big disaster. For example, I'll just shrug my shoulders when Bush cuts after school spending by 3%. But I'll be ready to explode the moment Bush wants to pass something as disgusting as his Energy Bill.
That said, I definitely would like to discuss broader issues. Its a way to keep sanity and maybe even find some common ground b/w all of us.
Hey guys, can't sleep because I am sick due to the fact that I was back in that frozen tundra they like to call Ohio.
Anyways, I agree with Chuck and Bob in that fact that the daily news drives me up the wall. I really am trying to back this President, but if you pay attention to the news on a daily basis like most people should, I find that to be nearly impossible.
The fact that this President ran a campaign based on security is one thing, but when he rufuses to take the 9/11 commissions recommendations into effect baffels me. Go figure another huge contradiction made by an incompitant President.
Hey all, I couldn’t come home for the holidays, but for those of you in the Montrose area: Try to recruit some old Revere Alumni for the Blog during your nights in the Valley. NOTE: We really need some conservative voices! 100 liberals bitching about Bush gets old fast. Good luck.
Is that Justin Kattan? Welcome aboard.
Sorry, another born and raised liberal here. However, I will make a negative comment about their party..Did anyone see Michael Moore on Leno last night? That gentleman needs to seriously consider mixing in a salad or he wont be around for 2008. I have not seen Faren 9/11 and really have no desire to do so but last night really disturbed me. He was cleanly shaven and in a suit and never looked worse. However, it was amusing when he ending the interview by sarcastically blurting out "4 more years" Good Day
TG
Maybe all of the conservatives are on one of the other "Internets"
Yes Bob, that is me! Thanks for the welcome! Missed you over the holidays, although this cold I have is nothing to come home for.
Well, I like this format...it seems less formal. Before I felt like I was submitting testimony sometimes. Anyhow, today I noticed something when I was teaching a lesson about Individual Rights and Responsibilities in the States. It has to do with Conservatives' and Liberals' stances on personal freedoms.
I think most people would agree that in general, it is the far right that seems to be prone to place limitation and exceptions on personal freedoms while the left, being at times idealistic, seems to preach personal freedoms with little or no limits.
The right seems to feel, that although not written into the constitution, that limitations and restrictions are obviously necessary to uphold the moral fiber of the society etc. etc..
Some examples that we talked about in class:
(1) Freedom of Speech + Freedom of Press:
Who is it that wants to censor Marilyn Manson, Too Live Crew and Hustler?
The far right.
(2) Freedom of Religion
Remember that email I sent you guys about the Muslim stamp boycott…Those people sounded like they'd support a Muslim boycott if it was on the ballot. Who is it that supports nation wide Muslim roundups and discriminatory profiling?
The far right.
When those crazy Devil worshippers are being oppressed they call up the liberals to defend them on a constitutional basis and the far right has a shit-fit.
(3) Rights of the Accused
Who doesn't really care about the prisoners in Guantanammo Bay that don’t have a trial or a lawyer or Rodney King, minority rights and loves racial profiling…the far right.
So over the course of the class we kept coming back to this pattern.
Far right…more restrictions.
Far left…less restrictions.
Then we got to the Right to Bare Arms and the tables flipped! It was so bizarre.
In this category, liberals were pushing for gunlocks and waiting periods and assault weapon bans while the far right was uncompromising and interpreted the 2nd Amendment as limitless and unrestrictable; while they had no problem making common sense exceptions in all other cases.
Personally, I support the 2nd Amendment.
But I think like all personal freedoms there must be limits. The word 'arms' should include hand guns and rifles, but not bazookas, automatic weapons, and nuclear bombs. Duh.
It seems so crazy to me when the far right isn't willing to make a distinction between the type of 'arms' that our forefathers must have envisioned (a rifle to protest the farm) from a shoulder mounted grenade launcher or an AK-47.
I support a citizen’s right to carry a firearm for self protection and if a store owner wants to keep a shotgun under the counter…fine. But we must draw a distinct line in the sand…and where that line belongs seems obvious to me.
What say you?
I agree that a store owner has the right to keep a weapon for protection. However, for the common citizen I just dont like the idea of any yahoo bearing arms. It's really for no other reason other than that the fewer guns there are the fewer problems there will be associated with them. It's just a personal opinion, I really have nothing to back it up, it's just a view.
TG
HEWITTTTTTT and the crew..its me..i cant contain myself to the "chief boards" anymore...everyone is being recruited to NYC for new years and many more good times...so that is how i will get it started on these boards...and i am clearly a liberal so more of the same pile on in here.
Just because the 9/11 Commssion says to do something - there is no rule that every single thing they says has to be implemented immediately. lets make sure the changes are proper and not just quick fixes to make people happy
also - all you bitching about Rice as new SOS. Is Bush supposed to surround himself with people who disagree with him? Clinton didnt. Bush won. he can appoint whom he wishes in his cabinent.
Boy, letting bush pick his cabinet could be a catastrophe in itself. I am not sure that he knew he could go outside of his cabinet to replace powell.
Now I can see how Bush has run companies and ballclubs into the ground: All you have to do is be horrible at your current position, wait until someone can no longer handle bush's bullshit, and you will get promoted! Where do I sign up?????????
I don't know about you guys, but I don't know who 'smittypop2' is or what 'F suits' means. I like to know who I am dealing with. I encourage everyone to use their God-given birth name in the Blog or at least tell us who you are.
For those of you commenting on your feelings since Bush's reelection you sound like it isn't worth getting out of bed in the morning, and the days just aren't worth living; like humanity has been let down. This guilt-trip, feel sorry for me, why don't they just see it my way, attitude isn't going to get any compassion or empathy from me. Not because your candidate lost, or moreover, Bush won, but because it really is pathetic.
I am not sure that it is compassion or empathy that I am personally seeking. Rather, it is a true sense of reality I seek from all people. For example, today, Tom Ridge resigned. That is the seventh, yeah i said 7th, out of 15 cabinet memebers to go already with more expected on the way. If that doesnt sum up what this President and his adminstration is about, I am not sure what does. Think about it...... That is like coke saying that the Presidnet and CEO of their company just signed a new 5 yr contract. Just because of this news the companies head of marketing, business operations, public relations, and CFO all resign. This is a pretty clear sense of the reality that they are not happy with the production of their boss. That to me represents a TRUE sense of reality. Not blured by money and greed amongst other things.
I think the problem with your last post, Justin, is that the facts aren't right in front of you. Being a newcomer to the blog your first realization needs to be that we are quick to call out one another. Listed at the end of this post is a link that you can go to find out some facts on your last post...study...then type.
Let me just say most of the resignees (i.e. Powell), which were appointed first term, had only one term in mind. Their resignation should be no surprise to anyone. Those that are simply being ousted shouldn't come as a surprise either. Restructuring one's Cabinet is part of every (re)elected President. This goes back to the days of Washington. Hell, everyone's "favorite" president, Clinton, replaced 10/14 of his Cabinet positions during his second term, some of which were replaced 3 or 4 times during his eight years.
As for "who" he is appointing, like for instance you commented earlier (at least I think it was you) on Rice being appointed Sec. of State. Yes, it is true he could go "outside of the company" for his appointment, but why? Rice is well suited for the position, as is Gutierrez, and as Keeler mentioned, why not pick some who has surrounded you for the last 4 years. Over this time, they have proved their competency and leadership, which justifies Bush's appointing their new positions.
Welcome to the Blog!
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101275.html
Oh yeah, I almost forgot...How's that for reality?
Hey its Sammartano
I would like to talk about Bob's 2nd amendment blog posting. 1st I would like to ask the members of the blog if any of us own a gun. If any of you do or don't and support the 2nd amendment, tell us why. Obviuosly I am against the right to bear arms, and now with concealed weapon policies being invoked in many states, I believe it is getting out if control. Yes the 2nd amendment was for our forefathers for hunting and protecting themselves. I beleive we live in a more civilized world where I don't need a gun to go hunting just to feed myself. Personally I don't need a gun to protect myself, cause I live in a reasonably safe area, I know it is unsafe in some areas of the city, but get rid of the guns and you lower the murder rate. Its a fact, don't deny it. Its just that easy get rid of the guns lower the murder rate. Oh, if anyone is a part of the NRA, I would like to sign up, just to give you guys a bad name.
Dan, I cannot help myself. You are jumping on Justin when you have still not justified all the fictional tales about how automatic weapons have never been banned....or something similarly wrong?
Okay, and to make it worse, your facts are inaccurate. Clinton had 7 replacements for his second term, not 10. You said 10...that is wrong. So before you jump on someone, please be right. (by the way, we can manipulate these numbers in both of our favors based on mid-term resignees, but i believe that we are all talking about the turnover after the re-election)
Either way, I would say the turnover is not unthinkable. I do think the promotions have been unacceptable. Also, there are rumors that 2-3 more members may leave, which would be 10 (the amount that dan falsely claimed clinton replaced).
My opinion, is that these people that resign are disgusting. Not the education secretary or the commerce secretary....but the Attorney General and Homeland Security. Its ridiculous. Do these guys really care about our security? They are quitting to go make money as lobbyists.
Ashcroft actually proclaimed his work was complete (so there are no more terrorists in the US....he jailed them all, i guess). Ridge was only on the job for a year and a half. And he had the duty to keep our homeland safe....and he wanted to do something else? That is not a patriot, that is....well, i'll just say, the opposite. At least Bush cares enough to want to serve the country.
To Summarize: Dan is not in position to call others on the facts, based on his automatic weapons claims. Whenever Dan does get in that position, he should attempt to be accurate in the facts he puts forth. Finally, you really have to wonder about Ridge and Ashcrofts care for this country.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You are correct that i am new to the blog. That is about the only fact that you had correct. I stated one fact in my last post about the fact that 7/15 have resigned. That is the truth, the rest was my opinion. So, maybe before one can get a true sense of reality one must know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Below is a link the a website that will explain that to you.
Simply stating that I am new to the blog does not have any implications for the legitamacy of my arguments. I am actually well informed about politics, almost too much for my own good at times. SO ripping on me for being new, just isnt going to cut it anymore.
One quick point about our suppossed "friend" Canada. Does anyone remember one of their top officials calling bush a "MORON" TWICE. Now that is either a true sense of reality, or they are not playing nicely as friends.
I will end this post like I will end all my posts.....
Yourpresidentnotmine
I am opposed to all guns. If I could, I would ban everyone of them.
However, I am not dictator, and it seems like a lot of people like guns. The whole thing scares and disturbs me, but that is where people like me must keep an open mind. There can be compromises, and we have some good ones in place (safety locks, time restrictions). I think we can handle this issue reasonably, but at times we seem to go in crazy directions (EX: reauthorize semi-auto weapons, or providing loopholes for gun shows).
I do think these concealed weapon permits seem nuts, but I dont really know the impact....aside from me randomly wetting myself when seeing redneckish folks in rural areas.
Look I do not want to get into it personally with anyone in here, with that being the case I am not sure how often I will be posting. We shall see how much i cna contain myself from letting my opinions out.
Thanks
Chuck,
Your derogatory name-calling, which Pattakos called you out on, your and condescension is starting to piss me off. I wasn’t jumping on Kattan. I was merely telling him that we pick at every little detail of each of our posts---Kattan, I hope you took it that way.
Clinton changed out Sec. of Agriculture in 1995, plus 9 Cabinet members from 1996 on. I am going to save myself the time, by not typing each person and branch of government that were changed, in hopes that each of you will go to the website I have listed in my earlier posting. Assuming '96 (year of reelection), being the cut off, we are both wrong. --According to the data on the website-- You act as if I just spit out shit that just comes to mind when dealing with these issues. Besides, my point was, it isn't atypical for a President to go through restructuring in/around reelection time.
As for the assault weapon ban, I am only going to say this one more time. This is turning into Jay and Hewitt’s Afghanistan argument. Semi-Automatic weapons (if I ever included Automatic I meant only Semi) WERE NOT ILLEGAL to sell IF sellers restricted certain features. They are as follows:
Rifles: Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:
• Folding or telescopic stock
• Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
• Grenade launcher
Pistols: For a pistol to be considered a “SAW,” among other things, it must have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features:
• Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer*
• Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
• Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
• Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
You could argue that having these features doesn’t make them assault weapons, but let’s get serious. They are what they are. This was my point with a simple change to this or an addition to that, look who has an assault weapon.
--Just tellin’ the facts
"your president not mine"?? Did I vote for Bush? No..Do I support him? For the most part yes bc I love this country and it's the best place to live in this world. If you think its so bad just bc Bush is our president then get out! I mean it must be nice to be 25 yrs old and not have to work to support yourself bc your living off your trust fund. Know what it's like to actually EARN a living and then go try to that somewhere else. This is a great country. It's not like we are all going to start living out of our cars bc Bush is president. Talk to some men who are fighting in Iraq. I personally have conversations with one on a monthly basis. Get some real world experience and then say how bad "my president" is. I didnt vote for him but yes he is "my president." I mean, do u even have a job? Or do u just count the money your grandparents left you? Seriously, its people like you who I wish knew what it was like to worry about paying a bill, or putting gas in your car.
First of all, what a pussy you are for not identifying yourself. Secondly, I have a job and have worked since i was 13 years old, so dont tell me about worrying to pay bills and all thsi Bullshit, you mother fucker. Thirdly, my grandparents are all still alive, so if there is a trust fund set up I am not receiving any of that at this moment.
You have some balls to say that stuff about me I will give you that. But to not identify yourself makes you the biggest pussy i have ever seen in my life. Nobody said anything about moving out of the country. The facts are there about this presidnets performance, and they are a miserble failure. BUT TO ATTACK ME PERSONALLY MAKES YOU THE BIGGEST PILE OF SHIT.
IDENTIFY YOURSELF YOU STUPID FUCK
Dan, It is cool I understand what this is all about. But when this anonymous person makes personal attacks that are not true, that is too far over the edge.
If anyone has a clue as to who this is please let me know. Actually just post it in here so we all know what a fool he or she is.
I will get back into this soon....I am still decompressing after the great national victory of Nov 2. Plus I dont like to gloat. I agree with one position of Chucks stuff - I am against guns. Other than that, there aint much else we can agree on politcally.
There is turnover after every election - the people are leaving now, yes, but Bush had incredible stability in his first term cabinet - something not seen by the previous 6 presidents. Now people are leaving. Working 12-15 hr days 6 or 7 days a week has to be taxing. I understand leaving. I understand anyone getting burned out from a job like that from any admin. I get burned out after walking to get my mail. After I woke up at noon.
Hey anonymous,
One other FACT that I forgot to mention, I am a full time student earning my Masters degree. So I guess that is just another Fuck you, because I have a job and I am a full time student. SO i an not sure where you are getting your information, but you might want to double check into the source.
Peace Mother Fucker
Hey all,
For anyone who is interested...here is the back-and-forth between CHUCK and PETE that ended up in the inbox instead of the Blog. Hope this gets us all caught up.
CHUCK SAID:
Hey all, I just wanted to bring something to everyones attention. On November 2 voters in Alabama voted to keep segregation-era constitutional law requiring separate schools for "white and colored children".
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/
Its really sad. At least that's not the "base" of my party. Now, I dont think anyone here is overtly racist like that, but i just think its important to remember.
It is especially important to remember when certain people (i am thinking of ben and viscione) rail against activist judges and demand the elimination of things like affirmative action and other initiatives designed to empower racial minorities.
(by the way, as i continue to ponder the loss of kerry, i continue to gain pride because i know my side did not rely on support of these type of segregationists. and i didnt vote for the party that is blocking the 9/11 commission recommendations. and i didnt support the guy that is doing nothing to pass the 9/11 recommendations.....but when bush wanted those tax cuts, he ran ads against opponents and made sure he had his way. and you people think bush will make you safer?)
PETE SAID:
A) Alabama is not the "base" of anything, and if you actually read the article, it leads to an inference that taxes and judicial overreach were overriding concerns of the voters.
B) I'm glad you take comfort that you didn't vote with the Alabamans,but does it make you any more comfortable to vote with the "friends of suicide bombers," or the U.N.? Why don't you (any of you anti-war folk) ever have anything to say about the Oil for Food program?
C) It's amusing that you are hooting and hollering for the 9/11 recommendations to be unilaterally adopted (as though any recommendations from the blindly partisan panel are automatically good ideas), yet are against actual operations that do make us safer.
CHUCK SAID:
1) To act like that the alabama amendment was anything but racism is pathetic. the article points out that those suggestions of taxation were silly, and a way to mask racism. No Question.
2) YOU ARE A FUCKING ASSHOLE to claim I vote w/ friends of terrorists, etc....that is shitty. What is your basis, anyways? Additionally, the UN is a good thing, and to act like its not is moronic. The UN should not run our country, but to just mock it shows massive ignorance.
3) 9/11 recommendations are blindly parisan? what are you implying? i really have no idea. Addtionally, the people obstructing its passage should be put in jail.
4) take it to the blog. but you wont, you'll just duck in for a minute, attempt to seem profound, and then not be heard from for 2 months.
PETE SAID:
Chuck, I think it's funny that I'm a "fucking asshole" for pointing out that Democrats vote with "Friends of the Suicide Bombers" aka interest groups that deny Israel's right to exist and people like Noam Chomsky that celebrated 9/11 yet you are somehow less of a "fucking asshole" for pointing out that there are racists that voted for Bush. News flash: there are racists that vote Democratic too. My point was that you really were making no point.
Is it really massive ignorance to mock the U.N when Libya is on its human rights commission? Again, do you even know what the Oil for food scandal is? Why won't you address it? I've brought it up countless times, but nobody's said a word of it...what am I to think of this but that you're not even aware of it. (and I'm the massively ignorant one?) In a nutshell, it appears that French, Russian and Chinese interests were receiving serious kickbacks from Saddam who was able to funnel BILLIONS (estimates are now up to 24) of what was
supposed to be UN aid to do God knows what with...(pay families of suicide bombers?) This has now been exposed, thanks to the Iraq war.
This is to say nothing of the fact that Kofi Annan's (Secretary General of the UN) son Kojo was given a job at a company that was receiving these kickbacks from Saddam? And we're supposed to listen when these people tell us not to go to war? How does my concern with
this make me massively ignorant? How does your seeming ignorance of the very existance of this scandal not make you massively moreso? Please explain.
Finally, yes, after this back and forth I will probably not send another email until after I'm finished with my exams. As much as I appreciate your suggestion that I only write in some vain attempt to seem profound, the truth is that I'm not after profundity, just factual accuracy and well reasoned arguments. The issues discussed here are quite complex, and to discuss them intelligently (as opposed to saying things like "UN good, 9/11 commission good, Pete and Viscione morons") would take time for further research that I just don't have right now as I've got quite a bit of studying to do. I'd like a decent job when I get out of school. Sorry.
CHUCK SAID:
apologies to all for my irrational explosion on pattakos
First, one risk of using this new Blog format is that we might get anonymous people making personal attacks.
Just to fill this guy in, personally, I am completely cut of from the folks. In my life I have worked in 10 restaurants including recently being a dishwasher at BOSTON MARKET (glamorous huh?)!
I am presently living in a small mountain town in the Southeast of Brazil (Itajubá) working my ass for $3 per hour teaching English trying to land a job in São Paulo on the weekends…and believe me, I am having some money problems of my own. Quite frankly, I don’t know how I will afford a $1100 plane ticket to get back home when that time comes. Obviously, this person doesn’t know me very well.
About the cabinet-shake-up, I agree with Dan and Ben. I think this kind of thing is normal and isn't necessarily a reflection on Bush. It doesn't matter if 10 or 7 or 9 of Clintons positions turned-over…the point was right on REPs.
Now back to that anonymous post:
The guy says a few things that I really loved:
(1)"The U.S. is the best place to live in the world."
Maybe it is…maybe it isn’t. But the way that this guy drops this ‘fact’ is an indication of small-town patriotism at its best. I wonder has this person ever lived outside of the U.S.? I found an article at CNN international. It is a bit old (2001) but I’d like to share it with the group. It says:
“UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations Human Development Report has
ranked 162 countries according to per capita income, health care, life
expectancy and educational levels.
Top 20
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. Belgium
6. United States
etc...."
Now, I am not dogging the U.S. I love the U.S. and I love living there, but I also loved living in Australia…and I think it is fair to say that this title of the 'obvious best place in the world to live' is open to discussion.
I'd just like to return to the point that I made in Thread #20…that is that we Americans have this huge chip on our shoulder…and view everything outside our borders as primitive/inferior. This is a sure sign that this guy is not well traveled.
(2) Then he says… “if you don’t love it...leave it.” This is one of my favorite backwoods bumperstickers. How ignorant. I think everyone at this Blog understands the role that we all play as citizen watchdogs. And the importance of forums like this...people speaking freely and questioning their government is a vital part of any true democracy.
So, in closing. All are welcome to participate, but if you're gonna get nasty...
PUT YOUR NAME ON IT.
(and remember we are all friends, so don't get too nasty, please.)
Okay, lets keep it all friendly. And again, sorry for my role in being a dick.
Dan, like I said, I do agree w/ your basic premise that this is not unprecedented. And I think we are just juggling around numbers to make our points. Either way, both Clinton and Bush had 7 replacements from term one to term 2. (and both clinton and bush had other replacements in the middle of sessions, which would alter the number)
Again, you found some nice bullet point presentation about the assault weapons ban about all this stuff I have no idea about. What I do have an idea about is that AK47's were NOT legal, and now they ARE LEGAL. (along w/ a whole series of guns).
Dan, you are basically saying the assault weapon ban had no effect. I disagree, and I think the facts support my case. The law basically outlawed rapid fire (repeatedly pulling the trigger w/out reloading) guns. Also, you were earlier discussing Automatic Weapons being legal. That was simply wrong.
Bob,
I was kinda hoping my embarassing exchange w/ pete would disappear in to trashed email. But that's okay.
I should just add, then, that I also sent Pete a personal apology because i acted ridiculous.
You know what, we are all friends in here or so I thought. No friend of mine would make a personal shot at me like that. But hey you are a coward for not putting your name on it. It is like punching someone directly in the back of the head with a mask on. I did or said nothing to personally attack anyone in here. So as far as keeping it friendly i completely agree, but in the case of the anonymous asshole, he or she can go fuck themself.
Well, just letting everyone know that I have set up the Blog so that it DOES NOT ALLOW ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. This means that everyone who wants to comment needs to setup an account with Blogspot...most of you already have done this and it only takes a second.
I also put a new poll on the site...the question is which type of format is the best for this forum. So let me know. It just seems like we had 20 full threads of dialog with less name calling and cursing than this thread alone (maybe that's not true, but it's close). I hope this will help.
Chuck, I figured that everyone had already read your exchange with Pete and I was trying to move everyone over to the Blog. Hope I didn't piss you off, man.
Justin (and everyone else new), usually things here are heated, but not personal. Don't get discouraged by this ugly thread.
So glad I didn't get 40 emails. This is a much better to read all the comments in the flow. I also welcome Justin to the forum. Kudos to Hewitt and File. I look forward to future discussions.
No problem Bob. I actually didnt like getting my ass ripped up by Pete. I need to look more into this food-for-oil thing, which appears to be pretty bad (which doesnt make the UN bad or iraq acceptable)
Also, I am pretty sure i know how "Anonymous" was (so does justin). He is just a bitter asshole. Pay no attention.
Chuck please tell who the anonymous person is, the suspence is killing me!
Has anyone noticed how far the time is off for the postings. Whats up with that? Oh because Bob is in another time zone. Well whatever. I am for open blogging. I like the idea of people being able to voice their opinions not apart of this group. It could make for some heated debate.
Although, the person that attacked Justin was obviously from Revere, because they knew our age group, and knew that Justin came from money. Don't worry Justin all of us came from money, shit we all went to Revere didn't we, we were just a step behind Hudson brats.
I think the person should come forward who posted that, because I would love to see how much money they came from. We can make snap judgements about each othe all we want, and it is funny to see how pissed off people can get. But the idea of this blog is political debate, with a sense of humor. Personal attacks should be slowed, but not stopped. Its the best part of this blog. But whatever, I
like the idea of an open blog, so other people can come and play along.
I give you my word, I will always tell you if I am writing, cause I am not afraid of anyone, especially Nugent. You here that Nugent, I am coming for you big guy. Just kidding, you know I love ya.
I never said the assault weapons ban had no effect. Although, there is a lot out there I came across that does say the ban had little or no effect, or that it was overall a bad implement. I was just saying that assault weapons could be purchased, as a restricted version....which could easily be altered to be fully functional version.
Still waiting on the masked blogger. Please tell us who you are. I really want to know!
Alright, heres the the facts. Bush let the weapons ban slide, letting automatic weapons able for resale, we all agree, and we all agree proir to this you could alter weapons to make them like this. Is anyone willing to take a stand and say that guns are good in any way. I frimly believe that weapons such as these should be allocated to the military and police force only. I am taking a stance right here and right now. I know there is much to oppose on this, so bring on your fight. Their is much to say on this arguement. Their are many things not in my favor and I will probably lose this debate, but I am willing to try to hold my own. If any are willing to be on my side I welcome you.
Jonh, I totally agree with you on this one. Nothing good can come from having a gun. Kids are killed by accidnet, people murder with them and so forth.
The only problem is they will still be sold on the balck market. This is the only arguement that seems logical to me.
But in all seriousness, what good comes out of guns?
GUNS:
I would love a ban, and would vote for such a ban and support gun control politicians. However, this fight is not something I am willing to put myself on the line for. I dont get it, but there are a lot of gun lovers out there, so if they are safe, have fun.
Dan: You are saying the weapon ban was "overall" bad w/ no basis. I dont want to keep fighting this issue. I do want to point out the premise of my initial comment about the Wisconsin massacre:
6 People Died, from an UNALTERED SEMI-AUTO Weapon, which was banned until 2004.
This weapon was previously banned because of its ability to rapidly fire.
The man that killed 6 would likely not w/out a gun w/ rapid fire.
Maybe this is an isolated incident and you don't think its a big deal. But a person or 2 died, when they may not have if this nut job did not have access to the rapid fire gun.
Chuck,
I really think when you read these posts you aren't reading what is in front of you, you are reading what YOU want to read. Either you and I have a failure to communicate, or you are just refusing to comprehend what I am writing. I'm pretty sure Sammartano understands what I am trying to say. Why don't you? I NEVER SAID THE WEAPONS BAN WAS IN ANY WAY BAD, in fact, I have never gone one way or the other on the issue. I said, I came across information (FROM OTHERS), that says, the ban has had little or no effect, or has even been claimed as an overall bad implementation.
If you really want to get down to it, I am for the Assault Weapons Ban (Brady Bill). Though, I am for protection of the Second Ammendment. I think people should be able to own guns if they so choose. Though, I do think there should be restrictions as to which guns, and their capabilities.
If you choose to rubut this post, I will not respond. I am done trying to clarify my point to you.
well, i guess we agree more then i realize.
and if there was something i felt like rebutting, i would. and you would respond.
No, I wouldn't.
HEWITT..this is matt smith you bastard...anyways...where is nugent at?? Guns are terrible in any, way, shape or form and when are you coming home?? new years, xmas or both?? later
Well, I'm not finished with the gun arguement.
I do support a citizens right to carry a firearm and think that some liberals are being a bit idealistic. I will be laying that arguement out later today.
Also, I will start a new thread today. I think that after 50 posts..it is time. This thread filled up alot faster than I expected. Good work boys.
Don't forget to vote in the poll about which format you want to use for this forum...I am still torn if we should open it up for anonymous snippers.
And Smith...I will not be coming home for the holidays. I have another tour of duty here in Brazil (6 months?) Thanks for asking though.
Bob,
Karen Adler here. I just wanted to commend you - I found out about your site via Chief Source and have been reading. I think it's great. Well done.
Also, in regards to Anonymous Ranter, I don't know who it is, but I don't think he/she is likely to reveal identity anytime soon. It sounds as if it started as a bitter rant that almost inadvertently, and maybe unintentionally, took aim at Justin. Calling the person out as a "pussy" and a "pile of shit" probably scared him/her into submission. Just a thought.
I think I am the first girl thus far to post, so I apologize for breaking up the boys club, but I don't think your site should be closed off. There are a lot of people out here (including myself) who do read. However, this is probably my first and last post; as I am really not informed enough to address most of these issues (although I am very good at name-calling).
Thanks for the consideration,
Karen
FORMAT:
I really have no problem w/ allowing anonymous w/ our current requirement of saying your name. If anyone is as big an ass as the original "anonymous" I think we will sufficiently embarrass that person w/ verbal assaults.
Bob, also one other suggestion (you may be planning on it). Try to steer the discussion, or at least give an intial topic. Then if later we veer off into other stuff 10 posts later, you can just rename the subject so outsiders know what we are talking about.
Post a Comment
<< Home