Agree To Disagree I Guess

[grocery_mony 8]

Were about a week into the Canadian election campaign and the word abortion has not yet been mentioned. Instead they are debating issues like climate change, taxes, deficits, the economy, the war in Afganistan. I have yet to hear the word god by any of the candidates and that is the way it should be.

[copernicus 0]

Were about a week into the Canadian election campaign and the word abortion has not yet been mentioned. Instead they are debating issues like climate change, taxes, deficits, the economy, the war in Afganistan. I have yet to hear the word god by any of the candidates and that is the way it should be.

given that twice as many people in the US deem religiion as very important in their lives (59% vs 30% in Canada) this shouldnt be a big surprise. And that ratio holds true (or grows) when compared to other wealthy non-Islamic countries. and given that Harper is a born-again Christian, I dont think god will stay out of the campaign permanently.

[AmScray 355]

now that is something I dont think I can check on but it sure is interesting.

Check away. http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=644

Someone just get the AKs out of Miami then and I will call it a day.

Speaking of Miami, I remember when then Miami Sheriff Ken Jenne (now incarcerated himself) was asked to help the geniuses at CNN "understand" the upcoming expiration of the Assault Weapons ban.He took them out to a firing range and gave a demonstration of a fully automatic AK47- a type of weapon that wasn't even addressed in the Assault Weapons ban, but definitely in line with the "myth" that the ban addressed machine guns.Here's a transcript.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/15/se.13.htmlCNN was absolutely flooded with calls and emails pointing out the error and poor Wolfie himself had to do a VERY begrudging on-air retraction.

[CaneBrain 95]

Check away. http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=644Speaking of Miami, I remember when then Miami Sheriff Ken Jenne (now incarcerated himself) was asked to help the geniuses at CNN "understand" the upcoming expiration of the Assault Weapons ban.He took them out to a firing range and gave a demonstration of a fully automatic AK47- a type of weapon that wasn't even addressed in the Assault Weapons ban, but definitely in line with the "myth" that the ban addressed machine guns.Here's a transcript.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/15/se.13.htmlCNN was absolutely flooded with calls and emails pointing out the error and poor Wolfie himself had to do a VERY begrudging on-air retraction.

Ok well it sounds like the Assault Weapons Ban was a really crappy law. If it doesnt outlaw AK-47s whats the point? I am in favor of banning AK-47s. There I said it.Also, the demonstrator was echoing my thoughts on assault weapons.....that things like AKs have no place on the streets and no one can have a legit reason for protesting a ban on actual automatic weapons. That was my only point....I never said banning real machine guns would end crime....it just seems like an easy decision.LOL at the Miami sheriff now being an inmate. The municipal gov't here is so corrupt....such a jopke of a city. At least the scenery is nice.

[El Guapo 8]

Why are you stuck on AK's? I mean they are a pretty good weapon, that have stood the test of time. But what are your thoughts onAR-15'sM-16'sM-60'sUZIsMac-10'sTech-9'sRPG'sMini-14'sMP5's

[CaneBrain 95]

Why are you stuck on AK's? I mean they are a pretty good weapon, that have stood the test of time. But what are your thoughts onAR-15'sM-16'sM-60'sUZIsMac-10'sTech-9'sRPG'sMini-14'sMP5's

only because I know about them and they have been recently used in Miami crime. I agree with the person in that article AmScary provided. Actual machine guns are way too dangerous, serve no purpose other than killing/destroying shit and everyone should support their ban (even if said ban does not do much to reduce the overall crime rate).I will assume the above list is one of popular automatic weapons akin to the AK. I have read a lot about UZIs. I would hope there are not a lot of criminals storing rocket propelled grenades. I dont know much about the rest....as you can probably surmise I am not a big gun guy. i fired a handgun at a range once. it was fun.

[El Guapo 8]

only because I know about them and they have been recently used in Miami crime. I agree with the person in that article AmScary provided. Actual machine guns are way too dangerous, serve no purpose other than killing/destroying shit and everyone should support their ban (even if said ban does not do much to reduce the overall crime rate).I will assume the above list is one of popular automatic weapons akin to the AK. I have read a lot about UZIs. I would hope there are not a lot of criminals storing rocket propelled grenades. I dont know much about the rest....as you can probably surmise I am not a big gun guy. i fired a handgun at a range once. it was fun.

My post was not serious, I thought the inclusion of the RPG and the M60 would have made that evident.Although I think if someone want to own machine guns, go ahead, after proper background checks.

[jmkiser 0]

Your watching too much law and order (I know you know the episode I'm talking about)

And I know the exact same episode you both speak of <--- L&O junkie... but only the original and SVU... I have a very love/hate relationship with CI. Some of their episodes are utterly brilliant, some of them bore me to tears.

[hblask 1]

Ok well it sounds like the Assault Weapons Ban was a really crappy law. If it doesnt outlaw AK-47s whats the point?

The point was the same as most of the drivel that comes out of congress: to pander to the uninformed with a law with a nifty title and no meaningful content. At that it was quite successful.

I am in favor of banning AK-47s.

Then you'd have to pass a law banning AK-47As. Then AK-47Bs. The Assault Weapons Ban shows the folly of this thinking. Among people who knew better, it was called "The Ugly Weapon Ban", because it was all about what was scary looking and not functionality. The problem is there is no single description of what an "assault weapon" is that can be codified into law without also banning lots of other guns that clearly do not fall into that category OR can be easily circumvented.And oh, it's already illegal to use AK-47s to commit crime. In fact, it's illegal to commit crime. Are we to believe that making it *more* illegal will have an effect? If someone is facing a lengthy stay in prison for murder, do you think they care about the additional 6 months for carrying a banned type of gun? "Well, I want to kill my neighbor and have to decide which gun to steal... but if I steal that AK-47, I'll get an extra 6 months in jail tacked on to my 42 years".

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The point was the same as most of the drivel that comes out of congress: to pander to the uninformed with a law with a nifty title and no meaningful content. At that it was quite successful.Then you'd have to pass a law banning AK-47As. Then AK-47Bs. The Assault Weapons Ban shows the folly of this thinking. Among people who knew better, it was called "The Ugly Weapon Ban", because it was all about what was scary looking and not functionality. The problem is there is no single description of what an "assault weapon" is that can be codified into law without also banning lots of other guns that clearly do not fall into that category OR can be easily circumvented.And oh, it's already illegal to use AK-47s to commit crime. In fact, it's illegal to commit crime. Are we to believe that making it *more* illegal will have an effect? If someone is facing a lengthy stay in prison for murder, do you think they care about the additional 6 months for carrying a banned type of gun? "Well, I want to kill my neighbor and have to decide which gun to steal... but if I steal that AK-47, I'll get an extra 6 months in jail tacked on to my 42 years".

Sort of like banning "Pitbulls" (or is it "PITBULLS!!!" since that seems to be the preferred exclamatory).People hear about "PITBULL!!!" attacks in the news and say: "Gee, that is a scary looking dog. And I always seem to be hearing about them causing harm. There are plenty of other "good" dogs, only bad people seem to like them, and they seem to be all about ego. We should ban the breed."Forget that there is no AKC PITBULL!!! breed, CDC Statistics indicate that EVERY breed of dog has been involved in human fatalities, and that the vast majority of "PITBULL!!!" owners are responsible dog owners with pets that are tame and part of their families. Let's ban them because I am afraid of them and they seem dangerous to me - you'd be stupid not to want to ban something so dangerous.Very similar ignorance surrounding "Breed Specific Bans" as there is around "Assualt Weapon" or "AK-47" bans

[Nimue1995 1]

Why are you stuck on AK's? I mean they are a pretty good weapon, that have stood the test of time. But what are your thoughts onAR-15'sM-16'sM-60'sUZIsMac-10'sTech-9'sRPG'sMini-14'sMP5's

Lol my husband owns a mini 14. It's not a bad weapon but is definitely a short range weapon. Not too accurate long range. If I were to choose a weapon to protect myself from an intruder though I'd still go for my trusty shotgun.

[Mercury69 3]

Lol my husband owns a mini 14. It's not a bad weapon but is definitely a short range weapon. Not too accurate long range. If I were to choose a weapon to protect myself from an intruder though I'd still go for my trusty shotgun.

Your husband's equipment needs an upgrade...

[nutzbuster 7]

get some! lol....me in '83...LMAO!!! what a dork.

[Kenny Banya 0]

These boards have started to annoy me a bit and I've been using stronger language as a result and I don't want to do that. I support Obama. I also like Biden. I think McCain is a great man but don't like the direction he wants to lead our country in. Palin bothers me. Her positions, the choice in general, to her accent (trivial I know.) Before Obama even came on the scene I've had my views of the country and the world. Then I hear Obama echoing exactly how I feel about this country and the way things should be done. Not on all issues, but on most. I did research on him, read his books, listened to more of his positions on various issues and I felt strongly that he is the guy I'd like to see be president. With McCain I never felt that. I never found any common ground with what he says and what he'd like to do as president. Palin takes that to the extreme for me based on what I've heard from her thus far. No one on the forum is going to change my mind, and I'm certainly not going to change yours. So on that note, I'd prefer to agree to disagree. That doesn't mean I'm not going to voice my opinions, but following these threads to debate point after point is both tiresome and time consuming. I'm an unashamed Obama man, no question about it. I don't mind the fact that he will raise my taxes, because his plan will lower the taxes of 95% of Americans who need the break more than I do. I'm pro-life, but I respect Obama's reasoning for not wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's an issue I've gone back and forth on several times in my life, spending most of my life being pro-choice. In fact, my ex-girlfriend did have an abortion about 8 years ago (her choice). I'm for gun control. Not a big fan of hunting and I think laws should be much stricter in terms of how easily it easy to acquire guns. I'm against the war. I do believe the war in Afghanistan warrants us being there to get Bin Laden if we can. Leaving Iraq and thus saving American's $350 million a day is a priority to me. It can't be rushed, and I understand that. On immigration I'm torn. I've heard Lou Dobbs and know where he stands, but on this issue I go back and forth too because I'm not really sure what the right thing to do is. On foreign relations, I'm for repairing damaged relationships over the Bush era. This is one of the main attractions I have to Obama as he sees things the exact same way that I do. I personally believe it's extremely important to make our allies happy so that they will be willing to fight with us, instead of against us. On the environment and global warming, while McCain seems to be somewhat sympathetic to the issue all reports show that Palin is much less so. On drilling, I'm not completely against it, but if we decide to do that I'd love to hear some experts tell us if it will make enough of a difference to make it worth it? From what I've heard, the impact would be minimal so I think the government would be better served to use those funds and put them into alternative energy sources. On gay marriage, I'm all for civil union but don't think any church should be forced to accept gay marriage in their congregations. On education, well, unfortunately, I'm not educated enough to have a solid opinion either way :-) If you are curious about where I stand on other stuff, I have no problem sharing and telling the truth.

To take this away from guns for a second, but how are McCain's and Obama's foreign policy any different than each other? Same on Georgia-RussiaSame on PakistanSame on AfghanistanSame on IranSame on wanting to keep the 100s of bases and 1000s of troops overseas Same on being the policemen of the worldSimilar on Iraq, such as leaving long term bases and troops thereYeah Obama may want to do some more "talking" here and there but they will ultimately pursuit the same policy and interests.And BTW it is pretty obvious that there is little understood about taxing people and transferring money from the private to the public sector and monetary policy. Government can't run anything, they are the least efficient distributor of goods and services...why do you want them to run every sector?? Health, education, banking, housing now...when is it going to stop!!

[El Guapo 8]

To take this away from guns for a second, but how are McCain's and Obama's foreign policy any different than each other? Same on Georgia-RussiaSame on PakistanSame on AfghanistanSame on IranSame on wanting to keep the 100s of bases and 1000s of troops overseas Same on being the policemen of the worldSimilar on Iraq, such as leaving long term bases and troops thereYeah Obama may want to do some more "talking" here and there but they will ultimately pursuit the same policy and interests.And BTW it is pretty obvious that there is little understood about taxing people and transferring money from the private to the public sector and monetary policy. Government can't run anything, they are the least efficient distributor of goods and services...why do you want them to run every sector?? Health, education, banking, housing now...when is it going to stop!!

You know why? Because its the correct thing to do. Bush may have mis-managed aspects of the war (some of that also falls on our military), but that does not take away from the fact that we need most of what you have said above to stay relatively the same.

[copernicus 0]

To take this away from guns for a second, but how are McCain's and Obama's foreign policy any different than each other? Same on Georgia-RussiaSame on PakistanSame on AfghanistanSame on IranSame on wanting to keep the 100s of bases and 1000s of troops overseas Same on being the policemen of the worldSimilar on Iraq, such as leaving long term bases and troops thereYeah Obama may want to do some more "talking" here and there but they will ultimately pursuit the same policy and interests.And BTW it is pretty obvious that there is little understood about taxing people and transferring money from the private to the public sector and monetary policy. Government can't run anything, they are the least efficient distributor of goods and services...why do you want them to run every sector?? Health, education, banking, housing now...when is it going to stop!!

BHO thinks he can accomplish those goals while cutting the defense budget in order to make his (bogus) tax cut promises come closer to balancing his spending plans in other areas. He is doing it by cutting technology and missile defense appropriations at the very time when we need them the most, as more of the world goes nuclear and develops delivery capabilities.

[AmScray 355]

Your husband's equipment needs an upgrade...

I really love them.They are extraordinarily durable. I owned plenty of AR's, AK's and other "mean" guns, but my truck gun for a long, long time was a Mini- I probably had 10,000 rounds through that thing with a grand total of ONE stoppage. Never had an AR that was remotely that reliable.AR's are great guns (at one point I had 7), but Minis tend to be a little more respected by people who actually 'use' guns, as opposed to to Walter Mitty's who like to play GI Joe on the range or accuracy theorists who are only concerned with group size.

[TrulyRaNd0m 0]

Her positions, the choice in general, to her gender (trivial I know.)

FYP

[grocery_mony 8]

given that twice as many people in the US deem religiion as very important in their lives (59% vs 30% in Canada) this shouldnt be a big surprise. And that ratio holds true (or grows) when compared to other wealthy non-Islamic countries. and given that Harper is a born-again Christian, I dont think god will stay out of the campaign permanently.

You have probally awnsered this before in these superthreads in this section, but do you beleive religion should play as such a big role in poilitics in your country as it does?

[El Guapo 8]

You have probally awnsered this before in these superthreads in this section, but do you beleive religion should play as such a big role in poilitics in your country as it does?

I'll answer this one from my perspective. I don't think it necessarily has to play any role, but at the same time if someone does have religious beliefs it does not preclude them from serving our country. Even if they make them publicly known. We have been a primarily christian nation since inception, many of our legal documents, and our legislative, judicial and executive branches have references to God in various key places. So you cannot just erase it from our history as a nation because there is a growing number of Athiests in this nation.Our country is based on freedom of religion, not from it. While I don't believe that any particular religion should be taught in the public school system it also should not be condemned and sheltered from the children either. There is definitely a fine line there. Banning the pledge of allegiance is just ridiculous IMO.We as a nation have begun a trend of going 100% the other directions on things. In a middle school near my house, they had the whole "pledge of allegiance ban thing" but at the same time they have Muslim appreciation day, where the kids get extra credit if they dress in traditional muslim garb (whatever that is, I am sure it differs by nation), they also have gay appreciation day. This stuff is just over the top, you can't use the word God in class, but you can have kids dress like Muslim, which is a religion.

[copernicus 0]

You have probally awnsered this before in these superthreads in this section, but do you beleive religion should play as such a big role in poilitics in your country as it does?

No I havent answered it, and it doesnt play as big a role as it may look from an outsider.

[Jimshoen 0]

Daniel - Great post. Sen Obama is an inspiring man and appears to be a great leader, but I'm having a hard time seeing an honest approach in his campaign. Take his 95% tax claim issue for example. First of all, more than 5% of Americans pay no federal tax at all, some estimate 30-40%. So Sen Obama can't cut taxes on 95% of Americans because there aren't 95% who pay, even if he could get the Congress to vote with him. It's not a tax cut, it's a rebate check. The rebates will be paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I'm guessing the oil companies will then increase gas and oil prices to offset the increase in tax they pay and we pay more. Also, if Sen Obama increases taxes on businesses they will pass those costs on to you. You'll need your rebate or "bate" check (can't get a "re-bate" if you didn't pay at all) to pay for these increased costs. Does this sound like a tax cut for 95% of Americans? Sounds dishonest to me. I realize both sides spin things, but this isn't even close and it affects my pocketbook. I wish 100% of Americans could have health insurance, but how do you pay for that. With at 95% tax cut? Taxes, personal or business, will increase the cost of living for most if not all Americans. If he says this about taxes, what other proposals are being presented in a less than honest way. Is this a case where someone will say anything to get elected. Honesty and integrity count. Agree or disagree.

[brvheart 1,752]

Daniel - Great post. Sen Obama is an inspiring man and appears to be a great leader, but I'm having a hard time seeing an honest approach in his campaign. Take his 95% tax claim issue for example. First of all, more than 5% of Americans pay no federal tax at all, some estimate 30-40%. So Sen Obama can't cut taxes on 95% of Americans because there aren't 95% who pay, even if he could get the Congress to vote with him. It's not a tax cut, it's a rebate check. The rebates will be paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I'm guessing the oil companies will then increase gas and oil prices to offset the increase in tax they pay and we pay more. Also, if Sen Obama increases taxes on businesses they will pass those costs on to you. You'll need your rebate or "bate" check (can't get a "re-bate" if you didn't pay at all) to pay for these increased costs. Does this sound like a tax cut for 95% of Americans? Sounds dishonest to me. I realize both sides spin things, but this isn't even close and it affects my pocketbook. I wish 100% of Americans could have health insurance, but how do you pay for that. With at 95% tax cut? Taxes, personal or business, will increase the cost of living for most if not all Americans. If he says this about taxes, what other proposals are being presented in a less than honest way. Is this a case where someone will say anything to get elected. Honesty and integrity count. Agree or disagree.

Don't worry about that, Obama's administration will then come in and force fixed pricing on things. After the companies go bankrupt the government will take them over and we'll live in paradise.