Large Scale Central

Up-holding gun rights in DC

General Discussion
#41
David Hill said:
We are adopting the Communist Manifesto one tenant at a time. It is taught in our schools (a Marxist tactic), good is bad and bad is good, very 1984-ish double-speak.

Our Constitution has been under siege since Woodrow Wilson to FRD, Kennedy and Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41 and 43, Clinton and now this buffoon usurper. Folks are fed up and things will have to change here soon.


David,
once again reference to big brother (1984). Paranoia or scare mongering to suit your own personal manifesto. You did say that you did not live in Waco, Texas? In so far as more liberal presidents altering our lives, could this possibly be PROGRESS. Nikita Kruschev feared internal revolt as he was one of Stalin’s cohorts and saw first hand the moral and social deprivation of the Russian people. Even during the height of the Second World War, Stalin was still carrying out his famous purges. Nikita feared his past would haunt him and rightly so. Stalin was poisoned by the same people Nikita feared (his own communist party).

Quote: “Folks are fed up and things will have to change here soon.”

Exactly what are you proposing here? Some may suggest that the Kennedy asassination was an attempt to affect change in American culture, as many were not impressed by his association with supposedly ‘inferior’ races of people, by effecting social change in the South. What is it that you and the Cuban Embassy in Mexico are planning???

#42

Since you seem to be offended by my ownership of guns. In order to let you know I am tolerant of your position, I put a sign in my yard.

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lastmanout/_forumfiles/banneighbor.jpg)

#43
Kevin Strong said:
Quote:
... Obama promised he would, within his first month in office, withdraw all US troops from war. The bastard first lie.
Actually, throughout the campaign, Obama was very consistent in saying he would "end the war responsibly." At no point did he ever imply that meant all troops out immediately. He knew--as do pretty much every one of us--that a wholesale withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be a very bad thing. He also consistently stated that he would focus our troops' energies on Afghanistan. Read the headlines. 18,000 troops due to pull out of Iraq pretty much ASAP, for the most part being redeployed to Afghanistan. Now, I'm as cynical about politics as anyone, but seems to me he's actually--shudder!--doing what he said he'd do.

Later,

K


Doesn’t adding the 18,000 troops into Afghanistan sound vaguely familiar to General Petraus’ “Surge” in Iraq that Obama so vehemently opposed? I suppose it depends on which side of the desk one is sitting.

#44

Tim Brien said:

David Hill said:
The US troops I have personally spoken to (dozens) are proud of their service and have extended their service contracts voluntarily. Many have requested to be redeployed overseas. I have no idea where in the hell you get your information about their cynicism.

David, it may be a suprise to you but a lot more than ‘dozens’ of troops went to Iraq. Stop loss was enforced to keep experienced groups together, irrespective of individual end of rotation, etc. Nothing was said about not being proud to serve, that is your assumption. Maybe the ‘dozens’ you spoke to were fully supportive of continual redeployment. Not all Americans are as gunho gunhappy as you! Do you actually know what ‘stop loss’ is? Just in case I added a Wikpedia link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

Did you see this photo and realize it’s meaning?

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lastmanout/_forumfiles/reenlist2.jpg)

Beneath a large American flag which dwarfed even the enormous chandelier that Saddam Hussein had built for the Al Faw Palace, 1,215 members of all military branches - representing all 50 states for a combined 5,500 years of additional service - took the oath administered by General David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq. As far as your continued insistence that you understand American ideals and values, you have been lulled into a false sense of security. Who will defend you next time your nation is in danger of imminent attack? You should be thankful so many Americans were proficient in handling weapons, else you’d be speaking Japanese today.

#45

One reason why I remain vigilant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3WXlVVnegw&eurl=http://www.reprohrer.com/&feature=player_embedded

#46
Quote:
... Doesn't adding the 18,000 troops into Afghanistan sound vaguely familiar to General Petraus' "Surge" in Iraq that Obama so vehemently opposed? I suppose it depends on which side of the desk one is sitting.
I guess anytime you add troops to a war zone, it can be viewed as a "surge" of sorts, so there's no arguing semantics. The fact is that Obama--from day 1--believed our attention should never have been diverted from Afghanistan in the first place. So while a troop increase there can--technically--be viewed as a "surge" of sorts, it's more along the lines of returning troops to the levels from which they should never have been depleted in the first place.

Think of it in these terms. You make $40K/year. One day, your employer comes along and says, “I need to reallocate some of my resources to other departments, so I need to cut your salary by 50% for the foreseeable future.” Now you’re only making $20K/year. A few years later, he comes in and says "ya know, we’re so close on our other project, I need you to give me an extra $5K this year, but it’s only for a short time. Now, you’re making $15K, and really falling behind on your payments. Finally, your boss comes back and says, “Okay, thanks for being patient with me. That project’s done, and I can now divert that money back to you. I’m going to double your salary!” Should you be happy that you got a 100% salary increase, or should you remind your boss that you’re still working for $10K less than what you were 5 years ago?

Later,

K

#47

I am questioning Obama’s integrity, not the effectiveness of troop deployments.

The hypocrisy of this man is obscene. He promised no lobbyists in his administration but has appointed numerous DC lobbyists and tax-cheats, claimed there were no earmarks/pork-barrel spending in either of the trillion dollar payoffs yet the first one had over 8,000 non-essential spending projects, troop withdrawal and anti-war rhetoric yet he continues to spend our blood and treasure, he claimed transparency yet he will not release his birth certificate, college records, medical records, passport, Selective Service records and the biggest hoax “Change” yet all his appointees are Clinton re-treads.

#48

David Hill said:
Since you seem to be offended by my ownership of guns. In order to let you know I am tolerant of your position, I put a sign in my yard.

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lastmanout/_forumfiles/banneighbor.jpg)

I’d be happy if my neighbor would display such a sign. The one gun nut in our neighborhood, to put it politely, is white trash. You know the guy who had a tarp on his roof for several years, mows the lawn every two months if you’re lucky, is obese, and has a mystery trench in his yard for the past decade. A few months ago he stopped by to let me know that “one of his less than charming friends” broke into his place and stole all his guns. F’n great! More cheap hand guns out on the street. -Brian

#49

When 100mph winds removed my shingles, I had a new roof in 3 days.
I mow several acres at least once a week in the growing season.
I’m not obese, and I have a Garden Railroad in the front yard.
I keep everything except my black powder rifles and pellet rifles in a safe.
Ralph

#50

David,
so as well as an expert on guns and religion, you are now an expert on who won the war. It may suprise you that America’s intervention in 1917 (three years after all the other players), the armistice was not due America entering the war but to a stalemate. Similarly for the Pacific, Americans were not the only troops in the Pacific region. Each country had their own theatre of operations.

     Without being critical but merely as an exercise,  look to the last one hundred years (well let us say 115 years so you can have three victories,  how many military engagements have been actually victorious).  Just for starters I will give you the Spanish War, Panama and Grenada.  The Spanish War was all over in around five hours and Grenada and Panama were mere weekend excursions.  Can you think of any others,  like maybe Vietnam, or Korea or Kuwait or Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe Somalia.  Americans, alone,  were not responsible for victory over the axis troops,  regardless of what you think.

      Am awaiting your comment as no doubt there will be,  as that is the only thing that we agree on.  How was your last trip to Mexico City?  Anything organised yet or is it still hush-hush?
#51

Tim you are obviously ignorant of the history of the American effort to defeat the Japanese in WWII. I believe the Japs were only a few miles from Australia, and had much of the South Pacific conquered before US troops intervened. Sure we were three years late in attending the war, but the allies were loosing badly before we intervened.

As I said you’d be speaking Japanese and Tony would be speaking German.

#52
Quote:
... I am questioning Obama's integrity, not the effectiveness of troop deployments.
That's all well and good, but when you question one's integrity, you have to look at the whole story. You say he has "anti-war rhetoric," and say he lied because the troops are still in Iraq. I merely pointed out that his "anti-war rhetoric" said said nothing remotely sounding of immediate, complete withdrawal--so how can that be a broken promise?

As for your lobbyist claims, they’ve got an arguable degree of merit if you wanted to push the issue, but even the righties on the radio have shut up about that. The “earmarks” issue has been hashed out on talk radio/TV for weeks. One man’s “pork…” etc. Personally, I’m glad to see a SPENDING bill that actually results in money being spent. Goodness knows the money the banks took from us hasn’t made its way into our pockets.

Transparency? You first. You expect Obama to completely surrender his rights to privacy in order to prove to your satisfaction his legal ability to fulfill his constitutional obligation, yet you’re loathe to so much as give the government your name and address when you go to a gun shop to carry out your constitutional right to purchase a gun. There’s a statutory burden of proof that has to be met in both cases, and they’ve been met in both cases. End of story.

Clinton re-treads? Well, Hillary was really the 42nd President anyway… :wink:

Later,

K

#53
David Hill said:
Tim you are obviously ignorant of the history of the American effort to defeat the Japanese in WWII.
David, at no point did I state that America played any insignificant role in the Pacific theatre. What I stated was that Americans were not the only nation fighting the Japanese. Americans played a very significant role in repelling the Japanese. In another thread I have already stated the role the American Navy played in the Battle of the Coral Sea (1943?) in defeating a Japanese fleet intent on invading Australia. America is very lucky in that apart from its foreign states and protectorates (Hawaii and the Phillipines), they did not have to defend their own homeland on their own soil, as did other countries. Do not belittle the role that other nations played in defeating the axis troops, both in the Pacific and in the Euro/Asian continents. 
     An interesting statistic in the Battle of Kursk and for Stalingrad,  between Russian and German forces in 1943?.   The Kursk battle raged for over two months.  In both battles,  the Russians lost as many troops as the entire combined English and American losses for the Second World War.
#54

Japanese troops landed in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, bombed California from balloons and there was some submarine activity and sabotage. Other than that, no battles were fought on US soil.

The movie Enemy At The Gate, shows what I understand, is a dramatic representation of the battle for Stalingrad (?). Rough battle there. The battle I have the most respect for the defenders is in Warsaw Uprising in 1943.

“Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings.”

This is from a VERY interesting article about the evils of gun registration.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=67&issue=006

#55

David,
Quote: “…bombed California from balloons and there was some submarine activity and sabotage.”

I am aware of the U2 activity early in the war, prior American involvement, as the Germans attempted to sabotage the war effort in supplying Britain. America was neutral at the time. Around late 1942 onwards the Enigma code was broken and U-boats no longer had superiority in the Atlantic and long range reconaissance aircraft could cover the previously danger zone in the mid-Atlantic, thus east-coat U-boat activity was curtailed.

The balloon bombing is intriguing as it must have been Japanese submarines that launched them. I cannot see U-boats making the hazardous journey around the cape and I am sure that Panama was out of the question.

#56
Kevin Strong said:
Quote:
... I am questioning Obama's integrity, not the effectiveness of troop deployments.
That's all well and good, but when you question one's integrity, you have to look at the whole story. You say he has "anti-war rhetoric," and say he lied because the troops are still in Iraq. I merely pointed out that his "anti-war rhetoric" said said nothing remotely sounding of immediate, complete withdrawal--so how can that be a broken promise?

As for your lobbyist claims, they’ve got an arguable degree of merit if you wanted to push the issue, but even the righties on the radio have shut up about that. The “earmarks” issue has been hashed out on talk radio/TV for weeks. One man’s “pork…” etc. Personally, I’m glad to see a SPENDING bill that actually results in money being spent. Goodness knows the money the banks took from us hasn’t made its way into our pockets.

Transparency? You first. You expect Obama to completely surrender his rights to privacy in order to prove to your satisfaction his legal ability to fulfill his constitutional obligation, yet you’re loathe to so much as give the government your name and address when you go to a gun shop to carry out your constitutional right to purchase a gun. There’s a statutory burden of proof that has to be met in both cases, and they’ve been met in both cases. End of story.

Clinton re-treads? Well, Hillary was really the 42nd President anyway… :wink:

Later,

K


Count the broken promises yourself: YouTube

#57

Oh my goodness–I had best call the news desk. A politician breaking campaign promises! That’s breaking news if ever I heard it.

In all seriousness, I’m not defending Obama where he’s stuck his foot in his mouth. He’s done it, and has taken heat from his own party and their pundits for it, to say nothing of the right which is champing at the bit at any shred of fodder. There are a number of days I think “what is he thinking?” But, I also know Washington very well, having grown up there. There are three universal truths. (A) “Promise?” (B) NOTHING moves fast, least of all “change” or “reform,” (and it always comes with a loophole) and © If you want to get something done, get it done before anyone realizes what’s been done.

I think what we will find over time is that he is able to come through on a majority of his “promises,” if not 100% of the time, at least as a definite part of his administrative policy–if only because he’s taking so much heat from both sides for his early gaffes. There’s definitely some changes going on. They’re subtle so far, but we’re only 2 months into his administration.

Having said that, with all his early-administrative hiccups, the one promise he’s definitely kept was his promise to end the war in Iraq. (And he took heat from his own party for taking 2 months longer to do so than what he originally stated.) You simply cannot call that a broken promise. Like him or not, you gotta give credit where it’s due. Even Bush got his “attaboys” from the left on occasion.

Have no fear. If the left survived W, the right can survive O.

Later,

K

#58
Kevin Strong said:
Have no fear. If the left survived W, the right can survive O.

Later,

K


If you consider people with no house, no money, no job, to have survived “W”, I suppose you would be right.
Ralph

#59

No nasty comments please, but I found an example of why I am prepared for an out-of-control government.


by Chuck Baldwin, candidate for president 2008 from the Constitution Party

Thanks to a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host stated that he was alerted last week to a secret Missouri state police report that categorized supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as "'militia' influenced terrorists."  The report, he said, "instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties."

Ignoring the threat of Muslim terrorists, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report focuses on the so-called "militia movement" and "conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order."

This report is not original, of course. During the Clinton administration, a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force explicitly designated "defenders" of the Constitution as "right-wing
extremists." However, the MIAC report significantly expands on earlier documents and is the first known document to actually name names.

According to the MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a potential threat to the police. The MIAC report also refers to Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom
to Fascism." (Google this video to watch.)

The story exposing the MIAC report states, "The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are
gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists."

See the report here:

http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
#60

David,
another load of horse manure that you are so fond of cultivating. For those with at least one brain cell in their cranial cavity, then check to see where this wacko politician is coming from.

Quote: "With the disaffiliation of the American Independent Party of California in 2008 to support Alan Keyes’ presidential bid, the Constitution Party lost the bulk of its 384,722 registered members. The Constitution Party now refers to itself as “America’s fastest growing political party.” The Independent American Party of Nevada has flirted with disaffiliating itself and joining the American Independent Party of California in America’s Independent Party founded by Alan Keyes. America’s Independent Party is considering changing its name to the Independent American Party if the Independent American Party of Nevada were to join her ranks. Both the American Independent Party of California and the Independent American Party of Nevada are led by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The Constitution Party advocates a platform which it says aims to reflect the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bible, and the Bill of Rights."

Exactly what has the bible got to do with how a government is regulated? Sounds suspiciously like a cult to me and is using the ‘cover’ of religion to disguise its true purpose and attract converts to its cause. Why are christians so gullible to these manipulators?