Vice President Clinton

[Fresnel]

ArmasTermin

Fresnel

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

Variola Major

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.

I also put education, the right to own and run my own business, reducing the power of corporations, healthcare reform, and privacy rights ahead of gun rights. I support the right to own guns, it's just that their are things I consider more important, and if a leader is going to provide those, I'll go for him/her, even if it means a reduction in gun rights. Politics is all about compromise, after all.

What I'm getting here, is you're essentially a socialist who likes guns, but not so much that it matters in the least when you choose who/what to vote for. That's not really compromise- that's just one thing that you disagree with when it comes to the mainstream democratic party.

I, on the other hand, am screwed when someone tells me to compromise, because I am a libertarian. Republicans don't want gay marriage to be legal. Democrats want to outlaw all the guns they believe are "too powerful" for the civilians who voted them into office. Clinton will ******** me up the a** with taxes and tell me how to live my life. Palin will ******** me up the a** with debt (and eventually taxes when a democrat gets voted in) and deny me many benefits that I'd be willing to give my money for. Now that we've established that both of the choices suck from my point of view, the only reasonable thing to do is choose the lesser of two evils. Which, in my case, are the Republicans.

Another reason why I always vote Lib. ******** the lesser of two evils, it's that train of thought that FORCES the two evils upon us. I want a dozen evils.

Which is totally respectable, and I'm starting to call myself Libertarian, albeit still conservative (what's the word for that...? I can't think of it). But the thing is, until a whole lot of people realize that both major parties tend to screw us over all the time, the majority is still going to pick Rep/Dem. And, as sorry as it is to say (on the subject of rights), a vote for a guy that probably won't try to ban guns beats a vote for a guy that definitely won't try to ban guns but will almost surely lose. I mean what percentage of people usually vote Lib? If all the Libs had voted Rep in the last election, would we be free of Obama?

If so, then we probably would have been better off if they'd just picked the standard lesser of two evils. If not, then there's not nearly enough of them anyway.

And this sounds wrong to say--to encourage a person to vote for whom would screw us least, rather than to vote for the man whom they believes would do the best job! I don't like it, I really don't. But I'm sure you all understand what I mean.

Not all of them would have voted on firearms rights, though. The majority, sure, but not nearly 'all'.  

[Maddness91]

ArmasTermin

Which is totally respectable, and I'm starting to call myself Libertarian, albeit still conservative (what's the word for that...? I can't think of it).

centrist...
or Canadian... w/e xp

as a side note-- ahhhh it feels good to have a 4-5 party system right now xd
but don't go overboard... then ur Italy with like 100 parties and 945 elected officials... true it;s always exactly what people voted for and they do get there exact fair share, but after that, nothing gets done... it;s why Berlusconi gets to hang out with models all the time xp nothing better to do cool  

[Variola Major]

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

Variola Major

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

I don't feel that anyone in Washington is quite so dangerous as to bring about a scenario where I'm struggling to find a roof to put over my head. And even if there was... I still value my rights over my money. Over my health and, in certain cases, my life. And I'll be damned before I ever support someone who believes that it's too dangerous for me to exercise my rights, be they of the first amendment, second, etc.

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.

I also put education, the right to own and run my own business, reducing the power of corporations, healthcare reform, and privacy rights ahead of gun rights. I support the right to own guns, it's just that their are things I consider more important, and if a leader is going to provide those, I'll go for him/her, even if it means a reduction in gun rights. Politics is all about compromise, after all.

What I'm getting here, is you're essentially a socialist who likes guns, but not so much that it matters in the least when you choose who/what to vote for.

No. I am NOT a Socialist. Never, EVER use that phrase to describe me again. I do NOT want to be reminded of my Communist past. It's not something I'm proud of. Socialism has it's advantages, but it easily gets out of hand and ends up hurting the little guy it's supposed to protect. Capitalism also has it's advantages, but also has a certain ability to screw the little guy. What I support is finding middle ground between the two. I believe using both Socialist and Capitalist ideas in an economic system is the way to go. Each system has it's ups and downs, so why not compromise?  

[Variola Major]

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

So wait, you'll be happy and content with anything so long as you have a roof and food?

So you're content by being a pet?


When they 'reduce the power of corporations' they reduce private corporations (businesses) too. None of this bullshit makes it easier for the little man, quite the contrary.
s**t rolls down hill.

No. I DO consider gun rights important, I just have other priorities. What's the point of having a gun for target shooting/self defence if you're homeless and have no medical care, and the government has quashed your free speech so you can't protest? It's not like you can use that gun to set things right. You'd get killed by the cops or national guard, or captured and tried for treason. Rebellion just isn't feasible in the modern day unless the military backs it.

As for corporations, my main issue is lobbying and political pull. I don't know how we can eliminate it, but I would be thrilled if we could.  

[Maddness91]

Variola Major

No. I DO consider gun rights important, I just have other priorities. What's the point of having a gun for target shooting/self defence if you're homeless and have no medical care, and the government has quashed your free speech so you can't protest? It's not like you can use that gun to set things right. You'd get killed by the cops or national guard, or captured and tried for treason. Rebellion just isn't feasible in the modern day unless the military backs it.

As for corporations, my main issue is lobbying and political pull. I don't know how we can eliminate it, but I would be thrilled if we could.

i think you would like Canada xd

free medical care, and employment insurance with reasonable gun controls, and little to no big money in politics (within reason)
and a small, specialized military so rebellion is easily feasible xd  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

Variola Major

No. I DO consider gun rights important, I just have other priorities. What's the point of having a gun for target shooting/self defence if you're homeless and have no medical care, and the government has quashed your free speech so you can't protest? It's not like you can use that gun to set things right. You'd get killed by the cops or national guard, or captured and tried for treason. Rebellion just isn't feasible in the modern day unless the military backs it.

As for corporations, my main issue is lobbying and political pull. I don't know how we can eliminate it, but I would be thrilled if we could.

Goodness! I didn't realize the past 20,000 years or however the ******** long humanity has been here that we haven't been able to survive without a house someone else built. I didn't realize we couldn't survive without nyquil when we have a cold.

Find somewhere else to stay. Adapt to the situation. If you have no home, you still have freedom of speech. How is the government going to take the 1st amendment right away from you just for being homeless? If we have our guns taken away then I could see them being able to take away the freedom of speech.

As for the military they're bound by the rules of engagement. If you blend in with average joe American there's not much they can do to you just from taking one look at you in the streets.

There is more to gun ownership than defending yourself or forcefully removing people from power. It can also put food on the table.  

[ArmasTermin]

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

So wait, you'll be happy and content with anything so long as you have a roof and food?

So you're content by being a pet?


When they 'reduce the power of corporations' they reduce private corporations (businesses) too. None of this bullshit makes it easier for the little man, quite the contrary.
s**t rolls down hill.

No. I DO consider gun rights important, I just have other priorities. What's the point of having a gun for target shooting/self defence if you're homeless and have no medical care, and the government has quashed your free speech so you can't protest? It's not like you can use that gun to set things right. You'd get killed by the cops or national guard, or captured and tried for treason. Rebellion just isn't feasible in the modern day unless the military backs it.

As for corporations, my main issue is lobbying and political pull. I don't know how we can eliminate it, but I would be thrilled if we could.

Not actually true. Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. The Second Amendment is the teeth of the Constitution. It is the one by which all the others are defended and assured.

If you want a perfect example why a government promising to give you everything will end up ******** you over, look at England.  

[Inquisitor Brock]

Variolas' an ex-commie. What do you expect?  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

Inquisitor Brock

Variolas' an ex-commie. What do you expect?

Meg, who let you back into the house?  

[Inquisitor Brock]

Das Rabble Rouser

Inquisitor Brock

Variolas' an ex-commie. What do you expect?

Meg, who let you back into the house?

 

[OberFeldwebel]

Das Rabble Rouser

Inquisitor Brock

Variolas' an ex-commie. What do you expect?

Meg, who let you back into the house?