Palin vs Biden debate [Archive]

Qikdraw

10-02-2008, 12:33 PM

I know its not for 6 hours now, but here are some things to think about...

1)They've changed the rules (http://funkybunch.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/20/1891037-vp-debate-rules-changed-to-compensate-sarah-palin) to accomidate Palin.
2)Asking a question is an example of 'gotcha' journalism (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/30/mccainpalins-bizarre-definition-of-gotcha-journalism/).
3)If you critisize Palin you're being 'Sexist' (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/gop-women-call-palin-criticism-sexist/).
4)They are saying the moderator, Gwen Ifill will not be fair (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645). Despite the fact that the Oct 7th debate will be hosted by a hand picked McCain moderator.
5)There is pressure being brought on the organizers of the debate to avoid too many foreign policy questions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3114695/US-vice-presidential-debate-Sarah-Palin-camp-fears-foreign-policy-questions.html).

So now the republicans have completely stacked the deck against Biden. If Palin does horrible, they are going to use all these excuses as to why she did bad. If she does mediocre, she'll have faced insurmountable odds and overcome them. If she does well, it will be in spite of the left wing media and will prove she is ready to lead.

So there it is, all neatly packaged up. No matter what happens, you'll see these excuses rise up again and again with the talking heads. I would suggest watching it on C-Span to avoid talking heads.

silver_tree

10-02-2008, 12:48 PM

They know Gwen Ifall (Awful) won't ask Governor Palin about dinosaurs and humans coexisting. Or any other hard questions.

I'm having a "Pity Palin" party at my place tonight. What better excuse to get together, eat, drink and scream at the TV?

(Don't worry folks. I've got plenty of room for anyone who over imbibes to crash until the morning. No drunks driving from my place.)

G I Joe

10-02-2008, 01:40 PM

I know its not for 6 hours now, but here are some things to think about...

1)They've changed the rules (http://funkybunch.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/20/1891037-vp-debate-rules-changed-to-compensate-sarah-palin) to accomidate Palin.
2)Asking a question is an example of 'gotcha' journalism (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/30/mccainpalins-bizarre-definition-of-gotcha-journalism/).
3)If you critisize Palin you're being 'Sexist' (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/gop-women-call-palin-criticism-sexist/).
4)They are saying the moderator, Gwen Ifill will not be fair (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645). Despite the fact that the Oct 7th debate will be hosted by a hand picked McCain moderator.
5)There is pressure being brought on the organizers of the debate to avoid too many foreign policy questions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3114695/US-vice-presidential-debate-Sarah-Palin-camp-fears-foreign-policy-questions.html).

So now the republicans have completely stacked the deck against Biden. If Palin does horrible, they are going to use all these excuses as to why she did bad. If she does mediocre, she'll have faced insurmountable odds and overcome them. If she does well, it will be in spite of the left wing media and will prove she is ready to lead.

So there it is, all neatly packaged up. No matter what happens, you'll see these excuses rise up again and again with the talking heads. I would suggest watching it on C-Span to avoid talking heads.

Another example of how things get twisted around before they even happen. Someday all this political crap will be over with (that's a joke)....the sooner the better!

garbo

10-02-2008, 02:08 PM

Anyway you look at it, the Vice Presidential debate tonight will be very interesting. In my opinion both candidates will come out swinging and I would not be surprised if one of them expresses a demeaning sentiment similar to the statement to Dan Quale several years ago that he no John Kennedy.

Biden clearly has the experience and Palin has the.. lipstick! I am not so sure that the questioning will benefit Palin here. The media and the individual candidiates web sites have done a pretty good job in describing and outlining the issues and their positions. It is up to us to decipher the information and decide for ourselves who would be best for our country.

The way I see it, they are all interviewing for a job. Like in any corporate culture it is assumed that we would choose the BEST candidate for that job. That candidate should have the qualities and commitment to do the job to the best of their ability. With elected officials we also need to consider another important factor. That is, not just the qualifications of the candidate but the relevance of the platform. This is an awesome responsiblity which every voting citizen must do.

I am not into all the rhetoric, the promises and the lies. All candidates change their position to accomodate the crowd they are talking to. This is what makes this process so difficult. Personally, I think both presidential candidates are the wrong choice for their parties. Of the two vice presidential candidates, one clearly has the experience and know how to govern and would be qualified if they are called upon to take over the presidency if needed. May the best man.. or woman win! To me, it is a no-brainer.

lordshipmayhem

10-02-2008, 02:42 PM

I'm having a "Pity Palin" party at my place tonight. What better excuse to get together, eat, drink and scream at the TV?

Unless there's something better on. Is any channel showing Plan 9 from Outer Space?

Naturist Mark

10-02-2008, 03:27 PM

Expectations have been set so low that as long as Palin doesn't visibly drool on herself she will be declared the 'most improved player' and will be proclaimed to have won a moral victory if not the actual winner.

Basically Palin has nothing to lose and only needs to display minimal competence to "win".

-Mark

lordshipmayhem

10-02-2008, 03:52 PM

Basically Palin has nothing to lose and only needs to display minimal competence to "win".

So you're saying that Palin is America's answer to Canada's Stephane Dion? According to bilingual pundits, the man is incapable of communicating to an audience in either one of our official languages, despite the fact that French is his mother tongue, and he has an extremely high intellect. I can confirm he is very intelligent, and can barely utter a single comprehensible word of English - his writing is much easier to read than his speech is to listen to.

Our English-language leaders' debate is tonight, the same time as your VP candidates' debate. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't watch Palin and Biden battle it out.

Journeyman

10-02-2008, 04:30 PM

So you're saying that Palin is America's answer to Canada's Stephane Dion? ... I can confirm he is very intelligent, and can barely utter a single comprehensible word of English - his writing is much easier to read than his speech is to listen to. ...

Stephane Dion is an experienced public servant who does not let an organized Christian religion govern everything he does and thinks. His difficulty with spoken English should not turn Canadians away from him; one should simply listen a bit closer. He has substance and is highly educated.

Palin, on the other hand, should she ever become President, would push the nuclear button because it would be God's direction. Now that's scary. I wouldn't put the two names in the same sentence because they are not similar in the least.

LamontCranston

10-02-2008, 06:07 PM

I know its not for 6 hours now, but here are some things to think about...

1)They've changed the rules (http://funkybunch.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/20/1891037-vp-debate-rules-changed-to-compensate-sarah-palin) to accomidate Palin.
2)Asking a question is an example of 'gotcha' journalism (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/30/mccainpalins-bizarre-definition-of-gotcha-journalism/).
3)If you critisize Palin you're being 'Sexist' (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/gop-women-call-palin-criticism-sexist/).
4)They are saying the moderator, Gwen Ifill will not be fair (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645). Despite the fact that the Oct 7th debate will be hosted by a hand picked McCain moderator.
5)There is pressure being brought on the organizers of the debate to avoid too many foreign policy questions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3114695/US-vice-presidential-debate-Sarah-Palin-camp-fears-foreign-policy-questions.html).

So now the republicans have completely stacked the deck against Biden. If Palin does horrible, they are going to use all these excuses as to why she did bad. If she does mediocre, she'll have faced insurmountable odds and overcome them. If she does well, it will be in spite of the left wing media and will prove she is ready to lead.

So there it is, all neatly packaged up. No matter what happens, you'll see these excuses rise up again and again with the talking heads. I would suggest watching it on C-Span to avoid talking heads. Five thoughts and two paragraphs and not a single mention of Joe Biden. Why can't he just come out and smoke her then? Why all the posturing? The Dems always seem to come across shrill, defensive and a bit afraid. No confidence. No swagger.

The Miami Dolphins smoked the New England Patriots a week and a half ago. 400+ yards on the ground including 5 rushing touchdowns. Their offensive line hammered the defense over and over every possesion. No question about it; no one needed to read the polls or whine about the officiating.

So Sen. Biden. The pressure is on. If she's paper thin and he's a lifetime senator/orator he should have no trouble shredding her.

G Bush 41 took Dan Qualye and ran during the Iran-Contra aftermath and hearings. He won and Quayle couldn't even spell potato. The Democratic party should win the White House on the third try no matter who McCain picks as VP. What's Obama and camp afraid of?

JUST DO IT..

G I Joe

10-02-2008, 06:20 PM

Unless there's something better on. Is any channel showing Plan 9 from Outer Space?

You just missed it. "Plan 9" was on TV three nights ago. Tonight's debate could end up being "Plan 10 from Outer Space" however.

Qikdraw

10-02-2008, 06:30 PM

Five thoughts and two paragraphs and not a single mention of Joe Biden. Why can't he just come out and smoke her then? Why all the posturing? The Dems always seem to come across shrill, defensive and a bit afraid. No confidence. No swagger.

Actually if you read my post again, you'll notice that this has been the shrill, defencive talk from the republicans. And its not thought, but backed up by proof.

However watching the debate so far Palin is doing pretty good. She keeps going 'cutesy' in some of her answers, that she needs to work on, but she is doing pretty good.

NudeTopher

10-02-2008, 06:35 PM

Another example of how things get twisted around before they even happen. Someday all this political crap will be over with (that's a joke)....the sooner the better!

Sorry G.I. Joe.

Although I'm watching the debate now, I was in the car for about 2 hours coming home tonight. I was flipping around on Right-wing-hate radio. I swear to you that the Sean Hannity, Bob Grant, and Mark Levin right wing radio shows were all saying these very same things.

NudeAl

10-02-2008, 07:45 PM

I looked and I think it was a draw. No major points for either side however they were both able to get their main points across with out any major flubs. Well only one that I saw when Palin refered to one of the top US commanders as General Maclellan. Uh no he was a US General but he last saw service in the Civil War.

Qikdraw

10-02-2008, 07:56 PM

First thoughts off the top of my head.

Three things bother me about what she said.

1) I still think she is trying to be too 'cutesy'. It needs to be less of a tea with the girlfriends, and more of a serious debate. This is easily corrected with more coaching and so less of a problem.

2) She expressed a desire to expand the power of the VP. She wouldn't say if the office was part of the Executive or Legislative branch, and this is VERY worrying. What does she want to do if she gets in? Biden firmly put her in her place on that one citing the Constitution, but it is still worrying what she said.

3) She likes the debate format better than an interview which is 'filtered' through the media. The ONLY difference between the two is one is taped and one is live. (for the most part) Again an attack on the media which the McCain campiagn has been consistantly doing.

With that said... She did pretty good. I don't agree with her on many issues, and think she just brought up McCain talking points on some issues, but she did pretty good.

Biden missed several opportunities to correct the record, but he got across what he and Obama want to accomplish more than Palin did for her and McCain. I still saw a lack of policy detail in the republican side.

At least she looked at Biden during the debate. :D

NudeTopher

10-02-2008, 08:22 PM

First thoughts off the top of my head.

Three things bother me about what she said.

1) I still think she is trying to be too 'cutesy'. It needs to be less of a tea with the girlfriends, and more of a serious debate. This is easily corrected with more coaching and so less of a problem.

2) She expressed a desire to expand the power of the VP. She wouldn't say if the office was part of the Executive or Legislative branch, and this is VERY worrying. What does she want to do if she gets in? Biden firmly put her in her place on that one citing the Constitution, but it is still worrying what she said.

3) She likes the debate format better than an interview which is 'filtered' through the media. The ONLY difference between the two is one is taped and one is live. (for the most part) Again an attack on the media which the McCain campiagn has been consistantly doing.

With that said... She did pretty good. I don't agree with her on many issues, and think she just brought up McCain talking points on some issues, but she did pretty good.

Biden missed several opportunities to correct the record, but he got across what he and Obama want to accomplish more than Palin did for her and McCain. I still saw a lack of policy detail in the republican side.

At least she looked at Biden during the debate. :D

I tend to agree with with you. The reason I think she likes this particular "debate" format is because, to paraphrase Caribou Barbie "...I will answer what I want to answer and I may not answer the questions as you asked them with the answers you are looking for...". An interviewer could ask follow-up questions.

Naturist Mark

10-02-2008, 08:37 PM

No one blew up, no one made any major gaffes (give or take a Civil War general), there were no embarrassments for either candidate.

Palin clearly exceeded the drastically lowered expectations about her performance, so that was mission accomplished. By not looking like a fool she "wins".

For his part Joe Biden displayed a knowledge and easy familiarity with the issues - he was able to sound spontaneous and unrehearsed, yet authoritative in discussing them. And he showed no sign of his occasional inclination towards hoof in mouth disease.

In matters of substance rather than appearances Palin was rather deficient. She refused to answer the questions asked and just answered whatever questions she wished were asked. And she completely avoided any discussion of policy. But she did at least slip "maverick" in there a few times as a substitute.

(Hey, am I the only one who remembers that the "real Maverick" - played by James Garner - was a gambler and amiable con-man?)

Palin's folksy and gracious behavior slipped a few times, she scored points at the very beginning by asking Biden "Can I call you Joe?" where her question could be caught by the microphones, but her emotionless boilerplate response following Joe Biden's teary talk about losing his wife and daughter betrayed either inattention or uncaring.

Sarah Palin repeated many of the standard McCain lies about Obama, and Joe Biden did a pretty good job calling them out. But I've mentioned before that fact checking doesn't count in debates.

Tag lines
Palin: "Don't look backward"
Biden: "The past is prologue"

Like most debates this late in the election season, this one will not change the minds of the vast majority of voters who have already made a choice. Especially so since these are not the main candidates. But that also means that it had little effect on the undecideds, which is bad for the McCain camp. But at least Palin did well enough to reassure some wavering conservatives. The early instapolls suggest that about 10 percent of undecided voters are now leaning towards McCain after this debate, and 18 percent towards Obama, but over 70% were unmoved.

The major effect of this debate will be to slow the erosion within the conservative Republican ranks, but probably no net increase in McCain support. Still this counts as progress for McCain.

-Mark

FireProf

10-02-2008, 09:48 PM

No..........she didn't blow up. She rarely answered the question asked of her. She continued to answer each question the same way......without substance. I think if you replay the debate you'll see a repetative canned answer.

I'm not buying nor are we impressed by her "hometown" style of answering questions. We've got serious problems in this country and we need experienced people making decisions that affect all of us........she just doesn't have what it takes to be VP, in my opinion.

She's not a bad person but she's clearly out of her league and I find it very hard to stomach when she continues to compare her tenure as a mayor and govenor over someone that clearly has more experience.

I can't believe that there are intellegent people in this country that actually think we'll be just fine if she had to become the President of the United States.

and..........NO...you're not the only one that remembers the original Marvrick....the gambling con man played by J. Garner.

usmc1

10-03-2008, 04:55 AM

LamontCranston

10-03-2008, 04:59 AM

Palin, Palin, Palin...
It sounds from these comments like she debated a lamp post. The Obama campaign is in trouble.

To win you need people to vote *for* you. All these are reasons to vote *against* the other guy. A losing strategy.

usmc1

10-03-2008, 05:37 AM

Palin, Palin, Palin...
It sounds from these comments like she debated a lamp post. The Obama campaign is in trouble.

To win you need people to vote *for* you. All these are reasons to vote *against* the other guy. A losing strategy.

No, what these comments are saying is that no one was impressed by her bloviations and platitudes. "White flag of surrender" bombed. No substance and non-responsiveness bombed. Eye batting and winking bombed. Golly, gee whiz, I'm just a hockey mom like you, bombed. She bombed, and according to even Republican strategists, Biden gave the debate of his life.

And the internals from the focus groups are indicating that undecideds were moved to Obama/Biden by Palin's breezy lack of substance and tin-ear non-responses to important questions that matter to Americans more interested in healthcare, their 401Ks, and getting their kids educated, than in a six pack of beer.

I think we'll see additional movement and firming of support for Obama/Biden over the next few days as a result of this debate.

As to the subtext, of course people are talking about Palin, one expects Biden to do well, after all he is a polished, experienced professional with tremendous command of fact, history and nuance. Palin's been at this "what five weeks?" and it shows!

Personally, and this doesn't get any press that I've seen. Both Obama and Biden come across essentially as very decent, caring people while McCain and Palin both display that bitter, angry tone of disparagement so many of us have learned to expect from conservatives.

Naturist Mark

10-03-2008, 05:48 AM

Palin, Palin, Palin...
It sounds from these comments like she debated a lamp post. The Obama campaign is in trouble.

To win you need people to vote *for* you. All these are reasons to vote *against* the other guy. A losing strategy.

LOL, actually most polls show that Biden debated the lamp post. CBS focus group (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/politics/horserace/entry4497035.shtml) of 473 uncommitted voters said that 98 percent found Biden knowledgeable about important issues after the debate - up from 79 percent. 66 percent found Palin knowledgeable - up from just 43 percent. In every metric they found Biden a more appealing candidate.

But that isn't the focus of attention because no one saw Biden as a drag on his ticket, and that is exactly how Palin has been perceived lately. So the important thing about the debate is not that Biden blew Palin out of the water - which he did - its that Palin exceeded low expectations well enough. The big story of the night is that Palin didn't hurt the McCain ticket. Neither side screwed up enough to hurt their presidential candidates. And that's about the best you can achieve with a VP debate.

IDNude

10-03-2008, 06:06 AM

No..........she didn't blow up. She rarely answered the question asked of her.

So, you're saying she did what every candidate does at every debate. How is this different than what Biden, Obama and McCain did?

LamontCranston

10-03-2008, 06:24 AM

OK fair enough but I'm undecided and still undecided.

I'm not deciding my vote for anyone because he or she is a polished debater. The financial markets are in turmoil and the government wants to buy out the debt. I would expect Senator Biden to be involved in that (his day job) and judge his actions there. It was and still is a chance for him to sell the bill and reach across to the other side of the House and persuade more Representatives of both parties to vote Yes or No whichever is his position and carry the Bill. That's what the job of President is about. Not debating and fundraising and making speeches.

Actually, that's what I expect all three Senators who're running for President to be doing. Show me how you will lead and get congressional votes in a time of crisis. Show me. Now. Don't tell me about 'what if later'.

If you could have 12 Republicans of 12 Democrats switch their vote because, "After Sen. Biden/McCain/Obama called and explained it to me, I decided it's what's best for the country." That would sell me. That's the kind of experience Gov. Palin doesn't have.

As it is, where we are today on this $700 Billion Bailout Bill, they voted but that's it. It seems all three are shying away, afraid to commit, worried about how it will play in the polls, and that's not Presidential in my view.

So the Senators are experienced, seasoned, and ready to lead. So lead. Today. In your day job. Next week you can go back to making speeches, flying around, and fundraising.

Meanwhile, I'll be researching 3rd party candidates.

usmc1

10-03-2008, 07:49 AM

So, you're saying she did what every candidate does at every debate. How is this different than what Biden, Obama and McCain did?
Since you didn't watch, I'll try to help you with your knowlege gaps.

Both Biden and Obama provided specifics, figures, facts and outlines. McCain offered bromides and hot button words. Plain offered platitudes and attack, while avoiding any answers at all.

Now, let me ask you this, tell me from the transcripts of any of the debates where did McCain or Palin put forth any specifics?

Boreas

10-03-2008, 07:50 AM

It was an interesting evening for us in Canada. We had the Canadian leaders debate, and the US VP debate. It was starkly different.

The Canadian leaders were seated around a board-type table along with the mediator. I found this changed the tone of the discussion. It seemed more like a discussion than a speech for each person. It was far more civilized than previous debates I have seen. Of course, each person got talking points out and was fairly predictable. This debate had a new participant, Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party. She was an excellent addition. She will not likely become PM anytime soon. She could likely say almost anything since her promises really don't have the same weight as the others. None-the-less, she was very articulate and was the only leader to comment on the global forces on our country.

The American debate seemed so much more forced and formal. Gov. Palin seemed much scripted than Biden, possibly because she is less polished than Biden.

It was striking to see Elizabeth May and Sarah Palin almost side by side. Ms. May is down to earth and is perilously close to a "bad hair day". She speaks clearly and is very articulate. She was a lawyer, and it is clear she has done research. Ms. Palin is very polished and you cannot imagine her having a bad hair day! Those "folksy" things she was saying were very annoying to me. She really did seem like a beauty contest contestant.

ki4kxq

10-03-2008, 08:13 AM

Thought Palin did fine in the debate last night. She at least had a positive message instead of Biden constantly harping on the Bush administration failures. Funny, I wasn't aware that Bush was running this year. That being said, I didn't like what either of them had to say.

Palin was too much a mouthpiece for McCain. I guess being his running mate, she had to be. It was nothing but a night of populist crap, pointing to the imaginary corporate fat cats as the evil doers responsible for the economic turmoil we are experiencing. Neither one of them placed the majority of the blame where it goes, government meddling in private business. No frank talk about how this "save us all" bailout is no such thing but will only make the pain last longer than it should. Not a word about how we are all going to have to tighten our belts and rely less on easy credit, including the government to get out of this mess.

Palin missed a great opportunity to set Biden straight about drilling when he gave the same tired line about new drilling won't yield oil for 10 years. The true figure is more like 12 - 18 months.

The truth is neither Obama or McCain are the right people for this job now. They just don't get the economic trouble we are in. Obama still thinks the way to go is raise taxes on the oil companies, corporations, small business, and working Americans. No, that's the way to kill the economy.

The only bright spot is that with all the trying to out populist the democrats that McCain has been trying to do, he can still win this thing. Obama has picked up some points, but that lead gets a little smaller every day. Something is keeping folks from committing to Obama and that may pick up more as we get closer to the actual election. Frankly, I think they both suck, McCain just doesn't offend me quite as much as Obama. Just in case though, we are stocking up on firearms and ammo. Don't know how long they will be available if Obama gets elected.

LamontCranston

10-03-2008, 10:49 AM

Thought Palin did fine in the debate last night. She at least had a positive message instead of Biden constantly harping on the Bush administration failures. Funny, I wasn't aware that Bush was running this year. That being said, I didn't like what either of them had to say.
... The truth is neither Obama or McCain are the right people for this job now. ... Frankly, I think they both suck ...

Gore and Kerry went with the "vote for me because he's terrible" strategy and it didn't work for them.

I don't like the choices either.

And meanwhile it's been two years since the Democrats where swept into the majority on the anti-Iraq War message. Anyone else notice we're still over there? Still funding the Iraqis? And now they're all going on record with this "let's bail out the rich Wall Street cats, assume bad debt from around the world, and call it the Main Street Middle America" bill.

It won't be pretty on election day.

We're at a turning point my friends. The Empire is dying and we don't realize it yet. No king or country has been a world power without losing the grip in time.

usmc1

10-03-2008, 11:05 AM

I have been wracking my brain all morning trying to think of what it was Sarah Palin reminded me of during the debate last night.

A. One of the Stepford Wives, the one with the bad wiring that showed up in a continuous eye twitch.
B. A toy one of my kids had that uttered about twenty phrases when you pulled a cord in its back, and that finally wore down to the point that it said only the same four things over-and-over-and-over again.
C. A character on a recent TV show that was all superior brain and regurgitated so much data in such a rote and precise manner that another character reached out and touched his cheek saying, "Oh, you feel just like a human".

Then it came to me. Toastmasters. She reminded me of a woman I was in Toastmasters with years ago. The same glib, facile, breeziness which utterly avoided the questions. The same tin ear to nuance and shifting focus and rhythm of the debate. The same brittle, I'll rip your heart out and stomp on it, but be so sweet and cute while I'm doing it that you will think I'm just adorable. Wink, wink.

I think that woman managed a small-loan company that eventually went bankrupt because she embezzled all its money through fake loans to herself, family and friends.

That's it, toastmasters. It was like I was watching an accomplished, poised and polished, professional leader of world-class stature dispose of an annoying amateur put forth by the local Jaycees to debate adding a swimming pool to the community playground. No, it wasn't a train wreck, "Fer sure!" It was more like watching the Globetrotters dismantle one of those pick up teams of stiffs they use for props in their games. Swish from half-court. An upside down, hook-shot off the rafters, onto the bleachers, off the wall and nothing but net! Swish! Swish! Swish!

The wing-nuts are all over themselves today because the poor hapless woman managed to string together several simple declarative sentences without drooling down her chin or swallowing her tongue. Never mind that everything that came from her mouth was memorized, and rehearsed, and quite often thrown in gratuitously without any reference to the questions from Iffil, or statements, or responses from Biden.

It was as though she had learned it, "By Golly!", and she knew it needed to be inserted somewhere, and "Heck!" right now is as good a time as any. Never mind nuance, debate flow, or relevance....I'm supposed to say it, and I'm saying it now before time runs out or I forget it.

Biden, as did Obama in the first debate, came across as smart, knowledgeable, in command, poised and a decent, warm, and caring person. He allowed her enough tether to wrap herself in a Gordian Knot of mis-applied accusation, untruths, and vituperation.

Overnight and early polling and focus groups declare Biden the winner. But, beyond that, the debate moved many undecideds towards Obama/Biden. McCain/Palin were not helped.

Biden treated us to a master class on debate last night. I can hardly wait to watch SNL and see how Tina Fey treats it.

"Oh golly", it will be funny. wink, wink.

Qikdraw

10-03-2008, 11:13 AM

Palin was too much a mouthpiece for McCain. I guess being his running mate, she had to be. It was nothing but a night of populist crap, pointing to the imaginary corporate fat cats as the evil doers responsible for the economic turmoil we are experiencing. Neither one of them placed the majority of the blame where it goes, government meddling in private business.

Well I think you're wrong on this, it was private business lobbying for reduced regulation, and also current regulations not being enforced.

But both Biden and Palin are mouthpieces to Obama and McCain. Thats pretty much the job of the VP, do what the president says. :)

No frank talk about how this "save us all" bailout is no such thing but will only make the pain last longer than it should. Not a word about how we are all going to have to tighten our belts and rely less on easy credit, including the government to get out of this mess.

I agree they should have talked about this. I think this is the number one issue Americans face right now.

Palin missed a great opportunity to set Biden straight about drilling when he gave the same tired line about new drilling won't yield oil for 10 years. The true figure is more like 12 - 18 months.

I do not know where you get your numbers but they are way off. The department of energy even says we will not see an impact of any new rigs until 2030. And I have heard said that when that oil hits it will only be about a 4 cent decrease.

The truth is neither Obama or McCain are the right people for this job now. They just don't get the economic trouble we are in. Obama still thinks the way to go is raise taxes on the oil companies, corporations, small business, and working Americans. No, that's the way to kill the economy.

Biden set that republican talking point right last night.

The only bright spot is that with all the trying to out populist the democrats that McCain has been trying to do, he can still win this thing. Obama has picked up some points, but that lead gets a little smaller every day. Something is keeping folks from committing to Obama and that may pick up more as we get closer to the actual election.

There is still a month to go, anything is possible. I have always said I am not going to pay attention to polls until after the debates, and even though Obama is leading I do not think he has it in the bag.

Frankly, I think they both suck, McCain just doesn't offend me quite as much as Obama.

LOL I love the way you put that. :D

Just in case though, we are stocking up on firearms and ammo. Don't know how long they will be available if Obama gets elected.

Oh come on... Thats hyperbole and you know it. Guns and ammo will still be able to be bought. Obama is not going to start a 2nd Ammendment fight, no president will.

jon71

10-03-2008, 12:42 PM

The financial crisis is most due to too little govt. regulation, not too much. From most of what I've read it was a modest Biden win. He was knowledgeable and supports policies that are good for America. Palin avoided major disasters but is typically described as too much "cute and folksy" and too little substance. If you want to see where I'm getting this from begin at CNN grading the debates. They have a panel of Democrats, Republicans, and other giving their opinion and then inviting all their readers to do the same.

nimrod

10-03-2008, 01:03 PM

To me Palin tried to play up her "hometownyness" too much. She reminded me of a president of a homeowners association more then a possible VP. All she knows is the charter rules, that she wrote, and is just watching and waiting for anyone to deviate from them so she can pounce. She also brings to my mind an actor that is lost without a script in front of them, they look good on the screen but talk to them one on one and they do not know what to say. I would like to know how many times she said Alaska and mavric last night.

Biden seemed more knowledgable, but I saw him look at his notes more then once, which is not really bad shows orginization, but does not convey confidence, one time I did not think he would look up from his sheet until he was done reading. I would have liked to hear more about policies than how bad Bush is, but I saw the point because he was trying to show the simularities between McCain and Bush, but once or twice would have been enough for me.

Overall, a decent debate, did not get ugly. I would have loved to have the indepents repersented, in any debate, but unfortunatly they are not taken seriously.

Navigator

10-03-2008, 01:10 PM

I have been wracking my brain all morning trying to think of what it was Sarah Palin reminded me of during the debate last night.

Doris Umbrage...the sweet smiling lil-ol-lady professor in Harry Potter who is always smiling but is full of hate and mean as hell underneath the facade.

Navigator

10-03-2008, 03:07 PM

...wow...

Chris Matthews just announced on "Hardball" that 69.9 million people watched last night's V.P. debate between Palin and Biden.

He says this is the most people to ever watch a V.P. debate and about 20 million more than watched the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain.

Baron Lake

10-03-2008, 04:23 PM

"Moderator" Gwen Awful's pathetic performance and predictable questions contributed greatly to making this a non-debate. I wonder how much the RNC paid her. It must have been a boat load of fish. Something sure stinks.

b.l.

jon71

10-04-2008, 01:42 AM

I wouldn't Blame Ifill. The McCain campaign basically would only agree to do this if the format was as unconfrontational as possible. They didn't want Biden to bring anything up in the form of a question or a follow-up, any kind of interaction between the two. Basically it was a format made for someone who could memorize talking points but doesn't really posess any real understanding and that's the only acceptable format for the McCain team.

codylechien

10-04-2008, 04:05 AM

I was disappointed that Sarah Palin was so nice and failed to highlight the quality of the Obama-Biden ticket.

Bilen wanted to “look back at the last 8 years”, Palin didn’t help focus him to look back on the last 2 years when the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi promised that the Democrats had a plan to deal with energy prices. Their plan: let’s have energy prices go from under $ 2.00 a gallon to over $ 4.00 a gallon. WOW!! That’s a plan?

I was also sorry that Palin didn’t take a moment and walk over and put her arm around poor Joey as he was doing his phony “tear on demand for the camera” and say, “It’s okay, Joey, real men do cry”.

And I was sorry that at no point in the interview did Palin look directly at the camera and ask the American people to evaluate which Barach Obama is the candidate. Is it the Barach Obama pandering to Christians with his statement of church attendance and “praising Jesus” or the dismissive “those people that hold on to the guns and bibles” Obama. I’m sorry Palin didn’t look into the camera and say, “If you were a Jew in Germany in 1935 and read Mein Kamph would you have supported Hitler? If you own a gun or a Bible in America in 2008, why support someone who thinks you, too, are an anathema.” (FYI – for you Obama supporters, I’ll save you the trouble of running to dictionary.com. Anathema means a person or thing detested or loathed)

usmc1

10-04-2008, 05:00 AM

I was disappointed that Sarah Palin was so nice and failed to highlight the quality of the Obama-Biden ticket.

Bilen wanted to “look back at the last 8 years”, Palin didn’t help focus him to look back on the last 2 years when the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi promised that the Democrats had a plan to deal with energy prices. Their plan: let’s have energy prices go from under $ 2.00 a gallon to over $ 4.00 a gallon. WOW!! That’s a plan?

Cody you're confusing gasoline pump price with energy costs--sort of a tip off as to your lack of knowledge despite your ability to Google the meaning of a word. The reason "energy", i.e. home cooling and heating bills (industry's are another matter altogether) are astronomic are Reagan initiated deregulation resulting in "market-based rather than "cost-based" pricing. That has been demonstrated in another thread in this forum.

If you have an interest, a clever fellow like you could use the search function and look it up.

I was also sorry that Palin didn’t take a moment and walk over and put her arm around poor Joey as he was doing his phony “tear on demand for the camera” and say, “It’s okay, Joey, real men do cry”. The usual childish conservative tactic of disparagement and belittlement does nothing to advance your notion.

And I was sorry that at no point in the interview did Palin look directly at the camera and ask the American people to evaluate which Barach Obama is the candidate. Is it the Barach Obama pandering to Christians with his statement of church attendance and “praising Jesus” or the dismissive “those people that hold on to the guns and bibles” Obama. I’m sorry Palin didn’t look into the camera and say, “If you were a Jew in Germany in 1935 and read Mein Kamph would you have supported Hitler? If you own a gun or a Bible in America in 2008, why support someone who thinks you, too, are an anathema.” (FYI – for you Obama supporters, I’ll save you the trouble of running to dictionary.com. Anathema means a person or thing detested or loathed)All of which pretty well sums up why Palin, as desperately inept, foolish and hapless as she might be, rather than you or anyone like you, was on the stage.

Fitz1980

10-04-2008, 05:56 AM

I’m sorry Palin didn’t look into the camera and say, “If you were a Jew in Germany in 1935 and read Mein Kamph would you have supported Hitler? If you own a gun or a Bible in America in 2008, why support someone who thinks you, too, are an anathema.” (FYI – for you Obama supporters, I’ll save you the trouble of running to dictionary.com. Anathema means a person or thing detested or loathed)

I hearby invoke Goodwin's Law.

http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html

http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html

Croydon

10-04-2008, 07:30 AM

The debate, if you can call that, was a disappointment.

Few Thoughts:

Biden: Biden did very well and clearly showed that he is knowledgeable, understanding, and will make a great asset to Obama and his administration. The two of them will work well together. He answered every question with facts, figures, and his own personal insight. I was a lot more surprised by Biden's performance than Palin.

Palin: Palin did well, FOR PALIN. Palin had 1 task on debate night: DON'T screw it up, she did not. Throughout the debate, I realized that she didn't really answer any of Gwen's questions. Rather than engage in the debate, she used it as a platform to talk about HER issues and HER thoughts. She ignored the purpose of the debate and sticked to her own format. I realized she largely avoided answering Qs with facts or provide specifics. After all, she stated that she may not answer Qs to Gwen or Biden's liking but she is going to answer how she chooses and "talk to the american people."

I further was offended by Palin and her folksy talk. Is this how she speaks all the time? If so, I cringe at the thought of her speaking at a UN function or speaking to leaders of the world. This is NOT the person I want representing America on trips to other countries. Her folksy talk is uneducated and unintelligent. I was also offended by her constant, "you east coast" people.

I found Biden missed some opportunities to set Palin straight as she said some thing that weren't true.

Gwen Iffil: BIG DISAPPOINTMENT. She let her fear of being labeled bias from doing her job. She allowed Palin to run the show by not answering her Qs.

Navigator

10-04-2008, 07:38 AM

(CNN) -- An analysis carried out by a language monitoring service said Friday that Gov. Sarah Palin spoke at a more than ninth-grade level and Sen. Joseph Biden spoke at a nearly eighth-grade level in Thursday night's debate between the vice presidential candidates.
Sen. Joe Biden used 5,492 words during the debate; Gov. Sarah Palin used 5,235.

The analysis by the Austin, Texas-based Global Language Monitor said Palin, governor of Alaska and the GOP vice presidential nominee, used the passive voice in 8 percent of her sentences, far more than the 5 percent used by the Democratic senator from Delaware.

The analysis noted that the "passive voice can be used to deflect responsibility; Biden used active voice when referring to [Vice President Dick] Cheney and [President] Bush; Palin countered with passive deflections."

"It obscures the doer of the action," said Language Monitor President Paul Payack, an independent with no political affiliation.

The two candidates were nearly even in total number of words spoken. The normally voluble Biden restrained his tendency to ramble by uttering just 5,492 words during the 90-minute debate, versus 5,235 for Palin, Payack said.

In last week's debate between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, Obama spoke 8,068 words during the 90-minute event, while McCain spoke 7,150, Payack said.

Thursday night's debate between the vice presidential candidates "was more collegial, thinking out loud as opposed to just hammering points," Payack said in trying to explain the difference. "It was a much calmer style."

His analysis ranked the candidates' speech on several other levels, too. Here's the breakdown:

Grade level: Biden, 7.8; Palin, 9.5 (Newspapers are typically written to a sixth-grade reading level.)

Sentences per paragraph: statistically tied at 2.7 for Biden and 2.6 for Palin.

Letters per word: tied at 4.4.

Ease of reading: Biden, 66.7 (with 100 being the easiest to read or hear), versus 62.4 for Palin.

The analysis said Abraham Lincoln spoke at an 11th-grade level during his seven debates in 1858 against incumbent Stephen A. Douglas in their race for a Senate seat from Illinois.

But higher grade level doesn't necessarily mean better sentence, Payack said. He pointed to Palin's second-to-last sentence in the debate, which the formula put at a grade level of 18.3:

"What I would do, also, if that were ever to happen, though, is to continue the good work he is so committed to of putting government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington," Palin said.

"When she said it, it sounded good, but on paper it's a completely different animal," Payack said.

ki4kxq

10-04-2008, 08:03 AM

Qikdraw,

No, they are not way off, these are the numbers from the oil and gas industry themselves. Not just the heads of the oil and gas industry but those that drill the wells. Drilling technology has increased tremendously. If we started drilling within 50 miles of the coast line of the US, the oil would be to market within 18 months. Don't listen to those that either don't know, or want you to think otherwise.

Obama is VERY anti gun and 2nd amendment. He has made that very clear. He has of course publicly softened his opinion while on the campaign trail, but I tend not to believe too much of what any of the candidates say on the campaign trail, but go back to what they said and did before they were running. We that support the 2nd amendment are extremely afraid of an Obama victory.

jon71

10-04-2008, 08:40 AM

In other words kx4kiq you choose to ignore reality. You've just decided to not accept Obama's rather neutral position on guns. How many gun control laws has he introduced since he's been in the senate? Would that be zero? You would just rather believe that a Democrat is pro gun control. I think if you go back to the Illinois state legislature he supported some basic very popular gun control, the kind that most gun owners support. That's not a talking point the n.r.a. will use much but most gun owners will support some gun control. I'd bet a lot of n.r.a. members support some gun control, much to the chagrin of the organizations leadership. While I'm certain the n.r.a. has endorsed McCain, he does have a little "r" beside his name after all, I've gotten the impression they're just kind of phoning it in this time. Apparently they're enough o.k. with Obama that they'll just kind of sleep walk through their support of McCain.
As for the new drilling it'll take 7 to 10 years to see a drop of gas. Wake up to reality. Let's say the law is changed today. They have to do geological surveys to find the oil. Let's say they've more or less done that already. They need to get the proper permits to build a platform. That's a couple months. During this time they'll start the hiring and buying of supplies to do this construction but even with the overlap they'll hit a year by the time they're ready to begin actual construction. Then take several years to do the construction. Keep in mind this is not a routine 2 bedroom house they can churn out fast, this is a big deal. Once it's built they have to then start the drilling. Going deep underwater is a far more challenging task then tapping some empty field in Oklahoma or Texas. If they actually hit oil it has to be extracted, shipped to a refinery and then refined. 18 months, puh-leaze. Your first clue ki4kiq that you've been had is that you actually listened to big oil. They are the least reliable source imaginable on the issue of oil. They have their agenda and they're not about to let the truth get in the way of that.

ki4kxq

10-04-2008, 08:56 AM

In other words kx4kiq you choose to ignore reality. You've just decided to not accept Obama's rather neutral position on guns. How many gun control laws has he introduced since he's been in the senate? Would that be zero? You would just rather believe that a Democrat is pro gun control. I think if you go back to the Illinois state legislature he supported some basic very popular gun control, the kind that most gun owners support. That's not a talking point the n.r.a. will use much but most gun owners will support some gun control. I'd bet a lot of n.r.a. members support some gun control, much to the chagrin of the organizations leadership. While I'm certain the n.r.a. has endorsed McCain, he does have a little "r" beside his name after all, I've gotten the impression they're just kind of phoning it in this time. Apparently they're enough o.k. with Obama that they'll just kind of sleep walk through their support of McCain.
As for the new drilling it'll take 7 to 10 years to see a drop of gas. Wake up to reality. Let's say the law is changed today. They have to do geological surveys to find the oil. Let's say they've more or less done that already. They need to get the proper permits to build a platform. That's a couple months. During this time they'll start the hiring and buying of supplies to do this construction but even with the overlap they'll hit a year by the time they're ready to begin actual construction. Then take several years to do the construction. Keep in mind this is not a routine 2 bedroom house they can churn out fast, this is a big deal. Once it's built they have to then start the drilling. Going deep underwater is a far more challenging task then tapping some empty field in Oklahoma or Texas. If they actually hit oil it has to be extracted, shipped to a refinery and then refined. 18 months, puh-leaze. Your first clue ki4kiq that you've been had is that you actually listened to big oil. They are the least reliable source imaginable on the issue of oil. They have their agenda and they're not about to let the truth get in the way of that.

No, as members of the NRA, we know that the NRA is very opposed to Obama. Obama has said that he believes that no one should be allowed to own a handgun, period. After he has said that (more than once I might add), why would I not believe he would try to lead the country in that direction. Btw, Illinois has some of the most archaic gun laws in the country, so you would be better served in your argument by not bringing up Illinois attitudes on guns.

Again, on oil, get the facts. Within 50 miles of the coast, the pools of oil lay relatively close to the ocean floor. So much so in fact that oil is frequently seen in the water off the coast of California due to natural seepage of those oil fields. Drilling has much better technology and the oil companies know where those fields are. You are way behind the times my friend, 18 months in some areas is a reliable figure because in some areas, some infrastructure is already in place. Besides, if we had started drilling 10 years ago when we should have, we would have the oil now wouldn't we, using your formula.

Croydon

10-04-2008, 09:33 AM

No, as members of the NRA, we know that the NRA is very opposed to Obama. Obama has said that he believes that no one should be allowed to own a handgun, period. After he has said that (more than once I might add), why would I not believe he would try to lead the country in that direction. Btw, Illinois has some of the most archaic gun laws in the country, so you would be better served in your argument by not bringing up Illinois attitudes on guns.
Please provide a link or some source to this b/c Obama has NEVER stated that gun ownership should be banned, NEVER. He has raised some concerns about GUN VIOLENCE in metropolitan cities but he has NEVER stated that people shouldn't own guns.

If you can provide link to a source of your claimed statement, I would appreciate. Thanks

ki4kxq

10-04-2008, 09:43 AM

Please provide a link or some source to this b/c Obama has NEVER stated that gun ownership should be banned, NEVER. He has raised some concerns about GUN VIOLENCE in metropolitan cities but he has NEVER stated that people shouldn't own guns.

If you can provide link to a source of your claimed statement, I would appreciate. Thanks

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!

Friday, June 06, 2008

On the Second Amendment,

Don’t Believe Obama!

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

Naturist Mark

10-04-2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Croydon
Please provide a link or some source to this b/c Obama has NEVER stated that gun ownership should be banned

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!
[snip NRA email that does not show a single instance of Obama stating that gun ownership should be banned]

Believe it or not, there are gun supporters who do not subscribe to the NRA/RNC version of reality. The American Hunters and Shooters Association (http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php) (a group formed as an alternative to the NRA by former NRA members and Brady Campaign supporters who advocate conservation (http://www.realhuntersrealconservation.org/) and both common sense regulation (http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=13&Itemid=39) and protection of gun rights (http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=32)) has even endorsed Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-schoenke/hunters-and-shooters-supp_b_97028.html). But of course that just proves that they are not 'real' gun rights supporters ... right?

-Mark

Boreas

10-04-2008, 12:03 PM

Some Americans' worship of the gun truly baffles me. The US has so much gun crime, and yet still worship the gun. Go figure.

Qikdraw

10-04-2008, 01:31 PM

Qikdraw,

No, they are not way off, these are the numbers from the oil and gas industry themselves. Not just the heads of the oil and gas industry but those that drill the wells. Drilling technology has increased tremendously. If we started drilling within 50 miles of the coast line of the US, the oil would be to market within 18 months. Don't listen to those that either don't know, or want you to think otherwise.

We are going to have to disagree on this. Oil Industry numbers? Like that is not a biased source? :)

Obama is VERY anti gun and 2nd amendment. He has made that very clear. He has of course publicly softened his opinion while on the campaign trail, but I tend not to believe too much of what any of the candidates say on the campaign trail, but go back to what they said and did before they were running. We that support the 2nd amendment are extremely afraid of an Obama victory.

Like I said I do not think that he would attack the 2nd Ammendment. Its a stupid fight, that would just get tangled in the courts, he is smart enough to recognise it.

jon71

10-04-2008, 08:15 PM

The claim that Obama is against hand gun ownership is a blatant lie. You can cite 100 dishonest sources it doesn't change anything, that claim is still a lie and frankly a rather ridiculous one. His position is pretty much let the states decide and throughout his entire career he's never tried to outlaw handguns. I remember four years ago how intensely the N.R.A. didn't like Kerry. His position was pretty typical of a gun owner and maybe that's what bothered the n.r.a. Regardless they were all riled up then and they're just phoning it in this time. I know they prefer McCain but the intensity of four years ago is completely absent, they're on autopilot.

usmc1

10-05-2008, 06:10 AM

Tina Fey hammers the "nitwit" again!

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkB7QAMiQMU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

ki4kxq

10-05-2008, 07:12 AM

The claim that Obama is against hand gun ownership is a blatant lie. You can cite 100 dishonest sources it doesn't change anything, that claim is still a lie and frankly a rather ridiculous one. His position is pretty much let the states decide and throughout his entire career he's never tried to outlaw handguns. I remember four years ago how intensely the N.R.A. didn't like Kerry. His position was pretty typical of a gun owner and maybe that's what bothered the n.r.a. Regardless they were all riled up then and they're just phoning it in this time. I know they prefer McCain but the intensity of four years ago is completely absent, they're on autopilot.

Can you not read his own website? In his own website he wants to reinstate the ban on assualt weapons. Do you even have a clue what a so called "assualt weapon" is? It is nothing more than an ordinary rifle that looks like it's military cousin. It does not rapid fire or automatic fire. It is no different than any ordinary rifle.

Obama wants to ban gun stores from being within 5 miles of a school or park. How many places in a city or town are more than 5 miles from some sort of school or park. That will effectively shut down most if not all gun stores.

Obama wants to impose a 500% tax on ammunition. There we go. You can own a gun, you just won't be able to afford the ammo that goes in it. The last two things pretty much will constitute a gun ban without coming right out and saying so.

Obama while still in the primary season, answered a questionnaire where he said he was in favor of an outright ban on handguns. He later denied that he had seen or answered that questionnaire.

Obama supports a ban on cheap handguns like "Saturday night Specials". For all of Obama's talk about being fair, what is this about? Do poor people not have the right to protect their homes and families from those that would do them harm? My Kimber 45 cost right at $1000. How many poor families can shell out that kind of money? I've got an idea, why don't we throw criminals in jail and keep them there instead of these kinds of ridiculous notions.

Sorry, for all the "I support the 2nd amendment rhetoric" from Obama, his positions don't match up.

brazhunter

10-05-2008, 08:17 AM

Some Americans' worship of the gun truly baffles me. The US has so much gun crime, and yet still worship the gun. Go figure.
Howzabout we export the Crips, the Bloods, and the largely illegal alien MS13 to some of your cities and you can decide for yourself if the issue is guns or extremely violent organized criminals.

brazhunter

10-05-2008, 08:20 AM

The claim that Obama is against hand gun ownership is a blatant lie.
Sorry, you're just wrong on this one. Obama's trying to pull a John Kerry getting his hunting license stunt but the reality is his position has always been extremely anti-gun and his voting record and rhetoric proves it.

Hey, he's allowed to have that position. That's fine. What isn't fine is to pretend otherwise to grab a few more votes.

Naturist Mark

10-05-2008, 08:25 AM

Can you not read his own website? In his own website he wants to reinstate the ban on assualt weapons
...
Obama supports a ban on cheap handguns like "Saturday night Specials".
...
Sorry, for all the "I support the 2nd amendment rhetoric" from Obama, his positions don't match up.

So restrictions on the ownership of military weapons and cheap defective hand guns are the same as "outlawing guns"?

That is the kind of thinking that is making the NRA increasingly irrelevant to sportsmen - & women.

-Mark

Boreas

10-05-2008, 08:27 AM

Can you not read his own website? In his own website he wants to reinstate the ban on assualt weapons. Do you even have a clue what a so called "assualt weapon" is? It is nothing more than an ordinary rifle that looks like it's military cousin. It does not rapid fire or automatic fire. It is no different than any ordinary rifle.

There is no need for anyone to have an assault weapon.

Obama wants to ban gun stores from being within 5 miles of a school or park. How many places in a city or town are more than 5 miles from some sort of school or park. That will effectively shut down most if not all gun stores.

That is awesome.

Obama wants to impose a 500% tax on ammunition. There we go. You can own a gun, you just won't be able to afford the ammo that goes in it. The last two things pretty much will constitute a gun ban without coming right out and saying so.

While 500% is high and I suspect spin, perhaps ammunition should be taxed, unless you are a hunter or something.

Obama supports a ban on cheap handguns like "Saturday night Specials". For all of Obama's talk about being fair, what is this about? Do poor people not have the right to protect their homes and families from those that would do them harm? My Kimber 45 cost right at $1000. How many poor families can shell out that kind of money? I've got an idea, why don't we throw criminals in jail and keep them there instead of these kinds of ridiculous notions.

Sorry, for all the "I support the 2nd amendment rhetoric" from Obama, his positions don't match up.

Why on earth would anyone need such weapons????? Having a weapon for protection is a myth. When you have a gun in the house for protection, you are more likely to be shot with it yourself. Also boasting that you own a firearm that costs $1000 suggests that you like the alledged status of having expensive toys. You have mentioned your toys before. It is truly sad that having is more important than being.

It is truly bizzare to me that Americans must have their firearms. If there is truly such a need for protection then I am glad I do not live in the US.

Naturist Mark

10-05-2008, 08:29 AM

Howzabout we export the Crips, the Bloods, and the largely illegal alien MS13 to some of your cities and you can decide for yourself if the issue is guns or extremely violent organized criminals.

I'm confused - are you supporting or opposing the right of the Crips, the Bloods, and the largely illegal alien MS13 to buy guns without common sense regulations?

-Mark

Boreas

10-05-2008, 08:30 AM

Howzabout we export the Crips, the Bloods, and the largely illegal alien MS13 to some of your cities and you can decide for yourself if the issue is guns or extremely violent organized criminals.

Our cities have gangs also. My town has a pretty significant cocaine problem, and the violence that comes with it. There are other ways to respond than private citizens having firearms. Regular people are not generally affected by the drugs stuff in this town.

Violence creates the need for violence.

ki4kxq

10-05-2008, 09:57 AM

There is no need for anyone to have an assault weapon.

You still don't get it. Almost any weapon under the assault weapon ban could be classified as such. Any weapon that is a semi-automatic, in other words, any pistol that is not a revolver would be an assualt weapon. Almost any rifle, yes those used in hunting too, could be classified as an assault weapon under the so called ban.

That is awesome.

No it is not. Guns are legal in this country. Children are allowed to be in a gun store and any store that sells guns. To put in such a provision is nothing more than harrassment of something that is not only legal, but is constitutionally protected. What would be next? Not allowing churches to be within 5 miles of a school because an atheist child could walk by and feel afraid or harrassed?

While 500% is high and I suspect spin, perhaps ammunition should be taxed, unless you are a hunter or something.

That is the figure that was put out by the Obama camp.

Why on earth would anyone need such weapons????? Having a weapon for protection is a myth. When you have a gun in the house for protection, you are more likely to be shot with it yourself. Also boasting that you own a firearm that costs $1000 suggests that you like the alledged status of having expensive toys. You have mentioned your toys before. It is truly sad that having is more important than being.

You missed the point yet again. Not everyone can afford to spend that kind of money, but are they any less worthy of protecting their families? NO. Your stats are absolutely wrong on those having a gun in the home are more likely to be shot with it themselves. The stats prove that false time and time again. As a matter of fact, those states and cities with very liberal gun laws, like conceal and carry or even open carry, have far less crime than those cities and states with very rigid laws or outright gun bans. In fact, there is a town in GA that has a town ordinance that states the head of household over 21 must have a working firearm in the house for protection. Their crime rate is pretty much zero.

It is truly bizzare to me that Americans must have their firearms. If there is truly such a need for protection then I am glad I do not live in the US.

Because of firearms, we do not still have the queen's picture on our money. Some people truly understand that when all is said and done, the people's right to bear arms protects against all the other rights being taken away.

Boreas

10-05-2008, 10:18 AM

Yes ki4kxq, I agree, I do not get it. I will never get it. Ever. What you are describing is something that is from another planet from my world. I am not a US citizen. I grew up in a culture that has an entirely different view of weaponry than yours. It is generally a puzzle to many Canadians why so many Americans worship firearms. As far as I am concerned, the whole notion of having a gun for protection is spin, and another indication of dualistic thinking.....good vs evil, black vs white etc. And you know my opinion of that.

I grew up with a firearm in the house. My father was a police officer. I was in the Army Reserve and learned how to fire a variety of different weapons. I also became qualified as a Range Safety Officer. I am not naive. I have a respect of weapons, and am not afraid of them. At the same time, I am aware that I am extremely biased, since my father was shot with his own hand gun just after I was born. At one time, most police officers were shot with their own weapons, in Canada anyway. I am not sure if that is still true since they have changed the configuration of holsters and training.

I will never ever "get it" as to why firearms are so important to some in the US. Also if the American society is really so dangerous as to need firearms, well then that in and of itself speaks volumes.

To my mind, a rigid adherance to the dogma of the NRA and the 2nd Amendment, without some critical thinking speaks of a paranoia that I do not wish to have.

This kind of discussion or information makes me very glad to be Canadian and to be living on this side of the border.

jon71

10-05-2008, 12:53 PM

Apparently ki4kiq, you're the illiterate one. Banning assault weapons is a million miles away from outlawing handguns. You can't even see the truth from your rather ridiculous position and no intelligent person will believe your lies.

Croydon

10-05-2008, 01:38 PM

Howzabout we export the Crips, the Bloods, and the largely illegal alien MS13 to some of your cities and you can decide for yourself if the issue is guns or extremely violent organized criminals.

And you assume that blacks and latinos are the only people who are in gangs? Although, Crips, Bloods and MS13 are one of the biggest gangs in the U.S. but they aren't the fastest growing.

The fastest growing gangs in US are suburban WHITE gangs as well as Asian gangs.

I love how ignorant white folks point fingers at minority groups as reason why we have crime in America.

Qikdraw

10-05-2008, 01:52 PM

I'm confused - are you supporting or opposing the right of the Crips, the Bloods, and the largely illegal alien MS13 to buy guns without common sense regulations?

-Mark

I'll assume that is a yes because McCain is supporting the rights of terrorists to buy guns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/mccain-now-silent-on-guns_n_101987.html) too. He used to support the 'Mayors Against Illegal Gun Violence', and in 2000 appeared in commercials calling for the 'gun show loophole (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/gun-shows-and-terrorists_b_119932.html)' to be closed, he is now silent on this issue.

A manual titled, "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad" was found among the rubble at a training facility for a radical Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist organization. The manual contains a chapter on "Firearms Training" and singles out the US for its easy availability of firearms and states that al-Qaeda members in the US can "obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations". In Texas, Muhammad Asrar was arrested in an investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. He pleaded guilty to immigration violations and illegal possession of ammunition. The Pakistani store owner said he had bought handguns, rifles and a submachine gun at gun shows since 1994. On September 10, 2001, just one day before the devastating attacks against the United States, Ali Boumelhem was convicted on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased an arsenal of shotguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, flash suppressors and assault weapons parts from Michigan gun shows without undergoing background checks.

Those who call for no regulations on gun control are just supporting terrorists. They need to wise up and admit that some forms of gun control are nessessary.

Skinview

10-05-2008, 11:25 PM

I'll assume that is a yes because McCain is supporting the rights of terrorists to buy guns too. He used to support the 'Mayors Against Illegal Gun Violence', and in 2000 appeared in commercials calling for the 'gun show loophole' to be closed, he is now silent on this issue.He is silent because he would never get elected while alienating gun owners. That would just send them into the arms of Bob Barr. McCain was never my first choice for President.

In Texas, Muhammad Asrar was arrested in an investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. He pleaded guilty to immigration violations and illegal possession of ammunition. The Pakistani store owner said he had bought handguns, rifles and a submachine gun at gun shows...He said. I don't know how big a moron this guy is, but he didn't buy a legally owned submachine gun. There are hundreds of dollars of taxes, waiting periods, background checks, and records required to buy a submachine gun anywhere, and the seller would be in huge trouble if his registered submachine gun wasn't properly sold through an FFL holder. Production of these weapons for civilians was banned in 1986, and they are very, very valuable now. The seller would be a fool to sell such a weapon on the black market. Some criminal probably built his own submachine gun and sold it illegally. These people care nothing about gun control.

Those who call for no regulations on gun control are just supporting terrorists. They need to wise up and admit that some forms of gun control are nessessary.Those who call for more gun control aren't trying to keep guns from terrorists, they are trying to shut down gun shows and keep guns from us. Nothing is going to keep guns from terrorists.

Skinview

10-05-2008, 11:38 PM

So restrictions on the ownership of military weapons and cheap defective hand guns are the same as "outlawing guns"?The "assault weapons" are not military weapons. The fabricated connection between the banned firearms and military weapons is biggest lie that that has been propagated out of Washington.
And no one needs legislation against defective hand guns. For one, people wouldn't buy the crap, or the manufacturor would have to refund all the money they made, and the company would go under, and two, they would get sued out of existence if the gun wasn't safe. And who believes for one moment that gun banners are worried about guns that don't work?

Skinview

10-06-2008, 12:47 AM

There is no need for anyone to have an assault weapon.Every Swiss man is issued an assault weapon (the real kind) to keep in his home. It kept Hitler out. (Ok, they were bolt action rifles then, but you get my drift.) The situation is similar in Isreal. The founders wanted us to have military arms to keep red coated Canadian lackeys of the crown out of here, which we did in the War of 1812. Assault rifles are also good for keeping our own government in line, which may be needed if we elect too many liberty crushing politicians like Obama, which is the other important use for them that the founders intended.

perhaps ammunition should be taxed, unless you are a hunter or something.Perhaps we all should have liberty, unless you are a Canadian or something.

Why on earth would anyone need such weapons????? Having a weapon for protection is a myth. When you have a gun in the house for protection, you are more likely to be shot with it yourself.Not. This comes from the notoriously, ridiculously, flawed study by Arthur Kellermann. He only counted actual kills of intruders as a successful defensive use of a firearm. The criminal is killed in less than one percent of defensive uses of a firearm. Then he inflated (by more than two times) the number of home residents killed by lumping suicides in with accidental deaths. Those were the biggest (not so accidental) blunders he made. And of course no one can say how many crimminals were deterred from entering a home because they knew the owner was armed, or were just afraid that he might be. Just last week I walked past a house with a sign on the shed that read "Anyone found trespassing will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." An NRA sticker on a car window works too. Or even Texas license plates. ;)

Also boasting that you own a firearm that costs $1000 suggests that you like the alledged status of having expensive toys.My gunsmith is building me a musket that costs more than $1000. Its gong to be an accurate reproduction of one of the instruments that secured my freedom from being under the tyranny of the British Empire. The cost is a measure of my love of history and freedom.

Skinview

10-06-2008, 01:06 AM

I'm confused - are you supporting or opposing the right of the Crips, the Bloods, and the largely illegal alien MS13 to buy guns without common sense regulations?

-MarkOk, who here thinks that gun control laws prevent the Crips, Bloods and MS13 from having guns, or that they obey the nonsense regulations that we have or you want?

Naturist Mark

10-06-2008, 05:28 AM

Every Swiss man is issued an assault weapon (the real kind) to keep in his home. It kept Hitler out. (Ok, they were bolt action rifles then, but you get my drift.) The situation is similar in Isreal.

Bolt action rifles kept Hitler out of Switzerland? To laugh. I suspect Switzerland's situation had much more to do with its geography. As for Israel, ummm ... are you sure you want to use that as an example of a nation that has been kept safe from aggression?

Doesn't matter ... I'm not arguing in favor of gun bans. But neither are any candidates. This is just sniping about the details of gun policy - not about outlawing guns.

-Mark

brazhunter

10-06-2008, 05:35 AM

And you assume that blacks and latinos are the only people who are in gangs?
Who said ANYTHING about race except you? Are you some kind of racist?

ki4kxq

10-06-2008, 05:58 AM

Ok, who here thinks that gun control laws prevent the Crips, Bloods and MS13 from having guns, or that they obey the nonsense regulations that we have or you want?

Couldn't agree more with your sentiments. When will these people understand that gun control laws do not work? Why do they not work? Because they will not stop criminals and/or terrorists from having guns of any kind. Why? Because they are CRIMINALS!! Criminals are not going to obey the law.

For 30 years Washington DC had a total handgun ban, yet in what city was a citizen most likely to be shot and killed? Washington DC of course, because only the bad guys had handguns. Crime is even less now in TX because of our new castle doctrine. Castle doctrines are popping up in quite a few states. Used to, if someone came onto your property or broke into your house to do you harm, and you killed or maimed them, they or their survivors could sue you. Not any more! If someone is on your property, and you are threatened in any manner, you can rest assured if you must use lethal force, you will be protected by law, period. No lawsuits from pesky survivors to worry about. Funny how the threat of being shot takes the fun out of being a burglar, rapist, or some other form of deviant.

ki4kxq

10-06-2008, 06:05 AM

Apparently ki4kiq, you're the illiterate one. Banning assault weapons is a million miles away from outlawing handguns. You can't even see the truth from your rather ridiculous position and no intelligent person will believe your lies.

If you had bothered to read any of the links, you would have read where Obama said he agreed with a ban on handguns. He later denied that he answered the question that way. Wonder why? He knew if he didn't correct that immediately, his candidacy would go the way of Al Gore's and John Kerry's.

Oh I forgot, since the sources weren't the DailyKos, you declared them as liars. Obama is no friend of the 2nd amendment and will indeed prove that once he is in office. By the way, banning gun stores with a ridiculous perimeter requirement will in effect ban any new sales on handguns without coming right out and saying it.

Boreas

10-06-2008, 08:04 AM

Every Swiss man is issued an assault weapon (the real kind) to keep in his home. It kept Hitler out. (Ok, they were bolt action rifles then, but you get my drift.) The situation is similar in Isreal. The founders wanted us to have military arms to keep red coated Canadian lackeys of the crown out of here, which we did in the War of 1812. Assault rifles are also good for keeping our own government in line, which may be needed if we elect too many liberty crushing politicians like Obama, which is the other important use for them that the founders intended.

So, do you really think that citizens will be able to get up a militia and storm the White House as they may have back in 1812????

Perhaps we all should have liberty, unless you are a Canadian or something.

We don't have liberty? That is news to me. In fact, I believe we have more. Of course, I come from a different point of view, and would expect yours to be different.

Not. This comes from the notoriously, ridiculously, flawed study by Arthur Kellermann. He only counted actual kills of intruders as a successful defensive use of a firearm. The criminal is killed in less than one percent of defensive uses of a firearm. Then he inflated (by more than two times) the number of home residents killed by lumping suicides in with accidental deaths. Those were the biggest (not so accidental) blunders he made. And of course no one can say how many crimminals were deterred from entering a home because they knew the owner was armed, or were just afraid that he might be. Just last week I walked past a house with a sign on the shed that read "Anyone found trespassing will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." An NRA sticker on a car window works too. Or even Texas license plates. ;)

Well, suicides, and accidental deaths counts as being shot by your own gun. A dog is as effective for keeping burglars out.

My gunsmith is building me a musket that costs more than $1000. Its gong to be an accurate reproduction of one of the instruments that secured my freedom from being under the tyranny of the British Empire. The cost is a measure of my love of history and freedom.

Your threat from the "British Empire" ended long ago, in case you hadn't noticed. Now we are more under threat from the American Empire. Should we Canadians be arming ourselves against that threat? Sadly, times have changed and it isn't so easy. We have been negatively affected, as have other countries, because of the policies of the Bush Regime. Guns won't help us at all. :mad:

All this talk just makes me more puzzled about your love of guns down there. It almost seems to be something that belongs in the DSM-IV

Skinview

10-06-2008, 09:07 AM

Bolt action rifles kept Hitler out of Switzerland? To laugh. I suspect Switzerland's situation had much more to do with its geography.

Oh, they had more than bolt action rifles (which is what the german army had too). You can go into a Swiss home today and find a heavy machine gun in the attic. I imagine the Swiss had them then too. But no, geography wasn't the major factor. The Alps are in the south, which would keep Italy out. The germans called Switzerland the "little porcupine" because it was so well armed. None of Hitler's victim nations were anywhere near as well prepared as Switzerland was, and still is. The militia wasn't just armed, they were well trained too. Another saying goes "Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army." I have a book on the Swiss militia in WWII that I haven't cracked yet.

As for Israel, ummm ... are you sure you want to use that as an example of a nation that has been kept safe from aggression?Damn right. They kicked everyone's butt that took them on, and all at once.

I'm not arguing in favor of gun bans. But neither are any candidates.Only because they are afraid to before the election. I expect another semiauto rifle ban to come out if the Democrats take control. Obama wouldn't hesitate to sign it.

ki4kxq

10-06-2008, 09:17 AM

So, do you really think that citizens will be able to get up a militia and storm the White House as they may have back in 1812????

Yep, quite a few citizens are prepared for this. It really wouldn't surprise me to see another Boston Tea Party or Civil War. Our free spending legislative branch is out of control and needs desperately to be reigned in. Same goes for the executive branch.

If someone breaks into your house to rape you Boreas, no matter what size dog is in the room, I think I would rather have a loaded 45 caliber. Besides, our dogs are part of our family and it is my duty as their master to protect them from harm.

Texas, unless you are a gang member (where you stand a very good chance of being shot by rival gang members), is a very safe place to live. That is because we have a concealed weapon carry law and we overwhelmingly take advantage of that law. As a criminal, you will think twice about committing a hold up or other nonsense here because that little old lady standing next to you in line, may very well be packing a pistol. Same goes for the soccer mom sitting at a table and eating lunch. Or that well dressed man filling his car with gas. Yep, not to many criminals want to take a chance with an armed citizenry. That is the whole point, and that is what keeps us safe.

As for your back handed assertion that we are somehow affected by a mental disorder for our love of the 2nd amendment, I believe people that have willingly given up their right to keep and bear arms are the ones who are a little deficient. History does repeat itself afterall. Do you remember that thing called the Holocaust? One of the first things that Hitler did was disarm the citizens. Any nation of people that willing give up their right to protect themselves from such a thing happening again is grossly negligent. You may one day wish you as a people hadn't done such a reckless thing. Thing is, once you give up a right, it's almost impossible to get it back again. I, like you, are glad that you live in Canada.

Skinview

10-06-2008, 09:44 AM

So, do you really think that citizens will be able to get up a militia and storm the White House as they may have back in 1812????In the War of 1812, our militia did a poor job of defending the White House. They repelled the British elsewhere. But to your point, it could if we maintained the well regulated militia that our founders implored us to have. Every man is supposed to have his own personal military weapon, and be well trained and organized into fighting units. The militia was supposed to be more powerful than the army, and it was for a time. That all melted away in the 1830's and 1840s. Switzerland practices today what our founders intended. Our current defence system is exactly what Madison & company were trying to prevent.

We don't have liberty? That is news to me. In fact, I believe we have more.
News flash: You don't have a right to keep and bear arms, and I recall an issue of Penthouse magazine was confiscated at the border once. (Which surprises me, as I would have expected that to work the other way around.) A Vermonter can walk down the road with a machine gun and a concealed pistol, with no permit or licence (although the Feds do have a huge amount of requirements for the machine gun). What happens when he gets to the Canadian border? Do you have that freedom? I'm not interested in whether you want to. Do you have the freedom to choose to do that?

Well, suicides, and accidental deaths counts as being shot by your own gun.But totally irrellevent. Someone who wants to kill himself doesn't need a gun to do it. Japan is disarmed, and they have twice the suicide rate. Removing the guns would not change the number of suicides. And if someone wants to kill themselves, that is their buisness. Others feel differently about that, but lets not go there here.

A dog is as effective for keeping burglars out.Dogs work, but lots of people can't keep a dog, and you can't take dogs everywhere. Dogs are high maintenance, and guns only bark when you want them to.

Your threat from the "British Empire" ended long ago, in case you hadn't noticed. Now we are more under threat from the American Empire. Should we Canadians be arming ourselves against that threat?That is about as unlikely a war as I can think of.

All this talk just makes me more puzzled about your love of guns down there. It almost seems to be something that belongs in the DSM-IVWe love our freedom, and we remember where it came from. Guns also go boom and make tin cans dance. Its a testosterone thing. ;)

Boreas

10-06-2008, 10:20 AM

We love our freedom, and we remember where it came from. Guns also go boom and make tin cans dance. Its a testosterone thing. ;)

THAT I get, and agree with! :sneaky:

All this talk of the holocaust and such just proves how much your society is fear based. It really is something. As for the freedom to carry weapons in Canada, we do not have the same love of weaponry that you folks do. While there is some fear mongering around, Canadians would not likely ever get to the point of wanting guns to that extreme. We just don't feel the need, and most of us accept some limitations on gun ownership. Of course there is the gun registry law that we have that is quite controversial, on so many counts. That is the only thing we get fired up with in that regard.

As for your back handed assertion that we are somehow affected by a mental disorder for our love of the 2nd amendment, I believe people that have willingly given up their right to keep and bear arms are the ones who are a little deficient. History does repeat itself afterall. Do you remember that thing called the Holocaust? One of the first things that Hitler did was disarm the citizens. Any nation of people that willing give up their right to protect themselves from such a thing happening again is grossly negligent. You may one day wish you as a people hadn't done such a reckless thing. Thing is, once you give up a right, it's almost impossible to get it back again. I, like you, are glad that you live in Canada.

No, it was not a backhanded comment. It was direct and honest. It comes from a place of entirely different values. You need to experience other cultures so you can even remotely understand how fear based, and ethnocentric you are being when you put such value in gun ownership.

Most Canadians do not see the need to own weapons, except for hunting or collection purposes. We are not nearly affected by the NRA propaganda. Americans do place a higher value on gun ownership. My comment had to do with the difference of values, and how bizarre it seems to own guns.

I really feel for you if you are truly in such a dangerous environment. That speaks volumes about the American society if it is true.

brazhunter

10-06-2008, 10:28 AM

A dog is as effective for keeping burglars out.

SOME dogs.... my wife's boss just had his HD flat screen & surround sound system taken and his dog just went outside to pee on the bushes while it happened -- this while they were sleeping in the room right above it. Our old dog would have likely done the same thing though he was big and visually intimidating.

My next door neighbor's little Yorkies yap like maniacs at the slightest noise. They couldn't hurt anybody but they would give warning to the homeowners to arm themselves and call 911.

Boreas

10-06-2008, 11:18 AM

SOME dogs.... my wife's boss just had his HD flat screen & surround sound system taken and his dog just went outside to pee on the bushes while it happened -- this while they were sleeping in the room right above it. Our old dog would have likely done the same thing though he was big and visually intimidating.

My next door neighbor's little Yorkies yap like maniacs at the slightest noise. They couldn't hurt anybody but they would give warning to the homeowners to arm themselves and call 911.

You're right. I do have a dog who takes her job as fierce and loyal protector very seriously. She is a lab/shepherd. Of course she doesn't always look up to the task!

Baron Lake

10-06-2008, 12:05 PM

Gee Braz, you would think your neighbors would get just a bit tired after awhile of
jumping up and grabbing iron. Might be pissing off the folks at 911 too. :)

b.l.

Qikdraw

10-06-2008, 12:25 PM

Y'know its funny in talking with my neighbours before about home defence, one has a shot gun, the other has a pistol, but the first thing they reach for is the baseball bat next to their bed. What makes this funny is I don't have a baseball bat, I have a hockey stick. Not a full sized one, but a smaller one, and not one of those they sell these days that are thin and flimsy, but one that is as big around at a normal hockey stick, just shorter. Get hit with that and its gonna hurt. I told that to my neighbours and they just looked at me and said '****ing Canadian'. lol

jon71

10-06-2008, 12:30 PM

Apparently in the land of conservativedom guns are goodness and light and only good things spring forth from them. If you have one troubles will never befall you in any way. For those of us in the real world we see the shades of gray. We know that neither a complete ban nor a complete lack of regulation is the answer. We know guns are neither good nor evil but could be used either way depending on who's using it and why. We don't give conspiracy theories too much credence and we don't imagine any candidate is out to get us. We regulate cars and appliances, we have the F.D.A. inspect the food we eat and propose that objects design to kill people have at least as much govt. oversight. Many of us even choose not to keep that particular security blanket in our house knowing we are safer without it than with. Of course to some people all of this is crazy talk. If I don't have a gun how will I fend of roving bands of marauders, communists, or martians. It's a risk I'll have to live with.

Boreas

10-06-2008, 12:39 PM

Y'know its funny in talking with my neighbours before about home defence, one has a shot gun, the other has a pistol, but the first thing they reach for is the baseball bat next to their bed. What makes this funny is I don't have a baseball bat, I have a hockey stick. Not a full sized one, but a smaller one, and not one of those they sell these days that are thin and flimsy, but one that is as big around at a normal hockey stick, just shorter. Get hit with that and its gonna hurt. I told that to my neighbours and they just looked at me and said '****ing Canadian'. lol

LOL. And being a good Canadian kid, you know how to use it! :laugh:

Boy, there is a metaphor or three in that story isn't there!

nimrod

10-06-2008, 01:03 PM

How did this get to gun control?

Boreas, do not worry too much about the Americans obsession with guns, not all of us are that paranoid to believe that we need them for protection. For me it is about rights not the actual owning of a gun. We should have the rights to own one but it is a personal choice to have one.

Lately with Bush in office I have thought about buying one for myself, and if McCain is elected there is a good chance that I will. This may sound like I am contradicting myself, but when policies like the (un)patriot act are in place, I do feel I need something to protect myself and my rights from my own government. I do not think that I would ever have to use it, but who knows, I might.

brazhunter

10-07-2008, 06:44 AM

Gee Braz, you would think your neighbors would get just a bit tired after awhile of
jumping up and grabbing iron. Might be pissing off the folks at 911 too. :)

b.l.
They got like 6 of them. The burglers would probably break an ankle tripping over the herd-O'yorkies.

For whatever you're reading into my remark, though, I never stated that they did 'grab iron' and call 911, just that the dogs are alert and noisy. (especially when the husband is coming in at 4:00 am :eek:)

Boreas

10-07-2008, 06:50 AM

The burglers would probably break an ankle tripping over the herd-O'yorkies

Now that is a picture. The burglar would certainly be slowed down with that security system! ;)

Qikdraw

10-07-2008, 11:11 AM

Now that is a picture. The burglar would certainly be slowed down with that security system! ;)

Sadly the burgler would then sue and end up with everything.

Naturist Mark

10-07-2008, 05:20 PM

Sadly the burgler would then sue and end up with everything.

You know, I suspect the whole "burglar winning a lawsuit after being injured during a burglary" thing is an urban myth.

Anybody?

Bueller?

-Mark