Political Crossfire Forums

[thintheherd]

perdidochas wrote: As I said, I really don't care either way. It doesn't bother me that it was banned, nor would it bother me if it was legal. I just don't care.
*sigh*

And so illustrates the apathy that allows such limits on freedom to manifest.

[usa-1]

On the other hand we'll probably see some harsh gun control laws passed as we move closer to socialism. The Republicans weren't doing either, but were instead screwing us in different ways. Could it be that both parties are bad for us, just in different ways?

Are you aware that every Republican President since Nixon was an anti-gunner? That the biggest gun control laws (Brady Bill) was a Republican invention and passed by Republican Bob Dole? Please look into that, as you have given the impression Democrats are the boogymen on gun control. That is mythical thinking spoonfed the masses. The question a Republican core member should ask is why the Republican gunners did not recind all gun control laws during their Total-Rein of the US Government. They did nothing for your benefit, and neither did the guttless NRA you pay dues to. Instead the stood by while antigunner Bush turned Iraq into another America, and confisticated all their weapons without any legal basis for doing so. Now Iraq is like America, ONLY the criminals have guns.

I think you are going to see an easing of gun laws, abortion laws, and social benefits affecting the middle and lower class, and possibly a withdraw from Iraq in 2 more years right after the election of a Dem President.

[perdidochas]

thintheherd wrote: perdidochas wrote: As I said, I really don't care either way. It doesn't bother me that it was banned, nor would it bother me if it was legal. I just don't care.
*sigh*

And so illustrates the apathy that allows such limits on freedom to manifest.

And what constitutional protection does gambling have? Anything that is not constitutionally protected can be fair game to be legislated against. Anyway, I'm still incredulous about how otherwise intelligent people will gamble online. The opportunities there for fraud are tremendous.

[perdidochas]

usa-1 wrote: On the other hand we'll probably see some harsh gun control laws passed as we move closer to socialism. The Republicans weren't doing either, but were instead screwing us in different ways. Could it be that both parties are bad for us, just in different ways?

Are you aware that every Republican President since Nixon was an anti-gunner? That the biggest gun control laws (Brady Bill) was a Republican invention and passed by Republican Bob Dole? Please look into that, as you have given the impression Democrats are the boogymen on gun control. That is mythical thinking spoonfed the masses. The question a Republican core member should ask is why the Republican gunners did not recind all gun control laws during their Total-Rein of the US Government. They did nothing for your benefit, and neither did the guttless NRA you pay dues to. Instead the stood by while antigunner Bush turned Iraq into another America, and confisticated all their weapons without any legal basis for doing so. Now Iraq is like America, ONLY the criminals have guns.

I think you are going to see an easing of gun laws, abortion laws, and social benefits affecting the middle and lower class, and possibly a withdraw from Iraq in 2 more years right after the election of a Dem President.

Abortion laws and withdrawal maybe. What do you mean by "easing of social benefits"?

In terms of gun laws, while most have been passed under bipartisanship, the rabid anti-gunners (who's proposed laws make the ones passed look almost libertarian) are primarily in the democratic party.

Here are some notable quotes from them from the early 1990s (i.e from the last time they were in power). The main reason we haven't heard too much recently, is due to the 1994 Republican takeover.

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN (U.S. Senator)
"...we could tax them [firearms] out of existence." (Washington Post 4 Nov 93)
DIANE FEINSTEIN (California Senator, author of "Feinstein Amendment" which became the '94 gun ban)
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." (60 Minutes episode, CBS) [Sen Feinstein holds a CCP]
MEL REYNOLDS (U.S. Congressman)
"If it were up to me, we'd ban them all [firearms]." (CNN Crossfire 9 Dec 93)
JANET RENO (U.S. Attorney General)
"Gun registration is not enough." (Associated Press 10 Dec 93)

[The Grandmaster]

thintheherd wrote: perdidochas wrote: As I said, I really don't care either way. It doesn't bother me that it was banned, nor would it bother me if it was legal. I just don't care.
*sigh*

And so illustrates the apathy that allows such limits on freedom to manifest.

Wow. A perfect post. ^^

Excellent.

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote: thintheherd wrote: perdidochas wrote: As I said, I really don't care either way. It doesn't bother me that it was banned, nor would it bother me if it was legal. I just don't care.
*sigh*

And so illustrates the apathy that allows such limits on freedom to manifest.

And what constitutional protection does gambling have?

Do you not see the fundamental problem with banning every single thing for which there is not a "constitutional right" to? The onus is not on us to prove why we should have a freedom, it should be on them to prove why we should not! The default is not that something is banned, it is that we can do it until they say we cannot. That is freedom. Where does it say in the contitution we have a right to use comptuers, fly jets, have PDAs, lift weights, have cameras, have motercycles, write with a ball point pen.......*infinite*.....Ban all of that huh? Why not? Would you be okay with that? I am helping myself to the same logic.

It is those people who advocate banning anything for no good reason that scare me more than anything. Why live?

perdidochas wrote: [Anything that is not constitutionally protected can be fair game to be legislated against.

See above. It isn't a matter of whether they can. It's a matter of whether they should.

perdidochas wrote: Anyway, I'm still incredulous about how otherwise intelligent people will gamble online. The opportunities there for fraud are tremendous.

It can be regulated, like anything else.

[thintheherd]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: thintheherd wrote: perdidochas wrote: As I said, I really don't care either way. It doesn't bother me that it was banned, nor would it bother me if it was legal. I just don't care.
*sigh*

And so illustrates the apathy that allows such limits on freedom to manifest.

And what constitutional protection does gambling have?

Do you not see the fundamental problem with banning every single thing for which there is not a "constitutional right" to? The onus is not on us to prove why we should have a freedom, it should be on them to prove why we should not! The default is not that something is banned, it is that we can do it until they say we cannot. That is freedom. Where does it say in the contitution we have a right to use comptuers, fly jets, have PDAs, lift weights, have cameras, have motercycles, write with a ball point pen.......*infinite*.....Ban all of that huh? Why not? Would you be okay with that? I am helping myself to the same logic.

It is those people who advocate banning anything for no good reason that scare me more than anything. Why live?

perdidochas wrote: [Anything that is not constitutionally protected can be fair game to be legislated against.

See above. It isn't a matter of whether they can. It's a matter of whether they should.

perdidochas wrote: Anyway, I'm still incredulous about how otherwise intelligent people will gamble online. The opportunities there for fraud are tremendous.

It can be regulated, like anything else.
Back at cha fellow Hoosier ;)

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: thintheherd wrote: perdidochas wrote: As I said, I really don't care either way. It doesn't bother me that it was banned, nor would it bother me if it was legal. I just don't care.
*sigh*

And so illustrates the apathy that allows such limits on freedom to manifest.

And what constitutional protection does gambling have?

Do you not see the fundamental problem with banning every single thing for which there is not a "constitutional right" to? The onus is not on us to prove why we should have a freedom, it should be on them to prove why we should not! The default is not that something is banned, it is that we can do it until they say we cannot. That is freedom. Where does it say in the contitution we have a right to use comptuers, fly jets, have PDAs, lift weights, have cameras, have motercycles, write with a ball point pen.......*infinite*.....Ban all of that huh? Why not? Would you be okay with that? I am helping myself to the same logic.

It is those people who advocate banning anything for no good reason that scare me more than anything. Why live?

Well, they all have good reasons to ban things.. However, the thing is that things not constitutionally protected need to be guarded against, if they are important to you.

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: [Anything that is not constitutionally protected can be fair game to be legislated against.

See above. It isn't a matter of whether they can. It's a matter of whether they should.

perdidochas wrote: Anyway, I'm still incredulous about how otherwise intelligent people will gamble online. The opportunities there for fraud are tremendous.

It can be regulated, like anything else.

How can online gambling be regulated? U.S. laws can't extend over the border.

[Refrozen Seabass]

hammerhead wrote: Does anyone actually expect democrats to make a difference? I doubt it considering the fact that the only 3 planks in their otherwise nonexistent agenda is "Bush is stupid," we can't fight our enemies, and the world is coming to an end if we don't pull suv's off the road in 10 years.

Cite, please.

Quote: I would really like to see good, lengthy refutations of this viewpoint.

Support your claim first.

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: thintheherd wrote: perdidochas wrote: As I said, I really don't care either way. It doesn't bother me that it was banned, nor would it bother me if it was legal. I just don't care.
*sigh*

And so illustrates the apathy that allows such limits on freedom to manifest.

And what constitutional protection does gambling have?

Do you not see the fundamental problem with banning every single thing for which there is not a "constitutional right" to? The onus is not on us to prove why we should have a freedom, it should be on them to prove why we should not! The default is not that something is banned, it is that we can do it until they say we cannot. That is freedom. Where does it say in the contitution we have a right to use comptuers, fly jets, have PDAs, lift weights, have cameras, have motercycles, write with a ball point pen.......*infinite*.....Ban all of that huh? Why not? Would you be okay with that? I am helping myself to the same logic.

It is those people who advocate banning anything for no good reason that scare me more than anything. Why live?

Well, they all have good reasons to ban things..

Yes, I’m sure they do…to them.
A brilliant man once said, “Money does what money has to do.” I think this is the case here. I think some lawmakers were getting their pockets lined, or otherwise it was money lost to some casino, company, or lobbyists due to people taking their gambling online instead of to casinos, that prompted this. I do not have a link for you, but even you, I believe, understand that the government does things often in it’s own self interests and the interests of what puts it in power, money. Do you really think they did this saying “This will make everyone happier, so lets do it?”

Other than their own interests, or their own arbitrarily morality, no. there are often no good reasons to ban what is sometimes banned, and certainly not in this case.

perdidochas wrote: However, the thing is that things not constitutionally protected need to be guarded against, if they are important to you.

I'll give you that. And last week, we as a people too a huge step in doing just this. We put those who are actually reasonable in the House and Senate. :wink:

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: [Anything that is not constitutionally protected can be fair game to be legislated against.

See above. It isn't a matter of whether they can. It's a matter of whether they should.

perdidochas wrote: Anyway, I'm still incredulous about how otherwise intelligent people will gamble online. The opportunities there for fraud are tremendous.

It can be regulated, like anything else.

How can online gambling be regulated? U.S. laws can't extend over the border.

And in this case, it doesn’t need to be. Much like traveling overseas, and using a freestanding foreign company.

I often wonder how people stand and tell those who lives their lives a certain way, those on welfare, those who are unemployed, those who act a certain way, that they need to grow up, be adults, and take responsibility for their actions.

And then we’re told the government needs to be responsible for us, because we can’t handle thinking for ourselves after all. I wonder if it’s only me who see the contradiction. If you are worried about it, don’t gamble online. Those of us who want to, will win or lose, but we’ll do it on our own accord. That’s the way it should be.

[wyldejackyl]

Amen, Grandmaster. I agree with you 100% about responsibility and the taking of freedoms. I'm so sick of the word "ban." You know what, retards? The second you ban an idea, a practice, or an inanimate object you are attempting to stifle the freedom of some individual because at the root of the "problem," the individual is the one at fault. Banning online gambling doesn't solve problems for the gambler. It just means he shifts his addiction elsewhere. It is my (IE: the government's) problem that he's a compulsive gambler? No? Well, then can I, as a non-compulsive gambler, gamble online? Nope. And that's the second that such stupid legislation infringes on my freedom. That kind of logic means we should ban alcohol too..that ruins more lives than online gambling does.

Gun bans are the same thing. Guns don't kill people..people do, because of their ignorance, lack of respect, and cowardice, among other things. Taking an object out of society won't improve society..just change it. It won't move up, it'll move sideways (or down).

Perdidy, you have a pretty level head on your shoulders from all the posts I've read from you..why do you think that the infringements of people's rights is okay so long as you "just don't care?" Gun bans don't affect a lot of people, so they vote for them, buying the hype that it'll make them safer. You don't care about online gambling..so now that that's illegal, are we all better off? No.

Government always looks out for number 1..and it's not you and me. It's "it,"- and those who fund 'it.'

[Angel.Airwave]

hammerhead wrote:
Does anyone actually expect democrats to make a difference? I doubt it considering the fact that the only 3 planks in their otherwise nonexistent agenda is "Bush is stupid," we can't fight our enemies, and the world is coming to an end if we don't pull suv's off the road in 10 years.


AMEN!
ONE OF THE CHIEF REASONS THAT I BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO SCREW THE COUNTRY OVER IS THE FACT THAT ALL THEY EVER DID DURING THE PAST 6 YEARS WAS MOCK BUSH. THEY NEVER HAD ANY ALTERNATIVE PLANS, JUST "ELECT ME, THE OTHER GUY SMELLS BAD AND HES A BUSH LOVER!" I THINK THAT THEY JUST SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT BY GETTING ELECTED. NOW THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME WHEN THINGS CONTINUE TO GO WRONG. LIKE THE VIETNAM WAR, WHERE WE WERE ON THE BRINK OF VICTORY BEFORE THE MEDIA CONVINCED THE PUBLIC OTHERWISE, THIS WAR WILL TURN INTO JUST ANOTHER SCREAMING MATCH IN THE GOVERNMENT WHERE NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTIVE.

[gemma]

/snip

Angel.Airwave wrote: ...WHEN THINGS CONTINUE TO GO WRONG....

But but but things have been going so well, haven't they?

Appreciate the input, but lay off the caps-lock, speaking of "screaming matches," eh? :wink:

[ilovebushnotdick]

hammerhead wrote: Does anyonne expect real change?
no more then a replacement of a small fish in my big aquarium.