Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 13 Posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 665 times:
First of all, for those of you who keep complaining about people like me harping on "issues" then here is your chance to exit this post right now... for those of you who care about the direction of our country and our rights as citizens, read on.... but please, read with an open mind. I will no doubt be given the label of "extremist". For those of you that call me that, i feel sorry for you, but your opinion is respected.
Okay, I am a firm believer that evil works come from the heart of individuals, not the tools they use. I would like to give an example of a story that shocked my town yesterday, and hit very close to home. (i live in fort wayne, indiana for those who havent read my profile)
One of my co-workers and close friends called into work very early this morning. She was barely understandable through the intense sobbing that muffled most of her words. What had happend was that her best friend, and a friend of everyone at our work, had discovered something horrible when she entered her recently divorced husbands home late last night, to visit her two children, 7 and 4 years old (very well-behaved kids)
Distraught over his failed marriage, her young x-husband had beaten thier 2 kids to death with a hammer, and with a knife he then slit his own throat.
This was a very normal family, i knew them; they didnt like guns, they didnt own any guns... So how did this Gruesome taking of human life occur without a gun???
Simple. Bitterness, hatred, and evil works come from the heart of man. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Should we outlaw hammers and knifes?
But i digress. The point of this post is about our rights.
"Gun control" is a hot topic but do you really know whats at stake? Al Gore wants to require licenses to own a gun. He wants to turn our rights into privledges. Sounds harmless. But once our liberties are turned into licenses, licenses can be revoked, and privledges can be denied.
Its all about Power. Gore and his liberal buddies are obsessed with power and controlling every minute facet of the lives of all citizens. The democratic underpinnings of our society such as the constitution and the bill of rights thwart their goal of absolute control, so the rights themselves must be undermined.
The most prominent elements of Mr. Gore's strategy to overcome the Constitution in pursuit of power are to destroy private property rights and national sovereignty through environmental badgering, while eliminating the means for citizens to resist government oppression by eliminating firearms ownership. Once self-defense is gone, we will no longer have any rights, only privileges. Once citizens cannot resist their own government, the
government is free to decide which rights we have, or don't have. That is why every gun-control proposal put forth by Gore and the left is focused almost exclusively on law-abiding citizens.
Crime is used as strategic tool used for Gore's ultimate goal of complete confiscation of all firearms, as has been done in Great Britain, Canada and Australia. The verbal acrobatics and constant spin required to scare the public into incrementally accepting
these very small but fundamental changes in our society require an utter contempt for the intelligence of the average citizen. but these qualities have been Algore trademarks for decades.
"Catchy but meaningless labels such as "assault weapons," "Saturday night specials," "cop-killer bullets," "plastic guns," etc. have been used as a disguise for outlawing whole classes of firearms.
(stephen J. centerville, maryland)
Want some Al Gore quotes to go with it? in the recent debates he stated proudly: "As president, I will do whatever it takes to get the guns away from children and criminals, and close every loophole in our law books. I will fight for a national requirement that every state issue photo licenses for anyone who wants to buy a handgun."
Gore now says "no restrictions on sport hunting". Well thats easy for him to re-nig on once he has power, why? the 2nd ammendment is not for hunters, and does not protect them. Thus, eventually Gore will confiscate those too because "guns for sport" are not constitutional.
Here is an except from a washington times article:
.
The possession of firearms by the average citizen — not for sport, not for target shooting, but for his own protection — was deemed by the Founding Fathers the strongest bulwark against an oppressive, tyrannical government. Noah Webster wrote that "The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." In Federalist Number 46, James Madison wrote that the Constitution's clear statement of the right of the people to possess the means of self-defense "preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . ."
Mr. Gore, like other liberal Democrats, not only believes in the supremacy of the federal government, he has an abiding contempt for the rights and freedoms of the American people. Contrast his approach to that of Gov. Bush, who favors prosecuting and incarcerating those who misuse firearms — but who readily acknowledges the right of law-abiding Americans to possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes —including self-defense. Mr. Bush, a strong backer of excellent anti-crime measures such as Project Exile, does not believe that more restrictions on the right of peaceable citizens to possess and bear arms will curb crime.
Okay, forgive me for going so long, but i feel very strongly about this topic. The direction Gore wants to take us is to complete government control. And its scary.
Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 551 times:
For some reason they cut off my title... the title of this topic is supposed to be: THE TRUTH ABOUT GUN CONTROL
Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 551 times:
Somebody didnt read the whole post... i know it was long but please read the whole thing if you want to respond... it is explained.
N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 549 times:
Once again, I agree with you 100%.
If you take away the guns, it will acomplish NOTHING AT ALL except to prevent law-abiding citizens from participating in sport (be it hunting or merely target shooting).
I was amazed and shocked yesterday when I read the Sunday edition of the Seattle Times/Post-Intelligencer. Algore was asked by the AP, "Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed weapons?"
His response: "No." Unbelievable!! He continued, "...we must have stricter gun control measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands..."
Are law-abiding citizens the "wrong hands" according to Gore? Yes. I am apalled and shocked at his statement. He thinks that Joe Citizen walking down the street in Belltown (area in Seattle where there have recently been a rash of beatings and a few murders in the span of about a week...) shouldn't have the right to have a small gun tucked away in his shirt pocket! As defined in the question, Joe Citizen is a law-abiding citizen and isn't going to shoot anybody unless attacked... whats wrong with him having a gun?
On a side note, I was listening to a liberal station here in Seattle (as I often do) and a caller from Belltown stated that at 2AM that morning he had gone down to the corner store to get milk, armed (!!!) with a pistol. You could hear the shock in the host's voice.
Mr. Gore's position is ludicrous and I could not, in clear concious, elect someone like him... someone who just wants power.
N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 541 times:
Bombstar's question scares me too. That just shows that Canada can convince its citizens that guns aren't needed.... and our great nation is headed in the same direction.
We need guns to protect ourselves- be it from an intruder or attacker, or from a government that has turned on its citizens, as the Constitution of the United States of America describes.
If the criminals know citizens don't have guns, they will attack without as much hesitation, but if they knew that a certain person walking down the street had a 38 Special in his pocket, he sure as hell wouldn't attack him.
Criminals will get guns whether they are outlawed or not- its the same with drugs and many other things. If guns are outlawed, citizens will be at the mercy of armed criminals.
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 541 times:
In a nutshell, I agree with Chris28_17.
Guns don't kill people, people do. Anything can be used as an implement of death. A plane, a can of tomato soup, a computer keyboard, a toilet seat. So what are you going to do, Mr. Gore, ban those too? Really....
Severe punishment for severe crimes. We can't have the "luxury" of society unless it is based on values and laws. Enforce the laws we have on our "books", you cowards! Don't take rights away from law abiding citizens.
You take guns away from law abiding citizens and only the criminals will have them.
Peter From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 570 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 538 times:
I agree with Chris28_17 too. Maybe I've missed something, but I have never heard Gore say that he thinks people should be able to have guns for protection. If citizens can have guns, especially concealed weapons, it would be easier to stop criminals. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, and what Al Gore wants would just not allow people to protect themselves. GO BUSH!!!
Greeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 534 times:
I agree with this principle that people kill people. Guns don't, by themselves, kill people.
This is about control. The beauties of America the Beautiful are available from the beauty of liberty. Liberty to own a fire arm is important, and is closely related to other liberties such as the freedom to teach our children at home. With these and other freedoms we have control over the present and future of America- including the liberties of home and hearth, and the defence of those.
We in the United States must not allow either special interest groups or a larger percentage of Democrats to control us through taking away America's rights to own and operate firearms.
This post is powerful and humbling. And I am not a member of the National Rifle Association. I do not handle guns. I do not own a gun. I am afraid of guns, personally. But to take away my freedom to have one is a step toward taking away my freedom and authority in my home and on my personal property.
Therefore I am vehemently opposed to traditional Democratic Gun Control.
However, good restrictions probably can save lives. We need to make buying and freely operating a fire arm restricted to isolated geographies.
Greeneyes
Ps-Chris, I am suffering with you on the death of the children- and their daddy. Most of my relatives live in southern Indiana. I love the state and suspect that much of America's Christian leadership owes a debt to Indiana prayers and teaching.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 539 times:
Yes, guns are just a tool, but they are designed for the most part for maiming and killing.
The USA is already an incredibly violent society, why would you want to advocate allowing people who should have no reason to bear arms have them? How many times do you read about innocent little kids getting hold of their parents firearms and either blowing away themselves or another child? It's easy to say "the parents should know better" but unfortunately a lot of people don't.
How many times do so called "armed psycho's" enter a place of work / worship / school and shoot up a half dozen people. (Usually they are referred to AS "ordinary citizens" or "nice family man / woman" by people who know them.) They could hardly do that if they were only armed with a hammer or knife? How many times do you hear about an intruder in someone's house turning the home owners gun against himself? How many prank drive by shootings occur because some adolescent boy has taken his fathers / mothers gun and decided it would be fun to "scare" a few people?
Are these the sort of people you are advocating should have the right to a gun? Ordinary citizens seem to be the ones who do the most damage to their own kind. And it's been proven time and again in the crime statistics. Your reference to an unfortunate incident involving a divorced man has no bearing on whether or not ordinary citizens should have guns. If anything, it's probably fortunate the guy didn't have a gun, or else he may well have flipped and taken out some of his neighbours as well.
As for those of you who even consider advocating shooting wild animals for sport, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. It's pure and utter bloodlust and completely unnecessary.
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 530 times:
Yes, guns are tools made for shooting things. And knives are made for cutting things. Cutting and shooting both yield blood in criminal circumstance. So what's the point.
Incredibly violent? The US is no worse than anyone else, we just have more sensational news networks!!. Another old cliche that has to go away.
Guns need safeguards, like trigger locks, locked cabinets etc.--not to be taken away. I have heard of children being killed in their own pools because the gates weren't locked. Or children dying by opening "childproof" pill bottles and accidently dying from overdose. Like anything else, where there is a will there is a way. Again, what's the point. Accidents happen.
Going "postal"; well, if they don't have a gun, they will have a knife, or something else. Like a few years ago when someone insane with jealousy drove a pickup truck into a cafeteria to kill his girlfriend and killed many others as well. If someone is (or goes) insane, they will use what ever means to do what they intend to do. In a fit of rage, people can kill with their own hands.
I wonder what you wouild do if an intruder came into your home and you didn't have window guards and the intruder had a gun? In the countries that have outlawed personal possesion, what do the criminals use when let's say they rob a bank? a rusty butterknife?
Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 526 times:
Are these the sort of people you are advocating should have the right to a gun? Ordinary citizens seem to be the ones who do the most damage to their own kind.
This statement is true in theory. However to say that we must take rights away from everyone, to allow for the irresponsibility of a few is frivilous.
What about cars??? MANY people get drunk and kill innocent people. You talk about stats, well if you want i'll go find you some "stats". Should we then ban cars from those who are responsible with them to compensate for the irresponsible?
The simple answer is accountability. In certain other countries if you are caught driving drunk, you lose your licence.. FOREVER. How ironic is it that these places have nearly no problems with drunk drivers??? Likewise, we need to enforce the gun laws on the books. There are myriads of gun laws and there should be NO second chances. This is where liberals fail in gun control. Instead of enforcing laws, they just make new ones. This is no way to run a country, only another ploy for power hungry liberals to control your life.
AC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 518 times:
Let me start off saying that this is an excellent topic. The replies are well thought out.
I do not own a gun, nor have I ever shot anything other than a target with my friend's .22. I do not hunt.
I agree completely that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I could kill someone with my own hands. Does that mean I will need a permit in order to use my hands?
The majority of people that do own guns are trusty, law-abiding citizens that enjoy spending a brisk autumn day in the woods hoping to see a deer or other large animal. Are we going to restrict those people to a certain area? Are we going to force them to use slingshots? People hunt for food. As you probably know, deer meat is not available at the local grocery store.
Guns are weapons, yet so are bombs. Just look at the Oklahoma City bombing 6 years ago almost. I don't recall that the two convicted persons used guns at all.
There is no solution to this problem. This is the result of years of uncorrectly applied laws. If you kill a person, no matter what way, you definately deserved to be removed from society for the rest of your natural life. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and that's where the trouble starts...
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 34 Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 510 times:
Look at what happens when people have lack of guns. If I'm not mistaken, I believe guns have been banned in the city of Chicago. Yet, the city has the highest rate of violent crimes in the nation! This is no coincidence. Look at Mexico, where guns are banned outright, yet violence is very high in many parts of that country? Did banning guns solve the problem? No.
What is really needed is education, and a crackdown on the violence itself, not on the guns. If people become more educated on how to use guns responsibly, then perhaps we can be a safer nation.
Yet, being the devil's advocate, is the second amendment truly a right applicable to our time? Yes, when the constitution was written, the second amendment was put in the bill of rights relating to its time, and this oppressive government which people spoke of was the English government of George III. The new government of the U.S.A. was not tested, and nobody would know if it would stand up against the schemes of tyrranical rulers. Nobody would know if the checks and balances system would work. Nobody would know that this constitution would hold out for so long. Perhaps the right to own a gun to "stop oppressive governments" is no longer a necessity.
Think about it. The British government during the time prior to the Revolutionary war forced their soldiers into colonial homes, treating them badly. If they had had the right to own a gun, they could have defended themselves against these hooligans brought about by the "oppressive" government. If they had had the right to own a gun, then perhaps the revolution may have been easier. It all ties into the time.
But now, its not as applicable. I don't think that the argument of gun control at all is a "2nd Amendment Rights" argument, as the amendment truly doesn't apply to the times today. It has been shown that the government can stand up the test of time. More importantly is teaching gun safety and responsibility, and cracking down on violent crimes with the use of guns.
N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 511 times:
If you want a good example of a place guns are banned: The District of Columbia. Their crime rate is through the roof! I agree with Chris28_17, instead of making new laws, we need to enforce and toughen up on our existing laws.
A society where everyone is educated on the use of guns- right down to housewives and schoolchildren- and everyone has a gun, crime rates would be down. You can't argue that. If you know that every single person around you has a gun, you won't commit a crime will you? No. Obviously.
If you knew that no one around you had a firearm because the government outlawed them, would you hesitate before commiting that crime? No. No one has the means of stopping you effectively. And chances are that if you are a die-hard criminal, you are packing heat anyway.
Obviously banning guns is not the solution.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 512 times:
"The majority of people that do own guns are trusty, law-abiding citizens that enjoy spending a brisk autumn day in the woods hoping to see a deer or other large animal. Are we going to restrict those people to a certain area? Are we going to force them to use slingshots? People hunt for food. As you probably know, deer meat is not available at the local grocery store."
I doubt very much the majority of gun owners use their guns to hunt for food. I have never heard anything more ridiculous.
Take into consideration the amount of popular "violent" movies that come out of your country. Is it any wonder you have the problems you do with the whole "gun" mentality? Violence is an accepted part of your society, through the media, through books, through magazines and even video games.
The very frightening thing for you guys in the USA is that your society is slowly but surely descending into anarchy. As the gap between the haves and the have nots get's greater and greater no amount of "good times" can reverse the constant swing in favour of the wealthy minority. And remember that if "everyone" has the right to arm themselves then the poor do also. The pendulum will swing all the way to the left and no amount of guns or "gated societies" will save you. All it will take is another 1 or 2 recessions.
Remember the riots in LA? Imagine that on a massive scale with an emaciated middle class.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 34 Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 508 times:
Mx5_boy, I don't believe that our government is collapsing into anarchy because of violence. All nations have violence, and it is unavoidable. Also, anarchy would almost be impossible happen with the solid government and the constitution, system of checks and balances, the military, national guard, and national pride that the people feel in this country. Things may not be perfect, but it won't lead to anarchy and massive "1917ish" revolution. Just a thought.
N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 506 times:
Mx5_boy, maybe the USA should convert to socialism.
We should ban guns, ban movies that have guns- movies that have any form of violence for that matter, ban video games, magazines- oh and while we're at it, since the "gap between the haves and the have nots" is getting bigger we should end capitalism and make sure no one is better off than anyone else. Everyone has to be equal. Just because a guy that is rich worked his ass off for a couple of decades and finally struck it rich, we should make sure he's no better off than some guy who dropped out of school, doesn't work, doesn't contribute to society, lives off of welfare, and watches TV and smokes all day.
Oh a more...uh..serious note, the USA is not falling into anarchy. Algore will make sure that doesn't happen!
I like the system we have right now (though it is a little too liberal... it could be a little better) and I don't think we should start banning anything unless it violates the Constitutional rights of others.
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 504 times:
Though it disgusts me personally, a majority of gun owners do use guins for "hunting" as recreation and food. That's their right, I support it, so What?
A good number of gun owners have guns to protect their businesses. So What?
Our whole society is not "violent". Certain elements are and yes parts of our culture have been debased by out of control Hollywood genres, like "Gangsta Rap", but this is a whole other issue. We have violence like other countries do, including Australia.
Violence has never been exclusive to the US: Neo Nazi's , Skinheads, Basque seperatists, Sikh terrorism, Fascists, Black September, Red Brigades, Bader Meinhoff, Munchen 1972, Al Fatah, Achille Lauro, PAN AM 103, TWA 1985( the latter 3 where Americans were victims) are non American purveyors of violence, worse than anything to come out of imaginary (Democrat friendly)Hollywood - real life examples of guns, bombs and violence whcih are a hell of alot more vivid than some stupid movie like "Die Hard" or even (though stereotype laden) "Crocodile Dundee".
If I recall, magazines and Playstations are pretty popular the world over. And other countries have an appetite for this as well.
The riots in LA were not because of a generally "violent" society. They were because a certain group could not face the realities of a verdict from a judge and jury--and not getting their way. If anything is going to cause a breakdown of this country is the lack of logic and accountibility, and the lawlessness fostered by the coddling and stiffling liberalism of the current administration.
The gap between the haves and have nots? I don't buy that either. Bill Gates, Garth Brooks, Jonas Salk, An Wang, Singer, Hollerith, etc started with a dream and were not born into so called "white privledge." And a good number of have nots are that by choice(welfare by generation after generation). If you work you get, if you have to work harder, work harder. Sorry, no handouts--all that does is foster laziness, narcicism and "gimmie gimmie" syndrome.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 504 times:
Ah, you all miss my point.
I love it when a Republican decries the poor welfare recipiants of "Gimme Gimme" when they themselves are always the backslappers, job givers and always have their snout in the trough. Please, you guys are brainwashed by you own ridiculous rhetoric.
You don't need to give people hand outs, you to give people hand ups! American cities are literally crawling with street people, this from a nation that prides itself as a food basked and wealth generator of the world.
All you really need to do it make sure that everyone has the opportunity to have a go. Decent public education, access to decent health care and access to a roof over their heads. Nobody likes the bludgers and as Republicans you always target the poor and underprivelaged when if you actually targeted some of the big corporations and the like that are dodging taxation etc etc, you may actually have money to create more wealth for others, but that would be silly wouldn't it? You wouldn't get your sponsorship money now would you?
You guys would take candy from a baby. As for the gun business, the rest of the world think you are barbarians. God fearing Christians toting guns at each other? Can somone tell me if it says anywhere in the bible that you may take another mans life?
RealHigh From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1022 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 504 times:
You boys really love your guns dont ya!
This obsession with guns must have to do with some sort of anatomical inferiority.
Shinseki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 496 times:
Such lucid commentary from an expert on American public policy. Really MB, what on earth would America do without you. Where do you get your expertise on social conditions in America? CNN or some such questionable source I presume. Tell me, how long have you had your arse on backwards mate?
Don't you think liberals have their snout in the trough too? Had a hard time deciphering your nonsense about backslappers and jobgivers. What on earth are you talking about? The fact is any child in America raised properly and taking full advantage of the opportunities afforded him/her can go quite far in American society. Government handouts are what motivate people to keep their snout in the trough of endless government money and handouts.
I see you speak for the rest of the world now. Congratulations on the "promotion" and keep up the blustery rhetoric.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 492 times:
Shinseki,
Speaking for the rest of the world? If only you knew how the rest of the world DOES view all this crazy gun business.
As for government handouts, I don't particularly agree with them, there are many other ways to help people help themselves, mainly through education and encouragement.
There will always be a small minority who abuse any government handout including people who shouldn't be receiving it, but don't you think that putting people through college or further education to get them skilled and back into the workforce is better than giving them food stamps or a small amount of social security then forget them?
The vast majority of people want to work and are willing to work. Look at your terrible education system? American literacy doesn't look good compared to many other countries.
As for my commentary on the USA, I have lived, worked and travelled extensively throughout the USA and Canada. I have seen your countries best and worst, and I would be very worried by the deterioration in the middle class and the shifting of wealth ever further up the scale. Whenever you have a reasonable medium you have reasonable equilibrium, that balance needs to be kept in a capitalist society for the benefit of everyone.
If people cannot see past their own greed and the "me" society then social chaos is only a matter of time, not if.
If anyone thinks that having a stable government and armed forces is a guarantee of a free and democratic state then think again and look at history.
Shinseki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 487 times:
MB,
Again you purport yourself as spokesman of the world. Either you are a megalomaniac or a malcontent individual who likes to cause commotion by telling others how to live. You tell me which to believe.
I don't think your "extensive" travels within the United States qualifies you any better to pass judgement on the social policy of the US Government. Yes poverty exists in the inner cities, but is this indicative of a social crisis when substantiated only by such sensational evidence as you have provided? I think not.
You have not spent the requisite time researching this issue and frankly you are unaware of both the various approaches tried in past decades and the issues currently before the voting public. You are not the expert you claim to be and I see no reason why your judgement should be trusted in this regard.
Fact is the Republican-mandated welfare-to-work program (which was not supported by the Democratic president) has driven hundreds of thousands off the welfare rolls and into jobs where people can provide for themselves. Many states are now free of budget deficits for the first time in decades. You say people want to work, but only when the government provided the impetus to do so (taking away the welfare trough) did people actually do so. Somehow society did not collapse and America has a balanced budget in the year 2000. A solution that's better for government and better for people without throwing money down an open sinkhole. Conservatism can work. Surprise! Maybe if you open your eyes you'd see that Republicans have some sound ideas on education like teacher accreditation and holding schools accountable for academic performance of the students. Furthermore, how do you measure educational decline? Test scores? Literacy rates? Each methodology has its respective flaws.
You talk about greed, social chaos, blah blah blah. America has never been smarter, richer, or healthier. A greater proportion of the population is richer and healthier than at anytime in our history.
If education is so bad in America, why is our economy leading the way in technological innovation that has fueled the longest lasting prosperity in American history. Your doomsday arguments are coming up flat mate.
Sorry, but the 'me' society is a function of Capitalism. As such, this type of thinking is hardly limited to the USA. Why are we continually singled out in your blustering attacks?
RealHigh From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1022 posts, RR: 19 Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 485 times:
RE: Shenseki
I wouldn't exactly consider the welfare-to-work program all that succesfull.
I don't think forcing a single mother in to a low wage job for 9 hours a day, being away from there toddler for up to 11 hours day a good idea. A mother needs to be with her child especially in the critical early stages of a newborn. Not every mother has the luxury of having the extended family to help assist her in babysitting.
I'm reading a lot of anti-government rhetoric here. Its ironic that many here don't have a problem with the government taking away a child from there mother for 11 hours a day while the mother is builing up equity in someone else's corporation. I don't think the welfare to work program is a good idea. You probably think it's a good idea because you don't have to deal with it.
25 Mx5_boy: Shinseki, I have never declared my observations of your countries mismanagement as "world view" only the gun issue. You, again as a severe conservativ
26 747-451: MX5-Boy, I am not a republican. I did not recieve any kind of finacial aid either. Job givers, where? I had to go on an interview like everyone else.
27 Chris28_17: MB said: There will always be a small minority who abuse any government handout including people who shouldn't be receiving it double standard? seems
28 747-451: Realhigh, your post on the other thread really shows how one can be extremely violent without guns.... http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviati
29 Shinseki: MB, Excuse me for noticing that almost all your posts are tinged with the notion of Australian superiority and that your "smart society" is simply a c
30 Brissie_lions: Chris28_17 By the way, im not sure i understand where you get off claiming to know so much about a country you dont live or work in everyday of your l
31 Shinseki: You say "couldn't give a rats fat clacker" as if this conversation or any of the previous postings were directed or have anything to do with you. Buzz
32 RealHigh: Look at at all of these dumb idiots here in the this forum making the rest of the United States look bad. There are a lot of right-wing gun loving jer
33 Mx5_boy: RealHigh, Very well said, its always the way though with a few people. I don't particularly go out of my way to demonise the USA all the time, merely
34 N766AS: What a hideous comment! Someone above said that American cities were crawling with homeless people... I have been to quite a few large American cities
35 Travelin man: Yes N766AS, only "Liberals make unsubstantiated comments." Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y? What a joke.
36 CPDC10-30: Shinseki, Chris28_17 et al... Mx5_boy and Brissie are sharing beliefs that are widely held not to prove their superiority, but to disprove your countr
37 Chris28_17: Look at at all of these dumb idiots here in the this forum making the rest of the United States look bad. There are a lot of right-wing gun loving jer
38 NWA Man: I just had to respond to this comment in Chris28_17's first post. He said: "Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Should we outlaw hammers and kn
39 Chris28_17: Once again, we take things out of context to fit our arguement, right NWAman? THIS is what the quote read: "As president, I will do whatever it takes
40 Greeneyes53787: Using truth with lies, or just out of context, is dishonest. Were you actually posturing to exchange the truth for a lie, or just using poor judgement
41 NWA Man: Chris-- I really don't see how the first line ties in with the second line in Gore's statement. But then again, I don't really see a problem with lice
42 N766AS: CPDC10-30: I didn't say the fact that there are homeless people crawling all over our cities is hideous, but the comment that our cities are crawling
43 Windsong: Why do Americans in general think it is their right to have a gun? This 'right' to a gun really perplexes me.
44 DeltaRNOmd-80: Windsong--- Because the right to own and bear arms was written in our Constitution and that right CANNOT be taken away legally.
45 Windsong: Thanks Delta. Putting everything inperspective from what we hear in the news from America, I think that was a real bad decision. Don't you?
46 Chris28_17: Wasnt Hitler one of the first Gun control advocates? Okay, thats not a question, i know the answer is yes. I remember someone on this forum that poste
47 NWA Man: You're taking Gore's plan out of context. In his plan, concealing a weapon (for the average citizen) would be illegal. Therefore, law-abiding citizens