Republicans Vs. Democrats (1 Viewer)

[msp]

just ckecked my original post, there was a typo. It should have read.

Whilst I am sure the almost fanatical support of gun ownership and liberal gun ownership laws in some quaters of the US causes alot of the gun crime in the US. I not sure that in the UK the almost fanatical anti gun movement and laws is not the correct solution.

 

[ColinEssex]

Your wrong, Col usually starts it... He's full of snide remarks....

Not true as you well know. Its nice to see that for a change you are not sitting on the fence posting silly pictures Kenny

Col

 

[KenHigg]

Seems a tad rude to me.

Col - a tad rude? HA! There's a news bulletin...!!!

They should just be glad we don't view him as typical Brit

 

[FoFa]

FoFA around the world there have been several school shootings, but there have not been many school bombings.
It is possible if those guys dis not have access to guns they could of made a bomb and killed more people or even driven around in cars and killed more, but.. Do you honestly believe that.

I thought they actually had a bomb, it just didn't go off.
I think the problem in some of those cases is not controlling access to the gun in the home.

 

[KenHigg]

The British are not afraid (thats one "f" by the way) of guns,

Let's see brain dead, Your gov won't let you have them, they won't let your police have them, and you have to summon a third level to get a some one with a gun to protect you against an intruder with a gun - I'd say you are afraid -

 

[ColinEssex]

Let's see brain dead, Your gov won't let you have them, they won't let your police have them, and you have to summon a third level to get a some one with a gun to protect you against an intruder with a gun - I'd say you are afraid -

Kenny, you need to come out of your prehistoric cave.

It is a crime in the UK to have guns because we know they are designed to kill - that means take a life of something. Our police have been offered guns but have voted against it, unlike the US police who seem to enjoy pulling guns and killing people on an ad-hoc basis.

I have no idea what your reference to intruders means - it seems like the ramblings of a person who is clutching a gun and worshiping it as the God it obviously is to you.

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Col - a tad rude? HA! There's a news bulletin...!!!

They should just be glad we don't view him as typical Brit

Unlike you as a typical American - armed to the teeth and ready to kill

Col

 

[KenHigg]

It is a crime in the UK to have guns because ...

Because the royal inbreeds think you're too stupid to have them...

 

[Kraj]

I thought the Democrats wanted to remove the ability for citiziens to own guns. Hmmmm....

I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware this is not the party stance. I'm sure there are Dems out there who do want this but as far as I'm aware there has never been a serious effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

And that is what I wonder about Iraq. Is there something there they are not telling us that makes it so important? You Bush Bashers may not want to believe that, (and I don't think it is oil) but you have to wonder sometimes.

It's possible. I can't imagine there is a reason important enough to justify the war but is so secret Bush wouldn't have told the American public, especially when faced with steadily declining support. But sure, I guess it's possible.

Americans have a love of only 3 things, money, cars and guns.

Even if this statement is only a little serious... dude. F you.

 

[ColinEssex]

Because the royal inbreeds think you're too stupid to have them...

Dragging the Royal family into it has nothing to do with it.

At least its better than having a dictator like you have.

The point still is that you have guns so you must enjoy killing or why have them?

Col

 

[Bodisathva]

ouch!

go Kraj, go...

 

[ColinEssex]

Even if this statement is only a little serious... dude. F you.

Isn't Detroit where the car god lives? dude?

Col

 

[selenau837]

Bloody hell folks.

I had a question, and wanted help with decision, not a flippin'' war. Sheesh, this has turned into a blood bath!!! So far, Greg has been a huge help. He actually explained it well.

I realize this is the Political forum, but dang it, this not is on the topic!!!


Ok, I've fussed, I know it won't do any good, but had to get it out!

Back on topic---
So, as far as I know, I am correct on most of the issues between Rep and Dem....except the gun issue.

With that said, I still feel I am pulling for the right party. Only time will tell. However as I stated before I pull for the man, not the party. It just usually turns out to be a Republican.

 

[ColinEssex]

Bloody hell folks.

I had a question, and wanted help with decision, not a flippin'' war. Sheesh, this has turned into a blood bath!!!

You are absolutely right Selena - I think both Ken and I got a little carried away. I shall exit this as its nearly 4pm and maybe hometime

Col

 

[selenau837]

You are absolutely right Selena - I think both Ken and I got a little carried away. I shall exit this as its nearly 4pm and maybe hometime

Col

Just a wee bit, but it's ok. I guess I should have expected it.

I have three weeks left before I disappear for a little while, I've got to exercise my peace maker skills...

I'm also taking applications for my backup until I can return on a more permanent basis.

 

[Kraj]

Back on topic---

Good call. How about discussing some other differences between the parties? I'll discuss a couple topics that are closely related.

Reps: Laissez-faire; let the economy run itself
Dems: The Fed should regulate the economy

I lean towards the Dems on this one. I think Laissez-faire is the capitalist ideal but, much like Communism, it only works if all parties involved uphold the deal. I do agree that the less government involvement the better, but that often such involvement is necessary. I am willing to agree that the market will correct itself, but only after damage has been done. I believe damage prevention is worth government involvement.

Reps: Maximum individual freedom, minimum government, self-regulated society
Dems: Society regulated by laws and courts, individual freedom is limited, increasing government involvement is not a negative

Again I tend to side with the Dems and again it's because I believe the Republican stance represents an unrealistic ideal. Yes, in many ways society can and will regulate itself. A dishonest business, for example, will fail when people discover the dishonesty. But again, not until after damage has been done. I believe laws that limit the freedom of the good person are worth preventing the bad person from doing harm.

This is one of the aforementioned areas where I have a serious problem with the Republicans since they are more than happy to restrict personal freedom whenever it suits their purposes.

Reps: Minimum taxes, economic growth through investing
Dems: Whatever taxes are necessary, economic growth through productivity

In a sound economic plan, both approaches should be alternated. During a recession, taxes should be reduced and investment in the economy should occur to stimulate recovery. During a period of prosperity, taxes should be increased to pay back the deficit incurred. That's how it should go, but no one adheres to it. All anyone does is spend; both parties are equally at fault for the enormous national debt. However, in recent years (ie., Clinton's Presidency) it was the Dems who took the lead in moving toward the correct system. The Republicans promptly wrecked it all.

 

[FoFa]

It is a crime in the UK to have guns because we know they are designed to kill - that means take a life of something. Our police have been offered guns but have voted against it, unlike the US police who seem to enjoy pulling guns and killing people on an ad-hoc basis.

Oh, there it is. So what I get from that is with the exception of a few, we in the U.S. know the power of guns and respect that power. Police don't just pull guns and start blazing away (other than in the movies). BUT yall' in the U.K. don't have the same fortatude and would use them willy-nilly to just blow people away. I see now.

 

[FoFa]

It's possible. I can't imagine there is a reason important enough to justify the war but is so secret Bush wouldn't have told the American public, especially when faced with steadily declining support. But sure, I guess it's possible.

Now I have no idea not having a line to the oval office, but what if just having a presence not hindered near as much by the government (like Saudi) in the central reagion of that area might not be a good enough reason, but one you might not want to just say? Now why that might be a good reason, I havn't a clue, but just as an example. What if just being there brings stability to Iran, Pakistan, etc. Just thinking out loud.

 

[FoFa]

The point still is that you have guns so you must enjoy killing or why have them?

I just totally enjoy shooting them, and not at living things. Paper Targets, stones, cans, Brits

 

[KenHigg]

You are absolutely right Selena - I think both Ken and I got a little carried away. I shall exit this as its nearly 4pm and maybe hometime

Col

Guess you're right - Sorry...