Election 2008

Let's have a mature discussion of the merits of each of our presidential candidates. I'll start.

The photo McCain will regret forever. The candidate's approval rating goes down a notch every time people see that picture. So, where's the kiss of death?

John

it goes to show you how little integrity mccain has. he's willing to curry favor with any right-wing demographic just to become president. wasn't he supposed to be a maverick?

i'm glad that lieberman is finally coming out of the closet, though. it's about time that he admitted that he's not really a liberal but a flaming right-wing nut.

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!"

You guys are so lucky....

So are we all going for the supposedly black candidate?

Quote:
So are we all going for the supposedly black candidate?

Over Grandpa Munster? You bet.

I thought about voting for the polka-dot candidate. Sadly, he dropped out of the race yesterday.

Jason, nothing witty today

Good one ReaggieP!

He is not the chosen one...



She might...

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Jul 9, 2008]

I'll take a Jedi over Popeye...

---

[Post edited by JJ79 on Jul 9, 2008]

Isn't this more like it??



And this...



EDIT: At work too, just a bit anxious...and all from Yahoo!

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Jul 9, 2008]

^ I've never learned to do photoshop anything. Plus, I'm at work, so my tools are limited.

But I do like that one too!

Jason, no spinach for me

Sorry to bring back such an oldie, but, I wasn't around for this. On top of which, this very topic is about to be front page news again.

Personally, I'm a Republican and identify with the Republican party's views on a lot of issues. However, I'm also a "right person for the job" kind of guy, and am not above voting outside the republican party if I see a better suited candidate in another party.

I also had a lot of respect for John McCain for a long long time. Then he started campaigning, and he lost a lot of my respect in how he's handled a lot of issues, and some of the stances he's taken on those issues. His choice of Palin is such a blatant move for the women's vote, that it's just sad. I don't have anything against Palin personally, and honestly think she might be more qualified than Obama is to run the country, but, that isn't my focus here.

Personally, I wish I knew how we ended up with these two candidates. On the one hand, I'm SOOO grateful we didn't end up with Evil Witch of the East Coast, as a candidate! I think we as a country dodged a MAJOR bullet there.

At this point, I feel like we're no better off than when we had a choice between G.W. Bush and John Kerry. I no longer feel like I'm voting for the best candidate for the job, but the candidate that is the lesser of two evils. I mean that purely figuratively. But, I do feel like we as a country are in ANOTHER 'damage control' situation now.

I like a lot of things Obama has to say, but, I dislike a lot he has to say as well. The same goes for McCain. When it comes down to it, I think McCain best represents the majority of the ways I feel about the major topics, but, I also feel like maybe our country needs to have things shaken up a bit, if only to see what will happen, by electing Obama.

One of the big objections most people seem to have against Obama, is that he "doesn't have enough experience". My view on that is, experience doesn't always make the best leader. Many times history has proved that when someone is called to great responsibility, they rise to the occasion and become the great leader their people both desperately want and need. It's not like he's bereft of experience, he just doesn't have as much as others. But, again, I am in complete disagreement with Obama on a LOT of issues, so, again, I feel like neither candidate is whom I would choose as my national inspirer, my Commander and Chief, nor my President.



- Josh

---

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Sep 19, 2008]

Good observation John (agree with you). And thanks for the humorous comment Eddie... what, you're hoping to find a pic where McCain is hugging Obama?

I've admitted this before, if the Dems had nominated Hillary Clinton for Prez, if I was a betting man she'd get my wager of who would win in Nov. She's overcome many of her old 'negatives', has worked cooperatively with Republicans in the Senate (and rec'd praise), and did an outstanding job earlier in the spring when she was interviewed by Fox News Bill O'Reilly (Barack's interview with O'Reilly paled in comparison).

Yeah, if Hillary was at the top of the Dem ticket right now, I bet McCain would not be "even" in the polls, the way he is with the inexperienced 'newbie' Barack Obama.

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

This country doesn't need higher taxes on business. I promise it will be made up with lay offs and high costs of living. No one is going to give up their profits. . How will that help the economy?

---

[Post edited by KungFuTaco on Sep 19, 2008]

Much like Nachtkriechen I feel divided internally for the two candidates. I've inherited the Replublican view points (in the sense of less government) from my parents and I believe in those ideals, however I'm not as far right winged to say that many other democratic stances out there I believe in as well. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination (although I have hopes of at least reaching wealthy levels at some point in time, but we live a pretty comfortable life). With that being said, I really really like Obama. He speaks very well, he's different, younger, and has many ideals that I agree with.

The problem that I have, is what is it going to cost to bring these ideals to fruition IF they can be achieved and what I'm willing to give in that effort.

For example, I of course would love for everyone in the US to have the best Health Care imaginable. But does that mean that my income tax (and if I see another bracket of how we'll be taxed I'm going to pass out cuz I don't believe any of it), capital gains, gift, or whatever taxes are going to increase to cover that? If that's the case, then the question becomes..how much am I willing to give?

The same holds true for power/ecology. I think global warming is a serious situation and I'm very concerned for my children's sake the quality of our planet as they become older and their kids become older. Do I want Green energy now? Absolutely. Do I want drilling in Alaska and off of our coasts..Absolutely not.

Do I want to pay $6.00 a gallon until we've figured these things out 10 years from now? Definately not.

So that's were I'm at. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think the Palin choice was insulting. My wife agrees, but I certainly know enough people that loved it (my parents included).

Let me also point out that I am naive and ignorant to the plans of both parties (although who can blame me, its like the major media outlets are like HD-DVD and Blu Ray fanboys X 200) .

Sorry to contribute nothing.

Uni

By the way drilling is better than oil seeping out of the ground in the ocean. Some college in California wrote a letter thank oil companies for drilling. I am not going to find a link use google if you care

Uni,

Your opinion is appreciated and isn't "nothing". Thank you for your comments!



- Josh

Jimi, first let me say this and it's an old saying. If Sen. Clinton was meant to win the nominee than she would've. There is evidence that wide spread change is needed, not just in the White House but also in the Democratic Party. Hilary ran this country already for eight years dispite the Constitutional Ammement saying 2 terms is the limit. She was trying to run for terms 3 and 4. Appearently the country is listening to Obama. My question to you is what makes McCain experienced? Is it because of being in Washington for a number of years? In fact I prefer a candidate that has a little more purity because of lack of exposure to the beltway politics that one that has comprimise his position just to have future hopes of running for president.


I give McCain this much credit, dispite the fact that his party has flushed this country he is still close with Obama in all the polls, but when you see a incumbent party's nominee speaking out against the president whom happens to be of the same party. It doesn't sit right.

P.S. Hilary will be our next female Sec. of State.

Taco,

You know two can play your game, right?



Snippets from Reverend Hagee:

"I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans...I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that...There was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades...The Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment."--so Hurricane and Ike and Hurricane Andrew and all the others? God was mad at Texas for...oil drilling??

"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."--comparing a woman to a terrorist! And saying they can't be negotiated with! Dang, what a philosophy!

"...the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West."--more right wing war mongering.

Jason, knows how to use the Google

Well, one thing you're guaranteed in political discussions is elevated emotions and missunderstandings. But, I think we're off to a half way decent discussion, here.



- Josh

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0 <--that borders on treason

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091708/content/01125109.guest.html

Obama's ten point plan to "Change" The Second Amendment <--- for you gun owners:

1) Ban use of firearms for home defense
2) Pass Federal Laws eliminating you Right-To-Carry
3) Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns
4) Close down 90% of the gun shops in America
5) Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%
7) Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime
8) Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions of fireamrs
9) Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm
10) Appoint judges to the US Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment

Plus he wants to make government bigger and get invovled it involved in the private sector. Another reason I won't vote for him is because he wants to cut back on defense spending (that takes money from my pocket since I now work for the Department of the Army) and increase taxes (which takes what little money I have left).

---

[Post edited by Jedi_Soljah on Sep 19, 2008]

Kung Fu Taco said -

Quote:
"By the way drilling is better than oil seeping out of the ground in the ocean. Some college in California wrote a letter thank oil companies for drilling."

And there's now a big fight gearing up in California among principalities who SUPPORT new oil drilling off the coast of California, and are in the process of suing the Dem-controlled state government, etc (and the feds?), who have long BLOCKED any new oil drilling. Back in July, Nancy Pelosi (U.S. Speaker of the House) also led an effort opposing any new drilling off California's coastline, even beyond 50 miles away!

Pelosi is beholden to various environmental interests, and even if oil companies receive the necessary permits for new oil drilling (off the coast or inside the state), the environmentalists then resort to "Plan B" which is to file their own lawsuits against those companies, thereby causing years of delay before a court case develops.

All the while, the Dems do their WHINING in Congress about "high oil prices" when -they- are the ones blocking expanded drilling in areas where we know of significant reserves (especially ANWR). Apparently they still don't realize that if you limit your supply, the prices will go higher, and then we are more reliant on the foreign suppliers of crude oil (lots of $$$ sent to these governments, many who are not friendly to the USA).

Oh, and of course the Dems oppose more oil refineries (again the "clean air" environmental concern - "not in my back yard" etc), despite the reality that America is in dire need of more refinery capability (most of 'em are quite old now, and have much 'downtime' for maintenance).

McCain and Palin will work hard to change this - but they face the usual battle against the Dem-controlled Congress, who are only now (lately) hinting that they are willing to soften their long-hardened stance against the oil industry, and perhaps allow additional areas for oil drilling (but only in areas beyond 50 miles offshore, even though the best oil reserves around coastlines are within 10 to 50 miles).

So, another reason while I usually oppose Democrats is they actively OPPOSE the continued efforts of those who support our nation's energy supply (our oil, coal, nuclear industries). Yet the American public (almost 75%) support increases in our long-standing, primary energy resources, while also supporting more research and investments in alternative energies of the future. Dems would rather see oil, coal, and nuclear go away tomorrow, even though it would make the USA an "1800s"-type country in today's modern age.

So, when the price of your gas goes up again (and it will), you'll have the Democrats to thank for it. Bush has tried twice to get ANWR opened to drilling (that small area previously mentioned), and other areas for drilling here in the USA, but the Dems (and a few Repubs) always oppose our President, and keep allowing more and more $$$ to be sent to our foreign suppliers, instead of supporting our own USA energy resources more.

The hatred by Dems against Bush is so prevalent that we citizens have to suffer higher energy prices, because of opposition to increased development of our own energy resources. You can imagine who worry I am if Obama gets elected... and the opposition gets worse, and the prices go higher. THEN WHO WILL THE DEMOCRATS 'BLAME' FOR THEIR LACK OF ACTION??

Please vote against the "no-drill" Dem Presidential ticket, or perhaps be ready to switch to motorcycle transporation (to save on the higher energy costs that will result when the Dems control all of Washington).

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

Quote:
Uni,

Your opinion is appreciated and isn't "nothing". Thank you for your comments!



- Josh

To copy Chris's qoute from Harlan Ellison

Quote:
"You are not entitled to your opinion! You are entitled to an informed opinion."

We were given a right to bare arms by people who had to have them to get their freedom and they wanted people to have them in case they ever had to do it again. Our government can only take away the rights we let them take. But you know I guess since all the banks are have problems the right thing to do is raise their taxes. Lets help our economy by costing jobs and raising the cost of living. We need change but neither of these two people running are going to do anything to help. But Obama will be far worse than McCain.

I'm sorry, I'm not letting that all stand (the oil stuff).

Oil, like land and water, is a finite resource on this planet. Once it's gone, it's gone. Period. So what the Repubs want to do is put money in the oil companies pockets now and mortgage our future. Gee, seems similar to whats been happening with the financial markets this week, doesn't it?

Instead of screaming for off shore drilling (which, btw, won't make a dent in our oil usage, just make us more complacent in energy), why not put that effort into alternate energy? Solar, wind, geothermal, magnets...I don't know. I'll tell you exactly why. Because the right wing families have not been able to adequately weasel their way into that industry. The Bush's, for instance.

Moreover, Bush's own government (Department of Energy) states the oil from ANWAR would get us about 5% of our "need" and drop the price of gas by .03. Uh-huh. What do you suppose happens when the US has more domestic oil? OPEC drops their production again, causing prices to go...up. That's right! UP!

Jason, anything else?

People like to blame the economy on the Republicans but everyone seems to forget that we have a Democratic congress...

Quote:
People like to blame the economy on the Republicans but everyone seems to forget that we have a Democratic congress...

Policies which led to this week were supported by former McCain campaign chairman Phil Gramm and a REPUBLICAN congress back in the 1990s. (Yes, Bill Clinton signed it into law.) These problems didn't come into being on Sunday night.

Also remember that until 2006, we had a Republican congress with a Republican president. Rubberstamping a couple billion dollars a month for war, cutting taxes, bigger deficits...and not a single one of THOSE people said a damn thing about subprime mortgages. (Well, maybe Ron Paul, but I dunno.)

Jason, facts

Your right we can't keep using fossil fuels forever. My problem with Obama is the fact that we says he is going to lower taxes for every one making under 250 grand a year. But he wants to raise cooperate taxes. That means less jobs and a high cost of living. Not to mention a higher capital gains tax stops investments and slows the economy. I agree with Obama on something things. But I could never agree to some one that wants to do what he will do to the economy. I agree with Pro choice, and I am all for gay marriage, I also agree with keeping church and state separate. But guns are a good thing. Sporting clays is a popular and already costly sport. So as you can see I loose not matter who wins. But I want to keep my job so I can pay my mortgage and buy food. I don't see Obama helping with that. And when it comes down to it, keeping Americans working and making a pay check is what I care about everything else comes second.

Jason... the thing about the state of the oil industry in America, is how "backward" it is today (because of legislative restrictions!) compared to other countries. Do you realize how foolish our leaders look to foreign producers, who have the full support of their governments in the energy businesses. The foolish Dems even blocked the drilling in international areas off of Cuba (too close to Florida's beaches, etc!), and now other countries are moving in to develop those resources. Thank you Democrats!

And the USA is SO FAR BEHIND in knowing for sure how much oil reserves we actually have in our lands and off our coasts. Because of the congressional and state restrictions, we have not been able to do new 3-D imaging (and other improvements) that would PROVE just how low the numbers you cite (and less accurate) really are. Other than the Gulf of Mexico areas off Texas and Louisiana, the estimates used for the rest of our coastline areas and ANWR are now about 30 years old! That's unreliable info, and our modern technology could be used to make up-to-date judgments about the reserve supply.

And then you said -

Quote:
"So what the Repubs want to do is put money in the oil companies pockets now and mortgage our future."

I guess you forget the "pockets" (JOBS!!), of the thousands of workers who make a good living working in the oil, natural gas, nuclear, and coal industries. America is NOT a socialistic country (yet! Lord help us), and as capitalists, we are entitled to make profits on our investments. The bigger the investment, the possible bigger the profit will be. Is this wrong?

If you are against the oil companies making more profits, why not petition our own government to start a company that does oil/natural drilling, and the refining. You can't have it both ways - wanting the energy at a fair retail price, but then griping about the profits that are generated (and/or higher prices that result due to constriction of the supply... by the Dems!).

And alternative energies are still decades away from the capability of "mass use" - and at what cost? (TRILLIONS?). We HAVE to support the energies we have now, in abundance, rather than gripe and whine about when the costs of these energies goes up because of LACK OF SUPPORT (from the Dems again!).

How ironic that Dems, for example, are "pro-choice" (for women's reproduction), but yet NOT pro-choice on our own increases in our major energy supplies. No, they want to end it all now, and switch to 'alternative' choices tomorrow, even though we are nowhere even close to having those energies in mass scale reality.

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

Quote:
Obama's ten point plan to "Change" The Second Amendment <--- for you gun owners:

Those points ALONE are enough to make me vote for McCain!

It always pisses me off when people think the right answer is to take the guns away from ALL law-abiding citizens, because of a few idiots! That only ensures that the public can't protect themselves from gun toting criminals! You won't be taking the guns out of the criminal's hands, because they attained their guns ILLEGALLY! Criminals will ALWAYS have access to weapons, one way or another.

Gun control HURTS the public, it doesn't help. Everyone wants to focus on the few morons out there that aren't responsible with their weapons and don't keep them in a gun safe, their kid get's to the gun and either kills themselves or any number of people. When the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible, DO keep their guns out of the reach of children and abide by the laws!

A criminal is FAR less likely to break and enter or commit violent crimes, if he knows that a large portion of the public is ARMED! His chances of having a "clean getaway" are greatly reduced, and his chances of getting shot and or killed are greatly increased if he threatens a public that is armed.

Honeslty, I think that we need gun EDUCATION, not gun control. If people were required to go through a gun TRAINING and SAFETY class (in addition to the current laws in place for purchasing a weapon), before they were ever allowed to take their weapon home, it would greatly reduce the number of accidental gun fatalities and injuries in this country.

Having been in the Army for 4 years active duty in a combat MOS, and in the Air Force for 3 years active reserves as an MP, I know weapons safety inside and out, and have had HUNDREDS of hours of training, application, and live fire experience. I understand that isn't the case for most people, but that type of traning isn't required to have a healthy respect for weapons, and to keep people responsible, nor is the right answer to take away the right to carry or bear arms from the rest AND MAJORITY of us, that are responsible.



- Josh

---

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Sep 19, 2008]

Quote:
How will that help the economy?

WE..are going to help the economy. Didnt you hear? Our government is going to bail out all of these troubled company's! Ofcoarse how in the hell are they going to do that considering they are broke? By shifting the burden back to US ofcoarse! Just another corrupt move by bush, in a long line of corrupt moves. If we can pay for these bankrupt company's mistakes, then i want my house for free!

btw.
Speed Racer on Br is amazing. Maybe the best transfer EVER commited to an optical disc? And it's only a single layer br25 at that! (which makes the sound suffer a bit...it's only standard DD 5.1)

---

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Sep 19, 2008]

The only people that need guns are the police and they shouldn't have them either.

Quote:
Jason... the thing about the state of the oil industry in America, is how "backward" it is today (because of legislative restrictions!) compared to other countries. Do you realize how foolish our leaders look to foreign producers, who have the full support of their governments in the energy businesses. The foolish Dems even blocked the drilling in international areas off of Cuba (too close to Florida's beaches, etc!), and now other countries are moving in to develop those resources. Thank you Democrats!

Joe, to blame the Dems-who were not in control of Congress in the early 1990s or early part of this decade-not to mention three consecutive terms for Republican presidents, followed by Clinton, followed by two more Repubs-is stupid. Compared to other countries, we look like idiots for electing W twice. We look like idiots for doing what we're doing in Iraq. We look like idiots for not having universal health care.

Quote:
And the USA is SO FAR BEHIND in knowing for sure how much oil reserves we actually have in our lands and off our coasts. Because of the congressional and state restrictions, we have not been able to do new 3-D imaging (and other improvements) that would PROVE just how low the numbers you cite (and less accurate) really are. Other than the Gulf of Mexico areas off Texas and Louisiana, the estimates used for the rest of our coastline areas and ANWR are now about 30 years old! That's unreliable info, and our modern technology could be used to make up-to-date judgments about the reserve supply.

Estimates are not "30 years old," Joe. They are about 10, from 1998. The US Geological Survey estimates between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of oil. By 2030, according to estimates, ANWAR could produce between .4 and 1.2 percent of the world's oil by 2030.

Quote:
I guess you forget the "pockets" (JOBS!!), of the thousands of workers who make a good living working in the oil, natural gas, nuclear, and coal industries. America is NOT a socialistic country (yet! Lord help us), and as capitalists, we are entitled to make profits on our investments. The bigger the investment, the possible bigger the profit will be. Is this wrong?

Wrong? Legally, no. Morally and ethically, when companies makes record profits and the price of oil keeps going up? Yup.

Quote:
If you are against the oil companies making more profits, why not petition our own government to start a company that does oil/natural drilling, and the refining. You can't have it both ways - wanting the energy at a fair retail price, but then griping about the profits that are generated (and/or higher prices that result due to constriction of the supply... by the Dems!).

I want out of the oil business period because it is COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE. A city in northern Michigan-Mackinac City-has three large wind turbines sitting on the lake. They produce enough energy to power three cities the size of MC. Sure, they won't be useful everywhere, but lets get going!

Quote:
(TRILLIONS?). We HAVE to support the energies we have now, in abundance, rather than gripe and whine about when the costs of these energies goes up because of LACK OF SUPPORT (from the Dems again!).

And how much is drilling for oil going to cost our entire planet in the long run, with pollution, the environment and failed companies?

Quote:
No, they want to end it all now, and switch to 'alternative' choices tomorrow, even though we are nowhere even close to having those energies in mass scale reality.

Had the Repubs been on the same page 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion today, now would we?

Jason, ahhh...sunshine

I just thought I'd point out that California's Republican governor, Big Arnold, opposes offshore drilling in his state.

Also, if the government raised taxes by one one-millionth of one percent on big corporations, it would be a massive increase because studies show that most of America's biggest corporations pay no taxes whatsoever. Zero. Nothing. When you add in the number of exemptions the biggest companies and the wealthiest Americans use in figuring their taxes, you can see who's paying the brunt of the cost for foreign wars and Wall Street bailouts.

Oh, and who do you think is making money off the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? You don't think a trillion dollars has gone into soldiers' paychecks, do you? It's the big corporations--the armament factories and the building contractors--who blew up those countries and are now rebuilding them. So, in essence, the companies that pay no taxes in the first place get our taxes, too.

And you think we need change?

John

I can't believe I just did that. I never argue politics or religion. There are no winners.

John

great post john. i could not agree more with your disgust.

Quote:
The only people that need guns are the police and they shouldn't have them either.

either way, with what Obama wants to do with the Second Amendment the only people that will have guns are the criminals. There's two ways to get a gun...legally or illegally. If people can't get them legally then the only ones that can get them are the ones getting them illegally.

I live in South Carolina and a buddy of mine sent this to me today:

Something to chew on.............

S.C. Again Most Violent State

(U) “South Carolina suffered more violent crime than any other state last year, matching its dismal performance in the FBI's annual report for the second year in a row.

“As in 2006, only the District of Columbia fared worse in the Bureau's Crime in the United States report released Monday. In 2007, violent crime in the Palmetto State increased 5 percent to 34,746 reported incidents, or 788 per 100,000 people. The national rate in 2007 was 467 crimes per 100,000 people.

“As for property crimes, which increased 2.7 percent, the state trailed only Arizona and D.C. The Palmetto State ranked near the middle in robberies, and near the bottom of the top quarter for forcible rapes.

“What pushed South Carolina higher than other states was the number of aggravated assaults, which includes everything from a non-fatal shooting to a beating. Its total of 597 per 100,000 people last year was an increase of 2.9 percent over the year before, the highest anywhere outside Washington, D.C.

“Though vehicle thefts were lower in South Carolina than in many Western states, burglaries were higher than in any states apart from North Carolina, Arkansas and Louisiana. South Carolina, with 188,282 thefts reported in 2007, trailed only Hawaii.

“Joel Sawyer, press secretary for Gov. Mark Sanford, said the report indicates that funding for the state's criminal justice system needs attention.”

Source: http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/sep/16/s_c_again_most_violent_state54641/

Analyst Comment: (U//FOUO) At first glance, South Carolina’s crime statistics and national crime ranking appear grim.
However, law enforcement officials are reminded that variables such as recent cutbacks in state and local law enforcement grants, a national focus on terrorism, and a nationwide resurgence in gang activity have an impact on state crime trends.
Simply comparing South Carolina’s crime statistics to other states for the purpose of a national ranking can lead to simplistic or incomplete analyses that overlooks the variables impacting crime and its reporting.

I should be able to legally defend myself and my family if the situation should ever come to it. I have a Concealed weapons permit, went through all of the classes, and learned the laws. I keep a pistol in my truck at all times. But I also know that carrying a concealed weapon, I have duty to retreat unless doing so puts me in more harm. So I don't carry a gun just to go around shooting people whenever I want. You can't have unarmed cops when the bad guys have automatic weapons. Like taking a knife to a gun fight, just doesn't make sense.

Quote:
The only people that need guns are the police and they shouldn't have them either.

Tony,

There's already a country that's put that idea into place. England. Only the police have guns, and they've got a camera on every street corner watching every move any person makes. That doesn't sound like the right answer to me either.

We live in a society. Societies need laws. Laws need to be enforced. And unfortunately, man is still far too immature to be trusted with "elimenating weapons" altogether. There will always be some idiot out there that can't control their emotions enough after being fired, or after a girlfriend dumped them, or because they were insulted, and will go find a weapon to hurt the people that in their mind hurt them. In a weaponless society, the public is now hostage to that psychopath.

There's an old adage that says "Keep peace by preparing for war". At present, that's the only solution that works. Until mankind can be mature enough to resolve our differences (ALL OF OUR DIFFERENCES) peacefully, weapons from thrown rocks to the latest mass distruction devices are the only things that will keep us safe from the tyrants in this world.



- Josh

You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.

Jason, Andrew Shepherd for PRESIDENT!!

Jason... in 1995, after the "Republican Revolution" in the 1994 mid-term elections (3 years into Clinton's first term), most Republicans (but not all) passed a bill (the only time ever!) in both houses that called for ANWR oil development (those 2000 acres out of the almost 19 million in all of ANWR). At the time, the estimate was that within 7-10 years later (do the math to our time), our country's supply of oil would be augmented by the new supply coming out of ANWR. Every bit of supply helps.

President Clinton vetoed the bill. And (UNFORTNATELY FOR AMERICANS LIVING TODAY), there were not enough votes to override that veto, and we never got to see that new oil supply be developed (it's still sitting in the ground just waiting for THE WILL to pump it out). Now here's your Democrat party again opposing America's growing need for more energy supply. Bush tried twice during his terms in office to get ANWR going, but the Dem's power (and a few Repubs) saw to it that a bill was never passed. Again, the Dems opposing our energy needs of today.

Now, it's almost 2009, and when American needs more energy than ever, all we get from the Dems is the constant griping and whining about "oil company profits", "high oil prices", etc, and still the Dems do nothing to change this (because they want to get the White House back of course!), while the US public has to pay more for their energy.

Why don't the Dems provide us with the "utopian" energy supplies that will help America now? Of course they -can't-, since alternative energies that they support are nowhere near ready for the masses. The Republicans are willing to support alternative energies, just as long as we keep up the support (and even more so), for our great energies of today - oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. But how many Dems want to support these energies to their fullest? Probably ZERO.... there's your Democratic party for you!

As for your estimates, Jason, ANY source you cite (government, private industry), is only as good as the data and drilling tests that have been made to support the estimate. It's common knowledge that the USA has not done the hundreds (or thousands) of needed tests (with the newer 3-D tech) in the areas where we have so much land and water that contains the oil/gas. We're talking millions of square miles that need UP-TO-DATE tests with the modern tech that we have today... but the Dems won't allow it!

Could America one day just might become like the scenes in those Mel Gibson's "Road Warrior" movies, where there is a dog-eat-dog fight over "petrol" (gasoline)-? ...remember the ending speech in "Three Days of the Condor" when Cliff Robertson's character is lecturing Robert Redford's character as to our public's thirst for oil/energy, saying "they won't care how we get it, just that we get it!" [the oil and gas] (paraphrasing, as I don't remember the exact quote). Americans want MORE supply (not less), but the Dems want LESS supply (of oil, etc), as seen in their votes of opposition. When will Americans get fed up with Pelosi, Reid, and the other Dem extremists and vote 'em out of office? Here's hoping...

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

And John, I like always reading your opinions too, (and I think you also live in Pelosi's district, perhaps?)

Everyone, here's an interesting site...

MEET BARACK OBAMA (get the facts)

Joe,

As John has pointed out, Schwarzenegger is against drilling, as is McCain. Why do they not get some of the "blame"?

Apparently, we also missed how the people who live there-ie. Native Americans-passed a resolution calling Shell a dangerous and hostile entity. So are they at fault too, or do they just not get a vote in this?

Jason, Jason for Supreme Ruler of the Universe...Joe, my #2?

Good one Jason!

And I love Arnold regardless... and I'm for more energy supply too.

I agree with most of your arguement, Joe, but, to be fair, we do need to try and step away from our dependency upon oil. I do like the ideas of that guy... something "Pickens" that has the idea to "step" America to natural gas, on our way to an alternative energy source, whatever that may be.

Heck, I'm even open to the idea of more nuclear power plants (with all of the state of the art precautions and safety measures, of course). Though, the movie "China Syndrome" comes to mind.



- Josh

Quote:
There's an old adage that says "Keep peace by preparing for war".

National Defense, yes, but you cannot apply that to civilian or urban peace keeping. That would be chaos when considering some people consider their neighbors are their enemy. However I do understand a fraction of logic you tried to imply Nachtkriechen.

---

[Post edited by tony1569 on Sep 19, 2008]

Tony,

I wasn't implying, by any means that we should consider our neighbors our enemies. We can't make judgements and laws for the whole, based solely upon the actions of a few. And you CAN apply the adage to cvilian and urban peace keeping, because in the context in which I made that statement, it was meant as a metaphore, not the literal translation.

Cannot two kids fighting be called "Combat"? In fact, when people (even children) go to a martial arts school, MANY martial arts refer to learning to defend yourself as "close quarters combat". A fist fight is just war on a smaller scale. All of the same rules apply, there's strategy involved, neither wants to be hurt and both sides want to be the victor.

If you focus to much on the details of a discussion, you'll lose the big picture. It's not important that I used the term "war" in quoting an ancient adage. Rather, it's what is learned from the adage that's important.



- Josh

---

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Sep 19, 2008]

And by the way, I live in Baltimore where on just about evry other street corner is a camera with blue flashing police lights on top. I live less than a block from one and let me tell you the activity that corner used to attract has disappreared. So cameras IMO has helped the neighorhood become more safer.

---

[Post edited by tony1569 on Sep 19, 2008]

Sorry Josh, that was the Jack after a hard day coming out. Some people shouldn't drink and type.

---

[Post edited by tony1569 on Sep 19, 2008]

Quote:
And by the way, I live in Baltimore where on just about evry other street corner is a camera with blue flashing police lights on top. I live less than a block from one and let me tell you the activity that corner used to attract has disappreared. So cameras IMO has helped the neighorhood become more safer.

Well, if that's what works for Baltimore, then that's great! But, I'd hate to see a national law enstated for ALL states, where weapons are taken away from everyone else, and cameras are placed on every corner, just because it works for England and Baltimore.

But, I digress. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.



- Josh

---

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Sep 19, 2008]

I'm sure rangoonth was just kidding with the Obama dig, but the scary thing is that a goodly number of Americans really do think Obama is Muslim. And the McCain camp is happy as a lark to let them continue to think so, with their Swift-Boat confederates encouraging the idea through lies and distortions in mass e-mails. I know because I've already received a number of such propaganda hit pieces from my conservative friends and relations.

John

Obama? McCain? Bah!

There's only one candidate for me.



All will kneel before Zod. Except me, I get Australia.

-Will

---

[Post edited by Gangrel00X on Sep 19, 2008]

Yes John... but what about all of the HATE for Sarah Palin (& McCain etc) dished out by the extreme left, such as implying that she is not the mother of her handicapped 5th child! The Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow types every night spout insulting left-wing, so-called 'journalism' and EVERY political story is something negative about Bush, McCain, Palin, their supporters etc, with only a slim chance of any of their dribble being true, especially the cut/paste hatchet jobs that do with film clips, so THEN they can spout their own stupid commentary and claims of the continued "right wing lies". MSNBC is a pathetic example of how much HATE one side can have, and yet they are supposed to just be a conduit of "news" delivery. You won't see Fox News, CNN, stooped to MSNBC's 1-sided, "Michael Moore" left-wing propaganda!

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

Quote:
We were given a right to bare arms

I'm a firm believer in our right to bare arms. Except for this guy.

---

[Post edited by csjlong on Sep 19, 2008]

All I know for sure about this election is that there are 62,040,610 people who should have their voting privileges suspended for at least one presidential election. If you fuck something up that badly, you need to be put in the penalty box to think about what you did.

Chris... (different topic) - curious if Criterion provided any review copies of this month's releases, especially those 3 Max Ophuls movies, as I haven't seen your reviews yet, which usually would have been posted around the release date. Did they leaves us out this time? FYI: I own the widescreen Criterion LaserDisc of his "Lola Montes" classic.

-JOE- (Love Hendrix)

Yes, I have them and will be reviewing them shortly. I'm behind this week because I went to the Toronto Film Festival.

What I wanna know is this....

What happened to all those Bush supporters that doggedly supported him and his whole Iraq war/WMD baloney platform? If John McCain is supposed to be a man who represents America's best vehicle for "change", what exactly is he supposed to be a change from?

Are McCain supporters trying to convince us that they weren't Bush supporters? Are they admitting that they were wrong in supporting Bush? Are we supposed to forget the last eight years and expect that suddenly the whole Republican Party is a brand new entity in the world of American politics?....and that this is not the same Republican party that put Bush into office?

When McCain says that he represents "REAL change", what is it change from?

Listen. I'm a Canadian, so I don't really have a say in the matter. But if you Americans are dumb enough to fall for the Republican lies once again, you deserve another 4-8 years of corporate propoganda based rule. A well supported Republican government led by a man named George W. Bush exploited the tragedy of 9/11, and despite having the support of the entire world behind the U.S. and it's desire to hunt down and destroy the men behind these heinous attacks, led your country into a war based upon completely fabricated bogus "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction (that were never found, as establish by Hans Blix and the UN inspectors that Bush and his cronies so blatantly discredited), invaded and, yes, occupied a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and spent billions and billions of your tax dollars establishing a foothold in one of the most oil rich areas on earth.

Do you really believe that the higher ups in the Republican party who so blatantly got behind Bush and Cheney and his gang of thugs are not the same people who are now supporting McCain and Palin (don't get me started on her)? The McCain campaign promotes themselves as the ticket for change. The Republicans have to promote themselves that way, because they know that Bush is so hugely unpopular in the public eye that if there is any association whatsoever between McCain and Bush that he would be rejected in no time. Why else is it that John McCain will never, EVER use the name "George Bush" in any of their speeches?

Don't you believe the BS. The Republican party of 2008 is no different from the Republican party of 2004. Don't be sucked in by their lies....even if it was Miss Alaska.

---

[Post edited by Kilgore on Sep 19, 2008]

BTW, i should mention that while your soldiers have been fighting and dying needlessly in Iraq since the 9/11 all these years, Canadian soldiers have been dying and fighting in Afghanistan where the real war is. Feel free to join us there anytime.

Kilgore... sounds like you must be privy to a "smoking gun" type of "evidence" against the Bush administration regarding the cause for the Iraqi invasion. If so, you should contact John Conyers, or Dennis Kucinich (and other Democrats) who want to charge Bush administration leaders with war crimes. And when you examine the evidence more closely, you will discover that the intelligence reports that Bush and his advisors relied on were done by CLINTON ADMINISTRATION appointees in the CIA etc. during the 1990s and 2000 (before Bush took office in Jan. 2001). And you'll read the testimony of military experts from Clinton's admin. and also the U.N. testimonies from all involved... that the perceive threat of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" were indeed thought to be real.

As you might know, Saddam has used WOMD on his own people previously, during his war campaign against the northern Kurdish areas. And that Saddam and his ilk tried every maneuver possible (over several years) to thwart the U.N. weapon inspectors, over and over, and would not comply with the full document requests, visual imspections, and what we already knew from our own intelligence sources (most of which was done by Clinton appointees and passed on to the Bush admin.).

The President of the USA takes an oath to protect our country against enemies who wish to harm us. And there is no way to know for sure if Saddam's WOMD was possibly smuggled out of his country during the early years of the Iraqi conflict (2002-03), before or shortly after we invaded in March 2003 in the cause of national security. Only God almighty (unless if one is an atheist) knows for sure about whether any WOMD existed (but has never been found by us).

And Americans indeed have been, and are fighting in Afghanistan, but you must not think so.

If you feel safer (although in Canada) with a neighboring country headed by an Obama administration, that's your belief. But there are many others here in the USA that believe we are safer from terrorists now (and in the future) with Republican leadership (such as a McCain/Palin admin.), and that which was provided by the Bush admin. And... NOW there's a real fear among intelligence reports that in the not too much distant future, the terrorists (and the state governments who also support terrorist groups), will acquire portable nuclear weaponry (or chemicals) from either Pakistani or N. Korean nuclear technology, and could launch new attacks against Israel, and/or American interests and military operations around the world.

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

Okay, there's lots going on here, and the discussion is all over the place. All I can say is that whether you're a Republican or Democrat, you're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that during the GW Bush years the dollar has fallen sharply, the federal deficit has ballooned to record numbers, U.S. prestige abroad has been severely diminished, our financial institutions are in shambles (thanks to deregulation and the marketplace competition), the price of gas has doubled and the oil companies are enjoying record profits, and the gap between the rich and the middle class has widened more than at any other time in modern history. We won't even get into the stall tactics that Bush has used to stonewall any global progress in dealing with global warming. I know the "change" message can get tiresome, but we really do need change. And if you check the websites that track votes, you'll see that McCain really did side with Bush and other Republicans a majority of the time. The Republicans have had their chance, and this second attempt at trickle-down economics has been disastrous. I think the Democrats have earned a shot, and if the people of America elect another team based on personality or how "ordinary" the candidates seem, then we deserve to be screwed for another four to eight years.

Those of you who have traveled know that people of other nations are far more politically aware and well-read than Americans. They've read dozens of newspapers, while our current president doesn't read any. The average American is intelligent, but when it comes to voting they're either lazy or else they're ridiculously manipulated by the public relations industry that's driving the news these days.

Why aren't the newspapers reporting things like Anne Kilkenny's reports of Sarah Palin's encounters? When Republicans charge that Sarah has more experience than Barack, why aren't more media outlets actually bringing to light the Governor's record in Alaska or Obama's record in the Illinois legislature or the Senate? I think it's sad when Republicans say, with a straight face, that Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama because she was commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, that not a single newspaper or news outlet has looked into whether this is a ceremonial title or if she actually "led" them or "called them into action." I'm sorry, but Americans are too willing to go for slogans and Internet bull-hockey than to do the hard work of reading up on candidates and researching who REALLY is in a position to lead this nation. We were doomed from the moment that Bill Clinton appeared on Arsenio Hall playing his saxophone. I'm not hopeful at all. I would add "the electorate" and American voters on the list of institutions that are broken in this country. And I do blame public relations on both sides and the media for letting the tail wag the dog.

And by the way, everything you know is wrong . . . if you've gotten it from a biased source.

---

[Post edited by jamesplath on Sep 19, 2008]

Keep in mind that I like to consider myself independent. Although I mostly agree with libertarians.

People are saying that the far right is worse.

I beg to differ. The Voluntary human extinction movement just proves that ultra left wing nutjobs are worse than right wing nutjobs.


http://www.vhemt.org/ Its not a joke my friends, this movement is very real.


Just thought I'd throw this in.