Types of People Post on this Forum

[frazzled]

Again we are in agreement Annoyed Man, which is itself annoying, so you must be harassed.

I'd guess I'd be a moderate libertarian actually. on other boards I'm the crazy uncle everyone hides in the attic because I'm a far out rightwinger. Here I've been called almost a commie

[bdickens]

Thanks for your thoughts "The Annoyed Man". I can sympathize with your frustrations. I had many similar frustrations during the Bush years and wrote many emails and posted on many blogs with comments as long as yours. I had reservations about Bush since my wife and I had the occasion to meet him while he was governor and campaigning for president. When he learned my wife was from Brasil and tried to speak Spanish with her I began to question his qualifications to be a world leader. It just got worse as time went on. No Sept 11th connection to Sadam, no WMD's etc, and a war that killed thousands of Americans and many times that amount of civilians. I could go on and on but that is behind us now. I made the choice of Obama over McCain. He is not "my guy" , he is my President. George Bush was my President. Obama is your President too. You are a citizen of this country. Give our President a chance. He has not been in office a year and he inherited a Country that was at it's lowest point in modern times. It can't and won't be fixed overnight. But this is a great Country no matter what party is in office. Only through compromise can this Country rise up again to be the envy of the world. Divisiveness just slows or stops the progress that we so desperately need. The glass is half full, not half empty! But then again I am the eternal optimist, it's what gets me through the day!

I had reservations about Barry's qualifications to be a world leader when I found out he thought there were 57 states, when I found out he's never had a real job and NO executive experience, when I found out he was a "community organizer" (that's code for "leftist agitator"), when I found out he was unwilling to show one simple doccument to put to bed speculation he might not have been born a citizen, yet willing to spend a ton of money to avoid presenting that doccument, when I found out his associates include known terrorists, when I found out he appoints tax evaders to important cabinet positions, when I found out he usurps the Seante's Constitutional authority by appointing "czars" for everything and sidestepping crucial confirmation hearings, when I found out he wants to quash dissent through censorship and Chicago gangland intimidation tactics....

Shall I go on?

[frazzled]

Frazzled said: I’m not certain that persons of a liberal bent are welcome on this board. I’m also not certain that those who present a more moderate view in areas are welcome.

Do you mean that?

In areas, not related to CHL, yes.
Lets note some of the posts on this thread at this point
Osama
Obama bin
Claims the US President is not a citizen.
Really? Thats as off putting as saying:
the Shrub
Adolf Bush
Claims Bush knew about the 9/11 attack and the government was in on it.

I laughed at people who said the latter and respond to people who say such about Obama.

[USA1]

I had reservations about Barry's qualifications to be a world leader when I found out he thought there were 57 states, when I found out he's never had a real job and NO executive experience, when I found out he was a "community organizer" (that's code for "leftist agitator"), when I found out he was unwilling to show one simple doccument to put to bed speculation he might not have been born a citizen, yet willing to spend a ton of money to avoid presenting that doccument, when I found out his associates include known terrorists, when I found out he appoints tax evaders to important cabinet positions, when I found out he usurps the Seante's Constitutional authority by appointing "czars" for everything and sidestepping crucial confirmation hearings, when I found out he wants to quash dissent through censorship and Chicago gangland intimidation tactics....

Shall I go on?

hold on , i have to go take my blood pressure medicine first .

[YabuUS]

All of a sudden I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable. Maybe I shouldn't be posting here.

[frazzled]

Oh contraire. Its an absolutely excellent site for CHL and weapon related issues. We even allow discussion from radicals...rifle shooters.

Just don't worry about discussing politics and religion, which is always prudent anyway.

[mr.72]

I have to respectfully disagree. While there are two camps and your construct often works I don't think its base is necessarily freedom vs. state control.

Note I said "in general".

I'd proffer there is that, but also "both sides" tend to want to control me, just on different issues. If I pop up that abortion should be legal in all circumstances I not going to get a fight from the "liberal side," but from the "conservative side." However thats a freedom from government point.
I've often found its both sides that are trying to tell me to do something. I resist both.

Nice try. But that argument is only an issue about government control if you assume that the unborn child has no rights, and that the father of the child has no rights. But the other side is that the government must protect the basic right to life of the unborn child, and that is a more important right to protect than the comparably whimsical right to "choose" for the mother. The point at which the woman chooses whether or not to have a child is not after she is already pregnant, it is while her pants are still in place.

But this does illustrate another typically-liberal viewpoint, which is that liberals want to have the right to make risky, dangerous, and foolish choices and then have government bail them out somehow... such as, a woman is going to have sex and then expect the government to bail her out by allowing her to terminate the pregnancy that results... or not get a job and expect the government to provide you with an income, or housing, or for a bank to take on risky loans and then expect the government to bail them out, or for the car companies to have negative profit margins and expect the government to cover the gap, and on and on and on!!! It never ends!!

Your suggestion that illegal abortions would be the government wanting to exercise control over your rights would be analogous to me saying murder being illegal is the government controlling my freedom to choose. At some point, we have to have laws that protect the basic lights to life, liberty and property of all persons. The disagreement between liberals and conservatives over abortion is because the unborn have no rights according to liberals. There was a time when Democrats also thought blacks had no rights, and there was a time when we thought women had no rights. These are all antiquated viewpoints that deserve to be left in the dark pages of history.

[frazzled]

For the sake of argument and its not a liberal but a libertarian argument:

Nice try. But that argument is only an issue about government control if you assume that the unborn child has no rights, and that the father of the child has no rights. But the other side is that the government must protect the basic right to life of the unborn child, and that is a more important right to protect than the comparably whimsical right to "choose" for the mother. The point at which the woman chooses whether or not to have a child is not after she is already pregnant, it is while her pants are still in place.

-flip it. The "father" lost his rights when HE didn't keep his pants up. now the governemnt is trying to tell someone what to do, becuase a group of people want the govenrment to tell everyone what to do. Further, the federal government has no power under the Constitution to impose anything in this matter.

In the end people are trying to tell me what to do, and when I don't do what they want they get the government involved. Not a bit of difference.
Libertarians unite! (sorry had to throw that in there)

[mr.72]

In the end people are trying to tell me what to do, and when I don't do what they want they get the government involved. Not a bit of difference.
Libertarians unite! (sorry had to throw that in there)

I am quite a libertarian, but even the most fringe libertarian will not advocate legalizing murder.

So like I said, this issue has mostly to do with whether you consider an unborn child to be a live person who has rights or not. If the unborn child is a live person with rights, then we are compelled to protect those rights and prohibit abortion. If the unborn child is not a live person with rights, then you can kill it without legal consequence.

However the moral and emotional fallout typical for women who have abortions tends to defy the concept that the baby was not a living person with rights.

So this is not an issue of liberty any more than murder is an issue of liberty.

[frazzled]

Yea it really is actually.
its not legally defined as murder. Period. Others are attempting to define it as such so that they can tell me what to do.

EDIT: I should note this is being used as an example and not necessarily my viewpoint. I'll keep my views to myself.

[74novaman]

He has not been in office a year and he inherited a Country that was at it's lowest point in modern times. It can't and won't be fixed overnight. But this is a great Country no matter what party is in office. Only through compromise can this Country rise up again to be the envy of the world. Divisiveness just slows or stops the progress that we so desperately need. The glass is half full, not half empty! But then again I am the eternal optimist, it's what gets me through the day!

Interesting thoughts. Of course, I tend to blame congress more than an individual President for a lot of that "mess" he's inherited. In fact, Obama voted for a lot of that "mess" he whines about so eloquently now.

I understand being against divisiveness, but I cannot STAND the absolute hypocrisy in the Democrat party in particular and the left in general. They did everything they could to create devisiveness the last 8 years. And now when their guy is in power, we're supposed to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way (Obama's words, not mine).

At this point, I feel you reap what you sow. The Dems were quite willing to raise all kinds of hell the last 8 years. Don't see why they should get a free pass now that they're in charge.

Just my .02

[USA1]

All of a sudden I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable. Maybe I shouldn't be posting here.

YabuUS , please don't feel uncomfortable .your participation is valuable .

people here on both sides of this issue are just venting .some may call it a "robust debate".
we all have a right to express our feelings .

God Bless America .

[kirock7]

Reading through this thread is one of those times when I have to bite my lip and sit on my hands. Wait... that's not my hands... that's my Taurus! Ouch!

[android]

I have to respectfully disagree. While there are two camps and your construct often works I don't think its base is necessarily freedom vs. state control. I'd proffer there is that, but also "both sides" tend to want to control me, just on different issues. If I pop up that abortion should be legal in all circumstances I not going to get a fight from the "liberal side," but from the "conservative side." However thats a freedom from government point.
I've often found its both sides that are trying to tell me to do something. I resist both.

I agree.

Conservatives don't really believe in freedom to make choices any more than liberals. They just want everyone to be free to make the same choices they would make.

How about let's legalize marijuana, gambling and prostitution?

All those conservatives are going to come down on those ideas like a ton of bricks.

[frazzled]

Wait... that's not my hands... that's my Taurus! Ouch!

mess with the Bull you'll get the horns, er never mind...