by
eagle i
Member since:
June 24, 2011
January 18, 2013 12:10 PM UTC
(Updated: January 20, 2013 04:16 PM UTC)
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the
Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 61
I guess even after banning guns the criminals will continue to disobey the laws... who would have thought.....
Every American should see this Video. Too late for the Brit, and the Aussie.
And no one needs a firearm for self defense because any intelligent person knows they are TOO DANGEROUS TO HANDLE and will likely just go off on their own and hurt you or an innocent bystander than the criminal you are aiming at, right? Sure all statistics show that. Like um...well they just do. Anyone with a brain knows that.
And nobody ever gets attacked by more than one person at a time, even in drug-gang infested big cities, so who needs a gun with more than ten shots? Or even a three-shot pump shotgun? And attackers are never on drugs or so hyped up by adrenalin that one or two shots would not put them out of commission. And anyone defending themselves will always get off the perfect shot right away.
Right. And if not, any attacker will always be courteous enough to give you time to reload. It's just the sporting thing to do.
And if you only had a single bullet, your attacker will gladly wait until the police arrive before trying to kill you. No matter how long it takes the cops to show up. Of course. Anyone with half a brain knows that..
What's all the fuss about banning guns? Just a lot of dumb paranoid conspiracy nuts and weak-minded people who can have their wills taken over by the evil magic in a gun. Better to just destroy every one of them. Just round them all up now. And jail or kill anyone who defies the government and does not cooperate.
We know we can always trust Obama annd Holder or anyone who succeeds them to always treat everyone fairly. And local police will always protect us from any harm, especially once all the guns are gone.
You just gotta have some trust in people. In government. Not in business though. Greedy bastids. And not the Tea Party conservatives. Racist bastids. And not in the NRA. Gun-crazed government-manipulating bastids. .
But, doesn't it give you just the greatest feeling of security that, once the carnage is over, and we are lying dead in a pool of our own blood in our homes, and the criminal is 20-minutes gone, that the Police will arrive to assess the damage and make a full Report....in triplicate?
I know that it does me....
Ridiculous.
I just tangled with them again yesterday over the "featured" Gather blog which was about how questions about the Newtown tragedy are ridiculous and looking into it should be stopped because the families of the deceased children would be traumatized further.
I listed many of the unanswered questions about it and then compared the blog's and commenters' attitudes to the average detective story in which the person looking into a crime is told to stop looking into it, and the one suggesting that is always either the guilty one or someone who has something to lose themselves if the truth comes out.
I read today that the skepticism about Sandy Hook unanswered questions is becoming more mainstream now. If the Left Whine About Anythings want to blame someone they need to be looking at a president and his political agenda frenzy that couldn't wait to embroil their dead children in unconscionable hypocrisy and propaganda before their bodies were even cold. What a sickening lot of society they are.
Instead, the Right Wing Radical and Lunatic Fringe, scapegoat one man and claim that he can hoodwink the country.
Despite the Frenzied Right's belief, this is not the ugly weakness of the Wiemar Republic.
NOT......EVEN....CLOSE
A majority did not reelect this travesty of a President. Fraud of various kinds including unprecedentedly deliberate "vote counting machine errors," multiple voting, voting by unqualified people and various other and sundry methods did the job.
There is no communism at work in the American government and precious little amongst your people. Communism around the world is either vanished entirely (Russia), in serious retreat (Cuba), or existing in name only (China). It is a failed ideology already on the scrap heap of history. But filled with McCarthy era nonsense that was wrong even when there was a communist threat in the world, the right wing in America is still fighting the Cold War, only seeing as there is no Cold War enemy left to fight, they are fighting themselves!
Your real dangers are; 1) fascism (a very different thing from communism) due to the rise of corporate power and its eclipsing of governmental (i.e. public) authority; and 2) the violence in your own culture as so often expressed in episodes like the Colorado shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Fort Hood shooting.
Keep fighting the wrong battle and here is what your future will look like:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981839332
Have you ever bothered to look into Obama's past, right up through his ACORN days, not just his college days. No.
When Obama had a non-government job in the 1990s, he headed two lush foundations which he and his buddy, the unrepentent terrorist and former Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers, had helped him get aboard, and where they gave out tens of millions of dollars in Capitalist-accumulated money to various Communist causes including the Midwest Academy and Ayers' wife Bernardine Dohrn's communist education programs. Read about it all in Stanley Kurtz's book RADICAL IN CHIEF.
So we're blaming big business for wanting Fascism and that's why Obama has not done - what exactly? I ask Socialists and they never have an answer except they all know Obama is not as far left as they want. You're the one being hoodwinked.
Why else would Jeffrey Imelt, GE head and Obama's Jobs Commission head (which Obama has not bothered to meet with for about a year despite saying "jobs" is his top priority) come out publicly in admiration of Chinese Communism?
Why else would Obama have chosen as his first "Green Jobs Czar" the head of a Communist revolutionary activist organization which he founded (Van Jones, STORM)?
Why else would his former communications director tell college graduating class that Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse Tung is a "philosiopher" she "turns to most often?" (Anita Dunn)
Why would all the self-confessed Communist Hollywood celebrities be Obama supporters? (Rosanne Barr, Danny Glover, George Clooney, etc.) And that is just scratching the surface.
Why else would the Communist dictator Hugo Chavez applaud the election and reelection of Obama? Why else would the Democratic Socialists of America, a Communist group masquerading as moderate Socialists, have applauded the election and reelection of Obama? Why would the Communist Party USA have applauded the election and reelection of Obama?
How can the "real dangers" be fascism and violence when there are no significant-sized movements openly advocating either except on the left (in the case of violence, STORM again, and Socialist-led unions like AFLCIO and Teamsters))? Where do you see them? The Tea Party? Millions of mostly senior citizens and other nonviolent American patriots who remember what freedom in America was like before Obama. The NRA? Gun owners. Mostly average people of both sexes and all races who know that the right of self defense is crucial to controlling your own life. As long as you don't mess with that precious Constitutionally guaranteed right, they are no threat to anyone.
How much do you have to ignore about this man to say "there is no communism at work in the American government." How dense do you have to be not to see how uninformed that statement is?
You also have a very short attention span and memory. The incidents of violence you refer to are rare, and most recent ones have occurred in the past few months, uncannily occurring at the start of the avowed anti-gun rights President's second term.
Also, Fort Hood was an Islamic radical incident, only as "successful" as it was because firearms were not allowed to be carried on base. Otherwise the man who jumped up and yelled "Allah Akbar" before opening fire would have been gunned down before he got off more than a few rounds.
Thank you for the threat. I'll pass.
The Right Wingers simply MUST have someone to FEAR and HATE--or else they CANNOT CALL THEMSELVES PATRIOTIC AMERICANS.
How unbelievably distressing!!
Who has the COURAGE TO KEEP THESE COMMENTS UP, WITHOUT ANY ATTEMPT AT DELETION?
WHO?
Evidently you came back and dropped a second comment pretty muich echoing your first one, without first bothering to read or respond to my reply. Why is that?
Aren't you the one living in the imaginary world in which you see persecution from those who still believe in Constituitional restraints on government? How unbelievably distressing!
Late in 2010, CPUSA member C.J. Atkins called for his comrades to drop their "communist" label, so that they could work more effectively inside the Democratic Party. Soon thereafter, Joe Sims, co-editor of the CPUSA publication Peoples World, acknowledged not only that collaboration with the the Democrats "will be an area of engagement for those wanting to make a difference," but also that communists might someday be able to "capture" the Democratic Party entirely. Sims warned, however, against dissolving the CPUSA entirely into the Democratic Party. Rather, he advised his organization to remain a separate entity, working both inside and outside the Democratic Party as circumstances required.
Does the AFL-CIO just put on card party's?
What about the 70+ members of the communist party who have been "elected" to congress. WOW, you would have to of just landed on planet earth to not know that.
..."duh, where's the communism, errr I don't see any communism...er uh"
So we're blaming big business for wanting Fascism and that's why Obama has not done - what exactly? I ask Socialists and they never have an answer except they all know Obama is not as far left as they want. You're the one being hoodwinked.
You get no answers from "socialists" (whom you identify how exactly?) because your question makes no sense.
eagle i Jan 20, 2013, 5:34pm EST
Why would all the self-confessed Communist Hollywood celebrities be Obama supporters? (Rosanne Barr, Danny Glover, George Clooney, etc.) And that is just scratching the surface.
Really? Post one link that shows any of these celebrities self-declaring themselves communists. You know, reality is not simply the conversation that goes on inside your head.
eagle i Jan 20, 2013, 5:34pm EST
Where do you see them? The Tea Party? Millions of mostly senior citizens and other nonviolent American patriots who remember what freedom in America was like before Obama.
Yeah, those peace-loving Tea Partiers with their firearms strapped to their legs at rallies where the wave posters about watering the tree of liberty with blood.
Opinion Nate Ted Jan 20, 2013, 6:11pm EST
What about the 70+ members of the communist party who have been "elected" to congress. WOW, you would have to of just landed on planet earth to not know that.
In actual fact there are no Democrats elected to Congress who are members of the communist party. None. Rightwingnutjobs keep repeating that myth that there are 70, but even though you believe any lie repeated often enough is the truth, it isn't really so.
A Socialist is someone who wants government economic intervention. They think government needs to be involved in controlling business activity, usually by three ways: business "regulations," or enforced rules of conduct; welfare, involving wealth redistribution, and taxes to pay for the other two. Socialists trust government officials more than they trust people trying to make a living on their own, particularly those who succeed well at it.
The celebrities I mentioned have all supported Communist-style redistributionism and roundly condemned wealthy businessmen. Rosanne wants the rich guillotined and gave an interview in Russia favorable to Communism. Just yesterday a news story noted Danny Glover has been well known for his far left views for many years. Clooney may not be a Communist but his energetic efforts in promoting Obamunism via fundrasers is either because he is ideologically in tune with Obama or is as profoundly naive as you are..
Your characterization of Tea Partiers is of course a gross exaggeration for effect. Most are peace-loving, although many indeed do own firearms and a few may quote the Founders like in the sign you mentioned. You know that is true as well as I, otherwise we would already either be in civil war or large numbers of them would have been rounded up already and jailed like some of the left wing OWSers were.
I believe Nate-Ted can speak for himself about the CPUSA members of Congress. He published a list of them at least once in the past year.,
Glover long has advocated publicly for leftist and socialist causes. In fact, bloggers once defended him by describing him as “a pretty hardcore Hollywood leftist” and explaining he “hangs out with Hugo Chavez, visits Cuba, talks a lot about American misdeeds in Central America…”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/danny-glover-2nd-amendment-aimed-at-slaves/#h5q7WObYSy60AYUJ.99
The Second Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from slave revolts is ludicrous. It certainly was not a prime reason for it, especially outside the slaveholding states, and was certainly not the reason it was revered after slavery was abolished and 100 years later after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
More relevent was the fact that Blacks were not allowed to own firearms after the Civil War in order to keep them subjugated, just as now, proposed bans on firearm ownership increases the individual's vulnerability to arbitrary government.
and Rosanne Barr: http://www.examiner.com/video/roseanne-barr-on-russia-today-says-she-would-bring-back-the-guillotine-and-decapitate-bankers
Just like most things conservatives repeat over and over again, pretending they are facts, ask them to pony up the evidence and they fall back on a lot of what amounts to "no, but, and, if..."
Weasel words.
Please try to dispute any of the other facts I established or referred to here. Then restate your ridiculous generalization above. Better yet, go away. Your word mincing is of no use to this forum.
Socialists like to think, or project, that they are more caring than others. I have yet to see one who does not automatically believe anyone who opposes them is an idiot or dissembler. I have never heard one say the least comforting or explanatory word reflecting an assumption that they are human and the opposition is at all worthy of seriously discussing issues with. That to me speaks far more than anything else.
Yes by their words and deeds they established their desire for basic Communist principles and goals. You erroneously took one phrase of what I said literally. Clearly your intention is merely to irritate.
Not, my intention is to inject some reality into your fantasy. To say "all the self-confessed Communist Hollywood celebrities"is vastly different from saying "all those communist Hollywood celebrities" or the more accurate "all those Hollywood celebrities that I think are communists". The final version I present is an expression of an opinion, which is what you were doing. The second version is a bold statement, open to challenge but still defensible an honest expression. The first version, your version, is putting your opinion in their mouths and amounts to a lie. You cannot illustrate that they have so declared and so should not say they have.
eagle i Jan 21, 2013, 1:04am EST
Please explain how my grammar is all wrong. Anyone can make a small error. But I would like it pointed out exactly.
This sentence makes no sense: "So we're blaming big business for wanting Fascism and that's why Obama has not done - what exactly?"
Try again. I don't offer free English lessons. Some work you have to do for yourself.
eagle i Jan 21, 2013, 1:03am EST
I have never heard one say the least comforting or explanatory word reflecting an assumption that they are human and the opposition is at all worthy of seriously discussing issues with. That to me speaks far more than anything else.
I have attacked only your words, not you. Unlike ONT, BM and yourself who have offered insults and judgments.
I don't offer lessons in comprehension. Some work you will have to do for yourself. Perhaps simply ask what was meant rather than suggest a lack of skill was involved. Perfectly clear to me.
No you attacked my English writing ability rather than my arguments except on one semantic point which I explained was not meant literally and when explained you apparently did not understand. I did not make judgements any more than you did on my need for writing lessons. I suggested you need to come up to speed on your knowledge of American politics and political groups.
Why are you wasting so much of your time on these minor points while ignoring the main body of the blog? To try to find some other way to discredit the poster?
They ARE the "who's who" of the commie party.
I do usually for NDP and have worked on the campaigns of three or four candidates of theirs in various elections over the years, but I belong to no party and owe my allegiance and vote to none.
I also don't vote or contribute or in any other way assist any American party.
But both of your governing parties in the US (and ours here in Canada) are corporatist parties who receive a lot of their funding from the corporate sector.
I would be willing to bet the NDP included many Communists when you were in it. As in the US and as with Islamic radicals, they tend not to advertise their beliefs unless they are in a position of strength.
Do us in the US the courtesy of refraining from conjecture about the nature of American politics until you become more informed. You might pick up a copy of Saul Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS to learn about how American Communists use subterfuge and threats and play on the good intentions of the wealthy and influential to get concessions designed to undermine American free enterprise and improve their own position. No doubt the same tactics are used by them in your country whenever they are able.
Another good one to read and learn about American Communism is Frances Fox Piven. Her and her deceased husband advocated "overwhelming the system" of free markets and government finances with welfare, business regulations and taxes until both collapsed so a Communist revolution could occur. She spoke prominently during our Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the summer of 2011, and stood by at President Clinton's behest in the 1990s when he signed the Motor Voter law which barred voter id at polling places so the democrfatic process could be subverted by being overwhelmed by unqualified voters could vote and so some could vote more than once, although of course that was not the publicly stated purpose,.
And again, on Obama's Communist past up to his running for President, check out Stanley Kurtz's well-researched book RADICAL IN CHIEF, or portions of Michael Savage's TRICKLE UP POVERTY dealing with Obama's ideology and his past.
In any country with any modicum of free markets, that is, where business activity is not run by or fully controlled by government, but where business is regulated to some degree, naturally businesspeople will try to influence govenrment through poltiical party donations and other support. That does not make them "corporatist" parties. You might try reading David Horowitz's THE SHADOW PARTY which explains how one billionaire named George Soros has managed to take over the Democratic party and influence the American media. He is not known for running any single corporation or group of businesses, but rather invests his money in currency trading and resource management, and founds organizations for the purpose of manipulating political developments in his favor.
I have likely read more on American history and politics than you have. Unlike many Americans, we Canadians don't limit our interest in the world to what goes on within our own borders.
My membership in the NDP was in my early teens, before I could vote. I have, however, associated with communists quite knowingly at times. I am not threatened or intimidate by them nor do I allow those who are to determine who I will associate with. Communists are just wrong. They are not a disease which infects one upon contact.
I taught American history at the college level for over three decades and studied it for many years before that.
How provincial of you to assume that Americans have no interest in anything outside our borders. It's not true, but I'm sure you could never be convinced otherwise. I also taught European history and the history of Western Civilization for over three decades and studied it for years before that. I have spent the better part of a year in the UK. You seem to have a penchant for jumping to conclusions which favor a notion of your own superiority.
No one regards Communism as a disease. how absurd. It is precisely because Communists realize most people would not accept their proposed changes in society that they tend not to admit what they are. But when you see them advocating wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness" and government taking over more businesses like Obama says he wished he could do, you know that is well beyond moderate, and decidedly Marxist. Then when you realize this man has been associated with Marxists all his life, by his own admission sought them out, you klnow what he is.
Someone who is a Communist but is powerless to change society is no threat to anyone. Communists who have power to influence opinions like teachers and journalists are a threat because they can indoctrinate and mislead the young, who may carry those misconceptions with them into adult life. Lenin himself advocated it, and the Ayerses, Alinskys, and others have practiced it for decades. That is precisely why there are now so many Marxist-thinking Americans. They have changed the content of history courses to favor a Marxist view that businessmen inevitablyt exploit others, while downplaying anything which contradicts that view, as I have seen personally.
Just keep those conclusion jumps and misconceptions rolling in Rory! You are helping me write a book!
Communist believe in state ownership of he means of production, in the elimination of private property, in collective action in all things society does from farming to manufacturing to distribution. They believe in equality of outcomes.
I do not believe in these things. I think manufacturing should probably be 100% privately owned and operated. I think owning private property should still be a right. I believe that there are areas in which collective action makes sense and other areas where it does not. I believe in equality of opportunity, not of outcomes.
In America it seems that most, practically all on the right, believe that any collective action amounts to communism. But there is no society in our world, now or are any time in the past, that does not use collective, or publicly owned and operated, means of delivering some services to their people. Policing, defense, justice, education and public safety are almost always collectively delivered, and would be disastrous if turned over to the private sector where profit would trump the public interest. In all the wealthy nations with the best outcomes, healthcare is also collectively delivered. The US insists on doing it privately at significantly higher cost and with larger measurable gaps in service.
One great example is Sweden, which is democratic and socialist but not communist. Sweden has robust private industries that compete internationally (Ikea and Volvo come immediately to mind), but provide much more comprehensive public services including no-tuition university. It does not guarantee equal outcomes, but does a lot more to guarantee equal opportunities.
Which brings us to taxation. Almost all taxation a form of wealth redistribution, and all nation practice this. The poor have no money to pay for the services and infrastructure a society needs to operate. So the wealthy have to pay more than their share for it to work. People long ago recognized that market forces, unchecked, produce all kinds of unfairness. Progressive taxation takes more from those who have the most and redresses some of the unfairness of the market. All societies do this to some degree. During the most prosperous period in American history your government did a lot more of it, with much higher tax rates on the wealthy from 1950 to 1970.
I make no statement about the celebrities you mention, merely pointed out that your statement was not factually correct. I neither know nor car if none of them, some of them or all of them are communists.
Not true at all. If it was then a majorty of Americans would have already recognized Obama for what he is and he certainly never would have gotten reelected
In all the wealthy nations with the best outcomes, healthcare is also collectively delivered. The US insists on doing it privately at significantly higher cost and with larger measurable gaps in service.
This also is untrue,demonstrably so since doctors and patients from those other countries including Canada come here for jobs and treatment, and my own experience with national health in Britain was an eye opener. It will change here, and in fact already is however now that Obamacare is in the offing.
Sweden is a much smaller country than the US and has its own problems, including one of the highest suicide rates in the world , and heavy taxation. Since you equate taxation with wealth redistribution, the tax drain on the successful must be a disincentive to pursuing opportunities.
Itr is not true that "almost all taxation (is) (I will not suggest you get English lessons) a form of wealth redistribution." Originally taxes in the US were confined to excises on imported goods and the purpose was to pay the small number of government officials. Welfare seldom involves giving jobs and paying for them with money taken from the successful. In fact most welfare is offered as an alternative to working, especially when the amount is greater than the individual could obtain by working.
So the wealthy have to pay more than their share for it to work. People long ago recognized that market forces, unchecked, produce all kinds of unfairness. Progressive taxation takes more from those who have the most and redresses some of the unfairness of the market.
This is wrong on a number of grounds. Yes there is "unfairness." No Capitalist ever believed outcomes would be equal. "Services and infrastructure" can be provided by the free market and had been for centuries in the West, although if coordination is required such as in the case of road networks, they may be more or less efficient than when under one authority. But the important factor is INCENTIVE is maximized in a competitive environment. This maximizes achievement overall.
American Constitutionalists recognize that "Progressive" is just a buzzword for more government economic control. American "Progressives" have always been Socialists. America did not do this before the arrival of the Income tax in 1913, and trhen it was a modest 1% on incomes above $3000, which now would be the equivalent of an annual income of about $200,000. The tax rates rose and eventually became more complexly "graduated" during the Great Depression and especially during the World Wars. After that Socialists took advantage of people being willing to suffer higher tax rates in order to help those who had suffered most during the Second World War.
I see so again you took a statement one way, assuming that by "self confessed" I meant they had made a public statement in which they had said "yes I am a Communist" rather than merely stating their belief in Communist principles of massive wealth redistribution including in Rosanne's case the elimination of a wealthy class by execution.
State Socialists, the alternative to Communism or International Socialism, have seldom deliberately pursued policies which actually destroy the wealthy class, although much "Progressive" taxation such as Britain endured after World War II financially ruined many rich Brits. That however definitely is a hallmark of Communism, which has no use for the "bourgeoisie" management class whatsoever unless they are working for government.
Duh.
And while we're at it, was it just coincidence that two of the key administration figures who must have gotten the info in plenty of time to react suddenly taken out of the testimpony lineup by an affair made public and some sort of mysterious fall?
Just coincidence that the fathers in both the most recent mass shootings were scheduled to testify in the LIBOR scandal which might implicate both the US Treasury Secret and the Fed Chairman? Just coincidence that both the shooters had been treated for mental illness with psychotropic drugs which are known to enourage aggressive thoughts and behavior? Just coincidence that in both cases witnesses reported more than one individual involved?
...just months ago I remember these same leftist traitors saying that Obama was going to take A N Y guns away.
They are still insisting "nobody is going to take away your guns." Sort of like telling a farmer that due to environmental rules he can no longer use a tractor because of pollution concerns, and can only use more expensive seed, and can't sell any of his produce at his own market without FDA license and inspection, then when he complains they tell him nobody is taking away his livlihood. Maybe not directly, but they are making it harder to keep it.
Actually that farmer example is not as bad, because under the proposed new assault weapon ban, they CAN prevent you from buying a rifle with one or more features of a real "assault rifle," and taking away your right to own something is as effective as taking away the thing itself.