Carrying weapons to town hall meetings

[LnGrrrR]

How does the board weigh in on this?

Do they side with the gun-owner who has a right to carry?

Or should there be limits put on openly carrying certain kinds of weapons?

At a certain point, does the brandishing of firearms implicitly prohibit freedom of assembly, or freedom of speech?

And for those who are in favor of it, should there be a line that isn't crossed, and if so, where?

[SonOfAGun]

There are hundreds of thousands of people that conceal carry daily without killing anyone.

However, I do not think it is a good idea to allow conceal/open carry for civilians within the proximity of high ranking elected officials.

[DarkReign]

No lines, no boundaries (except schools).

[LnGrrrR]

No lines, no boundaries (except schools).

Why schools specifically?

[rjv]

this absolutely is preposterous. it places a burden on the security forces for the president and other elected officials and places the public in danger.

[SonOfAGun]

If the secret service is present at a venue, it is considered a federal site. Civilians are not allowed to carry directly on federal sites.

[Drachen]

I am very pro-gun control, but the fact of the matter is that they didn't break any of the current laws. All it broke was a kind of unwritten code. I don't like it, to be sure, and I personally don't think that they should have done it, but it is up to Arizonians to fix this. Or a federal law can be passed that states that you cannot carry a weapon x amount of yards from the building that the president is in. As it stands right now there is not much to say.

[DarrinS]

Legal, but extremely stupid.

[jack sommerset]

You shouldn't bring a freaken gun to a town meeting. I'm all for keeping a gun in the house,perhaps the car but when you start bringing it to carnivales,grocery stores,bowling alleys,town meetings,etc.... You are a asshole and some can argue you might be looking for trouble.

[DarkReign]

Why schools specifically?

Fairly obvious, I think. Having children around guns at home is normal. Having guns around hundreds (thousands) of children on school grounds...not so much.

Beyond that, I dont care where people carry. One could also assume that an elected official's presence makes it unlawful to carry on the premise. I did forget to mention that exception as well.

But barring those situations, no, I dont have a problem with people carrying anywhere else (obviously, no-no on the courthouse too). I am quite sure other people do and thats fine. You asked, I answered.

My ratonale says I dont have a rationale. I will constantly side with personal liberty...even at the expense of others people's warm fuzzy feelings. I dont care if you feel safe around guns.

(this isnt directed at you or anyone in particular anymore, LnG, I just use "you" in the third person)

It isnt my fault you have an aversion or no experience with firearms. Just because you feel guns shouldnt be somewhere, doesnt mean I do.

Back to reality...

I fully realize I am in the stark minority. If half the pussies in this country got together and convinced themselves that guns are bad, theyd strike down the 2nd amendment the next day.

I think the current gun laws have gone far enough. I think citizens should be able to own automatic weapons (but not explosives). Not for any grand purpose or reason, but because its my fucking choice.

Criminals will get guns. A vast majority (95%+) of gun owners are not criminals. Because 5% are doesnt make it right to restrict everyone in the name of....I dont know what sissies call it. I dont much care either.

Youre winning the gun fight. Youll end up ultimately victorious, I will lose. I am resigned to that. Doesnt make me hate you any less. Whats next after guns are regulated to relative oblivion or outright banned?

I shudder to think what a government that has the audacity to try and pass universal healthcare on an unwilling/unwanting populace would do once the taboo on the Bill of Rights ceases to be. If you put healthcare to a popular vote right now in this country, it would be soundly beaten...to death...with a sledgehammer.

Yet, our government is still trying to get it done, even if its diametrically opposed by its People. They know better than you do, just like you know better than us when it comes to guns.

Dumb rant.

[DarkReign]

You shouldn't bring a freaken gun to a town meeting. I'm all for keeping a gun in the house,perhaps the car but when you start bringing it to carnivales,grocery stores,bowling alleys,town meetings,etc.... You are a asshole and some can argue you might be looking for trouble.

:lmao

Yeah, ok.

[Bartleby]

Fairly obvious, I think. Having children around guns at home is normal. Having guns around hundreds (thousands) of children on school grounds...not so much.

What do you mean by "normal"? Your response seems to skirt the heart of the question: why is it OK to carry guns in some places but not others?

To me, bringing a gun to a town hall meeting and/or event where the POTUS is speaking is not "normal," even if doing so is constitutionally protected.

Also, I think LnGrrrR's point about brandishing firearms at public events raises important questions about one person's constitutionally protected rights possibly encroaching on the First Amendment rights of others.

[DarkReign]

What do you mean by "normal"? Your response seems to skirt the heart of the question: why is it OK to carry guns in some places but not others?

To me, bringing a gun to a town hall meeting and/or event where the POTUS is speaking is not "normal," even if doing so is constitutionally protected.

Also, I think LnGrrrR's point about brandishing firearms at public events raises important questions about one person's "free speech" possibly encroaching on the First Amendment rights of others.


Beyond that, I dont care where people carry. One could also assume that an elected official's presence makes it unlawful to carry on the premise. I did forget to mention that exception as well.

...

(obviously, no-no on the courthouse too)

"Assume" was too weak of a word, in retrospect. Forget assume, call it law. Public officials present, no carrying firearms.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol at conservatives taking a page out of the Black Panthers' book.

[rjv]

:lol at conservatives taking a page out of the Black Panthers' book.

:lmao

[SonOfAGun]

:lol at conservatives taking a page out of the Black Panthers' book.

lol, good point chump :toast

[ChumpDumper]

And all that led to was more gun control laws. Expect to see a bunch of states and localities passing them soon.

[101A]

:lol at conservatives taking a page out of the Black Panthers' book.

...and you know he (they) were conservative because?

[101A]

I mean if I were Rahm Emmanuelle, what is one of the MOST crazy things (at lest perceived that way) a conservative could do to help me sell ALL protesters at Town Hall meeting as "Extremists"?

Just saying.

[ChumpDumper]

...and you know he (they) were conservative because?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/12/article-0-0607E57D000005DC-122_468x831.jpg

Perhaps you could tell me what it is about this man that makes you think he is a liberal -- aside from your conspiracy theory, of course.

[clambake]

tough guy.

what a dork.

[rjv]

I mean if I were Rahm Emmanuelle, what is one of the MOST crazy things (at lest perceived that way) a conservative could do to help me sell ALL protesters at Town Hall meeting as "Extremists"?

Just saying.

i'd get someone to say things like this for starters.

[ChumpDumper]

It's all fine though. It's just a matter of time before some Obama supporter shows up packing too, then they can shoot each other real good and settle their differences American-style.

[101A]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/12/article-0-0607E57D000005DC-122_468x831.jpg

Perhaps you could tell me what it is about this man that makes you think he is a liberal -- aside from your conspiracy theory, of course.

He's neither clean shaven, nor is his shirt tucked in.

-Nancy Pelosi

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't ask Nancy Pelosi, I asked you.

What makes you think he's a liberal?

I think his actions and his words in interviews make him a conservative.

[SonOfAGun]

Being around guns a lot, I don't even think anything special of seeing someone carrying one.

In a state where open carry is the norm, it's not a big deal. The only ones that freak out are people uneducated on firearms. People see guns and think of the hidden gas station camera catching a shooting or gangsters on television/movies. Most people who own firearms are some of the more responsible people in this country.

I thought it was comical for Chris Matthews to try and make the connection of armed citizen present = assassination attempt.

At the same time, Chump is right. It will only lead to escalation. During these events, there are plenty of law enforcement officers available.

[ChumpDumper]

Being around guns a lot, I don't even think anything special of seeing someone carrying one.

In a state where open carry is the norm, it's not a big deal. The only ones that freak out are people uneducated on firearms. People see guns and think of the hidden gas station camera catching a shooting or gangsters on television/movies. Most people who own firearms are some of the more responsible people in this country.

I thought it was comical for Chris Matthews to try and make the connection of armed citizen present = assassination attempt.It raises my eyebrow a bit when he's carrying a sign that intimates the spilling of blood over political issues.

[angrydude]

The guy in the pic is clearly trying to be clever. He succeeded.

[clambake]

so thats what constitutes clever.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm ok with open carry; however, I think there is a slight difference between open carrying a pistol, and open carrying an automatic rifle. There is certainly an unspoken 'threat' in open carrying large weapons, even if the person has no intention of causing damage, simply because of the inherent theat of the weapon.

I agree that there should probably be some venues where open carry is forbidden, as well, there should probably be some weapons that are limited to the home. Otherwise you have people with RPGs strapped to their backs while at parent/teacher conferences. :)

DR, are you saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to carry guns to school, or that adults shouldn't bring guns onto school grounds? Because frankly, if it's the latter, I don't think that children are any stupider than the average adults when it comes to having guns. Maybe you think so because they can't be held legally responsible for their actions? After all, I'd like to think that adults open carrying would be sensible enough to be wary around little ones.

[CuckingFunt]

Without even getting into the legality of their action, I find it silly that someone can openly carry a gun to a political rally with no problem, but my fingernail clipper is confiscated if I try to board a plane.

Additionally, I'm very curious to see how differently the right would react to someone carrying a gun to a town hall meeting if he was brown and/or named Ahmed.

[DarkReign]

DR, are you saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to carry guns to school, or that adults shouldn't bring guns onto school grounds? Because frankly, if it's the latter, I don't think that children are any stupider than the average adults when it comes to having guns. Maybe you think so because they can't be held legally responsible for their actions? After all, I'd like to think that adults open carrying would be sensible enough to be wary around little ones.

Neither. No guns on school premises.

As it stands, and without research, I *think* a citizen with a CCW cannot carry on school grounds, church, banks or courtrooms.

I am not opposed to any of those restrictions. Nor would I be opposed to a ban on carry pieces where public officials are appearing.

[ChumpDumper]

Why not churches?

[DarkReign]

To be clear, my only issue with current gun laws are the assault weapon ban on automatic weapons.

First, its lame and ineffective. Google "ar15 full auto conversion" and for around $30 and an hour's work, you have yourself a legally purchased but modified, fully automatic assault rifle.

Second, in my paranoid mind that says my government is my enemy, it speaks to the government not wanting its citizens armed to the teeth while passing it off under the Columbine pretext of mayhem.

The killing power and efficency of an assault rifle is leagues above that of a handgun and said individual needs no training to be ruthlessly deadly (see every third world country the globe over).

But for the sociopath with a grudge and time to plan, he is no untrained stooge. He is a weapon, a mildly trained weapon, but a weapon nonetheless. A few weekends at target practice is all it takes.

Much like terrorism, you cannot stop this. You cant deter it, you cant regulate it out of people's minds. If someone wants to kill someone, with a gun or not, they will, period. The question is, if youre the (random) target, do you retaliate or become the subject of grieving? Do you fight back or do you duck and cower and pray to an unlistening God?

I have never been even remotely in a situation where I needed a gun and I will probably live a full, media-driven, cancer-stricken-to-death life where I never will. But I dont live life on probables, I am a boy scout afterall. Be prepared, son.

[DarkReign]

Why not churches?

Only because I dont oppose the ban, not because I condone it. Its like abortion...to me, its a non-issue of no national importance. Sure, I have an opinion, but the entire scenario is meaningless to me.

If it were me writing the law, churches would not be an exception. As it is, they are, and I dont have a problem with it.

[DarrinS]

Additionally, I'm very curious to see how differently the right would react to someone carrying a gun to a town hall meeting if he was brown and/or named Ahmed.



You mean, like this man in Arizona?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html

[LnGrrrR]

Neither. No guns on school premises.

As it stands, and without research, I *think* a citizen with a CCW cannot carry on school grounds, church, banks or courtrooms.

I am not opposed to any of those restrictions. Nor would I be opposed to a ban on carry pieces where public officials are appearing.

I just don't see why you're cool with guns around people, but not children. :)

As far as the church goes, aren't those privately owned? The owner could choose whether to allow guns or not.

For banks and courtrooms, as well as areas with public officials, why the ban? If the point of open carry is to protect oneself, then why the difference in these areas? Are they considered 'protected'? Or is the threat of possible action enough to outweigh the ability to protect oneself?

(Note: I know I'm getting specifics, but the specifics are where the friction is)

Edit: Nvm on churches... saw it above.

[Wild Cobra]

How does the board weigh in on this?
Well, I like weapons. I've been handling firearms for more than 30 years.


Do they side with the gun-owner who has a right to carry?
Absolutely. Only private property owners have the right to say "not on my property."


Or should there be limits put on openly carrying certain kinds of weapons?
No, except for felons who used a weapon to commit a crime.


At a certain point, does the brandishing of firearms implicitly prohibit freedom of assembly, or freedom of speech?
Only if you are brainwashed to believe such.


And for those who are in favor of it, should there be a line that isn't crossed, and if so, where?
Like what? To cross that line would be to use that weapon illegally. Please explain where that thought comes from.

You shouldn't bring a freaken gun to a town meeting. I'm all for keeping a gun in the house,perhaps the car but when you start bringing it to carnivales,grocery stores,bowling alleys,town meetings,etc.... You are a asshole and some can argue you might be looking for trouble.
Shouln't is your opinion. Myself, I wouldn't. However, that is you and me. I have no problems with people doing as they please, until it harms others.

I'm ok with open carry; however, I think there is a slight difference between open carrying a pistol, and open carrying an automatic rifle. There is certainly an unspoken 'threat' in open carrying large weapons, even if the person has no intention of causing damage, simply because of the inherent theat of the weapon.
Well, without a special license, automatic weapons are illegal to buy and carry.


I agree that there should probably be some venues where open carry is forbidden, as well, there should probably be some weapons that are limited to the home. Otherwise you have people with RPGs strapped to their backs while at parent/teacher conferences. :)
REPG is going a bit overboard. Hype much? Some forums, yes. However, in the normal day to day public environment, I am glad to see responsible people armed.


DR, are you saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to carry guns to school, or that adults shouldn't bring guns onto school grounds? Because frankly, if it's the latter, I don't think that children are any stupider than the average adults when it comes to having guns. Maybe you think so because they can't be held legally responsible for their actions? After all, I'd like to think that adults open carrying would be sensible enough to be wary around little ones.
I think it's claer he meant adults. For some years now, we have had this controversy in Oregon. Colleges are trying to ban weapons by people with conceal and carry permits. Those with permits are winning because of our constitution. The liberals in Oregon don't always get their way here.

Without even getting into the legality of their action, I find it silly that someone can openly carry a gun to a political rally with no problem, but my fingernail clipper is confiscated if I try to board a plane.

Well, you cannot board a plane with a firearm either. Different argument.

Additionally, I'm very curious to see how differently the right would react to someone carrying a gun to a town hall meeting if he was brown and/or named Ahmed.
I have no problem with that. Why? You assume we are a racist as you? Otherwise, how do you come across that belief?

Neither. No guns on school premises.
You can only enforce that in a private school. Public schools have the 2nd amendment to deal with.

As it stands, and without research, I *think* a citizen with a CCW cannot carry on school grounds, church, banks or courtrooms.
Not true in the case of schools. Private property owners like banks can say no to guns, but not public entities.

I am not opposed to any of those restrictions. Nor would I be opposed to a ban on carry pieces where public officials are appearing.You don't make sense.

[ChumpDumper]

You can only enforce that in a private school. Public schools have the 2nd amendment to deal with.

Not true in the case of schools. Private property owners like banks can say no to guns, but not public entities.There are plenty of restrictions the carrying of guns, concealed or not, on public school property all over the country. You need to refer to actual laws and not your warped reading of the constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

I just don't see why you're cool with guns around people, but not children. :)
I can respect his opinion on the matter, and I do agree a little. Not sure if for the same reason. If they are not our children, then we don't have the right to impress kids with what their parents may disagree with. An openly carries weapon will make kids curious. My personal opinion of weapons in k-12 schools is "don't ask, don't tell." Don't be a target by letting a would be criminal know you have it, and keep the questions away from inquiring minds who may have parents that disagree.


As far as the church goes, aren't those privately owned? The owner could choose whether to allow guns or not.
Yes, a church has the right to allow or disallow weapons.


For banks and courtrooms, as well as areas with public officials, why the ban? If the point of open carry is to protect oneself, then why the difference in these areas? Are they considered 'protected'? Or is the threat of possible action enough to outweigh the ability to protect oneself?
Courtrooms are special cases. Because proceeding occur dealing with real cri8minals of various degrees, that is the one of the few places the courts agree with limiting firearms of public property.

[Wild Cobra]

There are plenty of restrictions the carrying of guns, concealed or not, on public school property all over the country. You need to refer to actual laws and not your warped reading of the constitution.Those are being overturned in the courts as cases are being heard. A few years ago, a teacher was fired in Oregon for carrying a concealed weapon. Since then, the courts are overturning such illegal laws.

[rjv]

i say if you are capable of building your own army, go for it.

[jack sommerset]

I have no problems with people doing as they please, until it harms others.

What do you mean?

If someone kills a politician at a town hall meeting with a gun would you have a problem with everyone carrying guns to these events? Or are you saying you would only have a problem with the person who did the killing?

[Wild Cobra]

What do you mean?

If someone kills a politician at a town hall meeting with a gun would you have a problem with everyone carrying guns to these events?
No. If laws were written against the public for what one person might do, then we may as well all be executed.

Or are you saying you would only have a problem with the person who did the killing?
Yes. That person would stand trial and face the possibility of the death penalty.

[jack sommerset]

No. If laws were written against the public for what one person might do, then we may as well all be executed..

I'm glad you can't carry guns on airplanes.

[Wild Cobra]

Those are being overturned in the courts as cases are being heard. A few years ago, a teacher was fired in Oregon for carrying a concealed weapon. Since then, the courts are overturning such illegal laws.
I was a little wrong on this. I just researched the material. The teacher was fired for violating work rules, and the firing was upheld for that reason. However, the ruling clearly stated that her employer had already banned such actions for employees. They cannot for non-employees on public school grounds.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm glad you can't carry guns on airplanes.That was always a legitimate safety issue. Look at what is possible if one accidentally discharges at high altitude!

[xrayzebra]

How about weapons or intimidation at polling places? Obviously our justice department
thinks it is alright.

[LnGrrrR]

Like what? To cross that line would be to use that weapon illegally. Please explain where that thought comes from.

For instance... what about miniguns? Rocket propelled grenade launchers? How about unconventional weapons, such as swords, nunchucks, or bow and arrows? How about sticks of dynamite? All of these acceptable?

As you said, you think RPG's are overboard. Well, some people think that assault rifles are overboard. What makes your opinion more valid than theirs? Where do you draw the line, and what is your justification for such?

I mean, personally, if you can buy a tank and drive it around on your property, I don't care. I can see some limitations on size/lethality of weaponry in public areas that might be reasonable though.

[LnGrrrR]

How about weapons or intimidation at polling places? Obviously our justice department
thinks it is alright.

An interesting point: Are weapons only prohibited from polling places because of their 'intimidation' factor?

[Wild Cobra]

How about weapons or intimidation at polling places? Obviously our justice department
thinks it is alright.
Well, law abiding people realize that intimidation is not allowed at polling places, even without a weapon!

[CuckingFunt]

Well, you cannot board a plane with a firearm either. Different argument.

It wasn't an argument at all. Merely an observation.


I have no problem with that. Why? You assume we are a racist as you? Otherwise, how do you come across that belief?

Considering the Obama Waffle Mix, Curious George t-shirts, and outrage over Hussein that we all saw during the campaign, I feel very comfortable with the assumption that the radical right's hatred of Obama is at least somewhat racially motivated.

Additionally, I'm consistently amused by the suggestion that the left is racist or prejudiced because we acknowledge that there are racial and cultural differences in this country and that those differences have a very real impact on all of our lives. "Color blindness" is not the answer to racism, as it serves only to take centuries of history and injustices and sweep them under the rug.

[ChumpDumper]

Those are being overturned in the courts as cases are being heard. A few years ago, a teacher was fired in Oregon for carrying a concealed weapon. Since then, the courts are overturning such illegal laws.Show me the laws that have been overturned.

[rjv]

alas, the social contract has as many interpretations as the bill of rights.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering the Obama Waffle Mix, Curious George t-shirts, and outrage over Hussein that we all saw during the campaign, I feel very comfortable with the assumption that the radical right's hatred of Obama is at least somewhat racially motivated.
I disagree, and if so, because he's Black. Not Muslim.

You have to remember it's only a small number of Muslims who have extreme beliefs, and even fewer who will act out on those beliefs.

It's not the overt acts that bother me, but on line with a statement made by William Cabot in The Sum of All Fears. He said something like "I'm not worried about those with hundreds of nukes. I'm worried about the person who has just one."

[jack sommerset]

That was always a legitimate safety issue. Look at what is possible if one accidentally discharges at high altitude!

High Altitudes:lol Thats the nightmare effect. Believe me if a gun accidentally discharged in a town meeting I would not be happy either.

[clambake]

It's not the overt acts that bother me, but on line with a statement made by William Cabot in The Sum of All Fears. He said something like "I'm not worried about those with hundreds of nukes. I'm worried about the person who has just one."

then you would have more than one, wouldn't you?

[CuckingFunt]

I disagree, and if so, because he's Black. Not Muslim.

You have to remember it's only a small number of Muslims who have extreme beliefs, and even fewer who will act out on those beliefs.

It's not the overt acts that bother me, but on line with a statement made by William Cabot in The Sum of All Fears. He said something like "I'm not worried about those with hundreds of nukes. I'm worried about the person who has just one."

Wait... what? I genuinely have no clue what point(s) you're attempting to make here.

[Wild Cobra]

then you would have more than one, wouldn't you?
That meaning flew right over you cuckoo's nest, didn't it?

Have you seen that movie? If not, it's worth seeing. The Sum of All Fears (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164184/)

Why do you fear people who arm themselves in the open? Even concealed? In the case of weapons, how many times must it be said. If someone wants to do illegal actions, it doesn't matter what the law is. the example I gave was the known enemy during the cold war. We both had nukes and we knew each other did. It was someone who obtained one that we didn't know about that almost caused WWIII.

[clambake]

Wait... what? I genuinely have no clue what point(s) you're attempting to make here.

he thinks the only racism that still exist in the states is reverse discrimination.

and he doesn't seem to understand where nukes come from.

[clambake]

That meaning flew right over you cuckoo's nest, didn't it?

Have you seen that movie? If not, it's worth seeing. [URL=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164184/]The Sum of All Fears]

Why do you fear people who arm themselves in the open? Even concealed? In the case of weapons, how many times must it be said. If someone wants to do illegal actions, it doesn't matter what the law is. the example I gave was the known enemy during the cold war. We both had nukes and we knew each other did. It was someone who obtained one that we didn't know about that almost caused WWIII.

how long before you worry about the reality of "district 9"?

[Wild Cobra]

how long before you worry about the reality of "district 9"?
The new Sy Fy show?

LOL... You keep getting sillier...

[LnGrrrR]

Well, law abiding people realize that intimidation is not allowed at polling places, even without a weapon!

No, no. What I mean is, is the mere presence of an openly-carried weapon near a polling place a form of intimidation in and of itself?

[Wild Cobra]

No, no. What I mean is, is the mere presence of an openly-carried weapon near a polling place a form of intimidation in and of itself?
Bullshit. That's your own misguided fear.

[LnGrrrR]

Bullshit. That's your own misguided fear.

Then why are weapons prohibited from polling places?

Edit: Also, the question you responded to wasn't rhetorical.

[DarrinS]

You mean, like this man in Arizona?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html



This man is an Obama supporter. Is it ok for him to carry?

Anyone want to make a bet that Chris Matthews won't interview him?

[Wild Cobra]

Then why are weapons prohibited from polling places?

Edit: Also, the question you responded to wasn't rhetorical.
I don't have that answer, but they shouldn't be.

[DarkReign]

You could remove the word "churches" and subsitute it with any of the exceptions I listed and the point would still stand. Its just not that contentious of an issue for me.

My problem is, the scope of places one can carry and where one cannot is only due to expand.

Before long, you'll only be allowed to own a gun and keep it in your home with strict transport restrictions.

Thats why, to address your original post, I even weighed in on it. It isnt so much the restrictions currently in place, so much as where anti-gun people are willing to take it if some tragedy were to transpire in a place where there was no such restriction.

Ultimately, I dont give two shits. Like I said, I am resigned to the neo-liberal philosophy that thinks government can solve problems and that the Bill of Rights is subject to re-interpretation based on current society's pussification into vegan, tree-hugging, government shills who eat, sleep and shit to the schedule passed down from their chosen moral authority.

Which wouldnt be so damn bad if they didnt think everyone should abide the same task masters they do. To them, its for the common good or some socio-progressive thinking.

I say fuck the common good. Life, since the beginning of time immemorial, is a survival of the fittest. Small clusters of space mass are absorbed by larger space masses. Stars are born out of the chaos, heat and gravity of trillions of tons of little particles which explode in a nuclear reaction eclipsed only by the death of a star. In that explosion, massive chunks are thrown out into the new star's distant orbit and beyond, only to start the process anew of the strong vs weak. They conglomerate far out of reach of the new star into planets which go through a terrible, cataclysmic life cycle of unseen volcanic activity, deadly noxious gases, explosions, impacts from other masses to form what we know to be planets and satellites in present day.

How life started, I'll leave out. I believe it starts from extremophiles from extra terrestrial sources (comets, meteors, etc).

From day one in our protein-packed existence, our dominance requires subjugated animals to be eaten. The rise of the very term civilization and the romantic reverance with which it is referred is irony defined. Civilization was borne out of the bloodshed and conquer of others. Might made and will continue to make right.

American dominance can be directly attributed to our participation in WW2. No WW2, no American hegemony. Our dominance required an enemy, death and destruction. Now that we have no one to fight and conquer, as we are the preeminent power in the world, we have become stagnant and lazy. We turn inward and hearken to the glory days of yore that never really existed in the fashion and context we like to think they were.

We strive for world peace, green energy, a clean environment, social equality, economic non-advantage and other trivial messes of differing import in the name of being a more enlightened society by only our own dimensia and a collective willing suspension of disbelief.

We portray this self-annointed divinity only through talk and legislation on grand scales in an effort to deny who we are, what we are and how we got here. A majority of this country sees itself as a social experiment in human advancement, when in reality, we are far from any lofty goal our predecessors may have had.

Yet we still sing our own praises, wax poetic about our accomplishments (even if we had nothing to do with them at all) and generally make a mockery of constructive self-criticism. Our national identity is a fucking lie, plain and simple. Sure, we're better than most, but a rapist is above a murderer in the laws eyes, too.

To be honest, I abhore humanity and our constructs. But I, unlike 3/4 of the Western world's population and 100% of our governments, subscribe to no mass delusions of grandeur. That our purpose is greater than ourselves or that we have the means to eradicate the ill's of our society and the world at large. I know it is a fool's errand left to fools.

So, when it comes to the safety and security of the aforementioned 3/4 of the population at the expense of personal responsibility and liberty of nearly everyone I know, I say fuck the common good. The human condition is one that does not lend itself well to the greater good. You can only step this process in degrees, little by little.

One century is not little by little, its fast-forward x1000. 100 years ago...shit, I am not going to list anything, think for yourselves. Think of our position in the world stage, what we had and what we do not have now, how we walk, talk and self-imagine. Of the natural and normal distrust of government has been washed away with loyalists and nationalists whom both see the world through a prism of "My way or the highway".

That used to be what seperated the US from everyone else. Now, moral legislation, constitutional amendments on behalf of the fucking sanctity of marriage even being discussed with seriousness (?!?!!), healthcare as a constitutional right, gun-fearing pacifists, conscientious objectors to everything that invloves violence (McCain calling MMA "human cock-fighting"), fewer and fewer hunters, non-smoking healthnuts who want laws passed to prevent it at the expense of the personal choices of a private property owner, all while choking down processed meat that was injected full of steroids and antibiotics to prevent disease and stimulate advanced growth, which in turn creates a more robust human who diets almost exclusively on it (my theory, anyway), a government more concerned with its consolidation of power over everything and everyone than they are with the People they represent (nothing new here, really) only these days half the country agrees while the other half only means to argue the details of the collective capitulation and if "their guy" is the one who gets to do the controlling.

An entire society and way of thinking that expects to deny its place in nature, make better what can never be and at the expense of anyone who disagrees.

No...I'd like to be able to carry a gun, thanks. Youre raping me as is, allow me this small privilege that used to be a right and I'll pay for everyone's fucking healthcare? Deal, right?

Oh, not enough? You want more! Ohhhhh! Boy, I never seen that coming :rolleyes.

[LnGrrrR]

DR, ever see the episode of South Park with the founders of America? You should give it a watch.

And really, do you think society was composed of better people in the 1800s? 1700s? The world's ALWAYS been messed up. No reason to hate it, or the people in it. I just accept it as it is, flawed.

[DarkReign]

alas, the social contract has as many interpretations as the bill of rights.

Well said.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't have that answer, but they shouldn't be.

So what do you think should constitute "intimidation" at polling places? Verbal threats of violence only?

[DarkReign]

DR, ever see the episode of South Park with the founders of America? You should give it a watch.

And really, do you think society was composed of better people in the 1800s? 1700s? The world's ALWAYS been messed up. No reason to hate it, or the people in it. I just accept it as it is, flawed.

Far better people. FAR better people.

Better educated in every subject, all of them that were in existence at the time, anyway.
Better equipped in every aspect of "living". Ask yourself this, what is needed to live and reproduce? Take away the electricity from every American for 2 years and I guarantee when the lights turn on, we'll be far better off.

18th and 19th century humans wouldnt know the difference. 20th and 21st century Americans would die by the millions.

What we have in America today is an entire society of dependant fuckheads who think theyre better than what they are. Like its their birth-right to be have everything that they have. When they take stock of their situation and truly come away thinking that healthcare/welfare/medicaid/bankruptcy is a fucking right.

To me, these are the most dangerous people. Because their in the worst kind of denial...they have a support group of millions who think the same way.

Worst part of it is, and this truly proves there is no God btw, they'll never be there for the fall. I wish they were, I really do.

Its one of the reasons I wish oil would just run out already. Americans need a serious fucking reality check. Myself included.

[Wild Cobra]

So what do you think should constitute "intimidation" at polling places? Verbal threats of violence only?
Any intentionally directed action that purposely intimidates. Just carrying a weapon is not that. Someone elses unprovoked fear is their issue. It shouldn't impede others rights, and it selfish to deny others their rights because of fear.

[LnGrrrR]

Far better people. FAR better people.

Better educated in every subject, all of them that were in existence at the time, anyway.
Better equipped in every aspect of "living". Ask yourself this, what is needed to live and reproduce? Take away the electricity from every American for 2 years and I guarantee when the lights turn on, we'll be far better off.

18th and 19th century humans wouldnt know the difference. 20th and 21st century Americans would die by the millions.

What we have in America today is an entire society of dependant fuckheads who think theyre better than what they are.

Its one of the reasons I wish oil would just run out already. Americans need a serious fucking reality check. Myself included.

Why would you think that it takes more intelligence to survive without electronics?

Let's put it this way... as society builds, it specializes. That's just what happens. Eventually, you get to a point where the society NO LONGER NEEDS to know things from its past, because they have advanced significantly past it. (For instance, look at blacksmiths.) That's just a function of society.

Better educated? Honestly? We know more about the world than any other civilization. We are not SMARTER, per se, but better educated? Yes.

Heck, just look at literacy rates. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#illiteracy


However, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, illiteracy was very common. In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate. By 1900 the situation had improved somewhat, but still 44 percent of blacks remained illiterate.

What about education in other areas, such as morality? Are we more or less moral than the 19th century?

Sure, the average family could live off the land better, but they couldn't make use of the land nearly half as well as we do now. We bio-engineer food for better characteristics, we draw energy from the elements, and we can perform millions of tasks quicker and more efficiently.

It's not looking down on people who choose to go hunting, or living off the land. But I can haul a lot more with a tractor, and I can build alot faster with a crane.

[LnGrrrR]

Any intentionally directed action that purposely intimidates. Just carrying a weapon is not that. Someone elses unprovoked fear is their issue. It shouldn't impede others rights, and it selfish to deny others their rights because of fear.

So generally, "intimidation at polling places" should be no different than "intimidation everywhere" if I'm reading your right.

[sabar]

DR is right, people have gotten dumber as technology progresses. While there will always be a few gifted individuals that bring these new things into existence; the fact is that their innovations make life easier. Medicine, electricity, flight, and industry in general have dumbed down life and brought affluence to many people. Technology has progressed to a point where a cart full of coal can power circuitry to drive a virtual reality in the form of the internet, computer games, and the mass media in general. It is easy to go through life with basic skills and no education while being able to pay your basic cable TV package and waste away for 8 hours a day sitting on a chair.

200 years ago this was hardly the case. There was a lot of time during the day with nothing to do. People aspired to read and learn about current events, even if they didn't go to an expensive school. The works of people like Hobbes, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine were read by many people and embraced. People today embrace nothing intellectually as long as they get their daily tabloid, watch reality TV, and find out what film their favorite actor is going to be in.

There will be a wake-up call one day when we run out of cheap electricity and can't afford expensive nuclear and renewable energy in huge quantities.

The same mass media has brainwashed people into thinking firearms are dangerous. The ultimate sign of this is how we entrust millions of regular people to carry and use firearms of far greater killing power as long as they serve the government. The military and the police are comprised of THOUSANDS of poor and uneducated people from dubious backgrounds, yet notice that they don't regularly go on killing sprees with their fully automatic weapons and explosives.

All we have done is arm the government and disarm ourselves, even though both are composed of the same people from the same background.

[Wild Cobra]

So generally, "intimidation at polling places" should be no different than "intimidation everywhere" if I'm reading your right.

Yes. Thing is, it is taken more serious when intimidation can keep people from voting. Just the presence of a weapon is not intimidation. Other factors must apply, like how the people carry themselves or what they say.

[LnGrrrR]

DR is right, people have gotten dumber as technology progresses. While there will always be a few gifted individuals that bring these new things into existence; the fact is that their innovations make life easier. Medicine, electricity, flight, and industry in general have dumbed down life and brought affluence to many people. Technology has progressed to a point where a cart full of coal can power circuitry to drive a virtual reality in the form of the internet, computer games, and the mass media in general. It is easy to go through life with basic skills and no education while being able to pay your basic cable TV package and waste away for 8 hours a day sitting on a chair.

200 years ago this was hardly the case. There was a lot of time during the day with nothing to do. People aspired to read and learn about current events, even if they didn't go to an expensive school. The works of people like Hobbes, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine were read by many people and embraced. People today embrace nothing intellectually as long as they get their daily tabloid, watch reality TV, and find out what film their favorite actor is going to be in.

There will be a wake-up call one day when we run out of cheap electricity and can't afford expensive nuclear and renewable energy in huge quantities.

The same mass media has brainwashed people into thinking firearms are dangerous. The ultimate sign of this is how we entrust millions of regular people to carry and use firearms of far greater killing power as long as they serve the government. The military and the police are comprised of THOUSANDS of poor and uneducated people from dubious backgrounds, yet notice that they don't regularly go on killing sprees with their fully automatic weapons and explosives.

All we have done is arm the government and disarm ourselves, even though both are composed of the same people from the same background.

This whole post is nothing more than navel-gazing at "better times". People were not 'better' by any shape, way or form in the past. It's a fallacy. In fact, it's usually called the Golden Age Fallacy, or the Good Old Days Fallacy. A more broad fallacy that this would fall under also would be the Appeal to Tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

In the past, people didn't 'pine away' to learn about things anymore than they do today. Do we have more TIME for leisure? Sure... but that's what progress is. Some people use it to waste time, others use it on skills... whatever they choose.

Do you think that governments in the past would have been fine with cannons among the general populace? Highly doubtful. And America is one of the most populously armed countries in the world anyways.

[DarkReign]

Heck, just look at literacy rates. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#illiteracy

Read letters from the soldiers (mostly officers) who served in the Revolutionary War and beyond.

Then read letters from WW2 and Korea.

Fast forward...

Read letters from Iraq.

Illiteracy in those was mostly a function of where one lived. Rural areas, where at least half the population lived at the time, didnt have a need to be literate in any way shape or form.

Yet only 20 percent of the adult population were illiterate.

The population of the cities in those times were FAR more educated than the equivalent today.


What about education in other areas, such as morality? Are we more or less moral than the 19th century?

You mean social equality and the like? Sure, thats leagues better. I can admit that.


It's not looking down on people who choose to go hunting, or living off the land. But I can haul a lot more with a tractor, and I can build alot faster with a crane.

It is for me because our advancement breeds complacence and dependence. Sure, things are far more efficent because we stand on the shoulders of ingenius Giants of the past and our time.

But the social structure of our society has changed for the worse, IMO. I am not in the business of supporting those who do not wish to support themselves, or funding their own negligence and lack of foresight.

I am sure there were quite a few Romans who argued exactly as you are now. The good times can never end and we're always better than those before us.

[Extra Stout]

200 years ago this was hardly the case. There was a lot of time during the day with nothing to do.
:rolleyes


This whole post is nothing more than navel-gazing at "better times". People were not 'better' by any shape, way or form in the past.
History is replete with accounts of great, dynamic empires which fell into moral decline, economic stagnation, and eventual downfall.

The fallacy might be the thought that people are worse now than they ever have been, which is silly nonsense.

[DarkReign]

Meh, upon retrospect, people of old were no better or worse than they are today. I guess thats what would be called "navel-gazing" and I am guilty.

But society's predilection to Save Everyone has certainly gotten worse. In the past, the weak died. Currently, they survive and thrive yet continue to be weak and unproductive.

I dont like it, I dont like being taxed and told how we're going to support millions of fucking dirtbags. Get. A. Job.

I have a friend. Productive citizen right up until her job cut her position. That was 8 months ago. She actively seeks employment, but only for jobs that will pay her the same as her previous one (good fucking luck). In the meantime she's become a lazy, dope-smoking Obama slappy. "Oh, Im going to work for Obama's local orgnizers" today, only to say "I'm going to be a lawyer!" tomorrow, only to have another change of heart "Im going to be a nurse!"

What she, and I would think MANY others in the same position, fails to realize is "youve gotta do what you gotta do". Push fucking grocery carts at Kroger/HEB. Take a clerk position at a gas station, be a short order cook, do something...ANYTHING. Get two Joe-jobs, you lazy, self-entitled loser.

Thats the American attitude I speak of and the attitude that I dont think existed in previous centuries. People like her would have magically disappeared in the past, where now dont be surprised when she's doing better financially, has more free time and fun than a person who did take two Joe-jobs trying to make ends meet.

She will be rewarded by our society for being a complete fucking drain on it. Until that entire mindset changes, we're fucked.

[LnGrrrR]

But society's predilection to Save Everyone has certainly gotten worse. In the past, the weak died. Currently, they survive and thrive yet continue to be weak and unproductive.

It's to be expected in a large society, I think. As Nietzche once said, and I'm paraphrasing, but the greater a society, the more leeches it can handle.


I dont like it, I dont like being taxed and told how we're going to support millions of fucking dirtbags. Get. A. Job.

You don't have to support it. People are going to be out for their own, and if people can get a free ride out of you, they will. It's competition.


Thats the American attitude I speak of and the attitude that I dont think existed in previous centuries. People like her would have magically disappeared in the past, where now dont be surprised when she's doing better financially, has more free time and fun than a person who did take two Joe-jobs trying to make ends meet.

Eh, I don't think this is necessarily true. It might be true that we have more of an ability to support these people, and maybe we DO support them too much. But freeloaders have existed for a LONG time... it's just that the nature of the freeloading has changed.


She will be rewarded by our society for being a complete fucking drain on it. Until that entire mindset changes, we're fucked.

Hey, that's why we share our views with friends and family and others. Try to change the world.

[rjv]

Meh, upon retrospect, people of old were no better or worse than they are today. I guess thats what would be called "navel-gazing" and I am guilty.

But society's predilection to Save Everyone has certainly gotten worse. In the past, the weak died. Currently, they survive and thrive yet continue to be weak and unproductive.

I dont like it, I dont like being taxed and told how we're going to support millions of fucking dirtbags. Get. A. Job.

I have a friend. Productive citizen right up until her job cut her position. That was 8 months ago. She actively seeks employment, but only for jobs that will pay her the same as her previous one (good fucking luck). In the meantime she's become a lazy, dope-smoking Obama slappy. "Oh, Im going to work for Obama's local orgnizers" today, only to say "I'm going to be a lawyer!" tomorrow, only to have another change of heart "Im going to be a nurse!"

What she, and I would think MANY others in the same position, fails to realize is "youve gotta do what you gotta do". Push fucking grocery carts at Kroger/HEB. Take a clerk position at a gas station, be a short order cook, do something...ANYTHING. Get two Joe-jobs, you lazy, self-entitled loser.

Thats the American attitude I speak of and the attitude that I dont think existed in previous centuries. People like her would have magically disappeared in the past, where now dont be surprised when she's doing better financially, has more free time and fun than a person who did take two Joe-jobs trying to make ends meet.

She will be rewarded by our society for being a complete fucking drain on it. Until that entire mindset changes, we're fucked.

i have to agree. just watch HGTV shows such as intervention and house hunters and you will see that americans do not learn their lessons. they continue to live beyond their means. they buy homes they can not afford and then try to sell them back to recover a profit. then, they can not face the reality that the market has screwed them over. also, there were so many americans who sent the market out of control to begin with by overpaying on houses in certain areas.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh and DR, check out this page of letters from the Civil War:

http://spec.lib.vt.edu/cwlove/

Some are written well, others... not so much.

http://spec.lib.vt.edu/cwlove/testerman.html

[LnGrrrR]

i have to agree. just watch HGTV shows such as intervention and house hunters and you will see that americans do not learn their lessons. they continue to live beyond their means. they buy homes they can not afford and then try to sell them back to recover a profit. then, they can not face the reality that the market has screwed them over. also, there were so many americans who sent the market out of control to begin with by overpaying on houses in certain areas.

Yes, but how many of them bought these homes with the assurance that they could easily re-sell, ARMs were better than fixed rates, house values go up, etc etc...

It doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid; they could just be low-information. Heck, people who run the insurance companies and banks were just as 'stupid' in that case.

Now, if people make the same mistake again? Sure, nail them to the wall for stupidity.

[DarrinS]

That's some selective ignorance of history. Quite frankly, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Even if we look at your "Old American days" measure, The whole people used to work for a living back in the old days really doesn't hold up when you look at indentured servants, child labor, prostitution, land grants, mineral grants and slavery. We're quite essentially the same trashy needy European based culture based on sub par individuals and criminals (Georgia was a extradited criminal plantation) who couldn't make it in the mother land.

Heck, Native Americans had more work ethic than the best working days on the white man on this continent. The European based "America" has always been a needy culture in almost every aspect.


Based on this post, a lot of your others make sense to me now.

[DarrinS]

Meh, upon retrospect, people of old were no better or worse than they are today. I guess thats what would be called "navel-gazing" and I am guilty.

But society's predilection to Save Everyone has certainly gotten worse. In the past, the weak died. Currently, they survive and thrive yet continue to be weak and unproductive.

I dont like it, I dont like being taxed and told how we're going to support millions of fucking dirtbags. Get. A. Job.

I have a friend. Productive citizen right up until her job cut her position. That was 8 months ago. She actively seeks employment, but only for jobs that will pay her the same as her previous one (good fucking luck). In the meantime she's become a lazy, dope-smoking Obama slappy. "Oh, Im going to work for Obama's local orgnizers" today, only to say "I'm going to be a lawyer!" tomorrow, only to have another change of heart "Im going to be a nurse!"

What she, and I would think MANY others in the same position, fails to realize is "youve gotta do what you gotta do". Push fucking grocery carts at Kroger/HEB. Take a clerk position at a gas station, be a short order cook, do something...ANYTHING. Get two Joe-jobs, you lazy, self-entitled loser.

Thats the American attitude I speak of and the attitude that I dont think existed in previous centuries. People like her would have magically disappeared in the past, where now dont be surprised when she's doing better financially, has more free time and fun than a person who did take two Joe-jobs trying to make ends meet.

She will be rewarded by our society for being a complete fucking drain on it. Until that entire mindset changes, we're fucked.



I have to admit, I've witnessed a lot of the same attitude you're describing. I friend of mine just moved to SA with her 20-something son. They've been here for six months. She works two jobs and he's yet to find ONE. Like you said, you do what you have to do. Go work at a convenience store. Go work fast food. Go wash dishes. Go work at a grocery store. If I were to lose my job today, there's no job that I would consider beneath me, if that's all that was available. I have other people depending on me. All my friend's "kid" does is watch TV and play video games. He can't even support his own smoking habit. And they share a vehicle! What 20-something y.o. man doesn't have his own ride? There's a lot of laziness in this world and it is pervasive in our younger generation.

[rjv]

Yes, but how many of them bought these homes with the assurance that they could easily re-sell, ARMs were better than fixed rates, house values go up, etc etc...

It doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid; they could just be low-information. Heck, people who run the insurance companies and banks were just as 'stupid' in that case.

Now, if people make the same mistake again? Sure, nail them to the wall for stupidity.

that't the thing.. they are making the same mistakes again when it comes to selling their homes. rather than lowering their asking prices, many couples insist on listing tens of thousands above the market value. they just do not know when to stop the bleeding.

[DarkReign]

That's some selective ignorance of history. Quite frankly, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Even if we look at your "Old American days" measure, The whole people used to work for a living back in the old days really doesn't hold up when you look at indentured servants, child labor, prostitution, land grants, mineral grants and slavery. We're quite essentially the same trashy needy European based culture based on sub par individuals and criminals (Georgia was a extradited criminal plantation) who couldn't make it in the mother land.

Heck, Native Americans had more work ethic than the best working days on the white man on this continent. The European based "America" has always been a needy culture in almost every aspect.

:lmao

Yeah, ok. I wasnt talking about indentured servitude or child labor. I was talking about your average Joe American from the 19th century who subject to the whims of tyrant employers and awful pay.

Yet, they survived and thrived, when compared to their global contemporaries.

They were tough and steeled. Not so much anymore, by way of advancement or otherwise.

I dont wax poetic about the lving conditions and standard operating procedures of business and agriculture of the day, I only detest the modern American's 180 degree turn from self-reliance to state-dependance.

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao

Yeah, ok. I wasnt talking about indentured servitude or child labor. I was talking about your average Joe American from the 19th century who subject to the whims of tyrant employers and awful pay.

Yet, they survived and thrived, when compared to their global contemporaries.

They were tough and steeled. Not so much anymore, by way of advancement or otherwise.

I dont wax poetic about the lving conditions and standard operating procedures of business and agriculture of the day, I only detest the modern American's 180 degree turn from self-reliance to state-dependance.

I think what you're really seeing is the difference between the "Greatest Generation", who HAD to be self-reliant due to the Depression followed by WWII, and the generations that came after, not so much that America was all about self-reliance until this most recent generation.

I mean, being a fan of socialism was much more acceptable in the early 20th century than it is now, for one thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_St ates

[Extra Stout]

If an American in the past were given a land grant to farm, odds are he would actually do the work to raise crops on it, rather than laying around and waiting for someone to give him food.

The difference was that there was nobody to give him food, so if he didn't work, he would die. If there had been a social welfare system back East, there is no telling whether he would have moved to the prarie and worked as hard as he did. His work ethic could have just been a matter of survival rather than upstanding moral character.

But from the Roman Empire, to antebellum times in the South, to today, there has always been an upper class who relied upon the labor of others for their wealth, and lived lives of leisure. From time immemorial, they always justified this by claiming that they somehow were more "noble" or "genteel" or had better breeding or manners or divine right or what have you, and thus deserved their station in life.

But then the modern industrial era came along, and for the first time ever, we had an actual class revolution where the merchant middle classes displaced the landed nobility and took their place at the top. These were who Marx called the "bourgeois," the capitalists, the nouveau riche.

No country was ever more bourgeois in its sensibilities (economic, political, cultural) than the United States of America in its prime.

Yet even though the bourgeois capitalist worked for his money, he still depended upon the labor of those beneath him, the wage laborers.

The whole beef of the Marxist is that he rejects the argument that the capitalist should get the lion's share of the rewards and end up wealthy just because the business plan was his idea and he risked capital to implement it. He believes that the laborers should share equally, or something close to it.

So the type of rhetoric you will hear from the Marxist is rejection of any notion that capitalistic success comes from ingenuity or hard work or any such values that bourgeoisie claim for themselves. No, success comes from the acquisition of power and the exploitation of those without it.

So when you hear criticism of the American economic system and its history as being about the will to power, and the easiest path to glory through the coercive power of State and manipulation of the underclass, understand what you are hearing.


.......


We know from history that Marxism on the level of State has failed, and has simply resulted in authoritarian regimes where political leaders acquired power and wealth and exploited everybody else. However, now we have Neo-Marxists in various flavors. There is the German school, which claims that in a social welfare state the construct of the proletariat no longer makes sense, and reinterprets class warfare in terms of deconstructing all power claims in society that undergird class distinctions. This kind of Neo-Marxism is also called "social critical theory."

There is also a school of Marxism which views class struggle in terms of race. (When blended with Christianity, Black liberation theology flows from this font.) Now there is a naive view of this, in which it is claimed that if only we can get white people out of power, we will achieve social justice, where white = bourgeois, and nonwhite = proletariat. (When I hear white people described as "sub-par individuals," my interpretation gravitates more toward the naive view.) Then there is a view more like the German Neo-Marxist school, which seeks to identify social structures that undergird racial disparity and overturn them. Opposition to reform will often be viewed in terms of a struggle by the privileged race to maintain its privileges. So when you hear opposition to reform expressed in terms of "white power," understand what you are hearing.

I think it is important to comprehend the political thinking behind some of these criticisms of American society and history, rather than chalk it up to reflexive unthinking anti-Americanism. There is indeed a lot of thought behind it. Whether you find that reassuring or terrifying depends on your perspective.

[LnGrrrR]

I think it is important to comprehend the political thinking behind some of these criticisms of American society and history, rather than chalk it up to reflexive unthinking anti-Americanism. There is indeed a lot of thought behind it. Whether you find that reassuring or terrifying depends on your perspective.

Oh, I'm not saying criticism of America is unthinkingly anti-Americanism. I'm just against the idea that the overall character of America was different due to some inherent 'betterness' of the people living in past times. As you said, it's impossible to determine whether that hard-working ideal was due to necessity, their character, or any number of factors that are unable to be isolated from each other.

[hater]

"right to bear arms"

:lol

dumbest right of them all. This right was created when america was fightin the british. centuries ago. can't beleive americans still beleive in this

Dumb ppl should not be allowed to carry guns. And let's be honest we human beings on the average are dumb

IMO republicans should carry swords, would make it more interesting

[Extra Stout]

LMAO, yup. They sure did farm THE FUCK out of it. Ever wonder why the Midwestern plain states have such a low population? Shortcuts for the win. You know, if they actually worked on the land with good hard manual labor, practiced proper crop rotation you might be right. Except for the fact that they didn't.
What difference does it make how shortsighted 19th-century agriculture was? That's like saying every developed country in the world is stupid and lazy because of global warming. Or, maybe you would say that, in which case I say you're bordering on nihilism.



The rest of you post is on European political philosophy. Is that the only system of governance you know? Is that would you call an education? Simplifying it to that especially in America is plain stupid. There are many reason why a substantial population fled here from Europe, fleeing crazy fits all European ideology for one. I have no clue why you would post so much shit here on Marxism and relate it to America.
How utterly obscurantist. Here we are typing in an European language about politics in a country whose government is a product of the European Enlightenment, sculpted by two centuries of Western thought, substantially populated by the European immigrants you mention with their European ideas, and you're claiming that applying European political philosophy to America is "stupid?"

The Eurocentrism of every aspect of our political, economic, and cultural structures is at the heart of systemic racism, right? What's the endgame here? Are we going to change society by reforming the existing structures, in which case we acknowledge their foundations for what they are, or are we going to destroy all those structures?

[LnGrrrR]

The Eurocentrism of every aspect of our political, economic, and cultural structures is at the heart of systemic racism, right? What's the endgame here? Are we going to change society by reforming the existing structures, in which case we acknowledge their foundations for what they are, or are we going to destroy all those structures?

I'm not sure if your "Eurocentrism is the heart of systemic racism" quote is you responding to that idea or what you actually think. I'm assuming the former.

Reformation is merely an ordered form of destruction.

[Extra Stout]

I'm not sure if your "Eurocentrism is the heart of systemic racism" quote is you responding to that idea or what you actually think. I'm assuming the former.
That's what I really think. It makes sense.

As a white person in Texas, I was brought up in such a way that the prevailing social, cultural, and economic structures in Texas make sense to me. I don't even have to think about them. When I get up and go to work every day, I don't have to worry about adapting to my surroundings, because my surroundings cater to my assumptions.

If I am spending time immersed in another subculture, on the other hand, there is a certain amount of unfamiliarity. When interacting with those around me, I am at a certain disadvantage. There are cultural assumptions I don't know about. There is nonverbal communication I don't pick up on. There are subtle ways of doing things that seem strange to me. I don't get the benefit of the doubt. The capacity for misunderstanding is increased. I must try to adapt.

In those situations, I depend upon the hospitality of the person bringing me into that community to build the bridge of understanding. There is at least the acknowledgement in extending the hand that I am an outsider at a disadvantage.

The same thing works on the level of society. When groups have been excluded for most of the history of the country, they are by definition outsiders. The dominant social, political, and cultural institutions were built without their participation or their influence. It is a little like being a foreigner in your own country. Simply nullifying the policy of exclusion doesn't change that.

Where my views would differ with a leftist is that I believe I must extend people a hand personally through relationships. I don't believe we can build a community top-down through the state. The frustration is that a lot of people have no interest whatsoever in extending that hand, or if they do, they do it from a perch of presumed superiority rather than regarding the other person as a neighbor.


Reformation is merely an ordered form of destruction.I think order and destruction are mutually exclusive.

[Def Rowe]

Someone needs to get out of his hometown, go to Rio de Janero, smoke a joint and hang out with the locals at the Carnival.

[LnGrrrR]

Where my views would differ with a leftist is that I believe I must extend people a hand personally through relationships. I don't believe we can build a community top-down through the state. The frustration is that a lot of people have no interest whatsoever in extending that hand, or if they do, they do it from a perch of presumed superiority rather than regarding the other person as a neighbor.

Understood, but is it your view that systemic racism is originated from a European mindset only? I'm assuming not, as surely racism has existed in many other forms and countries throughout history.


I think order and destruction are mutually exclusive.

Tell that to people who make buildings implode then. ;) Order and CHAOS might be mututally exclusive... maybe... but order and destruction can and do occasionally go hand-in-hand.

[Extra Stout]

Understood, but is it your view that systemic racism is originated from a European mindset only? I'm assuming not, as surely racism has existed in many other forms and countries throughout history.
I speak only of the American context.