prole

The gun nuts as presently composed are another wing of the State. Like kids from the 50's in coonskin caps and Roy Rogers outfits, these rent-a-cops and violence fetishists would jump at the chance to be deputized into "citizen's militias". Just point them at the "commies", "terrerisms" or "messicans" and watch 'em go! And watch every single right we have EXCEPT gun ownership go in the toilet.

The sheer number of weapons in the hands of Americans would bring into question whether there has been any meaningful restriction at all. While I know that gun owners are not a homogeneous group (my Dad is a gun owning liberal), looking at the ideological makeup of "gunshow nation" would show a highly reactionary conservative group rather than a revolutionary one. Where were these "freedom fighters" when Bush was undermining the Fourth Amendment and concentrating power in the Executive? Lending a helping hand to the police and military by patrolling our borders and harassing immigrants looking fer the terrerisms. If or when the shit hits the fan, we'll need as much protection from these yahoos as we will from the guvermint.

It's true. Here's the link.

Peter, what exactly is so alarming about Biden's statement that would require a full court press by the media? The US is fighting two wars, the global financial system is in flames, and the US is broke. That Obama "is going to be tested" seems like a statement of fact rather than a cause for alarm. Please clarify.

The US government is stable in face of high rates of gun ownership because, despite the rhetoric about protecting our freedom, the gun lobby is in full support of the coercive apparatuses of the State, the police and military. Our society on the other hand, is unhinged.

I agree with some of your ideas, man, but I'm gonna hafta call bullshit on this one, otherwise why would Nader still stay involved with politics? Merely to sustain gadfly status? Not that I disagree with your argument but it doesn't leave room for freedom. I don't accept it. It's too deterministic. This illusion of choice engendered by the two party system is just that,...illusion. As if casting your vote for a particular party in the bipartisan system confers legitimacy to that party to make all of the changes it proposes, a mandate if you will. The way I see it, those minor parties represent a constituency whose collective voice can be heard if given media exposure. In other words, these parties address a need. In that respect, it seems that these parties can influence the national dialogue and if the conditions are right then hopefully impact the platforms of the two major parties. Now, in some other countries, the ruling government has to form coalitions where the other parties can share in some of the power. Sure, it happens here to some extent, for example, inner city Democrats working with rural Republicans to support a bill that finances both food stamps and agricultural subsidies. Politics does make strange bedfellows. But I know, the reality as it is, is that you're given two options: Work within the existing framework of the bipartisian system, Libertarians, for instance, believed that the Republican Party represented the best opportunity to push their agenda. Or, form a third party challenge. With our monolithic political system, it would take extraordinary conditions for the latter option to be viable. There's still a possibility however. It's not impossible. I'm no historian but there have been times when a particular party disintegrated or morphed into something different. I would suppose that the present economic crisis would foot that bill. As I said above, the third party challenge addresses a need that should be examined and perhaps incorporated into the existing platform. Absent that, maybe a "community organizer" type person can elevate the third party supporters into a real challege to the status quo system of the pro-Statist Democratic and Republican Parties. "Politics is war without bloodshed...." Third parties under the current system (winner take all, two party), right now, have no chance of winning an election. If they're powerful enough, they can raise awareness, give voice to constituencies, be a thorn in the side to parties who share some of their ideas and influence their dialogue (at least in election season). This is why Nader stays in. If they're too powerful, they'll split the vote and get the wrong party elected. This will continue until a party morphs or collapses as you suggest or the "51% will get you everything" system is replaced with a more modern, more representative, more democratic system. The crux, of course, being that the existing parties will never endorse, much less fight for these changes without serious pressure from the grassroots and more frustratingly, from strong alternative party challenges. Getting this rolling is more viable on the local and state level than at the national level, where people are loathe to give up whatever tenuous grasp they have over policy. I'd rather shoot myself in the foot in order to make a statement to the local Democrats when traffic on Main St. is at stake than women's right to have an abortion. Until a national third party is strong enough to actually win or we have a more proportionally representative system, voting for a third party on the presidential stage is a mere gesture.

Yeah, just look at all those other advanced democracies where the citizenry isn't armed to the teeth. Rampant crime, state repression, labor camps, the whole nine... On the other hand, those countries with gun ownership on par with the US? Ethnic and tribal warfare, warlordism, 30 year life expectancy. Paradise.

I'm sure John McCain jumping up and down like a red-butt monkey ordering indiscriminate airstrikes talking about 'Merica, God, and Freedumb would be just the kind shot in the arm al-Qaida needs right now.

It can be updated any time. It's called the amendment process. Do you consider the first amendment 'outdated' too? I mean, the writers could never have conceived the internet...or television or even radio! Hell, maybe Obama can manipulate the states and congress into the opening of a constitutional convention! Wouldn't that be just wonderful! People like you scare me. You must be part of that 50% TTK is talking about. All great reasons to own firearms. As is the increasingly large size of government. Remember the real reason that the 2nd amendment was put into place; as a final checks and balances for government. We haven't needed it in over 225 years, but that doesn't mean we wont. I'm simply (not at all) shocked that your answer to the problems associated with gun violence is more guns. And as far as the 2nd Amendment being the final safeguard of our rights, more often than not just as much as the State, it's the people with guns and their fucked up ideas about freedom that I would need protection from.

Can you remind us all when you'll be in SeaTac again?

Wait, tell us again why you don't just go buy some Blue Nun?

ROBOCALLS!! [video:youtube]

I always thought the most important part of Nader's 2000 platform was the emphasis on changing the system itself to make it more inclusive for third, fourth, and fifth parties along the lines of a proportionally representative system. Absent such systemic change, voting for a third party in a winner take all system dominated by two historically entrenched parties is, as Nader highlighted, not only throwing your vote away but potentially self-defeating. Seems pretty straightforward.

Early voting sparks early fascist thuggery. More here: http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/bellantoni/2008/Oct/20/mccain-supporters-call-early-voters-ch/ And here: http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=307949

The Nasty Boys

So the "protest vote" really does work!

Mmmmm...precious guns. [video:youtube]

It can be updated any time. It's called the amendment process. Do you consider the first amendment 'outdated' too? I mean, the writers could never have conceived the internet...or television or even radio! Hell, maybe Obama can manipulate the states and congress into the opening of a constitutional convention! Wouldn't that be just wonderful! People like you scare me. You must be part of that 50% TTK is talking about. Hey Dumbass, here are some other things the founding fathers did'nt foresee in the flintlock, ball and powder, musket, whatever era: Cocaine the Tec-9 Suicide Attacks at Wendy's High School John Woo The Drive-By Meth Snoop Detroit Virginia Tech As usual, in the name of freedom you're blindly clinging to an outmoded belief at complete odds with reality. Why do you always need to evoke the 1st Amendment in order to defend the second? Can it not stand on its own merits? Why not evoke the 4th (a much better barometer of individual freedom from the State)? Is it because you've been happy to undermine that one in the "changed realities of the 21st century"? What are the merits of a "free market" in assault weapons these days? Is the Constitution holy scripture? You're happy to evoke the amendment process in theory as an example of its flexibility and the sage wisdom of the "fathers", but you seem not so keen on exercising that right. Nearly every other advanced democracy in the world has changed, amended, or outright replaced its constitution numerous times in the last 200 years. What's our problem?

What's scarier, her prescriptions or the Treasury and Fed's tack? Free market fundamentalists operating under the simplest of assumptions like this give me the willies. Like cold-war intellectuals debating the relative merits of "mutually assured destruction".

Blisters.

I think the best way to help this economy right now is to teach it a harsh lesson. Tough love, if you will. I'm gonna cash the check, but I'm going to stuff the bills in my mattress. Maybe convert it into Canadian first.

[video:youtube]

What if Reaganomics really does work, but it takes 40 or 50 years to kick in instead of just 30 or 40?

I mean, what if there really are witches and demons and goblins and such? Wouldn't Palin then be the best choice for America?

"McCain's old, but is he old enough?"