(no subject)
Jan. 21st, 2004 09:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apocalypsos"For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was to a certain extent about character. And although I'm not willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation, being president of this country is entirely about character.
For the recond, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is 'Why aren't you, Bob?' Now this is an organization who's sole purpose is to defend the bill of rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter that I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of it's citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
"I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it.
"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only : Making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character and you wave an old photo of the president's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.
"Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interest of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, because Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.
"I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer. And I lost the other because I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job. Well that ends right now.
"Tomorrow morning, the White House is sending a bill to Congress for it's consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a twenty percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention with out getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.
"We've got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American Values, fine. Tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up.
"My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I am the president."
For the recond, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is 'Why aren't you, Bob?' Now this is an organization who's sole purpose is to defend the bill of rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter that I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of it's citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
"I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it.
"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only : Making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character and you wave an old photo of the president's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.
"Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interest of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, because Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.
"I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer. And I lost the other because I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job. Well that ends right now.
"Tomorrow morning, the White House is sending a bill to Congress for it's consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a twenty percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention with out getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.
"We've got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American Values, fine. Tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up.
"My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I am the president."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: 2nd Amendment
Date: 2004-01-21 03:24 pm (UTC)Now how is the right to bear arms not included in personal liberty?
Also, the militia, as understood by the writers of the document, meant "all the people". They did not mean the National Guard, the US Army, or the police.
Re: 2nd Amendment
Date: 2004-01-21 09:54 pm (UTC)In simple terms, the right to do what you wish, provided it does not harm others.
Explain to me why you need a sniper rifle? M-16? AK -47? That aside. I have no issues with people owning as many guns as they want. I simply want to make sure terrorists and criminals can't buy them. So, I wish there were stricter periods of enforcement and background checks. You never committed a crime or were committed? Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Barring that? If you fit into one of those two groups, you should not be able to own guns.
Re: 2nd Amendment
Date: 2004-01-22 07:24 am (UTC)As to the weapons in question, the soldiers of the world carry them. Were we ever to be invaded I guarantee the opposition would have weapons at least as powerful as those you list. The primary purpose of the second ammendment is that the citizens can act in their own defense against tyrrany and invasion. Criminals and terrorists will gladly acquire fully automatic weapons (which have been controlled in this country since 1934, and were not addressed in the slightest by any legislation in recent memory) because they have already made the decision to violate the law. This means that the law-abiding citizen is at an even further disadvantage when defending against such individuals, purely because he obeys the law. All that said, need isn't the issue or germaine to the discussion, liberty is, and I wouldn't deprive anyone else of it merely by owning heavier weapons.
Re: 2nd Amendment
Date: 2004-01-22 07:41 am (UTC)Re: 2nd Amendment
Date: 2004-01-22 08:26 am (UTC)You're assuming
Liberty is not being told that she is unable to get a job because she is a woman.
Judging by what I've seen of his writings, this guy thinks that discrimination, in today's America, is something that only ever happens to white heterosexual males.
The right to question our leaders with impunity, so that they are not considered sacrosanct.
He's all in favor of that right — as long as it's never applied to Republicans. Democrats, on the other hand, are to be called unpatriotic if they use the wrong fork at dinner. Remember, kiddies: any description of the actual effects of Republican policies is "the politics of personal destruction", and calling Democrats traitors and child-rapists is "speaking truth to power".
(Here's a hint, leon: if you don't want people like me to think you've been brainwashed by right-wing talk radio, it might help if you would refrain from writing like somebody who doesn't have a single thought in his head that Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife and Rev. Sun Myung Moon didn't put there. If you can write one single post or comment that reads like that — really like it, not like a parody of it — I'll begin to think it might be worth my time to give you an explanation of what socialism actually is, as opposed to what your readings of conservative misinformation and misreadings of socialist information seem to have told you it is. Until then, I'll treat your verbal bukkake [calling it "duckspeak" would be an insult to ducks everywhere] the way it deserves.)
Re: 2nd Amendment
Date: 2004-01-23 07:49 am (UTC)He's all in favor of that right — as long as it's never applied to Republicans. Democrats, on the other hand, are to be called unpatriotic if they use the wrong fork at dinner. Remember, kiddies: any description of the actual effects of Republican policies is "the politics of personal destruction", and calling Democrats traitors and child-rapists is "speaking truth to power".
That's all you. I was disagreeing with a fictional president's statement, then arguing that the ACLU only cares about some civil liberties, not all. I finished up with my personal feelings about socialism. Believe it or not, I can be well-read, educated, and intellgent, and still believe socialism is wrong and inherently antithetical to what I call freedom. You are entirely welcome to disagree with it and discuss it rationally, but at this point you are making personal attacks and putting words in my mouth. I'm not worth your time? I couldn't be happier.
The sad thing is, we actually have a lot in common despite your vitriol toward my position. I play in two Vampire MET larps, I've played Mage, I love In Nomine, we read a lot of the same webcomics, and there is little that is cooler than Trogdor. I feel like you're picturing this right-wing nutcase on the other side of the web, and that just isn't me. I hate the Wo(s)D, I'm pro-choice, and I'm deeply opposed to the PATRIOT act. At the same time, I'm a capitalist, pro-gun, and I believe in limited government. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the matter, but I think you want to argue with Fox News, not me.
Re: 2nd Amendment
Date: 2004-01-23 07:30 am (UTC)I was responding to
Date: 2004-01-23 09:44 am (UTC)Now how is the right to bear arms not included in personal liberty?