Legalizing Illegal immigrants

[OldGreyEagle]

I always thought the conventional wisdom was that repubicans run to the right to get nominated while democrats run to the left to get nominated, then once nominated, both run back to the middle. I remember the flap caused when President Clinton enacted his "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. The gays were indignant because he "promised" that military personnel could be "openly gay" and the dont ask dont tell policy fell well short of it. Well, I thought at the time, what could the gays do? Run over to the republicans for solace? More recently, Bush has said he wanted a conservative for the Supreme Court. Well, the choice of Harriet Miers wasn't conservative enough, or maybe it was, we will never know. But say Bush nominated Miers before his re-election. What would the far right do? Vote for John Kerry in protest?

 

Edited Part

Brent, you are forgetting that while the BSA teaches archery and rifle marksmanship, Boy Scouts are prohibited from shooting at any target resembling an animate object. No human or animal representations are allowed. I have heard this policy as "too left, politically correct leaning" for many tastes.

The banning of various hazing rituals, such as the spining cub scout while pinning on the bobcat pin is decried as again, to left leaning touchy feely polically correct. The personal freedom of scouters to smoke in front of the youth has been prohibited as well as consumption of adult beverages. These again are pretty leftist principals to me, what ever happened to individual liberties?

 

The following beleif systems all have BSA recognized medal programs Baha'i, Buddhist,

Hindu, Islamic, Meher Baba, and

Zoroastrian. Hardly groups that are lumped in with conservatism.

 

Why not just say the BSA is a group with all elements of American Society?

 

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[BrentAllen]

OGE,

No, I haven't forgotten. My point was liberals hate guns and the BSA is teaching boys how to shoot rifles and shotguns. Liberals might hate a gun a little more if it is pointed at an animal or human, but they don't stop hating them if they are only pointed at a bullseye. I shoot tons more rounds at bullseye targets through Highpower competition than I will ever fire at an animal. I have no problem with this policy. I do think the prohibition against lazer-tag is a bit unreasonable.

 

I don't have a problem with the smoking and alchohol policies, either. I don't smoke, but I do enjoy an adult beverage every now and then. There are reasons for these policies - safety, mainly - that override individual liberties. What if Scouts get into my cooler of beer, or into my bottle of Jack Daniels? Or if a Scout gets hurt late at night and must be transported to a hospital, and all of the adults have been drinking? I think the policies also help us teach the boys you don't have to have those things around to have a fun time camping or in the outdoors.

After all, a Scout is clean: A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.

Sounds like that rules out smoking - definitely not clean - and alchohol at their age (keeping the mind fit).

[Hunt]

Saying "liberals hate guns" is similar to saying "conservatives hate poor people." Both are ridiculous, overstated generalizations. Both have a germ of truth, however.

The values of BSA, with a few exceptions, are shared by all Americans of good will, both liberals and conservatives. To suggest otherwise is unhelpful and discourteous.

[packsaddle]

Case in point: As I've said before, such labels are poor substitutes for ideas. Especially as labels are sometimes applied to disguise the fact that there is nothing of substance beyond the labels. In that case labels can be mere expressions of prejudice - and a self-deception: that the audience shares the prejudice.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I like guns and believe that when all guns are outlawed that is when I will probably be robbed. I wouldn't carry a gun because I believe that the police have a place in my life and are much better equipped for an emergency than I am. I believe that most everyone should know how to shoot clean and store their gun properly and be prepared to use it when necessary. When shooting, I prefer a round marked target over a funny animal because I can better align my site and check my accuracy. I enjoy marksmanship but would not shoot an animal unless attacked or if I was starving. I would rather pay someone to beat an animal in the head with a stick first so I could have a good meal. I generally eat chicken because somehow they deserve to be eaten rather than fat cows. I don't smoke because it is a nasty smelly addiction that lends itself to a wretched death. I have a beer about once a year and maybe even that is too much but I reserve a little fun for myself. Even if I smoked or drank regularly, I would never do either within a mile of the Scouts. It is a bad example and it is one I do not want the Scouts to follow because of the problems I have personally witnessed over the years. I am not sure politics plays a role in these decisions or if anyone would even want me in either camp, left or right based on what I believe. It is fear that drives us to disguise our enemies and not good judgment.

[packsaddle]

Fuzzy, your post reminded me of the version I wrote for my last post before I edited it. Regarding the gun issue. This is a non-issue. It is a hot button for politicians to use to rally support based on all sorts of fear. That said, I own firearms. If for any reason my house was raided, the headline would probably 'label' my collection a small arsenal. I hold a CWP and I carry (except for scouting events and other illegal venues). I have no reluctance about shooting animals but I waste very little of the carcass when I do. If necessary, I will have no hesitation to kill a human. But as I said in another thread, I will feel great remorse afterwards and I'll live with it. At the same time, I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty.

The relevance of this is how it relates to being 'conservative' or 'liberal'. The label game is one of misdirection and deception. It not only connotes little real information but it also tends to shut off any further discussion of actual ideas. And that, I believe, is why the label 'liberal' is so often flung as an accusation. My neighbors who consider themselves deeply conservative, have informed me on occasion that 'conservative' means supporting racial segregation (or worse), support of the David Duke Republicans, working for eventual secession and a new rise of the old South, and rejection of almost everything regarding public education especially if it involves college or other study beyond high school. This list is extensive and although I disagree with them on nearly all points, the disagreement is pointless if my neighbors and I shut it down by calling each other names.

But we do enjoy a good target shoot, and afterwards we slap each other on the back and have a beer (Bud for them, Corona for me...they just roll their eyes).

[Rooster7]

packsaddle,

 

I think your exposure to conservatism is very askew. If I lived in your neck of the woods, your neighbors probably would brand me as a liberal literally.

 

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, Rooster7, I don't know if they'd go that far. For sure, in spite of coming from Maryland, you'd probably be dismissed as a 'yankee' but perhaps at least not a 'xxxxed' one.

 

Incidentally, I drove past a local church this afternoon (some flavor of Baptist) and they were performing their weekly mock crucifixion on the church lawn. Three crosses and three live persons hanging there (absent nails, I hope). It's like the Civil War re-enactments, starring persons who have developed the ability to 'bloat' as if they've been dead for a couple of days. I'll have to ask some of my buddies if they do double-duty sometime.

But the spectacle causes me to pause at the wonder of it. It's like a real live version of that Christian 'snuff film' that Mel Gibson gave us a few years ago. A person thinks they've seen a few things then they remember they live in the South. Wow!

 

Edited part: typo, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Prairie_Scouter]

At least on this forum, it seems like their is an awful lot of labeling and misinformation being thrown around in regards to what so-called "liberals" believe.

 

Guns? I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of liberals don't hate guns; they hate the violence that some people commit using firearms. Only someone trolling for a reaction would offer as simple a comment as "liberals hate guns". You don't have to be a believer in the some might say extreme agenda of the NRA to know that firearms have a legitimate place in society, when used responsibly by properly trained and licensed users. BSA offers the safety training that a responsible firearms user would need to get started. Personally I don't own any guns. Don't see the need. We have these "police department" things here that do pretty well in protecting us, not perfect, of course, but pretty well. I don't hunt. I figure we stopped needing to do that about a 100 years ago or so. I've thought about getting into target shooting, seems like fun, but I've got this Scouting things that takes up too much of my time

 

Anyone who doesn't think that both the Democrats and Republicans play to the middle during election cycles isn't really paying attention. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats "own" the Left, and the Republicans "own" the Right. They can't win elections with just those constituents, tho, so they have to play to what's left in the middle. They both play to that group by making themselves appear to be more aligned with middle's agenda when they appear before them. That's how the game is played unfortunately. And Bush did that as well, ie, "compassionate conservatism". And Clinton before him, ie, "the New Democrats", and Bush before that, the Reagan before him, etc, etc.

 

Oh, BTW, regards "compassionate conservatism". Most creative bumper sticker I saw last week.."Compassionate Colonialism". What a hoot!

 

The current President Bush, a "fiscal moderate"? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

BSA a conservative organization? Not really, if you look broadly at the organization. They've managed to get themselves caught up in the middle of one or two political battles, but I wonder if that's really BSA or special interest groups using BSA as the latest pawn in their battles. BSA's teachings to their Scouts are anything but conservative. Their teachings on ecology, etc, are anything but conservative.

 

Lastly, that comment about forests re liberals and conservatives? Once again, stereotyping. Only the most extreme would see forests as something to be protected to the exclusion of all other uses. Only the most extreme would see forests as something to be clearcut for short term profit. Most true environmentalists and conservationists see forest land as a renewable resource if properly managed, and only try to exclude some limited areas that are vital to the protection of some species that might otherwise be lost.

[BrentAllen]

Man, some of y'all don't get around much, do you? Yes, liberals HATE guns! Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, etc... have said they would get rid of all of them, if they could. And what about all those anti-gun liberal groups? The Brady Campaign and all the spin-off groups are not apologetic about their goal to rid the US of guns. Have Republicans tried to pass any laws banning poor people, as the Democrats have passed laws banning firearms?

Prairie - see if you can find out what the average response time for a 911 call is in your area. If it is less than 20 minutes, you are doing good. Imagine - 20 minutes for some freak to ruin the lives of you and your family before the police show up - if you get a call off. In a home invasion, you won't even have time to make a call. Then it is just you and the bad guy(s). Keep an eye on the news for a few weeks and see how many violent crimes the police actually stop vs how many they show up after the fact to collect evidence and tag & bag. It's not their fault - they can't be everywhere at once. Me - I take it as my personal responsibility as the head of my family to protect my wife and kids. I don't sub that out on a hope and a prayer that the police will show up in time to stop a thug from hurting them. So yes, I am well armed, and have a carry permit.

As for the forests, have you missed all the homes burning out west the past few years from forest fires? Sensible-minded people have wanted to thin the forests close to homes and remove the dead wood from the forest floor to keep fires from spreading, and make them easier to control. Liberals have screamed bloody murder at the proposals! They want the forests protected from all human activity. I don't make this stuff up!

And talk about slandering groups - Republicans don't believe in ecology?? Yes, that's right - Republicans want dirty air and dirty water!! How ridiculous!! Y'all must think Republicans live on another planet, and don't care what happens to this one. We DO live here, so we want to keep it clean.

Argue all you want - the BSA is a conservative organization. Want more proof? Would the ACLU try to destroy a liberal or moderate group? Would Democrats, at their National Convention, boo a liberal or moderate group?

'nuff said.

[Hunt]

I looked at the Brady Campaign's website, and I didn't see anything about ridding the U.S. of guns, although I did see plenty of arguments in favoring of restricting them. And even if they did want to ban all guns, when you say "liberals hate guns" you suggest that all liberals agree with this.

As far as conservatives and their attitudes towards poor people, that's been obvious ever since the Reagan administration tried to classify ketchup as a vegetable as part of an effort to cut funds for nutrition for poor kids. Do all conservatives have a callous, greedy attitude toward the poor, or is it only the extreme conservatives, or just some of them? If we're just labelling people in order to slam them, there's no need to make any such distinctions.

[BrentAllen]

History lesson:

In 1994, Democrats, with much help from the anti-gun crowd, passed the Assault Weapon Ban. Schumer and others said the camel now his has nose in the tent. If you don't know about camels, they try to get into a tent very slowly - first their nose, then their head... This camel was total gun control.

After the Democrats suffered such a stunning defeat in the House and Senate in the 1994 elections, in part because of the AWB, Brady and others learned they had to change their message. So no, you don't see that direct goal of a total ban. Instead, you see proposals for gun owners to install trigger locks on firearms, and then to have them locked away in a vault or closet - unloaded. They would then have you lock your ammunition away in another area. If they had their way, it would take 20 minutes to load a firearm for self defense, so relying on the police isn't that bad.

Brady has learned they have to divide and conquer. They go after one group (semi-autos), then another (scoped-deer rifles newly named "sniper" rifles) and so on. In the meantime, they try to make the others as inaccessible as possible. The eventual result is the same. The reason is the same.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Brent,

All I can tell you is that, in regards to home protection, I asked a local police officer about this a couple of years ago. He said that the vast majority of people who have guns in their homes would have almost no chance of using it to defend themselves in case of a home invasion. A small chance, maybe, if they really knew what they were doing, ie, ex-military, but most folks wouldn't qualify. The downside he saw was the chance of a kid getting ahold of the gun, or having it stolen in a burglary. His feeling was that most people were deluding themselves in thinking that having a gun is going to help in an emergency situation; not everyone, but most.

 

Does the average family need an uzi to protect their house? Sounds like the NRA thinks so.

 

On the other hand, Brent, if you happen to live in a high crime area and your emergency response is that bad, ie, 20 minutes, I suppose I'd be desperate enough to take other measures. In my own mind, tho, I don't think you solve the violence problem by just giving everybody bigger and bigger guns. All that does is promote even more violence, I think. I also don't think the problem is solved by getting everyone together to sing Kumbaya; enforcement of existing laws and extreme penalties would help, as well as getting the most extreme weapons off the street. Nobody needs those.

 

Regards the forests. The "fuel" problem in the great forests was caused by many years of over-protection, to be sure. That policy has long since been changed, and controlled burns and cullings do the job well, but the government won't allocate enough funds to do the work that needs to be done. Brent, you're not "making stuff up" but you are using arguments of extremists to make your points. Earth First! doesn't represent the mainstream view of environmentalists. Most are in favor of planned forest thinnings and sensible forest management, but are wary of forest companies coming in, with their history of clear cutting and non-management in some cases. The Forest Service sells off the forest lands, and loses money are nearly every deal; that just doesn't make sense. Yes, houses do burn during the fire season, and no one wants to see anyone get hurt. But just the same as people building in flood plains, they have their reasons for building so close to the fuel sources, and they take their chances. Simply thinning the forest isn't going to help that. Lastly, environmentalists do want to completely protect small amounts of prime forest for a variety of reasons, but this represents a very small portion of the available forestland, almost all of which is managed as mixed use.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Wow! Brent, was that you on that cross?

 

My co-worker was also paranoid about having a 'thug' visit his home so he kept firearms for self-protection. Until he found one of his sons playing with one of them one Sunday afternoon, pointing it at the television pretending to kill something. He realized that the loaded firearm was far more dangerous to his family than some remote possiblity that a 'thug' would visit. So he locked it away from his children and thereby virtually eliminated its utility for self-defence.

So far, in the last ten years after that incident he's been robbed maybe zero times.

Sometimes a person has to realize that they live in a community of mostly well-meaning persons and that other people are not the threat they must seem to be.

 

Regarding access, I lament that it is easy for me to go to a gun show and purchase most anything I want with no background check and essentially no record of the transaction. It would be fine with me to ban all auto-loading weapons, regardless of what you call them (and I own quite a few). If someone wants to hunt for sport or engage in serious target competition, they can do so nicely one shot at a time. Bolt actions were my primary interest anyway. Don't forget, Brady was in the Reagan White House. Come to think of it, Brent, by the end of W's term, your guys will have been in charge for 32 of the last 44 years. How could your guys let things go so wrong? Must be those mean old environmentalist thugs bullying those wimpy Republicans. Keep your powder dry.

[Hunt]

I've been giving more thought to this question of extreme vs. moderate views, and it seems to me that a common characteristic of people with extreme views is a belief that nobody could honestly or thoughtfully hold opposing views. In other words, extremists tend to think that their opposite numbers have some ulterior (usually evil) motive for their views. You can see this most glaringly in the rhetoric over abortion. Extreme pro-choicers think that pro-lifers are religious fanatics who want to control women's lives, and that they don't really care about the babies that much. Extreme pro-lifers think that pro-choicers really know that abortion is murder, but don't care because they are selfish. You can see similar divides on guns and other issues.

Those of us with more moderate views--or with "liberal" views on some issues and "conservative" views on other issues--may be able to better see that there are arguments with real moral force on both sides of most issues. We don't like to see arguments dismissed with labels and personal attacks.

And why is it that politicians have to play to the middle to be elected? It's because the middle has to be persuaded that what the politician is saying makes sense.