Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins US Presidency
Last night, around 11pm, all the major networks announced that Senator Barack Obama had won the election. Soon after, Senator McCain conceded. There were no crazy partisan court hearings, just a simple election. This is your chance to talk about it and what it means for the future of our nation.
I wonder if an angry republican supporter will attempt to kill Obama.
Pop quiz: who just got his feet under the Big Desk at USCENTCOM?
That's right, it's General Smithers - sorry, Petraeus.
War were declared in 5... 4... 3...
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I sort of felt this thing might happen when Palin was selected. She was a women trying to reach a very conservative male base that has been steeped in two years of bashing Hilary Clinton and Pelosi. She brought he unwed pregnant daughter with the baby's daddy like they were the holy couple, and by the way have never announced a wedding date, again in a party that has characterized pregnant teens as future welfare moms. This probably cost McCain crucial states in the east that lead to disaster in the west. It is pretty bad when you have less than 10 votes, and your opponent is approaching 100.
In any case I think we can look on the bright side. Instead of MBA graduate who whined his way into the program on a legacy, we have a Harvard graduate that has consistently advanced on his merits.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD. That means if I want a magazine that holds 50+ rounds, I can have it. If I want a machine gun, so be it. Handgun -you bet - and NO license if I want to carry."
But this is the problem with sticking so vigorously to your bill of rights. It was conceived in a day when machine guns simply didn't exist as they do today. When guns weren't something that could lead to a massacre of innocent people.
You're assuming that when this was written into the bill of rights that it was written in with the knowledge that it was going to continue to be adhered to indefinitely regardless of how deadly weapons get. Do you feel it should even stretch as far as nuclear arms for example? if not why not?
If you don't believe everyone and anyone should have the right to nuclear weaponry then you accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere and this is the problem with your view- you're drawing your own line and suggesting that the line set by your government is incorrect. The reality is neither of you are more correct than the other if both of you agree that the bill of rights shouldn't extend indefinitely to cover all possible eventualities covered by the vagueness of some parts of it. Americans are brought up to believe the constitution, the bill of rights are infallible, that they should be adhered to at all costs but as with many things in life, something that remains static and defies change is extremely prone to becoming obsolete or at least partially obsolete and this is the problem with the bill of rights. Instead of the bill of rights it's better to have rules that are flexible that can be voted upon and changed as required- well that's basically what laws are so the constitutions usefulness is actually questionable, particularly when many nations get by just as well, or in some cases better in terms of personal happiness and freedoms without one. As the Bush administration has demonstrated, the problem is ensuring laws are enacted fairly, the Bush administration has pushed unfair laws through in contradiction of the constitution anyway, fix that problem and you'll find you don't need the constitution if the process of pushing through legislation is fair.
Many Americans still of course cite that the right to bear arms is important so that people can rise up against government but this is simply an excuse to argue against gun controls and is an impractical reason in reality. The scenario posed has the following results-
1) Civilians armed with weapons they can afford aren't going to stand a chance against a well trained, well equipped military
2) The military are citizens too anyway, even if the government does need to be overthrown the military will be on your side to do it because it consists of your sons, daughters, cousins, friends and so on.
In result 1, you're screwed either way. You're not going to be able to defeat the military. If guns were completely banned, you'd still be able to rise up and perform guerilla warfare if that's the path you REALLY wanted to take because in these situations illegal arms are easy to acquire anyway. In result 2, you still don't need guns, because the military has them and will do the job for you.
Result 2 is the most realistic scenario because it's happened and does still happen, not in the US but elsewhere in the world. Lebanon and Turkey are good examples, their armies have stood up against governments to overthrow them and protect the nations against governments trying to destroy their secular constitutions.
The argument for being able to carry guns to protect the constitution simply doesn't match up with reality. It does however result in an absolutely massive increase in murder rates and other related crime and gun related accidents. To put it another way, the right to bear arms actually takes away many other people's legitimate right to life than it ever saves and I know which I think is much more important.
Finally I'll not I'm not entirely against guns, I enjoy shooting, in fact, I reall
Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?
Everything. For one, in a few months we will no longer have a functionally retarded president.
Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?
Probably not all at once, but yes, I have no doubt at all the Patriot Act will be dismantled.
Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?
No doubt at all in my mind that this nonsense ends with the Bush Nightmare.
Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?
He's always been for a withdrawl, but he's not going to risk American lives (or Iraqi lives) for it. Given that Iraq wants us OUT before the start of the year, and given that Iraq has used us as an excuse to not do the things they need to do, I am fairly certain our time in Iraq will be over sooner than the Republicans would like. (Read: While they still have oil.)
Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?
Regulation, Regulation, Regulation. The age of faux conservatism and market speculation is over. If we're REALLY lucky we'll also get to see some frog marched wall street execs.
By being right-leaning, Fox IS the balance.
But it is still one right-leaning network to several left-leaning ones, so you can rest secure that your leftist propaganda will be pushed on TV more than the rightist propaganda.