The New York Times provided a lengthy and what I believe is a comprehensive analysis of the debate. They highlighted 12 items for their veracity check, things like Health Care, Getting Bin Laden and Taxes. What I noticed is that gun control and capital punishment were not mentioned. If they made it into the debate at all, the New York Times considered 12 other things more important. That's interesting considering what we're always talking about on this blog.
What do you think about that? Does it perhaps mean that those two topics are really not as important as we seem to think? I suggested before that the reason some people like and support Palin for VP is because she's pro gun. Of course that was roundly denied. My point was that maybe the gun issue is not all that important in the big picture. But, what about all those claims that it's the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st Amendment? I don't think I accept that, do you?
One thing I got a kick out of was that Obama's claim of lowering taxes for 95% was exaggerated. But at least it wasn't vague; otherwise it could not have been so precisely analyzed.
Mr. Obama said he is proposing a tax cut for “95 percent of Americans.” But the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan organization, did some sophisticated modeling of both candidates’ tax proposals and concluded actually only 81 percent of tax filers would get a tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan.
CNN had this report. And the Declarations of Pride site declares Obama the winner.
What's your opinion? Did Obama really win? Is it simply a case of momentum he's built up since Palin began fading away two weeks ago?
to some extent, all the parts of the constitution and the bill of rights were crafted to support, reinforce and protect one another. from that point of view, it's trivial to say that the second amendment protects the first; it does, and vice versa, as do all the other bits to what extent it's possible.
ReplyDeletein this election, i don't think guns constitute a serious issue at all. certainly not compared to the economy, the war, health care, taxes, and so on. (if gun rights were an issue in this election, Obama could not hope to win.) they certainly won't be what i base my vote on.
i didn't watch the debate --- my mind's made up anyway --- but i'd be surprised if Obama didn't "win" most all of them ,in some sense. he's a vastly better public speaker, and he's got most of the pertinent facts on his side; he'd have to be totally incompetent as a politician not to capitalize on that, and that he certainly is not.
Really I see that adage as pointing out that guns are tools can be used to resist oppression.
ReplyDeleteIf you live, disarmed, in a Police state, what rights do you really have? Free Speech? Police states are well-known for taking Political Prisoners, as means to silence opposition. Right to life? Right to Practice Faith? Right to keep personal property?
Really its all null-and-void, if the state is so corrupt and oppressive as to not respect your rights. When that grim hour occurs, the gun is really the ONLY option. If that option is taken away, then your only hope is the mercy of your oppressor, or the actions of an outside force. Both are not great options.
Of course we talked about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in the other thread...this proves that nothing is a sure-thing, but there is a LOT to be learned by that event in history, and there are many others.