To those in "contested" states...


PDA






bogie
October 27, 2004, 05:04 PM
You _really_ have to get in touch with friends and family. Talk to folks you know. Kerry, photo-ops notwithstanding, is _not_ a hunter, and would _really_ like to see your "assault shotguns" and "cop-killer sniper rifle" .30-30 lever actions sent to the smelter.

I mean, sheesh - I can see California, New York, and Masschusetts going for Kerry, but Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan? Talk to your friends.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1318950

If you enjoyed reading about "To those in "contested" states..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CannibalCrowley
October 27, 2004, 05:35 PM
Michigan is easy to figure out. The unemployment rate is above the rest of the country and we've got a large number of union employees. Why would one think the state would automatically go Republican? C'mon our Senators and Governor are Dems, what do you expect.

Daemon688
October 27, 2004, 05:39 PM
Last poll I saw out for MN, Bush was ahead by 2%

Sleeping Dog
October 27, 2004, 05:39 PM
Yeah. Michigan is easy to figure out. We got Detroit. :rolleyes:

Regards.

Henry Bowman
October 27, 2004, 06:27 PM
I would place a small wager on Ohio going for Bush. However, if it does, there will be litigation.

Silver Bullet
October 27, 2004, 07:34 PM
Believe it or not, there are several long-time members of this forum who are going to vote third party in closely contested states.

If Kerry wins and their state goes to Kerry, should be interesting to see if they hang around here.

telewinz
October 27, 2004, 08:10 PM
and their state goes to Kerry, should be interesting to see if they hang around here. Why shouldn't they? This is THR not the G.O.P.:rolleyes: I first voted in 1970, this is the first time (thanks to Bush's performance) I may leave the box for President blank. Blame Bush, not me. BTW, I live in Ohio and have not missed an election except when I was in the service. I voted for GW and for his 'old man'.

Silver Bullet
October 27, 2004, 08:34 PM
Why shouldn't they?
You'll figure it out when you see a vastly accelerated erosion of your gun rights.

telewinz
October 27, 2004, 08:52 PM
You'll figure it out when you see a vastly accelerated erosion of your gun rights. Please! you are beginning to sound like one of those shallow political commercials. BTW, who was it that banned the importation of certain semiauto weapons?

Silver Bullet
October 27, 2004, 09:05 PM
1) Review what we know about Bush’s position on RKBA:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151933

2) Review what we know about Kerry’s position on RKBA:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=162

3) Think harder.

------------------------------

My second link seems problematic; if it doesn't work, try
http://www.nraila.org/ and then click on "John Kerry wants to ban guns in America"

Edited to fix trunucated links

telewinz
October 27, 2004, 09:21 PM
And just how is Kerry going to do all this without a Democratic Congress?

Silver Bullet
October 27, 2004, 09:28 PM
1) Are you guaranteeing the balance of Congress after the 2006 elections ?

2) What he can't do himself he will set in motion with his Supreme Court appointments.

3) I'll be surprised if his partner Tort Boy doesn't initiate lawsuits against the industry. Remember the still active agreement with Smith & Wesson ? This won't take any kind of congressional approval.

Mr. Clark
October 27, 2004, 09:36 PM
his partner Tort Boy
:D :D

Michigander
October 27, 2004, 09:44 PM
And we all know that all "conservative" judges appointed to the Supreme Court make "conservative" decisions

gunsmith
October 27, 2004, 09:49 PM
please turn in your guns now.
Lurch & Tort Boy will make sure that the UN small arms treaty gets signed
and some lefty will get the SCOTUS too.
Don't worry you can still own a single shot .22 or shotgun,only you will have to store it at the local gun club and you will have to be wealthy.
You do not "need" a pistol or semi auto rifle or shotgun-right?

CannibalCrowley
October 27, 2004, 10:38 PM
Not everyone is a one issue voter. Besides, they're both horrible candidates. Slightly different, but equally bad for the country.

Monkeyleg
October 28, 2004, 12:25 AM
"Not everyone is a one issue voter."

A candidate's support (or lack thereof) for gun rights is the finest filter to determine his views on other issues. If he or she doesn't respect the rights of all gun owners, then he/she doesn't get a chance from me on any other issue.

The candidate is asking me to entrust him or her with my tax dollars, our foreign policy, committment of troops, and a whole host of other weighty issues. If that candidate doesn't trust me to handle my firearms properly, well, "what we got here is failure to communicate."

The city councilman wants to be mayor. The prosecutor wants to become the district attorney. The schoolboard member wants to be school superindent. Then the mayor wants to be a state senator. And the district attorney wants to be the state attorney general. And the school super wants to be the secretary of education. And the state senator wants to be governor. And on, and on, and on.

We've seen some awfully powerful people rise from the lowest ranks in politics.

Take nothing for granted.

Standing Wolf
October 28, 2004, 12:33 AM
Wherever there are large concentrations of welfare recipients and felons, there are large concentrations of individuals who vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.

The party of bums and criminals.

Mikul
October 28, 2004, 01:01 AM
Pennsylvania has a lot of conservatives and more hunters than any other state in the country. Most of the hunters see through Kerry. That should be a slam dunk for Republicans and for Bush.

Two Problems.

The big cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, vote in unbelievable (that's not an exaggeration, the vote tallies are not to be believed) numbers for Democrats. Philly is over 50% black, and they can be counted on to vote for Kerry.

Pennsylvania has a lot of Union jobs, both currently and historically. The Unions always push for the Democrats and the older Union members associate the Democrats with the party of the people.

Right now, PA is a great place to live, especially in the Northeast, but it will only stay that way if the voters cherish what they have and vote to hold on to it.

davec
October 28, 2004, 01:04 AM
If the fate of George Bush winning the election squarly on my shoulders and my shoulders alone, I'd still vote for Badnarik.

RegBarc
October 28, 2004, 04:06 AM
Philadelphia is the bastion of liberalism of this commonwealth. I never count on it in an election. Too many crack dealers are registering to vote this election, hopeful they will get a candidate elected that won't fry them for the murders they do when a deal goes bad.

Otherwise, Michigan is going to the dems, thanks to unions. Ohio is a complete tossup and, as usual, is too close to call. Florida is the same way. Wisconnsin is going to Bush, I think, along with New Mexico. MN, IA, and Hawaii are going to Kerry. All in all, Bush better get the midwest and southeast if he loses Ohio. If he loses Florida, expect 4 years of an utter disgrace to the Republic.

But, with all that analysis, I still think that if people want to vote Libertarian, let them. Almost as big of a threat to this system as gun control is the idea that two parties should have all the power, and the voters playing into that belief.

I did an analysis for my ed-op section, here (http://www.thetriangle.org/sections/234224.html). Took a week to do, but that is what I think the map will look like at 11:00 PM November 2.

cracked butt
October 28, 2004, 04:21 AM
Even though Wisconsin is showing a slight edge to Bush, I'd be suprised if the state went to Bush and there weren't numerous lawsuits filed because of it.

The lefties are as numerous and as obnoxious here as anywhere else, and are doing everything they can to rig the election as we speak.

Bush only lost Wisconsin by a few thousand votes last time, and that was with alot of vote fraud in Milwaukee. I expect to see MASSIVE vote fraud and/or complaints/lawsuits of disenfranchisement filed this time next week.:fire:

It is no longer a democracy if we let the cheaters win.

telewinz
October 28, 2004, 06:29 AM
A candidate's support (or lack thereof) for gun rights is the finest filter to determine his views on other issues. I use to WANT to believe that but they're both horrible candidates. Slightly different, but equally bad for the country. How can you ignore this one CLEAR fact that has come out of the debates yet blindly support Bush because he MAY NOT infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights? How about your other "rights"?

cracked butt
October 28, 2004, 06:54 AM
How about your other "rights"?

Like what?
-The rights of terrorists or criminals to not have their multiple cell phones tapped? We can't allow law enforcement to catch up with technology can we?
-The right of a couple of wouldbe terrorists to a speedy trial instead of being subjected to interrogation in order to prevent more terrorist attacks?Bah! You'll have to dig long and hard to find any sympathy from me for the treatment of someone plotting to bomb an an office building or daycare center.

I guess the fact that we are at war doesn't register with some as much as it does with others. If you think that Kerry is going to repeal the Patriot Act, you must be drinking some tainted water, he voted for the act.

telewinz
October 28, 2004, 07:11 AM
I guess the fact that we are at war doesn't register with some as much as it does with others. Because we are at war I have no problem with the Patriot Act. But I do have a problem with the growing proverty class in this country and the hard pressed (declining) middle class. Seems that the Upper Class is the ONLY group that has done well with Bush. A MISSED oportunity...Bush and a Republican Congress! Yet he just wanted to be a war time President, thats pretty weak. JUST FOR THE THR MEMBERS, I WILL HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR BUSH. You owe me BIG TIME!

cracked butt
October 28, 2004, 07:21 AM
You owe me BIG TIME!

I owe you:D

I don't expect the government to help me do well, in fact I've done pretty well on my own efforts regardless of who is in office.



A MISSED oportunity...Bush and a Republican Congress!
I concur.

The republicans in congress, especially in the Senate have become spineless. I want Newt back!

telewinz
October 28, 2004, 07:42 AM
I don't expect the government to help me do well, in fact I've done pretty well on my own efforts regardless of who is in office. I feel the same way and I owe no one for my successes OR failures. I am quite content with my place in life BUT I am more concerned about the well being and future of this country now then at any other time in my 52 years. Maybe more so than I'm concerned about just my 2nd amendment rights. I just hope I'm not compromising my values on a lost cause...Bush had better win!

Silver Bullet
October 28, 2004, 09:41 AM
I have no problem with folks here voting for someone other than Bush because of non-RKBA issues.

My concern is the folks who want to vote third party just to “make the point” that they’re mad that Bush is only 70% RKBA and not 100% RKBA. Casting a vote that results in electing a president who is 0% RKBA just to “get even” with the 70% president doesn’t make sense to me. I wish those folks would make their point in some future election where the RKBA differences between the two candidates wasn’t so extreme. Better yet, make your point in the primaries and local levels.

Ktulu
October 28, 2004, 09:54 AM
Yeah. Michigan is easy to figure out. We got Detroit.

That's it. The big Michigan cities, rife with poverty, welfare, and crime, always vote democrat. Detroit consistantly votes criminals into the mayor's office, the city council, and puts them in the police department. And they never learn.

Fastlane
October 28, 2004, 10:27 AM
Neither Bush or Kerry is worth voting for. They are both frauds. I will vote for Bush because he will do less damage to the 2A. Sorry if this offends.

newman32
October 28, 2004, 10:41 AM
Ya know, I'm kinda surprized NH is up for grabs or Kerry-leaning. I was hoping NH would be an island of reason in the liberal north-east. I guess the influx of Massachusetts folks is starting to take its toll on the state's voters. :(

buzz_knox
October 28, 2004, 11:06 AM
BTW, who was it that banned the importation of certain semiauto weapons?

Someone other than George W. Bush. Or do you blame the sins of the father on the son?

You can also blame Clinton, who ordered the prohibition of importation of weapons from Norinco and arranged for the Russians to voluntarilly restrict imports to the US. Neither of these was done through legislation. So the comment about a Democratic Congress is a bit misleading.

Seems that the Upper Class is the ONLY group that has done well with Bush. A MISSED oportunity...Bush and a Republican Congress! Yet he just wanted to be a war time President, thats pretty weak. JUST FOR THE THR MEMBERS, I WILL HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR BUSH. You owe me BIG TIME!

That's strange. I'm middle class, my family is predominately lower to middle class, most of my friends are middle class. We all seem to be doing fine. The people having problems are the ones who decided that as long as there were checks in the check book, or that they hadn't reached their credit limit yet, that they were doing fine. Bad management leads to bad results, in good times and bad. Companies have the same problem, and that's where a lot of the job losses come from. People were hired who never should have been hired, because the jobs they filled were speculative: if the economy kept going (despite all the indicators that a downturn was coming), then the jobs were necessary. But they weren't, so the people were let go.

bogie
October 28, 2004, 12:27 PM
Telewinz, thank you.

I'm not voting for Bush. I'm voting against Kerry. Ergo, I'm gonna punch out the chad (Missouri folks must be smarter...) that's next to Bush's name.

Keep in mind that there's an organized campaign to get people to vote for "anyone but Bush" and the folks who are pushing that are all over the internet...

If Kerry gets it, I fear for the future of the 2nd amendment... And I fear for the country. Folks who are blaming Bush for the actions of the middle east terrorists conveniently forget how Clinton's eight years included nothing but escalating activity, which culminated soon after Bush's election. A portion of the folks over there hate us. They'll hate is regardless. And the religious fanatics will see any attempt at negotiation as a sign of weakness. We're turning that around. But slowly.

Overall, I don't think that Bush has done too bad. Coulda been better, but hindsight is 20/20.

As for the "rich" and the "poor," I think that this depends on one's definiton of "rich." Many of the democrat plans seem to involve taxing the "rich," but in actuality are going to seriously hurt the middle class, and small business even more.

Some of the other targets scare me even more. The "evil" phamaceutical companies are an easy target. Largely non-union (researchers, etc.), and hence largely unorganized. Once the pharma companies go, and research stops, we're going to have some serious problems with health issues - You can kiss stuff like a cure for AIDS bye-bye... Then what's going to happen in the next campaign? I'll guess they'll go after the automotive industry - After all, people have a "right" to travel, right?

telewinz
October 28, 2004, 06:03 PM
>709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
>
>293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
>
>EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
>
>20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
>
>232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
>
>19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.
>
>500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
>
>FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL
>THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.
>
>IS THIS COUNTRY:
>
>RUSSIA? NO
>CHINA? NO
>GREAT BRITAIN? NO
>FRANCE? WRONG AGAIN
>MUST BE USA? STILL WRONG GIVE UP?
>
>
>
>THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.
>
>
>John Kerry on Defense --

>He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
>He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
>He voted to kill every aircraft carrier laid down from 1988.
>He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
>He voted to Kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
>He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
>He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
>He voted to Kill the B-1
>He voted to Kill the B-2
>He voted to Kill the Patriot Anti Missile System
>He voted to Kill the FA-18
>He voted to Kill the B-2
>He voted to Kill the F117
>
>In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development
>and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops..
>
>He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of t he
>U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.
>
>But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!

Michigander
October 28, 2004, 08:31 PM
Let me get this straight.

Kerry wins: our right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed?

Bush wins: our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

As far as I'm concerned, when I have to submit to a "background check" and ask permission to even purchase a weapon and then have that weapon "safety inspected" and have my amunition taxed and if I want a fully automatic firearm I've got to stand on my head and spit milk out my nose into a glass without spilling a drop, etc. etc. etc.

OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS ALREADY INFRINGED!

And we've had 46 MONTHS with a REPUBLICAN president, a REPUBLICAN majority in the senate and a REPUBLICAN majority in the house. How and when were these guys jumping at the opportunity to repeal even one unconstitutional gun (people) control law? Oh, they let the AWB sunset. Oh, that's powerful!

I'm not impressed.

Bring on Kerry! Hopefully the Dems will take over the house and senate in the next two year too! Let's do it. Let's get it on! Let's roll! Let's see how it works out for everyone voting lesser of evils based upon fear! C'mon. Lets get it on already.

Silver Bullet
October 28, 2004, 10:08 PM
Easy does it on the Maker's Mark, there, fella !

Michigander
October 28, 2004, 11:34 PM
Easy does it on the Maker's Mark, there, fella ! :confused:

Moparmike
October 28, 2004, 11:58 PM
I am not voting for Badnarik soley because of Bush's less than stellar performance WRT guns. You can't take a lassie-faire attitude to guns and expect to keep them.


I am voting Badnarik because of the Constitutionally-illiterate way both major candidates want to lead our country. Sorry, but that document isn't toilet paper, no matter what the Democans or the Republicrats think.

bogie
October 29, 2004, 12:31 PM
What really scares me are the folks who seem to _want_ another civil war.

Sheesh.

moa
October 29, 2004, 03:29 PM
Seems the latest news on the election is that Hawaii is now considered a toss-up state. Hawaii used to be strictly Democratic leaning.

Cheney is going there soon to campaign and so is Al Gore.

ssr
October 29, 2004, 03:42 PM
Do all of those that are not voting for Bush truely want Kerry to be president? Because that's what we'll have.

You may not like Bush, but Kerry as president would be awful. Can you imagine the next four years with him and his weasel ways. Kerry has been nothing but bad for our country throughout his whole life.

telewinz
October 29, 2004, 04:40 PM
Bush will win by 5% of the popular vote and get over 270 electorial college votes. The race will not be as close as 2000 but a lot more lawyers and courts will be involved.

Michigander
October 29, 2004, 07:20 PM
How much power will Kerry really have with a Rep House and Senate?

Silver Bullet
October 29, 2004, 07:28 PM
How much power will Kerry really have with a Rep House and Senate?
How do you know the House and Senate will be Republican after the 2006 elections ?

Sleeping Dog
October 29, 2004, 07:35 PM
How much power will Kerry really have with a Rep House and Senate?

Probably quite a bit. The Rep Senate is not a sure thing by any means. And, he'll probably be able to fill a Supreme Court seat or two, promoting some 9th circuit court wackos, no doubt.

I hope the polling places are "normal". I'd hate to see the precinct's tables surrounded by lawyers observing, or some blue-helmeted clowns.

Kerry will be in Detroit on Monday. The last "bad traffic" day before the election.

Regards.

WilderBill
October 31, 2004, 09:53 AM
I like Bush OK.
I'll really be voting against sKerry.

This being Texas, I could vote for Badnarik and not upset the balance,
but I won't because I'd like to see the popular vote favor W. as much as the electoral vote.

Get a grip folks. Every election is a choice of who seems the least evil.
In this case it's real easy to see who is the most evil.

SodiumBenzoate
October 31, 2004, 10:57 AM
Like what?
-The rights of terrorists or criminals to not have their multiple cell phones tapped? We can't allow law enforcement to catch up with technology can we?
-The right of a couple of wouldbe terrorists to a speedy trial instead of being subjected to interrogation in order to prevent more terrorist attacks?Bah! You'll have to dig long and hard to find any sympathy from me for the treatment of someone plotting to bomb an an office building or daycare center.

If they have not been convicted, they should have the exact same rights as any other resident alien or citizen, whatever the case may. Which means they should still have the right to a speedy trial. Sitting in jail for two years with no hearing or a lawyer is as unconstitutional as any gun control law Kerry has voted for.

mountainclmbr
October 31, 2004, 11:14 AM
A vote for Kerry is a vote for the 9th Circuit Court's logic to be applied from the Supreme Court.

Ieyasu
October 31, 2004, 11:22 AM
Some on this thread have mentioned they are concerned about other rights as well as the 2A. That's fine. The next prez may have a chance to appoint up to FOUR Supreme Court justices. Bush has said he'd like to appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. Look who dissented in the McCain Feingold decision:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia

With Kerry we will have a Z-E-R-O chance of getting justices like the above. If we EVER want to have a chance at getting a favorable 2A ruling, in most of our lifetimes, this is probably going to be it. Is it a 100% chance? No. Very little is 100%.

Ieyasu
October 31, 2004, 12:04 PM
Bush will win by 5% of the popular vote...

Wish I could bet you real money on that prediction. Bush is not polling at the 50% level. Historically I don't believe any incumbent has one with those kinds of polling numbers going into the election, let alone winding-up with a 5% margin of victory!

tyme
October 31, 2004, 12:05 PM
Look who dissented in the McCain Feingold decision:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
Those four justices will:
1) Try to ban abortion
2) Uphold school recitation of the post-1954 Pledge
3) Restrict interstate recognition of gay marriage
4) Uphold sodomy laws
5) Uphold hypothetical blanket bans on stem cell research and cloning

The list goes on. Whether those are good or bad things are opinions. However, it's clear that people who are not Christian Right social conservatives should be very careful what they wish for.

Ieyasu
October 31, 2004, 12:45 PM
Try to ban abortion?

I doubt it.

Sure, some of those justices will uphold certain restrictions enacted by the states on abortion (such as upholding statutes that forbid public funding of abortions), but that is different than trying to ban abortion entirely. Further, Kennedy has written opinions affirming the right to an abortion.

The same goes for your item #5. Congress will never pass a law banning such research outright, but the Court might uphold the constitutionality of laws (state or federal) that forbid the PUBLIC FUNDING of such research. Whether that is a wise POLICY or not is different from deciding whether a law is CONSTITUTIONAL or not. I prefer Supreme Court justicies who will decide on whether a law is constitutional or not rather than what they consider to be sound policy or not.

Ieyasu
October 31, 2004, 12:53 PM
I'd also like to add that I believe, demographically this country is moving towards the blue states, rather than red. Thus I'd rather have the Court packed with Bush type judges then Kerry types.

Given a blue state demographic (in the long run), I believe that any restrictive laws passed on abortion, gay rights, etc., will eventually be overturned legislatively, if not judicially, especially at the national level. However as far as gun rights are concerned, I believe gun owners will increasingly become a minority and thus I'd rather take my chances with Bush jusitices rather than Kerry justices.

Brasso
October 31, 2004, 08:14 PM
"the growing poverty class"??? You have got to be kidding. The only reason anyone is this country is poor is because of government intervention in the first place. Or they're just lazy.


I'm not voting for Bush as much as I'm against Kerry. That low life, weasel, traitor is lucky he didn't find himself swinging from a gallow 30 years ago, much less running for president. He has no honor and anyone who would vote for him either has no honor as well or is just plain ignorant.

bogie
November 1, 2004, 01:56 PM
Tyme, there is no ban on stem cell research.

There just isn't government funding.

Now, there are some folks who argue that research, or art, or whatever, isn't "legitimate" if it isn't funded by (my) taxpayer $$, but I'd beg to differ with 'em.

If you enjoyed reading about "To those in "contested" states..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!