[Moondancer]

I had the opportunity to attend a New Year's Eve affair with a small group of people, only a few of which I knew beforehand.

My wife is Turkish, and we were invited to an Armenian friend's house for the evening. Another Turkish couple we know attended, but there were six to eight other people, all Turks, that we had never met.

These are well-educated and reasonabley intelligent (not always the same thing, mind you, but in this case it was so) people. Two are pursuing their Ph.D. at Notre Dame, the others are all professionals in their chosen fields (engineering, etc.). With the exception of the two students, all others are naturalized citizens.

As conversation is wont to do, we rolled around to politics. I readily identified myself as having voted for Bush. I found myself a minority of "1". Every other person that could, voted for Gore, and was (I hate to use this word, but it is truly the best description) fanatical that GW Bush absolutely must be defeated in the 2004 Presidential election.

Let me state from the outset that I am almost a single issue voter. I vote for the candidate who supports my rights to own (and carry) guns. If all else is equal, I vote for the candidate that supports my having the most choice in my life. Due to the fact that I realize this about myself, I can respect why these people would vote the way they did.

Their only reason for disliking Bush is that he led the U.S. into Iraq for no reason. (Their words, their beliefs.) Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. nor did he have any WMD or programs to develop them. Bush chose to invade Iraq only to provide profit to his cronies in the petroleum and defense industries. Gore would never have brought us to this point, and therefore should have won. And on that subject, Gore really did win, but Bush's cronies managed to illegally and immorally make sure he won the electoral college.

Nothing would sway any of these people from their beliefs. I felt like I was in the midst of a DU thread!

Anyway, we all realized we weren't going to change anybody's minds and backed off the politics, but it was interesting nonetheless!

Just had to share with you all. Whew. I feel better already!

[Spot77]

So did you make any mention of guns at all?

I'd hate to just assume that they would be as equally anti-gun as they are anti-Bush, but most people of their mindset are.:rolleyes:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Irrational people are dangerous.

[The Scandinavian]

Irrational people are dangerous, but these don't sound to have been irrational.

They had different beliefs, yes, but I suppose they could back them up? What kind of arguments did they use, what sources did they quote?

People in general - you, me... all of us.. have a tendancy to believe what we want to belive - it's no use denying it. And what we want to believe depends to a large extent on the news sources we use and how news items are presented to us.

One thing I'm curious about; why should "anti-Bush" and "anti-gun" go together? From where I come from, Bush is portrayed in the light of the 'patriot acts', more surveillance of the individual etc - ie with a more anti-freedom, anti- individual sort of spin. Like I say, what we believe depends on the news we hear.

Therefore I would have thought that these issues would be seperate, ie no correlation between support for Bush and support for RKBA.

What's Bush's actual record on RKBA? I mean of course his actions, not his words (words if you notice have become pretty meaningless in recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that you can only judge people by actions, to do anything else is to risk being deceived by spin)


T.S.

[tyme]

Not liking the war and wanting Bush to be defeated for getting us into this situation is one thing.

But most of their arguments as you recounted them are just wrong.

Their only reason for disliking Bush is that he led the U.S. into Iraq for no reason. (Their words, their beliefs.) Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. nor did he have any WMD or programs to develop them.
At this point, they're being morons. There was at least one valid reason for some sort of action: Iraq's repeated violation of UN sanctions agreed to at the end of Gulf War I, the most notable of which was Iraq's failure to provide documented evidence of destruction of various stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

It's perfectly valid to complain that we had no solid intel about Iraq's possession of WoMD. But saying we had no reason at all to go in is foolish. If they maintained this stance, they're blockheads.
Bush chose to invade Iraq only to provide profit to his cronies in the petroleum and defense industries.
Foolishness. That may have been a reason, but clearly it was not the only reason. Bush seems to be so strongly guided by God that I doubt "providing financial support to campaign contributors" was a deciding factor in going to "war" (quotes because war has not been declared, of course).
Gore would never have brought us to this point, and therefore should have won. And on that subject, Gore really did win, but Bush's cronies managed to illegally and immorally make sure he won the electoral college.
Gore may not have gotten us to this point. True. "Should have won?" Maybe the public should have voted for enough democratic electoral college delegates to elect him, since that's how people win presidential elections. What source did they have indicating that the Florida count favored Gore? All the post-SCOTUS-decision investigative recounts I'm aware of maintain Bush as the winner.

If they just base their opinion on popular vote, tell them to move to France. Since not all votes are counted in the U.S. except in states with extremely close races, talking about the "popular vote" winner is blind and foolish.

I'm all for variety of opinion. But when people lie, misrepresenting facts to support their agenda, I have no tolerance for such speech.

[NukemJim]

To: The Scandinavian,

One thing I'm curious about; why should "anti-Bush" and "anti-gun" go together?

1) Because Bush is a Republican which according to "common knowledge" progun or neutral, Gore is a Democrat which according to "common knowledge" antigun or neutral. While not 100% correct ( many Democrats are distancing themselves from the issue in order to increase their chances of willing ) there is a high degree of commanality between Democrats and people who want gun control.

2) Bush is from the state of Texas, which also according to "common knwledge" is extremely gun friendly.

3) Bush while Governor of Texas signed legislation that allowed concealed carry. This one may not be commonly known by people who are not interesteed about the fight for the right for concealed carry in the US. I am too close to the situation to give a valid opinoin.

Hope this helps.

NukemJim

PS What part of Scandinavia are you from ?

[Standing Wolf]

I felt like I was in the midst of a DU thread!

My sympathies!

[esheato]

I can't say I agree with them, but just as you are a single issue voter regarding firearms, they are single issue voters regarding foreign policy.

I don't see the harm in either of your positions, but I obviously lean more towards one than the other.

esheato...