To the Democrats Out There


PDA






mountainclmbr
March 9, 2004, 01:45 PM
I challenge gun-owning Democrats out there to explain how they vote for Democrats when the Democrat anti-gun agenda is so clear.

Don't come back with the old "Bush promised to sign AWB renewal" story. If he ACTUALLY signs it, then you can say that.

I am asking about how people who vote Democrat rationalize their vote against actual historical events, not speculation about events that probably will not happen.

I copied this from another site. This is the voting record for Senators to attach AWB renewal to bill 1805 whose purpose was to ban frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers and dealers. Notice the difference between the Republicans and the Donks. Republicans voting to sell us out are marked with "*", Democrats voting with us are marked with "#".

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay #
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea *
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Yea *
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea *
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea *
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea *
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay #
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea *
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Nay #
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay #
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay #
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea *
Snowe (R-ME), Yea *
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea *
Warner (R-VA), Yea *
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Only five Democrats were against renewing the assault weapons ban of 1994. The rest are the ones that want to control your life. As a free person I resent any person who wants to control MY life.

I was just wondering how gunowners that vote for Democrats rationalize their votes. I also want to know how gunowners living in a state with a "*" Republican Senator feel about the betrayal.

If you enjoyed reading about "To the Democrats Out There" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Moparmike
March 9, 2004, 01:53 PM
They will tell you that they believe that there are issues bigger than RKBA to them, and are not single-issue voters. They believe that a Dem. candidate is closer to their personal and political views than Bush is, and that is why they will vote for their candidate of choice.

HBK
March 9, 2004, 02:05 PM
Weird, though. Voting to give up your weapons and freedom...just strikes me as weird. I know some idiot liberal will probably throw the Patriot act up in my face, but it's not like voting for gun control.

bountyhunter
March 9, 2004, 02:14 PM
They will tell you that they believe that there are issues bigger than RKBA to them, and are not single-issue voters.

Amen. If an arrogant, trigger-happy leader takes the world into Armageddon, owning your AR-15 isn't going to matter much.

grampster
March 9, 2004, 03:39 PM
I could vote Democrat if it didn't mean pushing us further toward the United Socialist States of America and look forward to giving up our sovereignty to the United (thirdworld)Nations. The Repubs are also starting to worry me due to their desire to know everything about me for
their sheeple database. Big Brothers, both of em. The Repubs now want access to our medical records for any or no reason at all. Don't look to the SCoTUS, they sold us out on the 1A and probably soon the 2A as well as all the others they ignore in the quest for political correctness.

I actually am worried that America's day in the sun is coming to an end. The sad part it is because of inattention on the part of the sheeple. Bread and games. Maybe Kruschev was right. We are falling apart from the inside. While the pols rush around suckin up the money and power, we are being overunn by illegal immigrants who do not want to assimilate.

I feel a rant coming on.......I'll shut up!:fire: :cuss: :banghead: :barf:

mountainclmbr
March 9, 2004, 03:40 PM
Yep. That bad old GWB. He deposed a soft cuddly Stalinist dictator who was a state sponsor of terrorism and hated the USA. A soft, kind, cuddly Stalinist who paid rewards to families of Palistinean suicide bombers and who had one of his embassy employees expelled from the Phillipines after being contacted by an Abu Sayef terrorist bomber that was trying to collect the reward money offered for killing US Citizens. Does it surprise me that many leftists liked Saddam more than GWB? Nope.

And that bad old Ollie North. He was interfering with the Soviet/Cuban plan to overthrow central american countries and install Communist governments. He did this after the Democrats in congress prevented Reagan from providing aid and training to the embattled government. Am I surprised that the Democrats favored the Soviets and Cubans over North and Reagan? Nope.

The Democrats seem to fawn over any Marxist or Stalinist dictator. I guess my question was a really stupid one. I know that many Democrats are only single issue voters when it comes to Communism. My question should have been "Why would any Democrats challenge total state control by owning a gun?"

MicroBalrog
March 9, 2004, 03:51 PM
I know some idiot liberal will probably throw the Patriot act up in my face, but it's not like voting for gun control.

I have an IQ of 135, and my SAT equivalent is 1400. What's yours? How many languages do you speak?

And yes, I believe the 4th amendment matters as much as the 2nd.

J Jones
March 9, 2004, 03:59 PM
I have an IQ of 135, and my SAT equivalent is 1400. What's yours? How many languages do you speak?

Tooting your horn is hardly a valid counter-argument.

MicroBalrog
March 9, 2004, 04:02 PM
JJ - It is, if the other person calls you an "idiot liberal"

Now, I think I have proven him wrong.:neener:

Intune
March 9, 2004, 04:13 PM
Press on: nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Calvin Coolidge

Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices.
- Dr. Laurence J. Peter

I have never been hurt by anything I didn't say.
Calvin Coolidge




:uhoh:

Boats
March 9, 2004, 04:37 PM
Well I have an IQ of 180, aced my SAT at 1600 and can speak fluently in three languages and carry on conversationally in five more. I bugged the United Nations and didn't get caught. I taught Steven Seagal everything he "knows." I set up Martha Stewart for a prison term. I tipped off CNN to Howard Dean's affection for primal scream therapy. I singlehandedly swayed the SCOTUS to not grant cert to Silviera. I cribbed The Sixth Sense and Signs for M. Night Shamayalan. How? 'Cuz I said so on the internet.

Whaddya say to that? At least I know which country I am in and not kibbutzing about the Israeli version of the NRA. Pardon, who is that again, I feel like being a critical of them as a non-citizen.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

MicroBalrog
March 9, 2004, 04:41 PM
Obviously, Boats, the documents related to the state of affairs in the GOH of Israel are written in arcane tongues and incomprehensible to non-citizens. D'oh... how could a non-citizen understand anything?:neener:

P.S. kibbitzing is the proper spelling.:neener: :neener:

grampster
March 9, 2004, 05:05 PM
See, Micro, that's why you are a Liberal. You have no sense of humor!

Boats really did mean "Kibbutzing" That was a play on words and he interjected a little humor into his missive. Sigh.......liberals, you gotta love em 'cause they miss all the joy and humor in the world.

Lighten up kiddo.

:D

Mark Tyson
March 9, 2004, 05:06 PM
I register Democrat because on the balance I line up with Democrats more than Republicans. Maybe it's because I grew up in a very liberal area, I don't know. On some other things I actually agree with Bush, and I don't hate the man like a lot of others do.

I'll cross party lines if need be, and I'll let The Party know about it. I'm working on a nasty-gram to the DLC over the dirty, ugly politics we saw in the Senate over the lawsuit immunity bill. I'm still seething over that. I'm going to photocopy the next check I send to NRA and send it to Terry McAuliffe's office, and tell them that the money could have gone to the party.

I hope Republicans will punish the traitors in their midst - Warner comes to mind - at the polls, and not just unhesitatingly vote for the "R" party because it's better than the "D" party.

And there's no way in hell I'm voting for John The Armor-Piercing Duck Hunter Kerry.

As for the patriot act I am confident that it can be fought in the courts. I also think that most of the people who voted for it will not be anxious about renewing it. There are other issues such as the material witness and immigrant detentions that are seperate from the patriot act; they can be exposed and fought by groups like the ACLU.

Battler
March 9, 2004, 05:20 PM
As an issue nothing comes CLOSE to that of wealth redistribution.

That the party that delays the growth of America's socialist institutions happens to be more pro-gun comes from the loose association between gun ownership and self reliance.

The effect on your life (pro or anti) of owning a gun is inconsequential compared to the effect of one person being able to take half of your working life, or some portion of your property, by pulling a lever in a polling booth. A burglar with murderous intent could take more than that from you (100% of your life); but on average they get much less.


I don't take the Democrats as particularly anti-war, it's just that Republicans aren't as loud opposing their opponent's wars.

I believe the protests against going into Iraq would have been 0 if Clint/Gore were in charge.

Where were the protesters in the Kosovo war? Is it a "quagmire" because US troops are still there? Where are the 100,000 dead people that were the pretext for the war? Did they lie when they found out the dead numbered in the low hundreds? Where were the cries of "the Serbs are no threat to us"? There were none, as the person in charge was a Democrat.

The only issue is wealth redistribution - 99% of the population takes sides on any given issue based on that.

Me - I don't despise Democrats for wanting to steal the guns I worked to earn. I despise them for wanting to take everything I work to earn.

Greg Bell
March 9, 2004, 05:20 PM
"I have an IQ of 135, and my SAT equivalent is 1400. What's yours? How many languages do you speak?"


WOW! Now the argument is all over. The guy with the highest IQ wins.

Wait a minute, I scored 158 Stanford-Binet! Now dogs, bow before me!
:D

MicroBalrog
March 9, 2004, 05:22 PM
GB: I think you missed the point.

Greg Bell
March 9, 2004, 05:24 PM
Nah, just messin' with you!:D

Mark Tyson
March 9, 2004, 05:26 PM
There were protests of Clinton's foreign policy in Iraq and Kosovo. Before a series of strikes in Iraq there was a big one when Madeline Albright and Cohen visited a college campus. There were huge protests in Greece over US involvement in Kosovo, and Clinton's subsequent visit. Michael Moore says he is just as opposed to Clinton's military action as is to Bush's.

Battler
March 9, 2004, 05:34 PM
I can be twice as strong as you, yet if you build a house with your strength and I knock them down, it's all for naught.

So it is with intellect. I've often entered arguments with people smarter than myself who consider that their irrational human-hating philosophies must be right as they're being imposed by someone who probably couldn't score as high on an IQ test.

Do you use your intelligence to defend individual rights, or to intellectually evade that which is real or rationalize away some violation of your fellow man? Or perhaps join the ranks of those generating propoganda for useful idiots to run with?

A classic example of an accomplished anti-intellectual is Ralph Nader. That is one smart man. But he doesn't waste his time and brainpower inventing cars, or finding ways to get people to want to buy them. That's for mundanes and dumb-a**es. As a non-productive person, he has extra time to write up propoganda to make governments use their guns to force them to make cars he likes. He's smart enough to know better than the rest of us what kind of cars we should drive - it shouldn't be between mundanes (car makers and buyers), nosirree, can't bypass the mighty mind of Nader. He can whittle away the hours other spend inventing and working inventing great fallacies like "they'd never make safer cars, and people wouldn't want them, if I didn't force them to".


:banghead:

Other highly intelligent people who've bettered the lives of their fellow human beings through their ability to use intellectual evasions and propoganda include Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot. . . . .

HBK
March 9, 2004, 05:36 PM
Too bad we don't have a "bow down" smiley. I stand corrected. Ignorant liberal. Is that better? How about misinformed liberal? :neener: A high IQ can't make up for a lack of horse sense. I wll no longer call my fellow posters idiots. BAD HBK! :mad:

Battler
March 9, 2004, 05:36 PM
The protests against the Kosovo war didn't add up to 1% of those against Iraq. All the big protest organizers sat that one out.

Wow, we had to go all the way to Greece (Orthodox buddies of the Serbs) to see a protest. That's some hardcore worldwide protesting going on, dude. I heard there was a bit of a protest in Russia, and one in Serbia, too!

MicroBalrog
March 9, 2004, 05:36 PM
Battler, again, you missed my point.

Namely, I am obviously not an idiot. And the patriot act is just as important as the AWB.

Battler
March 9, 2004, 05:39 PM
Yeah - let's all hear how Michael Moore bashed Klint as much or as loudly as he does Bush. How many anti-Clinton books were there?


He stayed pretty quiet (and the rest were more quiet), as Clinton was their best bet on the most relevant issue - the redistribution of wealth.

Mark Tyson
March 9, 2004, 05:44 PM
You are right - the protest movement was nowhere near as vocal as it is now. I'm not defending the anti-war movement, I'm telling what I remember. The streets did not fill in London and San Francisco over the crimes of Saddam, or the Russians in Chechnya, or the Serbs in Kosovo. That's exactly what pro-war
liberals like Christopher Hitchens and Thomas Friedman like to point out.

Moore's resentment of Clinton was never a secret, in fact he called Clinton "the best Republican president we ever had" for enactnig things like welfare reform.

moa
March 9, 2004, 05:46 PM
HBK is right. Common sense will beat intellect hands down. Some really smart people have little common sense.

And you really cannot teach common sense.

Battler
March 9, 2004, 05:46 PM
Hey - how about you get rid of your marxist sig, and I don't start posting with one like:

leftists: Holding the record for stacking bodies 100 years running.

Mark Tyson
March 9, 2004, 05:47 PM
MARXIST!?!?

What, you mean the libertarians and poverty article? Why don't you read it and tell me why it's wrong instead.

Of course if you'd rather not have your views challenged . . .

Battler
March 9, 2004, 06:00 PM
I'm not going to touch that tangled web of strawmen, hierarchy inversions and unsupported assertions on this thread.

I mean, I can say: "Tyson and Stalin are against people owning their own labor - ergo Tyson is a murderer" but that isn't being helpful.

It's hard to address a: "If we don't stop taking their money, this will happen". Of course, in such articles, what is never mentioned is "if we keep stealing people's s**t maybe they'll stop trying to acquire it and just become democrats".


I could say, for instance, "If I don't get Tyson's house and all his stuff the moon will crash into the Earth". What is your response - that it's not true? Who has the burden of proof?

We could use "individual rights" to resolve who gets to sleep in your house tonight; but why bring morality into a shouting match on all the good vs. bad "social benefits" that come from stealing people's stuff. That article rejects morality pretty damned early.

mountainclmbr
March 9, 2004, 06:41 PM
I read Mark Tyson's link to "Libertarians and Poverty". Although I am a registered Libertarian, I also find that some of the party positions won't work and are simple minded. But, I think the "Poverty" article is also simple minded, using the example of Chile. It seems that the conclusion is that free markets will let corporations exploit people and that the government should be in control. But, what are corporations and governments? They are just people. If either has total control they will exploit it and harm people for their own benefit.

To counter the free market example of Chile (Run under a dictator, Pinochet) , I offer the government control examples of Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Castro.

But even if a benovelant government could be found, and all wealth redistributed evenly, is that fair? It punishes hard work and rewards laziness. And, until human nature can be legislated, what gets rewarded is what gets done. And doesn't it make you wonder why the Democrats are always trying to ban guns? If guns are inherently bad, why does the government have them?

I think that the founding fathers had it right, the role of government should be limited and individuals have inalienable rights that no just government can violate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have positions that bother me. The Democrats love affair with government power bother me the most.

Battler
March 9, 2004, 06:45 PM
Also, both sides using examples can ignore business cycles and confidence - doesn't matter what happens when a credit bubble bursts, life is gonna suck.

Also, another factor is stability - France may have worse taxes than some Latin American countries; but in France you can bet with greater confidence that some idiot isn't going to confiscate your factory inside of 5 years. Once bitten twice shy, and all of that.

Just the credible THREAT of government repression is enough to inhibit development, as many enterprises have long time frames to yield rewards.

Also, these analyses of places like Chile ignore other ways the government steals money, like printing more of it, or confiscating businesses.

7.62FullMetalJacket
March 9, 2004, 09:01 PM
:confused: What was the original question? :confused:

Oh yeah. How can a gun owner support the Democrat party when thay are a bunch of gun grabbers? Then we went to wealth redistribution (also evil), totalitarianism, an IQ piddling contest, back to totalitarianism, then a frontal assault on Mr. Woo.

I agree with it all. Some very eloquent arguments.

The Woo thing is wrong on many levels as explained previously. There will always be poverty. In China, where all wealth is distributed according to Marx, there is poverty and hunger. We have spent $5 trillion since the Great Society on social programs to end poverty. The percentage has not changed in 40 years. So, if we can agree that we have failed after 40 years of government programs, then can we try something different? Libertarian ideas do work. Clinton already started with "welfare reform." And you know what happened? They (slugs) had to work to live. I do not see the death toll predicted from the leftists after welfare reform.

Wherever there is a handout, there is laziness. No matter the intention, the people in need will be joined by the people that want a free ride.

So, if you understand that social welfare taxes the productive to support the unproductive or "down on their luck," and that there does exist a group in any population that will be in "poverty" for perpetuity, then you realize that the best government makes policies which encourages business with low taxes, low regulation, sane legal environment (in short, self-reliance and independence) to make paying jobs for all. If you get that far, that the government can never be the benevolent equalizer for all ills, then maturity is upon you and you can escape the gravitrational pull of the Democrat party.

mountainclmbr
March 9, 2004, 09:01 PM
I firmly believe that success in business is best achieved with a combination of hard work, great ideas and a sense of morality. I was in Santiago, Chile and other smaller towns in Chile seven years ago. I can tell you that even though the country is heavily Catholic, if you leave anything unwatched for an instant, it will probably be stolen. Government is just as bad. Just because Pinochet tried some little experiment will not change the climate of corruption and uncertainty that permeates society there. Business is corrupt because it is accepted in government and everywhere else.

The "Progressive wing" of the Democratic party, Pelosi and Daschle, have led the party far to the left. If there were more honerable Democrats than just Zell Miller and Joe Liberman then I would consider having some respect for them. But, it isn't so.

longrifleman
March 9, 2004, 09:08 PM
Just finished the article on Lib and Poverty also. The example kinda reminds me of that Kellerman fella and the way he cherry picked the data he used to prove GUNS BAD!!!!:D

Chile was a dictatorship and by defination couldn't be a libertarian society. There is more to it than a few aspects of the economic system.

But, I also think that a pure libertarian society would be impossible for another reason that isn't discussed even by most detractors and that is there are some people that are just too stupid to make it without help. Not trying to insult anybody but we've all dealt with these people. I'm not talking about willful ignorance but below avg. IQ. In the old days these people could support themselves and a family on the farm or as laborers but that is getting almost impossible today.

Even with the problems with libertariansim I haven't seen a good explanation from the Liberals/Dems/big government whatever types to justify the use of force to re-distribute wealth the way it is done today.

No matter how just the system starts out it won't be long(about five minutes!) before the people in power will use it to reward or punish the people and the entire system will degenerate into a cesspool of corruption.

That is where we are today with the politicians using our own money to buy our votes.

Sorry guys but that is pretty much the entire election strategy of the Democrat party(the Republicans are trying reeeal hard to catch up).

RatFink
March 9, 2004, 09:28 PM
I have an IQ of 135, and my SAT equivalent is 1400. What's yours? How many languages do you speak?

Above 140, 2 languages, never took SAT's, but that means nothing. It's common sense that matters.

Look a the German people, it would be hard to argue that for the whole last century their country was full of barely functional retards, in fact it would be much easier to argue that they were some of the brightest, most intelligent people on the planet, their country was filled to the brim with exceptional thinkers, yet they had NO COMMON SENSE, WWI was stupid, but the setup to WWII, the rights they gave away, the evil that they let permeate their country, the murders committed because they were told that it was all the Jews fault, and that they had a Divine right to conquer Europe. :rolleyes:


Your High I.Q. doesn't mean poop, the fact that you would vote for a Democrat shows that you have NO COMMON SENSE.

mountainclmbr
March 9, 2004, 09:52 PM
I suppose Microbalrog would prefer the Nazis, they were the National Socialist Party after all. Are they especially bad because they played the class warfare game against the Jews instead of against the working class?

As far as IQ, I worked with a professor in a college research lab who got his PHD in Quantum Physics at the age of 21. He was brilliant in engineering and physics, but he couldn't drive (couldn't remember which traffic light color was supposed to mean what) and couldn't find his way home. His wife delivered him where he needed to be and picked him up. No common sense. I was not as brilliant in quantum physics as he was, but I wouldn't trade places for the world.

As far as Microbalrog and his socialist views..arming the left...etc, I don't understand. I just want to be able to save enough to retire before I die. I don't want to force him to do anything at gunpoint like the way my salary is stolen from me at gunpoint. I have no place better to go to meet my ideals. MB has plenty of repressive, totalitarian, socialist places he could move to meet his ideals. Why does the left want to destroy my freedom? I just don't understand.

ksnecktieman
March 9, 2004, 10:09 PM
My sister will enter the polling booth, and pull the lever marked democrat, and walk out. She is convinced that republicans will reduce her standard of living. I think I have some agreement there. ( not with the vote, with the standard of living.) The democrats have been paying for everything with a credit card. The credit card is near it's limit. The interest is mind boggling.
The republicans try to slow the crash, and the economy suffers. The middle income people feel it the most. To her, anything else is secondary.

When a politician stands in front of us and says he is going to give away more money, and reduce our taxes, he should be shot on the spot. We all know it can NOT happen, but he gets elected anyway. How???? Easy, he convinces everyone that they will be the ones getting benefits, and the other guy will be the one paying more.

I vote one issue. I vote for gun freedom.

I think politicians should be forced to make good on their campaign promises. The courts have decided they do not have to.

There is ONE issue that I consider more important. I would vote for a politician that would convince me he would stop welfare. I do not mean the single mother or the family that we support. I mean the nations that get BILLIONS in foreign aid. I mean the corporations (chrysler, the farmers, and the airlines come to mind,) that we save with federal handouts. If they are not solvent, let them crash.

Shut down foreign aid. Bring all of our soldiers home (they can patrol our borders to keep busy). They can spend our tax dollars we paid them with in our country. We can no longer afford to be the police force and the money supplier for the world.

Mark Tyson
March 9, 2004, 10:29 PM
Of course Chile is not a libertarian society - such a society does not exist, that I know of. Chile was used because it is often cited as an example of the economic success of pure free market economic policies(New Zealand is often used as well). The "Chicago boys" heavily influenced Pinochet's economic policies, and they advocated widespread deregulation. I cannot think of a state in which deregulation happened more rapidly.

But even if a benovelant government could be found, and all wealth redistributed evenly, is that fair?

The point is not to make everyone equal, but to give those on the bottom at least the opportunity to improve their lot. Welfare reform is fine - the system can be made more efficient. However, I think the elimination of the entire social safety net would have an unacceptably adverse affect on the poor. The burden of proof is on the libertarians to show that massive deregulation can produce such prosperity that it will drastically reduce the need for welfare, to the point that private charities can handle most of the burden. They want to do away with all welfare(at least that's what the LP platform says). The libertarian idea is to reduce the taxes that support these programs, which will generate economic growth and jobs.

Given the number of people who depend on some kind of welfare be it housing assistance, food stamps or what have you, I am not convinced that it is possible to generate enough jobs through tax reduction to compensate. Many will have to take multiple jobs, and with few marketable skills, competition for these menial jobs will be fierce. A lot of people who depend on these programs will end up searching for housing, child care, or will have to sacrifice the quality of their food or health care. Child care in particular will suffer in situations where both parents are forced to work (I know, I know - "for the children"). I do not think that wages will rise enough to cover the loss that these families are going to suffer from the elimination of social services. And even for those who manage to find these types of jobs there is little chance of advancement.

Of course there's the other libertarian argument - that it is fundamentally immoral to use taxes to support welfare programs no matter how beneficial they might be.

7.62FullMetalJacket
March 9, 2004, 10:49 PM
Mark

First, I believe that your concern for the poor is heartfelt and sincere. You are a true humanitarian in that respect. I refuse to call it misguided and I will not judge. This is your life and I do not want to impose my value system on others.

Second, with respect to the safety net. Yes, the LP platform does abolish welfare. I admit that it is for the greater good that some very targeted safety net is necessary. We have indigents, mental patients, the retarded, and the unemployable (definition issue here :uhoh: ). We may also have people in transient unemployment. These are the "human side" of the libertarian question. What is to become of the "truly" needy? I admit that MY concern is not for the "truly needy" but for the protection of people and property.

I guess it depends on whether you believe your duty is to help poor people or whether you believe that some entity must force most people to help the poor. I believe that Americans will donate to charities and other private concerns which will fill the void. Government involvement may be necessary to wean the masses, but it must be turned over to a private concern at some point for accountability. Our current political system rewards the raiders and punishes the good.

J Jones
March 9, 2004, 10:53 PM
Forgot to add that lower taxes mean folks have more money to give and even if they don't, the economy should expand to encompass those who are on the margins now, thanks to increased spending.

Greg Bell
March 9, 2004, 11:23 PM
What I love about lefty's and Chile is that they can't make up their mind! Some argue that it is a failure because of free markets, others argue that it is a success because it isn't as free a market as Libertarians claim. Make up your minds...:confused: There was a recent piece in the Washington Post by a Lefty who argued that Chile was succesful because they had slapped on more regulations than surrounding nations. Sheesh!

The problem with Mr. Loo is that he is either lying about, or tragically ignorant of the situation in Chile. On suspects a little ax-grinding no?

:cuss:

GoRon
March 9, 2004, 11:57 PM
I have an IQ of 135, and my SAT equivalent is 1400.

A very good friend of mine has a higher IQ than that, but little character.

You could say that he is an idiot, he doesn't have the character to stick with a job and provide for his family.

I have another acquaintance who has a real high IQ but treats everyone around him with contempt. He is an idiot.

mountainclmbr
March 10, 2004, 12:28 AM
When I was in high school, a friend's father ran an orange grove service business. He would hire the labor to pick the fruit and to do maintenance during the off season. I was told that almost none of the workers gave their proper name or their correct SSN. The reason???? They were also collecting unemployment and food stamps. They would be ineligible if they were found to be working. Some also were being investigated because they were also collecting disability for a contrived injury (four sources of income and driving better cars than my parents who both have masters degrees).

The Democrats do not attempt to stop the fraud. They are buying votes to overcome the votes of people who work and who would not pee on a Democrat if they were on fire.:fire:

The Democrats are the party of trial lawyers and defense attorneys so their emotional stories are predictable.

If any Democrats are disappointed with Bush...contact me. I will provide health care for you and drug benefits and anything else you want. I promise to provide $.25 on every dollar you pay. More than you get now. I will provide protection for you so that you don't hurt someone with a self-protection gun. I just won't be held liable if I don't show up. I will charge you a lot of money and give you little back. I will be your Democrat authoritarian government. Vote for mountainclmbr for commandant of the 1/2 of society that wants to be controlled. Crack, crack!!! I have the whip ready!

Microbalrog!!! Give me 50 pushups or you get no food!!!

So guys...how's that for an authoritarian Democrat attitude???

I got the Demo'tude!! Cross me and get squashed under my boot!!!

HBK
March 10, 2004, 01:01 AM
That sounds about like a good demonrat. Those are their true colors.

Battler
March 10, 2004, 03:09 AM
To address Tyson's sig:

Libertarians and Poverty, by Dennis Loo


It basically boils down to 2 things.

1. Takes things that socialism does, and reveals that in a capitalist government these things would not be done (wealth redistribution).

2. Speculates on catastrophic breakdown if wealth were not redistributed, and if people could form free associations.


From point 2, points out that failure to redistribute wealth makes a "system" bad.

There is much repetition of this, which is generally sufficient to establish "fact" in the mind of the non-critical reader.

From point 1, article points out that Capitalism, with its failure to coercively confiscate wealth, is not socialism. Ergo, capitalism is bad. This is the crux of the argument.

kyoung05
March 10, 2004, 04:43 AM
Funny that out of all places to write social commentary, it’s on a gun forum :confused: …but here goes anyways...

Redistribution of wealth is nothing short of communism. Helping people in poverty should be the work of charities and should be voluntary, not mandatory. America is based on equal opportunity, not equal outcome. By saying that the rich need to help the poor is nothing more than an attempt to equalize earnings via government redistribution. The same principle applied to income taxes translates to the richer losing a greater percentage than the poor. How does this make sense? Why should someone be penalized because they are making more money? Why should one man’s dollar be worth less than another mans’? Usually higher income is correlated with higher education (I said most of the time, not always), so then those who stuck with school, got higher degrees and even advanced degrees should be penalized and be forced to support those who did not? The argument that the poor would suffer if true Libertarian principles were put into place is one of emotion, and government should be void of emotion. (Not void of morals, mind you, but emotion in the sense that they should take pity or sympathy on the poor, etc) Those who are poor are usually that way because they decided that school wasn’t for them, that they would rather get their GEDs or drop out of high school completely and go into a labor-intensive low skill job. They CHOSE that path for themselves, no one held them at gun-point and made them do it. Now, as the years go by and they find that their particular job has little room for advancement, and that they need more income to support whatever it is they do, they go to the government, and being the sympathetic and benevolent institution that they are, they give them aid….out of OUR pockets. That is LUNACY! People are not complaining about out-sourcing, or that it’s the government’s job to create more jobs when in fact it should be, or have been, the individual’s responsibility to have secured a future for themselves. America doesn’t need people sewing buttons onto shirts for minimum wage. Send that over to Mexico or India and let them do it for lower costs reaping us, the consumers, the benefits of lower costs for our goods. Sure, more and more “white-collared” jobs are being outsourced as well, but remember that the economy is in the upswing and jobs are the last thing to come back. Then the Dem’s make the argument about the poor families who are not able to subsist on minimum wage…HELLO?! That is due to poor family planning! As responsible people, they should have thought things through, and realized that with their earnings, they cannot support children, and so they should not have any. Deciding to have children anyways because they are something you “want” and expecting government aid is like me “wanting” a new car and expecting the government to help out with that too! My take on Libertarian party views is that everyone is ultimately responsible for themselves. DO NOT expect anyone to give you a hand out. If YOU want things in life, YOU take the initiative, YOU put in the hard work, and YOU ultimately make it happen. Now, I am fortunate enough to have parents who do everything in their power to make sure my brother and I are comfortable, and they will support us as long as they can (At least until we finish out undergraduate work). They came to this country some 30 yrs ago penniless, with high-school equivalent education, and within 10yrs or so owned their own business, had a house, and started a family. They made it happen through hard work, saving, and smart decision making. Even with nearly a 6-figure income between the 4 of us there have been some rough times, but we managed. Now, how can a couple who each earn minimum wage EVER hope to support children, let alone several of them? It is not the government’s responsibility to clean up after your mistakes. I know this sounds like social Darwinism, and to be honest, it somewhat is. I mean, it’s nothing more than a meritocracy, where everyone has the chance at upward mobility, but not everyone is guaranteed it. And why should you? If you aren’t willing to sacrifice, then you should not be entitled to any reward...plain and simple.

Ok, enough ranting…now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

J Jones
March 10, 2004, 09:01 AM
Wall of Text - Aaagghhh! :uhoh:

Black Snowman
March 10, 2004, 09:35 AM
Amen. If an arrogant, trigger-happy leader takes the world into Armageddon, owning your AR-15 isn't going to matter much.

Like that madman Clinton. More military deployments under him than any other President in history. His medling where we didn't belong got a lot of good soldiers killed and lot of foreigners angry. Bush has done more to make the world safe for Americans and stabilize global politics than any other President since Vietnam.

Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200403050842.asp

And the thread I found it in: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69658

StrDog
March 10, 2004, 09:51 AM
my grandmother said it best:


Education cures ignorance, not stupidity!"

She had a Harvard PHD son-in-law.

dischord
March 10, 2004, 09:52 AM
Mark Tyson,

<offers olive branch> :)

Chile did not have a free market economy. It had an oligarchy in which those who took wealth by violence kept it by violence. A Ferris wheel is not an octopus no matter the few cosmetic similarities.

Both our positions are based in moral indignation -- mine at someone taking property by force and yours at the plight of the poor. Thus our earlier clash. <offers second olive branch>

The Libertarian position need not violate either moral principle. It is possible to help the poor without taking money by force.

The Democratic position of wealth redistribution requires violating another moral principle.

Will you admit that?

Will you explain to me how a moral principle can be … well … moral if it requires its followers to violate other moral principles?

ReadyontheRight
March 10, 2004, 09:55 AM
Like that madman Clinton. More military deployments under him than any other President in history. His medling where we didn't belong got a lot of good soldiers killed and lot of foreigners angry. Bush has done more to make the world safe for Americans and stabilize global politics than any other President since Vietnam.

Amen - I suggest those who don't understand Clinton's approach to military deployments watch "Blackhawk Down" again. Recognize that Clinton and the UN agreed that tanks and heavier air support to protect our troops would not have been politically correct. The tactical missions (like choosing to go in during daylight) were designed by UN compromises, but deployed by US troops.

Can you imagine a US military with Kerry as Commander in Chief?:scrutiny: :barf: :scrutiny:

TamThompson
March 10, 2004, 09:59 AM
I agree with a lot of what Mark Tyson said.

To address the original question, because if the Republicans keep on handing out H1-B visas like candy and encouraging the wholesale offshoring of American jobs, many of us won't have any income with which to buy guns and ammo. You have to have money.

Up to now, I've preferred to vote for the most moderate Democrats and give 'em hell on gun control and immigration.

However, I've recently decided I'm an out-and-out Independent. I cannot stand W. Bush and I find J. Kerry equally repellent. I am also deeply suspicious of this Skull and Bones tie that they share. Saw a story in my local paper where they interviewed a few Bonesmen who said they didn't care who won in November because, "It's a win-win situation for us either way." :uhoh:

Unfortunately, as a strong feminist, it's very, very difficult for me to find candidates who represent all my views: pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-civil liberties, pro-states rights, anti-big government, anti-Iraq war, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-globalization and free trade, and pro-worker's rights and pro-personal responsibilitiy. So I ain't votin' for Bush nor Kerry.

I have a suspicion that it doesn't really matter who get in in November--they're both Bonesmen, from the same Yale University good old boys network. And I sense that Texas, the west, and much of the south may not remain onboard with the union for just a whole lot longer...

StrDog
March 10, 2004, 10:01 AM
The "Progressive wing" of the Democratic party, Pelosi and Daschle, have led the party far to the left. If there were more honerable Democrats than just Zell Miller and Joe Liberman then I would consider having some respect for them. But, it isn't so.


Unfortunately Zell will not run for reelection. Fortuantely Georgia has a strong chance of electing a second republican.

Now after being a life long Rebup, they would stop screwing with my retirement and health care benefits i could be happy.

mountainclmbr
March 10, 2004, 10:48 AM
To me the gun issue is an indicator of political leanings in general. It is like the canary in the coal mine. I do not trust any politician who does not trust me, Democrat or Republican. Disarming the population is always the first act of tyrants. And, yes I do believe that the Nay voters have a large percentage of tyrant wannabes.

I do not agree with Bush about immigration, but at least those people want to work. I would like to see a system where immigrants could come to work here if their host country would take one of our chronically unemployed substance abusers that I am forced to support.

ThreadKiller
March 10, 2004, 11:22 AM
Somewhere Ayn Rand is smiling.

Tim

RatFink
March 10, 2004, 11:25 AM
I would like to see a system where immigrants could come to work here if their host country would take one of our chronically unemployed substance abusers that I am forced to support.

http://www.goobage.com/pics/smilies/agree.gif

StrDog
March 10, 2004, 11:29 AM
Ealier in the thread someone discussed illogical arguments.

Try this one.

The mayor of Atlanta GA on Gay marriage:

"80% of black children are bore to single parent home, so I support Gay marriage"


So help me Georgia Public Radio, who broadcast it.

I am still trying to connect the claues, like we had to do in English class.:rolleyes:

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
March 10, 2004, 11:32 AM
And that bad old Ollie North. He was interfering with the Soviet/Cuban plan to overthrow central american countries and install Communist governments. He did this after the Democrats in congress prevented Reagan from providing aid and training to the embattled government. Am I surprised that the Democrats favored the Soviets and Cubans over North and Reagan? Nope.


My opinion of Ollie North has changed by 180 deg. over the past 15 years. I've gone from being dissappointed that he didn't serve time for Iran Contra to now hoping he runs against RINO-sellout-backstabber-Quisling Sen. Warner. Ollie North's got my vote.

Mark Tyson
March 10, 2004, 11:44 AM
offers olive branch

Olive branch accepted, dischord.

We are just not going to agree on some things. It is a question of different values. Libertarians value economic liberty as much as personal liberties like speech and RKBA. Liberals see economic liberty as subject to some regulation; conservatives seek to regulate some aspects of one's personal life. It might be possible to prove that the party X's economic program will not deliver, but it is much harder to change someone's value system.

I was very critical of the libertarians recently in another thread, but I have to say that I sympathize with them sometimes. The core of libertarianism, personal responsibility, is a necessary concept, as kyoung05 wrote. There is lots of government waste, and there is lots of abuse of the welfare system, no doubt about it. And it's not as if I enjoy paying taxes myself.

Some of my past comments have been a little harsh. I will ease up on my criticism of libertarians, but I reserve the right to politely advance a dissenting viewpoint, and I'm going to leave that essay in my sig for anyone who wants to read the opinion of someone who is skeptical of the libertarian program. And much thanks to all libertarians who actually read the article; I read the LP's stuff every now and then.

Once we destroy gun control as an issue we can argue until the end of the world about taxes and health care.

Now let me get back to work, or I'll be the one competing for one of those low wage, no future jobs. LOL

dischord
March 10, 2004, 11:52 AM
and I'm going to leave that essay in my sig ... as long as you realize its straw man flaw of pointing to Chile's non-libertarian, non-free-market economy to criticize libertarian free-market thinking. ;)

Jonesy9
March 10, 2004, 11:55 AM
Saw a story in my local paper where they interviewed a few Bonesmen who said they didn't care who won in November because, "It's a win-win situation for us either way."


DING,DING,DING...BS meter is pegged! love to see a link to that one!

George Hill
March 10, 2004, 12:37 PM
Jonesy9 - How to you link to Pulp newsprint?

kyoung05
March 10, 2004, 01:06 PM
StrDog:

Ealier in the thread someone discussed illogical arguments.

Try this one.

The mayor of Atlanta GA on Gay marriage:

"80% of black children are bore to single parent home, so I support Gay marriage"


So help me Georgia Public Radio, who broadcast it.

I am still trying to connect the claues, like we had to do in English class.

I think the link between the two is that a lot of those black children are put up for adoption because the single parent simply cannot care for them properly. Then, gay couples, because they cannot have children of their own adopt them. Hence, less children are stuck in foster homes, orphanages, etc because there are couples who are willing to take them.

Having said that...WHAT A BUNCH OF BS!!!

That is like saying "let's solve one problem with another"...or that "two-wrongs make a right" and so on. Yes, children born to unfit parents is a problem, but not one that is solved through allowance of gay marriages. Would-be parents who are not responsible enough to have children, or those who are not financially ready to do so either, SHOULD NOT! Because there are institutions in place like orphanages, and adoption, these parents get the idea that it's OK to have children whenever for whatever reason, ready to or not, and that someone will take care of them.

The fact that 80% of Black children in Atlanta get born into single-parents homes is evidence that there are stupid people unfit to raise children breeding out there, not support for gay couples raising them.

This, incidentally, is the reason that I am pro-choice. Not because I and gung-ho about a woman's right to choose (Nor am I against it either), but becasue I don't want people being forced to have kids when they clearly do not want them. I mean, how do you think people would raise their kids when they had wanted to abort them instead? Clearly they'd grow up neglected, abused, hated, unwanted, etc. When they grow up they will no doubt be violent and unstable. I do not want these people on the streets threatenting the safety of myself or mine. If they don't want the kids, fine, get rid of them. I do not want them putting a double burden on society, once by havint the state raise them with tax dollars, and again when they are muggin/raping/murdering people when they grow up. Clearly the ultimate solution would be to not allow these people from breeding at all in the first place, but I think my proposal to the situation would be too extremist for even these boards. :uhoh:

Jonesy9
March 10, 2004, 01:11 PM
Jonesy9 - How to you link to Pulp newsprint?

The Austin paper surely has an online edition George.

**edit spelling

HBK
March 10, 2004, 01:47 PM
I would support neutering and spaying before I would support abortion. I just don't think a woman has a right to choose murder.

Moparmike
March 10, 2004, 03:17 PM
HBK, abortion isnt discussed on THR, because of its highly inflamatory nature. Its a surefired way to kill a thread.


And I would support gun control before I supported mandatory spaying and neutering of people. But then again, I would have shot someone(s) for trying to neuter me too.

MicroBalrog
March 10, 2004, 05:37 PM
The fact that 80% of Black children in Atlanta get born into single-parents homes is evidence that there are stupid people unfit to raise children breeding out there

What?

J Jones
March 10, 2004, 07:16 PM
Wrong quote.

Moparmike
March 10, 2004, 07:25 PM
.

J Jones
March 10, 2004, 07:44 PM
Can we please stop with the bashing of one person's party just because of their label? If you want to bash a Dem, say why they suck, not just "They are Dem, and that they suck is all you need to know. "

Get a hold of yourself.

HBK
March 10, 2004, 08:37 PM
Sorry about that MM. I'll keep my trap shut about it.

mountainclmbr
March 10, 2004, 09:44 PM
The reason I don't like Democrats (and I should disclose that I was a registered Democrat from 1977 until 2002), is that they have been hijacked by the communist party from the inside. I changed to Libertarian party and have never looked back. You can call the Donks the progressives, workers party, democratic socialists or whatever. It is all the same. I only ever wanted protection of wild places and environmental regulation. But I think that the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, etc have little concern for the environment. I am not talking about all Democrats, just about 75% of Democrats. The reasons I don't like Democrats:

Here is my short list:

1. Lieing, it has become the party of defense attorneys and ambulance chasers. It raises the cost of everything and hurts the poor the most.

2. Stealing, taking money at gunpoint to give to those who will vote for them. Did God put me here to toil for them as a slave?

3. Slavery, See above. The Democrats supported slavery in the south. Now they just chose a class instead of a race (after the communists took over). It is the party of lazy thieves.

4. Gun control, only the first step in their power hungry utopian plan. See the votes in the first post in this thread.

5. Political correctness, saying that civil liberties are being taken from people (power to the people!!!!!) while crimminalizing speech or religion that is not acceptable to them. Appointing activist judges to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean the opposite of what they really say. The outcome is that freedom is only what Democrats say it is. And it is the opposite of what freedom really is.

6. Misery, the concept that equal opportunity really means equal outcome regardless of effort or ability. I am forced to live close to the standard of living of those who consistently make bad personal decisions.

7. Death, about 170 million deaths by socialist/communist governments against their own people in the last century. Why is this not enough to prove a failed and evil concept. See also number 4.

Is that enough?

TaurusCIA
March 11, 2004, 12:25 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have an IQ of 135, and my SAT equivalent is 1400. What's yours? How many languages do you speak?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This one of the big things that I find troubling about many Democrats. The elitist arrogance is sickening.

Just give us more of you money and we will take care of you and yours. We know how to manage it better than you do...especially if you make more than $200,000/yr. And remember Uncle (Kennedy/Kerry) when you cast your vote.

No, you can't have vouchers. Send your kids to the public schools. We don't want you at our private schools.

"-- Q: Did your children attend public or private schools?
A: Private schools. Because the particular schools they attended were right for our children's needs. "
From http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1223a.html

Private schools just aren't right for your kids needs.

The separation of church and state fairy tale "Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This ONLY means that CONGRESS shall not force a particular religion on the people or prevent them from following a particular religion. It does not say that a particular religion can not be prominent. It means that government should not force a religion, not that religion will not influence government. The Separation of Church and State position is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

:banghead:

ThreadKiller
March 11, 2004, 07:45 AM
DIVISION;

LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES:

The division of the human family into its two distinct branches occurred some 10,000 years ago, a few hundred years after the flood. Humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. In the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups: - - - Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle or aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days killing animals to barbeque at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of the conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned how to live off conservatives by showing up for the BBQs every night and doing women's work like sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement. Later, some of the liberals actually became women.

Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, invention of group therapy and democratic voting to see how to divide the beer and meat that the conservatives provided. Women were not interested in democracy at that time because most of them were still women back then, and the conservatives fed them.

Conservatives are symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern Liberals like imported beer (they add lime), but most prefer white wine or foreign water in a bottle. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and french food are on liberal menus. Their women have more testosterone than the men. Liberals like deviant sex and want others to like it too. Their first successful city governments were Sodom and Gomorrah.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, and group therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat, and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumber jacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals do not produce anything. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what is to be done with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals just stayed in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.

Conservatives have principles, believe in a Creator, and the rule of law. They practice charity and give to the poor, normally through their churches. When in doubt on an issue, they check both the Bible and the Constitution, which they use as a constant reference in a changing world. They believe in the concept of truth.

Liberals do not have principles, except for their dedication to stealing production of conservatives and undermining principled references such as the Bible and Constitution. They are never in doubt on an issue because they always do whatever is best for them without regard to others. They have no standard of reference. Liberals do not give to charity. They cultivate the poor like a cat cultivates a field of mice. They use the poor as voters and give them a portion of stolen tax money which they vote away from conservatives.

Conservatives believe in self defense, both at home and abroad. They own guns and use them to discourage liberals and other common criminals. They provide guns to the armed forces to discourage foreign liberals and other foreign criminals.

Liberals do not believe in conservative self defense. They disarm conservatives, and then attack them with impunity by liberal armies with guns. King George, Hitler and Stalin were all liberals who abandoned the rule of Law, had no principles except their own self indulgence, and attempted to tax and govern conservatives. Liberals believe in BIG government. They think the United Nations is the ultimate answer.

Conservatives believe in the rule of law and when sitting on juries, convict common criminals and acquit fellow conservatives who have been charged by liberals. When serving in the armed forces, they shoot liberals from other countries who want to govern our country. Conservatives know the difference between a common-sense law and a bone-headed statute passed by some liberal from Massachusetts. When sitting on juries, they do not enforce bone-headed statutes, and don't explain their reasons.

Liberals only believe in whatever laws are appealing to them, such as the privilege of making a living by taxing conservatives. When sitting on juries, liberals convict producers and acquit liberals and other common criminals. Modern Judges are all liberals as they do not produce anything except chaos, and are paid with confiscated tax money. They consider it against the law to reference any source of law such as the Bible or Constitution. Like other liberals, they just make it up as they go and do what is best for them. Judge Roy Bean is their model.

The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full-bore Conservative. A hundred years ago, an Englishman visiting Texas was attempting to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands, and inquired, "Pardon me, but could you perhaps tell me where I might locate your master?" To which the cowboy replied, "That sumbitch ain't been born yet".

So, what'll it be? Wine or Beer? Domestic or Imported?



Tim
(No I am not the author. I stole it!)

7.62FullMetalJacket
March 11, 2004, 08:52 AM
:uhoh:

ReadyontheRight
March 11, 2004, 09:40 AM
DIVISION;

:uhoh: Uh-oh -- I see several large walls of conservative-bashing monolithic text approaching this thread.:uhoh:

Art Eatman
March 11, 2004, 10:08 AM
At least there is the occasional leavening of humor in this thread. :)

I note en passant that an IQ of 135 is not all that high on this board. There're some 150s around, and GREs in the 1400+ category...

Liberals don't generally seem to like the 2nd Amendment, nor the takings clause of the 5th. Conservatives generally get grumpy about the 1st and 4th...

:), Art

mountainclmbr
March 11, 2004, 12:53 PM
How many liberals does it take to change a lightbulb?

I don't know yet, they aren't through staffing all of the exploratory committees.

How many conservatives does it take to change a lightbulb?

One. They have no sense of humor.

Joe Demko
March 11, 2004, 03:44 PM
How many conservatives does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. They hire one of their president's "guest workers" to do it for them.

J Jones
March 11, 2004, 03:52 PM
Then the liberals organize these guest workers, get them on welfare and claim the number of poor has increased.

Jonesy9
March 11, 2004, 03:57 PM
that's true, Bush just wants to mail their social security checks to what ever lovely country they returned too to retire.

TaurusCIA
March 11, 2004, 07:09 PM
by Jonesy9 - "Our budget is fiscally responsible. If enacted, it will reduced (sic) the deficit by an unprecedented amount over the next four years."- Pres. G.W. Bush 2/22/01


Convenient memory loss there pard (9/11)? Half truths are whole lies. :banghead:

"I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

w4rma
March 11, 2004, 08:11 PM
The Republican Party is led by a bunch of ideological lying whackos and racists who are turning this great nation of ours into North Mexico. They are the primary supporters of "free trade" which has created conditions where American factories CANNOT survive because totalitarian nations, such as China, have slave labor which American labor cannot compete with and America undergoes unrestricted trade with these governments under the banner of "free trade".

And now the Republican Party is bent on destroying our engineering, scientific and high tech sectors also, by enforcing an environment where sending engineering and accounting labor out to India and China is rewarded and employing American engineers, scientists and accountants (etc.) is punished.

The Republican Party is engaging in a massive redistribution of wealth, towards the billionare international aristocrats. I see many so-called conservatives talking about the United Nations as if it were the "New World Order" that Bush, Sr. foretold, all the while willfully ignoring the WTO which actually has power over the U.S. Constitution.

The Republican Party, the party of the aristocracy, are the ideological descendants of the Royalists/Tories who opposed our freedom and supported the King of England during the Civil War. Thomas Jefferson would have opposed today's Republican Party, imho, and so do I.

Not only do I oppose the Republican Party, but I support the Democratic Party. I support the Democratic Party's efforts to disperse power as widely as possible to prevent any conglomeration of power from growing large enough to become oppressive, although in these times it's to reverse the trend in conglomeration of power. I support Democratic efforts towards civil rights. I support Democratic efforts towards higher salaries for non-billionares. I support Democratic efforts towards lower taxes on non-billionares. I support Democratic efforts to expand education and health care for Americans. I support Democratic efforts to create a political environment that will reverse the trade gap, build American factories and create American wealth. I support Democratic efforts towards promoting democracy and increasing living standards throughout the world.

HBK
March 11, 2004, 08:42 PM
Perhaps, but how do you explain the communists, socialists, and traitors of which the Democratic party is made up?

Glock Glockler
March 11, 2004, 09:06 PM
The Republican Party is led by a bunch of ideological lying whackos and racists who are turning this great nation of ours into North Mexico.

Are you telling me that the Democratic Party is run by a bunch of humble altruists whose only goal in life is to relieve the plight of the common man?

They are the primary supporters of "free trade" which has created conditions where American factories CANNOT survive because totalitarian nations, such as China, have slave labor which American labor cannot compete with and America undergoes unrestricted trade with these governments under the banner of "free trade".

1 - Your buddies Clinton and Gore, as well as many other Democrats, were all about the PTNR China Bill and other "free trade agreements"

2 - The Democrats have been instrumental in creating hostile business conditions in the US that have made relocation/outsourcing so attractive. If you want to have a Marxist welfare state that strips the productive of their wealth and hands it out to others you will destroy the desire to produce. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

The Republican Party is engaging in a massive redistribution of wealth, towards the billionare international aristocrats

Wow, I never knew that having tax cuts to allow people to keep more of their money was wealth redistribution. And all this time I was under the impression that the confiscatory tax structure combined with the slew of welfare handouts was "re-distribution". Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I support the Democratic Party's efforts to disperse power as widely as possible to prevent any conglomeration of power from growing large enough to become oppressive, although in these times it's to reverse the trend in conglomeration of power.

You mean the scores of welfare parasites who've never worked a day in their lives and subsist off of my labor will no longer be able to outvote me?

I support Democratic efforts towards civil rights

Yes, they showed just how much they value RKBA in the recent gun vote.:fire:

I support Democratic efforts towards higher salaries for non-billionares

Strawman Garbage. Do you even have a clue how much it takes to be included in the highest tax bracket? :barf:

I support Democratic efforts to expand education and health care for Americans.

Yeah, the govt has done such a great job on education in the past 50 decades their involvement has skyrocketed, I guess the fact that American students are becoming increasing stupid relative to other countries is just my imagination. VA hospitals are the best healthcare institutions ever to grace the earth.

I support Democratic efforts to create a political environment that will reverse the trade gap, build American factories and create American wealth

Yes, giving the Democrats what they want will make the US an absolute haven for business and investment. People all around the world will want to invest here when we are saved by monstorous taxes and by libraries of laws and regulations that will bless our businesses.

I support Democratic efforts towards promoting democracy and increasing living standards throughout the world.

Yes, your unwavering support of removing a tyrant like Saddam Hussain has been noted. Those granola eating, pot-smoking, soap-hating hippie Democrats I saw protesting were really protesting Saddam's murderous regime. Thanks for clearing that up;)

TaurusCIA
March 11, 2004, 09:13 PM
The Republican Party is engaging in a massive redistribution of wealth, towards the billionare international aristocrats.

Come on now. The Dems want to have targeted tax cuts. Translation: tax the "rich" and give to the poor. Yes, and we decide who is considered rich.

This is a bunch of hooey (technical term). The Dems want to target money to certain people so those people will feel beholden to Uncle (Kennedy and Kerry) when it's time to vote.

The Dem strategy: If we repeat it over and over and ignore any logical rebuttal it will eventually appear to be true or at least people will get tired and stop questioning it. (e.g. "an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent" here (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm)) :banghead:

I am not the one percent by any means but I believe if they pay the 52% they should get the 52% relief. Let's see...Dems want to keep the marriage tax penalty and penalize people who have made good on the American dream. Yeah, I know, corporate greed, blah, blah, blah. Enforce the laws and punish them appropriately. Don't try to use it to prove that people who make 1, 2 or $300,000+ a year should pay for all the social ills.

mountainclmbr
March 11, 2004, 09:43 PM
The Democrats are only pro choice about one thing that I won't address here. They are not for freedom of school choice. They are not for the choice for me to be able to defend myself. They are against choice in how I spend my earnings because I may not spend it properly.

Why am I forced to comply with their socialist utopian visions? I can think of my own utopian vision that they would hate. Why don't I get to try this? My choice WOULD be equally viable if they were pro-choice. My utopian vision would be that the rich, elitist democrat politicians and their vocal supporters would have their wealth redistributed and then let them try to get ahead after that under their own rules. It would be a wonderful thing to see. The people who really believe in the class system having the rug pulled from under them.

jsalcedo
March 11, 2004, 10:13 PM
Okay, let's stop comparing brain pans

I feel a quart low after reading this thread. :rolleyes:

J Jones
March 11, 2004, 10:29 PM
I feel a quart low after reading this thread.

After around 6 posts back, I feel TWO quarts low. ;)

mountainclmbr
March 13, 2004, 12:55 AM
I really don't care about IQ. I think that Bill Clinton was very smart. Hillary too. I just don't think he or she were the least bit concerned about my civil rights. I think o'l Bill was concerned about Bill. That was his downfall. Hillary was tagging along. Stalin wannabees.

I want to force liberals to promise to discontinue support for socialist policies to offset the gunpoint tactics that I am forced to support them...to offset what is now in place.

High IQ doesn't equate to honesty. The brutal killer dictators from the last century were consistently smart. Socialism is bad for anyone except the government masters.

Anyone who has moved from their parents home to gain freedom should think about this.

Moparmike
March 13, 2004, 01:27 AM
willfully ignoring the WTO which actually has power over the U.S. Constitution.Umm, excuse me? Nothing has any power over the US Constitution. Nothing. Here, let me say it one more time, in all caps, bolded, and in another color to make sure it sticks: NO GOVERNING BODY OR DOCUMENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES PREEMPTS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Is that now clear w4rma?


You need to take a civics class, one that isnt taught by some socialist revisionist bimbo.:banghead:

Russ
March 13, 2004, 01:21 PM
If any of you are in doubt what the Democrats have in store for the whole country in allowed control of the Legislative and Executive, look at what happened in California since Gray Davis (former recalled Dem Governor) and the 65% majority in the CA Legislature did to gun rights since 1998. It wasn't pretty before but it is 1000 times worse now. Every anti gun bill that came to Davis' desk made it into law. BTW, he got a Silver Star in Vietnam just like the other toot your own horn BIG WAR HERO John Kerry. I think they did more butt kissing than heroics.

Shooter 2.5
March 13, 2004, 07:30 PM
The dem party should be driven from office for the reason they refuse to allow me to defend my life and that of my family.

That and that alone is enough.

No promise of government handouts or jobs can repay that betrayal.

mountainclmbr
March 14, 2004, 06:51 PM
Stalin originaly called socialism "government capitalism". If you think capitalism is bad with the checks and balances in place, just wait until there is a monopoly on power. There will be equal misery for all, except the ruling class whose children will inherit power. The working class will toil in poverty to support their masters.

So, to Democrat gunowners out there... are you going to give them up Mr and Mrs America..when the gun roundup happens? Will you do the rest of the things that happen when the government gets total power? Will you help them load me into the train?

Part of me wants to believe that everyone should be able to vote. Another part of me thinks that people should visit a hard core communist country before they are allowed to vote here. I have and it frightened the hell out of me.

For the life of me, I can't understand how otherwise honerable people would vote for the real party that lies about its real intentions. I wish I could pay for each and every registered Democrat to visit Tibet to see what totalitarian, government control, communism smells like. To see how compassionately the government treats the people. The people are fed propaganda that sounds like the Democrat speaches here. They accuse the USA of doing exactly what they are doing...enslaving the people. When Hillary yells "power to the people" it gives me deja vu.

bountyhunter
March 15, 2004, 02:29 PM
Are you telling me that the Democratic Party is run by a bunch of humble altruists whose only goal in life is to relieve the plight of the common man?

No, I think he is just articulating what most of us who regularly (albeit, reluctantly) find ourselves voting for democratic candidates have always said: it just is less evil than the alternative. I have always maintained that voting democratic requires a high degree of physical dexteriry: you have to be able to work the voting machine with your right hand and hold your nose with your left hand.

I am old and have seen a lot of government come and go... and some of the things I have learned are these:

1) republican claim to be the party of "smaller government", but in reality the size of government explodes when they are in office (check the numbers).

2) republicans accuse demos of being "tax and spend", but the reality is that repubs are the party of "borrow and spend" which is ultimately MUCH worse because it has run the deficit up to a point from which it will never recover.

3) repubs accuse dems of being hung up on social spending and there is some accuracy there... but in general, the republican party is heartless when it comes to taking care of the lower classes. Governor reagan once expounded on how private sector should be doing it, not the government... as he shut down 90% of the state mental hospitals in **********. Those looneys found there way to being the thousands of homeless people staggering down the street swatting invisible flies and dying a slow, misearble death because their families could not cope with them.

No party is perfect, but I have clearly seen human misery goes way up under republican administrations and that is just the way it is. Dfenese spending also goes through the roof along with the deficit, and we will all eventually pay for that reckless spending.

The final thing that makes me choke on the idea of voting republican is the level of hypocrisy embedded into their value system: they fight so hard to make it illegal to get an abortion, but fight just as hard against state funded programs for pre-natal care for the indigent and call all the woman who are forced to have the babies "welfare mothers" with a sneering disdain.

Repubs claim the moral high ground and claim to be the party of God..... they will stampede in front of a camera to scream about the destruction of the sanctity of marriage if gays are allowed to have civil unions. So, where is the outrage that should exist for the fact my wife and I pay an additional $5000 per year in taxes for the choice to BE MARRIED? We have a republican congress, where is the legislation to eliminate the "marriage penalty" which is a REAL cause of destruction of marriage?

Still waiting..........

Neither party is perfect, but the dems generally don't have as much hatred for the general population laced into their aims and actions. For me, that's enough.

TaurusCIA
March 15, 2004, 03:01 PM
I don't like politics either. Regardless of which title you hang on it.

"illegal to get an abortion" - Abort what? Termination of pregnancy? Termination of child? Why is it murder if someone hits a woman and kills the baby but it's ok if she does it? Treating a growing pre-born child as you would an ingrown toenail...Talk about hypocrisy.

"all the woman who are forced to have the babies" Forced?

Both parties are full of less than perfect people because they are full of people. And for every report/statistic that supports one position there exists one to support the other. Statistics are open to corruption. Changing any of the multiple parameters slightly can greatly affect the outcome. Then of course someone completely unbiased has to determine, what if, any conclusion can be drawn from results. That is were it gets even more creative.

mountainclmbr
March 17, 2004, 08:41 PM
This is addressed to the Democrat supporters:

Do you really own guns?

Would you vote for Kerry if you knew for CERTAIN that you would lose your guns?

Please explain the reasoning.

ReadyontheRight
March 18, 2004, 12:24 AM
This is addressed to the Democrats out there:

When double-barrel shotguns are legally defined as "high capacity assault weapons", will you vote for Kerry's second term when he campaigns on closing the "over-under loophole"?

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

7.62FullMetalJacket
March 18, 2004, 12:34 AM
That depends, can we still have SxS shotguns? :rolleyes:

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