MrTuffPaws
Member
I would rather put my 2nd rights at risk than risk another 2 years of a republican congress and president.
Just so we're clear on why we should vote for Democrats
- Thread starter scout26
- Start date
- Status
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Well, Bush sure knows how to play military sensibilities like a well-worn guitar. Meanwhile he gets the military bogged down in a pointless, unwinnable war based on lies and sacks the military leaders that dared to point out the lack of planning and preparation for a long, costly occupation.
It saddens me to see how easily otherwise intelligent people are duped by a bunch of meaningless gestures.
Sry0fcr
Member
There's so much more at stake.
progunner1957
member
Cutting your own throat to "punish" the Republicans
1: Ban magazines that hold over 6 rounds.
2: Ban ALL semiauto firearms.
3: Mandatory "arsenal license" for possession of 5 or more guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.
4: National database of all gun purchases (de facto gun owner registration).
5: Ban or severely restrict reloading equipment and components.
6: No ranges in counties of over 200,000 population (there will be whole states with no shooting ranges).
7: No gun manufacturers in counties of over 200,000 population (forcing gun makers to either make an extremely expensive move or close down, which is the real goal).
8: Ban concealed carry.
9: Eventual ban on possession of handguns.
10: Ban possession of all military caliber ammunition (9mm, .45ACP, .223/5.56mm, .308/7.62mm, .30-06, .300 Winchester Magnum)
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. This is what the Democrats want to do to us - destroy our right to arms. There is no denying it.
Regarding the ban of all semiauto weapons and handguns: There will be NO grandfathering of previously owned guns. We are talking about gun confiscation here, folks. That is what Brady II is about. This is what we will get if the Democrats regain control of Congress.
Voting for antigun extremist Democrats to "punish" the Republicans is asinine. GUN OWNERS are the ones who will be punished, not "them damn Republicans."
Wake up, gun owners! Vote like gun owners!! Voting out of spite does nothing but cut your own throat.
+10,000 on that, Onmilo!!
Could not have said it better myself, Scout26. The Democrats want to make Brady II the law of the land. Some of its "features" include -
1: Ban magazines that hold over 6 rounds.
2: Ban ALL semiauto firearms.
3: Mandatory "arsenal license" for possession of 5 or more guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.
4: National database of all gun purchases (de facto gun owner registration).
5: Ban or severely restrict reloading equipment and components.
6: No ranges in counties of over 200,000 population (there will be whole states with no shooting ranges).
7: No gun manufacturers in counties of over 200,000 population (forcing gun makers to either make an extremely expensive move or close down, which is the real goal).
8: Ban concealed carry.
9: Eventual ban on possession of handguns.
10: Ban possession of all military caliber ammunition (9mm, .45ACP, .223/5.56mm, .308/7.62mm, .30-06, .300 Winchester Magnum)
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. This is what the Democrats want to do to us - destroy our right to arms. There is no denying it.
Regarding the ban of all semiauto weapons and handguns: There will be NO grandfathering of previously owned guns. We are talking about gun confiscation here, folks. That is what Brady II is about. This is what we will get if the Democrats regain control of Congress.
Voting for antigun extremist Democrats to "punish" the Republicans is asinine. GUN OWNERS are the ones who will be punished, not "them damn Republicans."
Wake up, gun owners! Vote like gun owners!! Voting out of spite does nothing but cut your own throat.
I hope you enjoy your abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, higher taxes, cutting and running, illegal immigration, and subsidizing deadbeats while you can then. At least until the islamonazis take over. Then none of that crap matters and you can watch the 'rats play french while the jihadis burn your wife/gf/cousin/sister/daughter to death in a bus.
Is this intended to be a legitimate political argument?
Is this the best Republican supporters can come up with to justify what's happened in the last 6 years -- pointing to a fantasy world that's gonna happen unless we ask for more of the same, forever and ever, Amen?
That's pretty sad, actualy...
What part of that is fantasy? It's going on right now in France. In Holland a film director gets stabbed to death in broad daylight. In Australia a 'religious leader' says women deserve to be raped if they don't wear a burqa. Islamic gangs run around on the beaches there gang raping 'infidels'.
All of that is fact and you only have to look at past headlines and articles to see that.
All of that is fact and you only have to look at past headlines and articles to see that.
Steve 48
Member
There are many of us that have forgotten how bad it was when Clinton and his merry crew were around. Remember the Clinton Gun bill, the gun buybacks, the restrictions on firearms, Sarah Brady, and I could go on for a long time. Things don't go well with war. We did not start it but we have to finish it. If we would of had the will in Vietnam, we could of been victorious. Its a messy job and don't blame Republicans for all of the mess. If you want to give up your 2nd amendment rights, vote Democratic and sit with Nancy Pelosi. It could be worse. Steve 48
I think anyone who votes Republican is a moron.
I also think anyone who votes Democratic is an idiot.
Me, I vote for people, not parties. I base my votes on a candidate's stance on the issues, and my assessment of his/her capabilities. I think our worst problems are caused by one of the political parties having too much power. I prefer to see our government comprised of capable individuals from different parties and different backgrounds. That way, we get more rational policy that isn't overly influenced by extremes.
I also think anyone who votes Democratic is an idiot.
Me, I vote for people, not parties. I base my votes on a candidate's stance on the issues, and my assessment of his/her capabilities. I think our worst problems are caused by one of the political parties having too much power. I prefer to see our government comprised of capable individuals from different parties and different backgrounds. That way, we get more rational policy that isn't overly influenced by extremes.
I'll take stupid over evil any day of the week.
The Republicans haven't done much of what I want, on gun rights or any other issue. But handing control to the Democrats in order to "teach them a lesson" could be a lot more costly to us then you might think.
progunner1957
member
So do I. I vote exclusively for candidates who have proven themselves to be the friends of gun owners and our right to arms.
You can find out who they are here - www.nrapvf.org
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I vote people, not party, at the local level. The problem with that approach at the national level is that the Congress votes along party lines, all too often.
Okay: The Democrats are saying, "It's time for a change." Lets look at that.
1. Tax rates are among the lowest in decades. The change would mean what?
2. The economy as measured in GDP has been growing. A change would mean what?
3. The stock market is at an all time high, benefitting that 50% of all US households who own stock or whose retirement funds own stock. A change would mean what?
4. Inflation is rather low. A change would mean what?
5. The federal budget deficit is declining as predicted. A change would mean what?
6. Regardless of how it has been accomplished, there has not been a terrorist attack inside the US for five years. A change would mean what?
Art
Okay: The Democrats are saying, "It's time for a change." Lets look at that.
1. Tax rates are among the lowest in decades. The change would mean what?
2. The economy as measured in GDP has been growing. A change would mean what?
3. The stock market is at an all time high, benefitting that 50% of all US households who own stock or whose retirement funds own stock. A change would mean what?
4. Inflation is rather low. A change would mean what?
5. The federal budget deficit is declining as predicted. A change would mean what?
6. Regardless of how it has been accomplished, there has not been a terrorist attack inside the US for five years. A change would mean what?
Art
PK, Orange: I'll break it down.
We're better than that now. Don't tell men and women what they can do behind closed doors, and don't even try.
Like it or not, this is a long-term losing proposition, and if you're one of those who believe in "inalienable rights," and a federal government of limited powers, and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then you've got a hard time reconciling those views with the argument that citizens don't have a right to marry whoever they want, provided it's consentual.
100 years from now this is gonna be viewed about like prohibitions on interracial marriage are by most now.
I've seen it suggested that the federal debt spread among Americal families is something like half a million dollars per family right now, and is increasing at a frightening rate.
What ever happened to the "Contract with America" Republicans, who wanted a smaller government, less hand-outs, and a balanced budget? You know - whose folks who said being a "debtor nation" was a bad thing?
There are reasonable, rational people who disagree with Bush on this. In every party.
When my wife was in medical school, she learned that anal sex among heterosexual couples is pretty widespread -- enough so that it fits the definition of "normal" behavior. I should also note that "sodomy," in many laws, includes the outlawing of oral sex between married folks. Hell, in Alabama where I went to college sex for any reason other than the production of a "male heir" was technically illegal.
We're better than that now. Don't tell men and women what they can do behind closed doors, and don't even try.
Guys, this is coming. There are people out there, who probably freak you out a little bit, who are interested in building life-long loving relationships with people of the same sex. We shouldn't try and debate whether this is "right" or not -- I think it's enough to say they exist, that a significant number of people in this country (and of registered republicans) support the idea that they should be allowed to marry and suffer from the "marriage tax" like anyone else, and that lots of folks see bigotry and intolerance as the message of those who oppose gay marriage.
Like it or not, this is a long-term losing proposition, and if you're one of those who believe in "inalienable rights," and a federal government of limited powers, and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then you've got a hard time reconciling those views with the argument that citizens don't have a right to marry whoever they want, provided it's consentual.
100 years from now this is gonna be viewed about like prohibitions on interracial marriage are by most now.
This is a real winner - because non-military government spending under Bush increased more than it did under Clinton. We're just creating mroe debt rather than trying to balance the budget.
I've seen it suggested that the federal debt spread among Americal families is something like half a million dollars per family right now, and is increasing at a frightening rate.
What ever happened to the "Contract with America" Republicans, who wanted a smaller government, less hand-outs, and a balanced budget? You know - whose folks who said being a "debtor nation" was a bad thing?
Because, you know, Bush has done soooooo much to clear the welfare roles. Hell, he added a new class of handouts with the whole medicare drug changes.
Right. Because what most agree are racial issues in France (where a whole class of people can't be employed and are openly discriminated against) are just poised to happen over here. Maybe in a few decades with Hispanics, but as far as I can tell we don't have a huge number of north-Africans over here who aren't assimilating properly (or being allowed to assimilate, depending on who you talk to.)
Actually, the argument you're trying to refute goes something like this:
- About a dozen Saudis hijacked some planes under the orders of another Saudi who was living in Afghanistan where he'd previously received CIA training when fighting the Russians, and flew them into the world trade center. Big bad unhappy mess for us.
- We went into Afghanistan after their government refused to help us out. There are some technical issues there that deal with things like "legitimacy" but most of us who can be sticklers for those overlooked it because we really wanted Osama Bin Ladin and his supporters dead.
- Then, we went into Iraq. The most secular (read "non-religious") nation in the region, run by the one guy that OBL hated more than the US. We did so either because of the imminent threat of WMD deployment on secret evidence (what I remember - search the board for the discussions we had at the time) or to "liberate the people" from an evil-dictator guy.
- Osama Bin Ladin still hasn't been caught.
- Saudi Arabia is still one of our bestest friends, ever.
There are reasonable, rational people who disagree with Bush on this. In every party.
cropcirclewalker
member
The Mods will probably shut this string down now.
Before I became a Libertarian I just naturally voted against all incumbents.
I think the founders wanted a bunch of citizen statesmen. You know, get down off the tractor, go to congress, do a tour, come home and climb back up on the tractor. Give somebody else a whack at it.
That is what the founders wanted.
My district 8 representative here is MO is the widow of the previous representative. There is something just wrong with that.
Anyways, when the dems wouldn't convict der schlickmeister I took a vow never to vote for another Democrat again until he was imprisoned or at least discredited.
I may have to reconsider that vow.
Too much power in the hands of one party is more dangerous than a little democratic gridlock.
I may have to vote for a (choke) Democrat for HOR.
Before I became a Libertarian I just naturally voted against all incumbents.
I think the founders wanted a bunch of citizen statesmen. You know, get down off the tractor, go to congress, do a tour, come home and climb back up on the tractor. Give somebody else a whack at it.
That is what the founders wanted.
My district 8 representative here is MO is the widow of the previous representative. There is something just wrong with that.
Anyways, when the dems wouldn't convict der schlickmeister I took a vow never to vote for another Democrat again until he was imprisoned or at least discredited.
I may have to reconsider that vow.
Too much power in the hands of one party is more dangerous than a little democratic gridlock.
I may have to vote for a (choke) Democrat for HOR.
Dan from MI
Member
For dissatisfied republicans - I have a LOT of problems with a lot of republicans right now, especially in Washington.
However, the way to deal with them is through the long term. Become a precinct delegate. Those (in Michigan) are usually unopposed in primary elections. Precinct delegates choose the executive committees of the county parties, district committees, and state committees.
The other way is PRIMARIES. More can be done in August. Tim Walberg sent gun grabbing Joe Schwarz home - despite all of the establishment backing the incumbent Schwarz.
However, the way to deal with them is through the long term. Become a precinct delegate. Those (in Michigan) are usually unopposed in primary elections. Precinct delegates choose the executive committees of the county parties, district committees, and state committees.
The other way is PRIMARIES. More can be done in August. Tim Walberg sent gun grabbing Joe Schwarz home - despite all of the establishment backing the incumbent Schwarz.
Dan from MI
Member
As far as Democrats go, as long as their lips are firmly planted on the rear end of George Soros, Hollywood, Jon Stryker, and that crowd - forget it.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
For once, I agree with this sentiment and will mostly be voting for Democrats. Not because I like Democrats, but because I don't believe bad behavior should be rewarded.
Ezekiel
Member
FYI: el Presidente Jorge Shrub wore a uniform (and salutes), Komrade Klinton did not (and does not salute).
I think this gesture by the current CIC is pretty self-explanatory and reveals nothing about either leader.
Yup, because Democrats didn't have any role in the "bad behavior" and Harry Reid made that $1.1 million the media isn't talking about through something other than influence peddling.
Using your articulated standard, you should be voting 3rd party. Yet, you are selecting one "bad" party over another.
Actually, no. Many Presidents who had served in the military didn't return salutes as they were no longer in uniform. They changed the protocol for Reagan, who wanted to return the salute but didn't feel it was appropriate. So, they came up with a justification for it (which escapes me at the moment but I presume allows for the CinC to return a salute regardless of prior service).
Lone_Gunman
Member
Buzz, I think you misunderstand why many here might vote Democrat rather than 3rd party.
There is no chance a 3rd party will win, so a vote for them is mainly philosophical. It won't accomplish anything, but it makes the person voting that way feel like they have voted what their soul tells them to do. Nothing wrong with that, its admirable.
A vote for Democrats, even if you support none of their beliefs, has the potential to change things in a beneficial way. If the Dems take control of the House or Senate, the political momentum of the Neo-Con movement will be stopped cold, and political gridlock will ensue. The Dems and Reps will spend all their time fighting for power, and less time passing bad laws. The founders new that a two party system, where both parties share in power, is less destructive than letting one side have all the power.
That would give us some time for things to change in the Republican party, and maybe the Neo-Cons would lose some of their power by the next election.
There is no chance a 3rd party will win, so a vote for them is mainly philosophical. It won't accomplish anything, but it makes the person voting that way feel like they have voted what their soul tells them to do. Nothing wrong with that, its admirable.
A vote for Democrats, even if you support none of their beliefs, has the potential to change things in a beneficial way. If the Dems take control of the House or Senate, the political momentum of the Neo-Con movement will be stopped cold, and political gridlock will ensue. The Dems and Reps will spend all their time fighting for power, and less time passing bad laws. The founders new that a two party system, where both parties share in power, is less destructive than letting one side have all the power.
That would give us some time for things to change in the Republican party, and maybe the Neo-Cons would lose some of their power by the next election.
- Status
