Marshall
Member
Because voting Democratic would be absurd.
Why would anyone vote Republican?
- Thread starter progunner1957
- Start date
- Status
Because voting Democratic would be absurd.
progunner1957
member
Amen, Kim!
Actually, there is one Democrat I will be voting for on Nov. 7 - he is NRA endorese with an "A" rating for defending our gun rights.
Spoken like a true Clinton moonie.
Wake up, Jango! Look at what Clinton and his leftist/Democrat/socialist buddies in Congress did when they were in power! The Clinton Gun Ban is a historical fact. No matter how deep in denial you go, it will not go away.
History cannot be denied.
RealGun
Member
A gun-toting socialist, correct? At least you have your priorities straight. The problem though is that voting for a Democrat, no matter how gun friendly, can have other consequences that work against gun ownership.
I must admit that it would be nice if a Democrat majority did not mean gun owners were in trouble.
One thing I would caution about is that incumbents with good ratings have an actual voting record. New candidates that are rated on answering a questionnaire might also have a bridge they would like to sell. It is also a good ploy to help defeat a GOP incumbent. Total lie by the time it comes to vote on legislation and blend into the caucus. Those who want to be independent find that the party allocation of funds to their campaigns or endorsements and visiting speakers might be hard to come by when it's time for the next primaries. They could even be abandoned in close races during general elections.
xd9fan
Member
Kim tell me how the GOP is not a driving force towards socialism.
-Tax cuts but they still spending like drunk Democrats (making the cuts a joke)
-Medicare part D
-THE BORDER
-cant even make the Tax cuts perminant
-huge education bill
-HUGE Earmark spending...second to none
-social program reform is DOA
-no new gun laws is the standard
-Bush for the AW ban
- the GOP controled senate cant even pass Anti-Kelo legislation
so much for economic freedom.....
please kim ............before you slice off the dragons left arm......watch for the return blow from the right. Lets be consistent...... Freedom gets a unhealthy dose of "common sense compromise" from the Right as well as the Left.
Last edited:
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
corncod:
A great many people who are not "filthy rich" own stocks or have retirement plans that are dependent upon the stock market.
Who is the "frat-boy" you're talking about? If you mean the President of the United States of America, it might be worth knowing that John Kerry (his opponent in the last Presidential election) belonged to the same fraternity.
I wonder how many members of this forum belonged to a fraternity in high school or college, how many of them have children who are fraternity members, and how many of those people believe as you do that fraternity membership is a stigma.
A great many people who are not "filthy rich" own stocks or have retirement plans that are dependent upon the stock market.
Who is the "frat-boy" you're talking about? If you mean the President of the United States of America, it might be worth knowing that John Kerry (his opponent in the last Presidential election) belonged to the same fraternity.
I wonder how many members of this forum belonged to a fraternity in high school or college, how many of them have children who are fraternity members, and how many of those people believe as you do that fraternity membership is a stigma.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Why can't people understand that a negative comment about Bush is not necessarily an endorsement of the Democrats?
Someone says something bad about Bush, and all the Bush-lovers can ever do is say, "well, Kerry would be worse". I mean, if thats the best you can do to defend Bush, maybe Bush isnt worth the effort.
GoRon
Member
How does giving the Democrats more power to dictate the type of judicial appointments the President makes help us?
We need to put as many conservative Republicans in office as possible.
The more moderate/liberal/leftists there are in the Senate the worse the judicial nominees will be.
The conservatives forced a better pick than H Miers, they forced the border wall issue also in the House.
We need more conservatives and less middle of the roaders.
We need to put as many conservative Republicans in office as possible.
The more moderate/liberal/leftists there are in the Senate the worse the judicial nominees will be.
The conservatives forced a better pick than H Miers, they forced the border wall issue also in the House.
We need more conservatives and less middle of the roaders.
Auggie4700
Member
I feel for ya GoRon, must be tough living near Daleyville. I hear there's an AWB in Cook County's future.....as if there isn't allready.
Auggie
Auggie
Lone_Gunman
Member
Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, was confirmed by a Senate with a Democrat majority.
That statement is true, but the 700 mile fence is un-funded and therefore won't be built, so really all they did was throw the conservatives a bone on that one. I think that was just a tactic to get conservatives happier with the Republicans right before elections. Last election cycle, they played games with gay marriage, this time its the border. The question is whether or not conservatives are dumb enough to fall for it again.
GoRon
Member
I do believe under the current climate that they will never let another Thomas type pick through. It is all about the "balance" on the court now.
The source of liberal/progressive power is at stake, they depend on the courts to do what they cannot do in the legislature.
The next pick is critical.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Go Ron... they said the last pick was the critical one. And the one before that.
Come on, every pick is critical. We all know that. My point is that Thomas got through, and Democrats confirmed him.
I am very ambivalent about how important it is for Republicans to do the picking of Supreme Court justices, especially after the Harriet Miers fiasco. Who will Bush appoint next? His dog?
Come on, every pick is critical. We all know that. My point is that Thomas got through, and Democrats confirmed him.
I am very ambivalent about how important it is for Republicans to do the picking of Supreme Court justices, especially after the Harriet Miers fiasco. Who will Bush appoint next? His dog?
Dan from MI
Member
One more reason I'm voting for a Republican. I have a shot to get rid of Debbie Stupidnow. 
She only voted to ban the .30-30
Go Bouchard!!!
She only voted to ban the .30-30Go Bouchard!!!
I have two main complaints with the Republicans these days.
First: I haven't been able to find out how to tell a true, traditional conservative from a RINO neo-con. That bothers me. If I'm going to vote for a Democrat, I'm going to vote for one that actually calls himself such; not one who masquerades as a Republican.
Second: The Republicans campaign tactics these days are just despicable. Hateful. They have no positive message, so all they can do is try to make you afraid of how much worse things will get if you vote them out of power. Case in point: I received a mailing from the National Republican Congressional Committee in which they had Photoshopped the Democrat Candidate's face into the likeness of The Grim Reaper. The caption read something like "The only sure things about "Candidate X" are death and taxes."
Gimme a break. If I vote for that candidate, I'm NOT voting for DEATH... How simple-minded do they think I am? Because of that campaign material alone, I'm voting for Candidate X. That mailer is typical of the fear-laden material I've been bombarded with this year. As far as I'm concerned, the NRCC can forget about my vote this year.
When the Republicans start campaigning on what they're going to do for me, instead of what their opponents are going to do against me, then I'll start to consider giving them my votes. They have to earn them, though, and they're far behind.
First: I haven't been able to find out how to tell a true, traditional conservative from a RINO neo-con. That bothers me. If I'm going to vote for a Democrat, I'm going to vote for one that actually calls himself such; not one who masquerades as a Republican.
Second: The Republicans campaign tactics these days are just despicable. Hateful. They have no positive message, so all they can do is try to make you afraid of how much worse things will get if you vote them out of power. Case in point: I received a mailing from the National Republican Congressional Committee in which they had Photoshopped the Democrat Candidate's face into the likeness of The Grim Reaper. The caption read something like "The only sure things about "Candidate X" are death and taxes."
Gimme a break. If I vote for that candidate, I'm NOT voting for DEATH... How simple-minded do they think I am? Because of that campaign material alone, I'm voting for Candidate X. That mailer is typical of the fear-laden material I've been bombarded with this year. As far as I'm concerned, the NRCC can forget about my vote this year.
When the Republicans start campaigning on what they're going to do for me, instead of what their opponents are going to do against me, then I'll start to consider giving them my votes. They have to earn them, though, and they're far behind.
RealGun
Member
If we evaluated candidates against absolute standards, we might not be voting at all. Generally what we do is pick the one that seems to best serve our concerns. Inevitably that involves comparison of opposing candidates. Rejecting a candidate because he or she is not a perfect representative of a political philosophy leaves you with what?
If the climate isn't warm enough to suit you, do you move north or south or maybe make the best of where you are? Being pragmatic doesn't mean you have no goals for improvement.
If we continue to vote for candidates that turn around and sell us out, we'll continue to be sold out. Why would you vote for a candidate that votes against your interests, just because he claims otherwise?
I'd rather vote for a candidate that is what he says he is, then try to change his opinion, instead of voting for a chameleon that campaigns on one platform, then performs as if he belongs to the opposition.
I want a politicians that will do absolutely nothing for me personally or anyone person or group. I can not vote Democrat for that reason. I am just morally opposed to socialism in any form. I am not a collective. I am not a class group I do not have a false conscience. I am not an ethinic group. I am not oppressed. So PLEASE DO NOTHING FOR ME. I BEG THEM. Ceetee and I are just different.
Here's my take on this issue.
Each year, the Republicans have shifted further to the right, to the point where there's no room in the party for any true moderates any more.
1) Katherine Harris, who's running for senate in my state declared that a "vote for anyone other than a Christian is a vote for sin". I've interpreted that as, "there's no place in our party for non-Christians like yourself".
2) For years, Far-right Republicans have been telling me that the USA is really a Christian nation, and separation of church and state is irrelevant. I've interpreted that as, "there's no place in our party for non-Christians like yourself".
3) For years, Far-right Republicans have concerned themselves with what I do with my own body, who I can marry, and who I sleep with. Now they're the party of "freedom".
4) With the Patriot Act, suspension of Habeus Corpus, and such, Conservative Republicans have been steadily eroding my rights. Now they're telling me I can trust them not to violate my Second Amendment rights. Before you ask me how the Patriot Act has hurt me, ask yourself if you're absolutely certain you have never been wiretapped.
Now that there's a strong possibility that the Republicans are going to have their backsides voted out by the same people who were never important to them, they're are telling that I HAVE to vote for them. Spare me!
If your butts weren't on the line, would you care about my vote? I'll vote for who I see as best protecing ALL of my freedoms, not who you see as protecting your right to go to the shooting range. If that means you may not be able to buy 30 round mags in the future, that's the price you pay for not being smart enough to see that the majority of Americans are somewhere to the left of far-right.
Do I sound angry? I am. I have often voted Republican in the past. Do I want anti gun politicians in office, no, but Republicans have declared that there's no room for
anyone like me.
Republicans have spent the last 6 years making their bed, now they can sleep in it.
Each year, the Republicans have shifted further to the right, to the point where there's no room in the party for any true moderates any more.
1) Katherine Harris, who's running for senate in my state declared that a "vote for anyone other than a Christian is a vote for sin". I've interpreted that as, "there's no place in our party for non-Christians like yourself".
2) For years, Far-right Republicans have been telling me that the USA is really a Christian nation, and separation of church and state is irrelevant. I've interpreted that as, "there's no place in our party for non-Christians like yourself".
3) For years, Far-right Republicans have concerned themselves with what I do with my own body, who I can marry, and who I sleep with. Now they're the party of "freedom".
4) With the Patriot Act, suspension of Habeus Corpus, and such, Conservative Republicans have been steadily eroding my rights. Now they're telling me I can trust them not to violate my Second Amendment rights. Before you ask me how the Patriot Act has hurt me, ask yourself if you're absolutely certain you have never been wiretapped.
Now that there's a strong possibility that the Republicans are going to have their backsides voted out by the same people who were never important to them, they're are telling that I HAVE to vote for them. Spare me!
If your butts weren't on the line, would you care about my vote? I'll vote for who I see as best protecing ALL of my freedoms, not who you see as protecting your right to go to the shooting range. If that means you may not be able to buy 30 round mags in the future, that's the price you pay for not being smart enough to see that the majority of Americans are somewhere to the left of far-right.
Do I sound angry? I am. I have often voted Republican in the past. Do I want anti gun politicians in office, no, but Republicans have declared that there's no room for
anyone like me.
Republicans have spent the last 6 years making their bed, now they can sleep in it.
RealGun
Member
And you have an alternative?
My alternative is to vote with my conscience, which in most cases will be independent. I will not vote to "punish" the Republicans, but if they get a badly needed lesson in Democracy, so be it.
Hopefully if the Dems do take the house, they will remember how effective the NRA is in getting anti-gun voters out of office. I know a lot of people say they'll follow Kennedy, Pelosi and the other powers that be, but look at how many Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush this election.
GoRon
Member
That is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. This administration is anything but conservative/right.
Having said that, I will be voting Republican and I support them in spite of their moderate ways. I also write them and tell them to start governing like conservatives.
The main issue before us is the failing health of Justices Stevens and Ginsburg. We cannot afford to have a Democrat Senate and/or President when they soon retire.
The Supreme Court is the center of power for the Democrats/liberals/progressives.
Do not take your eye off the ball.
Don't kid yourself into thinking there is no difference between Democrat and Republican when it comes to judicial appointments. There is a huge difference, especially since the days of Reagan till present.
Lone_Gunman
Member
GoRon, first let me agree with you that the Republican party is more moderate now than ever before, and anyone who thinks it is more conservative is just plain wrong. To those who think that, in what way do you think it is more conservative? I would say that the Republican party now is more liberal than the Democratic party was when Kennedy was president.
However, I just have to disagree with you on your perception of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is dominated by Republican appointees. All but TWO of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans.
So if the Supreme Court is center of power of progressives and liberals, then we have no choice but to blame that on Republicans.
As I have pointed out before, Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the court, was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate.
My point is twofold: First, we cannot rely on the Republicans to make good Supreme Court appointments (or else the court would be more conservative. And Secondly, having a Democratic controlled Senate does not exclude the possibility of getting a conservative judge.
However, I just have to disagree with you on your perception of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is dominated by Republican appointees. All but TWO of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans.
So if the Supreme Court is center of power of progressives and liberals, then we have no choice but to blame that on Republicans.
As I have pointed out before, Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the court, was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate.
My point is twofold: First, we cannot rely on the Republicans to make good Supreme Court appointments (or else the court would be more conservative. And Secondly, having a Democratic controlled Senate does not exclude the possibility of getting a conservative judge.
GoRon
Member
It is a different world now. A different Republican Party.
You are seriously misguided if you think President Bush will nominate someone like Stevens, that happened in a completely different era, the party has changed since then.
O'Connor moved left but wasn't anywhere near as progressive as Clintons picks (Ginsberg and Breyer)
Souter looked good on paper but stabbed conservatives in the back, I don't think his leftward lurch was anticipated by anyone.
You think it would be better for president Bush to have to get nominees past a Judicial Committee run by Patrick Leahy?
That is just nuts.
I know you feel mad at the R's but for goodness sakes you are going to turn the Supreme Court picks over to the Democrats? You trust them to do better than the Republicans?
I don't get you and the others who want to throw a hissy fit and ignore what is at stake in this election.
xd9fan
Member
and tell me why they should listen to you when you vote for them anyway and you continue to reward them with it???
Its very hard for me to believe THIS is what will make a party "see the light" and change back to its party platform. Help me here......
Here's the thing that gets me: how does someone believe that "democracy" is the best system of government, then go on to believe we'll get good leaders if we do anything other than vote for the candidate that best represents our beliefs?
Lone_Gunman
Member
First, Bush would still be making the nominations.
Second, with as many RINO's as there are in the Senate, I don't think they will be able to do any better than if the Democrats had a majority there anyway.
Third, I think any damage the Democrats would do with respect to nominees would be balanced out by the fact that they would be gridlocking the Neo-Conservative agenda in general, and putting Bush in a 2 year lame-duck phase.
- Status