Post Election Collective Thread - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/07/2004 12:23:45 AM · #177

I won't pretend that I waded through all of these postings, but I did read a considerable amount of them.

So what do you think Democrats have to do to win next time out--besides get a good candidate. It's good to remember that this election was very close, both electorally and in actual votes. Kerry was a pretty good candidate, but I tend to think that many folks tended finally toward Bush because he offered a clear choice of the kind of man he projected.

Kerry seemed to say "this is what he did and this is what I'll do."

While Bush seemed to say "this is what he's been doing and this is who I am."

Did the "I am" resonate with voters more than the "I'll do"? To me it seems like this may be the case.

Here in Utah, everyone is Republican, but I still think that if Dems here were to clearly state where they stand morally (perhaps the "I am"), Utah voters would find that they have much in common with the Democrats. Heck, 30 years ago, it was hard to find a Republican in congress from Utah; they were all Democrats! Now that's shifted, and major issues like abortion and gay rights brand the Democrats as 'immoral' to many Utah voters, when other moral issues like caring for the environment, helping workers and lower income families survive with dignity, etc. could get some glances. Even things like gay rights could be put to a higher test in some minds by saying that "we democrats are for parity and fairness--like the constitution demands."

The Bush administration was/is very good at making issues sound very simple; black and white; "you're with us or you're against us"; "it's good or it's bad". Do the democrats need to play this game, or can they convince the public that law and their making is a complex issue?

"I am' or "I'll do"? Will it work?

(Edit: Just a note: I'm independent--but I'm tired of having little dialogue here in Utah)

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 00:26:06.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2004 01:14:16 AM · #178

Originally posted by dsidwell:

Just a note: I'm independent--but I'm tired of having little dialogue here in Utah)

You're not going to try and turn this into a rational discussion are you?

nborton

11/07/2004 03:31:09 AM · #179

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by nborton:
After reading this lengthy thread, it looks as though everyone is blaming Christianity/religion as the reason Kerry got beat.

All the evidence points that way. It's sad to see the citizenry of a nation founded on the freedom of the individual from gonvernment intrusion into their private lives so passively abdicate their responsibility to safeguard that freedom from a gang of rich, media-savvy theocrats.

Just to clarify my post. I am not saying that one view or another is correct. I just see this as a case in which the Democratic Party did not align themselves strongly enough with the views they believe in. If the Democratic Party is going to be the party of pro-choice, gays, etc. on moral/life style type issues, then the Party should make that clearer. Also, defending the position should not be shameful, and shouldnâ��t be pussyfooted around with (this actually goes for both sides).

As an example, if I see 2+2=4 and I am 100% solid in my decision, then no majority vote that says it really equals 7 should make me sway from my position.

I feel that people just didn't think that the Party really had a solid core of beliefs that were independent mass public opinion. The solid core of beliefs may have existed in this last election. However, the public never could grasp them for one reason or another.

Instead of people finding a party that fits them, the Democratic Party seemed to be trying to find a party to fit the people.

Basically I think people saw the Democratic Party as trying to be a little bit of everything to everybody, and it didnâ��t work.

On a side note. I donâ��t think realigning the Party, and trying to become more â��religiousâ�� is a smart move. Many political shows are suggesting this. If the moral/religious voter is ideologically opposite of what the Party represents, then it makes no sense to water down the Partyâ��s core in order to pick up a few swing votes. Going after non-voters that have the same social views seems more productive, then trying to change voterâ��s minds.

11/07/2004 04:08:32 AM · #180

Get used to it. The country is centered-right.

Bush won in the election with job losses, consumer confidence less than 90, etc. breaking all records. All because of conservatives voting for him.

Conservatives are concerned about breaknig down of the family. Gay marriage is just part of that. And support for late term abortions isn't going to get you elected anywhere in this country considering 80% are for banning partial birth abortion.

Tolerance? If support for bad moral values is anti-tolerance, so be it. You and your leftist liberals can live in California or New York, but don't expect people in Texas, in the midwest, etc. YOu can join the other tree huggers and keep out of our way. :)

As far as your argument about being an immigrant, that's a moot point beacuse I am animmigrant as well, and I support Bush and conservative values. Intolerance? That's the liberal for you -- you disagree with the liberals and you are immediately called a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, stupid, dumb, backward, etc. The fact is, most of the country is conservative. As long as Democrats don'g realize that, they will never win a major presidential election. The last one that won ran on a moderate position and much more conservative than Kerry (Clinton -- he was a liberal but he lied and pretended to be a moderate and won.) Looks like the only chance for Democrats are a bunch of lying gimps like the impeached President Clinton.

Fact is, Bush reached out to voters, kerry did not. He is a liberal by any definition of the word. What do Democrats do? They use fear of voter supression. Democrat supports felon's right to vote??? That's the party you want to go with? Fine by me, just stay in California and we'll get along justfine :-)

Tony Ku

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by paganini:
The election proves two things:

1. The country is conservative. Liberalism is not the mainstream politics. The country is center-right, not left.

The numbers don't support your conclusion. In a nation of 217,767,000 adults of voting age, only 115,945,902 of us turned out to vote (53.2%); and I suspect that many of those adults that did not vote for either candidate, including the 55,638,551 of us that voted for Kerry, would object to any imposition of your conservative views on us.

Originally posted by paganini:
2. Who got Bush elected? Christians and gun owners like myself :)

You're correct about that. I would add the following to your list: Individuals that narrowly define "moral values" as meaning being anti-choice and anti-marrige of same-sex couples; I would also add those individuals that continue to ignore facts regarding Iraq, and which continue to erroneously belive that Saddam Hussein had something to with 9/11 and that he possessed WMDs:

Remember, David Kay, the CIA's Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq after the invasion, concluded that Iraq did not posses WMDs, and that, to his satisfaction, Iraq did not have WMDs before the invasion (ref):

"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on."

Originally posted by paganini:
What did Kerry do wrong? Well, besides that he's the most ultra-left Senator out there (pretty close), he never really connected with the middle americans. Bush, on the other hand, went to Catholic churches, went to Hispanic communities, black churches, etc. and tries to connect with people and talk with them. What does kerry do? He spends the last 2 weeks of the campaign with Bruce Springsteen????? How does that help to connect with the moderates and conservative Democrats?

Well, I can tell you that Kerry connected with me and with the hundreds of Kerry-supporters that I personally met as I knocked on doors to campaign on his behalf. I was in Arizona, Nevada and in Southern-California, volunteering my weekends to knock on doors and making phone calls for Kerry and the Democratic party. And trust me, I would not do that for someone I did not believe in. Kerry and the Democratic party represent the kind of America I want to live in, and the kind of America I want my future children to belive in. Bush and his party do not represent my core values of tolerance, hope, and of shared responsibilities and shared burdens. To me, Bush's party represents selfish-individualism, arrogance, cronyism and of religious imposition.

Originally posted by paganini:
Now, it's not to say that Bush is perfect. His war policies in Iraq is just bad... not the invasion itself, but the actual planning of the war. Rumsfeld initially wanted 50,000 troops, Pentagonwanted 400k. They settled on 185,000, so while the military supports Bush, they despise Rumsfeld -- the guy got really arrogant after Afghanistan and I think he'll be on a short list to be replaced once the Iraq thing is finished in a year.

I agree with half of this, and would add the following: The war was wrong to begin with, period. Iraq did not posse a "grave and gathering threat," and the world knows it. The only ones that still belive this are Bush's supporters. Now, as for the "Iraq thing" being over in a year: because of Bush's war of choice in Iraq, WE -- the American people -- have now made a multi-generational commitment to that country, in terms of funding and blood... here's the point we in Iraq for the long-haul. Remember, in the 3rd debate it was briefly mentioned that we're building 14 large scale bases in Iraq, and I don't suspect that we're building them for them to be occupied by Iraqis.

Originally posted by paganini:
It's because Bush connects with most Americans. Kerrydidn't... Kerry just seems so pompous. Bush is always underestimated and he enjoys it :)

Democrats needs to realize that the heart and soul of this country isn't about Hollywood, it's about conservative values (and i don't really mean religious values, though some part of it is about religion), what i mean is -- conservative values that preserve the Constitution, judges that don't put their personal opinionwhen making decisions on social issues, but follow the Constitution to the letter. It means, civil rights doesn't just cover only freedom of speech, it covers GUN RIGHTS as well.

Democrats need to drop all those special interests groups on the fringe like Greenpeace, Hugatree Foundation, Marry-your-dog-and-cat organization, National Organization of Witches (NOW), Planned Infanticide, Free-Tibet, Legalize Marjuna, and of course, endorsements from Hollywood. They need a candidate, moderate on issues like abortion and gun control -- this doesn't mean they have to support banning abortion, but common sense values such as REDUCING abortion and support for legal rights of gun owners.

After reading stuff like this it becomes ever clear that we're a divided nation, at least on cultural issues; and that it's no wonder that the Republican party manages to use wedge issues so effectively. My friend, I represent the core American ideals that I'm sure you'd claim to support: I'm an immigrant, I served in the Marines, my younger brother served in the Marines, I attended night-school and eventually put myself through college, I have a wonderful and beautiful family, I belive in conserving our natural resources (in part, so you can fish and hunt), I support a woman's right to chose (which I'd say is as much her right as you'd claim that it's your right to own guns)... I am a Democrat.

Originally posted by paganini:
I suspect that it will take at least 1-2 more election cycles for Democrats to realize this. Even though people viewed John kerry as better for economics, they value their morals and rights first. In fact, probably the most successful ad in Ohio from the NRA (which i belong to) was the message that "You can always find another job, but once you lose you gun rights, youwill never have it back". This is why 66% of gun owners in Ohio voted Bush. The liberals are scratching their heads....

:)

Viva Bush!
Tony

No, no scratching of heads... I, and many of us, know exactly what occurred, and understand what needs to be done. In the meantime, you and many of Bush's supporters, voted for a man whose lies and deeds have already cost us over a thousand American lives and the lives of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

11/07/2004 04:14:20 AM · #181

Actually if you consider the fact tat Bush ran when there was a badly planned war (and a lot of conservative are very critical of Bush on this), as well as consumer confidence level below 90 (i don't remember any president ever won with that number), record deficit, etc. it was a LANDSLIDE.

if Democrats where to put up a moderate or someone that can connect with voters in the midwest, it'd be an easy win. Instead, they voted for some masschusetts liberal who supported LATE TERM ABORTIONS, GAY MARRIAGES, etc. that are so far out of the main stream. Even Clinton advise Kerry to go out and go against gay marriage -- HE REFUSED.

THere is no such thing as "gay marriage". THere is just marriage, it's between a man and a woman. Next thing you know if the liberals have their way was to define marriage between a man and a dog, a cat, beastiality, etc.

NOte: just recently a London film award was given to a movie portraying a PEDOPHILE!!!! Is that the type of representation Democrats want for their party? Tolerable of EVERYTHING? Every freakazoid? If they don't change, they'll never win another election again at the presidential level.

Christ,if you can't beat Bush with all these disadvantages Bush has, you're really in trouble.

Probably the only way Democrats can win now is to either amend the constitution and ask Arnold to join them (he's really liberal pretending to be a Republican) or ask John McCain to join them in 2008. McCain, who supports full gun rights, would really hurt the REpublican base if he can be convniced to switch sides.

It's very simple -- without eitehr the conservative Christian vote, or the gun owners vote, no presidential candidate will ever win an election from the Democrats side.

Tony

Originally posted by dsidwell:

11/07/2004 04:27:00 AM · #182

BTW anyone who compares the "woman's right to choose" versus my rights as a gun owner is just ignorant.

There is no woman's right to choose int eh Constitution. The rights was "derived" based on a Supreme Court decision which was baed on "privacy laws", which was derived from the 4th amendment of anti-search and seizeure. My right to own guns is guaranted, IN WRITING, in the 2nd amendment. OK? There is no room for discussion on guns, it's written there. there is, however, much discussion on the abortion issue as it is never written clearly or defined in the constitution itself. Its power is derived from teh 4th amendment and subject to Supreme Court review.

The thing is, Democrats have been wanting to remove my civil rights to own guns ever since the 1960's. Kerry was a big anti-gunner and voted every time to restrict rights of gun owners. This is why 66% of gun owners in Ohio voted for Bush. Sure, the economy in the state suffered a lot, but when you lose your gun rights, you don't get it back and gun owners know that.

This is why Democrats aren't making any noises about the "assualt weapons ban", because in 1994, when they banned the guns that people own, they got voted out of power (even Clinton admit to this in his autobiography).

The problem? Democrats kept coming out with these liberal candidates. In the last 3 decades, only 2 Democratic Presidents and ONE was impeached!!!! :-) That doesn't sound like much of a record to me.

The fact is, Republicans that ran on a conservative platform has won the elections in the last 30 years. Look at who ran as a moderates and lost? Ford and Bush senior. It proves -- the country is center-right, and if Republicans come up with some loser moderate, it will lose the base of supporters. Democrats must have moderate presidential candidates, one that doesn't alienate gun owners or christian groups if they want to win again (The fact is, the left will always vote for Democrats, they really don't have much a choice, so Democrats can move easily to the center, versus Republicans who if they vote moderate candidates will not have the conservative base support).

My guess is it'll takea few election cycles for Democrats to learn this. Otherwise, it'll be a one party majority country ruling party for long time to come.

Btw, for anyone who claims Bush doesn't ahve a mandate, or the election is too close -- Bush won 50% of the vote. Clinton didn't do that for his 2 elections :) I think that's an amazing achievement given that if he was any other president, he would ahve lost with all the bad economic numbers, especially in a hard hit state like Ohio. But gues what? The voters wanted moral values over their wallets because they know if they let the liberals get their way with gay marriages, abortions, etc. this country will break down into pieces. No nation has grown strong wtihout a sound base of teh middle class -- and no middle class can ever rise without good families. IN the end, family values are much more important than really, anything else.

Just look at teh electoral map -- you get the liberals controlling the west coast + the northeastern corner. MOST STATES ARE CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICAN. Democrats ain't going to take away any of those core red states running on a anti-gun pro-abortion platform.

11/07/2004 04:40:31 AM · #183

1. Canadian Healthcare is a joke -- just watch the waiting list. Some are over 1 years or more for SURGERY!! They ahve to come down to the US to get surgery because the wait there is so damn long. Nice try here, dude. Unless you enjoy paying 60-70% in taxes which is nominal tax rates in Canada and Australia, National Healthcare plan wouldn't have a prayer of being passed in this country.

2. There is no right of choice for abortion in the constitution. There is no direct reference to abortion rights at all. The rights are 'derived" from the 4th amendment, and that was a decision by the Supreme Court, NOT the legislative branch. There is, however, clear and define rights of LIFE in the constitution.

3. Bush did te right thing in the constitution amendment. Instead of using legislative branch to pass laws to restrict gay marriage, he wanted the PEOPLE to define it, state by state. There absolutely no proof that gays are "natural" by any definition of the word. At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help. Liberals claims to tolerate anyone. They even started to tolerate pedophiles now, especially in Hollywood with a bunch of films about some rehabilitating pedophile. Give me a break.

4. Gee, where in your list of civil liberties did you talk about gun rights? eh? Nada, a typical liberal response. Let's see, we want 1st amendment, 4th amendment, we don't care about 10th amendment (state rights) or the 2nd amendment is the typical liberal answer. The gun vote is pretty damn important in this country, and a liberal Kerry donned that hunting uniform which made him look like Elmer Fudd :) in order to pretend he isn't anti-gun. That's gotta be teh defining moment of this campaign. Gun owners aren't amused, 66% voted for Bush in Ohio is the proof of that.

The fact is, liberals want to support certain 'rights' that don't exist in the Constitution, but want to eliminate rights such as gun rights as guaranteed in the Second Amendment from everyone. Looks like they're pretty intolerant to a large number of people in this country(last time i checked, over 60 million Americans are gun owners, and we tend to vote on single issue).

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I don't know why I actually thought I might get some real answers to my questions. here's my answers to my own questions. I don't expect everyone to agree, but this is how I feel as a "liberal" person.

Tell me whats wrong with not agreeing with a stupid war?
Thankfully, we still live in a country where we are allowed to disagree with the direction our leaders are taking us. Sure, we were mislead into believeing that Sadam had WMD and intended to use them on us in cunjunction with terrorists. But since we are there, we better make right to our country, the Iraqi citizens, and the world community. To answer the question, there is nothing wrong with not agreeing with this war. Whether you think it is a stupid war or a smart war doesn't matter. You, as an American citizen and a citizen of the world have a right to believe whatever you feel in regards to war.

whats wrong with not agreeing to endless civilian bloodshed?
The unfortunate cost of waging a war on another country is the fact that civilians get killed. Whether it's from a "smart" bomb that goes off target through computer or human error, or from destroying the water suppy or attacking hospitals. Bringing the battle into an urban enviroment will obviously put more civilians at risk, and insurgents fighting an occupying power will cause more civilian casualties through the use of gurrilla tactics. Granted, if the US didn't attack and occupy Iraq, then civilian wouldn't be caught in the crossfire. Unfortunately, the fact remains: we are in a ground battle in urban enviroments in the country of Iraq. To answer the question, any person in their right mind would disagree with the death of civilians.

whats wrong with believing in health care for everyone?
While we are the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world, one would think we could provide more affordable, or free healthcare to every man, woman, and child in the country. Currently Canada has the most public hospital system in the world: 98% of all Canadian hospital care is paid for by the state, while no other country covers more than 80%. We do not live in a socialist society. But then again, neither do Canadians, or several other countries that provide good healthcare coverage for their citizens.

whats wrong with me thinking the president is a moron?
Granted, he isn't the brightest crayola in the box, but moron might be a little harsh. Sure he's made quite a few mistakes, we all do, but most of us can fess up and own our mistakes. So the answer to the question is, you have a right to feel that way about him.

whats wrong with believing in the womans right to chose?
Yeah, there are rumors floating around that Bush will appoint some very conservative judges who may or may not try to overturn Roe V Wade. And yes, it is common knowledge that GW Bush is against abortions of all kinds, except in the case of rape, incest or to save the motherâ��s life. So knowing how Bush feels about abortions, the chances are probably pretty good that he might appoint judges who follow the same believe pattern as he does. The answer to the question: Every human, male or female should be given the basic right of choice, and that right should protected and fought for.

whats wrong with believing in investing in education instead of guns?
There is nothing wrong with investing in education instead of guns. Actually, if our world was better educated, the violence everywhere in the would most likely go way down. Total defence budget for 2005 = $401.7 billion Total education budget for 2005 = $57.3 billion. Think about this: if the education budget increased from 57.3b to 100b, and the defence decreased from 401.7b to 350b, we would be the smartest country in the world. and we would still have the best army and the largest defence budget in the world.

whats wrong with believing in joining the entire world at the table instead of pushing them away? Sure, GW Bush wasn't able to get support from many of our most trusted allies, because they correctly believed the war againts Iraq was unjustified. There were no WMD's and there was not an imminent threat to the security of the US from Iraq. So, yeah, he pushed the world away after the entire world was on our side following the horrible events of september 11th. The world is not on the side of the US in this struggle. The US has pushed away from the world table, and we should be sitting at that table working together to make the whole world a safer place for our children.

whats wrong with believing in gay rights?
GW Bush supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman and deny states the ability to recognize marriage between same-sex couples. This stance is discriminating to gay couples. Gay, straight, black, white, yellow, or polka dot people should all have equal rights, and the constitution of the United States of America should not be tampered with because someones belief conflicts with somebody elses lifestyle.

whats wrong with believing in basic civil liberties?
A womans right to choose, gay rights, free speech, privacy, religious liberty, etc... These things are part of the frontline fights for basic civil liberties. A womans right to choose is close to being tampered with, gay rights are being tampered with, free speech and privacy rights have deteriorated severly since the implementation of the US Patriot Act. If we allow the interests of "national security" to take away our freedoms, we surrender what it is to be an American, and the terrorists win. Basic civil liberties for all people is something we all need to fight to protect.

whats wrong with believing in taking care of the enviroment?
GW Bush has stepped away from the Kyoto treaty, and his enviromental policy is plain and clear to anyone who want to do some research. Don't just read the official statement, instead look into the actions of this administration in regards to the enviroment. Here's a link to some of the things the administration has implemented in the last 4 years //www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/fridays.asp If you care at all about the enviroment, these policies clearly should strike a nerve. With a little research, you can find lots of information about the Bush administration and the enviroment. Taking care of the enviroment is a good thing. And neither party is doing right by our enviroment.

whats wrong with believing in keeping American jobs in America?
The Bush administration said on 2/10/2004 "The movement of U.S. factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation." Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers said "I think outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it's something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run," Nearly 2.7 million manufacturing and 1 million professional-services and information-technology jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. Bush told us he would create jobs â�� he just didn't tell us they would be in China, India and the Philippines. Keeping jobs in America will help to make America stronger. It will provide jobs for Americans, and will put food on the table of hard working Americans. Keeping jobs in America is a good thing. Outsourcing jobs overseas is only good for the corporation.

whats wrong with believing in keeping a seperation of church and state?
George W. Bush is among the most openly religious presidents in U.S. history. A daily Bible reader, he often talks about how Jesus changed his heart. He has spoken, publicly and privately, of hearing God's call to run for the presidency and of praying for God's help since he came into office. The seperation of church and state is getting thinner evry day. Religion is playing a major role in the direction of our great country.

tell me. what is wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that. It is your right and duty as an american citizen to question your government.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/07/2004 04:46:40 AM · #184

Well said -- not to mention that even though conservatives don't like Bush for *some* of his policies, they love him for his core beliefs. Since the country is conservative, Kerry lost, and lost pretty big considering how bad Iraq is, etc. it woul've been a sure win if the Democrats ran a moderate candidate.

Kerry really never defined himself and Bush campaign also didn't allow him to -- with 20 years in teh Senate and lots of liberal voting record, he doesn't have a prayer to win. A study was done and showed that only 4 US presidents have ever become president from teh legislative branch (Senate + House of Represnetitves) because they ahve a huge long voting record and they tend to vote on both side of the issues maknig them look really indecisive. And out of the 4 presidents, NONE of them had a second term (one was assassinated, JFK)... :) sounds like bad omen to me.

Democrats need to look at moderate Governors in the state to run for preez next time. If they came out with Hillary, boy, that would sure energize the conservatives again and she'll lose in a landslide. The Republicans can ran McCain (who the conservatives really don't like) and stillwin against a candidatel ike Clinton!

Originally posted by achiral:

the reason i have a really hard time trying to understand the liberal ideals is exactly this thread...it's all finger pointing, no personal look at your own party, no thoughts that
maybe, just maybe, voter fraud happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
maybe, just maybe, kerry has faults just like bush.
maybe, just maybe, the democrats here and all over the country have a huge problem with dwelling in the past...none of your leaders are inspirational, none of your leaders have ideas about how to solve our world's problems outside of getting rid of "our dumb president".

living in the past is a terrible place to be and is why kerry lost. the democratic party is no longer a party of visionaries, it's a party guilty of having no vision, period, and john kerry presented that as loud as possible for all of america to see. i don't like bush but sure as heck didn't like how kerry spent 100% of his time trying to tear bush down and 0% of his time trying to show america why HE should be president. the last two election candidates for the democrats are proof positive that the democratic party is headed in the wrong direction. it proves that even though bush made blunders in his first term, he still was able to beat kerry by a far wider margin than he beat (well in fact he didn't beat him by popular vote) gore by the first time...this is AFTER all the bad stuff happened.

personally i find my political views socially liberal and fiscally conservative but i can't call myself a member of a party with no vision.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

11/07/2004 01:15:42 PM · #185

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dsidwell:
Just a note: I'm independent--but I'm tired of having little dialogue here in Utah)

You're not going to try and turn this into a rational discussion are you?

So much for a rational discussion. lol! :)

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/07/2004 01:27:07 PM · #186

Originally posted by paganini:

The fact is, liberals want to support certain 'rights' that don't exist in the Constitution, but want to eliminate rights such as gun rights as guaranteed in the Second Amendment from everyone. Looks like they're pretty intolerant to a large number of people in this country(last time i checked, over 60 million Americans are gun owners, and we tend to vote on single issue).

Yes, you tend to vote on a single issue, namely gun ownership, and this is a big part of the problem as I see it. This allows you to ignore the incompetence and irresponsibility of our present leadership. You also ignore the millions of people who live in cities in this country who have to deal with gun violence every day. Do you really need a handgun or a submachine gun to hunt wild turkey?? How in the world would banning those weapons infringe on your right to own and hunt with a rifle? And, by the way, I have NEVER heard ANY democrat (or republican for that matter, and there are a few who support limits on gun ownership) claim an intention to take your hunting rifle away from you. What utter nonsense.

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 13:29:20.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/07/2004 02:02:31 PM · #187

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Do you really need a handgun or a submachine gun to hunt wild turkey?? How in the world would banning those weapons infringe on your right to own and hunt with a rifle? And, by the way, I have NEVER heard ANY democrat (or republican for that matter, and there are a few who support limits on gun ownership) claim an intention to take your hunting rifle away from you. What utter nonsense.

The problem with banning one type of gun, then makes it easier to ban the next. It then becomes an addiction.
In my opinion, EVERYONE should start carrying guns. How many stores and people do think will get robbed or carjacked whatever..when the criminal KNOWS everyone else is carrying what he has or better? (C:

Oh yeah...this is interesting. Look at the where the urban areas are and "high crime" areas. What color?
//www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap2000.htm

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 14:03:38.

11/07/2004 07:07:52 PM · #188

You read my mind dude:)

Besidse, 2nd amendment isn't about HUNTING. 2nd amendment is about protecting individual's freedom from tyranical government. The government actually have the right to restrict hunting (it's not protected under the constitution), but there is no place to restrict gun rights.

Machine guns are already restricted heavily with the National Firearms Act, so Judith point is moot.

By the way, people do hunt with handguns - obviously judith doesn't nkow that :)

It's besides the point. I should be able to own any gun under the protection of the constitution, period. If you want to change that, amend the Constitution (good luck getting 3/4 of the states vote though), beacuse that's the LEGAL way to do it and the righteous way to do it, not through the courts and not through state legislation.

As far as people wanting to take away hunting rifles -- Kerry voted for ban on certain ammunitions used by hunters. Seriously. Kerry also voted for all sort of taxes on guns.

By the way, Judith, if you're thinking ASSAULT WEAPONS ban means to banning AUTOMATIC weapons, you're just ignorant about the facts as most liberals are. Assault weapons ban, as defined in the 1994 Clinton ban, prohibits these characteristics (and allowing only two out of the following):

1. Bayonet lug (when's the last time you see someone being stabbed to death by a baoynet mounted on a rifle in this country for murder? :))
2. Pistol grip
3. Detachable magazine.
4. Telescopic (retractable) stock
5. Grenade launcher (unfortunately, you can't own grenades, so this is a moot point, the only thing one can legally own is flares).

6. Flash suppressor (it doesn't eliminate the flash at all, jsutmake it easier for the shooter to see).

That's it. Then they ban guns based on names. remember, you can't own machine guns already (without some heavy registration requirements), so all these stuff does is nothing. Congress agrees with this and thus the ban isn't extended -- it doesn't protect against crime. The number of crimes commited with these "assault weapons" numbers less than 1% per year anyway. So they banguns like AR-15, which looks like the military M-16, BLACK rifle, UGLY looking, so they ban it. They banned Uzi 9mm, the semiautomatic version. They banned variant of the semiautomatic rifles that "look" like an AK-47, but like I sdaid, it's NON_AUTOMATIC.

In short, the assault weapons ban did very little to prevent crime, but it does make it a nightmare for existing gun owners to know which gun is banned and which is not. (guns made before 1994 are legal for civilians, guns made after 1994 arenot. And if you buy one by mistake, tha'ts 10 years in prison). Believe me, 90% of the gunowners are very happy that the 1994 ban is gone.

Until democrats change their views on Gun owners, people like myself will vote one issue and one issue only -- which president will be more likely toprotect gun owner's rights. Unfortunately in the last election, Democrats came out with someone who has voted for EVERY SINGLE GUN BAN LEGISLATION in the last 20 years.

The issue for this country in terms of crime isn't about guns -- even Michael Moore's documentary concluded this -- it's the American public fixation on violence. If you ban all guns in this country, you'll instead see people die from being clubbed or knife to death. We have an insatiable appetite for violent films, etc. It's the fact. Guns have nothing to do with people -- they're inanimate objects. To blame guns for murder in this country is to blame a certain car like Porsche for someone to drive it into a school bus and causing deaths on the school bus.

The part that scares gun owners about Kerry is that he mentioned that "gun shows are bieng used by TERRORISTS..." in his second debate. When he gets into office, he'll no doubt use Patriot Act II to ban guns and just use terrorism as the way to restrict gun owner's rights. It's pretty clear. When he said that in the second debate, i knew he's going to lose the election... That's just plain stupid on his part. There are 60 million gun owners in this country and we vote mostly on single issue. Until our rights are restored, most of us will still vote on that one issue alone. This is why 66% of Ohio gun owners voted for Bush and this is why Kerry had to pretend to be a hunter for a photo op :)

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Do you really need a handgun or a submachine gun to hunt wild turkey?? How in the world would banning those weapons infringe on your right to own and hunt with a rifle? And, by the way, I have NEVER heard ANY democrat (or republican for that matter, and there are a few who support limits on gun ownership) claim an intention to take your hunting rifle away from you. What utter nonsense.

The problem with banning one type of gun, then makes it easier to ban the next. It then becomes an addiction.
In my opinion, EVERYONE should start carrying guns. How many stores and people do think will get robbed or carjacked whatever..when the criminal KNOWS everyone else is carrying what he has or better? (C:

Oh yeah...this is interesting. Look at the where the urban areas are and "high crime" areas. What color?
//www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap2000.htm

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 19:11:06.

mrorange002

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/07/2004 07:09:57 PM · #189

Originally posted by paganini:

There absolutely no proof that gays are "natural" by any definition of the word. At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help.

since you are online,
explain this statement for me.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2004 07:15:50 PM · #190

Where's the proof that gays are not choosing to be gays and is genetic in the first place?

Assuming they are genetic.... they serve no purpose in procreating the next generation. All animals goal in the world is surival and to procreate and extend the species survival chances. So if you're not part of that, then it's not the norm. It's simple science.

Until gays can asexually reproduce (reproduction without sex or without sperm, i.e. by themselves), they're basically people with genetic disorder by any scientific definition. TO say that they're normal is against all scientific evidence on the basic law of nature: survival of the fittest -- which means, survival of your species, which means, being able to procreate and extend the life of the species. Gays are obviously incapable of reproduction naturally (i haven't seen two men able to have a baby by themselves).

If 100% of the population is gay, humans are doomed, aren't we? :)

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by paganini:
There absolutely no proof that gays are "natural" by any definition of the word. At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help.

since you are online,
explain this statement for me.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/07/2004 07:45:13 PM · #191

Originally posted by paganini:

Assuming they are genetic.... they serve no purpose in procreating the next generation. All animals goal in the world is surival and to procreate and extend the species survival chances. So if you're not part of that, then it's not the norm. It's simple science.

This is not true at all ... the vast majority of male bees serve no purpose on either procreation or ongoing survival of the hive, and are discarded. Many male (and all but one female) ant or bee in each colony serve no role in procreation or perpetuation of the species.

Male wolfpack members which are not the alpha male may hunt and babysit the pups, but are not fathers.

Actually, most scientific evidence seems to show that homosexual behavior often appears when Malthusian population pressures threaten the species with survival; in this case homosexuals help ensure the survival of the species by limiting population increase so that it does not outstrip the available resources. This behaviour has been observed in many species, most of which are presumably incapable of rational thought and free-will decisions such as that.

mrorange002

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/07/2004 07:47:29 PM · #192

Originally posted by paganini:

Um, well...
as far as I know, gay people can reproduce, but they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. So, tell me then, if being gay is "some sort of genetic disease", then if a gay man and a gay woman have a child together, then they give the child up for adoption to some straight couple, will that child carry the "diseased" genes of his/her parents and therefore grow up to be gay?

What happens if you have a child who grows up to be gay? Does it mean that you are a carrier of this "genetic disorder"?

Curious huh?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2004 07:52:59 PM · #193

Actually, the best argument that homosexuals are "the way they are" is that God made them that way, as He made everything ... who are you (or me) to then question His purpose in doing so? Since God is acknowledged to be unknowable, to profess the ability to divine God's thoughts and intentions strikes me as an assumption of prophethood -- a risky occupation in any era, traditionally leading to a painful demise in this temporal sphere, with only your faith in a perpetual existence "beyond" as a redeeming feature.

mrorange002