View Full Version : How is the November election going to affect us?
Soda Pop
10-04-2006, 09:44
Bush isn't running for office this year, but Congress is about to get a house cleaning.
In PA, I've noticed more than a few Military Vets are running in the Democratic party, but there is ZERO information about their stance on 2nd Amendment issues.
If the Democrats take Congress, are we losing ground on 2nd Amenment rights?
cowboy117
10-04-2006, 10:01
If the Dems take congress,the players will be in place to do us much damage in regards to our 2nd. ammendment rights.Pelosi as majority leader?Can't be good.:o
The Republicans should have thought about that before scaring off the moderates in the party...
cowboy117
10-04-2006, 11:46
The Republicans should have thought about that before scaring off the moderates in the party...You're dead on .Too much of the fundamental Christian influence IMHO,among other things.Scandals at this point taking them over a cliff,also.[Duh!!!!!!]:blink:
When you look at some of the very successful (in terms of re-election, not in subjective terms such as what you or I like) presidencies, you can look at Reagan and Clinton. Both brought over the swing vote in the center.
That's how Schwarzenegger can survive in California as a Republican. He is very moderate.
cowboy117
10-04-2006, 13:35
Reagan and Clinton did get the swing vote.Is Arnold liked in Cal.? Everyone i know there says he is not liked by either party.In '08,McCain could get some swing vote but the base doesn't like him.Can't imagine Hill getting the swings.'08's a long way off and many things can change in two years.One election at a time,i guess!
Well, The Governator is going to win a second election. He's liked enough by the swing voters, and there are enough of them. Republicans will vote for him despite the fact that he's a centrist, because he's better than the Democrat. Some democrats will swing, and Angelides (who is not centrist) is left holding the bag.
stevekaw
10-04-2006, 15:53
IMHO, if the Dems take one or both houses any changes on social or constitutional issues will be cautious and incremental--that's the American way.
Also, if the Dems take over they'll be way too busy dealing with Iraq and the budget, plus fighting over the spoils, to have time to do much else (at least for awhile).
In PA, I've noticed more than a few Military Vets are running in the Democratic party, but there is ZERO information about their stance on 2nd Amendment issues.
If the Democrats take Congress, are we losing ground on 2nd Amenment rights?
The Democratic Party hierarchy equally hates Republicans and the 2nd amendment. If Democrats win in November you can bet we'll quickly lose ground on our right to hunt and own guns. The Democrats would have won in 04 if it weren't for their anti-2nd amendment stance. Dems are shooting themselves in the foot with their maniacal attacks on eradicating the 2nd amendment. If you're a Democrat you need to write your party leaders and tell them to cut out the gun bashing now or you will refuse to support the Democratic party in the fall elections. You people who are telling yourselves the Democratic party isn't anti-2nd amendment are fooling yourselves. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Republicans want to erode the 4th Amendment. Why do you support THAT?
cowboy117
10-05-2006, 19:59
Republicans want to erode the 4th Amendment. Why do you support THAT?What are they doing in regard to eroding the 4th.amendment?Looking in on a Al-Qaeda?I'm cool with that!Also,in regard to the post by Zen900,we have a choice between Dems and Republicans,since there is no viable 3rd.party.Gotta' choose one or the other even tho neither party is all that good.I'm going with the party that stands up for my gun rights.Zen is on point IMHO.
The feds have legal ways to wiretap ANYONE. All they need is a warrant, and they've rarely (i mean RARELY) been denied under the FISA act, which gave them the opportunity to tap THEN get a warrant.
What they want is to search without a warrant.
If you think that it will only be used against Al Queda, then you aren't a student of history. You don't give up your rights, especially when there is NO EXTRA SECURITY gained.
cowboy117
10-05-2006, 21:08
I'm not sure if this is the case.Have to check it out more.On the other hand,the Republicans would be raising h*ll if the Dems were doing it!:blink:On a different note:what are you doing on the computer on your B-Day?Better get out and celebrate your 21st.year of being able to drink legally!!!!!!!:lol:
Republicans want to erode the 4th Amendment. Why do you support THAT?
I don't understand your concern over the 4th amendment and lack of concern over the 2nd amendment. Are you trying to tell gun owners that nobody is after their gunrights? Have you ever been wiretapped? There is something nefarious in your comparisons of the 2nd and fourth amendments. If you're trying to say we should vote democrat and believe our gun rights will not be infringed I have to question your willingness to accurately assess the deliberate spoken intent of the democratic party.
If the Dems take back the House next month Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker. She is from the San Francisco area and is just as anti gun owmership as Ted Kennedy. She is in favor of handgun confiscation and strict control of ammunition sales. If you think the Democrats have changed their position on guns take a look at California whose state legislature has been controled by them for most of the past 50 years.
I don't understand your concern over the 4th amendment and lack of concern over the 2nd amendment. Are you trying to tell gun owners that nobody is after their gunrights? Have you ever been wiretapped? There is something nefarious in your comparisons of the 2nd and fourth amendments. If you're trying to say we should vote democrat and believe our gun rights will not be infringed I have to question your willingness to accurately assess the deliberate spoken intent of the democratic party.
This has got to be the LAMEST argument I've seen.
Have you ever been tortured? If not, then you must be OK with torture. Insert anything, including wiretapping, there.
And, you obviously have NOT BEEN LISTENING. I never said to vote Democrat, and if you think I have, you have zero memory.
I'm a Libertarian, the only party that will defend ALL your constitutional rights. Anything less is a compromise.
cowboy117
10-06-2006, 14:03
My views are more Libertarian than any other party,but America has a two party system and will probably always be so[at least in my lifetime].A vote for a Libertarian candidate is a wasted vote.Save your gas that you would burn on the way to and from the voting booth.In many cases,a vote for a third party candidate pushes the vote in one direction or another.In the America of today,we have to figure out who has views closest to our's and go with that candidate,warts and all.Sad but true!:o
This has got to be the LAMEST argument I've seen.
Have you ever been tortured? If not, then you must be OK with torture. Insert anything, including wiretapping, there.
And, you obviously have NOT BEEN LISTENING. I never said to vote Democrat, and if you think I have, you have zero memory.
I'm a Libertarian, the only party that will defend ALL your constitutional rights. Anything less is a compromise.
Get mad Bill. You argue like a woman.
If you truly believe in a "2 party system", then your Republican party should never have made it off the ground. You'd be a Whig.
The Republican Party made it off the ground because a significant number of Whigs differed from their other party members on significant issues. Similarly, a significant number of Democrats differed in their views from their party.
Millard Filmore was President of the US as a Whig in 1851-1853. The Republican Party, formed in 1854, elected Abraham Lincoln to the office in 1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Third_Party_Syste m:_1854-1896
Sometimes you need to shake things up in order to get things done.
Get mad Bill. You argue like a woman.
What kind of response is that?
You think that as long as I'm not the target of wiretapping, I shouldn't have problems with the legality of it. That's the weakest, most juvenille response I've ever heard.
That's exactly why Germans let the Nazi's kill Jews, why Whites let Blacks be treated like animals in the South for decades after the Civil War. It's why we interned the Japanese in WWII.
It's ignorance. You can't give up your freedom for a little security blanket.
By the way, you're banned for 30 days. See ya.
What kind of response is that?
You think that as long as I'm not the target of wiretapping, I shouldn't have problems with the legality of it. That's the weakest, most juvenille response I've ever heard.
That's exactly why Germans let the Nazi's kill Jews, why Whites let Blacks be treated like animals in the South for decades after the Civil War. It's why we interned the Japanese in WWII.
It's ignorance. You can't give up your freedom for a little security blanket.
By the way, you're banned for 30 days. See ya.
The wiretapping may not be illegal - it will be interesting to see what the higher court says about its Constitutionality. The higher court has already allowed the continuation of the program until they have reviewed the case. So I am not sure your case about erasing the 4th Amendment is entirely accurate - we will see. The great thing about our Government is the checks and balances of the three branches - they are each there to reign in the others and they should all stretch their powers in order to be checked - otherwise one branch is overly powerful.
As to Libertarian Party being the stalwart of our Constitution - there actually needs to be proof of actions (which currently I have been unable to find). I can find (Wikipedia) that Libertarianism is not a unified platform anymore so than the Democrats or Republicans - this is not to say they should not run or people should not vote for them if they like. But the truth about the Party is - there is no proof they will do what they say (some of which I completely disagree with - which is another story). My great suspicion is that if they ever gained Congress or the White House - they would be like all the other Parties (they would compromise). We need to simply quit thinking parties when we vote and look at the individuals, their record, their values, etc. ---- not the party. As has been said here often there are those in the Democratic party that are pro-gun and those in the Republican that are anti-gun and so on. The individuals are what matter.
As to the Republican party running of the moderates - I see no evidence of this - I do see that the Democratic Party has in several of its primaries moved extremely far to left (case in point the primary in Conneticutt; can't remember the others now). In the case of Conneticutt, they will now lose the seat to their current Senator who will be an Independent.
The main problem in the World today (and the past) - has not been the lack of responding - but more the lack of responding to evil early enough and staying the course (examples: 1979 our Embassy was taken by Iranian Fundamentalists - we should have answered the call then in a very decisive and permanent manner - instead we waited until our options were essentially give them what they wanted - which essentially happen in the Arms for Hostages debacle; we again sent similar messages with the Cole, our African Embassies and our withdrawal in Sudan) - we now have the Democrats wanting to leave Iraq before it is stabilized (which can be done) - which will serve to only embolded Al Queda and other terrorists - much in the same way that Hezbollah will now have time to grow - strength and commit the same atrocities in the future). One of these days - just maybe we will learn that responding earlier is much better than waiting till no other option is available (i.e., do you wait until the Lion has his jaws around your neck before you react to prevent it or do you see him coming and stop or turn him before it gets to this point). Note: I think the International Community is going to have to stand up or Iran and North Korea and maybe China are going to be much much bigger problems.
Anyway my two cents worth and I am sure many will disagree.
JimS
Bush isn't running for office this year, but Congress is about to get a house cleaning.
In PA, I've noticed more than a few Military Vets are running in the Democratic party, but there is ZERO information about their stance on 2nd Amendment issues.
If the Democrats take Congress, are we losing ground on 2nd Amenment rights?
We will most definitely lose ground - how much and how severe will be moderated for at least 2 years by the White House and the Senate (as long as the Pundits are correct and the Republicans maintain the Senate). The main reason I say this is several of the Democratic primaries put even more far left leaning people on the ballot for the Democrats.
Again compromise will be the rule of the day - so changes will not impact our rights via the 2nd Amendment over night. Having said that, I do remember the impact Clinton and his groups had on our Lion's Club Gun Show in New Mexico when I was there - they cut our collections by half - and those Gun Shows raised between 20 and 30 thousand a year - all of which - every dime went back to the community after the center rent was paid - all help and management was volunteer. This did happen pretty much overnight.
JimS
You're dead on .Too much of the fundamental Christian influence IMHO,among other things.Scandals at this point taking them over a cliff,also.[Duh!!!!!!]:blink:
I am curious as to exactly how you think the fundamental Christian part of the party has overly influenced the Republican party - this was probably more the case when Reagan was in. We have had more things removed that are Christian since the Republicans have gained House and Senate control.
We had voluntary prayer in school with Reagan - we no longer have even that - given the way things are interpreted.
10 commandments are gone in most Government buildings. Funny thing about the 10 commandments is that if you remove the 1st one then the other 9 essentially point out exactly what we are trying to get kids to understand in school today w/programs like Character Counts, etc.
Abstention is not the preferred form of sex education in schools; we would rather pass out condoms.
ACLU has even pressed not being able to put Crosses on Private property as a memorial to the dead from Katrina - have not heard whether or not they have won this or not - but I have not seen a lot of incumbent Republican's running to show they are appalled.
Same sex marriage amendments that passed 2 years ago in a large number of States would be the closest to what you suggest - but that drew in a lot of moderates to vote for the positively for the amendments.
I am hoping you can show numbers (polls) to show (preferrably not liberal blog polls) that moderates have run from Republicans because of this issue. If not then you would simply be repeated what a number of far left liberals want people to believe - and that is that the Republican party has been high-jacked. I can tell you - this is far from the case when I talk to very conservative Christians in my community (annectdotal I know) that think the values of this country continue to slip left and have not made much progress back to the right (since probably Reagan).
JimS
The Republicans should have thought about that before scaring off the moderates in the party...
I didnt know the had.But they certainly have turned away many true conservatives.
In PA for example Rick Santorum did himself in by campaigning for Arlen Specter as well as changinf his mind on intelligent design. Many conservatives are stating openly they will vote libertarian,green,democrat or for satan himself instead of Santorum.
I didnt know the had.But they certainly have turned away many true conservatives.
In PA for example Rick Santorum did himself in by campaigning for Arlen Specter as well as changinf his mind on intelligent design. Many conservatives are stating openly they will vote libertarian,green,democrat or for satan himself instead of Santorum.
These conservatives you speak of - are not very bright - if they would throw all their values out and vote that far to the left if they are truly that far right. The proverbial cutting ones nose off just to spite the face. I suspect when push comes to shove they will vote for those representing the greatest portion of their value set in place of throwing it all out the door.
Personally, given all the complaining with the far left liberals - I think they ought to have the House for the next two years - will show the populace they really have no plans other for anything (be it Social Security or the War on Terror) - not a one of them running has truly indicated how they would handle anything at all - they have spent 90+% of their time simply running their opponents down for what they have done (this is if you disregard that they are going to revoke the tax breaks and all us to buy drugs from Canada or Mexico - which will not work for multiple reasons).
JimS
These conservatives you speak of - are not very bright - if they would throw all their values out and vote that far to the left if they are truly that far right. The proverbial cutting ones nose off just to spite the face. I suspect when push comes to shove they will vote for those representing the greatest portion of their value set in place of throwing it all out the door.
Personally, given all the complaining with the far left liberals - I think they ought to have the House for the next two years - will show the populace they really have no plans other for anything (be it Social Security or the War on Terror) - not a one of them running has truly indicated how they would handle anything at all - they have spent 90+% of their time simply running their opponents down for what they have done (this is if you disregard that they are going to revoke the tax breaks and all us to buy drugs from Canada or Mexico - which will not work for multiple reasons).
JimS
I agree it is stupid to vote for a party directly opposed to individual freedom and liberty. But we need to try raising our standards from the trash the 2 major parties shovel . For me it will be libertarian and constitutional party candidates.
Jim this is not meant in a disrespectful way.You are open and vocal about your faith which is admirable. But I believe it opens you up to the following question.
Christ did not lower his standards in anything he did. Why should we lower ours to meet those of politicial parties today?
I agree it is stupid to vote for a party directly opposed to individual freedom and liberty. But we need to try raising our standards from the trash the 2 major parties shovel . For me it will be libertarian and constitutional party candidates.
Jim this is not meant in a disrespectful way.You are open and vocal about your faith which is admirable. But I believe it opens you up to the following question.
Christ did not lower his standards in anything he did. Why should we lower ours to meet those of politicial parties today?
Did not say you should lower your standards - by all means if Libertarian or Constitutional party candidates offer the best fit for your value set - you have an obligation to vote that way. For me, what little I can truly find out about these two particular parties - they are not any better fit than Republican or Democrat for that matter. I try to look at the candidates themselves - not the platforms and determine those I think most closely associate with my value set (no matter the party). In fact, I will likely vote Democrat in our House race hear because the individual currently looks fairly moderate and holds a value set similar to mine on faith issues. My comments were directed at those that would vote 180 degrees out from their value in order to try to make a statement - all one does then is send the wrong message.
JimS
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.