Kerry

[Sparky-Watts]

But I believe we're overlooking the most important aspect of the entire bid for the presidency: The entertainment value of watching both candidates (all three if you count Nader) making asses of themselves! Does it really matter who gets elected? No. History shows that all presidents since Kennedy have lied about their platforms, and once they get into office they change their minds and do the opposite of what they promised. Well, all the presidents except Ford, who incidentally was the only president the US ever had that was never elected to either the vice-presidency or the presidency. He was appointed by Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew, then became president when Ford resigned. Hey, but he did great pratfalls!!!

 

[mingez]

Special K, stick to your guns...no pun intended. There are a bunch of "Conservatives" on this board :lol: .
Don't be swayed by the ignorant use of the words "Liberal" or "Democrat" as if they are bad words. Not all Liberals are supporters of gun control. I am not an advocate of most gun control laws myself.

I just don't share TC's same TRUST of the common man. I think generally speaking, most people are stupid...I guess that comes from working with the public too much. And on this topic I will not budge....most people ARE unqualified to own guns or drive a car.

Now as for the drunk driver/ automobile arguement: This is a lowest common denominator arguement. I doesn't hold water. No, you shouldn't ban cars because people kill people with cars, but you should ban THAT specific drunk driver from using cars. Thus, there will be one less auto patron. Besides, comparing those two products is ridiculous, the world depends on autos for everything. It would be economically catastrophic if something happened to that industry. With the exception of protection, Guns are mostly a luxury item and the world would continue to turn without them.

As far as the "NEED" argument goes...well, as I said before: "you don't NEED Heroine, you don't NEED a missle launcher, you don't NEED an atom bomb, but last I checked, we decided to ban those items from the common man.

wm69, you can't boil down the vote to the pro/anti gun debate.. It's simply not the most relevant subject to most people. Now invading random countries in the middle east, education, military spending, medical research, aides, these are much more relevant. Not whether or not Joe-Bob, Mingez, or "Random Texan" get's to keep his Tech 9.

 

[Special_K]

Special K, stick to your guns...no pun intended. There are a bunch of "Conservatives" on this board :lol: .

Mingez: I never thought I abandoned my guns (no pun in- ...whatever). I certainly didn't intend for it to come across that way.

Fact is, I am opposed to ridiculous or overzealous gun control AND I am an advocate of reasonable gun control. By the way, great users/guns vs. drunk drivers/cars analogy...but you're right, there are some fundamental differences there that don't even put guns on the same level of importance of cars in even that analogy.

As for labels, I generally try to avoid them altogether...not becuase I'm shying away from any one of them, but because they have the effect of boiling complex issues down into over-simplified binary topics that resemble nothing of the the reality that we're actually dealing with (a.k.a. strawmen). Terms that were originated to describe two extreme ends of a spectrum have now come to be all encompassing but mutually exclusive sets of philosophical alternatives where everything is an "us" vs. "them" (i.e. if conservatives are for God and family values...then liberals are all atheist, anti-family people who want to ban god and promote amoral anarchy).

Given this perspective, I do agree that too many Americans are ignorant (if not stupid) given how they decide on important issues. In a broad international study published a little over 2 years ago and focusing on teens and young adults, Americans came in DEAD LAST in the developed world in terms of their ability to think critically. (FYI, crtical thought doesn't mean being critical...it means seeing through fluff, labels, slogans, and strawman arguements to discern and understand the core issues as well as the motives of the writer, speaker, etc. reasonably accurately). Sadly those results didn't suprise me AT ALL. Most Americans are too happy with sound bites, partial quotes, slogans, themes, etc. and pay little attention to the substance underneath...that is, unless it is a bit of "substance" supports the set of sound bites that they've already decided they like the best. Then those types are happy to parade the sound bites around as rationale to justify that "we" are right and "they" are wrong and why every other sound bite that suggests the same is also accurate.

So anyway, that, combined with the near-hopeless pack mentality that most Americans have in rooting (I mean voting) for either their Republican or Democratic political sports teams (I mean parties), is more than enough to make me generally avoid use of labels except in particular circumstances.

As for me, I don't consider myself a "LIBERAL" and I don't consider myself a "CONSERVATIVE". What the H are those anyway? Why, isn't it obvious? Not really. It's just a common thoughless term...an inherent adjective that people have become accustomed to accepting as a collective, definitive noun. If you get used to eating nothing but s**t over time, it might eventually begin to taste like some nutricious snack but it's not...it's still s**t. I challenge anyone to define, IN PRECISE AND REAL TERMS (NOT GENERALITIES), exactly what either of those are as a collective noun. I think it will be difficult.

 

[Green97TJ]

Yall know what the problem is. Most people like me and you and the others on this board are at least halfway intelligent folks who can find a middle ground. We arent extreme either way. Unfortunately, most of the political type people we see are extreme right or left. If we could get some "normal" people in office it would be a much better world.

Nathan

 

[Special_K]

Most Americans are too happy with sound bites, partial quotes, slogans, themes, etc. and pay little attention to the substance underneath...

I'll also add that this is why Bush and his cabal feel they can get away with the "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" intiatives. These titles are a prime example of slogandeering...and quite frankly I'd call it lying.

Both of these have been widely recognized (in both parties) as reducing clean air standards/resulting in an increase in air pollutants and largely selling out public lands to private logging interests (under a very thin guise of thinning out forests for forest fire protection). Even some Republicans acknowledged this and quietly resisted these initiatives (afterall, one musn't counter their team too aggressively...it might be perceived as rooting for the other team). But hey, what does reality matter to many Americans when you can put a cool and postive-sounding image on it?

 

[mingez]

Nathan, you and Special K hit it on the head! Anyone who makes a decision on an issue before hearing the issue isn't "Getting it".

Whether I am "right" or "left" of an issue depends on the topic.

BTW, Special K, I didn't intend on suggesting that you weren't sticking to your guns...

 

[TwistedCU]

Random babblings - just because I'm an American and I can.

I just don't share TC's same TRUST of the common man.

Then the alternative is to trust the government.

I think generally speaking, most people are stupid...

So does the government

 

[mingez]

I just don't share TC's same TRUST of the common man.

Then the alternative is to trust the government.

I think generally speaking, most people are stupid...

So does the government

YUP!! And thank goodness for that. Otherwise one COULD do heroine, own rocket launchers, and build nuc's with nobody around to say something about it. :wink:

 

[Junkpile]

damn Mingez.....feeling a little socialist? You must have had a big bowl of pinko commie puffs this morning :lol:

All hail King....I mean president..... Kerry!!

 

[TwistedCU]

I don't see the connection between my comments and let's say - a suitcase nuke. Rocket launchers are definately not what I would consider protecting under the right to bear arms. As for heroin, people do it every day without anyone saying something about it.

The government serves a purpose, but the ideal of "Governed by the people, for the people" is becoming less and less accurate on a daily basis. The people in Russia thought they had a democracy, but Vladimir Putin just showed them that he is in control. Our government is dangerously close to that kind of power and capability now. As our freedoms diminish, so does our control over our own lives.

I'm telling you people, fight for your liberties while they still exist - though it may already be too late...

 

[mingez]

damn Mingez.....feeling a little socialist? You must have had a big bowl of pinko commie puffs this morning

LOL, nope, no more than you are feeling "Facist" Junkpile! :mrgreen:
Cheap shot BTW :lol:

As for heroin, people do it every day without anyone saying something about it.

But heroine IS illegal. Are you suggesting we should legalize it? Maybe tax it? :lol:

I don't see the connection between my comments and let's say - a suitcase nuke. Rocket launchers are definately not what I would consider protecting under the right to bear arms.

Well, perhaps that was because I was exaggerating. But the point is the same. What's the point?

EVERYONE has a line to cross. Concerning gun control, everyone of you has a line, some more exaggerated than others. You said it yourself TC, not everyone is qualified to bear arms. I'm a little stricter than you in that respect. Many think that as long as you are a tax paying adult without a record, you should be able to own an assault rifle. Some feel as though everyone SHOULD be able to own a rocket launcher.

As for the deterioration of civil liberties, both sides want to limit those. Restrict your "Right" to bear arms, or your "Right" to be an aethiest, or your "Right" to be critical of government, your "Right" to free speech. It just depends on whether or not it infringes upon your agenda.

Remember the Janet Jackson thread? You can spin that as censorship or amorality, it just depends on where your line is drawn.
For abortion? Then the Christian Right wants to limit your ablility to chose.
Against abortion? Then the Liberal left is infringing on your ability to save murdered babies.
Don't believe that 1st trimester babies are sentient beings? Then the Conservatives are infringing on your right to believe in a particular theology (or lack of theology)

Both sides use the "My rights" arguements to support their agenda.

All I know is, the "Right to Bear Arms debate", isn't important enough to me to be a decision breaker. And I'm a gun owner.

PS- Damn you guys are good. I certainly look forward to these threads. I'm enjoying the good debate and arguements. If anything, these debates have taught me to discern between debate and arguing. And that TC sure is a well-read Conservative... not common in my experience. Just Kidding-Just Kidding!!!

No really, I've certainly learned a lot from these threads. At the very least, it makes me continue my political research in an effort to keep up with some of you.

 

[TwistedCU]

First of all, short of being a convict or retarded, I think everyone has a right to bear arms (not an arm rocket).

Secondly, is it not just Christians (who consist of Righties and lefties) who oppose abortions. I strongly oppose abortion. I will not debate that subject as I absolutley despise the thought and it is simply not worthy of discussion to me. Leaving god, religion, the bible, and all other theology out of it, once an egg is fertalized, it is a living being. I have a picture of a sonogram of my first daughter sucking her thumb in the womb. It was during the first trimester, my wife was having complications and they needed to do one. Damn I guess I would debate it but I could go on and on, but if I really wanted to pull out the heavy artillary I'd ask my wife to post. She is about as good as they come on that subject.

For my stance on the Superbowl, well we've been there already and I can't believe you even mentioned it. It's like kicking a sleeping giant in the boys. :lol: :lol: :lol:

On heroin, well look at alcohol during prohibition. Do I think it should be legal? Well that is a double edged sword. It gives the government another thing to control, but it may be the only way to get a handle on it. If you think about it - it already is legal - Methadone.

Yes, lines need to be drawn. As usual, we debate where the line should be, not if it needs to exist.

I believe the states are to keep the rocket launchers handy, but the feds won't allow that either.

 

[mingez]

I didn't want to start an abortion or theological debate. That's why I didn't lean to one side or the other. I/We DEFINITELY don't want to go there.

I was merely stating that lines are drawn, and how either side is guilty of spinning the "My rights are being infringed" arguement. That's all. I wasn't implying any thing about you personally TC.

Notice I mentioned both sides in all of those examples. The examples I used were random, and merely the first topics I thought up. Not for debate, but example only. Pro Censorship? Freedom of speech. For Abortion? Against abortion? Pro-gun? Anti-Gun? Etc... it doesn't matter what the topic is, just stating there are two sides using that arguement. No need to suggest that I was arguing one way or the other, that wasn't the intent...re-read my last post. :wink:

 

[TwistedCU]

Yes but many rights can be claimed, while some are written in the constitution.

 

[wm69]

I disagree with you on the "cars are a requirement" thing. We could ride bikes, we could even (gasp) be forced to use public transportation. I understand your point but people got by without the automobile for thousands of years without them so they are not a neccesity. I think if the oil crisis continues we're all going to find out just how necessary our cars are (or aren't). Cars kill a lot more people in this country than guns do. Perhaps a better analogy would compare sports cars to "assault weapons". Both are totally unneccesary, but when you talk about banning the because people don't "need" them, people understandably get upset. Why would you need a Corvette? There is no reason for anyone to own a car that fast! It's damanging to the environment, and no one "needs" one. Anything that fast COULD be used in a dangerous way. Lets ban Corvettes and, while we're at it, all sports cars! A sports car will be defined as any car with two or more of the following: two doors, a hood scoupe, a spoiler, racing stripes. (yes that's exactly what the assault weapon was, cosmetic features only) The bad thing is you could say the same about 4x4's. They are bad for the environment, they are dangerous if used incorrectly, and most people don't "need" them. You guys gonna get upset when someone bans them? Even if they were to ban, say, 4x4's with V8's, it would make those with 4's and 6's a little nervous wouldn't it? My problems with Kerry only start with the 2nd amendment. He refuses to take a stand on anything. I don't agree with everything Bush has done, and I probably won't agree with everything Bush will do in his 2nd term, but at least he sticks to his guns and you know where he stands on the issues, even if he does stutter and look goofy trying to get it out. Kerry is one of the FAR left who thinks the average American doesn't have enough sense to thing for him/herself, so he's gonna take 2/3 of their income, ban anything that's not good for them, and supposedly take care of everyone. That's not realistic, but Kerry/Hillary/Kennedy all think this way and I'm not falling for it. By the way, I'm registered as a Democrat, not a Republican, but I vote for the candidate, and as of late I have found myself voting Democrat less and less.

 

[90Xjay]

Kerry really reminds me of Lurch on the Adams Family.... You Rang!!! LOL

I come from a long line of Democrats but in the last few elections have not voted that way. Just like Regan said" I did not leave the Democratic Party... It left me.."

I can't even begin to say it better then Zell Miller did though-

"Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?"


I'll put up with Bush's mangled words and long pauses anyday and he wasn't a very good debater, at least the other night.

Kerry is a better debater I guess you could call Kerry a Masterdebater..oh did I say that? Sorry.. ha ha

 

[90Xjay]

I know I'll get busted for spelling Reagan wrong...I should preview better!

 

[mingez]

In response to the Car/Gun comparison...To quote Twisted Copper from a thread a long time ago:

Thud... thud... thud... thud... thud...

If any of you are wondering what that loud thumping noise is, it's just me rhythmically pounding my head against a wall...

Thud... thud... thud... thud... thud...

In response to the last "Master-debater" post I'll quote Fozzy Bear:

Waka-waka-waka! :mrgreen:

 

[TwistedCU]

90XJay that is why I was shocked he brought up the kevlar vests at the debate.

 

[LadyJeepFreak]

Secondly, is it not just Christians (who consist of Righties and lefties) who oppose abortions. I strongly oppose abortion. I will not debate that subject as I absolutley despise the thought and it is simply not worthy of discussion to me. Leaving god, religion, the bible, and all other theology out of it, once an egg is fertalized, it is a living being. I have a picture of a sonogram of my first daughter sucking her thumb in the womb. It was during the first trimester, my wife was having complications and they needed to do one. Damn I guess I would debate it but I could go on and on, but if I really wanted to pull out the heavy artillary I'd ask my wife to post. She is about as good as they come on that subject.

:lol: Twisted how many kids do you have? LOL I would have never guessed your against abortion!

LOL Seriously though I am against it too and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with life. The only time I could ever agree is in desperate situations of terminal illness that could be diagnosed early but it would have to almost be in the first trimester for me to believe in it or god forbid a child or pre-teen got raped and ended up pregnant. I don't think children should be having babies in the first place but if they get thierselves into the situation that's another thing. No one should force that upon a young girl.


Lady