Author Topic: Liberal Folly (Read 979 times)

Yeager · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2005, 10:44:28 AM »

The Anti gun platform is just one half the problem the liberals created for themselves in the early 90s. The other half of the problem was the abandonment of the God and all things Christian.

oboe · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2005, 11:34:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Disagree completely.

The democrats would lose more votes then they would gain.

I think you are wrong, LS. Here's what gives me some hope on that score:

Paul Hackett - The Ohio Insurgency

Quote

Hackett loves guns, and loves talking about them, especially to squeamish liberals such as the campaign staffers whom he delighted in taking out shooting on the weekend. He declares flatly that Dem- ocrats are “wrong on guns. I think they need to accept that.” During the campaign, he’d quietly reassure skeptics that he supported enforcing existing federal gun laws, but it was his enthusiasm for hot lead that won him converts.

“I always thought gun control was when you hit your target,” he chuckled to a guy in a T-shirt in front of the GE factory gate. Jim Smith, a machinist and union rep, was thrilled: “He’s like a rank-and-filer. And he’s not a clone of any party.”

And he nearly won in a heavily Republican district.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2005, 12:26:38 PM »

I hope you aren't serious Oboe. The dude is a politico. And no one called him on it. That's why he almost won.

Though, I wouldn't expect you to know what a politico is.

Hangtime · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2005, 12:39:25 PM »

I distrust all politicans. However, I vote and royally chew political bellybutton when the politican violates his mandate.

The greatest problem this country has right now is the mindset of a voter that cant see beyond the (D) or (R) label behind the name of the politician. Gotta check the vote records, where they stand on the issues important to you on the level the politician is running (state, local, federal)

Voting exlusively the 'party ticket' is the recipie for partisan bullying.. right now the two main parties seem to be locked in a bi-polar war for the utter destruction of their adversaries party.

That's not healthy... the one side or the other 'must be destroyed' mentality leads directly to totalitarian rule.

oboe · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2005, 01:00:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I hope you aren't serious Oboe. The dude is a politico. And no one called him on it. That's why he almost won.

Though, I wouldn't expect you to know what a politico is.

I'm earnest, though I always hold out the possibility I could be wrong/misinformed. I'm not from Ohio, so all I know of Hackett is the few stories on him that made the MSM, and this MotherJones article. But the gist I got is that he is a Democrat from a different mold, one willing to buck the party line, especially when it comes to guns. That's why I was hopeful about him. Someone needs to stand up and lead a the Democrats back toward the middle, I think.

Barrack Obama is another one I want to keep my eye on. When he speaks, the Right doesn't seem to laugh it off the way they do other Democrats.

Politico to me is just slang for politician or political operative. I know there's an insult there, but its too subtle for me. I imagine I'll regret this, but you'll have to be more blunt! Why wouldn't you expect me to know what a politico is?

Hangtime · « **Reply #20 on:** October 18, 2005, 01:04:21 PM »

Howard Dean is pro gun. It's a start. Be a long time before I take the democrats (as a party) seriously tho.. Jackson, Sharpton and Feinstein are classic examples of whats wrong with the Dems.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 18, 2005, 01:23:40 PM »

A politico is someone who will say anything to get them voted in. Even if it means saying two entirely different things one day after the other.

The word itself is not an insult, however the action it implies is.

John Kerry was the perfect example of Politico. He started saying that he supported both sides of different spectrums. He started lying that he's done some things and not done others.

Hillary Clinton is a Politico. If you take a look at the things she's done, said and voted for in the past are completely different then what she's doing now. Her stances mimic popular polls. But even then she will still take opposite stances for the same thing.

Kerry lost because everyone figured out he was a Politico. Hackett almost won because no one figured out he is a Politico.

oboe · « **Reply #22 on:** October 18, 2005, 01:40:37 PM »

Not sure I can name a successful politician who wasn't a politico, then.

Jimmy Carter, perhaps? Pat Buchanan?

Can you offer some proof regarding Hackett?

Curious though, how can any party then move substantially in the direction they think the voters want them to, without being called 'politicos' and being distrusted as such?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 18, 2005, 01:45:18 PM »

No, you're confusing doing what your constituents want with being a politico.

It is the job of the politicians to do what the voters want.

Let me give you an easy example about politico actions.

On monday John Kerry would hold an anti gun rally.

On tuesday John Kerry would have a Photo-Op with him trap shooting.

One action contradicts the other, but he does both anyway to gain more votes.

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 18, 2005, 02:08:31 PM »

I think what is coming through here is distrust of the "every man" image that the libeals try to wear as a cloak... And... the fact that most distrust the gun rights second amendment defenders in the democratic party... no matter what... they owe... they owe big time to the gun grabbers in their own party. They will vote how they are told unless they allready have a lot of political clout and I don't see any of those guys jumping ship..

Mt is right in one respect tho... who are the gun grabbers representing? not the American people surely? While there are litterlaly 10's of millions of very rabid gun owners/gun rights voters.....There just aren't that many rabid anti gun voters.... The democrats are wasting their money and their credibility on the whole gun issue..

So why do they do it? Billionare foreighn interests like soros and rabid anti gun politicians running the democrat party like shummer and finestien and kennedy... (both john and bobby were NRA members tho BTW).

I can't help but believe that a lot of democrat politicos know they are selkf destructing on the issue but... they just can't see any graceful way out.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #25 on:** October 18, 2005, 02:33:25 PM »

Which brings us back to Hackett....I think.

LS, can you give me an example of how Hackett is a politico? Deep down I still want to like the guy and want him to succeed, but I'm waiting on more info from you - I have the impression you know more about this guy than I do.

Thanks!

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2005, 08:44:22 AM »

lazer hit on it... MT thinks that the gun issue is the problem... that is not the problem... the problem is their dishonesty about the whole gun issue.

You can't do a photo op with the brady bunch at the latest signing of more rabid anti firearms rights legeslation and then a day latter get all dressed up in cammo to go duck hunting...

The guys who got screwed by finestien and crew just see the brady bunch picture of a crapload of democrats all smiling while they take away your rights.... It matters not what kerrie says after that.... you know he will side with finestein and the brady bunch when push comes to shove... and.... you suspect that he will really give the whole anti gun machine a big push...

And... I don't hunt anyhow or care about shotguns much.

lazs

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2005, 08:52:17 AM »

I'll get it to you in a day or two Oboe. I don't have time to research it in depth for you right now.

oboe · « **Reply #28 on:** October 19, 2005, 11:31:31 AM »

Thank you, sir! No hurry or rush. I understand he is running for the U.S. Senate next year?