Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on October 17, 2005, 06:16:13 PM
-
Got your attention huh?
Really quick observation...
Liberals have always hung their hat on a staunch personal freedom platform. We have no qualms about fighting for fringe right to free speechers or fringe religious freedoms or fringe whatevers as long as personal freedoms are protected... and I support this wholeheartedly.
Where we are missing the boat is on the 2nd Amendment. If the Dems decided that a strict personal freedom interpretation of the 2nd was part of their platform for 2008... the Reps would be in disarray. Democrats just need to be in favor of all personal freedoms (including abortion) and the Republicans would wallow in the stench of a lost cause.
-
It's an interesting thought. I don't see the Democrats hopping on that boat nationally any more than I see the Republicans supporting the 1st Amendment right to flag burning though. This is an issue that will be publicly positioned against but will vary depending on voter Demographics. In the Chicago collar counties most Republicans are fiscal conservatives (if that still really applies for the party) but social liberals so not even they support the 2nd Amendment to any degree.
We need that perfect moderate, mainstream Libertarian party to win one or two, whenever such a beast comes into existence :)
I interviewed a guy from Cato about some of the energy related business/public issues that are going on and after the formal part I asked him about libertarian political chances. We didn't talk about the 2nd Amendment, but he said on social issues, as hard as it was for him to say it, it made more sense to vote Democrat these days. Both parties are intrusive, both are for big government, big welfare (corporate vs. citizen), Republican spending is out of control, the Patriot Act, gay marriage, drug laws, etc. Didn’t seem to consider the likelihood of a pure libertarian push in government, but more which party more embraced the libertarian ideal. He wasn't really happy with the Democrats by any means, but he was really concerned about the intrusiveness of the Republican right. He felt it was barely the lesser of two evils, and seemed pained to say it.
Charon
-
If you had a democrat or group of democrats that were strong on the 2nd amendment and strong on the border issue.....they'd probably have no problems in getting a clean sweep. A little religion here or there wouldn't hurt either.
]
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Got your attention huh?
Really quick observation...
Liberals have always hung their hat on a staunch personal freedom platform. We have no qualms about fighting for fringe right to free speechers or fringe religious freedoms or fringe whatevers as long as personal freedoms are protected... and I support this wholeheartedly.
Where we are missing the boat is on the 2nd Amendment. If the Dems decided that a strict personal freedom interpretation of the 2nd was part of their platform for 2008... the Reps would be in disarray. Democrats just need to be in favor of all personal freedoms (including abortion) and the Republicans would wallow in the stench of a lost cause.
I have been saying that for years.
Even more so now with gun popularity up since 911 and Katrina.
Yet they won't change, they will keep being anti gun.
Mostly because who is going to believe boxer or fienstien ect if they change on this after all these years?
-
merely saying liberal implies folly
-
You cannot control the lives of your voters by allowing them to have guns and any knowlege of the corrolation between wheapons and the control that has on governments. If you want them to ask government for everything, thats too much personal freedom, and the personal ability to say "NO" to the government.
Nothing wrong with personal freedom. Good stuff. As Rome practiced all those personal and Liberal freedoms to the hilt.....it died. But man did they have some great times before the fall.........................:aok
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Got your attention huh?
Really quick observation...
Liberals have always hung their hat on a staunch personal freedom platform. We have no qualms about fighting for fringe right to free speechers or fringe religious freedoms or fringe whatevers as long as personal freedoms are protected... and I support this wholeheartedly.
Where we are missing the boat is on the 2nd Amendment. If the Dems decided that a strict personal freedom interpretation of the 2nd was part of their platform for 2008... the Reps would be in disarray. Democrats just need to be in favor of all personal freedoms (including abortion) and the Republicans would wallow in the stench of a lost cause.
That's an electrifying statement.
Damn.
Double damn.
Who's gonna shoot Feinstein, Sharpton and Jackson for us? And while we're at it, anybody else belong on the list?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Got your attention huh?
liberal folly, i thought it was some chick flashing... :(
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Who's gonna shoot Feinstein, Sharpton and Jackson for us? And while we're at it, anybody else belong on the list?
Teddy maybe? Howard "YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRGGHH" Dean?
-
Originally posted by bustr
Nothing wrong with personal freedom. Good stuff. As Rome practiced all those personal and Liberal freedoms to the hilt.....it died. But man did they have some great times before the fall.........................:aok
ding! ding! ding!!
was there abortions in Rome? just wondering as that has to be my favorite "personal freedom" the dems like to rally around
-
Not gonna happen MT, the democratic pary relies too much on urban sociailst anti gun, essentially anti old us culture types these days. A centrist traditional democrat just doesnt serve that demo.Similar thing with republicans and the evangelicals today.
You have to pay a lot of lip service to them on the big issues.
-
Basically what this thread is saying is that If they democrats became libertarions, we'd vote for them.
-
liberals in support of the 2nd Amendment? Really MT , you should not smoke that stuff, it will stunt your growth.
-
MT... on the surface that makes a lot of sense.... 80 million gun owners and 64% of the population thinks that the NRA is a good organization
problem is.... democrats and liberals want socialism which is the oppossite of personal freedom... that part allways shrilly shines through...
The reason they are against guns so much is that guns are a threat to socialism and big government and represent individuals shunning the help of government.
how do you make afirmative action look like personal freedom? Rent control? EPA? Land grabbing? abortion (for the aborted)? fighting vouchers? Making everyone pay for someone else? Dividing wealth and sticking it to the rich? Bussing? Hate crimes?
Let me say that I agree with personal freedom no matter who espouses it and if the democrats really were trying to get government out of our lives I would support them... they are not... and... they are being extremely dishonest about it.
It's a package... The democrat package stinks worse than week old fish wrapped in the newspapers they control.
Gun control is a good start tho... A united democratic message to allow stengthen the second amendment would siphon off a lot of votes.
democrats weren't so bad when I first started voting.... even tho they were the ones fighting civil rights.
lazs
-
Disagree completely.
The democrats would lose more votes then they would gain.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html)
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.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
Thank you, sir! No hurry or rush. I understand he is running for the U.S. Senate next year?