Weird, Conservatives Are Supporting Kerry
DrSuredeath
Join Date: 2002-11-11 Member: 8217Members
Join Date: 2002-11-11 Member: 8217Members
in Discussions
Comments
As for foreign policy, the Neo-Conservative definition fits fairly well at the moment and is contradictory to traditional Conservatism. But turning to the U.N. to relinquish control would be a spit in the face of Conservatives. Regardless of how we got there, it's our problem. Again, Kerry is not the answer here.
I suspect that site has some serious inference and splicing to reach the whole-hearted conclusion that true Conservatives would vote for Kerry over Bush.
I would be shocked if there weren't any.
I would be shocked if there weren't any. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
911 911 911 911 911!!!!!11!!1oneonetwo
Theses conservatives are the ones who will earn the world's respect for the american people. Sacrificing your ideals to elect a responsible leader is a very respectable choice.
Theses conservatives are the ones who will earn the world's respect for the american people. Sacrificing your ideals to elect a responsible leader is a very respectable choice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Respect cannot be earned by sacrificing your ideals. If Kerry were a respectable leader then I would vote for him. Unfortunately I find the man repugnant so it is a bit hard to cast my vote his way.
(YES: I am a registered Republic)
at least 50% of republicans are smacktards who dont know **** about anything
scientific proof: <a href='http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Ele...ew_9_29_04.html</a>
related note: American Conservative Magazine endorses Kerry
<a href='http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.
Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are statistacally more democrats in the US then Republicans. Just the ones more likely to vote are the ones with higher paying jobs, management, more education, older folks. point is, those people tend to lean towards republican.
Sources are from my Political Science 12 class at a University. if you want me to find the exact gallop polls, i can. I am just too lazy since i have a 16 page paper for that class due in a couple of weeks, and a 6 page one for History in the US due within a week...
Edit: Oh yea, I am a Registered Democrat in California. I am very liberal, I just know common sense when i see it.
my wording was over the top but come on this is the internet. (i cant seem to find a direct link to redvsblue: Real Life vs. The Internet)
ps. "smacktard" was from the swear filter
There was a pro-Bush ad awhile ago that said Kerry wants to basically get rid of semi-automatic rifles and some pistols...which I'm wondering if someone could confirm or deny for me.
Pro-Bush ad = no trust from me.
[coincidently:
Pro-Kerry ad = no trust from me.]
Also coming in with a mis-informed public. There is no right to 'own a gun.' It is actually a NRA push to make people think it is. Yes, the wording in the Bill of rights is not crystal clear, but it has to do with militias, and not guns. In every case, the Supreme Court has upheld the fact that there is no constitutional right to own guns. Re-read the constitution, read all the court documents on it. As in the above post i made, i'll get links, just too late and too busy right now.
Edit: Source again from my Political Science class. Links available upon me having time to go find them, and willingness.
Link to bill of rights
<a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...illofrights.htm</a>
Cornell is a great spot to look up laws, etc. Google is great also. I will find court cases if needed
Besides, any arguements for placing guns only in the hands of the military/"militia" are unfounded. There is a large amount of open country in the US, and for the people who live there, guns are pretty much needed. What else are you going to do if a wild animal starts eating your livestock/pets/children? Wait an hour for the police to arrive?
For honest, thinking citizens who do not need a gun, well, they can just not buy them. Go figure.
Criminals, on the other hand, are amazing not discouraged by gun laws. Whatever helps them commit crimes is what they'll go get, regardless of difficulty.
To sum up: removing a debatable liberty, and in the process doing no good while harming innocents, is a really poor idea. Just leave it in. Regulate, sure, but not remove.
Also coming in with a mis-informed public. There is no right to 'own a gun.' It is actually a NRA push to make people think it is. Yes, the wording in the Bill of rights is not crystal clear, but it has to do with militias, and not guns. In every case, the Supreme Court has upheld the fact that there is no constitutional right to own guns. Re-read the constitution, read all the court documents on it. As in the above post i made, i'll get links, just too late and too busy right now.
Edit: Source again from my Political Science class. Links available upon me having time to go find them, and willingness.
Link to bill of rights
<a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...illofrights.htm</a>
Cornell is a great spot to look up laws, etc. Google is great also. I will find court cases if needed <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I were to take your interpretation of the 2nd amendment then it would be the only amendment in the 'Bill of Rights' that confers a right to the state while limiting the rights of the citizen.
Also coming in with a mis-informed public. There is no right to 'own a gun.' It is actually a NRA push to make people think it is. Yes, the wording in the Bill of rights is not crystal clear, but it has to do with militias, and not guns. In every case, the Supreme Court has upheld the fact that there is no constitutional right to own guns. Re-read the constitution, read all the court documents on it. As in the above post i made, i'll get links, just too late and too busy right now.
Edit: Source again from my Political Science class. Links available upon me having time to go find them, and willingness.
Link to bill of rights
<a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...illofrights.htm</a>
Cornell is a great spot to look up laws, etc. Google is great also. I will find court cases if needed <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I were to take your interpretation of the 2nd amendment then it would be the only amendment in the 'Bill of Rights' that confers a right to the state while limiting the rights of the citizen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were to take that interpretation, the rest of them probably would too.
The democrats really shot themselves in the foot here. Why did they nominate the only guy that would have a difficult time campaigning against Bush? My guess is they felt that they could get away with it.
edit: My more sinister guess is that they didn't want to run the risk of breaking the 2 party system.
like what?
like what? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
States rights, foreign policy, military doctrine, separation of powers, firearms, drug policy, honesty.
Just to name a few.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not 'taking it away' from citizens. It just isn't there. There is no constitutional amendment that says we have the right to own guns. saying that, it would not be smart, or popular to ban all guns. As taboo fires said in the quoted area below, sometimes we need them. But someone tell me why a citizen would need assult rifles. Pistols would serve the purpose for almost any situation needing a gun. sometimes shotguns, or hunting guns.
<!--QuoteBegin-Taboofires+Oct 28 2004, 03:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Taboofires @ Oct 28 2004, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People assume the right to own a firearm because of an ambiguity in the constitution. In the case of an ambiguity, it is almost always better to allow the right than to remove it.
Besides, any arguements for placing guns only in the hands of the military/"militia" are unfounded. There is a large amount of open country in the US, and for the people who live there, guns are pretty much needed. What else are you going to do if a wild animal starts eating your livestock/pets/children? Wait an hour for the police to arrive?
For honest, thinking citizens who do not need a gun, well, they can just not buy them. Go figure.
Criminals, on the other hand, are amazing not discouraged by gun laws. Whatever helps them commit crimes is what they'll go get, regardless of difficulty.
To sum up: removing a debatable liberty, and in the process doing no good while harming innocents, is a really poor idea. Just leave it in. Regulate, sure, but not remove.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
again, it is not a liberty. Taken from <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty&r=67' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty&r=67</a>
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
It is not protected in Bill of Rights. Look up the cases which the second amendment has been challanged in the Supreme court.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not 'taking it away' from citizens. It just isn't there. There is no constitutional amendment that says we have the right to own guns. saying that, it would not be smart, or popular to ban all guns. As taboo fires said in the quoted area below, sometimes we need them. But someone tell me why a citizen would need assult rifles. Pistols would serve the purpose for almost any situation needing a gun. sometimes shotguns, or hunting guns.
<!--QuoteBegin-Taboofires+Oct 28 2004, 03:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Taboofires @ Oct 28 2004, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People assume the right to own a firearm because of an ambiguity in the constitution. In the case of an ambiguity, it is almost always better to allow the right than to remove it.
Besides, any arguements for placing guns only in the hands of the military/"militia" are unfounded. There is a large amount of open country in the US, and for the people who live there, guns are pretty much needed. What else are you going to do if a wild animal starts eating your livestock/pets/children? Wait an hour for the police to arrive?
For honest, thinking citizens who do not need a gun, well, they can just not buy them. Go figure.
Criminals, on the other hand, are amazing not discouraged by gun laws. Whatever helps them commit crimes is what they'll go get, regardless of difficulty.
To sum up: removing a debatable liberty, and in the process doing no good while harming innocents, is a really poor idea. Just leave it in. Regulate, sure, but not remove.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
again, it is not a liberty. Taken from <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty&r=67' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty&r=67</a>
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
It is not protected in Bill of Rights. Look up the cases which the second amendment has been challanged in the Supreme court. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Usually it is best to leave the word 'need' out of arguments when discussing rights.
I have many rights which I do not need at the moment. That does not make them instantly void. I would rather err on the side of liberty. It is one thing to trim the fat but you must be careful not to cut to the bone.
It just seems that the politicians who argue that they are your best and last defense of your rights are often the first ones to compromise them when it is politically expedient.
Need doesn't enter in to it. Making sure the government doesn't get ban happy does. Why not mandate that all vehicles must be equipped with speed regulators? Afterall, you do not need to go over 65mph (or the legal limit in your area). Why make engines whose only purpose is to accelerate beyond the legal limit? You don't need to.
thats a terrible analogy. a guns only purpose is to kill, when death is a major factor i think you can get rather restrictive..
thats a terrible analogy. a guns only purpose is to kill, when death is a major factor i think you can get rather restrictive.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give me some reasons other than feelings. Laws cannot be based upon emotion alone. Emotion based laws feel good (for the people who passed them) but often have unintended consequences.
Then let us get restrictive on the real problems. The actual causes of death.
I posted this a while back when we first discussed the Clinton Gun Ban. The CDC posted statistics relating causes of death. The CDC (not even nearly a pro-gun group) listed firearms as a factor in 2% of deaths in the US.
Please read what I posted earlier.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2% includes all deaths by firearms. That includes police, suicide, accidents, justifiable homocide(self defense). In addition, the vast majority of this 2% was not committed by so called assault weapons. In fact, less than 1% of firearm deaths are the result of assault weapons.
1% of 2% is 0.02%
So, less than 0.02% of all causes of death is related to 'assault' weapons. More people die from second hand smoke. Hell, more people die from their sexual behavior than by these firearms. Smoking is completely pointless so why don't we ban it? The reason is that cigarettes are not as scary as 'assault' weapons though they are far more deadly.
I can cut the number even further. Diane Feinstein(Gun ban champion) herself notes that 85% of all firearms used in crime are committed with illegal or stolen firearms. With this statistic, we can determine that only 0.003% of deaths are caused by legal assault weapons.
0.003% That is the relevant statistic.
0.003%.
More people die by tripping over their own feet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am a life member of the NRA and a campaign organizer. It is probably best if we leave the firearm discussion be. No positions are going to be altered by our barking. Let's bring it back up after the election when I am no longer in 'kill-mode'.
On the guns. There are more deaths per year from cancer probably then violent attacks. Then why are we spending so much money on national defense when we can save so many lives just from curing cancer? call it a political catch 22. It just seems that the biggest threat is through violence.
now, the argument i made before is it is NOT a constitutional right. I never said that we should not be able to own guns. I do think we should. As someone said before, how do we deal with wild animals? We can't expect the police to come at that exact second to our aid. And i am neutral on Gun control laws. Certain types of guns/weapons i think should be outright banned to the public. But banning all guns is an extreme that i think would be too 'utopian' for our society.
On the guns. There are more deaths per year from cancer probably then violent attacks. Then why are we spending so much money on national defense when we can save so many lives just from curing cancer? call it a political catch 22. It just seems that the biggest threat is through violence.
now, the argument i made before is it is NOT a constitutional right. I never said that we should not be able to own guns. I do think we should. As someone said before, how do we deal with wild animals? We can't expect the police to come at that exact second to our aid. And i am neutral on Gun control laws. Certain types of guns/weapons i think should be outright banned to the public. But banning all guns is an extreme that i think would be too 'utopian' for our society. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think Montana used to have a "No posted limit" on public rural roads during daylight hours, and 70 at night. That was in the mid-90s though, so...pffft if it still applies now.
I'm still kind of wondering about that pro-Bush ad. It said Kerry supports the banning of semi-automatic rifles and [semi-automatic] shotguns and some pistols...which I'm really trying to figure out is true or not.
I don't think it has anything to do with the assault weapon ban sunset (which doesn't really have much to do with real assault rifles and stuff, since it hasn't been legal to own an automatic weapon for about 80 years)...just one of his posistions that I want to know if it's true or not.
I'm still kind of wondering about that pro-Bush ad. It said Kerry supports the banning of semi-automatic rifles and [semi-automatic] shotguns and some pistols...which I'm really trying to figure out is true or not.
I don't think it has anything to do with the assault weapon ban sunset (which doesn't really have much to do with real assault rifles and stuff, since it hasn't been legal to own an automatic weapon for about 80 years)...just one of his posistions that I want to know if it's true or not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kerry has voted for every restriction on firearms that ever came across his desk.
I have no problem with someone looking over the issues and really thinking if such a bill would benefit his constituents but Kerry has been a notorious (though not vocal) anti-gun senator.
Avoiding the AWB discussion allow me to comment on Kerry as a hunter. I find his current 'interest' in hunting to be one of the most deceitful political moves ever. The 'hunts' that Kerry goes on are the kind of hunts (canned) that normal hunters and sportsmen look down upon.
Ask yourself why is it that every time John Kerry goes out to hunt there is a pack of reporters with him? Not only that but why is it that every time he goes out hunting it is in a rural 'swing' state?
These are not hunts, these are photo ops.
It only banned cosmetic features on any semi-automatic weapon. Your rifle can not have more than 2 of the following.
Flash surpressors (don't even hide the flash, only helps the shooter).
Bayonet mount (come on! Bayonets?).
Underfolding, sidefolding, collapsing stocks. (somewhat reasonable, but still stupid)
Pistol grips (how the hell?).
Threaded barrels (for a goddam $1500 supressor only to get jail time? Nice job now knowing their OWN laws to have to ban something TWICE).
Detachable magazine (hell, even some shotguns have this).
_____________________________________________
BTW: Nothing got 'banned'. Nothing got taken out off the street. Anything previously there was just grandfathered into the law and STILL legal. This is a VERY touchy thing to MANY people, either get it right or get speak at all.