Are all hicks republicans?

[hobo knife]

Why are a lot of the more rural areas traditionally conservative republican?

I know there are plenty of answers to this but lets hear what you guys think...Poor education? Religion? Nascar? Hunting? Incest?

[seeking]

"democrats win when people think, republicans win when they don't" - bill clinton (quoting someone else).

those are also the same areas that have seperate bathrooms for 'coloreds', that attend church 'religiously' and talk shit behind the back of everyone in the neighborhood.

or in other words, because they're fucking ignorant.

[ClueTwo]

Check this out..

This is an email going back and forth with someone from my work..This should get some laughs..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there are Redneck values, and then there is backwoods ignorance.
Ain't nuthin' wrong with an educated Southern Boy with good ole southern
values. For me it is mostly about who stands for what I believe in (or
at least the closest to it) As a matter of fact my Doctor is a good ole
southern boy :) I am proud to be a "Redneck", I am from a small Southern
town, and we don't have the problems most of the country has because we
do things differently. Not to say they don't have their problems.
However, people are a lot happier, even if they don't know it (don't
have the stress, and fast lifestyle). But, like I said, you have your
values, I have mine, etc. If Kerry stands for what you believe in then
you are absolutely right in voting for him. I would never fault ya for
doing what you believe in Bro. Just as I expect not to be mocked for my
beliefs. I tell you since I started that darn website, I have had to
learn a lot of tolerance etc. You have die hard Pre-crash fans, die
hard post-crash fans, ones like me who like em both, and then there are
the "yankee" fans, then there are the "Southern" fans. What I am
getting at is, the reason the site took off so fast and so big, is I
don't allow anyone to get on and bash someone for their beliefs or
preferences, etc. It is also the reason I am the "ONLY" website that
the folks in the band will do interviews with. I know it aint politics,
but I feel that everyone has the right to make their own decision
without being harassed about it. Now, a little teasing may be ok
though, lol.

******
Technical Services



-----Original Message-----
From: Cluetwo
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:35 PM
To: *****
Subject: Re: Voter Guide/ Know your facts.

You don't want a redneck doing surgery on your child then why would you
want
a redneck leading your country?

Lets just leave it there. Thanks for being a good guy either way,,.


Cluetwo..Stole this line from seeking






----- Original Message -----
From:*****
To: "Cluetwo"
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: Voter Guide/ Know your facts.


> Hey the way I see it neither one of em are my idea of the perfect
> leader. But ya know us Rednecks, we will vote for the Redneck, lol.
>
*****
> Technical Services
>

[!@#$%]

something about machismo and right wing 'values' go hand in hand.

as my dad has said, this is white men, desperate to hang onto the last little bit of power they have.
it kinda translates to the whole party.

[oh so modern]

i think it is like the square/rectangle thing.
all republicans are hicks, all hicks arent republicans. or something.
alotta the blue collar sector goes to the dems. socially at least.
peace.

[villain]

I've been debating on the army website alot lately. I hadn't realized before how open the political discussion was. Anyways something ridiculous like 3/4ths of the army is republican. And quite a few of them are good debaters. But I've been shaking things up alot. Making way for the revolution. ;)

[!@#$%]

^good work.

i've wondered about that.

[Cracksmoka]

yes, yes they are.... that is why bush is so appealing to them......

[seeking]

they're also largely A-type personalities that do what they're told and don't question things. i'm sure a large number of cops are republicans too.
same reason why most entertainers/actors/musicians are democrats.

basically, republicans are just fucking retards. they are not all 'hicks' however. not by a long shot. there are plenty of educated republicans...actually, that's kind of a total oxymoron. ha. forget it.

[hobo knife]

It's interesting, because not all republicans are hicks, but most hicks are republican...youve got all these lower income people voting for a candidate that exclusively helps out higher income families. I think theres a lot of reasons for this, most of which are the result of the media....

[23578]

And all thinkers are democrats, but all democrats aren't thinkers too. I'm 3/5's hick (don't like country, nascar, but tolerate pro wrestling, cheap beer, and hunting) but was helped out from a very early age to see that there is more to the world than the tv cares to tell us. There are lots of democrats here in upstate that would like George Bush to win, I don't know, because hick trumps political allegience for other hicks? Bush's simple mindedness and fake accent reveal enough hick for most of them I guess. I know people like this, and you best believe that they're getting to the polls Nov.2 just like they get up early on Sunday.

[porque]

...i think a lot of it boils down to rural people being scared of big city life and changes to the life they're known...alot of rural towns have the same families that have been living there for generations...they don't like chnage...so they see the republicans pushin 'good 'ol american values' and they're all for it...ignorance plays a big part...

[KaBar2]

I always tell myself I'm not going to allow myself to be drawn into these discussions, but somehow or another, I always give in to temptation.

You guys should know better than to believe silly statements like "all Republicans are hicks." For the better part of 150 years, the South was completely dominated by the Democratic Party. The Democrats were the party of the South before the Civil War, as well as after the Civil War. All through the 1880's and 1890's, when the Jim Crow laws were passed, the Democrats presided. There were actually shooting wars in the South, one of which occurred about twenty miles from where I live, in the town of Richmond-Rosenburg, Texas, in which the racist, white supremacist Democratic Party shot it out with the Republicans on the grounds of the Fort Bend County Court House, and in the "downtown" area of Richmond-Rosenburg. The fight lasted three days, until Governor Sul Ross could get companies of the Texas militia and several Texas Rangers there to quell the fighting.

The argument was about the Republicans organizing black people to vote, and running a black candidate for Sheriff, in 1896, I believe.

It has been said on this website that some nefarious shift occurred in Republican politics in 1948, and the Party of Lincoln suddenly was over-run by white racists. Does this make sense to you? I agree that the Republican party has become a good deal more conservative than in the past, but the Democratic Party has become much more liberal than in the past. Where BOTH parties at one time had a conservative and a liberal wing, the Republican liberals have largely decamped to the Democrats, and the conservative Democrats have decamped to the Republicans. Neither party has a lock on things like better education, or good national defense, or lower taxes, but to listen to their rhetoric, you might get the idea that the fat-cat Republcans would just be pleased to see everyone starving in the street while they smoke cigars and drink brandy, or that the Democrats are busily undermining the Defense Department, looking for ways to strangle business and recruiting people to welfare just to hasten the death of capitalism.

Both major political parties in the U.S. are dominated by families that have their origins in the up-Eastern Ivy League. Bush may have been a "C" student, but he was a C student from YALE. George H.W. Bush may like to play "oil man" and "Midland cowboy" but he comes from CONNECTICUT, and he also graduated from YALE. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a political candidate for President that does NOT come from an Ivy League school. And the same is true of most of the cabinets of recent Presidents.

You can't have it both ways.

Use your powers of discrimination to sift the wheat from the chaff. If you think that Mr. Kerry would fight the war in Iraq differently, then look into his statements about it. Either he's lying in his speeches, or he intends to rapidly increase troop concentrations in Iraq if elected.

Neither party can do things very much differently than they are doing right now. They run from the extremes (left and right, respectively) but they must GOVERN FROM THE MIDDLE. The government of the United States cannot take an extremist stand for very long. Mr. Clinton found this to be true, so did George H.W. Bush.

No president is perfect. They all wind up facing situations that are nearly unsolvable. Mr. Kerry is driven to the left, trying to appease his more liberal supporters, who are sure to howl, if he gets elected, that they have been betrayed, when he begins to swing back to the center to govern the country.

As far as a political tendency being funded by the super-rich---do you not fing George Soros' investment of millions and millions to defeat George Bush somewhat suspect? What do you suppose Mr. Soros hopes to gain? I know if I spent millions of dollars to help put a Democrat in office, I would expect a lot more than a weekend in the Lincoln bedroom in return.

[porque]

...kabar...it's good to see you in these conversations finally, since you're one of the only people that has a vastly different perspective...however...once again you just talked about a bunch of stuff that is completely off topic...150 years ago both parties were completely different, since then we've seen multiple smaller parties be usurped into the main parties and have their views shift accordingly (populist party, the dixiecrats, etc.)...while the history lesson is interesting, it's not very relevant today...
...the question raised is why rural areas are more likely to lean to the republican party and versely why educated people are more likely to lean to the democratic party...
...as far as George Soros goes...your point has no weight...what's worse? a billionaire investing his own money to stop a politician he doesn't agree with (...a politician, mind you, that completely changed the way races for president are run and will be run from here forth by spending more money than anyone in history)...or a billionaire that invests his money more discreetly and is paid off with cabinet seats and no bid contracts?...you can't complain about the democrats playing the game that carl rove republicans started in the first place...

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 12:21 PM
You guys should know better than to believe silly statements like "all Republicans are hicks."
Quoted post


I never suggested all Republicans are hicks. I did say most hicks are republican. that could be an overstatement, and the term hick may not be the best choice of words...but the question asked is far from being silly...I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at any group of people, republicans or rural citizens...so dont take this thread the wrong way, and if anyone has I appologize...but I don't think anyone has been able to fully answer the question yet

[KaBar2]

Well, thanks, Porque, it's nice to be here.

However, I don't see that my statement is off-topic. Richmond-Rosenburg is a town in a rural area. It was Democratic for years and years and years, as was the rest of Texas. Texas has millions of rural residents, but like everywhere else, the majority of our population is urban or suburban. And Texas is very Republican now, something that would have been unthinkable when I was twenty.

The Democrats moved to the left so far on many social issues that they left many loyal Democrats behind. A lot of older people I know say "If my father knew I voted Republican, he would turn over in his grave! I never thought I would cast a vote for a Republican in my life." The lines have been drawn in a battle over the culture of the country. The convictions that are most deeply held seem to go deeper than party loyalties. Support for abortion, religion, gay marriage---these things that are tenets of the Democrats are deeply offensive to many people, both rural residents and city people. The right to keep and bear arms is as sacred to them as is the right to free speech. These are not lightweight issues. They are things that are profoundly changing the way life is lived in this country, and there are millions of people who are adamantly opposed to these changes, just as there are millions of supporters.

We vote, more for the issues than the candidate. To characterize all Republicans as "hicks," or "rednecks" is absurd. Really, to characterize anyone or any group as all one thing or another is absurd. There are good things and bad things about every candidate, and in the end, it is only the final vote of the Electoral College that really matters. We do not vote for a candidate. We vote for an Elector, really. And he or she votes for the candidate.

[seeking]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 01:21 PM
Bush may have been a "C" student, but he was a C student from YALE. Quoted post


he was a C student at yale who went there as a second choice, becuase some no-name law school in texas refused him entry based on insuficent test scores! he didn't get into yale because he deserved it, he got in because his father went there and was a huge alumni donator. he got in there the same way he got into (and subsequently out of) the national guard.
just listen to the way bush talks for christ sakes. i have a better vocabulary than he does and i dropped out of fucking high school! you will never in a million years convince me that he earned even a C average at yale (where he was incidently busted for selling fake ID's.)

as for george soros,
dude has given (i believe) billions of dollars to reform education and to help develop fledgling countries. he's one of the largest philanthropists in history. as far as many people are concerned, soros included, the future of the world itself is dependent upon getting bush (and more importantly his people) out of office. to someone with more money than they could ever possibly spend, dropping 15 million dollars to insure the future of humanity is nothing. as porque said, be concerned with the people who don't make their intentions known, not those who do. bush's pioner and ranger campains are far more nefarious than soros, who, along with teh uber wealthy william buffet, has been very outspoken about bush's tax plans. going on record as saying the common people are getting screwed, and you yourself should be footing more of the bill is a pretty unambiguous stance.

[seeking]

kabar, i think you're taking an obviously tongue in cheek topic a bit too seriously.

just to bring up guns again, since you cant seem to have any opinion on anything without involving them yourself, what did you think about kerry flat out saying that he did not support the ammending of any constitution that limits americans freedoms, and that he would NEVER try to take our guns away from us? yes, he did say that the weapons ban should stay in place, but we both know how absolutely meaningless that was. bush also said he supported the ban.
so since that was your big anchor issue, what is your excuse for voting republican now? since you can no longer use the 'dems-want-ma-guns' excuse? and you also cant use your 'mother knows best' excuse, since the republicans are the ONLY ones to enact laws that restrict personal freedoms and choices. democrats want us all to play fair, republicans want us to play their game, or not play at all.
yet still you support them. why? your arguments make absolutely no logical sense when faced with reality (which seems to be a bit of a trend, but whatever.)

[!@#$%]

how can you spend so much time typing without answering the question?

you have monologues, not discussions.

[porque]

...and what about the nra supporting bush, and more importantly, blatantly lying about kerry's position on guns...kerry is the same kind of gun owner that the majority of the nra is...a hunter...


...let me go back to the original issue that was brought up...i really do believe that the rural vote comes from a misguided perception of 'american values' and teh 'american dream'...these are things that the republican party proudly tout as being in defense of and working to restore in our society...but the values that these represent only existed in this country for a short amount of time in the fifties...when working class families were able to survive on the money they made relatively comfortably, more young men were going to college, women stayed home and raised the kids...fact of the matter is that these things only existed fro such a short amount of time that it's completely ubsurd to believe that these are true american values and traditions...
...but people are scared of society now...and instead of facing the issues that directly deal with the problems, they chose to escape from them by pursing a false reality...for the lowerclass it's teh belief that we need to restore these american family values, that somehow thaings will get back to the good 'ol days that they remmeber from being kids...and for the upper class it's the belief that more money will make them happy and not have to deal with these things (move to the suburbs...ignore the problems are they don't affect you) it's not their problem and it's not their fault...

[porque]

...bush went to harvard too...got an mba with a c average there too...

[seeking]

Originally posted by symbols@Oct 21 2004, 02:43 PM
how can you spend so much time typing without answering the question?

you have monologues, not discussions.
Quoted post


practice, apparently.


harvard and yale....hmmm. maybe it's just me, but isn't there a pretty serious 'rivalry' between harvard and yale? graduating from one, then going to the other seems nearly treasonous to me. unless of course, you are for some reason barred from getting your masters at the one you did your undergrad at. hmmmm. i wonder what bush's rational was for switching schools.
i know i'm venturing into 'conspiracy theory' territory, but whatever.

actually, fuck that. i'll bet my car that if we were both tested, i'd dance circles around that simian motherfucker, and i've got a half assed high school diploma and 5 years of community college under my belt (yet still no associates). the dude is a complete moron. there is no possible way that even someone with a high-average IQ could be in his position, with all the handlers he has, and still be as fucking clueless as he is. the guy is jello wrapped in a suit. without cheney he's nothing.
ha, so i guess you could say he's got 'dick for brains'.

seeks/sadly, pun intended.

[KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 09:21 AM
In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a political candidate for President that does NOT come from an Ivy League school. Quoted post


Clinton went to Georgetown University...

Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College...

Jimmy Carter went to the Naval Academy in Annapolis...

Richard Nixon went to Whittier College and Duke University Law School

Gerald Ford went to University of Michigan but did go to Yale law school...

Lyndon Johnson went to Southwest Texas State Teachers College...

Dwight D. Eisenhower went to West Point...



...my point here is as much that you personally over generalize very often in your arguments. I see this a lot also in the general assumptions many republican minded people make (though Democrats aren't all little Chomsky's either). I realize your statement was non-partisan but your attitude isn't. The world is not being run by New England liberals who want to set every criminal free, take away your guns, turn the country into a communist dictatorship, abort all babies, and give blinged out welfare checks to anyone that asks...

[imported_El Mamerro]

Originally posted by porque@Oct 21 2004, 01:49 PM
kerry is the same kind of gun owner that the majority of the nra is...a hunter...

Quoted post



Exactly. The kind that crawls around on his stomach, hunting deer with his trusty 12 gauge double-barrel. Shit cracked me up.



I honestly don't really view the whole Democrat/Republican (or liberal/conservative, if you will) boundary as intelligent/ignorant. I've been looking at both with the same scrutiny for quite some time now and to me it boils down to two fundamentally different ways of thinking and viewing life in general, mostly based on morals. When moral bases differ, the whole evaluation of things as right and wrong will differ as well, and it's pretty much impossible to "disprove" one with the moral base of the other. It's similar (in more ways than one) to the science/religion gap... you can't evaluate religion with science's fundamental underpinnings (reason), and you can't do the same to science with those of religion (faith).

[KaBar2]

Mammero---I think that your statement makes a lot of sense, and explains why the two groups are so adamantly opposed to one another. I've had the feeling for a long time that the U.S. is developing a fundamental schism that may someday again result in civil war.

I think that the "intelligent/ignorant" thing comes from a long standing liberal tendency to label anyone who was opposed to civil rights, school busing or affirmative action as "ignorant." This seems to have morphed into a tendency to label anyone who disagrees with any part of the liberal agenda at all as "ignorant." Since the meaning of ignorant is "uneducated," the implication is that if only these opponents of whatever just knew the facts, they would no longer be opposed. This may or may not be true, I don't know. It might be true for some people.

But there are a whole lot of people who just remain flat out opposed to many of the changes that have been fostered, and it is not likely that they will ever change their minds. They might be forced into silence, but it's not likely that they will ever be converted.

As an aside about a remark up the stack about the ineffectiveness of the assault weapons ban---yes, it was ineffective. One of the main results of the AWB was to create a domestic market for AK47 receivers, because the ban was against imported assault weapons. So the assault weapon manufacturers and wholesalers got together, imported all the parts of AK47's except the receiver, then assembled them on a 100% American-made AK47 receiver. These weapons were a lot more expensive than the imported AKS's and MAK-90's, but at least we could get assault rifles. They sold like hot cakes.

The assault weapons ban was all about COSMETICS, what the rifles LOOKED LIKE. Stupid bullshit. The liberal anti-gunners are complete idiots. Now, just about everyone I know who bought AR-15 rifles with the bayonet lug cut off and the flash suppressor replaced with a welded-on A-2 "muzzle break" is quickly replacing the barrels with standard AR-15 barrels. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno sold more assault rifles and cases of ammunition during the Clinton years than in ALL OF HISTORY, by their idiotic, fascistic behavior.

And, they cemented the beliefs of millions of gun owners that the Democratic Party is crazy and just wants to disarm all Americans for no reason whatsoever. Mr. Kerry can go shoot shotguns as much as he pleases, I will never be convinced that he is anything but the enemy of the Second Amendment. Just about everyone I know feels the same way. We do not trust him.

The bottom line is that if they want to disarm us, THEY MUST HAVE A REASON FOR WANTING TO DO SO. What is it? It cannot possibly be so dumb as disarming millions of law-abiding patriots because of the criminal actions of less than 1/10 of 1% of the gun owning public. That is just too transparently stupid. WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DISARM THE POPULATION? Well, obviously, because if we are armed, WE CAN RESIST. So it's pretty obvious to me that anybody who wants to take militia-grade weapons away from me must have something pretty fucking bad in store. No thanks. I guess I just can't go along with surrendering my assault rifle. Or my stockpile of ammunition.

If you guys can't understand this, well, then I guess you just can't. Be my guest, surrender all your weapons. But I won't. And I will continue to vote against anybody who supports the disarmament of the civilian population.

[seeking]

kabar, jusus fucking christ dude, THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED!!! why the fuck cant you EVER answer a simple fucking question?! you obviously read what i said, because you went off on the one portion of it that allowed you to resort to your bag of rhetoric. what about the rest of it though? what abotu the points i brought up?! what about the fact that kerry in no uncertain terms said I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE TAKING OF GUNS FROM CITIZENS? what about the fact that bush admitted he SUPPORTED the assault weapon ban? what about the rest of the questions i asked?! trying to have a conversation with you is seriously one of the assanine events in the history of mankind. TALK TO ME, NOT AT ME. dont recite me your NRA reactionary bullshit, if i wanted that i'd pick up a pamphlet. im trying to have a DISCUSSION, which is why i ask questions. you're trying to hold a fucking lecture.

"The liberal anti-gunners are complete idiots. "
i hate to break it to you tiger, but there are just as many liberal gun owners as there are republican, conservative 'anti-assault weaponers'. quite with your bullshit statements that have absolutely NO basis in facts. the assault weapon ban was supported by nearly every law enforcement organization in the country. a group that happens to be predominately conservative. i brought up the fact that the assault weapon ban was bullshit to prove that your rational was bullshit as well. NO ONE has taken any actual measures to keep guns out of your hands since REAGAN in 86, when he banned fully auto weapons. reagan, in case you dont remember, was a republican. clinton and janet reno reacted to an out cry from the people. they passed some bullshit law for 'show' that accomplished nothing to make THE PUBLIC happy. the MAJORITY of america, i'm willing to bet 3/4ths, which is a larger margin than you'll find nearly anywhere, think that assault weapons should be banned.

jesus dude, you seriously need to take a fucking look at yourself and the bullshit you talk. you're a fucking teddy ruxbin stuck on loop with a charlton heston tape in your back. it's tired as fuck. you say you'll never support a candidate that supports the disarming of american citizens. kerry said he does not support that either, so what is your rational for voting for a arguably retarded fundamentalist lunatic who has done more to TAKE AWAY the freedoms of your 'freedom loving brothers and sisters' than ANY LIBERAL DEMOCRAT EVER?! please fucking explain that. if you cant, then go the fuck away already!


seeks/a VERY liberal, educated voter who owns a pre-ban ak, a 40, a .380 and a mossberg 590 tactical shotgun, so don't fucking tell about liberal anything.

[imported_El Mamerro]

Seeks man, I am 100% with you on that, but it's honestly a little dispiriting for you to keep on insulting Kabar. The guy fails to answer pretty much all questions you make, and I know it can get downright infuriating, but at least he keeps a solid level of respect that I think should come from both sides. Losing your cool like that seems a bit petty, and in my eyes, definitely weakens what is a perfectly solid argument on your part.

[seeking]

i considered that, and actually toned down the post accordibly, ha, but honestly, im just fucking sick of it. i dont care about taking some 'high road' or about looking 'professional'. if my language 'weakens' my argument, that's fine, it's still leaps and bounds stronger than his one-track babbling. when it's a discussion, i treat it as such, but as it stands, it's not. it's like talking to a god damn brick wall, so i vent my frustration accordingly.

i know you're right, but honestly what you're seing is the 'tempered' version. it would be nearly impossible for me to continue caring about the subject, but approach such ridiculous circumstances in any other manner. it could be done, but then it wouldnt be me, an i gotta keep it real, ya heard.
;)

seeks/criticism accepted, and noted.

[dojafx]

Seeking, what john kerry says and what he does are two different things
in 2003 he sponsored a bill that would make pretty much ALL semi auto rifles and shotguns illegal

check the bill out: Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2038.html)

kerry is trying to curtail rights
so is bush

fuck them both

Roger Callero for president 2004

[seeking]

as far as i can tell, the bill was just to reauthorize the original bill.

either way, i dont give a shit. kabars militias are useless and will never accomplish a single thing, ever. no one is scared of them. not the government, not the corporations, not other countries, no one. they're a joke, period.
despite my owning of one, there is really no good reason for your average person to own an AK. it serves no practical purpose.

the problem is a society that relies on guns, not guns in society.

[dojafx]

It sucks, but I believe that guns needed, especially when you have groups of fascists armed to the teeth and wierdo militias that live in the woods without cable internet
I must be able to defend myself
I'll keep my assault rifle

[WitE TrAsH]

This sounds very stereotypical... saying every redneck or hick is ignorant, or unschooled. Not every redneck is unschooled or illiterate. But I do agree many rednecks do vote for the Republican party. Many reasons are because the Republican party is very into keeping the old values, which is why they are against new ideas like stem cell research or abortion. I don't know, just something to think about. But i didn't mean to start any controversy or beef...

[KING BLING]

Originally posted by dojafx@Oct 22 2004, 08:24 AM
Seeking, what john kerry says and what he does are two different things
in 2003 he sponsored a bill that would make pretty much ALL semi auto rifles and shotguns illegal

check the bill out: Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2038.html)

kerry is trying to curtail rights
so is bush

fuck them both

Roger Callero for president 2004
Quoted post

From your link:
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

[Cracksmoka]

there all a bunch of yaley scull and bones mother fuckers anyway... i mean what kind of secret society has its members sop in the middle of what there doi, mid-sentence even, and leave the room if it is even mentioned? tell me that aint fucked up shit. there needs to be a ligitimate working class 3rd party, and until we get one its the lesser of 2 evils...

[angelofdeath]

all the talk of kerry being pro gun... i ask...

please examine his record. look at his votes. dont use Kerry out goose hunting as your documentation. if he is a great hunter why did he co sponser legislation to ban many popular center fire cartridges, popular in deer hunting? one thing interesting is that the NRA gives him an F, and anti hunting and animal rights groups give kerry a 100% approval rating. atleast they both agree. now y'all can slice and dice me because i know its not cool to be under 25 and not be a michael moore lover.

as to the original question, all hicks arent republican. i just came back from the deep south and found as many kerry signs as bush signs. Kabar's post about the south or "hicks" being historically democrat is very relevant. alot of old people still hold on to the i hate republicans but have more conservative values than most modern day republicans.

a few reasons why "hicks" are sometimes republican, is because the modern republican party holds conservative values. they are largely pro gun anti abortion etc etc etc. alot of "hicks" are very morally conservative, and dont like alot of new ideas hence many vote republican.

by the way:
Glen Burton and Tommy Araya in 04.

[KaBar2]

Okay, Seeking, I re-read a couple of your posts, and although I felt like I answered your questions, apparently you don't feel that I did. Not that I am obligated to answer them, of course, but let me give it another try.

A.) I do not support John Kerry because he supports and believes in a number of national policies, laws and social tendencies with which I do not agree. He is, by his own definition, a liberal. Like all politicians, he thinks he knows better whats good for us than we do ourselves. I disagree. I believe that a smaller government is better than a larger one. I think individuals should take care of themselves, and not be dependent on the government very much. I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and I do not support any additions to or subtractions from the Constitution, except minor changes as technology makes such changes advisable. I do not support the idea of activist judges, or an activist Supreme Court. I believe in a strong national defense. I am opposed to the idea that only "the professionals" have a legitimate role in law enforcement, firefighting, medicene, engineering and so forth. I believe that there is only ONE MILITIA, as defined in Title 10, Section 311 and other places in the United States Code, as amended. If you read the law, you will clearly see that this law DOES NOT define the National Guard as "the Militia." (Our armed forces are becoming more and more a professional mercenary force, backed up by a very large National Guard. This is a really bad idea. Universal military training would be far preferable, exposing virtually all young American men to combat arms training, not that any major political party has the guts to suggest it.)

(And like it or not, if you are older than 17, you are already a member of the Militia, according to Federal law.)

B.) Mr. Kerry has a long established record of voting against the Second Amendment, and his photo op pictures with a dead goose don't change that one bit. I do not trust him, nor do I trust the Democratic Party any longer to defend the Second Amendment. I used to vote Democratic when I was young. Not anymore.

C.) Most of the issues that Mr. Kerry and the Democrats feel are vitally important do not speak to me. I'm not all that worried about Roe v. Wade, I doubt seriously that anything will change in this regard, just as you are apparently unconcerned about the possibility of Congress re-newing the assault weapons ban. You have your interests, I have mine.
I don't think that government should be in the marriage business AT ALL. I don't think that they should be in any position to say whether or not anyone marries or does not marry. I think the very idea of a "marriage license" is exceedingly offensive. The real issue here, in my opinion, is connected to insurance companies--death benefits, survivor benefits, health insurance, etc. for gay people. Homosexuals and lesbians have been exchanging vows and rings in private ceremonies for years, and that is not likely to change. So the real issue seems to be "benefits" and inheritance. I think people ought to be able to marry whomever they please, and that government should butt out. Government interferes in people's personal business FAR too much already.
I am concerned about the environment, and I think the U.S. has too many cars, and too many industries that pollute; but electing one presidential candidate over another is not likely to change that. Creating a culture that prefers public transportation and bicycles over cars is a bigger task than is going to be accomplished by any of the candidates. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population, and consumes the vast majority of the world's energy. So long as people have the money and the desire to own cars and trucks and motorcycles, they will have them. Ask China--they will soon surpass us as the world's largest consumer of petroleum and the world's biggest polluter. (Good! Then everybody can bitch about them, instead of bitching about us.)

I do not support everything the Republicans advocate, but like everything else, they have their good points and their bad points. You give George Bush far too much credit for all the bad things that are occurring. He's just a mouthpiece for a powerful segment of the ruling class. So is Mr. Kerry, but he represents a different powerful segment of the ruling class. Basically, it's like two groups of rich kids arguing over who is going to be class president, while the rest of us trudge off to algebra class. Who wins is less important to me than that I get to do what I want to do. The fewer rules, the better.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinions, or rather, that I do not necessarily agree with all of your opinions. That's the breaks. Don't forget to vote for the Elector of your choice. LOL. I voted already--early voting. I voted all Republican, unless there was a Libertarian candiadte running. If there was a Libertarian candidate for judge or school board or whatever, I voted for them. Not that they will win, but it just feels better than voting for the Republican along with 85% of the rest of Texas.

And now we get to see, what, eight days from now, who the Supreme Court wants for President. "Union and Constitution Forever!" LOL.

[random]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 25 2004, 04:46 PM
Who wins is less important to me than that I get to do what I want to do. The fewer rules, the better.


that just sounds selfish and irresponsible.

as a member of this society you should feel obligated to have a sense of social responsibility.

from your posts it sounds as though you view government as a waste of money and an oppressing force. you have to realize that the government deals with millions more people than just you, and hoping all of your own wishes be appeased is just unrealistic and naive. if some government program doesnt affect you, this does not mean it is ineffective. the role of the government should be to raise the quality of life for as many of its citizens as possible. which does NOT mean just letting everyone do whatever they want to do. people are inherently selfish, but this isn't a quality that should be reinforced, especially not on the national level. it would be great if everyone could just do whatever they wanted to do, enjoying all the benefits of modern society. BUT THIS IS INCREDIBLY UNREALISTIC.

maybe this will make more sense;
from Theatre of War, by lewis lapham:

When writing the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson also had in mind a "just and solid republican government" held together by citizens who recognized their obligation to the common good and so agreed--in the interest of their own safety as well as that of the republic--to leave some of the wishes at the bottom of the well. The assumption doesn't make much sense to a society composed of citizens in name only, "ostensible citizens" united by little else except the possession of a credit card and a password to the internet.

...No commonwealth or decent form of democratic government (no matter how heavily armed with cruise missiles and well equipped with tax exemptions) can defend itself against the raids of freebooting moral entrepreneurs and self-proclaimed kings. [Edmund] Burke put the proposition as follows: "Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."

[Ckit]

Kabar.
I do not support everything the Republicans advocate, but like everything else, they have their
good points and their bad points. You give George Bush far too much credit for all the bad things
that are occurring. He's just a mouthpiece for a powerful segment of the ruling class. So is Mr.
Kerry, but he represents a different powerful segment of the ruling class. Basically, it's like two
groups of rich kids arguing over who is going to be class president, while the rest of us trudge off to
algebra class.

i totally agree. no major party will represent the majority of our country, the middle class and the poor.
vote peace and freedom party.

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/Platform.htm

[KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 25 2004, 08:46 AM

A.) I do not support John Kerry because he supports and believes in a number of national policies, laws and social tendencies with which I do not agree.

I believe that a smaller government is better than a larger one.
Bush did nothing to cut government involvement or agencies, he simply didn't fund some while putting billions more into the military

I think individuals should take care of themselves, and not be dependent on the government very much.
Bush does beleive this too...too bad he doesn't see corporations in the same light

I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and I do not support any additions to or subtractions from the Constitution, except minor changes as technology makes such changes advisable.
HOW ABOUT THE PATRIOT ACT FOR THOSE DER RIGHTS OF YA'LLS

I do not support the idea of activist judges, or an activist Supreme Court. I believe in a strong national defense.
I am certain George Bush would not put any of these on the surpreme court. He has not put any right wing judges in other key positions. His cabinet too is a shining example of fair and balanced individuals seeking to serve their country not personal interests

I am opposed to the idea that only "the professionals" have a legitimate role in law enforcement, firefighting, medicene, engineering and so forth.
I will perform my first surgery on you and than I will build a bridge and you may cross it first. I will than arrest you...

I believe that there is only ONE MILITIA, as defined in Title 10, Section 311 and other places in the United States Code, as amended. If you read the law, you will clearly see that this law DOES NOT define the National Guard as "the Militia."
I do agree with you and agree that this is neccesary to ensure our freedoms. I just wish you could see that the republican agenda of increasing military strength and corporate participation while limiting privacy and personal freedoms is exactly why we need this. I'm not naive, the democrats are not the best answer either but still...


I think the very idea of a "marriage license" is exceedingly offensive. The real issue here, in my opinion, is connected to insurance companies--death benefits, survivor benefits, health insurance, etc. for gay people. Homosexuals and lesbians have been exchanging vows and rings in private ceremonies for years, and that is not likely to change. So the real issue seems to be "benefits" and inheritance. I think people ought to be able to marry whomever they please, and that government should butt out. Government interferes in people's personal business FAR too much already.
Without a legal standard nothing would compel insurance companies to give anything to anyone related to the insured. It makes sense and is only fair, in the vein of lessening government intervention, to extend the right to gay couples. this does not obligate religious organizations, but provided equal protection under the law

Quoted post



Embedded are some of my responces to this essay. I was too lazy to disect and quote you one by one...regardless of my comments I think this was one of your most clear and articulated explanations of your opinions...

[Smart]

I didn't even read this, sorry, MANY other priorities at the moment but soon I should be up in this forum on the regs but...

My... um... observation is that all these confederate flag sticker having republican voting sons of stump fuckers ARE NOT REBELS!

You can't rebel if you suck the W dick!

[KaBar2]

From the looks of things at the early voting last Saturday at our local branch of the Houston Public Library there is going to be a HUGE voter turn-out. I would estimate 65 to 70% of the eligible registered voters, maybe more. Election Day should prove to be a huge cluster fuck, with fifty zillion people showing up to vote all at the same time. If you want to save yourself a lot of headaches, VOTE EARLY.
There were at least 150 people in line ahead of me. The line snaked all around the Library's lobby and out the door. I waited in line nearly two hours to vote. Houston now uses those computer voting machines. They SUCK. I liked the old-fashioned ones with the big red lever that went KA-THUNK when you voted. Of course, they were very expensive, not to mention heavy as shit. And they broke pretty often, because they were mechanical.

Next to the old mechanical voting machines, I'd rather have a paper ballot to mark with a Sharpie. Too much trouble to count by hand, though.

[angelofdeath]

From what I understand the whole "confederate flag waving sons of stump fuckers" are a pretty diverse group. as said before the republicans are the biggest party with the most conservative value so alot of those guys swing toward bush.
another thing to remember is there are a few different types of "confederate flag waving sons of stump fuckers." you have people that just think im a redneck, im from the south, that is a sign of the south hell yeah im gonna fly that flag. on the bigger scope of things Hank Williams Jr, Lynyrd Skynyrd, even now im sure Kid Rock etc etc, all rock the confederate flag as an image of the south and being country. they are not racists. i mean you have writers from the south putting up "the dixie iron fist"(sigh), "dixie rebel" etc etc. im most sure they are not racist and want slavery and all the other stuff most people think of when they hear stuff like that.
then you have so called "neo confederates" who pretty much hate both parties (repub or dem) and either vote for some weird party or vote republican just so a liberal wont get into office. they view themselves as "true conservatives" who hate gay marriage, abortion, immigration etc etc etc.

just some thoughts.

[seeking]

kabar,
the problem is not that we disagree, the problem is that you are incredibly evasive when questioned. you pick and chose the topics you can give sermons about and ignore the others. even in the reply you gave, it's still completely empty. you just gave pointed rhetoric for each question, but very little of it was based in reality. you talk about not supporting a candidate that wants to ammend the constitution. dude, bush is the ONLY candidate who is OPENLY trying to amend the constitution to LIMIT the freedoms of american people. even if kerry is anti-assault weapon, he's still not trying to change the constitution.
see, the problem man, is that everything you preach and everything you 'believe' in, is completely empty because it's not based in fact. if you were to look at the facts, kerry is far more of everything you want than bush is, but still you buy into some bullshit propoganda about republicans wanting smaller govt. with less intervention in peoples lives. that is flat out bullshit and anyone with half an ioda of intelligence and an open mind can see that.

whatever, im done.

[KaBar2]

Seeking, you are a difficult person to satisfy. Nevertheless, I tried. What your reply seems to boil down to is: 1.)Kerry doesn't want that, Bush wants that, 2.) My ideas are not based in reality (geez, that's kind of tough to counter, you know? It's like saying "Even though millions of people consider this an important issue, it doesn't mean shit") and 3.) I should support Mr. Kerry because he's going to really give me what I want, and Mr. Bush is lying to me..

Uh huh. Okay. Well, maybe the problem is my low expectations of government in general. Since I'm really just hoping they won't get much worse, it's difficult to be disappointed. Government seems to be a one-way deal. Every day, they are worse than the day before. Have you ever heard of "boiling the frog?"

"Boiling the frog" is a anti-gun strategy. Since they know that they cannot just seize all the guns (unless they want to really cause a shit storm), they have adopted a long-term strategy based on the dialectical two-step ("Two steps forward, one step back.") Frogs are amphibians. Their body temperature is dependant on the ambient temperature. If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, of course, he hops right back out. But if you start with a pan of room-temperature water and slowly heat it, he just sits there until he gets cooked.

In my opinion, this strategy is part and parcel of the left-wing/ liberal agenda. It may take years, but they are patient. If they just keep picking at it, eventually they will be able to unravel the fabric of the Second Amendment.

From their point of view, this is perfectly logical and acceptable, and anyone who disagrees or objects is "ignorant," and his ideas are "not based in reality," and "out of step with the majority in the mainstream, " and even "bigoted, prejudiced and racist."

The real question is "WHY?" Why are these social issues so important to the left? What is it that they are trying to accomplish? Why is it that they think these things are crucial to their plan? What IS the plan? Is there actually a plan, or is it just a particular orientation to life that causes them to want to alter life as we know it?

I can accept that the conservatives have a set of principles and a political playbook by which they guide political decisions. They have particular, well-defined goals in mind. If this is true for the conservatives, then it may very well be true for the left. The right makes no bones about "Defending the Second Amendment." Correspondingly, out of the public eye, the left makes no bones about "Getting the guns out of the hands of civilians." Regardless of any other issues, I would vote Republican (or Libertarian, if they could win,) just based on this one thing. If the Democrats want my vote, then they need to stop being the Anti-Gun Party, and not just pretend that their determination to see the nation disarmed is not an actual fact.

And I guess I, too, am done. Don't forget to VOTE.

[metallix]

blind perceptions and information denial as political tools.

[SeOnEr]

all republicans are right wing dumbass moronic bush supporting non-environmentalist stupid fucking crackhead inbred hicks.

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 26 2004, 01:48 PM


Uh huh. Okay. Well, maybe the problem is my low expectations of government in general. Since I'm really just hoping they won't get much worse, it's difficult to be disappointed. Government seems to be a one-way deal. Every day, they are worse than the day before. Have you ever heard of "boiling the frog?"


Quoted post


okay, I hate to pick out one point of your last statement and analyze it...but since the Bush administration has taken office the government has hit ROCK BOTTOM. Name one good thing Bush has done while in office. He has completely raped the constitution with the patriot act, lead us into war through lies, given tens of billions of tax money to the top one percent.. ("his base")..lost jobs, ruined the economy....how can you possibly vote for him again just becuase you think kerry MIGHT tighten gun control, it's like your disregarding everything bush has done just because he "appeals" to gun owners...
..sorry if that sounded like ranting.

[Poop Man Bob]

Question: are all hicks republicans?


Answer: No.

http://www.wonkette.com/images/when%20nascar%20moms%20attack.jpg

[Poop Man Bob]

Link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=5&u=/041022/480/ohlr10110222210) in case you don't think that picture is real.

[angelofdeath]

Originally posted by SeOnEr@Oct 26 2004, 02:12 PM
all republicans are right wing dumbass moronic bush supporting non-environmentalist stupid fucking crackhead inbred hicks.
Quoted post


oh man. this is why there is hardly no such thing as a discussion on this site.

[seeking]

kabar,
i dont give a damn if you support kerry, i just want you to stop telling me something that has no basis in fact.

1. kerry wants to ban guns:
the assault weapon ban was a useless bill proposed to make the public think the govt. was doing something to protect us from a (then) rash of attacks on children and police officers by criminals with assault rifles. you know that and i know that. we also both know that bush openly said that he agreed with the ban and would have approved it if it came across his desk. so by his own word, bush wants to limit guns in the exact same way kerry does. and that 'way', we both know, is a complete facade anyway. so really, kerry is no more anti-gun than bush is.

what do you have to say to that?


2. liberals think they know whats best and want to dictate our lives:
PATRIOT ACT. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON MARRIAGE. ABORTION. CENSORSHIP.
how the hell can you say that liberals are acting like they know whats best, when it is the right wing that is constantly making all of its decisions based on a set of values that only they hold? this is why i get so pissed, because you spit this completely nonsequiter bullshit about what the left is doing, meanwhile the right is doing it to a far more vicious extent, but to you that's completely acceptible because they arent as vocal about taking away your guns. this is the shit i want you to acknowledge that you never do. i call you out on specific points, i offer a counter view and ask you to explain and you dont. you break into another speach. its ridiculous. if you dont want to 'answer' to me, then stop talking, because as long as you're putting yourself up on the soap box, im gonna be standing right next to you calling you out for the bullshit your talking.
if it was just a disagreement of opinion, i would let it go, but this isnt opinion, its fact. bush and his office have done more to limit the freedoms of americans than ANY other president. how can you keep ignoring that? how can you ignore their blatent attacks on our freedoms, and keep insisting on the evil of the left, meanwhile you have no examples other than that they want to take away your assault weapons. c'mon bro, use some common sense. the american public OVERWHELMINGLY believes that assault weapons should be outlawed. not the politicians, the people. and last time i checked, the country was ruled by the majority, not by what you and your gun toting pals think. republicans will respond to public outcry in the exact same way democrats will, bush proved that when he said he supported the ban.

there is more to life than guns kabar.

[Nekro]

The best article on the difference between liberals and conservatives I've ever read. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/20/24655/5647)

There's a few people who genuinely believe that the way to a better government is through a balanced budget, smaller government, more personal freedom, and less regulation of industry. The Bush clan is not among these people.

[random]

another interesting read about conservative and liberal thought (http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html)

[KaBar2]

As you guys very well know, the Executive Branch does not write legislation. That is the baliwick of the Legislative Branch. As I have said before, I do not support the so-called Patriot Act, and I have never supported it. I thought it was a bad idea from the start. I am grateful that they don't seem to be using it much (yet), but I'm sure they will get around to it. In my opinion, the laws we already have on the books are more than adequate to investigate, indict, arrest and try terrorists.

In fact, one of my biggest pet peeves is that instead of encouraging the Executive Branch to enforce the laws we already have on the books, Congress insists on writing MORE laws. It's one of the most infuriating things about government. They do not see the Law or the Constitution as "permenant," or even semi-permenant. Whenever anybody decides they want to change something, they immediately start jacking around with the Law.

There was a time, before 1933, before the Federal government passed narcotics laws, that you could go to just about any pharmacy and buy morphine, cocaine, whatever. There were addicts, but they weren't much of a problem. Dope was cheap, legal, and "hopheads" were about as dangerous as winos are today. Marijuana was completely legal, and grew wild all over the Midwest (it still grows wild in Indiana, and other places.) Narcotics addiction was considered to be mainly a moral problem. Shooting morphine? Better start going to church more regularly.
Same thing with machineguns. Plenty of people owned Thompson submachineguns and Browning BAR's. You could buy them at hardware stores and sporting goods stores. Most guns did not even have serial numbers, any more than chain saws or power drills have serial numbers. In those days, people were not worried about the guns so much as they worried about the criminals that used them illegally. The largest owners of machinegun collections (then and now) were large corporations. Ford Motor Company is the largest single owner of legal machineguns in the U.S. Coal mining companies often owned many Thompsons. They used them to arm guards and "gun thugs" during strikes.

But, of course, all that changed when we got laws that established the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (and today, Explosives), and so on. Each of these Federal agencies required a budget, and armies of "agents," a headquarters, branch offices and so on. Remember Elliott Ness and the "Untouchables?" Ness was one of the first agents of the Treasury Dept.'s "Alcohol Tax Unit." It eventually became today's BATF&E. In order to justify their existance, these agencies had to demonize the objects they existed to control. So Uncle Bob's machinegun suddenly became the tool of gangsters, and "caused" crime. Aunt Suzies laudnaum habit suddenly became the purview of "junkies" and "addicts."
The BATF&E is the second biggest collector of taxes in the U.S. government, right behind the IRS, mainly from alcohol and tobacco. They raise big money taxes, taxes that Congress is loathe to lose, so we can be pretty sure that they don't intend to disband the BATF&E or the DEA or the Department of Homeland Security anytime soon.

Mind you, machineguns were not a problem until the Government passed Prohibition, which created huge organized crime gangs overnight. They created the crime when they created the laws. The same thing is very true of the so-called "War on Drugs" today. One cannot prevent people from abusing drugs by passing a law against it. But you sure can make the drug trade a lot more profitable if you outlaw the product they sell.

Slowly but surely, they march towards a Orwellian future like in "1984," where "everything is against the law" and any time they want to arrest you, they can, because it is impossible to exist without breaking a few laws.

The Republicans are certainly not innocent in this scenario. BOTH PARTIES indulge in this hyperbole, where they demonize the other side and tout their policies as the panacea. And seemingly, both sides display the unbelieveable arrogance necessary to rule.

I saw Bill Clinton on TV, holding hands with Mr. Kerry. I'm sure many of you guys miss Clinton, but to me, and my friends, he will always be the Butcher of Waco. The fact that so many people cheered him made me feel ill. It was like watching Kerry hold hands with Eichmann.

I'm reading a book right now that says that at the peak of the militia movement, shortly after the OKC bombing, the FBI estimated between 900,000 and 1,000,000 people were in organized militia groups. The largest number I had ever read before that was 90,000, and I was pretty impressed even with that number.

The country is severely polarized right now. Whomever wins the election, he needs to scuttle back to the middle as soon as he can. If Kerry wins, and I think he has a very good chance of doing so, I hope that he has the good sense to not provoke the right. But, I sometimes think that the left WANTS to foment a vicious struggle.

Bush may talk about things like supporting the assault weapons ban, but it's empty talk. He knows very well that there is insufficient political support to re-new that bill. Even if it passed the Senate (which is doubtful) it would NEVER pass in the House. Him saying he supports the AWB is equivalent to Kerry going goose hunting--pure bullshit.

[KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 26 2004, 10:51 PM

But, I sometimes think that the left WANTS to foment a vicious struggle.


Quoted post


I can't keep up with you and I rarely get responces anyway but I wanted to contribute this...

1) The lefts record far outweighs the rights in all aspects of freedom of choice and protection of rights. Seeking called you on that: "PATRIOT ACT. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON MARRIAGE. ABORTION. CENSORSHIP." ...and I would add RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, though many more do come to mind but not in relation to this campaign. Guns are not a primary democratic stance, they aren't focusing on it. So though it is healthy to feel strongly against gun control, you're approach is irrational and reactionary - no one is going to take away your guns tommorow, make it important but don't be blind to this token gesture thrown at you by the right...
You're preaching about constitutional rights and the lessening of government is ridiculous when viewed on ANY other subject but your machine gun

2) The quote I took from your essay hits on something I've long understood and I have read about as well. This underlying theme to many right wing issues is a paranoia about new ideas and more wordly assumptions. Some how universal health care (we are the only 1st world country not to have it) is some sort of socialist monster waiting to gobble you up. Abortion activists are baby killers not people who respect your right to have a baby and the next persons to abort. Homosexuality, single motherhood and any other variation on traditional (read 1940-1965) housegolds is an afront to "family values" another meaningless phrase. The United Nations is bad (though we helped found it) and some how weak though it is only bad when they disagree with us, by they I mean the world, and weak only when we want our immeadiate interests fulfilled now without being held to the same standard as others. And the list goes on..

The right has pulled the wool over the eyes of people by assigning to themselves down home values while acting on an agenda that is vicious and unethical (See your boy DeLay as an example) and promotes governmental and corporate control that is dangerous to our rights. You want to talk about individual rights see #1. You'll need your guns, but it won't be against a democrat - have Waco, our "side" has every city since you were protesting and more so now after the WTO Seattle.



A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious.

Aristotle

[KaBar2]

I think that the respective viewpoints of those on the left and those on the right often makes discussion all but impossible. It's apparently very difficult to communicate--like I've stated before, declaring one's adversary's ideas to be irrational pretty much eliminates any need to regard them as legitimate.

I noted that you qualified your statement about seizing guns ("...nobody is going to take your guns away tomorrow...") which sort of communicates an intent to get around to it eventually. Why not just flat out state "The right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct and inviolable--we would ever tolerate the disarming of the American people, at all, ever." It's always couched in some vague sort of hedge--"Oh, we support responsible hunters and shooters and the shooting SPORTS." The Second Amendment is not about sports. It's about resisting a tyrannical government. Sports is not mentioned at all in the Second Amendment. The left does not regard the Second Amendment with the same reverence with which they regard the First Amendment or the Fourth.

The other things Seeking mentioned, abortion, etc., etc. are all issues on which there are varying opinions about what is acceptable or correct. Pro-abortion advocates often make the argument that a fetus isn't a person, or that life doesn't really start at the moment of conception. NOW who's being irrational? Life most certainly does begin at the moment of conception. If one chooses to kill it because it's inconvenient, why bother rationalizing it? Just call it what it is. As far as that goes, why not legalize infanticide while we're at it? I can't see how a newborn baby has any more rights than a fetus. If you think it's okay to kill the one, why not the other? Frankly, I'm less fanatical about abortion than most conservatives. I figure if 250,000 American women a year want to kill their unborn children, what possible punishment could be worse than having your unborn baby killed? It's sort of a self-punishing behavior, from my point of view. The mother may be happy about it today, but it comes back to haunt one, as the woman who was the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade can attest. She is now a very vocal anti-abortion protestor. I once heard a Planned Parenthood speaker say "Abortion should be legal, but very rare." I agree with that. But I also think that people who are irresponsible and incapable of avoiding creating impaired, retarded, mentally ill children (like crack-smoking pregnant women, etc.) should be sterilized. Not by force, but we should offer them a sizeable reward for undergoing tubal ligation. Men who repeatedly impregnate women and then refuse to support the babies should likewise be offered this reward for vasectomy. If they refuse to be responsible, society should be spared the necessity of raising and supporting their children.

Really, when you think about it, 250,000 abortions is peanuts, especially when you compare that number to the 440,000 Americans who die HORRIBLE deaths every year as a result of smoking tobacco. Instead of a "War on Drugs", government should be waging a "War on Tobacco." Less than 10,000 people die of gun-related violence every year in the U.S. (Of course, in the UK, it's like 600.) So, since smoking tobacco is so much more deadly, and has such a profoundly greater negative influence on people's lives, why is it that liberals aren't all upset about tobacco? (Something tells me that they will eventually get around to it, like in UK, where smoking in pubs is banned now, along with everywhere else.)

Ah, well. Whatever. I don't smoke, so I don't really give a shit, but something about government telling me what I can and cannot do pisses me off.

[seeking]

kabar,
i could give just as relivent an argument as to why people don't need automatic weapons. the question was not about your stance on abortion, it was on the fact that time and time again, the right (far more than the left) is the one pretending to know what is 'best' for people. which completely flies in the face of your argument. look at the shit the left thinks they know 'best' about... polution, child labor, food regulations, work place safety standards and yes, often guns. thats some real nefarious 'mother knows best' shit, isn't it?! outside of guns, which parts of that do you object to?

now look at what the right thinks they know best about: morality, abortion, censorship, religion, personal rights, sexual orientation, drug use...jesus christ bro, you have fucking right wing fanatics trying to make vibrators illegal!!!!!!!!!!! and then you tell me the left wing thinks they know best?! look at those lists. the right wing wants to control peoples choices that ONLY affect them. the left wing wants to control things that protect everyone.

this is why i say your shit is irrational, because when you look at the facts on paper, they DO NOT ADD UP. you are making gross generalizations which have no basis in fact, and infact IGNORE the facts. you spit age old rhetoric that means nothing. like your stance on abortion, i could give a shit less what your rationalization is, i just cant sit here watching you dress it up to be something its not. i cant handle you slandering the left and spouting all this bullshit that is not supported by any set of facts anywhere. it's like sitting here listening to someone tell me the fucking sky is orange.

how about we do it this way. KABAR, I AM CALLING YOU OUT. please comment on the list of things that the right wing tries to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO CONTROL . please tell me how the things the left has a stance on are more 'mother knows best' than the fucking right wing trying to pass laws asto what two CONSENTING ADULTS can do in their own bedroom, on the grounds of MORALITY?!?!

jesus, how can you not fucking understand what i'm saying?

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 26 2004, 01:48 PM
The real question is "WHY?" Why are these social issues so important to the left? What is it that they are trying to accomplish? Why is it that they think these things are crucial to their plan? What IS the plan? Is there actually a plan, or is it just a particular orientation to life that causes them to want to alter life as we know it?

I can accept that the conservatives have a set of principles and a political playbook by which they guide political decisions. They have particular, well-defined goals in mind. If this is true for the conservatives, then it may very well be true for the left. The right makes no bones about "Defending the Second Amendment." Correspondingly, out of the public eye, the left makes no bones about "Getting the guns out of the hands of civilians."

Quoted post


So you're saying the democrats have this secret-hidden agenda to "seize all the guns" over a long period of time...then they have some sort of a master plan to enslave the world with big government and high taxes and then they'll start aborting babies left and right and even let homos get married!....

And the first steps they are taking in this master plan is to outlaw automatic assualt rifles which could be used for...self-defense. Man, I'm sorry but the only party that seems to have hidden agendas is the republicans...maybe thats why they had to lie about why we invaded Iraq, or maybe thats why they rigged a presidential election...

Kabar, I'm interested in why you think we invaded Iraq...and please dont spew out some rehearsed right wing malarki.

[KaBar2]

I think the U.S. invaded Iraq because it is sitting on a gigantic oil field, and was ripe for the picking. Saddam Hussein was an unpopular, kleptocratic, extremely authoritarian dictator who was a threat to the strategic interests of the United States in a part of the world where we have very few friends. I think that whether or not Iraq actually had WMD, or whether or not the Bush administration knew that they didn't have WMD is pretty much irrelevant.

Was it a stupid idea? I guess that depends on how it turns out. If the Iraqis are successful at creating a democratic, constitutional republic out of a brutal kleptocracy, it may be seen in the long view as justifiable. If not, then President Bush and all his supporters are going to look bad. I guessed before (some time ago) that it would take at least five years before the Iraqis would have a functioning republic. I was probably being naive. It will probably be closer to ten years.

In our own history, we began the Revolution in 1776, and we did not have a functioning Constitution and democratically elected Federal government until 1789. That's thirteen years, more-or-less. In between we had a shitload of political intrigue, opposition, and unrest. People solidly believed that the thirteen original Colonies would NEVER unite politically, and that we would battle over State's Rights forever (which we kind of did.)

None of us had much choice about the decision to invade Iraq. The President and his cabinet made the decision, influenced by the success of the invasion of Afghanistan, I bet. The Constitution is supposed to prevent this sort of thing without a vote by Congress, but the erosion of the authority of Congress to effectively counter-balance the Executive Branch has empowered the position of President far beyond anything the Founders intended, IMHO.

You guys obviously disagree strongly with the President's policies and political direction. So vote for Senator Kerry and be happy. If Senator Kerry wins, then we will see whether or not he does things any differently than does President Bush. I doubt he will do things very much differently, because I am of the opinion that the decisions being made are principally driven by circumstances.

Hopefully, should Senator Kerry win, he will be wise enough to avoid further dividing the country politically, but realistically, I doubt that this will occur. The U.S. is split almost exactly 50-50. Both sides are becoming increasingly bellicose. It does not look too good, from where I sit. Regardless of who wins, we are in for a shit storm, I think.

[ModelCitizen]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 22 2004, 07:37 AM
The bottom line is that if they want to disarm us, THEY MUST HAVE A REASON FOR WANTING TO DO SO.*** What is it?*** It cannot possibly be so dumb as disarming millions of law-abiding patriots because of the criminal actions of less than 1/10 of 1% of the gun owning public.*** That is just too transparently stupid.*** WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DISARM THE POPULATION?*** Well, obviously, because if we are armed, WE CAN RESIST.*** So it's pretty obvious to me that anybody who wants to take militia-grade weapons away from me must have something pretty fucking bad in store.*** No thanks.*** I guess I just can't go along with surrendering my assault rifle. Or my stockpile of ammunition.

If you guys can't understand this, well, then I guess you just can't.*** Be my guest, surrender all your weapons.*** But I won't.*** And I will continue to vote against anybody who supports the disarmament of the civilian population.
Quoted post



I don't think the idea of guns being a tool for organized resistance to some nightmarish Orwellian future (as realistic or unrealistic as that may actually be) even pops into the average American's head on any given day; nor do I think democratic or republican politicians give such an idea much heed when supporting or denouncing anti-gun bills.

It's pressure from the people, from the media, from voters, and maybe even from whatever's left of their own innate consciences, that pushes politicians whichever direction they may lean on gun control issues. "Limiting civilian resistance" is barely a blip on the current political radar. You think your average democratic congressman stares at some anti-gun bill and thinks "now here's a good, progressive step in eventually disarming the public so the government can one day assume complete and total control over them"? I don't buy that angle at all.

And this strikes me as borderline paranoia:

"WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DISARM THE POPULATION? Well, obviously, because if we are armed, WE CAN RESIST."

C'mon, I've read all the prophetic dystopian literature I can get my hands on, but that's like seeing a price increase on toilet paper and deciding it's a conspiracy to give hemorroids to the poor. It's skewed logic.

[Smart]

Originally posted by Ten Cents@Nov 1 2004, 06:30 PM
a conspiracy to give hemorroids to the poor.

So WAIT!!! Now the poor are getting hemorroids? Are my tax dollars paying for that? Lousy Demmycrats!

[KaBar2]

Ten Cents--

Well, perhaps my opinions as regards firearms are kind of extreme. But let's look at the Mother of All Gun Control Bills, the Gun Control Act of 1968. It came, almost verbatim, DIRECTLY from an English translation of the proto-Nazi gun control laws of 1932, when the Jews were disarmed. The legislators that introduced it even admitted that's where they got it.

The assault weapons ban is another example of an objectionable law. We have had detachable-box-magazine, semi-automatic rifles since before WWI, almost ninety years. All the sudden, the anti-gun crowd discovered the "evil assault rifle," and passed legislation trying to limit the importation of affordable, foreign-made service rifles like the AKS, the MAK-90, and the FN/FAL. They did this by outlawing the importation of rifles made in countries other than the U.S. that had more than three of the following list: a threaded barrel, a "flash suppressor", a detachable box magazine, a prominent pistol grip, or a bayonet lug.

This law was strictly about cosmetics and "spoiling the party." It was a "Fuck you, NRA" law, and combined with Ruby Ridge and Waco, it sold more assault rifles during the Clinton Administration than during the rest of history. Like I've said before, shooters I knew who had never owned any assault rifles went out and bought every one they could afford. All semi-automatic military rifles, like M1 Garands, SKS's, M1 carbines, FN/FAL's, Daewoo's, Ruger Mini-14's, Springfield M1A's, as well as AKS's, AR-15's and everything else were snatched up at double and triple the price they were before the ban, as well as millions and millions of rounds of ammunition. Guys I know have been steadily saving their money and buying every type of military-style rifle they can since 1993. I have several friends who now own six or eight assault rifles, where before they owned NONE, simply because of the idea that the Government was going to try and prevent them from owning one. It was a REALLY STUPID LAW.

Right now, people are replacing the barrels on their "post-ban" assault rifles as fast as they can, adding the original features that the AWB made illegal. It made gun dealers a bunch of money, but that's about the extent of it. And, of course, the criminals never obeyed the fucking thing in the FIRST PLACE.

[S@T@N]

You guys must like reading pages of bullshit that get you
nowhere. Kabar's shit just frustrates me, it seems like he was
the kid in high school who talked too much while trying to fit
in... but never did because no one wanted to hear it

[damnhaole]

its the good ole boy system.the old white(sorry if thats racist)conservative is going to want to continue living like how hes used to since things started in this country.kind of understand their stand point.wouldnt be please about my family living in a country for many generations and then having someone just change it but that still doesnt make it right.anyway i just think things will be like this for years to come.till something drastic happens like a women or minority running this country.

[Spike]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 3 2004, 08:18 AM
I have several friends who now own six or eight assault rifles, where before they owned NONE, simply because of the idea that the Government was going to try and prevent them from owning one. It was a REALLY STUPID LAW.
Quoted post


Wait, the law is stupid because it caused your friends to go out and buy ILLEGAL guns, for the sole reason that they're ILLEGAL?

Hrm

[ModelCitizen]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 3 2004, 08:18 AM
Ten Cents--

Well, perhaps my opinions as regards firearms are kind of extreme.*** But let's look at the Mother of All Gun Control Bills, the Gun Control Act of 1968.*** It came, almost verbatim, DIRECTLY from an English translation of the proto-Nazi gun control laws of 1932, when the Jews were disarmed.*** The legislators that introduced it even admitted that's where they got it.
Quoted post



I dont know man, 1968 was nearly 40 years ago. 1988, 1998, and last year are a whole different ballgame. Kids weren't watching "bangin in little rock" or "menace 2 society" or selling crack or memorizing brotha lynch lyrics or bringing guns to school or sobbing about their dead classmates on the nightly news in the 60s. Crips and bloods werent spilling into suburban communities in the 60s and guns couldn't be purchased online in the 60s. Maniacs werent picking people off in home depot parking lots in the 60s or covering themselves in body armor and waging automatic weapon war on the police in the street in the 60s. There sure as hell weren't any trenchcoat mafia high-school massacres complete with media-fame inspired copy-cat shootouts in the 60s. Times have changed.

And the ineffectiveness of that particular assault weapons ban you keep mentioning is beside my point -- that the dominant reasons behind that and other recent gun control bills do not originate from the interest of limiting civilian resistance to government. With Waco and Ruby Ridge you probably have your strongest case in that regard, but those are still two isolated incidents that I don't believe have as much bearing on current anti-gun policies as the ill spectrum of aforementioned media-hyped, gun-related shit that prompts Jane Q. Housewife-voter to picket city hall in favor of gun control and keep politicians "sweatin' to their constituency."

[KaBar2]

I agree with you that things have changed--for the worse. Yes, we do have all these people gangbanging and selling crack, and killing people in demented sniper attacks. Maybe that sort of behavior makes you want to disarm and reach out to these poor souls who are acting like nut cases, but it makes me want to fortify my house. The more crime and violent craziness there is, the more I want to prepare for a shit storm.

After 9/11, gun sales skyrocketed. The last gun show I attended (in Pasadena, Texas) was jam packed. I have an acquaintence who owns a small ammunition company. They are working ten hour days, seven days a week and can't keep up with the demand.

The trend since 2000 (Y2K) has been steadily upwards, and before that, since 1992 (Ruby Ridge) and 1993 (Waco.) The militia people I know have become much less active publicly since George W. Bush was elected the first time, but they are maintaining the lines of communication.

This may be a subject that we will just never see eye-to-eye on. The left-liberal point of view is well represented on 12 oz., but there are only a handfull of conservatives here. One of the reasons I keep on writing about it is because this may be one of the few places in my life where I have much contact with people with a radically different view of things. Maybe it's a waste of time, but on survivalist boards and militia boards, we are simply preaching to the choir. At least here some of you guys may be hearing some opinions you don't normally encounter. Or, maybe not.

[dojafx]

I believe one of the most important reasons to be against gun control is to be able to defend yourself.
During the teamsters strike of the 1930s fascist gangs from the south were organized to come break up the strike, when Ferrel Dobbs heard of this, he started organizing target practice for teamsters
When the fascists heard of this and how serious it was being taken, they backed down

You have these fascist organizations that are armed to the teeth, who say their mission is to rid the world of niggers, spics, jews, communists, etc... and you think people shouldnt arm themselves for their own defense?
Its crazy

[KaBar2]

Thank you, dojafx. My point, exactly.

[angelofdeath]

"guns couldn't be purchased online in the 60s."

i dont mean to be knitpicking here, but you make it sound as though you can simply order a full automatic ar-15, barret .50 cal or h&k .45 and simply send dude a paypal payment and have the gun sent to your house. sorta like how michael moore went to the bank and walked out with the gun in that stupid ass movie.

[Juan Fuentes]

TO BE A CRACKER YOU DONT NEED TO BORN WHITE OR AMERICAN.
example-YOU COME FROM CUBA AND DISIDE TO BE A COP, IT TAKES A FEW YEARS IN WHICH CONSIST OF BRAINWASHING YOU AND THEN YOU BECOME A CRACKER.ANYONE WHO THINKS PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE TERRORISTS,WHEN THEY JUST PROTECTING THEIR LAND AND FAMILIES, IS A CRACKER ... SO SUCK MY DICK AND ASS CRACKERS.

[TPSR?]

Kabar2...
What does being conservative have to do with being pro-gun?
Just because I will gladly kill someone who'd intends to harm me, it doesn't have anything to do with political affiliation..Does it? As mentioned many many times on various gun threads on here, the ban was and still is bullshit.. Limiting a flash suppressor? Oh no! A guns erupting flame might be somewhat(or hell, even totally) diminished, but you'll still hear that bitch from miles away.. No bayonette? Holy shit! So, I can't stab someone with the tip of my rifle, but I can use a katana/box cutter/fillet knife to slice them the fuck up!(?) I know you know it's pointless, but i'm just sayin..
So, like a few have stated..Why and how? Given that YOU KNOW the ban would be bullshit(as it has been in the past), how can you(and fellow NRA members) endorse a flaming faggot like Bush, on false pretenses, scare tactics and just flat out blatant lies?
I too, belong to a mostly conservative forum(car related) and it's more than frustrating when people go off-topic on a diluted religious based argument(which pertains to nothing about the discussion at hand)...While others can't get over the fact that alot of people don't feel the need to politically label themselves.. Very infuriating to say the least..
Democracy at it's best?
Rather, ignorance at it's best...

[ModelCitizen]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 5 2004, 04:55 PM
I agree with you that things have changed--for the worse.*** Yes, we do have all these people gangbanging and selling crack, and killing people in demented sniper attacks.*** Maybe that sort of behavior makes you want to disarm and reach out to these poor souls who are acting like nut cases, but it makes me want to fortify my house.*** The more crime and violent craziness there is, the more I want to prepare for a shit storm.


Quoted post


I think you may have misinterpretted my point. I wasn't trying to support or denounce gun control at all. Personally I'm almost indifferent on the subject either way. I wouldn't want every maniac psycopath on the planet to own a gun but I also wouldn't wanna be holding a whiffle ball bat in defense if they did. I'm more or less in the middle on that issue.

I was just pointing out what I see as a more accurate line of reasoning behind modern politicians' approach to gun control legislation (as opposed to your own view, which to me seems a bit more far fetched ). The specific points I made about times changing were meant to illustrate where the general public and the media are taking their cues from when it comes to popular stances on gun related issues.

[KaBar2]

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. Each person looks at the situation through his own eyes. I'm sure, to a born-again Christian, religion, homosexuality and morality are issues of primary importance. To a parent of a soldier or Marine in Iraq, the war is most important. To a manufacturer or a union rep, the economy is most important. To a gay or lesbian person, "gay marriage" may be most important.

I have my own ideas and opinions about what is most important, and MY ideas and opinions are just as valid, just as legitimate, and just as worthy of respect as all these opinions above. If I was gay and on here bitching and carrying on about how my right to marry my partner is blah-blah-blah, most of the people on this board would say "I don't agree, but I respect your opinion."

Two sides to every issue. We vote on it. One side wins. The losing side complains, gets motivated, comes back strong at the next election. If they can garner enough support, maybe next time they win. And if not, maybe they don't.

The Democrats are strong, but they are not strong enough.

ONE REASON is their stance on gun control. This should be an easy decision---DITCH THE OBSESSION WITH DISARMING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Then, maybe they will have enough support from economic conservatives who are socially more liberal to swing the White House their way. But, as long as they support gun control, I'm voting either Republican or Libertarian, and so are a lot of my friends.

[swedishzug]

HEEY FUCKTARD I AM NO Hick nOT ALL republicans are hicks but all republicans are not hicks i am a well payed white dude in hawaii

[KaBar2]

Originally posted by swedishzug@Jan 15 2005, 10:42 AM
HEEY FUCKTARD I AM NO Hick nOT ALL republicans are hicks but all republicans are not hicks i am a well payed white dude in hawaii
Quoted post



Uh, dude, you are not helping. Turn..on..Spell...Check...

[ledzep]

Originally posted by swedishzug@Jan 15 2005, 06:42 AM
HEEY FUCKTARD I AM NO Hick nOT ALL republicans are hicks but all republicans are not hicks i am a well payed white dude in hawaii
Quoted post

:biglaugh: