Posted on 10/21/2004 8:12:29 AM PDT by independent5
That sounds like a rather conservative answer :-)
Nader can't win.
Very true, but I should have said that I don't like him either :). Though I do find him more honest than both Bush and Kerry.
Kerry has no clear plan on anything.
Haha, yeah I can agree with that. I'm tired of hearing about how he "has a plan." Though, he does have a lot of "jists." One of which I do like very much -- and that's the tax-cut rollback on the top 1%. I think, if Kerry wasn't going to throw all of that money away, would help us return to fiscal responsibility. One thing I haven't done is visit Kerry's website to see if these "plans" are actually outlined there. So I can't really rag on Kerry (anymore than I have) until I check that out. Gotta be fair.
He supports abortion but, he is against it.
Now here I actually understand his viewpoint. I thought Kerry couldn't answer a single question in any of the debates until this one came up. I like that he understands that the U.S. cannot legislate any particular person's article of faith. I also understand why he voted against the partial birth abortion ban -- I do wish they had drafted the bill better. I might actually lean Kerry here.
He supports gun rights but, his senate record says otherwise.
Yeah, I don't know where he's at there. Though I was not happy that Bush didn't push the assault weapons ban more. So that one is a tossup between the two candidates for me.
He is for ousting Saddam but is against it and votes against the first Gulf War and vote against funding the troops.
Now I don't know why Kerry voted against the first Gulf War or against funding the troops. Neither sound good to me. But, again to be fair, I understand that there are often reasons for votes that appear, on the surface, to be ridiculous. This is something I'll be looking into in the next week.
Bush has been consistent in his message. His job is the security if the country.
Yes, Bush gets points here.
He has taken the fight to the terrorists in many countries.
His policies brought us out of a recession despite the 9/11 attacks, War on Terror, and corporate scandals and a heavy drop in the markets.
Here I've got a problem because I don't think I have the economic expertise to figure out whether or not Bush's policies have helped or hurt the country. My gut feeling is that its a little bit of both ... but I don't know the impact. I thought Bush was terrific right after 9/11 and during the Afghan war. But afterwards -- especially in Iraq, things started getting iffy for me.
I felt like Bush, for some reason or another, wanted war in Iraq. Perhaps they believed they just needed to get troops into the middle east as a staging ground -- to break terrorism up. The problem, if that's true, is that the Bush administration lied to me about why we're there. The whole WMD thing doesn't please me at all ... it really makes it look like we rushed into things.
You don't rush into sending your friends and neighbors to fight and possibly die -- that's how I see it. I feel like a lot of people have been callous towards the deaths of our troops who have always made serving our country the very purpose of their lives. They have done so by failing to put a face on those troops, but rather used just a number.
When I watched Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought 99% of that movie was pure propaganda and ridiculous rubbish. But there was something that did stick, and that was that so many people just don't really understand the seriousness of going to war. It doesn't mean that we send our might army to go crush the terrorists or whomever. We can't take a face off of our military, the military is our son, our daughter, our father or mother, sister or brother. This is why I feel so strongly about how Bush handled Iraq.
I'd say Bush has made me most uncomfortable with his handling of Iraq. I feel like he's gone neocon. I get the impression that Bush is going to hurt our foreign policy, damage our reputation in the world, which, despite what I've heard some conservatives say, is something to be very concerned with. It hurts trade and it hurts the lives of our citizens who live and work overseas -- beyond other things.
Home ownership has never been higher.
I don't really have an opinion on it, but if that's true and its a result of the administration, then its points for Bush.
Unemployment is less than it was during the 90s.
I do have a bit of an opinion on this one ... and its that I think both parties horribly abuse the job numbers. I am also aware that the unemployment rate means very little without other context. I do know that there has actually been a net job loss during the Bush administration. I think its a combination of the times and the Bush policies. But how much blame goes where I can't say. I need better facts and explanations -- and its hard to get those in a bitterly divided partisan country.
Another note -- I think both Bush and Kerry are going to overspend on government. Another reason why I don't like either of them.
Now a question for you...it will help me see where you're coming from:
Can you tell me anything good about Kerry?
You don't have to speak with me if you don't want to, but please don't try and distort where I'm coming from just because you don't like how I think or what my positions are or aren't.
A different approach, but a troll. Watch and learn.
If you are new here, how do you know what a troll is?
Troll is a fairly well used internet term referring to someone who just goes to a Message Board looking to start up trouble. Don't be so Freeper-centric.
Thanks for the advice.
Watch and learn.
Welcome. I too am an independent, and often disagree with some of the more conservative types here – but only on matters of religion, politics, the economy, foreign policy …
Cute answer but not very accurate.
It is also filled with emotional hyperbole.
If you are going to claim an informed opinion about guns and the 2nd ammendment you need to do better than this.
An automatic could kill ~600 people in a minute. A semi-automatic could kill ~40 people in a minute. A wheel gun could kill ~6-12 people in a minute. A shotgun could kill around ~6 people in a minute. A rifle -- depends on the kind of rifle, but perhaps more than ~12.
That's 5 sentences. No single citizen needs to be able to kill 600 people in a minute.
Sorry.
An automatic is a weapon that continually discharges rounds as long as the trigger is held in the fire position.
A semi-automatic is a weapon that discharges one round each time the trigger is pulled from a magazine.
A wheel-gun (or revolver) uses either a single or double action to rotate a firing chamber that can hold a single round into position to fire.
A shotgun is usually an unrifled long gun with the capability to fire shells designed for pattern dispersion of multiple shot.
A rifle is a long gun whose barrel has been "rifled" to create more spin thus increasing accuracy.
Note that none of the definitions has anything to do with how many people can be killed, or even how many round can be dispersed, per minute. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1935 I believe without a special license.
Semi-automatic weapons were mostly the focus of the "Assault Weapons Ban", but most things banned under that horrid law were cosmetic differences. (I.e. a gun with a black metal stock (the part you rest on your shoulder) was outlawed, while the same gun with a wood stock was legal. No differences in power or capability, just one looked more dangerous than the other.)
Of course, none of the stats you provided covered the dreaded "box-cutter" gun, which killed over 3,000 people in a matter of an hour or so.
Indy5,
It sounds to me as if you've had your fill of being bombarded by both sides on other message boards you've been on.
I count myself as an independent when it comes to local issues. It depends on their platform and what I know about them.
State elections I more than likely am going to vote Republican.
House/Senate elections will find me pulling the Republican levers.
President - ALWAYS REPUBLICAN!
Take time to read and absorb differing idea's offered here on a conservative board. They can run the gamut.
Kerry literally scares me if he becomes President. I don't want him in power because I think he'd lead us down the road to being under UN control. I could go on and on and on but there are a large number on this board who can point out the dangers of Kerry becoming President.
I knew what a troll was long before I joined FR. They're disruptors and based upon our newbies first thread, I don't think he's looking to disrupt. Time will tell and in the meantime, if he's not a troll, we can help him with facts and our opinions. He's said he's here with an open mind. Let's not let it become a closed one because we slam the door shut in his face.
What do you have against the top 1%? Why shouldn't they pay the same proportion of their income that the rest of us do?
Taxation is a very serious business. It is essentially using a gun (the power of government) to take money away from someone else in order to spend it on what you think are the highest priorities. Maybe that's justifiable, but whatever you tax people for better be pretty dang important.
BTW, if you think it's hyperbole for me to say taxation is taking money at gunpoint, try not paying your taxes for a while and see how long it takes for someone to show up carrying a gun.
Watch and learn.
You must have meant think, not feel.
Watch and learn.
I believe our new poster had already exposed himself in his first post when he said he is new here.
Post 66 of yours:
Mark my words, this person is a troll. A different approach, but a troll. Watch and learn.
Post 64 of yours:
You're not an Independant, you are a troll.
Calling someone a troll and telling him he's not an independant denigrates him.
As I said, only time will tell whether he's who he says he is. Until such time as he shows he's a troll, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and not call him names.
Watch and learn can be applied to all of us here in FR, including you.
If you are going to claim an informed opinion about guns and the 2nd ammendment you need to do better than this.
Ok...but I didn't claim to be that informed.
Why do I get the impression that a lot of people are looking to viciously attack my opinion or refer to me as a troll? It doesn't bother me personally, I've just never experienced it before. I am a sane person, there's no need to think I'm here to troll. I just want to talk politics. I want to discuss the issues with people that have different opinions from my own -- which is, I think, a great way to learn. All of my posts have shown this.
The word neocon sent up a red flag here, plus the usual Bush lied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.