Give it up.
Posted on 10/21/2004 8:12:29 AM PDT by independent5
Hi, I'm new here. I'm an independent so not all of my views are conservative in nature. Am I welcome to post here? Is this is this the appropriate (general/chat) forum to post this in?
We're all antsy especially this close to the election.
We've had numerous trolls who come to disrupt and waste our time.
We've had democrats who pose as conservatives and like to poke at people trying their best to disrupt certain threads.
You state you're an independent and some of your answers can be construed as someone who's here to show us the error of our ways.
I really do hope you can browse the site, learn about different issues and then draw a conclusion that will work for you.
Good luck on your journey!
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.
Ok, then those definitions don't really work with the meanings I'm trying to communicate.
Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1935 I believe without a special license.
I'm mostly ignorant of the current gun laws in place, I never said I was knowledgable on the subject. If this is the case, then I'm happy with it. I have heard that failing to renew the Assault Weapons Ban was largely opposed by a lot of police forces, so I figured there was some reason for that. This information could be false or misleading, I don't know.
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.)
If this is true, then having the ban drop off doesn't bother me so much -- if at all. I have to check up on this, however.
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.
If this is the "guns don't kill people..." argument, fine. I'm mostly behind that argument myself. Of course I think if everyone on this planet was a saint then we could have all the guns we wanted ... but then we wouldn't need them. That's the point -- there are people that will use weapons to kill, so we ought to keep the most dangerous weapons out of their hands. But that doesn't mean we also ought to destroy our secondment amendment right to own firearms. I do think there's a middle ground somewhere. Maybe we've already found it and we just need more police enforcement?
Is that reasonable?
One of which I do like very much -- and that's the tax-cut rollback on the top 1%
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.
Though I was not happy that Bush didn't push the assault weapons ban more.
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.
I felt like Bush, for some reason or another, wanted war in Iraq.
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
I feel like a lot of people have been callous towards the deaths of our troops
They have done so by failing to put a face on those troops, but rather used just a number.
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.
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 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.
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.
Can you tell me anything good about Kerry?
YOU PEOPLE REALLY THINK THIS DU TROLL IS HONEST? HE'S A TROLL. C'MON FREEPERS, WAKE UP! LOL
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.
Very true. It makes it difficult to separate fact from bias.
Can I ask what your major reason is for voting republican in state/house/senate/presidential elections? I've only ever voted republican myself, though I may be voting the other way this year in some cases.
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.
Alright, fair enough. I personally don't think Kerry would ever take it that far, but I don't like the guy or where I think he'd take the country either (i.e. more spending, weaker on terrorism).
Give it up.
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, it is very much appreciated.
You need to read his posts. THINK GIRL, THINK.
You sound like a Nancy Boy.
The word neocon sent up a red flag here, plus the usual Bush lied.
Ok, I understand. How someone appears to me doesn't always have to be the truth of things. I could have the wrong impression and be missing some of the picture. I also said that the administration only "lied" if they were going into Iraq for reasons different from what they told us. Knowlingly -- before hand. That's just an objective conclusion, but its also, more importantly, an IF.
There I fixed it.
BINGO
Bingo
What about if the person with the purple hearts may not have been entitled to several of them? What about if the person runs on the fact he's a decorated Purple Heart vet and that qualifies him to be CIC? What about if the person throws his medals/ribbons (oh, they weren't really his) over a wall in protest of the VN war and then testifies before Congress about everyone over in VN is committing atrocities? It's all here and it's documented. We're at war, is this the kind of person we want as our CIC?
The purple heart issue is a big one because he's made it into a cornerstone of his run for President.
Are you welcome here? I don't know. Got any pictures?
If someone is honestly looking to debate with people that share opposing opinions, how do they go about convincing those others that they are not simply hanging around to disrupt them? I can't change what others have done on your forum in the past, but just because they have done so, does not mean that I will or that I am in any way like them.
The beginning of the Revolutionary War (that is the context for the founding of our country, wouldn't you agree), was that a cannon (yes, a big non-hunting, non-house protecting weapon of war) were stolen from a British fort and held at a farm because the colonists were denied the right to own military grade weapons.
The British Crown then marched troops up through Lexington and Concord, resulting in "The Shot Heard Around the World". Those men who fought against the British Crown understood how tyrannical any man can become when he has power and put provision within the construct of our Government to ensure that our people could overthrow their government when need be. That is what I feel the second amendment is all about.
Because you are.
It doesn't bother me personally, I've just never experienced it before.
Only the last ten times you have been booted from this site
I am a sane person, there's no need to think I'm here to troll.
LOL, nice try.
I just want to talk politics.
Nonsense.
I want to discuss the issues with people that have different opinions from my own
You gave yourself away again.
-- which is, I think, a great way to learn. All of my posts have shown this.
All your posts have given you away.
NOW GO BACK TO YOUR DU PALS AND TELL THEM PROTAGORAS CAUGHT YOU.
You can run,, but you can't hide.
This site is not a debating society for liberals. Please see posting guidelines.
Time for an IP addy check.
All of your questions were good. Let me make something clear before I respond to them:
I already know that John Kerry is not an upfront, honest guy. He's a politican. I take everything he says with a grain of salt. I don't want to vote for him, but neither do I want to vote for any of the other candidates. But I want to vote. Therefore I will choose the least evil available -- from the two candidates that could actually win.
What about if the person with the purple hearts may not have been entitled to several of them?
It does matter, but I already know the man is dishonest. I already know that he's just another overly-wealthy american who was pampered through life to get to where he is. But I feel the same way with Bush. Bush had his way paved for him as well. That doesn't help me sort out who is better -- they both have strikes against them.
What about if the person runs on the fact he's a decorated Purple Heart vet and that qualifies him to be CIC?
Well, it doesn't qualify him to be CIC. I don't think he should be. But I don't get to pick who I think should be.
What about if the person throws his medals/ribbons (oh, they weren't really his) over a wall in protest of the VN war and then testifies before Congress about everyone over in VN is committing atrocities?
Well, then he's a hyprocrite. But I already knew that as well. There are very few politicans that aren't hypocrites, so I still have to look at what I think they will do in office -- what their policies are.
It's all here and it's documented. We're at war, is this the kind of person we want as our CIC?
No! Its not the kind of person we want as our CIC.
I'm aware that this is not a debating society for liberals. I'm here to speak with conservatives, not liberals. I can find liberals anywhere else, and have. I'm tired of that, so I'm here to speak with conservatives.
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.