|Any single-issue voters?||Matno|
Aug 9, 2002 12:17 PM
|Does your vote depend on just one thing? If so, what issue and why?
Personally, I find that if a politician is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, everything else falls into place, and he/she gets my vote. The converse is not necessarily true (for example there are some misguided conservatives who don't realize the importance of the second amendment), but it works most of the time. (Of course, that's just me, who happens to think that ALL of the reasons for including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the first place are still just as valid as they were back then, if not more so).
|Aargh! Dumb computer! (Double post). nm||Matno|
Aug 9, 2002 12:26 PM
|Yes, that issue is smaller government!||js5280|
Aug 9, 2002 12:53 PM
|If you think it's the Republicans then you're wrong. Republicians think you had 10% too little government last year (Holy $hit that's more than Gore was proposing!), and you'll need another 3-4% more in each of the next 5 years. Don't believe me? Here's their numbers:
Of course if you believe their numbers, I've got some Enron stock to sell you. I have little doubt that every Enron, Global Crossing, Marta Stewart, and Tyco "book cook" is currently being utilized by our government as we speak.
The only party that will deliver smaller government is the Libertarian Party. Who also by the way, vehemently support the 2nd Admendment with no if, and's, or but's. Check out the Libertarian Party at: http://www.lp.org
|Amen to that!||Matno|
Aug 9, 2002 9:34 PM
|Whenever I want to know if a proposed action is good or bad, I ask myself: "Will it increase the federal government's power?" If so, then it's probably not a good idea. Can't think of a single exception.
I'm with you on the Libertarian thing. They certainly do a better job (or at least would if they were in office) than the Republicans. I maintain that in order to be elected in most districts, you have to be a fence-sitter on a majority of the major issues. Otherwise, the media will stir up public opinion against you.
One caveat though, I disagree with the Libertarian ideas of legalizing drugs and pornography. The argument in favor of doing that pretty much ignores the fact that drugs and porn will ALWAYS have innocent victims. The reasoning that people are only hurting themselves just doesn't fly in those areas. Other than that though, I pretty much consider myself a Libertarian. Unfortunately, it seems that Libertarian politicians who aren't just a little weird are difficult to find. Bummer. (I still like Ron Paul).
|Ron Paul is a good guy. . .||js5280|
Aug 12, 2002 8:55 AM
|basically a libertarian in Republican clothing. As far as innocent victims of drugs and pornography. Pornography is already legal, did you really mean prostitution? My thoughts (and the typical libertarian view) of these problems is that by making these activities illegal you actually make victimization easier. A person involved in illegal activities can't get legal protection without fear of prosecution, so victimizers take advantage of this. Also by driving markets underground you create a financial incentive to perpetrate these crimes. For example, you don't see the mob/gangs/etc. shooting up the streets to protect their alchohol sales. Well, they did back in Prohibition. They aren't in poor neighborhoods and schools trying to get kids hooked on cigarettes. There's no market in that but there is for illegal drugs. And when someone gets arrested for these activities, someone else is more than happy to take their place to make some easy money.
I agree that some people will destroy their lives because of drugs or prositution/pornography but people also destroy their lives with Big Macs and compulsive spending too. The problem is you can't protect people from themselves, although most people (particularly Democrats and Republicans) think you can and actuallly campaign and get electated on this false belief! Prohibitions would be great if it actually worked. That what the anti-gun lobby thinks. Just get rid of all the guns and everything will be peaceful. Yeah, right you know that it will never happen thus support the 2nd Admendment strongly. However, when they can't even keep drugs, weapons, etc. out of prisions, I certainly don't want to live in a society even more restrictive than a prision.
Okay some Libertarians are kooks, but you'll find kooks in any large group of people. The fact is though, that most Libertarians are quite intelligent and normal people. I remember hearing that the Libertarian Party has a greater concentration of college educated members than any other party. We're definatly not a bunch of druggies just waiting to spark up our bongs with a bunch of legal whores. That crowd does support the libertarian viewpoint because we don't believe in using government to coerce (at the barrel of a gun or threat of arrest) others to making the supposedly "correct" decision. I think people are coming around to libertarian views, now things like drug legalization are actually considered by the mainstream where before you were immediately dismissed as a kook. Unfortuantely, Republicans and Democrats have so much power and influence to lose, that it will be incredibly difficult to wrestle that control away from them. Fortunatley power corrupts and people are increasingly disgusted with what our politicans are doing. I decided some time ago I wasn't going to support them anymore but I wasn't going to just "not vote." If all the "not voters" did, then you'd see Libertarains getting elected to high-level government positions. I hope to see that in my lifetime and am working to make that happen.
|innocent victims? weird logic.||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2002 9:51 AM
|heck using that reasoning you would outlaw cars, planes, pesticides, cigarettes, alcohol, guns and probably a slew of other things that have innocent victims as a result of their being legal. i love how many conservatives throw out the things that make them uncomfortable or deem "weird". then again you have the ones that can really think like wf buckley. his son died of drugs and he still favors their legalization. how many people die because drugs ARE NOT legal? think of the gamng violence, guessing on purity because there is no standard in the black market. i'd venture to say that more innocent lives are lost because drugs are illegal.|
|Well, there's a distinction...||Matno|
Aug 20, 2002 9:56 PM
|You list "cars, planes, pesticides, cigarettes, alcohol, guns" as being the same as drugs and porn. I would say that while cigarettes and alcohol certainly fall into the same category, cars, planes, pesticides, and guns are vastly different. The major distinction between the two groups is that one group (guns, cars, planes, etc.) also provides positive value, while the other has absolutely no redeeming value to society as a whole. (Individuals with certain habits might argue differently on the individual level, but on a societal level, those things cause harm without ANY benefit).
BTW, WFBuckley is not a conservative. He is just someone that the liberal media has picked to their "token conservative," in other words, the most conservative person they can tolerate in the news. (Plus the fact that he's got a controversial personality makes it easy to make fun of him). If he were truly conservative, the media would ignore him (like they have ignored Alan Keyes).
|the most basic issue||mr_spin|
Aug 9, 2002 1:03 PM
|I don't vote for any candidate who insults my intelligence.
Unfortunately, that's most of them.
|Got a MAIN issue, anyway: Environment||Silverback|
Aug 9, 2002 1:21 PM
|It wouldn't sway me into voting for, say, Pat Robertson, but I'd have a hard time voting for somebody like Bush even if I agreed with the rest of his policies, solely because of his terrible environmental record. Looking at the decline of fisheries, acid rain and the rest of that package, if we don't get that in order, nothing else will matter much.
But are you really saying you base your whole vote on guns? I'm a gun owner and enthusiastic shooter, but that seems kind of extreme.
Aug 9, 2002 8:24 PM
|I vote against all tax increases or anyone who would not work to decrease them. Until government spending is less wasteful and more efficient, it should take less of our money.
|how about school taxes?||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2002 9:16 AM
|seems like these always get voted down while the tax to build a new football stadium for our overpaid "heroes" are usually passed.|
Aug 12, 2002 10:09 AM
|In areas that need new schools, fine.
I'm against using public funds for stadiums and arenas. If it can't work privately, it probably shouldn't be done. The City of Fresno just build a new triple A baseball stadium this year and is already having problems with funding. Attendance is low, and the team's corporate entity/lessee doesn't even exist any more. Oops.
A football stadium here at Fresno state was largely built with private donations. No problem with that. Many times corporate sponsors will pay really big bucks to get their names on these things and the good will that comes with it. A win-win.
|or in the case of denver||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2002 12:19 PM
|the taxpayers pay for it AND the contract reads that the team can get money from Invesco for sponsoring it. What a scam.|
|Yup! one issue for me.......||firstrax|
Aug 10, 2002 6:42 PM
loosely translated, stay the hell out of my wallet and let me run my own life my way.
|So, you and Doug gonna build your own roads, or what?||cory|
Aug 12, 2002 8:13 AM
|That kneejerk anti-tax attitude is SO bogus. We pay pretty close to the lowest taxes in the industrialized world (we were THE lowest a few years ago; haven't checked to see if we're still on the bottom), and the country's full of people whining about it. Protest the WASTE of tax money if you want to (if you have examples; no fair bitching about welfare Cadillacs unless you actually find one). But that money doesn't just disappear--a lot of it stays in the community or comes back, and it does a lot of good. And if you want government out of your wallet, you need to stay out of government's wallet. You don't get to apply to FEMA for emergency help when your house washes away, or get government assistance after your disaster.|
|essential vs. non-essential and waste||DougSloan|
Aug 12, 2002 8:54 AM
|I doubt anyone is against reducing government waste (except a direct beneficiary); however, I'd bet we disagree quite a bit about what is waste, or how to reduce it.
In my view, the best way to reduce waste is to reduce the amount of money the goverment gets. How is that so difficult a concept? When times are tough financially, you get rid of the frills and examine your spending. If the government had to make do on 20% less money, I'd bet waste would be reduced enormously. So, the waste/taxes issues are really two sides of the same coin.
I don't care what any other country does. They can have 90% taxes, but that doesn't make 50% taxes ok here. It's quite possible many people move here to avoid the higher taxes elsewhere. This argument is soooo bogus. If other countries had 50% slavery, would that make 10% slavery ok here? What other countries do is irrelevant to what's right here.
No, I've never asked for government aid.
I'm not suggesting no taxes. I'm not suggesting that government not provide essential services that make sense for a government to do vs. private enterprise. Defense, infrastructure, fire fighting, yes, those all make sense and are what the government was chartered to do. However, the government has taken on extra services that it never was intended to provide; but, for the most part this has been going on for so long that they are deemed essential or entitlements now. You provide a good example. The fed's have no business paying for someone's house when it falls in to the ocean. Duh? You build your million dollar house on a cliff, you bear the risk. Either get insurance, bear the risk, or don't build there. That's just plain stupid and encourages counter-productive behavior.
|So, you and Doug gonna build your own roads, or what?||firstrax|
Aug 12, 2002 12:43 PM
|You have obviously never been a full share tax payer. When and if you ever become one you will understand.
As far as staying out of the governments wallet, where do I sign up. I don't have the option of unsubscribe to government services. Never collected social security, unemployment, Medicare, fema, welfare or any other handout at the expense of other tax payers. I don't want to pay in to those and don't expect to take anything out. They can keep what they have taken as my gift, just cut me loose.
|re: Any single-issue voters?||firstrax|
Aug 10, 2002 7:17 PM
|Ever carry a gun while riding?
Living in a 2nd amendment friendly state (NH) and being involved in law enforcement I see the concealed carry application numbers. Almost 20% of us carry concealed weapons. And our total handgun count exceeds our total population. 800,000 residents 1.2 million registered handguns. 2nd lowest crime rate in the country. Coincidence?
I too cherish the 2nd amendment and exercise the right 9 days out of 10 but rarely carry while riding.
|praise the lord and pass the ammunition...yee haw!!!!!!!! (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2002 9:18 AM
|I only wish...||Matno|
Aug 20, 2002 9:46 PM
|I have carried on long rides in the past, but not since I moved to the People's Republic of New York City. I can barely own a gun in my own home here (not that I plan on it, since that would require registering them, and I'd rather just leave them out west for the time being). My father tried for 3 years to get a concealed carry permit here (as a matter of principle) and was told straight to his face by the issuing agency that to get a permit you have to be 1) a friend of the chief, or 2) in the mafia. If that's not frightening, I'm not sure what is.
As for the coincidence of having lots of guns and really low crime? No way. It's an obvious, direct correlation that nearly EVERYONE in the media (and people who believe the mass media) seem to avoid completely. Strange.
Aug 12, 2002 12:28 PM
|In a pragmatic sense - meaning I voted Gore not Nader in 2000.