Types of People Post on this Forum

[cowboymd]

I believe there are many issues this Country is facing that are far more important than gun rights and I can't make that my priority when supporting a candidate

That is certainly your right. As long as you OWN your mistakes and dedicate yourself to correcting them if your candidate turns out to be a gun-grabber in fact, then we have no argument. My first vote as a Republican was for Bob Dole, not because I thought he was a spectacular candidate, but because Bill Clinton signed the AWB, and couldn't keep his pants zipped. I had always voted as a Democrat prior to that. And for what it is worth, I agree that the Republican party has relegated itself into insignificance — by trying to be Democrat Lite. As such, I am considering re-registering as an independent also. From now on, the Republican party is going to have to EARN my vote.

That said, I am self-employed and uninsured because insurance companies won't cover me due to previously existing conditions. But if your guy signs a bill into law that penalizes me to the tune of $3,800 per year, enforceable by the IRS, for not having a private insurance policy and being unwilling to accept government insurance, when I am perfectly happy to pay for my own medical care out of my pocket (for a lot less than $3,800 annually, and when I can raise the money needed for a catastrophic event), then you and I have a major problem and nothing more to talk about.

If your guy signs legislation that increase my business taxes in this economy, when I am barely squeaking by, then you and I have a major problem and nothing more to talk about.

Finally, if your guy can't either poop or get off the pot about troop levels in Afghanistan (79 + days and counting since General Crystal's recommendations), causing more American deaths while he waffles, then you and I have a major problem and nothing more to talk about. You are against the war? Fine. Then tell him to bring our boys and girls home NOW. Otherwise, tell him to cowboy up and act like a president who is Commander in Chief and responsible for the safety of the troops under his command while they are fighting on foreign soil.

And I'm not even going to go into him rolling over for Putin and the chicoms; or that he would likely be happier if Israel would simply cease to exist and all those pesky Jews would just roll over; or the FACT that the vast majority of Hondurans (per American friends of mine who actually live there) know that Zelaya is an insane dictator wannabe, but your guy wants him reinstated; or that Ahwannajihad of Iran plays him like a bongo drum; or that he has alienated the Brits, our most important allies in the WOT; or that he won't even call it a WOT anymore; or that he hires a record number of "tsars," particularly those that don't pay their taxes and are known to be affiliated with extreme radicalist causes; or that he is owned by such paragons or morality as ACORN and the SEIU; accepting an admittedly undeserved Nobel prize; sicking his administration attack dogs on the only news outlet that doesn't have its nose far up his posterior (even the allegedly "stoopid" Bush knew better than to get into a p*****g contest with Keith Olberman; and even the noted and very liberal "dean" of the WH press corps, Helen Thomas, has advised the administration to lay off that tactic); etc., etc., etc.

You know what? I voted for George Bush twice. Bush did things that I cannot agree with. But he didn't roll over for this nation's enemies (except perhaps when he "looked into Putin's eyes"), and compared to the "new transparency" of your guy's administration, Bush was the real deal.

I am sure that you are a decent and honorable man. But you put your hope in a man with little experience and a disturbing record of voting "present" rather than getting on the record. He is a cipher, and the only "record" we have to go on are his words. He is a cipher, and a neophyte at governing and at foreign policy. He is learning on the taxpayer dime, instead of having arrived prepared to govern. Please do not take any of this as a flame attack; it is not intended as such. You raised the issues by posting the opening post. I'm merely responding, and this is my 2¢.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

TAM. you claiming copyrights on this? I'd like to print it and frame it.

[USA1]

he inherited a Country that was at it's lowest point in modern times.

i mean no disrespect to you personally , but that excuse is getting very old .

[The Annoyed Man]

I try to restrict myself purely to CHL topics at this point. After having been and seen people being blasted on discussions about candidates, positions, events, even commonsensical open carry vs. CHL discussions I find it...prudent to restrict myself to these very narrow topics. Thats fine, but I hold no illusions about political diversity here.

frazzled, I respectfully beg to differ. You say that as if it is the fault of conservatives that this board is not more diverse. How can that logically be true?

Here's what I think about political diversity on this board... Being a "gun rights" and "2nd Amendment" board, it is natural that it will attract more political conservatives than political liberals; because it is an undeniable reality that the vast majority (but by no means all) of the attacks on gun rights and the promotion of ignorance about guns in this country have originated from the political left rather than the political right. Gun rights (along with abortion, and more recently healthcare) are one of the political hotbuttons in this country. So, it is understandable that the members of a pro-gun rights board would represent in greater numbers that political subgroup of Americans who pay greater attention to, are better informed about, and choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, that does not mean that all political or social liberals are against gun rights or CHL, as you so amply demonstrate yourself. But I do think that it is fair to say that the degree to which political/social liberals are represented in the membership of this board is the degree to which they are represented among the pro-gun rights population at large. So, it is not so much that there is a lack of diversity, but rather that the numbers don't lie about who our political friends are regarding gun rights, and that the degree of diversity here is a reflection of that. If more political liberals were friends of the 2nd Amendment, you would find more political liberals among the membership of this board. Diversity should never be legislated. It ought to be representative, no more and no less, of those people who choose to do something, behave a certain way, or believe in a given thing. That's liberty in action.

So all that means with regard to this board's diversity is that political liberalism is a spectrum, just as is political conservatism. For instance, the conservative community tends to be far more supportive of right to life issues than the liberal community; but that does not mean that all liberals favor abortion rights, nor does it mean that all conservatives are pro-life, or that all members of this board are pro-life. If more people who held your general political views supported gun rights and CHL with their actions and their votes, you would see them represented here in larger numbers. They don't, so you don't.

Thus, the degree to which this board is NOT diverse is directly the fault of the degree to which those who hold politically liberal views seek to infringe gun rights, rather than it is to any notion that a liberal who supports gun rights and CHL is not welcome on this board.

Consider yourself harassed!

[Pete92FS]

TAM , that was a powerful post . i share the same feelings that you expressed .

Great post - I could not have said it better.

Personally I feel that in order to be Commander in Chief one pre-requesite should be prior military service.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM. you claiming copyrights on this? I'd like to print it and frame it.

Nah... my opinions are probably worth exactly the cost of the paper you're going to print it on.

For my copyrighted stuff, GO HERE.

[USA1]

TAM , that was a powerful post . i share the same feelings that you expressed .

Great post - I could not have said it better.

Personally I feel that in order to be Commander in Chief one pre-requesite should be prior military service.

, and an American citizen would be nice also .

[mr.72]

No Sept 11th connection to Sadam, no WMD's etc,

See what I mean about getting our information from biased sources?

Give our President a chance. He has not been in office a year and he inherited a Country that was at it's lowest point in modern times. It can't and won't be fixed overnight. But this is a great Country no matter what party is in office. Only through compromise can this Country rise up again to be the envy of the world. Divisiveness just slows or stops the progress that we so desperately need.

The "progress we so desperately need" is not the same thing as an overreaching federal government taking over the formerly-free market one piece at a time. The "progress we so desperately need" is to stop Obama and congress from further destroying this country's economy and undermining the very purpose of our Republic's form of government.

The "progress we so desperately need" would have been to let banks that took bad risks fail. Let the car companies that can't figure out how to make a profit fail. Those who made this country great did so by finding a better way to do things, not by begging the taxpayers to bail them out when their plans and businesses failed.

And unfortunately, this is not divisiveness. It's not divisive for me to suggest that the policies Obama et. al. are trying to ram through are destructive and need to be stopped.

When Republicans or conservatives shut up and allow Democrats and quasi-socialists to do what they want, that's "bipartisan". Funny how the Dems are never expected to change their position to agree with the conservatives. So howabout this. Stop the divisiveness! The division will end promptly as soon as Obama and the congress give up on the health insurance takeover, undo the corporate bailouts, stop buying votes from unions, stop raising taxes and get their hands off of private enterprise. Who is it who is being divisive? We disagree, the conservatives are the ones are who are divisive?

I am giving the President a chance. He is blowing it. The chance is to stop fighting against common sense and the will of the people and stop trying to take over private enterprise. TAM is giving the President a chance, a chance to get real about leading the military (which is, by the way, his job, unlike proposing sweeping legislation) and setting our defense policy rather than waffling. But you know, this guy is totally blowing the chance.

Now, quite frankly, I hope he succeeds. I sincerely hope that Obama and the Dem congress squeak this health care thing through and I also hope that Obama manages to totally screw up the situation in the middle East. I hope he succeeds in laying down before the European leaders and third-world dictators. I think this is all a small price to pay. Four years of misery in exchange for a century of Republicans and conservatives that will certainly follow after this disaster? That sounds like a deal to me!

[frazzled]

frazzled, I respectfully beg to differ. You say that as if it is the fault of conservatives that this board is not more diverse. How can that logically be true?

***Respectfully, I am not saying that. I am not putting this into a conservative/liberal/libertarian/democratic/republic construct. I’m saying that discussing these topics will get you demeaned or shouted at by the more ardent fringes. That’s common on the internet, especially in areas of issue, and that’s completely understandable. If this were a board about making political banners, it would be slanted towards 1st amendment advocates and issues.

Going to parse your remaining comments only as I agree with most of the statements you made.

So all that means with regard to this board's diversity is that political liberalism is a spectrum, just as is political conservatism. For instance, the conservative community tends to be far more supportive of right to life issues than the liberal community; but that does not mean that all liberals favor abortion rights, nor does it mean that all conservatives are pro-life, or that all members of this board are pro-life. If more people who held your general political views supported gun rights and CHL with their actions and their votes, you would see them represented here in larger numbers. They don't, so you don't.

Agreed. I note a strong undercurrent here of ardent advocates of one form or another will speak up when these topics come up, and assume people agree with them. It’s a very false assumption for anything other than matters relating to CHL only.

Thus, the degree to which this board is NOT diverse is directly the fault of the degree to which those who hold politically liberal views seek to infringe gun rights, rather than it is to any notion that a liberal who supports gun rights and CHL is not welcome on this board.

I’m not that certain about that. I’m not certain that persons of a liberal bent are welcome on this board. I’m also not certain that those who present a more moderate view in areas are welcome.
But as I noted, it’s a CHL forum, so I’m personally ok with just talking about CHL related stuff. But as always, if our opinions disagree that’s ok, I respect the poster..except…

Consider yourself harassed!

[/quote]
RightBACKATCHA boyo!

[mr.72]

Well, frazzled, it just so happens that as a general construct, there are two main camps.

There are those who believe that individual rights are not necessarily required, the state should be in control of all kinds of things, and who put their trust in the state to solve problems. Those would typically be liberals. So the infringement on the RKBA is commonplace in this camp, along with the infringement of all kinds of other rights. It seems the only individual right that is really supported by liberals in general is your right to free speech as long as it is used to extol the virtues of the liberal philosophy or to offend conservatives.

Then there are those who believe that the rights of the state are granted by the individual, and that all rights belong first to the people and are proffered to the state. This happens to also be how the Constitution is written and happens also to be in line with all of the founding fathers' writings, seemingly then therefore the intent of the foundation of our country. These believe that the state's continuing encroachments on free enterprise and control in many areas of our lives are representative of infringement of individual rights. These happen to be conservatives, by and large.

Most of those who want to enforce gun control are then necessarily party to the liberal viewpoint. Guns are just among the vast body of things that shall be controlled by the state, according to these people (including health care, banking, the car companies, our jobs, etc.). And most of those who believe steadfastly in individual gun rights are also usually among those who believe steadfastly in other individual rights, and these tend to be conservatives.

So on a gun forum, you are likely to find more conservatives not because diversity is not welcome, but because the liberal idealism is counter to the general freedom philosophy of conservatives found on gun forums. It never makes any sense TO ME how you can support the RKBA but not my right to choose my own health insurance, or not. Or support my RKBA but not my right to my own property.

I have taken many unpopular positions on this forum and received my share of vitriol. Tough breaks, I guess.

[The Annoyed Man]

Thanks for your thoughts "The Annoyed Man". I can sympathize with your frustrations. I had many similar frustrations during the Bush years and wrote many emails and posted on many blogs with comments as long as yours. I had reservations about Bush since my wife and I had the occasion to meet him while he was governor and campaigning for president. When he learned my wife was from Brasil and tried to speak Spanish with her I began to question his qualifications to be a world leader. It just got worse as time went on. No Sept 11th connection to Sadam, no WMD's etc, and a war that killed thousands of Americans and many times that amount of civilians. I could go on and on but that is behind us now. I made the choice of Obama over McCain. He is not "my guy" , he is my President. George Bush was my President. Obama is your President too. You are a citizen of this country. Give our President a chance. He has not been in office a year and he inherited a Country that was at it's lowest point in modern times. It can't and won't be fixed overnight. But this is a great Country no matter what party is in office. Only through compromise can this Country rise up again to be the envy of the world. Divisiveness just slows or stops the progress that we so desperately need. The glass is half full, not half empty! But then again I am the eternal optimist, it's what gets me through the day!

And Bill, thanks for not taking offense at my reply. Politics is a touchy subject, but I just try and be honest about what I think and respectful of what others think.

As far as giving Obama a chance, I would answer that I would give him exactly the same chance Bush got from the political left, 10 months into his presidency. I am not impressed at this point. OTH, if he can show some spine in foreign affairs, repair the damage he has done to the US/British "special relationship," and show himself to be a little more knowledgeable about, and have greater faith in, capitalist principles, then I could begin to warm up to him.

I would also like to see him emphatically distance himself from the corrupting influences of organizations like ACORN and SEIU. So far, he hasn't.

One thing I would like to see the left STOP doing is accusing principled opposition of racist motives. You know, when that happens enough, then I can only surmise that the accusers are racist in their own assumptions, and it certainly doesn't help endear Obama to me if he won't cowboy up and call that crap exactly what it is. Instead, he sits back and cynically lets that play out, because he knows it is to his political advantage to do so... ...and THAT is racist exploitation. I don't give a rip if the guy's skin is chartreuse. I disagree with him, and it has got nothing to do with his race. If Colin Powell had been running against Obama instead of supporting him (a mistake, in my view), I could have voted for Powell - a man whose "black credentials" are at least as good, if not better, than Obama's and who has vastly more experience in governance and foreign policy, and whose brand of conservatism is at least no more diluted than McCain's (which is pretty weak sauce in a lot of ways). McCain is a bonafide war hero and has given great service to this nation, and I respect him tremendously. But he is also a cranky old poop who is past his prime. I voted for him because he was the best choice given the alternative of a complete unknown with a messianic presence and a charismatic voice and a manifestly naive view of a dangerous world. If it had been Powell running in McCain's place, then I would have chosen him over Obama for the same reasons. That is called "principled opposition," and it has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

TAM , that was a powerful post . i share the same feelings that you expressed .

Great post - I could not have said it better.

Personally I feel that in order to be Commander in Chief one pre-requesite should be prior military service.

, and an American citizen would be nice also .

TAM, Pete92FS, USA1,
I agree with you all. Well said.

As a military man I find it wrong and hard to take orders from someone who knows nothing about the military. Most leaders, bosses, presidents etc. are the most experienced in their fields and most qualified NOT the most popular. It seems to me Mr. Obama Bin Biden was the most popular (not getting into how he got there) and he is afraid if some other country dislikes him. Maybe he should worry about getting "his" (used VERY loosely) country back in order and worry about whether or not he is pleasing AMERICAN CITIZENS!

[frazzled]

Well, frazzled, it just so happens that as a general construct, there are two main camps.

There are those who believe that individual rights are not necessarily required, the state should be in control of all kinds of things, and who put their trust in the state to solve problems. Those would typically be liberals. So the infringement on the RKBA is commonplace in this camp, along with the infringement of all kinds of other rights. It seems the only individual right that is really supported by liberals in general is your right to free speech as long as it is used to extol the virtues of the liberal philosophy or to offend conservatives.

Then there are those who believe that the rights of the state are granted by the individual, and that all rights belong first to the people and are proffered to the state. This happens to also be how the Constitution is written and happens also to be in line with all of the founding fathers' writings, seemingly then therefore the intent of the foundation of our country. These believe that the state's continuing encroachments on free enterprise and control in many areas of our lives are representative of infringement of individual rights. These happen to be conservatives, by and large.

Most of those who want to enforce gun control are then necessarily party to the liberal viewpoint. Guns are just among the vast body of things that shall be controlled by the state, according to these people (including health care, banking, the car companies, our jobs, etc.). And most of those who believe steadfastly in individual gun rights are also usually among those who believe steadfastly in other individual rights, and these tend to be conservatives.

So on a gun forum, you are likely to find more conservatives not because diversity is not welcome, but because the liberal idealism is counter to the general freedom philosophy of conservatives found on gun forums. It never makes any sense TO ME how you can support the RKBA but not my right to choose my own health insurance, or not. Or support my RKBA but not my right to my own property.

I have taken many unpopular positions on this forum and received my share of vitriol. Tough breaks, I guess.

I have to respectfully disagree. While there are two camps and your construct often works I don't think its base is necessarily freedom vs. state control. I'd proffer there is that, but also "both sides" tend to want to control me, just on different issues. If I pop up that abortion should be legal in all circumstances I not going to get a fight from the "liberal side," but from the "conservative side." However thats a freedom from government point.
I've often found its both sides that are trying to tell me to do something. I resist both.

The other, related, current is moderation vs. extremism. That you will run into on this board. Those who have moderate views on firearms (as exemplified in the OC vs. CHL debate) tend to get piled on if the issue is discussed. Again it should be expected.

[The Annoyed Man]

I’m not that certain about that. I’m not certain that persons of a liberal bent are welcome on this board. I’m also not certain that those who present a more moderate view in areas are welcome.
But as I noted, it’s a CHL forum, so I’m personally ok with just talking about CHL related stuff. But as always, if our opinions disagree that’s ok, I respect the poster..except…

Consider yourself harassed!

RightBACKATCHA boyo!

Oh Lordy! Not the dancing guy!

I agree that some of us tend to be firebrands, and that their responses could make a centrist or liberal feel unwelcome. That said, you should resist the temptation to think that firebrands speak for all of us, or even those of us who consider themselves to be very conservative, as do I.

I own a political discussion board, and while the membership is largely conservative, liberals are welcome to join. We enforce pretty stringent civility rules. Occasionally something gets overlooked by my moderators. That probably happens here too on occasion. I find politics to be personally fascinating, but sometimes I wonder if it is worth it to discuss politics with anybody at all. I'm happy for you that you're a "glass is half full" kind of guy. I'm finding it harder to be that way lately.

[YabuUS]

Frazzled said: I’m not certain that persons of a liberal bent are welcome on this board. I’m also not certain that those who present a more moderate view in areas are welcome.

Do you mean that?

[USA1]

TAM , that was a powerful post . i share the same feelings that you expressed .

Great post - I could not have said it better.

Personally I feel that in order to be Commander in Chief one pre-requesite should be prior military service.

, and an American citizen would be nice also .

TAM, Pete92FS, USA1,
I agree with you all. Well said.

As a military man I find it wrong and hard to take orders from someone who knows nothing about the military. Most leaders, bosses, presidents etc. are the most experienced in their fields and most qualified NOT the most popular. It seems to me Mr. Obama Bin Biden was the most popular (not getting into how he got there) and he is afraid if some other country dislikes him. Maybe he should worry about getting "his" (used VERY loosely) country back in order and worry about whether or not he is pleasing AMERICAN CITIZENS!

well said XtremeDuty.45

i have much more respect for you and the other men and women who have served and are currently serving our country than i do for this poor excuse for an administration .

thank you for your sacrifice and service .
and when i say it , i mean it . unlike Osam..i mean obama .