No flames please, but I have an honest question.

On many occasions I’ve heard, you’re a Single mom, how can you be a Republican. Can you explain that to me?

You’ve heard my reasons, even if they are based on experience, I still feel strongly about them. Can I be given facts, in ‘Selena’s’ terms, so I can honestly understand the difference?

I do not want to fight, or debate over which is better. I simply want to hear both sides so I can make a decision based on facts, instead of my emotions, and experience.

Half my family is Democrats, and the other half is Republican, however it was never discussed. That was a hot issue in my household, so it was kept quiet. Perhaps that is why I don’t have much knowledge of the subject.

Here is how I understand both sides

Republicans---
Believe in Gun control, Death penalty, and fewer taxes.
Don’t believe in Abortions and Gay marriages.

Democrats---
Believe in Abortions, More taxes, allowing people to leech off the system.
Don’t believe in Death Penalty, and gun control.

Only thing I don’t agree with the Republicans, is the Gay marriage issue. I don’t feel we should restrict that. However that is another topic for another thread.

So, please enlighten me, educate me, and help me.

Yes, I could look it up myself, and I have; but it only succeeded in confusing me more.

Republicans---
Believe in Gun control,
Are you sure? :confused:

Are you sure? :confused:


I thought they believed in allowing citiziens to have gun, but under strick gun laws.

Sel, Here's how I see the major diff - Dem's think we should help each other while Rep's think a person should make their own way....

Sel, Here's how I see the major diff - Dem's think we should help each other while Rep's think a person should make their own way....

I wouldn't go that far... Republicans are happy to help people to a point, but feel that people should be also making an effort to improve their own situation and not just waiting for their handouts. Democrats are perfectly happy to continue helping people forever and keeping them dependent on the government, because of course, that means a larger voting base for them...

I know, I know, I've taken it to the other extreme. :D

I wouldn't go that far... Republicans are happy to help people to a point, but feel that people should be also making an effort to improve their own situation and not just waiting for their handouts. Democrats are perfectly happy to continue helping people forever and keeping them dependent on the government, because of course, that means a larger voting base for them...

I know, I know, I've taken it to the other extreme. :D

That is exactly how I understood it. Whew, so I'm not alone in that understanding. :D

I thought they believed in allowing citiziens to have gun, but under strick gun laws.

"Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on gun control. A 71% to 11% majority of Democrats favors stricter gun control, whereas Republicans are split 35% to 35%. A 65% to 7% majority of Republicans think President Bush would handle the issue better than Senator Kerry,":rolleyes:

"Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on gun control. A 71% to 11% majority of Democrats favors stricter gun control, whereas Republicans are split 35% to 35%. A 65% to 7% majority of Republicans think President Bush would handle the issue better than Senator Kerry,":rolleyes:

I think that's because Republicans don't mind strict gun laws (most of them anyway) but they are worried that the Democrats would make moves to take them away from everyone. I don't mind doing what we have to do to make our country safer, but I would shy away from taking them away completely as it is written into the Constitution.

as it is written into the Constitution.
The constitution's centuries out of date;)

The constitution's centuries out of date;)

You say that about the Bible too and I disagree with you on that point also. :p

You say that about the Bible too and I disagree with you on that point also. :p
Whilst that may be true, it's also true that much of the bible is disregarded today since it's now seen as obsolete:p

Fact. More people left the welfare roles during the Clinton administration.

Fact: Under the last 3 Republican administrations government overspending (deficits) have risen to record levels. The national dept is currently 8 trillion dollars or about $24,000 for each American, including your children.

Fact: in the last 100 years during Democratic administrations the stock market has out performed the Republic one.

Now who’s looking out for the bank?

A friend of mine owns a company. He employs around fifty union workers, since they are union he is required by contract to pay them a living wage. Well our brilliant Republican President decided to give a wonderful tax break in 2002, my friend saved $150,000 on his federal income taxes in 2004, the barely middle class folks working for him averaged saving about $300 each.

Who’s looking out for the middle class?

See that’s the problem, neither of them are.

The middle class in the United States is diminishing while the Republicans cater to the ultra rich and the idiots that call themselves democrats are trying to get gay marriage passed.

If we are to regain our commitment to having a prosperous middle class we are going to have to create a new platform for the democrats, one that has the interest of the common man (or woman) as the center of its agenda.

But the biggest economic woe being visited upon us is this war, this republican war. With the money we spent on this war we could have created thousands of schools, fixed the national health care system, created a tax incentive program to build day care centers for working mothers, not hand outs for welfare recipients, but actual relief for the most assaulted group in America, the single working mom.

No the Democrats have been acting like idiots for too long, but that doesn’t excuse the excesses of the Republicans.

Don’t let any one fool you, the republicans out spend the democrats by a large margin.

More to come I’ll give our Republican friends a chance to beet me up.

the idiots that call themselves democrats are trying to get gay marriage passed.


So you're saying gay marriage is idiotic? :confused:

allowing people to leech off the system.


So the sick, elderly and poor are leeches? :confused:

So you're saying gay marriage is idiotic? :confused:


No Richard, it was a metaphor. Being British I would have thought you would have recognized that.

If you are asking my opinion on gay marriage, you’ll have to start a new thread on that.

I want to keep this thread focused.

No Richard, it was a metaphor. Being British I would have thought you would have recognized that.

If you are asking my opinion on gay marriage, you’ll have to start a new thread on that.

I want to keep this thread focused.
Well the thread is about differences between parties and there is quite clearly a difference of opinion on the subject, so why not tell us your opinion:confused:

So the sick, elderly and poor are leeches? :confused:

Sick and elderly no. The poor, it depends on the situation.

If they are capiable of working, and are not, then yes they are leeches. I can understand a few months between jobs, but years of not trying...that is what I mean by leeching.

Are you sure? :confused:
Quite, controlling your gun to hit your point of aim is very important.

Quite, controlling your gun to hit your point of aim is very important.
especially if you want a kill

especially if you want a kill
Or hitting the bulls eye on a paper target where 99% of the shooting takes place (paper target, stones, clay targets, cans, etc. all lumped together in that).

Or hitting the bulls eye on a paper target where 99% of the shooting takes place (paper target, stones, clay targets, cans, etc. all lumped together in that).
Yes that's fine, but then there's no need to keep a gun in the house for that, is there ?:p

Yes that's fine, but then there's no need to keep a gun in the house for that, is there ?:p

Well, where else would you keep it. The proper way to store a gun, is to keep it unloaded in a lock box, at the top of a closet somewhere. Always out of the reach of minors.

Well, where else would you keep it. The proper way to store a gun, is to keep it unloaded in a lock box, at the top of a closet somewhere. Always out of the reach of minors.
That's the way it is here, for those that own shotguns, but then if one belongs to a club, the guns can be stored there, safely

That's the way it is here, for those that own shotguns, but then if one belongs to a club, the guns can be stored there, safely

I wouldn't trust mine to be left anywhere but my house. That way I know it is locked up and safe.

Fact. More people left the welfare roles during the Clinton administration.
Good fact, how ever the issue can't really be attributed to the Dem's. This was a voters issue and the voters wanted something done about welfare, and it was an election year. Clinton in his famous "put up a finger to see which way the wind is blowing" decided to inact some new controls on welfare. The repub's in congress were happy to sigh it. One thing you did fail to leave out was that classic Clinton quote where he said after he was re-elected he would "fix" this oversight on his part.

Fact: Under the last 3 Republican administrations government overspending (deficits) have risen to record levels. The national dept is currently 8 trillion dollars or about $24,000 for each American, including your children.
True, except under Reagan it was expected, and the outcome was worth it as it played a major role in the downfall of the iron curtain.

Fact: in the last 100 years during Democratic administrations the stock market has out performed the Republic one.
Yes, but some say this is a hold over from the repub's term in office as it was usually going up by ther term end and usually going down by the term end of the dem's. One of the things I have noticed about the stock market, it reacts to such weird stuff I can't always trust it is a good indicator until you can view 5-7 year trends.

A friend of mine owns a company. He employs around fifty union workers, since they are union he is required by contract to pay them a living wage. Well our brilliant Republican President decided to give a wonderful tax break in 2002, my friend saved $150,000 on his federal income taxes in 2004, the barely middle class folks working for him averaged saving about $300 each.
One thing about tax breaks, the more you pay in taxes, the more break you get. People always seem to fail to think that through. One of the Dem's arguments is that the tax breaks don't help the poor. How ever the poor typically don't pay income tax (because their poor) so how can you give them a break? And it has also been shown time and time again that the tax breaks, although helping the rich the most, so seem to stimiulate the economy and help us working stiffs keep a job.

Who’s looking out for the middle class?
See that’s the problem, neither of them are.
I totally agree, but in the long term, I would rather have a $300 tax break than a $400 tax increase.

The middle class in the United States is diminishing while the Republicans cater to the ultra rich and the idiots that call themselves democrats are trying to get gay marriage passed.
Hence the Dem's always trying to get the minority/poor/etc. vote no matter what.

If we are to regain our commitment to having a prosperous middle class we are going to have to create a new platform for the democrats, one that has the interest of the common man (or woman) as the center of its agenda.
Why does it have to be Dem's? I think they have the middle class in contempt even more so then repub's.

But the biggest economic woe being visited upon us is this war, this republican war. With the money we spent on this war we could have created thousands of schools, fixed the national health care system, created a tax incentive program to build day care centers for working mothers, not hand outs for welfare recipients, but actual relief for the most assaulted group in America, the single working mom.
War is a funny thing. I remember almost every swinging person in Congress for the war intitally. But the funny thing about "We could have used the money for" is it is exactly like "What if.." But you will find that money (no matter who is in office) would not be used for those reasons, although I like the thinking, unfortunatly the real world does not seem to follow those lines. Same with spending money on all those other countries. What if we had that money for....

No the Democrats have been acting like idiots for too long, but that doesn’t excuse the excesses of the Republicans. Don’t let any one fool you, the republicans out spend the democrats by a large margin.

This is not always a true statement. lately it has been, but not in the past.

Yes that's fine, but then there's no need to keep a gun in the house for that, is there ?:p
Why not, I have a gun safe where I keep mine.

...War is a funny thing.

What an odd statement to make regardless of what else preceded or followed it...

We have gay marriages here and they can adopt children - whats the problem?:confused:

Col

True, except under Reagan it was expected, and the outcome was worth it as it played a major role in the downfall of the iron curtain.



That statement's contentious , to say the least:rolleyes:

What an odd statement to make regardless of what else preceded or followed it...
Maybe, but it seems almost everyone is "on board" when it starts. Then after awhile, they separate into political parties and that drives the view of the war after that. Also who is in charge can swing the view of the war totally around. It always seems after awhile the reason for the war, and the politics surrounding the war become two different things.

Maybe, but it seems almost everyone is "on board" when it starts. Then after awhile, they separate into political parties and that drives the view of the war after that. Also who is in charge can swing the view of the war totally around. It always seems after awhile the reason for the war, and the politics surrounding the war become two different things.

I agree with you...

I just don't think it would be very funny if I had to bury my son on account of it... :(

I agree with you...

I just don't think it would be very funny if I had to bury my son on account of it... :(

That's why those who got us into this mess should at least be thrown out of office and better still, put on trial!:mad:

It's my humble opinion that we'll all be held responsible for the sins of our generation one day...

You know what...

This thread isn't helping me out much. :rolleyes: Once again it has been changed to a Bush bashing segment.

I suppose that is ok, lets me know most people hate the Republicans.

Here's how I see things, Selena.

Both parties are largely full of crap. I choose to believe that the majority of politicians are decent human beings and not primarily motivated by self-interest, but it only takes a powerful few who are to screw the pooch. In any case, both parties are guilty of lying or (at best) spinning everything to make themselves look good instead of having an honest assessment of a problem/situation.

So, really it all comes down to what is important to you and which party/candidate addresses those things the best. I have my beefs with the Democrats, and there are areas in which I agree with the Republicans. At this point in time, however, I tend to agree with the Democrats more often so I identify myself as a Democrat. Currently I also have serious problems with the Republican party, which further distances me from voting for any Republican candidate.

Here's how I see things, Selena.

Both parties are largely full of crap. I choose to believe that the majority of politicians are decent human beings and not primarily motivated by self-interest, but it only takes a powerful few who are to screw the pooch. In any case, both parties are guilty of lying or (at best) spinning everything to make themselves look good instead of having an honest assessment of a problem/situation.

So, really it all comes down to what is important to you and which party/candidate addresses those things the best. I have my beefs with the Democrats, and there are areas in which I agree with the Republicans. At this point in time, however, I tend to agree with the Democrats more often so I identify myself as a Democrat. Currently I also have serious problems with the Republican party, which further distances me from voting for any Republican candidate.


Thank you Greg...that is what I thought, but wanted some validation.

Well, as you know I have a few things I HATE about the Democrats, so I tend to stay with the Republicians, but things could change. I am going to try and start paying more attention so I can honestly vote the best way I feel, not based on the party, but the one who upholds in what I believe.

I agree with you...

I just don't think it would be very funny if I had to bury my son on account of it... :(
Never implied, hinted, or meant that in any which way.

Never implied, hinted, or meant that in any which way.


That's cool, I didn't mean to imply you did :)

Sorry if it came out that way....

...so I can honestly vote the best way I feel, not based on the party, but the one who upholds in what I believe.

You go girl! :) :) :)

You go girl! :) :) :)

I will dang it.....lol...:cool:

Although it's much harder to gauge, I think it's more important to elect an official with good leadership skills and good decision-making ability. I can honestly say I'd rather have my senators, for example, vote against a bill that supports an issue I believe in for the right reasons than vote for something I believe in for the wrong reasons.

Ideally, I'd want to elect someone I can trust to make a good decision whether or not I agree with it, because I know I'll never have the amount of information they will have, or fully appreciate the political implications, etc.

Although it's much harder to gauge, I think it's more important to elect an official with good leadership skills and good decision-making ability. I can honestly say I'd rather have my senators, for example, vote against a bill that supports an issue I believe in for the right reasons than vote for something I believe in for the wrong reasons.

Ideally, I'd want to elect someone I can trust to make a good decision whether or not I agree with it.


That does make sense. Since joining the forum, I have really tried to stop and listen to those who are campaigning, so see what they stand for and believe in. I have stopped looking at what party they are in. However I do find myself more and more leaning toward the Republican party more than Democratic party. I guess that means I believe in the same things they do. :)

Well, as you know I have a few things I HATE about the Democrats,

Gun control, gay marriage, caring for the less fortunate? :confused:

Gun control, gay marriage, caring for the less fortunate? :confused:


I believe in gun control, just not complete removal of the rights--Agrees with Republican beliefs.

I believe gay marriage should be allowed--that goes against the Republican beliefs.

Making those who can take care of themselves. -- Agrees with the Republican beliefs.

Death Penalty, for it---Agrees with the Republican beliefs.

Abortion--belief is should be allowed but for certain reason, and done in a hospital setting--Goes against Democratic beliefs AND Republican beliefs.

So far, I am more for the Repbulican party than the Democratic party.

But your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all on gun ownership, tell me, would you still believe in un-restricted gun ownership if one of your girls had been caught up in say, Columbine ?:confused:

I believe in gun control, just not complete removal of the rights--Agrees with Republican beliefs.
Actually, this is more in line with Democrat beliefs. The Democratic party as a whole is not interested in completely removing the right to own a gun, they are interested in restricting the right whenever (they believe) it's necessary in order to increase public safety. The Republicans, on the other hand, tend to oppose any law that restricts gun ownership in any way.

Personally, I can't stand guns but I also don't see any evidence whatsoever that suggests gun control laws do anything to make the general public safer, so I side with the Reps on that one.

But your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all on gun ownership, tell me, would you still believe in un-restricted gun ownership if one of your girls had been caught up in say, Columbine ?:confused:

a. We do not have un-restricted gun ownership
b. The guns were not the root of the problem in Columbine

b. The guns were not the root of the problem in Columbine

But I presume it made it easier for the two kids concerned to reek such havoc.
I understand it is not the gun that kill it is the persom behind it, but the gun makes it much easier to kill...

But I presume it made it easier for the two kids concerned to reek such havoc.
I understand it is not the gun that kill it is the persom behind it, but the gun makes it much easier to kill...

And if I were ever close to such a tragedy, who knows, I may sell my guns... :o There are more important things in life...:) :)

I understand it is not the gun that kill it is the persom behind it, but the gun makes it much easier to kill...
Thats true. The person must have an inner urge to kill, whether it be humans or little Bambi's:rolleyes: as long as they kill something then they are happy I suppose - and sod the consequencies

Col

Thats true. The person must have an inner urge to kill, whether it be humans or little Bambi's:rolleyes: as long as they kill something then they are happy I suppose - and sod the consequencies

Col

So if I have no problem killing a deer, I should have no problem killing a human?

So if I have no problem killing a deer, I should have no problem killing a human?
I wouldn't know - you tell me, you're the one that kills things with a gun:rolleyes:

Col

Thats true. The person must have an inner urge to kill, whether it be humans or little Bambi's:rolleyes: as long as they kill something then they are happy I suppose - and sod the consequencies

Col

That is not quite true, I have a freind who used to to taget shooting in the UK with a pistol, was very good.But had to give it all up when it becaome illigal to own a handgun. (even at gun clubs).

Whilst I am sure the almost fanatical support of gun ownership and liberal gun ownership laws in some quaters of the US causes alot of the gun crime in the US. I not sure that in the UK the almost fanatical anti gun movement and laws is not the correct solution.

I wouldn't know - you tell me, you're the one that kills things with a gun:rolleyes:

Col

Sounded like you knew two seconds ago when you said:

The person must have an inner urge to kill, whether it be humans or little Bambi's as long as they kill something then they are happy

Whilst I am sure the almost fanatical support of gun ownership and liberal gun ownership laws in some quaters of the US causes alot of the gun crime in the US. I not sure that in the UK the almost fanatical anti gun movement and laws the the correct solution.FYI:
In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents...guns killed 30,136.
You will also find that the majority of weapons used in crimes are neither the property of the perpetrator, nor were they obtained legally...

Fanatical? ...you watch to much TV

FYI:
In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents...guns killed 30,136.
You will also find that the majority of weapons used in crimes are neither the property of the perpetrator, nor were they obtained legally...

Fanatical? ...you watch to much TV

Fanitical what meant to said was in some quaters, I spent some time in Taxas. I had some some interesting convsations. I found a few individuals who found any sugestion of gun control almost akin to an attack on what it was to be american. So I meant the word to accross the whole of the US just some quaters.

Actually, this is more in line with Democrat beliefs. The Democratic party as a whole is not interested in completely removing the right to own a gun, they are interested in restricting the right whenever (they believe) it's necessary in order to increase public safety. The Republicans, on the other hand, tend to oppose any law that restricts gun ownership in any way.

Personally, I can't stand guns but I also don't see any evidence whatsoever that suggests gun control laws do anything to make the general public safer, so I side with the Reps on that one.

I thought the Democrats wanted to remove the ability for citiziens to own guns. Hmmmm....

Fanitical what I said was in some quaters, I spent some time in Taxas. I had some some interesting convsations. I found a few individuals who found any sugestion of gun control almost akin to an attack on what it was to be american. So I meant the word to accross the whole of the US just some quaters.Technically, it is. The right to bear arms is a constitutionally given right specifically because it was one of the reasons we were able to rid ourselves of British Tyranny:D.

More to the point, I have always felt that there is something inherently dangerous about a government that fears it's own people enough to prohibit gun ownership.

I thought the Democrats wanted to remove the ability for citiziens to own guns. Just to show I'm not trying to hijack...The Democrats have always placed more faith and emphasis on the people instead of big government and big business.

Sounded like you knew two seconds ago when you said:
Look Ken, I'm a bit fed up with you always ducking the question:rolleyes: I have absolutely no idea what its like to kill a deer or a human.

To me, killing something with a gun just satisfies some prehistoric lust for blood which is obviously still prevailent in your neck of the woods. Or is it 'redneck' of the woods.:rolleyes:

You sit there in a little hide and wait to kill something - its barbaric.

I can only assume that its a very fine step to killing a human.

Americans have a love of only 3 things, money, cars and guns. Its the guns that entice people to kill:mad:

Col

Technically, it is. The right to bear arms is a constitutionally given right specifically because it was one of the reasons we were able to rid ourselves of British Tyranny:D.

More to the point, I have always felt that there is something inherently dangerous about a government that fears it's own people enough to prohibit gun ownership.

Just to show I'm not trying to hijack...The Democrats have always placed more faith and emphasis on the people instead of big government and big business.

Whilst I understand that it is in the constitution (sort of) I still wonder if the if the people who wrote the consitution knew what problems it would mean down the line they would of still enshrined it so strongly..

It really was conversations, as simple as me remarking it was odd seeing guns guns at Wal-Mart for sale esp when they did not sell beer. (It was a dry county). Some of the guys seemed very defensive when I commented on this. I was more comenting of my my (British) perspective it is strange to see a supermarket selling guns, but the selling of beer in not allowed.

The second point you made it akin to the point I made in my original post, about the total banning of guns, or the almost fanitical anti-gun lobby we have in the UK, -mostly from the Labout party which is the UK equalivent of the Democrates.

Ideally, I'd want to elect someone I can trust to make a good decision whether or not I agree with it, because I know I'll never have the amount of information they will have, or fully appreciate the political implications, etc.
And that is what I wonder about Iraq. Is there something there they are not telling us that makes it so important? :rolleyes: You Bush Bashers may not want to believe that, (and I don't think it is oil) but you have to wonder sometimes.

Look Ken, I'm a bit fed up with you always ducking the question:rolleyes: I have absolutely no idea what its like to kill a deer or a human.

To me, killing something with a gun just satisfies some prehistoric lust for blood which is obviously still prevailent in your neck of the woods. Or is it 'redneck' of the woods.:rolleyes:

You sit there in a little hide and wait to kill something - its barbaric.

I can only assume that its a very fine step to killing a human.

Americans have a love of only 3 things, money, cars and guns. Its the guns that entice people to kill:mad:

Col


Damn Col, your knowledge of America is underwhelming.

Look Ken, I'm a bit fed up with you always ducking the question:rolleyes: I have absolutely no idea what its like to kill a deer or a human.

To me, killing something with a gun just satisfies some prehistoric lust for blood which is obviously still prevailent in your neck of the woods. Or is it 'redneck' of the woods.:rolleyes:

You sit there in a little hide and wait to kill something - its barbaric.

I can only assume that its a very fine step to killing a human.

Americans have a love of only 3 things, money, cars and guns. Its the guns that entice people to kill:mad:

Col

:eek: Look - just because I have no problem killing a deer to have meat on the dinner table does not mean I'd have no problem killing a human. Your logic dumbfounds me. No wonder we were able to drive you back to your pitfull little island country 200 years ago - :rolleyes:

I think the confusion you experience (and the ire Col experiences, from the looks of it) is wholly cultural in nature. I was raised with guns as tools to be used for daily life. You kill your food (it really is better for you than the chemically laced crap in the store), you shoot the groundhogs eating your garden, you shoot the poisonous snakes that endanger your home and family. And those of us who actually know which is the dangerous end of a firearm are quite capable of making the kill shot instantaneous and painless. I honestly do not look at guns and think about murder, robbery, mayhem, and all of the other newsworthy events. I also don't think I am either alone or in the minority in this opinion, but the ne'er-do-wells are the one's getting all of the attention.

And that is what I wonder about Iraq. Is there something there they are not telling us that makes it so important? :rolleyes: You Bush Bashers may not want to believe that, (and I don't think it is oil) but you have to wonder sometimes.
With an approval rating of 30%, the lowest for any President it seems "Bush Bashers" are more numerous than not.:rolleyes:

Col

Gun control, gay marriage, caring for the less fortunate? :confused:
Gun Control - that right there is a reason to vote against the Dem's.
Gay marriage - The problem with this is the word Marriage. Call it something else instead that gives the same rights, what the hell. If it was known from the start as Gay Union, I don't think the fall out would have been near as bad.
Caring for the less fortunate - is something neither really cares about if you go past the retoric. Neither party has shown any real action, and usually proposes a bandaid fix to get the voters to vote their way is all. Each election we hear about the poor, child care, schools, etc. Yet neither party has done squat that amounted to much in the long run. Both have had their chances, especially the Dem's, but neither has has come forward except with lines of BS. So you hear that, Oh the Dem's want to help the poor, blah, blah, blah, but even Clinton just played up to the rich after the elections were over. They know they need the money to get elected, and good propaganda can do the trick. You didn't see Clinton renting out the white house to the "less fortunate" now did you? :rolleyes:

But your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all on gun ownership, tell me, would you still believe in un-restricted gun ownership if one of your girls had been caught up in say, Columbine ?:confused:
There are so many things wrong with that statement. First, the current admin. has passed nothing pro or con on gun control. So your "your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all" is false. Also we do not have "un-restricted gun ownership" in this country. It is controlled (for good guys). As even in the UK, the "bad guys" can get guns illegally.

:eek: Look - just because I have no problem killing a deer to have meat on the dinner table does not mean I'd have no problem killing a human. Your logic dumbfounds me. No wonder we were able to drive you back to your pitfull little island country 200 years ago - :rolleyes:
Meat on the table? - christ Ken get a grip lad, you don't need to go out to "provide" for the family any more in that way. Its a surprise you don't drag a female home by their hair and beat them with a club.

Nothing wrong with my logic matey:rolleyes: the sole use of a gun is to kill, therefore people who have guns must want to kill - its quite simple really.

Maybe in Georgia they haven't even reached the 18th century yet. You need to get out a bit Kenneth, perhaps stray over the border and see the lovely shiny supermarkets and stop acting like a modern day Jed Clampett.

After the British left, what did you do then??? had a bloody civil war and started fighting each other.

Damn Col, your knowledge of America is underwhelming.
who asked you anyway?:rolleyes:

Col

Actually, this is more in line with Democrat beliefs. The Democratic party as a whole is not interested in completely removing the right to own a gun, they are interested in restricting the right whenever (they believe) it's necessary in order to increase public safety. The Republicans, on the other hand, tend to oppose any law that restricts gun ownership in any way.
Wrong again. The Dem's have known for a long time they can't win with banning guns, as they lose to many votes. So they take a "less left" approach hoping to win more votes, and waiting until they can strike and completly remove them. Clinton tried this by bypassing the proper methods and using the courts instead. Republicans do not oppose any law that restricts ownership. Do you know in this country who is allowed to own a gun? And both parties had their hand in those laws.

But I presume it made it easier for the two kids concerned to reek such havoc.
I understand it is not the gun that kill it is the persom behind it, but the gun makes it much easier to kill...
Actually, a bomb makes it much easier to kill. And kill more. And bombs are easier to make.

Meat on the table? - christ Ken get a grip lad, you don't need to go out to "provide" for the family any more in that way. Its a surprise you don't drag a female home by their hair and beat them with a club.

Nothing wrong with my logic matey:rolleyes: the sole use of a gun is to kill, therefore people who have guns must want to kill - its quite simple really.

Maybe in Georgia they haven't even reached the 18th century yet. You need to get out a bit Kenneth, perhaps stray over the border and see the lovely shiny supermarkets and stop acting like a modern day Jed Clampett.

After the British left, what did you do then??? had a bloody civil war and started fighting each other.

Col

No wonder your leaders are always chumming up to us - We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men... 'oh mr. government man, here take my gun I'm affraid of it - I'll trust you to protect me... while I sip my tea and eat my tarts...':p :p :p

who asked you anyway?:rolleyes:

Col

Yeah. Why would you post in this thread with such a snide comment? I think you're the first person to ever do that. :rolleyes:

I think the confusion you experience (and the ire Col experiences, from the looks of it) is wholly cultural in nature. I was raised with guns as tools to be used for daily life. You kill your food (it really is better for you than the chemically laced crap in the store), you shoot the groundhogs eating your garden, you shoot the poisonous snakes that endanger your home and family. And those of us who actually know which is the dangerous end of a firearm are quite capable of making the kill shot instantaneous and painless. I honestly do not look at guns and think about murder, robbery, mayhem, and all of the other newsworthy events. I also don't think I am either alone or in the minority in this opinion, but the ne'er-do-wells are the one's getting all of the attention.

Is that directed at me??? The funny thing is that I can shoot, I have no problem with hunting for food (I cannot as I eat meat).

Yeah. Why would you post in this thread with such a snide comment? I think you're the first person to ever do that. :rolleyes:

Your wrong, Col usually starts it...;) He's full of snide remarks....:cool:

No wonder your leaders are always chumming up to us - We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men... 'oh mr. government man, here take my gun I'm affraid of it - I'll trust you to protect me... while I sip my tea and eat my tarts...':p :p :p
ROTFLMAO...now that's funny:D :D :D

nice one Ken...

The Democrats have always placed more faith and emphasis on the people instead of big government and big business.
I have always thought the Repub's always placed more faith on the people, with emphasis on big business so the job market is usually sound. More jobs, more taxes.

Your wrong, Col usually starts it...;) He's full of snide remarks....:cool:

Actually my post was referring to Colin. It's still a bit early, so maybe my sarcasm level isn't in full working order yet. :p

Actually, a bomb makes it much easier to kill. And kill more. And bombs are easier to make.

FoFA around the world there have been several school shootings, but there have not been many school bombings.
It is possible if those guys dis not have access to guns they could of made a bomb and killed more people or even driven around in cars and killed more, but.. Do you honestly believe that.

No wonder your leaders are always chumming up to us - We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men... 'oh mr. government man, here take my gun I'm affraid of it - I'll trust you to protect me... while I sip my tea and eat my tarts...':p :p :p
The British are not afraid (thats one "f" by the way):rolleyes: of guns, we just don't see the need to go round protecting ourselves and satisfying some blood lust by shooting anything that moves, be it, animal or human.

Anyway, doesn't your religion say thou shalt not kill?? or is that yet another commandment you take and adapt it to suit your needs.:rolleyes:

Col

To me, killing something with a gun just satisfies some prehistoric lust for blood which is obviously still prevailent in your neck of the woods. Or is it 'redneck' of the woods.:rolleyes:

You sit there in a little hide and wait to kill something - its barbaric.
See the problem here is you are boiling down the "hunting experience" to "sitting in a hide and waiting to kill something" I would guess if that was the whole thing, we would not have the amount of hunters we have. So since you have never been hunting, I don't think your are qualified to make a judgement such as "its barbaric". Seems a tad rude to me. :mad:

just ckecked my original post, there was a typo. It should have read.

Whilst I am sure the almost fanatical support of gun ownership and liberal gun ownership laws in some quaters of the US causes alot of the gun crime in the US. I not sure that in the UK the almost fanatical anti gun movement and laws is not the correct solution.

Your wrong, Col usually starts it...;) He's full of snide remarks....:cool:
Not true as you well know. Its nice to see that for a change you are not sitting on the fence posting silly pictures Kenny:rolleyes:

Col

Seems a tad rude to me. :mad:

Col - a tad rude? HA! There's a news bulletin...!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

They should just be glad we don't view him as typical Brit :cool:

FoFA around the world there have been several school shootings, but there have not been many school bombings.
It is possible if those guys dis not have access to guns they could of made a bomb and killed more people or even driven around in cars and killed more, but.. Do you honestly believe that.
I thought they actually had a bomb, it just didn't go off.
I think the problem in some of those cases is not controlling access to the gun in the home.

The British are not afraid (thats one "f" by the way):rolleyes: of guns,

Let's see brain dead, Your gov won't let you have them, they won't let your police have them, and you have to summon a third level to get a some one with a gun to protect you against an intruder with a gun - I'd say you are afraid - :rolleyes:

Let's see brain dead, Your gov won't let you have them, they won't let your police have them, and you have to summon a third level to get a some one with a gun to protect you against an intruder with a gun - I'd say you are afraid - :rolleyes:
Kenny, you need to come out of your prehistoric cave.

It is a crime in the UK to have guns because we know they are designed to kill - that means take a life of something. Our police have been offered guns but have voted against it, unlike the US police who seem to enjoy pulling guns and killing people on an ad-hoc basis.

I have no idea what your reference to intruders means - it seems like the ramblings of a person who is clutching a gun and worshiping it as the God it obviously is to you.:rolleyes: :p

Col

Col - a tad rude? HA! There's a news bulletin...!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

They should just be glad we don't view him as typical Brit :cool:
Unlike you as a typical American - armed to the teeth and ready to kill:p

Col

It is a crime in the UK to have guns because ...

Because the royal inbreeds think you're too stupid to have them...:rolleyes:

I thought the Democrats wanted to remove the ability for citiziens to own guns. Hmmmm....
I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware this is not the party stance. I'm sure there are Dems out there who do want this but as far as I'm aware there has never been a serious effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

And that is what I wonder about Iraq. Is there something there they are not telling us that makes it so important? :rolleyes: You Bush Bashers may not want to believe that, (and I don't think it is oil) but you have to wonder sometimes.
It's possible. I can't imagine there is a reason important enough to justify the war but is so secret Bush wouldn't have told the American public, especially when faced with steadily declining support. But sure, I guess it's possible.

Americans have a love of only 3 things, money, cars and guns.
Even if this statement is only a little serious... dude. F you.

Because the royal inbreeds think you're too stupid to have them...:rolleyes:

Dragging the Royal family into it has nothing to do with it.

At least its better than having a dictator like you have.

The point still is that you have guns so you must enjoy killing or why have them?

Col

ouch!:eek:

go Kraj, go...

Even if this statement is only a little serious... dude. F you.
Isn't Detroit where the car god lives?:D ;) dude?

Col

Bloody hell folks.

I had a question, and wanted help with decision, not a flippin'' war. Sheesh, this has turned into a blood bath!!! So far, Greg has been a huge help. He actually explained it well.

I realize this is the Political forum, but dang it, this not is on the topic!!! :mad:


Ok, I've fussed, I know it won't do any good, but had to get it out!

Back on topic---
So, as far as I know, I am correct on most of the issues between Rep and Dem....except the gun issue.

With that said, I still feel I am pulling for the right party. Only time will tell. However as I stated before I pull for the man, not the party. It just usually turns out to be a Republican.

Bloody hell folks.

I had a question, and wanted help with decision, not a flippin'' war. Sheesh, this has turned into a blood bath!!!
You are absolutely right Selena - I think both Ken and I got a little carried away. I shall exit this as its nearly 4pm and maybe hometime:D

Col

You are absolutely right Selena - I think both Ken and I got a little carried away. I shall exit this as its nearly 4pm and maybe hometime:D

Col

Just a wee bit, but it's ok. I guess I should have expected it.

I have three weeks left before I disappear for a little while, I've got to exercise my peace maker skills...

I'm also taking applications for my backup until I can return on a more permanent basis.

Back on topic---
Good call. How about discussing some other differences between the parties? I'll discuss a couple topics that are closely related.

Reps: Laissez-faire; let the economy run itself
Dems: The Fed should regulate the economy

I lean towards the Dems on this one. I think Laissez-faire is the capitalist ideal but, much like Communism, it only works if all parties involved uphold the deal. I do agree that the less government involvement the better, but that often such involvement is necessary. I am willing to agree that the market will correct itself, but only after damage has been done. I believe damage prevention is worth government involvement.

Reps: Maximum individual freedom, minimum government, self-regulated society
Dems: Society regulated by laws and courts, individual freedom is limited, increasing government involvement is not a negative

Again I tend to side with the Dems and again it's because I believe the Republican stance represents an unrealistic ideal. Yes, in many ways society can and will regulate itself. A dishonest business, for example, will fail when people discover the dishonesty. But again, not until after damage has been done. I believe laws that limit the freedom of the good person are worth preventing the bad person from doing harm.

This is one of the aforementioned areas where I have a serious problem with the Republicans since they are more than happy to restrict personal freedom whenever it suits their purposes.

Reps: Minimum taxes, economic growth through investing
Dems: Whatever taxes are necessary, economic growth through productivity

In a sound economic plan, both approaches should be alternated. During a recession, taxes should be reduced and investment in the economy should occur to stimulate recovery. During a period of prosperity, taxes should be increased to pay back the deficit incurred. That's how it should go, but no one adheres to it. All anyone does is spend; both parties are equally at fault for the enormous national debt. However, in recent years (ie., Clinton's Presidency) it was the Dems who took the lead in moving toward the correct system. The Republicans promptly wrecked it all.

It is a crime in the UK to have guns because we know they are designed to kill - that means take a life of something. Our police have been offered guns but have voted against it, unlike the US police who seem to enjoy pulling guns and killing people on an ad-hoc basis.
Oh, there it is. So what I get from that is with the exception of a few, we in the U.S. know the power of guns and respect that power. Police don't just pull guns and start blazing away (other than in the movies). BUT yall' in the U.K. don't have the same fortatude and would use them willy-nilly to just blow people away. I see now.

It's possible. I can't imagine there is a reason important enough to justify the war but is so secret Bush wouldn't have told the American public, especially when faced with steadily declining support. But sure, I guess it's possible.
Now I have no idea not having a line to the oval office, but what if just having a presence not hindered near as much by the government (like Saudi) in the central reagion of that area might not be a good enough reason, but one you might not want to just say? Now why that might be a good reason, I havn't a clue, but just as an example. What if just being there brings stability to Iran, Pakistan, etc. Just thinking out loud.

The point still is that you have guns so you must enjoy killing or why have them?
I just totally enjoy shooting them, and not at living things. Paper Targets, stones, cans, Brits :eek:

You are absolutely right Selena - I think both Ken and I got a little carried away. I shall exit this as its nearly 4pm and maybe hometime:D

Col

Guess you're right - Sorry...:o

See, explanations like that help me tremendously.



Reps: Laissez-faire; let the economy run itself
Dems: The Fed should regulate the economy

I'm not sure I fully understand this. I feel it should be a bit of both. The Fed should step in if it gets out of hand, and lend a helping hand. Other than that let it go. But then again I don't fully understand the effects either has so I am just going on what I am reading here.


Reps: Maximum individual freedom, minimum government, self-regulated society
Dems: Society regulated by laws and courts, individual freedom is limited, increasing government involvement is not a negative

I see nothing wrong with the Reps point of view with this. The government only steps in with laws that keep us safe. Other than that, why have so many regulations.
Yes they are hypocritical when it comes to Gay marriage, if they fully believed that they would before it, not against it. So, on that issue I do not agree.

Reps: Minimum taxes, economic growth through investing
Dems: Whatever taxes are necessary, economic growth through productivity

On this issue I agree with both parties. Investing is good as well as productivity. However the Democrats so far love to tax so the people can gain wages for NO production. Again, that is my jaded view of the system.

I'm not sure I fully understand this. ... But then again I don't fully understand the effects either has so I am just going on what I am reading here.
I don't think anyone does. The one thing I really learned in Economics classes is that no one really understands how the economy as a whole functions.

I see nothing wrong with the Reps point of view with this. The government only steps in with laws that keep us safe. Other than that, why have so many regulations.
The tricky part is where to draw the line. Who determines what is necessary to keep us safe? For example:

Let's say there's a bad neighborhood where retail businesses regularly get robbed. Law enforcement says a security camera system will deter crime and help them catch criminals. The Dems would suggest passing a law to require all businesses to install security cameras. The law would be effective in reducing crime and improve the community for everyone but at the same time it would hurt businesses that couldn't afford to comply with the law, so the Republicans would be against it. Are the Reps right in this case? Maybe, I can't say. Would they always be right in situations like this? I don't think so.

The tricky part is where to draw the line. Who determines what is necessary to keep us safe? For example:

Let's say there's a bad neighborhood where retail businesses regularly get robbed. Law enforcement says a security camera system will deter crime and help them catch criminals. The Dems would suggest passing a law to require all businesses to install security cameras. The law would be effective in reducing crime and improve the community for everyone but at the same time it would hurt businesses that couldn't afford to comply with the law, so the Republicans would be against it. Are the Reps right in this case? Maybe, I can't say. Would they always be right in situations like this? I don't think so.

Well what could be done is the Rep gives those small business a tax break for installing the cams. By doing that, it would reduce the cost of insurance for that business. That in turns saves the business, and the insurance companies at the same time. Because the crime would be down, therefore less money the insurance companies have to pay out, which inturn brings the premiums down for everyone.
Also with a reduced crime rate, it would free the police up to deal with more pressing matters, and not waste money in a area that can be easily remedied with cameras. :D Do I make sense???

Yep, that would work nicely. All except for the part about bringing insurance premiums down; that wouldn't happen. Of course, everything other than the first sentence applies to passing a law too. So it comes down to whether the lawmakers think the businesses should be required or should be given an incentive. If they give an incentive, that doesn't mean it will be taken advantage of. They might end up going through the legislative process to implement a solution that doesn't actually do anything. Requiring the cameras gaurantees the action. Of course, it doesn't gaurantee they'll be effective, or that the law will be enforced. Each approach has its pros and cons, which is exactly what neither party wants to admit.

we in the U.S. know the power of guns and respect that power. Police don't just pull guns and start blazing away (other than in the movies).

Are you serious, don't you guys read your own news?
What about the guy who was surrounded by 18cops and who when he reached into his pocket to produce his id as directed, was promptly blasted to death. The verdict on the police, justifiable homicide:rolleyes:
The first thing your cops do is put their hands on their guns

We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men...

Well I do so hate to keep pointing this out but unless we're there leading the way, you've a tendancy to get beaten up pretty badly:p :p :p

There are so many things wrong with that statement. First, the current admin. has passed nothing pro or con on gun control. So your "your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all" is false. Also we do not have "un-restricted gun ownership" in this country. It is controlled (for good guys). As even in the UK, the "bad guys" can get guns illegally.

God you guys don't even know what's going on in your own country:rolleyes:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0731-03.htm

Yep, that would work nicely. All except for the part about bringing insurance premiums down; that wouldn't happen. Of course, everything other than the first sentence applies to passing a law too. So it comes down to whether the lawmakers think the businesses should be required or should be given an incentive. If they give an incentive, that doesn't mean it will be taken advantage of. They might end up going through the legislative process to implement a solution that doesn't actually do anything. Requiring the cameras gaurantees the action. Of course, it doesn't gaurantee they'll be effective, or that the law will be enforced. Each approach has its pros and cons, which is exactly what neither party wants to admit.

I was trying to think positive. However, that would be a perfect situation and I know we don't live in a perfect world. :o

That would be an issue that would probably hold up the house and the senate for months..if not years.....:eek:

God you guys don't even know what's going on in your own country:rolleyes:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0731-03.htm
Unreliable source, exagerating made up facts

Unreliable source, exagerating made up facts
Typical republican reply

Typical republican reply
Well if you had a background in these facts, you would know.
What they did is take something like "Well Kansas is flat, so from thet I can conclude that the whole earth is flat".
Since you do not really know, you choose to beleive any BS that sounds good in the general direction you wish.

What they did is take something like "Well Kansas is flat, so from thet I can conclude that the whole earth is flat".

Sounds logical to me - many Americans are unaware of what lies beyond the borders.

Col

many Americans are unaware of what lies beyond the borders.

Col
or how old the planet is and how long we've been on it:rolleyes:

Did anyone see the Panorama programme on BBC about how the Bush administration is "doctoring" environmental and climate change reports so that the US people are misled into thinking things are not as bad as they are?

Brilliant:D Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm)

Col

Did anyone see the Panorama programme on BBC about how the Bush administration is "doctoring" environmental and climate change reports so that the US people are misled into thinking things are not as bad as they are?

Brilliant:D Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm)

Col

60 minutes aired it first.

60 minutes aired it first.
Once again you demonstrate your amazing ability to totally misread the question and answer a question that was not asked:rolleyes:

Col

Did anyone see the Panorama programme on BBC about how the Bush administration is "doctoring" environmental and climate change reports so that the US people are misled into thinking things are not as bad as they are?

Doctoring in one opinion, making more accurate and taking personal view points out in another.
There are reliable scientist who say this is normal cycle the planet goes through. As with Huracanes, they are in a normal cycle pattern that has them increasing. Does the extra warmth being induced by what ever means cause more or larger Huracanes, yes if I understand how they work. Is it the work of man, depends, I suspect some people contribute more power to the human race than they really have when it comes to mother nature. Besides, mother nature will level the playing field one way or the other.
This argument is getting boring.

There are reliable scientist who say this is normal cycle the planet goes through.

All working for the oil industry:rolleyes:
The overwhelming concensus is that the current cycle is man's doing, that twat Bush just won't open his stupid eyes, 'cause he's got to pay back all his supporters:rolleyes: :mad:
Let's all sit around and do nothing, after all it's only the poor who'll suffer, but then we all know where Bush was on Katrina, don't we!

All working for the oil industry:rolleyes:
That would make them unreliable, but good try at switching up

The overwhelming concensus is that the current cycle is man's doing, that twat Bush just won't open his stupid eyes, 'cause he's got to pay back all his supporters:rolleyes: :mad:
Oh sure, ruin the planet to pay back a few people, I think that wishful thinking on a lot of people part rather than the truth. Lets just destroy the planet, I have a lot of money, I can move to MARS! :eek:
Don't think so, and it is not like they don't have grandchildren they have to look out for also. Might be nice to say, but in the deep truth just holds no water.

Let's all sit around and do nothing, after all it's only the poor who'll suffer, but then we all know where Bush was on Katrina, don't we!
Things are being done, just maybe not as extrem as ya liberals think should be, and I don't see where the poor have anything to do with it. And what does mother natures Katerina have to do with anything? We trashed that to death and proved you wrong a number of times.

We trashed that to death and proved you wrong a number of times.

Now you are living in cloud cuckoo land:rolleyes:

Things are being done

Not enough and not fast enough, in fact anything that costs American industry money is ruled out.
It's a fact that your love of gas guzzlers is destroying the planet, of course when you've finished raping Canada you might wake up

and I don't see where the poor have anything to do with it.

Now why doesn't that suprise me:rolleyes:

Not enough and not fast enough, in fact anything that costs American industry money is ruled out.
It's a fact that your love of gas guzzlers is destroying the planet, of course when you've finished raping Canada you might wake up
YAWN - Yes, it is ONLY the SUV's that are causing the evils of the world.
How about this, The power plants in Europe put out more pollution that our gas guzzlers. Why don't yall' just shut down your power generation plants since we are not going to give up our gas guzzlers?
Wah, Wah, Wah, whine, whine, whine, typical european.
You should take a clue from the Scotts, at least they are decent don't whine about every little thing and blame everyone else (except for the Brits, but sounds justifiable). :p

YAWN - Yes, it is ONLY the SUV's that are causing the evils of the world.
How about this, The power plants in Europe put out more pollution that our gas guzzlers. Why don't yall' just shut down your power generation plants since we are not going to give up our gas guzzlers?
Wah, Wah, Wah, whine, whine, whine, typical european.
You should take a clue from the Scotts, at least they are decent don't whine about every little thing and blame everyone else (except for the Brits, but sounds justifiable). :p

Burying your head in the sand again I see, are you related to Bush by any chance ?
The facts are that Europe has greatly reduced it's carbon emissions, the US has increased its. :mad:
Of course you could wonder why Europe is so pissed with the US, though I doubt it:rolleyes:

Of course you could wonder why Europe is so pissed with the US,
Because they don't have anything better to do? :confused: :p

Because they don't have anything better to do? :confused: :p
If by having nothing better to do than making enormous sacrifices to reduce our share of carbon emissions while the US sticks its fingers up then yes but then as we've seen on this thread it would depend on how you define the word "better" :rolleyes: