Planetfurry BBS

[RebelSqurl]

I'll be voting for President Bush this year. As a conservative Republican, I support his policies for the most part (though I wish he would push the domestic oil exploration issue more, and cut back on some of the domestic spending excess). And I think the louder and more outrageous certain members of the American Left get as election time draws closer, the more people will decide to vote for Mr. Bush in protest against them.

Of course, the election is still five months away, and a LOT can happen in that time. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[Nite]

I haven't paid much attention to politics recently, especially in the campaign factor of it. On that, I don't know any campaign promises or how they want to act upon our government, so I really can't say who I would vote for if I were of voting age.

As for Bush... Half the country loves him, and half the country hates him... So he has a 50/50 chance of being re-elected... In my opinion, this could be for the best regarding some things, and it could be the worst for others.

Another opinion of mine: As always, the media is controlling a lot of the election. Of course networks and news casters have their favorites, so it depends of what network you're watching to see different aspects about different candidates.

We'll see how this goes down soon enough.

[Cateagle]

*Chuckle* The lady I mentioned above and I were discussing this issue and she sent me the following quotes to add for discussion:

"To me, Liberal Gun Control is explaining to a rape victim she now has HIV rather than explaining to the police why there is a dead rapist with 5 rounds center mass." -- Scott Burton

"Gun Control: The belief that a woman raped and brutally murdered is morally superior to a woman standing over a dead rapist with a smoking gun in her hand."

"If women are disarmed, a rapist will never hear 'Stop or I'll shoot!'."

[Thane]

Hmmmm......

An armed citizen can tell a criminal "Stop! Or I'll shoot!"
An unarmed citizen can tell a criminal "Stop! Or I'll yell 'Stop' again!"

An armed citizen can stop a burglary, robbery, rape, assault, or murder.
An unarmed citizen can get himself killed.

An armed citizen can defend himself.
An unarmed citizen can be a victim.
----
You want to take guns away from the people? Sure. Start with the criminals.

If guns cause crime, mine must be defective.

"Gun control"? What about "Crime Control"? Isn't that more important?

[Solis]

Thane your post is incredibly long, please edit it.

This thread is rapidly turning into one long rant on gun control. I'm giving a 24 hour lock notice (any mod who disagrees with me, fine, feel free to edit this out)

[Jbird]

*vain attempt to avoid thread lockage*

So anyway, back on topic... what is the primary issue that you shall be basing your vote on? Give a SHORT reason why-- and leave the flaming for another thread.

I have two. Firstly, 2nd Amendment rights-- but we've been over this already. A LOT . Secondly, national security. Quite simply, I do not trust to the continued safety of the US in Democratic hands. (This does not apply to "little d" democrats, and Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman, who seem to actually have a Clue.)

Your turn.

[Thane]

I would go with the two that JBird mentioned - rights and national security. To these I would add lowering taxes and cutting "nanny" social programs - the American people are not helpless, and we do not need a dozen welfare programs per person.
But most importantly to me, Bush is anti-abortion.
I honestly don't care what the reason for the abortion is - unless having that baby will almost definitely kill the mother, there is no reason to not let that baby live. Whatever "poor quality of life" it may face due to poverty, whatever "bad things" might happen to it, it's still better than being dead.
I'm not gonna get too deeply into this particular topic, because this, even more than guns, taxes, and politics, is a very volatile issue. Possibly only homosexual marriage causes greater arguments right now. Enough that we know where each other stands - each one of us is perfectly capable of looking up the other's side online.

Signing off now (so's I don't start ranting),
Thane

[Galadrion]

Actually, I have little opinion on abortion -- I don't personally care for it, but as I'm seriously unlikely to ever be in a position to have one, that point is largely academic for me.

Far more important to me is the issue of capital punishment -- I'm strongly for it. Certain crimes are heinous enough that I have little difficulty in saying "This person should be dead." (Personally, I'm inclined to extend the list of said crimes a fair piece beyond the short length it already is. Drunk drivers who kill their victims, for instance, had better hope and pray I'm never in a position to decide their fate.)

Fiscal policy -- I favor a minimalist government, and the scaled-down budget and taxes which ought to go along with it. (Actually, I follow Objectivist principles politically - Ayn Rand had some good reasoning behind her ideas, as far as I'm concerned.)

Gun control -- yes, guns should be controlled. By their owners. Personally, I don't (currently) own any guns -- and considering the hassle I'd have to go through to resupply myself, I don't think I'll bother any time soon. Besides, my eyesight is horrible -- if something happened to my glasses, I'd be a menace with any sort of ranged weapon... including my crossbow. I much prefer something which doesn't require decent vision. But that's my choice for me -- I don't favor firearms restriction legislation. (I tend to draw the line at personal ownership of heavy artillery... but most people don't have that sort of budget anyhow.)

"Victimless" crimes -- this is where I'm likely to stir up a hornet's nest. I dislike the idea of this sort of legislation -- the "War on Drugs", prostitution laws (or the criminalization of other voluntary sexual conduct, such as homosexual marriage), and other such "legislation of morality". If someone wants to get high, I don't have a problem with that -- it's not for me, but they're also not forcing me to join them. But just as with alcohol, I favor an extremely harsh code of responsibility for those who indulge. I've already stated that I'm death on drunk drivers -- I hold the same views on stoned ones. Get drunk or high and then kill someone in a car accident, and I'll be pushing for you to stand trial for Murder One. I don't care what you choose to do to yourself, but when you endanger others while doing it, then I start getting ugly about it. (Well, uglier than I already am.)

It all comes down to personal responsibility. I already have a mother and a father -- damn good ones, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want the government to step into either role -- besides, I don't the government could do anywhere near as good a job as they did. The government's job is to provide certain essential services, such as law enforcement, national defense, international relations, and projects for the public good which are too big or too vital to trust to private industry. (Just offhand, I can't think of too many of those -- the government tends to contract out an awful lot of the work it currently takes on.) Ideally, I'd like to see the government scaled down to an unprecedented degree, but that would be a generations-long project, and I don't see much of a realistic chance of it happening. Of the choices we've got, I currently favor Bush slightly, but I'd like to see him replace several of his current advisors -- Ashcroft bothers me a great deal, and there are several of the others I find almost as bad.

The fellow I'd really like to see in the top slot is Colin Powell, but sadly, I don't see that as much of a possibility at the moment. Maybe in a couple of years.

[Toric]

Why is this thread being locked? Posts are long, and lots of people are talking in it. Isn't that the point of a forum, for people to talk?

[Elfen_Furry]

I'll give #2's rant a hear-say, but in not voting, you loose the chance to complain because of your non-action. If you are going to vote- vote for somebody you can entrust the responsibilities of the office to.

IF there isn't anyone on the ballot that does not meet your standards, then demand your right for a write-in ballot and write in the name of someone you believe can do the job. Even if that person may be yourself, a dead relative or Mikey Mouse.

As a citizen of the United Stated of America, I am allowed by the Constitution of this country certain rights, and I take full responsibility of those rights (so unlike many who only wants the rights without the responsibilities). If anyone dares to try to alter, change, irradicate or otherwise eliminate my rights or my ability to excerise those right, then I will extend my pleasure to the Right of Being Judge by a group of 12, rather than to be carried by a group of 6.

[Solis]

[The Gryphon]

About the gun control bit, I've noticed only one side of folks are posting. I wouldn't call it a 'debate' persay.

[Solis]

Eh, true enough. You know what I meant.

[Concolor]

I just have one comment on this issue, and then I will leave it alone.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been staunchly anti-gun for years. The leadership of that organization has worked closely with Sarah Brady's group, Handgun Control Incorporated, and similar outfits. In 2002 they established a Special Task Force to chart how the various gun-control laws (there are over 20,000 on the books in the U.S.) have favorably affected the level of violent crime. Thus chartered, the Task Force worked diligently to give gun-control some credibility.

As reported in the November 3, 2003, issue of Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, the Task Force admitted, grudgingly, that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that adding gun-control laws had reduced crime anywhere.

In fact, the only "gun control" legislation that has ever been shown to reduce crime (and the correlation is very high) is when the states adopt Right-To-Carry laws. When the criminals realize that any of their potential victims could be armed, they go elsewhere for prey or look for a less hazardous line of work.

[Concolor]