Am I a REPUB, DEM, INDI or none of the above?

[LuvMyPorsche]

I'm not the political discussion forum type but I thought I could share some of my own thoughts and I could learn a little something here at DU. Please don't condemn me as a freeper or a troll, just READ:

I'm not sure about 2008, my motivations and life events make me question my political stripe.

Background. 1984, my first election I voted Reagan because I lived in a Republican household and just thought I was "doing my part".

1988 I voted for Dukakis, I felt Reagan was "mean" and possibly "dangerous" for the US... my "hippie" stage, if you will.

1992 I voted for Perot... I voted for change.

Then a funny thing happened. Bill Clinton was elected. My business was fine, I was happy... but my #1 hobby in the early 1990's was firearms. In fact I collected rare guns including imported assault weapons. Clinton signs the Assault Gun Ban and to me "the fight was on" It was the most direct attack on my life by an all powerful Federal Government. And then with the Clinton admin missteps, Elian Gonzalez, Waco, etc... I was HARDCORE p'ed off at the DEMS.

1996 I voted for Dole, a true American War Hero (now I realize just another milktoast politician liar)

2000 I voted for GWB

2004 I voted for GWB

Ok... if anyone hasn't thrown objects at the monitor yet, please wait a moment.

My profile:

Guns: Hands off, Period. End of Story. Although I'm ok with background checks, closing Gun Show loopholes, etc...

Abortion: Personally I believe it's immoral and irresponsible. However I believe the Fed Gov't can't outlaw it and it's probably a matter of choice at least at the state level.

HealthCare: I think it's DISGUSTING that the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, the USA has such an unfair Health Care system. Normal people can't afford it. Prices are ridiculous. It's out of control. I'm 100% for European style health care.

Economics: I'm ashamed of the Republican parties affiliation with Corporate America and the associated GREED.

Taxes: I'm in favor of 1990's level taxation of upper income earners.

National Security:
I'm in favor of an AGGRESSIVE war on terror. I'm NOT in favor of war in Iraq. It was a mistake. But now that we're THERE, we can't turn tail and RUN.

I'm in favor of cutting support for Israel's military, we've done enough.

I want a leader who can be "liked" again... on the international stage.

Misc:

Gay Rights: I personally could care less and believe that equal rights thru civil unions should be nationwide.

Civil Rights: I personally believe that some 21st Century Civil Rights activists are merchants of Hate. We've become a reverse discriminating culture and it's wrong. I'm a firm believer in "judge a person by the content of their character" not by their color. I support "equal" rights for ALL.

Animal Rights: I'm firmly pro-SPCA but believe PETA to be "near terrorists". I'm a contributor and supporter. I walk homeless dogs at a rescue 4 times per month, 4 hours at a time.

Criminal Justice: I'm a big crime means punishment guy, pro-death penalty.


My personal details, 40-ish WM, married w/ 1 child, 2 dogs... self employed, 120K/yr...



So it's 2008 around the corner...

In my OWN best interest WHO do I vote for??

Rudy? He might be a somewhat "uniting" personality after 8 years of W. But does he bring "changes" with him? The answer's NO, it will be GWB redux 2009-2012.

Fred, DITTO... another corporate kiss ass.

Mitt, no thanks. No used car salesman for me.

Hillary. My REPUB friends would kill me... but I might vote HILLARY in 08. I believe she's more moderate. She's strong willed and I believe she's a better bet for National Security than the other DEMS. I believe she'll bring CHANGES with her and I support that. I know she'll do some things I don't like... maybe liberal Justices or Firearms legislation, but can she make life BETTER for middle class Americans?

Barack. I'm kinda' creeped out by his inexperience. He needs more seasoning before he is ready for the stage... maybe 2012?

John Edwards, I like him, but his "Two America's" speech seems fabricated and hypocritical.

Wes Clark, I really like him, too bad he's NOT in.

Joe Biden, on a recent web-test I took, he was the closest match to my profile.

So there you are... a very non-DU type... visiting here and looking to expand my understanding of what may be best for me and my family and neighbors in the future. Again, I hope noone here thinks I'm a troll or anything... I'm not.

Is Hillary BEST for me?

[wyldwolf]

1. I think Hillary is best for YOU and here's why

Aside from the reasons you mentioned, she's learned from the mistakes of the first Clinton administration. Look for the good without some of the bad. But, probably more important to you, her Veep will be someone more conservative - Evan Bayh, Jim Webb maybe. Both of them, specifically Webb, sounds like your kind of Democrat.

I think you're a centrist Democratic-leaning Independent.

[liberaldemocrat7]

59. I believe that anyone should own as many guns as they want and can store.

If you can build an armory on your property then have fun. You want a howitzer and it doesn't violate your local zoning laws then enjoy.


Now here comes the catch. I believe that we need to limit ammunition purchases and the amount of bullets, hand grenades, rifle shells that people can own.

Keep as many guns, etc. as you want, but severely limit the amount of ammo people can buy.



We need the separation of business and state.

[benEzra]

74. Ummm....no thanks...

I believe that anyone should own as many guns as they want and can store. Updated at 2:56 PM

If you can build an armory on your property then have fun. You want a howitzer and it doesn't violate your local zoning laws then enjoy.


Now here comes the catch. I believe that we need to limit ammunition purchases and the amount of bullets, hand grenades, rifle shells that people can own.

Keep as many guns, etc. as you want, but severely limit the amount of ammo people can buy.

Hmm. Let's explore that a bit, shall we?

Under current law, anything .51 caliber and up is already a 10-year felony to possess without Federal authorization, except for civilian shotguns and a few over-.50-caliber hunting rifles. All automatic weapons, sound suppressed weapons, etc. are similarly restricted.

Confining the discussion to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian guns under .51 caliber that meet the other civilian (NFA Title 1) requirements of the National Firearms Act--what makes you think that an ammo ban would fly?

An ammo ban is a gun ban, in that it would outlaw the lawful and responsible use of guns for recreational and competitive target shooting, defensive purposes, and hunting.

Merely raising prices on over-10-round replacement magazines for pistols, and requiring some civilian rifles and shotguns to have fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones, cost the House AND Senate in 1994, and helped cost Gore the presidency in '00 (he'd have won without Florida had he not lost WV and his own home state of TN on the gun issue, and FL wouldn't have been close enough to recount had the he not promised to ban guns in the Gunshine State). Support for California style restrictions on protruding rifle handgrips was an albatross around Senator Kerry's neck in '04. Care to speculate on how an ammo ban would go over, considering that half of gun owners are Dems and indies, and around one in four registered Dems personally owns a gun?

No thanks...

[aquart]

2. Welcome to DU.

Who would you put on the Supreme Court? There's your answer.

[saracat]

3. Well, first of all, are you a Democrat? Because if you aren't, in most states

you don't get to vote in the Primary so it doesn't matter who you like. And in the GE, you will actually have only two choices and we don't know who those will be yet.

[SteppingRazor]

4. I don't get the whole gunphobia thing.

I own four firearms, all handguns, and I vote solidly Dem almost every time. No one's going to take your guns away. The only people mentioning it are people on the right, and they're only accusing the Dems of it so that you'll vote for the Republicans.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

10. The gun thing

is just another made up bunch of crap to make all liberals seem like the only thing they ever do is make Hollywood movies....

I know plenty of Democrats who have guns and have always been Democrats... Like me... and Mr. Gilligan.

[slick8790]

25. That's not entirely true.

Kucinich has advocated for a national handgun ban. One of the many reasons I don't support him.

[benEzra]

33. It's primarily the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...

"assault weapons" being, of course, the most popular civilian target rifles, defensive carbines, and collectibles in the whole United States. Between two and three times as many gun owners would be affected by a ban on "assault weapons," broadly defined a la H.R.1022, as would be affected by an outright ban on hunting. The DLC pushed hard for the 1994 Feinstein ban, and continued to push hard for a more draconian ban in '00 and '04.

AFAIK, the AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in America, and the SKS is the most common centerfire rifle in U.S. homes, bar none.


--------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Justyce]

5. I actually agree with you on many points, although

I would never have voted for GWB! I'm supporting Edwards because he is against the free trade crap, very pro-labor and working class, etc. I believe he would make a great president & fight for the important issues. JMO. In any case, I believe you are definitely a Democrat at heart, with some independent tendencies... :)

[Trajan]

6. An interesting mix ....

And welcome to DU ....

You know .... Your complex set of philosophical 'planks' are what make you unique ..... There is no large group of citizens who possess EXACTLY the same likes and dislikes ...... so in my eyes: you are EXACTLY like everyone else ....

In the end: Even though we tend toward that party which best represents our own views .... If the party strays from your 'center', and another candidate suits you better, then you certainly might consider him or her ....

I could argue the salient points of what a 'War On Terror' is, and what it means ... but fuck that for now .... It is a debate in itself .... But all in all: You possess a mix that might not be all that unusual across the entire electorate, and it is people like you whom the Clinton's hope to attract over the line .....

Other than the War On Terror stuff, I see alot I would agree with .....

See ya round ....

[Mythsaje]

7. You'll find a lot of variation here...

I assume you've been lurking a while.

Though many people might assume I'm some sort of radical leftist, I'm not. More like Thom Hartmann's "Radical Middle."

I support the WHOLE Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, which I read to mean "the right of self-defense).

I think "war" is the wrong mindset for fighting terrorism and terrorists. They're not soldiers, they're criminals. Declaring "war" on them simply empowers them.

I disagree with you on the Civil Rights issue... We haven't come nearly as far as we'd like to believe sometimes. And reverse discrimination isn't even a blip on my radar screen. I too believe people should be judged by the content of their character, but, unfortunately, there are still those who can't see past the surface.

It might be preferable if they chose to spend their resources pursuing real crime and punishing real criminals. As it is, all too many of the people who are being persecuted by "tough on crime" initiatives are no danger to anyone but perhaps themselves.


You'll find a lot of disagreement on basic issues.

I don't like Hillary, personally. I think she's basically the "more of the same" candidate, yet with a slightly less crazy psycho ideology. We'll get more corporate-friendly, neo-liberal economics...but, we'll also get decent cabinet and court appointees.

I don't think there's anything disingenuous about Edwards' "Two Americas." You show me someone who isn't rich who's talking about poverty and I'll show you someone no one even hears.

[baldguy]

8. First & foremost you're an AMERICAN!

That's something the GOP has forgotten - their first loyalty is to the Constitution & country, not to the party & not to whomever the president happens to be. All the GOP candidates want to maintain & expand Bush's imperial presidency.

If you're looking for someone who offers the best of traditional Republican values: responsible govt, fair taxes, balanced budget, upholding American values domestically & overseas, keeping our promises to our friends & allies, and not making idle threats to or adversaries - then Clinton would be the best.

NONE of the GOP candidates are traditional Republicans - that party no longer exists.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Can't "turn tail and run" in Iraq? Stop thinking of it as a win/lose, victory-or-surrender--

you're buying into idiotic RW framing on it. It's a question of WHEN do we leave, HOW do we leave--NOT "if". Our honor will be restored for that mistake (as you concede it is) when we hand Iraq back over to the Iraqis and leave their oil the fuck alone.

[rucky]

11. Random thoughts: Why GWB in '04?

Was it something about Kerry, or did you still support Bush?

Most Democrats don't give a rat's ass if you own guns or not. That whole thing has mostly been NRA fear tactics so they get more members, based on a few outspoken gun-control advocates.

Sounds like you're libertarian, and right smack in the middle of the political spectrum, and what we'd call a "swing voter." 15 years ago you were in the right place. Your Grand Old Party has left you and gone facist and corrupt. Hillary and some moderates have set a table for folks like you, but it seems to me that her motivations are more poll-driven than sincere.

If you want a solid record of policy, you should consider Biden. He's had quite a long and illustrious Senate career, and has been able to be effective both in the majority and in the minority - and he does it his own way. He has a talent for using common sense to transcend party politics: He's liked by the left and the right, or at least not a target of vitriol. Give him a closer look: This latest Senate resolution on Iraq is the closest we've come to real leadership on the issue since we got into this mess.

I'm waaaaay to the left of you, BTW. I find it interesting that your computer test picked Biden for you, but I'm not entirely surprised. I think we can rise above much of this bullshit partisanism with him at the helm.

[LuvMyPorsche]

13. WHY GWB in 04??

Well to be honest...

I didn't like the "aggression" from the left and I thought Kerry was horrible. He seems fake and contrived and didn't offer REAL change.
I think I swung back to the right because I felt "attacked" by the left. Does that make sense?

In retrospect, Kerry may have been a better choice, just BECAUSE he's not GWB.

I want someone REAL. I want CHANGE. Things are wrong... I listen to talk radio (which I used to love) and now I hear Hannity sounding like a parrot. He is #1 cheerleader, never has a cross thing to say about the Repubs. It's disingenuous. I lean right on some issues, ok. But the "right" has become something different.

"My" right has become this mutated cross of Corporate lap dogs and neo-conservatism.

I'll take a step to the left to euthanize the current "right".

I think it MAY be necessary to attack Iran at some time. I believe they ARE a danger to the US, DEMS and REPUBS. I know that's controversial here... but if GWB hadn't wasted political capital with "Iraq" he might have had broad support for an operation in Iran. Iran is the real enemy, along with Syria. Syria has been busy for decades killing Lebanese reformers...
BUT having said that, I'd never "invade" Iran. I'd prefer an aerial campaign and an internal black ops coup with Iranian Democrat Reformer citizens. ENOUGH of the US as occupiers.

[TwilightGardener]

23. So you're essentially pro-Iraq war (because you don't think we should leave)

and you're pro-military action against Iran and Syria, but you want universal health care. You sound like a Republican that is tired of paying high insurance premiums and co-pays, to me.

[Mythsaje]

24. You want to listen to talk radio and hear someone who makes sense?

Listen to Thom Hartmann on AAR. He is one of the most reasonable, rational voices on radio today, and often invites guests from the Heritage Foundation and other RW think tanks on to debate. And whips them hands-down, without resorting to the "cut his microphone" tactics that Rush often uses.

He used to be on in the morning, but I think they moved him to the afternoon. You can also catch his shows on podcast or on the web at his website... http://www.thomhartmann.com.

Seriously.

[PatSeg]

51. Thom Hartmann is the best

He debates regularly with the right and does so with respect and dignity. He is incredibly knowledgeable and fair. When I listen to him, I actually learn something, rather than just have my own beliefs confirmed.

[TransitJohn]

61. Agression from the left???!!??

Swift Boat LIARS. Need we say more?

[iverglas]

85. I think what you are

is an ethnocentric USAmerican who just disagrees with some of your fellows on a few of the details of how y'all should be running the world in your own interests.

Just to enlighten you on one little point:

BUT having said that, I'd never "invade" Iran. I'd prefer an aerial campaign and an internal black ops coup with Iranian Democrat Reformer citizens.

-- Iranian democrats want precisely fuck all to do with the US, "black ops" or otherwise.

I'm seeing arrogant ignorance. Not surprising you found George Bush to your taste.


on edit: I should probably introduce myself. I'm not a USAmerican. I'm part of the rest of the world.

[LuvMyPorsche]

90. why

are you so agressive? So hateful? I'm sorry if you're not American, but you've just gotta' deal with that and get over it.

;)

[iverglas]

96. gee

and why am I not surprised again?

What a piece of crap.

Oh, that's your post I'm talking about. Of course.

[spooky3]

91. How did you conclude that GWB was more "real" than JK?

You didn't see through all the "folksy" BS?

[benEzra]

52. Biden has endorsed banning half the guns my wife and I own.

Most Democrats don't give a rat's ass if you own guns or not. That whole thing has mostly been NRA fear tactics so they get more members, based on a few outspoken gun-control advocates.

...

If you want a solid record of policy, you should consider Biden.

On the gun issue, Biden is a big part of the problem. He's endorsed banning half the guns my wife and I own, along with the most popular civilian target and defensive rifles in America.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

I'm rooting for Richardson, personally.

[Mythsaje]

58. Biden's a drug warrior.

He sponsored the Rave Act.

That's all I need to know. Drug warriors don't change their stripes.

[Think82]

66. Exactly how many guns do you need?

just wondering.

[benEzra]

69. Our collection is quite small.

Exactly how many guns do you need?

just wondering.

How many books do you need? If you own seven books, is it OK with you if the Moral Majority outlaws three of them?

FWIW, our gun collection is quite small. I own a 9mm pistol (S&W Ladysmith), and so does my wife (Glock 26 with 15-round G19 magazines).

We also each own a 7.62x39mm carbine; mine is a 2002-model SAR-1, a civilian non-automatic AK lookalike, which I shoot recreationally, and am getting into competitive shooting with it (IPSC style). Hers is a historically significant Russian SKS (1952 Tula), which she likes because she's interested in Russian history, it looks good, and it doesn't kick much. I also own a couple of heavier-caliber antique bolt-actions, a 1942 Finnish M39 built on a 1905 Imperial Russian receiver, and a 1952 Polish M44, both of which are chambered for 7.62x54R (similar to .30-06, a common deer caliber).

I used to own a Ruger Ranch Rifle, but sold it and started saving my pennies for a Rock River AR-15 (have my eye on an Elite CAR A4 with a heavy target barrel, match trigger, and adjustable stock).

The thing is, the guns Mr. Biden wants to ban are the last ones I'd part with, and the same would be true for most of the gun owners I know. The antique bolt-actions would go before my SAR-1 does, and I will be royally pissed if the DLC'ers ban the AR-15 platform (the most popular centerfire target rifle in America, FWIW).



--------------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Think82]

75. Ummm....

"How many books do you need?" -- You can't kill people with books, dude. Apples and Oranges.

Listen, I'm not for banning all guns, but I think there certainly needs to be more regulation. I'm not familiar with the nuts and bolts of the issue, but I've been watching the debates and Biden is actually one of the few dems who owns a gun. He has a hunting rifle.

Is this issue really a deal-breaker for you. If gun control (or lack of it) is the main issue in this election, with all the other major problems we have (and to which I believe Biden has the best solutions, ideas, and ability ot achieve them), I think we're in trouble...

My two cents.

[benEzra]

77. Why hunting is irrelevant, and other thoughts...

"How many books do you need?" -- You can't kill people with books, dude. Apples and Oranges.

Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I'd be OK with you banning half the guns my wife and I own over a moral panic. There are a whole lot of parallels between the ban-more-guns lobby, the Moral Majority, and the now-defunct alcohol prohibition movement.

Listen, I'm not for banning all guns, but I think there certainly needs to be more regulation.

Of what, and why?

Biden's main push has been to outlaw popular civilian rifles (mostly small-caliber), and to require rifles and shotguns to have 19th-century-style straight stocks that don't adjust for length, smooth muzzle crowns, wooden handguards instead of metal, etc. That focus is irreconcilable with the fact that rifles are almost completely irrelevant to the U.S. violent crime picture:

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Twice as many people are murdered with shoes and bare hands annually as with all rifles COMBINED. The MSM would like you to believe otherwise, but rifles are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

I'm not familiar with the nuts and bolts of the issue, but I've been watching the debates and Biden is actually one of the few dems who owns a gun. He has a hunting rifle.

Biden is not "one of the few Dems who owns a gun." Nationwide, around one in four Dems owns a gun. In swing states, the percentage is far higher. Half of gun owners nationwide are Dems and indies. And a whole bunch of DU'ers are gun owners...



And guess what percentage of gun owners are hunters? One in five. Twenty percent. Eighty percent are nonhunters, many of whom own guns that Biden wishes to ban--and most hunters also own nonhunting guns. Which is why the talk-up-hunting, ban-nonhunting-guns approach (Biden's approach, FWIW) bombed so badly in '94, '00, and '04.

I get the impression that neither you nor Senator Biden understand just how radioactive a ban-nonhunting-guns stance is out here in flyover country, just as the DLC didn't in '94, '00, and '04. For example, see Alienated Rural Democrat.

Thankfully, the push for rifle bans was discarded in '06 (thank Dean's 50-state strategy for that), and Webb, Tester, and Casey turned the Senate blue by running hard on a pro-choice, anti-AWB position on guns--winning, if you haven't noticed, in hard-fought, heavily-gun-owning states, against pro-gun repubs. Ditto for a bunch of Dem state governors, including Bill Richardson (who is a handgun owner and CHL holder, FWIW), Mike Easley here in NC (who won this state 55/45 even as Kerry/Edwards lost it 45/55), Ted Strickland in Ohio, etc.

You may not like gun ownership by "little people" like my wife and I, no matter how lawful and responsible we may be, but the fact is that it exists, and trying to outlaw the most popular civilian guns in America (particularly guns that are so rarely misused) is worse than counterproductive.

And even if Iraq, the Patriot Act, and scandals have damaged the repubs enough that a pro-ban Dem could still win--what then? Dems controlled the White House and Congress in 1994, until they passed the 1994 Feinstein law--which led to the loss of at least 20 House seats (including the Speaker's) and enough Senate seats to turn both houses blue for over a decade. And the Senate wasn't won back until gun bans dropped off the radar, and it was won back in '06 by pro-gun Dems. If the party pushes gun bans again after an '08 victory, then it will be 1994 deja vu. Let's not go there.

Is this issue really a deal-breaker for you. If gun control (or lack of it) is the main issue in this election, with all the other major problems we have (and to which I believe Biden has the best solutions, ideas, and ability to achieve them), I think we're in trouble.

It doesn't HAVE to be "the main issue in this election." Simply stay the hell out of my gun safe, don't try to pass new bans on what people like me can lawfully and responsibly own, and let's focus on the issues that you say (but apparently do not believe) are more important--such issues as health care reform, climate change, Iraq, what to do with the War on Non-Approved Herbs, and the tattered state of the Fourth Amendment.

Yes, a pro-ban stance is a deal-breaker for me, but it is not necessary (or even politically desirable) for a candidate to take a pro-ban stance. IMHO, if you actually considered the gun issue to be as unimportant as you wish me to view it, then I would think you'd be content with dropping the issue or leaving it to the states, rather than pushing for new bans at the Federal level. It's the people pushing for new bans that keep making this a national issue and perpetuate the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme, which is IMHO why candidates need to drop it and move on to more meaningful issues than gun bans.


---------------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[Think82]

79. You sound like some who's bad side I do not want to get on! hehe...

"let's focus on the issues that you say (but apparently do not believe) are more important--such issues as health care reform, climate change, Iraq, what to do with the War on Non-Approved Herbs, and the tattered state of the Fourth Amendment."

Excuse me, but what kind of logic is that? How do you know what I believe? You're kind of creeping me out. I didn't say it was the main issue for the election... I was trying ot make the point that it seems to be the most important issue to YOU. If everyone thought that way, it would be a bad prioritization for the country, imho.Gun enthusiasts seem to put all othe rissues aside if they hear something they don't like on this issue.

I also meant Biden is one of the few Dem CANDIDATES who owns a gun. Not Dem people.

Obviously you are more into guns than I am. I am for stricter psychological background checks to ensure that VA Tech and Colombine become far less likely. I've heard Biden say now that you can go to a GUN SHOW and purchase a gun w/o the checks you would normally have to get. That is a loophole that is not exactly safe.

As for specific guns to ban, I have to admit that I just don't care. You get to keep some guns. I'm sure there is a rational explanation for Biden's position, as there usually is from him on every issue.

[benEzra]

83. More thoughts...

You sound like some who's bad side I do not want to get on! hehe...

LOL. I'm actually not scary at all, unless you're kicking my door in or something... :D

I'm 36, have a B.A. and some master's coursework in English, enjoy sailing and kayaking, and have never even been in a fistfight outside of martial arts classes; my screen name is from a Browning poem about Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra, via Isaac Asimov's story "Pebble in the Sky", and look like the stereotypical college professor or accountant, probably (5'6", glasses, goatee, often have my nose stuck in a book). My wife is from Cambridge, Massachusetts, grew up in Maine, also has a B.A. in English, and studies medieval history for fun. We're the parents of two kids, an 8 y.o. son and a 6 y.o. daughter. I own neither a camo outfit nor a pickup truck. I just happen to own guns, as do probably half the people in my area (eastern NC).

FWIW, shooting is Zen, not Rambo. The best shooting advice I ever received was "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast." It's 95% mental, 5% physical, like golf (I guess--except I suck at golf, so I probably am not qualified to make that comparison).

"let's focus on the issues that you say (but apparently do not believe) are more important--such issues as health care reform, climate change, Iraq, what to do with the War on Non-Approved Herbs, and the tattered state of the Fourth Amendment."

Excuse me, but what kind of logic is that? How do you know what I believe? You're kind of creeping me out. I didn't say it was the main issue for the election... I was trying ot make the point that it seems to be the most important issue to YOU. If everyone thought that way, it would be a bad prioritization for the country, imho.Gun enthusiasts seem to put all othe rissues aside if they hear something they don't like on this issue.

There are a number of deal-breakers for me. A strongly stated intent to push for new gun bans is one of them.

My point was this--it is the people who wish to see bans enacted at the national level that make this an issue year after year, not those who oppose such bans.

Over half the U.S. population drinks socially, yet you don't see drinkers voting the alcohol issue. It's not because support for bringing back alcohol controls wouldn't be a dealbreaker, but because no candidate, teetotaler or not, is seriously proposing to do so. However, should a candidate arise who promises to ban all alcoholic beverages over 10% alcohol content, to outlaw beer and wine based on the shape of the bottle they come in (since beverages in tall, dark-colored bottles "have no nutritional purpose"), and who calls champagne "the beverage of choice of rapists and drunk drivers," I dare say you'd have millions of people for whom such a stance would be a deal-breaker.

It's no different for gun owners, except that the issue is guns, not alcohol. Drop the ban proposals, and the issue goes away, just like the controversy over alcohol prohibition did.

I also meant Biden is one of the few Dem CANDIDATES who owns a gun. Not Dem people.

AFAIK, every Dem presidential nominee since Dukakis has owned hunting weapons. AFAIK, all of the current candidates either have hunting weapons in their home, or are on record as supporting the right to own hunting weapons. Sarah Brady herself purchased a hunting rifle for her son a few years ago. That doesn't change the fact that owning a hunting rifle is irrelevant to the gun issue, considering that only a tiny percentage of the population both (1) hunts and (2) owns only hunting guns, as the Gore and Kerry campaigns found out belatedly and the hard way.

I've heard Biden say now that you can go to a GUN SHOW and purchase a gun w/o the checks you would normally have to get. That is a loophole that is not exactly safe.

All gun dealers are required to conduct a background check regardless of location, but in many states, private individuals can sell a used gun to any other private individual who is legally allowed to own a gun (i.e., I can buy a rifle from my father or a coworker without submitting to an NICS check). This is true everywhere in such states, not just at gun shows, although some private sales do occur at such venues. I bought my antique M44 from a collector at a gun show, as a matter of fact.

Here in NC, a background check is required on all handgun sales (regardless of location, private transactions included), but not long guns.

Depending on how it was set up, I could be OK with extending background checks to cover private sales.

My big problem with Biden's approach as I understand it is his support for new rifle/shotgun bans and pre-1861 magazine capacity restrictions, and his perceived hostility to owners of nonhunting-style guns, rather than the background check issue.

I'm sure there is a rational explanation for Biden's position, as there usually is from him on every issue.

Given the information Mr. Biden has been given, I'm sure that a rifle ban makes perfect sense to him. However, it seems that he has been led to believe that small-caliber rifles are a serious crime problem and that most legitimate gun owners own hunting guns, when in fact rifles are very rarely misused, and the most popular civilian firearms in America are those he has advocated banning.

I don't fault him for not being a gun enthusiast, if that's not his thing. I do fault him for uncritically accepting the errors of fact upon which his position is based.

[Think82]

87. Ok, cool. Good talk.

Just curious... do you have a candidate yet?

[benEzra]

89. Richardson. (n/t)

[lojasmo]

12. You're a republican through and through. And yes...

Clinton is your candidate.

[Capn Sunshine]

92. You beat me to it!

Voted for Bush in '04? Does that Porsche have a lot of wind noise ? So you can't hear any actual news except Fox's take on the "leftwing attacks " on Bush?
Do you see how you were manipulated? ANYONE who questioned Bush was leftwing.

Well here we are. You going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

[LuvMyPorsche]

14. Oh and something else...

The Republican party has been feeding us this "fear the DEMS" because of taxes line for decades right?

Well when you look at DEM tax proposals guess what, I'd be better off with DEM taxes and so would the entire country! If you make less than 250-300k/yr... don't fear the DEMS.

[liberaldemocrat7]

62. The Republiklan party has a motto:

Cut the budget for the middle class and poor. Caviar and Porsches for us.

You look like a Republican who saw their party explode in the 2006 elections and now want to switch to the other side.

You'll possibly wait until the Republiklan party gets strong and switch back.

I cannot say I have sympathy for you. You voted for Reagan twice, and GW Bush twice, and Perot.

I want everyone to have the opportunity to get wealthy but the Republiklan party does not really believe in free markets. They believe in rigged markets and rigged elections. Oh and their cheap labor employers make sure that not everyone can get wealthy, not at $5.15 an hour wages and yes, millions of adults appear stuck in their jobs despite attempts to get a better job.


Welcome to DU :)

[LuvMyPorsche]

15. Also...

one of the STRAWS that broke the back was

BUSH's VETO of the SCHIPS bill... he can spend 500BILLION in 3+ years in Iraq but can't pony up 7 BILLION per year so some middle class kids can have health insurance?

That's wrong. That's not my party.

[Burma Jones]

17. No, that IS the GOP - always has been

[Burma Jones]

16. You're a Republican

Just not a particularly stupid one. Although, if you think the Republican Party hasn't always been the corporate stooge party (except for TR perhaps - and he QUIT the GOP), then you're dreaming..... Oh Yeah, and Lincoln...

As far as the gun issue, I could say the same thing about guns you say about gays...I really don't care, but people have the right to guns. I do like to shoot though and also believe that gun ownership should have the same level of government oversight as driving does. I grew up with guns and they don't bother nor do they fascinate me. If you shoot one of my loved ones though, even accidentally, I will squeeze all of your assets out of you and use them to utterly destroy you and your family.

I would like to see enough actual specific instances of reverse discrimination to at least make a small dent in the damage done by institutionalized racism. All the cries of "reverse discrimination" with which I am familiar have amounted to little more than a loser's anguished wail.

By the way, a war on Terror is like a War on Hunger, or Poverty or Drugs - a war in name only. I mean, it's not as though we were Allies with Terror prior to 2001........

[LuvMyPorsche]

20. thanks

I think (scratches head) :)

Maybe I just didn't notice or CARE in the past years but now that we have Exxon and their record profits during a time of "War"... and families emptying the piggy-bank just to drive to work...
And other crooked corps have just made it more obvious nowadays.

Guns... just a soft spot with me. In fact... not only am I PRO- gun show restrictions, I'm actually PRO- full registration. I have nothing to hide, just don't tell me which guns I may or may not purchase. Don't restrict my ammo purchases and don't tell me that a gun with a bayonet mount is "evil".

Reverse discrimination. It's hard to put a finger on. But here's one example... have you noticed lately on TV there's MANY commercials showing the minority person "schooling" the stupid white person? It's a feeling I get from the MSM... and elsewhere. And frankly the NAACP is a charitable organization but the NAAWP (if there was such thing) would be the "Klan"... that's "equal"?

[Burma Jones]

22. Sorry, I don't think you're at all stupid........

I agree with you that the MSM is having a lot of laughs at the White Man's expense, but, it that wasn't selling Toyotas, Insurance Policies, Bank Accounts or Toasters, then it wouldn't air. I think part of it is that they're making fun of stupid white people, so that not only "successful" white folks like you and me but also non-white folks, can feel superior to this dumb-ass.....kinda how The Simpsons use Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel......

I am married to a Jew and I did catch some shit from one of her cousins about it and I said, "you know, when my "people" speak up against inter-marriage, we're called Klansmen." And, really, the Republican party IS the NAAWP......

[liberaldemocrat7]

70. The RepubliKLAN party

.

[Labors of Hercules]

18. So you helped elect and keep the worst administration in history...

because a Democratic president signed a bipartison law that meant you were no longer allowed to carry an Uzi?

Having lost my closest friend, (who I would have married had she not been "accidentally" killed by a man wielding an automatic AK-47), I don't understand how you could get pissed because you don't have a constitutional right to carry an automatic weapon. Far less make such monumentally bad electoral decisions on behalf of our society because legislation was passed that clarified that fact.

Forgive me if I appear less than sympathetic, but to make the world a better place, sometimes it means choosing not to invest in things that cause harm individually, and sometimes as a society.

And as far as who to vote for, ask yourself whether destroying your right to privacy, destroying The Nation of Iraq, destroying the environment, destroying the REAL freedoms we are guaranteed by the constitution... Ask yourself if all this destruction is offset by anything that we have gained as a nation over the past 7 years. If you answer "no way in hell", then work for a different agenda however you can, and vote for people who support those things that are highest priorities for the good of all. It's just that simple.

[Mythsaje]

26. Where did the poster ever suggest

he believed he had the right to carry an automatic weapon?

[saracat]

31. Here"imported assault weapons" read below.

"Then a funny thing happened. Bill Clinton was elected. My business was fine, I was happy... but my #1 hobby in the early 1990's was firearms. In fact I collected rare guns including imported assault weapons. Clinton signs the Assault Gun Ban and to me "the fight was on" It was the most direct attack on my life by an all powerful Federal Government. And then with the Clinton admin missteps, Elian Gonzalez, Waco, etc... I was HARDCORE p'ed off at the DEMS. "

[Mythsaje]

41. Which has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons...

Automatic weapons have been illegal here for decades. What they call "assault weapons" are semi-automatic weapons with a military "look."

And being a collector IS a bit different than wanting to carry them around.

[Labors of Hercules]

44. Right.

So having the ability to legally "collect" semi-automatic assault weapons that can kill multiple people in a second makes it all good... Plus of course, it is completely unreasonable that anyone would convert a semi-aut AK-47 to automatic fire if they legally owned one. :sarcasm:

I draw the line at guns. Think what you want, but it is in everyone's best interest that no-one should have the power to kill so easily. 200 years ago, perhaps owning and using a gun was a neccessity, but that argument just doesn't hold water any more... But, well, it's in the Bill of Rights, so it must be maintained as unassailable a right as free speach or religion, right?

[benEzra]

49. "Kill multiple people in a second?" No.

So having the ability to legally "collect" semi-automatic assault weapons that can kill multiple people in a second makes it all good.

We are talking about small-caliber civilian carbines with modern styling, that don't fire ANY faster than a traditional civilian autoloader or an ordinary pistol. Pull the trigger, the gun fires once and only once, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.

The AR-15 is the most popular civilian centerfire target rifle in the United States, and the SKS is the most popular centerfire rifle in U.S. homes, bar none.

If your friend was killed with an automatic weapon (in the U.S.?), it wasn't because they aren't as tightly controlled as heroin here. That doesn't do anything to ease the pain of your loss, but banning protruding handgrips or adjustable length stocks on civilian rifles won't do anything to mitigate U.S. gun violence.

Plus of course, it is completely unreasonable that anyone would convert a semi-aut AK-47 to automatic fire if they legally owned one. :sarcasm:

Under Federal law, any gun that is easily converted to a machinegun is considered to BE a machinegun under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, even if not actually converted.

Civilian AK lookalikes are as difficult to convert to automatic fire as a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle, or any other civilian autoloader, as they are required to be by Federal law. A skilled machinist with a machine shop could do it, given time, but he/she could also make automatic weapons from scratch, and such conversions are quite rare and tend to make national news when they do occur (even if not used in a homicide). Automatic weapons can also be imported from Central America, disguised as routine cocaine shipments, but I don't think that's common either.

FWIW, I own a civilian, non-automatic AK-47 lookalike (SAR-1), which I shoot recreationally and competitively; it is also legal for deer hunting here in North Carolina with a 5-round magazine, and it makes a fine defensive carbine. It fires the same ammunition, at the same rate of fire, as a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle; it is not an automatic weapon.

I do sympathize with your loss, and I understand where you're coming from. But trying to ban the guns owned by my wife and I won't do anything whatsoever to reduce U.S. gun violence, which rarely involves rifles of any description anyway. In 2006, more than twice as many people were murdered using shoes and bare hands as were murdered using all rifles combined.

[TransitJohn]

63. Ah...facts.

Thanks!

[Mythsaje]

56. There are some people against whom a gun is the only defense

other people have. You'd rather they be the victim of such people than be able to defend themselves?

Nice.

[appal_jack]

88. right.

I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers exercised quite a bit of wisdom and foresight when drafting the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment included. Just as the 1st Amendment has stood the test of time, and can be reasonably applied to web presses and the internet, the 2nd (as interpreted for the last 70+ years) applies to sub-.51 caliber, non-select-fire firearms.

Let me guess something about you Hercules: you live in a city. Let me tell you something about myself: I live in a rural area. It's a nice place here, with many wonderful neighbors, but there are a few meth-heads, crooks, and schemers around as well. The nearest law enforcement is often more than 45 minutes away from me, and I am often 20 minutes away from even getting a cell phone signal to call them if I should need their assistance. So, yes, I sometimes feel the need for personal protection. Other times, I like to target shoot, for relaxation & fun.

In other words, you and I both have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. You choosing to not exercise that right does not bother me one bit. You can not-buy all the guns you (don't) want. I choose to exercise that right, and would appreciate you refraining from interfering with me doing so.

And as to the OP: welcome to DU LuvMyPorsche! I think that the discussion on this thread will show you that we Democrats are a varied and interesting bunch, who (hopefully) share enough fertile common ground to do some good in the policy sphere. While I agree with you about the mistake that Clinton made in signing the AWB, he still got my votes back in the '90's, but I sure would hate to see a gun-grabber get the nomination this round.

-app

EDITED to change sub-.50 to sub-.51.:blush:

[CAG]

19. Notice how the responses here are largely reasonable, appreciative

and understanding?? Now try to post this in freeperland, or email Rushbo or Coulter and see the venom you receive, you traitorous liberal america-hater you ;)

[Stop Cornyn]

21. You sound like my brother. He's a Republican who's supporting Richardson this time around

Richardson is the most pro-"free"-trade of all the Democratic candidates, the most pro-death-penalty of all the Democratic candidates, and the most pro-NRA/pro-gun of all the candidates in either party.

On foreign policy, you'd probably like Biden or Hillary.

[Totally Committed]

27. Yes, by all means, Hillary sounds perfect for you. She'll LuvYourPorsche as much as you do,

govern ALMOST as to the Right as GWB. And, she'll probably make sure that your lifestyle won't change hardly at all. Some of us here even question that (D) after her name, because of the "DLC" in her resume. (They are the just paler than Bushies wing of the Democratic Party, and she is an officer of that group.)

She will, however, be different in a way that will be sort of harring to you: She speaks in actual sentences, and rarely, if ever, makes up a word. Once you get used to that, you should be in deep clover.

Condratualions, I think you've got your candidate!

TC

[Pyrzqxgl]

28. For the life of me I can't see why you (me included) are taking such time with this gun nut!

It seems to me that we don't need any more people in our party who's going to drift off to the Repubs
and when he does vote with us only vote for those people we on the left only tolerate. Go vote for Ron
Paul or Duncan Hunter or some other Repub who doesn't stand a chance. Those who bring our party down
deserve to have their vote wasted.

[benEzra]

35. Should the rest of us "gun nuts," as you term us, leave also?

For the life of me I can't see why you (me included) are taking such time with this gun nut!

It seems to me that we don't need any more people in our party who's going to drift off to the Repubs
and when he does vote with us only vote for those people we on the left only tolerate. Go vote for Ron
Paul or Duncan Hunter or some other Repub who doesn't stand a chance. Those who bring our party down
deserve to have their vote wasted.

Should the rest of us "gun nuts," as you term us, leave also?



Half of all gun owners in the U.S. are Dems and indies, and nearly one in four Dems personally owns a gun. We'd like to keep them, if it's OK with you.

[LuvMyPorsche]

37. just fyi...

I collected LEGAL guns and kept most in secured cases just for collectors value. I had a valid CCW permit but never carried anything more than a Glock 10mm...

I'm "hardly" Ruby Ridge material...

[youthere]

45. Excuse me, but there are plenty of "gun nuts" here on DU..myself included.

[ShadowLiberal]

29. Interesting mix

I don't have the time to count and add up dem/rep positions you stated, but it sounds like you're a moderate/independent who slightly leans to the dems. Which would probably mean that a moderate candidate would probably suit you best as the next president.

I can see why Hillary would look like an attractive candidate to you, most of the stuff you list matches up pretty close, or somewhat close at least, to what Hillary would probably do. The other two top tier democrats are both farther to the left. I wouldn't worry about gun legislation too much, that's not much of an issue anymore on the federal level. On a lot of at home policies Rudy seems to generally agree with you, but on foreign policies I agree Rudy sounds like he'll be just another Bush invading countries like Iran for stupid reasons and making everyone hate us.

[ShadowLiberal]

32. Use this site to rank your political philosophy

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/

Forgot, use this site to get an accurate ranking of your political philosophy, it's the most detailed one of these sites I've ever seen, but make sure you click on each of the issues and read what each stance means, because some of them can be very misleading by their title. That site ranks me a moderate liberal.

[mark414]

30. www.politicalcompass.org

[LuvMyPorsche]

34. Cool test!

Apparently I'm officially a

LEFT LEANING LIBERTARIAN

:D

[benEzra]

36. Me too. (n/t)

[Mythsaje]

42. Yeah, me too...n/t

[Labors of Hercules]

47. me three! smack on top of Ghandi!

*sigh of relief* :woohoo:

[LuvMyPorsche]

38. And

let me add...

I'm VERY, VERY, VERY concerned about the new Master of the Republican party (cue the Darth Vader music) James Dobson...

EDIT: on second thought... Dobson would be more like Emperor Palpatine with Cheney as his Vader. And BUSH is JarJar Binks?

He's a knuckle dragging Neanderthal who's now threatening the Republican party because it's not "Pure" enough for him... If the Republican Party has truly become such a small tent party represented by "Focus on the Family" types... I'm


Not Interested.

[LuvMyPorsche]

39. Some quotes

from Hillary today:

"Anybody who tells you the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, just roll your eyes," Clinton said to laughter from an audience gathered at City Hall in Iowa's second largest city.

She said her father taught her about debt and the importance of a balanced budget, and she promised to take those values with her to the White House.

"I ask whether our middle class is expanding and getting ahead," she said. "Are we on the road to a more prosperous middle class or not? The administration has failed that test. My administration will not."



:thumbsup:

[liberaldemocrat7]

64. Republicans only mean fiscal responsibility for social programs

and not the military or pet projects in Repuiblican's districts.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. Sorry, you lost me at abortion

Abortion is immoral and irresponsible*, but you're willing to allow it in the Blue states?

If you think it's a matter that should be left to the states, then are you saying that a woman in Mississippi should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term while a woman in California can do what she wants? How is that fair?


If you think abortion is immoral and/or irresponsible, then why did you (twice!) vote for an administration that is hostile toward comprehensive sex ed and contraception? Global gag rules, abstinence only sex ed, and allowing pharmacists to refuse birth control have led to MORE unwanted pregnancies, and MORE abortions. Are you really against abortion, or just against women having options?





(*On whose part? The woman's alone, or of both persons who contributed to the pregnancy? And if you think it's the woman seeking an abortion who is immoral and/or irresponsible, then why do you want her be a mother?)

[LuvMyPorsche]

43. sorry....

there's just no right answer in this topic. I think it's WRONG to abort a child (especially 2-3tri) and it's wrong for the irresponsible parents, it's WRONG to make laws regarding it...

It should NOT be illegal but it's still reproachable. Few would disagree and I feel the Fed Gov't has to get OUT of the legislating abortion business.

[youthere]

46. I think you've bought into more RW bull...

All 3rd trimester abortions are medically necessary. It's not an elective procedure and, IT NEVER WAS.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. Oh but don't you know there are immoral irresponsible harlots lining up for it?

And doctors eager to perform those 3rd trimester abortions on them so they can fit into their prom dresses? :sarcasm:


Sadly, there are so-called 'progressives' here on DU who believe the same thing.

[Mythsaje]

57. Safe, legal, and rare.

It's possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion.

[iverglas]

86. safe, legal and NONE OF MY BUSINESS

That is the only position for a decent person to take.

Anyone who finds it necessary to yammer on about how nasty abortion is and how nasty women who have abortions are, before finally getting around to saying that it should not be illegal ... er, at least in jurisdictions that decide not to outlaw it ... is a friend that women don't need.

Now if someone happens to want to say that the choice in question is one that many women would rather not have to make -- that many women would rather not have to choose between continuing an unwanted pregnancy and terminating an unwanted pregnancy -- and that they support measures to help women stay out of that situation, that's all fine and dandy. Let them say that they oppose laws restricting access to abortion, AND support public policies that assist women to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

That would be being a friend women could actually use.

But let them all shut the fuck up about their opinions about women whom they don't know, and what those women whom they don't know choose to do when it comes to their own bodies and lives.

Heart transplants. Safe, legal and rare, please.

Imagine what someone on the organ transplant waiting list would say to that.

[Mythsaje]

94. It would be great if heart transplants were safe, legal, and rare.

If it meant that they were, for the most part, unnecessary.

[Catherine Vincent]

50. Are you trolling? n/t

[AnotherGreenWorld]

84. He does have that odd writing style common to Freepers and third graders.

[PatSeg]

53. Fascinating and honest post!

It reminds me that there are a lot of people out there like you, who are don't fit into any particular category. It was hard to imagine you voting for GWB twice, as you seem to be very open minded, but you explained your position honestly.

I do think that Joe Biden IS "the closest match to my profile" in most respects, but you should examine each candidate thoroughly and come to your own conclusions.

[LuvMyPorsche]

54. thank you n/t

[PatSeg]

60. You're welcome

Hang around, it is nice to get a fresh perspective!

[Armstead]

55. Howard Dean

Unfortunately, he's not running.

But you sound like an economic liberal and a social libertarian. Dean seems like he'd be the closest to your mix on issues, including gun control.

As far as healthcare, the only one currently running who has any clarity is Dennis Kucinich. He's also the only truth teller in terms of economic issues. From the economic standpoint, he best represents your interests....But you disagree on foreign policy and defense and criminal justice.

Edwards speech does seem a little prefabricated, but if you assume he means it, he's probably also closest to you on many issues.

Obama is no less experienced than otehr candidates, if you figure in his life expderiences and his legislative and community organizing background.

What has Hilary really done besides marry Bill and serve one term as Senator, before running off to campaign? She's a corporatist, and is only liberal on the issues you are libertarian about.

Maybe you should go for Joe Biden. If he's closest to your own self-assessment on issues, that's what really matters.

[Think82]

65. Vote for Biden. You're not wrong.

He is the best candidate by far in my mind, and I think more investigation and watching debate will only further solidify your position.

[gateley]

67. What a thoughtful, intelligent person you are. I'm impressed and inspired

by your ability and willingness to search for "your truth".

We want what you want, so hang around!

I luv your Porsche, too! :7

Edited to remove a really catty remark about Porsches with automatic transmissions. Don't hate me!

[PatSeg]

68. I would start with the video of him speaking to the AAJ

After watching it, I think an undecided could decide whether to explore Biden's policies and experience further.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x60841

[LuvMyPorsche]

71. I can't

I can't disagree with 95% of what he said...

[LuvMyPorsche]

73. Oh

and to add:

I'm pro-border control. I live in Ca and have seen the destruction brought on our local economy.

The LA Times did an article analyzing the "costs" of illegal aliens in LA county alone and it came to $100,000,000 in 2006.

Who could argue that the lower costs of Tomatoes and Strawberries compensates? I don't think so.

Also, imho... I've seen LA county "African Americans" being pushed out of traditionally "African American" areas en masse. Many agree that the "Brown Wave" has hit the "African American" communities hardest.

I want controlled work permits and legal immigration.

I grew up in SoCal in the 80's and this USED to be the "model" education system in the US...

It's not racist, it's realist.

[lyonn]

78. Enjoyed your post, your analysis of your years of voting

is slightly like mine. Thought I was more Dem than Repub, but the Dems failed to convince me they were sincere. So much for my ability to see through the repub BS. After Reagan and Bush I there was no way I'd vote repub again. Biden is my choice, just wish he had better polling numbers.

I grew up in Calif. a million years ago and there is no doubt that they had a very good public school system. Left there before I had kids in school so don't know if they continued to be the best. Suspect immigration has hurt the system by now. After living in Okla. most of my adult life, have realized the school system is lacking but not the worst. Teachers are paid a pitiful wage here. Dems lean heavily in the direction of funding education and security. Clinton had a very good FEMA Director. Katrina victims could have used a real FEMA Director, one who knew about disaster.. Any Dem Pres. is concerned about the welfare of the coutry (roads, polution, etc.). Clinton put more police on the streets and Rudy seems to have taken the glory for making NYC safer. Hell, he got help from the Fed. Govt.

And yes, Calif seems to have way too many illegals to support. After visiting there several times in the past couple years it was awesome. How can any State support that many extra people? I suspected the African American communities have really had their share of illegal problems. Gangs and all....?

[PatSeg]

80. That is such a touchy area

and I become frustrated with people on both sides of the argument. There are no easy solutions. I am all for immigration, but not on such a large, disorganized scale. It ends of overwhelming the schools, health care facilities, and even the prisons. It isn't "where" people come from or the color of their skin. It is whether a society can effectively absorb so many people in such a short period of time.

I've seen it up close and connected with some of my immigrant neighbors, but without some structure, it brought a lot crime, gangs, and drug dealers to the neighborhood I lived in. I had some Mexican neighbors who moved out because of it, so it has nothing to do with their origin. Decent family people don't want their children exposed to gangs and drugs, regardless of their nationality.

It is sad that its come to this, but the problem is not going to just disappear. Hopefully there is a compassionate, but realistic answer.

[PatSeg]

81. There is about where I stand as well

He instills a lot of confidence in me that he could handle problems that many could not. I know I couldn't and can't imagine anyone even wanting to.

[Think82]

82. "can't disagree with 95%"...

This is a very apt quote. I think it brings up an interesting point about politics and the election in a broad sense:

remember... Biden SAYS more than all the other candidates, imo from watching the candidates on TV and in the debates....

So.. would you rather "not disagree 100%" with a front-runner who sidesteps giving real, honest answers to 80% of the questions asked of him or her, or "not disagree 95%" with someone who talks honestly, intelligently, and candidly on ALL issues.

Epiphany, anyone?

[Think82]

76. Everyone should watch this one too... it's great and brief

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OhPG7mk8yQ&mode=user&search=

[jillan]

72. You should definitely stick with the web-test results.

http://www.joebiden.com/home

Spend some time checking him out. Biden is a straight shooter with alot of great experience, especially in foreign affairs. He has alot of great ideas to move us forward.

If you are looking for honest and proven leadership - Biden is your man.

[LuvMyPorsche]

93. hmmmm....

I'm actually really impressed with the dialogue we're having.

Except for the guy who said I write like a "freeper or a third grader".

I'm curious what the input would have been if I posted this at free republic.

I'm open for change. I'll give a DEM a chance. Because frankly it'd be hard for them to screw it up worse... unless we see double digit inflation or double digit interest rates... But in todays political climate, I think Clinton would govern from the middle... adding in some left wing "red meat" like Health Care, etc... but HEY! I'm part of the middle class so I'll give her a shot and see what she can do. I think that she's smart enough (and I know she's smart enough) to keep her hands off guns and stay tough on people who threaten our nat'l security. I'm open to some economic liberal policy as long as she doesn't go crazy...

[Semper_FiFi]

95. I don't know whom you should vote for---but which Porsche model do you own?

I have a Carrera and I love it.

[LuvMyPorsche]

97. Two actually

an 06 Cayenne S and I JUST picked up an 07 Cayman S last month. Black/Black with 22" TechArt wheels on the Cayenne S and Yellow/Black with the 19" Turbo wheels on the Cayman S. I wanted a new Carrera 4 but without middle class tax cuts I just can't hack it, lol.