Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59

Thread: Thinking about partisan statements

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    I've only been on here for a couple of weeks, and I have a question that I'd like to open to the group. I see a lot of partisan statements here, such as __________ has always been a little too far to the left or leftist gun nazis, etc. Honestly, my own father has called me a pinko commie for years because I believe in the Constitution as a whole. I personally believe that all of those rights expressed in the Bill of Rights are important to our country and to our freedom. I know from talking with many of you that you feel the same way. Recent cases here on this board have shown us the value of other amendments like the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment, so I think that most of us are well aware of the necessity of understanding and knowing our rights. However, in my own experience, when I have defended something like the first amendment (not here, necessarily, but just in general), I have been met with comments similar to those of my father. It has been proposed that I care more about freedom of speech than about the safety of our country or some other nonsense, which is completely untrue.

    So, while I consider myself a Constitutional Libertarian, and not a pinko commie like my dad thinks, I wonder if we are doing ourselves any favors by presenting our ideas in partisan terms. Granted, this is a haven of free expression (as long as you can take the heat in some of these threads), and I applaud that. But I think that this is no longer a partisan issue, as the NRA has made it out to be. This is an issue of civil liberties, which goes well beyond any partisan views that one might hold.

    Of course, this is my opinion, and I hope that you will share yours, too. I'm curious what all of you think about this.

  2. #2
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    scarlett1125 wrote:
    my own father has called me a pinko commie for years because I believe in the Constitution as a whole.
    {boggle}

    I'd love to understand the logic (or illogic) behind that.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    scarlett1125 wrote:
    my own father has called me a pinko commie for years because I believe in the Constitution as a whole.
    {boggle}

    I'd love to understand the logic (or illogic) behind that.
    It does pretty much seem off the wall. I though pinko commies wanted to get rid of the Constitution, not follow all or any of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    I think my dad was referring to the fact that I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression for all--not just for the people who agree with my sentiments. He's a southern boy--old school. Let's just say he's not all that liberated, but I still love him. However, my family has never understood me or my liberal thoughts on things. I found that, the more education I got, the further the divide became between my family and me, which is sad, but it's a common theme that I've heard from others who were first to get a degree in their families, too.

    But no one has answered my question yet, so I'm sad. :X

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    scarlett1125 wrote:
    I think my dad was referring to the fact that I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression for all--not just for the people who agree with my sentiments. He's a southern boy--old school. Let's just say he's not all that liberated, but I still love him. However, my family has never understood me or my liberal thoughts on things. I found that, the more education I got, the further the divide became between my family and me, which is sad, but it's a common theme that I've heard from others who were first to get a degree in their families, too.

    But no one has answered my question yet, so I'm sad. :X
    You get to pick your friends, but your family is chosen for you.

    I can't answer your question becauselike your dad have my own set of biases and I can't or won't changethose atthis late date. Granted I'm not near asoff centeras your dad. I would never call one of my kids a pinko anything. I hate to say it but you need to address your question to the Liberals as well or even more so, because if anything they make Conservatives lookvery unbiased. Look at the Governors latest ads. Only once during the whole ad do they mention her name and never anything she has accomplished. Its all Rossi is this and Rossi is that and did this............ It is a sign of what our society has become and I do agree, it's not pretty. The only thing that will change it is a revolution and IMHO there are too many sheeple for that to ever happen, unfortunately.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    scarlett1125 wrote:
    But no one has answered my question yet, so I'm sad. :X
    I re-read your original post and still don't see a question, just a statement.

    Name-calling and insults don't help any debate and reminds me of third grade. Last one to say an insult is the winner.

    Categorizing people without insulting (non-partisan statements) can be useful at times but may also keep you from seeing them as individuals who may have arrived at their similar positions for entirely different reasons.



    Bruce



  7. #7
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Scarlett, I think that one of the problems is that both political parties want us to take the "package deal" that their platform represents. Both parties hope that you will be so motivated by a single issue (religion, taxes, whatever) that you'll put up with whatever the party platform calls for in order get support (you hope) on your own "hot button" issue. Hence, the calls to "vote the party". Combine this with a weak explanation of one's position or an inconsistent position and things can erode quickly into personal attacks.

    I think that years ago (I'm 67) there was more acceptance of the constitution as a package deal rather than a buffet. The above paragraph explains why, at least in part. Of course, when I was young I never heard of a "Living Constitution" just The Constitution.

    I don't agree that the NRA is making a partisan issue out of our gun rights. They recommend the candidate with the better record on guns; if these turn out to be Republicans, whose fault is that? By the same token, if Republicans can't represent conservative values, which I have, whose fault is that?

    Of course, there's also the problem of definitions. Ask what a Republican is and you'll get as many answers as people that you asked. Same with Democrats. Or, just for fun, try defining liberal or conservative. As an example using people, if Zell Miller(D), were running against Dodd(R), of Rhode Island I would vote for Miller on what I know of his values over Dodd's, even though it's contrary to labeling.

    I've rambled on quite a bit but you what? That's one of the problems too. For the sake of brevity, most of us use catch-phrases when we should spell things out in more detail. I'm as guilty of this as anybody and the result is the same; misunderstanding.

    MD


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    King Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    I will admit there are some Democrat lawmakers who are among the best defenders of Second-Amendment rights around. And there are some Republicans who are among the worst. However, you're going to find many more Republican than Democrat candidates who support your right to own guns and to defend yourself if needed. And I say this as someone who is not enormously happy with the Republicans these days.

    I have to confess I used to think socialism was compassionate, the ACLU supported the whole bill of rights for every person, and a few more restrictive gun laws would be a good idea. I got called a commie-pinko by conservative friends on occasion and managed to take it good-naturedly. Frankly, I now think my previous point of view deserved a little ridicule. But that's just me.

    I guess my main recommendation is this: take a weekend and read Orwell's Animal Farm. it gives a good picture of how a politican can spout compassionate words and do treacherous deeds. It's an easy read, but a very sad one.

    What's it have to do with guns? This: Most of the politically-correct people, the compassionate ones, the ones characterized (maybe unfairly) as commie-pinkos see relieving you of your guns as one of their compassionate goals.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    scarlett1125 wrote:
    But I think that this is no longer a partisan issue, as the NRA has made it out to be.
    Now this is the kind of statement that suggests that in fact you are spouting the party line rather than interested in actual debate. It simply isn't true but it is a Democratic Party talking point. The NRA actively supports and endorses any legislator who supports the Second Amendment and firearms ownership. There is no requirement that you have an R next to your name. As previously stated, the majority of legislators who actually support the Second Amendment (as opposed to giving it lip service around election time) are Republicans. Therefore the NRA will be supporting more R candidates. This does not mean that they have made this into a partisan issue, but that one party doesn't believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Some great comments in the thread. I agree with Machoduck as to the "package deal" issue. There are matters about which I agree more with the (D) position and some with the (R). There are more matters about which I agree with the (R) generally and the (R) and voting records show that, in general, the (R)s are more supportive of our 2A rights. The (D) presidential candidate is even on record as voting against using a firearm for legitimate SD as being an affirmative defense against violating discharge of firearms ordinances. One would be hard pressed to find a more anti-2A and "cafeteria" approach to the constitution than him. But that doesn't mean that the (R)s are by any stretch of the imagination without sin in infringing on constitutional rights.

    I think that the data bears out that the normal curve is at work here. People in the middle 68% +/- politically are generally close enough on issues to find consensus on most things. It is the extreme on either side who are problematic for those of us who just want to live our lives and be left the hell alone by the government.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    Scarlett, I think that one of the problems is that both political parties want us to take the "package deal" that their platform represents. Both parties hope that you will be so motivated by a single issue (religion, taxes, whatever) that you'll put up with whatever the party platform calls for in order get support (you hope) on your own "hot button" issue. Hence, the calls to "vote the party". Combine this with a weak explanation of one's position or an inconsistent position and things can erode quickly into personal attacks.

    I think that years ago (I'm 67) there was more acceptance of the constitution as a package deal rather than a buffet. The above paragraph explains why, at least in part. Of course, when I was young I never heard of a "Living Constitution" just The Constitution.

    I don't agree that the NRA is making a partisan issue out of our gun rights. They recommend the candidate with the better record on guns; if these turn out to be Republicans, whose fault is that? By the same token, if Republicans can't represent conservative values, which I have, whose fault is that?

    Of course, there's also the problem of definitions. Ask what a Republican is and you'll get as many answers as people that you asked. Same with Democrats. Or, just for fun, try defining liberal or conservative. As an example using people, if Zell Miller(D), were running against Dodd(R), of Rhode Island I would vote for Miller on what I know of his values over Dodd's, even though it's contrary to labeling.

    I've rambled on quite a bit but you what? That's one of the problems too. For the sake of brevity, most of us use catch-phrases when we should spell things out in more detail. I'm as guilty of this as anybody and the result is the same; misunderstanding.

    MD
    I'd have to agree with you. I think that it's more a matter of making things easier. We can use a label rather than explaining things--a result of our "microwave society," in my opinion. While I do think that the NRA is seen as a republican entity in many ways, I understanding your logic, too. It's another example, I suppose, of categorizing people. It's unfortunate that most people no longer have any understanding of the Constitution or why the founders added the Bill of Rights, and I think that that is, in large part, much of the problem that we face as a nation. But I am concerned that when those of us who do have a better understanding reduce our statements to partisan rhetoric, we end up making the problem worse.

    Thanks for your reply!

  12. #12
    Guest

    Post imported post

    The Dems aren't even running on a gunrights platform as far as I know though there are some on the right that will try and convience otherwise, including the NRA.I always thought this was really a dumb issue cause the NRA acts as most Republicans as if the Republicans are the only ones that enjoy hunting and shooting sports. I know a ton of people who either quit contributing to the coffers of the NRA folks or who never have for the sole reason that the NRA is just to Political. Look it, the NRA is nothing more than a business who watches out for their bottom line just like other corporations e.g. GM, GE etc. In my life I have voted on both sides of the fence. I tend to vote on issues that directly effect our country and myself when the election cycle comes around and I will be damned if I am going to let some Special Interest Lobby Group e.g. NRA tell me who I should vote for. Do you think the NRA cares if your house goes into Foreclosure, probably not... These are only my thoughts and I am sticking to them...

    Dave

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Dukester wrote:
    Do you think the NRA cares if your house goes into Foreclosure, probably not... These are only my thoughts and I am sticking to them...
    Off topic: I suppose you agree withthe senate takeing $300,000,000,000.00 US Tax Payer dollars to bail out all these people who bought homes above their income with variable rate mortgages?

    Makes me sick... And wish I had bought a huge freaking house a year ago so other people could pay for it...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    The NRA has thrown awayuntold millions of dollars playing politics and compromising our rights away. The NRA isnot onlynot defending our gun rights but are actively selling out gun owners and those you defend those right. Late year they actively campaigned for the denial ofveterans gun rights if the veteran has recieve mental health care. Way to support those that have given of themselves to defend this country, NRA traitors.:X

  15. #15
    Guest

    Post imported post

    David.Car wrote:
    Dukester wrote:
    Do you think the NRA cares if your house goes into Foreclosure, probably not... These are only my thoughts and I am sticking to them...
    Off topic: I suppose you agree withthe senate takeing $300,000,000,000.00 US Tax Payer dollars to bail out all these people who bought homes above their income with variable rate mortgages?

    Makes me sick... And wish I had bought a huge freaking house a year ago so other people could pay for it...
    No more than the 3 Trillion dollar war that you and your kids will be paying for years to come over what was an mismanaged war from the get go!

    Or the 482 billion dollar deficit that is on the books, so it's your call I could go on and on...

    Dave





  16. #16
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    We were required to watch Animal Farm in high school (1969).I believe there are some social liberal thinkers out there that are closer to the nazi party than most people realize.And political correctness is a precursor to outright facism.Which can only come to fruition if were as a people are disarmed.

  17. #17
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Kind of lost me there.... Way out on the fringe don't you think?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Too much right wing or too much left wing, all your going to do is fly in a circle.

  19. #19
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Agreed, we are all here on the same team.

  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Triple Tap wrote:
    Too much right wing or too much left wing, all your going to do is fly in a circle.
    Good Point...

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Dukester wrote:
    Triple Tap wrote:
    Too much right wing or too much left wing, all your going to do is fly in a circle.
    Good Point...
    not its not really... because continuing comprimise will lead to socialism. it has before, and will again.



  22. #22
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I may wholheartedly disagree with some as I lean more to the conservative.However I would also defend to the death their right to do so, or our constitution means nothing.We here are all fighting to protect our second ammendment rights, and in that we stand as one......

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think we are on the correct track. People tend to examine political preferences as a linear or cartesian coordinate model. Really, it is more circular, IMO. Go far enough left or right around the circle and you end up at the same place.

    One simple example to see this is anti-semitism. On the far right the most notable example was the German Nazis. On the far left we had the Soviet persecution/purging of Jews. Today we have Skinheads who put out vitriolic, hate literature about Jews. Today we have members of the far left at protests in SF, Berkeley and Seattle carrying signs and handing out literature containing vitriolic, hate filled messages about Jews. They have not come full circle but 180 degrees to where they find themselves on common ground with each other in their irrational hatreds.


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I fail to see how adhering to the Constitution is communistic. Let alone pink. But I guess that is a family issue. Anyhow, be it socialist, fascist, communist or Marxist, (they are really all the same) and the constitution leaves no room for this nonsense within its framework.



    It is clear that the founding fathers wanted a separation of power and authority between the states and federal government; limiting the federal government, to territories and 10 square miles of D.C. All the states were guaranteed a republican form of government. Not a democracy, as everyone likes to call this countries political system. A republic is ruled by laws, limiting the power of the majority. A Democracy is a state of majority rule, like the condition we now find our country in. So by default I guess we are a democracy. So now that every petty tyrant is allowed to interpret laws however they see fit. And the citizens of this country must hire a specialized attorney and pay thousands to get satisfaction when his liberty has been trampled on. If this is the case, then the constitution is already a bygone document. What has happened is there are to contradictory set of laws in this country. The Constitution (law of the land), which by all rights applies to everyone now: and the petty laws that really have no value except to make socialists, Marxist, fascist, and communist maintain control in the guise of social order and maintain power. Ironically, they all take an oath to protect and defend the constitution before they take office.



    All men where created equal is one aspect of the belief system this country was founded on, so new social order or amendments are hardly necessary anyhow. When junior elected officials create laws that take away freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, [from all the citizens they represent, not control] to prevent a crime, raise a tax or mandate a belief or nullify a belief, then there is something more sinister happening. And the second amendment is the only amendment that would provide a hurdle for any absolute change to our system of self governance, if one can still call it that. I don’t believe the Constitution can be divided up into little pieces for individual causes. This is where this country has gone haywire. If you stand for one freedom in a simplistic form or in its purist form (as is nothing more to it, no interpretation needed) then you must stand up for all the God given rights recognized in the constitution. Not to allow some are granted by the government, then cry foul when one directly affects you and yours.



    At one time I to would defend the right of adverse political beliefs, but not anymore. That saying, “We can agree to disagree,” is stupid and a coward’s way out if you ask me. There is right and wrong or just stupid. Complacency is what has got us to the point where we must rely on a Supreme Court ruling to tell residents they may own a gun in D.C. What will be the decision in another eight years? I don’t care what someone claims or calls themselves anymore. If it sounds contrary to the Constitution, limits my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, forces a new moral belief system contrary to the last 250 years, mandates I feel sorry about making my own way in this world, punishes me for loving my country (sorry I'm notEuropean),adds one more law to the books that makes me a criminal without committing a crime, I will be a partisan.





    Partisan,



    Lukeshort

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Triple Tap wrote:
    Too much right wing or too much left wing, all your going to do is fly in a circle.
    Great statement! From there one can say,

    "So, soar high on Liberty."



    I've always wanted to do a T-shirt that says:

    FREEDOM

    THE ULTIMATE HIGH
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •