• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Thinking about partisan statements

scarlett1125

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
51
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
rolleyes.gif
 

scarlett1125

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
51
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 

bcp

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
126
Location
SW WA
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
 

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
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
 

155gr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
19
Location
King Co., Washington, USA
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.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

scarlett1125

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
51
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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!
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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...
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

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