PDA

View Full Version : How do YOU choose?



BrianW
10-03-2010, 08:41 PM
With just under a month to go, how do you decide which Senatorial/House candidate to vote for?
Ie;
Party line? "If they're a "D" (/"R/L/G/CP... ") they're for me."
Incumbent or not? "Throw all the bums out!"
Primary issue or overall package? "Yeah, he/she made a mistake "here" but overall..." "If they don't commit to repealling Obamacare..."
Strict Constitutionalists or not?

Personally, my first requirement is the 2nd Amendment. If you don't trust me with my gun, then I don't trust you with my vote. If both/all candidates pass...
Then comes privacy/freedom of speech, this Big Bro/Sis warrant-less snooping & spying on citizens "Americans have no expectation of privacy" has got to stop. Included imo, is this mandatory provision of health care "reform" subject to criminal penalty.
Then down the line of issues important to me/my family.

Not asking who you'll vore for, but what say you?
What trips your trigger/not?:confused:

Julie R.
10-03-2010, 09:42 PM
Does this candidate want more of my money for his agenda, via more taxes, including income, property and/or small business? Is the candidate in favor of more entitlement programs, increasing the ones we already have, funding assorted government boondoggles and bigger government making decisions for me in general? The first two are the deciders for me and those candidates are usually pro Constitution, whether it be 2nd Amendment or other issues personally important to me. I'm willing to vote for someone I disagree with on some things, for example didactic religious beliefs, if the big picture is less government and fiscal responsibility.

ducknwork
10-03-2010, 11:22 PM
I am more concerned with issues of morality. I say that I vote my conscience before my wallet. I honestly believe that if we stick closer to traditional Christian values, then everything else will straighten itself out in time.

depittydawg
10-03-2010, 11:25 PM
With just under a month to go, how do you decide which Senatorial/House candidate to vote for?
Ie;
Party line? "If they're a "D" (/"R/L/G/CP... ") they're for me."
Incumbent or not? "Throw all the bums out!"
Primary issue or overall package? "Yeah, he/she made a mistake "here" but overall..." "If they don't commit to repealling Obamacare..."
Strict Constitutionalists or not?

Personally, my first requirement is the 2nd Amendment. If you don't trust me with my gun, then I don't trust you with my vote. If both/all candidates pass...
Then comes privacy/freedom of speech, this Big Bro/Sis warrant-less snooping & spying on citizens "Americans have no expectation of privacy" has got to stop. Included imo, is this mandatory provision of health care "reform" subject to criminal penalty.
Then down the line of issues important to me/my family.

Not asking who you'll vore for, but what say you?
What trips your trigger/not?:confused:

Constitutional issues don't usually matter much in final elections. I've not seen to many candidates wanting to step outside the bounds of the constitution. Although, some of these Tea Party folks seem pretty far out there in their interpretation of the constitution.
I'm an issue person. And a middle class supporter. I believe a strong middle class equals a strong America. I usually ignore what candidates are saying, esp right before an election. You learn a lot more about a candidate from his or her past deeds than their present marketing scheme

JJaxon
10-04-2010, 01:04 AM
I am more concerned with issues of morality. I say that I vote my conscience before my wallet. I honestly believe that if we stick closer to traditional Christian values, then everything else will straighten itself out in time.

Well said. Add in that I am no fan of a career politician.

road kill
10-04-2010, 07:22 AM
Constitutional issues don't usually matter much in final elections. I've not seen to many candidates wanting to step outside the bounds of the constitution. Although, some of these Tea Party folks seem pretty far out there in their interpretation of the constitution.
I'm an issue person. And a middle class supporter. I believe a strong middle class equals a strong America. I usually ignore what candidates are saying, esp right before an election. You learn a lot more about a candidate from his or her past deeds than their present marketing scheme


Really??

Elaborate..........



RK

subroc
10-04-2010, 07:27 AM
I have a few issues that are very important to me. I tend to vote those issues. I also, occasionally, vote against people. If neither candidate appeals to me, I vote for the one that appears to want to hurt me the least. If I dislike both equally, I could leave that particular race alone. That is rare though. I doubt I would vote just “D” or “R” though, there would have to be some issues that warranted my vote either for or against.

dnf777
10-04-2010, 08:25 AM
Subroc pretty much summarized how i feel about elections as well. In this last election, I didn't vote for anyone. I voted against the greater of 3 evils.
It is a sad statement when you vote against someone, rather than for someone.

I think the bigge question nowadays, is , does it really matter who you vote for? Or who wins? Lots of people voted for change. We'll never know for sure what would have happened if McCain would have won, but does anyone think things would be drastically, or even moderately different?

We, and our elected officials, are OWNED.

road kill
10-04-2010, 08:31 AM
Subroc pretty much summarized how i feel about elections as well. In this last election, I didn't vote for anyone. I voted against the greater of 3 evils.
It is a sad statement when you vote against someone, rather than for someone.

I think the bigge question nowadays, is , does it really matter who you vote for? Or who wins? Lots of people voted for change. We'll never know for sure what would have happened if McCain would have won, but does anyone think things would be drastically, or even moderately different?
We, and our elected officials, are OWNED.
YES!!


RK

dnf777
10-04-2010, 08:37 AM
YES!!


RK

Well, I doubt he would have signed health care reform....and I'm certain that all our economic woes for years to come will be blamed solely on the health care law, (and that may be partially valid) but I don't think we'd be in all that much better shape.

This can be a double edged sword. If healthcare is now so expensive, and companies are beginning to drop coverage for employees (McDonalds announced it may have to drop benefits) won't that INCREASE corporate profits, if they're not paying ANY portion of premiums?? Hmmm...maybe this is beginning to make sense now. Actually, that would help put our manufacturers (if there's any left) on a competitive edge with our European and Asian competitors, who put all the health care burden on the gov'ts.

If you think things would be so different, to borrow a phrase from a recent post in a current thread:

Really?

Please elaborate! ;)

Julie R.
10-04-2010, 09:03 AM
I am more concerned with issues of morality. I say that I vote my conscience before my wallet. I honestly believe that if we stick closer to traditional Christian values, then everything else will straighten itself out in time.

I'm definitely more Libertarian on social issues, so they factor less in my decision making. Voting on moral issues sounds noble in theory, but in practice, there's simply no way to legislate morality. These days, even the thought makes me uneasy, although government programs have been steadily swelling the ranks of the functionally helpless illiterates with no morals, let alone any moral compass. And if I had my way you'd be forbidden from reproducing if you're on the public dole or here illegally until you're capable of legally supporting yourself AND your spawn...but I digress. I mean, think about this: Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Tim "Tax Cheat" Geitner et all including the POTUS, making personal decisions for you and your family, or would you rather be free to follow the guidance of your religion and those you respect?

david gibson
10-04-2010, 09:03 AM
its real easy for me - its either Sheila Jackson Lee or whoever is running against her. if osama bin laden runs against her, i'm voting for him.

ducknwork
10-04-2010, 09:21 AM
I'm definitely more Libertarian on social issues, so they factor less in my decision making. Voting on moral issues sounds noble in theory, but in practice, there's simply no way to legislate morality. These days, even the thought makes me uneasy, although government programs have been steadily swelling the ranks of the functionally helpless illiterates with no morals, let alone any moral compass. And if I had my way you'd be forbidden from reproducing if you're on the public dole or here illegally until you're capable of legally supporting yourself AND your spawn...but I digress. I mean, think about this: Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Tim "Tax Cheat" Geitner et all including the POTUS, making personal decisions for you and your family, or would you rather be free to follow the guidance of your religion and those you respect?

I am more conservative on social issues than any other area of politics, period.

Morality is not all about social issues though Julie...

Greed is immoral.
Dishonesty is immoral.
Laziness is immoral.
etc,etc...

Tell me how just those three would change the country. All forms of immorality, ESPECIALLY social immorality, costs Americans A LOT of money and has led to every problem that we have in the world if you get down to the root cause.

Now, as far as social issues go, I understand that you can't 'legislate morality', even though it is done every day.;) It's a nice sounding phrase to use, but to me it can be translated as 'I don't have the guts to stand up for what's right' in many cases. The names you mentioned are too busy legislating immorality to worry about being moral.

BrianW
10-04-2010, 09:45 AM
Constitutional issues don't usually matter much in final elections.:shock: I've not seen to many candidates wanting to step outside the bounds of the constitution. Although, some of these Tea Party folks seem pretty far out there in their interpretation of the constitution. :confused:


I'm an issue person. And a middle class supporter. I believe a strong middle class equals a strong America. I usually ignore what candidates are saying, esp right before an election. You learn a lot more about a candidate from his or her past deeds than their present marketing scheme For candidates that have never run for office before, how do you discern their "past deeds"? Granted a person that has served in say State legislature running for Congress may have a record on certain issues or votes but there are many out there this tme that don't, unless you read their literature/web sites/marketing schemes.
The following is a questionnaire on some issues to candidates in my district from a Tea Party group that resulted in a "report card" (results deleted). Choices were Yes, No, Not Sure. Some candidates did not respond or "opted out" but those that did respond showed an interesting profile. Are these questions "pretty far out there" in your interpretation?

Vote to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, effectively
returning the selection of U.S. Senators to the individual state
legislatures

Vote to repeal “Obamacare”, as passed into law in March, 2010

Challenge the mandatory health insurance law, at the federal level
by blocking funding for additional IRS staff needed to enforce the
law

Investigate racial quotas and preferences currently incorporated
into the health care law

Vote to eliminate the federal Department of Education, returning all
control of public schools to the individual states

Vote to revoke funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) if they attempt to enforce “cap & trade” policy that has not
been passed by Congress

Vote to return control of endangered species listing to the individual
states affected

Vote to return all federal land to the states, upon request of the
state government

Vote “NO” on any legislation granting a path to citizenship to illegal
aliens, without first returning them to their native country, and
requiring them to go to the back of the line for legal immigration

Vote “NO” on any agreement or treaty that surrenders any degree
of U.S. sovereignty, including climate change, use of international
precedents in U.S. courts, or U.N. agreements

Vote “NO” on any climate change agreement that requires or
commits the use of taxpayer money to fund non-U.S. efforts or
projects

Vote to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations

Julie R.
10-04-2010, 10:46 AM
Now, as far as social issues go, I understand that you can't 'legislate morality', even though it is done every day.;) It's a nice sounding phrase to use, but to me it can be translated as 'I don't have the guts to stand up for what's right' in many cases. The names you mentioned are too busy legislating immorality to worry about being moral.

Agree totally and I also agree with these character flaws:


Greed is immoral.
Dishonesty is immoral.
Laziness is immoral.
etc,etc...


And I wouldn't vote for a candidate that evidenced being guided by any or all of these character weaknesses, but I'd be willing to forgive certain personal transgressions as long as I thought they were honest mistakes the person learned from, and not defining characteristics. Example from my own state: Former Gov. Allen calling a minority a "Macaca" during his Senate campaign. I really don't think he meant to be racist or insulting yet this mistake jettisoned his campaign. I'm certain he had no idea the term was insulting or he'd never have used it.

Likewise, I fear the sensationalism that past mistakes create prevents an awful lot of decent, moral people on both sides of the aisle from ever running for office. We have a dumbed-down electorate that is more interested in the "dirt" than the issues so they only care about the kind of dirt the ratings-driven media feeds them in the name of "news". There's simply no such thing as an adult of a certain age that never made a mistake--it's how we learn and grow. Things like a candidate's youthful DUI or pot smoking are not important to me as long as that person didn't grow up to be a druggie or a drunk. I'm not a fan of whore-hoppers but if a candidate had a tawdry affair years ago and recovered from its publicity, it's not an issue. But if caught while in office and lies about it, especially under oath, it shows a lack of morals rather than a mistake.

M&K's Retrievers
10-04-2010, 11:02 AM
:confused:
For candidates that have never run for office before, how do you discern their "past deeds"? Granted a person that has served in say State legislature running for Congress may have a record on certain issues or votes but there are many out there this tme that don't, unless you read their literature/web sites/marketing schemes.
The following is a questionnaire on some issues to candidates in my district from a Tea Party group that resulted in a "report card" (results deleted). Choices were Yes, No, Not Sure. Some candidates did not respond or "opted out" but those that did respond showed an interesting profile. Are these questions "pretty far out there" in your interpretation?

Vote to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, effectively
returning the selection of U.S. Senators to the individual state
legislatures

Vote to repeal “Obamacare”, as passed into law in March, 2010

Challenge the mandatory health insurance law, at the federal level
by blocking funding for additional IRS staff needed to enforce the
law

Investigate racial quotas and preferences currently incorporated
into the health care law

Vote to eliminate the federal Department of Education, returning all
control of public schools to the individual states

Vote to revoke funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) if they attempt to enforce “cap & trade” policy that has not
been passed by Congress

Vote to return control of endangered species listing to the individual
states affected

Vote to return all federal land to the states, upon request of the
state government

Vote “NO” on any legislation granting a path to citizenship to illegal
aliens, without first returning them to their native country, and
requiring them to go to the back of the line for legal immigration

Vote “NO” on any agreement or treaty that surrenders any degree
of U.S. sovereignty, including climate change, use of international
precedents in U.S. courts, or U.N. agreements

Vote “NO” on any climate change agreement that requires or
commits the use of taxpayer money to fund non-U.S. efforts or
projects

Vote to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations

On the surface, I'd say yes to these.

luvmylabs23139
10-04-2010, 11:54 AM
Constitutional issues don't usually matter much in final elections. I've not seen to many candidates wanting to step outside the bounds of the constitution.

Obumma, HArry, Nancy, just a few that have no regard for the constitution.
Let's not even discuss supreme court justice Sortamyass.:rolleyes:

Ken Bora
10-04-2010, 12:56 PM
Let's not even discuss supreme court justice Sortamyass.:rolleyes:

I bet she ends up a bit more conservative than many of the liberals were thinking.
Odd you posting on a voting thread, didn't know you could....

road kill
10-04-2010, 12:58 PM
I bet she ends up a bit more conservative than many of the liberals were thinking.
Odd you posting on a voting thread, didn't know you could....
That didn't stop thousands in the last election........:D



RK

subroc
10-04-2010, 01:26 PM
I bet she ends up a bit more conservative than many of the liberals were thinking...

What makes you bet (think) that?

Nor_Cal_Angler
10-04-2010, 02:07 PM
I go into the booth, close the curtain behind me, blindfold myself, pick up the marker, and stab at the paper......

sometimes you win....sometimes you dont....;-);-)


just say'n

NCA

dnf777
10-04-2010, 03:14 PM
What makes you bet (think) that?

I agree with Ken. Its one thing to spew opinions (like we do here) but when they put on that robe and sit in those chambers and feel the gravity of their decisions, I bet they dig a little deeper into their souls for answers.

Supereme Court justice nominees are like a box of chocolate......

Marvin S
10-04-2010, 07:09 PM
Does this candidate want more of my money for his agenda, via more taxes, including income, property and/or small business? Is the candidate in favor of more entitlement programs, increasing the ones we already have, funding assorted government boondoggles and bigger government making decisions for me in general? The first two are the deciders for me and those candidates are usually pro Constitution, whether it be 2nd Amendment or other issues personally important to me. I'm willing to vote for someone I disagree with on some things, for example didactic religious beliefs, if the big picture is less government and fiscal responsibility.

I believe that to be a good start vetting a candidate.


I have a few issues that are very important to me. I tend to vote those issues. I also, occasionally, vote against people. If neither candidate appeals to me, I vote for the one that appears to want to hurt me the least. If I dislike both equally, I could leave that particular race alone. That is rare though. I doubt I would vote just “D” or “R” though, there would have to be some issues that warranted my vote either for or against.

My first election was Ike & Adlai - voted for Adlai because I didn't think a military person should be POTUS. Still don't, but that was a really bad vote as I found out later. Adlai was bad news.

The only potential POTUS that I have truly voted for is Goldwater & I read his book prior to making that decision.

In the local elections there is very little choice. This is a really liberal state & all the old style D's have been drummed from the party so the R's have lot's of room to travel before they get into their opponents territory.

One thing that seems to have made local elections more competive is our top 2 primary, so it is not uncommon for 2 candidates of the same party to be in the general election. They then have to differentiate their positions so it makes things more interesting, which is :cool:.


I'm definitely more Libertarian on social issues, so they factor less in my decision making. Voting on moral issues sounds noble in theory, but in practice, there's simply no way to legislate morality. These days, even the thought makes me uneasy, although government programs have been steadily swelling the ranks of the functionally helpless illiterates with no morals, let alone any moral compass. And if I had my way you'd be forbidden from reproducing if you're on the public dole or here illegally until you're capable of legally supporting yourself AND your spawn...but I digress. I mean, think about this: Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Tim "Tax Cheat" Geitner et all including the POTUS, making personal decisions for you and your family, or would you rather be free to follow the guidance of your religion and those you respect?

Have to agree with most of this also except, don't believe catering to the dopers is a productive way & believe those who like same sex are more aggressive than a horny teenager trying to score, so their agenda is not as passive as they would like people to believe.

Do agree with you about the reproduction, we can thank AFDC for relieving the stigma connected to loose morals.

depittydawg
10-04-2010, 08:51 PM
Subroc pretty much summarized how i feel about elections as well. In this last election, I didn't vote for anyone. I voted against the greater of 3 evils.
It is a sad statement when you vote against someone, rather than for someone.

I think the bigge question nowadays, is , does it really matter who you vote for? Or who wins? Lots of people voted for change. We'll never know for sure what would have happened if McCain would have won, but does anyone think things would be drastically, or even moderately different?

We, and our elected officials, are OWNED.

Whenever you think that; just ask yourself if the first decade of the 21st century would have been any different had Al Gore defeated GWB in the 2000 election.

depittydawg
10-04-2010, 08:53 PM
I am more conservative on social issues than any other area of politics, period.

Morality is not all about social issues though Julie...

Greed is immoral.
Dishonesty is immoral.
Laziness is immoral.
etc,etc...

T.

Amen to all of the above.

dnf777
10-04-2010, 08:53 PM
Whenever you think that; just ask yourself if the first decade of the 21st century would have been any different had Al Gore defeated GWB in the 2000 election.

Good point. I stand corrected.

Matt's Grizz
10-04-2010, 11:11 PM
Like my dad says, "Pick the lesser of the two evils"

Julie R.
10-05-2010, 08:46 AM
... don't believe catering to the dopers is a productive way & believe those who like same sex are more aggressive than a horny teenager trying to score, so their agenda is not as passive as they would like people to believe.



I certainly don't want a druggie in an elected position, but I think it's been abundantly proven that the war on drugs is an epic failure. Despite untold billions spent over the last 40 years drugs are more firmly entrenched in society in general and organized crime in particular than at any point in history. The more I read about Mexican cartels, drug lords and ghetto gangs, the more I think we should just legalize all of their product, tax hell out of them and let people kill themselves if they want. Taxing would generate plenty of money to help those that wanted to help themselves. While the thought of more meth addicts and crack heads roaming the streets is frightening, if their drug of choice was legal they'd be far less likely to kill you for a dime bag. And, unlike drunks, stoners don't hold up liquor stores and beat their wives.

We've become a society where the protected classes--those unwilling or unable to take personal responsibility--are fast overtaking those who are. Certainly there will always be wards of the state who cannot live unassisted, but we need to decrease the ranks of those who can, but choose not to. Not continue to coddle them with handouts, quotas, dumbing down education, and policies designed to encourage them to breed.

As for gays, I really don't care what they do in their bedrooms although I'd rather not know about it. Personally I think don't ask don't tell is a dandy policy for anyone's sex life unless I was married to or plan to marry the person. I'm personally not in favor of gay marriage and certain other government-mandated morality issues, but not enough to vote against a candidate whose platform otherwise aligned with mine.

Julie R.
10-05-2010, 08:54 AM
Whenever you think that; just ask yourself if the first decade of the 21st century would have been any different had Al Gore defeated GWB in the 2000 election.

It's a scary thought, although we'd have entered this recession a lot sooner and we'd probably now be in a period of strong recovery if he'd won and gotten voted out in 2004. Imagine if an Algore version of Cap-N-Trade had been enacted in 2001? And instead of 3,000 deaths from the terrorist attacks of 2001, many more major cities had suffered devastating losses? Although for sure Hurricane Katrina would've veered harmlessly out to sea, because everyone knows that was Bush's fault (Hi Roger ;)).

dnf777
10-05-2010, 09:20 AM
It's a scary thought, although we'd have entered this recession a lot sooner and we'd probably now be in a period of strong recovery if he'd won and gotten voted out in 2004. Imagine if an Algore version of Cap-N-Trade had been enacted in 2001? And instead of 3,000 deaths from the terrorist attacks of 2001, many more major cities had suffered devastating losses? Although for sure Hurricane Katrina would've veered harmlessly out to sea, because everyone knows that was Bush's fault (Hi Roger ;)).

I'll assume that was mostly in jest, but I do know there would be about 4000 less empty chairs at the Christmas Dinner table this year. And that's no jest.

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 10:04 AM
I'll assume that was mostly in jest, but I do know there would be about 4000 less empty chairs at the Christmas Dinner table this year. And that's no jest.


And we all know that Bush sent us to war all by himself.


There ya go, Roger. I lobbed you a softball.

Julie R.
10-05-2010, 10:21 AM
I'll assume that was mostly in jest, but I do know there would be about 4000 less empty chairs at the Christmas Dinner table this year. And that's no jest.

It was said mostly in jest, although my opinion is there'd be a much higher body count by now if Gore had been the POTUS on 9/11. Remember if you will, the American people were screaming for retaliation, so first of all, I think Algore would've gotten and and reacted to the same intelligence Bush did and in much the same manner. Would he have gotten us out of Iraq sooner? If you're honest, it's hard to say. However, as scary as the thought of him at the helm on 9/11/01 is, it pales in comparison to imagining how the current POTUS would handle an attack of that magnitude. His apolgoy tour still makes me cringe.

dnf777
10-05-2010, 10:31 AM
It was said mostly in jest, although my opinion is there'd be a much higher body count by now if Gore had been the POTUS on 9/11. Remember if you will, the American people were screaming for retaliation, so first of all, I think Algore would've gotten and and reacted to the same intelligence Bush did and in much the same manner. Would he have gotten us out of Iraq sooner? If you're honest, it's hard to say. However, as scary as the thought of him at the helm on 9/11/01 is, it pales in comparison to imagining how the current POTUS would handle an attack of that magnitude. His apolgoy tour still makes me cringe.

Well, I *think* I agree. Gore would NOT have gotten massaged, cherry-picked and manipulated intel misguiding us into war in Iraq in the first place. Remember, people were yelling for retaliation against the 911 perpetrators, not Iraq. Nobody faulted Bush for going into A-stan, rather, he's been faulted for taking his eye off the target and diverting efforts to Iraq. I think that renders the question of getting out Iraq sooner or later moot, as we may not have been there in the first place.

I'm not sure what you see that makes you think Obama would not have reacted swiftly and harshly. Have you forgotten when he got the call about the pirates? He didn't hesitate to give the "fire at will" command.

dnf777
10-05-2010, 10:49 AM
And we all know that Bush sent us to war all by himself.


There ya go, Roger. I lobbed you a softball.

No, not at all. You're not giving credit where credit is due!

Bush....presidential figurehead.
Cheney....I guarantee you'll see the WMDs once we're there....trust us!
Wolfowitz........Don't worry, oil revenues will pay for the war. It will only cost us a few billion....trust us!
Rumsfield.....sometimes you just have to go to war with the army you got, not the one you wish you had!......trust us!

Julie R.
10-05-2010, 11:15 AM
I'm not sure what you see that makes you think Obama would not have reacted swiftly and harshly. Have you forgotten when he got the call about the pirates? He didn't hesitate to give the "fire at will" command.

Well sir, you seem to have forgotten about the pirates. If you recall, the fire at will command was delayed a full 24 hours so the POTUS could get his "team" in place on site. By the way the Navy had a team there before his had left the building. Fortunately they fired when the overriding principle of imminent danger went into effect, and did not wait til the POTUS team and formal OK got there from D.C. And to answer why I think the current Commander in Chief wouldn't have reacted harshly and swiftly? Perhaps because he seems more concerned about having foreign nationals like him than protecting U.S. interests? Because he's better at campaigning than forging coalitions?

M&K's Retrievers
10-05-2010, 11:23 AM
....

I'm not sure what you see that makes you think Obama would not have reacted swiftly and harshly. Have you forgotten when he got the call about the pirates? He didn't hesitate to give the "fire at will" command.

I hardly equate Jack Sparrow and his mate "Will" in a row boat on a par with a enemy country that may or may not have had WMDs.

dnf777
10-05-2010, 11:42 AM
Well sir, you seem to have forgotten about the pirates. If you recall, the fire at will command was delayed a full 24 hours so the POTUS could get his "team" in place on site. By the way the Navy had a team there before his had left the building. Fortunately they fired when the overriding principle of imminent danger went into effect, and did not wait til the POTUS team and formal OK got there from D.C. And to answer why I think the current Commander in Chief wouldn't have reacted harshly and swiftly? Perhaps because he seems more concerned about having foreign nationals like him than protecting U.S. interests? Because he's better at campaigning than forging coalitions?

Well, sometimes its ok to *think* before launching a war. ;)

As for the pirates, all I know is there are several pirates with one more hole in their heads than Allah gave them, and that's a good thing. Spin it how you want, they were dealt with appropriately.

Hey, I'm not here to defend him on all fronts. I agree that he campaigns better than almost anything else he does, but I think its a little unfair to think he wouldn't have reacted appropriately after 911, but we all have our opinions.

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 11:52 AM
No, not at all. You're not giving credit where credit is due!

Bush....presidential figurehead.
Cheney....I guarantee you'll see the WMDs once we're there....trust us!
Wolfowitz........Don't worry, oil revenues will pay for the war. It will only cost us a few billion....trust us!
Rumsfield.....sometimes you just have to go to war with the army you got, not the one you wish you had!......trust us!

US House of Reps........296-133
US Senate...........77-23

Julie R.
10-05-2010, 11:55 AM
Well, sometimes its ok to *think* before launching a war. ;)

As for the pirates, all I know is there are several pirates with one more hole in their heads than Allah gave them, and that's a good thing. Spin it how you want, they were dealt with appropriately.

Not a spin dnf, but if your guy has to dither and worry about hurting the feelings of a quartet of Somali sea thugs intent on killing an American, it doesn't exactly instill confidence in what he'd do in a full-scale attack like 9-11. Not to mention treating wars like tea parties where enemies' feelings and dignity are more important than winning.

But carry on, at least we both agree dispatching 3 of the 4 pirates was a feel-good moment, even if I needed to remind you we have the U.S. Navy and not the POTUS to thank for that.
http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww15/TempJim2009/pirates.jpg

tom
10-05-2010, 01:24 PM
I'm a life long registered Republican, but a policy of "NO" too everything just doesn't cut it with me. Hell the Republicans even voted down a bill that was sponsored by Republicans just because the great "potus" thought it was a good idea!
End result is that I will cross party lines this year.

If you don't bother to vote, you ain't got a complaint commin'

road kill
10-05-2010, 01:27 PM
I'm a life long registered Republican, but a policy of "NO" too everything just doesn't cut it with me. Hell the Republicans even voted down a bill that was sponsored by Republicans just because the great "potus" thought it was a good idea!
End result is that I will cross party lines this year.

If you don't bother to vote, you ain't got a complaint commin'



Uh Huhhh!!

You all happy and giddy with Obama are ya???;-)



RK

dnf777
10-05-2010, 01:31 PM
I'm a life long registered Republican, but a policy of "NO" too everything just doesn't cut it with me. Hell the Republicans even voted down a bill that was sponsored by Republicans just because the great "potus" thought it was a good idea!
End result is that I will cross party lines this year.

If you don't bother to vote, you ain't got a complaint commin'

I've voted for my share of republicans also, but this does seem over the top. Them voting down the aid for the 911 first-responders is a real ding on the character of the republican party.

Julie, he's not "my guy" by any means. There's plenty of room for criticism, but his handling of the pirates was not out of line in my book. Of COURSE the Navy did the deed. you don't expect Obama to shuttle out there with an M-16 personally do you? ;)

tom
10-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Uh Huhhh!!

You all happy and giddy with Obama are ya???;-)



RK

Not at all, but not a bit happy with the "obstructionist" Republican response.
At least Obama has been trying to do something, the RNC has been bent on doing nothing, which is worse.
In case you hadn't noticed, our US Senator will not be on the ballet this year.

dnf777
10-05-2010, 01:37 PM
Uh Huhhh!!

You all happy and giddy with Obama are ya???;-)



RK

this is so exemplary of how exclusionary the far right has become! Thanks for the example, RK! You can't *possibly* be a *real* republican and say something like that!!! :confused:

If you want to keep your RNC card in your wallet, you had better tote a gun to a tea-party rally and wear insulting t-shirts and carry anti-gov't signs with you! And whatever you do, don't show any signs of free- or critical thought process! Just do and say what party leadership tells you to. (ie Rush, Beck, Hannity)

Thank you for beign so brave, Tom! :p

road kill
10-05-2010, 01:40 PM
Not at all, but not a bit happy with the "obstructionist" Republican response.

Couple things,

#1--Some of the crap needs to be "obstructed."

#2--In your household ( a small country/business) what do you do if you do NOT have the funds to do something??

At my house we don't spend money we don't have on stuff we don't need.

You may wish such and such a project had more, but there is no more.

That's the way it is, it's time to stop.
It's a shame we can not find out where the waste really is.



RK

road kill
10-05-2010, 01:42 PM
this is so exemplary of how exclusionary the far right has become! Thanks for the example, RK! You can't *possibly* be a *real* republican and say something like that!!! :confused:

If you want to keep your RNC card in your wallet, you had better tote a gun to a tea-party rally and wear insulting t-shirts and carry anti-gov't signs with you! And whatever you do, don't show any signs of free- or critical thought process! Just do and say what party leadership tells you to. (ie Rush, Beck, Hannity)
Thank you for beign so brave, Tom! :p

Where did I say that??

Put me back on ignore.....PLEASE!!!!!


Pretty much dialed in on what Republicans all are???

Well let's see what happens in November.


RK

dnf777
10-05-2010, 01:44 PM
Where did I say that??

Put me back on ignore.....PLEASE!!!!!


Pretty much dialed in on what Republicans all are???

Well let's see what happens in November.


RK

the last paragraph was my editorial. It was never ascribed to you. You did, however, call someone out for voicing displeasure with the rep congress, questioned their claim of being a republican, and questioned his "giddiness" with Obama, did you not? Exemplary!

Why would I put you back on ignore? I learn more and more about the inner workings of the modern RWE by reading your posts. Very interesting.

dnf777
10-05-2010, 01:49 PM
Couple things,


#2--In your household ( a small country/business) what do you do if you do NOT have the funds to do something??
RK


Start a war with someone who has nothing do do with my predicament, and apply for even more credit cards and run my debt even higher and higher, and give the bill to my kids to pay?

Oh, never mind. I was having a nightmare that I was a recent republican administration.

tom
10-05-2010, 01:52 PM
Couple things,

#1--Some of the crap needs to be "obstructed."

#2--In your household ( a small country/business) what do you do if you do NOT have the funds to do something??

At my house we don't spend money we don't have on stuff we don't need.

You may wish such and such a project had more, but there is no more.

That's the way it is, it's time to stop.
It's a shame we can not find out where the waste really is.




RK

Just who was it that let businesses get "too big to fail"? (We USE to have antitrust laws in this country)
Who was it that suggested that we give them OUR money so that they wouldn't?

Don't you dare blame Obama for that!!!!

Marvin S
10-05-2010, 01:54 PM
I certainly don't want a druggie in an elected position, but I think it's been abundantly proven that the war on drugs is an epic failure. Despite untold billions spent over the last 40 years drugs are more firmly entrenched in society in general and organized crime in particular than at any point in history. The more I read about Mexican cartels, drug lords and ghetto gangs, the more I think we should just legalize all of their product, tax hell out of them and let people kill themselves if they want. Taxing would generate plenty of money to help those that wanted to help themselves. While the thought of more meth addicts and crack heads roaming the streets is frightening, if their drug of choice was legal they'd be far less likely to kill you for a dime bag. And, unlike drunks, stoners don't hold up liquor stores and beat their wives.



IMO - those constituencies that benefit the most from drug wars are the LE folks. They have zero interest in doing a good job, just do enough to keep the dollars flowing. Sort of like prostitution, if it were legal it would prove to be a real revenue generator - could probably pay of the National Debt :cool:.




We've become a society where the protected classes--those unwilling or unable to take personal responsibility--are fast overtaking those who are. Certainly there will always be wards of the state who cannot live unassisted, but we need to decrease the ranks of those who can, but choose not to. Not continue to coddle them with handouts, quotas, dumbing down education, and policies designed to encourage them to breed.


Don't disagree with what you say - I personally do not know how anyone with a modicum of self respect would place themselves in a position to be beholden to anyone.



As for gays, I really don't care what they do in their bedrooms although I'd rather not know about it. Personally I think don't ask don't tell is a dandy policy for anyone's sex life unless I was married to or plan to marry the person. I'm personally not in favor of gay marriage and certain other government-mandated morality issues, but not enough to vote against a candidate whose platform otherwise aligned with mine.


My only experience with those of the alternate life style was during my assignment at Offutt AFB during the Korean conflict. Omaha was full of them :( & they frequented the nightclubs. Omaha at the time was a major entertainment stop, Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Vegas was the routine. So we got to see ALL the big names of the time if there was an interest. They were very aggressive & I have never forgotten that. The neat thing was the cops in Omaha looked the other way when those people were on the receiving end of a serious thrashing & they soon learned to leave us GI's alone.

That they believe it is OK for them to be around children is beyond my comprehension. The ACLU's work on their behalf has turned off many potential donors so sometimes organizations who support their agenda reap what they sow.

road kill
10-05-2010, 01:56 PM
Just who was it that let businesses get "too big to fail"?
Who was it that suggested that we give them OUR money so that they wouldn't?

Don't you dare blame Obama for that!!!!
Well, who was it?
Just Bush??

If you say yes, then I know who and what you are.


That's not exclusionary, that's an obsession on your part.
Frank, Dodd had nothing to do with the real estate bubble bursting, only Bush??


I apoligize for trying to make a point, lefty's who claim to be middle of the road independents that blame Bush and laud Obama are not what they claim.

If you voted for Obama because you hate Bush, somethin' ain't right.

I try to vote for the person who will best take care of America and my family.

That was NOT Obama.



RK

tom
10-05-2010, 02:01 PM
If you voted for Obama because you hate Bush, somethin' ain't right.

I didn't vote for Obama!!! (that might be because I have known John McCain for many years) But, seems like I was in the minority!

Roger Perry
10-05-2010, 02:09 PM
Couple things,

#1--Some of the crap needs to be "obstructed."

#2--In your household ( a small country/business) what do you do if you do NOT have the funds to do something??

At my house we don't spend money we don't have on stuff we don't need.

You may wish such and such a project had more, but there is no more.

That's the way it is, it's time to stop.
It's a shame we can not find out where the waste really is.



RK

RK spoken as a true republican. Here is your quote from another thread:
OK......

#1----I used "Black Cloud" loads.
First shot jams ejecting.
I am digging shell out with leatherman tool, 3 woodies land in the decoys!!!!
I get the shell out, lock and load and as they flew away the little bastards are laughing, not quacking (I know they don't quack I am using literary license).

I guess the reason you used "Black Cloud" loads was to spend less money. How did that work for you?

LAUGHING I tell ya!!!

#2--No more whining about tough blinds in hunt tests!!!!

I knocked down a Woodie, it glides about 200+ yards and hits the cattails/swamp.
We are standing in mud and water to my knees, with weeds to my waist.
Neither of us know exactlty where the bird is, a double blind so to speak.
I sends Elvis and he tears ass out, gets a ways out and pops, looks at me like WTF??
I am handling him to the downwind side of where I think the bird is.
I keep pushing him back in this crap while I have climbed up on a muskrat platform so he can see me.

At about 225+ he gets a nose full.
I see his tail going, I let him finish.
I hear all kinds of splashing and thrashing, I can't see Elvis, then here he comes, bird in mouth, chest pumped out!!

So, we probaly get a 0 in a hunt test, but 1 we got 1 Woodie in the bag.
And I am proud of his work.



RK

Looks like you used "Black Cloud" shells to save some money, how did that work out for you?

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 02:11 PM
RK spoken as a true republican. Here is your quote from another thread:



OK......

#1----I used "Black Cloud" loads.
First shot jams ejecting.
I am digging shell out with leatherman tool, 3 woodies land in the decoys!!!!
I get the shell out, lock and load and as they flew away the little bastards are laughing, not quacking (I know they don't quack I am using literary license).

I guess the reason you used "Black Cloud" loads was to spend less money. How did that work for you?

LAUGHING I tell ya!!!

#2--No more whining about tough blinds in hunt tests!!!!

I knocked down a Woodie, it glides about 200+ yards and hits the cattails/swamp.
We are standing in mud and water to my knees, with weeds to my waist.
Neither of us know exactlty where the bird is, a double blind so to speak.
I sends Elvis and he tears ass out, gets a ways out and pops, looks at me like WTF??
I am handling him to the downwind side of where I think the bird is.
I keep pushing him back in this crap while I have climbed up on a muskrat platform so he can see me.

At about 225+ he gets a nose full.
I see his tail going, I let him finish.
I hear all kinds of splashing and thrashing, I can't see Elvis, then here he comes, bird in mouth, chest pumped out!!

So, we probaly get a 0 in a hunt test, but 1 we got 1 Woodie in the bag.
And I am proud of his work.



RK


What does that have to do with spending money you don't have on things that aren't necessities?:confused:

Roger Perry
10-05-2010, 02:24 PM
What does that have to do with spending money you don't have on things that aren't necessities?:confused:

There is a moral to the post see if you can figure it out.

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 02:29 PM
There is a moral to the post see if you can figure it out.

Oh...now you edited it.

Black Cloud won't save any money unless he is used to buying Hevishot or HD or something of the sort...

The key is that RK spent money that he had (not borrowed) on his shells, so your post makes zero sense.

If there is another moral to the story, count me lost.

road kill
10-05-2010, 02:31 PM
There is a moral to the post see if you can figure it out.
I work very hard, I have the money.
Consider it "Golfing" if you will!!;)

If I could not afford Black Cloud, I would not have tried it.
(it is not an economy load RP, it's pricey)
I am duck hunting, I need (no, it's mandated by law) steel shot, Black Cloud comes highly recommended.
Also, RP, not that iit is of any concern to you, but I carry NO DEBT!!

Foreign concept to you "middle of the road independents" (that term cracks me up the way it is used here!!!).


RK

Roger Perry
10-05-2010, 03:10 PM
Oh...now you edited it.

Black Cloud won't save any money unless he is used to buying Hevishot or HD or something of the sort...

The key is that RK spent money that he had (not borrowed) on his shells, so your post makes zero sense.

If there is another moral to the story, count me lost.

Actually what I did add was there before I edited it. You just did not see it.
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=686203#post686203)
RK spoken as a true republican. Here is your quote from another thread:



OK......

#1----I used "Black Cloud" loads.
First shot jams ejecting.
I am digging shell out with leatherman tool, 3 woodies land in the decoys!!!!
I get the shell out, lock and load and as they flew away the little bastards are laughing, not quacking (I know they don't quack I am using literary license).

I guess the reason you used "Black Cloud" loads was to spend less money. How did that work for you?

LAUGHING I tell ya!!!

#2--No more whining about tough blinds in hunt tests!!!!

I knocked down a Woodie, it glides about 200+ yards and hits the cattails/swamp.
We are standing in mud and water to my knees, with weeds to my waist.
Neither of us know exactlty where the bird is, a double blind so to speak.
I sends Elvis and he tears ass out, gets a ways out and pops, looks at me like WTF??
I am handling him to the downwind side of where I think the bird is.
I keep pushing him back in this crap while I have climbed up on a muskrat platform so he can see me.

At about 225+ he gets a nose full.
I see his tail going, I let him finish.
I hear all kinds of splashing and thrashing, I can't see Elvis, then here he comes, bird in mouth, chest pumped out!!

So, we probaly get a 0 in a hunt test, but 1 we got 1 Woodie in the bag.
And I am proud of his work.



RK


What does that have to do with spending money you don't have on things that aren't necessities?:confused:
__________________
LORD, may the sunrise be early, the skies be gray, the wind be cold, and the water be icy. May the ducks be gullible, my aim be true, and my dog be confident and reliable. But most of all, watch over us and return us safely to my wife and kids, the greatest gifts you have ever given me. Amen.
http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/report.php?p=686204)

road kill
10-05-2010, 03:18 PM
Actually what I did add was there before I edited it. You just did not see it.
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=686203#post686203)
RK spoken as a true republican. Here is your quote from another thread:



OK......

#1----I used "Black Cloud" loads.
First shot jams ejecting.
I am digging shell out with leatherman tool, 3 woodies land in the decoys!!!!
I get the shell out, lock and load and as they flew away the little bastards are laughing, not quacking (I know they don't quack I am using literary license).

I guess the reason you used "Black Cloud" loads was to spend less money. How did that work for you?

LAUGHING I tell ya!!!

#2--No more whining about tough blinds in hunt tests!!!!

I knocked down a Woodie, it glides about 200+ yards and hits the cattails/swamp.
We are standing in mud and water to my knees, with weeds to my waist.
Neither of us know exactlty where the bird is, a double blind so to speak.
I sends Elvis and he tears ass out, gets a ways out and pops, looks at me like WTF??
I am handling him to the downwind side of where I think the bird is.
I keep pushing him back in this crap while I have climbed up on a muskrat platform so he can see me.

At about 225+ he gets a nose full.
I see his tail going, I let him finish.
I hear all kinds of splashing and thrashing, I can't see Elvis, then here he comes, bird in mouth, chest pumped out!!

So, we probaly get a 0 in a hunt test, but 1 we got 1 Woodie in the bag.
And I am proud of his work.



RK


What does that have to do with spending money you don't have on things that aren't necessities?:confused:
__________________
LORD, may the sunrise be early, the skies be gray, the wind be cold, and the water be icy. May the ducks be gullible, my aim be true, and my dog be confident and reliable. But most of all, watch over us and return us safely to my wife and kids, the greatest gifts you have ever given me. Amen.
http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/report.php?p=686204)

I used "Black Cloud" because it is supposed to be superior, not cheaper.
It didn't work in my 60's era shotgun.:rolleyes:

And,again, I earned the money I spent, I didn't steal it from some evil rich guy!!!:-x


I bought some 2-3/4" #3's which work fine.



RK

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 03:23 PM
I used "Black Cloud" because it is supposed to be superior, not cheaper.
It didn't work in my 60's era shotgun.:rolleyes:

And,again, I earned the money I spent, I didn't steal it from some evil rich guy!!!:-x


I bought some 2-3/4" #3's which work fine.



RK

I wish some evil rich guys would buy me a couple boxes of Hevi-Metal. I really want to try that stuff.

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 03:24 PM
Actually what I did add was there before I edited it. You just did not see it.


Well, if you would learn how to use the 'quote' feature...;):D


Anyway, your point was?...

tom
10-05-2010, 03:51 PM
I wish some evil rich guys would buy me a couple boxes of Hevi-Metal. I really want to try that stuff.

Ye-gawd, I must be one of those "evil rich guys" ROFL
Been using Hevi for years!

depittydawg
10-05-2010, 07:30 PM
Well, who was it?
Just Bush??

If you say yes, then I know who and what you are.


That's not exclusionary, that's an obsession on your part.
Frank, Dodd had nothing to do with the real estate bubble bursting, only Bush??


I apoligize for trying to make a point, lefty's who claim to be middle of the road independents that blame Bush and laud Obama are not what they claim.

I try to vote for the person who will best take care of America and my family.



RK

I must have missed it. Was there somebody like that on the ballot?

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 09:04 PM
Ye-gawd, I must be one of those "evil rich guys" ROFL
Been using Hevi for years!

You are now officially on the evil rich guy list after that revelation. Right after dnf.

I have to compile a list of your type to cultivate as much class envy as possible within myself before voting day.

road kill
10-05-2010, 09:06 PM
I must have missed it. Was there somebody like that on the ballot?

Comparatively speaking....YES!!





RK

BrianW
10-06-2010, 09:42 AM
Don't know about your neck of the woods but out here Hevi-shot is about $21 for 10 shells (the last time I looked, don't even look any more), BC $27/25, Kent FS $21/25 & Rem Hypersonic at $20/25 for 3 1/2" BB goose loads.
So I've got to work 6 hours to buy comparable amounts of HS & 3 for Kent. It's bad enough just listening to them ring up the bill for the FastSteels, imo.

BUT, If the eco's got their radical left candidates into office, I'm pretty sure it'd be a lot more than that, if we were even allowed to hunt at all! Would we then be even "allowed" to use an evil semi-auto or pump gun, or might we all be forced to use single shots? Then, I'm pretty sure I'd have to spend a lot more than approx $3 a gal to drive to my hunting area, especially if "cap & trade" gets passed. Think you could get all your dekes, dog(s) & other gear into a Prius or SmartCar? How much do y'all think license/tag/stamp fees would go up to comply with ever more onerous EPA regulations & studies? That's even assuming I can buy that stuff after my health care premiums go up, thanks to Obamacare. :rolleyes:

I think that the candidates who would support most/all of Obama's agenda, such as Coons, would be much more likely to go along with proposals such as the above, even if they didn't initiate or sponsor them personally.

ducknwork
10-06-2010, 11:54 AM
Don't know about your neck of the woods but out here Hevi-shot is about $21 for 10 shells (the last time I looked, don't even look any more), BC $27/25, Kent FS $21/25 & Rem Hypersonic at $20/25 for 3 1/2" BB goose loads.
So I've got to work 6 hours to buy comparable amounts of HS & 3 for Kent. It's bad enough just listening to them ring up the bill for the FastSteels, imo.



The only argument I hear for Hevishot is that you make up the difference in the price because you have less cripples, therefore requiring less follow up shots. This dude won't be buying it anytime soon. I don't have enough cripples to justify it and unless it has some sort of duck seeking laser guidance, it's not going to help me miss less often. I use the el cheapo Win's and Rem's from WalMart. This year I have 3 free boxes of FastSteels that Kent sent me for having some duds in a box that was given to me.:cool: I really, really want to try Hevi-Metal though. It's affordable $22/25 shells and I have heard nothing but good about it. It's a 50/50 mix of Hevishot pellets and regular steel. Roger's has it on sale for $200/case and then a $25 rebate and free shipping, but I just don't have $175 to drop on it now. But if someone wants to split a case...;-)

tom
10-06-2010, 12:04 PM
Don't know about your neck of the woods but out here Hevi-shot is about $21 for 10 shells (the last time I looked, don't even look any more), BC $27/25, Kent FS $21/25 & Rem Hypersonic at $20/25 for 3 1/2" BB goose loads.
So I've got to work 6 hours to buy comparable amounts of HS & 3 for Kent. It's bad enough just listening to them ring up the bill for the FastSteels, imo.



Just don't buy it right ;)
I bought a "pallet" of Hevi, cost me 87 cents/shell
(probably be a buck a shell or so to do it now tho')

M&K's Retrievers
10-06-2010, 11:48 PM
I've heard about this ammo out there that is made out of lead. I hear it is really good and not all that expensive.:cool:

ducknwork
10-07-2010, 07:08 AM
Just stick a box of small finishing nails in your blind bag;-).

tom
10-07-2010, 05:46 PM
I've heard about this ammo out there that is made out of lead. I hear it is really good and not all that expensive.:cool:

Got 6 bags of the stuff being used for tongue weight on my duck boat trailor. Maybe I should mount a reloading tool on the boat ;-)