The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: How do YOU choose?

  1. #11
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    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?

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    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.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie R. View Post
    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.

  4. #14
    Senior Member BrianW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Athol, North Idaho
    Posts
    885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by depittydawg View Post
    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
    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
    "It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
    Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    ________________________________________
    Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
    co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

  5. #15
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post

    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.

  6. #16
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post

    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.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  7. #17
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by depittydawg View Post
    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.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  8. #18
    Senior Member Ken Bora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Burlington, Vermont
    Posts
    11,235

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Let's not even discuss supreme court justice Sortamyass.
    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....
    "So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory." ~ Aldo Leopold

    "The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery is not Ignorance -- It is the Illusion of Knowledge" ~ Daniel Boorstin

  9. #19
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Bora View Post
    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........



    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #20
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Bora View Post
    I bet she ends up a bit more conservative than many of the liberals were thinking...
    What makes you bet (think) that?
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posting Permissions

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