Score one for OkeeDon the Democrat....

Junkman

Extra Super Moderator
The best reason yet to be a Democrat...... :whistle:
 

Attachments

  • democrat.jpg
    democrat.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 185

Cowboyjg

Country Club Member
Site Supporter
Time for a "this picture needs a caption"


"Hi there, how do you feel about cigars?".........LOL
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think Gore's problem was largely that he was about as exciting as a 6'4" tall piece of lumber.

Nothing he did could excite the voters. The only constituents he did attract, and still does attract, are the dedicated enviornmentalists.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
B_Skurka said:
I think Gore's problem was largely that he was about as exciting as a 6'4" tall piece of lumber.

Nothing he did could excite the voters. The only constituents he did attract, and still does attract, are the dedicated enviornmentalists.

Ditto, his wife would have nixxed it anyway and frankly she would have been a decent poster child for the slogan!
 

OkeeDon

Charter Member
Oh, ye who try to define a different group than your own...I'm a Ted Turner environmentalist, dedicated to that extent and no further, and I strongly supported Al Gore.

First of all, it was perception, fueled by right-wing jokes, which labeled Gore that way. All ye of Fox News persuasion, and all ye who used to worship Limbaugh, I expect you to buy into that "conventional wisdom". Gore is actually very funny. Even if he were not, I would vastly prefer a guy who knows how to think as opposed to someone who publicly avows he does not read newspapers or follow news reports.

Gore is best known leading the downsizing of the Federal staff levels, something the so-called small-government righties immediately reversed as soon as they got in office. Gore is actually more conservative than the current bunch.

By the way, Ted Turner supported environmental activities because he believed that money was to be made by being "green".
 

OkeeDon

Charter Member
Big Dog said:
Ditto, his wife would have nixxed it anyway and frankly she would have been a decent poster child for the slogan!
Wow, now we're getting even further afield. First of all, whose wife are we talking about? Certainly not Tipper; she almost posed a negative for Gore because of her conservative campaign against explicit language in rock and rap music. If we're talking about Hilary, she obviously would NOT have been a poster child for anything sexy.

C'mon, guys, if you're going to get your rocks off trying to put down Democrats, actually study them a little and try to get your facts somewhat near the actual people. I probably watch Fox News even more than most of you, under the heading of , "Know Your Enemy".
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OK I guess I am confused. I was not trying to insult or even poke fun at Gore with my statement about his obvious lack of charisma, nor was my statement about his voter base written to deride him.

The facts are the facts.

The solid constituent base that he established is not one of folks who believe in his fiscal concervatisim, his downsizing of his staff or anything related to those things. He has a solid base of dedicated enviornmental voters (notice I didn't say tree huggers or enviornmental zealots/wackos, etc). That is who his 'core' base is and those voters are his only real strong supporters. He is also best known for his enviornmental issues in national polls, not for his creation of the internet, is staff reductions, etc. And he has written books on the topic of enviornmental issues, gone on speaking tours on the topic. It is what people actually identify with him as policy. Not to say he didn't do other things. But Gore = Enviornment in the eyes and minds of most who know of him.

There are always exceptions. The 'core' supporters for Gore were & still are the dedicated environmentalists. And that is not an insult in any way.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
[font=&quot]I was actually complimenting Tippers good looks, not her opinions!

I'm a registered Independent admitedly favoring the Republicans. Both have their evils. I have no where near the political savvy as you Don. Maybe you can shed some light for me.

Why do I feel primarily that the Democrats...........

1. Criticize with no answers of their own to correct the problem on most every major issue.
2. Are the watch dogs of Politically Correct which I feel has got totally out of hand
3. Would weaken the country in Defense and Foreign Policy (It's scarry to think what Gore would have done after 9/11)
4. Protect the welfare system and fail to address the system of abusers and generations of laziness
5. Are protected from the media

Feel free NOT to answer.....

I usually don't discuss politics cause I ain't got a leg to stand on. This is my perception and BTW..........I got a list for the Republicans as to why.....

1. They seldom have a closing plan (good ideas done half assed)
2. They tend to assume the middle class is on their side and concentrate on the extremes (low & high) which continues to widen the gap.
3. They spend too much
4. They fail to address the welfare system
5. They have forgotten small business (farms)

Hey, this is my country bumpkin views and only mine. Give me a good reason and I'll take the ass whippin'!!
[/font]
 

OkeeDon

Charter Member
The 'core' supporters for Gore were & still are the dedicated environmentalists. And that is not an insult in any way.
Well, while they may not have all been "core" supporters, you make it sound like a majority of voters in 2000 were dedicated environmentalists...I just disagree with you. I think there are many reasons to support Gore, even it much of his vote was against Bush rather than for Gore.
 

Doc

Administrator
Staff member
I'll add an observation from my own neck of the woods. I heard way to many comment that they would vote for Bush, because of the gun issue. And I heard the same argument last election. Bush got votes because these folks believed the Dems would enact legislation to take away their guns. You can't argue facts with them, they're going to believe what they want, but I think this perception did help dubya get into the whitehouse for two terms!
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OkeeDon said:
Well, while they may not have all been "core" supporters, you make it sound like a majority of voters in 2000 were dedicated environmentalists...I just disagree with you. I think there are many reasons to support Gore, even it much of his vote was against Bush rather than for Gore.


No Don that is not what I wrote nor what I meant. In any election there will be people who will vote for their 'party' or the canditate of their party. There will be people who will vote for the lesser of two evils. There will be people who vote for the taller candidate, the one with better hair, the one they feel is more likeable. There are dozens of reasons to vote for anyone.

None of that changes, nor does it take away from the fact that the strongest group of supporters Al Gore had, and still has, are the dedicated enviornmentalists. They, as a group, generally believe in his message very strongly and they are the folks he mobilized the most effectively. There are many people who voted for him who could not be described as core supporters. And in that light take a look at my votes for Dub-ya. I am not a supporter of our current President but I voted for him, and I believe presented with the choices I was given he was the better choice (both times). The fact that I voted for him is no different than the fact that many people who are not enviornmentalists voted for Al Gore. But it doesn't mean they were core supporters of him or any of his policies any more than I am a core supporter of George Bush or any of his policies.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Doc said:
I'll add an observation from my own neck of the woods. I heard way to many comment that they would vote for Bush, because of the gun issue. And I heard the same argument last election. Bush got votes because these folks believed the Dems would enact legislation to take away their guns. You can't argue facts with them, they're going to believe what they want, but I think this perception did help dubya get into the whitehouse for two terms!

Will the Democrats take our guns?
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Based on VOTING RECORDS, folks like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Metzenbaum and perhaps a 100 more Democrats would gladly take your guns, and have historically voted for every (or nearly every) gun restriction/ban to come across the floor. Again in all fairness, there are dozens of strong pro-gun Democrats, however as a % of the party, they are overwhelmed by the Democrats who favor strict gun control and/or outright bans.

Now based on VOTING RECORDS, there are Republicans who are also anti-gun folks and would do the same thing. However, as a % of the total party, Republicans who favor strict gun control or outright bans are a very small % and Republicans who favor gun rights are a fairly large %.

However, as a whole, the Democratic Party has put in its national platform, on more than one occasion, that it favors various levels of gun bans, typically aimed at handguns. On a state by state basis, the Democratic Party has also placed various levels of gun bans into their party platform. The Repbulican Party has never done that at either state or national level.



For those who want to look up voting records, the NRA has a database. I presume, but have not checked, that "Handgun Control, Inc" (under one of its many reincarnated names) keeps a similar database that rates pro-gun and anti-gun votes.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Being a NRA member for 30 years and a active Friends Of The NRA member I sorta knew the answer. I was looking for a response from Don. I've heard them all, just trying to find out if there may be any NEW reasonable ideas on convincing me to give up my guns.

Our problem is not guns, it's the fact we are not enforcing the laws we have now on violent crimes commited with guns. People who commit crimes with guns need to be severely punished and please don't ask me what severe is cause it's extreme!

Man I better stop now...................:peace:
 

OkeeDon

Charter Member
[font=&quot] 1. Criticize with no answers of their own to correct the problem on most every major issue.
I don't think that's true. If you suggest an issue, I'll try to supply the suggested answer. The accusation you're making is a common statement among the right-wing media, but saying it doesn't make it true.

2. Are the watch dogs of Politically Correct which I feel has got totally out of hand
Most Democrats thin k that PC is as silly as most Republicans; there are Republicans who support it as well as Democrats. This is not really a political issue. The simple fact is that the entire nation has moved away from derogatory terms. Do you want to return to the days of "nigger", "wop", "kike", "jap", "chink", "mick", etc.? The United States is no longer a homogenous nation, and there are people from every conceivable background. In fact, I'd say that the traditional image of a white, Christian American is in the minority. What is the purpose of offending them?

Now, if you want to talk about multi-culturalism replacing traditional values, I will agree with you. I have no problem with multi-culturalism in addition to dead, white Europeans. But, again, it's more of an educational thing than a political thing, and all educators, regardless of their political party, go a little overboard with their sacred cows.

3. Would weaken the country in Defense and Foreign Policy (It's scarry to think what Gore would have done after 9/11)
This is by far the most mistaken accusation that is in common use. What is your example? The weakening of our defense was a result of the end of the cold war, and it was started in the first Bush administration, because we didn't need as much military. Since then, while troop strength is down, the military folks I listen to on CSpan say that the military is stronger than ever as a result of improved weapons and techniques. These were started in the Clinton administration, and would have been continued by Gore. There is no lack of will to use our military among Democrats. Clinton bombed Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan, among others. There is no reason to doubt that Gore would have reacted any differently after 9/11; all Americans supported the defense of our nation. In fact, the amazing thing is that the wimpy Bush actually had the balls to stand up for something, although it's lilely it was Cheney doing the propping up.

I have to go on and say that the use of our military would have been a heck of a lot more intelligent than the current status; invading Iraq was just about the dumbest thing anyone has done in this century. And, unlike those Democratic Congressmen who caved in, I said it was wrong before we ever went in. My very conservative wife also said we should not go, but for a totally different reason -- she said it was shameful that the US was making the first strike.

4. Protect the welfare system and fail to address the system of abusers and generations of laziness
I take back what I said above -- this one is the wildest. President Clinton supported and signed the first effective welfare reform act in our history. Now, here is one of the classics of Republican lies and misrepresentation. The GOP will (and did) claim that Clinton vetoed several welfare bills before they finally watered one down that would suit him. The truth is that Clinton has always supported welfare reform; he supported and caused it to be passed in Arkansas as Governor. The GOP knew that, and knew that if they didn't do something, Clinton would get credit for welfare reform as President. The GOP hated Clinton and would do anything -- ANYTHING, even if it hurt the country -- to try to discredit him. So, what they did was write and pass, in Congress, absolutely ridiculous welfare reform blls that no one, even themselves, wanted to see passed. They KNEW Clinton HAD to veto these jokes, so they were safe in sending them up. I often wonder what would have happened if Clinton had called their bluff and signed one of them; there would have been panic. But, he cared too much (more than they did) about the nation to take that risk.

Finally, they passed one that was realistic. It was still stronger than many liberals would have liked to see, but Clinton was not -- and never has been -- a "Liberal", so he signed it. Frankly, no GOP President would have taken the risk, but Clinton was a true leader.

5. Are protected from the media
Gasp! Are you serious? The media crucified Clinton, when they have given every other major leader a pass for the same sort of personal behavior (except Gary Hart, and he might as well have wagged his weenie at the media). I could go into detail after detail about the peccadilloes of Republicans whose activities were known by the media, but not reported, but I think you know them as well as I do, and are simply and conveniently forgetting them.

Now, in fairness, let's look at your other list:

[/font][font=&quot] 1. They seldom have a closing plan (good ideas done half assed)
Well, Iraw was a half-assed idea done half-assed, but why quibble. I can think of several things they've done very well, not half-assed, like cutting spending on infrastructure in order to cut taxes, and taking away privacy rights, but none of them were good ideas. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

2. They tend to assume the middle class is on their side and concentrate on the extremes (low & high) which continues to widen the gap.
No, they have duped the middle class into believing them, while they concentrate on their true agenda. I'm not quite sur why, because it doesn't make a lot of sense, but the middle cass goes on supporting them This may be the biggest con job in histoy. Thy have the sheep so well convinced that they keep up their support even in the face of logic and contrry facts.

3. They spend too much
Incredible, isn't t? The party of fiscal conservatism now has much more of a "borrow and spend" policy than the Democrats EVER had as 'tax and spend".

4. They fail to address the welfare system
Well, here I have to disagree. They did finally send Clinton a bill that could be signed. Of course, if you are still thinking that the welfare system is like it was back in the 70's and 80's (which were mostly Republican regimes), you're out of date. The Democrats largely fixed it. The Dems were also much, much better at catching welfare and medical fraud; the GOP ended much of that by gutting the watchdogs' budgets in order to give taxes back to the rich.

5. They have forgotten small business (farms)
Have they EVER been in support of farmers? That's pretty much always been the bailiwick of Democrats, like Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, along with every other meaningful program that has helped people who really need help. Republicans cut school lunch budgets by declaring ketchup as a vegetable...
[/font][font=&quot]

[/font]
 

OkeeDon

Charter Member
Sorry, I was busy writing my last response and didn't see the guns question until now. Will Dems take away your guns? A flat NO. Will they want to keep track of where the guns are? YES. Are they doing this so they can take them away at some future date? NO. Will you believe me if you are an NRA member? NO. Is that because the NRA is fanatic on the subject and lies to you about the Democrats? YES. Is it worth discussing any further with an NRA member? NO. Is that because they are brainwashed? YES. Are there any ex-NRA members who have seen the truth? YES. Do they believe the NRA any longer? NO. Is the NRA a rapid, fanatical organization who will stop at nothing to promote their twisted agenda, even if it results in people getting killed? YES.

Bob, I'm surprised at you. We had this conversation in the past. What part of Kerry the hunter and gun owner don't you believe? I think you came real close to calling him a liar, last time. I said then, and I say again now, that if he was anti-gun he could not and would not have taken the risk of losing that faction by "faking" a hunting trip. I don't believe your reasons for not voting for Kerry were valid; I think you got sucked into the mind trap like a lot of other good folks.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Actually Don, they already have taken away the guns in several areas. Washington DC enacted a ban, as has California. The bans are fairly specific. They did require the selected guns had to be either turned it, or shipped outside of the jurisdiction. I would suggest that given those two choices, that is the equivalent of taking them away.


Don, I am just as surpried with you hanging onto the lie of Kerry being a hunter. That man is a liar when it comes to guns. He has a published voting record to look at. His voting record proves he is a liar. His so-called hunting pictures show him keeping his distance from the birds that he claimed to have killed, and no photographers were allowed on the publicized hunt to prove he ever actually participated. Further, his gun handling antics show him publicly (in a crowd, while on a podium) with his finger on the trigger of a shotgun, which of course violated all sorts of gun safety rules. So he obviously must have failed his hunter education classes.
 
Top