In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Dems Agree with Clinton on Guns

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited July 2004 in General Discussion
At the Convention:
Dems Agree with Clinton on Guns
by John Gizzi

Boston, Mass.--"Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets," Bill Clinton told a cheering Democratic National Convention Monday evening, "and to take assault weapons off the streets." The former President vigorously contrasted his position and that of John Kerry on assault weapons with those of Congress and President Bush [who] are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire.

With those remarks, Clinton staked out a strong pro-gun control stance for his party and nominee Kerry this year--one that is sure to fuel pro-Bush activities by the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America, and other pro-2nd Amendment groups. Are Democrats from across the country worried that this position on guns, then, may drive gun-owning voters away from Kerry and their party this fall? Hardly, it seems, or at least that was the reaction I got from numerous party leaders on the Fleet Center convention floor the night after Clinton's address. Almost to a person, they believe that Kerry's background as a hunter and veteran will be enough to thwart criticism of his support for the ban on assault weapons--easily the top issue of gun-owner advocacy groups this year.

"No, not at all," was Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's reply when I asked him if the Clinton-Kerry position on guns would hurt the Democratic ticket in his state, a major venue for hunters and gun-owners. The former Philadelphia mayor and Democratic National Chairman told me that "Most hunters in Pennsylvania realize that assault weapons have no place in the home. They have never seen an assault weapon used to kill a bear or an elk. They're used for criminal intent--to kill or maim." Rendell (who doesn't own guns, but told me he "fired the M-16 when I was in the Army") said "you wouldn't let Americans own rocket launchers and you shouldn't let them own assault weapons." He added that Kerry's background in the service and as an avid hunter gave the Democratic ticket "the most appeal to hunters in a long time."

A similar response came from the present Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "You've got a nominee who's a hunter and a national chairman who's a bird hunter," McAuliffe told me, denying that the party's pro-assault weapons ban would harm its standing with gun-owners. "But most hunters realize that there are people who should not have guns--people who have a history of insanity, violence, or spousal abuse."

"Not every Democrat agrees with [the assault weapons ban]," Oklahoma Democratic Chairman Jay Parmlee conceded to me. But he quickly added that Oklahoma Democrats understand that "there is a difference between an assault weapons ban and the right to keep and bear arms, which we do everything we can to support.

The scenario of Kerry as hunter and combat veteran was sketched by numerous Democratic powers from Southern states, where gun-owners are a large and significant group. "People know that John Kerry owns guns and is a hunter," former Texas Lt. Gov . Ben Barnes, a power in his state's Democratic Party, told me. "George W. Bush made a very bad mistake on this one, because people realize that no one uses an Uzi to shoot birds." However, Barnes pointed out that he felt that other issues would take precedence over the 2nd Amendment in the fall "even though the NRA would like to make it all about guns."

But some Democrats from gun-owning states did suggest that their party's strong identification with the gun control issue might be a problem this year. Former Kentucky Gov. John Y. Brown, for example, told me his state is pro-gun, that "I haven't seen any polls, but it's going to be hard [for Kerry to win in Kentucky]. But if the voters are as smart as I think they are, they will elect someone else [other than Bush]."

Former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus was a bit blunter. Catching up with Mabus as he was departing the convention for dinner, I asked if the party's guns stance would hurt them in the fall. "One reason we lost Congress in '94 was the issue of gun control," he replied with hesitation, "and Bill Clinton said so publicly."
John Gizzi is Political Editor of HUMAN EVENTS

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)


  • Options
    Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Where They Really Stand
    By Tom Segel (07/30/2004)

    "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it, comfort, and freedom. When the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then (they) ceased to be free."

    These words could be spoken about the United States today. They were not. They were actually spoken by Sir Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) when speaking about the fall of Athens.

    Today we see a modern version of the Athenians is the attitudes of many American citizens. They would sell their own constitutional rights for governmental promises of security, freedom from responsibility, plus a life of equality and comfort.

    To a degree, this attitude is understandable. They have heard the promises of these lifetime benefits spewing from the mouths of politicians for the past seventy or more years. Starting with the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, through the utopian promises of LBJ and the government controlled medical plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, there has been a strong contingent of political promise makers who would offer Americans almost anything they desired. All we needed to do was surrender our liberty.

    If we are to be objective about the dangers facing freedom, it must be admitted these threats can come from either the extreme left or right of the political spectrum. At this time in our history, there are warning calls for citizens to be very observant of what powers are given our government under the threat of this global war against terrorism. Already we have seen personal liberties restricted for the sake of national security.

    The cause of greatest concern is not actions taken as national defensive measures, but those legislative moves, which eat at the very heart of the Constitution. These are laws that are designed to reconfigure America into a socialist nation.

    It matters not that Socialism and Communism have failed time and time again across the face of our globe. Those who carry this banner know the "right people" have just not administered it in the "right way". They, of course, know the right way to administer everything and they know they are the right people to lead a socialist country.

    Another thing known by the far left is that Americans understand the history of the socialist/communist movement. We just don't like to hear those words offered up in the course of public debate. So, they are changed to "progressive", "liberal", "caring", and "humanitarian", or "environmentally friendly".

    It makes no difference what names or words are used to present proposals or seek legislation. What does matter is. our people must learn that the Democratic Party is a tool of the extreme left and is being used to tear the Constitution into shreds.

    When charges of socialistic infiltration are leveled, the response is always made that these are only fear tactics being waged by right wing extremists. It matters not the it an attempt to disarm the citizenry with new restrictive gun laws.or medical care for the poor. If anyone poses a question about the impact of such legislation, the label of "right wing" always floats to the surface. If that charge doesn't carry enough weight with the public, the left will then claim opponents are "racist", "homophobic", "anti-poor", anti-women", or "anti-environmentalists"

    Since opposition voices are always denigrated when they attempt to expose socialist actions, it is best to explain what Socialists really want by using their own words. The text of "Where We Stand - The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America" should bring enlightenment to all that will take the time to read this clarifying document.

    Concerning political strategy the Democratic Socialists of America say, "Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this control of government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program of regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs."

    The document speaks of economic democracy in these words: "Economic democracy can empower wage and income earners through building cooperative and public institutions that own and control local economic resources. Economic democracy means, in the most general terms, the direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners. Such a transformation of worklife directly embodies and presages the practices and principles of a socialist society."

    The "Where We Stand" document also addresses social redistribution saying, "Social redistribution - the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society - will require:

    1. Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and.

    2. A massive shift in public resources from the military (the main user of discretionary funds) to civilian uses.

    These are words written by American socialists, which explain the direction of each and every item of legislation they author in the Halls of Congress. Those who think socialists are not serving as elected representatives should take a close look at the Progressive Caucus. It is made up of sixty House members who also share their allegiance with the Democratic Socialists of America.

    These elected members of the Democratic Party all seek "to build international political and social cooperation aimed at ensuring the economic institutions benefit all the people by eliminating private ownership." They are dedicated to "building international social movements of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition."

    These few excerpts should give people a good idea of the direction being taken by the Democratic Socialists of America. They have already made vast inroads into government and are relentless in their pursuit of stated objectives.

    We face great danger because of our public apathy and lack of interest in the governance of our nation. It would serve us all well to recall the words of John Adams, in 1772, when he said..."There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man with power to endanger the public liberty."

    Thomas D. Segel is a Texan, now of Harlingen in the deep south Rio Grande Valley. A twice-wounded former combat correspondent, he retired after 26 years of service in the United States Marine Corps. Segel holds eight personal decorations for valor and meritorious service. He also holds the Thomas Jefferson Award for Journalistic Excellence and was named Military Writer of the Year.

    GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
  • Options
    Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gun Control Advocates Frustrated with Kerry's Silence on Assault Weapons Ban




    Most Emailed

    Gun control advocates are angry that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has been reluctant to mention the expiring federal assault weapons ban on the campaign trail, the Hill reported July 29.

    Kerry's campaign is divided over whether the presidential candidate should get involved with the controversial issue. Currently, the campaign is running television commercials showing Kerry hunting and distributing literature promoting Kerry's support of the Second Amendment.

    Although Kerry supports the ban and voted for its extension, gun control advocates said his actions aren't enough. They would like to see Kerry mention gun control measures in his speeches and as one of the issue topics listed on his campaign website.

    "The National Rifle Association has done a very good job of convincing people after 2000 that the gun issue was harmful to the Democrats," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    The federal assault weapons ban is set to expire on Sept. 13.,2061,573641,00.html

    GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
  • Options
    Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    Let me email Governor Ed Rendell.

    That idiot is asking for a butt whooping.

    You can own a MACHINE GUN and SILENCER in Pennsylvania but he doesn't want you to have a semi-auto????????????????

    flukin democrats.

    awcountdown.gifIt wasn't only the Bill Clinton Gun Ban- without Bill Ruger there would of been no ban .
  • Options
    Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    John Edwards` four years in the Senate are characterized primarily by poor attendance, but the votes he has cast are far closer to the Massachusetts liberal benchmark set by John Kerry than to views held by North Carolina voters.

    John Kerry`s selection of fellow Senator John Edwards as his running mate did not come as a terrible surprise. Announced just after the Independence Day holiday, Kerry`s pick was widely perceived as an attempt to declare independence from his own image as an aloof elitist pandering to Southern and rural voters. Edwards North Carolina drawl, mill-town background and easygoing charm on the campaign trail were all seen as natural--and needed--complements to Kerry`s often stiff facade.

    But like so much about the Kerry campaign, the attractive traits that Edwards offers to rural and Southern voters are only skin deep. His youthful appearance and boundless energy on the campaign trail belie a policy record that offers more questions than answers. Edwards` four years in the Senate thus far are characterized primarily by poor attendance, but the votes he has cast leave his record far closer to the Massachusetts liberal benchmark set by Kerry than to the views held by the voters of North Carolina.

    John Edwards, like his running mate John Kerry, has cast the same anti-gun, anti-hunting votes as Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy.

    In fact, many seasoned observers theorize that Edwards entered the presidential fray precisely because he justifiably feared being unable to win a second term as Senator. His nomination as Vice President can`t even be projected to bring his home state into the Kerry column. Like Al Gore, Edwards may not even be able to squeeze a victory for his ticket from the same voters who originally sent him to Washington.

    The routine media barrage has focused solely on the big-hair, big-hug, big-smile camera shot that Kerry and Edwards have already perfected. A steady stream of staged appearances, from tossing a football on the tarmac to playfully tousling each others` aforementioned locks, has confirmed that the Kerry-Edwards campaign strategists are feverishly dedicated to sealing the media image of their ticket as the all-American fun-loving Everymen from Anywhere.

    But what have North Carolina voters learned in Edwards` four years that have soured their opinion of the man?

    The simple truth is that John Edwards is anything but the populist charmer the Kerry campaign would have you believe. Edwards` standard stump speech revolves around the concept of "Two Americas," but it would be more accurate to examine his record from the perspective of the Two John Edwards--the easygoing Southern country boy versus the shrewd, calculating trial lawyer with national aspirations.

    Only the latter shows up on Edwards` voting record. Consider in particular the Senate debate over S. 659, legislation to block the baseless lawsuits that are designed to bankrupt the gun industry.

    On March 2, 2004, when John Kerry staked his campaign on a high-profile appearance in the Senate to sabotage S. 659 at every opportunity, Edwards was making himself rather somewhat scarce. He surfaced only to vote in favor of continuing the Clinton gun ban and in favor of the amendment to ban gun shows. On all other recorded votes during the day, including the vote on final passage of the bill, Edwards was nowhere to be seen. Was Edwards unwilling to offend his fat-cat base of trial lawyers, or did he simply prefer not to cast votes that might undercut the credibility of his down-home country boy routine?

    Most likely both factors were in play. We have to look earlier in his record to see his true leanings on the issues, before he began to apply the filter of his national aspirations to his true positions on the issues. What we see helps explain why North Carolina voters are unwilling to give Edwards majority support.

    In the early years of his Senate career, Edwards voted to "commend" the Million Mom March, to end private sales at gun shows, and to maintain long-term federal registration of gun buyer records. He voted for national registration of all gun show vendors, and voted to ban importation of ammunition magazines. There wasn`t much in the way of gun control legislation that Edwards didn`t support.

    What`s he against? He voted against increasing penalties for illegal firearms transfers. He opposed funding to hire additional prosecutors to prosecute drug cases, and opposed federal prosecution of juvenile offenders aged 14 or older.

    He voted against the nomination of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who went on to establish new government policy confirming the Second Amendment as an individual right. But he voted for so-called campaign finance "reform," which established unprecedented censorship on the NRA`s right to political free speech.

    In all, Edwards voted against gun owners--or didn`t show up to vote at all--83% of the time. This is an anti-gun record by any estimation, but let`s see if Edwards` Southern charade continued on hunting issues.

    "The Humane Scorecard," a joint project of the vehemently anti-hunting groups Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Fund for Animals, gives Edwards high marks on the overwhelming majority of "pro-animal" issues it tracks. Edwards is repeatedly cited for taking "pro-animal position through co-sponsorship of a bill, signing a letter, or a vote for the animals."

    But this endorsement pales in comparison to the fawning personal assessment of Edwards made by Wayne Pacelle, the head of HSUS. Pacelle wrote that his admiration for Edwards began the moment he won election, saying: "Edwards immediately became a much-admired figure within the animal protection community by defeating incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth, who was the chamber`s only operator of an industrial hog factory. Still in his first term in the Senate, Edwards has been a consistently reliable supporter of animal protection and regularly co-sponsors animal protection legislation or supports our positions on key votes. . . . His general support for our positions is noteworthy because North Carolina`s agriculture, hunting and animal fighting industries are larger and more vocal than those in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Florida--the states represented by the other senators vying for the Democratic nomination."

    There you have it, folks. The Two John Edwards have been fighting it out since his very first day in office. The John Edwards elected by North Carolina voters has now all but disappeared, replaced by the John Edwards who wants to be in a Democratic White House, even if it`s in the second seat. That John Edwards has cast the same anti-gun, anti-hunting votes as Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy. But along the way, he`s developed the ability to gloss over his voting record by saying and doing anything necessary to win the next election in which he chooses to compete.

    And that makes him a perfect match for John Kerry.


    GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
  • Options
    Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    My Plea to John Kerry:
    Stand Up for the Progressive Agenda that the Majority of America Already Agrees With
    by Michael Moore
    Take Back America Rally
    Royal Sonesta Hotel
    Cambridge, Mass
    July 27, 2004
    You got to feel bad for George W Bush on some level. Thanks for that warm welcome...

    I don't know what it is with right wingers and Republicans. They seem to have hijacked over the years the word "patriotism", the American flag, these things. And it's an odd thing. I have been thinking about this lately. Because the true patriots are those who believe the important thing is to ask questions, you know. To dissent when necessary. And I know a lot of people have seen my film and the obvious the bad guy in the movie is George W. Bush. But there's the unstated villain in the film. And that's our national media.

    You've seen the film. Right? A lot of them are mad at me right now because - I can't go on a show without them, you know. But I would be mad if I were them too, because the film outs them. It outs them as being for the Bush administration. It outs them as people who were cheerleaders for this war. It outs them as, to be kind to those who are actually good journalists, journalists who fell asleep on the job. Journalists who didn't ask the hard questions. The one thing I hear when people come out of the theater over and over again is 'I never saw that on the news'. Right? Isn't that right--I never-- why didn't I see that? 'I never saw those Black congressmen being shut down one after another'. Did anyone see that?

    But here's my plea to the Democrats and to Mr. Kerry. You will not win this election by being weak kneed and wimpy and wishy-washy and lacking the courage of your convictions. The only way this is going to happen is if you stand up forthrightly and say what you believe and push for the liberal progressive agenda that the majority of America already agrees with. If you--if you move to the right, thinking that's how you are going to pick up a few extra votes from that very small sliver of likely voters who haven't made up their mind yet, if you give up the very principles and things that the people in this room and those delegates believe in, to get those few votes over there, you will encourage millions to stay home..

    I didn't know there was a riot at the inauguration parade. I never saw the egg hit the limo. I never saw that! I don't hear from the amputees who sit in our hospitals, 5,000 - 6,000 of them. How come I don't hear from them on the nightly news? I don't hear from the mothers. I don't see them on the evening news, the mothers of children who have been killed in Iraq and who state their opposition to this war. I haven't seen them on the news.

    Why haven't I seen this? I live in a free and open country that has a free and open press where you can show us anything. That's the great thing about America. You can show us anything! You can ask any question you want to ask. And this is my humble plea to those of you from the press here. And don't any of you take this personally. I don't mean it this way, but I--we, the people, we need you. We need you to do your jobs! We need you! To ask the questions, demand the evidence! Demand the evidence! Don't ever send us to war without asking questions!

    You do us no service by hopping on a bandwagon, by becoming cheerleaders, by looking the other way, because you know that's the safest way to play it if you want to keep your job. Or, or, you are just afraid of being accused of being un-American if you were to ask a hard question to the President or his administration. That's not un-American. That's pro-American! To ask the questions. That's--that's patriotic! But I know it was rough. I know in those first days of the war, I know. I stood on an Oscar stage five days into the war. I know what the mood was like. It was not easy to say we are being led to war for fictitious reasons. Right?

    And -- and those of you who felt the same way at the beginning of this war, you know -- remember what it was like at work or at school? You had to be kind of careful. Right? And if you expressed any opposition to the war, you had to immediately say, "but I support the troops!" Right? Right? "But, but, but, but, but I support the troops." You didn't need to say that. Of course you support the troops! You've always supported the troops! Who are the troops? The troops are those who come from the other side of the tracks. The troops are the people who come from families who have been abused by the Bush administration. You've always supported them. You've always been on their side! This --no one should question that!

    The way, the way that you don't support the troops is to send them into harm's way when it isn't necessary. The way that you hate the troops is when you send them off, some of them, to their death, so that your rich benefactors can line their pockets even more. The Halliburtons, the oil companies. That is anti-American. That is unpatriotic. You do not support the troops when you do that.

    The thing here is, and again, and I am not picking on the press who are here. But it--it, that is true. We are talking about our mainstream national media. A media, for instance, NBC, owned by General Electric. You know, I understand, I understand General Electric now has over $600 million worth of contracts in Iraq. They are war-profiteers. It doesn't surprise me that their news arm has failed to do the job that it needs to do to tell the truth to the American people about this war. There's nothing surprising about that. I understand that.

    I understand the Matt Lauers and the Lisa Myers and the people that have to work for this entity. You have cameras and microphones and the ability to get into places of power that the people in this room can't get in. To ask these questions. And the great thing about this country is you can ask any question you want. You can ask any question you want and not be arrested. Right? You would not be sent to prison if you ask a question. So what has prevented you from asking the question? But you've got the little lapel flag pin. Right? And the TV. Screen filled up with American flags flying. See, we are patriotic. We are patriotic. But you've thrown down with the wrong people. You haven't just been embedded. You've been in bed with the wrong people. You've listened to those in power and just report their lies as truths. The Bush administration and the people who support him, they represent the minority in this country.

    The majority of our fellow Americans are liberal and progressive when it comes to the issues. That's not just me saying this or wishing it to be true. Every poll shows that the majority of Americans believe in women's rights. The majority of Americans want stronger environmental laws. The majority of Americans want gun control laws, the majority of Americans are pro-labor. Put down the whole list of issues, Americans, whether they use the label or not, and most Americans don't like labels, but most Americans in their hearts are liberals and progressives. It's just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate. They don't believe two consenting adults should have the right to be in love and share their lives together and be legally protected by the state for doing so. What would motivate that?

    What business is it, anyway of these people? These, they aren't patriots. They are HATE-triots and they believe in the politics of HATE-riotism. HATE-riotism's where they stand and patriotism is where real Americans stand. And that's the truth. And that needs to be said.

    They keep saying that this is a 50/50 country. This is not a 50/50 country. In their wildest dreams, it's a 50/50 country. Look at all the polls I just, and I've got all the statistics in my book and I cite them all. And these aren't left wing polls. These are Gallup polls and even ABC and CNN polls and they go right down the line and you see where Americans are at. When they, when you hear about this close election, about the 50/50 country, don't forget the key words they always use. 'In a poll of likely voters.' Likely voters. This is how far behind the media is with the times in which we live. They are using an old paradigm. They only poll people who have consistently voted in previous elections. But the other 50% of the country doesn't vote. If they wanted to be honest, they could say it's a 50/50/50 country because they never ask the other 50% how they feel. And I got to tell you, this is what they are in for a big surprise.

    Come November 2. The other 50%--the other 50, you can't compare this election to any election before September 11, 2001.

    That day and since that day has made average Americans more aware of what's going on in the world. They want to know more about what's going on in the world. They talk politics now. We all know this. Right? At work, you go in the bar, people are talking about politics. Anywhere you go, people talk politics. It's cool now to talk about politics. Right? It's uncool--it's uncool if you don't know what's going on in the world. It's uncool to be apathetic. Now that has not been the case for most of our lives much. Right? If you talked too much politics you were seen as kind of strange and wonkie. Right? But that's not the case. That's why John Stewart is so popular, because people want to talk about politics. They want to hear about it. And that's the big story that the media has missed. That there's been this shift in the country. And who are these 50% who don't vote? Who are they? Are they the wealthy and the privileged?

    No. They are the people who have been most hurt by the Bush administration. They are people of color. They are single moms. They are poor. They are working class. They are young people. These are the people most affected by the policies of the Bush administration and they are now talking politics. And they are not apathetic. And I think we are going to see a significant number of them leave the house on November 2 and come out to vote. I believe we'll have the largest percentage of people voting in our lifetime come November 2!

    I really, really believe it, you don't hear that, though. You won't see that story reported because they are just focusing on likely voters from 1992, 1996 and 2000. And 'it's a 50/50 country'. Like if they just keep repeating it enough, it will be true. 'It's a 50/50 country.' Put your heels together now. It's a 50/50 country. I got to tell you, I have traveled across this country quite a bit in the last year. It ain't a 50/50 country. People are angry. They want Bush out of the White House. They want to be able to send their kids to college. They want to be able to go to the doctor. This isn't a 50/50 country. Speak the truth. Come on. Take a real poll. Take a real poll!

    A few weeks ago I was flipping around on the dial and I came across a NASCAR Race on FOX and there was NASCAR champion Dale Earnhardt Jr. FOX asked him, what did you do the night before while you were getting prepared for the big race? He said, "Well, I took my crew to go see Fahrenheit 9/11." And then he said, and "I think all of America should see this movie." I fell off the couch! I said a little prayer for George W. Bush. I'm thinking oh, my God, I hope he's not watching this race now and eating pretzels!

    Whoa. I thought, man, if the movie has gone that far into middle America, and this is where the country's at, how come we don't know this? How come this isn't being reported? What's wrong here? Well, we have our conventional wisdom and our conventional wisdom tells us that the paradigm that we have been following over the last 20 years is the one we must follow and that's the one we are worried about. Thank you. Oh, it doesn't hurt to report the truth. It's ok. You know. I was on a, one of those morning talk shows and after we went to commercial, the person who was interviewing me said you know, you know, you are right, I mean when the war started, it was very difficult here to book the people we wanted to book, ask the questions we wanted to ask. In fact, I got a memo about my tone of voice. And apparently the brass had received a call from the Dick Cheney's office--and said that he didn't like my tone of voice. And I got a memo on it to watch my tone of voice. Well you've got to tell that story! You've got to tell that story. I can't. Well why? They can't fire you. You are like one of the most well-known people in America. And, you know, you've got to tell this story. If you don't tell it, I'm going to wait like maybe another week. What's today? Within the week, I will put this on my web site. I'll tell the whole story and I'll name who said it. So this person is unnoticed now and I am doing it in a friendly way. Because this is a good person.

    You know? Just that I think the people deserve the truth and they need to know how the decisions get made behind the curtain. Who is pulling the strings here? Who's calling the shots? It's like, you know, coming from where I come from politically, you know, we always are in this place of yeah, you know, the man this and the man that and this corporation and this and that and there's probably a part of us that says oh, you know, it's really, there's, maybe it's not that bad. You want to believe it isn't that bad. You know? And then, it's like they have made the mistake of giving me a peek behind this curtain and I've seen this happen and it's stunning to me, for instance this whole experience with Disney not releasing the film and it's like what--you know, the film has gone on now to make more money than any Disney film this year. And it's like--it shocked me at the time, because the way I have been able to get my work out there over the years is that usually when the media companies, greed always supercedes politics or personal animosity toward me. Oh, I can't stand the guy. Oh, how many books did he sell last week? Well, ok. Print a few more. You know this incredible flaw of capitalism that has always worked in my favor.

    You know the old saying that the rich man will sell you the rope to hang yourself with if he can make a dollar off it? That will eventually be their undoing. But this time it didn't happen. This time a film made for a very small amount of money that will now make, you know, at least a quarter billion dollars around the world by the time it's done, the greed didn't motivate them to release this film. I couldn't figure it out for the longest time and it took a Canadian journalist to finally do the story and thank god for the Canadians, you know? They are just like us. Only better. They are sort of like the Red Sox. You know? Their time will come. They like us. The Canadians really do like us. They just wish we would read a little more and--but it took a Canadian journalist to write that perhaps one of the problems that Mr. Moore had with Disney is the fact that the Saudi Royal family owns almost 17% of Euro-Disney. And that in 1994, Prince Walid, one of the richest men in the world, and a member of the Saudi Royal Family, wrote Michael Eisner and Disney a check for over $300 million to bail out Euro-Disney. And the people that helped put the thing together to bring the two together was a company called the Carlisle group.

    Now my film was already done, you know, but I was like can it get any worse? Are they everywhere? But no journalist will ask Mr. Eisner or Disney the question: will that have anything to do with the decision because their good friends maybe don't look that good in this movie. But this is what, just a small example of what we have come to expect.

    But the good news is that things are going to change very soon. And the other side, the unelected side, who occupy our white house, they are not going to go peacefully. They like being in charge with no mandate. All right? They actually believe they could take us to war based on no mandate from the people. And they knew that they had to lie to the people to get them to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11 and that there were weapons of mass destruction and this, this, and that. So they aren't going to go without a fight. And believe me, they are better fighters than we are. They have proven themselves; you have to give them their props for that. I mean, they are up at 6:00 in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they are going to screw today. The hate that they eat for breakfast. I mean, our side, we never see 6:00 in the morning unless--unless we have been up all night. You know? Well, the sun's coming up. I better go to bed. So they are going to fight and they are going to smear and they are going to lie and they are going to hate. And we have to get out there and counter that with the truth. We have to get out there and we have to get up and we have to get moving. And we must not stop between now and November 2. No stopping! No stopping! I'm telling you, if we don't do it...

    Reporters have been asking me while I have been here at the convention, so how do you square the fact, this John Kerry, that he voted for the war? And my answer to them is similar to the answer actually I gave a soldier who stopped me on street a short time back. And he said to me, you know, I was on a ship off Iraq the night of the Oscars and we watched you give your speech. And we booed along with the audience. I was very angry at you for what you said that night but now that I have been there and served my tour in Iraq, what you said was the truth. They sent us there under false pretenses. And he said to me I want to apologize to you for booing at you on that ship. And I said to him, you owe me no apology. It is we, the American people, who need to apologize to you for sending you into harm's way--based on a lie. I apologize to you. And--and I said to him your only crime is that you believed your President. Why would you apologize for believing your Commander in Chief? You are supposed to be able to believe your commander in chief. You are supposed to be able to believe the President.

    Because if we don't have that, that basic thing of being able to believe what comes out of the mouth of the President of the United States, my friend, what are we left with? What are we left with if you can't believe anything that's being said from the man who sits in the white house? John Kerry did what 70-80% of our fellow Americans did. He believed. He believed. And he believed that he was going to do something in a different way, but he believed in the majority of our fellow Americans believe. Do we point our finger at them now? Do you point your finger at your neighbors and your friends who supported the war at the beginning but no longer support it because now 54% of this country believes the war is wrong and never should have been fought? Do you?

    Does anyone in this room sit on your high horse and look down at them? 'Oh, you supported the war! I didn't!' Does anyone in this room have that attitude to your friends and neighbors and family members? Of course not. Of course not. People come to the wrong conclusions at their own speed. And you know what, friends? We are getting better at this. Because during Vietnam it took years before we figured it out. This time, it only took months. It only took a few months before the majority of Americans figured out how wrong this President was.

    And that applause is for our fellow Americans, because they will always respond in the right way when given the truth. They will always come from a righteous place when they have the facts and information available to them. As soon as it was made available, as soon as that happened, they create, the shift took place, didn't it? And it's a long way from the 16 months but not that far, really, from those first days of the war. We now are the American majority. We are with them and they are with us. And this is the American majority that's going to show up on November 2 and remove George W. Bush from the White House. I so believe that.

    But it's only going to happen with our hard work and us coming from a good and gentle place with those that we speak to in the coming months. To hold out our hand and say, come on. It's ok. I mean, you should see some of the mail I am getting from Republicans. I love these letters. You know? Because there are good Republicans. There are good Republicans. And I predict--we are going to see Republicans for Kerry movements across the country. Because a lot of people who call themselves Republicans are that way because they, you know, they just don't like the government sticking their hand in the pocket. Right? That's really their big issue. You know. You've got one in your family. Come on. Everyone in here. Right? They just don't like paying their taxes. Do they? Hum? Ok. But they are good on everything else, aren't they. They believe women should be paid the same as men. Right? They don't believe companies should be dumping crud into the river. Right? They don't believe assault weapons should be made available easily on the streets. They are good on all the other things. They just don't want their hard-earned money taken out of their pocket. Well all we got to do is show them how George W. Bush has taken this money from them and from their children and grandchildren. These are the people that are going have to pay off this incredible debt that this war has created. George W. Bush has gone from being the compassionate conservative to the anti-conservative. He doesn't really believe in conservative values. And we need to do that.

    But here's my plea to the Democrats and to Mr. Kerry. You will not win this election by being weak kneed and wimpy and wishy-washy and lacking the courage of your convictions. The only way this is going to happen is if you stand up forthrightly and say what you believe and push for the liberal progressive agenda that the majority of America already agrees with. If you--if you move to the right, thinking that's how you are going to pick up a few extra votes from that very small sliver of likely voters who haven't made up their mind yet, if you give up the very principles and things that the people in this room and those delegates believe in, to get those few votes over there, you will encourage millions to stay home.

    The people who are already feeling disenfranchised who are full of despair and have sunk into their own cynicism believing what's the use? What's the use? You know, if the Democrats move that way, they will in the only energize the base, the base will stay home. I went to one of these meeting of ACT, I forget what it stands for. America coming together, one, two, and they put up on the screen a map of Cleveland, Ohio and they showed a precinct in Cleveland that was 96% African American. 96%. Total vote are turnout in 2000, 13%. You can't get more base of the Democratic Party than African Americans and if you don't have a message that will inspire them to come out on Election Day and tells them with no B.S. and shows them how their life will be better, we will not win this election. That will not happen.

    I say this not to rain on the party. We are all in this together. And as they said last night, we have a big tent. And all of us, from conservative Democrats to Greens who are voting democrat, are all in this tent right now for one common goal. That's to get our white house back in our hands, the majority's.

    And a word about Ralph Nader. Yes, the Republicans do love Ralph. I just came from Michigan where Ralph turned into 50,000 signatures. 43,000 of which were gathered by the Michigan republican party. This is a painful thing to witness, because of the great Americans, Ralph Nader is one of them. His legacy, what's done for this country--has been incredible. And what I and others try to explain to Ralph before he decided to run is that you already did your job. The Democratic Party of 2004 is not the Democratic Party of 2000. the threat, the threat that you posed in 2000, they got the message. And it was carried on by Howard dean and Dennis Kucinich and others in this year. And they helped push the Democrats toward where the majority of Americans that liberal progressive majority, is at.

    You did a great thing and now, they are in a better mace. You have to admit that. Even al gore of 2004 isn't the al gore of 2000. He's moved! And all you have to do, if you think the Democrats this year are the same as the Democrats four years ago, ask yourself this question. Do you think john Kerry will ask Bill Clinton not to campaign in Arkansas for him? Hum? I don't think so. So my appeal to the Nader voters, to the Greens out there, is that we have a different job to do this year. And this is so misguided and so wrong and so uncool. So uncool to be doing this.

    I think that when it comes to that day people will know what to do. But I would not have the Democrats spending any time attacking Ralph Nader. All right? That is the wrong way to go. what the Democrats should be doing, and I have heard Kerry say this, is we need to give, we need to give those who are thinking of voting for Ralph Nader, a reason to vote for john Kerry. That is the right answer. That is the right answer.

    When I was in Cannes with the movie, I showed it to the American students whose were working there. There was about 200 of them. At the end of the movie, I asked them, let me just ask you a question, how many of you are thinking of voting for Ralph Nader? Nearly half of them raised their hand. I invited Kerry's daughter, Alexandra to come and sit in the back. They didn't know she was there. And she witnessed this. And we went out to lunch afterwards and she was shocked. How could they, after watching this movie, for two hours, with the message of the movie seems to be that Bush must go, that nearly half of them would say they are still considering voting for Ralph Nader. I think I saw one poll recently that said 12% of 18-25-year-olds are planning on voting for Ralph Nader. And I said to her, I said you have to tell your dad that, you know, because they, some of the kids that gave their reasons and they spoke with all that great honesty that comes out of an 18 or a 19-year-old. Right? Because there's no bullsnot, right? When you are 18 and 19 they call you on it really quickly. I said you need to tell your dad that the way to deal with this is to take the strong stand that needs to be taken. The majority of Americans are already with you. Don't be afraid. Don't be afraid. Speak out on these issues. Speak out about health care in the right way. Don't put ads on TV that say we will provide health care for "nearly" all Americans. Don't do that. Stand up for something. Don't be afraid. Don't try to be the hamburger version of the Republican Party. And I think he got that message. And I think that, you know, from what I've heard in recent weeks, I got to say this and I've said this to everybody here who's been asking me about the war.

    One thing I do know about Kerry, he will not invade a country like George W. Bush did. I believe in my heart of hearts--that this man because you know when you have been shot three times and you have been in that situation and you know this, if you have family members whose have been to war, if you have parents who were in World war II, my dad always says to me, he was in the marines in the south pacific and he said, you know, if you have been there, you never want to see anybody else go there. And you want it to be the last resort. The absolute last resort. and--so in my heart, I trust that when he says that. In closing, I just want to thank you for everything that everyone here has done. We are all in the same boat together. And it's very important.

    I am glad these rallies are taking place, because, you know, I don't know how the press will write about these gatherings of these rally's you have been having here and your speakers. This is not a niche of the Democratic Party. The things that the people in this room believe in is where the American public is at. Especially where I believe a large chunk of that 50%, that non-voting public, is at. And it's going to be our job to get them out on November 2 and that's what we are all going to do.

    Thank you very much for being here. Thank you.

    GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
  • Options
    Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Socialism is evil
    Walter E. Williams (archive)

    July 28, 2004 | Print | Send

    What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

    Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

    Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

    The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

    Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

    Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

    An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

    For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

    c2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc

    GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
  • Options
    salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Josey1
    [ It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

    Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients.

    Unfortunately, socialism is now defined as whatever the Democrats want. Republicans get a pass on their socialist activities because they are Republicans.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • Options
    pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It is NOT ABOUT HUNTING, when are they.......Oh nevermind.

    Good to see that they recognized the "Gun Owners of America" this time.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • Options
    idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    SALZO-- X-Ring! Conservatives would work harder in Congress if we had a liberal President.
  • Options
    FrOgFrOg Member Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Good articles. I'll give yall that Reps also tend towards socialism, in some senses. But how can you support blatant socialism of Kerry. If I admit that there are socialist tendencies among some conservatives, you have to admit that these tendencies among both parties are not equal. Why should I support someone who supports full blown socialism rather than someone who supports conservative values and has some socialist flaws. I just don't get the moral equivalence of Kerry and Bush. They're not equal, in any way.

    Jeez, Kerry said he believes life begins at conception and then votes to protect partial birth abortions. How can getting this BOZO into office be a good idea?



    Don't Mess with Texas / Don't Mess with Poland
  • Options
    alledanalledan Member Posts: 19,541
    edited November -1
    quote:Dems Agree with Clinton on Guns

    ..and were we to expect anything different from them?



    Extreme moments of horror should be met with extreme actions of preventive retribution

    Of all the things I've lost, I miss my youth the most!
  • Options
    gap1916gap1916 Member Posts: 4,977
    edited November -1
    The Democrats/Liberals need to repeal the 2nd ammendment. All this other crap will do them no good. Then they need to repeal the rest of the constitution and we will be just fine acording to them. And we will be better for this? And there are Americans who really beleive this? Dude, where is my country? [8D]

    Former Marine
    A N G L I C O
  • Options
    ZERODINZERODIN Member Posts: 6,338
    edited November -1
    How in the hell can anyone who has read the Constitution make even a passing claim that the second amendment has anything at all to do with hunting? Can anyone who supports these clowns answer that simple question for me? It's been driving me insane, and I want this put to an end. You say these men aren't out to repress the populace and you say that they have IQ's in the 180's. One of the following two statements is true:

    1. The Democrats truly don't understand the Second Amendment and truly believe it is entirely about hunting.
    2. The Democrats fully understand that the Second Amendment is about protection from both invasion and tyranny, and are cognizant that it interferes with their desire for tyranny.

    Please, dispute this assertion logically. If you can't, and you own guns, then you need to change your political affiliation pretty quick, here.
  • Options
    RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    Number 2 is the correct answer.

    The big difference between the recipients of the "redistibuted" funds is that party "A" gives the money to producers that need help. Party "B" gives the money to non-producers who spend their energy voting for the redistributors, rather than earning it.

Sign In or Register to comment.