Hopefully this is allowed

[Ginger]

You'll never hear me complain once about our president if I don't vote. Don't give me that played out rhetoric. I voted against George Bush every single fucking time he got elected and it didn't do a damn bit of good. There are way too many retards in America that are easily swayed by a few minutes they spend each day listening to the media and the hour and a half they spend each Sunday in church.

Note that this isn't a stab at religion, I'm an extremely spiritual person believe it or not... but I have no faith in American's ability to judge what's proper for our future and I don't think we're going to be in any better of a situation if either one of those faggots gets elected to office.

I think the "played out rhetoric" is your own interpretation. You will get little to no respect from many (if that means anything to you) if you do bitch about the process yet don't do anything about it.

Interesting that you call people that vote retards yet find it necessary to use so many colorful words to try getting your point across.

So far there has been some good discussion, less a few.

Ironically, this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of some of the most basic tenants of the democratic system, and I regret that you feel that way. If my studied and weighed disagreement nets me "no respect from many," or you, then so be it. I would ask, however, that you not purport to hold our system, a system based on choice, in the highest regard, yet jump to base, jingoistic rhetoric when somebody doesn't play the way you want.

It is disappointing that you jump to tired cliches when people are unwilling to snap to party lines for your "discussion." And they are tired. I have heard the "don't vote, don't bitch" remark at hundred-dollar-plate academic dinners, from whatever loony toons that set up a table in front of them DMV, republican and democratic households alike, and every bandwagoneer that finds it easier to debase and oversimplify the system to satisfy the requirements of a convenient criticism. Would I be a better citizen if I jumped into rank and file, pretended to be an expert on things that I'm realistically clueless about, and demanded action on whatever I felt wasn't Just?

Some people in this discussion, whom you have conveniently decided to label as poor participants, have taken a small amount of time to air their greivances. They have declared their unwillingness cast a vote within your narrow contraints, so they must not be worthy of your respect. That's interesting. Maybe you will cast a vote, but I haevn't actually seen you participate in the discussion about it, aside from being quick-on-the-trgigger to cry shame. If you want to talk about democracy, then you're going to have to talk about all of it... not just your silly politicians.

Where were you when we were writing our representatives to repeal the remedial civil penalties levied against Virginia drivers? Where is our thread about the campaign for governor? Congress? The Supreme Court's review of the second amendment? Regional politics? Or is it easier to talk about the damn presidential campaign and forget that there's more to democracy?

And we haven't even touched on the economics of the popular vote. Would you rather not approach the implications that has? Have you concerned yourself rational irrationality? Do you REALLY think you know what you need to know to come to an informed decisions about international economics? Foreign policy? Health care? Infrastructure? Defense spending? Accounting? Accountability? Special interest legislation? Come the heck on. I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you the arguments against the popular election - but before you snap to criticism, you need to know that there are very valid arguments against the current execution of the system, and perhaps educate yourself on some of them. Then pick a side.

And what about the technical execution of the system? The huge problems with the voting machines, the median voter model, and, as Rex mentioned, the problems with accountability of a politicans words?

Perhaps we are participants in our system of choice. There is more than one way to skin a cat, after all, and I prefer to approach different issues. I don't care for the media frenzy, or the ignorance of most political discussion. No. I would rather discuss why the system is the way it is, and what we can do about increasing it's effectiveness. I'm sorry if that doesn't hoist your flag, but please acknowledge that it is not ignorance, nor is it deserved of your critical defense mechanism.

[HAULN-SS]

No, really...obama is far left.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm">http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm</a><!-- m -->

there's a lot more, obviously, but some highlights:

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008) (Let's just let the criminals have the guns)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005) ('cause it's the people making the guns that are the problem)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998) (bye bye handguns again)
Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace. (Jan 2001)
Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants. (Apr 2008)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
No extra penalty for gang association. (Oct 2007)
Battles legislatively against the death penalty. (Jul 2004)
Experimented with cocaine but turned down heroin. (Aug 2007) <-just in there because it's hilarious, since, you know, heroin is so much more hardcore than cocaine.
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
$50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007) (yeah..let's spend like motherfuckers..since we wont have that pesky iraq thing to pay for anymore)
National smoking bans only after trying local bans. (Sep 2007) (cause big brother should tell us what to do)
Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007) We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007) (that's funny..no attacks in 7 years)
Encourage every student to learn a second language. (Feb 2008)
Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998) more spending

[Ole]

You'll never hear me complain once about our president if I don't vote. Don't give me that played out rhetoric. I voted against George Bush every single fucking time he got elected and it didn't do a damn bit of good. There are way too many retards in America that are easily swayed by a few minutes they spend each day listening to the media and the hour and a half they spend each Sunday in church.

Note that this isn't a stab at religion, I'm an extremely spiritual person believe it or not... but I have no faith in American's ability to judge what's proper for our future and I don't think we're going to be in any better of a situation if either one of those faggots gets elected to office.

I think the "played out rhetoric" is your own interpretation. You will get little to no respect from many (if that means anything to you) if you do bitch about the process yet don't do anything about it.

Interesting that you call people that vote retards yet find it necessary to use so many colorful words to try getting your point across.

So far there has been some good discussion, less a few.

Ironically, this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of some of the most basic tenants of the democratic system, and I regret that you feel that way. If my studied and weighed disagreement nets me "no respect from many," or you, then so be it. I would ask, however, that you not purport to hold our system, a system based on choice, in the highest regard, yet jump to base, jingoistic rhetoric when somebody doesn't play the way you want.

It is disappointing that you jump to tired cliches when people are unwilling to snap to party lines for your "discussion." And they are tired. I have heard the "don't vote, don't bitch" remark at hundred-dollar-plate academic dinners, from whatever loony toons that set up a table in front of them DMV, republican and democratic households alike, and every bandwagoneer that finds it easier to debase and oversimplify the system to satisfy the requirements of a convenient criticism. Would I be a better citizen if I jumped into rank and file, pretended to be an expert on things that I'm realistically clueless about, and demanded action on whatever I felt wasn't Just?

Some people in this discussion, whom you have conveniently decided to label as poor participants, have taken a small amount of time to air their greivances. They have declared their unwillingness cast a vote within your narrow contraints, so they must not be worthy of your respect. That's interesting. Maybe you will cast a vote, but I haevn't actually seen you participate in the discussion about it, aside from being quick-on-the-trgigger to cry shame. If you want to talk about democracy, then you're going to have to talk about all of it... not just your silly politicians.

Where were you when we were writing our representatives to repeal the remedial civil penalties levied against Virginia drivers? Where is our thread about the campaign for governor? Congress? The Supreme Court's review of the second amendment? Regional politics? Or is it easier to talk about the damn presidential campaign and forget that there's more to democracy?

And we haven't even touched on the economics of the popular vote. Would you rather not approach the implications that has? Have you concerned yourself rational irrationality? Do you REALLY think you know what you need to know to come to an informed decisions about international economics? Foreign policy? Health care? Infrastructure? Defense spending? Accounting? Accountability? Special interest legislation? Come the heck on. I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you the arguments against the popular election - but before you snap to criticism, you need to know that there are very valid arguments against the current execution of the system, and perhaps educate yourself on some of them. Then pick a side.

And what about the technical execution of the system? The huge problems with the voting machines, the median voter model, and, as Rex mentioned, the problems with accountability of a politicans words?

Perhaps we are participants in our system of choice. There is more than one way to skin a cat, after all, and I prefer to approach different issues. I don't care for the media frenzy, or the ignorance of most political discussion. No. I would rather discuss why the system is the way it is, and what we can do about increasing it's effectiveness. I'm sorry if that doesn't hoist your flag, but please acknowledge that it is not ignorance, nor is it deserved of your critical defense mechanism.

Good argument! I still don't want to hear you bitch about the individual when you chose to not vote. If you don't like the candidates, what have you done to further the recognition of an individual you do approve of? I have worked for quite a few candidates for office of State Representative and Governor when I wanted that individual in office. I have donated time and money to candidates so they may get their message out to those that will listen and participate.

FYI: I probably write my representatives more often than you could imagine. Items like the Virginia Civil Penalty assessed to certain infractions that you mentioned, Medicare/Tricare payment cuts those that have sacrificed the most serving in our military and many, many more. I have met personally with Tom Davis, Mark Warner, Nancy Pelosi and many other political leaders regarding many issues from funding for medical research to transportation issues. I choose to participate.

As for my non-participation in the other topics you listed, I have never seen these discussed. If you are asking where my topic about these is, I would be more than happy to start them if no-one else will.

[Ole]

If someone will tell me how to add another option, I will. I either don't know how (most likely) or I am not allowed to do so.

[Ginger]

Well good! If you're active, then that's great and a lot of what I said doesn't really apply. I often see far too many people use their presidential voting to lord their 'supiority' over other people... which is lame. If you've got a political resume to back it up, you're kind of standing in a different ball park.

Of course, you'll note that I didn't take a political stance in my post.. because I don't involve myself at all (be it for complaint, or gloating)

[CaptainHenreh]

Tell you what.

I'll give my answer in the poll after DC v Heller is decided.

[JackoliciousLegs]

No, really...obama is far left.

Are we going to get into an issues debate? Really? Again? Ok.

Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace.

Good for him. Are you racist? Why is this bad?

Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already.

No reason gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. None. No reason single people shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. No reason unmarried couples shouldn't either. If someone (or a couple) is fit to raise a child, then why not? If they can demonstrate that they'll be a better fit for the child than the foster home, why not?

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

Why is this a problem? Why is it the govt's job to tell us who we can partner with? Sounds like a social/individual issue. I don't think marriage should be mandated by the govt at all. Let's call them civil unions and people can get married, or partnered, or whatever the fuck they want. If your conservative, old world views or your religious beliefs interfere with this one, you'd better check that separation of church and state clause. If you want marriage to be between a man and woman, you can do that. Leave others alone. The fact that this is an issue in the 21st century is astounding to me. I equate it to the worst forms of institutionalism, racism, and sexism.

No extra penalty for gang association.

Wise choice. This tactic is an old (unsuccessful) method of dealing with gangs. A lot of people aren't in a place to make that decision for themselves. They can decide whether or not to shoot someone, but that affiliation shouldn't affect their sentencing.

Experimented with cocaine but turned down heroin. (Aug 2007) <-just in there because it's hilarious, since, you know, heroin is so much more hardcore than cocaine.

And Bush didn't? Actually... heroin is much more hardcore. Drugs are an individual choice as well. I'm in favor of stopping the multibillion dollar war on drugs. If the US stopped incarcerating people for pot alone, our spending on prison would drop significantly. Prohibition was ridiculous and so is the war on drugs.

Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell

The most brilliant... sorry, ignorant, bigoted piece of legislation of our time. Up there with a ban on gay marriage.

We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)

How much foreign policy have you studied? How much have you been outside the US. What a superficial measure of "success." Know what you're quoting. This was in relation to the Iraq war. The greatest US military success since vietnam... :roll: Not in relation to any measures we've taken inside the US.

Encourage every student to learn a second language

Why not? So we can continue our isolationist, racist and increasingly ignorant system of education in a new global economy? This was an encouragement, not a mandate.

Side note. You know, as much as we all love to hate taxes, I can't even tell you all how awful it is to have healthcare just for living in SF. I hate the fact that I pay 8% sales tax and if I get sick when I'm between jobs, that I can get healthcare without going broke. Man that sucks. Who would want garbage like that? That homeless guy I helped patch up on the side of the street. Shit, I should've left him there to bleed out. He probably couldn't pay for healthcare. Why should I? Fuck him. Let him die. :roll:

Also notice, I stayed away from handgun issues. I'll stay away from the gun issue in general. I think that's a tough issue to regulate since the US is so large and diverse. In the city, why would you need an automatic weapon? Why a rifle? In the country, why do you need a handgun? Do people need sniper rifles? It's a tricky issue with no clear cut answer in my mind. Increasing gun education is the closest thing we have to a solution right now. It is the only thing we can do to curb accidental (and intentional) gun deaths because of sheer number of guns already in the open in the US.

Last issue. Iraq. WTF. Get us out. We can not fix a country in a few months, weeks, or even years. Anyone with any experience in third world development knows this. We made a mistake going in. There will be blood either way. It's a wash. McCain conveniently says they'll be out 1 year *after* he'd be out of office. Way to pass the buck.

[Evan]

Jack, The fact is that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate. You can call that a good thing or a bad thing, but denying it is painting your candidate as trying to appear to be something he isnt.

In fact, this is a big problem that I have with Obama, its not just that he is off-the-reservation liberal, its that his rhetoric is moderate. ÔÇ£His record is liberal, and his rhetoric is moderate... How you come across is more important than how you vote, If voters perceive you as moderate, then your voting record isnÔÇÖt terribly relevant. Perception is more important than reality.ÔÇØ

yeah, a liar and manipulator for president. What were you liberals ranting about GW. Bush again? :roll:

[Andy]

What's the methodology for those rankings? It seems a little fortuitous that the 04 Dem candidate was the "the most liberal" and now Obama is too.

I was reading that article and McCain didn't even vote enough to earn a composite score. If you guys are going to talk politics, keep the personal backhanded comments out. It doesn't really accomplish anything except balkanize the opposing sides.

[Goodspeed]

Evan pretty much put into words how I felt on Obama...I kept reading that he was way-far liberal, yet when I would watch his speeches and read his apparent positions he seemed more moderate; this is why I was torn by him. I'd probably be OK with him if he wasn't so anti-gun...but he does come from Illinois, which is the hardest state in the US for gun ownership.

And on the whole gay marriage/gay adoption thing...I really don't care about what other people do with there lives, and I'd rather have a stable gay couple raise a child than most of the senseless breeding we now have among un-committed couples, having too many children with poor fatherhood among other things being tenants of such.

[HAULN-SS]

No, really...obama is far left.

Are we going to get into an issues debate? Really? Again? Ok.

Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace.

Good for him. Are you racist? Why is this bad?

Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already.

No reason gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. None. No reason single people shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. No reason unmarried couples shouldn't either. If someone (or a couple) is fit to raise a child, then why not? If they can demonstrate that they'll be a better fit for the child than the foster home, why not?

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

Why is this a problem? Why is it the govt's job to tell us who we can partner with? Sounds like a social/individual issue. I don't think marriage should be mandated by the govt at all. Let's call them civil unions and people can get married, or partnered, or whatever the fuck they want. If your conservative, old world views or your religious beliefs interfere with this one, you'd better check that separation of church and state clause. If you want marriage to be between a man and woman, you can do that. Leave others alone. The fact that this is an issue in the 21st century is astounding to me. I equate it to the worst forms of institutionalism, racism, and sexism.

No extra penalty for gang association.

Wise choice. This tactic is an old (unsuccessful) method of dealing with gangs. A lot of people aren't in a place to make that decision for themselves. They can decide whether or not to shoot someone, but that affiliation shouldn't affect their sentencing.

Experimented with cocaine but turned down heroin. (Aug 2007) <-just in there because it's hilarious, since, you know, heroin is so much more hardcore than cocaine.

And Bush didn't? Actually... heroin is much more hardcore. Drugs are an individual choice as well. I'm in favor of stopping the multibillion dollar war on drugs. If the US stopped incarcerating people for pot alone, our spending on prison would drop significantly. Prohibition was ridiculous and so is the war on drugs.

Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell

The most brilliant... sorry, ignorant, bigoted piece of legislation of our time. Up there with a ban on gay marriage.

We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)

How much foreign policy have you studied? How much have you been outside the US. What a superficial measure of "success." Know what you're quoting. This was in relation to the Iraq war. The greatest US military success since vietnam... :roll: Not in relation to any measures we've taken inside the US.

Encourage every student to learn a second language

Why not? So we can continue our isolationist, racist and increasingly ignorant system of education in a new global economy? This was an encouragement, not a mandate.

Side note. You know, as much as we all love to hate taxes, I can't even tell you all how awful it is to have healthcare just for living in SF. I hate the fact that I pay 8% sales tax and if I get sick when I'm between jobs, that I can get healthcare without going broke. Man that sucks. Who would want garbage like that? That homeless guy I helped patch up on the side of the street. Shit, I should've left him there to bleed out. He probably couldn't pay for healthcare. Why should I? Fuck him. Let him die. :roll:

Also notice, I stayed away from handgun issues. I'll stay away from the gun issue in general. I think that's a tough issue to regulate since the US is so large and diverse. In the city, why would you need an automatic weapon? Why a rifle? In the country, why do you need a handgun? Do people need sniper rifles? It's a tricky issue with no clear cut answer in my mind. Increasing gun education is the closest thing we have to a solution right now. It is the only thing we can do to curb accidental (and intentional) gun deaths because of sheer number of guns already in the open in the US.

Last issue. Iraq. WTF. Get us out. We can not fix a country in a few months, weeks, or even years. Anyone with any experience in third world development knows this. We made a mistake going in. There will be blood either way. It's a wash. McCain conveniently says they'll be out 1 year *after* he'd be out of office. Way to pass the buck.

Like Evan said, I am showing people who may not know that he is a leftist. All of those policies I pulled out of that website illustrate this. Now for the points:
1) Have you seen the foreclosure section of say..the washington post? Lets make it easier for minorities to get homes, so they can cash our their HELOC and return to wherever? Home ownership is something earned, not something handed out by the government.
2)I don't know much about adoption, or kiids, except that they learn by example. Personally, I think the example they are seeing should be a man and a woman cohabitating in some form, and procreating.
3) Yes, so it is a morality issue at it's core. Guess what government is supposed to represent? The people. Opposite what the media wants you to believe, evangelicals are not some minority of bible thumpers to be woo'd come voting time. These are people who have a belief, follow the bible, elect their peers to office, and expect that there will not be policies from "the squeaky wheel" being pushed onto them from the left.
4)So you DONT think we should punish people extra for being a part of a gang? Haven't you ever seen a 3 or 4 on one fight, and felt bad for the guy getting his ass kicked? People that are in gangs don't think like you or me..there is only action and consequence. Why not throw the book at them and get them off the street for a longer amount of time?
5)I couldn't tell you a damn thing about it, but what I do know is that neither cocain or heroin are on the level of pot. Once you cross over from recreational into hardcore, why even make a distinction?
6) Don't ask don't tell would be self fulfilling even if there was no policy in effect. Soldiers DO kick other soldiers asses when they find out they're gay. Do we seriously want it happening more often because the gays are suddenly liberated? Maybe we can court marshall every 19 year old in th emilitary who makes a fag joke?
7) Me going out of the country has little bearing on how much i know about foreign policy. What I do know, is that when I read the quotes of the words coming out of the mouths of generals, and people in the know, and NOT the words of politicians and newspapers, I see a different picture of how things are going. When's the last time you felt unsafe in this country?
8) The de-facto standard is English. We, as in me, you, caucasians and african americans speak it. We are not the minority. Why are we adapting to the squeeky wheel again?

As for your side not, yes, I would hate having to pay for YOUR health care. If it was as simple as "Get sick, go to the doctor, get better" then universal healthcare works, because we, again, healthy people, go to the doctor about as often as the next guy. However, I hardly ever go to the doctor. For anything. I don't want to pay for the hypochondriac who goes 19 times a year. I don't want to pay for the guy on life support trying to fight a battle with cancer that he IS going to lose. I don't want to pay for the alcoholics new liver. etc..you get the idea. Fuck all of them, indeed.

[CaptainHenreh]

I think that's a tough issue to regulate since the US is so large and diverse. In the city, why would you need an automatic weapon? Why a rifle? In the country, why do you need a handgun? Do people need sniper rifles? It's a tricky issue with no clear cut answer in my mind.

Jack, I know you're a leftist liberal hippie, but you should know better than to talk about "need" when referring to a constitutionally protected right of the People. "Need" should never come into it. You don't "need" an M3...should the fed take it away from you? It's a high powered vehicle, you might hurt someone if you are careless. You live in the city, you don't "need" it...and your right to keep and drive a car isn't even constitutionally protected.

[JackoliciousLegs]

Comparing my M3 to an automatic weapon is a small stretch

[CaptainHenreh]

Comparing my M3 to an automatic weapon is a small stretch

You are correct, of course...as I said, your right to keep and bear a car isn't in the bill of rights.

Somehow though, I don't think that's what you meant.

So tell me, Jack...how is it different?

Both are tools... inert, and not dangerous to anyone until weilded by a human being.

Both are capable of easily breaking the law.

So...please Jack. Tell me how they are different. (except for one being recognized by our founding fathers as something that is a basic human right to possess.)

[JackoliciousLegs]

Nearly everything man made can be used in some way to harm others. Cars are no exception. Neither are chairs, rolls of yarn, or computers. The difference lies in the intent of devices. Guns have no purpose other than to kill. The end result may be to get food, or for self defense, but you can't deny that their sole purpose is to quickly inflict damage. Cars' sole purpose is to get you someplace quickly and comfortably. That's the difference.

I don't want to turn this into a gun conversation. I respect your right to have a gun as protected by the Bill of Rights. I think sometimes, they are ENTIRELY unnecessary (like having an M16 or an AK47 in a city) and will place my vote based on current logic, and not what our founding fathers had no insight into. They had no insight into the world of auto mobiles or of the free flow of information on a public system of electronic "tubes." I know this is a slippery slope, but I'm well aware of it and will do my best to not impose my views on the liberties of others, as long as they don't present a clear and present danger to myself.

Social issues like gay marriage can't be debated along the same lines because they don't infringe on the rights of others. Religion is the same way. It's only a problem when it starts causing irreparable harm to others (the KKK, radical Christianity, Judaism, Isam).

Again, you can have a gun. You have a right to defend yourself, hunt for food, or shoot at a target. I'm sorry though, but I'd have no problem if my neighbor isn't allowed to have an AK47.

Edit: On a personal note, Rex, do you own a gun? I don't know because I don't generally read the gun threads. If you do, and if it would convince you to not own a gun (and I mean you personally), I'd sell my car in a heartbeat. And I'm serious. Put it down in the MM record books. Jack will sell his M3 if Rex will sell his guns (only if he currently owns any). We can have a sports car/gun free party

[Goodspeed]

I think Rex was leaning more towards placing "need" with basic human rights. As soon as someone other than yourself decides what you "need", no matter if its within your rights to have what you want, where does it stop from there? Basic human logic tells us that a ban on long rifles and assault weapons would soon lead to a ban on guns in general, down to your smallest handgun. Look to California right now, where this very thing is happening. I don't want the government telling me what I need, I have a right to buy the items that I want within the law of our constitution.

And, again, not to turn this into a gun issue, but you should look into the recent Harvard study that found gun control to not only not work, but cause an increase in violent crime, not a dicrease. Besides, de-weaponizing a society is a government's first step to fully controlling its citizens.

[CaptainHenreh]

Jack, jack, jack, jack.

Yes, I own guns. A couple.



But you don't seem to want to understand my point. Who cares what an object's "intent" is? Until it is used to break the law...what difference does it make? Ask the UK how their gun ban is working out...now chefs can't even be seen in public with a tool of their trade without a deposition! You want to talk about a slippery slope...no knife with a blade over 3" is legal in the UK? Gimme a break.

Now look, I own both a (sort of) AK-47 AND a (sort of) M16. (ok, an SKS and an AR-15) *gasp!* And I live in the city! HOLEY SMOKES! I must be a dangerous gangbanger who needs his guns taken away, right?

Which is it, Jack? Do you respect my second amendment right or not? You say:

Again, you can have a gun. You have a right to defend yourself, hunt for food, or shoot at a target. I'm sorry though, but I'd have no problem if my neighbor isn't allowed to have an AK47.

You're talking about both sides of your mouth. Can I have my guns or not?

Listen, I don't want you to sell your car. You know why? Because you enjoy it, (or maybe you don't) and it's none of my damned business what you do with your time, money, energy, talent, intellect as long as you don't infringe on the rights of other people. If you want a Carrera GT, knock yourself out! Just don't hurt anyone. In the same vein, if your neighbor has an AK-47* and doesn't hurt anybody with it...what the fuck do YOU care? The minute he infringes on someone's rights (yours, whoevers) lock his ass up but until then why not just leave him be?

The truth of the matter is that criminals simply don't have any regard for the law, and any law forbidding a certain kind of firearm from being owned will only affect law abiding citizens. Do you understand this? The only people who obey gun ban laws are people who don't hurt others with their guns in the first place.

Listen, if you're afraid of guns, that's ok. I'm not going to force you to have one. But if you don't want anyone to have a gun, there is a process for amending the constitution, you could get rid of that pesky second amendment. (And hey, why not the first while we're at it? Not everybody needs to be free to speak, do they?)

*You have no idea how difficult it would be to get a "real" AK-47. Or M16. It's so close to impossible and so prohibitively expensive that it might as well be impossible. The "AK-47" that most people have is a semi-automatic version of a Kalishnikov action, which is actually less powerful, less accurate and has approximately the same rate of fire as a bolt-action hunting rifle.

[G.Irish]

What's the methodology for those rankings? It seems a little fortuitous that the 04 Dem candidate was the "the most liberal" and now Obama is too.

The National Journal rankings took 99 votes in the Senate in 2007 and rated them Liberal or Conservative. The higher the number of "Liberal" votes, the more Liberal you are. Some of the ratings were clearly erroneous. An ethics and accountability bill? Liberal. Allowing people who legally obtained a visa to stay in the United States while they renew? Liberal. What's even stupider, is that in the ethics bill in question, John McCain actually voted for it too! The visa bill? Chuck Hagel, a certain conservative, voted for it.

Then there's the fact that Obama and Clinton voted on 65 measures that the National Journal ranked. They differed only on two, yet Obama was ranked, "Most Liberal" while she got "16th Most Liberal".

Obama certainly is left of center and it is really shameful that he was a constitutional law professor yet has made votes to weaken the second amendment but the National Journal ranking is pretty worthless. Any publication could concoct their own ranking system that would be equally worthless.

At the end of the day it is just yet another attempt to dumb down political discourse into schoolyard labeling rather than actually evaluating the substance of a candidate.

[JackoliciousLegs]

Well argued Rex. Keep enjoying your guns :-D I'll keep the M... maybe.

[Evan]

Gerald the very lack of any kind of firm definition for "liberal" or "conservative" is going to mean you can argue with any kind of research into being one or the other, and you certainly can argue with the National Journal article, especially considering Obama has some stiff competition from Reid, Kerry and Kennedy. (And dont be fooled by the name of a bill, which are so full of political doublespeak that they can mean the exact opposite of their name. )
But the point is, he is Liberal, You can see his voting record for yourself, which is in contrast with his rhetoric.

He preaches change and unity, yet he votes with his party 98% of the time. He talks about uniting the parties and compromising, yet last fall the same day he was campaigning on this topic, he voted down a immigration compromise in the senate.
He loves to attack McCain and call him Bush III, while McCain has crossed the isle, brokered compromises, and gone against his party more than anyone else in the senate.