Bush/Cheney bumper sticker sent man into road rage

I have nothing against you, Handy or any other "liberal" upon the board or in RL. I will admit that I don't know how someone could vote for Kerry when he had absolutly no plan for America (Bush did even if you didn't agree with it) and he was anti-gun (as most Dems today) as heck.
Click to expand...
I didn't vote for Kerry.
The original post just pointed out that most of the violence that is done against another person when it comes to politics (and/or opinions) are coming from the "liberal" side.
Click to expand...
Would you care to back this up with some sort of number, or facts? I'm guessing that, as a Rep., you might receive and take more notice of emails and stories that portray liberal behavior poorly, but I very much doubt you have any reason beyond threads like this to back up this particular "fact".

The political differences are bad enough without this juvenile character assasination.



PKAY,
Your rights are being taken from you by both Dems and Reps, if I understand what Arnie just signed into law. Californians problems aren't because of liberals, they are because of Californians. There are plenty of other liberal voting states that don't have the problems you people create for yourselves.



HKmp5sd,
I was talking about Bush in terms of the honored status of veteren. My brother and I both have devices very similar to what you posted. Go Navy.
 
Handy,

The original post just pointed out that most of the violence that is done against another person when it comes to politics (and/or opinions) are coming from the "liberal" side.
Click to expand...

I didn't start the original post, ask the person that started it. All I can go by is what I see with my eyes in the city of Eugene and I can take pictures of the dents on my car and truck if you'd like :). Personal experience is better then reading or watching it on TV. From my own experiences here in Eugene, I can state as a fact, the liberals do more violence then the conservatives.

The political differences are bad enough without this juvenile character assasination.
Click to expand...

Let him (or her) without sin cast the first stone. I say this because the juvenile character assasinations are generally a democrat thing. Like the words: Neo-Cons, Right-Wing Extremists, Gun-Nuts and I could go on and on. And so, the name calling on both sides goes on and on.

I didn't vote for Kerry.
Click to expand...
:D. Neither did I so we do have something in common :D

Wayne
 
Arnie is a RINO. Yup. He signed the .50 Cal rifle ban proposed and passed by the liberal left Democrat legislature. Please name another state run by the liberal left that does not pass the type of gun laws we see in CA. If they haven't yet it's only because the proposed laws are backed up in the queue. Maybe MA, or NJ? Or maybe NY? Another RINO at the top there, Pataki. Re read my posts. Seems to me I did say "freely elected".
 
And so, the name calling on both sides goes on and on.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. This whole thread is just more tired name calling.

I don't know if citing the acts of drunken college students in your area actually captures the behavior of the average Democrat in Eugene. No one calls frat boys beating up gays "Republican behavior", so I don't know why you would let dumb college kids serve as proxy for all party members in your area.


PKAY, take a look at the "blue" and swing states and look at their firearms laws. They run the gamit. Many are getting CCW laws right now, some have had them for awhile. I don't think WI (my home state) has passed any firearms legislation in my lifetime.

I say again, your problem is all the voters, not just the liberal half. Your state was once run by Reagan, for Pete's sake! You guys have been taking it in the shorts forever in just about any way government can be poorly executed. Your firearms laws are the least of your problems.
 
Handy,

I don't know if citing the acts of drunken college students in your area actually captures the behavior of the average Democrat in Eugene.
Click to expand...

When the democrats in Eugene don't say anything about the behavior and the willful destruction of vehicles with any opinions or political canidate that they don't like, then to me that is the same as condoning the actions of those that are acting in the name of democrats. And the kids aren't drunk (I'm not talking parties or frat boys here) when they do these things. High maybe but not drunk.

No one calls frat boys beating up gays "Republican behavior", so I don't know why you would let dumb college kids serve as proxy for all party members in your area.
Click to expand...

I'm gay and have never been beat up by the frat boys... I guess that I'm just been lucky. Also, when going to the republican offices and helping out (and believe me, I am openly gay) I don't fear getting beat up. So I'm not really sure where your analogy comes into play. Also, the state of Oregon, which voted mostly for Kerry, also defeated the gay marriage proposal.

As for the name calling, I too feel that we can have a lively debate without lowering ourselves to such :).

Wayne
 
Of course you aren't attacked at the party offices - that was my point. The acts of the most foolish members of any party don't constitute the actions of the party as a whole. Hate crimes do occur, and are probably more likely to be at the hands of "conservative" voting young adults, but that doesn't mean Republicans are responsible for them.


The person this thread is about is both liberal AND crazy. To make the event into a liberal thing is to ignore that this person was crazy, first and foremost. The guy who shot his wife and son on the courthouse steps was a gun owner - is that what governed his actions?
 
Handy

The guy who shot his wife and son on the courthouse steps was a gun owner - is that what governed his actions?
Click to expand...

According to the anti's, yes, yes it is. But I get your point. Just because of some actions of others in the name of an organization does not cover the entire organization.

YET, the gun owners were the first ones that raised their voices in condemnation of that mans actions, while voicing respect for the gentleman who was killed trying to protect others. That is the difference.

When a group does something in a name of an organization, and the other members don't condemn those actions, then they are basically condoning the actions of those few.

When hate crimes happen, both sides and all people voice their sadness and anger at the crime, except for your hard corp idiots/bigots. Even if you don't agree with what that person was doing (life style).

Just like when then President Clinton defiled the White House with his cigar. The conservatives expressed outrage but the democrats didn't. So therefore, the democrats basically agreed with President Clinton that disrespect to the Office, and having sex outside your marriage, are perfectly okay. So, the democratic party is disrespectful and believe in adultery. What other conclusions can you draw from their inaction and reaction?

When Bush (both Sr and Jr) do something that is wrong, conservatives will be the first to voice their opposition to what was done (like the gun import ban by Sr.). I voiced my opinion when the Patriot Act was signed, I voiced my concern when Jr. expressed his willingness to sign another AWB if it reached his desk. I happen to agree with the war in Iraq, I doubt that you've been over to a Middle Eastern country (I may be wrong) and to see what and how those people are treated by their government, I don't care if there were no WMD's, all I care about is that a people is now liberated. Little girls are going to school and women can now vote.

An analogy for you for the paragraph above: Let's say that you see a little kid being bullied for years and you just can't take it any longer. You step in and fight the bully, and to keep the bully off the little kid forever, you have to fight every day for the rest of the school year. You keep on winning but the bully just won't give up. Yet because of your willingness to fight for the freedom of this little kid, the little kid grows up to be free of that bully and has time to learn how to take care of him(or her)self. I know, bad analogy but I think you can see what I'm trying to say :).

Wayne
 
one of my buddies has a radio show. the other night we were at the station and he was playing a show. during his last song, a listener called in to ask who the artist was. my friend told him, and then the caller went on to start ranting about the FCC and how it was a republican controlled conspiracy to limit our free speech. after about 5 minutes on the phone with this guy, my friend pointed to the other extension and told me to go listen to this crazy guy on the phone. my friend then told the guy he was a pretty staunch republican, and he flew off the handle. the caller went on for about 25 more minutes about politics and various conspiracy theories, kind of working himself into a frenzy. as i listened to this, i realized the rant sounded familiar. i realized that the guy on the phone was a guy i work with. i got off the phone and told the dj this guy's name. he asked the caller "is your name xxxxx?" at that point, he said the guy just got really quiet and asked if he worked for the government. after that, the guy just hung up. we were really careful when we left that night, and i was kind of regretting not being able to carry on campus, because this guy in question is pretty unbalanced. needless to say, the next few nights my friend turned the webcam off when he broadcast. it was a pretty freaky event.
 
snacktrack,
I'm not against anyone, but why do liberals feel it their right to destroy property? I may not agree with a majority of folks but I don't fear an attack from a conservative like I do from a liberal. If you say that I am full of it, I can email you pictures of what they did just because I disagreed with them.
Click to expand...

USP, I would never condone destroying property. You might want to ask those out of control people who you are using as an example for the rest of us liberals who want freedom of speech as long as it doesnt cause harm others.

If I was to say, "how come every conservative wants to bomb a Planned Parenthood because they think abortion is evil?" I wouldnt use the example of a few wackos to say every consevative is violent.

See, thats the major difference between Bush and Kerry supporters. Integrity. Kerry supporters 'HATE' GW PERSONALLY. Myself, as a Bush supporter never "HATED" Kerry personally, just thought he was the wrong man for the job.
Click to expand...

Well, Im sorry to say..I loathe George Bush. There are many many reasons why I do, and I am perfectly allowed to feel that way and expess those feelings. I am not however justified in terrorizing and vandalizing George Bush supporters. And I dont. And, like you, I feel that Kerry wasnt the right man for the job either, thats why I voted for Ralph Nader.

And you may 'hate' GW, but to you really want a traitorous, enemy sympathizer as your president? Maybe you'd be learning to speak arab now?
Click to expand...
When your whole platform is built upon ignorance, hate, discrimination and fear, you will create more enemies then you can think of. Hey, I would love to be able to speak Arabic. THen I could read Arabic newspapers and find out what really is happening over there, not the sugarcoated" America can do no wrong" propaganda that Fox News spews everyday. I know everyone wants to believe that America is the great benevolent nation here to save the world, but sadly its not. Its a money machine, and its scary that we have someone in office that is more concerned about making profits for his close circle of friends, rather than the safety of the American people.

Remember, we were attacked on 9/11 under Bush's watch. Then they have the nerve to say around election time " if you dont vote for us, you may be attacked again" The blatant use of fear mongering makes me sick to my stomach.
 
When a group does something in a name of an organization, and the other members don't condemn those actions, then they are basically condoning the actions of those few.
Click to expand...
You think there are liberals out there that condone the idiot driving the mom off the road????

Some things are too stupid for anyone to need condemn them - this is one of them.


Threads like these are stupid diversions that dilute our cause. They serve as propaganda pieces reinforcing simple minded prejudices that are of zero value to a democratic process. Making your political opponents out to be baby eaters prevents any sort of dialogue and compromise. And yes, those things are necessary in a free, democratic country. All this bile directed at the nearly half of all Americans is juvenile, pointless and is a large part of the reason we are LOSING our rights.
 
politicians are all crooked, i wouldnt put a sticker for any of them on my truck. only stickers on it are from the NRA, sig sauer, and springfield arms.
 
Hey snoopy, you should put Jennings and Lorcin stickers on your car, along with NRA, instead of Sig and Spgfld, to lessen the liklihood of a break-in. :)
 
"Making your political opponents out to be baby eaters prevents any sort of dialogue and compromise."

Dialog and compromise? Which of your constitutional rights are you willing to compromise on?

"And yes, those things are necessary in a free, democratic country."

No, they are not. Besides, gun-grabbers *never* compromise. They only make us give up less than they wanted to.

Tim
 
Tim,

You can't treat US politics like a jihad. "Compromise" doesn't mean giving up rights, and I'm troubled that you would think so.

I'm talking about changing the dynamic: If gun owners became a big environmental voting block, for instance, the liberals may give up the gun control cause and leave us alone, prefering our help in stopping logging. I offer that as a crude example, not a new topic to fight about.

As long as we treat anything "liberal" as foreign and evil, they will continue to treat the gun issue as part and parcel of the evil conservative plan. But as our many liberal members demonstrate, gun issues need not be on the liberal agenda.
 
"I'm talking about changing the dynamic: If gun owners became a big environmental voting block, for instance, the liberals may give up the gun control cause and leave us alone, prefering our help in stopping logging."

What you are suggesting, Handy, is called "appeasement". Hundreds, if not thousands of years of human history have shown us that it doesn't work. An example closer to home in timeframe and, in my case, locale, is Paul Koretz. He is a California State Assemblyman from West Hollywood, and he lives and breathes gun control. It's all he thinks about, and he is *never* going to quit. Dianne Feinstein is the same way.

These people chip away at our rights--Constitutional rights. Recently in California three horrible pieces of anti-gun legislation were put before the governor for his signature. He vetoed two of them. Would you call the signing of the third a compromise? I call it giving up fewer rights than we would have otherwise, but certainly a loss of rights.

I'll say it again: gun-grabbers *never* compromise. They will, from time to time when it's politically expedient, make us give up fewer of our rights than they originally wanted, but they *will* make us give them up, one at a time if need be.

Tim
 
Lets not make this a "liberal" vs "conservative" vs "libertarian" vs whatever post. The original post just pointed out that most of the violence that is done against another person when it comes to politics (and/or opinions) are coming from the "liberal" side.
Click to expand...

Having read all the back and forth on this thread I think that some folks are missing the simple point and missing the truth behind it. The truth is that for the last fifty years in America revolutionaries have been hiding amongst the good folk on the Left.

I would refer the reader to "The Anatomy of Revolution" by Crane Brinton. Amazon.com has it in paperback for $7.50. This is one of the standard texts which describes the process of revolution.
 
Tim, "appeasement" is the language of dealing with terrorists, not your fellow citizens. You don't have to compromise with the most ridiculous people, like Feinstein. But you do need to find middle ground.

Treating liberals like Islamic terrorists is not how this country works. Compromise is the process that CREATED the Constitution, and is how the founding fathers foresaw their country.

Nor does one have to compromise on the gun issue to find a compromise. See my example above. If the NRA and Sierra Club were to partner they would become more effective overall - that's a good compromise.

CWL are a big compromise, but one we gun owners have embraced. I assume, Tim, that you would not "appease" anyone by getting one.



Meekandmild,
How does the crackpot in the road rage story relate to this conspiracy theory? Do you think he's the head of a cell, or maybe a regional commander? Did his effort to "overthrow" the bumper sticker owner succeed? :D
 
No Handy, I think he's a crackpot. :p

No conspiracy theory. Its just a lot harder to hide a revolutionary in the center or the right than on the left. Something about that glazed stare seems to bother the good conservative folk out minding their own business. Maybe you can tell me what it is about the left which seems to attract people who consider it their job to modify everyone else's behavior. I came back and added the link just to tweak you so pay no attention to it.

Tell you what, fork out the $7.50 and get back with me. That's about half the price of one single Keb' Mo' or Lazy Lester CD.
 
Last edited:
Snacktrack

Remember, we were attacked on 9/11 under Bush's watch. Then they have the nerve to say around election time " if you dont vote for us, you may be attacked again" The blatant use of fear mongering makes me sick to my stomach.
Click to expand...

I don't ever remember hearing anything in Bush's campaign about, "vote for me or we'll be attacked again". I do remember something about a tape from Osama about how much he feared and hated GW. I think it may have swayed alot of voters who thought, OK this guy wants GW OUT BAD cuz he's scared, and if Bush does go, he'll walk all over us and Kerry will bend over and get in bed with him, just like he did with the communist vietnamese....
 
Derius, here is the quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney suggests another, quote, "devastating attack on the U.S." would become more likely if Democrat John Kerry is elected to the White House. Cheney told a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa yesterday that, quote, "We'll fall back into the pre-9-11 mindset ... that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war." Kerry's running mate John Edwards slammed the comments as, quote, "scare tactics." He says the remarks show that Cheney and President Bush will do and say anything to save their jobs.

Its amazing to me that a vice president would make these remarks and to put fear into the American people to vote for them, especially ironically since they are the ones who allowed the 9/11 attack on us in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top