# You might be a democrat if....



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of 
federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding 
Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons 
technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal 
funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affectd by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and 
governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, 
start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports 
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, 
because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinmen are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but 
racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't 
worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people 
haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe Republicans telling the truth belong in 
jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Goose Hunting Machine

That would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so true. Even on an outdoor site like this we have them. Sportsmen too, so they say. Of course they will tell you over and over, our guns are in no danger we have a constitution. I'm surprised they don't suffocate with their head in the sand like that.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

No plainsey, we just realize that there are grander matters at hand than how many flashlights and doodads i can attach to my gun or how many rounds my magazine holds. I'm surprised that you have failed to realize this with age.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You often mention high capacity magazines. I guess you don't like them. As I have mentioned before I like single shot, bolt and lever action. The only semi auto's I have is a Ruger 10/22 and the Kimber I carry on duty. So you see it isn't the doodads I am concerned about. I am concerned that the possibility is there that we have no firearms at all. Or if the UN has their way, global restriction on personal small arms.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> You often mention high capacity magazines. I guess you don't like them. As I have mentioned before I like single shot, bolt and lever action. The only semi auto's I have is a Ruger 10/22 and the Kimber I carry on duty. So you see it isn't the doodads I am concerned about. I am concerned that the possibility is there that we have no firearms at all. Or if the UN has their way, global restriction on personal small arms.


I see, so we should sacrafice our foreign affairs as well as more important domestic problems so that we can ensure that our gun rights are not curtailed whatsoever, even though we could easily get them back? That just doesn't make logical sense to me.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

You might be a republican if: you oppose abortion and family planning but whine constantly about the welfare mothers having more children.

You oppose homosexuality until your son or daughter announces they are gay and then you make an exception.(sort of like dick cheney)

You support financial responsibility and a balanced budget until they give you a tax cut (you can't hve it both ways).

You support the president on the no child left behind act, then whine about how much it costs and don't whine about states rights being trampled by the federal government.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh I've got one for that list

You might be a republican if you state that you are pro life and yet support the death penalty and don't care about life if its not American.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I see, so we should sacrafice our foreign affairs as well as more important domestic problems so that we can ensure that our gun rights are not curtailed whatsoever, even though we could easily get them back? That just doesn't make logical sense to me.


We could easily get them back????? Like they have in Australia and England? Why should we lose them to begin with? I think your true colors are coming out MT. So would you let the UN curtail gun ownership in the United States? Don't dance around this one MT if you are a sportsman like you say you should support the second amendment. Which is more important to you MT the United Nations, or the sovereignty of the United States and the second amendment?

I find it disturbing that you say sacrifice our foreign affairs as if to say the wishes of the UN are more important than our rights under the second amendment. Please explain yourself.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> No plainsey, we just realize that there are grander matters at hand than how many flashlights and doodads i can attach to my gun or how many rounds my magazine holds. I'm surprised that you have failed to realize this with age.


It's called multitasking MT. We can deal with the problems in this nation while maintaining our basic freedoms like the second amendment.

Also, MT I have mentioned on multiple occasions that I do not support the death penalty.

I'm also no big fan of no child left behind. You can't make an Einstein out of every little Johnny. There are kids out there with IQ of 60. So what do we do act like the typical liberal and drag everyone else down by requiring so little performance that idiots get A's?



> You support financial responsibility and a balanced budget until they give you a tax cut (you can't hve it both ways).


Sure you can. Even though the economy isn't great it would have been much worse if the tax cuts had not been there to stimulate the economy. A better economy brings in more revenue. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the past.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> It's called multitasking MT. We can deal with the problems in this nation while maintaining our basic freedoms like the second amendment.


I'm speaking of the individual not the government. My point is that your vote shouldn't me made on the second amendment alone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > It's called multitasking MT. We can deal with the problems in this nation while maintaining our basic freedoms like the second amendment.
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the individual not the government. My point is that your vote shouldn't me made on the second amendment alone.


Hey, MT I can also multitask. How much more simple can I make it? I said I wasn't talking about all the doodads as you suggested I was. I am talking about the basic second amendment right to own a weapon. I thought you said you disagreed with the democrats on this too? Where have I indicated that I make up my mind on second amendment alone?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> so that we can ensure that our gun rights are not curtailed whatsoever, even though we could easily get them back


And I thought he couldn't possible say anything dumber than his past comments.......... silly me.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Well...

As the saying goes, If you are not liberal by the time you are 20 you have no heart.

If you are not a conservative by the time you are 40, you have no brain.

Let's hope this kid's brain is bigger than his heart 

MT, if you do not mind me asking, are your parents extremely liberal as you? Do they hunt?

JG


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> so that we can ensure that our gun rights are not curtailed whatsoever, even though we could easily get them back


MT, tell Jimmy to take your DUNCE hat off now. PLEASE


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Goose Hunting Machine
> 
> That would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so true. Even on an outdoor site like this we have them.Sportsmen too, so they say. Of course they will tell you over and over, our guns are in no danger we have a constitution. I'm surprised they don't suffocate with their head in the sand like that.


Plainsman....I'm one of them....but I at least don't make statements like that.I am not a liberal.But I am a Democrat.....And I'm just as much a patriotic gun owning sportsman as you Republicans are.I tolerate you....but statements like the one above won't go unchallanged.The last time I looked, there was no requirement to be a conservative Republican to belong to this site.Last time I checked,everyone was entitled to their own opinion.But evidently You people don't think so.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You may be ashamed to call yourself a liberal but statements like this proves you are one whether you like it or not.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Wow,
Quote: 
so that we can ensure that our gun rights are not curtailed whatsoever, even though we could easily get them back

So if the government confiscates and destroys the Rem 1100 shotgun my dad gave me for my 16th birthday, 28 years ago, (oops, my age is showing), because it's a so called assault weapon, I can easily get it back???
You have some serious thought process problems.

Not very many people are as extreme left as you are or extreme right as you think everybody else is.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I would think I know myself better than a complete stranger....so your castigations mean nothing to me.....and for your information I removed the word stupid after thinking about it before I read your post.

Maybe you should re-read what I said.....

"I am not a LIBERAL"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey guys I think we have good people clubing each other. Please give me time to get home and address some misunderstandings. I think were all guilty of interchanging words, you know democrat liberal etc. I hate to see good people angry with each other, so would you give me a chance at a post. I peaked in here while making a cup of coffee, but I can't give it the time it deserves while I am at work.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> .and for your information I removed the word stupid after thinking about it before I read your post.
> 
> Maybe you should re-read what I said..... "I am not a LIBERAL"


Well, as a moderator you should know where you are at .............. these posts are in real time. My post was at 8:03 A.M. and your removal edit was at 8:07 A.M. so I don't need to re-read you changing your mind. Actually I see you made two edits........not sure what you stand for or just having a hard time making up your mind??????????


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

you might be a Democrat if you think an unborn babys life is no better than a convicted murderer Hey MT
You might be a Democrat if some 3rd world scums life is worth as much as your fellow Americans!!
You might be a Democrat if evrything you say makes no sence if you think about !!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I edited it at the same time you were posting so I didn't see your post until later.

Regardless I don't think people should be all lumped together.I know lots of Democrats that are against Abortion,Gun Control,Same Sex Marriage,Freeloading off the Gov't,Higher Taxes,Poor Teachers,Cutting the Military,etc.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

KEN W said:


> I would think I know myself better than a complete stranger....so your castigations mean nothing to me.....and for your information I removed the word stupid after thinking about it before I read your post.
> 
> Maybe you should re-read what I said.....
> 
> "I am not a LIBERAL"


Let me see if I'm on the right track here Ken because I just realized about half my original post is missing. You called Plainsman stupid in your post. I in my post recommend you take a lesson in stupid posts before calling someone else's post stupid. You then realized you had acted stupid so decided to change your post. At the same time my remark about your remark about stupid is missing from my post. Now where did it go Ken and who removed it. You blew it when you said "and for your information I removed the word stupid after thinking about it". I wouldn't have paid any attention to a post back up the line except for that comment which caused me to check my previous post. Did you remove it Ken?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"Sorry if you are confused....which is why I made the last post....please do not lump everyone under 1 label....be it Liberal Democrat or Conservative Republican.

Time to move on. "


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

KEN W said:


> I edited it at the same time you were posting so I didn't see your post until later.
> 
> Regardless I don't think people should be all lumped together.I know lots of Democrats that are against Abortion,Gun Control,Same Sex Marriage,Freeloading off the Gov't,Higher Taxes,Poor Teachers,Cutting the Military,etc.


Ken....
It just seems to me that these people are republicans; they just do not know it.

Think about it. IF your preferences listed above are ideals of the republican party, why would they vote for a party without those ideasls, or in some cases, in direct opposition to those ideals?

Let me know what you think, not trying to flame ya here.

Jeff


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kind of vicious don't you think? First of all I notice that everyone has jumped to conclusions. Perhaps the problem begin when the title was democrat, instead of liberal. I don't like to be affiliated with either party so I prefer to be thought of as conservative. Truth be known I crossed the party lines last time I voted. I agree with the liberals on environmental issues and partially agree on many others.

I don't think anyone on this site is single issue voters. Rather we give weight to each issue assigned by our own values. One issue may be more important than three or four others etc. The first post gave examples of the extreme left. Others added to the list that would be extreme right. Controversy to some is a bad word, but it leads to debate, and debate is the tool by which we all learn something nearly every day.

Some people have a dislike for political issues, and should not participate if it bothers them. The people who do are the active ones that will make a difference, because they are also the ones that call their senators. To not participate in the democratic process is to let everyone else look out for the issues we espouse to care about.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding 
Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons 
technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports 
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, 
because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

As a second amendment proponent these are the three that bother me. It bothers me because so many are complacent about it. I believe it was 1996 that the United Nations spent $18 million on a meeting in Japan discussing world wide personal small arms control and sneered at our second amendment. I don't think the NRA is the sharpest group of tacks, but they do fight for our second amendment rights. Those who think not have fallen for the media bias. Many people, liberal, conservative, republican democrat think this problem is not real. While they enjoy their sport the rest of us fight to see that they retain it. If they are going to do nothing at least stay out of our way.

This is what led to my comment about "sportsmen, so they say" in the first post. Because some don't take it serious is what makes it so dangerous. Others think that because they are into single shots and bolt actions (like myself) that it will not bother them. Every firearm outlawed is one step closer to yours and mine. Remember the shotgun that Kerry waved from the podium. It was on the list as an assault weapon.

Do me a favor and think of these things as sportsmen, not democrats or republicans.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Guys lets not forget why the 2nd amendment was implemented into our beloved constuiton....it was not for sportsman. It was for patriots.....it was put in there so "we" the american society could protect ourselves from tyrannical governments. I do believe our forfathers would be and probably are rolling in thier graves right about now.

It is sad that we have to belittled their work and blood......we are all "spoiled".....look at us!!!!!!

I am a lifetime member (cardcarring member) of the NRA....I do agree with plainsman that they do lack certain "atributes"....although they are for something I do believe very strongly in.....

How many of "us" would pick up our deer rifles and support the 2nd amendment....if need be....I am afraid not to many.....I will tell you one thing. I would die trying if need be.

Sorry for "ranting and raving"....I just think alot of people with good intentions forget the orginal meaning of the 2nd amendment....it is sad to see it reverted to a "sportsmans" topic....I think we all need a history lesson.....I guess we can just "chalk it up" to our progressive times.....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your absolutely right Jiffy, and thanks for the reminder, but I expect gun owners to understand. From that amendment sportsmen benefit today, no matter the original intent. To many think it can't happen to us, we are protected by the second amendment. We are having so much fun with our firearms (as we should), and somebody else will see that it doesn't happen right?

We take so much for granted today. Sometimes it is so ironic when people bash the military that fights for the freedom and safety that we take for granted. We should all be thankful for what we have, and never forget that it came at a price. I am always amazed that people who all love the outdoors and hunting so much don't all see this. I am sure 95 percent do I just can't understand why it isn't 100 percent.

I think that if enough people voiced their opinions to their representation in Washington that neither party would push so much for gun control and this wouldn't have to be a partisan argument.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Thanks Jiffy for posting the real reason for the 2nd A. These type of posts "you may be a ....if you... just show how dumb the american voting public really is and I'm sorry to say it includes alot on this site, even myself in the past. Stereotyping any political party is as stupid as you can get! Look at real issues and then discuss pro's and cons. Outdoors issues finally got some attention here! Does Gov John Hoeven fit the mold of a republican folks? Who gives a rats a$$ he sold us out! Some of you will vote for people because they have a "D" or an "R" after thier name and know nothing more, thats sad and its your own fault.

You might be ___________ if you think we should go to/continue war to the tune of 300 billion dollars while lowering taxes?

If any of you worked closely within either party you would more than likely distance yourself from either one! Did any of you pay attention to this years session? How did the party of your choice vote on outdoors issues? I know which one voted against the things I was for.

Think people!

TC

I filled in the blank with Stupid! ........not Rep or Dem


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Some of you will vote for people because they have a "D" or an "R" after thier name and know nothing more, thats sad and its your own fault.


This is true but just as sad and scary if not more so are those one issue voters. These people scare the hell out of me because they never take into account what is coming up behind them.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman....OK....I agree with almost everything you said above.  I think it is important to belong to a group in order to have a say in what goes on.So I do belong to the Democratic party....even though I don't agree with a lot of their national stands on issues.I also belong to the NDEA and the NEA....because I want a say in matters concerning schools and education.I wish I could belong without joining the NEA but I can't.

The state Democratic party is way more conservative than the national party.I went to the state Demaocratic conv. and sportsman like myself had to fight down a lot of ultra-liberal platform resolutions,like gun control.But we won and they were not approved.

I guess what I want to say is ....I agree with you....get involved....

Also I put up that Bush-Republican joke because I got tired of all the Democratic Party jokes on here.Just look down the list of threads.....every other thread is bash someone in the Democratic party.I prefer a good discussion while accepting someone else's opinion as different from your own.It doesn't have to get personal.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

I am one of those people that vote for the "R" or the "D."

I am a 22 year old college student, government Major at Sac State and I am heavily involved with the political process. I have already worked on numerous campaigns, including Bush's.

The reason I vote for the "R" and not the "D" is because of what the party stands for. I agree, not every "D" is in favor of abortion, and not every "D" is in favor of lower taxes. But the ideal of the party still exists. I did not vote for Gov. Schwarzenegger here in California...and he is an "R," because I listened to his ideals...which seemed awfully liberal to me. Instead of voting for him, I voted for Governor McClintock who did carry all of my "R" values. Had McClintock not ran, I would have voted for Scwarzenegger because he covered more of my values than our lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, who was far, far left.

I am a member of the republican party because that party covers my ideals the best. When my party endorses a candidate, that candidate covers those ideals. When those ideals are met, which they are generally done through endorsement, I vote for that person.

I think the problem many people see with this issue (like my dad) is that they do not understand why they are republican or democrat. People that say, "Look at the candidate, not the party" do not realize, in my opinion, the issues that person is representing.

Hopefully things cool down a little bit....I did not realize it was a hostile environment 

And in no way did I intend to flame anyone here on this post or thread.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Machine, does spending 300 BILLION $'s on the Iraq war and lowering taxes, while cutting benefits to veterans match your ideals? If you are proud of the ideals you talk of go ahead keep posting!

TC


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

tail chaser said:


> lowering taxes, while cutting benefits to veterans match your ideals?


Not only is that pure bull**** but it has been pointed out to you before that it is false and why it was false. Since you continue to plaster this crap on here and you know it is false then your credibility just took a dive into the toilet, which was where it really was to start. I think I just got a glimpse of MT as a adult. How about posting the Vet programs that were cut. Come on butt chaser, put up or shut up.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

tail chaser said:


> Machine, does spending 300 BILLION $'s on the Iraq war and lowering taxes, while cutting benefits to veterans match your ideals? If you are proud of the ideals you talk of go ahead keep posting!
> 
> TC


Thanks Gohon.

In regards to Iraq and lowering taxes....

When it comes to national defense, the checkbook is unlimited in my view. Same goes for any sort of increase in spending for Iraq--our troops safety is more important. Actually, I would rather have more troops there which would, undoubtedly, raise the cost. But, I'll leave that to the professionals.

Despite what economic theory you subscribe to...tax cuts generally help the economy. Raising taxes typically hurt the economy. The tax cuts were an effort to stimulate the economy that was in a recession when President Clinton was in office.

The dot com bubble burst, Enron, and 9/11 played serious roles in why the economy is not as good as it was in the late 1990's. However, without the tax cuts most economic theory would predict the economy to be doing worse off than it is doing now.

In regards to a tax cut with a $300 B war effort, why not just cut social programs, and trim excess fat from programs? That allows for tax cuts and a $300 B war in Iraq.

I hope that this just remains a debate and no one becomes really offended with this post....or any other. Debate and discussion are healthy for us 

Jeff


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Just look down the list of threads.....every other thread is bash someone in the Democratic party


I agree Ken it seems everytime a thread with a complicated issue comes up it gets lttle or no play, but these bash the Democrat threads go crazy. What a waste of time, there is very little discernable difference between the Repubs and the Dems. This type of thread accomplishes nothing but bringing out the worst in all of the folks that participate. And they are boring....


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Fact: The national Democratic party is controlled by the far left. That's what is covered by the media and they are also far left. That's all we see. Makes it real easy to pick on them. And the so called moderates within the party won't and don't say squat. Are you so called non-liberal democrates proud of the recent rants of Howard Dean? :eyeroll: 
Are you proud of the obstruction of blocking a vote on the minority canidates for Judges. uke: If the Republicans were doing that the screaming would racism and bigitree non-stop by the press and the DNC leadership. Nationally right now the Demoractes are the biggest bunch of hypicrates in the histroy of our country :lol:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

J


> ust look down the list of threads.....every other thread is bash someone in the Democratic party


Then whats the problem? Looks like 50/50 bashing to me..... :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

What's the problem?????I got tired of it.....50-50?????

I finally posted 1 thread giving it to Republicans and their "Golden Boy" and now it's 50-50????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

zogman said:


> Fact: The national Democratic party is controlled by the far left. That's what is covered by the media and they are also far left. That's all we see. Makes it real easy to pick on them. And the so called moderates within the party won't and don't say squat. Are you so called non-liberal democrates proud of the recent rants of Howard Dean? :eyeroll:
> Are you proud of the obstruction of blocking a vote on the minority canidates for Judges. uke: If the Republicans were doing that the screaming would racism and bigitree non-stop by the press and the DNC leadership. Nationally right now the Demoractes are the biggest bunch of hypicrates in the histroy of our country :lol:


Fact: The Republican Party is controlled by the far right.Ever listen to radio????Limbaugh,Hendry,Savage,Harvey....that's all we hear,Ed Schultz is a voice in the conservative wilderness.Makes it real easy to pick on them. And the so called moderates within the party won't and don't say squat. Are you so called non-conservative Republicans proud of the recent rants of Limbaugh and the ultra conservative far right? :eyeroll:

And evidently you don't watch Fox network with Bill O'Reilly,Fred Barnes,Mort Kondrake,Charles Krauthammer and the rest of that conservative network....Their motto...."fair and ballanced"...yeah right
:eyeroll: :eyeroll:

So I guess it just depends on which side of the fence you are on.....perspectives change don't they.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> What's the problem?????I got tired of it.....50-50?????
> 
> I finally posted 1 thread giving it to Republicans and their "Golden Boy" and now it's 50-50????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


Oh for Christ's sakes................ lighten up a little. If you can't take humor or even recognize a smiley face means tongue in cheek remarks then you need to get out of the political forum. You've already shown your true colors by going in a deleting sections of one of my posts. Maybe you would be happier if this forum were titled "A Socialists View" instead of Politics. Golden Boy.....LOL..... another one that can't get over it and move on.... :laugh:


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Gohon, "but Chaser"??????? i hope your not taking that viagra you talked about while on the computer, makes me wonder what are downloading while you post here.

I do stand corrected I should have called it the correct a cut in proposed funding because as we both know the funding did increase while demand has increased more than the increase which has led to benefit cuts. You remember shorting the water co. So we are both right.

As for my credibility? First of all I would have to value your opinion of my credibility before even considering your statement, but you are entitled to your opinion. If I'm in the toilet I'll say "Hi" to Bush for Ya!

TC


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Gohon....look back....I said ...."move on 2 days ago....but the neo-conservative stuff just keeps on coming.....Is it any worse to blast Bush than this forum's favorite target....Hillary Clinton?I'm not a Hillary fan....but if she is fair game than so is GWB.

I agree as I said 2 days....time to move on....

As far as the post deleted.....let me ask you....have you ever made a post or said something that you later regretted?

Well I did early morning 2 days ago....I called someone stupid because I was mad.Well on my way to work....30 min. drive....as Emeril would say,I said...."self,that's not appropriate,when you get to work delete that out."

I was in the process of doing that when you were letting me have it at the same time....and you should have,it was unexcusable.

Well,I deleted it and low and behold what should I now do with your post referring to something that was not there anymore....so I deleted your reference to that word.

Truce????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think it is time to forget this and try something new. The election is long past, and we need a breather before 2008 gets here.

It would be good to get back to the fair tax, and other important things. We could do something interesting. List three (more if you like) of your priorities that you think the government should do. Then list three of you priorities of things you think the government should cease and desist or laws that should be dropped, or not passed. As ideas come in you may want to edit your previous posts if you change your mind.

This isn't a debate, it is just an exercise to see what people think are important. It will be derailed if people jump on each other. If anything comes up that should be discussed start another thread. Perhaps we should take a poll. This doesn't have to be national, we could talk about limiting guides and outfitters Etc. It would be good to know what people think is important. We have a chance of doing that if we do not respond to each other.

1 Lets get ride of a debate that causes partisan politics by passing an affirmation of the second amendment.

2 Lets shut down the Mexican boarder

3 Lets do something with social security to insure our children will have it. Like number one this will get rid of election year scare tactics.

4 Overhaul the income tax, closed loopholes will help everyone. I have no particular plan in mind.

5 Lets put some real teeth in laws that protect the environment. Then if they think they can drill for oil safely let them try.

6 Pass a resolution reaffirming marriage is between a man and a woman

In North Dakota

1 Stop licensing outfitters after we reach 200. If we are there already do not sell any until they get to that number by attrition.

2 Set up an outfitter and guide licensing system like the fishing license in Alaska. Charge $50,000 for a license. Once all license are out the only license available are the ones already held by outfitters. An outfitter going out of business may sell his license for someone looking for a license. He gets $40,000 the state gets $10,000 Not set on numbers just threw these in.

3 Repeal the law that provides wildlife damage to landowners who are paid for hunting. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

I could go on, but this is enough for a start. Lets see if this can lead to a discussion that informs people, and gives us some new ideas. Bit your tongue.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Well,I deleted it and low and behold what should I now do with your post referring to something that was not there anymore....so I deleted your reference to that word.


As for the OP's post about Hillary, that was a joke plain and simple. You thought you might get even as you put it and started another thread with what you considered a joke. Several people pointed out it was a oldie with the names changed and you seemed to think you were being picked on. It was a old joke, out of context and really not that funny ........... sorry. Someone else posted a joke about Bush and Trent Lott. I thought that one was hilarious.

As for deleting part of my post, you had no right to do that. That is not a right or the job of a moderator unless there is confusion between the word moderator and dictator. I'm sorry but I don't accept it as long as you feel that was your right to delete part of my or anyone else's post simply because it made you look bad.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think a fresh start is needed. I am not doing this to punish anyone. As a matter of fact it is my guess everyone would be happy with me locking this so it's done.


----------

