# Specter Intends to Switch Political Parties



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-specter-statement29-2009apr29,0,6358258.story

In a statement, the Pennsylvania senator says he finds his 'political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.'
April 29, 2009

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania released this statement today.

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

He's still going to be a cantankerous old coot that only agrees with either party half the time. It's just about whether or not he can win in a primary. For some reason, he can't pull a Lieberman in PA. It's really not as huge as it sounds.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.


I don't think Specter has any principles as related to politics. He would join any party that looked like it had an advantage. What he is concerned about is his career and power, not the party, the state, or the nation. Look at the above quote. He seen people switch parties and boom he's a democrat. 
This is one huge opportunity. The guy has been more of a liberal than a conservative. He has back stabbed the republican party many times, but more importantly the wrong times. He has back stabbed them on the few occasions they were doing the right thing.
Although this makes me happy, it's a huge mistake on his part. Last year democrats were voting republican in the primaries to get McCain, and some republicans voted Hillary to keep out Obama. What a mess. People screwing around like that subvert the political process. 
OK, what makes me happy is I think even though Specter will tell everyone in his state that he has a lot of clout and they better vote him in not all will listen to that garbage. Perhaps there is a chance to get in a real conservative and not another RINO.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

He'll destroy a "real conservative" in a general. The problem is that he couldn't beat one in a primary where it was only Republicans voting. It's not about any sort of shift in his politics or principles. It's just that he counts on moderate support in a general election, which he was getting. However, in a primary, Republicans wouldn't vote for him. It was the same situation Lieberman found himself in. However, Specter can't run as an independent in PA for some reason that I can't remember.

Any bets on whether Santorum runs against him?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

omegax said:


> However, Specter can't run as an independent in PA for some reason that I can't remember.


Pennsylvania state law prevents candidates who lose party primaries from running as independents in the general election.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

What this translates to is that Specter figures he has a much better chance of keeping his office as a Dem than as a Repub. In short, it's not about ideology, it's about retaining power...

Another thought; this is exactly why a referendum should be held when an elected official jumps parties. Specter's constituents didn't elect a Dem, they elected a Repub.

Specter is just another dishonest politician more interested in keeping his sorry butt in office than faithfully representing those who elected him and gave him the job in the first place...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

omegax said:


> He'll destroy a "real conservative" in a general. The problem is that he couldn't beat one in a primary where it was only Republicans voting. It's not about any sort of shift in his politics or principles. It's just that he counts on moderate support in a general election, which he was getting. However, in a primary, Republicans wouldn't vote for him. It was the same situation Lieberman found himself in. However, Specter can't run as an independent in PA for some reason that I can't remember.
> 
> Any bets on whether Santorum runs against him?


you are exactly correct......he couldn't beat Tomey and win in his own party.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The goal must be to replace RINO Republicans in the 2010 and 2012 Senate and House primaries. Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, Graham, Hatch, Bennett and all the rest must be retired like gw bush and replaced with true conservatives.

The days of "reaching across the aisle" and "my good friend, Senator Kennedy" are or should be over.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, the real fear is what to do.....how does the rep party attract more voters? there is a faction that wants to go very conservative; there is another faction that wants to move the party to the middle, yes i know, they will end up looking like watered down dems or damp liberals.

so how does the rep party get back on its' feet and regain some members and creditability? tough question, no easy answer, but to be the party of inclusion, they will have to move to the middle...they have no choice or they will be irrelevant for some time to come...if they continue to falter this country will look like Cuba in 4 years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> so how does the rep party get back on its' feet and regain some members and creditability? tough question, no easy answer, but to be the party of inclusion, they will have to move to the middle...they have no choice or they will be irrelevant for some time to come...


I don't think they need to move to the middle. Remember contract with America. That was true conservative, and the people wanted it. They lost when they moved to the middle. You can't out liberal a liberal, and who would want to try. 
It's only the liberals that call the current republicans and some of their members ultra conservative. If they say it often enough maybe someone will believe them. If they say it real often they start to believe it themselves. You know they always start the Ultra something or other when they have no real argument. Ultra second amendment, ultra religious, ultra pro life yada yada yada. Current republicans are liberal and it isn't working.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I see we've got some good "lefty" posters here, and with remarks like...


> so how does the rep party get back on its' feet and regain some members and creditability? tough question, no easy answer, but to be the party of inclusion, they will have to move to the middle...they have no choice or they will be irrelevant for some time to come...if they continue to falter this country will look like Cuba in 4 years.


...maybe this is a good time to bring it up.

I keep hearing the Republican party has moved too far to the right. Sphincter (no...I didn't spell it wrong :wink: )said it today, and Colin Powell said it just before the election, etc.

Can _anyone_ give me some examples of this?

_PLEASE !!!!!!!_

I submit, as mentioned time and time again here by many, that the problem is the Republicans have done just the opposite and have spent too much time pandering to the so-called "moderates" (whatever in the hell that means  ) at the expense of the conservative values that used to define the party.

Plainsman said it best above, but I would really like to see examples of the party *MOVING* too far to the right.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

As recently as last Friday, Specter was saying how he would never change parties. That was until the poll came out with Pennsylvanians favoring Tomey 51%-30%. All of a sudden, Benedict Arlen just can't deal with being a repub anymore....

It has also been revealed he has had multiple meetings with Biden and several other key Dems in the last week. Were I a cynical & suspicious person, I would guess he was fielding offers of support & committee seats for going Dem and promising to back the Dear Leader's & San Fran Nan's agenda.

Makes a person wonder if even his new buddies on the Left will trust him as far as they can throw him. Frankly, I think the voters in Pennsylvania will back Tomey and will send ol' Arlen packing in 2010.

Can hardly wait to see the campaign TV ads with video clips of him bashing elected officials who change parties, which he has done on a good number of occasions...


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

NDTerminator wrote:


> Benedict Arlen


Good one!

and he also wrote:


> Specter's constituents didn't elect a Dem, they elected a Repub.
> 
> Specter is just another dishonest politician more interested in keeping his sorry butt in office than faithfully representing those who elected him and gave him the job in the first place...


EXACTLY !!!

I chuckled when I read the remarks from the dems concerning Sphincter's integrity. Not because I question it, but because I wondered if the thoughts of those who voted for him would echo those beliefs. 

Sphincter said:


> Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.


This is the closest thing I've seen to an explanation to my question looking for examples of the party moving too far to the right. They have got to be talking about pre-1988 !


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > so how does the rep party get back on its' feet and regain some members and creditability? tough question, no easy answer, but to be the party of inclusion, they will have to move to the middle...they have no choice or they will be irrelevant for some time to come...
> 
> 
> It's only the liberals that call the current republicans and some of their members ultra conservative. If they say it often enough maybe someone will believe them. If they say it real often they start to believe it themselves. You know they always start the Ultra something or other when they have no real argument. Ultra second amendment, ultra religious, ultra pro life yada yada yada. Current republicans are liberal and it isn't working.


:lol:

Nice try Plainsman. Don't forget I also said that the current old guard that isn't working wouldn't go out willingly but rather "kicking and screaming".

The Republican Party has a choice. That much is certain. There is no more chances at "regrouping" and going more ultra conservative. That philosophy has and continues to fail. You just can't admit the obvious. It is hilarious that you can't see the forest from the trees.

Here is another recent article that discusses this very phenomenon.

You might need to start opening up your minds to the possibility that these theories hold water folks. 



> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/the-specter-of-republican-marginalization/
> April 28, 2009, 12:44 pm
> The Specter of Republican marginalization
> 
> ...


Krugman has a point. The GOP's insistence on the hard line, might have really cost them this time.

But keep up your hard line mantra Plainsman. I'm sure you can keep all the hard line current Conservative philosophies and bring more voters over to the Republican fold.

I just cant think of how right now. Maybe you can enlighten me on how this is possible, when it seems implausible given the current climate? Your only hope is for Obama to fail it would seem, garnering you some converts. Wouldn't that be true? You need the US of A to go into a prolonged economic collapse, or have a great terrorist event on American soil to succeed? Hmmmm?

Please do tell...


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

R y a n said:


> But keep up your hard line mantra Plainsman. I'm sure you can keep all the hard line current Conservative philosophies and bring more voters over to the Republican fold.


Conservative principles, not philosophies. Unlike socialist/liberals that get a stiffy everytime the wind changes direction true conservatives do not let their principles sway to fit the shallow/hollow mold of socialism.

Socialism does not work and we are about to find this out. Corruption, a whole new level of higher achievement for America's politics.

At this point I would not be so concerned about bringing more voters than I would about wide spread anarchy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:


> It's only the liberals that call the current republicans and some of their members ultra conservative


And then Ryan wrote:


> and going *more* ultra conservative.


I rest my case. 

Anyway, why would we listen to a liberal tell conservatives what to do? Personally I think if the democrat party wants a chance in 2010 they need to drop the socialism and move more towards the center. Currently they are way way out in left field. If they continue they will have to look to the right to see socialism.

No, the problem is McCain didn't stir the base, and Obama took advantage of the youth with no experience. A child will always go for something free.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

According to today's paper,last year over 200,000 Republicans from Pennsylvania have switched to the Democratic party.....Spectre isn't stupid.If he wants to keep his job it was the only thing he could do.

Democrats are making inroads into the mountain west and midwest.Basically only the south is solid Conservative Republican.And the rest of the country is tired of government moving to right.

The Republican base has dropped from 35% in 2003 to 21% now.It's lowest since 1983.As the article says....."It's just not as cool to be a Republican as it once was."

When Franken wins in Minn.....Democrats will have a fillibuster proof majority.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Ken, will you still back the Left when they begin implementing their anti-gun agenda? Just curious...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> 
> 
> > It's only the liberals that call the current republicans and some of their members ultra conservative
> ...


I knew the entire time you were referencing me.

What word should be use instead of ultra? Ultra fits, and it is accurate.

I suppose we could use the term "Far Right", but it arrives at the same destination. 



Plainsman said:


> Anyway, why would we listen to a liberal tell conservatives what to do? Personally I think if the democrat party wants a chance in 2010 they need to drop the socialism and move more towards the center. Currently they are way way out in left field. If they continue they will have to look to the right to see socialism.
> 
> No, the problem is McCain didn't stir the base, and Obama took advantage of the youth with no experience. A child will always go for something free.


This is where you fail to understand Plainsman. It isn't "some liberal" telling conservatives what to do... I'm only agreeing with the thoughts of many both inside and outside of the Republican party. More and more voices are saying it in increasing volume and frequency. Many articles from all kinds of different sources are alluding to it. You just don't hear it yet.

I think the Democratic Party is doing quite well right now. It would seem to me all they need to do is focus on doing the bidding of their base and they'll be able to make the claim to their party that they made progress. Imagine that. They'll now have the control with a filibuster proof majority to do whatever their hearts desire.

What you continue to fail to see, is that only the Far right ultra conservatives with blinders on are calling all of these changes "Socialism". They've latched on to a term they have little clue about. All they know is that it seems scary, is a good term that antagonizes the ultra conservative base of sheeple. Most (ordinary) sheeple being fed at the trough don't understand the differences between political philosophies in general, so they have readily accepted that term.

It is comical to see the foolishness of the shrill shreaking of the ultra conservative right. They truly are floundering and flailing around in desperation trying to figure out a plan. Their base seems to think that they should just go further hard line conservative and that they'll magically convert lots of folks by going the opposite direction of their politics. Even funnier is the braintrust that believes that folly believes that they don't need to change any of their current philoso... err I mean principles and can maintain the status quo, and still hope to not only see a few successes in 2010, but an outright 180 degree switchover and total control of the Congress???? Really?

I'd love to see them try that. You wont see 4 or even 8 years of Dem majorities... you are looking at 12 to 16 years. Think about where you'll be in 10 years if this happens.

Are you willing to bet your entire future and the future of this country and its laws on the philosophy of going further right believing that is the most prudent strategy to recover?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

NDTerminator said:


> Ken, will you still back the Left when they begin implementing their anti-gun agenda? Just curious...


NDT.....I don't agree with every single thing the far left likes.I'm sure there is something that everyone in the Republican party doesn't like.I guess you have to pick and choose as to what is most important to you.Not everyone in the Democratic party is anti-gun.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "Socialism". They've latched on to a term they have little clue about. All they know is that it seems scary, is a good term that antagonizes the ultra conservative base of sheeple.


The term socialism used correctly doesn't antagonize me. Are you sure you intended to use the word antagonize. Redistributing wealth is socialism Ryan. Do you have a problem with the English language?



> I think the Democratic Party is doing quite well right now.


I'm surprised you admit that. What is it you like, the trillions of dollars in debt, the government taking private businesses, the back door gun control through the Mexican treaty, any of the 100 mistakes in the past 100 days?



> Far right ultra conservatives


It's all perspective Ryan. You say your conservative, but I would guess everything looks conservative from your viewpoint.



> Think about where you'll be in 10 years


Have you thought about it? I suppose if I loose my guns that's no big deal your coffe shops will still be open. I will not hunt, but you can still go to an evening play. My guns will be gone, but you will still have your quasants and latte. This has not been a good 100 days for the second amendment, or for hunters. It's been good for city boys, freeloaders, gun control advocates.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Redistributing wealth is socialism Ryan.


This has come up several times here before I believe. Haven't we been redistributing wealth for decades? Isn't a graduated income tax a form of redistribution of wealth?

For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7633159

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Gergen_Reagan_supported_redistributed_wealth_program_1028.html


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I'm not being ugly Ken, I truly am curious of your view on this. True, not every Dem is anti-gun but the ones in real positions of power are, and guys like our ND Dems will fall in line and vote party when push comes to shove. They'll make a show of resisting, but will go with the flow same as they did with all of the Left's agenda so far...

Frankly, my guns are far too important to trust to the likes of Obama, Biden, San Fran Nan, Feistein, and Schumer. If that nutball Franken finally gets seated and with Benedict Arlen jumping ship, get set to be raped by the Left...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Certainly many of our programs are slightly socialist. I also understand that it's nearly impossible for a nation this size, and a population this size to function without some semblance to a slightly socialist society. My problem is we are headed towards full scale socialism. The only difference between socialism and communism is socialism takes some and redistributes while communism takes all from everyone and gives it out as they see fit.

If you look at what has happened over the past few months (yes including Bush) we have shifted much further left. I don't want it to shift so far left that it diminishes individual initiative. To far left and that's what happens. It is especially damaging to the generation that has lived free all their lives. We have been moving that way incrementally, and people born after 1970 are less aware than those who experienced the freedom of the earlier years. Those born after 1990 have not experienced the freedom of those born between 1970 and 1990. When things happen slowly and incrementally the next generation never knows it happened. We could go from pure capitalist to full scale communist over a span of 100 years and no one would know what happened. If you notice the socialistic society we are entering now is perfectly acceptable to "some" of the people under 40 years old. They have been conditioned like Pavlov's dog, but don't know it. Further they offer advise to us old guys who have lived through both. :homer:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Those born after 1990 have not experienced the freedom of those born between 1970 and 1990.


Plainsman,

Can you tell me what freedoms are gone for the person born after 1990 when compared to the person born in 1970?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Can I go back to 1968 to make it easier?
Before that date I could buy a good unused Swedish Mauser in 6.5 X 55 for $30. 
Affirmative action really ticked me off in that it's simply reverse discrimination. That's a loss of freedom through discrimination. Social services started going to schools saying call the law on your parents if they spank you. Sometimes a kid deserves a swat, and only spoiled brats who grew up and are still spoiled brats will disagree with that. That and people who don't have kids. They are always the experts. Of course that's the way with many things. Funny how people who have never done anything know best how to do it. I know teachers run into that all the time. 
Most states have gone to automatic posting for hunting. Then you look at the regulations on government land. I spent a week in Minnesota once and will never go back. I felt like I was in a foreign country. A permit to hike, a permit for a picnic, on and on. I headed into the federal land area where I could breath again without a permit. 
You caught me sort of off guard there seabass, and I am thinking about it. Not all of it is socialistic, some of it is just that society has changed so much, and not for the better. Well, some will think it's for the better, but so many decisions are forced on us now, and us old independent types don't like it. for example I always wear my seat belt, but I don't want someone to treat me like I am five years old and tell me I have to wear my seat belt. 
Look at all the gun control laws throughout the country. We have passed thousands of laws in the past 30 years, and how many did we need? We have managed to make agriculture so dependent on government which takes away their independence. 
Heck it's happened so slow that I have to go way back to come up with examples. I do know that the government has really intruded into our lives in the past 30 years. Hate crimes what the ((&&^^ are those? If you kill someone isn't it a hate crime. It's not like nut jobs only murder people they like.  
Look at the kids today and ask what would happen if one had a gun in his car parked on school property. Someone here posted a comparison to 1957 and today. 
Often we hear people blame the parents for a bad kid. Well, parents can't discipline their kids anymore or the government sill step in and take little Johnny. Speaking of goofy laws I don't remember if it was a city or a state just passed a law that if a man raises his voice against a woman it's assault. Doesn't make any difference if the woman raises her voice first. No fooling, I'm not jerking your leg. 
Seabass, maybe one of the older guys with a better memory than mine can give you some better examples. All I know is I don't feel like I live in the same nation as I did in 1955. 
Oh, how about your not supposed to pray in school? I guess now you can again, but you should do it indiscreetly. Obama says schools will not get stimulus money if they have Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts are religious and we must maintain separation of church and state. Since that's not in the constitution why must we maintain something that has never been law. Doesn't that require a congressional bill? Government has taken so much control that people just do things without fighting back. Why should we have to fight back? Who is the government of, for, and by again?

Some guys in cement trucks are driving on my lawn and I am sort of not paying much attention. Half way through this I went out and video taped it. It was like watching a comedy sketch. Four trucks drive forward to let one out, then they all back up and the lead guy goes in. Then the other three smart drivers all drive forward onto my driveway and lawn again. I put up posts to keep them off the lawn but they drove over them. I put them up, and they drove over them again. Fifty foot long cement truck tire tracks eight inches deep into the lawn, and ridges standing six inches above that. How do I mow that?

If any of you older guys can think of more than I wrote I need the help right now. It looks like one truck has broken through the pavement. I don't have heavy equipment so I didn't have them build it thick. Later.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Plainsman,
> 
> Can you tell me what freedoms are gone for the person born after 1990 when compared to the person born in 1970?


Seabass, do you really want to get into that in detail, or are you just trying to make a point? It sounds like Plainsman's a bit busy but after I get back from dinner with the boys I'd like to take a stab at explaining it. We could start with how my basketball coach/gym teacher's career would be affected by slapping me on the butt like he did back in the day when I made a smart play, and maybe discuss how we all had guns in our vehicles in the school parking lot...and even brought them into the building on occasion, but now grade schoolers are sent home for drawing pictures of a gun. And I'm not from a small, rural community. My senior class had over 800 kids in it.

Or how about letting your neighbor whoop your child's butt if he misbehaved badly? It wasn't out of the question when I was a kid........and don't think that didn't help to keep us honest! 

I believe that is what Plainsman is referring to as far as loss of freedoms. If you really want to dive into this in great detail just let me know. It might be fun to document exactly how far left we *HAVE* moved over the last 30 years!

Oh...I'm still waiting to hear how the Republicans have moved too far right. Arlen Sphincter has used the era of the 80's as his benchmark of acceptable conservatism, so with that as our guide, would someone..._anyone_, *PLEASE* give examples of how they've moved further to the right since then.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

seabass said:


> > Those born after 1990 have not experienced the freedom of those born between 1970 and 1990.
> 
> 
> Plainsman,
> ...


I'll offer my thoughts on a couple

We were twenty years old then you have to go back farther to when we were kids before Johnson started the " great society" nonsense IE welfare

by 1970 much of the damage was already done

tax rates went up dramatically over time to support government welfare programs which eventually made women that formally stayed home an raised their kids now had to work, this led to the decay of our society.

How? When Ken, plainsman and I were kids everyones mother in the neighborhood was watching us working mothers were the exception, and because they didn't have to work they all new each other.

The neighborhood was a commuinty not just a bunch of homes near each other. The net benefit was we were were raised to respect adults, to respect women ( recently Ryan was suprised to find we didnt have sex as 16 year olds) yada yada.

Once higher taxes forced moms to work this very important family guidance dissappeared , latch key kids, mother too tired from work to follow up on their kids, mother now never had the time to form relationships with other mother in the area ect.

Because you are too young to have seen the profound change this seemingly simple thing led to, you cannot even begin to understand how different todays society is and not for the better.

the family is the basic building block of our society, damage it and the problems radiate out through society like rings in a pond you throw a rock in.

so getting back to freedoms because of what I outlined above govt took over many of the family functions dicipline in school for instance.

I'll give a personal example my dad used to escort me and my three brothers the first day of school and intorduce himself to my teachers. His instructions were if we "got out of line" to smack us and let him know and we would really "get it" when we got home. Trust me we did not act out in school.

Contrast the with today, When my kids were little down here I put them in a private Catholic school because while interviewing their teachers I asked a new school teacher that had just came out of the public school system what the biggest difference was. She told me she had a hour budgeted every day at the school for discipline that she now could use for teaching.

Respect

Another huge advantage and freedom was kids could be kids and if they got into trouble ( we did ) its was up to the parents to deal with the issue you were not in danger of getting a legal record because the community expected your parents to deal with you. It worked well.

sexuality at too young of an age

this is huge problem for kids it wasn't for me I was blissfully ignorant the telvision programs on network tv today would of been R or X rated because commuinties had much higher standards of decency.

One more simple thing in 1972 I was coming home on leave to go deer hunting in Wisconsin flying on Ozark airlines.

I had to catch a flight on the other side of Ohare airport and only had about 20 minutes to make the connection. I was a soldier but not in uniform and made the run no problem *carrying my new 308 BAR uncased with the sling over my shoulder,* got to the plane handed it to the stewardess and she, without even giving it a though, put it in a closet in the front of the plane.

No one even thought it was strange, try that today

One more freedom I just thought of

as a high school kid in wisconsin I would put my waders, my 12 guage ithica pump shotgun, my vest full of shells in my locker every day during duck season so I could go hunting the last hour of the day before it got dark. All my friends did the same, so did some of the teachers.

None of us ever were concerned that anyone would go on a homicicdal shooting spree, we just didn't sttle our disagreements that way it nver entered our minds.

why ???because were raised in a different world a very moral world

by our moms

freedom from fear of crime

When my folks moved to Texas after 15 years in Wisconsin they had to make keys for the new owners. They had never ever locked the doors even when we left for our annual two week vacation camping out west in the summer.

If I thought about it I could come with more


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

KEN W said:


> According to today's paper,last year over 200,000 Republicans from Pennsylvania have switched to the Democratic party.....Spectre isn't stupid.If he wants to keep his job it was the only thing he could do.
> 
> Democrats are making inroads into the mountain west and midwest.Basically only the south is solid Conservative Republican.And the rest of the country is tired of government moving to right.
> 
> ...


Ken the vast majority of those were republicans the crossed over to vote for Hillary on the encouragement of Rush Limbaugh.

I'm sure you remember that. You think those folks are the type that will vote for Specter :wink: ?

The sad fact is both parties have a large number of these people that are there for the wrong reasons . Not Jeffersons vision of "citizen politicians serving the common good of us all" but a group of people that have no interest in the country and only interest in personal power.

Both parties should purge them all.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> I could buy a good unused Swedish Mauser in 6.5 X 55 for $30.


And you could also buy a candy bar for 10 cents. I think inflation, a normal aspect of a healthy economy, has a lot to do with the loss of that freedom.


> Affirmative action really ticked me off in that it's simply reverse discrimination. That's a loss of freedom through discrimination.


I could maybe agree with you that AA isn't as relevant as it once was.



> Social services started going to schools saying call the law on your parents if they spank you. Sometimes a kid deserves a swat, and only spoiled brats who grew up and are still spoiled brats will disagree with that.


I have a sister who teaches at juvenile detention center. She tells me many stories of children who would probably be dead right now if it weren't for social services pulling them from abusive homes. I'm not aware of social services advocating that students call in on their parents over a spanking, but I will ask my teacher friends about this. And none of this even brings sexual abuse into the picture... I again have upteen stories of kids saved from sexual abuse due to social services.



> Most states have gone to automatic posting for hunting.


My guess is that the hunting land owner doesn't feel that this is a lost freedom for them. We own hunting land in MN, and its just nice to have people ask first from a land owners perspective. Do you like it when people ask to use your land?



> I spent a week in Minnesota once and will never go back. I felt like I was in a foreign country. A permit to hike, a permit for a picnic, on and on. I headed into the federal land area where I could breath again without a permit.


I could just about agree with you on this one. But then again, if the state parks didn't regulate how many people could go into BWCAW, it would be just as croweded as any other Minnesota lake (for example). Lots of state parks would be so crowded, you'd have to climb a norway to get away from them all.



> example I always wear my seat belt, but I don't want someone to treat me like I am five years old and tell me I have to wear my seat belt.


I agree with you on this one. You are only endangering yourself if you are in an accident. A point could be made that non-insured motorists in an accident that could have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt are now going to have their healthcare paid for with taxpayer money, I suppose.



> Look at all the gun control laws throughout the country. We have passed thousands of laws in the past 30 years, and how many did we need? We have managed to make agriculture so dependent on government which takes away their independence.
> Heck it's happened so slow that I have to go way back to come up with examples


I still am asking what freedom(s) specifically have you lost here.



> Look at the kids today and ask what would happen if one had a gun in his car parked on school property.


This is a concrete answer -- kids can no longer bring guns to school.



> Speaking of goofy laws I don't remember if it was a city or a state just passed a law that if a man raises his voice against a woman it's assault. Doesn't make any difference if the woman raises her voice first. No fooling, I'm not jerking your leg.


No offense plainsman, but I read some so much stuff on this forum that I don't believe things like this until I see other sources, too.



> Oh, how about your not supposed to pray in school? I guess now you can again, but you should do it indiscreetly.


You have always been able to pray in school.



> Obama says schools will not get stimulus money if they have Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts are religious and we must maintain separation of church and state.


Please cite source. Something doesn't smell right here.

I see csquared is weighing in:



> We could start with how my basketball coach/gym teacher's career would be affected by slapping me on the butt like he did back in the day when I made a smart play, and maybe discuss how we all had guns in our vehicles in the school parking lot...and even brought them into the building on occasion, but now grade schoolers are sent home for drawing pictures of a gun. And I'm not from a small, rural community. My senior class had over 800 kids in it.


I didn't realize there was no more butt slapping, that's too bad 8) . I swear I still saw that at the ND highschool basketball games, but maybe I'm just imagining that. As plainsman pointed out, indeed kids have lost the freedom of bringing weapons into school.



> Or how about letting your neighbor whoop your child's butt if he misbehaved badly?


I agree, this is another freedom we've lost; the neighbor beating my kid policy. I'm not sure exactly what you are advocating here though.



> If you really want to dive into this in great detail just let me know.


Yes, please provide great detail on exactly what freedoms you have lost. I think it is interesting. I also think it is interesting that people dont' realize how they themselves lost a freedom, while someon else (or a lot of others) gained freedom.



> anyone, PLEASE give examples of how they've moved further to the right since then


My knee jerk response to this is the last Iraqi war. I think it was a strong push from the right that made the argument that we need to go to war... and now! The right were the strongest proponents for taking out Saddam at all costs. I realize that both sides were for the war, but in general I think a true left leaning society (e.g. Europe) would be much more hesitant to jump into that war.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> tax rates went up dramatically over time to support government welfare programs which eventually made women that formally stayed home an raised their kids now had to work, this led to the decay of our society.
> 
> How? When Ken, plainsman and I were kids everyones mother in the neighborhood was watching us working mothers were the exception, and because they didn't have to work they all new each other.





> Once higher taxes forced moms to work...


I call BS on that one. Women left the home because they now lived in a society that allowed them to do more than cook and clean their husbands dirty clothes.

In any event, this isn't a lost freedom, this is a change in our society. I'm asking for a lost freedom. I think many women would argue that indeed they gained freedom during this time period.



> Because you are too young to have seen the profound change this seemingly simple thing led to, you cannot even begin to understand how different todays society is and not for the better.


Fair enough. But could I argue that you are too old and set in your ways to appreciate that many changes are better for society as a whole?



> His instructions were if we "got out of line" to smack us and let him know and we would really "get it" when we got home. Trust me we did not act out in school.


I get your point. Plainsman and csquared have echoed this same theme.

So, I think a difference is that now with our country's propensity to sue the pants off of anyone if there is a chance to get some $$, the school system has opted to protect itself from such litigations by a blanket policy of no physical punishment. Is that why we have lost the freedom then? to protect school systems from getting sued? Or have we lost the freedom due for other reasons?



> I had to catch a flight on the other side of Ohare airport and only had about 20 minutes to make the connection. I was a soldier but not in uniform and made the run no problem carrying my new 308 BAR uncased with the sling over my shoulder, got to the plane handed it to the stewardess and she, without even giving it a though, put it in a closet in the front of the plane.


That is interesting... hard to imagine nowadays. Another concrete example; no weapons on airlines. Is it for the better or worse?



> as a high school kid in wisconsin I would put my waders, my 12 guage ithica pump shotgun, my vest full of shells in my locker every day during duck season so I could go hunting the last hour of the day before it got dark.


Yes, the others also brought up bringing guns to school. This is a lost freedom.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I'm nearly as old as Plainsman & Bob (born in 57') and I agree with them 100%. We are without question a different society with less personal freedom than when guys like us were growing up.

Frankly, thats' why I live in ND. I firmly believe ND and Alaska are the two most free states left in America, with the least government intrusion into our lives.

I can literally walk out my door & start hunting or shoot whatever legal weapon I choose in my yard (and I often do). I can saddle my horse and take off cross country for miles never hitting a fence or getting any flack from my neighbors.

I can compliment a gal at work & tell her she looks pretty today without having her go file a sexual harassment charge with the boss.

I started at the bottom of my Department and worked hard the last 26 years knowing that my loyalty & work ethic would carry me as far as I could go. I went from a rookie Patrolman to Deputy Chief based on my abilities, not my gender, race, or political leanings.

If I hit hard times I know my friends & neighbors will help out of the goodness of their hearts, and they know I will help them if the situation is reversed. We watch out for each others kids, critters, and homes.

Thats the America we grew up in, and it's long gone in almost all states. 
I find it very sad that most in America will never know it...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Seabass have you ever looked at this its interesting site that speaks of where we were and where we are headed

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

Its got a ton of info I found interesting


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And you could also buy a candy bar for 10 cents. I think inflation, a normal aspect of a healthy economy, has a lot to do with the loss of that freedom.


I really have to address that one. One day they were $30 and the following week you couldn't get one for less than $100. I worked for a winter at a sport shop just after that and they were so happy now that they had the hunters by the short hairs. No it was not inflation, it was an instant jump.

The assault weapon ban did nothing. Even the liberals were forced to agree with that. Now they want it back, and why?

Taxes are a loss of freedom. The loss of keeping what you earn. The government reaches deeper into our pockets every time liberals get power.

When the nut jobs bombed the buildings in Oklahoma the liberals called for a gun ban. Every firearms law is restrictive. Restrictions without something better for society is simply loss of freedom. Obama has said he wants to ban concealed carry. One study that looked at more than a dozen groups found that the lowest incidence of crime per 100,000 people was concealed carry individuals.

Remember the 1960's when the hippies talked about Big Brother? Little did they realize that it was the liberal side that would become big brother. You see Bush through the Homeland Security monitored known terrorist sympathisers. Liberals recently changed that to gun rights advocates, Christians, veterans, etc. All those groups lost a little freedom. I worry about their freedom, I didn't worry about the freedom of a terrorist sympathiser. You may tell me that's just opinion, and I already realize that.

Seabass, those child abuses you spoke of, no one has ever tolerated those types of things. Why would you insinuate that's what we were thinking about? Remember, I'm the conservative intolerant guy here. 

Forgive me for addressing mostly the firearms changes. It's not that I am single issue, it's that I like to address what I am most familiar with.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> didn't realize there was no more butt slapping, that's too bad . I swear I still saw that at the ND highschool basketball games, but maybe I'm just imagining that. As plainsman pointed out, indeed kids have lost the freedom of bringing weapons into school.
> 
> Quote:
> Or how about letting your neighbor whoop your child's butt if he misbehaved badly?
> ...


I like your sarcasm, Seabass :lol: :beer:

...but don't allow it to cloud the issue so that you miss the point. The point about butt slapping is that teachers in public schools can no longer touch a student. Not a good thing, and not a move to the right....and DEFINITELY a loss of teachers' freedoms.

As far as the neighbor beating your child...if you consider whooping a misbehaving child's butt and child abuse the same thing, then I rest my case. You either wouldn't understand... or wouldn't listen :wink:



> Yes, the others also brought up bringing guns to school. This is a lost freedom.


You're either missing the point here or conveniently ignoring it. None of us here have any real need to take guns into school. I did as a junior as part of a class project..with nothing more than verbal OK from the principal to do so, but the point is how the overall perception of firearms in general has changed in the last 20-30 years. And that definitely equates to less freedom.



> Quote:
> Speaking of goofy laws I don't remember if it was a city or a state just passed a law that if a man raises his voice against a woman it's assault. Doesn't make any difference if the woman raises her voice first. No fooling, I'm not jerking your leg.


In my state it is a blatant case of domestic violence if a man raises his voice at a woman...*AND* she calls the police to complain. And that can get him barred from the house until a Judge rules on the case...even if the woman is his invited guest and has no legal claim to the house. A very close friend just went through this with his nephew. He actually threw a wadded up paper bag at his girlfriend while in the house willed to him by his grandfather, and the county made him leave until a judge allowed him to come back home. ...and his lawyer simply told him all he had to do was raise his voice at her and she had a case.

That is the kind of common sense progression that's headed your way from my side of the Mississippi river! :roll:

20 years ago lung cancer was the smoker's fault...now it's RJ Reynold's fault.

20 years ago it was our fault if we were fat...now it's McDonald's fault

20 years ago if someone boldly proclaimed we should allow UN treaties to supercede the US Constitution he would be asked to leave the country, perhaps...now we elect him president

.....and the best proof of all of how much freedom we've lost is that a large portion of the population doesn't even realize what's been lost.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

I am a young pup at 29 compared to these guys but just listening to the storys from my dad and grandpa and think boy it would have been great to be around back then. You know the reason that social service is more prevalant now is because society has just gone down hill. Back in the day some one does some thing horible to kids they were dead simple as that. They did not rehabilitate criminals they hung them which is what we need to get back to. Whish i was born in 69 instead of 79 those sound like some good years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kurt, 1959 was even better. I seen my first posted sign in about 1960, 62, something like that. Didn't know what the darn thing was. You could grab the 22 and head out miles in any direction you wanted to. If the neighbor was in the field you could ride the tractor with him, shoot jack rabbits, and he would share a sandwich with you. If his wife noticed she would bring cookies.  
If you knew your neighbor milked at 6:00 pm and you were shooting gophers in his pasture after supper you chased his cows up to the house on your way home. That would get you a cookie or two again.  You might notice there is a theme here, I like cookies.
Oh, and I grew up on the Spirit Lake Nation. The native American lady 1/2 mile west of our house knew I liked coca cola. She always had a few bottles in the fridge. I visited her often. Now you might wonder how old I was. I had my first 22 Marlin when I was seven years old. Oh, bad parents right?  
I used to drive a Ford tractor with overdrive. It would do 22 miles an hour. The neighbor kid and I would put a two wheel trailer (high sides) behind and cover it with a tarp at night. We would go fishing up to 20 miles from home and sleep in the trailer with out two dogs and my two pet raccoons. Ya, I'm a rehabilitated red neck.  Hope I didn't bore anyone with reminiscing.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

UPDATE from CNN.

Specter: Democratic leader promised me seniority
Posted: 02:05 PM ET

Sen. Specter is speaking out on his new status as a Democrat.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Democratic leader in the Senate promised Sen. Arlen Specter he would retain his seniority when he jumped from the Republican to the Democratic party, Specter told CNN Wednesday, but faced "pushback" from other Democratic senators.

On Tuesday the Senate confirmed that Specter had lost his seniority in a resolution that set out committee assignments for the entire Senate. The resolution was approved on a unanimous voice vote.

The full Senate voted Tuesday to strip Specter of his seniority, dropping him to the bottom of the pile on every committee he sits on.

The action came on a resolution - passed on a unanimous voice vote - that set out committee assignments for the entire Senate.

:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

They set the bait and the poor old fool took it. Next year he will be on his own, and he will not survive the election. Even the liberals from his state will not trust a turncoat. His days are over. They pulled his teeth and he has no clout or integrity left. Well, I guess if your dumb enough to trust them it's good that you will no longer have a hand in running the country. He certainly burned his bridges with his big mouth too.

Do you think anyone will be dumb enough to believe it if he says he has a new found conservative value system, and would like to be a republican? :rollin:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

specter is just a senile old fool, who doesn't want to give up his seat...yes, he is screwed, either way he is done.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Never to old to be schooled and hung out in limbo.


----------

