Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Does the Illinois Republican Party Suffer a Death Wish?
I still can’t adjust to the idea that Illinois Republicans will be asked to send Alan Keyes, an itinerant entertainer who lives in a million dollar home in Maryland, to represent our state in Congress. He can go back to Maryland and charge $6,000, give or take a thousand, for one of his speeches.
There is a good chance that Keyes will received a record low number of votes, and his opponent, Barack Obama, a record high.
Obama is a long-shot to become our first black president. Well, not so long a shot. Fifty-fifty?
America’s Mayor??????
Rudy Guiliani responded to the 9/11 disaster with leadership and direction, just as almost any American mayor would have responded to similar circumstances.
Guiliani is an enthusiastic supporter of Bush’s run for re-election. He glows as his backers hail him as "America’s mayor."
He’s not this American’s mayor. He’s an ambitious pol with his eyes set on succeeding George Bush to the presidency.

This is Garrison Keillor????
Keilor is the Minnesotan who broadcast his gentle observations on life in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are better than average.
I though Keillor was apolitical. Boy, was I wrong. This is his salute to Bush in the magazine "In These Times."
"How did the party of Lincoln and liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their etch-a-sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?"


Blogger jim said...

"Obama is a long-shot to become our first black president. Well, not so long a shot. Fifty-fifty?"

I highly doubt that he would ever make president. I just can't imagine those in the deep south and those in the breadbasket of the American mid-west would ever vote for president a man whose name sounds like "Iraq Osama".

A racist narrow-minded view? Not really. If his views were aligned with mine I would have no problem voting for him for president. I think the masses though are pretty narrow minded.

I would vote for a black woman athiest for president if she was on the right side of the issues. That meaning my side of the issues. My side? Lower taxes on EVERYONE. Support of the 2nd amendment, tougher immigration laws.

September 8, 2004 at 6:16 PM  
Blogger DoctorD71 said...

I would have thought his chances were slim too Jim, but for 2 reasons:

1. Having grown up in southern and central Illinois, I know that there are PLENTY of folks in this state that have views that would fit in perfectly with many in the deep south. However, Mr. Obama still leads the polls by a huge margin. It seems that the ideas of the candidate hold more importance than his race or whether or not he has an unusual name.

2. Nowadays, most southern states are written off as red states to be claimed by Republicans in the Presidential election anyway. What counts is how he would fare in the swing states. I'd be interested to know what the poll numbers for President Obama, er, Mr. Obama would be in those states.

I see again we agree on some issues! I too, am in favor of tax cuts for everyone, just as soon as we can elect some smarter politicians to office that can run the government more efficiently. I also support the 2nd amendment, and believe that every American should have the right to bear the arms that where available when it was written; in other words, muskets. As for immigration laws...well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

September 13, 2004 at 3:44 PM  
Blogger jim said...

"should have the right to bear the arms that where available when it was written; in other words, muskets'

So law abiding citizens should not be able to possess firearms that are not mukets?

I am a firearm owner. I don't like to hunt. I prefer to shoot little holes in pieces of paper. I am a target shooter. I have .22 rifes and pistols. I also own a .357 and 9mm semi-automatic. All do with these is like I say shoot holes in pieces of paper. I have owned firearms since my dad gave me a .22 rifle when I was 12 years old. I also have them for home protection. Thank God I have not had to use them but I feel better knowing I have them.

In your mind I should be a criminal?

I hate to sound like a bumber sticker but I have killed less people with my firearms as Ted Kennedy has with his car.

September 18, 2004 at 5:35 PM  
Blogger DoctorD71 said...

That's exactly what I mean m'friend: nothing but muskets! You aren't a criminal in my mind nor any one else's because it's not illegal to own those weapons yet. Once America joins the rest of the civilized world however, you'll have to explore some other options.

After donating your .22's, .357 and 9mm for scrap metal, you can look for other ways to take target practice. There are any number of video games and computer simulators out there to help you get your fix. If it's the tactile feeling of an object physically leaving your hand and puncturing a target that you enjoy, you could get yourself some BB guns or take up archery. If you prefer shooting at moving targets, there's lazer tag and paintball. Those are just the ones I can think of offhand; I'm sure there are plenty more. In modern day America, there is simply no reason anyone should feel that they absolutely have to own a gun, unless they intend to shoot somebody.

As if to illustrate my point, we have Derek Potts walking into the Capitol and shooting a guard to death. The shotgun used came from a local military surplus store. There are stores like that all across this country with guns on display to be sold or, as in this case, stolen. It has to stop.

September 21, 2004 at 7:21 PM  
Blogger jim said...

Well, you have me. I don't know what to say. I am certainly not going to go 20 rounds on the gun control issue here. I will just tell you a true story that happened to me about 5 years ago. I will try and be brief.

I was walking to my car carrying my gun cases as I was on my way to the range to target shoot. My neighbor, whom had just moved in next door and was a retired marine noticed the cases and asked where I was going. I explained where I was going and that I was a target shooting enthusiast. Him being a marine I was a little surprised at what he said. He obviously was anti gun. He said. “ So, does it make you feel like a big man to have guns? Does it make you feel big and powerful that you can just pull a trigger and kill someone”?
Like I said I was a little taken back. I asked him a question. I said “listen, when you are driving down the street there by the school bus stop and there are about 10 kids waiting for the bus does it make you feel powerful and big to know that with just a little twitch of your hand you can plow right into them killing god knows how many children? Does that make you feel big?”
He said “but I wouldn’t do that”
I said “neither would I”
He said “Oh”
He never gave me grief again.

September 23, 2004 at 11:48 PM  
Blogger FairNBalancedBob said...

I enjoyed Jack's quote of Keiller comment:
"How did the party of Lincoln and liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their etch-a-sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?"
I am saddened by what has happened to the Pube Party. The human rights liberalism of Abraham Lincoln (abolition was left wing extremism in 1860) and the advocacy for the American working man of Teddy Roosevelt (trust busting was the class warfare that the current Pubes squeal about… the thought that predatory crony capitalism must be regulated) have been replaced theocratic dogma, petty self-serving anti-tax orthodoxy and cynical Neo-Con imperialism. The Pube leadership has carved off little pieces of us, the air traffic controllers, auto workers, steel workers, the NEA, single moms, and dumped us off the life boat. The sharks, multi-national corps, WTO, the World Bank, and IMF, have now gathered. The ruling elites of the Pube Party now intend to throw “We the People” into the chum, hoping that during the feeding frenzy, our life boat will become their yacht and they will sail off into the horizon tossing empty wine bottles and bilge into the sea. The Pube Party now has no heart, just a plan, and the plan does not include the American Dream for our children.

September 24, 2004 at 10:59 AM  
Blogger jim said...

There are big problems with both parties but I could never subscribe to the dem party. They are the 'nanny' party. They want all you make so they can redistribute it as they see fit. Not for me. The repubs represent my view a little more. Personal responsibility. You should go to some socialistic country in Europe if you want the gov to 'take care' of you. I want my government to stay out of our lives. Defend the country, pave streets but don't try to run our lives. Don't take from those that do something and give it to those that do nothing. Safety nets sure but not a institutionized welfare state.

September 25, 2004 at 2:10 AM  
Blogger DoctorD71 said...

It's a good idea not to go 20 rounds on guns with me Jim; you could go 20 MILLION and I wouldn't change my stance by an inch. I'll tell you a little story of my own and maybe you'll understand why. Eleven years ago, I was going to school at Southern Illinois. My mother called me one night and had to give me the news that my cousin, a gun enthusiast and collector, was dead. He had killed himself in a gun accident at the age of 19. Now, if you had told him the year before about the details of the way he would die, I'm sure that he also would have said, "But I would never do that." Unfortunately, human beings are not perfect and when guns are around intent often becomes irrelevant. The simple fact is that the more guns are available in a society, the better the chance there is for injury, death, and misery.

September 28, 2004 at 6:19 PM  
Blogger jim said...

Sorry about your cousin but that is not an argument for taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. About 20 years ago a friend of mine died due to a car falling on him. He jacked it up incorrectly while working on it. He was a car enthusiast. I do not think that while it happens that cars will fall on people that car enthusiast should be barred from jacking up cars to work on them. That argument may sound silly but it isn't. People who own firearms need to be responsible. Just like people who own anything that can harm yourself or others need to be responsible. You start taking away from everyone because a few are irresponsible and then you have the nanny govt.
Your last line "The simple fact is that the more guns are available in a society, the better the chance there is for injury, death, and misery." could apply to many things. It certainly can apply to cars which kill many many more than guns do a year. It could apply to alcohol, which has caused more deaths, and misery every year than firearms do.
You may say that cars are needed in our society and firearms are not. You would get a argument from many though that they feel firearms are needed for self and family protection. That may be even more important to them than cars.

October 1, 2004 at 12:37 AM  
Blogger DoctorD71 said...

You keep trying to compare cars with guns but you seem to be forgetting that cars have a legitimate function: transportation. A gun's only function is to wound and kill; that's what it's designed for. Now a car under certain circumstances can become a lethal weapon; that's why we have drunk driving laws. A gun is ALWAYS a lethal weapon and should ALWAYS be illegal. How dangerous does the country have to get just so you don't feel like you're being "nannied"? If you dislike government so much that you feel that even acting to protect it's citizens is too much, you should probably be a Libertarian, not a Republican. Aren't the severe pot laws just a case of a "nanny" government telling people which plant they can or can't smoke?

Buying a gun to "feel safe" is probably the silliest thing of all, unless you happen to live in a war zone. Any competent thief is going to wait until the house is empty until he tries to rob you. If he should stumble on your guns while he's cleaning out your valuables, congratulations! Now, there's a criminal at large with a gun registered in your name. If he's feeling cranky, he may even wait until you come home, shoot you in the face and take your wallet. I'm sorry, but knowing that so many people have guns in their homes doesn't make me feel safe at all. I'm sure my cousin felt quite safe until his brains were splattered on the floor. Feeling safe and actually being safe are not the same thing at all.

October 2, 2004 at 5:01 PM  
Blogger jim said...

"Any competent thief is going to wait until the house is empty until he tries to rob you."

What about the imcompetent thief? There are plenty of those around. There are thousands of news stories every year when a law abiding citizen thwarted a crime against themselves or their families but you won't hear about those in the mainstream media. It would hurt the argument for gun control.

I would like to bring this rock throwing episode to an end. I said earlier that I won't do 20 rounds about gun control. We couldn't even hope to match the arguing that is going on currently on the net put out by The Brady group and the NRA.

I will live fine if you consider me a right wing gun nut who lives in a shack in Montana and I am sure you will live fine if I consider you a left leaning bleeding heart socialist who has no concern for individual rights.

October 8, 2004 at 1:59 PM  
Blogger lemon314 said...

Home defense does not require a semi-automatic 50 calibre sniper rifle with a night scope and cop killer ammunition. For home protection, you would want something like what the founders had... a shot gun.
Warning 1: The sound of "kaaachunk" would make a late returning teen identify themselves and the professional burglar flee.
Warning 2: A little rock salt would get you over possible complaints by the deaf... causing discomfort but not lethal.
Warning 3: A spray of heavier shot would deter anyone still advancing would could be deterred.
Warning 4: Not a warning at all, but anyone still advancing after the first three has earned a slug and is close enough that you couldn't miss.
The NRA should support this kind of common sense, not the right to own and carry (concealed) suitcase nukes.


July 12, 2005 at 10:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home