Jump to content
Robert.CFRN Robert.CFRN (Member)

Conservative nurses

Politics   (38,439 Views 504 Comments)
2,054 Visitors; 72 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 18 of Conservative nurses. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Politically, I consider myself:

  1. 1. Politically, I consider myself:

    • Socialist
      25
    • Liberal
      129
    • Moderate
      47
    • Conservative
      89
    • Libertarian
      30

320 members have participated

I didn't understand Steph to say that you or anyone should or should not vote for any particular candidate or party. I understood her to explain her thought process in casting HER vote.

I've never understood why people get so wound up over how someone else votes.

Can you please cut the passive-aggressive business? Instead of saying 'people' can you please say 'you' when talking to me?

I also recall, over the years, your having some not-so-nice things to say about people who vote differently, or perhaps about their motivations for doing so. Maybe worry about that before swiping me for providing an alternative to the 'third-party-as-wasted-vote' viewpoint? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of third parties... What we really need is a better way to vote. It's called Approval voting where you be able to vote for more than one person running. Under our current system with one vote only, every vote FOR somebody is a vote AGAINST someone else. That's how we ended up with GW Bush instead of Al Gore because all the voters for Ralph Nader took votes from Gore. In fact it really is impossible for a third party to thrive in our current system. Approval Voting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood why people get so wound up over how someone else votes.

When I see people believing lies and misrepresentations of fact as a basis for voting I do get wound up. I believe all of us need to hold accountability by those "news" stations and print journalism that claim to be news, and in fact are entertainment, and have gone to court to maintain their right to lie to the people.

I see this as a bit different than slant. When absolute falsehoods are given as if the news and people cast their ballots based on lies I get wound up. Again, I make no excuses for being liberal. I believe each person needs to vote as an informed voter, not a puppet. Worse than that are those who are running for office and continue to tell these lies long after the facts have been made very available. When it is news that a politician tells the truth rather than lies there is a problem.

One example of this is gun safety legislation. No one that I am aware of has gone on record as being willing to forcibly take guns from people who are legally able to possess them. And yet we see many politicians doing the bidding of the NRA, projecting their paranoia of this as a basis of the denial of background checks. The same people want extreme voter registration regulations.

So, yes, I understand why people get their panties in a wad about how others vote. An informed voter is critical to the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you please cut the passive-aggressive business? Instead of saying 'people' can you please say 'you' when talking to me?....

I'm sorry to disappoint, Elvish, but you seriously overestimate your importance in my post. I used your words to introduce the topic of concern over how others cast their votes, but my comments were NOT directed to you personally. If they had been, I would have addressed you, as I have on numerous other occasions.

My intent was to express amusement at the time and energy spent by those who disagree or disapprove of how others cast their votes. I truly don't get it, given that one 's choices in the booth, by very definition, require absolutely no justification to anyone, ever.

Life is short. Please don't spend it looking for insult where none exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of third parties... What we really need is a better way to vote. It's called Approval voting where you be able to vote for more than one person running. Under our current system with one vote only' date=' every vote FOR somebody is a vote AGAINST someone else. That's how we ended up with GW Bush instead of Al Gore because all the voters for Ralph Nader took votes from Gore. In fact it really is impossible for a third party to thrive in our current system. Approval Voting

Yes, I suppose all those voting for Obama because they didn't want Romney in wouldn't do it with such a system. Good luck getting our system changed though. I think Australia tried to do this but you know..........didn't get the votes for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One example of this is gun safety legislation. No one that I am aware of has gone on record as being willing to forcibly take guns from people who are legally able to possess them. And yet we see many politicians doing the bidding of the NRA, projecting their paranoia of this as a basis of the denial of background checks. The same people want extreme voter registration regulations.

.

True. Our state put a 15 round limit on magazines and a question on the background check form about mental health. This has translated into "They're gonna go house to house and take your guns"

The reason for this legislation was so that people with mental disorders cannot go into movie theaters, schools or malls and unleash round upon round on an unsuspecting public. Something that has happened in our state all too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of those mass shootings done by the "mentally ill" did any of them own their guns legally? I don't think so. Therefore that law wouldn't have prevented anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One example of this is gun safety legislation. No one that I am aware of has gone on record as being willing to forcibly take guns from people who are legally able to possess them.

There is a legitimate "slippery slope" concern. Give an inch and they will want a mile. We have a number of historical examples of this to learn from. Some people choose to learn from history and some prefer to remain ignorant. In my lifetime my 2nd Amendment rights have eroded considerably. We often hear gun control advocates speak of "compromise". What that really means is they want people to give up more rights, there is no interest in compromise. I for one would be willing to compromise. By that I mean I am willing to give a little to get a little. For example I would be willing to license gun owners (assuming the requirements were reasonable) in exchange for (let's say) and end to waiting periods or a guarantee there would never be gun registration.

And yet we see many politicians doing the bidding of the NRA, projecting their paranoia of this as a basis of the denial of background checks.

I think you are misinformed. The NRA is an advocate of background checks.

The same people want extreme voter registration regulations.

I note the irony of that as well. I would like it better if they would just fess up about the REAL reason behind the desire for more voter regulations, that is to make it less likely that certain kind of people will vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And of those mass shootings done by the "mentally ill" did any of them own their guns legally? I don't think so. Therefore that law wouldn't have prevented anything.

The guns Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook murders were all purchased legally by his mother. So, you're right-that law wouldn't prevent him from stealing his mother's guns and committing murder. However, if there were laws that prohibited the purchase of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, the massive casualties may not have happened. I think it's reasonable for a citizen to own a handgun or a rifle for personal protection. I don't think it's reasonable for a private citizen to own assualt weapons or military grade weapons. I'd never have to worry about driving in the snow if I could own a tank, but it's not reasonable for private citizens to drive tanks. That doesn't mean I can't own a car, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guns Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook murders were all purchased legally by his mother..

Adam Lanza's mother did not commit that horrendous massacre. The question was, in this case, "did Adam Lanza legally possess the weapons he used." And the answer is no, he took them from his mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, if there were laws that prohibited the purchase of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, the massive casualties may not have happened.

If one if going to commit murder, who concern yourself with the niceties of such a law. Such a law would do absolutely nothing about the tens of millions of semi-auto firearms or the (relatively easy to make in any shop) magazines already out there. As to your other point, well we might count ourselves lucky that he used the firearms he did use. As a person who has been in combat several times, in several conflicts I can tell you that among the most feared of personal weapons (as opposed to crew served weapons like machine guns) is the common and lowly shotgun. It is well known that death increase, and the number of wounded decrease when shotguns are brought to into the fight as compared tot he low powered rounds fired by the type of gun used at Sandyhook.

I think it's reasonable for a citizen to own a handgun or a rifle for personal protection. I don't think it's reasonable for a private citizen to own assualt weapons or military grade weapons.

They don't, by and large, at least not current military grade weapons. Military weapons of the past, like the 30-06 bolt action rifle are among the most popular and useful hunting rifles on the planet. The differences between the weapons used in the Sandyhook atrocity and traditional hunting and sporting arms are no more than cosmetic. They are not different in terms of performance or capability. So either you have to ban very traditional firearms that have been widely available, useful and popular for a 100 years or more, or ban guns based on nothing more than how they appear.

I'd never have to worry about driving in the snow if I could own a tank, but it's not reasonable for private citizens to drive tanks. That doesn't mean I can't own a car, though.

There are plenty of good reasons for a private citizen to own and drive a tank. The irony of what you are saying is that owning and driving a tank is perfectly legal and thousands of tanks are in private hands across the country. I personally know of several people who own tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam Lanza's mother did not commit that horrendous massacre. The question was, in this case, "did Adam Lanza legally possess the weapons he used." And the answer is no, he took them from his mother.

Read my post again. I never said his mother committed the murders and I did say Adam Lanza stole the guns. So, please clarify what you mean here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×