The difference between Republicans and Democrats . . .

[jhetley]

. . . lies mainly in which rights they think we can get along just fine without. 

The other side of the coin, counterpoint to all the unconstitutional excesses of the Bush Debacle:  Gun shops experiencing an uptick in sales, in the face of a bad economy.

http://www.bangornews.com/detail/92892.html

" . . . shall not be infringed."

Comments

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Sorry. I really shouldn't post to LJ when I'm that hungry.

A more reasoned response: Yes, we did elect him, despite the steady drumbeat of Republican scare-talking-points, of which "OMG he'll take all your guns away!" was only the first of many. And I seriously doubt that all the votes cast against Obama were made on the basis of his (real or perceived) position on guns.

This suggests to me rather strongly that there are a LOT of people who are more concerned about issues like being able to keep a roof over their heads for the rest of their lives than about hypothetical gun-ban scares -- and probably also a number who were willing to think, "Deal with the major issues now, and with that one if and when it happens." Just because that issue is the most important one in the universe to you personally doesn't mean that it is to everyone... nor that it should be.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

And I seriously doubt that all the votes cast against Obama

See, that bothers me. If one didn't vote for Obama it is automatically a vote against him?

I voted for Ron Paul. I did NOT vote against Obama nor McCain. (I'd be willing to consider that it was 15% a vote against Biden and Palin, however. Those two scare me.)

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

This strikes me as hair-splitting. When you cast your vote in favor of one person, you are automatically casting it against anyone else running, simply because you didn't like them enough to vote for them. This is another concept which has been severely tainted by the Republican regime; too many people now equate "voting against X" with "anyone but X", and it's not necessarily that strong.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure she is splitting hairs. Or hares . . .

It's been a long time since I saw a candidate that I could vote _for_. This time around, I was most assuredly voting _against_ Gov. Palin. That "one heartbeat" thing.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not splitting hairs.

You make my brain hurt. I don't see voting as being against the other candidates. That's a fallacy the Demolicans/Republicrats have pushed on the voters.

It's the "Vote for the lesser of two evils" concept. As Alaric says, "That's still voting for evil."

You like two candidates equally so you flip a coin to decide who you are voting for. Does that mean you don't like the person who lost your coin toss anymore or not as much as you did before you flipped the coin?

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"Vote Cthulu. Why settle for the lesser evil?"