Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Are Hateful dissenters Worse than Jane Fonda?

It seems to me that Charlie and Blaine got off into cyber space instead of settin' round the campfire.Every one of these flame wars-and I was only in one and I surrendered the territory pretty quick- would never have got off the ground if the men involved would have imagined a real campfire.

I'm sure that everyone on here is a bona-fide "Billy Joe Badass" and spouts off whatever comes to mind around a real campfire.I've burned more than my share of wood and I've never heard the kind of crap I hear around this "fire" at times.Somebody would for sure get a knot on his head around a real fire.

In my opinion,you let it go just exactly long enough and then handled it well.

Gene,

Look at my posts. Everything I have posted I am willing to say to face-to-face. That is my going in position--I don't post things I am not willing stand behind in person, and I am certainly no "Billy Joe"..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.......

However, I agree that sometimes sarcasm, ridicule, and teasing aren't as insulting face-to-face as they are on the Internet. facial expressions go a long way in mitigating words.

Blaine

Hello Blaine,The first comment was directed at you and Charlie.The second was about flame wars in general.You are right about face to face which was really the point I was trying to make.
"The Virginian" ought to still be required reading.The old"smile when you say that,pardner"comment was a good teacher and mitigates a lot of harshness.
Rick seemed to be second guessing himself and I just spoke my piece.It ain't up to me to judge you or anyone else.I did go back and skim over your posts and there is no Billy Joe crap in them.
gene

It would be nice, as Teal says, if we could talk about these subjects without getting personal. May be impossible on these kind of forums where all levels abide together. Kind of like America, huh? I also don't like to hear the "Bush is a baby-killing pig" type of arguing. It doesn't serve any rational purpose. You aren't going to convince anybody with that kind of statement. The main point I would hope to show people is that you can't claim to love America and hate Americans. You gotta get off the rhetoric of the political parties, you gotta look deeper into a politician than his press statements, and you gotta stop looking at actions through rose-colored glasses. A healthy dose of skepticism is entirely patriotic when dealing with career politicians, no matter what their platforms may be. Take the area of economics, for instance. As McCain recently said, "there was a time when the republican party stood for fiscal responsibility." Well, financing round after round of tax cuts with public debt, while there is a war on multiple fronts, with social security a mess and a health care crisis doesn't amount to fiscal responsibility, just as Greenspan or any other economist that isn't on the GOP payroll would say. AG made it perfectly clear to Congress about the long-term implications for huge deficits and the resulting record national debt. But do they listen? No. They have their heads up their rhetoric-soaked arses because getting re-elected, or getting power for their party is their whole purpose in life. Talk about "can't see the forest for the trees, throwing the baby out with the bath water," and "cutting our nose off to spite our face." We all want to be careful to not make the same mistake. Then it would really be a case of "the blind leading the blind."

I dont know about disenters, any time you get into political discussions, I really dont believe there is much critical thinking involved, on either side of the isle, period. Too many of us, myself included, fall in the group of people who wont cross party lines period.

As for Jane Fonda, I do have some first hand experience with her. When I was in AIT training in the Army at Fort Ord CA, she cost our entire unit a 3 day pass because she had staged a peace rally outside the post. Instead of getting to go home for a day or two, all of us had to pull guard duty on the outer perimeter of the post. Do I think her behavior was treasonous in North Vietnam, yes. You dont mingle with the enemy in that manner, you dont sit on anti aircraft guns and pose for pictures for the enemy, you dont aid and abiet the enemy as she did, in providing names.

Finally, as for critical thinking, I think the real issue is many of us on the right of the middle are tired of the low tricks played out by the left, such as, setting up false scenerios, and then harping forever as if it is the truth. There is no doubt, Clinton ushered in a new era of low life political trickery. No I dont see Ted Kennedy as a patriat, if you dont agree, that is fine, but you wont ever change my view of him. I really have a hard time understanding how democrats feel the election was stolen from them in Florida. Let's see, the liberal media announced early victory for Al Gore, which meant the voters in the panhandle of florida had a poor voter turnout, and that area of florida is heavily Republican. The democrats had their entire political machine in Miami the very next morning to begin the spin. The counties involved were democratic counties where the polling precients were managed and run by democrats. And, let's not forget the effort by the democrats to get the naval ship absentee ballots disqualified. All from a party that likes to tout that they support our military, yet, their voting record says otherwise. So you see, when many of us see you with a bad attitude relative to the florida vote, the only conclusion we can come to is you are a party of corruption, and your party apparently is more important to you, than our country.

Uhhhhhh? Rick I believe it should be Sieg not Zig? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Many beleive I despise only George Bush, this is not True.
I despise ALL political Pond Scum, especially when they re -write the Constitution that all here profess
to hold so dear, just to suit their own Political Purposes.
Sometimes I wonder if any of you have ever actually read the Constitution of the USA, other than the pre amble and the 2nd Amendment?
Guess what there are many other amendments in the Document. In most cases the 1st applies here except if your on someones ignore list. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Our Forefathers would be running through the streets of DC with a Ropes decorating trees if they realized what has happened to the Govt. of the People, by the People and for the People.
Now it is for the Filthy Rich, the Special interests, and Corporate greed.
I'm sure this is just what they had in Mind when they created this Country?
Blind obedience to any Leader only works in Dogs or Slaves, not Free Men.
BTW I hope IFID hangs around as dissent is what created this Country. Not Political bootlicking. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, my German isn't very good.

That, my friend is precisely why we can't accomplish anything rational, except by accident. You're letting somebody else establish what you are in favor of, with their own analysis or lack therein holding sway over the wisedom or righteousness of a particular issue. If we have a select few wrong, but with the power to shape the party's platform, then you have just sold out, given a blank check, and put the wolf in charge of the hen house. Unfortunately, Americans are lazy, and prefer the easy way out. No need to learn anything about the issues or the people spouting positions. Just look for the donkey or the elephant symbol (we're also lazy about reading too much) and let the consequences fall where they may. Well, there are many people who don't fall so neatly (or blindly) into either category, or we my like most of what one party espouses sometimes, depending on who's making the official party speak at the time. But, then we might see merit in a certain candidate from the other party, or a certain issue may seem to be better addressed by the other party's official numbskulls. I got news for you fellers, those are the guys who decide elections, not the "I won't cross party lines" types. Thank God.

Mule,

I try very hard to hold civil discussions about controversial topics. It is hard on the Internet. People usually post things with the best of intentions, but they are invariably read in the worst light. The line I draw is when people develop the habit of posting in a very negative manner, when their intention is to inflame. Such posting always leads to conflict, unnecessary conflict at that. I strive to separate people from ideas. People are not fair game to be attacked, but ideas are.

Tax cuts are an issue that needs to be studied, and I am frustrated that neither side pulls out charts and graphs and explains what tax cuts do to the economy. I have seen economic recoveries that were preceded by tax cuts. However, I am not sure how big of a role the tax cuts played.

I am of the opinion that the economy cycles up and down, and it's cycles are not greatly affected by the government's fiscal policies and strategies. Now I think such policies and strategies have some effect, but I'll bet that even if the government did nothing, the economy would still cycle. These cycles appear to occur every 10-12 years. I would love to see some actual data that addresses that.

I have seen the "Laffer Curve". Intuitively, it makes sense. For those that don't know, it is a bell-shaped curve that correlates tax revenue to tax rate. Initially, tax revenue increases as the tax rate increases. It increases to the point where the taxes become too much a burden to the economy and cause the economy to slow down. When the economy slows down tax revenue decreases. Increasing taxes past the optimal point only results in less tax revenue.

My gut feel is that we are well past the optimal tax rate in this country. As such, tax cuts will nearly always result in increased tax revenue. However, I have not seen any studies on this, and I am puzzled why neither political party mentions it. Regardless of where we are on the curve, one side will gain political benefit from talking about the Laffer Curve.

Well, maybe I am not so puzzled. When I was in High School in the 70s, I remember a teacher--either economics or government--saying that generating tax revenue wasn't the real goal of taxation. He said the real goal was to control behavior. When you think about it, the government does indeed exercise a lot of control of the population through tax law. Perhaps neither side wants it generally wants that known.

Blaine

I gotta agree with your logic. I've voted both ways, based on who I feel is the better candidate and unfortunately last election I voted for Bush. I thought he was the better candidate, and we needed a change. If I had known what we were in for, I would never have done it. It's funny how on this board I get labeled a liberal, and on other boards I am labeled a conservative. Guess it all depends on what side of the fence your looking from.

It seems to me if I make the 2nd amendment my own litmus test for candidates,I'm gonna wind up with a guy I agree with on a majority- not all - other issues.I'm truly an independent.The ultra left wing has hi-jacked the democrat party on the natioal scale,so I grit my teeth and find myself voting for Republicans more often than not,but Never a straight ticket.
There are bound to be a lot of gun loving democrats who love their position in the party more than standing for what's right.They are no more un-principled than the Republican who votes for big business at my expense when he secretly wishes for big government but the democrat fails my litmus test.
We better all become single issue voters-and you pick the issue- or the un-holy alliance of the ultra-liberal politicians and media will take over.We can't beat the politicians at their own game.Pick a side and make sure it wins.

Actually Mule, I crossed party lines to vote for Jimmy Carter, what an error in judgement I made there. I actually thought the democratic party was finally coming around......

That's the problem as I see it. The Dems are too far left, and the Reps have moved too far right. The Reps have become the neo-cons who are far too much in big businesses pocket. Look at the elimination of overtime pay and the weakening of the OSHA regulations.

It's not going to get any better either with the world economy, and the abundance of ultra cheap labor overseas.

That and the lack of government regulation in cheap labor markets. Our HR guy was telling us about how the safety record at the South American plants are better than they are here. Then it was brought out that if you got hurt and reported it, you lost your job. No wonder why they are so much safer.