Are all hicks republicans?

dojafx · October 23, 2004

It sucks, but I believe that guns needed, especially when you have groups of fascists armed to the teeth and wierdo militias that live in the woods without cable internet

I must be able to defend myself

I'll keep my assault rifle

WitE TrAsH · October 23, 2004

This sounds very stereotypical... saying every redneck or hick is ignorant, or unschooled. Not every redneck is unschooled or illiterate. But I do agree many rednecks do vote for the Republican party. Many reasons are because the Republican party is very into keeping the old values, which is why they are against new ideas like stem cell research or abortion. I don't know, just something to think about. But i didn't mean to start any controversy or beef...

October 23, 2004

Originally posted by dojafx@Oct 22 2004, 08:24 AM
Seeking, what john kerry says and what he does are two different things

in 2003 he sponsored a bill that would make pretty much ALL semi auto rifles and shotguns illegal

check the bill out: Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003

kerry is trying to curtail rights

so is bush

fuck them both

Roger Callero for president 2004

Quoted post

From your link:

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Cracksmoka · October 24, 2004

there all a bunch of yaley scull and bones mother fuckers anyway... i mean what kind of secret society has its members sop in the middle of what there doi, mid-sentence even, and leave the room if it is even mentioned? tell me that aint fucked up shit. there needs to be a ligitimate working class 3rd party, and until we get one its the lesser of 2 evils...

angelofdeath · October 25, 2004

all the talk of kerry being pro gun... i ask...

please examine his record. look at his votes. dont use Kerry out goose hunting as your documentation. if he is a great hunter why did he co sponser legislation to ban many popular center fire cartridges, popular in deer hunting? one thing interesting is that the NRA gives him an F, and anti hunting and animal rights groups give kerry a 100% approval rating. atleast they both agree. now y'all can slice and dice me because i know its not cool to be under 25 and not be a michael moore lover.

as to the original question, all hicks arent republican. i just came back from the deep south and found as many kerry signs as bush signs. Kabar's post about the south or "hicks" being historically democrat is very relevant. alot of old people still hold on to the i hate republicans but have more conservative values than most modern day republicans.

a few reasons why "hicks" are sometimes republican, is because the modern republican party holds conservative values. they are largely pro gun anti abortion etc etc etc. alot of "hicks" are very morally conservative, and dont like alot of new ideas hence many vote republican.

by the way:

Glen Burton and Tommy Araya in 04.

KaBar2 · October 25, 2004

Okay, Seeking, I re-read a couple of your posts, and although I felt like I answered your questions, apparently you don't feel that I did. Not that I am obligated to answer them, of course, but let me give it another try.

A.) I do not support John Kerry because he supports and believes in a number of national policies, laws and social tendencies with which I do not agree. He is, by his own definition, a liberal. Like all politicians, he thinks he knows better whats good for us than we do ourselves. I disagree. I believe that a smaller government is better than a larger one. I think individuals should take care of themselves, and not be dependent on the government very much. I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and I do not support any additions to or subtractions from the Constitution, except minor changes as technology makes such changes advisable. I do not support the idea of activist judges, or an activist Supreme Court. I believe in a strong national defense. I am opposed to the idea that only "the professionals" have a legitimate role in law enforcement, firefighting, medicene, engineering and so forth. I believe that there is only ONE MILITIA, as defined in Title 10, Section 311 and other places in the United States Code, as amended. If you read the law, you will clearly see that this law DOES NOT define the National Guard as "the Militia." (Our armed forces are becoming more and more a professional mercenary force, backed up by a very large National Guard. This is a really bad idea. Universal military training would be far preferable, exposing virtually all young American men to combat arms training, not that any major political party has the guts to suggest it.)

(And like it or not, if you are older than 17, you are already a member of the Militia, according to Federal law.)

B.) Mr. Kerry has a long established record of voting against the Second Amendment, and his photo op pictures with a dead goose don't change that one bit. I do not trust him, nor do I trust the Democratic Party any longer to defend the Second Amendment. I used to vote Democratic when I was young. Not anymore.

C.) Most of the issues that Mr. Kerry and the Democrats feel are vitally important do not speak to me. I'm not all that worried about Roe v. Wade, I doubt seriously that anything will change in this regard, just as you are apparently unconcerned about the possibility of Congress re-newing the assault weapons ban. You have your interests, I have mine.

I don't think that government should be in the marriage business AT ALL. I don't think that they should be in any position to say whether or not anyone marries or does not marry. I think the very idea of a "marriage license" is exceedingly offensive. The real issue here, in my opinion, is connected to insurance companies--death benefits, survivor benefits, health insurance, etc. for gay people. Homosexuals and lesbians have been exchanging vows and rings in private ceremonies for years, and that is not likely to change. So the real issue seems to be "benefits" and inheritance. I think people ought to be able to marry whomever they please, and that government should butt out. Government interferes in people's personal business FAR too much already.

I am concerned about the environment, and I think the U.S. has too many cars, and too many industries that pollute; but electing one presidential candidate over another is not likely to change that. Creating a culture that prefers public transportation and bicycles over cars is a bigger task than is going to be accomplished by any of the candidates. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population, and consumes the vast majority of the world's energy. So long as people have the money and the desire to own cars and trucks and motorcycles, they will have them. Ask China--they will soon surpass us as the world's largest consumer of petroleum and the world's biggest polluter. (Good! Then everybody can bitch about them, instead of bitching about us.)

I do not support everything the Republicans advocate, but like everything else, they have their good points and their bad points. You give George Bush far too much credit for all the bad things that are occurring. He's just a mouthpiece for a powerful segment of the ruling class. So is Mr. Kerry, but he represents a different powerful segment of the ruling class. Basically, it's like two groups of rich kids arguing over who is going to be class president, while the rest of us trudge off to algebra class. Who wins is less important to me than that I get to do what I want to do. The fewer rules, the better.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinions, or rather, that I do not necessarily agree with all of your opinions. That's the breaks. Don't forget to vote for the Elector of your choice. LOL. I voted already--early voting. I voted all Republican, unless there was a Libertarian candiadte running. If there was a Libertarian candidate for judge or school board or whatever, I voted for them. Not that they will win, but it just feels better than voting for the Republican along with 85% of the rest of Texas.

And now we get to see, what, eight days from now, who the Supreme Court wants for President. "Union and Constitution Forever!" LOL.

random · October 25, 2004

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 25 2004, 04:46 PM
Who wins is less important to me than that I get to do what I want to do. The fewer rules, the better.

that just sounds selfish and irresponsible.

as a member of this society you should feel obligated to have a sense of social responsibility.

from your posts it sounds as though you view government as a waste of money and an oppressing force. you have to realize that the government deals with millions more people than just you, and hoping all of your own wishes be appeased is just unrealistic and naive. if some government program doesnt affect you, this does not mean it is ineffective. the role of the government should be to raise the quality of life for as many of its citizens as possible. which does NOT mean just letting everyone do whatever they want to do. people are inherently selfish, but this isn't a quality that should be reinforced, especially not on the national level. it would be great if everyone could just do whatever they wanted to do, enjoying all the benefits of modern society. BUT THIS IS INCREDIBLY UNREALISTIC.

maybe this will make more sense;

from Theatre of War, by lewis lapham:

When writing the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson also had in mind a "just and solid republican government" held together by citizens who recognized their obligation to the common good and so agreed--in the interest of their own safety as well as that of the republic--to leave some of the wishes at the bottom of the well. The assumption doesn't make much sense to a society composed of citizens in name only, "ostensible citizens" united by little else except the possession of a credit card and a password to the internet.

...No commonwealth or decent form of democratic government (no matter how heavily armed with cruise missiles and well equipped with tax exemptions) can defend itself against the raids of freebooting moral entrepreneurs and self-proclaimed kings. [Edmund] Burke put the proposition as follows: "Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."

Ckit · October 25, 2004

Kabar.

I do not support everything the Republicans advocate, but like everything else, they have their

good points and their bad points. You give George Bush far too much credit for all the bad things

that are occurring. He's just a mouthpiece for a powerful segment of the ruling class. So is Mr.

Kerry, but he represents a different powerful segment of the ruling class. Basically, it's like two

groups of rich kids arguing over who is going to be class president, while the rest of us trudge off to

algebra class.

i totally agree. no major party will represent the majority of our country, the middle class and the poor.

vote peace and freedom party.

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/Platform.htm

October 26, 2004

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 25 2004, 08:46 AM

A.) I do not support John Kerry because he supports and believes in a number of national policies, laws and social tendencies with which I do not agree.

I believe that a smaller government is better than a larger one.

Bush did nothing to cut government involvement or agencies, he simply didn't fund some while putting billions more into the military

I think individuals should take care of themselves, and not be dependent on the government very much.

Bush does beleive this too...too bad he doesn't see corporations in the same light

I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and I do not support any additions to or subtractions from the Constitution, except minor changes as technology makes such changes advisable.

HOW ABOUT THE PATRIOT ACT FOR THOSE DER RIGHTS OF YA'LLS

I do not support the idea of activist judges, or an activist Supreme Court. I believe in a strong national defense.

I am certain George Bush would not put any of these on the surpreme court. He has not put any right wing judges in other key positions. His cabinet too is a shining example of fair and balanced individuals seeking to serve their country not personal interests

I am opposed to the idea that only "the professionals" have a legitimate role in law enforcement, firefighting, medicene, engineering and so forth.

I will perform my first surgery on you and than I will build a bridge and you may cross it first. I will than arrest you...

I believe that there is only ONE MILITIA, as defined in Title 10, Section 311 and other places in the United States Code, as amended. If you read the law, you will clearly see that this law DOES NOT define the National Guard as "the Militia."

I do agree with you and agree that this is neccesary to ensure our freedoms. I just wish you could see that the republican agenda of increasing military strength and corporate participation while limiting privacy and personal freedoms is exactly why we need this. I'm not naive, the democrats are not the best answer either but still...

I think the very idea of a "marriage license" is exceedingly offensive. The real issue here, in my opinion, is connected to insurance companies--death benefits, survivor benefits, health insurance, etc. for gay people. Homosexuals and lesbians have been exchanging vows and rings in private ceremonies for years, and that is not likely to change. So the real issue seems to be "benefits" and inheritance. I think people ought to be able to marry whomever they please, and that government should butt out. Government interferes in people's personal business FAR too much already.

Without a legal standard nothing would compel insurance companies to give anything to anyone related to the insured. It makes sense and is only fair, in the vein of lessening government intervention, to extend the right to gay couples. this does not obligate religious organizations, but provided equal protection under the law

Quoted post

Embedded are some of my responces to this essay. I was too lazy to disect and quote you one by one...regardless of my comments I think this was one of your most clear and articulated explanations of your opinions...

Smart · October 26, 2004

I didn't even read this, sorry, MANY other priorities at the moment but soon I should be up in this forum on the regs but...

My... um... observation is that all these confederate flag sticker having republican voting sons of stump fuckers ARE NOT REBELS!

You can't rebel if you suck the W dick!

KaBar2 · October 26, 2004

From the looks of things at the early voting last Saturday at our local branch of the Houston Public Library there is going to be a HUGE voter turn-out. I would estimate 65 to 70% of the eligible registered voters, maybe more. Election Day should prove to be a huge cluster fuck, with fifty zillion people showing up to vote all at the same time. If you want to save yourself a lot of headaches, VOTE EARLY.

There were at least 150 people in line ahead of me. The line snaked all around the Library's lobby and out the door. I waited in line nearly two hours to vote. Houston now uses those computer voting machines. They SUCK. I liked the old-fashioned ones with the big red lever that went KA-THUNK when you voted. Of course, they were very expensive, not to mention heavy as shit. And they broke pretty often, because they were mechanical.

Next to the old mechanical voting machines, I'd rather have a paper ballot to mark with a Sharpie. Too much trouble to count by hand, though.

angelofdeath · October 26, 2004

From what I understand the whole "confederate flag waving sons of stump fuckers" are a pretty diverse group. as said before the republicans are the biggest party with the most conservative value so alot of those guys swing toward bush.

another thing to remember is there are a few different types of "confederate flag waving sons of stump fuckers." you have people that just think im a redneck, im from the south, that is a sign of the south hell yeah im gonna fly that flag. on the bigger scope of things Hank Williams Jr, Lynyrd Skynyrd, even now im sure Kid Rock etc etc, all rock the confederate flag as an image of the south and being country. they are not racists. i mean you have writers from the south putting up "the dixie iron fist"(sigh), "dixie rebel" etc etc. im most sure they are not racist and want slavery and all the other stuff most people think of when they hear stuff like that.

then you have so called "neo confederates" who pretty much hate both parties (repub or dem) and either vote for some weird party or vote republican just so a liberal wont get into office. they view themselves as "true conservatives" who hate gay marriage, abortion, immigration etc etc etc.

just some thoughts.

seeking · October 26, 2004

kabar,

the problem is not that we disagree, the problem is that you are incredibly evasive when questioned. you pick and chose the topics you can give sermons about and ignore the others. even in the reply you gave, it's still completely empty. you just gave pointed rhetoric for each question, but very little of it was based in reality. you talk about not supporting a candidate that wants to ammend the constitution. dude, bush is the ONLY candidate who is OPENLY trying to amend the constitution to LIMIT the freedoms of american people. even if kerry is anti-assault weapon, he's still not trying to change the constitution.

see, the problem man, is that everything you preach and everything you 'believe' in, is completely empty because it's not based in fact. if you were to look at the facts, kerry is far more of everything you want than bush is, but still you buy into some bullshit propoganda about republicans wanting smaller govt. with less intervention in peoples lives. that is flat out bullshit and anyone with half an ioda of intelligence and an open mind can see that.

whatever, im done.

KaBar2 · October 26, 2004

Seeking, you are a difficult person to satisfy. Nevertheless, I tried. What your reply seems to boil down to is: 1.)Kerry doesn't want that, Bush wants that, 2.) My ideas are not based in reality (geez, that's kind of tough to counter, you know? It's like saying "Even though millions of people consider this an important issue, it doesn't mean shit") and 3.) I should support Mr. Kerry because he's going to really give me what I want, and Mr. Bush is lying to me..

Uh huh. Okay. Well, maybe the problem is my low expectations of government in general. Since I'm really just hoping they won't get much worse, it's difficult to be disappointed. Government seems to be a one-way deal. Every day, they are worse than the day before. Have you ever heard of "boiling the frog?"

"Boiling the frog" is a anti-gun strategy. Since they know that they cannot just seize all the guns (unless they want to really cause a shit storm), they have adopted a long-term strategy based on the dialectical two-step ("Two steps forward, one step back.") Frogs are amphibians. Their body temperature is dependant on the ambient temperature. If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, of course, he hops right back out. But if you start with a pan of room-temperature water and slowly heat it, he just sits there until he gets cooked.

In my opinion, this strategy is part and parcel of the left-wing/ liberal agenda. It may take years, but they are patient. If they just keep picking at it, eventually they will be able to unravel the fabric of the Second Amendment.

From their point of view, this is perfectly logical and acceptable, and anyone who disagrees or objects is "ignorant," and his ideas are "not based in reality," and "out of step with the majority in the mainstream, " and even "bigoted, prejudiced and racist."

The real question is "WHY?" Why are these social issues so important to the left? What is it that they are trying to accomplish? Why is it that they think these things are crucial to their plan? What IS the plan? Is there actually a plan, or is it just a particular orientation to life that causes them to want to alter life as we know it?

I can accept that the conservatives have a set of principles and a political playbook by which they guide political decisions. They have particular, well-defined goals in mind. If this is true for the conservatives, then it may very well be true for the left. The right makes no bones about "Defending the Second Amendment." Correspondingly, out of the public eye, the left makes no bones about "Getting the guns out of the hands of civilians." Regardless of any other issues, I would vote Republican (or Libertarian, if they could win,) just based on this one thing. If the Democrats want my vote, then they need to stop being the Anti-Gun Party, and not just pretend that their determination to see the nation disarmed is not an actual fact.

And I guess I, too, am done. Don't forget to VOTE.

metallix · October 26, 2004

blind perceptions and information denial as political tools.

SeOnEr · October 26, 2004

all republicans are right wing dumbass moronic bush supporting non-environmentalist stupid fucking crackhead inbred hicks.

hobo knife · October 26, 2004

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 26 2004, 01:48 PM

Uh huh. Okay. Well, maybe the problem is my low expectations of government in general. Since I'm really just hoping they won't get much worse, it's difficult to be disappointed. Government seems to be a one-way deal. Every day, they are worse than the day before. Have you ever heard of "boiling the frog?"

Quoted post

okay, I hate to pick out one point of your last statement and analyze it...but since the Bush administration has taken office the government has hit ROCK BOTTOM. Name one good thing Bush has done while in office. He has completely raped the constitution with the patriot act, lead us into war through lies, given tens of billions of tax money to the top one percent.. ("his base")..lost jobs, ruined the economy....how can you possibly vote for him again just becuase you think kerry MIGHT tighten gun control, it's like your disregarding everything bush has done just because he "appeals" to gun owners...