President appoints, Senate confirms


PDA






BigFatKen
October 11, 2006, 12:58 PM
I woke up an old thread yesterday which showed off much THR bickering. This was somewhat for the many, many new members THR has gotten since Jan 2006. Many members prefered a split Government because it can do less harm like increase social spending.

This November, we will elect 1/3 of the Senate and all of Congress. The Senate advises the POTUS about SCOUS (Supreme Court) appointments. If we do not keep the Senate on the president's side, he will not be able to get a possible new appointment to SCOUS confirmed.


READ THE FOLLOWING AT YOUR OWN RISK. it gives me the Willy's:

If, God forbid, President Bush is killed as in a new movie, and the VP dies of a heart attack, the next President will be the Speaker of the House.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford ). If the Democrats win the House in November, they will put up Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. She would be our president. Hillary likely would be her VP
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller ) by appointment.
END WARNING

It hapened ~32 years ago when relations between the GOP and Democrats. were much more corgial. The last thing the RKBA needs is another liberal Judge on SCOUS. Imagine a President Hillary getting Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein on the SCOUS !:fire:

Some us have been trying to whittle away at the GCA '68 for 38 years now. Roe vs. Wade, 1973, is "Settled law" now according to the Democrats. With liberal Judges, NFA, if it ever had a chance, would be forever along with GCA nd the '86 fully-auto freeze.

The old thread about "remember ..Democrat ...Pres." talked much about taxes, the economy, and who served in a war 35 years ago. These things mean NOTHING compared to keeping the SCOUS free from people like Schumer and Feinstein.

Vote to support the President for SCOUS appointments. Keep our GOP majorities.

If you enjoyed reading about "President appoints, Senate confirms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lone_Gunman
October 11, 2006, 01:58 PM
If we do not keep the Senate on the president's side, he will not be able to get a possible new appointment to SCOUS confirmed.


Bush has been so disappointing on so many other issues that I have no faith his Supreme Court picks will be any good either.

I would like to see the House or Senate fall to the Democrats so that the Republican monopoly on power in Washington is broken. Political stalemate should be our goal. The runaway agenda of the Neo-Conservative globalists need to be stopped.

buzz_knox
October 11, 2006, 02:18 PM
I would like to see the House or Senate fall to the Democrats so that the Republican monopoly on power in Washington is broken. Political stalemate should be our goal. The runaway agenda of the Neo-Conservative globalists need to be stopped.

I thought one of the mantras was that all the politicians were the same, regardless of the party. So it shouldn't matter who wins.

BigFatKen
October 12, 2006, 08:08 PM
buzz_knox
Senior Member

I would like to see the House or Senate fall to the Democrats so that the Republican monopoly on power in Washington is broken. Political stalemate should be our goal. The runaway agenda of the Neo-Conservative globalists need to be stopped.


I thought one of the mantras was that all the politicians were the same, regardless of the party. So it shouldn't matter who wins.

So the words "Chief Justice Rodhan voted with Justices Schumer and Fienstein........"

doesn't scare you?

DKSuddeth
October 13, 2006, 09:50 AM
things like that would just be another log on the fire of revolution or civil war.

buzz_knox
October 13, 2006, 10:02 AM
So the words "Chief Justice Rodhan voted with Justices Schumer and Fienstein........"

doesn't scare you?


More than you could ever know. Along with "Attorney General (or Justice) Spitzer."

My point was that the mantra varies depending on what the agenda is. If it's election time and it's about keeping the Dems from power, people argue that dividing gov't between the parties is a good idea. If it's not election time, people (often the same people) argue there's not a bit of difference between the Reps and Dems.

Lone_Gunman
October 13, 2006, 11:12 AM
Dividing power between the Democrats and Republicans has nothing to do with whether or not there are any differences between the two parties.

In many ways, the two parties are very similar. For example, Republicans and Democrats both support increasing the welfare state (case in point, Medicare Reform). It simply is a matter of degree.

If power had been split between Republicans and Democrats (say the House was Dem and the Senate was Rep), then I doubt medicare reform would have ever passed. The Dems in the House would have proposed to much benefits, and accused the Republicans in the Senate of not proposing enough, and I doubt a successful compromise would have been reached.

The founding fathers realized the benefits of division of power, checks and balances, and not giving any group supreme control over the entire system. They realized that political gridlock would innately limit the power of the federal government, and I believe they purposely built this into our system. Why have so many people forgotten that?

Waitone
October 13, 2006, 11:29 PM
Quote:
So the words "Chief Justice Rodhan voted with Justices Schumer and Fienstein........"

doesn't scare you?

More than you could ever know. Along with "Attorney General (or Justice) Spitzer.". . . . or Alberto Gonzales. Until we get to the point of wanting to throw our own bum out on general principals, the best we can do is gridlock. Lock it down. Get 'em so tied up in their own underwear they can't mess with me. The republicans had a chance to so something historic. They promptly fumbled the ball and lost sight of who they professed to be. For the foreseeable future congress is a threat to my life, liberty and property. Any sand thrown in the machinery is to my advantage. And no, I do buy the SCOTUS argument as a reason for maintaining republican control of the senate.

Malone LaVeigh
October 14, 2006, 12:30 PM
If we do not keep the Senate on the president's side, he will not be able to get a possible new appointment to SCOUS confirmed.

Thanks for the motivation. Checks to key Democrats to follow.

River Wraith
October 14, 2006, 07:03 PM
So you want to actively support supreme court appointments that would directly impact our gun rights in a negative manner? :confused:

Malone LaVeigh
October 15, 2006, 04:30 PM
So you want to actively support supreme court appointments that would directly impact our gun rights in a negative manner?

No I want to actively fight supreme court appointments that would directly impact ALL OF MY rights in a negative manner.

shooter503
October 15, 2006, 04:42 PM
I've been continually amazed at the actions of the Republicans who have been so keen on extending Presidential power. Did they not see the danger they were creating if the Democratic party should gain power in DC? The Republicans, who were so keen to distort the intent of the Constitution, now have only themselves to blame if the laws they passed are used against them.

And to all you supporters of privacy invasion and detention without charge - have a happy next few years.

22-rimfire
October 15, 2006, 04:43 PM
Malone, just how are you going to fight a president making a Supreme Court nomination who's politics don't agree with yours?

You choose your representatives in the House and Senate and they vote for the most part their party line. Hence, you need to make your choices very carefully and vote that way. If you want to increase the likelihood of more gun control measures and a tax increase, vote Democrat; vote Republican unless you just have a serious problem with that candidate. Foley is one that I have a serious problem with. But in his District, I believe voting for Foley will be in essence a vote for the Republican candidate.

In defense of politicians and voting, we all think of voting for our candidate for the House or Senate based on local or state issues. They don't necessarily vote that way once they are elected. Electing more Democrats will put anti-gun liberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and Democrats heading up committees. The Senate, my thoughts are toward the Supreme Court impact and maintaining a general anti-gun majority.

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 04:45 PM
Honestly the performance of this congress and senate over the past 6 years has been extremely disappointing along with the current administrations action,(both sides dems and repubs) I will be voting based on who I think is the best canidate, at least at this point, I want to vote repub but they have severly damaged any trust that I could place in them at this point. They had a real chance to make a difference and take back everything from the dems. If they are able to come up with a plan to leave Iraq, kill bin laden and release our dependency on foreign oil, and break ties with the religious right wingers, these and other issues have been so disappointing, its waste of a vote to put these people back in power.

RealGun
October 15, 2006, 05:35 PM
I see a lot of posts that reflect successful attempts, propaganda in my opinion, to cause Republicans to be in disarray, and that's aside from the GOP stumbling over its own feet. Nevertheless, the point made in the root post is right on, in that we do not need Supreme Court Justice nominees screened by a Democratic majority Judiciary committee that is comprised of the top leftist attack dogs like Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, Shumer, Durbin, Biden, and Feingold. Currently they do a good job of keeping the GOP honest, but I surely don't want them in the majority.

shooter503
October 15, 2006, 06:01 PM
Personally I am disgusted that the party affiliation of a Supreme Court nominee, or any other judge or Sheriff for that matter, should be introduced as part of their selection process.

We do not need the high court of the land, responsible for interpreting the Constitution, to be populated by political hacks of either side.

BigFatKen
October 15, 2006, 06:51 PM
No I want to actively fight supreme court appointments that would directly impact ALL OF MY rights in a negative manner.

Wthout guns, the other rights can be taken away easily.

beerslurpy
October 15, 2006, 06:54 PM
Honestly, I dont see anyone on the supreme court taking huge swipes at the bill of rights, but I do see the living constitution fans expanding congressional authority left and right while the judicial conservatives try to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

The big judicial problems right now are:
-federalism and congressional authority interpretations left over from the New Deal
-2nd amendment needs to be incorporated into the 14th
-adminisrative law- making agencies obey the law rather than rewrite it under the guise of interpreting it.

And I honestly see libertarian/conservative justices as best suited to fix these problems. We dont need more Stephens and Souters on the court, we need more Scalias, Thomases and Roberts.

River Wraith
October 15, 2006, 07:10 PM
Malone, your logic is fatally flawed. You support politicians that would take your guns. All your rights? Without the 2nd, you have none.

c_yeager
October 15, 2006, 07:15 PM
Malone, your logic is fatally flawed. You support politicians that would take your guns. All your rights? Without the 2nd, you have none.

Your conclusion is based on the flawed premis that the Republicans do not also wish to take away your your guns. They just arent as loud about it because they like the votes, trust me, if they had a completel monopoly on political control they would seek to take away every check to their power, including the RKBA.

I vote for an innefective, gridlocked government, in which every party has to fight for scraps and thus keep their constituents happy with at least lip service to civil liberties.

River Wraith
October 15, 2006, 07:21 PM
Well dammit that's depressing! Democrats say that they want to take them. I'd rather vote for the party that says they won't than the party that says they will.

MechAg94
October 15, 2006, 11:00 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing the Republicans get a bloody nose in the elections, I just don't want to see the Democrats benefit from it. I doubt I will vote for another Dem until the dump their radical left wing. That won't happen any time soon since that is where their money is coming from.

Ron Paul is my Congressional Rep here. I doubt I would vote for anyone else. Texas Gov. is a question I am still thinking about.

liberalgunnut
October 16, 2006, 06:08 PM
READ THE FOLLOWING AT YOUR OWN RISK. it gives me the Willy's:

If, God forbid, President Bush is killed as in a new movie, and the VP dies of a heart attack, the next President will be the Speaker of the House.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford ). If the Democrats win the House in November, they will put up Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. She would be our president. Hillary likely would be her VP
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller ) by appointment.
END WARNING


oh please... while I am a liberal, I'm not a Pelosi fan. But you seem to ignore the obvious. If those things happened now we'd have President Dennis Hastert. Given the choice I think I'd go with Pelosi (at least at the moment she is displaying much better leadership skills). If the right's strongest argument against a democratic house is that we'd have Speaker Pelosi then you've apparently learned nothing. You'll probably find that most americans, including many on the right are tired of being accused of supporting terror when we disagree with the current administration. The right seems to forget that while they may hold the power it also hoists everything they do on a pedestal for all to see, including incompetence. Just as it did with the democrats before they lost power in 94.

By the way, on a side note... the right seems to forget that at the same time Gerry Studds (d) was censured in congress for having sex with a page, the other person being censured for the same thing at the same time was Dan Crane (r). when attempting to rewrite history one must make sure they carefully conceal the facts...

scurtis_34471
October 16, 2006, 06:37 PM
The last thing the RKBA needs is another liberal Judge on SCOUS.

The last thing a woman's right to choose needs is another conservative judge. The court is already leaning Right with all the recent appointments. If we want a balanced court, we really don't want more Right-wing judges.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Republicans get a bloody nose in the elections, I just don't want to see the Democrats benefit from it. I doubt I will vote for another Dem until the dump their radical left wing. That won't happen any time soon since that is where their money is coming from.

I understand your feelings about the radical left, but don't you realize that the Republican Party has the same problem with the radical right? I cannot express how pissed I am that my party has been hijacked by the Religious Right. What we need are more moderates. I don't care which party they come from.

liberalgunnut
October 16, 2006, 06:40 PM
Without guns, the other rights can be taken away easily.

Are you so focused on the 2nd amendment that you've ignored that your 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendment rights have just been infringed by the recent passage of a bill that allows the president to label anyone whom he feels is a threat to this country as an enemy combatant? I find it stunning that there can be such singluar focus on the 2nd amendment without concern for the others. fortunately the scotus will likely overturn this bad legislation... of course that is assuming that it eventually gets signed by the president, who over a month ago was claiming that he "urgently" needed this legislation passed to protect America. Apparently he now feels that it's more urgent to protect America from Americans... democrats.

ArmedBear
October 16, 2006, 07:21 PM
libergunnut-

I have a few words you should look up.

Speech Codes
Fairness Doctrine
Hate Crime Legislation

Tell me again how Democrats are so eager to protect the Bill of Rights.

This frying pan sucks! I think I'll jump into the fire instead.:rolleyes:

liberalgunnut
October 16, 2006, 07:38 PM
Armed Bear... you seem to imply that somehow liberals have a monopoly on lunatics. I don't believe that I ever said anything that implied that I support any of those positions... but what i do see as the greatest threat, yes even bigger than terrorists, is the abandoning of Habeas Corpus. While you can look and find on a regular basis ridiculous examples of extreme leftwing nuts trying to pass insane politically correct laws... you will have a very hard time finding ANY bill that has posed a bigger threat to your constitutional rights as one that allows 1 man to claim that YOU are a threat to your country and absolve you of ALL of your rights, including the 2nd. I'm curious... would you support this bill if Hillary Clinton was your president? this reactionary short terrm thinking will be the death of our constitution.

gotta run... I'm off to burn flags... :)

tcgeol
October 16, 2006, 09:15 PM
The last thing a woman's right to choose needs is another conservative judge. The court is already leaning Right with all the recent appointments. If we want a balanced court, we really don't want more Right-wing judges.

The last thing in the world we need is a balanced court, which ends up being a court that rules based on opinion or personal ideology. We need a Constitutionalist court. The idea is to uphold the Constitution, not engage in some sort of institutionalized PCness.

River Wraith
October 16, 2006, 09:34 PM
The Constitution should be protected from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Liberals are enemies, just of the domestic variety.

GoRon
October 16, 2006, 09:39 PM
I fail to see how putting Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, Shumer, Durbin, Biden, Feingold, Rangel, Reid and Pelosi into greater positions of authority and influence is going to protect my rights.

The Democrats have less respect for the three rights I value most.

Life, Property and Self Defense.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I'll take the picks of President Bush over any of the living constitution clowns that a Democrat would send up.

You guys are going to cut your noses off to spite your face.

liberalgunnut
October 16, 2006, 11:25 PM
wow...leave to go burn flags and I turn into an enemy of the state...

First: constitutionalist court...

The problem with that position is even strict constitutionlists cannot agree on what they interpret the constitution to mean. The closest person I see to a constitutionalist is Scalia... and it seems whenever he votes to uphold what he sees as strict constitutional issues the right has a cow.

trying to be a strict constitutionalist is like trying to be a strict christian... everyone seems to have their own veiw of strict...and christian

next: Liberals as enemies of the state...

huh? For some reason you seem to believe that your position makes you the uber patriot. I don't know you but I have to assume that you consider yourself a patriot... yet somehow you seem to assume that because one might disagree with your postion that they somehow hate America? Please... take a few minutes and read the other 26 amendments.

Life, property and self defense...

Your government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens...your life... Maybe you ought to be asking yourself, if that is the case why do we have 7 times the number of troops in Iraq as Afghanistan? Why is the Senate Majority leader calling for including the Taliban in the Afghan government? Remeber they were those pesky Al Qaida types... you remember them right? Why is the president calling on us to "stay the course" in a war that is now not ours? our own generals have stated that the violence is 95% sectarian. Why is the president claiming that he shouldn't have to be bothered with FISA warrants when, of the over 19,000 requests that have been made of the courts less than 30 have been rejected? Where is your right to self defense when 1 man can call you an enemy and virtually take away ALL of your rights, including that of self defense? Is your right to property not infringed when the government can walk into your home, search it and not tell you? Where is your right to privacy when the government can listen to any call you make, or view any email you write.

if your argument is that you don't like Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, or whoever is the least patriotic of the day according to the swiftboat vets... get off your butts and vote for change. That is what I'm doing.

I'm just going to guess you're not going to like my idea of change.

By the way... I'm a proud liberal, a ACLU member (which means I strongly support all the amendments including the 2nd), proud of that too, an NRA member, proud of that, and an avid shooter, very proud of that (I'm a good shot). :)

epijunkie67
October 16, 2006, 11:32 PM
The way I see it, it doesn't matter who wins. I'm screwed either way.

The Dems are going to ban my guns, give all my money to welfare cheats, and make me want to move back to the United States of America.

The Republicans are going to destroy what remains of my constitutional rights and continue to promote the idea of supreme presidential power which will backfire in the long run when a dem finally (and it wil eventually happen) gets reelected to the presidency. They make me want to move back to the United States of America.

Funny, because I've lived in either KY, TX, OH, or TN my entire life and yet it seems the USA I grew up in doesn't even exist any more.

So I'm screwed no matter who wins.

River Wraith
October 16, 2006, 11:36 PM
You might support the ACLU, but the ACLU doesn't support you. The ACLU does not support the 2nd ammendment. You are fooling yourself. The only way a good shot who loves guns can be a liberal is if he lives in lala land, as you obviously do. All it would take for us to lose our right to keep and bear arms, what's left of it, would be a liberal house, liberal senate, and liberal president.

liberalgunnut
October 16, 2006, 11:49 PM
Are you getting all your info from Bill O'Rielly?

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

from their site:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

I would challenge you to show me any case where the ACLU did anything that would infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights.

The irony of this is that you claim that I am not served by the ACLU... when the reality is that you are.

GoRon
October 16, 2006, 11:50 PM
The Republicans are going to destroy what remains of my constitutional rights

All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about lost rights and yet nobody here has any stories of being deprived of their rights. The big bad Republicans are being accused of crimes that haven't been commited.

There is a looong history of the Democrats grabbing guns, recommending confiscatory tax rates and endangering the public through their soft approach to criminals domestic and foreign.

River Wraith
October 16, 2006, 11:55 PM
If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

ACLU POLICY
"the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47



You agree with this? You are out of your damn mind. You just made my case for me. You are supporting an organization that supports the licensing and registration of firearms. You are supporting a group that says that individual firearm ownership is not constitutionally protected. May your chains rest lightly on you, that you may lick your master's hand.

liberalgunnut
October 16, 2006, 11:56 PM
One more thought...If you support the current administration then you would certainly not be a conservative. I would challenge you to list the conservative accomplishments of this government.

Liberals left you a $250B surplus, oh yeah...and your guns. Self professed "Conservatives" left you a trillon dolar debt, our army fighting to calm a sectarian civil war, and the fear that liberals are going to take your guns, and make you marry another guy...

Given the choices I take my guns, the surplus, an army that fights terrorism and my wife any day.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 12:00 AM
Are your guns not registered? you've yet to show me any case where the ACLU has done anything that limits your constitutional rights?

Of course I agree with them (most of the time)... I give them my money. And I certainly agree with their neutral position on the 2nd.

The only hand I lick is my wife's... :)

River Wraith
October 17, 2006, 12:01 AM
Wow, way to change the subject. The present administration has done nothing to further restrict my gun rights. In fact, the sunset of the 1994 gun ban, (which was pushed through by liberals) is one of the things this administration has done (albeit passively) to actually expand my gun rights. Read the ACLU crap you posted again and tell me how you can agree with gun registration and with the statement that the individual ownership of firearms is not constitutionally protected.

River Wraith
October 17, 2006, 12:03 AM
We don't have gun registration in this country, so no, my guns aren't registered. If you're referring to that little pink slip of paper, that's not registration. The ACLU's position is not neutral. It is in direct opposition to the true purpose of the 2nd ammendment.

GoRon
October 17, 2006, 12:06 AM
One more thought...If you support the current administration then you would certainly not be a conservative. I would challenge you to list the conservative accomplishments of this government.

John Roberts

Samuel Alito

And score of other judges that will hopefully help restore sanity to the judicial system.

Liberals left you a $250B surplus
No, the massive cuts to the military and a Republican Congress (led by Newt Gingrinch) left us a surplus.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 12:16 AM
wow, six years and 2 judges? it would have been Roberts and Meyers... but Rove was on vacation and forgot to tell Bush not to try to appoint an idiot.

Gee as far as the surplus goes you seem to want to take credit for it but none of the responsibility for the military. And as everyone knows, the problems we are currently experiencing in Iraq are because of Clinton right? Speaking of taking credit but not responsibility...I saw a funny ad on TV today it was the right trying to claim that my demcratic congress woman "voted" for the bridge to nowhere... Of course she was voting for the defense funding of which a "conservative" had attached a $250M appropriation for a bridge for 50 people.

btw: sanity to the judicial system... does that mean having a government that promotes one religion over another? that thinks that consenting adults cannot marry?

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 12:20 AM
Mine are registered... interestingly they seem to shoot just as good, if not better than most unregistered guns.:)

Desertdog
October 17, 2006, 12:20 AM
I would like to see the House or Senate fall to the Democrats so that the Republican monopoly on power in Washington is broken. Political stalemate should be our goal.
If one has to fall, let it be the House. The house is in charge of the appropriations. The Senate approves the judges.
Which would you prefer; the President not getting any funding, or not appointing any judges?

Maybe sombody can answer this; How many Democrats have switched to the Republican Party since Clinton took office? I have a vague memory of reading of something like 440.

River Wraith
October 17, 2006, 12:26 AM
If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

ACLU POLICY
"the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."
Dude, you already hung yourself. Now we all know what you stand for. Let it go.

GoRon
October 17, 2006, 12:27 AM
You seem to be responding to a caricature of a Republican instead of me.

You wanted accomplishments? I gave you the only accomplishments worth mentioning.

I thought it was self evident that if the Republicans were in charge of the House that they were complicit in the cutting of the military budget. Next time I will spell things out a little clearer for you.

As a conservative I am very unhappy with the current crop of Republicans and their insane spending.

That doesn't mean I am going to help put the Democrats in office. They will make our evolution into a euro socialist hell hole occur even faster than the "forgot my core principles" Republicans.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 12:29 AM
While I'm sure this is not written in stone... it is interesting. I think your number may be inflated unless it includes city council people...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 12:33 AM
hmmm... apparently we may have more in common than we disagree on. Sorry if I put you in the faux conservative slot... but there does seem to be alot of them around here. FYI - I'm a big goldwater fan, still a liberal, but I really appreciated his approach to politics.

Although I do disagree with you on Alito...he seems like a sheep to me. I don't think Roberts is too bad. At least he's very qualified.

ETXhiker
October 17, 2006, 12:50 AM
Mine are registered... interestingly they seem to shoot just as good, if not better than most unregistered guns.

Registration is the precursor to confiscation. They have to know who has the guns before they can come after them.

This is basic stuff. Not rocket science.

First, they get the list, then they come after them. The way Hitler did it and every country since that has disarmed its people. I can't believe someone on this board has to be told.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 01:09 AM
And yet somehow you trust this government to protect your rights and the constitution? the same people that passed the warrantless searches, torture, and enemy combatant crap? gee almost forgot habeous corpus...

You should be worrying about the party that has no respect for the constitution... the one in power now. I currently feel that we have much bigger threats than gun registration to our civil rights at the moment. does one ignore everything else to protect that issue? seems like it from here in the cheap seats...

The way Hitler did it and every country since that has disarmed its people.

hmmm... the diference is that we have a constitutional and a supreme court that for the most part respects it. Hitler did not disarm his people by taking their guns, he disarmed them with fear, and hate. they gave up much of their rights... gee it reminds me of... us... now...


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

this was an interesting take on the nazi issue...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt_nazigun.html

The Nazis relaxed gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen." That is, those who were not "enemies of the National Socialist state" (read: Jews, Communists and others the Nazis were intent on eliminating)

I think your argument might be better served without the NRA propaganda. I'm assuming that since you are likely not an "enemy of the state" (given that you support this nonsense) you'd be ok... and I'm guessing that since I'm obviously a enemy of the state (liberal) they will be knocking on my door first. that's ok, I'm armed. :)

BigFatKen
October 17, 2006, 02:18 PM
liberalgunnut New Member Join Date: 10-16-06
Location: Lake Oswego, Oregon
Posts: 12
BigFatKen; Posts:hundreds
Without guns, the other rights can be taken away easily.


Are you so focused on the 2nd amendment that you've ignored that your 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendment rights have just been infringed by the recent passage of a bill that allows the president to label anyone whom he feels is a threat to this country as an enemy combatant?


The short answer is yes.

The long answer is much of what you are complianing about is a lot of hot air. I would write more, but this is all a liberal Troll deserves. Your other posts must have taken hours to compose and minutes to think about. I see all 12 of your posts are targeted to this thread as of this writing. 12:17pm Tuesday 10-17

BigG
October 17, 2006, 02:47 PM
Good point, BFKen. Some of the posters here seem to want to cut off their noses to spite their faces. :uhoh: I don't understand. I'll be pulling the R lever, again. :evil:

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 03:46 PM
Because I have an opinion different than yours that makes me a troll? Wow... that's a great way to avoid honest debate. Great you have more posts than I... given that you win the most posts challenge... I wonder if you believe that you are in a more righteous position to post on this board because you've posted more? because you apparently hate liberals? Interestingly I find that most people who claim to hate liberals do so, in part because they claim that liberals don't have a position... I do, does that bother you more?

The reason I call myself liberalgunnut is because I am a proud liberal and not afraid to say it, and I am a proud gun nut and not afraid to say that. The reason that I'm on this thread is because it caught my attention. The reason that I'm on this board is because I love shooting and I happened to find it through a google search. I didn't happen to see anything that said "liberals need not post here". I guess when one does not have a good answer to honest debate it is easy to refer to others as trolls. Why start a thread when you aren't interested in others opinions.

Because you apparently seem to consider yourself conservative do you believe that you are somehow more American than I?

btw: I am an NRA member.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 03:48 PM
glad to know that I can cancel out someone's vote :)

ps... I wasn't aware that there was a god that choose the side with the biggest guns, what religion is that?

BigFatKen
October 17, 2006, 04:04 PM
Quote:
READ THE FOLLOWING AT YOUR OWN RISK. it gives me the Willy's:

If, God forbid, President Bush is killed as in a new movie, and the VP dies of a heart attack, the next President will be the Speaker of the House.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford ). If the Democrats win the House in November, they will put up Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. She would be our president. Hillary likely would be her VP
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller ) by appointment.
END WARNING



liberalgunnut New Member
Join Date: 10-16-06
Location: Lake Oswego, Oregon
Posts: 14 you're kidding right?

oh please... while I am a liberal, I'm not a Pelosi fan. But you seem to ignore the obvious. If those things happened now we'd have President Dennis Hastert.
Dennis Hastert would be no worse than Gerald Ford. He would not appoint Hillary as VP nor Fienstein to SCOUS.

BigFatKen
October 17, 2006, 04:08 PM
liberalgunnut
"BigG glad to know that I can cancel out someone's vote

ps... I wasn't aware that there was a god that choose the side with the biggest guns, what religion is that?"

This is a direct quote of a man long dead. It means the same as Honest Abe saying ".........all men are created equal...."

When you have given your opinion on many other gun items, your started threads will be judged with the "rate this post button by others".

Then we can see what your thoughts are on more than this narrow question.

e.g. With the advent of the new body armour, should the Military step up to a heavier bullet than the current 5.56mm?

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 04:35 PM
No worse? Good to know you've got such high standards for your country. It seems to me that 30% of this country is bound and determined to vote republican even if Bush was doing congressional pages... or worse... starting wars over lies.

Like i said... I'm not a Pelosi fan even though she was my representative for a couple years... that said... Hastert is proving to be amazingly ineffective as a leader of the house. And amazingly ineffective at covering up republican sex scandals. Much the same can be said for Frist leadership in the Senate. Reid is worthless... My hope is that the left somehow gets a spine transplant and makes Feingold Senate Majority Leader after the right implodes in this election. But that won't likely happen. I can only hope that Reid gets slammed on this real estate thing.

What I am curious about is that would you support Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Kennedy, or whatever nameless democrat having the same powers under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that Bush has... in being able to name anyone the please a enemy of the state and strip them of all their rights?

My question on the quote was to BigG... He seems to have that in his signature for a reason, it certainly does not imply that all men are created equal. I reminds me of the civil war (or the Iraq war) when both sides said they had God on their side... But being a liberal, ACLU, NRA, atheist (even in foxholes)... I'm guessing that BigG's god is not on my side... :)

BTW: BigFatKen... it seems rather hypocritical of you to call me a troll and then argue that I've only posted on this narrow subject. I'm assuming that since you have 483 posts that you at somepoint had a first post. Does the lower number of posts make one a troll? I am simply trying to provide what I see as a different point of view than most on this thread.

FYI- I'm very much into slow fire target shooting. I'm a gun convert from my other hobby, archery. I shoot a Ruger MkII, Browning Buckmark, a Clark's 10/22 (my favorite), Beretta 92FS (self defense), and a remmington 12 gauge (very rarely).

Ken: I am relatively new to shooting... If you like to judge me based on whether is know what a the military should be using then I guess you could consider me an idiot. But frankly I think that the miltary in combat situations would be better served carrying the lighter 5.56 ammo (because they can carry more than the heavier stuff). If it was me fighting...I'd like to know that I had a bigger supply of ammo... than something that would work against body armor that my enemy is unlikely to have. Given that we're likely faced with battling more islamic fundamentalists they are not generally in possesion of the type of body armor that would make a 5.56 ineffective. I guess I could add... that if we were facing an enemy that did have that armor it might be wise to have at least a couple guys outfitted with the 7.62 M14s. On a related note... the other enemy that we may be likely facing is the NK's given their strategy of quanity over quality I would assume that thy would not be giving the bulk of their troops the latest body armor. Additionally you might want to ask yourself why even after we'd been in Iraq for over a year all OUR troops did not have this armor? just my thoughts...

BigFatKen
October 17, 2006, 05:46 PM
What I am curious about is that would you support Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Kennedy, or whatever nameless democrat having the same powers under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that Bush has... in being able to name anyone the please a enemy of the state and strip them of all their rights?
Yes, if they were POTUS.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 05:51 PM
Yes, if they were POTUS.

I disagree with it, but I can respect that. you are a much more trusting person than I.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 05:53 PM
I'm getting awfully near the 20 post mark... so when am I not a troll anymore?:D

Desertdog
October 17, 2006, 06:16 PM
I don't understand. I'll be pulling the R lever, again.
I am also, and I hope a large percentage of Libertarian party do too.
Vote Libertarian in the primaries and vote to keep the Democrats out in the National elections.

I promise to vote for any Libertarian Party member that will RUNas a Republican. They can follow the Liertarian line while in office if they want to, but running as a Libertarian will never get my vote.

liberalgunnut
October 17, 2006, 06:52 PM
I've been thinking... (sorry)

But I just don't get it. Please understand that I'm not trolling here... but how can you support that while claiming to be a proponent of the 2nd? It seems to me to be an amazingly poorly written law and is in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment... If you oppose gun registration then it certainly seems to make sense to me that giving one person (much like the Hitler example earlier, albeit inccorect) the power to take away your gun rights without due process would also be something you'd oppose. Currently there are about 44000 people on the no fly list, including many americans that simply have no reason for being on the list. The government is under no obligatin to tell anyone why they are on the list. One in particluar is the female director of a movie called My Country, My Country, Laura Poitras. Which is simply about life in Iraq from the view of one man... The movie is so good that she has been briefing US Military on civilan life in Iraq... yet somehow she is so scary that we can't allow her to fly. She currently has the highest threat rating that anyone can have... right up there with Bin Laden. These are our enemies of the state?

The president and those in his administration has said on numerous occassions that those that differ with their position on terrorism are supporting the terrorists. If you can make the stretch that democrats are going to "take your guns" how much of a stretch is it for me to say that I am an enemy of the state because I think the president's approach is wrong?

Your gun rights will only be safe in a transparent government... and we don't have a transparent government.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2006/mycountry/index.html

Since finishing "My Country, My Country," I've been placed on the Department of Homeland Security's terror watch list. Returning to the U.S. in August 2006 after screenings in Europe, I was detained at two airports. In Vienna, I was escorted out of the terminal to a police inspection area and was notified by security that my 'threat rating' was 400 points — the highest the Department of Homeland Security assigns. Upon arrival at JFK airport, I was again escorted by security to a holding area until Homeland Security gave permission for me to enter the country. I gave the security guards DVDs of the film.

BigFatKen
October 17, 2006, 06:58 PM
My friend David Nelson is on the no fly list with 20,000 other David Nelsonsliberalgunnut
Join Date: 10-16-06
Location: Lake Oswego, Oregon
Posts: 17 did you notice... I'm getting awfully near the 20 post mark... so when am I not a troll anymore?

There are people who are lurkers. These people do not register; do not post and just read. A troll is a member who joins with the intention of posting threads or responses that will be disruptive. They may quote unreliable sources or sources that can be plianly shown to be not true. Camp David is one menber I consider a Troll.

Anyone who would believe that the Brady's just want reasonible gun rules or that the ACLU is gun neutral would be not be using the good judgement that the more knowing Mods here would agree with.

The ACLU was started when a President banned speaking German in public. That was a good start. They have shifted a lot since then.

You can tell by the ACLU's actions that they are not gun neutral. To lose your troll status with me, start your own post. Think hard about it. Write it in a word processor program and spell check it. Sleep on it and post it in a few days. Other members will hit the "rate this post button". You will be judged on your post. I made Senior, not by my number of posts, but when I posted this poem to console Amy of Dodgeville WI who lost her father in a drive by shooting, of sorts, in Tampa.

http://www.artworkbyandy.com/Jamie/Ascension.htm
by Colleen C. Hitchcock
ps
our posts crossed in the mail. I will read and address your recent post tommorow.

BigFatKen
October 18, 2006, 09:17 AM
The last thing the RKBA needs is another liberal Judge on SCOUS.

#24 scurtis_34471 New MemberJoin Date: 09-06-06
Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 24
The last thing a woman's right to choose needs is another conservative judge.


If we allow this thread to wander into the pro life / pro chioce debate, it will go nowhere.

From various members:

We need a Constitutionalist court. The idea is to uphold the Constitution, not engage in some sort of institutionalized PCness
The Constitution should be protected from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Liberals are enemies, just of the domestic variety.


I fail to see how putting Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, Shumer, Durbin, Biden, Feingold, Rangel, Reid and Pelosi into greater positions of authority and influence is going to protect my rights.

The Democrats have less respect for the three rights I value most.

Life, Property and Self Defense.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I'll take the picks of President Bush over any of the living constitution clowns that a Democrat would send up.

You guys are going to cut your noses off to spite your face.



liberalgunnut

wow...leave to go burn flags and I turn into an enemy of the state...

Some of us here do not even joke about this subject. On Memorial Day, at noon, I raised a flag I had flown over the capital on my father's birthday. Call him Sgt Tall Thin Ken. A little different man from SSg BigFatKen


liberalgunnut
Liberals as enemies of the state...
Maybe you ought to be asking yourself, if that is the case why do we have 7 times the number of troops in Iraq as Afghanistan?

As usual, the Liberal leads the thread off topic to pick on something else. What does the micro-management of our troops have to do with RKBA?
From the link to ACLU:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.
This is not THR'S interpetation of RKBA nor the Attorney General's.

BIGJACK
October 18, 2006, 10:08 AM
gunnut has got it right! back off fatboy:neener:

The present administration has made a mockery and ruined the image that Ronald Regan brought to the republican party. :fire: They have spent almost 7 years lamblasting BC for having consensual sex with an adult female while codling their own pedophile, bent over backwards to violate work done in the past to lend credibility to America(Geneva convention), protected traitors who revealed identities of American spies and have had high ranking party members, one aftere the other, leaving with disgrace from top to bottome for about 5 years.:cuss:

DAm right we need a change and I hope we get it in November. :) I am just concerned as to what the bunch of idiots in washington, now, might try in the next couple of weeks.:banghead:

BigFatKen
October 18, 2006, 11:22 AM
#65
BIGJACK
Senior Member
Join Date: 12-19-05
Location: Alabama

back off fatboy


Alabama has some nice places to live. Here's one:
http://www.alabamabass.com/194281_113130.jpg

I used it for my computer walllpaper for awhile. You live in a State I thought was more polite than to use these words. I took my user name because there are too many BIGKEN users around. Being thin runs in the males of my family. I dropped from 150 pounds to 133 while in the Army in RVN; not enough food. My Uncle Oscar had not seen me for a year after I got out and remarked "Boy! Did you get fat". The name stuck.

JohnBT
October 18, 2006, 11:36 AM
"ruined the image that Ronald Regan brought to the republican party"

Who is Ronald Regan? Is he a troll who likes to argue politics on a gun board more than he likes to argue about guns on a gun board? Does he use crude language, too?

Here's a better question: Why did I just spend five minutes reading all that bickering? Good thing I'm not a slow reader.

"DAm right we need a change and I hope we get it in November."

You know the old saying, be careful what you wish for.

John

liberalgunnut
October 18, 2006, 01:26 PM
There are people who are lurkers. These people do not register; do not post and just read. A troll is a member who joins with the intention of posting threads or responses that will be disruptive. They may quote unreliable sources or sources that can be plianly shown to be not true. Camp David is one menber I consider a Troll.

hmmm... lurkers, trolls, disruptive, unreliable sources... sounds a bit paranoid to me. As you may have noticed, I'm not too concerned about people reading my posts let alone the invisible people that read my posts. I am not here to be disruptive I just enjoy substantive debate. Even if my spelling occassionally sucks. btw: you misspelled member :)

You'll have to do better than to imply that I'm using "unreliable sources" or "plainly unture sources" if your goal is to discount my postings.

Additionally you claim that I've gone off topic? Huh? Your posting was a warning that people needed to vote republican and now you seem to be cutting and running from your original post. It seems to that your positions for this thread are changing with the conditions... starting to sound familar?

Finally, yes... I joke about burning flags. The reason is that I am from a military family. My father taught me to respect the flag, but he also taught me that what was much more important than our symbol of freedom was our right to excersize the actual freedoms. I find burning flags offensive... but what I find more offensize is having a bunch of chickenhawks imply that you need to be protected from those that are excersizing their right of freedom with a constitutional amendment taking away freedom. You didn't fight for a damn flag... you fought for the constitution and the country created by it. The same constitution that you seem to be so uninterested in protecting in your effort to keep some people you don't like from being democratically elected.

I have had a flag hanging in front of my home since prior to the 2004 elections... why? because I am a patriot, I am a liberal, and most importantly I am an American... you own the flag... but in your quest to protect it you ignore that we also own it.

And the chickenhawks who are abandoning the constitution question my patriotism?

The day I will actually burn my flag is the day that they outlaw it.

Joe Demko
October 18, 2006, 01:34 PM
I believe when I killed my first man, I stopped being a boy.

It would really enhance your credibility if you went back and deleted that line, if it's not too late.

BigFatKen
October 18, 2006, 02:59 PM
I was dismayed by the "fatboy" comment. This person does not know me but feels qualified to make comments about my person.

One veteran I know says he is the only man from his infantry company who did not have to kill a child while deployed over seas somewhere. His enemy kept sending children with bombs on their person. If the kids crossed a certain line, they were shot. He killed plenty of adults and is proud of doing his duty.

War is not always about rebuilding the water plant. Somebody has to do the dirty work first. Sometimes it makes them a little funny about the fact.

And as Forrest Gump would say "that's all I have to say about that".

BIGJACK
October 18, 2006, 03:09 PM
I didn't have to kill a man to stop being a boy.:D

But I know about that Military change. when I enlisted, still have the ID card, I was 5'7" and weighed 126#, when I came home, a few weeks later, from basic trainning i was 6'1" and weighted 172#. Suckers issued my clothing 3 times during basic trainning to keep me from looking like ole Jethro Bodine.

Some times wish I could dig up that ole DI, bet he could work some of this fat off my arse. (no I don't eithe)

Joe Demko
October 18, 2006, 03:13 PM
I recently found by belt from my "quality time" at Ft. Leonard Wood. Apparently, I once had a 28 inch waist.:what:

BIGJACK
October 18, 2006, 03:17 PM
Being a vet myself and knowing a hell of a lot more of them, he sounds a lot like a "wantabe" to me.:eek:

BigFatKen
October 18, 2006, 04:51 PM
See
http://www.alabamabass.com/Awards

Malone LaVeigh
October 18, 2006, 05:12 PM
Well, I would have liked to respond to BFK, since this little toilet tempest began with his response to my post:

If you look at my post total, I guess I have the right to call you a troll and ignore whatever logic you present.

Without guns, the other rights can be taken away easily.

Nice rhetoric, but not supported by reality. The rights of armed individuals and groups is routinely taken away by better armed and trained police/military forces in our country. I support RKBA as much as anyone, but what you're talking about hasn't been a reality since Shay's Rebellion.

Let me rewrite it for you:

Without a voting public willing to hold power-grabbing politicians accountable for their usurpations, all of our rights can be taken away easily.

buzz_knox
October 18, 2006, 05:26 PM
By the same token, politicians who are truly interested in grabbing power can't be held accountable by a public that votes . . . unless there is some other mechanism to hold the politicians accountable.

Athens TN in 1948 comes to mind. The politicians weren't interested in the vote counts (which they controlled) but they were interested in staying alive.

Malone LaVeigh
October 18, 2006, 05:38 PM
Athens TN in 1948 comes to mind.

OK, that's one. And how many Chicagos, Pine Ridges, Ruby Ridges, and Wacos have we had since then?

buzz_knox
October 18, 2006, 05:42 PM
Those events occurred because the people allowed them to occur. Like anything else, a right that isn't excercised is useless.

liberalgunnut
October 18, 2006, 07:33 PM
It seems to me that americans are quite willing to give up their rights... all it takes is a raised "terror" alert, and a couple foiled "plots" and they apparently can take away all the rights they want with our support. I do find it somewhat ironic, on a site called "the high road" that I can find so many people that are willing to give up their rights, ignore the constitution by not seeing the forest through the trees, and condone torture. BigFatKen has stated that he's willing to allow ALL his other rights to be infringed to protect the 2nd amendment... I'd ask him... did he go to war to protect just the 2nd amendment?

Malone LaVeigh
October 19, 2006, 02:21 PM
Those events occurred because the people allowed them to occur. Like anything else, a right that isn't excercised is useless.

My point was that all of the victims were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, but it didn't stop the state from denying them all of the other rights that the 2nd supposedly protects.

BigFatKen
October 20, 2006, 09:40 AM
Even the whisky rebellion was 1794

The Battle of Athens, Tenn
2 AUGUST 1946

see: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution - Article 1, Section 26 - recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

liberalgunnut
October 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

some things never change.

#shooter
October 20, 2006, 12:40 PM
I don’t support the Republican control of the senate because the senate has given Bush a blank check to erode civil liberties. The senate and president signed the patriot act which allows the government to monitor you, the “torture” bill which allows the government to use “alternative” interrogation techniques and protects the interrogators from civil liability, and now the Military Commissions Act which can be interpreted to detain US citizens. We don’t know what the criteria the commission is using to determine who is an enemy combatant, thus it would be used against politically active RKBA folks.

In the context of Wacko and Ruby Ridge, a military commission appointed by the president could determine that any group or individual that has “illegal” weapons and doesn’t like the federal government (obtained via illegal wire taps) could be declared and enemy combatant (courtesy of the Military Commissions Act) thus held indefinitely without trial, and possibly use torture to obtain a confession.

The combination of these three laws gives any president, Republican or Democrat, too much leeway through ambiguity. In effect a gun grabbing Democrat president could appoint a commission that could use these laws against RKBA. Who is to say that the 2nd Amendment is safe when the passing of these laws easily circumvents the 4th and 5th Amendments.

The only protection we have left against these unconstitutional laws is SCOTUS and Bush himself appointed 2 people to SCOTUS. If he appoints a third, there will effectively be a loss of the separation of powers. This is how republics turn into dictatorships without firing a shot.

GoRon
October 20, 2006, 02:09 PM
The only protection we have left against these unconstitutional laws is SCOTUS and Bush himself appointed 2 people to SCOTUS. If he appoints a third, there will effectively be a loss of the separation of powers. This is how republics turn into dictatorships without firing a shot.

That is just plain silly.

BigFatKen
October 20, 2006, 02:49 PM
Most of America is told that that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Why is it not pointed out that if the CSA just wanted to keep their slaves, they could have voted against any amendment like the 14th? The Southern States easily had 25% +1 to defeat any amentment which requires 75% of the several States to pass. The Civil War was far more complicated. Men took up arms against an oppressive government. We do not have an ERA because it did not pass, not because it may be right.

Suppose the Terminator movies are real. Now, the systems desiger who invents the new chip and then blows up the Cyberdyne building would be a domestic terrorist. A hundred years from now, in the movies, he would be a hero who took the first big action against "the machines".

In the real world we have the feds under Janet Reno, killing ~90 men, womem and children in Waco, TX over what started as a tax violation. A year later, Timothy McVeigh kills over a hundred of the same in Oklahoma City. Today, he is an executed terrorist. If an armed revolution comes, and the citizens take back their government by force, will he be seen in a hundred years to be a hero or a villian?

I am not advcating a revolution. Just pointing out some things.
Only time will tell.

Malone LaVeigh
October 20, 2006, 04:56 PM
Likewise, John Brown was hanged as a terrorist and a few short years later the general who hanged him was leading a rebellion, while the Army of the Republic was marching into battle singing, "John Brown's body lies a-mouldrin in the grave, his truth is marching on..."

I'm probably the only person in the world who would have joined the insurrection with Brown and the rebellion with Lee.

I'm not sure exactly what point you were trying to make about the election, though.

BigFatKen
October 20, 2006, 06:01 PM
Only that men have taken up arms against the Federal Goverment before.

Off-point really.....My bad .....in today's parlance.

River Wraith
October 21, 2006, 01:51 PM
If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

ACLU POLICY
"the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."


This is what you liberals stand for. You are no friend of gun owners or the Constitution.

MechAg94
October 21, 2006, 05:18 PM
From what I had learned, John Brown and his family did some pretty despicable things in the Missiouri/Kansas border wars. I am sure he wasn't the only one, but I don't think I'd want to follow him or have anything to do with him.

MechAg94
October 21, 2006, 05:24 PM
As far as this election, I'll stick with what I said earlier. I don't really care for the Repubs right now, but the Democrat leadership really disgusts me. I can't see myself doing anything that would put them in power.


If the Dems get control of the House, there would be gridlock on some things, but not on funding. You would just see spending increased across the board so everybody can get theirs.

roo_ster
October 21, 2006, 06:23 PM
IMO, the Demcrats just plain are not worthy of consideration.

Unfortunately, choice usually ends with the Republican primary, where you may have a contest between what some might call a RINO or moderate GOPer (with views similar to, say, Harry Truman & patriotic Democrats of the post-WW2 party) and a conservative GOPer. GWB would be the former, IMO, due to his spendy ways and the triumph of idealism over hard-nosed realism in his foreign & domestic policies.

Contemporary Democrats lack a love of country that they repeatedly demonstrate by blaming all the problems of the world on the USA. Their love of "international" institutions that erode American soveriegty is the other half of their problem. UN, ICC, Kyoto, whatever, they are willing to sell out America to fellow lefties overseas. There are notable exceptions, but they are the exception, NOT the rule.

I wish it weren't so. I wish we still had two major parties worthy of consideration. The lack of a pro-American major party to challenge the GOP is good for no citizen, save those who are heavily invested as being (capital "R") Republicans over all else.

Desertdog
October 21, 2006, 06:48 PM
I don't really care for the Repubs right now, but the Democrat leadership really disgusts me. I can't see myself doing anything that would put them in power.
Same here. To me, staying at home is a vote for the Dems to be in power.
I will vote Republican even if I have to throw up afterwards. If there was a Libertarian running as a Republican I would vote for them.

I did vote against Bush in the primary.

Art Eatman
October 21, 2006, 09:35 PM
Reminds me of the Wendy's ad, "Where's the beef?"

Started sorta rambly, got worster with age...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "President appoints, Senate confirms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!