doctorhumbert
Member
I suppose you gonna burn my CD's too?
Liberal with guns.
- Thread starter doctorhumbert
- Start date
- Status
Mark Tyson
Member
As much as I would like to agree with you, withdrawing from Iraq now would be a disaster. The country would remain in a state of anarchy. U.S. credibility in the world would be demolished for the next half century.
Remember Osama's own words: It was the U.S. withdrawl from Lebanon after the Beirut bombings and the withdrawal after the Mogadishu firefight that convinced UBL that we could be beaten. For the record, I was against both of those interventions.
The Baathists who are killing our soldiers now are acting out of desperation. They are losers, their ideology is bankrupt and despised, and everyone in Iraq knows it.
I'm afraid we have to stick this one out. We do not want Iraq to be the next Afghanistan. Look there for a perfect example of what happens when we simply walk away from a situation we've created.
Remember Osama's own words: It was the U.S. withdrawl from Lebanon after the Beirut bombings and the withdrawal after the Mogadishu firefight that convinced UBL that we could be beaten. For the record, I was against both of those interventions.
The Baathists who are killing our soldiers now are acting out of desperation. They are losers, their ideology is bankrupt and despised, and everyone in Iraq knows it.
I'm afraid we have to stick this one out. We do not want Iraq to be the next Afghanistan. Look there for a perfect example of what happens when we simply walk away from a situation we've created.
RangerHAAF
Member
I have several friends who are liberals and they are some of the best people you'll ever meet. Often their philosophies aren't based on real life but I love arguing with them.
I consider myself more of a Libertarian in philosophy than Republican, although I felt that I had to vote Republican in 2000 because of what Al Gore threatened to do to gun owners(licensing, weapons bans and other gun control schemes).
It's really too bad all of the Dems haven't learned the hard lessons of what pushing gun confiscation/control legislation continues to cost them. Some of them have good ideas but I cannot in good conscience vote for a person who wants to take my guns away and substitute the UN charter for the US Constitution.
The rift between the Democratic Party and gun owners can be healed if the party wants it to be; the Congressional Democrats current problems started about 10 years ago with the rifle ban and the Brady Bill and haven't let up since.
The best thing that honest Democratic Congressmen can do is to apologize for what they did in 1993 and back up their apology with public and genuine repudiation and denunciation of the rifle ban, the Brady Bill and the various other illegal gun control schemes they've tried over the last 10 years. If they do it and honestly mean it; I think gun owners will forgive them.
I consider myself more of a Libertarian in philosophy than Republican, although I felt that I had to vote Republican in 2000 because of what Al Gore threatened to do to gun owners(licensing, weapons bans and other gun control schemes).
It's really too bad all of the Dems haven't learned the hard lessons of what pushing gun confiscation/control legislation continues to cost them. Some of them have good ideas but I cannot in good conscience vote for a person who wants to take my guns away and substitute the UN charter for the US Constitution.
The rift between the Democratic Party and gun owners can be healed if the party wants it to be; the Congressional Democrats current problems started about 10 years ago with the rifle ban and the Brady Bill and haven't let up since.
The best thing that honest Democratic Congressmen can do is to apologize for what they did in 1993 and back up their apology with public and genuine repudiation and denunciation of the rifle ban, the Brady Bill and the various other illegal gun control schemes they've tried over the last 10 years. If they do it and honestly mean it; I think gun owners will forgive them.
This is exactly why people who think like you should NEVER be put in charge in this country again....ever. If you don't plan on fighting in a war and possibly dying for this country...don't you dare join the armed forces.
Stop lying? Lying about what? I can't wait until the report on WMD is released 6 months from now. Of course liberals will never admit to being wrong. Didn't you hear Clinton taking up for Bush on Larry King the other night. He sure shut up a bunch of Democrats after that little display on the telephone.
I notice you must agree with me about the Democrat gun grabbers. Here is a prime example. S.659 to stop the gun industry from being sued for third party misuse of their product. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32512
54 Pro Gun Senators signed on as sponsors. 45(R) - 9(D)
46 Anti gun Senators not supporting. 6(R) - 1(I) - 39(D)
Republicans pro gun = 88%
Democrats anti gun = 81%
Who are the gun grabbers and who is not? Can you admit the Democrat party wants to disarm Americans?
You need me to produce the IRS numbers to show you who actually pays the taxes in this country? I can if you need 'em.
Who are you trying to kid? Last ten years?
Every piece of gun control legislation that has ever been passed in this last hundred years(there was no gun control prior to 1934) has been proposed by Democrats and signed into law by Democrats. And Bush I's reinterpretation of the "sporting clause" is not new legislation. It is slective enforcement of words and part of the GCA1968.
The biggies -
NFA 1935 - Franklin Delano Rosevelt(D)
GCA 1968 - Lyndon B. Johnson(D)
Omnibus Crime Bill 1994 - William Jefferson Clinton(D)
Reagans snafu on machinguns didn't ban anything, just made it impossible to pay the tax on new machine guns...which is illegal IMO but that's another debate.
Now tell me again who the gun banners are and who are not. GCA1968 is the worst piece of crap. We suffer bad from two words "sporting purpose"....and folks, the 2nd Amendment IS NOT ABOUT SPORTS and the law that allows banning because a gun can't pass that test is a farse.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
A lot of Democrats are really bad on RKBA, no doubt. But that isn't the only issue in the world.
To the liberal
EVERYTHING is political. That is why they strive to control our very words; we must say differntly-abled instead of crippled. That is why they must control our most trivial everyday actions; schoolboy kisses schoolgirl= sexual harassment. They want to tell us what to drive. They want us to depend on the state for protection. They want to tell us what is the proper use for the wealth we generate. The most trivial college club must carefully select its members to include representatives of each faction, however rarefied. They are deeply racist, and extend their discrimination wherever they can. They think they know better than you how to raise your children (even though I had changed more diapers by age 12 than Hillary has changed in her entire life).
They'll tell you they are the defenders of free speech. Just try saying something politically incorrect. Remember the psychiatrist (Dr. Ruth?) who was drummed off the air for not toadying to the Gay lobby?
They'll tell you they defend the other amendmants. True, if you're a liberal. Mumia must go free, but wacko religious sects get roasted alive without benefit of trial.
They'll tell you they defend Equal Opportunity. But if you're Asian with a 4.0, it's back of the bus for you.
They'll tell you they are the sole defenders of the environment. But they'll bury any data that suggests their methods might be wrong. This statement was in the Third Assesment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but was buried and the public declaration of the IPCC said flatly that the earth is warming catastrophically:
"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible." The words of their OWN scientists. But try and question Global Warning. Just try, and see what you are called.
They'll tell you they are the Party of the Little Guy. That's why over 90% of their funding in the last election cycle came from donors gving $1 million or more apiece, while the Repubs got 64% of their from donors giving $200 or less.
The friend of the working man--but they don't want to cut his taxes, and they impose economic and regulatory burdens which make it unprofitable to employ him, As the man said, "I've never had a paycheck signed by a poor man."
The party of education--but heaven forbid some kid in DC gets to go to a decent school on the tax money his parents pay. While the Libs send theirs to expensive private schools.
The defenders of women's rights--who crucify military officers for consensual sex with subordinates (I have seen excellent Naval officers court martialed for this, under the Clinton Admin.) and destroy Bob Packwood for groping the help, but refuse to apply that standard to BC.
Fact is, folks, the libs are the biggest practitioners of all the sins they condemn. This has been an inflammatory post, I know, and I'm sure it has infuriated reasonable and well-meaning liberals here (yes, you, Malone), but if you don't like it, I ask you to consider that this is the tone I hear used EVERY DAY by liberals when discussing conservatives. Every day, in that tone that says "Well, we all KNOW Bush is a Nazi. No use belaboring the obvious."
I'm sure you coudl turn this around and demonstrate that conservatives are the greatest practitioners of the vices they condemn, but the question here is liberals.
EVERYTHING is political. That is why they strive to control our very words; we must say differntly-abled instead of crippled. That is why they must control our most trivial everyday actions; schoolboy kisses schoolgirl= sexual harassment. They want to tell us what to drive. They want us to depend on the state for protection. They want to tell us what is the proper use for the wealth we generate. The most trivial college club must carefully select its members to include representatives of each faction, however rarefied. They are deeply racist, and extend their discrimination wherever they can. They think they know better than you how to raise your children (even though I had changed more diapers by age 12 than Hillary has changed in her entire life).
They'll tell you they are the defenders of free speech. Just try saying something politically incorrect. Remember the psychiatrist (Dr. Ruth?) who was drummed off the air for not toadying to the Gay lobby?
They'll tell you they defend the other amendmants. True, if you're a liberal. Mumia must go free, but wacko religious sects get roasted alive without benefit of trial.
They'll tell you they defend Equal Opportunity. But if you're Asian with a 4.0, it's back of the bus for you.
They'll tell you they are the sole defenders of the environment. But they'll bury any data that suggests their methods might be wrong. This statement was in the Third Assesment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but was buried and the public declaration of the IPCC said flatly that the earth is warming catastrophically:
"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible." The words of their OWN scientists. But try and question Global Warning. Just try, and see what you are called.
They'll tell you they are the Party of the Little Guy. That's why over 90% of their funding in the last election cycle came from donors gving $1 million or more apiece, while the Repubs got 64% of their from donors giving $200 or less.
The friend of the working man--but they don't want to cut his taxes, and they impose economic and regulatory burdens which make it unprofitable to employ him, As the man said, "I've never had a paycheck signed by a poor man."
The party of education--but heaven forbid some kid in DC gets to go to a decent school on the tax money his parents pay. While the Libs send theirs to expensive private schools.
The defenders of women's rights--who crucify military officers for consensual sex with subordinates (I have seen excellent Naval officers court martialed for this, under the Clinton Admin.) and destroy Bob Packwood for groping the help, but refuse to apply that standard to BC.
Fact is, folks, the libs are the biggest practitioners of all the sins they condemn. This has been an inflammatory post, I know, and I'm sure it has infuriated reasonable and well-meaning liberals here (yes, you, Malone), but if you don't like it, I ask you to consider that this is the tone I hear used EVERY DAY by liberals when discussing conservatives. Every day, in that tone that says "Well, we all KNOW Bush is a Nazi. No use belaboring the obvious."
I'm sure you coudl turn this around and demonstrate that conservatives are the greatest practitioners of the vices they condemn, but the question here is liberals.
Thumper
Member
Sanctions?!!? Mark, are you really trying to defend AA as being punitive?! Exactly who are you punishing?
Hey doctorhumbert, you seem to have pretty strong ideas about Bush (a Veteran) sending troops to fight. What were your feelings about Clinton (a draft dodger) sending 'em to fight?
I'm starting to think that lefties have learned to celebrate their own hypocrisy.
Listening to Klintoon apologists denigrate Bush's honesty is truly a source of amusement.
Mark Tyson
Member
Thumper: Sanctions was the wrong word. My mistake. But I do think that given the historically deplorable treatment of blacks in this country, giving them a leg up in things like school admissions(for example) is necessary for now.
Regarding Clinton's escapades: while you can wag your finger at Clinton for evading the draft, the fact is that many, many people did that back then. As for our current CINC, the reason you went into the National Guard in the 1960's was to evade active duty service. Sorry, but it's hard to deny.
Regarding Clinton's escapades: while you can wag your finger at Clinton for evading the draft, the fact is that many, many people did that back then. As for our current CINC, the reason you went into the National Guard in the 1960's was to evade active duty service. Sorry, but it's hard to deny.
Jaguar
Member
I'll let you decide what I am
I don't like paying for other people mistakes forever, but will gladly help them get back to their feet.
I don't like the government telling me what I can and cannot do on my own property, but I don't want my neighbor to cover his land in garbage.
I would rather own any guns I want without having the government know which ones I do have, but I don't want gang bangers to have any.
I have no interest in what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. I don’t want any laws that regulate their sexual conduct, and I don’t want them punished if they sit out in the back yard under the stars at night puffing on some marijuana.
I don't want to pay for or receive social security, if I can't take care of my own retirement then too bad for me.
I want to be free to establish my own relationship with my employer. No minimum wages. No mandated benefits. I want to negotiate my own employment contract with my employer, but I don't want to be screwed around by an employer.
I do not believe that I have a right to health care. I do not wish to use the police power of government to force someone else to provide me with medications or medical services. I am perfectly willing to assume the total and complete responsibility for acquiring my own health insurance, all I want the government to do is eliminate the mandates and allow me to shop for just the coverage I desire. Might I add that in the event I get sick without insurance, or I can’t cover the costs, I absolutely do not want the government to step in and spend one dime of someone else’s money on my care.
I want to be free to make my own consumer choices, and that includes choices of which professional I want to use for medical and legal services. I am perfectly willing to rely on my own judgment, or the judgment of private accrediting agencies when it comes to selecting an attorney or a doctor. I don’t like the idea that you have to go to the government to ask who may and who may not clip my fingernails or cut my hair.
Obviously I am not a republican or Democrat, I prefer the libertarian party because although I don't agree with them 100%, I am closer to them than any others.
Molon Labe - JAG
I don't like paying for other people mistakes forever, but will gladly help them get back to their feet.
I don't like the government telling me what I can and cannot do on my own property, but I don't want my neighbor to cover his land in garbage.
I would rather own any guns I want without having the government know which ones I do have, but I don't want gang bangers to have any.
I have no interest in what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. I don’t want any laws that regulate their sexual conduct, and I don’t want them punished if they sit out in the back yard under the stars at night puffing on some marijuana.
I don't want to pay for or receive social security, if I can't take care of my own retirement then too bad for me.
I want to be free to establish my own relationship with my employer. No minimum wages. No mandated benefits. I want to negotiate my own employment contract with my employer, but I don't want to be screwed around by an employer.
I do not believe that I have a right to health care. I do not wish to use the police power of government to force someone else to provide me with medications or medical services. I am perfectly willing to assume the total and complete responsibility for acquiring my own health insurance, all I want the government to do is eliminate the mandates and allow me to shop for just the coverage I desire. Might I add that in the event I get sick without insurance, or I can’t cover the costs, I absolutely do not want the government to step in and spend one dime of someone else’s money on my care.
I want to be free to make my own consumer choices, and that includes choices of which professional I want to use for medical and legal services. I am perfectly willing to rely on my own judgment, or the judgment of private accrediting agencies when it comes to selecting an attorney or a doctor. I don’t like the idea that you have to go to the government to ask who may and who may not clip my fingernails or cut my hair.
Obviously I am not a republican or Democrat, I prefer the libertarian party because although I don't agree with them 100%, I am closer to them than any others.
Molon Labe - JAG
Racist Democrats and liberals do not agree. You don't know that minorities are stupid and incapable of succeeding at anything on their own without help from benevolent, enlightened whites? Hmmmm.... it just occurred to me that this sounds an AWFUL lot like "The White Man's Burden" of the 21st century....Courtesy of demos and libs.
Indeed. The libs have done a fantastic job at indoctrinating people and revising history, as is evident by the comments of some here.
Thank you very much! We need more good people like you in this country!!!
Exactly; we cannot right every wrong that has been done throughout history. So why precisely is it acceptable then to give indians land back and give blacks reparations and AA, but not go back a bit further? And what about all the white immigrants who were wronged in some way or other?
What about these people: http://www.kued.org/productions/greeks/history/encyclopedia.html
What, aren't they dark-skinned enough to get reparations? You agree that we cannot right every wrong throughout history, but then go on to advocate just that! We either do it or we don't. Selective righting of historical wrongs is simply indicative of an agenda.
Food for thought: around the turn of the century, after the end of slavery, the black illegitimacy rate was around 24%. After the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's, it skyrocketed to around 70+%, where it still remains.
One last point; blacks who would benefit today from AA, reparations, etc. are NOT the people who were actually wronged, nor are the people paying reparations or losing jobs to them the ones who wronged blacks.
Reparations to Japanese and Jews, however, are perfectly justifiable since those who recieved the monies were ACTUALLY INTERNED in camps. My family came to this country waaaaaaaaaay after the end of slavery, yet I should have to pay in some way for the wrongs of unrelated folk hundreds of years ago????
I know that liberals will not admit that, by definition, AA programs require quotas.
Example; if, in a company of 25,000 employees there is ONE (1) black employee, liberals will scream "discrimination" and that the company is not "diverse enough." They obviously have SOME number in mind at which "diversity" magically occurs. I have no clue what that number is, but someone sure as heck does.
The exact same thing Martin Luther King advocated and so many people are all to quick to forget: True color blindness. We cannot end racism and discrimination by making an issue out of it. We cannot teach people that it is wrong to judge people by the color of their skin and then turn around and admit them to schools and give them preference for jobs based on exactly that.
Why can't liberals see the hypocrisy inherent in such programs??? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Yeah, it's not. And if the Dems are lying so blatently about guns and the use of guns and the lawful people who use guns and lying to everybody to get guns banned and to demonize lawful users of firearms.......this is an issue I know more about than any and they are just unbelievable on the gun issue.....
Imagine how wrong they are and how much they are lying about taxes, social security, medicare, welfare, education, defense spending, war on terror....pick your issue. I don't trust any body or any party who is so damn set on disarming the population. Think about it.
Know what?
I'm tired of talking the way I just did. But I'm tired of being talked to that way too. It would be so sweet to get rid of the accusatory language, like when Dems say "They don't say 'n***r' or 'sp*c' anymore. Now it's 'Let's cut taxes'."
Or when Julian Bond says Repubs idea of justice is "pardoning war criminal Jefferson Davis"...who, by the way, was pardoned on the reccomendation of the then-Demo controlled congress, signed into law by....Jimmy Carter.
We could really elevate this debate by getting over the habit of equating those who disagree with libs with Satan or Hitler. I'm just responding to what I'm hearing, folks.
I'm tired of talking the way I just did. But I'm tired of being talked to that way too. It would be so sweet to get rid of the accusatory language, like when Dems say "They don't say 'n***r' or 'sp*c' anymore. Now it's 'Let's cut taxes'."
Or when Julian Bond says Repubs idea of justice is "pardoning war criminal Jefferson Davis"...who, by the way, was pardoned on the reccomendation of the then-Demo controlled congress, signed into law by....Jimmy Carter.
We could really elevate this debate by getting over the habit of equating those who disagree with libs with Satan or Hitler. I'm just responding to what I'm hearing, folks.
brookstexas
member
Can you top this?
Anyone else here belong to the NRA and PETA?
BT
Anyone else here belong to the NRA and PETA?
BT
Moparmike
Member
PETA??
People for the Eating of Tasty Animals? Sure, I'm a member!
People for the Eating of Tasty Animals? Sure, I'm a member!
Well, i was away from a computer and ready to let the thread be, but I saw a couple of people getting passes for factual errors that set my teeth on edge:
CZ-75:
Uuummm . . . the Democrats used to be the conservative party. Remember "Dixiecrats" and Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond and all that? It is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln and Teddie Roosevelt - both liberals of the distant past. This is a thread about liberals. And as to membership in the KKK, this issue was pretty thoroughly thrashed out in the controversy over Justice Hugo Black. Membership was pretty much incidental in many places in the country and remember, Truman desegregated the Army (something else fought by conservatives).
You are trying to give Nixon credit for the EPA? Wow! Actually, he tried to create a pro-industry with no powers to enforce environmental laws (Environmental Quality Council) but was so thoroughly criticized for it that he was shamed into signing the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, which ultimately was responsible for creation of the EPA.
Actually, that was well under way during the 80s as part of the "War on Drugs" led by William Bennett. Plus, the Reagan-Bush years saw the federalization of many drug crimes that were properly under states' jurisdictions. But, I am no fan of the increase of police powers under Clinton, or Bush.
However, the most important point is that liberal groups like the ACLU are the ones fighting against such grotesque excesses. And they are not just putting out policy papers, they are there in court, and often winning .
And Dr. Jones, about the fight against the expansion of police powers:
Find me a conservative equivalent to the ACLU. It doesn't exist because conservatives are traditionally pro- law and order. They might talk vaguely about the rights of the citizens, but when the rubber hits the road, only the ACLU and like groups are getting cases to the Supreme Court.
Shaggy:
I think that the whole point of this thread is that thinking like that is overly generalistic and simply inaccurate. People on this thread have been agreeing and disagreeing about virtually every issue you listed yet they all agree in the RKBA. And incidentally, the logic simply does not follow.
I think Monkeyleg had it right,
CZ-75:
Uuummm . . . the Democrats used to be the conservative party. Remember "Dixiecrats" and Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond and all that? It is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln and Teddie Roosevelt - both liberals of the distant past. This is a thread about liberals. And as to membership in the KKK, this issue was pretty thoroughly thrashed out in the controversy over Justice Hugo Black. Membership was pretty much incidental in many places in the country and remember, Truman desegregated the Army (something else fought by conservatives).
You are trying to give Nixon credit for the EPA? Wow! Actually, he tried to create a pro-industry with no powers to enforce environmental laws (Environmental Quality Council) but was so thoroughly criticized for it that he was shamed into signing the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, which ultimately was responsible for creation of the EPA.
Actually, that was well under way during the 80s as part of the "War on Drugs" led by William Bennett. Plus, the Reagan-Bush years saw the federalization of many drug crimes that were properly under states' jurisdictions. But, I am no fan of the increase of police powers under Clinton, or Bush.
However, the most important point is that liberal groups like the ACLU are the ones fighting against such grotesque excesses. And they are not just putting out policy papers, they are there in court, and often winning .
And Dr. Jones, about the fight against the expansion of police powers:
Find me a conservative equivalent to the ACLU. It doesn't exist because conservatives are traditionally pro- law and order. They might talk vaguely about the rights of the citizens, but when the rubber hits the road, only the ACLU and like groups are getting cases to the Supreme Court.
Shaggy:
I think that the whole point of this thread is that thinking like that is overly generalistic and simply inaccurate. People on this thread have been agreeing and disagreeing about virtually every issue you listed yet they all agree in the RKBA. And incidentally, the logic simply does not follow.
I think Monkeyleg had it right,
and hopefully gun control will wither as a cause, leaving us all at THR to talk about ballistics and holsters.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked