Naked, shameless, hypocrisy...

Status
Not open for further replies.
CZ 75 BD

CZ 75 BD

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
761
Location
The Heart of Dixie
Naked, shameless, hypocracy...

Senator Fienstein is at this moment deriding the discussion of the marriage amendment. Her argument is that the powers over family acts are rightfully the states' as they are not enumerated to the Fed in CONUS. Well, it seems that a certain power to the people IS enumerated in the document in no uncertain terms in the 2nd amendment.
 
I honestly believe Senator Feinstein is psychopathic. The vast gulf of difference between what she says, what she means, and what she actually does is difficult for me to write off as "just being a politician". I think she's got reality issues. I never, ever pay attention to anything she says or does. She wants to extend the AWB? Good luck. She has about 10% of the support and co-sponsors she needs to even have a meaningful debate, much less a vote. Still, she prattles on like a lobotomized mental patient, spewing the same liberal pablum that's been bandied about since the socialist/communist "awakening" in the 1920s. I'd almost feel sorry for her if she weren't so damned annoying.
Industrial machinery with bad bearings is more pleasant to the ear than that intolerable(intolerant?) harpy.:fire:
 
That does seem to just about cover it, huh?

The sad part is that she is representing so many people .
I do hope she is not truley representative of them all.
 
The sad part is that she is representing so many people .
I do hope she is not truley representative of them all.
Click to expand...

She certainly does not. Her constituency is divided between limousine liberals who want to impose their elitist judgement on everyone else, and a variety of scum suckers and derelicts looking for handouts. My apologies to the rest of the country for sending such a sorry bag 'o skin to Washington.:(
 
Just sent--

Senator Feinstein,

Your arguments in favor of state's rights with regard to gay marriage might be plausible or palatable if you weren't speaking out of the other side of your mouth on the gun control issue. The uninfringed right to own firearms is clearly explained in the Constitution, yet you see fit to infringe upon it when it fits your own twisted and misguided goals. My copy of the Constitution fails to mention anything with regard to gay marriage. Please explain to me how gun control is okay even though the Constitution says it isn't, but laws against gay marriage are against the Constitution, even though there is nothing about the issue in the document. Thank you in advance,

XXXX XXXXXXXX(my name)

We'll see what the leech says in reply
 
You'll never hear from her. Would a Queen directly address her subjects at their requesting?
 
In my view, the question of DiFi's "sanity" is beside the point. Of much greater concern is that she, and like minded others are where they are, and that they are returned repeatedly, to elective office.

Her performance as Mayor of San Francisco should have, of and in itself, permanently barred her from any and all elective office. Obviously, it didn't, which is more than a little sad.
 
Most people I talk to believe that she is working for the interests of California and our nation. I give them a quick synopsis of her work in the past 15 years and they immediately get a sour look on their face. :scrutiny:

Amazing how people just vote blindly for the "framiliar face".
 
Her constituency is divided between limousine liberals who want to impose their elitist judgement on everyone else, and a variety of scum suckers and derelicts looking for handouts.
Click to expand...

You nailed it, Riley.


ya know, i had a whole big reply halfway done with my take on liberals.
preachin' to the choir. i'm not going to waste your time with it.
what i will do is keep on informing the mushheads up here in yankeeville of the things hillarhoid, schumer the groomer and the cast don't want 'em to hear. it ain't easy but i have changed a few.

libs don't like me anyway so i might as well be a real political PIA.
 
... who want to impose their elitist judgement on everyone else
Click to expand...
The folks in support of changing the constitution to create a group of folks who have less rights than the rest of us are the ones imposing your elitist judgement on others.
 
tell about "reality" issues

"We'll see what the leech says in reply"

So. Let me see. Difi has reality issues. What say you about the reality orientation of one of us sitting and waiting for a reply from the fineswine?

JFK [the real JFK] said that we get the kind of government we deserve. No matter what you thought of him and his politics, that statement was correct. We do it to ourselves.

It is possible that we can "undo" it to ourselves through years of steady pushing back against the forces of "natural" government. [tyranny] But I don't think there are enough of us who care that we can do this. Once a nation begins the suicide slide, I don't believe it can be stopped.

rr
 
ravinraven wrote:

JFK [the real JFK] said that we get the kind of government we deserve. No matter what you thought of him and his politics, that statement was correct. We do it to ourselves.

I believe that it might have been Thomas Jefferson who ofrfered that "peoppe usually get the form of government they do not vote against". Possibly not an exact quote, but I believe that the srense of the observation is there.

On the subject of quotes by famous pwrsons, and laws, the following from LBJ comes to mind. Johnson offered re legislation, that more importamnt than the good that passage of some law, properly enforced, might accomplish, is the evil accomplished by improper enforcement or use of the same legislation.

Again, not an exact quote, but the sense of his offering is, I believe, plain to see.

As to your evaluation of the number and ther nature of people, re resistence to oppressive government, it is certainly possible that you are all to sadly correct. Only time will answer that question though
 
Sorry, but the Bill of Rights and the next 16 Amendments aren't written on an Etch-a-Sketch or a chalkboard.

If it ain't already spelled out, don't jack with it.

I think if folks want to marry within their gender it's a local/state issue, not a Fed.Gov one. It's between consenting adults, correct? 10th Amendment says all not covered previously go to the states.


Just my curmudgeonly geezernaut-in-training opinion.

Regards,
Rabbit.
 
The folks in support of changing the constitution to create a group of folks who have less rights than the rest of us are the ones imposing your elitist judgement on others.
Click to expand...
Gee, Ricky, I'd consider responding to you if I knew you'd actually stick around for the discussion, instead of doing your usual drive-by posting.

:rolleyes:

Funny how the DU'ers can't ever seem to get their head wrapped around the concept of libertarianism, or Objectivism, for that matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top