Reply With QuoteLife, the universe, and Everything.Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
Thread: Liberals that OC |
Of course they are; all Liberals are confused. I am still waiting for you to set me straight on what I'm confused about.
Filibusters are for bonafide cowards.
All politicians are spineless brownie-hounds.
I want every Representative to stand their spineless, parasitic ass at the podium, and declare their views on the Universal Background Check.
Then, if you don't like what they have to say, peel your American ass up off the couch, and make your mark!
Happy voting!!
Life, the universe, and Everything.
Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.
The last time "us peasants" were disarmed was during Hurricane Katrina, by the Army National Guard. Now, remind me, was there a Democrat or Republican in the White House at that time? I know, I know, Bush probably had nothing to do with it, right? In any event, as I think someone already mentioned, there are people on both sides who would like to take them from us.
I think the Governor had more to do with that than Bush. Who was the Gov. at that time? Who is always in bed with the united nations? Hillary?
Democrat governor, democrat mayor, go figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Blanco
I'll hazard a guess that loony-lib-sock-puppets far out number the conservatives that work to disarm the citizenry.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
I am not what most would call a modern liberal, even tho I espouse many socially liberal attitudes. I am a Libertarian, I have voted on both sides in the past 12 years, and will continue to vote on my principles even when they take me across party lines.
I think its a GREAT thing to be a "Gun toting Liberal" and be loud and up front about it. It is far to easy for most people to stereo type any given position, forget that shades of grey exist, and discount opinions because they exist on the other side of the isle from you.
It is much harder to discount the opinion of someone who share a vote with. I think it behooves us 2A supporters to help break the spell of political party stereotypes.
I am really pretty moderate, but often playing devils advocate has earned me many a pejorative aimed at the side they think I am on.
Personally I wish we could get away from the two party system, if we could get even local government appointments to be won or lost via a system such as Range Voting we could slowly erode away this black and white, pull you away from center, us vs them mentality which pollutes our political process.
Last edited by Xulld; 05-04-2012 at 04:53 PM.
I never quite understood the Liberal vs. Conservative paradigm for gun control. I'm opposed to gun control in most any capacity, and I'm about as far to the left socially as you can get. We also don't all dislike police, we just have a tendency to treat them like normal people doing a job, and are a little quicker to anger when they step over their boundaries and start to infringe on our rights, which does occasionally happen. Liberals should love guns, they help maintain liberty. That thing my compatriots supposedly like. X_X
I'm in a similar boat to the otter. I don't understand why my friends only support 90% of the Bill of Rights especially considering that the 2A was specifically included to ensure the protection of the other 9. Quite a few of them even enjoy target shooting or hunting (le gasp), but for some reason they can't come to terms with the possibility of using firearms against another human being if necessary. They'd rather leave that to the police (the same ones we usually criticize for one reason or another). Oh well, I guess until they come around I'll just have to protect them as much as myself. Once I get my permit, that is >.>...
I wouldn't hold your breath. At least not until there's another Luby's and they find themselves in the middle of it but only one survives.
Why? When it comes to the 2A, you have your head screwed on straight. They don't. Protect yourself, first. Once that's accomplished and you're still feeling generous, protect them, too.I'll just have to protect them as much as myself.
Hint: In a firefight, no one is thinking about protecting their friends. They're thinking about stopping the bad guy. When you focus on that, you're much more likely to succeed, which is the best way to protect your friends. So, ironic as it sounds, if you're in a firefight, forgot about your friends and stop the bad guy. You'll be doing your friends a favor.
Going after the guns won't work. We have to go after the crazies.
Please join us on RYOC. The future of America begins now.
Bad ANG! BAD!
Going after the guns won't work. We have to go after the crazies.
Please join us on RYOC. The future of America begins now.
I just meant that if the situation ever arose, I'd be the only one able to do anything about it, and since they know this, if I failed to stop said bad guy before one of them got hurt, they would blame me.
Supporting the 2A does not absolve anyone of the vote they cast that firmly ensconce tax and spend democrats/republicans into elected office. It is their vote for these schlubs that has perpetuated the redistribution of my money to those whose only profession in this life is to excel at suckling from the public trough. Being a 'gun toting liberal' does not absolve them of their sin of taking from thy neighbor.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
Great example of the Liberal mindset there. Refusal to take personal responsibility for themselves while condemning others for doing so, and then looking for someone to blame when things don't go their way.
Put another way, you're an evil person for carrying a gun, but if you don't use it to protect me, it's your fault I got attacked.
With friends like that, chances are if you DID manage to protect them, you'd still be condemned in their eyes for attacking that poor, misunderstood criminal who probably had more need than you could ever understand.
Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk
Liberals, the loony-sock-puppet type love liberty, and the exercise thereof, only as long as it is liberty (2A excluded) that is approved, by them, before it is exercised.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
Classic liberals are fine by me. The modern variants, however, who are so self-righteous they believe they should have the right to confiscate others' property to pay for their social engineering schemes, should be able to restrict free speech to keep their feelings from being hurt ("hate speech" laws), and in general, that they should be able to use the government to accomplish whatever harebrained idea pops into their small heads, regardless of its constitutionality, are the true domestic terrorists. They have proven that they do not believe in the concept of inalienable rights*, and are, therefore, enemies to the Constitution. I will never consider that type of "liberal" to be an ally in the fight to preserve the 2A, or anything else worthwhile.
*Unless, of course, it is their "inalienable right" to force you to recognize Johnny's perpetual sodomizing of Billy as a marriage, their "inalienable right" to parade naked in residential areas, their "inalienable right" to a free education (which pushes their social agenda), their "inalienable right" to make you pay for their healthcare, etc., etc., etc.
Last edited by ManInBlack; 05-18-2012 at 02:48 PM.
Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
O RLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
This represents me to a T.
I *am* an open-carrying liberal Democrat (sometimes I CC, depends on what is most convenient - i.e.; in the winter, I tend to CC more). Or at least, those are the political standpoints I most often tend to agree with. I'm hardly a "party-line" man.
I would also avoid falling into the trap of painting all LEO's as being right-wing as far as their political views are concerned. They are made up of citizens and just as varied as the general populace. It is probably safe to assume, however, that there are more on the political right than the political left.
Last edited by TruxLupus; 05-20-2012 at 09:10 AM.
Howdy!
The goons who went around disarming citizens of New Orleans, after the majority of cops split town, were from Blackwater. They were on a federal contract.... way above the paygrade of the governor of Louisianna, let alone the mayor of the city.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
Howdy Pard!
I am very much like you. I am a gun toting, open carrying, liberal democrat who does not believe women should be deprived of rights, told to keep an asprin between their knees, forced to submit to an invasive transvaginal probe by government demand and a whole host of other views I find alarming in the extreme. The worst being the decision to allow the rich to buy, cash on the barrelhead, politicians they can use as puppets to further their own agenda rather than that of the American people.
Back in the day, probably before many on the forums were even born, there was much fear of Communism. The fear was so extensive that congress formed the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. They dragged many folks in front of their commission for an investigation that seemed more befitting of the Grand Inquisition than an inquiry of fact. Even folks the likes of John Wayne and Randolph Scott were subjected to their patriotism being called into question. Many got blackballed and deprived of their livelihood, like Ertha Kitt, who couldn't get a gig for 20 years.
The actual Communists were working on a program called "Divide and Conquer". Their aim was to overthrow democracy and pave the way for America to become another Communist nation. Divide the people into smaller, more managable groups that could be picked off individually, because the innate power of a cohesive whole is far tougher to overcome than a people divided into smaller splinter factions.
We like to believe that Communism fell when the USSR collapsed (more from the failure of their economy than any policies of the United States. They simply couldn't keep up with the American spending spree! They tried and ruined themselves in the attempt.) Any belief that Communism went away is incorrect. Not even in Russia has the Communist ideology been entirely replaced with a more democractic one just ain't true. Many within the former USSR are actively trying to reconstitute a viable Communist party.
Meanwhile, many of the same factors that led to the collapse of the USSR are at work here in the USofA. During the last year of Bush2, our economy was teetering on the verge of outright collapse; catastrophic and devastating. While things appear superficially stabilized, the moves to hold the economy together have been like putting a bandaid on a slashed artery. Just this past week, we've seen another bank lose 3 billion dollars playing around with exotic financial instruments just as happened in that last year of Bush2. Without substantial correction to the activities in the banking industry that led to the nearly total collapse of our economy, the repeat performance is hardly surprising; and the ultimate outcome may well be that the collapse has been forestalled... not stopped.
Into this atmosphere come those busily working on Divide and Conquer. Splinter the American people to facilitate conquest. Set American against American to undermine the power of a united people. Set race against race, religion against religion, conservative against liberal, and break down cohesion among the people so they can be managed as individual groups. Let them beat up on one another so they no longer have strength in numbers to confront a challenge.
We, in the gun owning community, seem all too happy to divide and make easy pickings for those who might seek to conquer us. Instead of being of "One Accord" on the primary focus of standing for our belief in our right to keep and bear arms, we quarrel among ourselves. Conservative vs. Liberal, citizen vs. government, and most astounding of all, concealed carry advocates vs. open carriers. We splinter our own numbers (into subset minority groups) rather than standing together to uphold our rights under the Constitution. We may not agree on all things, that ain't the point here. But for us to splinter those who share our ideals regarding RKBA is to make easier the conquest of those who wish to usurp those rights. We need to understand that we need cohesion to maintain and champion our rights. We splinter ourselves at our own peril, and seem to do so with a perverse glee that must, in my opinion, bring a huge degree of satisfaction to our adversaries.
The rights we enjoy as gun owners were won by groups of gun owners who joined up, shoulder to shoulder, to fight for those rights and gain them for us all. The Brady bunch has lost steam because they lack cohesion, but that doesn't mean they can't whip up a frenzy to eliminate those rights. That whole shooting incident in Florida is one example of how they've tried to use an incident to regain some cohesion. They just ain't got enough cohesion to pull it off, but don't fall prey to the notion we need not be vigilant. They watch us, and look for ways that we may be set against one another. Their hope is that sooner or later, an incident comes along they can regain sufficient cohesion at a point where ours is weak, and they can shove through legislation that will turn things around.
We cannot afford to alienate our friends, we need all the friends we can get. We need to stop splitting ourselves into splinter groups based on ideology or any other factor. We need to stand together for our rights as Americans. When Americans stand united, no threat to our rights can succeed. But only when we join together to support one another in our shared goal. Even the Enemy of my Enemy can be a friend to back me up in a fight with a determined enemy. We divide ourselves at our peril, and those who seek to divide and conquer gain power. The sad part of that notion is.... they don't need to divide us, we're all too willing to do it to ourselves.
Our continued success and enjoyment of our Constitutional rights hinges on our ability to uphold them in the face of those that advocate the elimination of those rights. I count any American qualified to stand together with us to uphold them from those who would usurp them.
That's the bottom line folks. My opinion, 2 cents worth, and sticking to it.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
See, the problem with you liberals is that you only want to stand up for some rights. When it comes to things like my right to my property, and to not have my property confiscated to pay for liberal social-engineering entitlement programs, I find folks of your political persuasion to be notably absent. I find that liberals are also generally OK with government compulsion, so long as it's for this mythic principle known as "the greater good." They keep telling me that I'm somehow party to a "social contract," though I have neither seen nor signed such a document.
I'm not going to shake your hand on defending the 2A when you are using the other to pick my pocket or put a chain around my neck.
Last edited by ManInBlack; 05-20-2012 at 11:38 AM.
Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
O RLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
Man in Black,
I'm not going to open up the can of worms that is the welfare argument. Not all liberals support welfare, though. Liberal =/= Democrat or Socialist. But I'll remind you that America was, in some of the founders' opinions at least, built under Social Contract Theory. It's just a philosophical way of explaining how we removed the *natural* human right to kill everyone or take anything that people see. It only applies if you believe there is no natural, objective set of ethics. I'm not going to argue with you, but it's an idea that does exist at all levels of the population and government, and at least understanding how it works could be very important to any form of social activism/debate.
Liberals and Libertarians are more and more becoming the same thing. I'm a liberal who wants Ron Paul in the White House, and I think Obama has screwed up pretty much everything he has done. Not all liberals stick to the Democratic party line. Some of us want the government to stay very far away from your rights, property, and freedom.
Don't get caught up in the label trap. who cares as long as we are free. I don't consider myself a liberal, and although I am conservative in my views, I don't like the term right. We are free men, period.
The current administration doesn't understand what freedom is. But we can't blame the government, they came from the same pool the rest of us swim in. We have to change things, one fish at a time. And that is the calling of every citizen.
I think you need to better define what you mean by liberal. You seem to be implying a definition inconsistent with contemporary meaning of liberal. The contemporary meaning of liberal does == left wing progressive, which is a socialist.
Last edited by Daylen; 05-23-2012 at 09:00 PM.
Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.
That's the Wikipedia article. I'll never argue that this definition is a complete summation of Liberalism, Daylen, or the most/only correct one, but I think it shows that your definition of the term is not the only valid definition. Hell, even "left-wing progressivism" doesn't have to mean socialist. Progressivism can just be used to depict a political orientation that seeks to change with the times. A lot of people think changing should mean socialist ideas, but that's not all progressives.Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.
Personally I'm a fan of a mixed economy, particularly the Scandinavian examples. The state controlling the economy isn't a big deal when the people control the state. They lead the world in education and standard of living. Hell, if their gun laws weren't so retarded, I'd probably move there after college.
But anyway, the left is just as diverse as the right. The traditional political spectrum honestly means nothing nowadays, something like the political compass is much more accurate and meaningful. It also better shows what we have in common--the government would just love for us to stay divided. That's how things like the NDAA come about without most people even batting an eyelash.
Posting Permissions
