Liberal Hypocrisy

AFCop · Mar 31, 2013

So directly OC related BUT I was sitting here in Afghanistan and I was stuck watching Meet the Press and the topic of gay marriage was being discussed. I was watching Meathead (Rob Reiner) and Al Sharpton discuss "civil rights" and equality, etc. As I choked down my dinner, I thought... Where are these bone heads with regards to enumerated rights outlined in the Constitution? They are complete idiots and hypocrits! As I read my newly purchased Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers, I think to myself... Why are "gay marriage rights," which aren't enumerated, carry more weight or are more important than my enumnerated (NOT GRANTED) right to keep and bear arms.

Its seems to me, if the liberals applied their own very flawed logic, we would be OCing EVERYWHERE... There, now its OC related.... lol

Citizen · Mar 31, 2013

AFCop said:
So directly OC related BUT I was sitting here in Afghanistan and I was stuck watching Meet the Press and the topic of gay marriage was being discussed. I was watching Meathead (Rob Reiner) and Al Sharpton discuss "civil rights" and equality, etc. As I choked down my dinner, I thought... Where are these bone heads with regards to enumerated rights outlined in the Constitution? They are complete idiots and hypocrits! As I read my newly purchased Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers, I think to myself... Why are [rights]
which aren't enumerated, carry more weight or are more important than my enumnerated (NOT GRANTED) right to keep and bear arms.

Its seems to me, if the liberals applied their own very flawed logic, we would be OCing EVERYWHERE... There, now its OC related.... lol

Its because the proponents aren't really interested in rights. They're interested in telling others what to do; they're just using the rights argument to sell their point. As you noticed, if they were really interested in rights, they'd be arguing for all rights, not for some but against others.

Gay marriage isn't really about rights. Its about forcing the rest of society to give advantages to gay married partners that hetero married partners shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Government gave tax breaks and recognitions to hetero marrieds that it had no business giving. So, of course, the gays claim they deserve the same privileges that heteros didn't deserve.

I not only don't care if gays marry, I support their right to vow a lifelong committment to one another. But, I'll be damned if I'll go along with giving them or any hetero couple special tax breaks or privileges that I have to pay for in increased taxes just so some politicians can score more political support. The point isn't that gay and hetero marrieds shouldn't have tax breaks; the point is give the tax breaks to everybody.

A marriage is essentially a contract. Let government record the contract, and let the courts sort out contract disputes if divorce is needed. Maybe let government have some involvement for legal necessities related to adoption. Otherwise, hands off. Its just another avenue for politicians to aquire favor and steal our money using the euphemism taxes.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 31, 2013

Well, since I'm a homoredneck gun toting Liberal, I will answer this question.

Yes, the Right to bear Arms is enumerated in the Constitution, it states nothing about AR-style rifles or high capacity magazines.

I should mention that Gay Marriage/Rights will soon be Enumerated Rights in the Constitution. I suppose we will see whether it is or not. I know what your probably thinking about my asserting Gay Marriage/Rights is enumerated, "Do Beretta92fslady know the difference between a enumerated, and implied Right?"

First, are enumerated Rights more significant than implied Rights?

Second, The Right to keep and bear Arms is Enumerated, but the specific type of Arm is implied.

You don't care much for Civil Rights...you must be comfortable, and right at home there in Afghanistan. You certainly must sleep better there at night, than here in Freedom hating, Civil Rights loving America.

WalkingWolf · Mar 31, 2013

Lobbyists, and social engineers are not interested in rights, they are interested in the growth of their pocketbook. Even supposed gun rights organizations are nothing more than lobbyists that are interested in making a buck off of rights. That is why under their helm we are in the mess we are in. They look out for the vendors that stuff their pockets, in return they stuff the pockets of politicians, and in the long run we the citizens end up being forced to pay and beg for our rights.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 31, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Lobbyists, and social engineers are not interested in rights, they are interested in the growth of their pocketbook. Even supposed gun rights organizations are nothing more than lobbyists that are interested in making a buck off of rights. That is why under their helm we are in the mess we are in. They look out for the vendors that stuff their pockets, in return they stuff the pockets of politicians, and in the long run we the citizens end up being forced to pay and beg for our rights.

The corners we paint ourselves.

You seem to have nowhere to go, my friend.

No wonder you feel you have no Liberty, Freedom, and are under tyranny.

WalkingWolf · Mar 31, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
The corners we paint ourselves.

You seem to have nowhere to go, my friend.

No wonder you feel you have no Liberty, Freedom, and are under tyranny.

Please do not try to put words in my mouth I did not say? That would make such statements a lie, and you a liar.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 31, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Please do not try to put words in my mouth I did not say? That would make such statements a lie, and you a liar.

I didn't say you said anything.

Stating an observation is not putting words in your mouth.

Don't be a drama king about it.

Deanimator · Mar 31, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
Well, since I'm a homoredneck gun toting Liberal, I will answer this question.

It would have been better for you to have answered it intelligently.

Beretta92FSLady said:
Yes, the Right to bear Arms is enumerated in the Constitution, it states nothing about AR-style rifles or high capacity magazines.

Nor does the First Amendment say anything about telephones, television, the internet or recording of police in public, in the pursuit of their duty.

Beretta92FSLady said:
I should mention that Gay Marriage/Rights will soon be Enumerated Rights in the Constitution. I suppose we will see whether it is or not. I know what your probably thinking about my asserting Gay Marriage/Rights is enumerated, "Do Beretta92fslady know the difference between a enumerated, and implied Right?"

Clearly you don't.

I'm in favor of gay marriage... which makes the frequently UTTERLY inane arguments of some of its proponents all the more painful.

You remind me of the dolt I heard on the radio who stated that polygamy wasn't protected the way that gay marriage is because it's "weird" and not "traditional". Kind of strange given the ubiquity of polygamy throughout history. But when you can't reason logically, you HAVE to fall back on special pleading.

Please, stop advocating for gay marriage. You do that cause more harm than the Westboro Baptist Church could in a thousand years.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 31, 2013

Deanimator said:
It would have been better for you to have answered it intelligently.

*fluff*

Nor does the First Amendment say anything about telephones, television, the internet or recording of police in public, in the pursuit of their duty.

Which is why they are not protected absolutely.

Clearly you don't.

I'm in favor of gay marriage... which makes the frequently UTTERLY inane arguments of some of its proponents all the more painful.

You remind me of the dolt I heard on the radio who stated that polygamy wasn't protected the way that gay marriage is because it's "weird" and not "traditional". Kind of strange given the ubiquity of polygamy throughout history. But when you can't reason logically, you HAVE to fall back on special pleading.

Please, stop advocating for gay marriage. You do that cause more harm than the Westboro Baptist Church could in a thousand years.

Your favor is irrelevant. Who are you to tell me what I have a Right to do? Sounds anti-Libety, and anti-Freedom to me.

Polygamy, I could care less...doesn't sound practical to me. The issue isn't polygamy...it's forty+ year old heterosexual men wedding with 13 year old girls.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 31, 2013

Nightmare said:
"Liberal" is the wrong brush, either too broad or too fine-tipped narrow. Try progressive, using an effective definition not synonymous with hated liberals.
The American right is as progressive as the American left, L,D, and R are each progressive in their own way.

Only The Constitution Party represents America's conservative Country Class against the progressive Ruling Class. Why do you think we're so PI$$ED at the repugnicans and only a little less at the teabaggers? They might be fiscally conservative but they're socially liberal, or they might be foreign-policy conservative but big government statists. Lieberaltarians? They don't give a PFWWWT as long as they get their ganga mon.

\

Thank you for verifying that all are Progressive. You left out Constitutional Party for some reason...another Progressive party.

Deanimator · Mar 31, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
Which is why they are not protected absolutely.

Nonsequitur. What IS?

Beretta92FSLady said:
Who are you to tell me what I have a Right to do? Sounds anti-Libety, and anti-Freedom to me.

I didn't say you COULDN'T ineptly argue for gay marriage.

I said you SHOULDN'T

And you SHOULDN'T... unless your goal is rhetorical self-abuse instead of actually achieving legal gay marriage.

Beretta92FSLady said:
Polygamy, I could care less...doesn't sound practical to me.

It's been "practical" for tens of thousands of years.

Beretta92FSLady said:
The issue isn't polygamy...it's forty+ year old heterosexual men wedding with 13 year old girls.

Equally illegal whether you marry one or five. Another nonsequitur substituted for reasoned argument.

But that's generally how you can tell if you're talking to a progressive rather than a liberal. If what's being said is the intellectual equivalent of an hysterical rant in Rodong Shinmun, the odds are it's coming from a progressive.

AFCop · Apr 1, 2013

First, I never said I was for or against gay marriage and I did that for a reason. My comment was specifically on their visceral comments for one but not the other.

As for as enumerated right to AR style, assault weapons or high cap magazines, they are infact.... Shall not be infringed! To follow my hero, Piers (sarcasm), I have yet to hear a coherent argument from the progressives

on how a collapsable butt stock or pistol grip make a rifle that functions the same as others, exempt from Constitution protection!!!

Also, it is your opininion that my 30 rnd mag is high, I consider it standard capacity.

But on a different note, assault weapons are already highly regulated, even semi auto rifles with short barrels are regulated (via paperwork/tax stamp).

I support legal equality for everyone, including gay people. I do not however, agree with changing the definition of marriage. Get rid of DOMA, the Fed gov has no Constitutional power to enact such a law.

Furthermore, I never said I didnt care about civil rights, I was merely pointing out abhorent hypocricy...

Am I off base to think that you are twisting what I said and trying to bait me into something it was never meant to be?

And since we are on the topic of hypocricy, what makes Law Enforcement better then me? Why do they get exempted BUT I wouldn't? I have received far more training and vetting then active or retired LE.. Oh, I forgot about the administrations assault on us right wing extremists..... LMAO!

va_tazdad · Apr 1, 2013

Well, There you go again.

AFCop said:
First, I never said I was for or against gay marriage and I did that for a reason. My comment was specifically on their visceral comments for one but not the other.

As for as enumerated right to AR style, assault weapons or high cap magazines, they are infact.... Shall not be infringed! To follow my hero, Piers (sarcasm), I have yet to hear a coherent argument from the progressives on how a collapsable butt stock or pistol grip make a rifle that functions the same as others, exempt from Constitution protection!!!

Also, it is your opininion that my 30 rnd mag is high, I consider it standard capacity.

But on a different note, assault weapons are already highly regulated, even semi auto rifles with short barrels are regulated (via paperwork/tax stamp).

I support legal equality for everyone, including gay people. I do not however, agree with changing the definition of marriage. Get rid of DOMA, the Fed gov has no Constitutional power to enact such a law.

Furthermore, I never said I didnt care about civil rights, I was merely pointing out abhorent hypocricy...

Am I off base to think that you are twisting what I said and trying to bait me into something it was never meant to be?

And since we are on the topic of hypocricy, what makes Law Enforcement better then me? Why do they get exempted BUT I wouldn't? I have received far more training and vetting then active or retired LE.. Oh, I forgot about the administrations assault on us right wing extremists..... LMAO!

Never expect logic or common sense from the victicrats. They don't want equality, but domination.

If somebody doesn't like guns, I do not advocate they own or carry one. I do however expect them to respect my right to own, carry and buy the guns I want without government interference.

Stay safe. Hope you get stationed in Virginia when your tour is up.

AFCop · Apr 1, 2013

va_tazdad said:
Never expect logic or common sense from the victicrats. They don't want equality, but domination.

If somebody doesn't like guns, I do not advocate they own or carry one. I do however expect them to respect my right to own, carry and buy the guns I want without government interference.

Stay safe. Hope you get stationed in Virginia when your tour is up.

I am... Langley since Nov 2012....

sudden valley gunner · Apr 1, 2013

There are very few "liberals" any more, a word rooted in freedom, not centralized control..........

OC for ME · Apr 1, 2013

Gays are not focused on the tax breaks. They are focused on the ease with which a wife/husband is granted rights and privileges by simply saying "I do" after the county gives them a marriage license. No other paperwork required. No last will and testament required, no power of attorney for 'X' required, no just walking up to a drone bureaucrat and saying "I'm Mr./Mrs. John/Jane Q. Public" required. Having the complete and unfettered authority to do whatever and whenever and not one drone bureaucrat saying boo really is nice. But, Charter Cable will not talk to my wife because she ain't named on the bill.....being married ain't all that and a bag of chips.

If it were primarily about taxes then getting married would be the last thing I would have done. I needed servants to work the land without pay. Making babies is far easier than "buying" babies.

OC for ME · Apr 1, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
Well, since I'm a homoredneck gun toting Liberal, I will answer this question.

Yes, the Right to bear Arms is enumerated in the Constitution, it states nothing about AR-style rifles or high capacity magazines.

I should mention that Gay Marriage/Rights will soon be Enumerated Rights in the Constitution. I suppose we will see whether it is or not. I know what your probably thinking about my asserting Gay Marriage/Rights is enumerated, "Do Beretta92fslady know the difference between a enumerated, and implied Right?"

First, are enumerated Rights more significant than implied Rights?

Second, The Right to keep and bear Arms is Enumerated, but the specific type of Arm is implied.

You don't care much for Civil Rights...you must be comfortable, and right at home there in Afghanistan. You certainly must sleep better there at night, than here in Freedom hating, Civil Rights loving America.

Your gayness does not make you an expert on any subject. You have the enumerated right to speak on any subject. You being a liberal simply means that we should expect you to speak on any subject and expect that speak to include what your fellow citizens should think on that subject as you. Typical of liberals to promote anti-liberty and anti-citizen speak.

Liberal Hypocrisy

AFCop

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

Deanimator

Regular Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

Deanimator

Regular Member

AFCop

Regular Member

va_tazdad

Regular Member

AFCop

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member