Thinking about partisan statements

imported post

Dukester wrote:

Triple Tap wrote:

Too much right wing or too much left wing, all your going to do is fly in a circle.

Click to expand...

Good Point...

Click to expand...

not its not really... because continuing comprimise will lead to socialism. it has before, and will again.

imported post

I may wholheartedly disagree with some as I lean more to the conservative.However I would also defend to the death their right to do so, or our constitution means nothing.We here are all fighting to protect our second ammendment rights, and in that we stand as one......

imported post

I think we are on the correct track. People tend to examine political preferences as a linear or cartesian coordinate model. Really, it is more circular, IMO. Go far enough left or right around the circle and you end up at the same place.

One simple example to see this is anti-semitism. On the far right the most notable example was the German Nazis. On the far left we had the Soviet persecution/purging of Jews. Today we have Skinheads who put out vitriolic, hate literature about Jews. Today we have members of the far left at protests in SF, Berkeley and Seattle carrying signs and handing out literature containing vitriolic, hate filled messages about Jews. They have not come full circle but 180 degrees to where they find themselves on common ground with each other in their irrational hatreds.

imported post

I fail to see how adhering to the Constitution is communistic. Let alone pink. But I guess that is a family issue. Anyhow, be it socialist, fascist, communist or Marxist, (they are really all the same) and the constitution leaves no room for this nonsense within its framework.



It is clear that the founding fathers wanted a separation of power and authority between the states and federal government; limiting the federal government, to territories and 10 square miles of D.C. All the states were guaranteed a republican form of government. Not a democracy, as everyone likes to call this countries political system. A republic is ruled by laws, limiting the power of the majority. A Democracy is a state of majority rule, like the condition we now find our country in. So by default I guess we are a democracy. So now that every petty tyrant is allowed to interpret laws however they see fit. And the citizens of this country must hire a specialized attorney and pay thousands to get satisfaction when his liberty has been trampled on. If this is the case, then the constitution is already a bygone document. What has happened is there are to contradictory set of laws in this country. The Constitution (law of the land), which by all rights applies to everyone now: and the petty laws that really have no value except to make socialists, Marxist, fascist, and communist maintain control in the guise of social order and maintain power. Ironically, they all take an oath to protect and defend the constitution before they take office.



All men where created equal is one aspect of the belief system this country was founded on, so new social order or amendments are hardly necessary anyhow. When junior elected officials create laws that take away freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, [from all the citizens they represent, not control] to prevent a crime, raise a tax or mandate a belief or nullify a belief, then there is something more sinister happening. And the second amendment is the only amendment that would provide a hurdle for any absolute change to our system of self governance, if one can still call it that. I don’t believe the Constitution can be divided up into little pieces for individual causes. This is where this country has gone haywire. If you stand for one freedom in a simplistic form or in its purist form (as is nothing more to it, no interpretation needed) then you must stand up for all the God given rights recognized in the constitution. Not to allow some are granted by the government, then cry foul when one directly affects you and yours.



At one time I to would defend the right of adverse political beliefs, but not anymore. That saying, “We can agree to disagree,” is stupid and a coward’s way out if you ask me. There is right and wrong or just stupid. Complacency is what has got us to the point where we must rely on a Supreme Court ruling to tell residents they may own a gun in D.C. What will be the decision in another eight years? I don’t care what someone claims or calls themselves anymore. If it sounds contrary to the Constitution, limits my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, forces a new moral belief system contrary to the last 250 years, mandates I feel sorry about making my own way in this world, punishes me for loving my country (sorry I'm notEuropean),adds one more law to the books that makes me a criminal without committing a crime, I will be a partisan.





Partisan,



Lukeshort

imported post

Triple Tap wrote:

Too much right wing or too much left wing, all your going to do is fly in a circle.

Click to expand...

Great statement! From there one can say,

"So, soar high on Liberty."



I've always wanted to do a T-shirt that says:

[align=center]FREEDOM[/align]
[align=center]THE ULTIMATE HIGH[/align]

imported post

That is a great statement lukeshort.When I say I will defends ones right to disagee I to also have my limits.For example when I went out to my mailbox a while back I noticed a bumper sticker on a car parked where I live." Islam is the way death to Americans" To me that is not free speach but I take as a threat.We do seem to have to defend ourselves in the courts to keep rights we should already have.I believe this country and certain ideologies have transformed what we when I grew up 50's and 60'swas the norm, to now being wrong and downright evil.I.e. We used to have Christmas plays in public school when I was a kid.My kids on the other hand were reprimanded for saying merry Christmas.(I took them out of public school) .I do defends ones right to disagree but I to,do have my limits. I will not apologize for growing up middle class to hard working parents .Or working hard to provide a decent living for myself and family.Nor will I apologize for wanting to keep the money I earn.Another thing that wrought my ire is in helping homeless Vets I was in a welfare office trying to assist a man with some additional housing benefits.Why was this Vet, wounded in Vietnam standing behind people in burkas that could not speak a word of english and recieving handouts that this vet could not get..There should never have been a supreme court decision regarding D.C. as our 2A rights have already been established and in my mind not open to further interpretation.But would I defend a neigbor I can,t stand because of polotics, background or relgionif attacked.Most deffinately. Sorry guys sort of got off on a tangent

imported post

I would defend the rights of anyone’s freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As long as they are not trying to force me to subjugate mine. As long as those freedoms that everyone enjoys, do not become a staging area and a jump off point to circumvent the Constitution, we should all be able to rest easy, but I find it harder to rest when even the simplistic, basic common since forms of freedoms are twisted to represent social engineering. I sincerely believe the wrong kind of freedom is detrimental to true freedom and the American way of life.

Isn’t this how it has come to this point in this country, that people gather on forums to discuss having rights denied or allowed, rather than go about their daily lives without worrying if the next official they see will fine them, arrest or give them a thumbs up? That you must choose between a right or a privilege; or that it could be taken either way by who ever is running the show at a particular moment in time? That there is so much concern for the safety of the public, that laws are in acted to prevent them from protecting themselves when, where and how they see fit? These are all examples of to much freedom and a few people taking way to much liberty in denying freedom. And those that take an oath to defend these freedoms, are brainwashed, or have know idea what the heck they themselves stand for. That in itself is unnerving.

imported post

I've found that being too far in either direction keeps you from rational thought. I could be called a lefty hippy because I believe in free speech, rights for everyone (including gays), and don't give a crap if gays get married. I'd be called right wing because I don't believe in the welfare system, think it's too hard for some to get the death penalty and think everyone should carry a gun.

I think a lot of people make offhand insults like "liberal hippy" or "right wing nazi" in order to marginalize an opponents argument. Neither is needed. I used to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution I supported but not anymore. The constitutions either applies to "Americans" or it doesn't. I don't always like what said Americans do but it's none of my damn business.

imported post

gsx1138 wrote:

I've found that being too far in either direction keeps you from rational thought. I could be called a lefty hippy because I believe in free speech, rights for everyone (including gays), and don't give a crap if gays get married. I'd be called right wing because I don't believe in the welfare system, think it's too hard for some to get the death penalty and think everyone should carry a gun.

I think a lot of people make offhand insults like "liberal hippy" or "right wing nazi" in order to marginalize an opponents argument. Neither is needed. I used to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution I supported but not anymore. The constitutions either applies to "Americans" or it doesn't. I don't always like what said Americans do but it's none of my damn business.

Click to expand...

Yep, you're a liberal hippy alright.

imported post

Another example from yesterdays news.Paper or plastic? Seattle decided they are going to band by 2010 all paper and plastic bags.Really ,how far are we going to go in letting these people regulate every faction of our life.Little things like that lead to bigger things.If we can tell people thay can,t use paper bags then we can tell them thay can,t be armed .There was a movement once to ban smoking in your own home.Talk about pushing a point of view on the rest of us.It has to stop.They ,especially those like emporer Nichols who think they know whats best for everyone need to be voted out.And quite trying to regulate every little faction of our lives...I do agree with that statement continuing to compromise will lead to outright socialism or worse.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

gsx1138 wrote:

I've found that being too far in either direction keeps you from rational thought. I could be called a lefty hippy because I believe in free speech, rights for everyone (including gays), and don't give a crap if gays get married. I'd be called right wing because I don't believe in the welfare system, think it's too hard for some to get the death penalty and think everyone should carry a gun.

I think a lot of people make offhand insults like "liberal hippy" or "right wing nazi" in order to marginalize an opponents argument. Neither is needed. I used to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution I supported but not anymore. The constitutions either applies to "Americans" or it doesn't. I don't always like what said Americans do but it's none of my damn business.

Click to expand...

Yep, you're a liberal hippy alright.





Touche'

Click to expand...

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

Another example from yesterdays news.Paper or plastic? Seattle decided they are going to band by 2010 all paper and plastic bags...

Click to expand...

I thought King 5 said "they" wanted to charge 20 cents per bag. Not exactly banning them! More a way of encouraging everyone to bring their own bags. Not a completely bad idea, at face value. But, as with most issues, not thoroughly thought out. Many people use the plastic shopping bags they get at Safeway for garbage bags under the sink, for instance. Sooooo.... now we have to buy garbage bags for under the sink? So there's a net loss/gain/what...???

Click to expand...

Invariably, the law of unforseen consequenses kicks in. The problem with many of the laws foisted off on us at every level of government is that no one sits down and really thinks about the consequenses before they are enacted. Like, if the price of gas goes way up and folks cut down on their driving, the federal/state highway taxes are reduced, impacting the ability to fix the roads and bridges. So, what, raise the tax rate on gas? That's happened with cigarettes.

Click to expand...

Sorry...the news driving in this morning depressed me!

Click to expand...

imported post

heresolong wrote:

scarlett1125 wrote:

But I think that this is no longer a partisan issue, as the NRA has made it out to be.

Click to expand...

Now this is the kind of statement that suggests that in fact you are spouting the party line rather than interested in actual debate. It simply isn't true but it is a Democratic Party talking point. The NRA actively supports and endorses any legislator who supports the Second Amendment and firearms ownership. There is no requirement that you have an R next to your name. As previously stated, the majority of legislators who actually support the Second Amendment (as opposed to giving it lip service around election time) are Republicans. Therefore the NRA will be supporting more R candidates. This does not mean that they have made this into a partisan issue, but that one party doesn't believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Click to expand...

I think that this is a major part of what I'm saying. Why only support a candidate because of his or her stand on the 2nd amendment? Why let those candidates use that one issue to promote an agenda that may be just as bad for the country. I just don't think that the Bill of Rights is buffet in which you can pick and choose. It's more like a lasagna. You can't really pick anything out; you've just gotta eat it all. LOL

imported post

lukeshort wrote:

I would defend the rights of anyone’s freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As long as they are not trying to force me to subjugate mine. As long as those freedoms that everyone enjoys, do not become a staging area and a jump off point to circumvent the Constitution, we should all be able to rest easy, but I find it harder to rest when even the simplistic, basic common since forms of freedoms are twisted to represent social engineering. I sincerely believe the wrong kind of freedom is detrimental to true freedom and the American way of life.

Isn’t this how it has come to this point in this country, that people gather on forums to discuss having rights denied or allowed, rather than go about their daily lives without worrying if the next official they see will fine them, arrest or give them a thumbs up? That you must choose between a right or a privilege; or that it could be taken either way by who ever is running the show at a particular moment in time? That there is so much concern for the safety of the public, that laws are in acted to prevent them from protecting themselves when, where and how they see fit? These are all examples of to much freedom and a few people taking way to much liberty in denying freedom. And those that take an oath to defend these freedoms, are brainwashed, or have know idea what the heck they themselves stand for. That in itself is unnerving.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. My problem is that I see this kind of trampling on my freedom (and yours) from both sides of the political spectrum. So, no longer the "pinko commie" democrat that I once was, I have redefined my political views in order to allow for the Constitution instead of any political agenda.

imported post

CrossBow33 wrote:

DEROS72 wrote:

Another example from yesterdays news.Paper or plastic? Seattle decided they are going to band by 2010 all paper and plastic bags...

Click to expand...

I thought King 5 said "they" wanted to charge 20 cents per bag. Not exactly banning them! More a way of encouraging everyone to bring their own bags. Not a completely bad idea, at face value. But, as with most issues, not thoroughly thought out. Many people use the plastic shopping bags they get at Safeway for garbage bags under the sink, for instance. Sooooo.... now we have to buy garbage bags for under the sink? So there's a net loss/gain/what...???

Click to expand...

Invariably, the law of unforseen consequenses kicks in. The problem with many of the laws foisted off on us at every level of government is that no one sits down and really thinks about the consequenses before they are enacted. Like, if the price of gas goes way up and folks cut down on their driving, the federal/state highway taxes are reduced, impacting the ability to fix the roads and bridges. So, what, raise the tax rate on gas? That's happened with cigarettes.

Click to expand...

Sorry...the news driving in this morning depressed me!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Woohoo! Maybe I can sell some of those bags that I'm always keeping that my husband is forever complaining about! :celebrate

imported post

David.Car wrote:

Dukester wrote:

Do you think the NRA cares if your house goes into Foreclosure, probably not... These are only my thoughts and I am sticking to them...

Click to expand...

Off topic: I suppose you agree withthe senate takeing $300,000,000,000.00 US Tax Payer dollars to bail out all these people who bought homes above their income with variable rate mortgages?

Makes me sick... And wish I had bought a huge freaking house a year ago so other people could pay for it...

Click to expand...

My problem was not the fact that the government wanted to help these people, but that the vast majority of the money went to the banks and not to the people whose homes were in foreclosure. I don't think that the only people who were in danger of losing their homes were the stupid ones. And being a banker's daughter, it might be easy for me to avoid such a ridiculous claim in order to get a house, I don't think that it would be easy for everyone. However, the banks made the mistake more than the people. They knew what they were doing, and they knew that they were going to end up with a good chunk of homes in foreclosure, but they did it anyway. So I have a problem with the government bailing out the banks that should have known better while leaving the people who are now losing their homes out in the cold.

Off topic, I know, but I had to comment.

imported post

scarlett1125 wrote:

My problem was not the fact that the government wanted to help these people, but that the vast majority of the money went to the banks and not to the people whose homes were in foreclosure. I don't think that the only people who were in danger of losing their homes were the stupid ones. And being a banker's daughter, it might be easy for me to avoid such a ridiculous claim in order to get a house, I don't think that it would be easy for everyone. However, the banks made the mistake more than the people. They knew what they were doing, and they knew that they were going to end up with a good chunk of homes in foreclosure, but they did it anyway. So I have a problem with the government bailing out the banks that should have known better while leaving the people who are now losing their homes out in the cold.

Off topic, I know, but I had to comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur, although I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who, for whatever reason, signed up for loans which they could not afford. Either we are grownups or we are not. That being said, I believe somebody needs to schwack the lending institutions and their "managers" big time, to include criminal prosecutions. Recover the huge salaries/bonuses, reposses houses, etc. ala ENRON. (The US taxpayer has been footing the bills for unethical businessmen for generations. It has just been more egregious, lately.)

This should include the banks which bought up all those "problem" loans. That seems to be the big growth industry in America, these days. Buying and selling something for a profit...not actually creating anything at all.

I'm sure it will be better when the Dems take over the Executive Branch.

imported post

CrossBow33 wrote:

I'm sure it will be better when the Dems take over the Executive Branch.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agreealong with congresscause the Country has already pretty muched tanked so change will be good, we will all benefit one way or another.

imported post

I made a thread about this very subject which, so far, hasn't received any replies. Maybe my post was a little long-winded...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/15080.html

imported post

Dukester wrote:

CrossBow33 wrote:

I'm sure it will be better when the Dems take over the Executive Branch.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agreealong with congresscause the Country has already pretty muched tanked so change will be good, we will all benefit one way or another.

Click to expand...

Yeah, just like things got better under Klinton. We were attacked continually by terrorist and he did nothing. You can thank Klinton for the 9-11 attacks. You people frickin' are amazing in thinking the dems will do anything different than they have in the past.