sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Isn't he from Ross Perot's party?
Isn't he from Ross Perot's party?
Bookman wrote:Ever hear of a RINO? Just checking... because you seem to use the name Republican like it is somehow synonymous with conservative... its not.I see it on here every day; people blaming Progressive Liberals for every gun law and anti-gun sentiment in existence. I just want to remind everyone that the Brady Campaign was founded by REPUBLICANS. That's right. Sarah Brady, the wife of Jim Brady, who was shot in the head during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinkley in order to impress Jodie Foster was a Republican.
And please don't accuse me of being a Liberal because I'm not. I'm a little to the right of center and I'm tired of people making themselves look like idiots by spouting the party line.
Rant over
The Brady's are progressive liberals. Progressivism has infected both the Republican and Democrat parties, but while the Democrat cancer is over and the Democrat party is dead to reason... the Republican party is still hanging on with members like Ron Paul and others who no one currently pays attention to.
So back to the main point... Liberals and Progressives ARE 100% to blame for gun laws and restrictions... they just infest both parties so they can obfuscate and confuse the argument by pointing out JUST what you pointed out and say SEE SEE Republicans also are for gun control.
The way you've posed the argument is in fact a logical fallacy called a Strawman.
So, whenever we perpetuate the re-definition of the term "liberal", understand that we are furthering the socialist agenda, by carrying out a socialist strategy, completely of our own volition!The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
Exactly why I argue we should not do them the favor of describing them as "liberal".But modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson era liberals. So the word has changed meaning somewhat in the minds of Americans. Did the Fllinstone's song saying lets have a "gay old time" mean the same thing as it might today?
Most of us here understand that the self proclaimed "liberals" are not really liberal any more, well except with other peoples money.
By accepting their co-option of the term "liberal", we are lending credence to the implication that the modern left is "respectful towards individual rights and freedoms", and "favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform".lib•er•al |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
But modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson era liberals. So the word has changed meaning somewhat in the minds of Americans. Did the Fllinstone's song saying lets have a "gay old time" mean the same thing asit might today?
Most of us here understand that the self proclaimed "liberals" are not really liberal any more, well except with other peoples money.
Rather than posting the same tired responses to threads like this - like I normally do, I just want to ask, and I hope people don't freak out that it's off-topic, because I really don't think it is:
Those of you who identify yourselves as conservatives: why are you not libertarians? What is it about conservatism that attracts you so much? With all the damage done in conservatism's name, with all of the interference into peoples lives advocated by the Christian Right, thankfully in decline now with the neoconservatives...
What is it about conservatism that makes it different, for you, than libertarianism?
I think we could avoid having this kind of discussion over and over if we libertarians understood you conservatives better.
I'm not talking about the capital-L Libertarian Party either, just the philosophy of libertarianism and the non-aggression principle: that no individual, mob, or institution, should initiate force against any other individual, mob or institution
Well, I understand your point about the "boxes", and I agree.
However, it occurs to me that this isn't a problem with much-maligned "labels" themselves, but is merely a function of human brain's tendency to perform pattern-matching on everything, often simplifying more than is accurate, in the process.
No matter what, we will use language to describe things. Today's descriptor is tomorrow's "label".
And words do mean things. Without "labels" we couldn't have any discussions of any sort.
I find the problem is the tendency of people to oversimplify, stereotype, make assumptions, lump others into groups, etc.
I'm not sure there's much to be done either way, but that's the problem at it's source, the way I see it.
I'm not talking about the terms, I am talking about the concepts - I get your point, and that's not what I'm getting at.
If people want to call themselves conservatives but they think and vote like libertarians, that's fine.
The issue is that when politicians identify as conservatives, most of the time they mean they mean they stand against government intrusion into the lives of citizens...except for things they like (like the drug war, or abortion, or what have you). When people identify themselves as conservatives, I assume they use that word, rather than libertarian, for a reason.
And whether someone pigeonholes me as a liberal or conservative depends entirely on what forum I'm in. On any board with social conservatives, I am most certainly derided as a liberal, and my liberal friends insist my position on firearms, taxation, and social programs are very right wing.
All words, of course, are a matter of consensus. It's why "gay" doesn't mean "happy" anymore when people use the term. There is no committee to define words, and so all words are moving targets as language evolves.
But I'm not interested in the semantics, really, because to me the terms are uninteresting - it is how people package and relate and combine points of view into coherent philosophies that interests me.
But the same is true of the word "liberal" is my point, and firearms forums are basically 50% people seething about liberals, and I know a fair amount of liberals who are pro Second Amendment, so either they are not aware of the broken-down "consensus" on this issue on the "left," or else there's something else they don't like.