Should gun owners abandon the Republican Party?

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

I love the fact he helped the federal funds ban on embryonic stem cell research lifted.

The whole embryonic stem cell research debate is a stawman. Embryonic stem cell research has been undertaken by the private sector for years with NO breakthroughs and no positive developments... only theories which have not yet yielded anything.

Adult stem cell research on the other hand has given us more than75 treatments for maladies, while embryonic stem cells have given us bupkis.

The whole debate is purely political... and science and the free market have already shown us the truth... but the politicians keep lying to make people like you mad.... and you believe them???

While the Republican party has had its problems with Religious Statists wanting to restrict freedom based on moral grounds... the foundation of the Republican party is far more structured towards freedom than is the Democrat party. Rather than abandon the Republican party... take it back. Libertarians and all other freedom loving individuals need to take this party back from the blue bloods and the religious Statists. It's the only way we'll begin to move the country in the right direction... third parties never win enough to make a difference... and the Democrat base is pretty well set on destroying the Republican party for generations so their Statist agenda will have no opposition. Obama is a total scumbag Statist who hates freedom and will do everything in his power to remove freedom from Americans. He must be stopped and we won't do it if you abandon the Republican party.... take it over.... don't abandon it.

Look, the Republican party truly has roots in the Constitution as every State in the nation is guaranteed a Republican form of government. We need to re-enforce the idea of the Republic and demand the Constitution be adhered to or else! Restore the Republic and Restore the Republican Party to represent true Republican values as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

 

[Enoch Root]

imported post

Should gun owners abandon the Republican Party?

This life-long Republican already has.

I want all of my fellow Americans to remember this:

You owe your loyalty to the Union, to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, as it was originally penned. You do not owe your loyalty to any political party, which are nothing more than private cabals.

I seek candidates who will swear to defend this Union, and who will uphold their oaths of office vigilantly, once elected.

Vote to defend the Constitution.

It's our 'God-damned piece of paper', none shall tread upon it.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Enoch Root wrote:

I seek candidates who will swear to defend this Union, and who will uphold their oaths of office vigilantly, once elected.

Who can you believe? Every single one of those lying SOBs took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and can you tell me who is actually abiding by their oath?

Maybe Ron Paul... but that may be it. Even the most Constitutional Republican's I've heard of say things like "We support common sense gun laws" which flies in the face of what the Constitution enumerates or what the founders wrote on the subject.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Look, the Republican party truly has roots in the Constitution as every State in the nation is guaranteed a Republican form of government. We need to re-enforce the idea of the Republic and demand the Constitution be adhered to or else! Restore the Republic and Restore the Republican Party to represent true Republican values as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Obviously, when the States were guaranteed a Republican form of government, that didn't mean 'the "Republican" Party'.

I disagree that there is significant difference. The two parties may have selected different sets of rights to assault, but to maintain that the GOP is somehow "better for rights" ignores their equal efforts on the other side of the coin.

Every since Reagan delivered corporatist/statist policies instead of the Austrian economics he promises, the Republican party has been a fraud. Truthfully, it happened before that.

We need to end reliance on two parties. Even if the GOP were salvageable, the problem still remains. We need third parties, not a "better" statist party.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Look, the Republican party truly has roots in the Constitution as every State in the nation is guaranteed a Republican form of government. We need to re-enforce the idea of the Republic and demand the Constitution be adhered to or else! Restore the Republic and Restore the Republican Party to represent true Republican values as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Obviously, when the States were guaranteed a Republican form of government, that didn't mean 'the "Republican" Party'.

I didn't say that now did I?


marshaul wrote:

I disagree that there is significant difference. The two parties may have selected different sets of rights to assault, but to maintain that the GOP is somehow "better for rights" ignores their equal efforts on the other side of the coin.

I'm not talking about the GOP nor am I talking about the Republican Party as it has been for the better part of a Century... I was talking about the Party's roots of Republicanism.

marshaul wrote:

Every since Reagan delivered corporatist/statist policies instead of the Austrian economics he promises, the Republican party has been a fraud. Truthfully, it happened before that.

What's your point? Mine was that we take back the party to actual Republicanism.

marshaul wrote:

We need to end reliance on two parties. Even if the GOP were salvageable, the problem still remains. We need third parties, not a "better" statist party.

We need a party that is Constitutional in nature. Republicanism is by far the best model even if the Republican Party has been a sham. The Republican Party has a structure to which you can build out and refit with principals of Liberty. I've gotten religious Statists to agree in principal that Statism is bad even if they didn't see the bigger picture.

They think they're winning when propositions like Prop 8 pass. They cannot see the whole thing backfiring on them. But they are more open to the idea of a limited government built on Republican principals (Republican as in what it means in the Constitution, not Republican as in the current Party) than the Democrat Party is... and the Democrat Party has built a very strong partisan machine that can actually steal elections.

While the Republican Party is wrong on so many issues, they still are right on more issues than the Democrat Party. And third parties will always fail. So when you go and vote for Bob Barr or someone else, you just take votes away from the Republicans... and sure, maybe you don't mind seeing Republicans lose... but do you like seeing Democrats win? I don't. We change the party from within. We hit them again and again with the ideals of limited government and call them on the hypocrisy when they ask for laws banning gay marriage or sodomy laws. Limited means limited, and if they want to have their own town where they and others live who are like minded... Freedom dictates they can buy a big plot of land and make their own town with their own rules.... private property you know. The only thing they would be barred from doing by our Constitution is keeping people from leaving the town if they didn't like what was going on.

The religious people I know actually like that idea. The liberals I know hate the idea and want an even bigger government. They won't stop and they're all Democrats.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Third parties?? Fudge. How many times do I gotta say it? NOBODY is gonna elect some Joe Blow they never even heard of from some party they never heard of (or, in the case of the Libertarians they think of as a bunch of damn silly potheads) unless and until they have proven locally that they can run a government, get the carbage collected, fix the potholes and put in a speed bump or a stop sign when a neighborhood asks for one. Just having some guy come along fat and happy and promising to support and defend the Constitution (or whatever other crap, and it is just that because anyone with the power of speech can say anything) will not get that guy elected, and that is just the way it is, folks.

Anybody who voted a write-in for Ron Paul or stayed home because McCain didn't support gay marriage or was (pick one: too liberal/too conservative)on Abortion and/or stem cell research or whatever reason, well, I am not angry with you but you had almost as much to do with the abominable enemy of freedom we are stuck with being in the White House as we speak, as did ACORN and the rest of the slimy crooks who finagled him into DC and fooled enough of the people, enough of the time. We do not need to split into various third parties and there is no need to work against solid freedom loving patriotic Democrats. Yes, I DO recognize there is such a thing. But we need to root out the corrupted DemonRat leadership, and get them out of the powerful committee chairs and wrest the power of subpoena from them. There are enough of the extreme radical DemonRatz among the Democrat majority that are either vulnerable or extremely vulnerable - Harry Ried for instance looks to be a dead duck even this early, due partly to the fact that he supports Obama even after Obama refused to rescind a condemnation to Las Vegas and other Nevada treasure factories - that IF WE GET BEHIND THEIR REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS we can have the House and Senate controlled by a majority of Republicans and (fond hope, this) a SUPERMAJORITY of PATRIOTS come November of next year. I would only add two cautions:

FIRST we still have about 18 months to go until the mid-terms. The Ratz know this and they can feel control slipping away even in their own party (an overwhelming vote not to fund the closure of Gitmo is being interpreted - rightly - as the first notes of Gotterdammerung for the Ratz) so they will be trying to push as much of their crap through as fast as possible. We all have different talents and whatever we can bring to bear to stop what looks to be the political equivalent of the Battle of the Bulge, we must. For my part, in addition to my NRA membership and calls and emails to my Senators (Jim Moran is a big waste of time and ink), I sound out my passengers and when I find a fellow believer, I encourage them with such words and eloquence as I can command, and - just MHO that's plenty. For the fence sitters I let Rush and Sean and Mark Levin play on the AM radio, which also helps scare the crap out of the Ratz. And anything else I can think of, that I will do. How about you?

SECOND we need the NRA to help accomplish the election and to fight the Bulge, but after we (pray GOD!!) win, we need to keep an eye on the new people and CONSTANTLY remind them not to drop the damn soap, or to become complacent and lazy and start voting for porky goodies. We gotta tell them that We The People are not gonna wine-and-cheese them like the NRA. This is a representative republic, and when we win her back we will have to constantly remind the new guys that we will NOT let it run on auto-pilot. Failure to do so may well lead to a catastrophe in 2012, and we could be even worse off than we are now.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Anybody who voted a write-in for Ron Paul or stayed home because McCain didn't support gay marriage or was (pick one: too liberal/too conservative)on Abortion and/or stem cell research or whatever reason, well, I am not angry with you but you had almost as much to do with the abominable enemy of freedom we are stuck with being in the White House as we speak, as did ACORN and the rest of the slimy crooks who finagled him into DC and fooled enough of the people, enough of the time.

So, basically, what you're saying that we would have been better off with McSame and the retard?

What, exactly, do you base that on? So if we had McCain instead of Obama, we wouldn't have themassive bailouts and socialist polices. Hurray!!!! Right? Wrong. Instead of losing financial freedom, we'd be losing personal freedom. Instead of a bailout, we'd have the CIA/DHS spying on us in our own homes. We'd have the "war on terruh" stretched to the ends of the earth, with more of our soldiers dying over nothing. We'd have the Bush/Cheney military/industrial complex for another four years. How is that any better?

Really, it baffles me how anyone can not only suggest, but demand, that we vote fora bullet to the front of the headinstead ofa bullet to the back of the head. Then they even go a step further and say that we'd be better off with a bullet to the front of the head, because at least we wouldn't be taking a bullet to the back of the head. It makes no sense and it's that attitude that keeps us stuck in this rut, and driving full speed into the quickly approaching brick wall.


Republican, Democrat... it's the SAME THING.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Anybody who voted a write-in for Ron Paul or stayed home because McCain didn't support gay marriage or was (pick one: too liberal/too conservative)on Abortion and/or stem cell research or whatever reason, well, I am not angry with you but you had almost as much to do with the abominable enemy of freedom we are stuck with being in the White House as we speak, as did ACORN and the rest of the slimy crooks who finagled him into DC and fooled enough of the people, enough of the time.

Republican, Democrat... it's the SAME THING.

AWDstylez ...

:? Little rocks come from big rocks .

It is the 5 % of the votersthat can not add who screw themselves and the rest of us abiders that love freedom . Since there is no difference to you at this time , will you vote for the most conservative pro-Second Amendment Democrat or Republican in the 2010 & 2012 elections ? Can you understand how voting for a Third Party or not voting rather than changing the current two party system from within is making you the fool ?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Anybody who voted a write-in for Ron Paul or stayed home because McCain didn't support gay marriage or was (pick one: too liberal/too conservative)on Abortion and/or stem cell research or whatever reason, well, I am not angry with you but you had almost as much to do with the abominable enemy of freedom we are stuck with being in the White House as we speak, as did ACORN and the rest of the slimy crooks who finagled him into DC and fooled enough of the people, enough of the time.

So, basically, what you're saying that we would have been better off with McSame and the retard?

What, exactly, do you base that on? So if we had McCain instead of Obama, we wouldn't have themassive bailouts and socialist polices. Hurray!!!! Right? Wrong. Instead of losing financial freedom, we'd be losing personal freedom. Instead of a bailout, we'd have the CIA/DHS spying on us in our own homes. We'd have the "war on terruh" stretched to the ends of the earth, with more of our soldiers dying over nothing. We'd have the Bush/Cheney military/industrial complex for another four years. How is that any better?

Really, it baffles me how anyone can not only suggest, but demand, that we vote fora bullet to the front of the headinstead ofa bullet to the back of the head. Then they even go a step further and say that we'd be better off with a bullet to the front of the head, because at least we wouldn't be taking a bullet to the back of the head. It makes no sense and it's that attitude that keeps us stuck in this rut, and driving full speed into the quickly approaching brick wall.


Republican, Democrat... it's the SAME THING.

No it is not. What Obama and the Ratz are attepting is insanity cubed. Let's see, first we had to end the war in Iraq because we were going into hock too deep to China, so now that Obama is IN, we need to finance massive bailouts by going to who? North Korea? NOPE. China, again. Oh yeah and in addition to bankrupting the country even faster than a war ever could (what happened to "war is good for the economy?") Obama has not tried to rescind any of the Patriot act. One of Obama's STATED GOALS is to make the cost of energy skyrocket. When that happens, everything else will skyrocket EXCEPT WAGES. Obama and the Ratz are EVIL PEOPLE. Ther ultimate goal is to tear this country apart and then serve it up to the "International Community" for a good rebuild sans soveriegnty. The people have been bamboozled into electing radical madmen. And we MUST throw a check on them next year and meanwhile stymie their insidious plans. If "Republican, Democrat, its the SAME THING, then why yo' bees rootin so hard for the RATZ and using ad hominem attacks (McSame and the retard) against the Republicans?

In fact, ad hominem is all you really have, Styles. And there you go again, with "retard". When I called you on this in your treatment of Brother Razor you tried to weasel out but you would really like to euthanize everyone you find substandard, now wouldn't you?

You dare not respond to my post point-by-point, you use the worn out tired old device of scanning for what you can use to belittle and insult and I have personally called you on this at least once when I caught you red-handed. I would LOVE to debate you at an Open Carry Dinner sometime. I guarantee you would have the crowd on their feet in no time. With a rope. Now be a good boy and go back and answer my post point for point, or shut up. Or don't. But at least you could try to offer some SUPPORT for the RTKBA; and support for - hell, failing to voice vehement opposition to - Obama and the RATZ pack marks you well for what you are. I have shown my face in photos in this forum, and if you havent seen it here's a pic. You on the other hand hide behind the net and fling your barbs. Let's see your face, or else yu are a coward.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

By the by that isnt a threat, its just the best shot of my face (which isnt much to look at) Tell you what, post a thoughtful point by point analysis of that post as I requested and I'll post a pic of myself when I was 17 and younger and almost as clueless as you.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

OH yeah one more thing. Brick walls do not "approach". :quirky

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

In fact, ad hominem is all you really have, Styles. And there you go again, with "retard". When I called you on this in your treatment of Brother Razor you tried to weasel out but you would really like to euthanize everyone you find substandard, now wouldn't you?

Yeah, I found that out the hard way. The logical fallacy is his route. Ah well, a nice debate would have been fun.

Alexcabbie wrote:

You dare not respond to my post point-by-point, you use the worn out tired old device of scanning for what you can use to belittle and insult and I have personally called you on this at least once when I caught you red-handed. I would LOVE to debate you at an Open Carry Dinner sometime. I guarantee you would have the crowd on their feet in no time. With a rope. Now be a good boy and go back and answer my post point for point, or shut up. Or don't. But at least you could try to offer some SUPPORT for the RTKBA; and support for - hell, failing to voice vehement opposition to - Obama and the RATZ pack marks you well for what you are. I have shown my face in photos in this forum, and if you havent seen it here's a pic. You on the other hand hide behind the net and fling your barbs. Let's see your face, or else yu are a coward.

I'm pretty sure he's a lefty who likes things that go bang. He's not really about the freedom as he likes the idea of requiring licenses for carrying open or concealed.

He uses bait and switch tactics to lure you into an argument that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. When called on it, he then uses ad hominem.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

You dare not respond to my post point-by-point,

You didn't respond to my post at all.

Your argument is that we would have been better off with McCain. You're in denial of the good cop/bad cop game that the Republicans and Democrats play; that IS my point.

Your response was nothing but right-wing extremist talking points against Obama, which I don't have enough lifetimes to plunge into the depth of their inaccuracy to refute them. I already admitted Obama has paddled us up shit creek, then burned not only the paddles but the canoe too. That's not surprising, nor is it relevant. The point is McCain would have done the SAME thing, just in different areas.

Both parties are two different ways to push the same goal. They keep people like you constantly battling the other party, rather than actually accomplishing something. You're wasting all your energy fighting to be thrown over a cliff instead of drown in the ocean. Open your eyes and realize that the outcome is the same regardless of how you get there. It's the outcome we need to change, not whether we drive into the brick wall in a Prius or a Escalade. :quirky

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Why do people keep rising to the bait this troll throws out there? He has succeeded in the last several months in derailing every thread out there and eliminating any serious discussion because people are just too willing to chomp at the bit. It's a troll, nothing more, nothing less, and should simply be ignored. When it's ego isn't being assuaged by successfully starting a flame war with it at the center, it will pack up and go away to troll another forum. People here need to learn that discretion is the better part of valor. Don't reply to its posts, let the discussion take place around the trolling, and we'll have a much better forum for it. We're all adults here, it's time we started acting like it and not letting a child engage us in childish behavior.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Why do people keep rising to the bait this troll throws out there? He has succeeded in the last several months in derailing every thread out there and eliminating any serious discussion because people are just too willing to chomp at the bit. It's a troll, nothing more, nothing less, and should simply be ignored. When it's ego isn't being assuaged by successfully starting a flame war with it at the center, it will pack up and go away to troll another forum. People here need to learn that discretion is the better part of valor. Don't reply to its posts, let the discussion take place around the trolling, and we'll have a much better forum for it. We're all adults here, it's time we started acting like it and not letting a child engage us in childish behavior.

Thank you Comp, and this is why I demand he show his face. Until then I will not give him the satisfaction and if I do he better keep it ON TOPIC and free of insults. However what I have noticed is that when ignored he waits for a noob and uses the response of those who don't know him to start up again, and once we come to the new guy's defense there we are, hopelessly off topic.

This thread is a serious topic started by one of the very founders of this org, and decisions made as the result of discussions here could - no joke - affect the future of this Nation. It is no place for kiddies who need an ego-stroke and I do think moles and trolls who yank threads off topic with personal insults and ad hominem attacks should be banned. The troll we are discussing has a long history of such offensive behavior. MIKE: Something needs to be done, this person does not belong here AT ALL.

Now, I would pot something on-topic and I will later, but boy I SO have to hit the street and work up some dough.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Why do people keep rising to the bait this troll throws out there? He has succeeded in the last several months in derailing every thread out there and eliminating any serious discussion because people are just too willing to chomp at the bit. It's a troll, nothing more, nothing less, and should simply be ignored. When it's ego isn't being assuaged by successfully starting a flame war with it at the center, it will pack up and go away to troll another forum. People here need to learn that discretion is the better part of valor. Don't reply to its posts, let the discussion take place around the trolling, and we'll have a much better forum for it. We're all adults here, it's time we started acting like it and not letting a child engage us in childish behavior.

Another off-topic post. How about you tell us how you feel about this thread's subject matter: political parties. That's what I was discussing.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Hey guys, so what are your thoughts on my suggestion on taking back the Republican Party for Republicanism as enumerated in the Constitution and described by ALL the founders, not just Jefferson? I believe that they all had a point and that the points that conflicted were argued and those who's opinions won are reflected in the Constitution... which is why I am convinced we are not a Democracy no matter what Thomas Jefferson wrote after the Constitutionwas ratified. His belief that Republicanism and Democracy are synonymous is not valid in terms of the Constitution since it isn't reflected in the Constitution. However, being guaranteed a Republican form of Government, i.e. being guaranteed a government that is a functioning Republic IS in the Constitution and it is something that we need to fight for and to re-institute into the Republican Party through education, and polite discourse.

I know there are modern GOPers who are moralists who want our government to ban so-called immoral behavior and I know we're going to deal with these moral Statists, but I think we can do it while preserving the Republican Party and restoring a true Republican platform based solely on Republicanism.

I believe we can convince the moral Statists that Liberty and Freedom serve their religious causes far better than having their moral values mandated and codified in law. I know for a fact that it would be easier to convince the religious Statists to revert back to a Liberty protecting Republic than it would be to convince the irreligious Statists as Statism for them IS their religion. Asking a modern day Democrat or Liberal to give up the idea of big government or Socialism would be like asking a Christian or Catholicto give up their religion... basically, it'll never happen.

We begin by formulating an argument that will encapsulate the founder's ideas of Liberty, Freedom and the Republic in language that is easier to understand for today's American. I know it's already happening all over, but better to be safe than sorry, and the other side, the irreligious Statists... the Democrats and Leftists in this country are fighting non-stop to take away all our Liberty.

Thoughts?

 

[ACEllis]

imported post

I was enjoying the direction of this thread for the first page or so, but now it's de-evolved into a lot of loud noises. Can we get back on track? It's interesting hearing the alignments and positions on the political spectrum from fellow OCers but all the WHARGARRBL is getting in the way.

AC

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

The beauty of our system of government is that it works. The most concentrated power is held by the President, but the power of the President and his Executive Branch are completely overwhelmed by the Legislature. However this most powerful of the three banches is split into two parts, and those two are further split into hundreds of individuals from states and districts that have their own needs and ideals, with the Judiciary acting as a referree under of course certain checks and balances by the other two branches.

Today the radical leftists in the Democrat Party LOST two RTKBA issues. DC gun rights were approved overwhelmingly by the House as part of the "DC Voting Rights" bill, AND carry in National Parks concomitant with State Law was attached as an amendment to the credit reform act. Obama is expected to sign both of these.

One abject Anti groused that "we have passed more pro-gun bills with a Democratic President and Congress than we did when the Republicans were in charge" The Washington Post as usual blames "the NRA", and in fact hats orr to them. BUT HATS OFF TO YOU AND HATS OFF TO US ALL because these posts are read by the politicians. I will probably never know if one of the barn-burner essays I have written here ever had any effect on a fence-sittting Dem. But you can bet an NRA lobbyist has at some point (and probably several) sat down with a waffling Rep or Senator and punched up this forum and said: Look at what these people are saying"

Still IMO we and all Americans need to knock the radical RATZ out of DC, and if we could get just half of them there would be a Republican majority in both houses. Just remember if we succeed we are going to have to ride their butts aqnd tell them they were NOT elected to be DemonRat Lite. Maybe when patriotic Democrats wake up they will get tired of the RATZ leadership, take their party back and maybe then voting Democrat will be a bit more palatable than it is now.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I know plenty of religious types for whom using the state to force their morality on others is an article of faith.