From the Mouths of Democrats

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is the "neocons"

If the Republicans are so pro gun then why do we still have the GCA of 68 and the BATFE still harrasing folks?
Click to expand...
Obviously, not all of them are, Eghad. But then, I never said the Republican party was without sin regarding our right to arms.

The problem seems to be coming from what they call the "neocons" (neo-conservatives) rather than traditional conservative Republicans.

Neocons are people like McCain, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, and perhaps G.W. Bush - otherwise referred to as RINOs.

Seems to me that is where the problem lies.
 
But some candidates, right and left, do not tote the party line.
Click to expand...

The wonderful Indiana senator Dick Lugar, Republican, is a prime example. He votes for every anti gun bill that he comes across. He just flat out gives me the creeps.
Between him and Evan Bayh, Indiana always goes for the anti gun stuff at the national level. Sad when you think about what a pro gun state Indiana is at the local levels. Even the Democratic candidate for governor, Joe Keenan, got an A+ from GOA during the last election. Not so with Dick and Evan.
 
I feel your pain, Midnight. As a resident of Indiana, Lugar and Bayh about make my head explode.

Come next election, Im going to vote for whoever is running against them both, regardless of party. (Read that statement again, Eghad - I'm saying I'm going to vote against Lugar, a Republican!!):D

Those two dough-heads have got to go.
 
I agree. I think even if it goes against normal voting tendencies, we should never vote an incumbent back into office if we don't like the job they've done. Ever.
 
So - (some would have us believe) the Democrats are trying to make nice with gun owners after nearly four decades of doing otherwise.
All I can say is Al Wilson summed it up pretty well with an old song:

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew

printable copy of the lyrics to The Snake

"Oh well," she cried, "I'll take you in and I'll take care of you"
"Take me in oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a curvature of silk
And then laid him by the fireside with some honey and some milk
Now she hurried home from work that night as soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taking in had been revived
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

Now she clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight
But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

"I saved you," cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake"

How many members of this forum believe that Hillary and her crowd is more of a threat to liberty than Pat Robertson and his crowd?
Click to expand...
kentak,

That's an apples and orangutans comparison.

Hillary Clinton actually stands a chance of being elected. Robertson is one of the fringe that runs with no hope of being elected, like Jesse Jackson and the others that are in it only to get enough votes to qualify for matching campaign funds.

(and yes - for the time being I still can and do vote for council members - for all the good it does.)
 
Obviously, not all of them are, Eghad. But then, I never said the Republican party was without sin regarding our right to arms.

The problem seems to be coming from what they call the "neocons" (neo-conservatives) rather than traditional conservative Republicans.

Neocons are people like McCain, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, and perhaps G.W. Bush - otherwise referred to as RINOs.

Seems to me that is where the problem lies.
Click to expand...

so what your are saying is that a small part of the Republican party is controlling what the other part does.....now where have I heard that before. So that means the real Republicans are just a bunch of political sheeple?
 
A snake is a snake - biting is what they do

So that means the real Republicans are just a bunch of political sheeple?
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is the "Neocon" movement is a relatively new development, whereas the antigun bigotry of the Democrat party has been a permanent fixture for 40+ years.

People who think the Democrat party is going to change its worldview now are, shall we say, "not the sharpest tools in the shed." The battle lines were drawn decades ago by the leaders of the Democrat party and are still being adhered to today.

Nothing new there.
"I saved you," cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake"
Click to expand...
 
so the rest of the Republicans are sheeple who will not stand up to the Neocons?

so they allow the neocon leadership to trample individual rights in the name of public safety....which means the second amendment trample by the neocons and thier Republican sheeple are not far behind.

which means they are doing the same thing as the Democrats just under a different guise.

doesnt matter if they are a new breed or not. No better than the Democrats you talk about.
 
You go, girl!!

Go ahead Eghad, rant and rave all you want, throw your best feces fit - you're not causing me one bit of indigestion. I am not a Republican, I'm too consevative to be a Republican.:D

As I have said before, I am loyal to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not any particular political party.
 
Congratulations!

So I guess that means you will be voting for a third party candidate in 2008. Thats what I plan to do....
 
As I've said before, I will vote for whatever candidate has the most viable chance of defeating the leftist/socialist antigun bigot point man (or woman) regardless of party.
 
wow wow wow wow WOW i did not finish reading this whoe thread but after reading that remark stealheart made about republican form of goverment and the const, i had to say something. Pls Pls tell me u are not implaying that the const says we should have the republican partie in office, rather we should have a republic type of goverment. That whole partie philosophie did not even exist at the time of the drawing of the const
 
zamboxl,

first of all, try to use a spellchecker, so your posts come out in something resembling written standard English. As it stands, I have a hard time comprehending your argument.

Second, "Republican party" is not synonymous with the form of government known as a Republic, and nobody is suggesting that our Constitution means we need to be governed by Republicans. Please familiarize yourself with the terms of the debate before contributing to it.
 
What Marko said.

"Republican form of government" does not mean "Republican party." Republican form of government = representative form of government.

"Republican form of government" is the wording taken directly from the Constitution, not the invention of members of the Republican party who want to run the show.
 
that's exactly what i was saying, u where the one that said the constitution specified a republican type of goverment. IF what u meant to say was republican as in republic then ok.

But that sure as hell is not what this looks like.

"By making the above statement, you are showing the world that you have never once read the Constitution - which guarantees "A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT." Nothing could possibly be more farther removed from socialism."

that was your answer to 45 wasnt it.
 
By making the above statement, you are showing the world that you have never once read the Constitution - which guarantees "A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT." Nothing could possibly be more farther removed from socialism.
Click to expand...
Yup, that was my reply to Invention45. I stand by it.
"Republican form of government" does not mean "Republican party." Republican form of government = representative form of government.

"Republican form of government" is the wording taken directly from the Constitution, not the invention of members of the Republican party who want to run the show.
Click to expand...
And that was my reply to you, Zamboxl. I also stand by it.

These two statements do not conflict, nor does one negate the other.
Can't we all just get along?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to!
 
Something's screwy here. I am missing some of peoples' posts. I didn't see this original post, so good thing somebody quoted it.


By making the above statement, you are showing the world that you have never once read the Constitution - which guarantees "A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT." Nothing could possibly be more farther removed from socialism.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have read the constitution. Tell me right here and now you do NOT think the Constitution is a document that intends to limit the power of some group. Hint: the Government.

Once you have conceded to that, you have to admit it's a document that redistributes something in an unnatural way (otherwise it would not be needed). That something is power.

That is pretty much what socialism does, no?

Correct me where I'm wrong on any of these things.
 
you have to admit it's a document that redistributes something in an unnatural way (otherwise it would not be needed). That something is power.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

The Constitution does not "redistribute power." It establishes in writing the workings of the government and in the Bill of Rights, it establishes the rights of the people - rights that have been previousy recognized as endowed upon man by The Creator, not the government.(remember the Declaration of Independence?) What The Creator gave to man, no government has the right to take away. The Bill of Rights guarantees those rights - it does not "redistribute power."

That is pretty much what socialism does, no?
Click to expand...

Yes - socialism attempts to give to the government arbitrary power that is not legitimately the government's to possess.

The Constitution guarantees the rights of the people which is diametrically opposite of what socialism attempts to do.

This is how the two differ - and why they are in no manner similar in their intent or purpose. They are worlds apart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top