Reps v Dems

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glock 31

New member
I'm not that politically savvy, and if that is a crime I apologize for speaking on a subject I am not familiar with. (In reference to previous legal and political posts).

Can someone please explain to me the difference between Republicans and Democrats, and who is more interested in protecting our common sense rights to own firearms.

Also an explanation between liberals and conservatives or the opposite of both of those if they are not each other's opposites would be appreciated.

Thankyou.:cool:
 
Broad brush = Democrats want strict gun control and would like to see all guns either registered or taken out of the hands of the common people.
Republicans want fewer restrictions, but would be content to go along with the Democrats if it came to it.
Short answer = more Democrats than Republicans want to take away your guns and your rights.

Liberal = someone that wants change.
Conservative = someone that is content with how things are.
Reactionary = someone that wants to go back to "the good old days".

Democrats are more liberal, Republicans tend to be more conservative, and (if you had to pidgeon hole them) Libertarians fall more into the reactionary catagory.

My pet theory is that the "change seekers" ie: the 1960's revolutionaries, are moving into control. They have come of age. For most of us in the over 50 age group, the '60's talk of "Revolution" was mostly about good music. For a small but dedicated core of the "'60's" generation, "revolution" was more than just talk.

Since liberal/Democratic ideals fit the "change" concept, that dedicated core is making inroads into the present Democratic party.
The Republicans are quite content to allow change, as long as it doesn't affect them directly.
Libertarians would like to see the changes rolled back since the changes have proven not to work for the better.
 
Neither one. The Libertarian party is the only one that actually supports the 2nd Amendment. The Republicans are, overall, less gun-grabby than the Democrats.
A better question to ask is which candidates.
 
I thought it was the liberals who are all anti-war, anti-military support, anti-support our troops, pro United Nations, and the ones that support feinstein and her likes.:confused:
I personally think this generation's youth are completely fubar and will not have the responsibility to lead the nation in the coming future. And i'm only 23. I would like to see things back like it was in my dad's youth, when gun ownership was a sign of patriotism and politicians where actually more good than bad. Back when hollywood stars were'nt completely f*##$3d in the head and where down to earth like John Wayne (though I am not really a fan). Just using him as a for instance. Does that mean I am a liberal minded person.

Here's a more direct question, what does it mean politically to be on the right or the left? Who thinks people like Bill O'reilly should be praised not pounded. And which side, left, right, liberal, dem, rep, is the NRA, of which I am a member, oriented towards?:cool:
 
They way I've always seen it: Democrats are here to remind us that life sucks, Republicans make sure of it. :D


From my understanding Democrats and liberals are all about social freedom but economic control in the hands of the government. Republicans and conservatives are all about economic freedom but social lives under control of the government.

I don't like either group; I don't want my tax dollars supporting people who haven't worked in over a year and I don't want my tax money going to support senior citizens when I won't see a penny of social security in my life. At the same time, I don't want some homophobic jackass to tell my gay friends that they're not allowed to get married because he thinks a ratty old book has any authority to define marriage.


Just my 2 strips of gold pressed latinum.
 
Hal, I love your difinitions. I believe they are the best I have ever seen. At least they fit my opinions, almost to a "T".
 
I don't want some homophobic jackass to tell my gay friends that they're not allowed to get married because he thinks a ratty old book has any authority to define marriage.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know what ratty old book that you're reffering to.......

Is it the Book that basically EVERY major law that this great country has is based on? That "ratty old book?" Just wondering.
 
I'd like to know what ratty old book that you're reffering to.......

Is it the Book that basically EVERY major law that this great country has is based on? That "ratty old book?" Just wondering.
Click to expand...
I think we all know which one I'm referring to. :)

I highly doubt you can show me that every major law is based on it. The point being that no religious text should be used to define the laws of a land that is supposed to be founded on religious freedom. Republicans have no foot to stand on when trying to claim that they're protecting the institution of marriage simply because the bible says homosexuality is bad. The concept of marriage existed long before the bible, as did many other things. Conservatives are all about freedom as long as that freedom is defined by their religious beliefs.
 
More to the point, such an attitude is in direct violation of the Constitution. Neither here nor there tho'. If we pursue this topic we'll get locked.

Back to the subject at hand; I've got another one.
The REPs want to take us back to "good ol' days" that never really existed and the DEMs want to drag us kicking and screaming into a future where life is little more than unbearable series of apologies.
 
I think we all know which one I'm referring to.

I highly doubt you can show me that every major law is based on it. The point being that no religious text should be used to define the laws of a land that is supposed to be founded on religious freedom. Republicans have no foot to stand on when trying to claim that they're protecting the institution of marriage simply because the bible says homosexuality is bad. The concept of marriage existed long before the bible, as did many other things. Conservatives are all about freedom as long as that freedom is defined by their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Did marriage exist before what was written about in Genesis?

Yes, many of our laws are taken DIRECTLY from the 10 commandments. Other laws are taken from other parts of the Bible. I don't appreciate you calling the Bible a ratty old book. I bet you believe all the writings of the Founding Father's are rediculous too. Before you answer no, read them. I bet you will hate their writings about God. Read the writings from so many great men in the nations history. I know you will hate those as well.
 
Referring to the Bible or any other major religious text is offensive, in so much as flushing pages of it down a toilet is.

I like to think that it was some sort of ironic twist on the part of GoSlash27 to expose how vehemently people will defend their text, while allowing someone else's to be used as toilet paper; but let's be honest, he was just being a jerk.

All that said, the Bible is based on older texts (ie, the Torah), common sense and arguably something else (I'm not getting into the Word of G-d). Clearly, for only being based on so many issues of common sense and common decency, the Bible is a terriffic book to found laws on.

gfen, non-practicing, spiritual, and anti-religious. but not stupid.
 
Supertac said:
Did marriage exist before what was written about in Genesis?

Yes, many of our laws are taken DIRECTLY from the 10 commandments. Other laws are taken from other parts of the Bible. I don't appreciate you calling the Bible a ratty old book. I bet you believe all the writings of the Founding Father's are rediculous too. Before you answer no, read them. I bet you will hate their writings about God. Read the writings from so many great men in the nations history. I know you will hate those as well.
Click to expand...

Yes sir, it did. The Egyptians had marriage as did many tribes in Africa and the mid east. Marriage has been around almost as long as recorded history which is long before the writings of the bible.

I don't see how many of our laws are taken directly from the ten commandments. Murder has been illegal without the bible, adultery is illegal in many non-christian nations, and there are no laws that require respect of one's parents or ban the coveting of my neighbor's wife, nor are there laws that preclude anyone from worshipping false idols. The ridiculous liquor laws on Sundays are the only ones I can think that stem directly from the commandments....but then the original interpretation of the bible states that Saturday is the Sabbath.

No, I don't hate the writings. It's fortunate that most of the framers were diests, believing in their god but acknowledging that their diety does not have a direct influence on their daily lives. They also believed that their own beliefs should not be imposed on others and thus having any laws created because of a religious text goes against the very things they stood for.

I apologize for my reference to the bible in such a way.
 
gfen said:
Referring to the Bible or any other major religious text is offensive, in so much as flushing pages of it down a toilet is.

I like to think that it was some sort of ironic twist on the part of GoSlash27 to expose how vehemently people will defend their text, while allowing someone else's to be used as toilet paper; but let's be honest, he was just being a jerk.

All that said, the Bible is based on older texts (ie, the Torah), common sense and arguably something else (I'm not getting into the Word of G-d). Clearly, for only being based on so many issues of common sense and common decency, the Bible is a terriffic book to found laws on.

gfen, non-practicing, spiritual, and anti-religious. but not stupid.
Click to expand...
Some parts of it are good to base laws on, but there are parts of the bible that set rules for slavery and polygamy. Not everything in that book is moral and good. Now I have no issue using it as a reference point for creating laws but it shouldn't be the reason for the creation of said laws. Just because the bible says a particular practice (homosexuality being a great example) is wrong doesn't mean that any law should ever be created to ban it.

Again, I apologize to anyone I offended with my reference to the bible. I've never used it as toilet paper, though (rolling paper, on the other hand...)
 
The problem with the GOP today is that Bush is (IMHO) on the left fringe of the party. His actions make the GOP seem more left than it really is. One solution to some of the problems of govenment is to allow a line item veto for the prez to strike out unrelated laws in one bill.
 
The problem with the GOP today is that Bush is (IMHO) on the left fringe of the party. His actions make the GOP seem more left than it really is. One solution to some of the problems of govenment is to allow a line item veto for the prez to strike out unrelated laws in one bill.
Click to expand...
True
.......any law should ever be created to ban it
Click to expand...

Way to change the subject....we're talking about marriage of homos, not legality of the act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top