What's with all this "liberal" nonsense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
rlong, How about we don't flip my statments 180.

My point is simple and true fact. Lets not confuse and flip.

Taxes are very high and have become a burden on American working families, not the employer.
Modern day liberalism has driven the vast increase in taxes. The company I work for used it's tax cuts to hire more people who want to work for their money. The so called neocons just voted down half a Billion in tax increases in DC this month.

The current R-party has a severe spending problem worse than I have words for. They have not fought hard enough for more tax relief. Americas iner cities have become broken down welfare offices sucking billions in working folks money just to sustain the sorry liberal mess they started.

Bill Cosby just addressed a big part of what Im talking about down in N.O.

Simple fact #2, who started gun control back in the mid 1960s and kept it go ever since?
The dem turned liberal party.

Another factiod, the liberal Star Tribune newspaper in MPLS called us-The tax payers league of Minnesota, an Extreme right wing group because we exposed a state funded sex change program, and it got the AX.
Thats just one small example.
When most tax payrs find out what they really pay, I'll just say, you should see the faces some of them make.

Don't force money out of families hands to kill your unwanted babies. Don't steal our money so you can make new laws to tell me wether I can protect my family or not. I'll teach my own kids about sex, in a healthy way, thank you very much.
 
Simple fact #2, who started gun control back in the mid 1960s and kept it go ever since?
The dem turned liberal party.
Click to expand...
Gun control did not start in the 60s. Read Mark's post and then think about which side of the coin is more responsible for introducing gun control.

Don't force money out of families hands to kill your unwanted babies.
Click to expand...
Fully agreed! Let them pay for it themselves.
 
Did you hear that they are planning to raise the buildings and homes in the New Orleans flood zone about 3 or four feet...?

At federal taxpayers expense????????????:p :p :p
 
I didn't mean to turn this into a left vs. right thing. In fact, that's what I'm complaining about.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Let's throw a cobra and a mongoose into the ring and say we didn't mean to...

...make it a mammal vs reptile thing. :D

Weather's better here in the middle anyways.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the middle-of-the-road where you can get hit from both directions? :D
 
with that said, I consider myself a conservative republican's worst nightmare:

A gun totten' liberal.
Click to expand...

I doubt Republicans worry about gun totin’ liberals. They might worry about gun-bannin’ liberals.

Ifind it funny at the least that most folks on these gun list blame all gun control laws on liberals... yes it's generally true but not always.
Click to expand...

Here’s an input from our own Bartholomew Roberts that you may find enlightening:

If you still have all of your guns, it is certainly not because of Democrats.

Let's take a look at federal gun control legislation, shall we?

1934 National Firearms Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President.

1968 Gun Control Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - proposed by Republican, the one gun control provision added (closing the NFA registry to civilians) is added by a Democrat controlled House

1994 Brady Law - proposed by Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

1994 Assault Weapons Ban - proposed by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

Let's look at some of the past bills supported by recent Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:

Kerry co-sponsored S.1431 - the bill expanding the ban on semi-auto weapons to include guns such as the Remington 1187 he was photographed with on the campaign trail.

Kerry voted twice to kill the CMP. If he doesn't trust you with 1903 bolt-actions and Garands, what does he trust you with?

Kerry voted in March 2004 to extend the existing semi-auto ban.

When Kerry mentor and top Democrat Ted Kennedy stood up in february 2004 to introduce his bill saying:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." (Page S1634 of the Congressional Record, February 26, 2004)

John Kerry voted YES to ban .30-30 and other centerfire rifle ammo as armor-piercing.

Of course, all of that is from 2004 - shall we look at current gun control legislation sponsored by Democrats in Congress to see what they have planned for us in the future? Shall we look to Democrat controlled New Orleans in the wake of Katrina for an answer? Should we look to the new wave of weapons banned in California every year?

Better yet, in the interests of brevity, why don't you just list for us all the pro-gun legislation introduced by Democrats this year?

We have all read the same Dem strategy paper advanced by Americans For Gun Safety that basically tries to repackage the old Democratic gun control agenda as a "gun safety issue" while at the same time being less openly hostile to gun owners (I.e. "I support the Second Amendment; but you should still be registered, licensed and tracked like sex offenders when you are allowed to own guns at all"). The Dems need a REAL pro-gun strategy if they want pro-gun votes.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't it the middle-of-the-road where you can get hit from both directions?
Click to expand...

I have no qualms about having to defend myself from both sides. Getting pretty good at it, in fact. :)


Hey Silver Bullet, Marko Kolos brought up a great point that no one's bothered to reply to. Didn't conservatives call for Prohibitions 1 and 2 and were those not direct precursors to all those gun control laws you mentioned?
 
Handy, as always I respect your opinions but here is the liberal problem in a nutshell, quoted from Wikipedia: "In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation." It takes this idea and runs amok with it.

Basically modern liberals have retained some of the jargon of classical liberalism but have substituted marxism for original liberal enlightenment principles. In taking up marxist progressivism they have left those of us who call ourselves 'conservative' to be the only true classic liberals remaining.

All the press and the Democrats have to do to win my approval is to come back to the principles of classical liberalism and drop the marxist makover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
(You might find it interesting also to do a search on progressivism and the UK gun control movement.)
 
"Hey guys,
I didn't mean to turn this into a left vs. right thing."

That's not the impression I got from your very first sentence.

"Every time somebody says something that attacks the president or states any fact that makes Republicans uncomfortable, they're immediately labeled as liberals. Either that, or it's assumed that they were lied to by the "liberal media"."

I think you're just frustrated that more people don't agree with your worldview and your conclusions.

John
 
Hey Silver Bullet, Marko Kolos brought up a great point that no one's bothered to reply to. Didn't conservatives call for Prohibitions 1 and 2 and were those not direct precursors to all those gun control laws you mentioned?
Click to expand...

What was their scope, and when did they occur ? Are they anything comparable to the massive list I just posted ?

I’m less concerned with what party did what in the past. I’m more concerned with what the parties are doing now.

For instance, I looked up the Senate vote on the Gun Industry Shield that was voted on just six months ago, and I count Rs and Ds as follows:

Voting Republicans in favor of the Shield:
50 to 2, or 96.15%.

Voting Democrats in favor of the Shield:
14 to 29, or 32.56%.

Does that seem like gun-friendly Democrats to you ? Does that not make it clear who the enemy is today ? And in 2008 ?
 
Not really. The Republicans are just as much an enemy to freedom as the Democrats. I never suggested that the Democrats were gun friendly, simply that the Republicans are no more a friend of freedom.

I've said this multiple times: if the second amendment is not exercised in the pursuit of liberty then it is utterly useless. I will not give power to a Republican that wants to control what's shown on television or who can marry who or what I can put into my own body. Anyone that wants their guns but demands to control the social lives of others does not care about freedom, they simply want to be the oppressors rather than the oppressed.
 
When did I say they weren't? :confused: I just thought Marko made a good point. I feel the politicians that were responsible for Prohibition are equally as responsible for gun control as the ones that drafted anti-gun legislation in the 30s, 60s, and 90s.

I do, however, believe that the Democrats are not the worst enemy to freedom. They're kinda tied with the GOP for that title.
 
Elitist

The problem as I see it, is that we use labels for people, groups, and agendas, that have little or nothing to do with the actual definition of the word. "Liberals" in American politics are no more liberal than homosexuals are "gay". It is nothing more than a term they have claimed for themselves.

We have fallen for the tyranny of language abuse. Words and terms no longer mean what they mean, they mean what a particular group claims they mean. While this has probably always been the case, today it seems to have been blown so out of proportion as to be ludicrous. However, so many people just swallow it whole, it is a difficult thing to fight.

One of the basic rules of debating is, that if you get to define the terms of the debate, you are halfway to winning before you even start. We see this all the time in firearms debate. Don't you see it going on in all other aspects of our lives as well?

Liberal once meant accepting of other views, tolerant, free thinking, and given to excess, among other things. Todays self described "liberals" are some of the least tolerant people I know of. They claim to tolerate everything except intolerance, but the reality is quite different.

Conservatives are painted as "bad" by the Liberals. Liberals are painted as "bad" by the Conservatives. I think "elitists" are bad. These are the people (regardless of whatever label they claim), who, by their actions, are detrimental to liberty of the individual.

Anyone who claims the "right" to decide something for me, without my consent, is to me, an Elitist. Many of them are Statists as well. sadly, the majority of our politicians are, by their actions, one or both.

Neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats are our friends. They are NOT on our side. Some individuals in the parties may be, but the parties themselves are NOT. They are in it for themselves.

I am proud to be a "joe six pack". I am proud to be a member of the "great unwashed". I am who I am. I don't care how much money you have/make. That is not what I am about. I don't care where you went to school. Or how far. As far as I am concerned, that does not give you the right to decide for me. It does not make you better than me (I :D ). Just different. Not better. If you think you know what is best, because you are "smarter", or richer, or whatever, I think you are wrong. You are an elitist.

As for gun control, the first laws generally regarded as gun control (19th century) were the "Sullivan laws", restricting handguns in New York City. These laws were aimed at the huge immigrant population. Although written to affect everyone, they were originally selectively enforced. "Jim Crowe" laws in the south (or elswhere) prohibiting certain classes of people from carrying/having guns. Again, written to supposedly apply to everone, but selectively enforced. Racist, and certainly Elitist by todays standards.

20th Century, we have the NFA (34), then GCA (68), FOPA(86), the AWB (94), is there a pattern here? Of course. More Democrats have been involved in the creation and passage of these laws than Republicans, but more Democrats have been in power in the 20th century than Republicans.

My biggest problem is with "Liberal/Democrats" ( I have problems with all elitists, but especially them), because, they have, for the last 30 or so years, made gun control one of their "planks" of their political agenda.

Sorry for the long rant, it is just that this crap pushes one of my (many) buttons.:o
 
While some conservatives certainly may believe that, many do not. I think what you described applies only to a certain sector of the conservative community, which you then adopt as a blanket description of conservatives. I think of at least one prominent conservative female African-American currently holding a position of power that does not jibe with your description. Nevertheless, this rhetoric often is used to paint with the broad stroke all conservatives.
Click to expand...

Sorry to bury it in there too deeply. You will note that I referred to "moral conservatives", at least once during my post. This is the group I am referring to. I suppose I should have put the "moral" modifier in earlier.

Likewise, you stated:


Quote:
I'm not liberal. I don't believe people should be able to do any thing their heart desires and avoid any consequences.


As a liberal, I can tell you with definite certainty that most liberals, with possible exceptions of the extreme-left anarchist types, do not believe this at all; the rule of law remains sacrosanct among the majority of the liberal community. However, your description of liberals is the type of statement that conservatives often use to describe their opponents
Click to expand...

While you, a liberal, don't see yourself this way, a lot of non-liberals do.

---

Since you (Leif), at least, backpedal from the things that are often seen as what the conservatives want to conserve, perhaps you could tell me what they DO want to conserve, or, failing that, why they name themselves "conservatives" if they, in fact, don't want to conserve things.

So far, to me, it doesn't look like they want to conserve the constitution and bill of rights. I'm not interested in what conservatives (or liberals) SAY they think about our rights. I am more interested in what has actually happened to these rights. And it looks to me like entities typically identified as "liberal", like the ACLU, is more interested in conserving rights than are entities typically identified as "conservative", like Partnership for a Drug Free America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top