Democrat vs. Republican - I finally understand...

[jbombelli]

Shenanigans.

Patriot Act
Homeland Security
U-Constitutional Wars a-plenty
Warrantless wiretapping
War on Drugs

I could keep going, but I see little point in it.


Of course the Dems rallied for the Bill of Rights during the Bush years. Once Obama was elected, they jumped right on the wagon in support of the exact same policies they decried under Bush. Republicans do the same thing. Principles don't exist to either side. Party means nothing more than rhetoric, colors, and symbols. No matter who's at the helm, the Bill of Rights is undermined, the police/welfare state grows, the military industrial complex advances, gov't finds more excuses to steal from the people, and liberty is lost. Politicians with principle are assassinated or laughed at and marginalized.

This. I would rep this, but apparently I'm on rep lockdown.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

We have to have "different" teams so that the public can feel they are doing something. They must occupy thier minds with D vs R in the next big showdown.
Without it, the illusion would become obvious.

 

[techres]

Hmmm....

When it's their guy doing the presidential signing statements, executive orders, and violating law for "the public good" then it is unconstitutional.

When it's your guy doing the presidential signing statements, executive orders, and violating law for "the public good" then it is a necessity.

Sadly few understand that the government swings like a pendulum. The more power you give it heading in your direction only dictates how far it will eventually swing in the opposite down the road.

You want it better?

Concede less power, not more irrespective of which side is wanting that power.

Fight usurpation of the Constitution just as hard when it is your side as when it is the other saying that an immediate reality "changes the game".

Don't give in no matter what that immediate reality is (school shooting, terror attack, drug epidemic, etc).

Remember that no party will win forever. The only constant will be the powers you gave the beast when it was dancing with you.

 

[mrjarrell]

 

[lucky4034]

You guys should wear tin foil hats


These parties may differ... but they have our best interest in mind.

 

[NYFelon]

They won't let me rep you. So here it is.

This. I would rep this, but apparently I'm on rep lockdown.

done and done

 

[SmileDocHill]

INGO quote of the year!

Hmmm....

When it's their guy doing the presidential signing statements, executive orders, and violating law for "the public good" then it is unconsitutuional.

When it's your guy doing the presidential signing statements, executive orders, and violating law for "the public good" then it is a necessity.

Sadly few understand that the government swings like a pendulum. The more power you give it heading in your direction only dictates how far it will eventually swing in the opposite down the road.

You want it better?

Concede less power, not more irrespective of which side is wanting that power.

Fight usurpation of the Constitution just as hard when it is your side as when it is the other saying that an immediate reality "changes the game".

Don't give in no matter what that immediate reality is (school shooting, terror attack, drug epidemic, etc).

Remember that no party will win forever. The only constant will be the powers you gave the beast when it was dancing with you.

 

[techres]

You guys should wear tin foil hats


These parties may differ... but they have our best interest in mind.

Let me give an example.

Bush claimed the right to kill americans with drones without the judicial oversight of a court.

Liberals went nuts. Heck, they got so mad that they elected a guy who would not follow Bush policies.

Their pick now has actually done what Bush only claimed the right to do.

Liberals are silent.

Another example: Use of executive orders and political officers

Just one example was that Bush issued Executive Order 13422 which "mandates the designation of a presidential appointee in each federal agency as "regulatory policy officer," with authority to oversee the rule-making process". I.E. politics of the president get to influence offices like the EPA at a level unseen before as the president now has eyes and ears down in each department via political appointees.

Guess what, now the president is a new guy who does not like guns. That leads to the DOJ using the BATF for political ends (gun running to make gun owners look bad) and the threat of executive orders to curtail gun rights if he cannot get what he wants legislatively.

It is not tin foil as much as it is unintended consequences and an understanding that the people change, but the precedents do not.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[edporch]

Their names actually DO mean something still today. I actually though the names had become so bastardized over the years that no sense could be made of it, but I was wrong.

REPUBLICAN = Believes in a Constitutional Republic. The USA is a Constitutional Republic. Preserves the Republic, and protects the Constitution. This explains where the term "conservative" comes from, which is to preserve the constitution.

DEMOCRAT = Believes in Democracy. Literally. If the majority feels a certain way, then they feel that they can make laws, and don't respect any constitution, or other form of government. Hence the term "progressive" (or 'change', or 'forward'), and "liberal" (a liberal interpretation of the constitution).


So the next time someone starts an argument over what "Liberal" means, or "Left vs. Right", cut to the chase, and explain this to them instead.

I agree with you definitions, the ONLY thing is, the REPUBLICANS have become in many ways, DEMOCRATS.

REPUBLICANS can even commonly be heard referring to our republic as "our democracy".

 

[kman1977]

humm --- and I thought Republicans were fat a$$'s and democrats were dumb a$$'s
but either way --- to me there are all *********s

 

[hornadylnl]

Hmmm....

When it's their guy doing the presidential signing statements, executive orders, and violating law for "the public good" then it is unconsitutuional.

When it's your guy doing the presidential signing statements, executive orders, and violating law for "the public good" then it is a necessity.

Sadly few understand that the government swings like a pendulum. The more power you give it heading in your direction only dictates how far it will eventually swing in the opposite down the road.

You want it better?

Concede less power, not more irrespective of which side is wanting that power.

Fight usurpation of the Constitution just as hard when it is your side as when it is the other saying that an immediate reality "changes the game".

Don't give in no matter what that immediate reality is (school shooting, terror attack, drug epidemic, etc).

Remember that no party will win forever. The only constant will be the powers you gave the beast when it was dancing with you.

INGO quote of the year!

Let me give an example.

Bush claimed the right to kill americans with drones without the judicial oversight of a court.

Liberals went nuts. Heck, they got so mad that they elected a guy who would not follow Bush policies.

Their pick now has actually done what Bush only claimed the right to do.

Liberals are silent.

Another example: Use of executive orders and political officers

Just one example was that Bush issued Executive Order 13422 which "mandates the designation of a presidential appointee in each federal agency as "regulatory policy officer," with authority to oversee the rule-making process". I.E. politics of the president get to influence offices like the EPA at a level unseen before as the president now has eyes and ears down in each department via political appointees.

Guess what, now the president is a new guy who does not like guns. That leads to the DOJ using the BATF for political ends (gun running to make gun owners look bad) and the threat of executive orders to curtail gun rights if he cannot get what he wants legislatively.

It is not tin foil as much as it is unintended consequences and an understanding that the people change, but the precedents do not.

No, with these 2 posts by Techres has won the internets indefinitely. I used to be one of those who wore a patch on my right eye and saw the tyranny of the left. Once I finally took the right eye patch off, the tyranny of the right was readily apparent.

 

[Liberty1911]

No, with these 2 posts by Techres has won the internets indefinitely. I used to be one of those who wore a patch on my right eye and saw the tyranny of the left. Once I finally took the right eye patch off, the tyranny of the right was readily apparent.

From your avatar, it looks like you actually just patched up your left eye as well, which explains why you're now blind to libertarian tyranny.

 

[hornadylnl]

From your avatar, it looks like you actually just patched up your left eye as well, which explains why you're now blind to libertarian tyranny.

Which libertarian candidate has voted for tyranny? Which tyranical laws have they passed? No candidate is perfect. But how many others in Washington can hold a candle to Ron Paul? I know, the real philosophy of liberty is that none can have it because a few may abuse it. The few spoil it for everyone. We can't legalize drugs for the responsible because of the few that are irresponsible.

 

[rambone]

From your avatar, it looks like you actually just patched up your left eye as well, which explains why you're now blind to libertarian tyranny.

The tyranny of ending prohibition?

 

[Wysko]

Seeing how this is a gun owners forum.............

Most Democats are anti gun. ie. Big Brother knows whats best for you. Life isnt fair, vote for us and we will make it fair.

Most Republicans are pro gun. ie. Individualism. Work hard, study hard, live the American dream. You can do it.

My
Nuff said.

 

[Liberty1911]

The tyranny of ending prohibition?

Nope. Try again.

 

[hornadylnl]

Nope. Try again.

Straw man alert because I enjoy watching you obsess over them.

People should not be allowed to own guns until you can guarantee that I and others will not have to pay to incarcerate those who commit crimes with guns.

 

[Liberty1911]

I know, the real philosophy of liberty is that none can have it because a few may abuse it. The few spoil it for everyone. We can't legalize drugs for the responsible because of the few that are irresponsible.

Nope. That has never been my argument.

However, even you said that you advocate personal accountability before legalization. So, we have the same philosophy on that particular point.

That means you're either misrepresenting my argument on purpose, or your philosophy differs depending on who the audience is. Either way, your credibility is diminished.

 

[Liberty1911]

Straw man alert because I enjoy watching you obsess over them.

LOL. At least you're finally admitting you create them. That's half the battle.