The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: BBJohnnyT on January 17, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
-
The gun haters have always been around, but boy, have they become emboldened lately. In listening to all the noise from them and the media lately, you would think that AR-15s, and guns in general, are the Devil.
But why do they hate guns so much and why is it that the vast majority of gun haters are liberal Statists? What is the root source of this hatred? I gave it much thought and came up with this... Their hatred of firearms has nothing to do with "saving lives" or "protecting children". They simply hate what guns represent. Things like liberty, challenges to the whims of the State, self-reliance and protection. These values are anathema to their Collective minds. A gun is a common tool of those believe in Individualism instead of Collectivism. And since most liberal Statists are Secularists at heart, their only recourse is more laws, since government is their god. Laws are the only redoubt of Secularists, as Gov Perry eloquently stated today.
Simple as that.
-
I agree, BB, with most of it.
I have called that phenomenon The Pringles Syndrome.
The need and desire for everyone to fit in the same 'can' and stack nicely.
No one who is individual enough to own and become proficient with firearms will every be made to climb into that can. They might foolishly do it, but they can't be counted on to do it and they can resist if forced.
Most liberal Statists might be Secularists, but that does not mean Secularists tend to be Statists or that non-Secularists tend not to be. I see a lot of conformity in non-Secularists groups.. just substituting one source of proscribed behavior with another.
-
??? I think Lt Col. Dave Grossman would attribute it to denial.
If we acknowledge the existence of firearms then we must acknowledge the existence of both good and EVIL and that
firearms can be used either for good or evil. That being the case a person must be responsible for his her own conduct and prepare
for the conduct of others though they can not control it. Unfortunately the liberal mind response to this is best displayed by the photo below.
-
Look at who, besides our own subversives, have implemented arms control through the centuries and it becomes blindingly clear .
Lets list more recent examples 3, The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and communist China .
The only purpose of gun control is to enable oppression of the population by denying them the means of effective resistance.
-
Most liberal Statists might be Secularists, but that does not mean Secularists tend to be Statists or that non-Secularists tend not to be. I see a lot of conformity in non-Secularists groups.. just substituting one source of proscribed behavior with another.
Good point. Individualism/Collectivism and Secularism/Spiritualism are not bound to each other. Just from my experience, almost all of the hard core anti-gunners I've encountered seem to be Statists who are both Collectivists and Secularists. In thinking about it some more, it seems that being a Secularist or Spiritualist doesn't have as much bearing. But I've never met a Collectivist who liked a gun.
-
Look at who, besides our own subversives, have implemented arms control through the centuries and it becomes blindingly clear .
Lets list more recent examples 3, The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and communist China .
Exactly. They are all Collectivist regimes, regardless of their "right wing/left wing" ideologies. Collectivists do not tolerate challenges to State authority.
-
BTW, this series is probably the best I've seen on clearly describing the differences between Individualism and Collectivism. As you'll see, it has nothing to do with Repulican vs Democrat or even right wing vs left wing.
-
Check this out .
-
also comes from ignorance,
and most people that say they Hate guns, only here and see bad things about them from the media and movies or what they are told from there mates about them
they have not handled one before
today and tomorrow we have Schutzenfest ( 'Shooting Festival' ) run by the German club it is a popular festival with the attendance being around 20,000, there is German food, beverages ( most say it is about the festing and less about schutzen ) , dancing and music. A shooting competition also occurs.
I am there both days for the shooting as I am one of the RO's we put though around 2000 people that line up for about an hour to have a go, ( we have 15 positions to shoot from with a comp air rifles ) most have never shot before and it is a great to see the smiles on people and to there amassment it is safe and fun,
this year is the 50th anniversary.
-
also comes from ignorance,
and most people that say they Hate guns, only here and see bad things about them from the media and movies or what they are told from there mates about them
they have not handled one before
today and tomorrow we have Schutzenfest ( 'Shooting Festival' ) run by the German club it is a popular festival with the attendance being around 20,000, there is German food, beverages ( most say it is about the festing and less about schutzen ) , dancing and music. A shooting competition also occurs.
I am there both days for the shooting as I am one of the RO's we put though around 2000 people that line up for about an hour to have a go, ( we have 15 positions to shoot from with a comp air rifles ) most have never shot before and it is a great to see the smiles on people and to there amassment it is safe and fun,
this year is the 50th anniversary.
That's great the more that learn the better! Maybe oneday you will be able to let them shoot more than air guns, that will really put a smile on there face.
-
That's great the more that learn the better! Maybe oneday you will be able to let them shoot more than air guns, that will really put a smile on there face.
:) yep
however when you are in a Park in the City all SAPOL will approve is air rifle I will get a few pics and start a new thread showing the set up .
-
Agreed, PhilW! Ignorance is a powerful weapon in the hands of the gun grabbers. In the recent discussion, I know people who have either been uninterested fence sitters, or very casual gun owners, who just felt like "something" had to be done. They rightly felt awful about what happened, and rightly wanted something like that to never happen again. Unfortunately, they were manipulated by MSM(aka the Ministry of Truth, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC). They heard about these evil, scary assault rifles that are murdery and evil, and just didn't have the correct information to work from.
I guess, in short, a lot of the fear comes from ignorance coupled with a very powerful and well put together propaganda campaign. On the bright side, most fence sitters, and people who genuinely don't know any better, are fairly easily lead back to the path of what I like to call "notstupid".
-
Agreed, PhilW! Ignorance is a powerful weapon in the hands of the gun grabbers. In the recent discussion, I know people who have either been uninterested fence sitters, or very casual gun owners, who just felt like "something" had to be done. They rightly felt awful about what happened, and rightly wanted something like that to never happen again. Unfortunately, they were manipulated by MSM(aka the Ministry of Truth, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC). They heard about these evil, scary assault rifles that are murdery and evil, and just didn't have the correct information to work from.
I guess, in short, a lot of the fear comes from ignorance coupled with a very powerful and well put together propaganda campaign. On the bright side, most fence sitters, and people who genuinely don't know any better, are fairly easily lead back to the path of what I like to call "notstupid".
Really? Dude, if you think the Mitt Romney wing of the GOP is pro-gun, and Dems like Harry Reid and Max Baucus give a damn about Sarah Brady, you seriously need to pull your head out of your ass. It ain't about party. Guns are no more a partisan issue than abortion or gay rights or the drug war. If you try to make them one you'll alinate allies. There are individualists and collectivists in both parties. If you leave the party labels out of it, they will unite on either side of these fundamental issues that revolve around individual rights versus state control. We can argue over FP, healthcare, and the tax code, but when you come for my guns, or try to tell a woman she can't control her own body, or dictate who I can sleep with, or what I can ingest? Then we have issues, and party has nothing to do with it. Don't buy into the big lie that the two parties cover the spectrum of American political thought.
-
Then why is gun control , specifically another AWB a plank of the Dem party platform and opposing control is one of the few things the Republican Party is consistent about ?
-
I think that the Democrats are people who are basically cowards. They are not the hearty souls who settled this land and worked hard to make it work. They are those that followed the pioneers and freeloaded off of their accomplishments. They are a leach that freeloads off of a strong host. Hence why most of the democrat politicians are lawyers. They do not want to earn a living they just want a fast buck. They hide behind real men and women (military, and law enforcement) who scare off the evil that they deem at a threat. There are four types of people I see in this country. Sheep mostly the democrat voters. They just want to go with the flow and not make any waves and want protected. Sheepdogs those that protect what are theirs and others (military, law enforcement, people who would protect themselves). Wolves which are criminals and people that would do us harm foreign and domestic. And last but not least the scavengers, democrat politicians. Those that are too scared to face the real threats but want the honey without the danger of getting it.
-
This is a complex issue. It is related to the fact that individuals can examine the same set of facts and data and come up with different conclusions. Facts are facts but they are processed through our own experience and point for view. Now toss in power, influence and money into the pot and issues become even more convoluted.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx
-
It comes from ignorance along with pure stupidity, as well as not being able to think rationally for yourself. Not liking guns, or having no interest in guns is perfectly acceptable. But "hating" them is brought about by stupidity, and following liberal educators who don't want you to think for yourself, and form your own opinions after digesting all of the facts surrounding the issue. Just believe what they tell you. Hatred is to be leveled at ACTIONS, not something to be leveled at a piece of MACHINERY that has no will of it's own. There is no more sense in hating guns than there is hating old tires and batteries.
-
There are 2 causes for the "hatred of guns" .
One is the small group of activists working to undermine and destroy the American Republic .
The other is the mindless mass that have been indoctrinated to do as they are told, and think as they are told by the media and their betters.
You ever notice that at TEA party events, and other pro gun events the protest signs are hand lettered and seldom alike, where as at Union rallies, anti gun protests, or other Dem organized events the signs are all the same and professionally printed ?
-
... You ever notice that at TEA party events, and other pro gun events the protest signs are hand lettered and seldom alike, where as at Union rallies, anti gun protests, or other Dem organized events the signs are all the same and professionally printed ?
That's a very good point. I also think it's a matter of efficiency. When you bus people in to the event and pay them to protest, it is a lot easier to just hand them a sign and tell them what to say.
-
It comes from ignorance along with pure stupidity, as well as not being able to think rationally for yourself. Not liking guns, or having no interest in guns is perfectly acceptable. But "hating" them is brought about by stupidity, and following liberal educators who don't want you to think for yourself, and form your own opinions after digesting all of the facts surrounding the issue. Just believe what they tell you. Hatred is to be leveled at ACTIONS, not something to be leveled at a piece of MACHINERY that has no will of it's own. There is no more sense in hating guns than there is hating old tires and batteries.
+10
There are 2 causes for the "hatred of guns" .
One is the small group of activists working to undermine and destroy the American Republic .
The other is the mindless mass that have been indoctrinated to do as they are told, and think as they are told by the media and their betters.
You ever notice that at TEA party events, and other pro gun events the protest signs are hand lettered and seldom alike, where as at Union rallies, anti gun protests, or other Dem organized events the signs are all the same and professionally printed ?
Never noticed it, but you are right about that.
-
Really? Dude, if you think the Mitt Romney wing of the GOP is pro-gun, and Dems like Harry Reid and Max Baucus give a damn about Sarah Brady, you seriously need to pull your head out of your ass. It ain't about party. Guns are no more a partisan issue than abortion or gay rights or the drug war. If you try to make them one you'll alinate allies. There are individualists and collectivists in both parties. If you leave the party labels out of it, they will unite on either side of these fundamental issues that revolve around individual rights versus state control. We can argue over FP, healthcare, and the tax code, but when you come for my guns, or try to tell a woman she can't control her own body, or dictate who I can sleep with, or what I can ingest? Then we have issues, and party has nothing to do with it. Don't buy into the big lie that the two parties cover the spectrum of American political thought.
What you highlighted was "(aka the Ministry of Truth, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC)". This was an indictment of the MSM specifically, and how they are in the tank for the DNC. It was also said with tongue in cheek.
I didn't say that there aren't collectivist Republicans or individualist Democrats, that there aren't pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans, anything about abortion, drugs, healthcare, who you sleep with, or taxes. Believe me, fellow forum member, I know there is a LOT more to political philosophy than the two major parties in American politics at the moment.
To quote Dr. Evil, "Take it down a notch, Scotty". This was also, in the interests of preventing thread drift, said with tongue in cheek.
-
Guns are no more a partisan issue than abortion or gay rights or the drug war.
Come on, you can't possibly be that far off the rails? Democrats are the party of gun banning. Always have been, and always will be. You want proof? Look at all of the major gun legislation that is currently on the books. All of it comes from Democratic governed states, or else was sponsored by, and voted into law by DEMOCRATS.
The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Dodd Bill of 1968, The Brady Law of 1993, and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, Were ALL produced by DEMOCRATS. Look further at the states with the strictest gun control laws. Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, California. Every one of them is run by socialist, gun banning Democrats, and has been for years.
I'm not saying that Mitt Romney or John McCain are the most pro gun guys around. Or there are no pro gun Democrats. But the Republican Party does not support gun control as a major plank in it's platform. So even if one of their candidates introduced it, there would be no support of it in their party for it to go anywhere. This has been proven over time, so please don't tell me otherwise. Show me one major piece of gun legislation that came into being strictly because of Republicans? There isn't one.
I get so tired of hearing this same old lame crap, of how some Republican candidate is "no better" than the gun banning Democrat they oppose. IT IS THE PARTY, NOT THE CANDIDATE!.
-
Come on, you can't possibly be that far off the rails? Democrats are the party of gun banning. Always have been, and always will be. You want proof? Look at all of the major gun legislation that is currently on the books. All of it comes from Democratic governed states, or else was sponsored by, and voted into law by DEMOCRATS.
The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Dodd Bill of 1968, The Brady Law of 1993, and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, Were ALL produced by DEMOCRATS. Look further at the states with the strictest gun control laws. Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, California. Every one of them is run by socialist, gun banning Democrats, and has been for years.
I'm not saying that Mitt Romney or John McCain are the most pro gun guys around. Or there are no pro gun Democrats. But the Republican Party does not support gun control as a major plank in it's platform. So even if one of their candidates introduced it, there would be no support of it in their party for it to go anywhere. This has been proven over time, so please don't tell me otherwise. Show me one major piece of gun legislation that came into being strictly because of Republicans? There isn't one.
I get so tired of hearing this same old lame crap, of how some Republican candidate is "no better" than the gun banning Democrat they oppose. IT IS THE PARTY, NOT THE CANDIDATE!.
It's FQ you're replying to, he most definitely CAN be that far off the rails .
-
<snip>
But why do they hate guns so much and why is it that the vast majority of gun haters are liberal Statists? What is the root source of this hatred?
<snip>
I no longer care what their reasons are. I do not debate them I ridicule them loudly in public.
-
Maybe I can get this thread to drift back toward the original topic...
When I was but a lad, my best friend's dad was a retired US Army Major. He'd fought in WWII and in Korea. He checked electric sockets by putting his finger in the hole. He was a man, proven in battle, and confident in himself.
He raised his son the same confident and self-reliant way, and his kid was my pal.
He and I and our friends played at war with the Japanese, war with the Germans, cowboys and Indians (which was war with the natives). Guns were a vital part of that play.
We all carried pocket knives and we respected what they could do. Of course, that didn't stop us from playing mumbly-peg or getting the occasional cut thumb.
Most of us got BB guns around age 7, and .22s when we turned 12 or 13. We respected what those weapons could do, too.
Depending on the relative "wealth" of the families involved, when we turned 16, we might get a 30-30 or a .30-06, or maybe a shotgun if the men in the family tended to be bird hunters. My folks didn't have that kind of cash, so I depended on guns borrowed from my Uncle Jack when larger calibers were required.
Point is, that's how it went until the '60s when the socialists and commies took advantage of an unpopular war and the "make love not war" movement to make guns singularly unattractive to the up and coming generation.
I'm not sure how I managed to escape that idiocy except that I had been raised by freedom-loving parents who understood the value of defending that freedom from aggressors foreign or domestic.
I ended up volunteering for military service when some of my fellow college students headed off to Canada or joined the Quakers and became conscientious objectors.
By the time I got back to the world, John Kerry had explained to America that our military killed babies and raped women. I and my fellow vets had the joy of being called murderers and having panty-waist sissy-boys (and girls) spit at us. If we owned any guns, we kept it quiet. Looking back, I am embarrassed to say that the commies won that encounter--they made us feel a bit ashamed that we owned firearms. And it was at this time in our lives that we ended up settling down and raising kids--who probably were not introduced to guns because of our manufactured shame.
And that, I think, is where the hatred of firearms started. It was then reinforced and compounded by girly-boy TV stars like Alan Alda who starred in M.A.S.H., which may have been the only show about a war where no guns were fired. It was fueled by lefty Hollywood elitists who always know better than you do what choice you should make--and none of those choices would involve firearms. And it was cemented by the leftists realization that guns represent the power of a free people to determine how much crap they would take from the elitists.
They had to strip away all that power so no one could rebel against their Statists' agenda.
For them, and for us, it was and is a matter of self-preservation.
And that's why they hate guns, gun owners, God, religion, reason, rational thought, freedom, capitalism, and the list goes on...
Of course, this is not a detailed nor complete history of the development of gun hatred in the US of A. I left out the part about leaving God out of everything. After all, you cannot have God-given rights if there is no God, now can you? And I left out the part about the decline in morality and the dissolution of the two-parent household. Candice Bergen's character Murphy Brown having a kid out of wedlock stamped out the final shame in producing a bastard kid...
Well, it's getting late and I need to relinquish the soap box.
Stay steady and strong, my friends. Be vigilant. Keep your weapons close and loaded. Embrace family and friends who embrace freedom. With some luck, we may be able to pass our guns down to our grandkids.
Crusader Rabbit
-
Excellent commentary, CR. Thank you.
-
Come on, you can't possibly be that far off the rails? Democrats are the party of gun banning. Always have been, and always will be. You want proof? Look at all of the major gun legislation that is currently on the books. All of it comes from Democratic governed states, or else was sponsored by, and voted into law by DEMOCRATS.
The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Dodd Bill of 1968, The Brady Law of 1993, and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, Were ALL produced by DEMOCRATS. Look further at the states with the strictest gun control laws. Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, California. Every one of them is run by socialist, gun banning Democrats, and has been for years.
I'm not saying that Mitt Romney or John McCain are the most pro gun guys around. Or there are no pro gun Democrats. But the Republican Party does not support gun control as a major plank in it's platform. So even if one of their candidates introduced it, there would be no support of it in their party for it to go anywhere. This has been proven over time, so please don't tell me otherwise. Show me one major piece of gun legislation that came into being strictly because of Republicans? There isn't one.
I get so tired of hearing this same old lame crap, of how some Republican candidate is "no better" than the gun banning Democrat they oppose. IT IS THE PARTY, NOT THE CANDIDATE!.
Really? How about the NY gun ban law that was first passed by a GOP controlled Senate? Or Chris Cristie's views on guns? And then there are Michael Bloomberg's who was a a Republican and will be again if he decides to run for national office? And as for a major piece of legislation? Well, how about that the fact that that you can't own an FA fire arm made after 1986, and that's courtesy of Ronald Reagan. Questions? Comments?
FQ13
-
Really? How about the NY gun ban law that was first passed by a GOP controlled Senate? Or Chris Cristie's views on guns? And then there are Michael Bloomberg's who was a a Republican and will be again if he decides to run for national office? And as for a major piece of legislation? Well, how about that the fact that that you can't own an FA fire arm made after 1986, and that's courtesy of Ronald Reagan. Questions? Comments?
FQ13
All true. But it in fact changes nothing. Democrats are still the ones who start screaming gun control 5 minutes after the last shot is fired in all of these mass shootings. Why? Because it's the missing piece that fits into their communist political agenda. They know they can't pass total bans. So they chip away, using each and every opportunity that presents itself to do so. Sandy Hook was one of many in a long list. They did much the same after Columbine, and Virginia Tech. Dianne Feinstein herself was asked over a year ago if she would introduce another Assault Weapons Ban. Her reply at the time was, "This is not the time." She was right then. Now it is the time, and she was right there to jump all over it like stink on dog $h!t. She actually said in an interview that the legislation was all prepared, and sitting in a drawer, all ready and waiting.
This is what Democrats do. They have always done it, and they will continue to do it, because their ultimate goal is to totally disarm this country. As was said. The Democrats are control freaks. And gun control has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with a big, powerful, and CONTROLLING government. And you left out Bush 41's E.O. banning Chinese imported weapons, including the Poly Tech AK-47 Models as well as the Norinco M1-A's among them.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/does-un-arms-trade-treaty-figure-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/
How many Republicans do you hear or see speaking out in favor of this?
-
FQ uses a typical progressive debate tactic.
He tries to equate the actions of a few anomalous RINO individuals with the stated intentions of an entire party .
He is not effectively debating anything, he is simply trying to salvage something of value from his years in the socialist world of academia.
-
FQ uses a typical progressive debate tactic.
He tries to equate the actions of a few anomalous RINO individuals with the stated intentions of an entire party .
He is not effectively debating anything, he is simply trying to salvage something of value from his years in the socialist world of academia.
Yet, no matter how many times he throws the bucket down the well, it always comes up empty.
Crusader
-
FQ uses a typical progressive debate tactic.
He tries to equate the actions of a few anomalous RINO individuals with the stated intentions of an entire party .
He is not effectively debating anything, he is simply trying to salvage something of value from his years in the socialist world of academia.
Really? So Ronald Reagan, George Bush the first and George Bush the second (who wanted to extend the AWB), all three of which were GOP presidents and a GOP Governor of a major state who is considered to be a front runner for the Presidential nomination of his party are "anomalous individuals"? Give me a break Tom. I'm calling a spade a spade. If it hurts to look in the mirror its not my problem.
-
F.Q.,
Are you honestly going to sit there and try and tell us that the GOP is every bit as much of a threat to gun owners as the Democratic Party is?
-
F.Q.,
Are you honestly going to sit there and try and tell us that the GOP is every bit as much of a threat to gun owners as the Democratic Party is?
Nope. But I am trying to tell you they aren't our friends either. The last three GOP Presidents screwed us or tried to, the NY GOP Senate screwed us, and Christie, if he gets the nod will screw us. I'm saying we need to vote for the person, not the party. The platform means diddly and squat. Its the guy that casts the vote that matters.
-
Have to agree with FQ.
Being a Republican doesn't mean the politician will support gun rights...and being a Dem doesn't mean he won't.
Ohio tried for years to get a working concealed carry law and could not get it past the republican gov.
It was finally passed over his veto but full of 'poison pills'.
He was replaced by a Dem gov. who supported every pro 2A bill that was proposed. In his term the CC law was cleaned up repeatedly. Of course he supported ObamaCare and other Dem programs.
-
Being a Republican doesn't mean the politician will support gun rights...and being a Dem doesn't mean he won't.
You're not getting the point. It doesn't matter one way or the other about the candidate. You have just 2 political parties in the United States that hold power. One, the Democrats have a solid plank built into their platform that supports and promotes the strictest gun control they can possibly pass. If they could pass an outright ban, they would, and have tried to do just that many times in the past.
The Republicans overall have no such political desire or agenda. Therefore if Romney was "anti gun", which he wasn't, it really wouldn't matter because his party would not support him. So what he wanted really wouldn't matter. With Hussein it is a different story because he's got the backing of his party to push the most oppressive gun control he possibly can. He is going to attempt to do exactly that. The only thing that might save us is the fear of getting voted out if they vote for another ban. In fact it was reported tonight he and Biden are "going on the road" to promote gun control. The Democratic party is rabidly anti gun. The Republicans are not. It's as simple as that.
-
Quote from BillT:
The Democratic party is rabidly anti gun. The Republicans are not. It's as simple as that.
Not dowbn South they're not, except in black districts (and why that is defies all logic), and not out West either. It was Baucus and Tester, both Dem Senators from Montana that stopped DOD from shredding used brass and made cases available to the public. You need to understand that the Democrats pitch a pretty big tent. And now the asinine abortion wars seem to be over, some in the GOP seem to be doing the same. You have to judge the candidate. I wouldn't trust Romney (even though I voted for him) to defend my gun rights more than I would trust BO, and I'd sure as hell trust Baucus more than Olympia Snow.
-
The numbers of Pro gun dems and anti gun Rep are about the same so FQ thinks that proves his point .
He can't comprehend that they are both defying the basis of their respective parties .
With such a fat head you would think he would have more in it .
-
The numbers of Pro gun dems and anti gun Rep are about the same so FQ thinks that proves his point .
He can't comprehend that they are both defying the basis of their respective parties .
With such a fat head you would think he would have more in it .
You just can't concede the basic point, and that is that party labels are just that. They are like a a suit of clothes that can be put on and taken off at will. Look at former Republican Michael Bloomberg, who is now the biggest anti-gunner in the US, or former Dems Zell Miller, or Joe Liberman. The Party means little. The vote means everything. If you vote party line you're an idiot.
-
FQ, your problem is that you actually believe that sh!t they fed you in school.
That's why reality shocks you so .
If you had not lost the ability to think for yourself you would not have voted for Obama the first time .
You've got to be pretty freaking stupid to vote for a guy who says "America is the greatest nation on earth, we aim to change that."
The lowest scurviest Republican to ever live has one thing going for him that will get my vote .
He isn't a Democrat.
-
<snip>
The lowest scurviest Republican to ever live has one thing going for him that will get my vote .
He isn't a Democrat.
It's some kind of "clannish" or "club" deception....my guy is the good guy because I say so (because if not then I would have to admit I am wrong and my team really is not the winner I have my fanatical faith in.). I have some of that in my own family down south....and if there is ever a Zompocalypse and they knock on the door for food they'll get the same thing the other arrogant dumb asses will get, "Nothing here for you, move along. Goodbye."
Back in the late 50's through the 60's and into the 70's it was a funny thing across the table of the "country clubs"...you had one group laughing at the other group because they had deceived (nice word for politician that is really just a damned liar) a bunch of dumb asses to vote for them on the promise of something that either never was or never would be. Eventually they had to give them "a little something" and that grew until the dumb asses had their own candidate where it really grew out of control. You know...wink, wink, nudge, nudge you guys vote for us because we really don't mean it we just need the votes....nothing is going to change...really. Now wink, wink, nudge, nudge has turned the tables and is being used in opposition to what it once was....surprise, surprise, surprise.
So...for some reason(s) there are people who think they live in the 60's political environment that evaporated and remains only as a foul vapor. All I can gather is that otherwise intelligent people have too much pride and arrogance to admit they are wrong in face of overwhelming evidence. I'm supposing that was the same thing with Hitler's supporters...until the night of the Long Knives....and then he reinforced his new group of supporters in that effort which took them to a long road of ruin and resulted in horrendous American loss of life.
I don't give these people a "free pass" now and I won't later. As a society the good suffer along with idiots who drag us down the road to ruin. They built it, they own it, my family is going to have to suffer with it and so the response, "Nothing here for you, move along. Goodbye." You know...that whole shake the dust from your feet thing.
-
Thing you miss Rastus is that unless a true conservative party takes off the only way to keep dems out is by voting for a Republican, the rest are just wasted votes since they are to small, and divided to pose a realistic threat .
Ever notice the CPUSA never runs a candidate any more ?
They don't have to, they vote Democrat.
-
Thing you miss Rastus is that unless a true conservative party takes off the only way to keep dems out is by voting for a Republican, the rest are just wasted votes since they are to small, and divided to pose a realistic threat .
Ever notice the CPUSA never runs a candidate any more ?
They don't have to, they vote Democrat.
The small party that would do it right will never grow if we follow that procedure.
-
The small party that would do it right will never grow if we follow that procedure.
Republicans managed it OK in the 1850's.
-
Thing you miss Rastus is that unless a true conservative party takes off the only way to keep dems out is by voting for a Republican, the rest are just wasted votes since they are to small, and divided to pose a realistic threat .
Ever notice the CPUSA never runs a candidate any more ?
They don't have to, they vote Democrat.
Naw...I didn't really miss it....just didn't focus on the solution.
We need true conservatives...but a whole passel of Repubs are nothing more than recycled democrats...for instance our local state rep, Eddie Fields...RINO city....he has more special interests pumping him to higher and higher ranks inside RINO land then anyone before has ever attained in a few short years in Oklahoma. Fields looked me in the eye and while shaking my hand promised in front of a half a dozen others that he would never give away our riparian water rights....guess who introduced the bill. I hope the farmers who fall all over themselves defending him check out that abortion of a bill that ultimately gives it to the feds and takes it from the citizens.
The Repubs ran against their own Shaun Roberts-R here with the former mayor of a local town...first thing he (the mayor) said to me was how well he worked with the good old boy Dems in my district...I had to take a shower to get clean after talking to him.....Shaun was too conservative as a freshman state rep for them so they pulled in a new "Repub" to run against Shaun as the official candidate (unseating one of their own obviously) and pumped the Repub general funds to the new guy to unseat the conservative. Luckily, Shaun won without getting a penny from the Republican party funds...even though he was one and had unseated a Dem to get the seat to start with. There's a bit of angst in RINO land over that failure.
Another is the RINO who co-sponsored the open carry here in Oklahoma...truth is he never supported 2A and was a liberal dem in Repubs clothes to deceive the gullible to vote for him as a "conservative republican" the whole time...then the people in his district started raising hell and in fear of being thrown out two years before he could get a state retirement he co-sponsored open carry...the only good gun law he ever got on board for. I talked with him personally and the guy had great disdain for gun owners...he went with his own best self-interests.
Here's a conservative I support outside my district, Nathan Dahm, who at least right now is the real conservative deal http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/state-senator-dahm-introduces-three-gun-rights-bil/nT2F2/ (http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/state-senator-dahm-introduces-three-gun-rights-bil/nT2F2/) .
We're not going to reclaim our country by hoping to fix it from the top down...too corrupt, too hands off, too late...we have to reclaim it by starting at the lowest levels and work up. You're gonna have to start voting for Christians from time to time if you want a conservative renaissance.
-
I'll vote for a Christian if I think he will do the job, but I would not vote for Christ himself if he ran as a Democrat.
And I will not vote for some one who places his religion above logic or historic precedent .
I'm not likely to be voting for any though since most I've met are full of crap.
-
Republicans managed it OK in the 1850's.
Someone must have had the sense to vote for them or they wouldn't have.