In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Is it time to discuss Impeachment?
The second charge against Richard Nixon was his use of the IRS to bring political pressure on individual citizens.....about the same thing BO'd sdm has done....and the destruction of evidence. Is it time to begin the Impreachment process? Got my vote to start the discussion. Give the guy something to REALLY think about his last two years....your views?
Comments
Ignore Obama and he will go away.
Impeach Obama and he will become a martyr and a rallying cry against the GOP establishment.
He has abused his power, rewarded his friends and punished his enemies. He didn't bring lying, cheating and stealing into the White House, but has raised the bar above what any President in recent history done to date. He specifically has targeted what he calls the 'Negative Liberties' contained within the Constitution by Executive Order and bureaucratic fiat.
In other words, he is the very model of the modern establishment politician. He just does it totally without shame.
Even if the GOP takes the Senate in 2016 mid-terms, impeachment would be political suicide for the GOP. It would also, when Obama is exonerated, codify everything that he has done as acceptable for a President.
Extremely bad idea.
Brad Steele
Impeachment is useless.....
The South Dakota GOP passed a resolution to impeach obama.[^]
Of course, that means nothing unless Congress gets on board.[:0]
Well, conservatives control the House and after Nov I think will control the Senate so that is the first step in the process. The POTUS has violated the laws and needs to be held accountable for that IMO. I think the more we discuss his violations right and left, the more the Impeachment word is mentioned and gets his attention. Bill Clinton lost his legacy that he so valued by being impeached and the same could happen to this guy.....just can't let him think he can get away with this "stuff."
No sir, conservatives do not control the House.
+1[:)]
No sir, conservatives do not control the House.
Well, maybe not the "conservatives" that you want to control the House, but I think most neutral folks believe that the House is far more conservative than the Senate....it is all in the eye of the beholder. If you mean the Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left, including last night in MS....you are right, they are not in control but I am not talking about them....on can be a conservative and NOT be a member of either the REP party or the Tea Party.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
No sir, conservatives do not control the House.
Well, maybe not the "conservatives" that you want to control the House, but I think most neutral folks believe that the House is far more conservative than the Senate....it is all in the eye of the beholder. If you mean the Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left, including last night in MS....you are right, they are not in control but I am not talking about them....on can be a conservative and NOT be a member of either the REP party or the Tea Party.
I don't consider someone a Conservative just because they are LESS of a
Socialist/Marxist that someone else.
The Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left are a prime example of the fact that the GOP does not tolerate conservatism and works diligently at defeating candidates who display constitutional principles.
With the exception of a few whom the establishment considers to be "fringe extremists" both legislative branches are composed of big-government progressives. The only difference between the two dominant parties lies in degree.
One side works openly towards socialism while the other side sneaks around to the back door.
Neither cares one bit whether socialism works or not, all they care about is power over the people.
Well, then most neutral folks would be wrong. The belief that it is all in the eye of the beholder is also wrong. One either adheres to conservative constitutional principles or does not, regardless of who observes what.
The Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left are a prime example of the fact that the GOP does not tolerate conservatism and works diligently at defeating candidates who display constitutional principles.
With the exception of a few whom the establishment considers to be "fringe extremists" both legislative branches are composed of big-government progressives. The only difference between the two dominant parties lies in degree.
One side works openly towards socialism while the other side sneaks around to the back door.
Neither cares one bit whether socialism works or not, all they care about is power over the people.
Just the comment I would expect from the fringe...thank goodness most folks (like a LARGE majority) see through this absurdness and do the right thing when it comes time to vote. The great majority of American's can see through this lousy jargon. Hopefully conservatives will unite together to stop attacking each other and go after the real foes...the real progressive DEM's and get them out of the Senate and then the White House. Hopefully you will see the light and join us as we show them the door. Or just go pout and sit in the corner[;)]
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Well, then most neutral folks would be wrong. The belief that it is all in the eye of the beholder is also wrong. One either adheres to conservative constitutional principles or does not, regardless of who observes what.
The Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left are a prime example of the fact that the GOP does not tolerate conservatism and works diligently at defeating candidates who display constitutional principles.
With the exception of a few whom the establishment considers to be "fringe extremists" both legislative branches are composed of big-government progressives. The only difference between the two dominant parties lies in degree.
One side works openly towards socialism while the other side sneaks around to the back door.
Neither cares one bit whether socialism works or not, all they care about is power over the people.
Just the comment I would expect from the fringe...thank goodness most folks (like a LARGE majority) see through this absurdness and do the right thing when it comes time to vote. The great majority of American's can see through this lousy jargon. Hopefully conservatives will unite together to stop attacking each other and go after the real foes...the real progressive DEM's and get them out of the Senate and then the White House. Hopefully you will see the light and join us as we show them the door. Or just go pout and sit in the corner[;)]
...and the great majority of Americans voted the fraud in for a second term....didn't they Gary?[:o)]
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Well, then most neutral folks would be wrong. The belief that it is all in the eye of the beholder is also wrong. One either adheres to conservative constitutional principles or does not, regardless of who observes what.
The Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left are a prime example of the fact that the GOP does not tolerate conservatism and works diligently at defeating candidates who display constitutional principles.
With the exception of a few whom the establishment considers to be "fringe extremists" both legislative branches are composed of big-government progressives. The only difference between the two dominant parties lies in degree.
One side works openly towards socialism while the other side sneaks around to the back door.
Neither cares one bit whether socialism works or not, all they care about is power over the people.
Just the comment I would expect from the fringe...thank goodness most folks (like a LARGE majority) see through this absurdness and do the right thing when it comes time to vote. The great majority of American's can see through this lousy jargon. Hopefully conservatives will unite together to stop attacking each other and go after the real foes...the real progressive DEM's and get them out of the Senate and then the White House. Hopefully you will see the light and join us as we show them the door. Or just go pout and sit in the corner[;)]
Straight from the mouth of an admitted Democrat. Unfortunately, the LARGE majority of people never see anything other than what the TV tells them, and only a small minority of them vote. The President was elected by approximately 60 million voters, many of whom voted more than once, were deceased, or appeared out of thin air. That's less than 20% of the population.
Most folks NEVER do the right thing when it comes time to vote - that's where the problem lies.
Go ahead and refuse to see the light, keep abandoning principle to maintain the status quo, and continue to do the wrong thing, keep the John McCains and Mitch McConnels firmly in control, and sail over the edge with the rest of the lemmings.
BTW, I'd think that someone with a doctorate would know better than to change what should be the plural form of a countable noun into its possessive form.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Well, then most neutral folks would be wrong. The belief that it is all in the eye of the beholder is also wrong. One either adheres to conservative constitutional principles or does not, regardless of who observes what.
The Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left are a prime example of the fact that the GOP does not tolerate conservatism and works diligently at defeating candidates who display constitutional principles.
With the exception of a few whom the establishment considers to be "fringe extremists" both legislative branches are composed of big-government progressives. The only difference between the two dominant parties lies in degree.
One side works openly towards socialism while the other side sneaks around to the back door.
Neither cares one bit whether socialism works or not, all they care about is power over the people.
Just the comment I would expect from the fringe...thank goodness most folks (like a LARGE majority) see through this absurdness and do the right thing when it comes time to vote. The great majority of American's can see through this lousy jargon. Hopefully conservatives will unite together to stop attacking each other and go after the real foes...the real progressive DEM's and get them out of the Senate and then the White House. Hopefully you will see the light and join us as we show them the door. Or just go pout and sit in the corner[;)]
If anyone is out on the fringe Gary, it has to be you. The vast majority of the voting public never do the right thing, they do what's expedient. They can't be bothered, there isn't enough time to research anything let alone have an honest discussion. Many people voted for Oblabber simply because they thought he was cool, it didn't make any difference that he had no record to speak of let alone stand on. That he's spent millions of taxpayer dollars hiding his past by having his records sealed. WE WERE GOING TO GET "HOPE AND CHANGE"!! Not working out too well now is it.
There are those who are going to vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman. It doesn't matter that she has no record of accomplishment as either a senator or as secretary of state. She's a woman and it's her time as numerous bumper stickers state.
You either discount or disregard the role of the media in all of this. To say that the media is in the pocket of the left would be a vast understatement and to discount it's manipulation of the public by controlling what it allows to be seen is disingenuous at best and extremely dangerous at worst.
We are told that this is going to be the most important election cycle ever. Sadly that's the same line political hacks and the media have been peddling for the past 30-40 years and we as a country still seem to be sliding ever further down the crapper.
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Well, then most neutral folks would be wrong. The belief that it is all in the eye of the beholder is also wrong. One either adheres to conservative constitutional principles or does not, regardless of who observes what.
The Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left are a prime example of the fact that the GOP does not tolerate conservatism and works diligently at defeating candidates who display constitutional principles.
With the exception of a few whom the establishment considers to be "fringe extremists" both legislative branches are composed of big-government progressives. The only difference between the two dominant parties lies in degree.
One side works openly towards socialism while the other side sneaks around to the back door.
Neither cares one bit whether socialism works or not, all they care about is power over the people.
Just the comment I would expect from the fringe...thank goodness most folks (like a LARGE majority) see through this absurdness and do the right thing when it comes time to vote. The great majority of American's can see through this lousy jargon. Hopefully conservatives will unite together to stop attacking each other and go after the real foes...the real progressive DEM's and get them out of the Senate and then the White House. Hopefully you will see the light and join us as we show them the door. Or just go pout and sit in the corner[;)]
...and the great majority of Americans voted the fraud in for a second term....didn't they Gary?[:o)]
Naw, he won 53-47 and my conscience is clear. If Romney had received the support from conservatives that he needed, the result would have been different. I think most reasonable folks would prefer Romney to the present POTUS but since many REP supporters stayed home, he lost. And look at what we got. Hopefully the same thing won't happen in 2016.
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Well, then most neutral folks would be wrong. The belief that it is all in the eye of the beholder is also wrong. One either adheres to conservative constitutional principles or does not, regardless of who observes what.
The Tea Party guys who have fallen right and left are a prime example of the fact that the GOP does not tolerate conservatism and works diligently at defeating candidates who display constitutional principles.
With the exception of a few whom the establishment considers to be "fringe extremists" both legislative branches are composed of big-government progressives. The only difference between the two dominant parties lies in degree.
One side works openly towards socialism while the other side sneaks around to the back door.
Neither cares one bit whether socialism works or not, all they care about is power over the people.
Just the comment I would expect from the fringe...thank goodness most folks (like a LARGE majority) see through this absurdness and do the right thing when it comes time to vote. The great majority of American's can see through this lousy jargon. Hopefully conservatives will unite together to stop attacking each other and go after the real foes...the real progressive DEM's and get them out of the Senate and then the White House. Hopefully you will see the light and join us as we show them the door. Or just go pout and sit in the corner[;)]
Straight from the mouth of an admitted Democrat. Unfortunately, the LARGE majority of people never see anything other than what the TV tells them, and only a small minority of them vote. The President was elected by approximately 60 million voters, many of whom voted more than once, were deceased, or appeared out of thin air. That's less than 20% of the population.
Most folks NEVER do the right thing when it comes time to vote - that's where the problem lies.
Go ahead and refuse to see the light, keep abandoning principle to maintain the status quo, and continue to do the wrong thing, keep the John McCains and Mitch McConnels firmly in control, and sail over the edge with the rest of the lemmings.
BTW, I'd think that someone with a doctorate would know better than to change what should be the plural form of a countable noun into its possessive form.
You dismiss the great majority of American voters and only you know the "right way." What a hoot. Fortunately the majority of American voters are smarter than what you think....and it was your kind of thinking that stayed away from Romney last election and we got what we got. We need to stop attacking each other and join hands to get the REAL enemy out of power...the LIB DEM's. That you can't see that, along with a few others in this thread, says a lot about what you DON'T know.
Naw, he won 53-47 and my conscience is clear. If Romney had received the support from conservatives that he needed, the result would have been different. I think most reasonable folks would prefer Romney to the present POTUS but since many REP supporters stayed home, he lost. And look at what we got. Hopefully the same thing won't happen in 2016.
Not that I am a one-issue voter, but after Sandy Hook our 2nd Amendment Rights were safer with Obama and an obstructionist House than we would have been had Romney won. Romney would have, like he did in MA, felt the pressure to do something reasonable and responsible to better control access to firearms, particularly ARs and AKs.
Hopefully the GOP Leadership decides to get behind someone who believes in individual liberty this time around. If they do I will support them. If they do not, I will oppose them again.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Naw, he won 53-47 and my conscience is clear. If Romney had received the support from conservatives that he needed, the result would have been different. I think most reasonable folks would prefer Romney to the present POTUS but since many REP supporters stayed home, he lost. And look at what we got. Hopefully the same thing won't happen in 2016.
Not that I am a one-issue voter, but after Sandy Hook our 2nd Amendment Rights were safer with Obama and an obstructionist House than we would have been had Romney won. Romney would have, like he did in MA, felt the pressure to do something reasonable and responsible to better control access to firearms, particularly ARs and AKs.
Hopefully the GOP Leadership decides to get behind someone who believes in individual liberty this time around. If they do I will support them. If they do not, I will oppose them again.
Don...wonderful....and look what we got...and what was given to us by conservatives who stayed home and become "indirect Obama supporters." This decision does not further the conservative cause IMO and will be helpful to Hillary if she decides to run. We need all the conservative hands on deck in 2016...not sitting home and pouting.
This decision does not further the conservative cause IMO and will be helpful to Hillary if she decides to run. We need all the conservative hands on deck in 2016...not sitting home and pouting.
Like the nice (D) voters did for us by assuring a Thad victory in Mississippi? You know the Thad that goes along with the Elite to enrichen himself, the tottering old fool, Thad.
No thanks, I will vote conscience not party. The Republican party has been shunned from my home and mind as the reprehensible scum they are. They are WORSE than the (D) party.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Naw, he won 53-47 and my conscience is clear. If Romney had received the support from conservatives that he needed, the result would have been different. I think most reasonable folks would prefer Romney to the present POTUS but since many REP supporters stayed home, he lost. And look at what we got. Hopefully the same thing won't happen in 2016.
Not that I am a one-issue voter, but after Sandy Hook our 2nd Amendment Rights were safer with Obama and an obstructionist House than we would have been had Romney won. Romney would have, like he did in MA, felt the pressure to do something reasonable and responsible to better control access to firearms, particularly ARs and AKs.
Hopefully the GOP Leadership decides to get behind someone who believes in individual liberty this time around. If they do I will support them. If they do not, I will oppose them again.
Don...wonderful....and look what we got...and what was given to us by conservatives who stayed home and become "indirect Obama supporters." This decision does not further the conservative cause IMO and will be helpful to Hillary if she decides to run. We need all the conservative hands on deck in 2016...not sitting home and pouting.
As noted, Gary, if the GOP puts up a person who respects personal liberty and the Constitutional limitations placed upon Government, I will the first in line to vote for him.
The fact that the party leadership is considering big government politicians like Christy tells me that there is little chance that I have to line up.
The U.S.A. will survive a couple of decades of leftist Governments as the Liberty-minded continue to grow in numbers. I will not survive if we continue the big government collectivist mind set that is firmly entrenched in the leadership of both parties. If the GOP has to die in the near-term so that my country can be saved in the long-term, so be it.
Just to be clear, Gary. I have no doubt that my 2nd Amendment Rights are less intruded upon today than they would have been had Romney won. If my write in vote contributed to that, I am very happy with what I did.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Naw, he won 53-47 and my conscience is clear. If Romney had received the support from conservatives that he needed, the result would have been different. I think most reasonable folks would prefer Romney to the present POTUS but since many REP supporters stayed home, he lost. And look at what we got. Hopefully the same thing won't happen in 2016.
Not that I am a one-issue voter, but after Sandy Hook our 2nd Amendment Rights were safer with Obama and an obstructionist House than we would have been had Romney won. Romney would have, like he did in MA, felt the pressure to do something reasonable and responsible to better control access to firearms, particularly ARs and AKs.
Hopefully the GOP Leadership decides to get behind someone who believes in individual liberty this time around. If they do I will support them. If they do not, I will oppose them again.
Don...wonderful....and look what we got...and what was given to us by conservatives who stayed home and become "indirect Obama supporters." This decision does not further the conservative cause IMO and will be helpful to Hillary if she decides to run. We need all the conservative hands on deck in 2016...not sitting home and pouting.
As noted, Gary, if the GOP puts up a person who respects personal liberty and the Constitutional limitations placed upon Government, I will the first in line to vote for him.
The fact that the party leadership is considering big government politicians like Christy tells me that there is little chance that I have to line up.
The U.S.A. will survive a couple of decades of leftist Governments as the Liberty-minded continue to grow in numbers. I will not survive if we continue the big government collectivist mind set that is firmly entrenched in the leadership of both parties. If the GOP has to die in the near-term so that my country can be saved in the long-term, so be it.
Just to be clear, Gary. I have no doubt that my 2nd Amendment Rights are less intruded upon today than they would have been had Romney won. If my write in vote contributed to that, I am very happy with what I did.
My sentiments also...
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Naw, he won 53-47 and my conscience is clear. If Romney had received the support from conservatives that he needed, the result would have been different. I think most reasonable folks would prefer Romney to the present POTUS but since many REP supporters stayed home, he lost. And look at what we got. Hopefully the same thing won't happen in 2016.
Not that I am a one-issue voter, but after Sandy Hook our 2nd Amendment Rights were safer with Obama and an obstructionist House than we would have been had Romney won. Romney would have, like he did in MA, felt the pressure to do something reasonable and responsible to better control access to firearms, particularly ARs and AKs.
Hopefully the GOP Leadership decides to get behind someone who believes in individual liberty this time around. If they do I will support them. If they do not, I will oppose them again.
Don...wonderful....and look what we got...and what was given to us by conservatives who stayed home and become "indirect Obama supporters." This decision does not further the conservative cause IMO and will be helpful to Hillary if she decides to run. We need all the conservative hands on deck in 2016...not sitting home and pouting.
As noted, Gary, if the GOP puts up a person who respects personal liberty and the Constitutional limitations placed upon Government, I will the first in line to vote for him.
The fact that the party leadership is considering big government politicians like Christy tells me that there is little chance that I have to line up.
The U.S.A. will survive a couple of decades of leftist Governments as the Liberty-minded continue to grow in numbers. I will not survive if we continue the big government collectivist mind set that is firmly entrenched in the leadership of both parties. If the GOP has to die in the near-term so that my country can be saved in the long-term, so be it.
Just to be clear, Gary. I have no doubt that my 2nd Amendment Rights are less intruded upon today than they would have been had Romney won. If my write in vote contributed to that, I am very happy with what I did.
My sentiments also...
Don....you and pwillie are convinced that by not voting for Romney you did the right thing by indirectly giving us what we got now. And you use as your argument his 2nd Amendment views....which, even if you are correct, would have been blocked by the House. And if I remember correctly that during the campaign runup Romney, when asked about his 2nd Amendment views, said nothing about restricting our rights. In reality, the power to restrict our gun rights is at the state level rather than the national level....the DEM gov's wield more power now that does the POTUS. And in just about every other domain Romney would have been so much better than what we ended up with. Same with McCain in the previous election IMO. So you indirectly supported the election of what we got on the "thought" that what the alternative MIGHT DO was worse. Hard to believe but I know that you are convinced that you are right....hopefully you will see the light in 2016 and join us to elect a conservative POTUS and not indirectly support his opponent by wasting your vote. We need all conservative hands on deck to make sure that Hillary or someone like her who is a REAL threat is not in the top job. Let's link arms to make sure that does not happen...we have eight years of damage to the US by indirectly supporting non-conservative LIB progressives. They just love it when we fight among ourselves....we are smarter than that..........I hope!
You continue to characterize the GOP establishment as being conservative, when nothing could be farther from the truth. You call conservatives the "fringe" and agree with the GOP's suppression of their ideas. You ignore the fact that the Tea Party, an organization that thinks outside the box, that encourages the conservative principles that the country was founded upon, is a valid entity.
You claim that neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney support gun control, when the fact is that both openly support banning semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines; both support elimination of personal sales of firearms between individuals without background checks for indirect registration with the federal government.
You call yourself a "blue dog" "conservative" Democrat. No sale. This is not 1965 and you are no Zell Miller.
Gary, you are admittedly a Democrat, and everything you have posted here continues to support the Democrat agenda perfectly - ensure that progressives maintain their power; make sure that "moderate," Republicans who "reach across the aisle in bi-partisan fashion" continue to enact ever-increasing government control; ridicule and marginalize any who support conservative constitutional principles.
You continue to characterize the GOP establishment as being conservative, when nothing could be farther from the truth. You call conservatives the "fringe" and agree with the GOP's suppression of their ideas. You ignore the fact that the Tea Party, an organization that thinks outside the box, that encourages the conservative principles that the country was founded upon, is a valid entity.
You claim that neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney support gun control, when the fact is that both openly support banning semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines; both support elimination of personal sales of firearms between individuals without background checks for indirect registration with the federal government.
You call yourself a "blue dog" "conservative" Democrat. No sale. This is not 1965 and you are no Zell Miller.
rocklobster.....you are right, I am not a fringe right conservative who supports losing candidates and works indirectly to see the progressive LIB's are elected to national office. Right, I am not one of your guys who post here. What I am is a conservative WV DEM who loved Ronnie R and his idea to take 80% rather than indirectly supporting the other side by wasting votes. I want to see a conservative Senate and a conservative in the White House and will vote that way as I have done since 1976. I refuse to throw my vote away voting for some absurd candidate who has no chance. Don't put words in my mouth (or type) about gun control with McCain and Romney...heck, we don't know what they would have done as they were not elected....but we do know what your (with your indirect support) guy, the present POTUS tried to do and didn't get away with it. I get it that you guys on this thread have a litmus test and will only take 100% and no compromise....I get it...do you get that your position has meant that we got what we got in the White House right now? We need tow work together rather than banging each other to make sure that Hillary or someone like her does not get into the White House in 2016. Keep your eye on the prize![:)]
quote:What I am is a conservative WV DEM who loved Ronnie R and his idea to take 80% rather than indirectly supporting the other side by wasting votes."Conservative DEM" is an oxymoron. Reagan spoke well and did some positive things for the country, but was a free-spending advocate of gun control.
quote:I want to see a conservative Senate and a conservative in the White House and will vote that way as I have done since 1976.Yet you dismiss conservative candidates and say that voting for them is "throwing votes away," while blindly clinging to the idea that the establishment GOP is conservative.
quote:I refuse to throw my vote away voting for some absurd candidate who has no chance.See response (1) above.
quote:Don't put words in my mouth (or type) about gun control with McCain and Romney.I was merely repeating their words.
quote:...do you get that your position has meant that we got what we got in the White House right now?I get that, after seeing the results of such over the past five decades, I have "held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils" for the last time. I will never abandon my principles again.
quote:We need tow work together rather than banging each other to make sure that Hillary or someone like her does not get into the White House in 2016.Someone like Hillary Clinton has been in the White House since Woodrow Wilson, with very few exceptions.
quote:Keep your eye on the prize!More of the same is no prize.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Gary, you are admittedly a Democrat, and everything you have posted here continues to support the Democrat agenda perfectly - ensure that progressives maintain their power; make sure that "moderate," Republicans who "reach across the aisle in bi-partisan fashion" continue to enact ever-increasing government control; ridicule and marginalize any who support conservative constitutional principles.
You continue to characterize the GOP establishment as being conservative, when nothing could be farther from the truth. You call conservatives the "fringe" and agree with the GOP's suppression of their ideas. You ignore the fact that the Tea Party, an organization that thinks outside the box, that encourages the conservative principles that the country was founded upon, is a valid entity.
You claim that neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney support gun control, when the fact is that both openly support banning semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines; both support elimination of personal sales of firearms between individuals without background checks for indirect registration with the federal government.
You call yourself a "blue dog" "conservative" Democrat. No sale. This is not 1965 and you are no Zell Miller.
rocklobster.....you are right, I am not a fringe right conservative who supports losing candidates and works indirectly to see the progressive LIB's are elected to national office. Right, I am not one of your guys who post here. What I am is a conservative WV DEM who loved Ronnie R and his idea to take 80% rather than indirectly supporting the other side by wasting votes. I want to see a conservative Senate and a conservative in the White House and will vote that way as I have done since 1976. I refuse to throw my vote away voting for some absurd candidate who has no chance. Don't put words in my mouth (or type) about gun control with McCain and Romney...heck, we don't know what they would have done as they were not elected....but we do know what your (with your indirect support) guy, the present POTUS tried to do and didn't get away with it. I get it that you guys on this thread have a litmus test and will only take 100% and no compromise....I get it...do you get that your position has meant that we got what we got in the White House right now? We need tow work together rather than banging each other to make sure that Hillary or someone like her does not get into the White House in 2016. Keep your eye on the prize![:)]
Responding to this reminds me of the last words of JWBooth......"Useless....Useless." I learned a long time ago that it is best to deal with folks who have some common sense, want to get things done, and have a positive view. Being negative, throwing votes away, and constantly looking for the "losing" way is not the way to go in my book. I just hope enough likeminded folks who call themselves conservative can link arms in the fall and get the DEM's out of control in the Senate and then do the same in the fall of 2016 and get a conservative in the White House. I guess we will have to do it without yours and several others in this thread. Back to the point, I think impeaching a few of the bums presently in power will help get their attention. Could start with Holder, or maybe the head of the IRS or Lois Lerner. One possibility is to get the Senate in 2014 and go for POTUS! Not out of the realm of believability.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Gary, you are admittedly a Democrat, and everything you have posted here continues to support the Democrat agenda perfectly - ensure that progressives maintain their power; make sure that "moderate," Republicans who "reach across the aisle in bi-partisan fashion" continue to enact ever-increasing government control; ridicule and marginalize any who support conservative constitutional principles.
You continue to characterize the GOP establishment as being conservative, when nothing could be farther from the truth. You call conservatives the "fringe" and agree with the GOP's suppression of their ideas. You ignore the fact that the Tea Party, an organization that thinks outside the box, that encourages the conservative principles that the country was founded upon, is a valid entity.
You claim that neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney support gun control, when the fact is that both openly support banning semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines; both support elimination of personal sales of firearms between individuals without background checks for indirect registration with the federal government.
You call yourself a "blue dog" "conservative" Democrat. No sale. This is not 1965 and you are no Zell Miller.
rocklobster.....you are right, I am not a fringe right conservative who supports losing candidates and works indirectly to see the progressive LIB's are elected to national office. Right, I am not one of your guys who post here. What I am is a conservative WV DEM who loved Ronnie R and his idea to take 80% rather than indirectly supporting the other side by wasting votes. I want to see a conservative Senate and a conservative in the White House and will vote that way as I have done since 1976. I refuse to throw my vote away voting for some absurd candidate who has no chance. Don't put words in my mouth (or type) about gun control with McCain and Romney...heck, we don't know what they would have done as they were not elected....but we do know what your (with your indirect support) guy, the present POTUS tried to do and didn't get away with it. I get it that you guys on this thread have a litmus test and will only take 100% and no compromise....I get it...do you get that your position has meant that we got what we got in the White House right now? We need tow work together rather than banging each other to make sure that Hillary or someone like her does not get into the White House in 2016. Keep your eye on the prize![:)]
OK Gary, please tell us where you see enough is enough when giving in a little results in losing a lot. Reagan took automatic firearms out FOREVER with his compromise ban, Ronnie lost NOTHING you were stripped of rights, your great-great grandchildren lost. How far back do you have to go to say nope, not again, no more? How far towards socialism/Marxism will you go? Where is the line for you Gary?
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Naw, he won 53-47 and my conscience is clear. If Romney had received the support from conservatives that he needed, the result would have been different. I think most reasonable folks would prefer Romney to the present POTUS but since many REP supporters stayed home, he lost. And look at what we got. Hopefully the same thing won't happen in 2016.
Not that I am a one-issue voter, but after Sandy Hook our 2nd Amendment Rights were safer with Obama and an obstructionist House than we would have been had Romney won. Romney would have, like he did in MA, felt the pressure to do something reasonable and responsible to better control access to firearms, particularly ARs and AKs.
Hopefully the GOP Leadership decides to get behind someone who believes in individual liberty this time around. If they do I will support them. If they do not, I will oppose them again.
Don...wonderful....and look what we got...and what was given to us by conservatives who stayed home and become "indirect Obama supporters." This decision does not further the conservative cause IMO and will be helpful to Hillary if she decides to run. We need all the conservative hands on deck in 2016...not sitting home and pouting.
As noted, Gary, if the GOP puts up a person who respects personal liberty and the Constitutional limitations placed upon Government, I will the first in line to vote for him.
The fact that the party leadership is considering big government politicians like Christy tells me that there is little chance that I have to line up.
The U.S.A. will survive a couple of decades of leftist Governments as the Liberty-minded continue to grow in numbers. I will not survive if we continue the big government collectivist mind set that is firmly entrenched in the leadership of both parties. If the GOP has to die in the near-term so that my country can be saved in the long-term, so be it.
Just to be clear, Gary. I have no doubt that my 2nd Amendment Rights are less intruded upon today than they would have been had Romney won. If my write in vote contributed to that, I am very happy with what I did.
My sentiments also...
Don....you and pwillie are convinced that by not voting for Romney you did the right thing by indirectly giving us what we got now. And you use as your argument his 2nd Amendment views....which, even if you are correct, would have been blocked by the House. And if I remember correctly that during the campaign runup Romney, when asked about his 2nd Amendment views, said nothing about restricting our rights. In reality, the power to restrict our gun rights is at the state level rather than the national level....the DEM gov's wield more power now that does the POTUS. And in just about every other domain Romney would have been so much better than what we ended up with. Same with McCain in the previous election IMO. So you indirectly supported the election of what we got on the "thought" that what the alternative MIGHT DO was worse. Hard to believe but I know that you are convinced that you are right....hopefully you will see the light in 2016 and join us to elect a conservative POTUS and not indirectly support his opponent by wasting your vote. We need all conservative hands on deck to make sure that Hillary or someone like her who is a REAL threat is not in the top job. Let's link arms to make sure that does not happen...we have eight years of damage to the US by indirectly supporting non-conservative LIB progressives. They just love it when we fight among ourselves....we are smarter than that..........I hope!
I agree with everything you have stated here, EXECPT......
"In reality, the power to restrict our gun rights is at the state level rather than the national level...."
The power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms only exists because of the "Balance" in the court system.
Who really thinks that in 1791 the 2nd amendment would have been accepted if even implied much less stated as I have below.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government. The right of infringement is reserved for the respective States.[:D]
Don....you and pwillie are convinced that by not voting for Romney you did the right thing by indirectly giving us what we got now. And you use as your argument his 2nd Amendment views....which, even if you are correct, would have been blocked by the House. And if I remember correctly that during the campaign runup Romney, when asked about his 2nd Amendment views, said nothing about restricting our rights. In reality, the power to restrict our gun rights is at the state level rather than the national level....the DEM gov's wield more power now that does the POTUS. And in just about every other domain Romney would have been so much better than what we ended up with. Same with McCain in the previous election IMO. So you indirectly supported the election of what we got on the "thought" that what the alternative MIGHT DO was worse. Hard to believe but I know that you are convinced that you are right....hopefully you will see the light in 2016 and join us to elect a conservative POTUS and not indirectly support his opponent by wasting your vote. We need all conservative hands on deck to make sure that Hillary or someone like her who is a REAL threat is not in the top job. Let's link arms to make sure that does not happen...we have eight years of damage to the US by indirectly supporting non-conservative LIB progressives. They just love it when we fight among ourselves....we are smarter than that..........I hope!
I don't think you get it, Gary.
What I am saying is that the neo-cons in the House would not have obstructed a Romney plea for 'common sense' gun control.
My gut tells me that had Romney won, Sandy Hook would have resulted in a federally mandated Universal Background Check law. It has been the position of every mainstream candidate for decades.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Gary, you are admittedly a Democrat, and everything you have posted here continues to support the Democrat agenda perfectly - ensure that progressives maintain their power; make sure that "moderate," Republicans who "reach across the aisle in bi-partisan fashion" continue to enact ever-increasing government control; ridicule and marginalize any who support conservative constitutional principles.
You continue to characterize the GOP establishment as being conservative, when nothing could be farther from the truth. You call conservatives the "fringe" and agree with the GOP's suppression of their ideas. You ignore the fact that the Tea Party, an organization that thinks outside the box, that encourages the conservative principles that the country was founded upon, is a valid entity.
You claim that neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney support gun control, when the fact is that both openly support banning semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines; both support elimination of personal sales of firearms between individuals without background checks for indirect registration with the federal government.
You call yourself a "blue dog" "conservative" Democrat. No sale. This is not 1965 and you are no Zell Miller.
rocklobster.....you are right, I am not a fringe right conservative who supports losing candidates and works indirectly to see the progressive LIB's are elected to national office. Right, I am not one of your guys who post here. What I am is a conservative WV DEM who loved Ronnie R and his idea to take 80% rather than indirectly supporting the other side by wasting votes. I want to see a conservative Senate and a conservative in the White House and will vote that way as I have done since 1976. I refuse to throw my vote away voting for some absurd candidate who has no chance. Don't put words in my mouth (or type) about gun control with McCain and Romney...heck, we don't know what they would have done as they were not elected....but we do know what your (with your indirect support) guy, the present POTUS tried to do and didn't get away with it. I get it that you guys on this thread have a litmus test and will only take 100% and no compromise....I get it...do you get that your position has meant that we got what we got in the White House right now? We need tow work together rather than banging each other to make sure that Hillary or someone like her does not get into the White House in 2016. Keep your eye on the prize![:)]
OK Gary, please tell us where you see enough is enough when giving in a little results in losing a lot. Reagan took automatic firearms out FOREVER with his compromise ban, Ronnie lost NOTHING you were stripped of rights, your great-great grandchildren lost. How far back do you have to go to say nope, not again, no more? How far towards socialism/Marxism will you go? Where is the line for you Gary?
HUH? Where did RR "..took automatic firearms out FOREVER...? Class III gives one the right for fully automatic...right? Or are a lot of my friends braking the law? Come on. And stop with the absurd "socialism/Marxism.." crap. Do you know that if you appeared in a meeting in my area you would be laughed out of the room? In most places in this country your views are about two steps near Attila the Hun. Let's stop with the loony statements and work together to get the real enemy out of power...the LIB DEM's....they are the foes we should be linking arms against, not each other.
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Don....you and pwillie are convinced that by not voting for Romney you did the right thing by indirectly giving us what we got now. And you use as your argument his 2nd Amendment views....which, even if you are correct, would have been blocked by the House. And if I remember correctly that during the campaign runup Romney, when asked about his 2nd Amendment views, said nothing about restricting our rights. In reality, the power to restrict our gun rights is at the state level rather than the national level....the DEM gov's wield more power now that does the POTUS. And in just about every other domain Romney would have been so much better than what we ended up with. Same with McCain in the previous election IMO. So you indirectly supported the election of what we got on the "thought" that what the alternative MIGHT DO was worse. Hard to believe but I know that you are convinced that you are right....hopefully you will see the light in 2016 and join us to elect a conservative POTUS and not indirectly support his opponent by wasting your vote. We need all conservative hands on deck to make sure that Hillary or someone like her who is a REAL threat is not in the top job. Let's link arms to make sure that does not happen...we have eight years of damage to the US by indirectly supporting non-conservative LIB progressives. They just love it when we fight among ourselves....we are smarter than that..........I hope!
I don't think you get it, Gary.
What I am saying is that the neo-cons in the House would not have obstructed a Romney plea for 'common sense' gun control.
My gut tells me that had Romney won, Sandy Hook would have resulted in a federally mandated Universal Background Check law. It has been the position of every mainstream candidate for decades.
Don....what "I get" is what I got..........BO as president when many conservatives like yourself either stayed home or threw their votes away. You are guessing about Sandy Hook and what would have happened under a Romney presidency. And a bad guess, in my view, at that. The most we would have got on gun issues is what we got.....nothing. The other thing we would have (now my guess) had is a businessman running the government rather than a community organizer. A proven businessman at the helm vs. a man who has led nothing but a door knocking campaign to sign petitions for food stamps and such. Why can't we all just join hands against the LIB's who are the real foes and get them out of power, stating with the Senate in Nov and the White House in 2016 and get this country back on track rather than backbiting each other? Seems simple to me. We are our own worst enemy IMO...and they love it
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Gary, you are admittedly a Democrat, and everything you have posted here continues to support the Democrat agenda perfectly - ensure that progressives maintain their power; make sure that "moderate," Republicans who "reach across the aisle in bi-partisan fashion" continue to enact ever-increasing government control; ridicule and marginalize any who support conservative constitutional principles.
You continue to characterize the GOP establishment as being conservative, when nothing could be farther from the truth. You call conservatives the "fringe" and agree with the GOP's suppression of their ideas. You ignore the fact that the Tea Party, an organization that thinks outside the box, that encourages the conservative principles that the country was founded upon, is a valid entity.
You claim that neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney support gun control, when the fact is that both openly support banning semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines; both support elimination of personal sales of firearms between individuals without background checks for indirect registration with the federal government.
You call yourself a "blue dog" "conservative" Democrat. No sale. This is not 1965 and you are no Zell Miller.
rocklobster.....you are right, I am not a fringe right conservative who supports losing candidates and works indirectly to see the progressive LIB's are elected to national office. Right, I am not one of your guys who post here. What I am is a conservative WV DEM who loved Ronnie R and his idea to take 80% rather than indirectly supporting the other side by wasting votes. I want to see a conservative Senate and a conservative in the White House and will vote that way as I have done since 1976. I refuse to throw my vote away voting for some absurd candidate who has no chance. Don't put words in my mouth (or type) about gun control with McCain and Romney...heck, we don't know what they would have done as they were not elected....but we do know what your (with your indirect support) guy, the present POTUS tried to do and didn't get away with it. I get it that you guys on this thread have a litmus test and will only take 100% and no compromise....I get it...do you get that your position has meant that we got what we got in the White House right now? We need tow work together rather than banging each other to make sure that Hillary or someone like her does not get into the White House in 2016. Keep your eye on the prize![:)]
OK Gary, please tell us where you see enough is enough when giving in a little results in losing a lot. Reagan took automatic firearms out FOREVER with his compromise ban, Ronnie lost NOTHING you were stripped of rights, your great-great grandchildren lost. How far back do you have to go to say nope, not again, no more? How far towards socialism/Marxism will you go? Where is the line for you Gary?
HUH? Where did RR "..took automatic firearms out FOREVER...? Class III gives one the right for fully automatic...right? Or are a lot of my friends braking the law? Come on. And stop with the absurd "socialism/Marxism.." crap. Do you know that if you appeared in a meeting in my area you would be laughed out of the room? In most places in this country your views are about two steps near Attila the Hun. Let's stop with the loony statements and work together to get the real enemy out of power...the LIB DEM's....they are the foes we should be linking arms against, not each other.
The dem's slipped in the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA which ended any future production of class III weapons for private ownership. Only those weapons manufactured prior to 1986 are allowed. Reagan signed it into law, he didn't veto it or send it back to congress to have it fixed. So king Ronnie wasn't all that much of a defender of the 2nd Amendment.
....appeared in your area? Del...is your area.....how many TP members in your state?...watch your spelling Professor...LOL!...Take a midol and come back tomorrow...[:o)]
pwillie...actually, quite a few in Sussex Co DE and some up north in Kent Co. They tried to defeat a local referendum for a new ele school in my school district but we beat them back and got the school approved. They did kill a new school referendum in Milford for a much needed MS to replace the decaying old school. The TP in DE is run from upstate in Bear and has been successful on several fronts, usually fighting against needed school buildings and current op referenda but my area is pro-school and we have effective school leaders so we are able to beat them back. They are mostly very negative, anti-school, older white folks but in my area of DE the postive, pro-school folks outnumber them and they have little support. And I don't do Midol and sorry for some typo's as my pinkie was damaged in a recent surgery but the pt is helping...but I mipoop a key or two from time to time. Don't hold it against me[;)]
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
....appeared in your area? Del...is your area.....how many TP members in your state?...watch your spelling Professor...LOL!...Take a midol and come back tomorrow...[:o)]
pwillie...actually, quite a few in Sussex Co DE and some up north in Kent Co. They tried to defeat a local referendum for a new ele school in my school district but we beat them back and got the school approved. They did kill a new school referendum in Milford for a much needed MS to replace the decaying old school. The TP in DE is run from upstate in Bear and has been successful on several fronts, usually fighting against needed school buildings and current op referenda but my area is pro-school and we have effective school leaders so we are able to beat them back. They are mostly very negative, anti-school, older white folks but in my area of DE the postive, pro-school folks outnumber them and they have little support. And I don't do Midol and sorry for some typo's as my pinkie was damaged in a recent surgery but the pt is helping...but I mipoop a key or two from time to time. Don't hold it against me[;)]
....so, old white folks are out and "Progressive Academia" is in?...Now Gary,which are you?
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
....appeared in your area? Del...is your area.....how many TP members in your state?...watch your spelling Professor...LOL!...Take a midol and come back tomorrow...[:o)]
pwillie...actually, quite a few in Sussex Co DE and some up north in Kent Co. They tried to defeat a local referendum for a new ele school in my school district but we beat them back and got the school approved. They did kill a new school referendum in Milford for a much needed MS to replace the decaying old school. The TP in DE is run from upstate in Bear and has been successful on several fronts, usually fighting against needed school buildings and current op referenda but my area is pro-school and we have effective school leaders so we are able to beat them back. They are mostly very negative, anti-school, older white folks but in my area of DE the postive, pro-school folks outnumber them and they have little support. And I don't do Midol and sorry for some typo's as my pinkie was damaged in a recent surgery but the pt is helping...but I mipoop a key or two from time to time. Don't hold it against me[;)]
....so, old white folks are out and "Progressive Academia" is in?...Now Gary,which are you?
pwillie... as you know, I am an "older white folk" (over 70) who is not progressive but conservative....your worst nightmare as you can't pidgenhole me!! The TP folks in my area fit that mold, sadly....just angry old white folks who vote against every tax increase, including school referenda for the needed updating and modernization of schools.