The only way. - Page 3

The only way.

This is a discussion on The only way. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by NoBite Hell, I'll just get straight to the point. Edward, you are an idiot. You voted Independent. Real smart. There is no ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45
Like Tree42Likes

Thread: The only way.

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by NoBite View Post
    Hell, I'll just get straight to the point. Edward, you are an idiot. You voted Independent. Real smart.
    There is no need for name calling in any of these threads. As Americans we have a right to vote for whom we choose or not vote at all. If we all saw eye to eye this forum would not exist.
    sensei2 likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."


  2. #32
    Senior Member Array sensei2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    1,112
    i did not state this clearly (or at all) in my first post in this thread (#14).....BUT


    I FULLY AGREE WITH Edward7's BASIC PREMISE THAT WE, THE PRO-GUN FORCES, NEED TO TRY AND SEPARATE OUR CAUSE FROM THE PLATFORMS, GOALS, AND ATTITUDES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN GENERAL.


    i realize that as matters stand, most Republican politicians tend to be pro-gun and most Democratic politicians tend to be anti-gun, but this is not necessarily true of the general voting public. a majority of citizens in this country believe in the right of the individual to own firearms.

    as i stated in my first post, the anti-gun Washington State Initiative 676 of 1997 went down to overwhelming defeat, 70.6% against to 29.4% in favor. what i didn't state in that first post was the fact that 676 was defeated IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN THE ENTIRE STATE! even in very liberal King County, which includes Seattle, the vote was 56.7% against 676 to 43.3% in favor. so rather than 23% of liberal Seattle voting "pro-gun" as i said in my first post, over half of them voted "pro-gun". this assumes, incorrectly, that all Seattle voters are liberal Democrats, but it simplifies my figuring.

    when Californians (Californians!!!) were offered a proposition in 1982 (Proposition 15), which would have effectively placed a moratorium on new handgun purchases throughout the state, it went down to a landslide defeat, 62.8% to 37.2%

    in 1976 the citizens of Massachusetts voted down a proposed law to confiscate all handguns. despite support from virtually major newspaper and most Massachusetts politicians, including Edward Kennedy, the measure went down to another lopsided defeat, 69% against, to 31% in favor. only about a dozen or so of the 500 Massachusetts towns voted for the law.

    what this says to me is that on firearms issues by themselves, we enjoy broad support from citizens of both political parties, in blue states as well as red ones. it was no coincidence that these laws were proposed in three of the bluest states in the nation. the anti-gun forces chose these states as being most likely to approve such laws, and in each case they were truly confident of victory. they were proved VERY wrong.

    but, and this is Edward7's contention, which i second, many of those who would otherwise vote "pro-gun", cannot stomach the Republican Party's other views, and will vote for a Democratic candidate who believes as they do on many social and economic issues, if not on gun control. they will not vote for a Republican candidate who may share their views on the 2nd Amendment, but is at odds with them on so many other matters. i read that many Washington State voters would not vote for the moderate Republican gubernatorial candidate (in 2012) because they couldn't stand the National Republican Party's stance on social issues.

    at the moment, (IMO) the Republican Party is busy digging itself into a demographic grave. it has alienated the fastest growing segment of the population (Latinos), does poorly among Asians (also a growing percentage of the voting public) and African-Americans, and with younger voters. yes, i expect Republicans to fare better in the off-year elections of 2014, (when minorities and younger voters won't turn out in the numbers that they do for presidential elections), but the party has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and i don't expect things to improve for them in 2016. (barring a terrible Democratic candidate and a terrific Republican one). the Republican Party's primary base of support is from older, Caucasian men. i need not point out why support from older voters without similar support from younger voters is not a good long-term outlook. and the other element, white males, are also a declining percentage of the voting population.

    furthermore, PEF's comments about the U.S. Supreme Court merit serious consideration: it is the President who selects nominees, and the Senate which confirms or rejects those nominees. for two years, and possibly more, those branches of government are in unfriendly Democratic hands. the replacement of even one conservative Justice could overturn all our recent SCOTUS victories. this concerns me more than the make-up of the Congress, because those politicians must face the voters every two or six years, and most of them remember, or will be reminded of, the lesson of 1994. a SCOTUS Justice is appointed for life and will never have to answer to us. frankly, i have been appalled at how easily the liberal/progressive Justices manage to pervert history and the Constitution to suit their own anti-gun biases. we simply MUST do a better job of electing a President who is at least more neutral towards the 2nd Amendment than the current one, and i don't see this happening so long as we are tied solely to the Republicans.

    now i would guess that there are more DC members who are Republican than who are Democrats, but ON THE SINGLE ISSUE OF FIREARM OWNERSHIP, we (those of us who support the 2nd Amendment and all that it stands for) must broaden our support beyond a single party. if voters keep electing politicians who are anti-gun at heart, or just beholden to the anti-gun forces of the political left, we will find ourselves fighting more battles to retain our gun rights than we should have to, given the pro-gun stance of the electorate in general.

    another problem with being 'tied' to one political party is that when they know you have nowhere else to go, there is less pressing need to court your vote by actually DOING something for you. as blacks have learned about the Democratic Party.

    HOW we are go about separating our agenda and broadening our base of support is something for another thread. BUT...(IMO) open primaries would be a good start....
    Last edited by sensei2; December 2nd, 2012 at 05:52 AM. Reason: added section on SCOTUS
    noway2 and phreddy like this.

  3. #33
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward7 View Post
    He didnt win by offering "free" things, Romney lost because we (18-35yr olds.) just cant stomach voting for racists, (opposing affirmative action, wanting to build a damn wall.) sexists ( pro life or anti free contraceptives.) or homophobes (opposing gay marriage or gay adoption.) most of us wanted more fiscal responsibility from our elected officials so we aren't burdened with dept.
    Unless the gop platform changes to meet the new america the time of the republican president is over. Not so with congress where the red states still matter.
    First off, that statement shows just how ill-informed you are on the subject. By stating that "He (Obama) didnt win by offering 'free' things" and then implying that people voted against Romney because he wasn't for offering "free contraceptives" just proved the point that Obama got votes by offering "free contraceptive".

    Now to address the part I highlighted in bold...

    If most of you want more fiscal responsibility from your elected officials, then why would you vote to re-elect a President who has increased the national debt by approximately 5 and a half TRILLION dollars in less than 4 years? To see what 1 TRILLION dollars looks like click here: US debt visualized: Stacked in $100 dollar bills @ $16.394 Trillion Dollars (Debt Ceiling) and then visualize it 5.5 times bigger or you could just click on the link 5 times but that still would fall a bit short.

    Increasing the national debt by 5.5 trillion dollars is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  4. #34
    Ex Member Array Edward7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    middleboro, MA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    First off, that statement shows just how ill-informed you are on the subject. By stating that "He (Obama) didnt win by offering 'free' things" and then implying that people voted against Romney because he wasn't for offering "free contraceptives" just proved the point that Obama got votes by offering "free contraceptive".

    Now to address the part I highlighted in bold...

    If most of you want more fiscal responsibility from your elected officials, then why would you vote to re-elect a President who has increased the national debt by approximately 5 and a half TRILLION dollars in less than 4 years? To see what 1 TRILLION dollars looks like click here: US debt visualized: Stacked in $100 dollar bills @ $16.394 Trillion Dollars (Debt Ceiling) and then visualize it 5.5 times bigger or you could just click on the link 5 times but that still would fall a bit short.

    Increasing the national debt by 5.5 trillion dollars is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
    Because we vote with our hearts not our wallets. Even when we disagree with his fiscal policys, and i do, we have a more base and stronger disagreement with Romney views on abortion and gay marriage.
    Social policy's win out over fiscal policy, morals over money.

  5. #35
    Ex Member Array Edward7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    middleboro, MA
    Posts
    153
    Its not the free part, its the support part. Obama supports a woman's right to contraceptive, Romney accepts it at best.

  6. #36
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward7 View Post
    Its not the free part, its the support part. Obama supports a woman's right to contraceptive, Romney accepts it at best.
    This is more proof that you are ill-informed on the subject.

    Romney supports a woman's right to contraceptives too.

    No one is trying to ban anyone from having access to contraceptive devices.

    We just want you to pay for your own contraceptive devices if you are able to do so. Contraceptive devices should not be given to you "free" of charge if you can afford to purchase them yourself. You or those like you who can afford to purchase it yourself want to get it for free because someone who is less fortunate than you got it for free. You don't want to have to pay for it with your own money. You think you are entitled to it. This is free stuff...things. Nothing is "FREE"...someone has to pay for it and people like you think that it is OK to get "free" things as long as you don't have to pay for it. The money that is used to pay for it doesn't come out of thin air, it come from the people who pay taxes on the money they earned. Their tax dollars goes towards paying for your "free" stuff. And just so we are clear, $1.00 collected in income tax does not by $1.00 worth of contraceptive devices. It takes approximately $7.70 in income tax collected to provide you with $1.00 worth of contraceptive devices.

    Let's just say that people want $30 of "free" contraceptive devises per month.
    That's $360 per year per person.
    Now let's say that there are 30 million people (you and I both know this number is low) who want the "free" contraceptive devices.
    That's $10,800,000,000
    That's 10 Billion 800 million dollars of ADDITIONAL taxes that will need to be collected just to pay for your contraceptive devices.

    This is so far off topic so let me try to get us back on topic...

    We need to encourage people to vote for the candidate who will support and defend the constitution in its entirety (this includes keeping the 2nd amendment intact). We need to educate voters as to why it is important to do so. We need to educate voters on the dangers of Socialism and big government. We need to educate voters on the dangers and consequences associated with alterations to our constitution. We need to teach voters that working hard and being successful is a good thing. We need to demand that our candidate's name is on their ticket (Republican or Democrat). If they want to put a candidate on the ticket that we don't like, we need to be prepared to replace that candidate with a viable alternative from our "ranks". When our elected officials don't do what we want or do something we don't like, we need to remove them from office as quickly as possible. We need to educate everyone on how to flex the muscle of "We The People".
    phreddy likes this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  7. #37
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward7 View Post
    Because we vote with our hearts not our wallets. Even when we disagree with his fiscal policys, and i do, we have a more base and stronger disagreement with Romney views on abortion and gay marriage.
    Social policy's win out over fiscal policy, morals over money.
    Edward - if your views of your generation's beliefs are accurate as reported in this thread, the American experiment is dead. If our liberal indoctrination stations (public schools) have succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation that:

    1. If you disagree with a policy position proffered by a black man, even if he is half white, you are a racist,

    2. If you feel that it is morally repugnant to legitimize the murder of a person so that its mother's lifestyle is not inconvenienced, you are immoral,

    3. Has no ability to see that demanding free stuff (contraceptives in this case) from the government is redistribution of wealth, a euphemism for legalized theft in which money is taken from the taxpayers to buy the votes of those who, in a good many cases, don't pay income taxes,

    4. Really believes that O's spending plan was more fiscally conservative than Romney's (yes, Romney is spelled with an "e", not an "a"),

    we have raised an entire generation of people that cannot think for themselves and can only parrot what their indoctrinators want them to think. In short- America is screwed!!! Your description of your generation tells us that they are ready to be led by a charismatic leader straight to a dictatorship. That is the logical end of the descriptions you provided.

    Edward - i have a side question. On what does your generation base it's moral code? You say that Romney's position on several social issues is immoral. What is the standard you use to make that determination? I am just curious.
    1MoreGoodGuy and phreddy like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  8. #38
    Ex Member Array Edward7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    middleboro, MA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    This is more proof that you are ill-informed on the subject.

    Romney supports a woman's right to contraceptives too.

    No one is trying to ban anyone from having access to contraceptive devices.

    We just want you to pay for your own contraceptive devices if you are able to do so. Contraceptive devices should not be given to you "free" of charge if you can afford to purchase them yourself. You or those like you who can afford to purchase it yourself want to get it for free because someone who is less fortunate than you got it for free. You don't want to have to pay for it with your own money. You think you are entitled to it. This is free stuff...things. Nothing is "FREE"...someone has to pay for it and people like you think that it is OK to get "free" things as long as you don't have to pay for it. The money that is used to pay for it doesn't come out of thin air, it come from the people who pay taxes on the money they earned. Their tax dollars goes towards paying for your "free" stuff. And just so we are clear, $1.00 collected in income tax does not by $1.00 worth of contraceptive devices. It takes approximately $7.70 in income tax collected to provide you with $1.00 worth of contraceptive devices.

    Let's just say that people want $30 of "free" contraceptive devises per month.
    That's $360 per year per person.
    Now let's say that there are 30 million people (you and I both know this number is low) who want the "free" contraceptive devices.
    That's $10,800,000,000
    That's 10 Billion 800 million dollars of ADDITIONAL taxes that will need to be collected just to pay for your contraceptive devices.

    This is so far off topic so let me try to get us back on topic...

    We need to encourage people to vote for the candidate who will support and defend the constitution in its entirety (this includes keeping the 2nd amendment intact). We need to educate voters as to why it is important to do so. We need to educate voters on the dangers of Socialism and big government. We need to educate voters on the dangers and consequences associated with alterations to our constitution. We need to teach voters that working hard and being successful is a good thing. We need to demand that our candidate's name is on their ticket (Republican or Democrat). If they want to put a candidate on the ticket that we don't like, we need to be prepared to replace that candidate with a viable alternative from our "ranks". When our elected officials don't do what we want or do something we don't like, we need to remove them from office as quickly as possible. We need to educate everyone on how to flex the muscle of "We The People".

    Not "free" contraceptives, contraceptives covered by health insurgence regardless of the insurers opinion on sex. That tied in with Obamacare would make it "free" but its not exactly the same thing.

  9. #39
    Ex Member Array Edward7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    middleboro, MA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Edward - if your views of your generation's beliefs are accurate as reported in this thread, the American experiment is dead. If our liberal indoctrination stations (public schools) have succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation that:

    1. If you disagree with a policy position proffered by a black man, even if he is half white, you are a racist,

    I dont personally agree with affirmative action it was needed at one point but I feel that time is near at end and that even now it could be altered to be less detrimental to white workers. As a group the opposition of affirmative action rarely has an argument outside of "its just not fair...to me." and are very easily thought of as racist, especialy since actual racists say the same thing. Not saying there aren't real reasons to oppose it or solid arguments out there, im just saying its rare to hear them.
    As for the inability to argue with a minority about anything without being labeled a racist, it basically comes from you (and me) paying for the sins of men we dont know/represent but happen to look like.


    2. If you feel that it is morally repugnant to legitimize the murder of a person so that its mother's lifestyle is not inconvenienced, you are immoral,

    Well...yeah. It has nothing to do with "saving baby's" and everything to do with controlling the body's of other people. Its a where not a what issue, the woman doesn't want the fetus (fetus not baby.) dead she wants it out of her. This was decided long before we where born and is simply an accepted part of life.
    Im a catholic (more or less.) and would never suggest to my wife or daughter to have one and i would lecture till i was blue in the face against it, but at the end of the day its not my call and it shouldn't be. Im not in favor of abortion, im in favor of freedom of choice. I could go on and on with this one but i truly didnt want this to happen.


    3. Has no ability to see that demanding free stuff (contraceptives in this case) from the government is redistribution of wealth, a euphemism for legalized theft in which money is taken from the taxpayers to buy the votes of those who, in a good many cases, don't pay income taxes,

    Few people of my generation oppose the idea of redistribution of wealth, anarchist capitalism is dead. How much and from who is debatable but the concept isnt offensive. That being said the dema...I already said this one with someone else, look there please.


    4. Really believes that O's spending plan was more fiscally conservative than Romney's (yes, Romney is spelled with an "e", not an "a"),

    Nobody thought it was better outside of a couple things,military spending, tax cuts for the 1% things like that it didn't come down to who had the better economic plan, it came down to a sound economic plan or abortion,gay rights,healthcare and the like and we all know who won.
    As for the spelling error, spellchecker not always perfect and i dont always check, meh.


    we have raised an entire generation of people that cannot think for themselves and can only parrot what their indoctrinators want them to think. In short- America is screwed!!! Your description of your generation tells us that they are ready to be led by a charismatic leader straight to a dictatorship. That is the logical end of the descriptions you provided.

    So if we dont think the way you tell us to, we cant think for ourselves? We fundamentally disagree, that's not parroting or being uninformed its just a disagreement. The argument of "you disagree with me, you must be stupid." is never a good one.

    Edward - i have a side question. On what does your generation base it's moral code? You say that Romney's position on several social issues is immoral. What is the standard you use to make that determination? I am just curious.

    The moral code of "if it doesn't hurt me I don't care." my generation could aptly summed up in one word, apathetic. Personal freedoms are paramount, all else comes second.

    Im sorry I took the anti Obama bait and would like to get back on topic, some have just told me Im a troll, I didnt want the dang argument on abortion for gods sake I wanted......lets just get back to what we agree on shall we?

  10. #40
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,947
    Quote Originally Posted by sensei2 View Post
    I FULLY AGREE WITH Edward7's BASIC PREMISE THAT WE, THE PRO-GUN FORCES, NEED TO TRY AND SEPARATE OUR CAUSE FROM THE PLATFORMS, GOALS, AND ATTITUDES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN GENERAL.
    I absolutely, hands down agree with this statement and have said so numerous times since joining this forum about 1.5 years ago.

    i realize that as matters stand, most Republican politicians tend to be pro-gun and most Democratic politicians tend to be anti-gun, but this is not necessarily true of the general voting public. a majority of citizens in this country believe in the right of the individual to own firearms.
    I think you are correct, and I think that the growing number of permit holds, soaring guns sales, etc, is a strong indication of this. I think that the data is speaks loudly that the people, in general, value the 2nd-A and what it brings.
    but, and this is Edward7's contention, which i second, many of those who would otherwise vote "pro-gun", cannot stomach the Republican Party's other views, and will vote for a Democratic candidate who believes as they do on many social and economic issues, if not on gun control. they will not vote for a Republican candidate who may share their views on the 2nd Amendment, but is at odds with them on so many other matters. i read that many Washington State voters would not vote for the moderate Republican gubernatorial candidate (in 2012) because they couldn't stand the National Republican Party's stance on social issues.
    I am in this group. In actuality, I think that a lot of moderate (meaning have some views on the left and some on the right) fall into this category. In the end, we need to decide what is most important to us and weigh the issues carefully.

    at the moment, (IMO) the Republican Party is busy digging itself into a demographic grave.(snip)
    This is also true. For example, in Texas, there is a massive Latino population that will become of voting age in about a decade. If they follow the trend and align themselves with the Democrats, the D party will have near total control of the national elections via the electoral college.

    furthermore, PEF's comments about the U.S. Supreme Court merit serious consideration.
    That is true. Unfortunately, the current 5-4 conservative based court has an obvious partisan bias and they know it; hence the comment by the chief justice when deciding on the constitutionality of Obamacare where he said that it was necessary to not vote along party lines to preserve the integrity of the court. I think the integrity of the court is severely in question.
    HOW we are go about separating our agenda and broadening our base of support is something for another thread. BUT...(IMO) open primaries would be a good start....
    I believe that one of the key answers to fixing a lot of the election issues is to increase voter participation. Australia has solved this problem by implementing a penalty (tax) for not voting, or rather for not showing up to vote as you can leave the ballot blank as long as you show up. I think that we should implement the same thing here and combine it with a lottery jackpot where the fines go to a winner who did vote.

  11. #41
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward7 View Post
    Im sorry I took the anti Obama bait and would like to get back on topic, some have just told me Im a troll, I didnt want the dang argument on abortion for gods sake I wanted......lets just get back to what we agree on shall we?
    This is a typical tactic used when someone doesn't agree with your position, but can't argue on the basis of fact and reason. This is typically seen in political media. Don't fall for it. The tactic involves:
    1) deflecting the issue to something else and away from the issue at hand
    2) making the issue about the person making the argument, rather than the issue itself
    3) applying labels, e.g. troll. For those who like to claim that someone they disagree with is a troll, you should read the following: trolls.htm: How to search the web, by fravia+ trolling for information
    4) Shouting down the person with whom they disagree and frequently trying to point to an instance where they may have misspoken in an attempt to discredit them in entirety.

  12. #42
    Member Array minimalbrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    370
    All of the democrats I know, which is most of the most of the people I know, are very pro gun. Part of what needs to be done is the police force to let the public know what the gun laws are. Our local police force has a great deal of influence with the local population. If the cops would stop making the general public think every gun owner is a nut who is going to kill someone at the first sight of trouble we would be much better off. Open carry is one of those issues they sure could help with. When they get a call because someone is open carry a great deal of the time they could educate the public that it is indeed legal instead of running out to harass the person only living their constitutional rights. Education is the key. I happen to be a registered Independent. I have voted both ways republican and democrat.
    Edward7 likes this.
    Our House Is Protected By The Good Lord And A gun. You Might Meet Both Of Them If You Show Up Inside My House Uninvited.

  13. #43
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,005
    Edward - if your views of your generation's beliefs are accurate as reported in this thread, the American experiment is dead. If our liberal indoctrination stations (public schools) have succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation that:

    1. If you disagree with a policy position proffered by a black man, even if he is half white, you are a racist,

    I dont personally agree with affirmative action it was needed at one point but I feel that time is near at end and that even now it could be altered to be less detrimental to white workers. As a group the opposition of affirmative action rarely has an argument outside of "its just not fair...to me." and are very easily thought of as racist, especialy since actual racists say the same thing. Not saying there aren't real reasons to oppose it or solid arguments out there, im just saying its rare to hear them. As for the inability to argue with a minority about anything without being labeled a racist, it basically comes from you (and me) paying for the sins of men we dont know/represent but happen to look like.

    You missed the point. My point had nothing to do with affirmative action. For the last 5 years, we have been told by O's supporters that if we do not agree with him, we are racist. There has been no allowance for the fact that a good many people do not agree with many of O's policies but are not actually racist - they just don't agree with the policies. I suppose if two black people were running for president in opposing parties, using this thought process, everybody would be a racist. This argument proffered by O's supporters and not refuted by O himself, has done significant damage to race relations in this country.

    2. If you feel that it is morally repugnant to legitimize the murder of a person so that its mother's lifestyle is not inconvenienced, you are immoral,

    Well...yeah. It has nothing to do with "saving baby's" and everything to do with controlling the body's of other people. Its a where not a what issue, the woman doesn't want the fetus (fetus not baby.) dead she wants it out of her. This was decided long before we where born and is simply an accepted part of life.
    Im a catholic (more or less.) and would never suggest to my wife or daughter to have one and i would lecture till i was blue in the face against it, but at the end of the day its not my call and it shouldn't be. Im not in favor of abortion, im in favor of freedom of choice. I could go on and on with this one but i truly didnt want this to happen.


    The science was less clear in 1973 than it is today. In 1973, the "blob of tissue" or "its a fetus, not a baby" argument could not definitively be refuted by the then-existing science. With today's science, no honest scientist would tell you that "the product of conception" is not a human being. It may be a human being in an early stage, but there is no doubt that it is a human being. I too am all for freedom of choice - but I put the choice at a different time than your generation does. You have many choices that do not have to end in pregnancy. One of these is, as you argue, your "right" to free contraception. You got it - use it.


    3. Has no ability to see that demanding free stuff (contraceptives in this case) from the government is redistribution of wealth, a euphemism for legalized theft in which money is taken from the taxpayers to buy the votes of those who, in a good many cases, don't pay income taxes,

    Few people of my generation oppose the idea of redistribution of wealth, anarchist capitalism is dead. How much and from who is debatable but the concept isnt offensive. That being said the dema...I already said this one with someone else, look there please.

    May you get rich and have 90% of your wealth taken as taxes. Think it can't happen? Take a look at the marginal tax rate at the end of the last Roosevelt era. The people that got hurt by this were not the rich, they just quit working, but the little guy. Ronald Regan was a good case in point. He was at the apex of his career at the time and he just did a few movies a year then quit working as it was not worth his time. This harmed the camera people, gaffers, caterers, etc., not the stars. Admittedly nobody is currently talking about a 90% marginal tax rate, but if the ruling party does not want to do spending cuts and the populace continues to demand deficit reduction, it has to come from somewhere.


    4. Really believes that O's spending plan was more fiscally conservative than Romney's (yes, Romney is spelled with an "e", not an "a"),

    Nobody thought it was better outside of a couple things,military spending, tax cuts for the 1% things like that it didn't come down to who had the better economic plan, it came down to a sound economic plan or abortion,gay rights,healthcare and the like and we all know who won.
    As for the spelling error, spellchecker not always perfect and i dont always check, meh
    .


    God only knows how we are going to pay for all this social engineering. You are right, O won. That does not mean we will be able to support his agenda fiscally now or after he is gone.

    we have raised an entire generation of people that cannot think for themselves and can only parrot what their indoctrinators want them to think. In short- America is screwed!!! Your description of your generation tells us that they are ready to be led by a charismatic leader straight to a dictatorship. That is the logical end of the descriptions you provided.

    So if we dont think the way you tell us to, we cant think for ourselves? We fundamentally disagree, that's not parroting or being uninformed its just a disagreement. The argument of "you disagree with me, you must be stupid." is never a good one.

    I am not telling you what to think. I am only observing that, per your assertion, the vast majority of your generation thinks alike. I can tell you from my education and that my kids just received, that I was taught HOW to think and the schools have tried their dead-level best to tell my kids WHAT to think without giving them the framework to know how to think. Thank God that my wife and I have rectified that, at least with our kids. I have seen many from your generation state flatly that O has spent less than any other president in the last 100 years. This is not a statement coming from an informed group of people - regardless of how they view themselves.


    Edward - i have a side question. On what does your generation base it's moral code? You say that Romney's position on several social issues is immoral. What is the standard you use to make that determination? I am just curious.

    The moral code of "if it doesn't hurt me I don't care." my generation could aptly summed up in one word, apathetic. Personal freedoms are paramount, all else comes second.

    Thank you for clearing this up for me. It tells me a lot about the upcoming generation. BTW - if y'all hold personal freedoms so dearly, how can you say that redistribution of the wealth is OK?

    As to your original assertion in your OP, I concur that we need a broad spectrum of the population to tell the government to leave our guns alone. I would go further and say that I would prefer that the government, in general, leave us alone and go back to its Constitutional duties, but I am aware, from you above posts, that you are not in agreement with this.

    For the record, I have not called you a troll and I don't think you are. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss your generation with you. I did not bring up the subjects in our discussion, but am perfectly willing to discuss them.
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  14. #44
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward7 View Post
    Not "free" contraceptives, contraceptives covered by health insurgence regardless of the insurers opinion on sex. That tied in with Obamacare would make it "free" but its not exactly the same thing.
    SERIOUSLY!??? Please explain to me, how it is not the same thing?

    Again, nothing is "free" someone has to pay for it. What would your response be if every time I wanted to buy condoms, you would have to open up your wallet and hand me $20.00? What if I did that twice a month? How long would you allow me to take your money from you? What would your response be if, every time my wife bought her birth control pills, you would also have to open up your wallet and hand her $120.00? That $160.00 a month coming directly out of your wallet. How much can we take from you before you tell us that we are taking too much?
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  15. #45
    Ex Member Array Edward7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    middleboro, MA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    SERIOUSLY!??? Please explain to me, how it is not the same thing?

    Again, nothing is "free" someone has to pay for it. What would your response be if every time I wanted to buy condoms, you would have to open up your wallet and hand me $20.00? What if I did that twice a month? How long would you allow me to take your money from you? What would your response be if, every time my wife bought her birth control pills, you would also have to open up your wallet and hand her $120.00? That $160.00 a month coming directly out of your wallet. How much can we take from you before you tell us that we are taking too much?
    Its about "free" medicine not "free contraceptives" get it? After obamacare won the next step was to try and say contraceptives aren't "medication". Opposing free health care and opposing this one kind of medicine are two different things.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

second amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.