Being Goofy Fringe-Right Hurts Gun Rights

[Just Jim]

Historicly progressives have not proven to be so however you may convince me of your belief.

jj

 

[RevJimII]

So, when are we going to debate enumerated powers and who is working outside of thier authority?

Rev Jim II

 

[Trlsmn]

Would any of you, now, care to cite sources for the numbers you're throwing around?

42

 

[Just Jim]

Maybe we could start with what progressives stand for by going back in history to Woodrow Wilson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

jj

 

[ob1]

42

Dont forget 56

 

[Chee-to]

Other than wholeheartedly agreeing with CEF1959's original post, I don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to the petty name-calling and Glenn beck quotes vs. Rachel Maddow quotes back and forth of the last few pages...

But....This quote struck me as funny:



I am assuming that Chee-to voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. If so, I find this remark funny coming from a guy that voted for someone that can't put two words together with a teleprompter.

You do know what assuming makes you ? I didn't vote for Bush, although he was heads above Kerry and Gore.. I have no doubt who you voted for in the last election, and we'll all reap what you've sown.........

 

[AGCR]

I stand with both, as do tens of millions of other patriotic Americans.

Hells yeahs

 

[RevJimII]

42

Sounds like part of the formula for the improbability drive... don't forget your towel.

Rev Jim II

 

[ob1]

Fascism and socialism are nearly exact opposites, so when you folks claim this is the state of things, it just sounds sort of dumb. .

OMG ! Is this what the "New History" has brought us to now?

Try doing a search of "NSDAP", "Mein Kampf" or Adolph Hitler !


(Please don't say that the members of the NSDAP were a different kind of Socialist, not the warm and fuzzy Socialists that we are dealing with now.)

 

[ZachS]

Historicly progressives have not proven to be so however you may convince me of your belief.

jj

Well, Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive - in fact, his was the first serious proposal for national healthcare. Was he not a patriotic American?

 

[ZachS]

42

Foiled....

 

[ZachS]

(Please don't say that the members of the NSDAP were a different kind of Socialist, not the warm and fuzzy Socialists that we are dealing with now.)

Are you trying to say that European-style socialism, as practiced in countries like Sweden, can honestly be compared to Naziism?

 

[ob1]

ZachS:

Are you trying to say that European-style socialism, as practiced in countries like Sweden, can honestly be compared to Naziism?

You cannot compare a homogeneous culture such as Sweden's with that of the US (or pre-war Germany and Russia, for that matter). In a diverse culture as we have here, you will always end up with one idealogy attempting dominance over it's polar opposite. Add a pinch of Socialistic government controls landing solely in the hands of one side, and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Being a radical on either side of the fence does not do anyone any good. Be it right wing loons that have been showing up with the grade school education level signs at tea parties, PETA nutjobs wanting to outlaw milk, christian wackos shooting abortion doctors, or tree hugging hippies setting fire to businesses. Crazy is just crazy no matter what side it comes from.

 

[ZeroRing]

Do you stand with the constitution or the liberal progessive agenda?

jj

I stand with both, as do tens of millions of other patriotic Americans.

Understood. But what do you do when the "liberal progressive agenda" works towards a specific goal that is COUNTER to the specific enumerated powers spelled out in the "constitution"?

Liberal vs. Conservative will always be a Spy vs. Spy (Mad Magazine) sort of affair since "true believers" on both sides hold to their beliefs quite stridently. Agree to disagree only works though when both sides "obey the rules" (which in this case SHOULD be the founding documents of this country).

It's the tearing down of these founding principles that has me as a conservative worried for the future of my kids and grandkids. The observations I have made over my nearly 44 years has shown me that it's the very same "liberal progressive agenda" that is at work tearing down the principles that have defined this country.

So I guess I tend to be a little more wary of folks who tend to profess a staunch belief in BOTH the "liberal progressive agenda" AND the "constitution" because I just can't see how one could reconcile the positions.

 

[el gringo loco]

Crazy is just crazy no matter what side it comes from.

Well said.

 

[ob1]

Being a radical on either side of the fence does not do anyone any good. Be it right wing loons that have been showing up with the grade school education level signs at tea parties, PETA nutjobs wanting to outlaw milk, christian wackos shooting abortion doctors, or tree hugging hippies setting fire to businesses. Crazy is just crazy no matter what side it comes from.

(tree hugging hippies and PETA nutjobs intentionally not highlighted)

Applying negative descriptives to those with opposing viewpoints is a sign of insecurity. The well versed mental health professional should know such things...... (lol)

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Applying negative descriptives to those with opposing viewpoints is a sign of insecurity. The well versed mental health professional should know such things......

Pointing out unstable behavior or extreme actions is not debasing an opposing view point. Trying to say it is constitutes bleeding heart liberalism with no foundation in reality. That would be what we refer to as the difference between a feel good social worker and an actual medical professional.

 

[ZachS]

Understood. But what do you do when the "liberal progressive agenda" works towards a specific goal that is COUNTER to the specific enumerated powers spelled out in the "constitution"?

Liberal vs. Conservative will always be a Spy vs. Spy (Mad Magazine) sort of affair since "true believers" on both sides hold to their beliefs quite stridently. Agree to disagree only works though when both sides "obey the rules" (which in this case SHOULD be the founding documents of this country).

It's the tearing down of these founding principles that has me as a conservative worried for the future of my kids and grandkids. The observations I have made over my nearly 44 years has shown me that it's the very same "liberal progressive agenda" that is at work tearing down the principles that have defined this country.

So I guess I tend to be a little more wary of folks who tend to profess a staunch belief in BOTH the "liberal progressive agenda" AND the "constitution" because I just can't see how one could reconcile the positions.

So, how far back should we go to overturn Supreme Court decisions that are "unconstitutional"? Maybe start with Marbury v. Madison?

 

[ob1]

Pointing out unstable behavior or extreme actions is not debasing an opposing view point. Trying to say it is constitutes bleeding heart liberalism with no foundation in reality. That would be what we refer to as the difference between a feel good social worker and an actual medical professional.

Hmmm......Perhaps I should make an appointment for analysis ? I did enjoy tormenting small flightless birds in my youth....(NWFA discount ?)