Firearms ownership is redundant...

[The B]

Fine, but understand that there are many "progressive liberal" democrats that would straight shout you out of the room for your stance on guns, for example, because strict gun control is now the party line.

Understand that, and you'll understand one reason out of many why a lot of us who would have probably formerly considered ourselves liberal-light, are now on the conservative side of politics.

I remember when I voted for Obama in 2008, I thought that he was going to be a sensible democrat. He was going to be a guy who would ratchet down the insane war-time spending and defense budget of Bush years, and get back to a sensible budget and a focus on domestic issues. I still thought that democrats by and large stood for personal freedom.

Holy crap was I wrong. The Obama presidency has been a rude awakening for me about what true modern democrats are. I was also young and ignorant, and to be honest, I got flat-out suckered. Millions of us did.

These days, I would rather hold my nose at the Jesus-talk and join the conservatives and libertarians.

But this is you picking sides between two perceived options. I don't confine myself to the idea that I have to pick a side and adopt the "party line." I can be a liberal and reject gun control, and yea, a lot of Democrats would argue with me on gun control, but I don't think I even know a single Democrat, to tell you the truth.

I'm also STAUNCHLY pro-life. And free-market. And a whole slew of things Hannity would tell you are impossible. Liberal doesn't mean following anyone's party line. Democrats and Republicans especially.

 

[unklekippy]

I'm a "Progressive Libertarian." What'ya say to that???

I guess that depends on how you define it. I am definitely a Libertarian. When I hear "progressive", I think of Barack Obama, Eric Holder and George Clooney. Not at all company I want to keep. So, it depends on YOUR definition, not mine. What'ya say to that?

 

[unklekippy]

But this is you picking sides between two perceived options. I don't confine myself to the idea that I have to pick a side and adopt the "party line." I can be a liberal and reject gun control, and yea, a lot of Democrats would argue with me on gun control, but I don't think I even know a single Democrat, to tell you the truth.

I'm also STAUNCHLY pro-life. And free-market. And a whole slew of things Hannity would tell you are impossible. Liberal doesn't mean following anyone's party line. Democrats and Republicans especially.

By definition, this is correct, but Liberal does imply a lean to the left, even if it does so incorrectly. By the same token, Nazi's were far right, but I do not identify with that at all. In the end, "liberal" an "conservative" identify for the most part what side of most arguments you stand. "Progressive", "Libertarian" and other terms I believe are more defined by the individual and do not quite have the polarizing effect of "liberal" or "conservative".

 

[unklekippy]

The problems in these United Sates is that:

Conservatives allowed themselves the position of defending their rights to have firearms. They now continue to always be defenders of the Constitution, and it first light that sounds great. However a defense does not make headway until it becomes an attack on those who they oppose. I see Conservatives all year long defending their rights, why they are held off by fences made of paper.
There is no power in a defense until progress is made.

Many Conservative types rachet up there gun usage as some politcal movement of aggression, yet all that does is show you are still in defense mode. Others knock the Tea Party and alike yet they are the only group in a motion to attack the opposition. Even the NRA is defending not attacking.

People who oppose our constitutional rights should be locked up that is the reality. if you shout racial tones into a group and throw crap they arrest you for hate crimes, but the nation allows leaders to stand up and strip you of your rights and you stand and defend your rights?
How about imprisoning those who dare ever think of re-writting the Constitution. No we allow them free speech ?

Crazy stuff, but the NRA with its power should be moving to have people arrested, not defending gun rights only.

Its a twisted state of affairs where gun owners believe defending a right is progress, defending our rights is a given and to stay there is a step back.

SW

Well done. Can I like this twice?

 

[Squidly]

By definition, this is correct, but Liberal does imply a lean to the left, even if it does so incorrectly. By the same token, Nazi's were far right, but I do not identify with that at all...

The Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) was far left. When you get that extreme, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between left and right. Our educational system has capitalized on this misconception to demonize the right.

 

[The B]

The Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) was far left. When you get that extreme, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between left and right. Our educational system has capitalized on this misconception to demonize the right.

The Nazi party WAS right. In THAT political climate. Relative to American politics its way over on the left. It's not that anyone is wrong, it's that their perspective is out of context.

 

[The B]

So, are you in agreement with these Progressive Libertarians?

Platform | Progressive Libertarianism

Pretty much. It's a very new, disorganized "party (using the term very loosely)," and people calling themselves PLs can have a broad range of ideas on things.

Here's from Wikipedia's "Libertarian Democrat" page

Libertarian Democrats support the majority of positions of the Democratic Party. However they do not necessarily share identical viewpoints across the political spectrum; that is, they are more likely to support individual and personal freedoms.
In general they support tax cuts, Second Amendment rights, same-sex marriage, the decriminalization of marijuana, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and to a certain extent, hard money. They are more likely to oppose deficit spending, protectionism, subsidies (especially to corporations) race-based affirmative action and many regulations on small businesses.
They staunchly support civil liberties and agree with the national party's stances on civil rights, separation of church and state, and habeas corpus for unlawful combatants; they oppose indefinite detention without trial or charge, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the USA PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, the War on Drugs, bans on gambling, and prohibition of prostitution.
While maintaining a relatively libertarian ideology, they may differ with the Libertarian Party on issues such as consumer protection, health care reform, anti-trust laws and the overall amount of government involvement in the economy.

 

[The B]

I'm much less anti- income-tax than most libertarians (left or right). I personally don't have a problem with a FAIR individual income tax, and am in support of socialized healthcare. Most of the PLs I know are similar.

 

[The B]

So you're not a Progressive Libertarian, you're Libertarian Democrat?
Or, are you stating that the two are the same?
My apologies... I'm not keeping up.

There's not enough difference to distinguish... these are just new names for an ideology that's never had a permanent name. Like all third-ideologies (yep, just made that one up too), the Big Two have everyone neatly squared off on either side of an imaginary line much too thin for original thinking.

 

[Netspirit]

I am for national socialized health care for young people below 21, and adults with illnesses that are not caused by poor life choices. I have two reasons.

Reason 1: effectiveness. Corporate health care in the U.S. sucked big time. It is a failed experiment. Capitalism (local optimization through competition) does most things exceptionally well, but there are a few circumstances when it fails: it cannot build a national highway system, it cannot put the man on the Moon; health care seems to fall into the same category.

Reason 2: fairness. Competition implies that all people deserve equal opportunities to compete. All children deserve a fair chance; but someone is born with great health, someone is born with poor genetics; someone is born into a rich family, someone is born into a poor one. They can all grow up and become great inventors, businessmen, artists; our society needs to give all children a healthy start, and then expose them to capitalistic pressures when they are adults and the game is fair.

 

[Stomper]

For those of you in favor of a government that is powerful enough to give you everything for your needs, just remember that it is powerful enough to take away all that which it gives, and it will.

"Two chickens in every pot" will ALWAYS be used as leverage by power-mad politicians.

 

[U201491]

I am for national socialized health care for young people below 21, and adults with illnesses that are not caused by poor life choices. I have two reasons.

Reason 1: effectiveness. Corporate health care in the U.S. sucked big time. It is a failed experiment. Capitalism (local optimization through competition) does most things exceptionally well, but there are a few circumstances when it fails: it cannot build a national highway system, it cannot put the man on the Moon; health care seems to fall into the same category.

Reason 2: fairness. Competition implies that all people deserve equal opportunities to compete. All children deserve a fair chance; but someone is born with great health, someone is born with poor genetics; someone is born into a rich family, someone is born into a poor one. They can all grow up and become great inventors, businessmen, artists; our society needs to give all children a healthy start, and then expose them to capitalistic pressures when they are adults and the game is fair.

That is socials.hit thinking :-/ or is that socialist.....

 

[U201491]

So, you're OK with big government, and want the inept government (proven positive by their mis-management at so many levels) running health care?

It sounds like you're in the party of, "we want our cake, and eat it too..."

More like "we want our cake and yours too"... :angry:

 

[U201491]

power-mad politicians.

And that is all that's left now !

 

[Netspirit]

That is socials.hit thinking :-/ or is that socialist.....

Nope, it is the true capitalism taken to its roots, which is all about fair competition.

Two adults can and should compete for everything, including health care. If you are an obese drunkard who never exercises, why should I pay for your lifestyle?

Children should not be forced to compete for health care though. It makes no sense at all.

 

[U201491]

Nope, it is the true capitalism taken to its roots, which is all about fair competition.

Two adults can and should compete for everything, including health care. If you are an obese drunkard who never exercises, why should I pay for your lifestyle?

Children should not be forced to compete for health care though. It makes no sense at all.

Hard work and drive is available to everyone.
Glad you clarified some of that, but Obum care is NOT the solution, it is the damnation of our economy. There would be no chance of recovery with that and I believe that was obums goal.

 

[Misterbill]

The problem is that there is one group (Liberal Democrats) who show no shame at all in announcing their terror at us citizens owning guns and another equally obnoxious group ("conservative"republicans who announce they support our gun rights, but not so much on the rest of the ENTIRE constitution (privacy 4a, war powers, recognition of "corporations" as "people" with all the same rights as individuals, etc, etc.

We wilve in a world with two soul-destroying statist parties and a third part (Libertarians) stuck on economic lunacy like a gold standard, which flies in the face of 98% of the world's economists (I know, they're part of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy too!).

Which as gun owners, leaves us asking ourselves which right's we care about more than all the rest. If we care about gun rights, we vote for the statist thugs who want to murder everyone who ever smoked a joint. If we don't, we vote for people who will protect abortion rights but will destroy all our other rights.

Obama is a putz and was elected on a grand-scale lie. That's got a lot of "liberals" temporarily on our side on SOME issues. But the whole notion of "guns are bad and scary and I don't want you to have them," is PURELY a left-wing meme. Sorry, you just don't see that, even among right-wing statists. -Because they're smart enough to know that your AR-15 doesn't hold a candle to their F-15 Strike Eagle. They're smart enough to not care and to use the gun issue as something to get them more seats.

 

[revjen45]

What a hideous little troll! The real money quote here is when she (it?) owns up to not knowing much if anything about the subject at hand. Yes indeed the phrase "common sense" was as over used as "you know." The other moniker applied to every gun control proposal is "reasonable." All gun control is "reasonable" and "common sense." The uber-fop host made me gag. He obviously knows as much about it as Dickey Lee does. Anyhow, I am filled with Schadenfreude at the defeats of 2 luminaries of the "Progressive" Weltanschauung.

 

[The B]

But the whole notion of "guns are bad and scary and I don't want you to have them," is PURELY a left-wing meme.

You're missing an entire segment of Republicans who think you and your concealed pistols and "assault rifles" are going to their shotguns banned.

 

[DMax]

Nope, it is the true capitalism taken to its roots, which is all about fair competition.

Two adults can and should compete for everything, including health care. If you are an obese drunkard who never exercises, why should I pay for your lifestyle?

Children should not be forced to compete for health care though. It makes no sense at all.

A liberal construct "Fair". Capitalism has nothing to do with fairness, Its more about Free Markets, Translation Free People buy what they want and if a product is not wanted it goes bye bye Not mandated and redesigned by the Gov that only has themselves best interest to control free people. IF you don't like your doc fire them Not anymore you will be lucky to find or have a doc after obammy gets done taking out your fair competition which will ONLY be the gov. Where do you go then noplace and you won't be able to afford it and will be forced to buy a crappy product all in the name of fairness and equality. By the way look who is defining those terms progressive Tyrants This will not end well for anyone including libs, they better stock on Kleenix while they still can.