Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[SSGSAD]

No. To recap why I say the things I do in a political forum, a gun forum at that, I'm frustrated. I'm sick of unelectable candidates floating to the top of primaries again and again while true moderates wash out by the time IN gets a say.

So when I go to vote in November, I'm going to end up having to choose between more hope and change, or a culture warrior. I don't want either, but I'll vote against the culture warrior.

I am going to chime in here ..... The "liberal left", has chosen "our" (r) candidate, for us, in the last two elections .....

Watch what happens, this year, with open eyes, and an OPEN mind, and it will probably happen again .....

My prediction, is Bush, vs H ..... just watch and see .....

 

[Lowe0]

I think Lowe0 has been forthcoming. He has previously explained that he is a gun enthusiast, but other ideological beliefs are more important than just gun rights. Gun rights advocacy is not all or nothing for everyone and as I said above, voting Republican doesn't guarantee our rights.

A lefty just isn't gonna vote "right" for just one overlapping interest. It's like weights on a balance. For him there is only gun rights on the right side of the scale, but many weights on the left. I'm not saying I agree with him, just saying I understand it.

Mostly. I have other conservative beliefs, but those don't track well with the Republican Party either (example: I believe we should balance the budget such that growth and inflation make it easier to repay a small deficit, but that specific deficit spending above that could be done as one-offs for the purpose of driving GDP growth). But go on stage in the primaries and say something like that, and the campaign is toast.

 

[BugI02]

Let us not forget that citizen army Obama was promoting at one point. I think the praetorians might be quite happy to smash down doors and terrorize plebians on behalf of the emperor.

+1 Reference: People's Army and/or Revolutionary Guard

 

[IndyDave1776]

No. To recap why I say the things I do in a political forum, a gun forum at that, I'm frustrated. I'm sick of unelectable candidates floating to the top of primaries again and again while true moderates wash out by the time IN gets a say.

So when I go to vote in November, I'm going to end up having to choose between more hope and change, or a culture warrior. I don't want either, but I'll vote against the culture warrior.

I can understand what you appear to be thinking, but, first, a true moderate will never have a chance. He won't have enough to offer either side and the middle in practice isn't nearly so big as the talking heads would like for you to believe. There is a reason why moderates almost invariably crash and burn.

You have a reasonable point about culture warriors up to a point. You appear to excuse those on the left while being unable to excuse those on the right. Constitutionally, the two are no different. When you consider every Republican president since Eisenhower (who at the time was courted by both parties and would have won either way--and proved his lack of conservative credentials by throwing his own VP under the bus) has run as a conservative and not a moderate, that should speak volumes. I will grant you that they didn't always perform as such, but they all presented themselves as such until after the election.

You have also raised a perfectly fair criticism that the Rs ca't get a grip on the checkbook and/or credit card any better than the Ds.

The thing I find most troubling about your positions is that you don't seem to understand that if the rights clearly spelled out in the constitution are subject to debate, then no real or perceived right of any kind is secure, and you seem to be far more concerned about contrived 'rights', particularly those discovered recently in historic terms, which are of negligible value, if any at all, and often, constitutionally, are clearly NOT within the prerogative of the federal government to address one way or another.

 

[BugI02]

Lowe0 even just balancing the budget, and not allowing for a small deficit to repay, will do nothing to solve the huge structural debt overhang we have in place. It is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Any real change in the direction we are headed in will require massive, wrenching change in just about everyones lives. Many of us feel a good framework for the hard times to come would be a return to constitutional first priciples - 'as written' constitutionality, not 'as interpreted'. I would ask that you research, via sources of your own choosing, whether you think incremental changes can correct the trajectory we currently find ourselves on. If you do not believe such incremental changes will fix the many looming problems then consider voting - and even campaigning for - someone who wants to more fundamentally shake up the status quo. Potential candidates that meet that criteria will be imperfect and will also advocate positions that you do not agree with on some issues. Read up on the founding fathers and you will see they were all imperfect in some ways. They all advocated positions that some of the others found difficult to countenance. Yet they managed to do great things, not least of which was creating the framework upon which America would and could be built. If you insist on a candidate who represents your viewpoint perfectly while advocating nothing that you disagree with, you may need to run yourself.

 

[jamil]

Some points about the "culture war". It went hot in the 60s and it was not conservatives waging it. It is intellectually dishonest or naive at best, to imply that the cultural warriors are on the right. The whole reason the Trumps and the Cruzes have any traction at all is that many people feel that the cultural warriors on the left have trampled traditional values. They're called "traditional" for a reason. It's the way it was. It got to be where it is now only because of cultural warriors establishing new societal values. So if you don't agree with the traditional values, it's not the cultural warriors you oppose because you support the values the cultural warriors on the left have won.

 

[Lowe0]

Some points about the "culture war". It went hot in the 60s and it was not conservatives waging it. It is intellectually dishonest or naive at best, to imply that the cultural warriors are on the right. The whole reason the Trumps and the Cruzes have any traction at all is that many people feel that the cultural warriors on the left have trampled traditional values. They're called "traditional" for a reason. It's the way it was. It got to be where it is now only because of cultural warriors establishing new societal values. So if you don't agree with the traditional values, it's not the cultural warriors you oppose because you support the values the cultural warriors on the left have won.

Does whether the right is attacking or counterattacking change the end result?

 

[printcraft]

Not sure about this my friend. Just not sure.
We need to meet for some serious range time and a cheeseburger.....on me of course.

Sounds nice.......... I would still request a plate.....

 

[KG1]

Nice fancy talk and everything but it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out why you're here.

Okay, I'll hear you out: why am I here?

I think jamil's post is insightful to the reason you are probably here and why you might be rubbing some members the wrong way IMO.

Some points about the "culture war". It went hot in the 60s and it was not conservatives waging it. It is intellectually dishonest or naive at best, to imply that the cultural warriors are on the right. The whole reason the Trumps and the Cruzes have any traction at all is that many people feel that the cultural warriors on the left have trampled traditional values. They're called "traditional" for a reason. It's the way it was. It got to be where it is now only because of cultural warriors establishing new societal values. So if you don't agree with the traditional values, it's not the cultural warriors you oppose because you support the values the cultural warriors on the left have won.

 

[jamil]

Does whether the right is attacking or counterattacking change the end result?

You said that you oppose the cultural warriors and in the process, implied that the republicans are uniquely that. It took a cultural war to get things like you want it. So who were the cultural warriors exactly? Be honest and say what you mean. It's not cultural warriors you oppose. Because you support the cultural warriors on your side. It is the traditional values you oppose and those who want to fight to restore them.

I'm not declaring that one is right and one is wrong. I'm saying that you should be honest about what you really support and what you really oppose.

 

[printcraft]

You said that you oppose the cultural warriors and in the process, implied that the republicans are uniquely that. It took a cultural war to get things like you want it. So who were the cultural warriors exactly? Be honest and say what you mean. It's not cultural warriors you oppose. Because you support the cultural warriors on your side. It is the traditional values you oppose and those who want to fight to restore them.

I'm not declaring that one is right and one is wrong. I'm saying that you should be honest about what you really support and what you really oppose.

No, he hates culture defenders. Those that stand up to the SJW.

 

[Lowe0]

You said that you oppose the cultural warriors and in the process, implied that the republicans are uniquely that. It took a cultural war to get things like you want it. So who were the cultural warriors exactly? Be honest and say what you mean. It's not cultural warriors you oppose. Because you support the cultural warriors on your side. It is the traditional values you oppose and those who want to fight to restore them.

I'm not declaring that one is right and one is wrong. I'm saying that you should be honest about what you really support and what you really oppose.

I oppose the group of people who have declared that people like me are the enemy, that people like me are the problem with this country. One side of the culture war right now says that, and one side doesn't. Decisions don't get much easier than that.

When Ted Cruz tells his followers to strap on the full armor of God, it would be foolish of me to side with those armored up against me.

 

[jamil]

No, he hates culture defenders. Those that stand up to the SJW.

Well that's kinda what I said. And given some of his posts I'm not sure he agrees with the absurd extremes today's social justice warriors are taking curltural progressivism. A lot of traditional liberals are fighting pretty hard against the SJWs. Sargon of Akkad, a liberal atheist you-tuber, is an avid opponent of the SJWs, for example.

It's not a dichotomy of ideas. It's a scale of how far you think is too far. For example, I think the SJWism of the "Black Lives Matter" movement attempts to progress much too far beyond real racial justice, but that doesn't mean I think we should return to the once traditional value of slavery.

 

[Lowe0]

Well that's kinda what I said. And given some of his posts I'm not sure he agrees with the absurd extremes today's social justice warriors are taking curltural progressivism. A lot of traditional liberals are fighting pretty hard against the SJWs. Sargon of Akkad, a liberal atheist you-tuber, is an avid opponent of the SJWs, for example.

It's not a dichotomy of ideas. It's a scale of how far you think is too far. For example, I think the SJWism of the "Black Lives Matter" movement attempts to progress much too far beyond real racial justice, but that doesn't mean I think we should return to the once traditional value of slavery.

Right again. For every good idea on paper, there's always someone willing to take it too far in practice.

 

[printcraft]

Right again. For every good idea on paper, there's always someone willing to take it too far in practice.

Any what side of the isle typically tries to take "good ideas" for social "change" too far?

 

[jamil]

I oppose the group of people who have declared that people like me are the enemy, that people like me are the problem with this country. One side of the culture war right now says that, and one side doesn't. Decisions don't get much easier than that.

When Ted Cruz tells his followers to strap on the full armor of God, it would be foolish of me to side with those armored up against me.

Hold on there fella. I had a Christmas vacation full of dichotomous thinking, hearing that people like me are what's wrong with this country. I felt like I was deep in enemy leftist territory. I dare to think that government can be too big, that people should have the right to defend themselves, that laws should be based on harm done and not making mostly harmless things illegal because someone might use them to cause harm. Please don't tell me that your side of the culture war is pristine and blameless. Your side didn't win because culture evoleved. You won through Alinsky tactics; peer pressure, mob ridicule enforced political correctness.

 

[Lowe0]

Any what side of the isle typically tries to take "good ideas" for social "change" too far?

Mine. But as we already covered, I don't get to pick a candidate that aligns with my way of thinking; I'm given two bad options and have to figure out which is least dangerous.

 

[Lowe0]

Hold on there fella. I had a Christmas vacation full of dichotomous thinking, hearing that people like me are what's wrong with this country. I felt like I was deep in enemy leftist territory. I dare to think that government can be too big, that people should have the right to defend themselves, that laws should be based on harm done and not making mostly harmless things illegal because someone might use them to cause harm. Please don't tell me that your side of the culture war is pristine and blameless. Your side didn't win because culture evoleved. You won through Alinsky tactics; peer pressure, mob ridicule enforced political correctness.

We're social animals. Peer pressure is in our nature.

 

[bwframe]

Why are you guys letting this lib drag you into the mud? It has declared that it will vote for the enemy regardless of the subject matter or the thread topic. It didn't have to post in thread, but it chose to just to bait you. That is all you need to know.

The lib IS the enemy. It states so boldly and stands it's ground. If you let it drag you in, you're letting it win.

 

[jamil]

Mine. But as we already covered, I don't get to pick a candidate that aligns with my way of thinking; I'm given two bad options and have to figure out which is least dangerous.

That is something that people from both sides could agree on. The two party system continually produces "least-evil" kinds of choices. People from both sides who are sick of that could join together to puch for electoral changes that would make the two party system obselete. A ranked voting system would do that.bno more primaries. Rank each candidate in the race regardless of party backing. Highest point ranking wins.