God, guns, gays & Dems
Just a couple years ago, Democrats in the General Assembly lambasted Republicans for an agenda of “God, guns and gays.” Since gaining control of the majority in the General Assembly, those same Democrats have not only expanded gay rights, but also have sought, many times successfully, to restrict firearms rights. With two out of three taken care of, I guess all that’s left on the Democrat “God, guns and gays” agenda is the restriction or abolition of any reference to religion in the public sector.
This letter has not been edited.
Well two out of three 'aint bad - and believe me, we're working on the third.
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 02:14 PMIs the action of homosexuals being able to adopt stop you from adopting a child that was not wanted by their heterosexual couples?
Posted by Larry on August 9, 2007 02:48 PMExtend the rights of heterosexual couples to homosexual couples. End discrimination and ignorance.
Maintain the Constiution of the United States of America. If you want to restrict guns, abolish the second amendment. Until then, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted by on August 9, 2007 03:25 PMDrew where did you grow up? Have you ever been around firearms?
Posted by bwr on August 9, 2007 03:50 PMAlso what is your big beef with firearms? You support and cheer for other freedoms, but want to keep others from freedoms they enjoy?
Posted by bwr on August 9, 2007 03:51 PMbwr - Are you trying to be logical with drew again?
This is a guy who only believes in two things.
1) Guns are evil
2) The daily kos is a think tank
I just can't figure whether he's fresh out of high school or fresh out of college.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 04:44 PMbwr,
I think you should know by now that most of my comments about firearms are made tongue in cheek. I realize that this country is awash in guns & that the only thing to hope for is that people will be responsible. Too many "accidents" happen to kids in the homes of "responsible" gun owners.
I have been in the infantry & I'm a pretty good shot. I have nothing against guns & plenty against people who handle them irresponsibly.
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 04:47 PMYo, anon at 3:25, at least include the entire sentence...
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.
Back then, the drafters used proper English. That last comma makes a world of difference and it's usually omitted by gun advocates. Glad you didn't omit it, but the preceding 2 phrases are important to interpret the entire sentence.
We don't need to abolish the 2nd Amendment, we need to apply grammatical structure.
Posted by Grammar King on August 9, 2007 05:00 PMI would welcome abolition of religion in the public sector. Jesus the Jew, "from the loins of David" gets credit for mandating "pray in your closet." If you want to pray in church that's okay. I won't visit your church since I need to be free from i.e. (from) your dogma so it doesn't bite me in the ass. Get it? "dog(ma).
Deicide Corner: “In our windy world, what's up is faith, what's down is heresy.”
-- Alfred Tennyson
Drew re your 04;47 PM post
Very well said. An honest and respectable opinion that all should be able to appreciate.
Posted by Trinity on August 9, 2007 05:13 PMAnyone that comes to my house to take away my firearms WILL be shot.
Anyone coming to my door to peddle their bullsht religeon will be tossed off my yard by me.
Anyone, who is gay and wants to adopt marry, or do whatever they want with other gays. well, who gives a damn, as long as they dont try to peddle that on me and mind their own business.
Posted by Fresh on August 9, 2007 05:32 PMThanks Drew. We give each other crap and know you are talking tongue and cheek. Thought I would be serious for once and truly see what your views are so as not to offend you in some of the smack we throw at each other. Now we can go back to giving each other grief. Enjoy the evening
Posted by bwr on August 9, 2007 06:08 PM"Democrats have not only expanded gay rights, but also have sought, many times successfully, to restrict firearms rights."
I presume that Anthony J. Fabian wants no restrictions on who may buy and carry firearms. Drunk or sober, minor or adult, criminal record or not, sane or insane, he apparently thinks they are entitled to their firearms. I wonder if he enjoys those photos of all the Iraqis shooting off their weapons.
Or maybe he does have enough sense to know that some restrictions are necessary and desirable but just doesn't want to admit it.
Well said Deicide. And it was funny but my keyboard is missing the laugh key.
I am a very conservative Catholic who rejoices that more children will have loving homes. I also am an expert marksman. Off subject somewhat...
I once came home from work and found my front door lock broken. The muddy snow on my porch made it clear that the person that did it took two steps inside then turned and left. I called the police and they checked the apartment to be sure no one was still inside. I asked them why the crook went to all the trouble to break the lock then didn't even come in. They laughed and pointed at my trophies and other marksmanship awards on the bookcase and wall next to the door. "He didn't want to find out if you still had a rifle." said the cop.
Be well Richard. May others enjoy your posts as much as I do. You are a precious person to me.
Posted by momma y on August 9, 2007 07:19 PMTruth, comparing americans to iraqis is firvilous and utterly stupid, ( kinda like you )
and I have never seen a gun advocate in favor of having children or criminals carry guns. but nice try at spining the arguement .
people can have guns and should be able to buy them if they are not felons or children. and if that fool had come into my house and I was there he would be another dead CRIMINAL that hopefully YOU truth, wouldnt have to deal with in the future.
Posted by Fresh on August 9, 2007 07:50 PMYou are not a good democrat until you take it in the butt.
Posted by bart on August 9, 2007 07:57 PMBart, I bet you must be like all the other Republicand who condemn something..only to secretly do it...you are probably about as anti-gay as Foley and Haggard, lol... are you a top or bottom?
Posted by anti-GOP on August 10, 2007 06:00 AMFresh:
Then why everytime they try to pass any gun control measure to keep guns out of the hands of children & criminals here comes Charleton Heston and the NRA screaming and yelling.
fresh,
I think that if you read "Truth", rather than just firing off half-cocked at him, you will find that he is trying to define those limits and restrictions - such as no criminals or children - which are reasonable when dealing with firearms ownership.
Unfortunately, there ARE altogether too many "gun advocates" who would have NO restrictions whatsoever; and many of them post on this forum almost every time the matter of firearms shows up. There is a difference between support of the basic rights in the Second Amendment and avocating a society/nation of "gunslingers"; and a perpetual "Old Wild West" approach to life.
Unlike speech, print, photography, painting, and other forms of expression - which are not, in and of themselves, capable of causing damage, or of taking life - firearms can, and do, have the potential of actual physical harm. Which is the basic reason for learning that EVERY firearm is ALWAYS loaded, and is to be treated as such. Which was the first axiom/rule taught in the old Junior NRA safety training, before one ever got within yards of the firearm itself.
But, even with safety training, it is sadly true that accidents can, and do, happen. And that gives rise to the questions about how ownership of firearms might be reasonably made as nearly universal as the Second Amendment would guarantee, while also protecting those - such as small children - who need to learn before handling weapons.
Leaving aside the question of why anyone would need a fully automatic AK47, or a Uzi, etc., in the house as one's personal weapon, the problem of reaching a reasonable point of freedom of, and right to, ownership of firearms is certainly complicated. And, it is an area that certainly generates a great deal more heat than light when it comes to ways in which to deal with the problems.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 10, 2007 08:46 AMGood Morning OG.
I read Truth's post in this thread and it is different than his posts in similar threads. Is it a change of heart on the 2nd Amendment from his other posts?
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 09:09 AMThe 2nd amenedment sez we can have guns. Period. Dont say nothing about having to be responsible or law abiding with 'em. Theys are guns we can use em for whatever or at whomever we wanna. Like Charley Hesten sez you can have mine when you pull it from my cold dead hands
Posted by Freedom Rings on August 10, 2007 09:38 AM@Freedom Rings
Deal! And, can I have the ammo to go with it?
bwr,
It may well be somewhat different than others. I have not followed the "gun control" issue all that closely. Mostly because the postings of , "Freedom Rings", "Yep", and such, tend to dominate, or become more or less the "last word".
There were a few of those "Old Wild West" characters still around, back in the Great Depression, when I was growing up. And, while they certainly provided a colorful view of history, and of the society/nation of the day, the coming of World War 2 sort of brought about an eclipse of the times there.
Today, this kind of thought is very anachronistic, at best; but, it IS A PART of the legitimate complexity of firearms ownership. Just as the problem of automatic weapons, such as AK47s and Uzis have become a part of the complexity as well.
My old Smith & Wesson K Model 38 is, itself, something of an anachronism, as I guess are my ideas about responsible firearms ownership - as opposed to regression to "gunslinger" society.- and those of safety training at an early age (my own began at 8 years of age, with Junior NRA). So, I generally let this line of postings pass.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 10, 2007 10:32 AMTruth, you left out the right to shoot guns in the air and at each other during Cinco De Mayo.
Posted by on August 10, 2007 10:47 AMDrew,Truth,Larry and Old Grouch are very good examples of the coward wing of the Democrat party.When these people say "reasonable gun control " they mean no one should own a gun.Their fear of being shot is so great that they would trash the Second Admendment in a minute.Every large city controled by coward Democrats takes away the citizens' right to own firearms.Their idea of the right is if very few people owned them.These individuals have showed their great cowardness [not a word but it fits the Democrat party] in other postings.These people talk about how brave they were at one time.That may be true but now they are just a bunch of sniveling cowards hiding behind women and children.
Posted by An American on August 10, 2007 10:50 AMThanks OG.
Agree on the complexity of ownership of firearms. I choose not to own an AK47. If I were a collector, I may have a different view.
I was approx the same age (8) when I learned of gun safety and education. My grandfather was an instructor for adults and children. He took that responsibility very seriously. This was in a very rural area and firearms were treated with respect as a general rule.
I guess my biggesgt concern is that there are those that wish to entirely ban something that they do not fully understand and at the same time criticize tthe other side for wanting another freedom taken away. Both sides of the aisle are guilty and dissapprove of both tactics.
Lets enforce the laws that are currently on the books and work from there. We tend to add additional laws that hogtie those of us that are responsible, while doing nothing for the ones we are trying to protect the public from.
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 10:54 AMMy post above is directed at meaningless statements such as Anthony J. Fabian makes:
"[Democrats] have sought, many times successfully, to restrict firearms rights".
It is meaningless because it says nothing about what kind of restrictions it is referring to. Except for fringe extremists like Freedom Rings, most ardent gun rights advocates recognize that some restrictions need to be in place.
So it is not a matter of "no restrictions". It is a matter of "what kind of restrictions". Fabian totally ignores that reality by simply repeating a sound byte which does not distinguish between restrictions most people on both sides of the spectrum agree to and those only Democrats agree to. If he has a problem about certain restrictions the Democrats have sought, he should take the time to say so rather than just repeating a meaningless political sound byte.
My post does not reflect my views on any particular kind of restriction because it was in response to a post which fails to mention any particular kind of restriction.
Posted by Truth on August 10, 2007 10:57 AMIsnt "Freedom Rings" actually making fun of gun owners? Think it was a slam. He is on the gun ban side.
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 11:10 AMTruth, Gore said he fully supported requiring national registration of all firearms in a debate with Bush.
That's a pretty clear illustration of his desire to further restrict gun rights. And since he was running for president as a democrat, and the majority of democrats voted for him, How can you say democrats "aren't" for more restrictions on gun ownership by law abiding citizens?
Posted by KW on August 10, 2007 11:23 AMSome of the nicest, most respectable, family oriented people I have ever met, I met at a Hunters Safety course held by the Colorado D.O.W. a couple years ago. Not an irresponsible, criminal type of person in the class. I guess not all people who want to own and operate guns are criminals. Not all who chose to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment are either.
Posted by Jay on August 10, 2007 11:25 AMIt would seem that America has lost its sense of humor. At the very least, you people have no understanding or appreciation of sarcasm.
Posted by It's Sad on August 10, 2007 11:36 AMKW,
Old Daddy Bush ran on the platform of "No New Taxes" - "Read my lips", for a slogan, if memory serves, and he was running as a Republican for President. And the majority of the Republicans voted for him. Immediately after being elected, he chose to increas taxes significantly. So, how can you say that Republicans really aren't for more taxes, while simply using the slogan for campaign purposes?
Posted by Old Grouch on August 10, 2007 11:38 AMSo much for God and gays, looks like everyone here is more interested in guns.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 10, 2007 11:55 AMTruth ,here are just a few gun restrictions and anti-gun things Democrats have pushed.1] Bill Clinton put 80% of gun dealers out of business.2] Bill Clintions' administration went to court and said the Second Amendment was not an individual right to own firearms.3]Bill Clinton banned firearms that function like guns we have owned for over 100 years.4]Bill Clinton helped start frivilous law suits against gun manufacturers to sue them out of business.All of the suits failed they were intended to destroy in gun business by draining them of their money.5] Bill Ritter's aid wrote me and said Bill Ritter wants to ban semi-auto firearms.Mr. Ritter had already pushed this ban in Denver.We have owned semi-auto firearms for over 100 years in this country.6] Bill Ritter has fought against the right of law abiding citizens to carry concealed for self defense.7]Bill Ritter has fought against the right of law abiding citizens to carry a firearm in their car for self defense.8] Bill Ritter gets an "F" grade from the NRA the and all state gun rights groups.There are many more bad things about the Democrats on the gun issue but I do not hve time to explain.
Posted by Ron on August 10, 2007 12:02 PMWhen Bush took office his administration went to court and argued that the Second Amendment was an individual right to own firearms.
Posted by Ron on August 10, 2007 12:09 PMOG I wont use the Republican word, but true fiscal conservatives blasted Sr for doing doing what he did. Sr was wrong...... He was voted out for being wrong. Rightfully so.
Fiscal Conservatives are not for new taxes, and I am not sure what Republicans are for. If they were truly Fiscal conservatives, I imagine they would be mad also. There is too much waste in our Govt right now and until that is addressed, why should the taxes be added until we get control over our spending? Besides that, what are we truly trying to do with taxes? Raise the tax rate, or raise tax revenues? Difference there.
OG I wont use the Republican word, but true fiscal conservatives blasted Sr for doing doing what he did. Sr was wrong...... He was voted out for being wrong. Rightfully so.
Fiscal Conservatives are not for new taxes, and I am not sure what Republicans are for. If they were truly Fiscal conservatives, I imagine they would be mad also. There is too much waste in our Govt right now and until that is addressed, why should the taxes be added until we get control over our spending? Besides that, what are we truly trying to do with taxes? Raise the tax rate, or raise tax revenues? Difference there.
OG I wont use the Republican word, but true fiscal conservatives blasted Sr for doing doing what he did. Sr was wrong...... He was voted out for being wrong. Rightfully so.
Fiscal Conservatives are not for new taxes, and I am not sure what Republicans are for. If they were truly Fiscal conservatives, I imagine they would be mad also. There is too much waste in our Govt right now and until that is addressed, why should the taxes be added until we get control over our spending? Besides that, what are we truly trying to do with taxes? Raise the tax rate, or raise tax revenues? Difference there.
OOPs my apologies on triple posting
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 12:15 PMDemocrat assaults on the Second Amendment in the 2007 Session were numerous:
HB1278 to repeal right to carry in autos (postponed in committee)
SB109 to impose tax on all firearms purchases (postponed in appropriations after approval in judiciary)
SB34 restricting concealed carry reciprocity (passed and signed by Gov.)
HB1174 continuing concealed carry database (passed and signed by Gov.)
Senate Dems also killed in committee HB1011 to expand self-defense law to include business as well as homes.
You can look it up...
Posted by Author on August 10, 2007 12:53 PMWhat the "no new taxes" crowd fails to recognize is that if you If you cut taxes and increase spending while simultaneously running a big trade imbalance and funding an expensive occupation of a foreign country, you have to get your money from somewhere.
Unfortunately for us--the money is coming from China. And, the day is coming when they are going to call in their markers. They are already starting to hold it over our heads...
"The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China’s “nuclear option” in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds."
For the visual learners in the crowd, that is approximately $900,000,000,000. I'll let you do the math on what the interest alone on that amount is.
Too bad that old second amendment is a twofer, two ideas in on paragraph. Well regulated militia and right to own guns.
Now if that had only been written as clearly, as say, biblical passages, we would not have this ongoing argument.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 10, 2007 01:05 PMReality? Too much spending? No Sh&^* Sherlock. Stop the wastes. Stop them Look at the Pork rolling out of Congress as we speak. How much of it is legit and needed.....not needed for votes that is. Priorities. Where I have the problems is the ability to jump on the fact that we are spending more than we are generating, to come up with "raise" taxes as the primary need.
Sincere question.....What is more important? Raising taxes or Tax Revenue?
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 01:12 PMI'm going to go with (c)--stop throwing money down the sinkhole that is Iraq and instead put it to use right here.
Which is more important--America or Iraq? Oh, that's right, Iraq has oil. Nevermind.
Posted by The Reality on August 10, 2007 01:23 PMReality? No sh&^%? Me too Dang we agree. Now back on point Taxes/Raising or total Tax Revenue?
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 01:29 PMYes Reality we SHOULD be spending $$$$ updating equestrian centers near New Orleans. That is exactly how we should be spending federal tax dollars. Who knew that most Katrina victoms were so attached to their horses that they would spend federal $$$$ there and not say........lets see the LEVEES.
And then Murtha and his Republican buddy topping the list of Pork expenditures in the last week or so. Going to a good cause I bet. Hope it leads to their re-election bids.
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 01:33 PMSharon, is an excllent example of the coward wing of the Democrat party.She does not want to read the history of the Second Amendment or acknowledge the truth about it because she is fearful.The milita was the whole body of the people all the citizens.At that time if they wanted to refer to a body like the National Guard they used the term"select milita".Every educated person knows that the Bill of Rights was an individual Bill of Rights to protect the people from government oppression.The "collective right right theory" was not even heard of until this century.It was made up by liberal Democrat cowards to justify taking away our firearms.The right to keep and bear arms that we have in the State Constitution in Colorado does not even mention a "milita". It is very explicit.Sharon read this"I ask you sir ,what is the militia?It is the whole people,except for a few public officials." -George Mason."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-Thomas Jefferson."Americans have the right and advantage of being armed-unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."-James Madison.I realize that Sharon will not care about any of these facts because she is a coward Democrat and wants guns banned because of her fear.She can never again play dumb on the issue.
Posted by An American on August 10, 2007 02:10 PMKW: "How can you say democrats "aren't" for more restrictions on gun ownership by law abiding citizens?"
And how, KW, can you say that you've stopped beating your wife?
I never came anywhere close to saying what you allege I said.
The phrase "more restrictions" which you use is meaningless. What kind of restrictions are you talking about?
This business of using the word "restrictions" without defining what kind of restrictions is similar to the deception in the phrase "don't throw more money at the schools". Surely most people recognize that there are cases in which the schools need more money and cases where they don't. Likewise, there are restrictions on guns which make sense to even gun rights advocates and others which don't.
But when people like you don't take the time to say what you are talking about, you really don't make sense.
Posted by Truth on August 10, 2007 02:25 PMAn UN American
Your posts are so mundane and always the same thing. Anyone who can't even put a space after a period is in need of serious counseling.
Posted by GK on August 10, 2007 02:26 PMI've metioned this before, the poster that goes under the name of an American is in fact a social studies class project trying to find the "dark side of patriotism". These posts are used bait to bring out the raw anger of people.
Posted by Larry on August 10, 2007 02:46 PMTruth NOW you want Details? Since when have you changed your mind on details. Takes too much time and not appropriate for this medium Right? That was your lame arse excuse on Healthcare.
Larry? That does not happen on the other side? Yes it does. Some call it smack but it happens on both sides. Doesnt seem to bother you when it comes from your side of the aisle. If it did what you think of Truths comment about KW?
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 02:54 PMGK gets an "A" in punctuation but is still a Democrat coward.Here is something that is going to make the Democrat cowards wet their panties."The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called to question." Article 11, & 13, Colorado Constitution.How are the cowards in the Democrat party going to distort this one.
Posted by An American on August 10, 2007 02:58 PMFor more on republican virtues visit:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
OHHHHH Nooooo BLU found GOOGLE!
There are some Republicans that are corrupt. Then we can then attribute that to the fact that all Republicans are bad then?
OR What if someone went and found a similar page that found the same crap about Democrats! Then we can then attribute that all Democrats are bad?
OK now what do we have?
All democrats and republicans are bad.
Call the newspapers. Think we have a story here
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 03:09 PMSorry my postings are bothering some of you but if you are not a Democrat coward do not be offended.I am only telling the truth about what that party has become.Look at the issues and you will see it also.The Democrats are making me feel, in comparison to them,like a Super Hero.I think I might start using the name An American Super- Hero.
Posted by An American on August 10, 2007 03:11 PMAn American, darlin` thanks for calling my excellent.
Now, we are going to debate the meaning of "is" as in this is what militia means.
If it was crystal clear you would not have taken the time to re-explain it.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 10, 2007 03:17 PMUnAmerican - doesn't the institution you're in limit the amount of time that you spend on the computer each day? Do you feel calmer after the nurse gives you the little pills?
Posted by drew on August 10, 2007 03:19 PMI never said it didn't bwr, but since there haven't been anybody saying they were a democrat who comes and thrashes people for no apparent reason other than to make themselves feel strong, it wasn't really an issue. You don't hear democrats or liberals or independents screaming about how terrible the people on the other side are. I have defended KW on more than one occasion because I realize he does fundamentaly want what is best for the country. Even though his idea of a perfect country is different from mine. If I ever see a post calling the republican party a bunch of nazi, murdering, cowards, or whatever else have you, I will come to the aid of my fellow Americans. And since I have never stated which side of the aisle I am on, it's very telling that you consider me to be a democrat, but you'll find they play by more grown up rules.
Personally the post by Truth intended for KW wasn't really called for, but I was going under the assumption that Truth was in the proccess of making a point or to point out a hypocracy. It wasn't an attack by any means.
Posted by Larry on August 10, 2007 03:19 PMLarry. It happens on both sides and I too hate it when it happens, but being a Libertarian I give both sides grief and get a bunch back.
How was Truths point (2nd Paragraph) have anything to do with politics or pointing out hypocracy? Hell Drew and I give each other crap all the time,but it does not mean that we are necessarily cruel to each other. I try to make sure people know when I am giving them grief and hopefully in a good natured NON Family way
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 03:32 PMWho has pills and is not sharing?
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 03:35 PMNo one does, bwr, Nurse Ratchet rations Un-American's pills very carefully - but sometimes Keith steals them.
Posted by drew on August 10, 2007 03:51 PMIt does happen on both sides, and it disgusts me to no end. But clearly there is a difference between the posts by drew and an American. The most notable differences I see between the dems and reps posts is that the dems are considered weak, and the reps are considered, well, crazy would be how I choose to describe it. But basically the phrase in question was if KW stopped beating his wife. Kw doesn't seem like the type to beat his wife, but under a microscope, Truth never said KW DID beat his wife. Simply asked if it stopped. To where the implication that this has been going on for a while, but the direct assumption was never made. This is what I hate about politics, but it's nothing I can do anything about. This goes under the same thing that an American does, calling everybody who is a democrat a coward and traitor, and likewise anybody who disagrees with them. They say they are not calling anybody names, but instead just telling the truth. There is no basis or reasoning for doing such things, other than to be able to look at themselves in the mirror and marvel at their "strength". These are the types of people you can't even hold a conversation with because after they present their side of the story, they are too busy patting themselves on the back to listen to the other side. When somebody says I am the coolest, and somebody else says well no actually your not, the first person will always be the one to say well yeah I am and your stupid, and that's the end of the exchange.
I've stated many times that I am not in support of the democrats anymore than the republicans, and I see that the republican party has been being taken over by people who don't believe in what true republicans stand for, just like the democratic party has had done to them. I don't see a need for anything other than a simple debate or enxchange of ideas. To get one side of a story and then listen to the other side. I know it's very difficult to convey a sense of giving someone a hard time over the internet. And some people don't take it the right way. But I will be the first to admit that I may very well be taking comments like an Americans the wrong way, but honestly it sounds like back and forth trying to explain to somebody how much cooler you are than they are.
Posted by Larry on August 10, 2007 03:53 PMThanks Larry. "An American goes way over the top. Bad but not as bad as on other threads today. Not acceptable anywhere. Not sure if he is serious or trying to be funny, but some of what is said is very tasteless.
I have found NOTHING wrong with Drew's comments. If I have indicated that I am sorry. Actually think Drew is probably fun guy and has a pretty good sense of humor
Posted by bwr on August 10, 2007 04:54 PMAn American if you are still following this thread, remember when Bush was a newly minted President and the Chinese got one of our super, duper, spy planes, or recon planes, whatever we called it, and all our people.?
Remember how decisively your brave Republican President stood up to the Chinese and demanded the return of our citizens and our property?
Remember how he threatened to make Taiwan the 51st state if our property wasn`t returned? How he filled the area with war ships, froze Chinese assets and stopped all diplomatic relations until the Chinese finally caved in?
No? What I remember is that your brave Republican President sat on his brave little Republican butt and waited for the Chinese to tell US what they would do.
And your brave Republican President froze up on 9-11 and bravely finished the goat story. Then he flew around more then Superman till the danger seemed over.
Now you may notice that I have not insulted you in this letter. Nor have I called you names. I have not questioned your bravery, oh ye who posts in your jammys with the feet in them.
But you are wearing our my already thin patience.
So please take your comments about me , in the future, and put them in a nice warm place free from UV light.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 11, 2007 12:07 PMbwr: "How was Truths point (2nd Paragraph) have anything to do with politics or pointing out hypocracy?"
bwr accuses me of saying something I never said. I respond with that classic example of trying to put words in another's mouth: "have you stopped beating your wife?", going on to complain about bwr trying to put words in my mouth.
Good God, does bwr really think I am accusing him of beating his wife?
Sharon makes a good point.If the Second Amendment was so clear why would I have to take time to explain it.The reason is that liberals like Sharon have tried to mislead the public on this issue.They have basically lied about the issue.Do you remember in the last class you learned that Democrats go by how they feel and then make up lies to prove how they feel.This is what they did with the Second Amendment.Now why would the Democrats take an amendment that is so clear and try to change it.Simple they are cowards and fear being shot.On the other hand these cowards read a right to an abortion in the Constitution.There is not a single fact that backs that right but the Democrats feel that they should have it so they make up lies to back their feelings.Look at the statements Sharon makes above to prove that Bush is a coward.The terms I could use to describe her statements are lies and destortions.The cowards are the ones that want to disarm the people like the Communist,Nazis and Democrats.Class dismissed.
Posted by An American on August 11, 2007 01:36 PMDid you notice that Sharon did not mention the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" in the Colorado State Constitution.In that right there is no mention of a militia.It is very clear that all citizens have a right to own firearms.The reason she did not write about it is because she is going by how she "feels" and that fact does not fit her agenda.Her agenda as a Democrat coward is to take all if not most guns away from tha people.I think that I have more than proven my Democrat coward theory with Sharon.I think even the Democrats will have to admit this.
Posted by An American on August 11, 2007 01:54 PMDrew has proven he is a coward on many issues.The war,he is for putting cameras up at every intersection so no one will hurt him.He is against owning firearms.Drew has proven he is a Democrat coward on all fronts.I would like to thank Drew for being my Guinea Pig.
Posted by An American on August 11, 2007 02:08 PMI woudl like to thank An(ti) American for simply being a pig. I use his ramblings to convet mis-guided Republicans to come over from the 'Dark Side"... Usually after seeing An(ti) American's ramblings they sheeplishly apologize for such ignorance and start seeing the world in a new light
Posted by duo( twice as smart as uno) on August 13, 2007 08:25 AMduo(twice as smart, etc.)
I certainly wish you great good luck and success in your venture of getting "mis-guided Republicans to come over . . . ." However, I do have a question: On this website, where do you find any one of them who will even begin to admit to being "mis-guided"?
I have always felt that "AnAmerican" and his cohorts represent the outstanding spokesmen for the mind, heart, and whatever passes for a "soul" of Republicanism/conservatism to be found on this website. Are there really others?
Posted by Old Grouch on August 13, 2007 09:53 AMMan ,I am on target.Look at the "flak" I am getting! As you notice again "Old Grouch" and "duo" have still not mentioned the Second Amendment or our State right to own firearms.These Democrat cowards and fear being shot.Duo is so bothered by the truth that he is saying he is using my words to turn people against the Republican party.He thinks by lying he will stop me from telling the truth.Real men and women know what I am saying is true.Democrats are US haters and cowards.The only rights they protect are the ones that help the terrorists.I want to thank "duo" and Old Grouch" for being good examples of the Democrat party.Duo you can use my words anytime you want but do not change them or lie something Democrats do all of the time!!
Posted by An American on August 13, 2007 10:42 AM