"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[zeke]

Cruz has said nothing about guns protecting people from government encroachment.

Liar!
Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is 'Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny'

ed, you ever start to think that the bossy dude lives in an alternate reality?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did not like Reagan, mostly because Iran-Contra that threatened the troops because of his stupid, lying behavior. Ford was great, and I supported Nixon (then we found he was a crook, and Bush the Elder.

This explains everything. You are not a Conservative. You either don't understand or don't like the Conservative philosophy. Maybe it's because of misconception or just plain ignorance, I can't be the judge. The simple fact is, you are not a Conservative.

I suspect you are a Big Labor corporatist. Since that was what Ford and Nixon were and what is currently running the GOP at this time. It's important to note that corporatist ideologues are not Conservative and don't give a solitary shit about conservative philosophy. They are all about the almighty dollar and organized labor. Crony capitalism-- the New World Order! That's your ideology and why you are a Republican.
The problem is, you can't win national elections on your ideology.

It explains everything. I am not a far right reactionary. I understand and don’t like far right philosophy. I am not a conservative by your silly standard.

Define “big labor corporatist”, please. Neither Ford nor Nixon nor Bush the Elder were fans of labor but did recognize their place in the American economy. You have to support your claim “They are all about the almighty dollar and organized labor,” not just say it.

Ah, you talk about the New World Order. Define it please.

And you have not demonstrated anyting about my own policies and beliefs, only the failures of yours.

Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Younger won seven elections of mainstream Republicanism, not your silly idea of “Conservatism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is radicle to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the INDIVIDUAL is guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to overthrow the government whenever he rationalizes he is protecting his individual liberty.

No one has stated this except YOU!

What you are doing is twisting the words of Sen. Cruz in order to make you inane point. You are inferring things that were not said.

And... Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to individuals! Yes, the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals who do have the right to defend their property and ultimately, their country in the event of a tyrannical overthrow of government in order to restore democracy. I'm sorry if you don't think we should have the right to defend our country from the overthrow of tyrants. I suggest you move to China or Russia where people have no freedom or rights.

Not according to the Federalist Papers, as you well know!

The amendment’s author, Federalist James Madison, articulated that its purpose was to split the military power of the new nation between the states and the federal government. But he also made it clear that any opposition to federal tyranny would come from state militia forces “conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”

But he also made it clear that any opposition to federal tyranny would come from state militia forces...

Hence the phrase "well-formed militia" in the 2nd Amendment.

Has Cruz said anything about citizens taking up arms against the government? No.

I know Madison better than you, I can assure you. What you are now trying to do is sidle up to Madison's argument for strong state militias as if that somehow makes your argument that Cruz opposes Madison. Who the hell do you think state militias are made of? Foreigners? The individual right to bear arms is made in the argument for strong state militias.

I don't think Ted Cruz thinks individual people ought to have the right to revolt and overthrow the government on their own without the state. If you have something he has said to that effect, you are more than welcome to show us. Trying to twist and distort his comments out of context by doing some pretty amazing acrobatics is not going to work.

The radical extremist Crus never once mentioned the state, not a single time, but mentioned the individual 4 times. His subject line for his insurrectionist rant was, "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

The idea that guns protect Americans against government encroachment is a dangerously slippery one. One man’s liberty encroachment is another man’s law enforcement, ala Bundy ranch. Such a view when it boils down to it is not the philosophy of patriotic citizens ready to defend their liberties-no matter how it is presented. It is, in truth, part and parcel of a terrorist ideology.

Every suicide bomber can, after all, use the same excuse. Casting aside the democratic system altogether, disregarding the power of representative government, ignoring the law of the land for the sake of a noble truth, indisputable right or principle, all of these things belong to the terrorist mentality. History gives us plenty of proof that fighting tyrants is the creed of most political terrorists. John Wilkes Booth, for example, after murdering the president in cold blood at Ford's Theatre, Booth lept down to the stage and shouted at the audience, "Sic semper tyrannis" which means in Latin "Thus always to tyrants."

Edward, I am not going to argue semantics with you. Cruz has said nothing about guns protecting people from government encroachment. There is nothing extreme or "far" in anything he said. He has an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that you obviously don't have. His view is consistent with most voters and citizens of this country. In fact, gun control Liberals represent one of the smallest special interest groups.

Again, what we see you have done is to take Cruz' words out of context and imply he is somehow giving a green light to domestic terrorism. You might fool some idiot like Jake into believing this, but I don't think it will work on all of America.

When 4 of 5 Americans want sensible gun control, your argument falls flat. Cruz is an extremest follower of your far right philosophy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz has said nothing about guns protecting people from government encroachment.

Liar!
Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is 'Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny'

You are right, and Boss is fabricating.

 

[Boss]

Cruz has said nothing about guns protecting people from government encroachment.

Liar!
Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is 'Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny'

It IS the ultimate check against government tyranny. That's not saying it facilitates revolt against the government by the individual. Government encroaches on our lives every day, that's not tyranny and never has been.

Cruz is not talking about armed rebellion against the government. He is addressing the left wing gun control craze, which by the way, does not work to reduce crime or violence. He is trying to educate the ignorant about what the founding fathers set up with the Constitution. We have the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and it isn't just so we can hunt for sport.

 

[Boss]

When 4 of 5 Americans want sensible gun control, your argument falls flat. Cruz is an extremest follower of your far right philosophy.

LMFAO... Include Cruz and myself in the group who wants sensible gun control! It is the ridiculous and absurd gun control we have a problem with.

(...still haven't shown what is extremist or far.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss, you are not entitled to have a missile frigate in your swimming pool.

If you think an armed citizenry today can control the government, think of the stupid Republic of Texas dudes who died in the desert during their rebellion.

 

[Boss]

I did not like Reagan, mostly because Iran-Contra that threatened the troops because of his stupid, lying behavior. Ford was great, and I supported Nixon (then we found he was a crook, and Bush the Elder.

This explains everything. You are not a Conservative. You either don't understand or don't like the Conservative philosophy. Maybe it's because of misconception or just plain ignorance, I can't be the judge. The simple fact is, you are not a Conservative.

I suspect you are a Big Labor corporatist. Since that was what Ford and Nixon were and what is currently running the GOP at this time. It's important to note that corporatist ideologues are not Conservative and don't give a solitary shit about conservative philosophy. They are all about the almighty dollar and organized labor. Crony capitalism-- the New World Order! That's your ideology and why you are a Republican.
The problem is, you can't win national elections on your ideology.

It explains everything. I am not a far right reactionary. I understand and don’t like far right philosophy. I am not a conservative by your silly standard.

Define “big labor corporatist”, please. Neither Ford nor Nixon nor Bush the Elder were fans of labor but did recognize their place in the American economy. You have to support your claim “They are all about the almighty dollar and organized labor,” not just say it.

Ah, you talk about the New World Order. Define it please.

And you have not demonstrated anyting about my own policies and beliefs, only the failures of yours.

Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Younger won seven elections of mainstream Republicanism, not your silly idea of “Conservatism.

We are still stuck on "far right" meaning nothing other than "conservative" to a liberal fuckgoof like you. Until you can effectively delineate a difference between the two, we must assume they are the same... at least in your mind and way of thinking. Conservatives aren't "far" or "extreme" anything and that's in the dictionary definition defining Conservative. Far right extremists exist but they have more in common with radical ideologues like you and are not true Conservatives.

If you don't understand what a Corporatist is, you should read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. Of course, you won't because you're a radical ideologue. Basically, a Corporatist seeks to use the power of government to advantage corporate interests and favor organized labor.

Nixon, Ford and H.W. Bush were Corporatist ideologues. They were more conservative than liberal, but they weren't Conservatives with a capital letter. They constantly pandered to Conservatives and many Conservatives were fooled into voting for them.

I didn't make a statement regarding your policies and beliefs, I merely stated what I thought... I could be wrong. I'm guessing you are a big union guy, you either worked for or are currently part of a labor union. It's just a shot in the dark based on what you've said here.

 

[edthecynic]

Cruz has said nothing about guns protecting people from government encroachment.

Liar!
Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is 'Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny'

It IS the ultimate check against government tyranny. That's not saying it facilitates revolt against the government by the individual. Government encroaches on our lives every day, that's not tyranny and never has been.

Cruz is not talking about armed rebellion against the government. He is addressing the left wing gun control craze, which by the way, does not work to reduce crime or violence. He is trying to educate the ignorant about what the founding fathers set up with the Constitution. We have the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and it isn't just so we can hunt for sport.

There is NO "Left wing gun control craze" that is a mindless stereotype that the FAR RIGHT brands everyone who wants sensible gun laws, like getting rid of the loopholes that bypass background checks.

Again your OWN words expose your extremism!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are still stuck on the "far right" meaning of what is Conservatism; you are not a traditional conservative or a Republican. Your definition of Conservative is completely out of line with traditional definitions. You are “far” and “extreme” in your beilefs.

A traditional Republican like me is certainly not a radical ideologue like you. You oppose fascist government: I do as well. Citizens United is an atrocity perpetrated on the American people. I do recognize the role of government in our economy, which is not fascistic but rather social democracy. Look up the terms.

Nixon, Ford and H.W. Bush were traditional Republicans; Reagan would have been a Conservative fascist but did not have the chance.

I belonged to a union because I had to when I was bagging groceries while in high school. You are wrong much of the time because your ideology is extreme and your definitions skewed.

 

[edthecynic]

you should read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. Of course, you won't because you're a radical ideologue.

There is no more a radical ideologue than Levin. Again you expose your extremism. Levin's whole routine is to tag everyone he hates with an insulting nickname, you can't get any more CON$ervoFascist than that!

 

[JakeStarkey]

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. That means they are all radical ideologues.

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn t this a political slam dunk - The Washington Post

 

[Boss]

There is NO "Left wing gun control craze" that is a mindless stereotype that the FAR RIGHT brands everyone who wants sensible gun laws, like getting rid of the loopholes that bypass background checks.

Again your OWN words expose your extremism!

Pinocchio. All you know how to do is lie and distort perspectives. YOU are the extremist.

 

[Boss]

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. That means they are all radical ideologues.

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn t this a political slam dunk - The Washington Post

Like I said, I don't think Cruz or myself are opposed to rigorous background checks for people purchasing firearms. I know that I'm not and I don't recall anything Cruz has said about not wanting this... the problem is, you want to take away the individual right to bear arms and claim you are doing something else. When you can distort context and create new definitions for words and such, this is easy to do.

Now... Whenever I see a poll that shows 90% want something... it tells me there is something seriously wrong with the question or the poll. This is what I found on your poll:

The Question:
Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?

First of all, people who buy guns at gun shows have to undergo the same background checks as everyone else, there is no difference. If any gun dealer sells a gun without a background check they have violated the law and can lose their dealer's license. So the question implies that we currently don't have a law requiring a background check for people buying guns at gun shows, which is a lie. We begin with a question perpetrated on a lie.

Are there some unscrupulous people selling guns as private parties without doing a background check? Possibly, but then again, there are unscrupulous people selling guns in alleys and out of the backs of vans everywhere. Unfortunately, we cannot pass a law ensuring criminals and unscrupulous people obey the background check laws. May as well be passing a law that crazy people can't use guns. I suspect 90% of us agree that crazy people ought not use guns.

Next problem is the survey methodology. The Washington Post... (known for it's incredibly 'fair and balanced' politics...ahem) conducted a phone survey of 1,001 people. We are a nation of 350,000,000 people. They also did not stratify their survey between urban and rural, so this means the majority of the 1,001 were urban because most people are urban. Unfortunately for you, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Republic.

I live in Alabama and happen to have numerous liberal to very liberal friends. I can assure you, among my liberal friends, they are surprisingly pro-gun. I suppose they are like Ted Cruz and myself, and favor background checks at gun shows as well as not allowing crazy people to use guns.

 

[Boss]

You are still stuck on the "far right" meaning of what is Conservatism; you are not a traditional conservative or a Republican. Your definition of Conservative is completely out of line with traditional definitions. You are “far” and “extreme” in your beilefs.

Conservative philosophy is a pragmatic approach at solving problems by examining past experiences and making careful and well-thought-out decisions moving forward. Conservatism utilizes a love for knowledge of our history and wisdom regarding common sense rationalizations. Conservatives hear all voices, everyone gets to have a say, all opinions are considered and we form a collective pragmatic approach which resolves the problem or issue as best it can be done to the satisfaction of most. Conservatism is not closed-minded to change but it is very cautious with it.

Ideologues are the radical and extremist opposites of Conservatives. Can you be an Ideologue/Conservative? Of course you can. You're just no longer using your Conservative philosophy. Many people misconstrue Conservatism as an ideology and it's important to note this is not Conservative philosophy.

None of my views or beliefs are "extreme" or "far" in any way. I am a Conservative who is somewhat socially Libertarian in his personal views and has a great respect for the will of the people. My ultimate default on any issue is Let The People Decide!

 

[edthecynic]

Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?

First of all, people who buy guns at gun shows have to undergo the same background checks as everyone else, there is no difference. If any gun dealer sells a gun without a background check they have violated the law and can lose their dealer's license. So the question implies that we currently don't have a law requiring a background check for people buying guns at gun shows, which is a lie. We begin with a question perpetrated on a lie.

Are there some unscrupulous people selling guns as private parties without doing a background check? Possibly

Notice how professional liars lie! They pretend that private gun sales without background checks are very rare at gun shows, but the TRUTH is that 33 states allow private gun sales at gun shows without background checks. So not only is it not rare, it is not "unscrupulous" but in fact quite legal.

So as is typical of the far Right, they rebut the truth perpetrated on a lie while accusing the truth tellers of lying.

 

[Boss]

Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?

First of all, people who buy guns at gun shows have to undergo the same background checks as everyone else, there is no difference. If any gun dealer sells a gun without a background check they have violated the law and can lose their dealer's license. So the question implies that we currently don't have a law requiring a background check for people buying guns at gun shows, which is a lie. We begin with a question perpetrated on a lie.

Are there some unscrupulous people selling guns as private parties without doing a background check? Possibly

Notice how professional liars lie! They pretend that private gun sales without background checks are very rare at gun shows, but the TRUTH is that 33 states allow private gun sales at gun shows without background checks. So not only is it not rare, it is not "unscrupulous" but in fact quite legal.

So as is typical of the far Right, they rebut the truth perpetrated on a lie while accusing the truth tellers of lying.

Well, there is no lie being told except by you. Private secondary market gun sales at gun shows is extremely rare or essentially non-existent. This is because gun shows are conducted by gun dealers who are required by law to conduct background checks. If I am a gun dealer at a gun show, and I am obeying the law and conducting background checks, and you are in the booth next to me, selling guns through some "loophole" without doing this, you can see where I would be quite agitated at this because it would cut into my business. So this just doesn't legitimately happen. Are there some rare exceptions? Perhaps, but the law also states that an individual private seller can't sell a gun to someone who they suspect may not be legally authorized to own a gun. So there's that.

In addition.... There is a very BIG constitutional freedom issue if you grant ME, as a private seller, the unfettered right to obtain a background check on YOU, under the pretense you want to buy my gun. If you don't see that as obvious, you are really too stupid to talk to. Do you think I should have the right to do a background check on you by claiming you want to buy a gun from me? Because that's exactly what we're talking about here.

 

[Boss]

Also..

Seven gun show loophole bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013, but none were passed. As of January 2015, 33 states do not restrict private sales of used firearms between private individuals, whether at gun shows or elsewhere. However, the U.S. capitaland the other 17 states do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales.

Gun show loophole - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are still stuck on the "far right" meaning of what is Conservatism; you are not a traditional conservative or a Republican. Your definition of Conservative is completely out of line with traditional definitions. You are “far” and “extreme” in your beilefs.

Conservative philosophy is a pragmatic approach at solving problems by examining past experiences and making careful and well-thought-out decisions moving forward. Conservatism utilizes a love for knowledge of our history and wisdom regarding common sense rationalizations. Conservatives hear all voices, everyone gets to have a say, all opinions are considered and we form a collective pragmatic approach which resolves the problem or issue as best it can be done to the satisfaction of most. Conservatism is not closed-minded to change but it is very cautious with it.

Ideologues are the radical and extremist opposites of Conservatives. Can you be an Ideologue/Conservative? Of course you can. You're just no longer using your Conservative philosophy. Many people misconstrue Conservatism as an ideology and it's important to note this is not Conservative philosophy.

None of my views or beliefs are "extreme" or "far" in any way. I am a Conservative who is somewhat socially Libertarian in his personal views and has a great respect for the will of the people. My ultimate default on any issue is Let The People Decide!

You keep repeating mindlessly your pablum. OK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

90% of Americans want background checks: already documented.