Limiting rights because of the actions of the tiny minority

[M14 Shooter]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

=== EDIT===

Thus far, the only person to admit having a (typically liberal) double standard on this issue is Nosmo King:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tions-of-the-tiny-minority-7.html#post5684662

I added his response to the poll as he did not have the courage to do so.

We already limit what weopons you can legally own. Therefore, it is not a legal problem banning large capacity magazines. The precedent has been established and approved by a Supreme Court decision.

Please cite that decision.

'cause, you see, there IS a decision that says for a weapon to be protected by the 2nd, it must be suitable for service in the militia, in common use at the current time, and be part of ordinary military equipment.

There is NO better example of this weapon than an AR-15 w/ 20/30rd USGI magazines.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I need 5 tons of fertilizer and 40 bottles of Sudafed. Why cant I get them?

Just buy them the way Mr. Holmes bought his guns: gradually over time. I know you'd like to pretend he just logged onto Guns R Us and ordered the whole shebang in one go, but that's not the case.

Is there a law in place that would stop anyone from buying them all at once? Shit, I'm seeing people here actually arguing why even THAT would be ok...

You see a lot of things normal people don't. They have meds for that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not sure how they think a "high capacity magazine" makes you shoot faster. Are they under the impression that the guns are automatic?

No, we're under the knowledge that reloading takes time away from shooting that not reloading doesn't.

How can you exist, being that stupid?

I can reload my 30/06 in less time then it takes you to run a hundred feet and it hold 5 rounds in its clip. I.can also lead a revolver in the time it takes to reload a magazine with my speed loader. Who do you think your kidding? You have no Fucking clue about what your talking about.

I have to wonder how much time leftists think it takes to eject one clip and put in another one. It's not like we're talking about muzzle-loading blunderbusses here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, we're under the knowledge that reloading takes time away from shooting that not reloading doesn't.

How can you exist, being that stupid?

I can reload my 30/06 in less time then it takes you to run a hundred feet and it hold 5 rounds in its clip. I.can also lead a revolver in the time it takes to reload a magazine with my speed loader. Who do you think your kidding? You have no Fucking clue about what your talking about.

I have to wonder how much time leftists think it takes to eject one clip and put in another one. It's not like we're talking about muzzle-loading blunderbusses here.

Well, since all they had in 1791 was muzzle-loading rifles, muskets and blunderbusses, that's all the 2nd amendment protects.
DUUh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not sure how they think a "high capacity magazine" makes you shoot faster. Are they under the impression that the guns are automatic?

No, we're under the knowledge that reloading takes time away from shooting that not reloading doesn't.

How can you exist, being that stupid?

I can reload my 30/06 in less time then it takes you to run a hundred feet and it hold 5 rounds in its clip. I.can also lead a revolver in the time it takes to reload a magazine with my speed loader. Who do you think your kidding? You have no Fucking clue about what your talking about.

You're an idiot. If you can think you can get the same number of rounds off with 5 20 round clips compared to one 100 round clip you need your head examined.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

Insofar as the "avant garde" consists of INVENTING rights, you are correct: conservatives aren't into that sort of thing.

When it comes to protecting the basic ones outlined in the Constitution for the purpose they were originally intended, we have it all over "progressives", who always seem to want to "progress" to a society where the government controls everything, including what people think. And if you're flattering yourselves that you're the pinnacle of freedom because you want to eliminate government protection of the few things it actually exists to protect - ie. life, liberty, and property ownership . . . well, we always knew you were a delusional dumbass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, we're under the knowledge that reloading takes time away from shooting that not reloading doesn't.

How can you exist, being that stupid?

I can reload my 30/06 in less time then it takes you to run a hundred feet and it hold 5 rounds in its clip. I.can also lead a revolver in the time it takes to reload a magazine with my speed loader. Who do you think your kidding? You have no Fucking clue about what your talking about.

You're an idiot. If you can think you can get the same number of rounds off with 5 20 round clips compared to one 100 round clip you need your head examined.

Speaking of idiots...
1: 5x20 = 100, and so you'll get the same number of rounds off with each.
2: There's no such thing as 20- or 100- rd clips. They don't exist.

 

[Nosmo King]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

Insofar as the "avant garde" consists of INVENTING rights, you are correct: conservatives aren't into that sort of thing.

When it comes to protecting the basic ones outlined in the Constitution for the purpose they were originally intended, we have it all over "progressives", who always seem to want to "progress" to a society where the government controls everything, including what people think. And if you're flattering yourselves that you're the pinnacle of freedom because you want to eliminate government protection of the few things it actually exists to protect - ie. life, liberty, and property ownership . . . well, we always knew you were a delusional dumbass.

So, no, the Conservatives don't have a track record on supporting and promotion rights and freedoms.

 

[jack113]

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

Insofar as the "avant garde" consists of INVENTING rights, you are correct: conservatives aren't into that sort of thing.

When it comes to protecting the basic ones outlined in the Constitution for the purpose they were originally intended, we have it all over "progressives", who always seem to want to "progress" to a society where the government controls everything, including what people think. And if you're flattering yourselves that you're the pinnacle of freedom because you want to eliminate government protection of the few things it actually exists to protect - ie. life, liberty, and property ownership . . . well, we always knew you were a delusional dumbass.

So, no, the Conservatives don't have a track record on supporting and promotion rights and freedoms.

Conservative does not fit the republican agenda or they would not always be the party creating the biggest government through handing welfare to the wealthy and borrowing to pay for their energy wars.

Bush showed us the real meaning of conservative now it's time for real patriots to fix what the "conservatives broke."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Conservative does not fit the republican agenda or they would not always be the party creating the biggest government through handing welfare to the wealthy and borrowing to pay for their energy wars.

Bush showed us the real meaning of conservative now it's time for real patriots to fix what the "conservatives broke."

Another useful idiot rears his ugly head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

Insofar as the "avant garde" consists of INVENTING rights, you are correct: conservatives aren't into that sort of thing.

When it comes to protecting the basic ones outlined in the Constitution for the purpose they were originally intended, we have it all over "progressives", who always seem to want to "progress" to a society where the government controls everything, including what people think. And if you're flattering yourselves that you're the pinnacle of freedom because you want to eliminate government protection of the few things it actually exists to protect - ie. life, liberty, and property ownership . . . well, we always knew you were a delusional dumbass.

So, no, the Conservatives don't have a track record on supporting and promotion rights and freedoms.

Considering that you forgot to include the phrase "by liberal standards", even though that IS what you were talking about, that means nothing. Contrary to your opinion, not everyone in the world is desperate to impress the left.

 

[Intense]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

You would not know Justice if it bit you in the Ass. You are about Statist Progressive Government Control. You do not Recognize Liberty, not for what it is, Nosmo, You are too busy suppressing it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

You would not know Justice if it bit you in the Ass. You are about Statist Progressive Government Control. You do not Recognize Liberty, not for what it is, Nosmo, You are too busy suppressing it.

So again, Conservatism is not the ideology that champions rights but suppresses them.

It's not a coincidence that Conservatives posed the opposition to all the issues I listed. I wonder why that is? After all, Conservatives love to tout their support of freedom. It's just ensuring that freedom that they chose not to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

You would not know Justice if it bit you in the Ass. You are about Statist Progressive Government Control. You do not Recognize Liberty, not for what it is, Nosmo, You are too busy suppressing it.

So again, Conservatism is not the ideology that champions rights but suppresses them.

It's not a coincidence that Conservatives posed the opposition to all the issues I listed. I wonder why that is? After all, Conservatives love to tout their support of freedom. It's just ensuring that freedom that they chose not to do.

What's not a coincidence is that you mistake the leftist agenda for "rights" and anyone in history who's ever done something that was later judged as wrong as automatically "conservative".

Once again, please contemplate the possibility that your skewed perspective does not represent either reality or everyone else's perspective.

Every single person you mentioned in regards to civil rights was on the political LEFT of that day, not the right. And believe it or not, the NOW version of "women's rights" is NOT espoused by or aspired to by all women, or even most women.

And that's where your premise falls down. You ignore or suppress the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution in favor of protecting made-up, invented "rights" that you've decided are "for the public good", and then hold yourself out as a champion of freedom and rights, and expect to be congratulated and thanked for forcing your "superior views" on society against people's will.

Let's look at the left's agenda on rights, shall we?

Freedom of speech - Unlimited porn for everyone, but don't even CONSIDER making a TV ad in favor of the political candidate you support.

Freedom of religion - Get back in your churches and shut up, you fanatics. NOW we have "freedom FROM religion".

Freedom of the press - Fairness Doctrine, anyone?

Right to Bear Arms - Are you kidding me?

Private Property Ownership - Kelo vs. New London. 'Nuff said.

Trial by Jury - No, the left likes to try people in the media and then gin up race riots when they don't get the verdict they want. Can we say, "Rodney King"?

Powers of the Sovereign States - Let's talk about the Obama administration suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its citizens, just for starters.

And that's just the Big Ten, off the top of my head.

 

[Nosmo King]

You would not know Justice if it bit you in the Ass. You are about Statist Progressive Government Control. You do not Recognize Liberty, not for what it is, Nosmo, You are too busy suppressing it.

So again, Conservatism is not the ideology that champions rights but suppresses them.

It's not a coincidence that Conservatives posed the opposition to all the issues I listed. I wonder why that is? After all, Conservatives love to tout their support of freedom. It's just ensuring that freedom that they chose not to do.

What's not a coincidence is that you mistake the leftist agenda for "rights" and anyone in history who's ever done something that was later judged as wrong as automatically "conservative".

Once again, please contemplate the possibility that your skewed perspective does not represent either reality or everyone else's perspective.

Every single person you mentioned in regards to civil rights was on the political LEFT of that day, not the right. And believe it or not, the NOW version of "women's rights" is NOT espoused by or aspired to by all women, or even most women.

And that's where your premise falls down. You ignore or suppress the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution in favor of protecting made-up, invented "rights" that you've decided are "for the public good", and then hold yourself out as a champion of freedom and rights, and expect to be congratulated and thanked for forcing your "superior views" on society against people's will.

Let's look at the left's agenda on rights, shall we?

Freedom of speech - Unlimited porn for everyone, but don't even CONSIDER making a TV ad in favor of the political candidate you support.

Freedom of religion - Get back in your churches and shut up, you fanatics. NOW we have "freedom FROM religion".

Freedom of the press - Fairness Doctrine, anyone?

Right to Bear Arms - Are you kidding me?

Private Property Ownership - Kelo vs. New London. 'Nuff said.

Trial by Jury - No, the left likes to try people in the media and then gin up race riots when they don't get the verdict they want. Can we say, "Rodney King"?

Powers of the Sovereign States - Let's talk about the Obama administration suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its citizens, just for starters.

And that's just the Big Ten, off the top of my head.

And with that I realized yet again that you have no clue. Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox and Connor were Leftists? Try again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So again, Conservatism is not the ideology that champions rights but suppresses them.

It's not a coincidence that Conservatives posed the opposition to all the issues I listed. I wonder why that is? After all, Conservatives love to tout their support of freedom. It's just ensuring that freedom that they chose not to do.

What's not a coincidence is that you mistake the leftist agenda for "rights" and anyone in history who's ever done something that was later judged as wrong as automatically "conservative".

Once again, please contemplate the possibility that your skewed perspective does not represent either reality or everyone else's perspective.

Every single person you mentioned in regards to civil rights was on the political LEFT of that day, not the right. And believe it or not, the NOW version of "women's rights" is NOT espoused by or aspired to by all women, or even most women.

And that's where your premise falls down. You ignore or suppress the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution in favor of protecting made-up, invented "rights" that you've decided are "for the public good", and then hold yourself out as a champion of freedom and rights, and expect to be congratulated and thanked for forcing your "superior views" on society against people's will.

Let's look at the left's agenda on rights, shall we?

Freedom of speech - Unlimited porn for everyone, but don't even CONSIDER making a TV ad in favor of the political candidate you support.

Freedom of religion - Get back in your churches and shut up, you fanatics. NOW we have "freedom FROM religion".

Freedom of the press - Fairness Doctrine, anyone?

Right to Bear Arms - Are you kidding me?

Private Property Ownership - Kelo vs. New London. 'Nuff said.

Trial by Jury - No, the left likes to try people in the media and then gin up race riots when they don't get the verdict they want. Can we say, "Rodney King"?

Powers of the Sovereign States - Let's talk about the Obama administration suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its citizens, just for starters.

And that's just the Big Ten, off the top of my head.

And with that I realized yet again that you have no clue. Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox and Connor were Leftists? Try again.

Nice try, loser, but you don't get to just arbitrarily decide that when the Democrat Party does something that reveals how heinous they truly are, SUDDENLY they're the "political right" and the Republicans who opposed them were the political left. Left and right are NOT defined by "acts Nosmo wants to claim and acts Nosmo wants to deny".

I don't care if you like it or not. George Wallace et al. were the political left of their time. Period.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

The truth is they were all Democrats...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.

The truth is they were all Democrats...

Of course they were, and there is simply no way that you're going to convince anyone sane that in the 1960s, the Democrats were the Right Wing, and the Republicans were the Left.

 

[Nosmo King]

What's not a coincidence is that you mistake the leftist agenda for "rights" and anyone in history who's ever done something that was later judged as wrong as automatically "conservative".

Once again, please contemplate the possibility that your skewed perspective does not represent either reality or everyone else's perspective.

Every single person you mentioned in regards to civil rights was on the political LEFT of that day, not the right. And believe it or not, the NOW version of "women's rights" is NOT espoused by or aspired to by all women, or even most women.

And that's where your premise falls down. You ignore or suppress the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution in favor of protecting made-up, invented "rights" that you've decided are "for the public good", and then hold yourself out as a champion of freedom and rights, and expect to be congratulated and thanked for forcing your "superior views" on society against people's will.

Let's look at the left's agenda on rights, shall we?

Freedom of speech - Unlimited porn for everyone, but don't even CONSIDER making a TV ad in favor of the political candidate you support.

Freedom of religion - Get back in your churches and shut up, you fanatics. NOW we have "freedom FROM religion".

Freedom of the press - Fairness Doctrine, anyone?

Right to Bear Arms - Are you kidding me?

Private Property Ownership - Kelo vs. New London. 'Nuff said.

Trial by Jury - No, the left likes to try people in the media and then gin up race riots when they don't get the verdict they want. Can we say, "Rodney King"?

Powers of the Sovereign States - Let's talk about the Obama administration suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its citizens, just for starters.

And that's just the Big Ten, off the top of my head.

And with that I realized yet again that you have no clue. Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox and Connor were Leftists? Try again.

Nice try, loser, but you don't get to just arbitrarily decide that when the Democrat Party does something that reveals how heinous they truly are, SUDDENLY they're the "political right" and the Republicans who opposed them were the political left. Left and right are NOT defined by "acts Nosmo wants to claim and acts Nosmo wants to deny".

I don't care if you like it or not. George Wallace et al. were the political left of their time. Period.

You know nothing of politics. Even less about Wallace, Maddox, Thurmond and Connor. and incredibly even less about American history. You, madame, are a moron.

Leftists in the 1960s? Name three. Here's a hint: Leftists were not Klan members. they were definitely not White Southern politicians.

But, in your world, it would not be surprising to read that you think the Freedom Riders were all Conservative activists. Folks from Ivy League schools and the Southern baptist Leadership Convention and Students for a Democratic Society were all rock ribbed Conservatives? What is it with you idiots? Every time a bad guy is mentioned you circle the wagons and call him a Leftist? Can't you grasp that the true evil, the true obstructionists in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and right down to this day were Conservatives protecting what they saw as their 'heritage' and 'culture?

 

[thanatos144]

And with that I realized yet again that you have no clue. Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox and Connor were Leftists? Try again.

Nice try, loser, but you don't get to just arbitrarily decide that when the Democrat Party does something that reveals how heinous they truly are, SUDDENLY they're the "political right" and the Republicans who opposed them were the political left. Left and right are NOT defined by "acts Nosmo wants to claim and acts Nosmo wants to deny".

I don't care if you like it or not. George Wallace et al. were the political left of their time. Period.

You know nothing of politics. Even less about Wallace, Maddox, Thurmond and Connor. and incredibly even less about American history. You, madame, are a moron.

Leftists in the 1960s? Name three. Here's a hint: Leftists were not Klan members. they were definitely not White Southern politicians.

But, in your world, it would not be surprising to read that you think the Freedom Riders were all Conservative activists. Folks from Ivy League schools and the Southern baptist Leadership Convention and Students for a Democratic Society were all rock ribbed Conservatives? What is it with you idiots? Every time a bad guy is mentioned you circle the wagons and call him a Leftist? Can't you grasp that the true evil, the true obstructionists in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and right down to this day were Conservatives protecting what they saw as their 'heritage' and 'culture?

you really should not talk about history with you being so wrong about it.