- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Proof That Democrats Have Raised the White Flag of Surrender on Gun Control
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:34 pm to trackfan
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:34 pm to trackfan
quote:
who would ever take Piers Morgan's hard-line position on guns
Who gives a frick what he says. Just b/c the Brits outlaw it doesn't mean we should.
It didn't stop people over here from bashing in heads with baseball bats with spikes in them.
0
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:38 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
there are a lot more RINOs, then blue dogs
Democrats aren't nearly as dismissive of Blue Dogs as Republicans are of RINOs. Not to mention that Blue Dog pretty much just refers to fiscal responsibility, and isn't a derogative term like RINO is.
But ultimately there's no such thing as ideological purity, so in fact they're all RINOs.
I know liberals that are against abortion, and no one would ever consider them conservative. But it seems to me that Republicans have to be very careful about their view on abortion, lest they be labeled RINOs.
Personally, I have a lot of liberal views and a lot of conservative views. When discussing liberal views, say abortion, with my conservative friends, they derisively call me a liberal. When discussing 2nd Amendment rights with my liberal friends, they don't seem as quick to label me one thing or another.
It just occurred to me that conservatism seems to be exclusive, while liberalism seems to be inclusive.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:39 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Items you listed above as reasons to disqualify him as a Republican are a big reason why many Republicans are now identifying as Independents.
You apparently didn't bother to read tackfan's post I was responding to. He was insinuating that Bloomberg was not a liberal, but a conservative. I just listed the reasons why he isn't.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:41 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:That could be because you're a pretty smart guy and you hang out with smart people.
WildTchoupitoulas
There are tons of liberals that go apeshit over a few differing views.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:41 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
You can exactly flip the parties on abortion, WT - there are a lot more RINOs, then blue dogs - I can tell you that.
The difference is that the Democrats don't primary their blue dogs.
quote:
Outside the deep south, blue dogs are virtually extinct. Heck, RINOs are everywhere - running the national party, leading the Senate Minority Caucus and sitting in the House Speaker's chair.
I wouldn't call Alaska, Montana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Colorado, Indiana, Nevada and North Dakota the deep South.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:42 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
You apparently didn't bother to read tackfan's post I was responding to. He was insinuating that Bloomberg was not a liberal, but a conservative. I just listed the reasons why he isn't.
I didn't weigh in on his conservatism, I only stated that he's not a Democrat and was elected as a Republican. I think Bloomberg is similar to Rand Paul in that neither of them fit neatly into either of the two parties.
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:43 pm to trackfan
They have raised that false flag of surrender until the day after this falls elections.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:46 pm to FT
quote:
That could be because you're a pretty smart guy and you hang out with smart people.
I'm not buying THAT load of shite.
quote:
There are tons of liberals that go apeshit over a few differing views.
They go apeshit over almost everything - even when they agree, but they don't seem to be as exclusive. But then the word "conservative" itself seems to have an exclusive connotation to it.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:47 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Yo dawg. I be all moderate and shite. Don't be questionin my arse.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 1:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:They don't have to be. The "Blue dogs" always fall in line with the party. See Obamacare vote. RINOs fall in line with the other party.
Democrats aren't nearly as dismissive of Blue Dogs as Republicans are of RINOs.
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 4/2/14 at 2:14 pm to trackfan
quote:
I think Bloomberg is similar to Rand Paul
what in the world??
Posted on 4/2/14 at 2:15 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
liberalism seems to be inclusive.
I've experienced the exact opposite. If you don't agree with their progressive agenda and mindset, you are one ignorant redneck who should have your right to vote revoked.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 2:15 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
They don't have to be. The "Blue dogs" always fall in line with the party. See Obamacare vote. RINOs fall in line with the other party.
I was thinking about the whole exclusivity thing the other day while reading a thread about Ukraine. One poster was saying that he didn't think we should be sending our army around the world liberating oppressed people and spreading Democracy abroad. He got a response along the lines of, "Careful, you're in danger of losing your conservative bone fides." The irony of a conservative not wanting our government to engage in clearly liberal policies being warned about not being conservative enough aside, it struck me that a liberal taking a similar position would never be in jeopardy of losing their liberal bone fides.
But that brings me back to the idea of ideological purity. I would say that of the rank and file Republicans, 99% of them are ideologically impure, so that the vast majority of the Republican party is Republican in name only - that is, if it only takes failing one test to exclude someone from being conservative.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 2:27 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
See Obamacare vote.
Heck, to stay on point, see the Ugly Gun Ban of 1994...
Posted on 4/2/14 at 2:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
that is, if it only takes failing one test to exclude someone from being conservative.
Meh. I don't see that very much. If anything, the growth of the libertarian wing of the Republican party goes against that. Maybe I'm not noticing any resurgence of the "conservative" wing of the Democratic party, but after Clinton, I'm completely nonplussed with rhetoric.
They will vote in line with their party leadership - very few will defect, for example, on key procedural and substantive votes - only when they are given leave to protect and election, and typically, only in meaningless votes.
Fortunately, gun control is one of those that the people don't buy the normal games - they voted against Dems broadly in 1994, particularly in more conservative districts, in response to the Ugly Gun Ban, whether they cast votes for the measure or not.
But, it just takes one stupid measure to get passed and signed to become stupid law forever (i.e. "short-barrelled rifles", "automatic knives", imported weapons must have a sporting purpose, etc.)
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 4/2/14 at 2:41 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
They don't have to be. The "Blue dogs" always fall in line. See Obamacare vote.
What about gun control? Obama couldn't even get the Harry Reid on board for that, not to mention a dozen or so other Blue Dogs in the Senate.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 3:39 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:defining a criteria to get the desired result-- isn't really an argument. Nor proof.
so that the vast majority of the Republican party is Republican in name only - that is, if it only takes failing one test to exclude someone from being conservative.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 3:41 pm to trackfan
quote:Exactly. Harry Reid isn't a blue dog, so this isn't really a blue dog issue.
What about gun control? Obama couldn't even get the Harry Reid on board for that
Posted on 4/2/14 at 3:43 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
defining a criteria to get the desired result-- isn't really an argument. Nor proof.
Nor is it really an argument when it is a conditional statement.
Nor is it a sound foundation for a major American political party.
I'm simply making an observation. Killing the messenger isn't an argument either. Nor is it a proof.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 3:47 pm to trackfan
Wrong. Democrats are never going to give up on this. Even though they know how majority of America feels about it - they understand their one big chance to pass strict gun laws is after a tragic shooting crime that makes national news. Democrats will push hard to pass their gun laws within 2 weeks - 1 month after the news story, before people start forgetting about it. Taking advantage of a country that is grieving and not thinking clearly is the democrats' biggest opportunity to pass their dream gun control bills.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News