|
|
Post by HighCotton on Apr 11, 2013 14:43:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 11, 2013 15:55:19 GMT -5
Yes sir...something is rotten in Big Mo and the federal government too.
The question that begs to be asked - Why does the feds want that info AND if they put the screws to Indiana will they fold too?
I am not optomistic the way this country is headed.... I'll probably not see the compete downfall but my kids, grandkids a great grandkids will. My great grandkids will never know what America once was...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Apr 11, 2013 16:23:04 GMT -5
Yes sir...something is rotten in Big Mo and the federal government too. The question that begs to be asked - Why does the feds want that info AND if they put the screws to Indiana will they fold too? I am not optomistic the way this country is headed.... I'll probably not see the compete downfall but my kids, grandkids a great grandkids will. My greta grandkids will never know what America once was... You can bet that the first day that a Democratic Admin takes over, They'll fold. |
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Apr 11, 2013 20:47:37 GMT -5
I am sorry to say I voted for John McCain.
|
|
|
|
Post by squirrelhunter on Apr 12, 2013 7:56:57 GMT -5
I am sorry to say I voted for John McCain. Same here. |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 12, 2013 8:20:18 GMT -5
The good news is that Joe Donnelly was one of the eight D senators voting YEA. It appears he may actually be the middle-of-the-roader that he promised to be.
No way to know for sure, but my guess is that Dick Lugar would have voted NAY. He seemed very fond of disarmament and treaties with little chance of enforcement.
We may have actually gained a YEA vote to keep the 2A by replacing him with a moderate Democrat!
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 12, 2013 8:34:10 GMT -5
The good news is that Joe Donnelly was one of the eight D senators voting YEA. It appears he may actually be the middle-of-the-roader that he promised to be. No way to know for sure, but my guess is that Dick Lugar would have voted NAY. He seemed very fond of disarmament and treaties with little chance of enforcement. We may have actually gained a YEA vote to keep the 2A by replacing him with a moderate Democrat! Russ What vote are you talking about? Donnelly voted yea, with all the Dems except two, to cloture and proceed to the UBC debate. I can't see that as a "middle of the road". The only thing I have seen from Donnelly in DC that could be considered pro-gun is his no vote on the UN small arms treaty. All the Liberal Dems voted for it. That is a stretch to call him middle of the road on that vote |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 9:05:24 GMT -5
I still have confidence in this nation. We have a way of swinging back and forth from left to right. I firmly believe it will swing back the other way, eventually. As a historian, I tend to view modern times with a historic lens. Things are never as good OR as bad as they seem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 9:12:45 GMT -5
My opinion is that The United States Of America, will not be around in 2016. THAT IS if nothing changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 12, 2013 10:50:36 GMT -5
That was the vote I was referring to Woody.
I just saw the results and was surprised to find Donnelly's vote among the few D's joining the R's.
Don't know where I went to get to that info. I tried backtracking through my search history, and couldn't find it. Pretty sure I didn't imagine it, and it was just a few minutes ago.
I thought it was from the link on the OP, so I posted the remark on it like it was something pertinent to the topic being discussed, but now that the connection is lost, it does seem like it was coming out of thin air.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 12, 2013 11:19:38 GMT -5
metamorahunter, I agree on the swinging left to right, at least somewhat. We never seem to swing back as far right as we went left, but there is usually a return swing.
I think the more consistent trend and the more worrisome one is that even when we swing back in terms of the favored political flavor of the day, the trend towards bigger government and statism doesn't seem to retreat from its last advancement.
We are so manipulated that we applaud the administration that has our favorite label exercising more control over those other guys when they're in power, without realizing that they have also tightened the reins on us, just by a lesser amount.
I used to see it as making much more difference whether I voted Republicrat or Democlican, but it feels less so these days.
2A issues still appear to have a more definite and consistent relationship to party politics, but in regards to the rest of the issues, it gets murky. Now I usually vote Libertarian in the majority of the races where that option is available. They seem to be the only ones interested in reducing government size and intrusiveness on everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 12, 2013 12:23:04 GMT -5
metamorahunter, I agree on the swinging left to right, at least somewhat. We never seem to swing back as far right as we went left, but there is usually a return swing. I think the more consistent trend and the more worrisome one is that even when we swing back in terms of the favored political flavor of the day, the trend towards bigger government and statism doesn't seem to retreat from its last advancement. We are so manipulated that we applaud the administration that has our favorite label exercising more control over those other guys when they're in power, without realizing that they have also tightened the reins on us, just by a lesser amount. I used to see it as making much more difference whether I voted Republicrat or Democlican, but it feels less so these days. 2A issues still appear to have a more definite and consistent relationship to party politics, but in regards to the rest of the issues, it gets murky. Now I usually vote Libertarian in the majority of the races where that option is available. They seem to be the only ones interested in reducing government size and intrusiveness on everyone. Seems to me it is a center to left swing and leaving out the right... |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 13, 2013 10:15:17 GMT -5
Yep, depending on your definitions, it would be pretty easy to agree with that.
Certainly no conservative president that most of us could agree on since RR, and some even question his inclusion in the "true" conservative camp (it's kind of a small camp) 8^).
I've considered myself to be a conservative since high school, when I began paying more attention to such stuff. H20n64 !
But in those days you could be a devout follower of the "Father of Modern Conservatism" (or one of them, anyway....if you Google the term, it turns out modern conservatism is a bit uncertain about its paternity) and still believe that soldiers didn't have to BE straight, just SHOOT straight, and that pot should be legal, and that abortion should not be the business of the government, at least early in the pregnancy.
So, apparently, the terminology has evolved.
|
|
|
|
Post by nodog on Apr 16, 2013 19:43:02 GMT -5
I still have confidence in this nation. We have a way of swinging back and forth from left to right. I firmly believe it will swing back the other way, eventually. As a historian, I tend to view modern times with a historic lens. Things are never as good OR as bad as they seem. There is no swinging back and never has been, we just take a deep breath once in a while and proceed on. If we had swung then the government wouldn't be what it is today and not much different than it was yesterday. It's influence and power are many many times more today than ever. People think we can just pass a law allowing the brutal murder of our most innocent doing it by the millions and there will be no reckoning, can't happen. Your confidence is grossly misplaced. The first time we did similar we had a civil war. What makes you think the killing millions of innocent babies won't produce at least something similar, but more likely something far worse? Aside from the usual debate, when the Nation of Israel went into the promise land God made it clear why He was sending them. "I'm not sending you because your so good, I'm sending you because they're so bad." They also butchered their children to their pagan gods. So to did the Aztecs, a powerful people, a super power and they to were invaded and punished. The wording suggests God sends, He does, but I believe it's more in cause and effect, crime and punishment. There are laws that govern this world and when those laws are violated this world exacts a price, setup by God so in a way sent by God. Killing our unborn is one thing, calling it good is another thing entirely and produces a violent reaction. Those that bombed the marathon are a result of this nation calling killing the innocent good if it justifies a cause. The frequency of the convulsions is alarming. I also think of myself as a looker into history. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 16, 2013 20:33:41 GMT -5
Which God are you referring to? Last I checked there was a whole bunch of em.
|
|
