BuckeyeInTheBoro
This space left intentionally blank
Woody.. good points. Some of the more logical arguements I've seen on the issue.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter MililaniBuckeye
- Start date
NorthShoreBuck
True Madness Requires Significant Intelligence
2nd Amendment
I believe they listed them in the order of importance. Free speech was the most important thing, the right to bear arms was the second most important.
Gun laws affect law abiding citizens.
Criminals care little about the law.
I think there is a direct corrolation between the increase in crime in England after all firearms were confiscated.
I believe they listed them in the order of importance. Free speech was the most important thing, the right to bear arms was the second most important.
Gun laws affect law abiding citizens.
Criminals care little about the law.
I think there is a direct corrolation between the increase in crime in England after all firearms were confiscated.
Upvote
0
Actually, the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was one of the most contested issues in the Constitution. Ironically, the Bill of Rights was also originally only applied to the Federal Government, meaning that the States did not have to grant any of the protections in the first 10 amendments to their citizens.
Upvote
0
stxbuck
Woody wore Sambas
Couple of points
1-When it comes to Constitutional matters, James Madison is the man, period. He wrote 90% of the thing! However, most people have the misconception that Thomas Jefferson played a large part in the writing of the Constitution, and the debate at the Constitutional convention. That is wrong-he was in France in 1787 as the American ambassador/secretary of state, chasing the ladies at Louis XVI's court. If Jefferson was at the convention, we would probably see a somewhat different Constitution than what emerged, one with a much clearer emphasis on state's rights, and more restrictive of the powers of the national government.
2-Back to the original list. As I am concerned, I don't really care if Democrats want to portray the GOP as a bunch of Bible thumping maniacs-the National Review, the GOP National Committee, myself, and most Republicans in congress know that is a bunch of BS. I will never vote for a Democrat because as a party they are 100% to take the necessary action-military or otherwise, to defend this country from Bin-Laden and others of his ilk. Clinton, Kerry, and most other Democrats not from Texas or Georgia are far too worried about being liked by Chirac and European protestors to take the necessary action. FDR and JFK must be rolling over in their graves after seeing what a bunch of Neville Chamberlain wanna-be's their party has become. As Tony Blair said(somewhat paraphrased) "Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's, the history books aren't going to bash me and George for getting rid of a genocidal monster. However, if it turned out that Saddam did have WMD's, and we ignored it until they were used, the history books would never forgive us"
1-When it comes to Constitutional matters, James Madison is the man, period. He wrote 90% of the thing! However, most people have the misconception that Thomas Jefferson played a large part in the writing of the Constitution, and the debate at the Constitutional convention. That is wrong-he was in France in 1787 as the American ambassador/secretary of state, chasing the ladies at Louis XVI's court. If Jefferson was at the convention, we would probably see a somewhat different Constitution than what emerged, one with a much clearer emphasis on state's rights, and more restrictive of the powers of the national government.
2-Back to the original list. As I am concerned, I don't really care if Democrats want to portray the GOP as a bunch of Bible thumping maniacs-the National Review, the GOP National Committee, myself, and most Republicans in congress know that is a bunch of BS. I will never vote for a Democrat because as a party they are 100% to take the necessary action-military or otherwise, to defend this country from Bin-Laden and others of his ilk. Clinton, Kerry, and most other Democrats not from Texas or Georgia are far too worried about being liked by Chirac and European protestors to take the necessary action. FDR and JFK must be rolling over in their graves after seeing what a bunch of Neville Chamberlain wanna-be's their party has become. As Tony Blair said(somewhat paraphrased) "Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's, the history books aren't going to bash me and George for getting rid of a genocidal monster. However, if it turned out that Saddam did have WMD's, and we ignored it until they were used, the history books would never forgive us"
Upvote
0
Geez, last time I checked, it was G. W. Bush who was president before and after 9/11, not Clinton, not Kerry. In fact, If I recall, Kerry supported the Iraqi war. While action is important, it is also important to maintain good relations with our allies. As soon as the situation becomes us against the rest of the world, the terrorists have won.
Ironically, there are several issues that I agree with Republicans on, but I will never vote for one, because of the small percentage of Republicans who ARE Bible thumpers. It seems to me that no matter how hard the republican candidates try to come across as moderate during the elections, the first thing they do is try to satisfy the demands of the small portion of republicans who are right wing wackos. Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt must be turning over in their graves if they know what the Republican Party has become. I tend to look at politics as a choice between the lesser of two evils, and, quite frankly, I would rather have an extremely liberal government that doesn't want to control the personal choices of my daily life, than a extremely conservative government that does want to. Moderate Democrats, in my experience, really are moderate (Clinton, for example), while most of the so-called moderate Republicans tend to lean a little too far to the right for my tastes
Upvote
0
Nixon
Wears Scarlet-colored glasses
Extreme liberals want to make decisions for your every bit as much as "extreme conservatives". They want to tell you how much money you can and can't make, what care you can't drive because it pollutes too much, which deviant lifestyles you have to accept as "normal", where you can smoke and where you can't. They don't let you choose how you want to save for retirement, they don't let you choose where your kids go to school, they don't let you choose which stupid social programs and art subsidies and farm subsidies you want to support.
For every "Bible-thumping conservative", there is a "tolerance thumping liberal" who will tell you that your religious beliefs are intolerant and backwards but that you have to respect Islam.
For every "Bible-thumping conservative", there is a "tolerance thumping liberal" who will tell you that your religious beliefs are intolerant and backwards but that you have to respect Islam.
Upvote
0
Well, Nixon, you have to admit there are a lot of intolerant people out there, and in a melting pot society, a certain degree of tolerance is necessary. Otherwise we have a tyranny of the masses.
Upvote
0
Buckeye69
A.K.A. IBLEEDSCARLETANDGRAY
Woody1968 said:
I agree with Woody on the need for tolerance. But, it must run both ways. The right does not have a monopoly on intollerance. As Nixon points out, the left wing has its extremists also. They are the ones who are intollerant to Catholics, SUV drivers, meat eaters, high wage earners, Patriots, the military, the self-employed, big corporations, Christians, Republicans, motorcyclists, movie popcorn lovers, people with family values, believers in the Constitution, pro-life advocates, advocates of responsibility, fur wearers, fishermen, supporters of the tradition and sanctity of marriage, proponents of less government, chicken farmers, anyone who is anti-drug or anti-porn, and anyone else with whom they disagree.
Yet, these same people are "tolerant" of Islamafacists, hybrid car drivers, vegands, lazy bums unwilling to get a job, higher tax proponents, terrorists, socialist peaceniks, union members, government subsidized corporations, atheists, Nazis, Socialists, Europeans, ILLEGAL immigrants, abortionists, the irresponsible, homosexuals seeking to impose their "morals" on others, big government liberals, drug users, pornographers, criminals and anyone else with whom they agree.
Upvote
0
Nixon
Wears Scarlet-colored glasses
Woody1968 said:
There are a lot of intolerant people. And a lot of the ones I see are on the left.
When I say "tolerance", I don't mean that you have to respect people's rights and not blow up people who you don't like. Obviously. But that doesn't mean I can't speak my mind about what I think about people. But "tolerance" to leftists is tolerating what they like. I have to be "tolerant" of homosexuality(ie not state my opinions and morals about it), but they don't have to be tolerant of Christianity. It's hypocrisy and I don't think "tolerance" is a virtue at all.
Upvote
0
Huh? Leftists are stamping out Christianity? Tolerance means you can't state you opinion? Not quite buying this stuff here.
As far as I'm concerned, Tolerance means 'live and let live' and to respect and allow others to believe/do as they see fit so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.
Do I have the right to worship acorns? Sure. Do I have the right to evangilize the worship of acorns? I suppose so. When am I crossing the line, trying to get others to see the light of the divine acorn? Is travelling to 'third-world' countries and spreading the good news about the divine acorn tolerating the beliefs of the 'uncouth savages'? Hard to say.
Stating your opinion about homosexuality, or gay marriage, or whatever, is not intolerant in the least. You can believe or think whatever you choose. What is intolerant is saying 'no, you may not practice that behavior, it offends the majority'.
Upvote
0
So, because some old lesbian couple gets married in San Francisco, you are being forced to become a homosexual? I don't get your point here? I also didn't know we started feeding the Christians to the lions again...
Upvote
0
Buckeye69
A.K.A. IBLEEDSCARLETANDGRAY
Nixon said:
I sometimes wonder what part of "illegal" libs don't understand. I didn't know that people who break the law were a "race." I guess I forgot the other lib game, labeling people with whom they disagree with "frightening" and illogically unrelated labels.
Upvote
0