After eight years of Obama, there's little chance of another Democrat winning. People are sick of left-wing answers, and the Clintons are a particular annoyance to a lot of us.
Do you really want Hillary Clinton as president? Don't you see something unseemly about the spouse of a president going on to become president? That's laying aside all the baggage that both Clintons drag around with them.
Does your biased thinking include the son of a president becoming president? How about a cousin? TR, FDR, Adams, Bush, etc.. Amazing Ted (Greg) Nugent how convoluted and hypocritical your thinking is, and I want to thank you for proving it everyday. Now you and your buddy can get back to making jokes about the death of a 6 year old.
Kevin, why don't you stop lying? But yes, there is something unsettling about how many of our presidents have been related to each other. That indicates a concentration of power in too few hands.
Now I dare you to prove your lies about me and others here.
As Greg said, the political dynasties in this country do raise worries about the concentration of power. Without minimizing that, I'd say that because the marriage relationship is closer, that makes it even more unsettling--especially since a domineering spouse could use their spouse's term(s) as a way to keep power in spite of term limits much like Putin did by putting in his puppet Medvedev.
(And before any Hillary supporters get upset, I'm talking about husbands and wives following each other into office in general--Hillary is certainly her own person. If anyone controlled the other, it would have been her shepherding Bill.)
Sure, bring in the Clintons, with all their baggage, with everything they tried on guns, with the history from Waco, etc. and start a new push for gun control. I'm sure that'll work out great and people will love them for it.
It is somewhat disappointing that no good, conservative GOP candidate who is supportive of gun control, has run on a national ticket in recent decades.
As is the party line of the GOP to support tough counterterrorism policy, as well as purporting a "tough on crime" stance with regards to domestic affairs, it appears rater curious that our conservative party would oppose legislative initiatives towards the strengthened control on the possession and use of arms by civilians. Gun control is vital to many security issues that the GOP has traditionally supported, while such restrictive measures would be welcomed in many religious communities that fall within republican districts.
It is to the constant frustration of many GOP supporters and financial backers that the party has entirely neglected an issue as vital to national security, and as conservative an interest as that of the war on drugs. Many large national employers and the solidly conservative corporate officers would laud the day when, without the influx of guns and the availability of instant mortality to hinder productivity, the costs in both insurance and other medical expenses, as well as the loss of workforce members related to firearm related incidents, costs would decrease would therefore contribute to a higher profit margin.
Many members of society who own and use firearms may also engage in lifestyles contrary to what is approved of by the party. By further criminalizing the possession of firearms, we can not only assist prosecutors in combating drug abuse, urban gangs, degenerate youth culture, and street violence, but we also aid law enforcement by enhancing the firepower advantage of police officers by disarming many potential criminals.
Thanks, Alabaman for that refreshing and interesting comment. I think you're right. I've often mentioned the possibility of many gun owners leaning towards the gun control side of the argument. That's similar to what you're saying about the GOP. We need some leaders to take up the mantle.
Could you really not see that that was E.N.'s latest sockpuppet? "Lifestyles contrary to what is approved by the party" at LEAST should have given it away.
As per usual, the whole comment is bunk, but go ahead and show it to your liberal friends as an example of a pro gun control republican. Maybe your friends will be as blind as you and won't laugh at you behind your back.
You don't take what I say at face value. You psychoanalyze. You accuse me of lying. You hunt for hidden motives. You only take at face value something that agrees with you.
After eight years of Obama, there's little chance of another Democrat winning. People are sick of left-wing answers, and the Clintons are a particular annoyance to a lot of us.
ReplyDeleteI think you said the same thing after 4 years of Obama. Keep whistling in the dark.
DeleteDo you really want Hillary Clinton as president? Don't you see something unseemly about the spouse of a president going on to become president? That's laying aside all the baggage that both Clintons drag around with them.
DeleteDoes your biased thinking include the son of a president becoming president? How about a cousin? TR, FDR, Adams, Bush, etc.. Amazing Ted (Greg) Nugent how convoluted and hypocritical your thinking is, and I want to thank you for proving it everyday. Now you and your buddy can get back to making jokes about the death of a 6 year old.
DeleteKevin, why don't you stop lying? But yes, there is something unsettling about how many of our presidents have been related to each other. That indicates a concentration of power in too few hands.
DeleteNow I dare you to prove your lies about me and others here.
As Greg said, the political dynasties in this country do raise worries about the concentration of power. Without minimizing that, I'd say that because the marriage relationship is closer, that makes it even more unsettling--especially since a domineering spouse could use their spouse's term(s) as a way to keep power in spite of term limits much like Putin did by putting in his puppet Medvedev.
Delete(And before any Hillary supporters get upset, I'm talking about husbands and wives following each other into office in general--Hillary is certainly her own person. If anyone controlled the other, it would have been her shepherding Bill.)
George Carlin described it best. These political families all work for the "real owners of the country."
DeleteSo, Mikeb, you throw up your hands and surrender?
DeleteSure, bring in the Clintons, with all their baggage, with everything they tried on guns, with the history from Waco, etc. and start a new push for gun control. I'm sure that'll work out great and people will love them for it.
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat disappointing that no good, conservative GOP candidate who is supportive of gun control, has run on a national ticket in recent decades.
DeleteAs is the party line of the GOP to support tough counterterrorism policy, as well as purporting a "tough on crime" stance with regards to domestic affairs, it appears rater curious that our conservative party would oppose legislative initiatives towards the strengthened control on the possession and use of arms by civilians. Gun control is vital to many security issues that the GOP has traditionally supported, while such restrictive measures would be welcomed in many religious communities that fall within republican districts.
It is to the constant frustration of many GOP supporters and financial backers that the party has entirely neglected an issue as vital to national security, and as conservative an interest as that of the war on drugs. Many large national employers and the solidly conservative corporate officers would laud the day when, without the influx of guns and the availability of instant mortality to hinder productivity, the costs in both insurance and other medical expenses, as well as the loss of workforce members related to firearm related incidents, costs would decrease would therefore contribute to a higher profit margin.
Many members of society who own and use firearms may also engage in lifestyles contrary to what is approved of by the party. By further criminalizing the possession of firearms, we can not only assist prosecutors in combating drug abuse, urban gangs, degenerate youth culture, and street violence, but we also aid law enforcement by enhancing the firepower advantage of police officers by disarming many potential criminals.
Thanks, Alabaman for that refreshing and interesting comment. I think you're right. I've often mentioned the possibility of many gun owners leaning towards the gun control side of the argument. That's similar to what you're saying about the GOP. We need some leaders to take up the mantle.
DeleteMike,
DeleteCould you really not see that that was E.N.'s latest sockpuppet? "Lifestyles contrary to what is approved by the party" at LEAST should have given it away.
As per usual, the whole comment is bunk, but go ahead and show it to your liberal friends as an example of a pro gun control republican. Maybe your friends will be as blind as you and won't laugh at you behind your back.
Mikeb, here's a clue: Look at the IP addresses of these sockpuppets. Then look at Jadegold's address. Report back to us.
DeleteTed (Greg) Nugent, here's a clue: Those who make jokes about dead kids are scum bags.
DeleteI don't care enough about sock puppets to even look. I take the comments at face value.
DeleteYou don't take what I say at face value. You psychoanalyze. You accuse me of lying. You hunt for hidden motives. You only take at face value something that agrees with you.
Delete