Should All Political Parties Embrace Liberal Values? The Left Seems To Think So. (Guest Post)

By 48 Comments 1,011 views

repubanddemlogos

The concept that the whims of public opinion, the fads of the moment, or the opinions of an ideological opponent should fundamentally alter what a particular political party stands for has always seemed rather odd to me. It is an argument I see trotted out in articles from Left leaning sites on a regular basis. The argument is always, without fail, that the Republican Party needs to become more like the Democratic Party. Yet the reverse is never suggested for consideration. Great “concern” is showed time and time again by often very radical and liberal writers, as well as general media types, that the Republican Party will fade away into oblivion and cease to be relevant if it doesn’t reject the “extremist” factions and beliefs that it currently contains.

As if they really care.

A healthy and robust representative government has political parties that represent different views and positions in that society, not ones that are merely pale shadows of one another. Now it would be nicer if we weren’t constricted by the two-party system and had more ideologically pure and clear parties to choose from, but in reality we do not. So the two political parties we do have should, in general, reflect different views and positions so that people have an actual choice between differing political philosophies when they go to polls.

If I was interested in voting for political candidates that are for bigger government, the redefinition of marriage, higher taxes, abortion on demand, a decadent popular culture, socialized medicine, gun control, amnesty and open borders I’d vote Democratic. I’m not, so I vote for the most conservative Republican candidate that I have the opportunity to do so.

Such appeals to turn Republicans into “Democrat lites” are little more than a crude attempt at reverse psychology. The fact that liberals and progressives are so “concerned” about the future of the Republican Party that they’ve decided to offer free and supportive advice for its future success is rather touching. Aren’t Republicans both lucky and fortunate? Of course, the advice offered is simply to become more like them and to adopt their particular political positions. The argument seems to be that to succeed in running against liberals then one should just simply become more liberal. So in effect you end up with a liberal running against a slightly different shade of liberal which inevitably ends with virtually no real choice for the average voter and little difference in political governing views or policy in the long run.

There should be no shame in continuing to advocate for constitutional governance, protecting the traditional marriage and family structure that has been the foundation of society and civilization for thousands of years, or advancing the concept that the rights that come with personal freedom (ordered liberty) are inherent natural ones, not mere privileges bestowed or removed at will by the powers of government. In fact, these are tried and true timeless principles that have shown their worth through the ages. That is their strength and why they are seen as a dire threat to those who advocate the various isms of the Left. Marxism, fascism, National Socialism, and anarchism all have at one time or another been the inevitable political ism championed by the young, the masses, and a culture at large and yet were ultimately proved to be riddled with weaknesses and incorrect beliefs. And the inability of enough people and institutions to stand against them has caused an immense amount of damage to human civilization.

Color me unimpressed that yet another ideology arising on the left side of the political spectrum once again seeks to smash the traditional rituals, traditions, morals, values and cultural institutions that came before it so that it can lead us all into an age of utopia. The words and phrases have changed in some instances but the motives and desired outcome in many ways have not. The attempt to water down the Republican Party is just one aspect of their attempt to conquer and capture academia, entertainment, mainstream media, the military, the courts, voluntary private entities like the boy scouts, and the political process all in the name of the common good.

Words and phrases like privacy, women’s rights, tolerance, equality, diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism are all used with great effectiveness by the Left which has shown an amazingly effective ability (think 1984) to twist and redefine all of these concepts into Frankenstein versions of what should be acceptable and logical. We, as a society, are faced with a discomforting and distorted reality as constructed by the Left where right is wrong, good is evil, and the right to not be offended is the greatest right of all.

There are those who believe that there are no differences between the two parties anyway and claim that none of this even matters. But anyone who actually pays attention to the realm of politics and ideological warfare understands that this is not truly the case in reality and, while it may be moving in that direction, it certainly has not yet arrived at that destination. Just try to sell that line to a very frustrated, often stymied, and perpetually complaining Barack Obama who has had to contend with a Republican opposition that to a member voted against his health care plan and has refused to play nice with his administration since the very beginning. Try telling him there is no difference between the political parties. I’m afraid he’d beg to differ. And if there were in fact no significant differences that really mattered, the constant plaintive calls for the Republican Party to become more like them would not be echoing across the fruited plains from our Democratic friends. They would have no need to do so.

It is a sad truth that there are always those in the GOP who are willing to sell out and play along with the progressive agenda and that they exist in important and influential positions within the party. But at the same time it must be remembered that there are significant numbers that do not. That is worth noting and remembering.

One should always be very suspicious any time there is a systematic push to impose the principles and views of one political party onto another. There is a reason and agenda at work when you see that happening. All the platonic, friendly “warnings” from the Left, and the media in general, about how the Republicans are self-destructing, or losing their way, or radical, or leaning too far to the right, or are too extreme, or out of touch with the American people is actually revealing to us the fact that they are still very worried about the conservative Republican message. If they were not, they would be far less concerned about the internal affairs of the Republican Party and instead be focused on spending a little more time getting their own abysmal act together and putting their own house in order.

The Left would desperately love to see a de facto one-party state, and one way for them to do that is to help turn the Republican Party into a subservient, 2nd tier mirror image of the Democratic one that’s just barely alive and effective enough to maintain the illusion of a two-party system of government. They hope, pray, and are at hard at work hoping to achieve that day.

48 Responses to “Should All Political Parties Embrace Liberal Values? The Left Seems To Think So. (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    Kraken

    The argument is always, without fail, that the Republican Party needs to become more like the Democratic Party. Yet the reverse is never suggested for consideration.

    As history has repeated illustrated, leftists are fascists. It’s just a fact.

  2. 2

    Skookum

    The Progressive entreaty: “Don’t be obstinate, do it our way,” has been painfully obvious for five years, but even more painful is to have Republican legislators discussing amnesty as if it is a national imperative, and listening to them discuss how to correct Obama’s Albatross, the Unaffordable Health Care Act. He or at least his henchmen wrote this inoperable abortion, let them wear it around their necks like so many anchors in the deep water as they try to survive the next two elections.

    Bailing out a law and making it workable is not our responsibility, especially a law that had to be passed to find out what’s in it.

    This pandering to the Progressive lunacy is driving Conservatives away from the Republican establishment. Obama Republicans could leave a ring around Baltimore Harbor, if you tried to wash away all the ill-feelings and resentment they have created, within the grass roots of the party, by playing up to this CIC. It’s like pissing in the gravy, and trying to sell us mashed potatoes, some of us would just as soon skip the potatoes all together

  3. 3

    Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)

    “If I was interested in voting for political candidates that are for bigger government, the redefinition of marriage, higher taxes, abortion on demand, a decadent popular culture, socialized medicine, gun control, amnesty and open borders I’d vote Democratic.” You omitted vote buying.

    Skookum, in comment # 2, said: “This pandering to the Progressive lunacy is driving Conservatives away from the Republican establishment.” But what are we to do? Third parties seldom (if ever) win, so the Republican party is the only game in town.

  4. 4

    Skookum

    @Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor): The Progressives have almost defeated themselves, and it’s a good thing, because we certainly lack the attack dogs.

    Get rid of the guys who walk on both sides of the fence and regain control of the party from the Progressive Republicans, who are more than happy to rake in their graft at the Democratic trough.

    What good is a win, if we have more of the same?

    Purge the party of Obama Loyalists or give the country away.

  5. 5

    Pete

    “Political compromise” is ALWAYS the code phrase leftists use to mean “Do what we want by giving up all your principles or we will call you stupid.”

  6. 6

    Nanny G

    Republicans tempted by this idea ought to look at the results of a recent vote.
    A TEA Party Candidate ran as a write-in.
    He got the majority of the votes.
    The Republicans got 24% of them.
    The Democrats got 23% of them.
    What does that say about becoming Dem-lites?
    It says fuggetaboutit.

  7. 7

    Ritchie The Riveter

    To the Progressive, there is not Left and Right … in their minds, conditioned by a century where so many of the ideas they hold dearly were successfully embedded into the conventional wisdom, that comparison is the Enlightened vs. the Ignorant.

    Therefore, it is easy for them to treat conservative opinion as irrelevant, and that we should come out of our “ignorance” and become more like them and their “common sense”.

    What they don’t see, is that their assumption that all that conventional wisdom is The Way Things Are and therefore beyond question, has made them more mindless than the “fundamentalists” they decry.

    In fact, it is the Progressives that are the new fundamentalists of the 21st century … seeking to jam the beliefs of their Cult of the Credentialed and Connected Omniscient down all our throats with the coercive force of law, with a zeal that makes fire-and-brimstone Baptists look like loose-topped libertines out for beads at Mardi Gras.

  8. 9

    Kraken

    @Ritchie The Riveter:

    that comparison is the Enlightened vs. the Ignorant.

    The problem is that they have an inverted understanding of what enlightenment and ignorance is. I know. I’ve had higher “education.” I’ve suffered through their uneducated curriculums. There’s nothing enlightened about any of it. Its garbage. All of it.

    A person becomes far more enlightened if they avoid college altogether. It’s a total waste of time and money.

  9. 10

    rich wheeler

    @Skookum: Skooks I feel your pain. Mainstream Repubs. and indies will not back a reactionary candidate. The demographics of the electorate demand an honest bi-partisan search for a solution to immigration reform, background checks for gun ownership, a healthy respect for mother earth and the environment, protection of well earned civil rights and a concern for worldwide human rights.
    Nominate a candidate who believes in the above and you got a good chance. Ignore any and you’ll finish 2nd AGAIN.

  10. 11

    Common Sense

    Rich., thanks for your comments and well said. I would only add that in 2010 the Tea Party Patriots and Republican Party ran on a strategy that basically emphasised the failures and underhanded tactics that Democrats employed to pass Obmacare. In addition the strategy included the need to reduce taxes and spending by an out of control Federal Government. May I remind you that these strategies are still viable in the 2014 election cycle and also remind you that the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives by historic numbers. All polling would indicate that environmental issues are well down the list importance as they where in the past presidential election. I like the Republican’s chances to gain in the House and take control of the Senate based primarily on the same strategy and the failures of the current leadership in the Senate. Hope all is well with you and your family.

  11. 12

    rich wheeler

    @Common SenseWe neglect the environment and the fragile eco system at our own peril: It’s like neglecting our personal health through obesity and smoking. Can’t do it indefinitely.
    Rather than blasting away at Obama PERSONALLY and his failures real and perceived, Repubs would do well to find a positive message espoused by a positive forward thinking candidate. Let me know when you get one. I’m open in 2016, and so are many other Dems, and indies. But I assure you we will not go backwards on social issues no matter the economic plan presented.
    Best to you and your family Doc.

  12. 13

    Skookum

    @rich wheeler: Rich, a concern for worldwide human rights? We North Americans are ethnocentric in this respect; the world is not Canada, the US, and Western Europe, most of the world lives in horrific conditions under the control of ruthless strongmen who will stop at nothing to maintain control. Concern for human rights is a pretext for evasion and meaningless platitudes by leaders who lament the misfortunes of a few while hundreds of millions exist in conditions that no one likes to acknowledge, let alone try to address.

    Yes, we have an extravagant lifestyle and our poor should eat well, they have phones, and the latest TVs, but some people can’t be helped. However, in much of the rest of the world, health care doesn’t exist. Prostitution is the only option for young women. There is no meaningful or non-criminal employment for men, and the life expectant is often under forty. What politician has ever addressed or suggested a meaningful solution for the real situations in the Third World?

    As people who have seen the Third World, we might as well lay the cards on the table and not lead on the civilians, just so that they can continue their strolls down through the beautiful poppy fields when they are in bloom, for despite the beauty of the flowers, they serve as allusions for death and despair.

  13. 14

    rich wheeler

    @Skookum: I respect all that you say Marine.
    Went to a Grey Wolf sanctuary in Julian Sun. and learned a hell of a lot—the importance of this species as relates to the environment and the human animal. Seems the wolf has gotten a bad rap over the years–Little Red, Boy who cried, werewolves etc.
    Your thoughts re. Ranchers and Farmers co-existence with these incredibly smart and beautiful creatures?
    Saw ZZ TOP at Pechanga. OUTSTANDING rockers for 45 years.
    Semper Fi

  14. 15

    Skookum

    @rich wheeler: The wolf is an interesting question. I am probably the only one reading these cyber pages who has hunted and trapped the Timber Wolf and my friend was the community wolf hunter for years. In Northern BC, the wolf is plentiful; our transplants were brought from BC.

    First off, some people have an unnatural fear of the wolf, I call it hysteria. There has been only one human killed by wolves that I am aware of; a woman jogger was killed in Alaska. Most people will think, “Oh my God,” but let’s use some common sense. Mountain Lions usually kill women joggers here in CA; were they jogging during their time of the month? If they were, in the wolf’s or cougar’s mind, they are a wounded animal fleeing and fair game.

    When I am in the mountains, and I see a wolf during the fur season, if I don’t shoot in a split second, he will disappear. Do they sense that I am not afraid and do they know when someone is vulnerable? Without a doubt, they are the smartest of all the creatures, even the Grizzly, but this only feeds the hysteria.

    They are not altruistic animals who roam the mountains dispatching the weak and old. They are killing machines and may be the only animals who kill for sport besides man. I have seen the evidence of this when they have killed a healthy Black Bear and didn’t eat him or why will a single male wolf try to kill a mature bull moose when the odds are 50/50 on who will win? Those are not good odds.

    My friend, surreptitiously referred to as Knarley Manners in my stories, has probably hunted and trapped as many wolves as anyone. He maintains that very few of the cattle pastured for the summer were actually killed by wolves, they might stop by for a snack and dine on a bovine who passed from natural causes or was killed by something else, but for the risk of running thousands of cattle in the habitat of wolves, there was little depredation. However, when a rancher lost a cow to any cause, hysteria would set in, and “The Wolves What Done It” mentality took hold.

    If you want to see wolves, build a tree stand within a hundred yards of a dead cow. Sit up there every night for a week or ten days and they will come in at night to investigate. Get a bead on one and squeeze you trigger without making a sound and you can kill one, the bag limit is five by hunting, unlimited by trapping. You will only get one shot, but if you breathe and make noise, they will disappear like magic.

    Will the wolves maintain this healthy fear of the human, while running in the lower 48? They have smaller areas to be wolves and the opportunity for conflict is greater. Packs maintain certain sizes with a litter being born each year. What happens to the excess pups? No One knows, but I think the best grow to maturity; therefore an early form of population control takes place. Naturally, acculturation is a natural way of life, up North. Here, new packs seem to be developing without and this acculturation process isn’t being observed, possibly. The old taboos with livestock and men may not be observed. If this happens, it will be big trouble. Already, lion hunters have lost hounds to the wolf. The wolf is such as awesome specimen that even lion hunters don’t stand a chance.

    Time will tell, but I worry most about the acculturation process. If this awesome creature learns to have no respect for man and his animals, the future looks bleak. The hysterical people on both sides of the issue need to be ignored, and we must remember, there are few attacks on livestock in BC and no attacks on humans.

  15. 16

    Common Sense

    @rich wheeler: Rich, did anyone say neglect the Eco System?? That’s kind of the problem in a nutshell and that is perspective. I have not heard a Republican say neglect the environment. They may say balance is needed vs. extremism and they would be correct. Reality is still back to the strategy utilized in 2010 and the validity of that strategy in 2014. No one has advocated going backwards on social issues. Social issues will always remain a political issue, here again extremism should not rule the day. Giving citizenship to those who break our laws to enter our country is extreme from my point of view. Republicans have lots of ideas on improving legal immigration but do you really think their voice will be heard until the Senate moves back under Republican control?

  16. 17

    Common Sense

    @rich wheeler:
    Subject: Fwd: LA Times Quote of the day –

    LA Times Quote of the day –
    priceless Quote of the day by Dianne Feinstein……..

    Dianne Feinstein: “All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms.”

    Yep, – she really said it on Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee… and the quote below from the LA Times is priceless. Sometimes even the L.A. Times gets it right.

    Kurt Nimmo: “Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her anti-firearms bill.”

    Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:
    “Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re Number One. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”

    Columnist Burt Prelutsky,
    Los Angeles Times
    Be sure to forward this to all of the “mentally ill” vets you know.
    Especially the ones with guns…

  17. 18

    Ritchie The Riveter

    @rich wheeler:

    If you are talking about clear and present threats to the environment, of the pooping-in-our-nest variety, I’m with you, and so are most conservatives. We have seen this nation ALREADY do a lot to clean up such threats in my lifetime.

    But if we put parts-per-billion probabilities and cult “science” (as in the Climate Change Cult) above simple economics, the results may be counterproductive to your aim. For when people start to wonder where their next meal is coming from, they are more likely to fillet Willy than free him.

    Prosperity gives ordinary people the breathing space they need to think of the environment. Do not take the fundamentalist route of environment uber alles, if you are truly interested in its stewardship.

    As for the social issues – a secular case can be made to support the “traditional” position on the Big Three:

    > Redefining the legal definition of marriage to include alternatives to heterosexuality (for it is essentially an attempt to give GLBT activists their very own version of the RaceCard to muzzle even respectful critics of their choice of sexual expression, by jamming a “new normal” down our throats via the force of law).

    > Mandating that employers provide contraception, even if it violates their freedom-of-conscience (which rankles even those of us who see no problem with condoms and The Pill in our own lives … again another attempt by our Cult of the Credentialed and Connected Omniscient to jam their morality down our throats with coercive force).

    > Legalized abortion – which sets a precedent of disrespect for the unalienable nature of the right to live, that may prove dangerous to not only myself, but you as you get older and perhaps become “inconvenient” to your family and/or society.

    Frankly, you are well steeped in the conventional wisdom … you, and your fellow “moderates” need to question it more. Often, the right answer is not the median value.

  18. 19

    rich wheeler

    @Skookum: Thanks Skooks–acculturation seems to be the key for the ultimate survival of the wolf. I’m told the introduction of the wolf into Yellowstone has been beneficial.
    Interesting to note the only animal that “hunts” the wolf is two legged.

  19. 21

    Nanny G

    An example of ”liberal values,” has been to watch as liberals bitch and moan about a crumbling infrastructure until the nation gave them $877 BILLION dollars to fix them……then these same liberals snickered as they frittered all that cash away but none of it on ”shovel-ready jobs” that actually fixed said infrastructure!
    Years go by and, voila!, liberals are again screaming about our crumbling infrastructure!
    Where’s the money, you conservative creeps?!

    Another ”liberal value,” is the paradoxical way they frame the discourse about various issues, like gay marriage (which most gays don’t even want to avail themselves of).

    So, for instance, liberals say, “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”
    THEN they come out and destroy individuals who think differently from them on gay marriage.
    People like those restaurant owners in L.A., like Eich the ex-CEO of Mozilla (and its founder), like bakers, photographers, florists who wish to limit contact with openly gay people, and so on.

    Notice this liberal belief is also a vaccination crime: once committed, you are guilty for life!
    (Unless you’re a fellow Liberal, like Obama who agreed with Mr. Eich until 2009!!)

    Christianity does not act that way.
    It points out all Christians once were involved in sins, but their sins were ”washed away” by their baptism, then they are kept clean with God through prayers for forgiveness for sins committed as they go on living.

  20. 24

    Nanny G

    @RICH WHEELER: Is that Christ like?

    Good question, RICH.
    Paul had to address questions like this when he traveled between congregations including ones made up from Jews who became Christians and Gentiles who became Christians.
    He said it was a matter of conscience.
    Weak or new Christians might do many things differently from strong Christians who had a long understanding of the Law that tutored them to Christ.
    It was to be accepted with love.
    As long as it is not in a black-white area of Christian law variations of behavior are to be tolerated.
    Are gays tolerant of their fellow (non-gay) Christians?

  21. 26

    Ritchie The Riveter

    @RICH WHEELER: the legal recognition of one’s sexual relationship is not an unalienable right.

    Keep in mind that the legal recognition of heterosexual marriage transcends religion and culture, and has done so for millennia, because it was a stabilizing influence upon relationships where conception was plausible (and that includes keeping Grandpa faithful, as opposed to going out and knocking up a twentysomething hottie on the side, resulting in either Grandma being left out in the cold or the creation of another single mother).

    “Feelings … nothing more than … feelings” was not the basis for its legal recognition.

    And marriage is not the primary objective of the activists here … it is about compelling acceptance (and perhaps even celebration) of their lifestyle choice … and/or tearing down ANY sense of responsibility regarding sexual behavior, so they will never have their mellows harshed by criticism – even respectful, principled criticism – of their choice of sexual expression.

    And yes, it is a choice … as much of a choice as I face to remain monogamous in the face of male biology.

  22. 27

    Ditto

    @rich wheeler:

    That was a case of one writer paraphrasing/summing up what Feistien said (which follows):

    …this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

    So “no,” that wasn’t what she said, but neither was “the quote” all that far from what she implied. Snopes response included the following:

    Nonetheless, what Senator Feinstein actually did say was the subject of some harsh criticism. Shawn J. Gourley, co-founder of the organization Military with PTSD, penned a rebuttal that took the senator to task for asserting that PTSD was a “new phenomenon” and suggesting it was an issue only for military veterans:

    Snopes includes edited portions of the rebuttal by Shawn J. Gourley (Which can be read in it’s entirety here.)

    …Senator Feinstein, your bill already has an exemption for retired law enforcement officers, but did you know nationwide, it’s estimated as many as 18 percent of police are suffering from PTSD according to a CBS News article in 2012? So I ask you: Why are 100 percent of veterans being stripped of the right to own these types of firearms because of “no way to verify that there was no impairment of that individual,” that might affect only 30 percent of that population, but you seem to have no problem allowing assault weapons to law enforcement officers, of which 18 percent may be suffering from this same “impairment,” as you say? PTSD in a veteran is the equivalent of PTSD in law enforcement officers. They all have the same symptoms.

    Nor, (from my own experience in listening to and arguing with low-information Democrats) is Feinstien alone amongst some far-lefties, who have also gotten it into their heads that ‘most Middle East conflict Veterans have PTSD’, and who also wrongly believe as Feinstien does that ‘only Veterans have PTSD.’

  23. 30

    retire05

    @RICH WHEELER:

    @Nanny G: “are gays tolerant of their non gay Christian brothers.” I’d say unequivocally yes.

    Unless that non-gay Christian brother wants to exercise his political free speech by donating to a cause that is over 6 years old, act on his Biblical beliefs or keep his job in a company that he was the creator of. Then, all bets are off and he will be hounded to the ends of the earth by the oh-so “tolerant” gays.

  24. 31

    Ditto

    @RICH WHEELER:

    “Paraphrasing” can be very misleading, Thanks

    Yes, it can. However in this case her words do contain a predetermined assumption that Veterans have PDST unless proven otherwise, while completely ignoring the truth fact that PDST can exist in law enforcement officers and other members of the public. While Snopes is correct that Feinstein did not “say” the phrase attributed to her, she essentially implied it, and clearly displayed her own ignorance about the subject.

  25. 33

    RICH WHEELER

    @Ritchie The Riveter: Sorry. Based on your post I assumed you were straight and would understand the intent of my post.
    Like 80-90% of Americans I believe the overwhelming majority of people are born either heterosexual or homosexual. For very few it is a choice made later in life.

  26. 34

    RICH WHEELER

    @Ditto: @ My point was Feinstein did not say “all vets are mentally ill in some way—” Agreed?
    Would agree she needs to learn more about PTSD.

    Semper Fi

  27. 37

    ilovebeeswarzone

    I think FEINSTEIN HAS PTSD BY OBSERVING HER ,
    SHE LOOK DEEPER IN PTSD THAN ANY MILITARY,
    WHO THINK THEY HAVE IT, JUST BY THE WAY SHE TALK LIKE A MAD … SHE AND HARRY REID ARE REALLY DEEP IN IT,THEY SHOULD BE EVALUATE, LIKE OTHER WHO ARE ACTING STRANGELY NOT ALL THERE,
    IT MIGHT BE THE FOOD THEY INGEST IN THERE,
    how did it got so bad

  28. 38

    Redteam

    @rich wheeler:

    Nominate a candidate who believes in the above and you got a good chance. Ignore any and you’ll finish 2nd AGAIN.

    I know you’re talking about the repubs, but the strange thing is that the Dims always ignore all of them and it makes no difference. So if all the Dims and 25% of the Repubs ignore them, why is it that Dims can get elected with absolutely no standards?

  29. 39

    Redteam

    @rich wheeler: 12

    We neglect the environment and the fragile eco system at our own peril:

    who is neglecting the environment? and what is ‘fragile’ about the eco system. The earth has been here for billions of years, and I’ll make the claim it’s in the best condition it’s ever been in. The atmosphere actually supports many forms of life now, including humans, just a few hundred thousand years ago, it didn’t. so things are getting better all the time. The only concern that Dimocrats have for the environment is if they can continue to use it to extort money from the public.

    Rather than blasting away at Obama PERSONALLY and his failures real and perceived,

    Obama has no perceived failures, they’re all real and he clearly has no successes.

    But I assure you we will not go backwards on social issues

    Really curious here. What social issues do you feel Dims have moved ‘forward’ on? I know of none. I think Obama has set the racism issues back at least 30 years, maybe more. I don’t look for those to go away until The Rev Brawley and Jesse (the Daddy Crook) Jackson get to their reserved spots in hell.

  30. 40

    RICH WHEELER

    @Redteam: IMO here’s what you need to win and a candidate moderates like myself will vote for.
    Will work for bi-partisan immigration reform and a path to citizenship (albeit difficult) for 7 mill + undoc. aliens that are here–secure the borders,
    O.K. with background checks on gun ownership–including mental stability.Limit to mag capacity.
    Strongly pro-environment.
    Pro active on civil rights and international human rights.

    This is a candidate that can win,—YOU GOT ONE?/

    A wish–abolish the IRS–replace with a fair tax system

    just read your #39. You have to remember that voting demographics make Repubs. the minority party. I’m suggesting ways you can win. Not just compete and continue to finish 2nd. Maybe you don’t care. I can respect that.

  31. 41

    Redteam

    @rich wheeler:

    @Ditto: @ My point was Feinstein did not say “all vets are mentally ill in some way—” Agreed?
    Would agree she needs to learn more about PTSD.

    Ah, but she did say:

    The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

    And without ‘re-stating- what she said, she clearly said that veterans couldn’t be allowed to buy guns until they could prove that they were not suffering from PTSD.
    So no matter how much you defend her, she’s clearly a Dingbat.

  32. 42

    Redteam

    @RICH WHEELER:

    Like 80-90% of Americans I believe the overwhelming majority of people are born either heterosexual or homosexual. For very few it is a choice made later in life.

    I think it’s closer to about 60% that feel that most homosexuals are born that way. I think it’s about 40% that feel that it’s a choice. I personally think about 70-80% of homosexuals are born that way and the remainder are homosexual through choice or circumstance (circumstance being that someone is able to pay them enough, or no other person of the same sex is available) If you watch movies about wars back in the early times (Hannibal, etc) when the men were all gone for years, seems as if homosexuality got a kick start (through choice)

  33. 43

    Redteam

    @RICH WHEELER: 40

    Will work for bi-partisan immigration reform and a path to citizenship (albeit difficult) for 7 mill + undoc. aliens that are here–secure the borders,

    That’s what most Republicans want. I know of no Dimocrat that wants that. They seem to all want uncontested amnesty, no path, just amnesty. and absolutely no Dimocrat wants the border sealed.

    O.K. with background checks on gun ownership–including mental stability.Limit to mag capacity.

    who is opposed to that? Why a limit on mag capacity? makes zero sense, think about it. most mags can be changed without missing a shot. Most semi automatic 22 rifles have a capacity of about 15, is there any evidence that more people are dead because of that?

    Strongly pro-environment.

    Do you know ANYONE that is ‘anti-environment” ? Phony issue. everyone is in agreement that global cooling has returned (that why it changed from ‘global warming’ 2 years ago to ‘climate change’ now. (trying to keep Al Gore happy and rich)

    Pro active on civil rights and international human rights.

    Just curious, which ‘civil right’ do you know of that someone is against? No matter how much we care about international human rights, we are not gonna make Muslims become gay or treat them (gays)with respect.

    This is a candidate that can win,—YOU GOT ONE?/

    Superman is ficticious, didn’t you know that? Do the Dims have anyone that fits that description? I can’t think of anyone on that side. I had a couple of questions in 39 that I notice you didn’t have an answer for.

    Really curious here. What social issues do you feel Dims have moved ‘forward’ on?

  34. 46

    RICH WHEELER

    @Redteam: Honestly, I couldn’t get past your first 3 sentences in #43. If you truly believe that, we’re certainly too far apart to debate any further.
    Enjoy the day RT

  35. 48

    Redteam

    Since Rich couldn’t answer the question:

    What social issues do you feel Dims have moved ‘forward’ on?

    Does any other Lib have an answer to that? I can’t think of any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *