I’d say LBJ was way more liberal than Obama. Think civil rights. Probably the most liberal bill in the past 50 years. Lots of conservative backlash there.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’d say LBJ was way more liberal than Obama. Think civil rights. Probably the most liberal bill in the past 50 years. Lots of conservative backlash there.[/quote]
Not really. The Civil Rights Act was passed by the Republicans and conservative Democrats like LBJ. It was socialist racist Democrats who oppossed it — the same ones who now claim the mantel “civil rights” leaders, you know like Senator Byrd (D-WV), who was the Grand PoBa of the KKK.
Martin Luther King was a Republican for a reason.
LBJ was also pro-military, and a very strong ally of Israel.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
And a republican can never really be a conservative to get elected:[/quote]
I agree they have to go center right - Just like the country. But the lefty’s have to move way, way over.
Because the lying democrats try to scare senior citizens every four years- Aren’t you proud to be a democrat?
You need to read more history my friend. While the republican party has moved to the left over the past 8 years, they have now (because of Obama) moved back to where Ronald Reagan (the father of the modern conservative movement) would want them.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’d say LBJ was way more liberal than Obama. Think civil rights. Probably the most liberal bill in the past 50 years. Lots of conservative backlash there.[/quote]
Not really. The Civil Rights Act was passed by the Republicans and conservative Democrats like LBJ. It was socialist racist Democrats who oppossed it — the same ones who now claim the mantel “civil rights” leaders, you know like Senator Byrd (D-WV), who was the Grand PoBa of the KKK.
Martin Luther King was a Republican for a reason.
LBJ was also pro-military, and a very strong ally of Israel.[/quote]
LBJ was a racist, the only reason he fought for civil rights was to keep blacks voting democratic. I read a quote where he said " I’ll have those ni&&ers voting democrat for the next 200 years". He was no conservative.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You need to read more history my friend. While the republican party has moved to the left over the past 8 years, they have now (because of Obama) moved back to where Ronald Reagan (the father of the modern conservative movement) would want them.
[/quote]
If you think Ronald Reagan was a political conservative, you don’t understand the term. We was essentially the first Big Government modern Republican leader. He doubled the national debt =/= not conservative.
Although I guess you’re equating the modern conservative movement with neo-conservatism, which is far closer to neo-liberalism than classical conservatism. These guys, like liberals, believe it’s the correct role of government to act as social engineers.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You need to read more history my friend. While the republican party has moved to the left over the past 8 years, they have now (because of Obama) moved back to where Ronald Reagan (the father of the modern conservative movement) would want them.
[/quote]
If you think Ronald Reagan was a political conservative, you don’t understand the term. We was essentially the first Big Government modern Republican leader. He doubled the national debt =/= not conservative.
Although I guess you’re equating the modern conservative movement with neo-conservatism, which is far closer to neo-liberalism than classical conservatism. These guys, like liberals, believe it’s the correct role of government to act as social engineers.[/quote]
Things like the national debt are done by the congress. Which is why if the Republicans raise the debt they will have a big backlash against them unless they add in some massive spending cuts.
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’d say LBJ was way more liberal than Obama. Think civil rights. Probably the most liberal bill in the past 50 years. Lots of conservative backlash there.[/quote]
Not really. The Civil Rights Act was passed by the Republicans and conservative Democrats like LBJ. It was socialist racist Democrats who oppossed it — the same ones who now claim the mantel “civil rights” leaders, you know like Senator Byrd (D-WV), who was the Grand PoBa of the KKK.
Martin Luther King was a Republican for a reason.
LBJ was also pro-military, and a very strong ally of Israel.[/quote]
LBJ was a racist, the only reason he fought for civil rights was to keep blacks voting democratic. I read a quote where he said " I’ll have those ni&&ers voting democrat for the next 200 years". He was no conservative.[/quote]
Yes, and the entire South became Republicans. Wait…that means Southerns were mostly Democrats…they are the “racist” ones aren’t they?
“Let me get this straight. A mentally ill madman goes on a shooting spree to assassinate a United States Congresspersonâ?¦ and the lesson learned by liberals is that guns must be taken away from law-abiding citizens? Really? Whatâ??s the connection between a mentally ill nutcase and perfectly sane, responsible people? There is none.”- Wayne Allyn Root
I read through this thread and still am not sure if this has been addressed:
What I know:
- He was mentally unstable.
- He bought a gun (legally).
What I don’t know:
A) Was is documented that he was unstable?
B) Was it documented before he bought the gun?
C) If B is YES, can we come up with a way to screen for mental illness when a person goes to purchase a gun?
If the answer to C is YES, wouldn’t that “split the difference” between blanket “stricter gun control” that would affect law abiding citizens and cases like this?
Just sent a letter to the editors of The Economist about how pissed I was about their ‘The blame game’ article in this week’s issue, which essentially favored gun control because of the Tucson killings.
Here’s what I wrote (thx to bigflamer for the quote):
To the editors of The Economist, in response to â??The blame gameâ?? article in this weekâ??s Economist (Jan 15th-21st 2011):
Iâ??ll start this one off with a quote.
“Let me get this straight. A mentally ill madman goes on a shooting spree to assassinate a United States Congressperson and the lesson learned by liberals is that guns must be taken away from law-abiding citizens? Really? Whatâ??s the connection between a mentally ill nutcase and perfectly sane, responsible people? There is none.” - Wayne Allyn Root
Iâ??ve enjoyed reading the Economist since Iâ??ve been a subscriber, and this is the first article that ticked me off due to the lack of logic contained in it. Most will agree (and I do as well) that the mentally unstable need to be barred in some way from getting their hands on a gun of any kind. But this article suggests that gun control is a good thing, because if that was the case, Jared Lee Loughner would not have been able to attain a gun, right?.. wrong. Mr. Loughner was set on shooting Congresswoman Giffords and others, I donâ??t think the law would have stopped him from buying a handgun.
Hereâ??s a scenario: letâ??s say that gun control was enforced and Mr. Loughner could not legally buy a handgun, so what would he do? He would buy a handgun illegally, which is easy in this country as you are aware, and go shoot Mrs. Giffords. â??When seconds count, the police are just minutes awayâ??â?¦ if gun control was enforced in this scenario above and Mr. Loughner is on a shooting rampage, no one is there to stop him because we can assume most or ALL of those people are law-abiding citizens who are not illegally buying handguns. Thus, Mr. Loughner is free to do as he wishes and no one can do anything about it except to maybe tackle him after heâ??s already killed 6 and injured many more (which is what happened). If gun control was not enforced, there would be a large possibility that a law-abiding citizen there would have a handgun on their person for self-defense purposes, and would be able to shoot Mr. Loughner down before he took the lives of 6 people.
Might as well end with a quote:
â??Laws that forbid the carrying of armsâ?¦disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimesâ?¦Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.â?? - Thomas Jefferson
Respectfully,
Andy V
A) No, I don’t believe this was documented. In most cases, it’s undocumented until they do crazy ass shit, like Loughner did.
B) Again, not documented.
C) The answer was no to B, but I agree with you… there needs to be some way to screen for mental illness before one is able to buy a handgun. How do go about doing that, I don’t know…
I think you should have to obtain a license to own a gun much like to drive a car. Just a simple and short psyche eval. and maybe a written exam for basic gun safety and operation.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think you should have to obtain a license to own a gun much like to drive a car. Just a simple and short psyche eval. and maybe a written exam for basic gun safety and operation.[/quote]
This would be a good approach, but too many variables would be evaluated. Licensing folk would have a lot of power to say yes/no.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think you should have to obtain a license to own a gun much like to drive a car. Just a simple and short psyche eval. and maybe a written exam for basic gun safety and operation.[/quote]
This would be a good approach, but too many variables would be evaluated. Licensing folk would have a lot of power to say yes/no.[/quote]
I dunno… I mean think of it this way. Despite having to take a drivers license test, you still have people on the road that shouldn’t be there so I doubt the test would ever become too stringent.