Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 174 of 240 FirstFirst ... 74 124 164 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 184 224 ... LastLast
Results 1,731 to 1,740 of 2400
  1. #1731
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    That would be too bad.




  2. #1732
    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Bill of Rights's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2A_Tom View Post
    That would be too bad.
    I agree, it would be. Not because I like the Dems, but because I like the counterpoint. The GOP does not have all the answers and is not always correct. More importantly, they don't represent the whole country well. Now.... if we could remove both parties and either start anew without them, or if other parties could evolve, that would change the nature of our elections. They would still be free elections, but even with Bloomberg's and Soros' multi billions, they could not buy all the parties. We might get away from the image we saw here before, that I'm too lazy to look for, of one party with two boots, alternately stepping on the People, showing that no matter who you vote to put in office, you still support the same overarching "party".

    A pipe dream, I suppose.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Thanks for your help in keeping this a great forum!
    Forum Rules#######Classifieds Rules##############?!?! wait...what?

  3. #1733
    Grandmaster actaeon277's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill of Rights View Post
    I agree, it would be. Not because I like the Dems, but because I like the counterpoint. The GOP does not have all the answers and is not always correct. More importantly, they don't represent the whole country well. Now.... if we could remove both parties and either start anew without them, or if other parties could evolve, that would change the nature of our elections. They would still be free elections, but even with Bloomberg's and Soros' multi billions, they could not buy all the parties. We might get away from the image we saw here before, that I'm too lazy to look for, of one party with two boots, alternately stepping on the People, showing that no matter who you vote to put in office, you still support the same overarching "party".

    A pipe dream, I suppose.

    Blessings,
    Bill
    Even better, no more political parties.
    At least not as we know them.
    No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.
    Only what the person is for, or against.

    But that would be an infringement of speech.
    Or would it?
    If you can say what you are for/against, but can't say the name of a party, is it an infringement?
    "Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem."

    “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” -Plato

    "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs." Benson Everett Legg - Woolard v. Sheridan

    If you're a noob, develop thick skin, and read the FAQs


  4. #1734
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by actaeon277 View Post
    Even better, no more political parties.
    At least not as we know them.
    No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.
    Only what the person is for, or against.

    But that would be an infringement of speech.
    Or would it?
    If you can say what you are for/against, but can't say the name of a party, is it an infringement?
    Yes, of association...

  5. #1735
    Expert

    User Info Menu


  6. #1736
    Expert

    User Info Menu


  7. #1737
    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Bill of Rights's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by actaeon277 View Post
    Even better, no more political parties.
    At least not as we know them.
    No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.
    Only what the person is for, or against.

    But that would be an infringement of speech.
    Or would it?
    If you can say what you are for/against, but can't say the name of a party, is it an infringement?
    I did say "...remove both parties and ... start anew without them...."

    And "you can say this but not that" is automatically an infringement of free speech, IMHO.

    Exactly why is it OK to call someone a "cracker" or any other slur, but only one group has their pejorative referenced as "the N word"? Not that any of them are OK, but why does that one get special treatment?

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Thanks for your help in keeping this a great forum!
    Forum Rules#######Classifieds Rules##############?!?! wait...what?

  8. #1738
    Master nonobaddog's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill of Rights View Post
    I did say "...remove both parties and ... start anew without them...."

    And "you can say this but not that" is automatically an infringement of free speech, IMHO.

    Exactly why is it OK to call someone a "cracker" or any other slur, but only one group has their pejorative referenced as "the N word"? Not that any of them are OK, but why does that one get special treatment?

    Blessings,
    Bill
    Maybe because "the C word" was already taken.

  9. #1739
    Master KittySlayer's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by actaeon277 View Post
    .
    No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.
    Rarely do Democrats advertising up in our northeast corner of the state emphasize the “D” they are associated with.
    When seconds matter the 2nd Amendment matters.

  10. #1740
    Grandmaster Sigblitz's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    .


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge