Democrats = Communists...Change My Mind

[Trigger Time]

In prior to the 1960's congress would have been locking up their own democrat members.
Now it the hip new thing to be a communist. When is enough enough?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Paul, however, is scheduled for outpatient surgery at a private hospital, later reports clarified. He will be going to Shouldice Hospital, which claims to be a world leader in “non-mesh hernia repair,” Bloomberg reports.


“This is a private, world-renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services,” Paul spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper told Bloomberg.

Mea Culpa, that was a bad example.

 

[Leadeye]

Paul, however, is scheduled for outpatient surgery at a private hospital, later reports clarified. He will be going to Shouldice Hospital, which claims to be a world leader in “non-mesh hernia repair,” Bloomberg reports.


“This is a private, world-renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services,” Paul spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper told Bloomberg.

Floors parquet, docs OK.

Old soviet saying.

 

[OakRiver]

Rand Paul apparently disagrees...

Sen. Rand Paul Is Having Hernia Surgery in Canada | Fortune

Does he?
From your own link; "Paul, however, is scheduled for outpatient surgery at a private hospital"

**edit**
I see you have already acknowledged that this was not the best example

 

[NKBJ]

Just finished re-reading Red Storm Rising.
What trip down memory lane to the good old days when the soviets were on the other side of Germany instead of West Virginia.

 

[T.Lex]

No. While his policies certainly got the ball rolling, he had the betterment of the country at heart, whereas this latest breed only wants to destroy everything that has ever been.

I'm genuinely curious why you think he had the betterment of the country at heart, and the current "breed" do not.

Based on contemporary sourcing, FDR was far closer to the traditional communist/socialist model than current Dems, including the introduction of authoritarian policies and centralized planning.

Or are you saying that, in the midst of the Depression, a certain amount of communism/socialism actually was good for the country?

Just finished re-reading Red Storm Rising.

That's always a great book.

 

[Leadeye]

I'm genuinely curious why you think he had the betterment of the country at heart, and the current "breed" do not.

Based on contemporary sourcing, FDR was far closer to the traditional communist/socialist model than current Dems, including the introduction of authoritarian policies and centralized planning.

Or are you saying that, in the midst of the Depression, a certain amount of communism/socialism actually was good for the country?




That's always a great book.

It's always been my belief that what FDR provided best during the depression was confident leadership or what was perhaps perceived as that by most Americans at the time. We can debate how effective his socialist/authoritarian policies were in the time context and the background of his world, but often it's the public perception of the man, the leader, more than anything that gets people out of a depressed state and moving again.

 

[BigRed]

The difference between a Communist and a Democrat is this:

Communist is spelled c-o-m-m-u-n-i-s-t

Democrat is spelled d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t

The difference between either of them and a Republican is increasingly narrow.

 

[T.Lex]

It's always been my belief that what FDR provided best during the depression was confident leadership or what was perhaps perceived as that by most Americans at the time. We can debate how effective his socialist/authoritarian policies were in the time context and the background of his world, but often it's the public perception of the man, the leader, more than anything that gets people out of a depressed state and moving again.

There is no doubt that FDR was confident. Nor any about his perception among the public then, and now, as a beneficent... leader. Heck, I'll even agree that any debate about effectiveness of his policies in mitigating the Depression are more a reflection of the views of the person making the argument.

But, for purposes of this thread, I think a couple observations are important:
- He held views closer to communism/socialism than any current national-level Democrat (MAYBE not as far progressive as Bernie Sanders, but in the same ballpark).
- His election included votes from people who had been Republicans. (Granted, Hoover was NOT a very good candidate for a 2d term.)

 

[JeepHammer]

I understand that only 3% served in the military where they *Might* have seen the actual difference between a democratically elected government with checks & balances, and an actual communist government, or some dictatorship,
And I understand that less than 10% of that 3% were career military where they lived & breathed defense of that democracy...

It's still no excuse for being willfully ignorant (or stupid, since the information is instantly available, and taught to every high school student if they cared to pay attention.

-------

Let's start with the BIG LIES...

For those that weren't 'educated' by the far right (probably went through school before Ronald Reagan)...

Lie #1. You are either a 'Capitalists' or a 'Communists'.

This is an out right lie, since Communism is a system of military government, and Capitalism is a financial system, the two are not diametrically opposed, or even related.

The TRUTH, the opposite of Communism is Democracy, a governing body is elected by the people, not an elite few insiders.

The TRUTH, the opposite of Capitalism is Free Market.

Lie #2. Despite the antiquated Webster's dictionary definition of 'Socialism', there is NO MODERN CIVILIZATION that can exist without some forms of socialism. Period.

Every single cooperative and public works project is a socialist contract, from water, sewer & electric systems, to schools systems, highways, police forces, etc are all socialist contracts.
They simply can not exist without social agreements.
Any transportation STOPS without socialist agreement, all national defense STOPS without socialist agreements, etc.

No public utilities can exist without right of way agreements, no highways or even dirt roads can exist without right of way agreements, same for rail beds, river transportation, or open water agreements.

Not to rub a sore spot, but the earliest civilizations had this one figured out, I don't know why it's a foreign concept to people that had at least 13 years of free education offered to them by a socialist agreement...
(As that socialist snow plow digs out the road in front of your property AGAIN while you are reading this...)

Lie #3. Democrats are Communists, Or, Socialism Is Communism.

The idea of a 'Republican' is somewhat new, while the idea of a 'Democrat' is much older.
Democrats (supporters of a citizen elected democratic government) goes back to the Greeks,
While 'Republics', a group of smaller governments wanting a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, is a relatively new idea.
(It still baffles me why people claiming to be 'Republican' advocate for 'Smaller Government' when the two are mutually exclusive by definition)

Smaller governments banded together in 'Republics' originally to try and stop Imperialism, the forced take over off their respective lands by a 'Crown' and/or royal family, or by neighboring feudal warlords, and/or by religious theocracy.

(Feudal, Imperial & Theocracy being three other forms of government, besides the aforementioned Communism, Socialism & Democracy, for those asleep, skipping or stoned during government classes...)

I find it a quirk of history that Communism latched onto both 'Republic' and 'Democratic' as buzz words when describing dictatorships, examples are North Korea (Democratic Republic Of Korea: DPRK), the Soviets (USSR), East Germany (DDR) 'Democratic Republic of Germany', etc.

-----

Keep in mind that many of our 'Republican' forefathers thought that ONLY white men with land (75 acres or more) and higher classical education should have the vote...
This, of course, would have immediately created an elite ruling class since only a very small portion of the population fit the criteria.
Democrats won that fight, all free males could vote, later females, and later still, minorities.
(I wont get into the people that think any citizen in good standing shouldn't vote, other than saying it's anti-american to the core)

--------

Now, some basic guidelines for the newly educated (from this post),

Actual Democratic & Socialist governments have representatives elected by the citizens.

Communist governments have officials appointed or 'Elected' by the top end members of the communist party.
*IF* a vote takes place, it's a closed vote by the ruling eliete.

Dictatorships don't have legitimate elections.

---------

When things don't go your way in an election, *IF* you bothered to vote (50% of voting age, eligible people don't vote) then you CAN NOT complain.
You gave up the right to complain when you abstained from voting. Period.

When you no longer have the right to vote, then it's time to take up a MUCH stronger position.
Until that time, any mention of violence is expressly un-American. Period.
Under the socialist agreement we have with our government, you vote, the majority rules, you don't have to like it, but it is the law of the land.

Politics have always been a 'Blood Sport', the higher the office, the dirtier the tricks.
For the common voter, DISTRACTION is the most effective, keeping you focused on something that's a fabricated 'Trigger', religion (settled in the Constitution), abortion (settled by the supreme Court), firearms (settled by the Constitution), immigration (settled by the Constitution), etc. ad nauseam...
This is 'Single Issue Division', a (successful) attempt to take the focus off what the government is ACTUALLY DOING...

LIERS are easy to spot, Sweeping, Blanket Statements and/or wrapping themselves in the bible or flag.

 

[Leadeye]

I think that's more a reflection of the period that FDR was in office, modern world leaders were running on socialist/authoritarian themes at the time quite successfully which in 10 years would prove to be disastrous to their constituents. Having grown up with people who revered FDR I always thought it strange that in the 60s/70s these same folks were opposed to modern manifestations of his policies. As a young man I could only conclude that there was something else about FDR in his time that made him popular.

I've noted before that it's difficult for me to understand the fascination big media and the young have with socialism.

 

[T.Lex]

I think that's more a reflection of the period that FDR was in office, modern world leaders were running on socialist/authoritarian themes at the time quite successfully which in 10 years would prove to be disastrous to their constituents. Having grown up with people who revered FDR I always thought it strange that in the 60s/70s these same folks were opposed to modern manifestations of his policies. As a young man I could only conclude that there was something else about FDR in his time that made him popular.

I've noted before that it's difficult for me to understand the fascination big media and the young have with socialism.

As I work through the post above yours, I think - to that poster's credit - part of the issue is a misunderstanding of what "socialism" and "communism" were. The definitions have been co-opted as buzzwords. (Not sure I agree with that poster's efforts to re-style the definitions, but we'll see.)

Communism/socialism = bad, because the regimes that have used those words have been authoritarian.

Back in the day, those words were more abstract, sometimes even aspirational. That was before any major countries tried to force those kinds of systems. (Which, as an aside, isn't really what Marx was talking about.)

The utopian goals ensconced in those words were attractive to the people at that time, ESPECIALLY in the middle of the Depression. I think that's why FDR is regarded favorably. At least he was trying for something good (or what was considered good at the time). That's the popular sentiment that has been passed down to later generations.

Overlooked (much of the time) is the structural damage his policies caused to the American republic.

 

[BugI02]

SMH. If firearms were 'settled' by the Constitution, why must we continuously stave off attempts to limit and control them? If immigration was 'settled' by the Constitution, why is the President's quite comprehensive power to control it constantly second guessed by congress and the courts? If religion (and in fact, freedom of association) is 'settled' by the Constitution, why do we have to fight government telling us to 'bake the cake'? If abortion was 'settled' by the SCOTUS, does the Constitution countenance murder of the helpless? Because that's how many, whose freedom to practice their chosen religion we have already supposedly 'settled', view abortion. If a SCOTUS ruling 'settles' an issue, then should I assume you must approve of the Dred Scott decision or Plessy v Ferguson? Because you do not seem to admit that a bad precedent can be overturned or modified.

What you term DISTRACTION, which I would term wedge issues, does not seem to include the elephant in the room - the belief that the near half of the electorate that can't or won't work for a good living is entitled to all the benefits derived from hard work paid for by the other half

I am pleased to see you profess to believe "When things don't go your way in an election, *IF* you bothered to vote (50% of voting age, eligible people don't vote) then you CAN NOT complain." although, frankly, the assertion seems more honored in the breach

As I see it, the leap of understanding you have yet to make is that disagreeing with your beliefs (because we're not dealing with facts here, but with your or my interpretations of them) does not make us evil or stupid people

 

[Route 45]

I understand that only 3% served in the military where they *Might* have seen the actual difference between a democratically elected government with checks & balances, and an actual communist government, or some dictatorship,
And I understand that less than 10% of that 3% were career military where they lived & breathed defense of that democracy...

It's still no excuse for being willfully ignorant (or stupid, since the information is instantly available, and taught to every high school student if they cared to pay attention.

-------

Let's start with the BIG LIES...

For those that weren't 'educated' by the far right (probably went through school before Ronald Reagan)...

Lie #1. You are either a 'Capitalists' or a 'Communists'.

This is an out right lie, since Communism is a system of military government, and Capitalism is a financial system, the two are not diametrically opposed, or even related.

The TRUTH, the opposite of Communism is Democracy, a governing body is elected by the people, not an elite few insiders.

The TRUTH, the opposite of Capitalism is Free Market.

Lie #2. Despite the antiquated Webster's dictionary definition of 'Socialism', there is NO MODERN CIVILIZATION that can exist without some forms of socialism. Period.

Every single cooperative and public works project is a socialist contract, from water, sewer & electric systems, to schools systems, highways, police forces, etc are all socialist contracts.
They simply can not exist without social agreements.
Any transportation STOPS without socialist agreement, all national defense STOPS without socialist agreements, etc.

No public utilities can exist without right of way agreements, no highways or even dirt roads can exist without right of way agreements, same for rail beds, river transportation, or open water agreements.

Not to rub a sore spot, but the earliest civilizations had this one figured out, I don't know why it's a foreign concept to people that had at least 13 years of free education offered to them by a socialist agreement...
(As that socialist snow plow digs out the road in front of your property AGAIN while you are reading this...)

Lie #3. Democrats are Communists, Or, Socialism Is Communism.

The idea of a 'Republican' is somewhat new, while the idea of a 'Democrat' is much older.
Democrats (supporters of a citizen elected democratic government) goes back to the Greeks,
While 'Republics', a group of smaller governments wanting a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, is a relatively new idea.
(It still baffles me why people claiming to be 'Republican' advocate for 'Smaller Government' when the two are mutually exclusive by definition)

Smaller governments banded together in 'Republics' originally to try and stop Imperialism, the forced take over off their respective lands by a 'Crown' and/or royal family, or by neighboring feudal warlords, and/or by religious theocracy.

(Feudal, Imperial & Theocracy being three other forms of government, besides the aforementioned Communism, Socialism & Democracy, for those asleep, skipping or stoned during government classes...)

I find it a quirk of history that Communism latched onto both 'Republic' and 'Democratic' as buzz words when describing dictatorships, examples are North Korea (Democratic Republic Of Korea: DPRK), the Soviets (USSR), East Germany (DDR) 'Democratic Republic of Germany', etc.

-----

Keep in mind that many of our 'Republican' forefathers thought that ONLY white men with land (75 acres or more) and higher classical education should have the vote...
This, of course, would have immediately created an elite ruling class since only a very small portion of the population fit the criteria.
Democrats won that fight, all free males could vote, later females, and later still, minorities.
(I wont get into the people that think any citizen in good standing shouldn't vote, other than saying it's anti-american to the core)

--------

Now, some basic guidelines for the newly educated (from this post),

Actual Democratic & Socialist governments have representatives elected by the citizens.

Communist governments have officials appointed or 'Elected' by the top end members of the communist party.
*IF* a vote takes place, it's a closed vote by the ruling eliete.

Dictatorships don't have legitimate elections.

---------

When things don't go your way in an election, *IF* you bothered to vote (50% of voting age, eligible people don't vote) then you CAN NOT complain.
You gave up the right to complain when you abstained from voting. Period.

When you no longer have the right to vote, then it's time to take up a MUCH stronger position.
Until that time, any mention of violence is expressly un-American. Period.
Under the socialist agreement we have with our government, you vote, the majority rules, you don't have to like it, but it is the law of the land.

Politics have always been a 'Blood Sport', the higher the office, the dirtier the tricks.
For the common voter, DISTRACTION is the most effective, keeping you focused on something that's a fabricated 'Trigger', religion (settled in the Constitution), abortion (settled by the supreme Court), firearms (settled by the Constitution), immigration (settled by the Constitution), etc. ad nauseam...
This is 'Single Issue Division', a (successful) attempt to take the focus off what the government is ACTUALLY DOING...

LIERS are easy to spot, Sweeping, Blanket Statements and/or wrapping themselves in the bible or flag.

If you can redefine a term to mean something other than the standard definition by proclaiming that definition "antiquated," thus applying your own definition, then what's the point of discussing anything with you?

Also, if you think that anything has been "settled," then you are simply not paying attention.

 

[two70]

Things I've learned in this thread:

If one adopts socialist policies and promotes socialist ideologies but has good intentions, then one is not really a socialist.

Capitalism burdened/impeded by socialist policies and practices is evidence that socialism not only works but is necessary.

One can promote communist policies using propaganda straight from Marx and tactics directly from Rules for Radicals while embracing and supporting communists and still not be a communist. Must be those (supposedly) good intentions again!

There is a strong direct correlation between ignorance and arrogance.

Good intentions matter more than poor results.

The road to hell is not paved with good intentions, apparently it is paved with those that failed to implement those good intentions correctly.

Socialism and Communism only appear to be destructive because all of the people that have been in charge of them have been big meanies.

Apparently the plan for a successful implementation of a communist government looks something like this:

1. Install someone who isn't a Big Meanie to oversee the government and give them ultimate power.
2. ???
3. Everyone who survives ??? magically always agrees with the non-BM ruler and constantly acts against human nature for the betterment of all, the success of the glorious utopia and most importantly the profit of the non-BM.

Did I miss anything?

 

[T.Lex]

One can promote communist policies using propaganda straight from Marx ....

Out of curiosity, can you direct me to some "propaganda straight from Marx"? Marx was an economist. He wasn't really a propagandist, or even all that political. (Now, if you want to talk Engles....)

Apparently the plan for a successful implementation of a communist government looks something like this:

1. Install someone who isn't a Big Meanie to oversee the government and give them ultimate power.
2. ???
3. Everyone who survives ??? magically always agrees with the non-BM ruler and constantly acts against human nature for the betterment of all, the success of the glorious utopia and most importantly the profit of the non-BM.

There is actually a progression, but it is more complicated than that.

And kinda does require either magic or a significant change to human nature.

 

[JeepHammer]

SMH.

"SMH" isn't a cogent argument or reply, so I can't address that, I did however, fix that creep show color you like so much...

If firearms were 'settled' by the Constitution, why must we continuously stave off attempts to limit and control them?

Addressed & settled in as plain of 1789 language and understanding of firearms got in 1789.
*IF* YOU want a constitutional change for current definition of 'Firearms', be prepared for that change NOT to go your way.
That's simply how it works in a democracy...

If immigration was 'settled' by the Constitution, why is the President's quite comprehensive power to control it constantly second guessed by congress and the courts?

Point out SPECIFICALLY where the President has ".. comprehensive power to control [immigration]" in the Constitution...
The president is being challenged on constitutional grounds, so his POLICIES aren't in line with the Constitution.

religion (and in fact, freedom of association) is 'settled' by the Constitution, why do we have to fight government telling us to 'bake the cake'?

The first amendment of the Constitution states that,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Federal law supersedes state & local laws, so that's the law of the land. Period.
And that's ALL it says about religion.
YOU have the right to 'Believe' in anything, but your right to religion doesn't negate anyone else's basic rights.
YOU don't have the 'Right' to kill people or molest children because your 'Religion' says you can, for example.

If you want a theocracy based government,
Immigrate to Iran, Vatican City, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Yemen & Sudan all have Theocracy based governments.

abortion was 'settled' by the SCOTUS, does the Constitution countenance murder of the helpless?

See, that's where you just went WAY out of bounds, an intentional lack of understanding of how a democracy works,
And a blatant attempt to force religious doctrine & dogma down the throats of anyone that doesn't practice YOUR particular viewpoint based on religious 'Belief Systems'.

It also shows an absolute ignorance of the actual issues behind abortion, which is simply to force people to outbreed some other religion, ethnic or religious group.
(fear Catholics would out breed Protestants post civil war, fear minorities would out breed whites, fear Jewish or Islamics will outbreed 'Christian') ethnic group or government type.

Because that's how many, whose freedom to practice their chosen religion we have already supposedly 'settled', view abortion.

When *YOUR* "Religion", Superstition, "Belief System" collides with the Constitution, the Constitution wins every time.

I might also point out the rule of law has exactly ZERO to do with your "Belief System".
If you don't like abortion, do t have one, no one spis FORCING you to have one, while your "Belief System" is trying to take the right to MEDICAL TREATMENT away from 52% of the population, and enforce religious dogma as law.

If a SCOTUS ruling 'settles' an issue, then should I assume you must approve of the Dred Scott decision or Plessy v Ferguson? Because you do not seem to admit that a bad precedent can be overturned or modified.

You are asking me to give a legal opinion on cases already settled?
Since I'm not a legal scholar, nor am I familiar with the the cases, other than the overview afforded by the internet, both were before my time.

If you were trying to ask the question, "Can the supreme Court make a bad ruling", then ask that question instead of trying to deflect & DISTRACT from the points at hand...

What you term DISTRACTION, which I would term wedge issues, does not seem to include the elephant in the room - the belief that the near half of the electorate that can't or won't work for a good living is entitled to all the benefits derived from hard work paid for by the other half

Again, distraction, deflection, inability to converse on the content/intent of the original post, so distraction & division with no back up facts...

What you missed entirely is the nearly perfect wording of the Constitution.
It allows for "We The People" to amend it, along with Congress given a route to amend it.

The forefathers freely admitted they were only men & could/would make mistakes, and times would most certainly change.
Our democracy was the first, and for a long while, the ONLY entirely citizen elected government on the planet, with the Constitution GRANTING rights to each & every person inside it's borders (citizen or not).

YOUR 'Right' (capitol R) to religion, your right to complain, your right to bear arms, etc are GRANTED by that Constitution (capitol C).
If you respect nothing else, you have to respect that ideal.
The idea of NOT VOTING comes from NOT SEEING how things go other places... And it's horrific...

I am pleased to see you profess to believe "When things don't go your way in an election, *IF* you bothered to vote (50% of voting age, eligible people don't vote) then you CAN NOT complain." although, frankly, the assertion seems more honored in the breach

Another blanket Statement instead of expressing it as opinion.
If you are looking for a knee jerk reaction, you won't get one...
I think things through, consult the writings of actual experts in the field of study, listen to both sides of an argument.
Since I don't suffer from Dunning-Kruger and I know I'm not the smartest person that ever lived, I consider the effects statements can have on others BEFORE I express an opinion, I'm at least trying to be a rational human being.
I don't always get it right, and knowing that alone seems to be in short supply lately...
-------

As I see it, the leap of understanding you have yet to make is that disagreeing with your beliefs

Breaking your quote up since it's leading and making g connections not present.

My "Beliefs" are in the Constitution, not people.
I swore an oath to that Constitution when I was much too young to understand why it is so important,
Then I spent 16 years seeing how civilizations can rip themselves apart without it's basic guidelines.

A PERSON (Singular) can be intelligent and think things through.
PEOPLE (plural) in a herd are dumb, panicked animals that are dangerous to themselves and anyone/anything else around them.

All it takes to stomped 15% to 25% of this country is a facebag/twitter meme or sound bite...
No matter if it's true or not!
No consideration, no reflection, no research to see if it's actually TRUE, or it's being tendered the way it actually happened or not, just blind panic & stomped right off the deep end!!!!

Those are simply FACTS, not 'Opinion'.

(because we're not dealing with facts here, but with your or my interpretations of them)

I was dealing with facts, Im not sure what you were dealing with other than getting triggered about abortion, gun rights & religion.
The Supreme Court & Constitution are factual, not "Beliefs".

... does not make us evil or stupid people

Deal with the latter first.

Ignorant simply means you don't have a comprehensive education in a particular subject.
You can be educated, or you can educate yourself.

Stupid is when the actual education is available, but you choose to ignore actual experts and rely on your 'Beliefs' or false/fictitious information you know full well is false.

Go one step further... One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over, but expecting different results.
Example:
Electing the same Congress representatives for an average of 34 years and expecting them to suddenly change direction and work FOR "We The People".
The same money/power corrupt power brokers that have been screwing you since Reagan was in office, but expecting different results.

The president is limited to 8 years, in two different elections, can pass NO LAWS, can levy no taxes, and blaming the President for what Congress does is INSANE, and shows a complete & utter disconnect in the understanding of what's going on with our own government.

The 2016 election cycle was a 30 year election, "We The People" had a chance to FIRE 96% of Congress in a single election,
But instead we jacked that away by NOT VOTING, and reelecting 94% of Congress AGAIN.

Blame the right wing, blame the left wing, SAME BIRD!
Same vulture that's been pecking our eyeballs for the past 40 years since "We The People" have chosen to allow it to happen.

Now, address the previous,
"EVIL" is a religious construct, so is "Good".
In the factual world, it's beneficial, neutral/benign or harmful.
It either helps, has zero sum gains or losses, or it hurts.

Mentally ill isn't "Evil", it's simply harmful to the sufferer or to society.

When some delusional person decides to shoot up someplace, or some religious zealot decides to enforce his "Beliefs" on others, it's mental illness.
The human mind is a fragile thing still under development (evolution), there has never been anything like it in the 4.5 billion years of this planet, so humans are still trying to get things right, or become another evolutionary dead end.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"SMH" isn't a cogent argument or reply, so I can't address that, I did however, fix that creep show color you like so much...



Addressed & settled in as plain of 1789 language and understanding of firearms got in 1789.
*IF* YOU want a constitutional change for current definition of 'Firearms', be prepared for that change NOT to go your way.
That's simply how it works in a democracy...



Point out SPECIFICALLY where the President has ".. comprehensive power to control [immigration]" in the Constitution...
The president is being challenged on constitutional grounds, so his POLICIES aren't in line with the Constitution.



The first amendment of the Constitution states that,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Federal law supersedes state & local laws, so that's the law of the land.


abortion was 'settled' by the SCOTUS, does the Constitution countenance murder of the helpless? Because that's how many, whose freedom to practice their chosen religion we have already supposedly 'settled', view abortion. If a SCOTUS ruling 'settles' an issue, then should I assume you must approve of the Dred Scott decision or Plessy v Ferguson? Because you do not seem to admit that a bad precedent can be overturned or modified.

What you term DISTRACTION, which I would term wedge issues, does not seem to include the elephant in the room - the belief that the near half of the electorate that can't or won't work for a good living is entitled to all the benefits derived from hard work paid for by the other half

I am pleased to see you profess to believe "When things don't go your way in an election, *IF* you bothered to vote (50% of voting age, eligible people don't vote) then you CAN NOT complain." although, frankly, the assertion seems more honored in the breach

As I see it, the leap of understanding you have yet to make is that disagreeing with your beliefs (because we're not dealing with facts here, but with your or my interpretations of them) does not make us evil or stupid people[/COLOR]

[/QUOTE]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention "firearms" at all. I simply says "arms". "Arms" can mean swords, shields, clubs, firearms, cannons, etc., not just firearms. No matter how you want to define "firearms" today, they're still "arms" and as such the right to keep and bear them should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[KG1]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention "firearms" at all. I simply says "arms". "Arms" can mean swords, shields, clubs, firearms, cannons, etc., not just firearms. No matter how you want to define "firearms" today, they're still "arms" and as such the right to keep and bear them should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.[/QUOTE] If I’m remembering correctly wasn’t there a court ruling not to long ago that defined a stun gun as being considered an “arm” ?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention "firearms" at all. I simply says "arms". "Arms" can mean swords, shields, clubs, firearms, cannons, etc., not just firearms. No matter how you want to define "firearms" today, they're still "arms" and as such the right to keep and bear them should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

If I’m remembering correctly wasn’t there a court ruling not to long ago that defined a stun gun as being considered an “arm” ?[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with that, but it wouldn't surprise me.