Greybeard

[Nesikep]

On point 1, I see it that the elected official, regardless of party affiliation, should not be casting a vote based solely on their party lines, nor just the people who voted FOR them, but rather the constituency as a whole... Opposing the extremes and pushing for rewriting parts of bills until it's good for everyone.

+1 on point 2... I really don't care about what rights are given to other people (gay marriage, etc), so long as it doesn't force me into it... and forcing a person to cater to something they oppose IS an infringement on their rights

Our province is F&*^'d.. we had a "liberal" majority gov't in the last election (the liberals are actually conservatives).. The NDP (actual liberals) were very close, and the Greens won 3 seats.. Well they formed a coalition, and now with the Greens holding the balance of power, they get to play tit for tat and push for all sorts of CRAZY stuff... Like trespasser rights on private land!

 

[greybeard]

1) My problem with people voting for strictly what their constituents want is that sometimes the constituents are too myopic to understand the big picture. I think that's how the extremism has really become so out of control is that Ted Cruz (who someone was quoted as saying if he was shot on the Senate floor during a full session no one would see anything) and Nancy Pelosi (see, I chose both sides) are pandering to their extreme fringes b/c those people will vote. Without moderation, we are losing sanity and responsibility. I'll agree that voting party lines is ruining the system, but the problem is that it's the people pandering to their constituents with legislation, WHICH IS THEN VOTED PARTY LINE, is the big problem.

Yep, Jonathon Gruber would approve of this /\ /\ too.

And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... e-n1916605

 

[Bright Raven]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

I don't believe this to be the case that it's just the left/liberals who use loose interpretations of the constitution as law. Take the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To some this means that there needs to be a well armed, well trained, militia in every state, always at the ready, to defend against the federal government. To others this means that you can own guns, with some regulations b/c we don't need any person with a pulse walking around with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft bazooka, and yet others this means you can own anything you want.

Now, I'm not trying to debate the merits of the second amendment. Rather, I'm pointing out that with the way the constitution is worded, it's open to interpretation. Is this by design? Is this accidental as the men writing it would never have known that tanks and aircraft would become a thing? Who knows, there's only one way to ask them and I'm not signing up for that. My point is that we all look at things differently. What you think is the correct way, may in fact, be incorrect. How others across the aisle look at it may be incorrect. The big problem is, though, that you're firmly on your side pointing fingers and name calling and they're doing the same. What does that accomplish. Animosity, gridlock, anger, etc, but it doesn't create anything positive.

Sort of like saying that figures don't lie .....but liars figure....

Human beings are human beings and have disagreed on everything under the sun since they discovered communication.

in a more civilized time there were reasonable leaders who worked to negotiate and settle differences.

today the standard is demagoguery and protest to advance your cause...at any price....and then get mad when the other side pushes back...

Personally I think political parties should be outlawed. It has gotten to the point where political affiliation nearly always trumps virtue or lack thereof of any legislation. The news media assumes and reports that any item of legislation will be voted on party lines and it is generally true.

Agree. Excellent points made.

 

[Nesikep]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

I don't believe this to be the case that it's just the left/liberals who use loose interpretations of the constitution as law. Take the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To some this means that there needs to be a well armed, well trained, militia in every state, always at the ready, to defend against the federal government. To others this means that you can own guns, with some regulations b/c we don't need any person with a pulse walking around with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft bazooka, and yet others this means you can own anything you want.

Now, I'm not trying to debate the merits of the second amendment. Rather, I'm pointing out that with the way the constitution is worded, it's open to interpretation. Is this by design? Is this accidental as the men writing it would never have known that tanks and aircraft would become a thing? Who knows, there's only one way to ask them and I'm not signing up for that. My point is that we all look at things differently. What you think is the correct way, may in fact, be incorrect. How others across the aisle look at it may be incorrect. The big problem is, though, that you're firmly on your side pointing fingers and name calling and they're doing the same. What does that accomplish. Animosity, gridlock, anger, etc, but it doesn't create anything positive.

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.

but "arms" is open to interpretation... The arms they had at the time? If we're going to say any kind of arms, then what about nuclear? you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Bright Raven]

I don't believe this to be the case that it's just the left/liberals who use loose interpretations of the constitution as law. Take the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To some this means that there needs to be a well armed, well trained, militia in every state, always at the ready, to defend against the federal government. To others this means that you can own guns, with some regulations b/c we don't need any person with a pulse walking around with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft bazooka, and yet others this means you can own anything you want.

Now, I'm not trying to debate the merits of the second amendment. Rather, I'm pointing out that with the way the constitution is worded, it's open to interpretation. Is this by design? Is this accidental as the men writing it would never have known that tanks and aircraft would become a thing? Who knows, there's only one way to ask them and I'm not signing up for that. My point is that we all look at things differently. What you think is the correct way, may in fact, be incorrect. How others across the aisle look at it may be incorrect. The big problem is, though, that you're firmly on your side pointing fingers and name calling and they're doing the same. What does that accomplish. Animosity, gridlock, anger, etc, but it doesn't create anything positive.

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.

but "arms" is open to interpretation... The arms they had at the time? If we're going to say any kind of arms, then what about nuclear? you have to draw the line somewhere.

Every citizen should be permitted 3 nuclear missiles capable of reaching the eastern hemisphere, two weapons of mass destruction, 2 fighter jets, 5 tanks, and all the hand held weapons they can store in their basement.

 

[hurleyjd]

I just ordered a 4x4 Toyota and the grandson has found an antiaircraft decommissioned gun. My machine shop said no problem he could build parts to get it shooting. Gonna mount it in the Toyota and go to town when shopping for groceries. We will stand our ground and shoot any one that screws with us. Oh and by the way will I have to have a permit to haul this gun around. Screw the militia with that gun we will be the militia. We may even go to Nevada and help that old guy with protecting his grazing rights.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Why do you have to draw a line the founders didn't.
They way they wrote it was the people were to be armed as well as the government.
We aren't armed today as well as many communities had cannons to protect themselves

 

[greybeard]

I just ordered a 4x4 Toyota and the grandson has found an antiaircraft decommissioned gun. My machine shop said no problem he could build parts to get it shooting. Gonna mount it in the Toyota and go to town when shopping for groceries. We will stand our ground and shoot any one that screws with us. Oh and by the way will I have to have a permit to haul this gun around. Screw the militia with that gun we will be the militia. We may even go to Nevada and help that old guy with protecting his grazing rights.

Now we're talkin!!
(except for that Toyota crap)

 

[hurleyjd]

I just ordered a 4x4 Toyota and the grandson has found an antiaircraft decommissioned gun. My machine shop said no problem he could build parts to get it shooting. Gonna mount it in the Toyota and go to town when shopping for groceries. We will stand our ground and shoot any one that screws with us. Oh and by the way will I have to have a permit to haul this gun around. Screw the militia with that gun we will be the militia. We may even go to Nevada and help that old guy with protecting his grazing rights.

Now we're talkin!!
(except for that Toyota crap)

Really wanted a Kubota but they do not make a truck. After all the Kubota seems to be tractor of choice now days.

 

[greybeard]

There won't ever be any of those halloween looking orange black Kommoda things here..they should come with a toilet lid for a seat.

 

[boondocks]

Ok we skated thru the R and D thing by the skin of our teeth and are now gonna get locked for fighting over truck manufacturers! :lol: