>> RE: They say they’re pro 2nd Amendment — When have they pushed to repeal GCA or NFA... or eliminating gun-free zones?
>
> Errr... Need I remind you that without the Republican party, the MAJORITY of whom voted against the Toomey-Manchin bill, we would already be having background checks now.
My point isn’t about simply stopping more infringements, but ridding the ones we already have.
>> RE: They say they’re pro government accountability — What have they done to hold the likes of Fast & Furious or Bengahazi to accountability?
>
> What the heck is Darrel Issa and his supporters doing?
> You think it is easy to fight this with Obama in power and the Senate under Dem control with the media behind them all the way?
AND YOU APPARENTLY DON’T GET THAT THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A BIG DEAL OF IT!! *REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE ON SOME STUPID COMMITTEE. (Yes, yelling, F&F makes me Furious.) — That’s not even talking about Syria, Benghazi, or even Obama’s eligibility EACH of those should have been a BIG deal in the Republican party.
>> RE: They say they’re for government reducing spending — When was the last time they cut [not renamed/restructured] a federal agency?
>
> The 2010 Congress actually voted for a balanced budget. It was DOA in the Senate.
What if I think the only reason it passed was so the Senate could kill it? I’m starting to get cynical like that.
> You think with Gary Johnson as president anything would have happened to reduce spending by a significant amount?
No; the budget is the Congress’s responsibility, not the President’s... seriously, you made that point yourself just a sentence ago.
>> RE: They say they’re for ending abortion — When was the last time they pushed back on that? (And is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of any effect?)
>
> Uh huh as I said before, with this, then I would guess you would not vote for Ronald Reagan. What did he do to push back abortion?
I’m not over thirty — to me, and anyone younger, Reagan may as well be a statistical anomaly in the history of the Republican party.
> At least W. Bush signed a bill banning partial birth abortion.
I used to think that was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.
>> RE; They say they’re for Constitutional limitations — When was the last time they pushed to reduce (not even end) the War on Drugs? (Which destroys the bill of rights.)
>
> This is issue an where conservatives DO NOT AGREE.
No, it’s not. But it’s plain to anyone who reads the Constitution that it is a gross overreach of the Federal Government’s power (Art 1, Sec 8) and routinely justifies violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. It can be argued that it corrupts/weakens the 6th Amendment as throwing drug-charges into otherwise non-related crimes may color the jury’s opinion (rather like how they tried to make the investigation of Waco about child-abuse/pedophilia rather than what it was supposed to be: focusing on the legitimacy and propriety of the government’s actions).
> And oh yeah, marijuana is slowly being legalized even as we speak.
I didn’t say anything about legalizing it; I hate the smell and don’t want to try it... but what does concern me is how many are able to rationalize the violations of the Bill of Rights because “they’re druggies” — the bill of Rights protections aren’t dependent on the actions of the person precisely because THEY’RE RESTRICTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT.
>> RE: So, how am I going to “reform” a group that, by its actions, shows it has no intention of doing anything it says it wants to do?
>
> Disagree, this congress might not be perfect, but under the circumstances, most are trying their best to counter the Obama agenda.
BWAHAHAHAHA! — I don’t agree. If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.
> One can only imagine had both houses and the presidency been under GOP control...
> we won’t get everything we want, but things would have been a heck of a lot better than what we have now.
Right. [/sarc]
You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.
Mat 5:19 — “For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”
RE: My point isn’t about simply stopping more infringements, but ridding the ones we already have.
I’m with you here, but remember this — you’re not going to get every thing you want. Even a modest gain is considered a victory. The left did not get to where it is today in one big bang and neither will conservatives.
RE: AND YOU APPARENTLY DON’T GET THAT THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A BIG DEAL OF IT!! *REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE ON SOME STUPID COMMITTEE. (Yes, yelling, F&F makes me Furious.) — That’s not even talking about Syria, Benghazi, or even Obama’s eligibility EACH of those should have been a BIG deal in the Republican party.
And how big a deal should it be if you have the media against you?
You can shout it from the housetops and the “big deal” isn’t going to be big unless it gets published and made a big deal of in the media.
How big a deal did conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity make on these?
With so many issues that need to be addressed you might want them to keep talking about it everyday, but this isn’t happening.
And what’s the solution to this? To vote for Gary Johnson and allow Obama to win?
RE; What if I think the only reason it passed was so the Senate could kill it? I’m starting to get cynical like that.
Well I’m not as cynical as you. And if we had a Republican president and Paul Ryan as VP, hey the chances of it passing would be better.
RE: No; the budget is the Congress’s responsibility, not the President’s... seriously, you made that point yourself just a sentence ago.
And you seem to have forgotten my counter argument — a Romney/Ryan victory would have the COAT_TAIL EFFECT, which I believe happens most of the time.
And if Ryan used his bully pulpit as VP to pound the balanced budget, why would it not become a reality?
RE: I used to think that was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.
Not sure what you’re after here... a president signs the ban into law and you’re not even happy with it.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
RE: The Drug wars...
Ronald Reagan himself continued the drug war. He appointed among others, Bill Bennett to be his Drug Czar.
Are you going to not vote for someone like him simply because of this one issue?
RE: If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.
And how’s that going to help? Many people have made his eligibility an issue, nothing came out of it.
I guess you wanted a lawsuit.
If so, why did your candidate (the one you voted for ) not file one? He didn’t and you still voted for him.
RE: You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.
And Romney/Ryan is THAT little that we have. So yes, I DID use it. But that little thing is bigger than the even littler one that you voted for.