• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Redding California Tea Party right to bear arms Second Amendment Rally

Liberals pay more attention to kids when discussing political matters (see Obama surrounded by kids announcing new gun laws).

Liberals/Progressives pay less attention to old folk when discussing political matters (See notquiteright's response on page 1).

It is all backwards.

How bogus can you be????

The extreme right wing is in a constant belly ache over 'liberals' defending social security and medicare. THAT is paying attention to old folks for political reasons.

Perhaps you'd be more accurate to say progressives and liberals don't pay political attention to angry old white dudes spouting off about tyranny and other crap....

See what I did there???? :2wave:
 
Are you telling us that after the crapload of bitching because Obama brought kids who had wrote him letters about making them safer when he signed his EOs

The hypocrisy was noted by me already. Which is why I remembered the kids in the video.

the tea party terrorists forced their children to go to a gun rally and hold signs? That would mean the protestors used their children who cannot make decisions on their own to shamelessly support their parents cause by threat of their parents. It also means that out of the crappy turnout the numbers were boosted by people forced to be there sort of like Mittens liked to do.

At least the kids Obama used were voluntarily there and agreed with the letters they actually wrote and not5 forced to go to some geezer rally on their long weekend by their crazy parents.

being forced by your parents to go to a rally on your day off is not what i would call appreciation for guns. probably appreciation of not having to be locked in a closet to live off rat droppings wit6h your parents holding a shotgun and guarding you to make sure you don't escape on them.

Yeah really, do you think the AARP wants to be associated with such abusive and manipulative geezers?

Rest of your post is unsubstantiated bs. Can you prove that the kids with those Teapartiers were forced there?

As for the AARP, the only one that brought that into the discussion was notquiteright, not me, and not the OP. For all anyone knows none of those folks are a part of the AARP.
 
Since 2008, I've noticed a lot of people (generally right wingers) who confuse tyranny with losing an election. Obama is not a tyrant. Bush wasn't a tyrant either. Pushing policies that you don't agree with is not tyranny. The president declaring a law, without congress passing it, and deploying the military to enforce it... that would be tyranny. Suspending elections would be tyranny. If that ever happens, liberals and conservatives alike would rise up in revolt. We are a long way from tyranny.
 
You constantly rant the same BS over and over again, no matter the topic, no matter the point under discussion.

I NEVER said at a certain age a citizen should lose their rights, so thats more muddy water. I have NOTHING against older Americans, I R one. Just point out the Tea Party epic fail 'rally' looked more like the line for the Early Bird Special at Denny's than mainstream America, and sounded like a bunch of angry old white dudes. Did mention when i attend a 2nd A rally-never attended a 'gun' appreciation day because that sounds stupid- there is always a strong scruffy dudes in cammy contingent.

'Maybe the under 50 crowd had to work???' REALLY??? Another epic fail of a dodge. You trying to say out of a city of 89,861 people, in a county of 177,233 only 200 'appreciators' could get off work...on a weekend????? :confused:

I have told you several times now I am a member of the NRA, you don't seem to allow facts into your world view.

So once again, the radical ranters on the extreme right need to get new horses to beat, the ones like can't get off work, giving up rights, hidden agendas, there was at least two kids at the rally, and other crap is worn out.... :peace



OK, here we go....on to pejorative name calling that you progressives seem to go to like second nature...Might I just remind you....

"Sandra Fluke is coming! Sandra Fluke is coming! Acclaimed women's rights activist! Everyone, be sure to clear enough space for the masses ... all 10 of them." A rally in Reno featuring superstar Democrat Sandra Fluke appeared to be a bust Saturday after the activist's speech drew a crowd small enough to count on one's fingers. (Or, as one reporter put it, that could "fit comfortably inside a single Chevy Suburban.")"

Sandra Fluke rally in Reno draws only 10 people to Sak 'N Save parking lot

Talk about rally fails....:lamo
 
Since 2008, I've noticed a lot of people (generally right wingers) who confuse tyranny with losing an election. Obama is not a tyrant. Bush wasn't a tyrant either. Pushing policies that you don't agree with is not tyranny. The president declaring a law, without congress passing it, and deploying the military to enforce it... that would be tyranny. Suspending elections would be tyranny. If that ever happens, liberals and conservatives alike would rise up in revolt. We are a long way from tyranny.

Well, that much is true, we are not under tyranny either, just as liberal progressives have it wrong that every disagreement with Obama is born out of racism...But just a question since you were so exact...If the President declares a law, without congress passing it, but doesn't deploy the military to enforce it, yet relies on the ignorance, and police to do that, it isn't tyranny? Really?
 
Since 2008, I've noticed a lot of people (generally right wingers) who confuse tyranny with losing an election. Obama is not a tyrant. Bush wasn't a tyrant either. Pushing policies that you don't agree with is not tyranny. The president declaring a law, without congress passing it, and deploying the military to enforce it... that would be tyranny. Suspending elections would be tyranny. If that ever happens, liberals and conservatives alike would rise up in revolt. We are a long way from tyranny.

Making laws which circumvent our Rights is also tyranny. I could almost care less what policies any politician made so long as they didn't mess with our rights.
 
Since 2008, I've noticed a lot of people (generally right wingers) who confuse tyranny with losing an election. Obama is not a tyrant. Bush wasn't a tyrant either. Pushing policies that you don't agree with is not tyranny. The president declaring a law, without congress passing it, and deploying the military to enforce it... that would be tyranny. Suspending elections would be tyranny. If that ever happens, liberals and conservatives alike would rise up in revolt. We are a long way from tyranny.

Note the bold. Apparently we are at step 1. 23 Executive orders without congressional approval.
 
OK, here we go....on to pejorative name calling that you progressives seem to go to like second nature...Might I just remind you....

"Sandra Fluke is coming! Sandra Fluke is coming! Acclaimed women's rights activist! Everyone, be sure to clear enough space for the masses ... all 10 of them." A rally in Reno featuring superstar Democrat Sandra Fluke appeared to be a bust Saturday after the activist's speech drew a crowd small enough to count on one's fingers. (Or, as one reporter put it, that could "fit comfortably inside a single Chevy Suburban.")"

Sandra Fluke rally in Reno draws only 10 people to Sak 'N Save parking lot

Talk about rally fails....:lamo

Best you can do after twisting so much of what I say and just plain making crap up??? yet another thread where you fail, but will say this about you, you are consistent. :doh

Now rather than discuss the topic at hand, your 'reasons' have been batted down like so many annoying mosquitoes, so once again you deflect to something in no way related to this subject. it seems to be a pattern, can't debate the topic, so it is poo flinging time... :roll:

That doesn't change the FACT that on a nice saturday, when supposedly so many are angry/worried over the 2nd A, a 'gun'friendly county in Northern Cali could only get 200 of it's 177,233 citizens to take a few hours to 'appreciate' firearms. AND those who attended were mostly angry old white guys talking about tyranny...

now seeing how you had to dig like a rabid gopher to dredge up Sandra Fluke... She isn't a democrat superstar, she wouldn't have been a blip on the national radar if Oxccy Rush hadn't called her a slut, so she was more the radical right fringe's superstar than the democrat's. most democrats would say the young lady is just another woman living a normal life.

but you keep digging.... :peace
 
Note the bold. Apparently we are at step 1. 23 Executive orders without congressional approval.

Executive orders are executing discretion that is granted to the executive branch by congress.

Did you even read them? Is there a specific objection you have to any of them?


The problem with this debate is right there in the video. "No new gun laws." These people don't care what the law is, they oppose it. They've rejected even the pretense of rational discussion. "No new gun laws." Because apparently existing gun laws are perfect?
 
Making laws which circumvent our Rights is also tyranny. I could almost care less what policies any politician made so long as they didn't mess with our rights.

Every law circumvents our rights. You're making a meaningless distinction.

Note the bold. Apparently we are at step 1. 23 Executive orders without congressional approval.

Still subject to oversight and control by the other two branches.
 
Best you can do after twisting so much of what I say and just plain making crap up??? yet another thread where you fail, but will say this about you, you are consistent. :doh

Now rather than discuss the topic at hand, your 'reasons' have been batted down like so many annoying mosquitoes, so once again you deflect to something in no way related to this subject. it seems to be a pattern, can't debate the topic, so it is poo flinging time... :roll:

That doesn't change the FACT that on a nice saturday, when supposedly so many are angry/worried over the 2nd A, a 'gun'friendly county in Northern Cali could only get 200 of it's 177,233 citizens to take a few hours to 'appreciate' firearms. AND those who attended were mostly angry old white guys talking about tyranny...

now seeing how you had to dig like a rabid gopher to dredge up Sandra Fluke... She isn't a democrat superstar, she wouldn't have been a blip on the national radar if Oxccy Rush hadn't called her a slut, so she was more the radical right fringe's superstar than the democrat's. most democrats would say the young lady is just another woman living a normal life.

but you keep digging.... :peace


Lots of projection going on here....You were talking about the single rally in one county making the whole thing a fail, and I showed you what a fail actually looks like. So in true fashion you can only come back and twist, turn, and mouth foam over nothing....But hey, we are all aware that progressives have nothing but pejorative, and personal attack...They really are like children.
 
Note the bold. Apparently we are at step 1. 23 Executive orders without congressional approval.

EO's don't require Congressional approval, Nor are they Laws. Only Congress can pass laws so if we get any gun ban laws it's on Congress.
 
EO's don't require Congressional approval, Nor are they Laws. Only Congress can pass laws so if we get any gun ban laws it's on Congress.


"Obama signed a whopping 23 executive orders related to "gun control" Wednesday. At least one of them would appear to directly defy legislation duly approved by Congress and signed into law--making the orders illegal. Let's look at order #14:

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This executive order would seem to run afoul of the little problem that Congress has for years specifically disallowed such "research" in its budget legislation, because it was actually no more than an effort to slap a thin veneer of academic respectability over anti-gun activism, in order to provide justification for more oppressive gun laws.

Basically, groups like the Brady Campaign, who have railed against congressional interference with their agenda of anti-gun "science" want not only to impose draconian laws on American gun-owning taxpayers, but want them to pay for the laws' supposed justification as well. So far, Congress has seen through that, and disallowed funding for the research. An executive order mandating it is thus illegal."

Obama signed a whopping 23 executive orders related to "gun control" Wednesday. At least one of them would appear to directly defy legislation duly approved by Congress and signed into law--making the orders illegal. Let's look at order #14:

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This executive order would seem to run afoul of the little problem that Congress has for years specifically disallowed such "research" in its budget legislation, because it was actually no more than an effort to slap a thin veneer of academic respectability over anti-gun activism, in order to provide justification for more oppressive gun laws.

Basically, groups like the Brady Campaign, who have railed against congressional interference with their agenda of anti-gun "science" want not only to impose draconian laws on American gun-owning taxpayers, but want them to pay for the laws' supposed justification as well. So far, Congress has seen through that, and disallowed funding for the research. An executive order mandating it is thus illegal.

Obama signed a whopping 23 executive orders related to "gun control" Wednesday. At least one of them would appear to directly defy legislation duly approved by Congress and signed into law--making the orders illegal. Let's look at order #14:

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This executive order would seem to run afoul of the little problem that Congress has for years specifically disallowed such "research" in its budget legislation, because it was actually no more than an effort to slap a thin veneer of academic respectability over anti-gun activism, in order to provide justification for more oppressive gun laws.

Basically, groups like the Brady Campaign, who have railed against congressional interference with their agenda of anti-gun "science" want not only to impose draconian laws on American gun-owning taxpayers, but want them to pay for the laws' supposed justification as well. So far, Congress has seen through that, and disallowed funding for the research. An executive order mandating it is thus illegal.

Obama's illegal executive orders for 'gun control' undermine rule of law - St. Louis gun rights | Examiner.com
 
The ever catty braying loons always skip the issues and go straight for the most personal attack they can find. They'd ridicule the color of someone's sox if they could.

That is why it is generally now accepted in American lexicon that the term "women" always includes male liberals.
 
"Obama signed a whopping 23 executive orders related to "gun control" Wednesday. At least one of them would appear to directly defy legislation duly approved by Congress and signed into law--making the orders illegal. Let's look at order #14:

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This executive order would seem to run afoul of the little problem that Congress has for years specifically disallowed such "research" in its budget legislation, because it was actually no more than an effort to slap a thin veneer of academic respectability over anti-gun activism, in order to provide justification for more oppressive gun laws.

Basically, groups like the Brady Campaign, who have railed against congressional interference with their agenda of anti-gun "science" want not only to impose draconian laws on American gun-owning taxpayers, but want them to pay for the laws' supposed justification as well. So far, Congress has seen through that, and disallowed funding for the research. An executive order mandating it is thus illegal."

Obama signed a whopping 23 executive orders related to "gun control" Wednesday. At least one of them would appear to directly defy legislation duly approved by Congress and signed into law--making the orders illegal. Let's look at order #14:

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This executive order would seem to run afoul of the little problem that Congress has for years specifically disallowed such "research" in its budget legislation, because it was actually no more than an effort to slap a thin veneer of academic respectability over anti-gun activism, in order to provide justification for more oppressive gun laws.

Basically, groups like the Brady Campaign, who have railed against congressional interference with their agenda of anti-gun "science" want not only to impose draconian laws on American gun-owning taxpayers, but want them to pay for the laws' supposed justification as well. So far, Congress has seen through that, and disallowed funding for the research. An executive order mandating it is thus illegal.

Obama signed a whopping 23 executive orders related to "gun control" Wednesday. At least one of them would appear to directly defy legislation duly approved by Congress and signed into law--making the orders illegal. Let's look at order #14:

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This executive order would seem to run afoul of the little problem that Congress has for years specifically disallowed such "research" in its budget legislation, because it was actually no more than an effort to slap a thin veneer of academic respectability over anti-gun activism, in order to provide justification for more oppressive gun laws.

Basically, groups like the Brady Campaign, who have railed against congressional interference with their agenda of anti-gun "science" want not only to impose draconian laws on American gun-owning taxpayers, but want them to pay for the laws' supposed justification as well. So far, Congress has seen through that, and disallowed funding for the research. An executive order mandating it is thus illegal.

Obama's illegal executive orders for 'gun control' undermine rule of law - St. Louis gun rights | Examiner.com

If it is indeed illegal then Congress can knock it down, but EO's are not laws only Congress can make laws and when they get back from their Winter vacations maybe, just maybe they'll do something. The fact is, a President can not make laws. If there are any gun ban laws in our future then it's all on Congress.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the Examiner. They just want to make money just like all the others.
 
The ever catty braying loons always skip the issues and go straight for the most personal attack they can find. They'd ridicule the color of someone's sox if they could.

That is why it is generally now accepted in American lexicon that the term "women" always includes male liberals.

What does all that even mean?
 
What does all that even mean?

He's complaining about personal attacks and then calling male liberals "women." (a word he defines as a sort of insult)

All the while completely ignoring the entirely non-personal and non-insulting conversation going on.
 
Fighting for their right to stalk and kill. How pathetic.

Kill?

No it's the gangbangers that are doing all the killing - not patriots.

One would have to be incredibly stupid to even suggest the tea party patriots do drive-by's or shoot at random people just to make a point like the democrat gangbangers do.

These people are patriots - we defend civil liberties - we don't kill anyone unless someone comes looking to be killed.

Oh not to mention, 90% of these people if given a situation of justifiable homicide, wouldn't even pull the trigger.

The last thing I would ever want to do is kill another human.
 
The problem with this debate is right there in the video. "No new gun laws." These people don't care what the law is, they oppose it. They've rejected even the pretense of rational discussion. "No new gun laws." Because apparently existing gun laws are perfect?

Q: How many laws does it take before they will be "perfect"?

A: Zero.

Why?: Because criminals ignore the law which means the only people being affected by gun laws are innocent people.
 
EO's don't require Congressional approval, Nor are they Laws. Only Congress can pass laws so if we get any gun ban laws it's on Congress.

EO's may not be laws, but they have the power of law.
 
Back
Top Bottom