Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Republicans and Democrats not that different after all

No wonder you support Zero. You are a freaking Queer. I'm not your type because I'm white. Fuggin [bleep].

Good. It's still there then. Think of it as a strategic reserve. It's not like we won't be needing it in 20 years. Right now there's plenty on the global market and we can afford to buy it, at least more so than we'll be able to in 20 years after the baby boomers go through the entitlements and truly bankrupt us.

How long do you think we would last as a third world country on this earth? We wouldn't be needing it in 20 years. Oh, but you probably agreed with Clinton when he said we could afford drastic cuts in the military and covert intelligence since there were no threats to world peace.

Of course they have similarities!

One nose per face, to begin with.

But they have significant differences, too, and only a biased fool concentrates on the similarities and ignores (to make his point) the distinctive differences. Worse, of course, are those whose inherent biases are so deep-seated that they're intellectually incapable of discerning those distinctions.

Not really all that hard-pressed.

When you are at great pains to make sure you vote for the right politicians and not the wrong politicians, the assumption underlying your argument is that the government under the right politicians will solve at least some of your problems.

But there aren't any right politicians: they're all wrong, and the government will make all your problems worse regardless of which politicians you elect.

Like the liberal progressive movement that fuels them the epa is furiously digging their own grave.

They've been trying to push the whole thing (all lib agendas rolled into one) too hard and too fast.

They thought the stage was set. Thought they were all ready for an easy win. That's their problem, they don't think too clearly, let alone with any accuracy.

When their little dingleBarry entered the stage they thought their time had come. They all jumped in with both feet from every angle, from every far out left field idea, every lunatic high earth orbit vision, they believed time had finally come to make all their make believe fairy tale euphoric dreams come true.

Many still believe. Still digging furiously.
Look at their whacko campaign ads, desperately trying to save it.

Little o has done one good thing for America. Count it, one.
He encouraged them to expose themselves. And expose themselves is the only thing they're accomplishing.
Even moderates and independents are looking on in amazement and calling them wild eyed whackos.

Americans needed an eye opening. They're gettng it!


On the topic, in some ways Team D is very similar to Team R, and V.V.
In many ways they're different.
In TOO many ways they're indistinguishable.

The tea party is rising up. D and R will soon BOTH look like third parties... and destructive lunatics. They'll keep rising, and soon reach their apex, because people's eye are being opened.
From the left and the right, and as well the so called left and so called right, millions will be coming aboard.


But right now is Team D and the left lib progressives turn.
One fight at a time, guys.
One fight at a time.

Yep.
Lesser of two evils....
for now.

But not forever. Thank God.

Only one nose
Yeah.
But right beneath all those noses is a tongue with two tips.
And they all too eagerly use both, at the same time, all too often.

Of course. Tis the nature of governments.
It's all about that throne raising. They're still trying...

And, to the point of the original article, they're both far too easily indoctrinated by anti-third-party major-party propaganda.


"Significant," here, depends heavily on your perspective.

From one perspective--say, the perspective of somebody looking to buy a bolt-action rifle--a Remington and a Mauser and a Tikka may all have significant differences.

But from the perspective of somebody looking to buy a high-speed printer, there are no significant differences between the Remington and the Mauser and the Tikka: they're all completely incapable of solving--or even addressing--the problem at hand, and arguing about their differences is a complete waste of time.

The problems plaguing this country cannot be solved, or even addressed, by politicians or governments or political parties. It is not the nature of politicians or governments or political parties to solve problems (except the problems of a few exceedingly rich or powerful people). It is the nature of politicians and governments and political parties to create problems.

So I leave you all to argue over the finer points of the differing nature of the problems that will be caused by victorious Republicans as over against the problems that will be caused by victorious Democrats.

I'm interested in solving problems, not creating problems. Therefore, the differences that are so important to you all couldn't make a bean's worth of difference to me.

Jeff, Zero said "fundamentally change this country". That means - change the fundamentals. Our fundamentals are govt of, by and for..., the 1st, and 2nd A. They are working to take your guns because they plan to take your guns. Two more of zeros buds on the SC and they will take your guns. It's been done before in totalitarian regimes (fundamental ...). They want to take your guns so they can control you (fundamental ....).

If a guy says no tax increase of one thin dime and he raises your taxes $2300/ yr (but calls it a mandate) he can certainly claim he didn't raise your taxes a damned dime.

You go a head and trust the guy you just saw on the last debate who said he was trying to help the coal industry out, and be thankful you don't work in the coal industry.

Gun confiscation isn't a problem right now. It's much less of a problem than it would be right now if McCain had won. Obama is one of the best friends the Second Amendment ever had--not because he likes it, but because everybody knows he doesn't like it and so guns and ammunition and gun parts have been flying off the shelves for four years.

Of course the government wants to take your guns; but it also wants to confiscate your 401K retirement money, and I'd say that's a whole lot more likely--because it's already got your 401K retirement money, for all intents and purposes, and can grab it with the stroke of a pen as soon as it figures the political fallout would be manageable.

It doesn't have your guns; you have your guns. Millions of people will not turn in their guns when ordered to do so. The government will have to send thugs to take those guns. Many of those thugs will end up dead, which will make the available supply of replacement thugs shrink somewhat. And once the confiscation is complete, there will be many, many guns the confiscators have missed. (Trust me: I know.)

401K confiscation depends on the stroke of a pen; gun confiscation requires much more--essentially, a general political climate where guns and gun owners are generally hated and feared. That climate was well on its way to forming under Baby Bush, and it would have continued forming under McCain. But Obama has set the gun-confiscation cause back for years.

Yes, they'll still come for your guns, if they're still around then; but there are more pressing things to worry about that are far more important.

Bulls eye, Barak. Exposing of one of the lib agendas I mentioned. Even if not exposed entirely for what it truly is it lost a lot of support it otherwise would have had.

Shot themselves in the foot, they did.
Again and again and again.

And at the same time make the availability of gov issue guns, ammo, and other equipment/toys, more available.

I've heard guys say that many of us won't even need guns if such a SHTF thing came to pass.
We'll use theirs.

Yes Barak, Only demokrats have talked about taking your 401k and only demokrats have passed gun bans. And for the most part only demokrats are anti-hunting. KDJ

So as you can see there is no difference!

Well said...if just one of them really believed that, we would have had less government, less spending, etc. Reagan said he would reduce government; he expanded it on a scale never seen before, and until Obama came along, he took the prize. Bush version 1.0 expanded government, Clinton expanded government, Bush version 2.0 went buck wild with the government checkbook, and now Obama. None of them have any intention of reducing the size of the government one iota.

Under Romney government will grow, government spending will expand.

Wasn't that only Pelosi and Reid talking about how we Whois be fair with our 401s? Do they count?

The Fed directs such things, not the president.

Oh schitt. And they always do that to keep things humming when a republican is trying to be re- never mind.

True. The state always prefers totalitarianism. Makes operating as the state that much easier. Except in the very rare cases (Ron Paul comes to mind), the only thing preventing holders of state power from following through with that preference is the fear of losing hold of state power as a consequence.

No one at all has seriously discussed gun confiscation on a nationwide basis, yet you folks are--righteously--concerned about it. Government confiscation of retirement money, under various pretexts, has happened many times before, and it's going on right now in Italy. The fact that US officials are talking about it at all certainly means the idea has occurred to them. As the economic situation continues to deteriorate, the government is going to become increasingly desperate and willing to tolerate previously unheard-of levels of public outrage.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that they have intellectuals working right now on pretexts for confiscating retirement that will be acceptable to as much of the lower-income end of society as possible.