DescentBB

So the most brilliant woman around blows it when she says:

Hillary Clinton said Friday that mandatory gun buy-back programs like ones in Australia are “worth looking into,” sparking criticism that the Democratic presidential front-runner would, if elected, impose gun-confiscation efforts.

Yup, that comment will stand her in good stead. We all knew the American Communist/Progressive party wanted to take our guns and now it is in the open. Watch the money now roll into the NRA coffers.

now, note the panicked, delusion leap of 'reason' Woody exhibits:

Clinton- A gun BUYBACK program is SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO

Woody--the Democrats all want to confiscate our guns and this is proof.

Ummmm…you left out “Mandatory”.

more imporant were the words 'look into' and the reality that Bernie Sanders brought up the other night.

All this "the liberals are going to take away your guns" fear-mongering is utter nonsense. There's no way it's ever going to happen. This country is so awash in guns that any liberal worth their salt would be stupid to even try doing it. It would start a violent backlash and revolution and Hillary knows it. All she's doing is pandering to her base just to get votes. It's a pretty shallow platitude, but it just isn't realistic given the attitude in this country, even after all the recent mass shootings.

callmeslick wrote:more imporant were the words 'look into' and the reality that Bernie Sanders brought up the other night.

Why do you have to treat people like they are stupid? Of course the more important issue here is “mandatory”.

Who cares if the government considers a buyback program or even offers such a program, hell I would even go so far as to say it would be a good way to reduce the amount of firearms, they can offer twice the amount someone paid for them, for all I care.

No, it is by far the “mandatory” aspect that is troublesome, the government can consider anything they want, as long as it’s legal but a mandatory program would be de facto confiscation.

If she had said looking into confiscation, it would have meant the same thing…but without the compensation. The feds shouldn’t be “looking into” anything unconstitutional…period.

miller test, spidey...

I feel like I'm missing some context. Where is the original quote in context? Link please?

Spidey wrote:The feds shouldn’t be “looking into” anything unconstitutional…period.

That's a garbage type of reasoning. The laws in this country are mutable and changeable, as the founding fathers intended. Nothing is outside the realm of re-evaluation, as it should be.

Woody uses "communist" in a horrifically-inaccurate manner. Take another shot, everyone!

Top Gun wrote:Woody uses "communist" in a horrifically-inaccurate manner. Take another shot, everyone!

I suggest you do a little research on the American Communist party co-opting the Liberal progessive party. Start here if you are too lazy to do your own search:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressi ... s,_1948%29

As to Hillary broaching the subject, this was clearly a means to get the idea of a Australian style confiscation program into the national dialog. If I am right you will hear certain mainstream news organs start discussing it, bloggers promoting it and leftist politicians commenting on it.

vision wrote:I feel like I'm missing some context. Where is the original quote in context? Link please?

Spidey wrote:The feds shouldn’t be “looking into” anything unconstitutional…period.

That's a garbage type of reasoning. The laws in this country are mutable and changeable, as the founding fathers intended. Nothing is outside the realm of re-evaluation, as it should be.

Considering changing the law is a different thing than considering doing something against it.

........

When a government “looks into” changing a law…that’s called governing.

When a government “looks into” circumventing a law…that’s called conspiracy.

Top Gun wrote:Woody uses "communist" in a horrifically-inaccurate manner. Take another shot, everyone!

If I do that, then I'm going to the hospital.

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Woody uses "communist" in a horrifically-inaccurate manner. Take another shot, everyone!

I suggest you do a little research on the American Communist party co-opting the Liberal progessive party. Start here if you are too lazy to do your own search:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressi ... s,_1948%29

Woody, I suggest you do a little introspection yourself about the co-opting of your own party by the extreme right neo-fascists.

http://endofcapitalism.com/2010/08/21/t ... -movement/

Now see…there is irony at its best.

(a progressive linking to a commie site, to make a counterpoint against a comment made about commies taking over the progressive movement.)

the whole communist/progressive interaction was OVER before the late 1940s, so referencing that is sort of silly, no matter what the source. In this day and age, there MAY, someplace, be a handful of Communists out in the US populace, but, sort of like neo-conservatism, that ideology has been proven a failure. On the other hand, there are lots of folks who self-describe as Progressives, and I can't think of one I've known with any sympathy for communist thought. Many might be called Socialists, but not all. Some are pure democrats(small d). At any rate, folks like the above using terms they don't understand to describe people they don't agree with is sort of ludicrous.

Spidey wrote:Now see…there is irony at its best.

(a progressive linking to a commie site, to make a counterpoint against a comment made about commies taking over the progressive movement.)

It's ironic that most people always tend to think of fascism as coming from a progressive ideology, and it always appears that way when viewed on the typical linear political spectrum. But that may be oversimplified thinking. If the political spectrum were to be considered as a more circular structure, not a linear one, as some political theorists believe, then the modern tea party could also be labeled as neo-fascist in their beliefs. Read the second paragraph on page 22. Both ideologies come full circle when they go to their extremes. It's even more ironic that neither side sees the commonality in their extreme ideologies. By the way Spidey, I don't consider myself a "progressive". Somewhat liberal perhaps, but not progressive.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1XyJD ... sm&f=false

tunnelcat wrote:I don't consider myself a "progressive". Somewhat liberal perhaps, but not progressive.

And what is the difference, if you don’t mind?

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I don't consider myself a "progressive". Somewhat liberal perhaps, but not progressive.

And what is the difference, if you don’t mind?

I'll field this one, and hope it helps:

A liberal bases their political philosophy upon the premise that man is inherently good, and if given adequate freedom, will blossom as a society.
A Progressive sees mankind as a mix of good and bad, with the good people outnumbering the bad, but the bad ruthless in taking unfair advantage.
Thus, a progressive is more aggressive in promoting measures with 'level the playing field', regulate commerce and safeguard the general public. Progressives, thus, can be seen as more populist in nature.


Now, mind you, there is little purity in adherance to ANY label(that goes for conservatives as well) in this day and age.

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I don't consider myself a "progressive". Somewhat liberal perhaps, but not progressive.

And what is the difference, if you don’t mind?

Well, I've been doing some research on the topic because it seems the definition of what is a "progressive" has drastically changed since the time of TR. It's been updated, modified and modernized by the younger generation of today. Although liberalism has pretty much remained a static ideology, progressivism has been evolving, although it still has it's roots in the liberal philosphy. So after reading through the link below, I've decided that my philosophy is a blend of progressivism and liberalism, and because I'm now an old fart set in my ways, there's also a smidgen of conservatism too.

http://www.alternet.org/story/23706/what_is_progressive