# Interesting viewpoint from a GOP member.



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

The abstract tells a bit, but you need to download the whole paper to get the full meat of the story.

How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics by Bruce Bartlett :: SSRN

Edit: Yes, I found it originally in HuffPo..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/fox-news-republicans_n_7320180.html


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who often appears on the network, has said that its immigration coverage "makes it harder for me to get people on my side."

well, when you're trying to convince the folks at home that we need to strengthen the borders and round up and deport all the illegals, then you go back to Washington and get in bed with Obama because you think that if you really back immigration law, that you will never get another Hispanic vote, I guess you wouldn't be happy with Fox's reporting of how you are "turncoating" in Washington now, would you?

The article is written by someone with an axe to grind against Fox. I'm sure you can find Karl Rove or Ann Coulter or somebody who has written about the media bias of the left leaning networks also however, I would bet that not all Fox viewers think that it is as "biased" as they believe that MSNBC, CNN and the national networks are. If you drink enough of the left wing kool aid put out by the national networks, you will also think that Fox is biased. Not surprised at all that the writer has something to say against Fox. Were it not for Fox, the "Obamanation" would be putting double doseage of left wing dogma into the kool aid. At least they know they have to respond to Fox occasionally, no matter how "off the wall" Fox seems to be.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:
Great analysis!


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

It's no big secret that many so-called 'moderate' Republicans identify more closely with Democrats than Republicans. Judging by Bruce Bartlett's other articles, I don't think he has ever been a conservative. The Republican Party truly is a 'big tent' organization. That is why a dozen or so pretty good candidates will debate genuine issues for more than a year, before voters will be able to decide which will represent the party in the general election.

Contrast this with the one credible Democrat candidate who has a lock on her party's nomination already, if she doesn't end up in jail first. She acts like she is the incumbent, yet she won't take questions from reporters, or engage in any conversation that remotely relates to her own accomplishments. She doesn't have to answer questions about the failed foreign policy that she supposedly participated in for four years, or give any opinions on how to repair it, while her Republican counterparts are grilled relentlessly with hypothetical questions on past hypothetical issues that they had nothing to do with. 

So, where is the major media when you need them? Forget about what slant Fox News may or may not have - they have already nailed two or three of 'their own,' including Jeb Bush, who is the preferred nominee of the Republican Party leadership. When ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC nails Hilary on any one of her many 'should-be' embarrassments, then maybe I will crack down on Fox a little bit. At least I can distinguish between their news and their commentary, and that is difficult on any other channel.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> Interesting viewpoint from a GOP member.


You have to understand that there are plenty of "Rino's" (*R*epublican *I*n *N*ame *O*nly) within the GOP. Their mission is to turn the GOP into Democrat Lite. I have to give credit to the Democrats as most of their politicians are on the same page. I don't know of too many "Dino's" (*D*emocrat *I*n *N*ame *O*nly). Democrats could care less if they appeal to or even need Republicans to win. They have the media on their side. Obama is about as far left as they could get yet secured the nomination and became president. You didn't hear the media calling him a "left wing radical" or a "black militant" of which he truly is. If the Republicans were to nominate a true Republican the media would indeed be screaming "right wing radical or fascist". Some Republicans feel they need to appeal to Democrats in order to win. So they kowtow to the media and nominate people like Romney (a man that never would have become governor of one of if not the most Liberal state in the country) if he believed in or governed under true Republican principles. Now they're pushing good old "Jeb". Notwithstanding the fact that Republicans now control both the Senate and Congress along with the majority of governorships along with state legislatures. They do not have to promote or nominate "Rino's" in order to win. All this being said it doesn't surprise me that a "Rino" would be critical of FOX News. Huffington Post? Hardly an unbiased source of information.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Bisley said:


> [...]
> nailed two or three of 'their own,' including Jeb Bush, who is the preferred nominee of the Republican Party leadership. When ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC nails Hilary on any one of her many 'should-be' embarrassments, then maybe I will crack down on Fox a little bit. At least I can distinguish between their news and their commentary, and that is difficult on any other channel.


That 'ability to distinguish' is one key for understanding _any_ of the news programs. The other being skill in distinguishing fact from rumor and spin, things that infiltrate 'straight' news on a regular basis.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> <snippage> Huffington Post? Hardly an unbiased source of information.


They merely provided the link......

Which existed, so they DID report pure fact there.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Bisley:


> That is why a dozen or so pretty good candidates will debate genuine issues for more than a year, before voters will be able to decide which will represent the party in the general election.


The biggest problem with that is that there are just too many throwing their hat's into the ring. In the end run a candidate with just 15% of the vote will win the nomination as 85% of the vote could be split evenly between the other dozen or so candidates. It is quite possible that the 85% would never support the candidate who won with only 15%. I just wish that all of the candidates who know, as I'm sure many of them do, that they do not have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever securing the nomination let alone be elected president would just drop out. This way the field would be narrowed down so a candidate would indeed get the overwhelming share of the vote. I swear to God I think this is orchestrated by establishment Republicans to ensure that their hand picked favorite gets the nomination. It wouldn't surprise me if all of the un-electables were put in place (paid off) to guarantee this. The established wing of the Republican Party couldn't have picked any worse candidates than McCain and Romney they are now at risk by doing the same thing with "Jeb". I'm betting that "Jeb" will eventually get the nomination, the rest is all a side show. I have no enthusiasm over another Bush. It might end up being another "hold your nose" election as anyone will be better than "Da Bitch". Our only saving grace is that I doubt that "Da Bitch" will get elected. She's mired in corruption and scandals, is a pathological liar and she's just not likable. However, we will be stuck with another "Rino".


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

I can find nothing wrong with your analysis... dammit. I wonder if it's too early to mount a write-in campaign for Bernie.

:anim_lol:

[emoticon chosen specifically for aptness in this forum]


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Jeb's already got a problem. He's already caved to the media pressure about the question of whether or not knowing what we do now about Iraq, that he would have sent troops in at the time his brother did. First he said yes, he would have, but now, under media re asking again, he's saying "no, he wouldnt' have." That's not a good sign to already be wavering in positions at this early a stage in the process. Doesnt' give many folks a warm and fuzzy feeling about his ability to stick to his decisions. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone else out there that is moderate enough to end up with the nomination.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone else out there that is moderate enough to end up with the nomination.


I don't want to see a moderate. Moderates are willing to compromise with the enemy in this case the Democratic Party. Every time they compromise we lose a little more freedom until eventually there will be nothing left to compromise. I want someone who will stand up and say "Hell no". We're not going to get that with "Jeb". As much as I don't want to see it happen "Jeb" is going to be the nominee. Going into the debates most of the questions will be directed toward him. The media will give him accolades for his performance, he will be the subject of all the political talking heads. Soon afterwards they'll do a poll, whose results will indicate that "Jeb" is the only one who can beat "Da Bitch". That's just how they operate. Sure we get to vote alright but the whole thing is predetermined and fixed by the political parties.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> I don't want to see a moderate. Moderates are willing to compromise with the enemy in this case the Democratic Party. Every time they compromise we lose a little more freedom until eventually there will be nothing left to compromise. I want someone who will stand up and say "Hell no". We're not going to get that with "Jeb". As much as I don't want to see it happen "Jeb" is going to be the nominee. Going into the debates most of the questions will be directed toward him. The media will give him accolades for his performance, he will be the subject of all the political talking heads. Soon afterwards they'll do a poll, whose results will indicate that "Jeb" is the only one who can beat "Da Bitch". That's just how they operate. Sure we get to vote alright but the whole thing is predetermined and fixed by the political parties.


Agreed, he will be the nominee, but I also agree he's too moderate for me also. I just don't see any moderate helping with the issues regarding the constitution and amendments. Unfortunately, sticking to one's principles does not seem to be the way to the top of the party machine any more. There are too many in power who want to "go along to get along", all the while preserving and maybe building on what they have at the expense of the rest of us. As it is now on immigration, in my opinion, we might as well tear out the pages of laws on the books regarding immigration because nobody in power is enforcing them at all. It's a GD free for all out there, and anybody that wants in can come in, get assistance and be left to stay illegally as long as they want to. To me, this is one of the boiling point issues that will be the undoing of this country both socially and fiscally.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:
No arguments from me there, brother! Not only will illegal immigration be the death of our "Constitutional Republic" for certain it will be the end of the Republican Party. California once a strong Republican state is a microcosm of what is yet to come. The illegal invasion of this nation is the #1 issue that should concern us all. Over and above all else. A nation without borders is no nation at all.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I was really excited for the GOP. But my guy stayed out of the race. I don't see any hopeful yet.

Paul Ryan says he is not running for president in 2016 | Fox News


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic;


> I was really excited for the GOP. But my guy stayed out of the race. I don't see any hopeful yet.


They've already destroyed my guy Ted Cruz. They are absolutely terrified of someone who actually believes in Conservative principles and is not afraid to express those opinions. It was okay for the Democrats to nominate a far left radical black militant. The media had no problem with it. Now the Democrats are going to nominate a far left radical feminist who is mired in corruption, lies and deceit. Say what you will about Cruz, I sincerely doubt that he has all the baggage of the Clinton's. To my dismay Ted Cruz will not be nominated. That leaves for me Ben Carson, a brilliant man and most importantly not a career politician. I doubt he will get anywhere either. The rest of them I could really give two shits about, I just do not trust any of them on the immigration issue especially "Jeb". The only thing that they have going for them is their support for the 2nd Amendment except for maybe Christie. None of this will matter anyway if they grant amnesty to the illegal invaders. It will absolutely be the end of the Republicans as a viable political party ensuring Democratic victories from that point on and into the future. Once the Democrats have absolute control of all branches of government we can kiss our 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Republic" goodbye forever. That is the plan.

Unfortunately, Jeb Bush will more than likely secure the nomination for POTUS from the Republican Party. I'll even go out on a limb and say Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee. We can only hope that once he is elected he will appoint Conservative judges to the judiciary.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman, 
Been looking at Huckabee a little bit. Didn't like him the last time he ran , for no apparent reason.

Border Security - Mike Huckabee for President


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Nobody is not out of it, yet. The election is a year and a half out and there has not been a single debate, yet. The Republican leadership will try to jam Bush, Rubio, or Christie down our throats because the Democrats have convinced them they are the only ones who can win the Hispanic vote. 

Cruz, Paul, Walker, Santorum and possibly Huckaby and Ben Carson are the populist candidates that will have to raise their money from 'grass roots' donations. Their success depends on getting conservatives to participate in the voting process who stayed home last time, and consolidating them behind the most popular conservative. When they get down to the 'nut-cuttin,' the also-rans like Santorum, Huckaby, and Carson have to pull out and throw their support to either Cruz, Paul, or Walker, because otherwise, the conservative vote will be too splintered to defeat the 'money guy,' probably Bush.

Of course, the wild cards are Perry and Trump, who won't win, but can raise money and probably win a state or two. It's very interesting, and if the voters will pay attention to the whole process, could pick a good candidate.

The Democrats, on the other hand, will accept whoever The Party gives them, because they have been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that conservatives are the worst enemy the country faces - worse than any foreign enemy, even. They will pull the "D" lever, no matter what, and count on voter fraud to carry the vital electoral districts. 'The end justifies the means,' after all, and a socialist government will deliver Utopia to them.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic:


> Been looking at Huckabee a little bit. Didn't like him the last time he ran , for no apparent reason.


He'll never get anywhere, too religious. The Left has been waging war on Christianity. The establishment Republicans wouldn't even want to take the chance.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Bisley:
Good points! However the Republican leadership will always get their way always have. Jeb Bush will be the nominee. This Conservative has never stayed home on election day. As much as I couldn't stand either McCain or Romney and all the bullshit that the Republican leadership has thrown at us. I had to vote for them. The alternative was and has turned out to be far worse than I could ever have imagined. A black militant as president. My God what in the hell were the people thinking?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> <huge snippage>
> 
> The *Republicans*, on the other hand, will accept whoever The Party gives them, because they have been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that *progressives* are the worst enemy the country faces - worse than any foreign enemy, even. They will pull the "*R*" lever, no matter what, and count on voter fraud to carry the vital electoral districts. 'The end justifies the means,' after all, and a *Conservative* government will deliver Utopia to them.


Reads just as accurately this way (I have bolded the words I've changed so that no-one will accuse you of having a grasp on reality) 

You will be amazed, I'm sure, to find out that the Left feels that the Right is the side doing the voter fraud thing.

:watching:


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> He'll never get anywhere, too religious. The Left has been waging war on Christianity. The establishment Republicans wouldn't even want to take the chance.


No - the Left has not "waged a war" on Christianity - they have merely decided they don't want it pushed down their throats in the political/medical/scientific arenas where it doesn't belong.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> No - the Left has not "waged a war" on Christianity - they have merely decided they don't want it pushed down their throats in the political/medical/scientific arenas where it doesn't belong.


There is no way to divorce religion from the political 'arena', as long as thought processes are driven by it. In the case of Christianity, I'm not referring to the New Testament, but to the morass of 'readings' and borrowings from the pre-Christian Torah and Zoroastrianism that have adulterated Jesus' message.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> There is no way to divorce religion from the political 'arena', as long as thought processes are driven by it. In the case of Christianity, I'm not referring to the New Testament, but to the morass of 'readings' and borrowings from the pre-Christian Torah and Zoroastrianism that have adulterated Jesus' message.


I know (and totally agree) but I wish it wasn't the case. A man's fitness for office (or unfitness) should never be judged by his faith.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I know (and totally agree) but I wish it wasn't the case. A man's fitness for office (or unfitness) should never be judged by his faith.


Oh, but the implications of his faith _will_ be a consideration, if he is perceived to be driven by them. People are not leery of Huckerbee because he is a Christian, rather because his public statements indicate that he is an 'exclusivist', fundamentalist Christian.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> Oh, but the implications of his faith _will_ be a consideration, if he is perceived to be driven by them. People are not leery of Huckerbee because he is a Christian, rather because his public statements indicate that he is an 'exclusivist', fundamentalist Christian.


 Doesn't change the fact that they *shouldn't* be.....


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> No - the Left has not "waged a war" on Christianity - *they have merely decided they don't want it pushed down their throats in the political/medical/scientific arenas where it doesn't belong.*


Surprise! I completely agree with you on that part. I'm not a bible thumping church goer, neither am I an Atheist. I certainly do not want an Atheist's agenda rammed down my throat either. However, the perception is out there that the Left is indeed waging a war on Christianity. Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our "Republic". That being said this nation was indeed founded on Judeo Christian values, like it or not it is what it is. In God We Trust is on our currency and a bible is used to swear oaths upon. *When God is taken out of everything then the only higher authority to answer to is government.* That's why the founders in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence included the phrase: "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights". Meaning that government can never take away those rights. Only our "creator" whomever or what ever he/she may be. The founders knew of the corrupt power of government and had to set up a set of laws that government officials are sworn to abide by. That set of laws is our "Constitution" which are designed to protect individual civil liberties from the corrupt power of government. *God is nothing more than a mechanism to ensure that government will never control our lives.*


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> <snip!>
> *God is nothing more than a mechanism to ensure that government will never control our lives.*


Seriously, D'man, if you believe that with every fibre of your being, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in....

The fact that the government doesn't believe that means that it isn't true. It would be nice (even if you believe God is a bit MORE than that) but it isn't true.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
You're hopeless!


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Reads just as accurately this way (I have bolded the words I've changed so that no-one will accuse you of having a grasp on reality)
> 
> You will be amazed, I'm sure, to find out that the Left feels that the Right is the side doing the voter fraud thing.
> 
> :watching:


Nothing amazes me about what the left will pretend to believe.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> Nothing amazes me about what the left will pretend to believe.


Vicey versey, I'm sure.

Take off the blinders and realise that the Left looks at the Right in EXACTLY the same way.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Bisley:


> Nothing amazes me about what the left will pretend to believe.


*Government is their God.* It's the only way for them to control the people. They refuse to accept the principles that our "Republic" was founded on. They refuse to accept these words that "We are endowed by *our creator* with certain unalienable rights". *Government is not our creator!* I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone would want to relinquish those rights at the hands of corrupt greedy self serving politicians. The founders of this nation realized this. That was the reason for fighting and winning a revolution. That was the reason for establishing laws that all government officials are sworn to abide by. When sworn into office they do not say "I swear to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States so help me government". Or so help me Obama. You have to understand that we are dealing with flat out ignorance.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> You're hopeless!


Ehy, thanks!! 

But, seriously, how will God (whether you believe or not) ensure that government will never control our lives? Please explain that to me. You may feel that His inclusion into the D of I "ensures" it, but it is just words. You think the Heavens will open if the Government tries to control us?

Sorry, doesn't add up.

Edit: God may have granted those rights, in your mind, but the Government can (and will, if they want to) still stomp all over them if they want


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> Bisley:
> 
> Government is their God.


Believe me, you don't have a monopoly on self-righteousness - not even close.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Generally lefties hate Fox New's because it generally reports the truth. Harder to spread MSN and CNN leftist propaganda if you allow some truth to squeak out.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> He'll never get anywhere, too religious. The Left has been waging war on Christianity. The establishment Republicans wouldn't even want to take the chance.


I remember, your correct ,I do recall in his last bid ,that was an issue.
I was also turned off because of the religious thing.

Now ,weirdly enough I embrace that part of his character . 
It's a religious war in a strong way, foreign n domestic.
Islam , iSis , icicles or whatever they call it lol, is literally killing freedom of Christianity or any religion other then that BS they kill for.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

denner said:


> Generally lefties hate Fox New's because it generally reports the truth. Harder to spread MSN and CNN leftist propaganda if you allow some truth to squeak out.


Again, don't for one second believe that the Other Side doesn't think EXACTLY the opposite, with as much reason. Fox tells you what their corporate Overlords wish you to hear. Same for all the rest - I just happen to read around a bit, having more than just one source to read from.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SailDesign said:


> Again, don't for one second believe that the Other Side doesn't think EXACTLY the opposite, with as much reason. Fox tells you what their corporate Overlords wish you to hear. Same for all the rest - I just happen to read around a bit, having more than just one source to read from.


You sound like some kind of media whore sleeping around with more then one source. 
:smt033


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> Edit: God may have granted those rights, in your mind, but the Government can (and will, if they want to) still stomp all over them if they want


To prevent that was the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Because of that it is highly unlikely that they will, not only that it will be a zero sum game. There will be no winners. Only mutually assured destruction. There are just too many of us that are armed that believe in our "Constitutional Republic". This includes many that are both active and retired law enforcement and military personnel. That unto itself would be a force to be reckoned with. What makes you so cock sure that if the government began to stomp all over us that the military would just blindly go along with it? It is more than likely that they will turn their weapons against the very same government that ordered them to do so. You're still going to have warring factions even within that same government. Just as we do now. Unless of course we succumb to a dictatorship. Is that what you want? Is that the future that the Left has in store for America. Subscribe to our way of thinking or we will use the power of government to destroy you? No wonder so many on the Left wish to abolish the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". Turning any and all power over to a democratically elected government. Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag, as if we didn't already know. I've got news for you we are not a "Democracy", we are a "Constitutional Republic". The reason for that is so a democratically elected government could not enslave or violate the basic civil rights of those who do not choose to support those who are in power at any given time.

To answer the first part of your statement: No, it was not in my mind, it was in the minds of those who found this nation and established our form of government. Why in the world is this so difficult for you to understand? You have a very convoluted and distorted perspective of American history.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

pic said:


> You sound like some kind of media whore sleeping around with more then one source.
> :smt033


If the shoe fits, I'll wear it.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> No - the Left has not "waged a war" on Christianity - they have merely decided they don't want it pushed down their throats in the political/medical/scientific arenas where it doesn't belong.


I totally agree with that statement Sail, why else would they have luminaries like The Reverend Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Obamas mentor The Reverend Jeremiah Wright showing them the path of righteousness. By the way didn't Wright repeat GD America over and over and over in one of his sermons? I'm pretty sure Obama was listening intently.rayer:

GW


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> <snip>
> 
> You have a very convoluted and distorted perspective of American history.


From my viewpoint, it is you that has the distorted view. Hence our problem.

As long as we realise that, life is easier. I'm not going to agree with many of your views, and you won't agree with many of mine. Sadly, we are probably BOTH right about 50% of the time. But do we know WHICH 50%? ....

I'm not here to fight, or even argue necessarily, just to present the view from the Other Side when I feel it wise. You're not honor bound to agree with me. Nor are you honor bound to disagree.

Live and let live, baby.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
I'm not here to argue either, but I just can not let you get away with trying to distort our history to fit some kind of Left wing agenda. It's very "Clintonian" of you. Facts are facts and not based on opinions. You do not have to accept them but they are what they are. Just take the time to study it and read it, it's all there. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" --Santayana


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> I'm not here to argue either, but I just can not let you get away with trying to distort our history to fit some kind of Left wing agenda. It's very "Clintonian" of you. Facts are facts and not based on opinions. You do not have to accept them but they are what they are. Just take the time to study it and read it, it's all there. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" --Santayana


If your "fact" is that the Second Amendment reflects a "God-given" right, then I would assert that you are wrong. Plain and simple.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
*We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.* If you'll excuse the pun why is this so God Damned hard for you to understand? It does not say endowed by our government, elected officials or any other mortal man or woman. It is the basis for our system of government. I'm done! No point in arguing this any further. Plain and simple.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Is that 'straight from the Creator's mouth'?


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

SailDesign said:


> Again, don't for one second believe that the Other Side doesn't think EXACTLY the opposite, with as much reason. Fox tells you what their corporate Overlords wish you to hear. Same for all the rest - I just happen to read around a bit, having more than just one source to read from.


I agree SD, just depends on what one wants to hear, and for those hopefully educated enough to seperate the wheat from the chaff I suppose.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

hillman said:


> Is that 'straight from the Creator's mouth'?


Good point.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Sounds a little like an "anti/pro-abortion" discussion.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

pic said:


> Sounds a little like an "anti/pro-abortion" discussion.


Just don't go there, pic. Sheesh! F'ing trolls....


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> *We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.* If you'll excuse the pun why is this so God Damned hard for you to understand? It does not say endowed by our government, elected officials or any other mortal man or woman. It is the basis for our system of government. I'm done! No point in arguing this any further. Plain and simple.


It was endowed by a man putting words on a piece of paper. God Himself did not write that. Honest. No matter HOW MUCH you wish He had. It was a guy, and those were the sort of figures of speech he used in everyday life, so that's how he wrote it.

But it was merely a man....

Sorry.

Edit: You really should capitalize "Creator" in this context, too.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> God Himself did not write that. Honest.


Noooooo! You're kidding me! Say it ain't so. Really?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic:


> I'm sorry but what does a capital C have to do with the subject matter.


He can't dispute what I've posted and his only response are asinine comments that really don't have anything to do with anything. He doesn't seem to understand or even try to understand why the founders of this nation wrote into the preamble to the Declaration of Independence "endowed by our creator". He just doesn't get it. Doesn't want to. Typical of Left wing zealots, he likes to put word's into peoples mouths. Claiming that I believe that God himself wrote those words. He does not accept our "Constitution" as it is written and feels that since both the "Constitution" and "Declaration of Independence" were written by mortal men, it can be changed at the whim of any sleazy politician or political party that he supports and for any reason.

Most Leftist's feel that way, they believe in a "Living Breathing Constitution". Fortunately the founders of this nation did not feel that way and established laws that are designed to constrain governmental abuse while at the same time preserve individual liberties. They used the word God or "Our Creator" to establish those laws so no one but God or "Our Creator" could take away our "inalienable rights". You see if the founders had wrote "We are endowed by our government with certain inalienable rights" or substituted the word "politicians" or "public officials" for "our creator" their task of destroying the "Bill of Rights" would be that much simpler. Ah, but those pesky words "We are endowed by our creator". None of this has anything to do whether one believes in God or not.

He can only respond with ridicule, because he can't argue with factual history. Thinks he's pissing me off and I guess he is to some degree but it's more frustration on my part dealing with someone who is as blatantly ignorant as he is.

Steps toward Socialism:

1) Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people

  2) Poverty - Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are  easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them  to live.

  3) Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able  to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
  
4) Gun Control - Remove the people's ability to defend themselves from the Government.  That way you are able to create a police state.
  
5) Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, and  income)

  6) Education - Take control of what people read and listen to - take control of  what children learn in school.
  
7) Religion - *Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools*
  
8) Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will  cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the  support of the poor.

This is what the Left believes in. *Take the word God out of the picture than all of the laws and protections under the "Constitution" will become irrelevant as there will no longer be a higher authority that guarantees that those rights will remain intact.* For the record I am not a religious person but fully understand why the words God and "our creator" were used in drafting the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights which spelled out exactly which rights were protected.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Desertman, 

Rhode Island is "ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL STATES IN THE USA". Then add to it, an upbringing in the UK.
I'm not implying "British liberal snobbery" applies here. I'm surely not mentioning any names either.
I love him terribly though, I've even seen him naked with wings. 
He must be an angel

:smt033


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> He can't dispute what I've posted and his only response are asinine comments that really don't have anything to do with anything. He doesn't seem to understand or even try to understand why the founders of this nation wrote into the preamble to the Declaration of Independence "endowed by our creator". He just doesn't get it. Doesn't want to. Typical of Left wing zealots, he likes to put word's into peoples mouths. Claiming that I believe that God himself wrote those words. He does not accept our "Constitution" as it is written and feels that since both the "Constitution" and "Declaration of Independence" were written by mortal men, it can be changed at the whim of any sleazy politician or political party that he supports and for any reason.
> 
> ...


You're starting to rant, d'man. Take a deep breath, stand back and relax for a while.

And don't call me ignorant, you asshole. (That's called Tit-For-Tat - it's Old Testament, but such is life.)

And if you think I'm not disputing your assertions, you're wrong. I have argued logically but you seem unable to grasp the point.

"Plonk!"


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Oh no, not the dreaded PLONK.

In my rec.music.classical.recordings (rmcr) days, I was repeatedly plonked, and plonked a few posters myself. I must report - a plonk is not nearly as painful as a boink. I haven't boinked or been boinked for over 60 years, but I can remember complaining.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> Oh no, not the dreaded PLONK.
> 
> In my rec.music.classical.recordings (rmcr) days, I was repeatedly plonked, and plonked a few posters myself. I must report - a plonk is not nearly as painful as a boink. I haven't boinked or been boinked for over 60 years, but I can remember complaining.


My memory of it came from alt.mountain-bike. Never was boinked, though.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> He can't dispute what I've posted and his only response are asinine comments that really don't have anything to do with anything. He doesn't seem to understand or even try to understand why the founders of this nation wrote into the preamble to the Declaration of Independence "endowed by our creator". He just doesn't get it. Doesn't want to. Typical of Left wing zealots, he likes to put word's into peoples mouths. Claiming that I believe that God himself wrote those words. He does not accept our "Constitution" as it is written and feels that since both the "Constitution" and "Declaration of Independence" were written by mortal men, it can be changed at the whim of any sleazy politician or political party that he supports and for any reason.
> 
> ...


I won't say that anyone who wants a "living breathing constitution" is ignorant. Devious is not the same as ignorant. I will say that they are selfish and near sighted.

After all, Living and Breathing always lead to Dying.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic:


> Rhode Island is "ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL STATES IN THE USA". Then add to it, an upbringing in the UK.


That's why I've made it my mission in life to fight Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism whatever you want to call it. Wherever it rears it's ugly head. As I certainly do not want the rest of the USA to become like Rhode Island and definitely not like the UK or Australia. He can call me an "asshole" if he likes but coming from him that's a compliment. I succeeded in pissing him off as he couldn't present a compelling argument to counter mine. To coin GWB "Mission Accomplished." His only argument was to counter mine with: "The 2nd Amendment is not a God given right" and "God did not personally write the preamble to the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights". He thinks it's compelling, I beg to differ. I have factual history on my side regarding this issue, not just personal opinion. Granted none of us are always right, but on this issue I'm 100% confident that I am.

I have nothing personal against him other than his political beliefs of which I am vociferously and diametrically opposed to. *I just do not understand how anyone who claims to support the 2nd Amendment could support a political party who is doing everything in their power to destroy it.* Along with all of the principles that this country was founded on, principles for which people who fought and died to preserve. Wasn't it his president who vowed to fundamentally change America? Change it to what? He himself once posted that if the government were to confiscate his guns it would be no big deal, he'd just have to find another hobby. Well at least not to me, and I'd wager to most of the people on this forum the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with one's hobby. Statements like that lead me to conclude that he really has very little knowledge of our history and worse yet could care less. I will never give up the fight to preserve and defend the Constitution, the principles this country was founded on and our way of life.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

TurboHonda:


> I won't say that anyone who wants a "living breathing constitution" is ignorant. Devious is not the same as ignorant. I will say that they are selfish and near sighted.


Great point! I used the word ignorant as a term for someone who chooses to "ignore" facts.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman, 
If I had to give up my firearms , in comparison/psychologically, *it would be the same as removing my penis.*And that is not gonna happen.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> I won't say that anyone who wants a "living breathing constitution" is ignorant. Devious is not the same as ignorant. I will say that they are selfish and near sighted.
> 
> After all, Living and Breathing always lead to Dying.


The Constitution 'lives'. It is a changeable document; just because it ain't easy to change doesn't mean it can't be. The problem with it, perhaps unrecognized by the Founders, is that SCOTUS has taken the _interpretation_ path, with sometimes callous disregard for_ intent_. The justices were, _by design_, appointed for life, just so that they would be 'above' politics. Funny how that worked out.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

pic said:


> desertman,
> If I had to give up my firearms , in comparison/psychologically, *it would be the same as removing my penis.*And that is not gonna happen.


Well, sorta; I would go with gonads, same sentiment.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic:


> If I had to give up my firearms , in comparison/psychologically, it would be the same as removing my penis.And that is not gonna happen.


Realistically, I don't think you'll be speaking in a high voice any time soon. Or was that only for testicles? There's just too damn many of us especially when you take into consideration the amount of people who are actively serving in both the military and law enforcement agencies that believe as we do regarding the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". I'll bet that the overwhelming majority of them do. Then you'd have to consider those that are retired from those professions who are intimately familiar with both law enforcement and military tactics and strategies. Then there's the rest of us who are proficient in the use of firearms. Indeed we would be a force to be reckoned with. It's a fool's errand to believe the government would win. The government is indeed aware of this. This is the sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. Those in government who wish to destroy the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law will try and do it incrementally taking away a little bit at a time. This way it is not as obvious. One of the reasons I do not believe in ever compromising with these people and I do mean ever. As I've mentioned many times sooner or later there will be nothing left to compromise.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

hillman said:


> Well, sorta; I would go with gonads, same sentiment.


What are "gonads" ?

Seems very familiar , without googling the definition of "gonads" .
I think I ate some at thanksgiving dinner. 
:smt033


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman:


> The Constitution 'lives'. It is a changeable document; just because it ain't easy to change doesn't mean it can't be. *The problem with it, perhaps unrecognized by the Founders, is that SCOTUS has taken the interpretation path, with sometimes callous disregard for intent.* The justices were, by design, appointed for life, just so that they would be 'above' politics. Funny how that worked out.


Indeed you are correct! On all counts. The Constitution has been amended 27 times the first 10 are the Bill of Rights which so far have withstood the test of time. Hell, I'm all for expanding civil liberties for all Americans regardless of race color or creed providing that they are here legally or in the United States for any lawful purpose.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

pic said:


> What are "gonads" ?
> 
> Seems very familiar , without googling the definition of "gonads" .
> I think I ate some at thanksgiving dinner.
> :smt033


More of a spring dish - 'prairie oysters' is one variety of them.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> T*he Constitution 'lives'. It is a changeable document; just because it ain't easy to change doesn't mean it can't be. * The problem with it, perhaps unrecognized by the Founders, is that SCOTUS has taken the _interpretation_ path, with sometimes callous disregard for_ intent_. The justices were, _by design_, appointed for life, just so that they would be 'above' politics. Funny how that worked out.


(Emphasis added)

My point exactly. Apparently, some are too blind to note that the very existence of "Amendments" mean it HAS been changed and it CAN be changed.

Tough to do? Sure.

Impossible? Nope.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> More of a spring dish - 'prairie oysters' is one variety of them.


With all due respect, hillman, Prairie Oysters are an entree - I don't think you'd make an appetiser.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman:
Out west we call them "Rocky Mountain Oysters". My neighbor loves them. Doesn't sound too appetizing to me. I think I'll pass.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SAILDESIGN, 

I LOVE THE AVATAR, do not change it. Look how far you came from a little froggy. 

Yesterday's session with " desertman " straightened you out a bit. Good for you


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

pic said:


> SAILDESIGN,
> 
> I LOVE THE AVATAR, do not change it. Look how far you came from a little froggy.


Well, if i'm to be the "token Liberal" I may as well fly my colors.  (Please note red, white and blue, but mostly blue)



pic said:


> Yesterday's session with " desertman " straightened you out a bit. Good for you


Not sure it was good for either of us, or even if either of us is "straightened out." But it appears to happen now and again.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SAIL,
You are the man , your opinions/assertations bring out the best of all. Thanks

You n desertman I commend humbly for maintaining a good conversation.
Thanks 
Happy holiday weekend
:smt1099


----------

