What Really Happened in the Gringrich ethics case ?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

One reason is usually good enough and that's a real good reason.

[JAB]

Now those who are 'party' voters go ahead and, utilizing pretzel logic, blame the voters who actually cast their vote for the BEST candidate instead of the masses who simply vote as they're told to (virtually always voting for someone they know isn't a good choice, but is indeed the lesser of two evils)...

In my case, I have come to see not 'the lesser of two evils' but, instead, two sides of the same, plug nickel. Republicans vs. Democrats has become like watching professional freaking wrestling - it is all for show and as long as the 'party' candidate for either side gets elected the same people rake in the money (and power) regardless who is wearing the Championship belt. The guy who is cast in the role of 'heel' this week will make a statement or two in the middle of the squared circle (or behind the podium) and be the 'good guy' in a couple of weeks - and vice versa. It is all a load of bull**** put on to appease the masses - who buy it hook, line and sinker and hold up signs proclaiming that their guy is going to whoop the other guy when Wrestlemania 2012 comes to town. Of late, there has been no 'lesser evil' among the big two - just two politicians who will screw us and the country in different ways but each equally as badly in his own way. Dubya screwed this country. Obama has screwed this country. If re-elected, Obama will continue to screw the country. If elected, Romney or Gingrich will screw the country in their own way. They are all part of a system that has long since failed. Why in the hell would we want to vote for more of the same on either side of the aisle?

Edited January 27, 2012 by JAB

[mikegideon]

It's much simpler this time than it has probably ever been in my lifetime. Do I want a majority of gun grabbibg, tree huggling liberals sitting on the Supreme Court? Hell no. How do I do my part to avoid it? Vote against the guy that appointed the last two gun grabbing, tree hugging liberals. We are already going to have to put up with those two for decades.

I don't give a rat's ass if Newt borrows the money and builds a cookie factory on the moon. At least he won't ruin the Supreme Court for the REST of my life.

[JAB]

Like I said, hook, line and sinker.

Gingrich has voted for gun control measures in the past.

Dubya stated that if Congress would send him another AWB ban he would sign it and not let the ban expire - it only expired because Congress didn't act. The White House, under Bush, came down firmly against the right of the people to keep and bear arms in entering 'friend of the court' documents in the Heller case. They paid lip service to the idea of an 'individual right' (just as Obama does) but asked that the court carefully rule so as not to endanger any of the (Unconstitutional) Federal laws already on the books or in the future - just as Obama certainly would.

Even the lord high almighty of all Republicans, Ronald Reagan, supported the Brady bunch. Some might say that he was old and senile by then but the same Reagan is largely responsible for the sorry state of gun laws in California (due to gun laws that were enacted, with his full support, while he was Governor of the state.)

None of the 'establishment' politicians are on our side because firearms represent our last line of defense against the establishment overstepping its bounds. None of them want to see the issue 'settled' one way or the other because stirring it up gets too many votes on both sides of the issue. Notice that the Supreme Court has been carefully wishy-washy in the recent decisions involving gun rights - that is because neither side WANTS a definitive answer. I doubt that will change regardless of which establishment lawyers are appointed to those positions. Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply use the issue to try and play to one side or the other but neither is interested in really seeing the Second Amendment have any strength.

Edited January 27, 2012 by JAB

[mikegideon]

Points well made JAB. The difference is that the base of voters behind the boys in red will not vote for them if they are not pro 2A. Not so with the other side. The opinions of the masses will somewhat control the polititions except for them screwing us out of money. Supreme Court judges don't have to worry about public opinion. THEY are the real threat.

[Oh Shoot]

....Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply use the issue to try and play to one side or the other but neither is interested in really seeing the Second Amendment have any strength.

Even if absolutely true, it's senseless to virtually guarantee further and more rapid degradation of 2A with Obama's coming Supreme Court picks.

- OS

[JAB]

Even if absolutely true, it's senseless to virtually guarantee further and more rapid degradation of 2A with Obama's coming Supreme Court picks.

- OS

Just as it is senseless to virtually guarantee that we will be further screwed by one of the 'big two' by voting for one party's pick or the other. I'll vote but I probably won't vote for either party candidate. Hell, I can say for certain that I won't vote for Obama.

[mikegideon]

Just as it is senseless to virtually guarantee that we will be further screwed by one of the 'big two' by voting for one party's pick or the other. I'll vote but I probably won't vote for either party candidate. Hell, I can say for certain that I won't vote for Obama.

There's more than one way to vote for Obama.

[Erik88]

I voted for Paul in the primary. At least I can sleep at night.

[JAB]

There's more than one way to vote for Obama.

No. There is only one way to vote for Obama and that is to vote for Obama. Now, there will be at least two ways to vote for more of the same. One will be called the Democrat candidate and the other will be called the Republican candidate.

[G27]

I guess I'm just cynical about the whole thing, but the current scare tactic is SCOTUS appointments - there's something in every election the establishment uses to leverage votes for awful candidates. Last time it was our guns - if we didn't elect McCain, we'd be England by now!

If Obama wins again it's because the repubs cannot nominate anyone worth a crap. So be it. Whatever happens, happens, but I'll sleep well knowing I voted by my conscience and principles. Those voting for the lesser of two evils ought to step back and note what that's brought us over the last few decades - THAT is why we're where we are today...

[G27]

No. There is only one way to vote for Obama and that is to vote for Obama. Now, there will be at least two ways to vote for more of the same. One will be called the Democrat candidate and the other will be called the Republican candidate.

Truth.

[mikegideon]

I guess I'm just cynical about the whole thing, but the current scare tactic is SCOTUS appointments - there's something in every election the establishment uses to leverage votes for awful candidates. Last time it was our guns - if we didn't elect McCain, we'd be England by now!

If Obama wins again it's because the repubs cannot nominate anyone worth a crap. So be it. Whatever happens, happens, but I'll sleep well knowing I voted by my conscience and principles. Those voting for the lesser of two evils ought to step back and note what that's brought us over the last few decades - THAT is why we're where we are today...

It won't matter in this state anyway. It will go red if they nominate Basil. We can debate pricinples all day long. In the end, reality wins. Another piece of reality... big money runs the country anyway. They may throw us a bone here and there, but there won't be significant changes in the big issues. That doesn't mean they can't gank up the gun laws in a big way.

[E4 No More]

It won't matter in this state anyway. It will go red if they nominate Basil. We can debate pricinples all day long. In the end, reality wins. Another piece of reality... big money runs the country anyway. They may throw us a bone here and there, but there won't be significant changes in the big issues. That doesn't mean they can't gank up the gun laws in a big way.

Reality IS a bee-otch!!!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No offense intended, crimsonaudio, and if those are your convictions, please

stick to them, but, making sure most people do as you do would be helpful to

change the leadership in either party, which is what the Tea Party movement

is attempting to do. I don't see a stronger shot at accomplishing your goal

than that. But saying "so be it" implies a lack of will to do much to change

anything, other than changing the system completely, which is what the current

administration is trying to do in spite of us.

Most of us are frustrated with what's going on since 2008, and really much

before then and most of us have seen our "ideal" candidate either not run

or get eliminated. that means more involvement to me is the key and getting

rid of one or more components in our leadership.

Right now, it's acutely important to get rid of the current "Occupier" of the White

House. Focusing on that and getting more reasonable senators elected will

go a long way in fixing several of our woes. We can't allow the Supreme Court to

shift left especially with this guy's kind of appointments. We also can't allow any

more of his "Executive Order" bull to continue. You and I know what he is up to

and right now it has to stop.

[mikegideon]

How do you really make things go your way in this country? A mass marketing campaign. How many folks believe that Obama was born outside the US? They put on a good show for the general public, and they eat it up. I'm gonna give up playing the shell game, and switch to Powerball. Better odds.