TexasCHLforum.com

gdanaher wrote: Instead of foolish name calling, how about sitting down and finding ways to improve the nation. Too many people on both sides of the aisle are just flat terrified of the thought of cooperating lest they be seen by their constituents as being soft and weak, but nobody has exclusive ownership of good ideas.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

gdanaher wrote:Sorry Nova but cooperate does not mean the same as compromise. There is a subtle difference.

recaffeination wrote:Is Romney officially the Repugnant candidate already? Maybe I should vote in the Demon primaries this year. Assuming Texas is ever allowed to hold primaries.

gdanaher wrote:The VP is always, literally, a heartbeat away, regardless of party affiliation. Clinton has demonstrated she has a set and can use them in her current job. Women are not going to vote Republican this year, but putting her on the Democratic ticket would lure the moderate women, and perhaps a number of conservative women to the Democrats. Do NOT underestimate the affect that the recent Planned parenthood issues in Texas have on the local vote, and generally the impact on women by the efforts to marry abortion to womens' health care.

The Annoyed Man wrote:<snip>...Some, like Joe Biden, are the reason that all sentient people pray for the good health of even a terrible president like Obama. I can't stand Obama, but the thought of a President Biden is terrifying because of the sheer magnitude of his incompetence and lack of intellectual firepower. The man is barely above vegetable grade. If he became President, it would be like handing a loaded 1911 to a monkey.....with the safety switched off. That is why I pray for Obama's health...<snip>

NY Post wrote:Bin Laden’s fantasy assault was to take down President Obama and leave “totally unprepared” Vice President Joe Biden in charge.

“They are not to target visits by US Vice President Biden, Secretary of Defense [Robert] Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff [Chairman Mike] Mullen, or the Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan [Richard] Holbrook. The groups will remain on the lookout for Obama or [Gen. David] Petraeus,” bin Laden wrote in May 2010 to “Shaykh Mahmud.”

“The reason for concentrating on them is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency for the remainder of the term, as it is the norm over there. Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the US into a crisis.

As for Petraeus, “he is the man of the hour in this last year of the war, and killing him would alter the war’s path,” bin Laden wrote.

74novaman wrote:

gdanaher wrote: Instead of foolish name calling, how about sitting down and finding ways to improve the nation. Too many people on both sides of the aisle are just flat terrified of the thought of cooperating lest they be seen by their constituents as being soft and weak, but nobody has exclusive ownership of good ideas.

I think "everybody should compromise" is touted far too often. Compromise is fine...if both sides are sane and both approaches are reasonable solutions to the problem.

Since this is a gun forum and we're discussing gun related things (right? ), here is a fantastic read about compromise with anti gun people from a gun blog.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

source: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010 ... -play.html

As an aside, I love when people complain about the horror of grid lock as well. I love gridlock. When they can't pass anything, they can't find any new ways to take my money or freedom away. Somehow I'm okay with that.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Oh yeah, because to every women in America, free birth control is the most important thing in the world? Even conservative women? REALLY? Somehow, despite what the mainstream media (current administration propaganda machine) feeds everyone, I just don't think that can be believed as a blanket statement.

gdanaher wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Oh yeah, because to every women in America, free birth control is the most important thing in the world? Even conservative women? REALLY? Somehow, despite what the mainstream media (current administration propaganda machine) feeds everyone, I just don't think that can be believed as a blanket statement.

If you think that all that women think of is birth control when the talk is of Planned Parenthood, you sir, are a bachelor.

gdanaher wrote:Planned Parenthood is one of the largest providers of mammograms in the nation if not in Texas. Cancer draws no political distinctions. As women age, and often become more conservative in their political views, their risks increase and the need for these services, by all economic strata, becomes increasingly important. It isn't just about birth control and abortion. Republicans need to learn how to frame the discussion so they don't sound as if they are all anti-female. The best thing the Republicans could do to guarantee that more Democrats are elected is to keep preaching about the evils of Planned Parenthood. Notice that these politicians are invariably male.