- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 10,999
- Reaction score
- 13,092
- Points
- 113
At heart, I'm not far removed from being one of you. At least in spirit.
See I believe fundamentally that society has the responsibility to care for those elements that cannot realistically care for themselves. I understand of course that there will be abuses. There are always those folks who will take advantage of the goodness of others. Nonetheless it is the responsibility of any decent society to look after the weak and incapable.
In my opinion, this is the core Democratic premise. There are a bunch of other things that sort of go on top of that in terms of financial philosophy. Democrats naturally are suspicious of "trickle down" economics. That theory tends to favor large corporations and you have to trust that the people in charge of those corporations are actually going to spend the largest share of the money on their employees and not on themselves. This tends to be contrary to human nature.
Of course managing "bottom-up" economics is just as difficult as it's nearly impossible to get the proper allocation of resources to the people who need them and then at best it can be argued that you're merely providing a band-aid. So in the end, who's right?
But I digress. As I often do.
We stand on the verge of electing Hillary Clinton, a professed Democrat and one of the most liberal candidates the country has ever seen. High on her agenda is gun legislation. Now, many people believe that gun legislation is a largely "liberal" talking poing. Whether this is true or not is not as important as the ultimate effect it would have on the freedoms of the American people should such laws actually go into effect.
Given the previously unimaginable freedom Hillary Clinton has exercised from legal repercussion in the face of blatant illegal activity, I think it's fair to say the woman is absolutely and frighteningly above the law. We are now hearing that people somehow connected to her may have demanded that officials and officers at the highest level of the FBI take oaths of secrecy which include measures not exceeding lie-detector tests to protect the secrecy of the arrangements and "deals" that were made with Clinton. This is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigative body in charge of domestic surveillance. Short of Homeland Security, with whom the FBI works very closely and supplements, the FBI is among the most powerful policing bodies on the planet. And they have been neutered and potty-trained by an alleged candidate.
Can you even comprehend what this woman would be capable of were she the President and legislation were passed that made it illegal for Americans to own handguns? Sleep on that?
While the Democrats are whipped into a wild, frothing frenzy and filibustering madly to pass laws about "assault weapons" which will later expand to laws about "semi automatic pistols", we should all be considering what is happening right now, and how all this is playing into Hillary's 2nd term.
When the laws no longer apply to your elected officials, much less your candidates - you no longer have a democracy. You have a dictatorship. You are simply failing to recognize the regime change that occurred while you were asleep.
See I believe fundamentally that society has the responsibility to care for those elements that cannot realistically care for themselves. I understand of course that there will be abuses. There are always those folks who will take advantage of the goodness of others. Nonetheless it is the responsibility of any decent society to look after the weak and incapable.
In my opinion, this is the core Democratic premise. There are a bunch of other things that sort of go on top of that in terms of financial philosophy. Democrats naturally are suspicious of "trickle down" economics. That theory tends to favor large corporations and you have to trust that the people in charge of those corporations are actually going to spend the largest share of the money on their employees and not on themselves. This tends to be contrary to human nature.
Of course managing "bottom-up" economics is just as difficult as it's nearly impossible to get the proper allocation of resources to the people who need them and then at best it can be argued that you're merely providing a band-aid. So in the end, who's right?
But I digress. As I often do.
We stand on the verge of electing Hillary Clinton, a professed Democrat and one of the most liberal candidates the country has ever seen. High on her agenda is gun legislation. Now, many people believe that gun legislation is a largely "liberal" talking poing. Whether this is true or not is not as important as the ultimate effect it would have on the freedoms of the American people should such laws actually go into effect.
Given the previously unimaginable freedom Hillary Clinton has exercised from legal repercussion in the face of blatant illegal activity, I think it's fair to say the woman is absolutely and frighteningly above the law. We are now hearing that people somehow connected to her may have demanded that officials and officers at the highest level of the FBI take oaths of secrecy which include measures not exceeding lie-detector tests to protect the secrecy of the arrangements and "deals" that were made with Clinton. This is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigative body in charge of domestic surveillance. Short of Homeland Security, with whom the FBI works very closely and supplements, the FBI is among the most powerful policing bodies on the planet. And they have been neutered and potty-trained by an alleged candidate.
Can you even comprehend what this woman would be capable of were she the President and legislation were passed that made it illegal for Americans to own handguns? Sleep on that?
While the Democrats are whipped into a wild, frothing frenzy and filibustering madly to pass laws about "assault weapons" which will later expand to laws about "semi automatic pistols", we should all be considering what is happening right now, and how all this is playing into Hillary's 2nd term.
When the laws no longer apply to your elected officials, much less your candidates - you no longer have a democracy. You have a dictatorship. You are simply failing to recognize the regime change that occurred while you were asleep.
