Militias and the GOP

Reading the story on Sunday's front page about the Kentucky militia, my first thought was, "Why don't you just join the Republican Party and be done with it?" And then I realized, they are the new face of the Republican Party.

[GunClinger]

Democrats think; Republicans follow. Which would the Founding Fathers see themselves as?

Actually Democrats rule by "FEELINGS" thus all the "Feel Good Laws" they pass, and the founding fathers WERE Republicans. Take a history class you puke.

[fooman]

Republicans follow... their constituents. They (in general) don't pull the "we know whats best for you, just let us handle it" BS. I agree with the above, Democrats are generally about emotion, completely ignoring facts and logic.

[GPM]

It seems that being Liberal automatically equals being a moron anymore.

Then again, being a Conservative (Neo-Con) does not connote much intelligence IMHO either.

[areyou4real]

Are you attempting to connote that only conservatives own guns???? And many of us conservatives have been conservative for years...therefore "NEO" or NEW does not apply....are you a "NEO" liberal. If anyone is lacking intelligence it is you!!!!

[PFG]

GunClinger wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Democrats rule by "FEELINGS" thus all the "Feel Good Laws" they pass, and the founding fathers WERE Republicans. Take a history class you puke.

If you think that the founding fathers all believed the same thing about ANYTHING, you have no place to be telling anyone to "take a history class." You could stand one past elementary school level, yourself. The Republican Party didn't even exist when the founders were around. They missed it by nearly 100 years.

Never mind the fact that they weren't Republicans. They were hardly conservatives, for that matter. Neither was the Republican Party when it was founded, for that matter.

Thomas Jefferson is sometimes called a Republican, but he was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, which evolved into the Democratic Party. The Republican Party of today was founded in 1854, iirc. Close to that, anyway.

Your ridiculous, simple-minded platitudes about "feel good laws" aren't even worth addressing. Don't be telling people to take a history class when you don't know history for shit, yourself, bubba.

[Tory II]

Jefferson was a libertarian, and conservatives were always nearer to that than the modern democrat.

Democrats are cousins to socialists.

Today, most people have adopted socialism. Only the libertarians have stuck to their original values. Neocons are socialists (compassionate, religious conservatives).

But there are some changes occurring in the republican party. Consider the election outcomes this morning (Wednesday, November 4).

[PFG]

Tory II wrote:

Jefferson was a libertarian, and conservatives were always nearer to that than the modern democrat.
Democrats are cousins to socialists.
Today, most people have adopted socialism. Only the libertarians have stuck to their original values. Neocons are socialists (compassionate, religious conservatives).
But there are some changes occurring in the republican party. Consider the election outcomes this morning (Wednesday, November 4).

A libertarian? Are you just making this bullshit up as you go along, or what? Can you show me a single instance where Jefferson referred to himself as a libertarian, or are you just pulling that out of thin air?

The "socialist" rhetoric isn't getting any less ridiculous and hysterical with repitition.

[real]

GunClinger wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Democrats rule by "FEELINGS" thus all the "Feel Good Laws" they pass, and the founding fathers WERE Republicans. Take a history class you puke.

Well, obviously you're the one that needs to take a history course. The Republican party was established in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activist.... They were not the same republicans that we have today. Both Democrats and Republicans suck today,there both the same,they just play political chess to gain votes .....So who's the real puke ,you dumb-ass....

[really]

Tory II wrote:

Jefferson was a libertarian, and conservatives were always nearer to that than the modern democrat.
Democrats are cousins to socialists.
Today, most people have adopted socialism. Only the libertarians have stuck to their original values. Neocons are socialists (compassionate, religious conservatives).
But there are some changes occurring in the republican party. Consider the election outcomes this morning (Wednesday, November 4).

YOU ARE DEFENITELY A NIT-WIT: I'm a libertarian ,and that party didn't get it's name until 1972. You need to quit posting,you're making the people around here look stupid,so PLEASE STOP!!!!!! JEEZ........

[GunClinger]

real wrote:

Well, obviously you're the one that needs to take a history course. The Republican party was established in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activist.... They were not the same republicans that we have today. Both Democrats and Republicans suck today,there both the same,they just play political chess to gain votes .....So who's the real puke ,you dumb-ass....

Yeah, I was COMPLETELY wrong on that one. Sorry. The ones that were affiliated with a party mostly claimed the Democratic - Republican affiliation, which as stated above was the beginning of the Democratic Party. However, the Democratic Party of then was more inclined to leave the power with the people and not dictate or mandate policies that were contrary to the peoples wishes.

Please forgive my ignorance.

[GPM]

If you were with the party back then, you'll recall that there were discussions about calling themselves (us) Jeffersonians. Even today, many of us refer to ourselves as Jeffersonians. He may not have called himself a Libertarian, but he was the first one.

[PFG]

GPM wrote:

If you were with the party back then, you'll recall that there were discussions about calling themselves (us) Jeffersonians. Even today, many of us refer to ourselves as Jeffersonians. He may not have called himself a Libertarian, but he was the first one.

Wow, that's convenient.

[leesa]

PFG wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, that's convenient.

Truth hurts?

[Richard]

Actually anyone who belives in or identifies with a political party and does not vote what they believe but vote what the party belives is the real nitwit. that goes for them all

[Tory II]

Richard wrote:

Actually anyone who belives in or identifies with a political party and does not vote what they believe but vote what the party belives is the real nitwit. that goes for them all

The time is 1805 (6:00 pm) and Dick is drunk as a dick. The least he could do for us is have his computer check his awful spelling while he's inebriated. His grammar is disgusting.

[Burt]

Another cowardly attack by muslims at Fort Hood. This is outrageous. If the government doesn't want to protect our citizens at home from the terrorists among us, then send in the militias.

[Richard]

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>
The time is 1805 (6:00 pm) and Dick is drunk as a dick. The least he could do for us is have his computer check his awful spelling while he's inebriated. His grammar is disgusting.

but u understood every single word u freaking inbred moron

[PFG]

leesa wrote:

<quoted text>Truth hurts?

Calling a slave owner a "libertarian" is the height of irony.

[Tory II]

PFG wrote:

<quoted text>
Calling a slave owner a "libertarian" is the height of irony.

You show me just one pair of libertarians who have exactly the same political values. They're all slightly different. The same applies to all other people.

Everything is relative including moral relativism.

[PFG]

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>
You show me just one pair of libertarians who have exactly the same political values. They're all slightly different. The same applies to all other people.
Everything is relative including moral relativism.

So, the word "libertarian" has no meaning? Is that what you're saying? In that case, I guess we can just slap that label on anybody we want, as long as they're dead and can't speak for themselves.