WN: Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life, pro-gun conservatives 'have no place&#3

[MrsRational]

Aren't you contradicting yourself MG?  First you say that the answer isn't to split the nation in two, but to find common ground, but then you state that a divide house cannot stand.  That is my position.  The nation is divided now, and you are seeing it begin to crumble.  Liberals and conservatives cannot stand each other, and the comments by the Governor of New York are just his true feelings coming through.  The same thing applies to the Mayor of New York City.  I don't think there is any middle ground left.  Those on my side are through compromising with liberals and the liberals never compromise in the first place to any significant degree.  I believe we are on the verge of destroying each other from the inside, and the only solution is to split the nation. 

 

Have you had a chance to travel much around the country MG?  You don't have to in order to know how diverse the people are, but it helps if you see it first hand.  If you leave the southern states and travel to the New England states, it is almost like being in another country, the people are so different.  If you travel from there to the west coast, and especially places like San Francisco, they are completely different.  That is why you have the people in one area electing Nancy Pelosi to the House, and she would have zero chance of getting elected in my GOP leaning district. Where is the common ground between a Bible belt Republican and a San Francisco liberal?  There is none.

 

You are incorrect Butero...it is you and a very few others who cannot stand "liberals". Most people are rational and can come together for the common good. You are an extreme ideologue...and just so people don't get in a tizzy I am aware there are extreme liberals as well. And true, when people are ideologically extreme they cannot stand dissenting opinions.

 

Luckily most people are in the middle or next to it.

 

One of the major problems is you have republican party desperate to survive, and in doing so keeps catering to more extreme fringes who would rather the country go down in flames than compromise.

 

Thank you Brother.

 

MrsRational, please try to contemplate on my words as they are written, and not what you think they mean.  It seems that sometimes what is written isn't what you are reading. 

 

Obviously you can say whatever you want at Worthy.  You are just as entitled to your opinion here as I am.  But, that still doesn't change the fact that just because your opinion of guns is different from mine, that you should decide what is best for me, or the millions of other responsible, honest, law-abiding gun owners in this country.

 

Governor Cuomo is Governor of New York, just as PBHO is President of the US.  New York and the US are made up of millions of different people and the "winner-take-all" approach to statesmanship is not conducive to keeping the peace or maintaining good order.

 

Currently the State is overtly hostile to over 100 million Americans, just because their opinion of good statesmanship isn't the flavor of the month right now.

 

But, that will change.  Who's to say the next party to be elected majority representation won't be just as vicious as the "winners" are being right now?

 

It's ironic that the very ideology that doesn't believe sports should have a definite winner or loser, or that scores should even be kept, are such poor sports when they win.

We are, amazingly, closer to being in agreement than you realize.

 

Firstly, I own three guns and I have no problem with you or anyone owning a gun or ten guns as long as you're responsible. I simply desire a machination in place to make sure gun owners are law abiding and responsible. If someone has a violent criminal record or a history of mental illness, they should be barred from owning a firearm. It's just common sense to me. I also think machine guns or high capacity magazines should be restricted, but perhaps even then there could be a process for one to buy that kind of hardware. I'm not an unreasonable person and I don't think gun ownership in itself is a bad thing as all. My father took me out skeet and target shooting and it is a treasured memory for me. I believe it's a wonderful sport and there are lots of character building possibilities for young people who want to take it up.

 

I also agree with you that a winner take all approach is bad and doesn't take demographics into account. We have a similar problem here in Canada with a first past the post system that does not take into account the true demographics of the voters.

 

We have 308 seats and the Conservative party has 160 of those, which is a majority government. However, they only won 39% of the vote so their number of seats is not proportional to the voters will. I can see a similar issue in the U.S. where a state might have 20 electoral votes, but suppose only 51% votes democrat. That means all the votes go to the Democrats when in a proportional system the votes would be split. I think that is far more fair to the voters and the country can have it's say better.

 

Your bigger problem is this "Us vs them" culture that have been festering the last ten years. You all need to work together and pull the country back, divisiveness will only hasten the ruin.

Edited January 28, 2014 by MrsRational

[JustinM]

quote MrsRational:  "I simply desire a machination in place to make sure gun owners are law abiding and responsible."

 

Why?  You aren't a US citizen, what happens here doesn't affect you. 

 

If they are already law abiding and rational, then, any kind of machination is redundant and irrelevant and subject to corruption or abuse.  That is why we are opposed to any such methods being instituted.

 

You can see how certain machinations have been abused by PBHO during his administration, like the IRS targeting people/organizations that do not conform or agree to what the President wants to accomplish.  Any machination proposed that has the power to control, regulate, monitor, or abridge a right, should be opposed unconditionally and unanimously.

 

quote MrsRational:  "We have 308 seats and the Conservative party has 160 of those, which is a majority government. However, they only won 39% of the vote so their number of seats is not proportional to the voters will."

 

That's the problem with a parliamentarian system.  I also believe the winner-take-all approach to our national and general elections is a problem too.  If Congress can take office because their district voted for them, why can't a President assume office under those conditions as well?

[other one]

quote MrsRational:  "I simply desire a machination in place to make sure gun owners are law abiding and responsible."

 

Why?  You aren't a US citizen, what happens here doesn't affect you. 

 

If they are already law abiding and rational, then, any kind of machination is redundant and irrelevant and subject to corruption or abuse.  That is why we are opposed to any such methods being instituted.

 

You can see how certain machinations have been abused by PBHO during his administration, like the IRS targeting people/organizations that do not conform or agree to what the President wants to accomplish.  Any machination proposed that has the power to control, regulate, monitor, or abridge a right, should be opposed unconditionally and unanimously.

 

quote MrsRational:  "We have 308 seats and the Conservative party has 160 of those, which is a majority government. However, they only won 39% of the vote so their number of seats is not proportional to the voters will."

 

That's the problem with a parliamentarian system.  I also believe the winner-take-all approach to our national and general elections is a problem too.  If Congress can take office because their district voted for them, why can't a President assume office under those conditions as well?

I don't go along with a popular vote for the president.....   coming from a smaller state would make us even more irrelevant than we already are in that process.    If you go to a popular vote you might get a president elected with ten cities...

[MrsRational]

Why?  You aren't a US citizen, what happens here doesn't affect you.

I guess after one sees dozens of mall and school shootings, some of us start to care about the victims.

 

If they are already law abiding and rational, then, any kind of machination is redundant and irrelevant and subject to corruption or abuse.  That is why we are opposed to any such methods being instituted.

That is such circular reasoning if I ever heard it. The problem is everyone isn't responsible and accidents, drive by shootings and mayhem occurs daily in the U.S. Why on earth would anyone be opposed to barring a convinced killer, the mentally unstable or an armed robber from owning a weapon?

 

You can see how certain machinations have been abused by PBHO during his administration, like the IRS targeting people/organizations that do not conform or agree to what the President wants to accomplish.  Any machination proposed that has the power to control, regulate, monitor, or abridge a right, should be opposed unconditionally and unanimously.

I'm no fan of Obama but stop acting as if he is Caesar, the president cannot just take away your rights or change laws with a declaration and a wave of his golden scepter. There have been abuses from the top down by both Republicans and Democrats which started under Bush and Obama continued unabated.

 

That's the problem with a parliamentarian system.  I also believe the winner-take-all approach to our national and general elections is a problem too.  If Congress can take office because their district voted for them, why can't a President assume office under those conditions as well?

I agree, and I think the time has come for a more representative election system. Of course no democracy is perfect regardless of the system of government but they can always be made less imperfect.

[other one]

 

Why?  You aren't a US citizen, what happens here doesn't affect you.

I guess after one sees dozens of mall and school shootings, some of us start to care about the victims.

 

If they are already law abiding and rational, then, any kind of machination is redundant and irrelevant and subject to corruption or abuse.  That is why we are opposed to any such methods being instituted.

That is such circular reasoning if I ever heard it. The problem is everyone isn't responsible and accidents, drive by shootings and mayhem occurs daily in the U.S. Why on earth would anyone be opposed to barring a convinced killer, the mentally unstable or an armed robber from owning a weapon?

 

You can see how certain machinations have been abused by PBHO during his administration, like the IRS targeting people/organizations that do not conform or agree to what the President wants to accomplish.  Any machination proposed that has the power to control, regulate, monitor, or abridge a right, should be opposed unconditionally and unanimously.

I'm no fan of Obama but stop acting as if he is Caesar, the president cannot just take away your rights or change laws with a declaration and a wave of his golden scepter. There have been abuses from the top down by both Republicans and Democrats which started under Bush and Obama continued unabated.

 

That's the problem with a parliamentarian system.  I also believe the winner-take-all approach to our national and general elections is a problem too.  If Congress can take office because their district voted for them, why can't a President assume office under those conditions as well?

I agree, and I think the time has come for a more representative election system. Of course no democracy is perfect regardless of the system of government but they can always be made less imperfect.

 

I'm not sure that you understand that anyone who has committed a felony in this country is "not" allowed to have a gun, or even one belonging to someone else in the house they live in......     also no one who has been committed to an institution for mental health.        you sound like we just  allow guns for everyone and everybody here in the US and that is not the case.  In any state that I am familiar with, if a person who has ever been convicted of a felony is caught with a gun they pretty much go to prison for a really long time.

[Guest Butero]

 

Aren't you contradicting yourself MG?  First you say that the answer isn't to split the nation in two, but to find common ground, but then you state that a divide house cannot stand.  That is my position.  The nation is divided now, and you are seeing it begin to crumble.  Liberals and conservatives cannot stand each other, and the comments by the Governor of New York are just his true feelings coming through.  The same thing applies to the Mayor of New York City.  I don't think there is any middle ground left.  Those on my side are through compromising with liberals and the liberals never compromise in the first place to any significant degree.  I believe we are on the verge of destroying each other from the inside, and the only solution is to split the nation. 

 

Have you had a chance to travel much around the country MG?  You don't have to in order to know how diverse the people are, but it helps if you see it first hand.  If you leave the southern states and travel to the New England states, it is almost like being in another country, the people are so different.  If you travel from there to the west coast, and especially places like San Francisco, they are completely different.  That is why you have the people in one area electing Nancy Pelosi to the House, and she would have zero chance of getting elected in my GOP leaning district. Where is the common ground between a Bible belt Republican and a San Francisco liberal?  There is none.

 

You are incorrect Butero...it is you and a very few others who cannot stand "liberals". Most people are rational and can come together for the common good. You are an extreme ideologue...and just so people don't get in a tizzy I am aware there are extreme liberals as well. And true, when people are ideologically extreme they cannot stand dissenting opinions.

 

Luckily most people are in the middle or next to it.

 

One of the major problems is you have republican party desperate to survive, and in doing so keeps catering to more extreme fringes who would rather the country go down in flames than compromise.

Most liberals hate conservatives.  That has been the case for a long time, and over the years, there have been wishy washy Republicans that would rather come up with some kind of compromise than stand their ground.  One such person was George H.W. Bush.  The Democrats in Congress gave him a budget that raised taxes, knowing he had made a no new tax pledge.  In the name of getting along and compromise, he signed it into law.  They praised him for his bi-partisanship, until he was up for re-election, and then they used his compromise against him.  This kind of thing has been going on for a long time, and many of us on the conservative side have said enough is enough.  No more compromise!  It is time to stand your ground, and let the liberals start compromising.  As long as conservatives are the ones to cave, everything seems to be ok, but when they expect liberals to compromise, that is something else.  Liberals and conservatives only get along when conservatives keep going along. 

 

I make no bones about being an extreme ideologue.  I like to think I am as far to the right as Nancy Pelosi is to the left.  Truth be told, most Democrats holding political office are extreme ideologues on the left.  Most Republicans are center-right, and yes, they would compromise if it wasn't for those of us on the extreme right threatening them with a primary challenge.  We are sick of them always giving in with the hard left.  What has been going on is a gradual move to the left as the hard left demands compromise, and the spineless Republicans give in.  They are doing this gradually, but I see through it, and more conservatives are seeing this trend as well.  We are not going to give in.  We are going to fight, not only to stop liberals/progressives dead in their tracks, but to repeal their past gains.  It is time to put them on the defensive.  If this means splitting the nation down the middle, I am more than ready to do it.  I am ready today to vote to pull out of the union and start a new confederacy in the south.  I am more than happy to give Cuomo his way and take all his conservatives in exchange for our liberals. 

[MrsRational]

 

 

Aren't you contradicting yourself MG?  First you say that the answer isn't to split the nation in two, but to find common ground, but then you state that a divide house cannot stand.  That is my position.  The nation is divided now, and you are seeing it begin to crumble.  Liberals and conservatives cannot stand each other, and the comments by the Governor of New York are just his true feelings coming through.  The same thing applies to the Mayor of New York City.  I don't think there is any middle ground left.  Those on my side are through compromising with liberals and the liberals never compromise in the first place to any significant degree.  I believe we are on the verge of destroying each other from the inside, and the only solution is to split the nation. 

 

Have you had a chance to travel much around the country MG?  You don't have to in order to know how diverse the people are, but it helps if you see it first hand.  If you leave the southern states and travel to the New England states, it is almost like being in another country, the people are so different.  If you travel from there to the west coast, and especially places like San Francisco, they are completely different.  That is why you have the people in one area electing Nancy Pelosi to the House, and she would have zero chance of getting elected in my GOP leaning district. Where is the common ground between a Bible belt Republican and a San Francisco liberal?  There is none.

 

You are incorrect Butero...it is you and a very few others who cannot stand "liberals". Most people are rational and can come together for the common good. You are an extreme ideologue...and just so people don't get in a tizzy I am aware there are extreme liberals as well. And true, when people are ideologically extreme they cannot stand dissenting opinions.

 

Luckily most people are in the middle or next to it.

 

One of the major problems is you have republican party desperate to survive, and in doing so keeps catering to more extreme fringes who would rather the country go down in flames than compromise.

Most liberals hate conservatives.  That has been the case for a long time, and over the years, there have been wishy washy Republicans that would rather come up with some kind of compromise than stand their ground.  One such person was George H.W. Bush.  The Democrats in Congress gave him a budget that raised taxes, knowing he had made a no new tax pledge.  In the name of getting along and compromise, he signed it into law.  They praised him for his bi-partisanship, until he was up for re-election, and then they used his compromise against him.  This kind of thing has been going on for a long time, and many of us on the conservative side have said enough is enough.  No more compromise!  It is time to stand your ground, and let the liberals start compromising.  As long as conservatives are the ones to cave, everything seems to be ok, but when they expect liberals to compromise, that is something else.  Liberals and conservatives only get along when conservatives keep going along. 

 

I make no bones about being an extreme ideologue.  I like to think I am as far to the right as Nancy Pelosi is to the left.  Truth be told, most Democrats holding political office are extreme ideologues on the left.  Most Republicans are center-right, and yes, they would compromise if it wasn't for those of us on the extreme right threatening them with a primary challenge.  We are sick of them always giving in with the hard left.  What has been going on is a gradual move to the left as the hard left demands compromise, and the spineless Republicans give in.  They are doing this gradually, but I see through it, and more conservatives are seeing this trend as well.  We are not going to give in.  We are going to fight, not only to stop liberals/progressives dead in their tracks, but to repeal their past gains.  It is time to put them on the defensive.  If this means splitting the nation down the middle, I am more than ready to do it.  I am ready today to vote to pull out of the union and start a new confederacy in the south.  I am more than happy to give Cuomo his way and take all his conservatives in exchange for our liberals. 

 

 

 

Left, right, left right, left right, left right...

 

You sound like a drill sergeant.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

Aren't you contradicting yourself MG?  First you say that the answer isn't to split the nation in two, but to find common ground, but then you state that a divide house cannot stand.  That is my position.  The nation is divided now, and you are seeing it begin to crumble.  Liberals and conservatives cannot stand each other, and the comments by the Governor of New York are just his true feelings coming through.  The same thing applies to the Mayor of New York City.  I don't think there is any middle ground left.  Those on my side are through compromising with liberals and the liberals never compromise in the first place to any significant degree.  I believe we are on the verge of destroying each other from the inside, and the only solution is to split the nation. 

 

Have you had a chance to travel much around the country MG?  You don't have to in order to know how diverse the people are, but it helps if you see it first hand.  If you leave the southern states and travel to the New England states, it is almost like being in another country, the people are so different.  If you travel from there to the west coast, and especially places like San Francisco, they are completely different.  That is why you have the people in one area electing Nancy Pelosi to the House, and she would have zero chance of getting elected in my GOP leaning district. Where is the common ground between a Bible belt Republican and a San Francisco liberal?  There is none.

 

You are incorrect Butero...it is you and a very few others who cannot stand "liberals". Most people are rational and can come together for the common good. You are an extreme ideologue...and just so people don't get in a tizzy I am aware there are extreme liberals as well. And true, when people are ideologically extreme they cannot stand dissenting opinions.

 

Luckily most people are in the middle or next to it.

 

One of the major problems is you have republican party desperate to survive, and in doing so keeps catering to more extreme fringes who would rather the country go down in flames than compromise.

Most liberals hate conservatives.  That has been the case for a long time, and over the years, there have been wishy washy Republicans that would rather come up with some kind of compromise than stand their ground.  One such person was George H.W. Bush.  The Democrats in Congress gave him a budget that raised taxes, knowing he had made a no new tax pledge.  In the name of getting along and compromise, he signed it into law.  They praised him for his bi-partisanship, until he was up for re-election, and then they used his compromise against him.  This kind of thing has been going on for a long time, and many of us on the conservative side have said enough is enough.  No more compromise!  It is time to stand your ground, and let the liberals start compromising.  As long as conservatives are the ones to cave, everything seems to be ok, but when they expect liberals to compromise, that is something else.  Liberals and conservatives only get along when conservatives keep going along. 

 

I make no bones about being an extreme ideologue.  I like to think I am as far to the right as Nancy Pelosi is to the left.  Truth be told, most Democrats holding political office are extreme ideologues on the left.  Most Republicans are center-right, and yes, they would compromise if it wasn't for those of us on the extreme right threatening them with a primary challenge.  We are sick of them always giving in with the hard left.  What has been going on is a gradual move to the left as the hard left demands compromise, and the spineless Republicans give in.  They are doing this gradually, but I see through it, and more conservatives are seeing this trend as well.  We are not going to give in.  We are going to fight, not only to stop liberals/progressives dead in their tracks, but to repeal their past gains.  It is time to put them on the defensive.  If this means splitting the nation down the middle, I am more than ready to do it.  I am ready today to vote to pull out of the union and start a new confederacy in the south.  I am more than happy to give Cuomo his way and take all his conservatives in exchange for our liberals. 

 

 

 

Left, right, left right, left right, left right...

 

You sound like a drill sergeant.

 

That may be the case, but what I have said is true.  I have watched this political game go on over the years, and seen the nation move further and further to the left.  The days of compromise are over.  It is time for liberals to compromise and start moving to the right, or I am more than happy to see a complete shut down of the government take place rather than give in.  The nation does better when the politicians in Washington are not advancing an agenda. 

[JustinM]

I completely agree with you Butero.