Originally Posted by Bren
You would get less sarcastic answers if everything you post here didn't make it seem like you are a lweft-wing, anti-gun troll trying to be subtle enough to bait people without getting called out.
It seems the only way to avoid sarcasm and name calling is to walk lockstep with GT mainstream thinking. However, conforming doesn't allow for asking questions that rub the wrong way. The learning experience is diminished without being free to probe and poke.
If my posts have been troll-like because they challenge unsupported statements and theories that seem unrealistic, then this isn't a place for open debate. If someone posts a 'radical' one liner and I inquire about meat for the bones, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. And, as Fred will tell you, I'm not smart enough to bait anyone.
Since you are a long-time Kentuckian, I would have expected you to support my point that politicians vote according to constituent attitudes in order to get re-elected. In Kentucky and Indiana, where guns are highly favored, Congressmen are expected to vote that way. In New York and Connecticut, Liberal Congressmen are elected who will vote anti-gun, and they do. Schumer, Pelosi, and the other libs are not voting anti-gun according to their conscience, they are voting to preserve electability, to maintain their image, and because they don't understand/appreciate or give a damn about our desire for unfettered gun ownership. Thus, the primary motive for voting yea or nay is reelection, not advancement of a political philosophy, in my opinion; the tail is not wagging the dog.
I agree that Progressive give away programs undermine our economic viability and our value system simply because of the consequences they produce over time. What I still can't accept is the intent of Ds to control our country's future any more than Rs hope to control the course we take. Thats how the system is supposed to work.