Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

a reply to: Gryphon66

I do hear you though. I've often asked the gun adherents how they'll use their 15 guns to stop the Hellfire missle sent by drone from five miles away.

We watch youtube, and learned how easy it is to jam GPS.

I mean the Iranians can do it. I am sure we can.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Army queries soldiers on their political beliefs? That's a new one on me, I'll admit.

It has long been an established fact that the majority of serving troops typically vote republican.

Do you have a link to the study you're referring to?

Millennials Are Willing To Let Others Fight For Them

Not exactly the courageous bunch. I say this as a millennial, one of the very few, who has served in the military.

Have you personally taken a poll of liberals nation-wide to determine their gun knowledge?

Every time a liberal opens his/her mouth on the subject all doubt to their ignorance thereof is removed.

a reply to: dawnstar

you mean I can't have my missile launcher and nuke?? darn.

I love that strawman.

It never gets old watching someone bring a nuke to a gun fight.

a reply to: neo96

I am pretty sure that the majority wouldn't want me to have a missile launcher, or for that matter, the crazy lunatic willing to stab their neighbor because of their chirping birds a machine gun!

we have a right to free travel also, and yet, how many people are on that no fly list that pose no threat whatsoever? the war on terror and the resulting over reaction of 9/11 has stripping more rights away from the american citizen that any other event since pearl harbor.... all supported I do believe by a republican president and a republican majority congress.

a reply to: projectvxn

I'm confused, perhaps it's because I have incorrect assumptions. I was under the assumption that a Millenial is somebody born after 1982. That would mean that anybody serving in the armed forces 34 years of age or younger is a Millenial. Wouldn't that make a majority of the armed forces Millenials?

a reply to: neo96

ya, I imagine it's quite similar to watching Isreal gunning down kids for throwing stones, and the US wars with the little peon countries that we enjoy bombing so much.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Yes it would.

That would be the minority in the general population.

You know, the other 15 percent.

a reply to: dawnstar

Well if the US is so bad why should we yield our second amendment rights to them ?

Maybe the people themselves need to be a 'nuclear' power so our own government would leave us alone.

a reply to: projectvxn

Ok,,,and I just reread your post. I missed the Liberal Millenial part. I assumed improperly that you meant all Millenials. I agree, there does seem to be an issue with more progressive minded youngsters giving themselves an overall appearance of incompetency in the self defense department.

a reply to: marg6043

I'm pretty sure the fundamentalists should have TWO says, because the demographics don't work if they only get one.

a reply to: projectvxn

A long established fact, eh?

Does the Military Really Vote Republican? - Time 2012

“The officers by and large are more conservative,” says an Army sergeant just back from Afghanistan. “But the enlisted tend to be more liberal.” Of course, with fewer than one in five of those in uniform an officer, there’s a lot more enlisted voters.

While the U.S. military assesses its force every which way – here’s the most recent demographic report – it steers clear of asking about troops’ political views. Military leaders have insisted for years that politics has no role in the U.S. military, and that the only way to remain trustworthy is to stay resolutely nonpartisan.

A Pew survey released last year showed post-9/11 veterans’ political leanings are the reverse of the public they’re serving: 36% describe themselves as Republicans, and 21% as Democrats; 34% of the public said they were Democrats, and 23% Republican. Six in 10 vets say they’re more patriotic than the average American.

So, just as in the larger population, the MAJORITY of people in the military are INDEPENDENT, not REPUBLICAN.

That is at least, according to TIME Magazine, Pew Research and at least one soldier who served in Afghanistan.

Where did you serve/are you serving?

~~~~

So, according to your link ... MILLENNIALS are less willing to fight ... not merely LIBERAL ones. Well, see, that makes a tiny bit of sense.

~~~~~

LOL ... and another fact-free slam on liberals. So you couldn't Google anything handy on liberal's gun knowledge?

Figures.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do hear you though. I've often asked the gun adherents how they'll use their 15 guns to stop the Hellfire missle sent by drone from five miles away.

We watch youtube, and learned how easy it is to jam GPS.

I mean the Iranians can do it. I am sure we can.

So you don't need handguns then?

Awesome.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: projectvxn

Ok,,,and I just reread your post. I missed the Liberal Millenial part. I assumed improperly that you meant all Millenials. I agree, there does seem to be an issue with more progressive minded youngsters giving themselves an overall appearance of incompetency in the self defense department.

But that's not what the source said that Project used to back up their claim ...

Skip it. Not sure why I'm bothering.

Just for giggles, here's one more ...

Military no less conservative, but less Republican, survey finds

Just over one third of U.S. military personnel say they support the Republican Party, down from nearly a half in 2006, according to the latest annual Military Times poll.

But the survey shows that underlying political attitudes among troops remain more or less unchanged, with a plurality of 41 percent continuing to describe themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative,” compared with 44 percent in 2006.

... and that I would also believe ... generally speaking ... but that would also suggest that the military is 56% either Independent/Moderate or Democrat/Liberal.

Probably also similar in proportions to the general US population with a slight conservative bent.

/shrug

originally posted by: neo96
Everyone knows there is a problem with the Scotus.

The way it's set up now isn't working.

Two things need to change about the Scotus:

Lifetime appointments and how they are chosen.

Maybe it should be kicked down to the state level

Or not.

Maybe the Scotus should get to pick their successors.

Or not.

What we know for sure. It sure isn't working the way it was suppose to.

Can you elaborate on the problem? I see zero issue with how the Supreme Court is working. They did give us Citizen's United, but that's what they're supposed to do.

They're a group of 9 judges, who got there through a lifetime of court cases, and they remain there despite all changes in an administration that would remove them. It seems to me like the court is as far removed from partisan politics as one can possibly get. It takes a bipartisan committee to confirm them and a president to appoint them and from that moment on they are completely removed from day to day partisan bickering. That's a good thing.

They're also the brake on our political system. They ensure that things change slow, but that if something is wanted across the span of several decades that change will eventually happen. Without them serving life terms things would move way too quickly.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dawnstar

you mean I can't have my missile launcher and nuke?? darn.

I love that strawman.

It never gets old watching someone bring a nuke to a gun fight.

It's not "a strawman" ... at worst it might qualify as a bit of playful hyperbole. But that's not really the point is it?

The point is that you repeat the marketing scheme that says that the 2nd says that the "right to keep and bear arms" shall "not be infringed" is an absolute guarantee that no government, Federal, State or local, will do anything to keep any one from having any gun they want in whatever quantity, carry it wherever they want whenever they want, etc. etc.

That's simply an ABSURD absolute. That's not the historical interpretation or the modern interpretation both of which clearly acknowledge that every right has certain practical limitations, usually equivalent to when the individual exercise of a right would impact or diminish or damage another person or their rights.

The joke about nukes and rocket launchers is actually an excellent argumentum ad absurdam because it points directly at how ludicrous it is to interpret certain individual words any way we wish.

By the way, the late Justice Scalia penned the official SCOTUS opinion which stated that fact. Ironic, huh?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I personally don't think it will, I think the republicans are spineless, but I do hope it does go on.

There is nothing unconstitutional in denying a candidate for supreme court until one comes along that the senate thinks can do the job.

A matter of opinion. The delaying tactics are unethical in my opinion but they certainly aren't illegal. Ultimately, I don't think it's even a factor. It comes down to just one thing really. Bush and Rubio are the only two on the right that are going to appoint someone the Right likes. In every other case it's a Democrat appointment, or a RINO which is just as bad.

Delaying is only a reasonable tactic if you can't be certain of Bush or Rubio winning it all. Obama being a lame duck has his hands somewhat tied, he's going to have to pick someone centrist to replace Scalia. A centrist is probably more appealing to the RNC than anyone Hillary, Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Carson, or Kasich would put up.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I stand corrected.

I will say that I do not trust republican politicians anymore than the democratic politicians.

At the end of the day politics is what hurts the military the most.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Gryphon66

I stand corrected.

I will say that I do not trust republican politicians anymore than the democratic politicians.

At the end of the day politics is what hurts the military the most.

Not the point really. You made general statements that are mostly true. A couple of polls don't counter what you said, LOL.

I don't doubt that many if not most military members are Republican/Conservative. That doesn't imply that those that aren't are incompetent cowards.

That's the point.

And I will agree with you. For example, the situation with the medical care we provide our Veterans with in this country is appalling and repulsive. The sad state of that system actually IS one of the things I hold Obama accountable for.

He (and we, the United States) should be doing more in that regard to fix that problem. Far more.

(Adjusted after your edit. Best.)

I wanted to clarify my comments earlier.

While I sustain the point that Article II is describing the enumerated powers of the President, I did trudge on the facts about the Congress' right to "advise and consent."

"Heat of battle" and such, LOL.

However, I will sustain that it is completely beyond the scope of the "advise and consent" authority given to Congress to attempt to thwart ALL nominees of the President merely because of who he is.

The ebb and flow over time of conservative and liberal Presidents nominating conservative and liberal Justices is part of the design of our system of Government. History shows us this. Scalia pushed the Court to the far right for most of the last quarter-century.

The only thing that any of us should wish for is that the President's nominee is an accomplished if not brilliant jurist that believes in the Constitution above all else.