TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

A-R wrote:It's not the ban on carrying a gun INTO the USPS that lights my fire, it's the ban on possessing a gun in a USPS parking lot that

Having to choose between going unarmed for the entire trip OR parking across the street and carrying an armful of packages is an unnecessary choice to put on those exercising their 2A rights.

Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?

For a parking lot infraction, or an inside the building infraction? Are there no other liabilities attached?

cb1000rider wrote:I'm simply stating that picking a side and refusing to compromise at all does nothing more than create a stalemate that allow the titanic to strike the iceberg. Personally, I'm tired of the political game of chicken.

CB, I get that, but here's the problem. The other side almost never compromises its principles to the same extent that conservatives end up doing. Only conservatives or libertarians are expected to compromise. This is not just true in the present, it has been that way for decades.....pretty much since the FDR administration. If both sides are 12" apart with the left at the 0" end and the right at the 12" end, and they meet at the 6" mark, THAT is compromise. But when the left consistently meets the right at the 9" mark, those are bad compromises for the right. So in the end when conservatives/libertarians have had enough and refuse to bargain away any more of their principles, they are called obstructionist for standing up for them. Nobody in the mainstream media called Obama an obstructionist for flatly stating that he will not negotiate with republicans in congress. It's the same kind of logic as labeling a reduction in the rate of increase for spending on a line item as a "deep cut." NOTHING got cut, it just didn't go up as much. It almost NEVER actually gets CUT......unless it is military spending..... and this is just one of the lies the left perpetrates on us.

Obama keeps telling republicans that the ACA is settled law, and they should give up trying to repeal it. Let me do a word substitution: "Jim Crow is settled law, and republicans should stop trying to repeal it." THANKFULLY, republicans DID succeed in getting much of Jim Crow repealed. .....because it was BAD law, and unconstitutional at that. The argument that ACA is settled law is lame down to its bones. For one thing, it is not settled! There are still cases coming before SCOTUS having to do with both the letter of the law AND its implementation. Until those cases are decided and the dust clears, ACA is not "settled" law. For another thing, Jim Crow WAS settled law, upheld by SCOTUS for years before its tentacles were all chopped off, so using the "settled law" argument to warn people away from contesting BAD law is just plain stupid, not to mention disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt. I'd pay good money for the chance to tell that to Obama to his face.

Years and years of bad compromises are what have gotten us to the point where compromise is no longer possible for conservatives. Personally, I would like to see dueling with pistols reintroduced to Congressional debate. When a poltroon has to exercise a little restraint when dealing with his opposites, for fear that they will make him pay with his life for being a devious piece of dung, then maybe congress can get back to the point of sane compromises. But until then, if refusal to compromise means that Congress gets nothing done, then perhaps we are better off. At least they can do no damage when they're not in session.

Last night's SOTU speech was by far the most imperious I've ever witnessed, regardless of party affiliation. It made me afraid for the republic. Can you imagine any previous sitting president issuing a threat like that to Congress, in their chambers, on their turf? I've never seen the like before. It came from the mouth of a president who fundamentally believes that the separation of powers is non-binding upon his administration. How far are we from tipping over into a dictatorship? Heck, even the USSR had a parliament. So does North Korea. Is anybody dumb enough to think that the people of the former USSR or North Korea got or now get good governance from that arrangement?

There's a Jamaican saying I like that goes something like, "the higher a monkey climb the tree, the more he expose himself". If Congress does little or nothing, Obama becomes more and more exposed for the person he really is—a man who would have no internal debate in his heart over whether or not dictatorship would be appropriate if he thought he could get away with it.

Yes, I want a functioning government, but Congress isn't the ONLY problem here. A dictatorial president who thinks he can make and enforce law without Congress is a HUGE part of the problem.