Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
The fire and brimstone rhetoric about fire arms and the Second Amendment drive people in droves from the GOP. .

I'd like to see some empirical evidence of this, because I find it hard to believe it is even a relevant issue. Maybe just a press site to the last time a public official or major party candidate for office caused a public controversy because of "fire and brimstone rhetoric about the Second Amendment".

Originally posted by Spanky

Right now Republicans are popping corks all over the country because of the new Republican majority. However, from my point of view, the most liberal man in the Senate almost got elected President.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. He didn't almost do anything. He lost. And he lost by 3.5M votes to an otherwise weak and polarizing candidate who lost the popular vote 4 years ago.

Originally posted by Spanky

The Schiavo, Gun and God ranting ain't helping matters.

To say that, diminishes the fact that those rants reflect that there are legitimate issues related to all three of those topics that tens of millions of Americans, who actually vote, care about. IMHO, the dems are dooming themselves because they choose to characterize all pro-life religious people as nuts. I think it would be a mistake if the Republican party did that too. And I am not christian conversative, its just a compromise to avoid socialism on the economic side.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And just to show the diversity represented by a party that includes me and Penske, 3 of my parent's 4 children wore the uniform(s). So Penske doesn't trust us, neither me or Penske trust Hillary, and neither of us owns a gun (I think that's what he said earlier).

Correct, no weapons here, excepting my love taser, no offence, nttawwt.

And technically I am not sure I trust anyone, regardless of the uniform that they wear.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'd like to see some empirical evidence of this, because I find it hard to believe it is even a relevant issue. Maybe just a press site to the last time a public official or major party candidate for office caused a public controversy because of "fire and brimstone rhetoric about the Second Amendment".

This is funny because I remember Kerry sucking up to gun lovers a few days before the election during his we todd did staged duck hunt. I'd venture to guess the gun issue has people running to support the GOP and that a anti-gun candidate is anti-electable in this country.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by AliHajiSheik
If the Clintons get back in office that equation could change dramatically. You never know when Hillary decides to sent Juan USMC and his buddies to perform a late term abortion on you.

I bet Lazaro and Marisleysis wish that they had been armed so that they could have prevented the late-night abortion of their nephew's human rights.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I will say you guys have done some amazing work in a generation. I can remember 20 years back when the Republicans won California. Even a guy beholden to the religious right.

Reagan signed a law here that extended abortion rights. Yes that is right. His romance with the Religious right started when he decided to become President.

There had been a huge demographic change in California. And it is happeneing in the rest of the country. It just happened here first. Party registration of both partys dropped dramatically. They key to any election became the decline to states. The Decline to states are fiscal conservative and socially liberal. When we run NRA, pro life candiates they get crushed.
When we run moderate Republicans they win in landslides. In 90 Republican Pro-Choice, NRA hated Wilson won in a landslide (over ten points). In 94 Wilson won in a landslide again. In 98 we ran Lungren, a Pro-Life NRA supported Republican. He lost in a landslide (lost by 15 points). In 2002 we ran a Pro-Life, Pro-NRA candidate against a governor who had the lowest approval ratings in California history. The power was actually shut off during his tenure, power prices skyrockets, we had the Dot. Bom crash and he turned the biggest surplus into the biggest deficit in California history. Our Pro-Life NRA candidate loses to this guy by eight points. Charles Manson could have beaten Davis. Nine months later we run Arnold. Pro-Choice guy hated by the NRA and called unacceptile by the Religious Right. Beats Davis by twenty points. When Barbara Boxer first ran for Senate, two Republicans tried to be her opponent. A pro-choice, Economics PHD, and law professor and he lost to a Pro-life, NRA supported guy who said he liked to admire the off shore drilling platforms from his gas guzzler. Because of that California now sends the second most liberal senator to Washington.

The current Secretary of State, Bruce McPhearson, used to be the Republican State Senator from - Santa Cruz. Yes - Santa Cruz. He won in a district that had only a 28 percent Republican registration. It had a 55% Democrat registration. Yet the conservatives did everything they could to defeat him in the primary because of his views on Gun and Abortion. If we had Republican State Senators and Assemblyman from every district that Wilson and Arnold won in, the Republicans would control the Assembly and State Senate handily. But becasue the Conseravative idiots that control our state party keep running these pro-gun, pro-life candidates (76% of California registered voters say that would be more likely to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate than a Pro-Life candidate - 58% of California voters say that an NRA endorsement would make them less likely to vote for a candidate ) we barely control a third of the state legislature and a third of the State Senate. Moderates keep leaving the party because the Republicans that are left are such fruit loops so only the fruit loops choose the nominees, and the results is a California run by Democrats.

The Pro-gun, Pro-life Republicans in California do more for the Democrat party here than the Democrats could ever do for themselves.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Reagan signed a law here that extended abortion rights. Yes that is right. His romance with the Religious right started when he decided to become President.

There had been a huge demographic change in California. And it is happeneing in the rest of the country. It just happened here first. Party registration of both partys dropped dramatically. They key to any election became the decline to states. The Decline to states are fiscal conservative and socially liberal. When we run NRA, pro life candiates they get crushed.
When we run moderate Republicans they win in landslides. In 90 Republican Pro-Choice, NRA hated Wilson won in a landslide (over ten points). In 94 Wilson won in a landslide again. In 98 we ran Lungren, a Pro-Life NRA supported Republican. He lost in a landslide (lost by 15 points). In 2002 we ran a Pro-Life, Pro-NRA candidate against a governor who had the lowest approval ratings in California history. The power was actually shut off during his tenure, power prices skyrockets, we had the Dot. Bom crash and he turned the biggest surplus into the biggest deficit in California history. Our Pro-Life NRA candidate loses to this guy by eight points. Charles Manson could have beaten Davis. Nine months later we run Arnold. Pro-Choice guy hated by the NRA and called unacceptile by the Religious Right. Beats Davis by twenty points. When Barbara Boxer first ran for Senate, two Republicans tried to be her opponent. A pro-choice, Economics PHD, and law professor and he lost to a Pro-life, NRA supported guy who said he liked to admire the off shore drilling platforms from his gas guzzler. Because of that California now sends the second most liberal senator to Washington.

The current Secretary of State, Bruce McPhearson, used to be the Republican State Senator from - Santa Cruz. Yes - Santa Cruz. He won in a district that had only a 28 percent Republican registration. It had a 55% Democrat registration. Yet the conservatives did everything they could to defeat him in the primary because of his views on Gun and Abortion. If we had Republican State Senators and Assemblyman from every district that Wilson and Arnold won in, the Republicans would control the Assembly and State Senate handily. But becasue the Conseravative idiots that control our state party keep running these pro-gun, pro-life candidates (76% of California registered voters say that would be more likely to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate than a Pro-Life candidate - 58% of California voters say that an NRA endorsement would make them less likely to vote for a candidate ) we barely control a third of the state legislature and a third of the State Senate. Moderates keep leaving the party because the Republicans that are left are such fruit loops so only the fruit loops choose the nominees, and the results is a California run by Democrats.

The Pro-gun, Pro-life Republicans in California do more for the Democrat party here than the Democrats could ever do for themselves.

Obviously, Californians of any party affiliation are fairly liberal. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I don't think you can necessarily extrapolate that to the whole country. On a national level, California is lost to the Republican for probably the next 20 years, maybe forever. So be it. While I don't agree with the far right's agenda on everything, I don't think that the opportunity to gain California's electoral votes is worth tossing the electoral votes of a great deal of the south. Definitely in the near term (next 8-12 years) that would be a guaranteed losing formula at the top level.

eta: McCain/Jeb in 08. Gives us a chance in CA and probably sufficiently panders to the South and other christians to hold that base.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
Reagan signed a law here that extended abortion rights. Yes that is right. His romance with the Religious right started when he decided to become President.

There had been a huge demographic change in California. And it is happeneing in the rest of the country. It just happened here first. Party registration of both partys dropped dramatically. They key to any election became the decline to states. The Decline to states are fiscal conservative and socially liberal. When we run NRA, pro life candiates they get crushed.
When we run moderate Republicans they win in landslides. In 90 Republican Pro-Choice, NRA hated Wilson won in a landslide (over ten points). In 94 Wilson won in a landslide again. In 98 we ran Lungren, a Pro-Life NRA supported Republican. He lost in a landslide (lost by 15 points). In 2002 we ran a Pro-Life, Pro-NRA candidate against a governor who had the lowest approval ratings in California history. The power was actually shut off during his tenure, power prices skyrockets, we had the Dot. Bom crash and he turned the biggest surplus into the biggest deficit in California history. Our Pro-Life NRA candidate loses to this guy by eight points. Charles Manson could have beaten Davis. Nine months later we run Arnold. Pro-Choice guy hated by the NRA and called unacceptile by the Religious Right. Beats Davis by twenty points. When Barbara Boxer first ran for Senate, two Republicans tried to be her opponent. A pro-choice, Economics PHD, and law professor and he lost to a Pro-life, NRA supported guy who said he liked to admire the off shore drilling platforms from his gas guzzler. Because of that California now sends the second most liberal senator to Washington.

The current Secretary of State, Bruce McPhearson, used to be the Republican State Senator from - Santa Cruz. Yes - Santa Cruz. He won in a district that had only a 28 percent Republican registration. It had a 55% Democrat registration. Yet the conservatives did everything they could to defeat him in the primary because of his views on Gun and Abortion. If we had Republican State Senators and Assemblyman from every district that Wilson and Arnold won in, the Republicans would control the Assembly and State Senate handily. But becasue the Conseravative idiots that control our state party keep running these pro-gun, pro-life candidates (76% of California registered voters say that would be more likely to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate than a Pro-Life candidate - 58% of California voters say that an NRA endorsement would make them less likely to vote for a candidate ) we barely control a third of the state legislature and a third of the State Senate. Moderates keep leaving the party because the Republicans that are left are such fruit loops so only the fruit loops choose the nominees, and the results is a California run by Democrats.

The Pro-gun, Pro-life Republicans in California do more for the Democrat party here than the Democrats could ever do for themselves.

I'd think Reagan was nuts if he didn't do this. State's rights, will of the people and all that. I understand that you might think people of my ilk have wrecked the California Republican party and its chances, but nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing I don't share in common with the people you've described is the idea that we should advance anyone who does not represent a compilation of consensus views in any election.

While I'm certain that this country will not ultimately have a problem with Roe being overturned, its only because Californians will still be able to have what Californians want to have. And if Californians want abortion rights, than it sounds like your social conservatives in the Republican party need a severe dressing down. Ditto the gun thing.

But the flip side of what I'm saying is that the national Rs would be nuts to abandon the federalist bent on the social conservative issues (i.e., let the state's decide, and not the courts). We do that, and we aren't all that distinguishable from the Democrats. Except our guy apparently ain't getting blown by interns, but he is running a massive deficit while expanding and creating new social programs. To his credit though, other social programs are slowly getting defunded by the billions. Block grants are in line to be cut in half this year, and northern democratic cities are screaming about it.

In other news, who ever heard of Kunar Province, Afghanistan before this week? I'm getting the feeling that something big has been happening there over the past few weeks or months, even before the loss of the Special Operations troops the past week. I'm still trying to figure out what capabilities might exist with a U-2 plane in that region, what with one of em crashing two weeks ago. So I'm left wondering if maybe we have the intelligence we need (or at least the tips and clues as to where to look), but maybe not enough boots on the ground there. First time in quite awhile that I've considered that maybe the critics were at least partially right in this regard.

Hello

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So I'm left wondering if maybe we have the intelligence we need (or at least the tips and clues as to where to look), but maybe not enough boots on the ground there. First time in quite awhile that I've considered that maybe the critics were at least partially right in this regard.

Hello

Or maybe we are closing in....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

I'd like to know where this modern conservative myth -- that those we are fighting pay attention to what Americans are saying and are somehow strengthened by less than complete support for the Cult of W. -- comes from. Lord knows I've never seen any reporting suggesting it has a grain of truth.

It seems to me at least as likely that the Iraqi insurgents read the MSM carefully and rejoice whenever they read about the Administration's incompetence. They say, "Look Ali, another story about the failure to uparmor Humvees. With this news, I take heart and am motivated to fight for another decade."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The bright point is that the exploding suburbs ten to be fiscallly conservative.

This is good news, now that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Barbara's death was coincident with the publication of her stunning expose of the Clinton's crimes. Interestingly, that book and its author were fully overshadowed by intervening events.

The Final Days:
A Behind the Scenes Look at the Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House

Presumably her untimely death prevented her from being sued for ripping off the title from Woodward and Bernstein. Since her target audience doesn't read anything more challenging than TV Guide, her fans probably wouldn't have held it against her.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It seems to me at least as likely that the Iraqi insurgents read the MSM carefully and rejoice whenever they read about the Administration's incompetence. [I]They say, "Look Ali, another story about the failure to uparmor Humvees. With this news, I take heart and am motivated to fight for another decade."[I]

If you're trying to implicate me in the nihilist/islamist insurgency in Iraq, you are going to have to do much better than hypothetical quotes.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Presumably her untimely death prevented her from being sued for ripping off the title from Woodward and Bernstein. Since her target audience doesn't read anything more challenging than TV Guide, her fans probably wouldn't have held it against her.

Way to savage the memory of a first amendment patriot who lost her life in the first battle of our current war. And on our holiest of national holidays. Very classy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by AliHajiSheik
If you're trying to implicate me in the nihilist/islamist insurgency in Iraq, you are going to have to do much better than hypothetical quotes.

No flies on you, I tell you what.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Little Reality Check for my Fellow Republicans:

1) I hope that anyone that has John Ashcroft on their list for Supreme Court nominees is joking. That man is one scary person. Do I even have to go there? I am very pro-police, don't belive in the exclusionary rule and would overturn the rule against self incrimination, but that man is beyond the pale.

If the Senate had actually bothered to honor their own rules, then John Ashcroft would currently be the Honorable Senator from the State of Missouri, and not a freelancer.

Besides, almost all commentators will tell you that he did an extraordinary job of being even-handed when applying the law as AG - in total contradiction to his teetotaler ways.

And isnt this the quality that we really want from our Justices?

2) Although arms can be very useful in helping one protects ones family and property, the whole idea that the second amendment is there to protect our other liberty from the government is a little absurd. Washington showed how useful the second Amendment was against the government during the Whiskey Rebellion. And that was when someone could arm theselves as well as the government. Did you see what our military did to the Iraqi army? And I am sorry my friend, but the Iraqi army is a hell of lot better armed than you could ever hope to be. When the FBI comes to tramp on your civil liberties, because an Aschcroft Supreme Court said it was OK, every single person posting on this board is going to surrender to the FBI. No middle class pampered legal scholar on this board is going to lock and load, everyone on this board is going to reach for the sky and beg for their lives. I had a gun placed in my had when I was four, and won shooting competitions when I was a kid and I wouldn't even think of taking on the FBI, let along the 101st Airborne Division. Our only hope against tyranny is that the police and the army don't follow the tyrants orders, and pretending otherwise is just hot air. If someone on this board has actually participated in modern combat I will take their talk of using their gun to protect their liberties against a tyrannical government a little more seriously, otherwise shut the hell up.

If they ban the 2nd Amendment, can I still hunt deer on my property?