The clever GOP strategy for defeat in November


PDA






xd9fan
April 13, 2006, 01:28 PM
Wall street Journal opinion journal 4-13-06

The Minority Maker
The clever GOP strategy for defeat in November.

Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

If Republicans lose control of Congress in November, they might want to look back at last Thursday as the day it was lost. That's when the big spenders among House Republicans blew up a deal between the leadership and rank-in-file to impose some modest spending discipline.

Unlike the collapse of the immigration bill, this fiasco can't be blamed on Senate Democrats. This one is all about Republicans and their refusal to give up their power to spend money at will and pass out "earmarks" like a bartender offering drinks on the house. The chief culprits are the House Appropriators, led by Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis of California and his 13 subcommittee chairmen known as "cardinals." If Republicans lose the House--and they are well on their way--Mr. Lewis deserves the moniker of the minority maker.

For weeks, the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative Members, had been negotiating a spending outline with the House leadership. But when they finally struck a deal last week, Mr. Lewis refused to go along and threatened to defeat the budget on the House floor if Speaker Denny Hastert brought it up. With Democrats opposing the budget as a matter of party unity, GOP leaders gave up and left town for Easter recess without a vote on their budget blueprint for 2007.

Political hardball isn't new to Congress, but what's especially notable here is the utter cluelessness by Mr. Lewis and his friends about how much trouble they're in and how to get out of it. The rank-and-file Members who haven't yet gone native in Washington realize that their biggest problem is the disappointment of Republican voters at Congress's free-spending ways. If those voters stay home in November, Mr. Lewis will soon be known as Mr. Ranking Member.

Then again, he's been there before and doesn't seem to mind. Mr. Lewis, who is now in his 14th term, was one of those Republicans who were utterly comfortable in the minority before the Gingrich Revolution in 1994. As chairman of the GOP Conference, Mr. Lewis was the No. 4 Republican in the House before Dick Armey challenged him for the post in 1992 and won--in part because Mr. Lewis was a lot less than revolutionary.

Since that defeat, he's hunkered down as one of the GOP's spenders-in-chief, presiding over multiplying earmarks and chopping to bits the party's reputation as fiscal conservatives. When President Bush recently asked Congress to pass a modified line-item veto, among the first to complain was Mr. Lewis. The spending baron told the Rules Committee last month that the line-item veto "could be a very serious error" that threatens the separation of powers. "We are the legislative branch of government."

Translation: Mr. Lewis is opposed to any budget reform that would give the President more leverage to limit his ability to spend tax dollars like there's no tomorrow. On the item veto, this puts him to the fiscal left of John Kerry, Al Gore, and, well, it's hard to get any further left than that.

The reforms that Mr. Lewis objected to can only be called modest in any case. In return for supporting President Bush's $873 billion discretionary spending limit for Fiscal 2007, the conservatives had sought a few budget "process" reforms. Kevin Brady of Texas wanted a floor vote to establish a commission to sunset federal agencies that have outlived their usefulness. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin asked for a floor vote on the line-item veto--just a vote. Mr. Lewis and his band of spenders would still have the chance to try and defeat it on the House floor.

Jeff Flake of Arizona wanted each spending "earmark" to be identified along with the Member who requested it, so perhaps lawmakers might be shamed into using tax dollars more responsibly. He assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that a legislative body that has allowed these pork projects to quadruple in the past five years is still capable of being embarrassed.

Another important reform would have addressed the "supplemental" spending shell game on Capitol Hill, whereby initial spending requests that fall within the limits of a budget blueprint are inevitably augmented by so-called "emergency" spending. And since this "emergency" spending falls outside the budget framework, the sky's the limit. The proposed reform would have set criteria for what constitutes an emergency, established a rainy day fund for when one occurs, and required a House Budget Committee vote to increase spending beyond the amount in the reserve.

All of this is a far cry from a wholesale and much-needed rewrite of the Democratic budget act of 1974, which Republicans once promised to redo if they ever won the House. That passion has faded as the GOP settled into a cushy incumbent status quo. But facing a sudden revolt among their own younger Members this year, the House leadership finally agreed to the small reforms. The problem now is that Mr. Hastert, new Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt can't seem to exert any leadership over Mr. Lewis. Maybe they're practicing for taking orders from Speaker Nancy Pelosi next year.

A category five political storm is building in GOP precincts around the country, and it is going to blow Republicans right out of the majority in November if they don't soon give their supporters some reason to re-elect them. So far this year they've passed limits on free speech that liberals love, but they haven't been able to extend the wildly successful 2003 tax cuts by even a mere two years. And now they won't even allow a vote on budget reforms that their own President and a majority of their own Members support.

At the current pace, a Democratic majority in Congress would be preferable, if only for reasons of truth in advertising.

If you enjoyed reading about "The clever GOP strategy for defeat in November" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
April 13, 2006, 01:40 PM
The illegal immigration failure has me so infuriated I don't need to see the government spending to make me vote 3rd party or stay at home come November.

This weekend the government is screwing me out of 30% of my pay and they refuse to fulfill their most fundamental duty-> defining borders.

HankB
April 13, 2006, 01:51 PM
The illegal immigration failure has me so infuriated I don't need to see the government spending to make me vote 3rd party or stay at home come November.Almost a "+1" . . . but I think their spending of MY money like drunken sailors in a bordello after two years at sea is just as much a problem as the illegal alien situation. (And I'm NOT referring here to defense spending.)

The only thing - and I mean the only thing - positive I can recall from the GOP control of both Congress and the White House is that by doing nothing, they allowed the AWB to expire.

And a fair number of RINOS weren't at all happy about that. :barf: . . . the government is screwing me out of 30% of my pay . . . Only 30%? You're probably not adding everything up correctly.

longeyes
April 13, 2006, 01:56 PM
And if the Dems control House and Senate, what's the impact going to be on gun rights?

Reno
April 13, 2006, 02:10 PM
Which is worse, a slow push towards total confiscation with steps that only "extremists" would oppose, or a hard and fast push that is easier to fight against in the court of public opinion?

Manedwolf
April 13, 2006, 02:16 PM
And if the Dems control House and Senate, what's the impact going to be on gun rights?

Depends which ones. If Feinstein and Schumer get muzzled, the rest seem to be realizing that gun control is a big loser and also ineffective. Hopefully.

It depends on who the next President is, too. Russ Feingold, for one, voted against the AWB renewal. And here's something from a site about him:

"He fully supports 2nd Amendment rights, despite prior votes to limit assault weapons. Feels Democrats are taking the wrong approach regarding gun issue, but opposed the recent exemption from lawsuit protection. Since the earlier votes regarding assault weapons, he has become more educated about the issue and realizes that many of the Democrats have made mistakes in labeling guns that are used for hunting as assault weapons. He strongly feels that the Constitution defines gun ownership as an individual right and should not be infringed."

He's a 2A supporter! So he might not be bad at all.

Hillary, on the other hand...better have stuff ready to bury all your guns and ammo in the backyard. :barf:

one-shot-one
April 13, 2006, 02:18 PM
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Cuda
April 13, 2006, 02:19 PM
They all need to come out of their bubbles and get back in touch with the people. The republicans could loose the Congress and Senate and quite possibly the whitehouse. Then where will we be with the lefties appointing judges, supreme court and others, we all know how many of them feel about the 2A.. Staying home and not voting cannot be an option. I can tell you here in Colorado there is a new bunch of people running for office, from local to state to federal.. Get out find out about those in your area and help the ones who will do right for you... The fewer voters the more likely the left will win..

And voting for a party other than the dems/reps in not a wasted vote.

the government is screwing me out of 30% of my pay

Don't forget all the taxes on gas, property, clothes, etc. It's alot hight than 30%



C

one-shot-one
April 13, 2006, 02:28 PM
at this point having the rep's smiling and stabing me in the back makes me no happier than the dem's frowning and stabing me in the chest!:fire:

armoredman
April 13, 2006, 02:29 PM
If Hillary wins 2008, and the Dems take both the House and the Senate, prepare for UN Peacekeepers to be deployed along the US/Mexico border, in preparation for the UN plebescite on Aztlan, and how much reparations the US Treasury will fork over to Presidente Vincente Fox for our daring to win the Mexican-American War. UN Peacekeepers will have power over all state, local, and federal agencies, and foreign troops will conduct house to house raids for weapons, communications gear, explosives, and other "subversive" materials, especially in the "disputed zone". Fuel stocks, foodstuffs, and all other "materials of war" will be confiscated according to pre existing Executive Orders just awaiting the Hildebeast's signature.
When Aztlan is formed, Billary will request to be appointed UN governor for life over the diminished USA, voiding the entire US Constitution at once, and establishing herself as top dog in the reformed Socialist States of East America, in her grand scheme. The US will diminish, crumble, and vanish into the dustbin of history, labled, "Great idea, killed from within."
Pardon me, my tinfoil hat got REALLY tight - did I cover everything currently bandied about? Now I have to worry about fed.gov placing my name on a watch list for exercising my 1st Amendment rights...tinfoiling or not.

Sindawe
April 13, 2006, 02:33 PM
Don't forget all the taxes on gas, property, clothes, etc. It's alot hight than 30% A few years back, I decided to tally up ALL the taxes paid in one year, to ALL governments. The bite was 56% of my earnings.

I'm a sharecropper in my own freaking life. :cuss:

Cuda
April 13, 2006, 02:37 PM
at this point having the rep's smiling and stabing me in the back makes me no happier than the dem's frowning and stabing me in the chest

Can't agree more.. That's why we need to make a strong point of voting even if it is a third party.. We may not win this time but the reps & dems will get the message and so will those who stay home. If they see a ground swell for their 3rd party that might get them to go and vote.. Maybe I live in a fantasy land but we can't give up.

C

longeyes
April 13, 2006, 02:54 PM
t depends on who the next President is, too. Russ Feingold, for one, voted against the AWB renewal.

Russ of McCain-Feingold? Yes, I REALLY want him in the White House. :(

NineseveN
April 13, 2006, 03:03 PM
Tar and feathers. That about sums up my opinion on the matter.

SomeKid
April 13, 2006, 03:27 PM
led by Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis of California and his 13 subcommittee chairmen known as "cardinals."

Who are the 13?

When President Bush recently asked Congress to pass a modified line-item veto, among the first to complain was Mr. Lewis.

Thats a good thing. The line-item-veto is bad, and Bush needs checked occaisionally.

Maned,

*Snort* Has he brought forth legislation to help us, or is he simply saying 'Please, forgive me, I won't attack you guys any more...until I can get away with it?' Don't be so quick to trust.

armored,

If such a scenario comes true, we might actually see another revolution, and a good chance to get our freedom back.

xd9fan
April 13, 2006, 03:30 PM
I still shake my head at the complete collapse of the Republician Revolution of 1994. With it the complete collapse of the Conservative movement within that party. Amazing. The "Leaders" in the party seem deaf.

I agree with Reno and the last line of the above article. I want a fight for freedom not this slow death by a thousand cuts which the current Pro Govt party seems to think is a winning strategy.

I wonder how many more guys like me in the last 2 years got sober and left the GOP???? HMMMM

outofbattery
April 13, 2006, 03:48 PM
I am no longer a registered Republican.They forgot why they got elected;it's time for them to take a time out and either rediscover limited government and fiscal responsibility or allow a 3rd party to replace them as an alternative to the Democrats.next Presidential vote.

pcf
April 13, 2006, 03:55 PM
If you have masochistic tendencies, click on the link and watch the deficit grow.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Between City, County, State, and Federal taxes, most people get taxed between 50% and 80%.

Income Taxes
Property Taxes
Excise Taxes
Sales Taxes
Investment Taxes
Inheritance Taxes
ETC, ETC, ETC

RealGun
April 13, 2006, 03:58 PM
1) This thread is off topic

2) You won't have any friends in the legislature unless you vote for them.

Herself
April 13, 2006, 04:03 PM
[redacted by user]

NineseveN
April 13, 2006, 04:09 PM
Tar and feathers? It seems a bit much on one hand, and hardly enough on the other. It's expensive, too. Can we just try voting out all the incumbents, first?


That's not nearly as much fun though. :D

PlayboyPenguin
April 13, 2006, 04:16 PM
Well, we will all just have to wait and see what happens. I know I wish I had some third party candidates to vote for because i cannot vote for the current republican regime. As for the president suporting these limits...do you really believe that? C'mon...if he was really behind limits and reducing his own power he would be doing alot more than the occasional lip service on CNN.

MICHAEL T
April 13, 2006, 04:18 PM
After nearly 40 years Ive left the party Bush and his merry band of spend and spend Has been enough for me. :barf:

cbsbyte
April 13, 2006, 04:24 PM
The Republicans have already lost the Senate, they are now working on losing the House. Personally, I am not sorry to see them become the minority party in both chambers. At least they then will realize that Americans are not stuiped or as conservative as they though they where. They have over extended their stay, in power and are now corrupt. It would be best to have the Dems retake control to right many of the wrongs the Republicans have done over the last decade. I believe the Dems for the most part will not try to alienate gun owners at least not at first. Maybe they will come around nationaly on their gun control platform and be more moderate. If not then we will have to fight hard for out rights, we have become to complaciant in recent years. I believe most Americans are looking for a change in their Goverment and the only way to do that is to have the Dems back in power. I am not a supporter of any Third parties, and I have serious issues with the Libertarian, Green and Consitution party platforms. None the less a vote for a third party is a vote against the Republicans and a stand for change. Let your vote be counted.

ElTacoGrande
April 13, 2006, 04:38 PM
The Repubs really have done everything they could do to anger their old core, which is the "small government, small budget, small taxes, small debt" Republican core, to which I would belong if it still had any say in today's Republican party.

bumm
April 13, 2006, 06:25 PM
cbsbyte was saying
>I believe the Dems for the most part will not try
> to alienate gun owners at least not at first.
> Maybe they will come around nationaly on their
> gun control platform and be more moderate.

Are you KIDDING?
Marty

NineseveN
April 13, 2006, 06:36 PM
Well bumm, considering the shape the Repubs have taken over the last 5-10 years, it's not impossible to imagine the Democrats shifting positions as they feel like it. It's a dog and pony show, that's all it's become.

Manedwolf
April 13, 2006, 06:51 PM
this is where my vote is going
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Are you kidding?! They'd ABOLISH church-state separation. Look at their candidate they ran from 2004...from his own website! http://www.peroutka2004.com/

1. There is an Almighty, Everlasting, Omniscient, God -- the God of the Bible -- Who is active in the affairs of men.
2. Our rights, including our right to life, liberty and property come from Him.
3. It is the purpose of government to secure, protect and defend these God-given rights.

This is the "American View." This is what an American believes. Adherence to this belief is what essentially makes one American.

America has departed from this view of law and liberty and government and has adopted another view. This other view is, literally, anti-American. Whether you describe this other view as socialist, secular humanist, communist or whatever, it is essentially a pagan view.
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Sorry...I'm an American, damned patriotic, love my country, and happen to NOT believe that, thanks! And I'm not about to have it rammed down my throat by ReligioPolice!

Returning to the 17th century Puritan colonies is NOT the answer to our problems.
Thomas Jefferson would explode if he read that. He was in favor of a secular goverment and freedom to worship as you please. Period.

ElTacoGrande
April 13, 2006, 06:57 PM
I agree. No way can I vote for the Constitution policy. I'm not Christian and don't want my tax dollars supporting Christian churches, or any other type of religious activity. I don't know how they can read the 1st amend and say that it allows government involvement in religion.

But I'm all in favor of 3rd parties. We need to show the 2 big parties that we're not eating what they're cooking.

Turkey Creek
April 13, 2006, 07:02 PM
Isn't it interesting that historically whichever party is in power, they somehow manage to find enough rope to hang themselves with- Then they sit back for a few years and watch the other party do the same thing- I've come to the conclusion that power has no memory, creats the illusion that it will perpetuate itself ad infinitem, lowers already low IQ's into the imbiclie range, feeds itself with greed, and produces a shocked response of "what happened" when it is taken away- This reason for rotation of power every few years should not come as a surprise because it's so repeatable :scrutiny:

xd9fan
April 13, 2006, 09:28 PM
I'm a practising Catholic. The constitutional party would be a recipe for chaos. I dont want more religion in Govt. I want LESS Govt!!!!!!

Standing Wolf
April 13, 2006, 09:46 PM
There's no difference between the Republican party and the "Democratic" party: they're both bloated parasites. Even the rhetoric doesn't differ any more.

beerslurpy
April 13, 2006, 09:47 PM
cbsbyte, youre wrong. This country is mostly conservative. Boston is about 5 standard deviations to the left of the country.

The conservatives are going to toss the republicans out of power, probably indirectly like they did in 92.

My only worry is that like in 92 the Dems will run someone "moderate" who is really a leftist again and we will be stuck with even worse spending than before.

The Dems dont realize that most of America is pissed off at the republicans on ideological grounds, not because of this "culture of corruption" nonsense. The exact same thing happened during the Bush Sr administration because he raised taxes and banned guns, causing conservatives to flee the party.

xd9fan
April 13, 2006, 10:09 PM
Beerslurpy you maybe are right with what will happen. An exception I would like to see is a huge rise in the 3rd party vote. But thats just me pulling for the hometeam.

RealGun
April 13, 2006, 10:24 PM
The only ones who should be taken seriously in complaining are the Republicans. No one else is credible, saying vile things no matter what.

PlayboyPenguin
April 13, 2006, 10:34 PM
cbsbyte, youre wrong. This country is mostly conservative.
Where did you get these numbers? The last census stated that the majority of people listed themselves as democrat and/or liberal.

xd9fan
April 13, 2006, 10:35 PM
:rolleyes:

CAnnoneer
April 14, 2006, 12:51 AM
The last census stated that the majority of people listed themselves as democrat and/or liberal.

I find that very hard to believe in view of the few most recent election results.

Strings
April 14, 2006, 02:29 AM
CAnnoneer: the difference is that between "population centers" and "geographical area". The "Red/Blue" maps you're thinking of (especially the one broken down by county) shows small blue "liberal" areas, while the rest is red "conservative". What you have to remember is, the difference in populatoin density between the two: those blue areas have MASSIVE numbers of people...

beerslurpy
April 14, 2006, 02:49 AM
Where did you get these numbers? The last census stated that the majority of people listed themselves as democrat and/or liberal.

I was living in CA in 2000, so I didnt fill out a census.

The proof that the country is mostly conservative:
-conservative talk radio is completely destroying liberal talk radio in terms of listenership
-fox news is beating CNN
-the liberal mainstream media outlets are diminishing in viewership
-the polls I have seen showed a 40-40-20 breakdown between right, center and left (self appraisal). People will fall in varying places depending on what questions you ask them.
-the legislature has gone conservative since 94, with only a slight interruption in the late 90s in the senate
-conservatives have prevented the election of Al Gore and John Kerry (though the lesser of two evils wasnt much less evil).

If you asked me certain questions, you would think I was a hippie Democrat. If you asked me other questions, you would think I was the most conservative Republican you had ever met. Most people have values that arent easily contained in either party.

Overall I think people want less taxes and less government intrusion in their lives, and generally dont want to interfere with the lives of other people. Most people have fairly conservative social views but dont necessarily want those views implemented as government policy. In any case, the Republicans are not delivering on conservative values, so it basically boils down to how extreme a leftist the Dems can find to get Republicans to show up at the polls.

PlayboyPenguin
April 14, 2006, 03:18 AM
What you want to believe does little to change the facts. The last census clearly asked political affiliation and the majority answered democrat. Also the majority said they identified themselves more liberal than conservative. You have to remember that the majority of the middle class also does not vote at all due to not having the time or the means. That is why voting should be by mail like it is here in Oregon.

PS- As for talk radio. I saw a report not too long ago that showed in EVERY major market where Al Franken or Ed Shultz were on opposite Rush or O'reilly they beat them hands down in the ratings. Rush and other just have more markets currently.

Clean97GTI
April 14, 2006, 03:28 AM
Hunter Rose, the maps you are thinking of are located here.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

The size distorted maps are quite telling.

Also, our Democrats aren't nearly as liberal as some of the liberal types in Europe. We've actually got it a bit better over here.

beerslurpy
April 14, 2006, 03:36 AM
HAHAHAHAHAH please. Al Franken is only on in a few ultra-liberal markets because no one else tunes in. The top 90 percent of talk radio is conservatives.

Don't Tread On Me
April 14, 2006, 04:00 AM
You guys will regret not keeping the GOP in control. You will rue the day.

Strictly from a 2A perspective, we've had ZERO anti-gun bills pass while the GOP has been in control.

Go ahead and stay home, or vote for a joke of a party like constitution or libertarian which is the equivalent of electing rabid gun-hating leftists in the Democratic party.

You won't be laughing and cheering the defeat of the GOP when the Dems pass a .50BMG ban, or a new PERMANENT AWB. Or find some way to restrict our RKBA. FFL's won't be laughing when the BATFE will have an administration demanding they crack down harder. You won't be happy when the next Democrat president signs an EO to ban the import of "assault rifle ammo" and you guys are stuck with paying $20 a box Winchester x39...

That's what we're looking at. I don't know what you people are doing, but I'm buying as many highcap mags and EBR's (evil black rifles) as possible.

Clean97GTI
April 14, 2006, 04:22 AM
Unfortunately, we don't vote a single issue and we have had things like the PATRIOT act pass as well as domestic spying (read: violation of the 4th Amendment) and some of the worst deficit spending in a long time. Don't forget the president lying to the public and starting a war that we didn't need to start just now. Lets not forget totally ignoring the people who are demanding action on the immigration problem.

Yes, vote for the Republicans just to keep the Democrats out of power.
Great plan. :rolleyes:

Don't Tread On Me
April 14, 2006, 08:22 AM
Whatever. I used to think like you, but I don't after considering so many things. I respect your opinion though.

You don't have a right to free speech, you don't have privacy, you don't have squat. You barely have a right to bear arms. But at least you've got that.

And that's the one that counts.

I'm not telling you how to vote. I'm just saying many on here will seriously regret punishing the GOP. If the Democrats take over the Congress, expect an AWB to come up and lame duck Bush might even sign it. If anyone here wants to see a nasty new gun control bill, go ahead and put the DNC back in charge.

Maybe some of you don't care since you have State-level AWBs...

Wow, deficit spending ..who cares. Vote libertarian, green, constitution, R, D, you name it - it ain't going to change. I'll bet my bottom dollar that's not going to change short of a massive revolution, but that won't matter because the problem is mostly a government/establishment problem, but they've been working on it so long (with government run education and media) that generations of Americans have been brought up to accept it and even support it. So your libertarian beliefs (that I share) are in complete and total conflict with what the vast majority of Americans believe. We hold the philosophy of the founders, but the founders philosophy is now radicalism. It is the extreme minority radical positions. Marginalized and ridiculed by the mainstream.

Patriot Act?...like anything's really changed with that. They've had the same powers before, now it's just in writing. Remember how they treated Randy Weaver? Yeah, that's the kind of thugs that run the show. The kind of thugs that are eager to confiscate gold teeth. Unless you have your own satellite and production studio, you don't have freedom of speech. The government took over speech when they created decency codes and made the FCC. The internet is the last arena of free speech,but being that every whacko on Earth is on here, reason is drowned out in a sea of stupidity.

These issues are nothing more than red herring distractions. It is just ammo for critics to attack whomever is in power. But the reality is, they all agree on it. They create an illusion of dissent, when in reality there is no avenue for reform.


My personal stance is that there isn't much to fight for. Income taxes? That's never going to change. Unjust wars? Not going to change. It is the nature of our society. We can't beat it out of people unless there is a pro-libertarian junta...fantasy stuff.


I came to the realization that our Rights were long gone before most of us were even born. I was born in an America where Rights are dead, but still in practice only as priviledges.

I can still buy a gun though, even an evil black one with a big magazine...so I'll work on keeping that. It might actually prove useful someday unlike my other bogus "rights"...


Only a gun can win back the other rights because all rights were won by the barrel of a gun.

Lobotomy Boy
April 14, 2006, 08:34 AM
You won't be laughing and cheering the defeat of the GOP...

I for one won't be laughing or cheering. I'm afraid you are correct about the sort of anti-gun moonbats the Democrats will put forward this fall and in 2008. I would be happy to be proven wrong, to see the Democrats put forward decent candidates, but in the 14 election cycles in which I have voted, I have seen nothing to indicate that will be the case.

At the same time the current Republican leadership has devolved to a point where I can no longer support them in good conscience regardless of how bad the Democrats are. It's to the point where I can no longer support them and sleep at night.

Kodiaz
April 14, 2006, 09:28 AM
Someone else beat me to it. The only rights we have are the ones we are willing to fight for.

Over in tactics they talk alot about mindset about knowing what you will do ahead of time. So what will you do when they knock on the door. "Hello law X has been passed we are here for you weapons"

So either way you vote you think about that knock on the door. Ask yourself what your going to do. I know many of you have homes and families and you don't have the luxury of principles.

But some of you are old and once you ran up the beaches and into the jungles. You will probably have the chance once more to secure your grandchildren's freedom.

Some of us are like me single guys. No kids and no home for whatever reason. We have nothing to lose.

I'm the first person in my family born free. I don't know what your oldtimer's talked about when you were a kid. But mine talked having their homes taken from them to be used as an embassy. They talked about 1 of my uncle who's car was taken and turned into a technical (57 chevy with a machine gun on it). They talked about leaving their homes and their country. I never knew why my grandfathers didn't stay and fight. So I started looking into Cuban history they left their homes and country because they had no guns.


When the knock on my door comes I know what I will do. When we fought in WW2 at the end we could fight a battle and have 100 of our tanks damaged while only taking 10 of theirs. It would be considered a victory because we could produce tanks much faster than the Germans.

The Feinsteins Schumers and Kennedys of the world will not be going door to door to collect weapons after all the JBT's have been dissuaded from seizing weapons. The urban leftists won't fight for anything and they have no guns and no skill in the use of arms.


There are 85 million of us. If today right now they came for our guns and we each got one before we were killed. Tomorrow there would 82 million gunowners and no gun grabbers at all. Feinstein isn't going to knock on doors. Laws without enforcment mean nothing.

HankB
April 14, 2006, 09:34 AM
The last census clearly asked political affiliation and the majority answered democrat.??? Last census, I got the long form. I didn't answer any questions beyond the one asking how many people lived in my home - they got no poltical/economic/social answers from me.

And I understand a LOT of people did the same.

emc
April 14, 2006, 10:33 AM
Getting back to the original post, and the WSJ editorial, what really irks me is that there is no mention of the other things that true conservatives are fed up with. How about the following?

1. No use of the veto on absolutely terrible legislation. McCain-Feingold, anyone? (For starters.....)

2. How about Harriet Myers?

3. Calling the Minutemen vigilantes, and commending illegal aliens for doing the work that "Americans won't do."

4. Not protecting our borders and enforcing that law. It is totally corrosive to citizen morale to see the government deliberately not implementing security, yet forcing us to continue to pay for this garbage. We are called names when we attempt to do the job that the Feds won't, yet heaven forbid that we not pay our taxes.

Anyhow, enough on that for now....

FWIW,

emc

bowfin
April 14, 2006, 10:52 AM
/*PS- As for talk radio. I saw a report not too long ago that showed in EVERY major market where Al Franken or Ed Shultz were on opposite Rush or O'reilly they beat them hands down in the ratings. Rush and other just have more markets currently*/

If Al Franken can beat Rush Limbaugh so handily, why wouldn't stations competing against his show be snapping him up?

The lesson you should have taken home from the report you read is that Al Franken can't even get on the air in hundreds of markets around the country, not that he is more popular in Greenwich Village.

bowfin
April 14, 2006, 11:16 AM
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is a big disappointment to Conservative Nebraskans, he has to run for president in 2008 because he has no future left in his own state.

Our Overwhelmingly Republican and supposedly conservative state legislature just overrode a veto so illegal aliens can pay resident tuition at our university system.

I would rather have Hillary in the White House for four years to show the current Republican party that they "just don't get it", than keep those Republicans in power and have them mistakenly believe that their current performance is acceptable. Sort of like benching your team's superstar for a second string guy to let him no that less than acceptable performance is really not acceptable.

As for what mischief Hillary could do while in office, everything in politics is reversible, although it is infinitely harder to reverse than prevent bad laws.

cracked butt
April 14, 2006, 12:09 PM
t depends on who the next President is, too. Russ Feingold, for one, voted against the AWB renewal. And here's something from a site about him:

Quote:
"He fully supports 2nd Amendment rights, despite prior votes to limit assault weapons. Feels Democrats are taking the wrong approach regarding gun issue, but opposed the recent exemption from lawsuit protection. Since the earlier votes regarding assault weapons, he has become more educated about the issue and realizes that many of the Democrats have made mistakes in labeling guns that are used for hunting as assault weapons. He strongly feels that the Constitution defines gun ownership as an individual right and should not be infringed."

He's a 2A supporter! So he might not be bad at all.

Feingold is no friend of the 2A. He's has no more integrity than Bill Clinton who wets his finger to figure out which way the political wind is blowing. He has voted for several things in opposition to his party, but only when the issue was going to win or lose by an overwhelming majority anyhow.

one-shot-one
April 14, 2006, 02:41 PM
cbsbyte:if you really want the dems. back you do NOT want to rile up the conservitives into voting, once again for the lesser of two evils!:neener:

Manedwolf:"Sorry...I'm an American, damned patriotic, love my country, and happen to NOT believe that, thanks!"

oh well guess we won't count on your vote. i happen to be a christian, and not the tv evangalist type either. i go to a great church with a good preacher and some great men who hunt, fish and shoot. i unlike you donot find the need to separate my spritual life from my political life and would welcome some "Returning to the 17th century Puritan colonies".:)

i too am sorry but the only other party even in the hunt is libertarian and their drug views and border view just make me :banghead:

NineseveN
April 14, 2006, 03:08 PM
oh well guess we won't count on your vote. i happen to be a christian, and not the tv evangalist type either. i go to a great church with a good preacher and some great men who hunt, fish and shoot. i unlike you donot find the need to separate my spritual life from my political life and would welcome some "Returning to the 17th century Puritan colonies".

Then move to a country without the First Amendment and the notion of separation of church and state. See? Simple enough, no?

RealGun
April 14, 2006, 05:36 PM
what really irks me is that there is no mention of the other things that true conservatives are fed up with. How about the following?

1. No use of the veto on absolutely terrible legislation. McCain-Feingold, anyone? (For starters.....)

2. How about Harriet Myers?

3. Calling the Minutemen vigilantes, and commending illegal aliens for doing the work that "Americans won't do."

4. Not protecting our borders and enforcing that law.

1. Non-issue. Without a line item veto, A GOP president is not going to veto bills from a GOP majority Congress unless he wants to give up his remaining legislative agenda. It's about maintaining relationships. I blame Congress more than the President. It is academic if the Congress is likely to override a veto. The President is not the chief guardian of the Constitution. That is the job of the Supreme Court. They don't do it particularly well either, and they aren't running for office.

2. Harriet Myers was okay, but she scared the bejeebers out of the anti- abortionists. Bush can nominate who he wants, letting the Senate make it an issue of who they will or will not confirm. Note that they don't actually like ANY nominee.

3. Bush rightfully expressed a concern that informal patrol of the borders would amount to a band of vigilantes. It was a fair comment.

4. This is not actually true. Many additional agents have been added, something like 300-400. All that at a time when the fedgov is doing everything possibe to reduce the number of federal employees. This has been explained repeatedly by Bush and Chertoff. Expect that the numbers will be conservative, if a real solution would be thousands of agents swarming every of many hundreds of miles of the borders. No practical number is actually big enough for truly secure borders.

Be careful what you wish for, because a comprehensive border patrol and detainment program would require a significant tax increase. Disincentives for coming here are much cheaper. To me, the key piece of it all is the proof of legal status card and demanding that all persons within US borders be required to present it in many circumstances.

Clean97GTI
April 14, 2006, 05:50 PM
so, one-shot-one, will you be voting for the Constitution Party candidate next time around?

or will you take the time to realize that its OK for you to talk about your religious beliefs in politics as long as you keep it out of the government.

30Cal
April 14, 2006, 06:24 PM
I made up my mind to jump ship a couple months ago. The complete lack of fiscal accountability is just disgusting.

xd9fan
April 14, 2006, 10:47 PM
Dont tread on me, As long as there are voters like you that will still reward this joke of a party with another of your votes.......change will NEVER happen. Period. I'm not into the appeasement game.

You talk like a union member. The company could be sinking like the titanic but by God never change your course.

Political slavery by any other name.......

People still want to be free and to be inspired. Your way will not get us there. No offense.....

longeyes
April 14, 2006, 11:09 PM
There is no future for this Republic with either current political party. Our most realistic chance for preserving essential liberties is a reconstituted and probably smaller nation. Yes, I mean secession and the re-formation of the Republic. We can have a better America with half our present population, roughly about what we had at the beginning of WW II. Consider secession far-fetched? Not as far-fetched as believing that anything resembling the America of the Founding Fathers is going to survive another 25 years if present trends continue.

RealGun
April 15, 2006, 12:45 AM
I made up my mind to jump ship a couple months ago. - 30Cal

You didn't say to what panacea and how it will fulfill your dreams.

Hook686
April 15, 2006, 12:49 AM
Yesterday, 11:48 AM #17
outofbattery

wrote:


Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 468 I am no longer a registered Republican.They forgot why they got elected;it's time for them to take a time out and either rediscover limited government and fiscal responsibility or allow a 3rd party to replace them as an alternative to the Democrats.next Presidential vote.



hmmmm You don't suppose some of them spoke words they thought some of us wanted to hear, not realizing that what we were hearing is really not what they ment ?


Do you suppose ? Might explain why the 1994 failed, as the current agenda, which seems to also be failing ... "Words don't mean, people mean." .... might explain part of it. Personal agendas can be a real back breaker.

GoRon
April 15, 2006, 01:23 AM
You guys are right! We have to do everything we can to get the Republicans out of the White House. We want the Democrats to make the court appointments, that will help the cause of freedom!!:scrutiny:

xd9fan
April 15, 2006, 03:56 AM
Off topic but,

So this is the only reason to vote for this pathetic GOP....court appointments??

If Congress contained a party with balls it would start checking the Courts. Instead Congress is weak and as a result the courts have limited, unchecked powers. Both the D's and the R's created this problem.

CAnnoneer
April 15, 2006, 04:14 AM
The train is steaming towards the precipice of a broken bridge to the future. Many of you guys essentially say "Jump off? At this speed? Are you crazy?" Keep pulling the brake handle. The cord has long been cut.

woerm
April 15, 2006, 12:19 PM
Dont' Tread:
You guys will regret not keeping the GOP in control. You will rue the day.

Strictly from a 2A perspective, we've had ZERO anti-gun bills pass while the GOP has been in control.

wrongo,

the reptiles passed and Geo the Duce signed the extension of the plastic weapons ban, which prohibits developement of non metalic weapons under fedreal penalties.

despite a 30 yr RFP that DOD has open for polymer weapons.

don't you believe the GOP bs about protecting 2nd ammnedment rights they cave a roll over for gun grabbers anytime. anywhere and for zero reasons.

don't think I didn't gripe at my misreptiles over that bs, I hollerd all day and it passed both the house and senate by 'consent' votes.

please note they won't find 'consent' votes to ditch gun control.

lying turds.:cuss:

r

telomerase
April 15, 2006, 12:25 PM
This weekend the government is screwing me out of 30% of my pay

Only if you forget about all the other taxes, including the "counterfeiting tax" that sucks value out of your dollar whether you fill out income tax forms or not. If you work, you're probably losing 60% of your income to taxes.

Happy April 15th, everybody!

telomerase
April 15, 2006, 12:32 PM
>Strictly from a 2A perspective, we've had ZERO anti-gun bills pass while the GOP has been in control.

That's total BS; most of our "laws" don't come from Congress anyway, they come out of the Republican executive branch. One of the first things the Bush Administration did was to officially disarm the airline pilots, the July before 9-11. Even after 9-11, only about 50 pilots are allowed to carry, under convoluted rules that make them leave the gun when they go to the toilet.

Of course Democrats would be no better, but for the millions of free-enterprise supporters in this country to waste their money on the national Republican party is just brain-dead. Find a local candidate you can trust, OK; but sending money to Halliburton/Bush is nonsense.

Don't you feel naked enough in the airport yet?

RealGun
April 15, 2006, 12:34 PM
Strictly from a 2A perspective, we've had ZERO anti-gun bills pass while the GOP has been in control. - Don'tTreadOnMe

Trigger locks will ultimately prove to be anti-gun for those who don't get it. It was a totally unnecessary amendment that could have been prevented.

seeker_two
April 15, 2006, 01:00 PM
oh well guess we won't count on your vote. i happen to be a christian, and not the tv evangalist type either. i go to a great church with a good preacher and some great men who hunt, fish and shoot. i unlike you donot find the need to separate my spritual life from my political life and would welcome some "Returning to the 17th century Puritan colonies".

+1 from a fellow Christian CP-er... :cool:

Read the Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founding Fathers. Their own words show how important faith, morality, and their personal religions were to the foundation and governance of this nation. And history shows how things started going downhill when government took on a secular, humanistic focus--pushing out religion of ANY form.

Government without morality is doomed to failure...or did the last 16 years not show that well enough?

As for the rest, see my sig....

Otherguy Overby
April 15, 2006, 01:14 PM
beerslurpy

The proof that the country is mostly conservative:
-conservative talk radio is completely destroying liberal talk radio in terms of listenership
-fox news is beating CNN
-the liberal mainstream media outlets are diminishing in viewership
-the polls I have seen showed a 40-40-20 breakdown between right, center and left (self appraisal). People will fall in varying places depending on what questions you ask them.
-the legislature has gone conservative since 94, with only a slight interruption in the late 90s in the senate
-conservatives have prevented the election of Al Gore and John Kerry (though the lesser of two evils wasnt much less evil).

_______________

Let's start from the left...:evil:

20% hard core Marxists.

40% Bleeding heart liberals

and finally on the right

40% who mostly can't say no or make a tough decision.

Freedom has finally been reduced to your freedom to be a victim.

Lobotomy Boy
April 15, 2006, 01:38 PM
We have to do everything we can to get the Republicans out of the White House.

No one has to lift a finger. The Republicans are doing a fine job of this all by themselves.

longeyes
April 15, 2006, 02:03 PM
When you have a gangrenous leg you can keep dancing until you die or you can amputate.

one-shot-one
April 17, 2006, 08:57 AM
NineseveN: sorry but the first admend. works for me just like you and the separation of church and state was intended to keep the "state" from messing with the church not the other way around, sorry not so simple huh?

Clean97GTI:sorry but a real christian cannot/should not compartmentalize their life like that.

both these comments and the ones i made just go to show how fractured this country is, most of us here can agree on gun issues sometimes but if you vote on more than one issue we are just as partitioned as eveyone else!

oh by the way before ya'll try to lable me, i'm not a christian conservitive, i think i'm really a facist, because i really don't think anyone but me has it right:neener: .

p.s. thanks seeker_two for the support:) .

Don't Tread On Me
April 17, 2006, 10:43 AM
Trigger locks will ultimately prove to be anti-gun for those who don't get it. It was a totally unnecessary amendment that could have been prevented.

The trigger lock amendment was in no way anti-gun as the amendment did not require their use. You're arguing that the trigger lock amendment will eventually lead to their use being mandated. This is possible. It can be viewed as gateway legislation.

But what was passed under the GOP Congress and Bush was NOT anti-gun in and of itself. Virtually all handguns sold today are sold with a lock regardless of the law.

If that is the best gripe a person can come up with against Bush and the GOP Congress, then I consider that pretty good.

the reptiles passed and Geo the Duce signed the extension of the plastic weapons ban, which prohibits developement of non metalic weapons under fedreal penalties.

Oh my! No plastic guns for you and I. We should have ousted Bush and Co. in 2004 over that and had John Kerry in power instead. He'd be so much better for our greater RKBA! I mean, if Kerry or Gore were in, they'd let the plastic gun ban expire :rolleyes:

That's total BS; most of our "laws" don't come from Congress anyway, they come out of the Republican executive branch. One of the first things the Bush Administration did was to officially disarm the airline pilots, the July before 9-11. Even after 9-11, only about 50 pilots are allowed to carry, under convoluted rules that make them leave the gun when they go to the toilet.

Well, for starters, can you provide a citation for that?

The reality is, even after the Congressional armed pilots legislation passed, the FAA and Executive branch have worked really hard to suppress and deny the armed pilot program. Even today it is a joke.

I don't agree with that action, but to wield that as a battle cry against Bush or the GOP as being anti-gun is a stretch. It's like complaining about Bush restricting Cop Carry (LE national concealed carry). Doesn't really make a difference to us.


Guys, do we really need to discuss what Gore or Kerry would have done? Do we really need to discuss what a Democratic congress would have done? These complaints against the GOP or Bush are, no offense, extremist in my opinion. You guys are being extremists. Look, I am a 2nd Amendment purist. I would like to see ZERO restrictions or regulations on firearms. However, I cannot be so idealistic that I demand to apply this "view" of the Right to our current political climate. It's a pipe dream. Instead, one needs to be more of a pragmatist, and work in incremental steps towards that idealistic goal. Just like the anti-gunners have been incrementalists, so should we - until we can have a cultural impact (hearts and minds). Then we can go for the jugular.

If you maintain such a "picky" attitude towards our political allies, you will get absolutely no where with the RKBA. Instead, it will be threatened even more.

TallPine
April 17, 2006, 12:15 PM
I came to the realization that our Rights were long gone before most of us were even born. I was born in an America where Rights are dead, but still in practice only as priviledges.

1865, to be exact :(

PCGS65
April 17, 2006, 12:17 PM
The democrats may win control of the house and senate in the fall. Then for the next 4 years the people will again remember why they voted them out the last time. Then vote the republicans in again. Then the people will forget why once again and the cycle will start over again.
Just how it is.:)

RealGun
April 17, 2006, 12:24 PM
If you maintain such a "picky" attitude towards our political allies, you will get absolutely no where with the RKBA. Don'tTreadOnMe

In general, I agree, but you seem to be on the apologist side of being objective. I inferred that you would almost be lying down and accepting any fate that comes your way.

Frist deserves no credit. GOA told him what procedure to use.


This is going to become a thread diversion, but you're just not understanding the implications of that trigger lock law, and it should not be dismissed as benign. Why do you suppose they thought it was a good idea? Trigger locks had little to do with adding locks to guns, if gun makers were already largely compliant. It made gun owners liable for not using them, ultimately robbing them of liability insurance if they don't. Eventually failure to use a trigger lock will become a crime. Just follow the seat belt law model and you'll see where we're headed. All they need is a couple relevant incidents and bam!, it's a crime.

The first step was to require manufacturers to provide trigger locks and paperwork that verified a lock was provided when the gun was purchased. Then you can never say you didn't have a lock and it would be known which registered guns were associated with trigger locks. They gotcha. If the gun is stolen, used in a crime, and traced to you, you are civilly liable. Someday it will be criminally liable.

They can also at some point decide there is a critical mass of existing guns with trigger locks and then require ALL guns to have them as aftermarket retrofits, universal designs, etc.

Don't Tread On Me
April 17, 2006, 01:34 PM
I'm not being an apologist. I just do not see why or how people are being hostile to the Republicans based on RKBA issues. They have no argument. This assumes you take the entire issue of guncontrol from 1968 to present into context. If you do that, and look at the big picture, Republican control of the Congress and a Republican President lately has been a GOOD THING for us. People need to be reasonable.


As for the gunlocks thing. I agree with you as I did in my last post. It is a stepping stone, gateway legislation towards criminalizing not using them. Doesn't mean it will happen. We have to watch out for that down the road. As of right now, it isn't a bad thing. No need to be an alarmists over that particular issue.


As for the GOA. They, like many on this forum, are overly idealistic. GOA can't "tell" Frist how or what to do. I find GOA to be a good organization. They serve as a watch-dog organization over the NRA. They are the second opinion to the NRA on RKBA issues. However, they are powerless. The best they can do is complain, criticize, and offer opinions or alternatives. They are not the muscle in Washinton. The NRA is.


Frist did do fine for us. He isn't a RKBA champion, that's true, he's not. But he did his best to try and be like Delay and hammer that law through with the least amount of BS attached to it. The Senate works on compromises, you cannot strong arm everything like the GOA would like you to believe, because someday you will be the minority, and they will strong arm a ban down your throat.

Again, no apologies, just a fair assessment of the situation.


As the pro-gun movement that we are, we have NO legitimate grievances with the Republican party. No justification to be hostile towards them or to turn our backs on them on the issue of gun rights. They've done all we can expect a mainstream, national party to do in this currently disadvantageous American political climate -- not pass any anti-gun laws.

RealGun
April 17, 2006, 02:25 PM
They've done all we can expect a mainstream, national party to do in this currently disadvantageous American political climate -- not pass any anti-gun laws.

Says you, even after admitting there could be future implications. The Trojan Horse is already in the compound.

My understanding is that Frist's fill-the-tree strategy came from GOA. If some of those amendments had gone to a vote, some Republicans could have voted for them. And I say that as a staunch Republican supporter. I simply don't try to evade facts.

The parties are pretty clear on what they are against, mostly each other's intitiatives, but they are not in lock step when it comes to what they favor. You have to count on party leadership to keep some of those votes off the floor. Frist's leadership in that regard is pretty shaky certainly unimpressive. He was the one that chaired the GOP platform committee, which dropped any mention of support for gun owners. It was more like an evangelist's meeting than anything else.

I do agree that the GOP is the best choice, but let's drop the nonsense and acknowledge a few facts here and there. We have work to do.

xd9fan
April 17, 2006, 02:37 PM
Its amazing how no new gun laws are considered a major victory and the reason why the GOP should be kept in.

How about getting rid of the BAFT....how about getting rid of 1968 laws and the all regulations. Then maybe I'll do a jig.

Clean97GTI
April 17, 2006, 03:52 PM
I just do not see why or how people are being hostile to the Republicans based on RKBA issues. They have no argument. This assumes you take the entire issue of guncontrol from 1968 to present into context. If you do that, and look at the big picture, Republican control of the Congress and a Republican President lately has been a GOOD THING for us. People need to be reasonable.

How has it been a good thing? Last I checked, the only gun law we've actually gotten rid of was the AWB. Everything is as it has been. Nothing has actually changed. I wouldn't call that a good thing. Its neutral at best.
What has happened is the Republicans have compromised our right into a privilege. You now need permission in most states to conceal a weapon. You have to pay the government for permission for this privilege.

I would love to hear an explanation on why the right to keep and bear arms requires a permit issued at the expense of the bearer. I'd then love to hear why thats a good thing.

GoRon
April 17, 2006, 07:27 PM
Last I checked, the only gun law we've actually gotten rid of was the AWB. Everything is as it has been. Nothing has actually changed. I wouldn't call that a good thing. Its neutral at best.

So you and the rest of the rocket scientist libertarians think the solution is to dilute the 2nd amendment vote between the libertarians and republicans. Letting an anti 2nd amendment gun grabber democrat get into office, brilliant strategy! No wonder the libertarians can't even get over 2% in the vote. Their strategy is to marginalize themselves and lose.
The country will go to hell that much faster but at least your conscience is clear:rolleyes: .

ballbeanking
April 17, 2006, 07:30 PM
can anyone tell me how to post my own thread ????

Clean97GTI
April 17, 2006, 07:37 PM
You're acting like the Republicans are pro-gun in the first place.
They are pro-election and pro-vote.

The republicans do not care about your gun rights which is why we've seen almost no improvement of gun laws (read: repeal/removal) on a national level.

The problem is that while you continue to vote for Republicans to save your rights for a little longer, you turn a blind eye to the same group destroying other rights. When did it become OK to ignore the 4th amendment? Bush certainly did it by spying on the public. He admitted to it and nothing happened! :fire:
The PATRIOT act was forced in by republicans. The republican president lied to the people and sent us to war.

I guess thats OK as long as the lying, gun grabbing democrats don't get in power. Its all good because you still have permission to carry your gun. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

GoRon
April 17, 2006, 07:53 PM
Bush certainly did it by spying on the public. He admitted to it and nothing happened!
Nothing happened because he didn't break the law. With everyone and their brother doing anal exams on this administration nobody is getting away with anything.

The republican president lied to the people and sent us to war.

He didn't lie, read the Iraq War Resolution (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686). All the reasons for going to war are spelled out.

I guess thats OK as long as the lying, gun grabbing democrats don't get in power. Its all good because you still have permission to carry your gun. May your chains rest lightly upon you.
Today 05:30 PM
I live in a democrat controlled state (Illinois) and cannot carry a gun.

Clean97GTI
April 17, 2006, 08:48 PM
Nothing happened because he didn't break the law. With everyone and their brother doing anal exams on this administration nobody is getting away with anything.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121605Q.shtml
Spying on people without a warrant is a big no-no. People will be investigating this and with some NSA members refusing to participate, I don't think Bush is going to totally get away with it. He should be impeached if 4th amendment violations are discovered.


Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

And where exactly were these weapons?
UN inspectors never found them. US inspectors never found them. The weapons weren't there and Bush sent troops anyway.

So much for your right to keep and bear arms. Even in "red" Nevada, I need a permit to carry mine. If you have to ask permission, its not a right.

RealGun
April 17, 2006, 08:56 PM
The weapons weren't there and Bush sent troops anyway. - Clean97GTI

That statement is dishonest, misrepresenting the sequence of events.

Clean97GTI
April 17, 2006, 09:06 PM
I'm sorry, could you explain how its dishonest or incorrect?

UN inspectors went in and found nothing.

US troops went in and overthrew a sovreign nation.

US inspectors found nothing. Charles Duelfer (head of the Iraq Survey Group) said Saddam didn't have the weapons Bush said he did.


Inspectors did find some chemical and biological agents, but inspectors already knew about these. There was nothing new. I'm sorry, but either Bush acted on some piss poor advice and evidence, or he ignored evidence and went in for other reasons.

RealGun
April 17, 2006, 09:18 PM
I'm sorry, could you explain how its dishonest or incorrect?

We were already in Iraq when it became apparent that we were not going to find WMD. I watched the hearing when the Senate got the report. Saying that Bush knew all that going in is not fact. It is a conspiracy theory.

Clean97GTI
April 17, 2006, 09:34 PM
That is not true.

UN inspectors had already said they couldn't find these weapons at the time they left and American and British troops moved in.

US inspectors confirmed what UN inspectors had been saying. Dr. Hans Blix even stated that he believed Iraq had destroyed the required weapons in the summer of 1991. Others believed it came later, but the fact that these weapons weren't found and the US has since called off its search is great evidence that Saddam had actually complied.

Don't Tread On Me
April 17, 2006, 09:54 PM
How has it been a good thing? Last I checked, the only gun law we've actually gotten rid of was the AWB. Everything is as it has been. Nothing has actually changed. I wouldn't call that a good thing. Its neutral at best.

Its amazing how no new gun laws are considered a major victory and the reason why the GOP should be kept in.

How about getting rid of the BAFT....how about getting rid of 1968 laws and the all regulations. Then maybe I'll do a jig.

For starters, you guys are not understanding that it is a victory (in a sense) that no gun control has been passed. While I am not satisfied, I recognize that the alternative is an anti-gun government that will push us much further back. There is absolutely no argument against that. A vote for a 3rd party will weaken the Republican chances and unquestionably bring the Democratic Party into power. I wouldn't say this if the Libertarian party had a chance to win. It is a fact that they will not even get 3% of the vote. Don't kill the messenger.

The question then is, is a vote for a 3rd party a method by which we can "punish" the Republican Party into being more sympathetic to our cause? If you are of that school of thought, then the idea is one of reforming the current party/system.

If you believe that reforming the Republican party is futile, and that the best vehicle for reform is a 3rd party. More power to you, but that is an idealistic approach doomed to failure. This is my opinion, I'd love to be proved wrong and see our Rights restored.

Secondly, the abolition of the BATFE isn't going to happen anytime soon short of a revolution. If you want to get rid of the 1968 gun control bill, you can start by chipping away at all the various other restrictions and proving to mainstream America that these laws do not work, or that their repeal has led to no ill effects. Most of America believes that the current set of gun control laws are just fine. Some want more, and fewer want less.

I, like anyone else here, would LOVE to see that law just repealed in one shot. But that's not reality. That's not America right now. It's not how things work.

What has happened is the Republicans have compromised our right into a privilege. You now need permission in most states to conceal a weapon. You have to pay the government for permission for this privilege.

I would love to hear an explanation on why the right to keep and bear arms requires a permit issued at the expense of the bearer. I'd then love to hear why thats a good thing.


This is bogus. What you're suggesting is that they are part of the problem. If you recall your history, the ban of carrying firearms or concealed weapons occured in most places around the country long before you or I were even born. Long before. The vast majority of gun control has been the product of Democratic (leftwingers, progressives, socialists, big government lovers) governments throughout the 20th century. This is an institutionalized problem that isn't that easy to solve. Our citizens have been led away from believing in the RKBA via media propaganda bombardment and government-run education camps (public schools) for many, many decades. So we're fighitng a hearts and minds war.


Should the Republicans have demanded unregulated licenseless concealed carry? Sure. I'd love that. But they would have never won it. Remember, American's vote. And they vote for a lot of idiots that hate guns and the 2nd Amendment. Last time I checked, we still live in a democracy and people have a say in things.


Look at the difficulty in trying to pass carry laws in Kansas, Ohio and other states! Do you think having a hard-line, zero compromise, idealistic, demanding approach to concealed carry would result in any success? Keep dreaming. A lot of American voters have put and keep putting people in office that vote against LICENSED carry, what on God's green Earth makes you believe that a Republican demand of unregulated carry would change their vote?

To achieve carry at all, a lot of Democrats had to cross over the party line. Some did it based on reason, others needed compromises. The only thing you can say is that we should not have concealed carry at all, and just wait it out till we have such an overwhelming majority of 2nd Amendment purists in office that we can then get unregulated carry. :rolleyes:

Look, I hate licensed carry as much as you or anyone else. A Right is not a priviledge to where I need to pay for it or ask permission. This goes without saying and most THR folks agree on this. But the reality is that the alternative is no carry at all.

With no carry, it isn't very easy to make the argument that concealed carry is SAFE and effective at reducing crime is it? :confused:

That's the key. We need to change people's minds. Eventually as concealed carry spreads and becomes more and more acceptable, the general population will relax their hysteria and paranoia about guns..and that is how we achieve real reform. Not by demanding a totally unregulated 2nd Amendment from day one. Doing that is like a Jehovah's Witness knocking on the Vatican's door. No one's interested in what you've got to say. You want to be marginalized and laughed out of Washington D.C., advocate the repeal of the 34, 68, 86 or 89 bans.


The time is not right.

RealGun
April 17, 2006, 10:04 PM
It's no wonder people disagree on the war in Iraq. They have their facts wrong. Neither UN nor US inspectors had ever received real cooperation from Saddam. If he wanted to maintain the fear that the weapons were there, it was a good strategy. There was never any confirmation or loss of hope in finding WMD until well after troops were in country.

Clean97GTI
April 17, 2006, 10:25 PM
Maintaining the status quo of privileged carry and infringed rights is NOT a victory.
I'm not going to debate this with you DTOM. There is no middle ground with you as you already occupy it and are content there. Your consistent votes for maintaining a compromised position seal the deal.

RealGun, perhaps you can explain how Hussein wasn't cooperative with US inspectors when he was in hiding or later captured.
How about reports from UN inspectors that specifically said he didn't have the weapons Bush said he did. What about reports from the US inspectors that agree with UN findings?

I don't think you've actually checked up on this. A quick google search will give you a wealth of information on the subject.

Don't Tread On Me
April 17, 2006, 11:11 PM
FYI,

The anti-gunners do not go a 3rd party to seek a vehicle for the total and complete ban of firearms. They use the Democratic Party to do it. They use an incremental approach. They work the system. They use media and education (and propaganda).

Our system is like a tug o' war. We would have absolutely nothing today if it weren't for the NRA and Republicans blocking their extremist legislation. Do yourselves a favor and go to Thomas.loc.gov and research all the anti-gun bills that have been submitted. Quite frightening.

The same way we block them, they block us from repealing the the bans that have become accepted by mainstream America.


OH, I need to add. The libertarians are actually being quite anti-RKBA. The law we're trying to pass in Florida (keep firearms in your car while at work) is being undermined by the idiotic libertarian "scholars" who favor private property rights over the RKBA. The problem with that is, private property rights are a red herring. A totally unrelated, irrelevant, and unapplicable part of this particular debate. No private property rights are being threatened in any way, shape, or form.


These morons have undermined our efforts in Florida by creating a schizm among libertarian leaning gun owners and non-libertarian gun owners on this issue by using deceptive arguments.

Clean97GTI
April 17, 2006, 11:37 PM
Good thing that RKBA is the only right we have to defend.

Are your guns not property as well?


how about you post a link to what you're talking about.

cropcirclewalker
April 17, 2006, 11:53 PM
I don't have time to read all the republican apologist bufoonery that must be above my post.

Point is.........they had their chance and they blew it.

I suspect that this current strategery is a clever ploy to get us to feel sorry for them dumb sonsabitches that got snookered by the nasty evil democrats and that dumb is better than evil.

Sorry.

I refuse to choose between stupid and evil.

I will go with the Libertarians.

GoRon
April 18, 2006, 12:02 AM
I refuse to choose between stupid and evil.

I will go with the Libertarians.

So you will vote for irrelevant.

And you still will end up with stupid or evil.

Voting libertarian is paramount to quiting. You don't get all you want right away so you take your toys and go home.

Why bother voting? So you can go on forum boards and proclaim your moral superiority and look down on all those who compromise in your eyes?

Clean97GTI
April 18, 2006, 12:15 AM
Voting for one's chosen candidate is not irrelevant nor is it quitting.

If the Republicans stance and actions suit you, then by all means, vote for them. However, if they do not, then vote for someone else.
Its not like your vote matters anyway.


I'm truly sorry that voting your conscience is seen with such disdain around here.

cropcirclewalker
April 18, 2006, 12:16 AM
Why bother voting? So you can go on forum boards and proclaim your moral superiority and look down on all those who compromise in your eyes? Voting is a civic responsibility. Just because I am morally superior is no reason that I should not vote. It is further no reason that I should not point out that you republicans comprimised.

Hey, face it. You comprimised.

In your eyes, Bush was better than (who? Gore?, no sorry Kerry), so you comprimised.

Yes, I am morally superior to a voter that would comprimise his morals to put an inferior leader inplace because of fear of an even more inferior potential leader.

You should be ashamed.

But, thank you for your observation.

Art Eatman
April 18, 2006, 12:40 AM
I really do suggest re-reading this thread before any more bickering and squabbling. It ain't morally superior to stick your nose in the air and precipitate a food-fight.

Art

cropcirclewalker
April 18, 2006, 12:53 AM
Mr. Eatman, If you are making reference to me, please do not concern yourself.

I read the first of this string. Talking about the lack of fiscal restraint. Who can argue with that?

Since then I sense it's a bunch of "It would have been a lot worse with Kerry".

Sorry, they had their chance and they blew it.

I yam not looking for confrontation. Please do not construe me to mean that.

They had their chance and they blew it.

xd9fan
April 18, 2006, 12:56 AM
Clean....its called denial. And the GOP are knee-deep in it big time. These voters know the system is broke and their party is 50% to blame but like an abused spouse they keep coming back to the GOP know matter how many times they get hit in the back. They want change but vote for the same crap year after year.

With the Iraq thing, I have many many problems with it. NO Bill of Rights, No 2nd A, statist-like conditions where the Govt owns major industry, No up rising from the people(or a call to freedom like the Dec of Ind.)

The GOP HAVE NO domestic agenda at all. Social Security is a dead idea. Tax cuts cant even get through. Spending---what an out of control joke for leadership on this issue. And above all the "its for your security" umbella to grow the Govt big brother-like reach.


725 bases around the world, Spending Billions to float many nations economies, troops everywhere.......but NO...no we are not an empire. Whatever.:rolleyes:

Its time to get back to the basics.

Pork Fat
April 18, 2006, 02:08 AM
The potential of the Republican majority and Presidency has been wasted. I have been disappointed both by missteps and the apparent inability to communicate clearly by both entities.

Where hardball was called for, timid half-measures were employed. When a deft touch was appropriate, a clumsy run up the middle was called. As usual, any attempts to please everyone created no new friends and alienated the old ones.

This is a very tempting opportunity to vent spleen with a symbolic gesture- A vote for a third party, a vote for the opposition party, a nose cut off to spite the face, a self inflicted wound to the foot.

I recognize what has been wasted, I see that haste and unintended consequences have led us to doubt, frustration, and even some rage. I don't think that letting Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, Rangel, et al be in charge of the gun cabinet is a positive alternative.

Taking actions that lead to a Democrat majority and Presidency in order to punish an administration that can't return anyway may feel good for about 48 hours, but the hangover is gonna be a doozy. Yes, I'm a single issue voter, and I don't want NYC, Boston, Chicago, and LA to have a lot to say about that issue.

Clean97GTI
April 18, 2006, 02:19 AM
Taking actions that lead to a Democrat majority and Presidency in order to punish an administration that can't return anyway may feel good for about 48 hours, but the hangover is gonna be a doozy.

The idea here is to let the republicans know that they've screwed up and withholding your votes is how you tell them to get it together.

If you think the republicans are going to maintain control of anything, you're absolutely fooling yourself. They have pretty much guaranteed a democrat winning the white house and if the democrats start playing dirty in the various house and senate elections (which they will) they will accomplish a majority control.

If you wish to continue in this cycle, by all means, vote republican or democrat.
If you wish to change things, start voting for somebody new...you know, actually work to change things.

-edit- happy 1500th post to me. :)

Pork Fat
April 18, 2006, 03:23 AM
If, on some distant day, Libertarians control enough government to make a difference, some of them will start thinking about reelection. It starts all over again because incumbency softens the steeliest resolve.

Would you encourage them to return to basics, or start another new party?

Clean97GTI
April 18, 2006, 03:32 AM
that kind of implies disparity where none exists.
The Libertarians are all about the basics to begin with.

If it comes down to it, I'll vote for the candidate most closely represents me regardless of party.

RealGun
April 18, 2006, 07:06 AM
The potential of the Republican majority and Presidency has been wasted. I have been disappointed both by missteps and the apparent inability to communicate clearly by both entities.

You have that all wrong. If you look at the stock market and the economy in general, you'll see what conservative is all about.

Lobotomy Boy
April 18, 2006, 08:35 AM
The potential of the Republican majority and Presidency has been wasted.

I think you've got it exactly right. After 9/11 there existed the best opportunity in many generations for a positive conservative revolution. Instead the Bush administration used it as an opportunity to shove its own agenda down the country's collective throat.

I agree with much of the rest of your post, too. Even though I support the Libertarian party, voted Libertarian for president in the last election, and will probably do so again in 2008 if it's a choice between Hilary and McCain, this fall I'm going to actively support the Republican senate candidate from Minnesota. The woman who is likely to get the Democratic nomination, Amy Klobachar, is a virtual clone of Feinstein and Kennedy. We really can't afford another one of those in the Senate.

It's because of the likelihood of moonbats like this taking over the Senate that I've been such a vocal critic of what I see as a bungling, hubris-driven executive branch. They are driving people into the arms of the Democratic party.

Igloodude
April 18, 2006, 08:45 AM
There are pro-gun Republicans and anti-gun Republicans. There are pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Democrats. The percentages might be 80-20 on the Rep side and 20-80 on the Dem side, but there are (that I know of) no anti-gun Libertarians.

I'll support libertarian-leaning Republicans, and I'll support libertarian-leaning Democrats, and I'll support Libertarians.

Manedwolf
April 18, 2006, 11:13 AM
When they put people in foreign prisons without representation or trial, I did not speak up, because they looked different than me, and I did not have to worry about that.

When they came to search without warrants, I did not speak up, because I did not think I had to worry about that. The fourth amendment did not matter, only the second.

When they spied on Americans, I did not speak up, because I did not think anyone who hadn't done anything wrong had anything to worry about.

When they placed cameras throughout cities, I did not object, because I thought they would only watch criminals.

When they assasinated the character of people who objected to anything, when they called them unpatriotic, I did not speak up, because I did not object to anything at that time. The first amendment did not matter, only the second.

When, finally, they came for the guns...there was nobody left to speak up at all.

------------------------------

Vote on the actions, people, vote on the history. Not the personalities, NOT the parties.

Otherguy Overby
April 18, 2006, 11:22 AM
I'm quite sure the politicians have already approved this:

Biker
April 18, 2006, 11:56 AM
Right-the-hell-on, Manedwolf.
Biker

xd9fan
April 18, 2006, 12:18 PM
great post Manedwolf.
Pork fat they then would not be called libertarians. But reguardless, of party Term Limits are needed. More regulations and restrictions should be on politicians and Govt then "the People". So who is winning the fight them are us???
Citizenship is serious business.

"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty" --John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election (1790)

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” --Thomas Jefferson

If you enjoyed reading about "The clever GOP strategy for defeat in November" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!