Hillary Clinton losing support of Demosocialists

[progunner1957]

Pure socialism or watered down socialism

Yes, and a vote for Wes Clark is likewise a vote for confiscation - he is extremely anti-gun as well. Why oh why oh why can't the Democrat party go back to it's roots as a party of the people and put up someone who is strongly pro-freedom?

Because the powers that be at the national level of the Democratic party are 100% dyed-in the-wool socialists. They are not loyal to the Constitution, they are loyal to the socialist political philosophy.

What is the socialist political philosophy?

-Socialism is diametrically opposed to every tenet laid out in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Socialism is the foundation upon which the United Nations is built.

-Rule by "the experts," that is, those who have the proper academic and political breeding.

-Privelages (given and taken at the whim of the ruling class) for the citizens, not rights.

-Compulsion by the ruling class of experts of the citizens to do what is "best" by their definition for the masses. Citizens must submit, conform, obey.

-Resistance by the citizens of the ruling class and its political agenda is not and option and will not be tolerated. The ruling class demands absolute power with zero accountability.

-The agents of the ruling class (police and military) will be armed to the teeth, while the citizens will be stripped of any means (weaponry) of self protection and any means of resistance to "the program." [See the current events regarding this in England for a prime example.]

Submit, conform, obey - I cannot think of a more onerous, miserable and pathetic way to "live" my life.

This is why that I will NEVER vote for a Democrat as long as the Democratic party is controlled by socialist zealots. It would be really nice to see the Democratic party stand on a foundation of loyalty to the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a change. If they were to do so, they would get my vote, as the Republican party today is not much different.

Pure socialism (Democratic party) or watered down socialism (Republican party) - that's the choice we are offered today. The Founders must be spinning in their graves.:barf:

Changing it will be a fierce uphill battle, as the majority of the American people have been programmed to accept without question watered down socialism. Frist, they buy the watered down version, then later the pure version. As Henry Kissenger, one of the prime movers of the socialist political movement once said, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a while longer."

 

[GoSlash27]

Pro,
Take a look at what a little cursory research reveals. Thread's thataway...

 

[progunner1957]

The Republican party's stance on the 2nd Amendment is only incrementally different from the Democrats, differing only in how to go about restricting our rights.

That's pretty much what I said above.

Whoever gets the Republican nomination to run for president in 2008 will bow to the party line, watered down socialism.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomimation to run for President in 2008 will bow to the party line, pure socialism.

Both "Rs" and "Ds" are using the buzzphrase, "common sense gun control." this is a malleable concept which can mean about anything; it has been manipulated by politicians to garner the votes of "soccer moms" and people who have been programmed to accept watered down socialism, i.e. "the sheeple."

From what I have seen, "common sense gun control" and "reasonable gun control" both consist of the following features:
-Outlaw so-called ".50 cal.sniper rifles"
-Outlaw so-called "assault weapons"
-Outlaw so-called "high capacity" magazines
-Outlaw so-called "medium caliber sniper rifles," i.e. .30 to .50 caliber rifles
-Outlaw the carrying of handguns
-Outlaw owning "Too many guns"
-Outlaw owning "too much ammunition"
-Outlaw owning reloading equipment and components
-Outlaw the home storage of firearms in such a way that they will be at the ready to repel home invaders

These are not "common sense" or "reasonable" measures. Anyone with even the most basic of knowledge of the Second Amendment and its intent will see these measures for what they are, which is nothing more than arbitrary and draconian attempts to seriously infringe our right to arms by power hungry politicians.

Fro that and other reasons, I refuse to vote for any politician who spouts the mantra of "common sense" or "reasonable" gun control, regardless of their party affiliation.

 

[Hunter Rose]

>iF YOU JUST RECENTLY BOUGHT A GUN YOU FILLED OUT PAPERS, YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE WAS COPIED AND A PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO CHECK YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD: if YOU THINK THAT INFO IS DISCARDED AFTER A FEW WEEKS YOU ARE STUPID.<

Ok... first off, take a breath. Then take off your caps lock: lil' key above the shift key on the left of the keyboard. Cool...

Now... I'm not stupid. I have no doubt that they've kept SOME kind of record of what I've bought that's gone through NICS. No doubt in the world. But it still doesn't mean registration: it means they have a list of every FFL transaction. There are a LOT of guns moved in this country that never see an FFL. At best, you could call the "NICS list" a list of people who have bought a gun. Where's the law that says those guns have stayed in my possession? "I'm sorry Agent Dude: I sold all my guns to pay the bills...

BTW... "you are stupid" I think would qualify as an ad hominim, and is therefor frowned upon...

 

[progunner1957]

"I'm sorry Agent Dude: I sold all my guns to pay the bills...

+1.
Mine is, "I have no need of weapons - I have found The Lord and He provides for my safety."

One small problem with that approach, however: It requires burying your guns - and your freedom and dignity - somewhere off your property in hopes that they won't be discovered.

This brings to mind the saying, "If it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them up."

 

[GoSlash27]

Pro,
Perhaps you just didn't catch what Dubya was saying on the subject before you...err...voted for him.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm

And I

George W. Bush on Gun Control


If gun laws are broken, hold people accountable
Q: Do you support the Brady Bill?

BUSH: Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their families. We ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I also believe that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. The federal government can help.

Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

First, enforce the law; then keep guns from wrong people
It starts with enforcing the law. We need to say loud and clear to somebody, if you’re going to carry a gun illegally, we’re going to arrest you, if you’re going to sell a gun illegally you need to be arrested, and if you commit a crime with a gun there needs to be absolutely certainty in the law. The local law enforcement officials need help at the federal level. Need programs like Project Exile, where the federal government intensifies arresting people who illegally use guns. And we haven’t done a very good job of that at the federal level recently. And I’m going to make it a priority.

Secondly, I don’t think we ought to be selling guns to people who shouldn’t have them. That’s why I support instant background checks at gun shows. There’s a lot of talk about trigger locks being on guns sold in the future, I support that, and so we’re distributing them in our state of Texas for free. I think we ought to raise the age at which a juvenile can carry a handgun from 18 to 21.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

Restrict lawsuits against gun makers

* If the NRA could pick a candidate, it would undoubtedly be George W. Bush. He has been a strong ally of the organization in Texas. Recent attempts to distance himself are assumed to be merely tactical. Bush follows the standard gun-owner’s line: he wants tougher penalties against gun-toting criminals, but no more regulations for worthy citizens with a pistol by the bed. He places the blame for America’s frequent gun massacres on negligent parents, a “wave of evil” and the culture of violence. As president, he would:would bring in no new gun controls, except possibly tougher penalties for criminals using guns
* opposes mandatory safety locks (but supports voluntary ones)
* supports concealed-weapon laws
* favors instant background checks (rather than three-day waiting periods) in shops and at gun shows
* would restrict lawsuits against gun makers, which he has deterred in Texas

Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” special Sep 30, 2000

Government should pay for voluntary trigger locks
Bush said Texas will spend about $1 million a year for five years to purchase trigger locks, which would be distributed to citizens who asked for them at police stations and fire departments. “It seems like to me one of the things we ought to do is be common-sensical about how we deal with gun safety,” Bush said. “And if I become the president, I’m going to ask Congress to appropriate money for a national program to do just the same thing, which is distribute trigger locks for people to use.” Bush proposed that the federal government make $325 million in matching funds available over five years for state and local governments that adopt programs similar to the Texas program. Until recently Bush had opposed mandatory trigger locks and ridiculed rival Sen. John McCain during the South Carolina primary for switching positions on the issue and voting for an amendment to the Senate’s juvenile justice bill that made trigger locks mandatory.
Source: NY Times, page A10, part of “Renewing America’s Purpose” May 13, 2000

Project Sentry: juvenile gun laws & school accountability
Bush will establish “Project Sentry” to enforce federal juvenile gun laws; and impose a lifetime ban on gun possession for juvenile offenders. Bush will also hold states and districts accountable for improving school safety; require states and districts to provide students in persistently dangerous schools a transfer to a safe alternative; call for a uniform reporting system to allow parents to know which schools are safe.
Source: Press Release, Temple TX Apr 20, 2000

Avoid Columbine via gun control, values & character ed
Saying America is “still wrestling with the lessons of Columbine,” Bush today called for tougher enforcement of gun laws and a greater emphasis on character education as the way to promote school safety. “Today is the sad anniversary of a terrible tragedy-a tragedy that shattered our sense of safety and security-a tragedy that hit home for every parent and every child and every school in America,” Bush said. “A year later, America is still wrestling with the lessons of Columbine,” Bush continued. “Strict enforcement of tough laws is important. But ultimately, the safety of our children depends on more than laws. It depends on the values we teach them and the kind of culture we create and condone.”

* Governor Bush has proposed a series of proposals to reduce school violence in his campaign, includingromoting character education in public schools.
* Enforcing gun laws and holding states & schools accountable for keeping students safe.

Source: Press Release, Temple TX Apr 20, 2000

Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions
Bush has said he would sign a law requiring trigger locks with handgun sales but wouldn’t push such legislation. Bush has endorsed outlawing the import of certain high-capacity ammunition clips. Bush also would raise the legal age for handgun purchases from 18 to 21.
Source: Judy Holland, Hearst Newspapers Apr 14, 2000

Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips

* Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia
* Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
* Supports law-abiding American’s constitutional right to own guns to protect their families and home
* Supports the current ban on automatic weapons
* Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips
* Supports voluntary safety locks
* Opposes government mandated registration of all guns owned by law abiding citizens

Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000

More laws & enforcement on juveniles with guns

* Supports automatic detention for kids who commit crimes with guns
* Supports banning juveniles from possession of semi-automatic “assault” weapons
* Supports increasing the minimum age for possession of a handgun from 18 to 21

Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000

Best gun control is more prosecution & certain jail
Q: You are in favor of some gun controls?
A: I’m in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them like felons & juveniles. I’m for enforcing the laws on the books. In Texas, we’ve armed D.A.’s with extra money to prosecute people who break the law. We need to send a signal to people, don’t be illegally selling guns and don’t be illegally using guns. The best accountability for somebody who breaks the law with a gun is called jail, certain jail.
Source: Des Moines Iowa GOP Debate Dec 13, 1999

Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting
I believe law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns to hunt and to protect themselves. and that our government should aggressively pursue. people who illegally sell guns, illegally carry guns, or commit crimes with guns. I also believe that government should pass laws such as instant background checks to help keep guns out of the hands of felons and juveniles and others who should not have them.
Source: “A Charge to Keep”, p. 35-36. Dec 9, 1999

Raise legal age for guns to 21; ban certain ammo
Bush said he supported efforts in the Republican-led Congress to raise the legal age for purchase of a handgun to 21 from 18 and to ban large ammunition clips.
Source: Reuters, “Bush favors raising.” Aug 27, 1999

No child-safety locks on guns; concealed carrying ok
Bush opposes mandatory child-safety locks on guns & supports the right of Texans to carry a concealed weapon. The Governor recently signed into law a bill that requires a locality to get approval from the state legislature before suing gun manufacturers. Bush supporters argue that the act does not interfere with legitimate gun lawsuits but rather curbs trivial legal action.
Source: Time Magazine, p. 38 Jun 28, 1999

 

[GoSlash27]

Continued

Arrest for guns in school; track juvenile offenders

* Bush’s 1999 legislative record included:Required automatic detention [until released by a judge’s order] for juveniles who carry firearms illegally or commit crimes with a gun.
* Expanded beds for housing violent juvenile offenders.
* Created a spotlight program to team police with probation officers to track violent juvenile offenders.

Source: GeorgeWBush.com/News/ “1999 Texas Legislative Record” Jun 25, 1999

No city lawsuits against gun manufacturers
Gov. Bush signed a bill that would prevent cities, counties & local governments from suing firearm and ammunition manufacturers for the public costs associated with gun violence. The legislation is commonly referred to as a “lawsuit preemption bill.” According to a spokesperson, Bush supports the bill because he believes that “in order to curb frivolous lawsuits, the attorney general should be the clearinghouse to review issues involving a legal product which is being misused for criminal purposes.”
Source: CNN.com/AllPolitics “Bush quietly signs” Jun 18, 1999

Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns
Bush opposed repeal of the 1994 assault weapon ban and indicated his openness to Clinton’s call to raise the age of legal handgun ownership from 18 to 21. But Bush opposed Clinton’s call for reinstituting 3-day waiting periods for gun purchases, saying he preferred instant background checks. And while he said he could support national legislation to extend such instant checks to purchases at unregulated gun shows, he’s made no effort to support a state bill that would have done just that in Texas.
Source: L.A. Times May 1, 1999

Gun show checks OK; ban guns near schools & kids
An aide to Bush said the governor has “consistently supported since 1994 the idea of instant background checks at gun shows to make sure the people we don’t want to sell guns to are not buying guns.” The aide noted that Bush previously signed legislation prohibiting anyone from carrying a weapon within 300 yards of a school, and holding adults criminally liable if they allow a juvenile access to a loaded gun.
Source: CNN AllPolitics Apr 30, 1999

Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK
Bush expressed support for some gun control measures, including the ban on assault weapons and laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. But he said he did not believe the waiting period for the purchase of handguns that is part of the Brady Act does much good, saying he prefers instant background checks.
Source: Dan Balz, The Washington Post Apr 25, 1999

 

[Rebar]

GoSlash27, you keep trying to prove some bizarre point that the republicans are as anti-RKBA as the democrats. That's laughable, do you really think that we, as educated gun owners on a gun board, are so ignorant as to fall for that?

The democrats are the party of the gun grabbers. Period. This is beyond dispute. If the republicans are not as pro-active in removing anti-gun laws as we might like, they are vastly better on the issue. Especially on the state level.

So you can take quotes out of context and try to obscure the hard-core anti gun agenda of the liberal/left, all you want. You are not fooling, or convincing, anyone. The democrats want our guns, anyone who wants to take our guns also want to take our other freedoms, and no one with a lick of sense is going to vote for that.

 

[GoSlash27]

GoSlash27, you keep trying to prove some bizarre point that the republicans are as anti-RKBA as the democrats. That's laughable, do you really think that we, as educated gun owners on a gun board, are so ignorant as to fall for that?

I know that some around here will plug their ears and 'LALALA' because they value their partisan politics above their personal freedom. Others will actually take the time to find out that I'm not making this up. Every single fact I have presented here is straight from the public record. If you dispute *any* of it, feel free to do so and I will respond with the sources.

The democrats are the party of the gun grabbers. Period. This is beyond dispute.

Don't you see it being disputed right now? You may refuse to entertain the thought, but others here fact-check.

If the republicans are not as pro-active in removing anti-gun laws as we might like, they are vastly better on the issue. Especially on the state level.

So you'd endorse Pataki over Richardson despite their track records. Anybody who places the 2nd Amendment above partisan politics would go the other way.

So you can take quotes out of context and try to obscure the hard-core anti gun agenda of the liberal/left, all you want.

I have obscured nothing. I have misrepresented nothing. You are free to go have a look yourself. Either prove your allegation or retract it, because personal attacks like that have no place in this forum.

You are not fooling, or convincing, anyone.

I am definitely not 'fooling' anyone. Whether I am 'convincing' anyone remains to be seen.

The democrats want our guns, anyone who wants to take our guns also want to take our other freedoms, and no one with a lick of sense is going to vote for that.

Yet another unsubstantiated allegation. Any time you want to start proving any of this tripe, feel free.

 

[Rebar]

Sure, you can dig up all the possible anti-gun things some RINOs might have said over the years.

But the proof is in the pudding. In this case, in the legislation.

Since the republicans broke the 38 year monopoly of democratic power, the AWB has ended, gun manufacturers have been protected, two constructionalist supreme court justices nominated, and we've gone from 10 to 38 shall-issue states. These events are due to republicans, fighting tooth and nail against democrats, pushing for RKBA.

Now, if the democrats still maintained their power, none of those things would have happened. On the contrary, they would most certainly have continued their ruthless assault on the 2nd amendment. With two more democratically nominated, leftist supreme court justices tipping the balance, one case and our RKBA would have been, "legally", extinguished. With UK/Australian type confiscation soon after.

Anyone who thinks the democrats won't gut the RKBA if they get power back, are either lieing to put their partisan agenda into effect, or in deep, deep denial.

 

[GoSlash27]

Sure, you can dig up all the possible anti-gun things some RINOs might have said over the years.

Point #1: Are you suggesting that the vast majority of '08 GOP presidential candidates are RINOs?
Point#2: All of the info I "dug up" was accomplished in about an hour by google-searching (name) gun control. That's it. Almost all of the data presented came straight from Issues2000. If you doubt the veracity of any of the claims I have presented, name it and I will be happy to provide the relavant legislation and votes straight from the record. I know how.
Until that time, either prove your allegations or retract them. I don't care which.

But the proof is in the pudding. In this case, in the legislation.

Yes it is. All a matter of public record. You might not like what it had to say, but it's fact nonetheless.

Since the republicans broke the 38 year monopoly of democratic power, the AWB has ended, gun manufacturers have been protected, two constructionalist supreme court justices nominated, and we've gone from 10 to 38 shall-issue states. These events are due to republicans, fighting tooth and nail against democrats, pushing for RKBA.

Obviously I take issue with some of this, but I will grant that collectively in legislative matters and at the state level, the Republicans *overall* are better on the 2nd Amendment. Individually, however, you still have to occasionally cross party lines.

Now, if the democrats still maintained their power, none of those things would have happened. On the contrary, they would most certainly have continued their ruthless assault on the 2nd amendment. With two more democratically nominated, leftist supreme court justices tipping the balance, one case and our RKBA would have been, "legally", extinguished. With UK/Australian type confiscation soon after.

This is a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument and thus suspect, but I don't think that you can go far wrong *overall* voting Republican instead of Dem.
That's not my point.
My point is that alot more could have been accomplished by voting the issue instead of the party.

Anyone who thinks the democrats won't gut the RKBA if they get power back, are either lieing to put their partisan agenda into effect, or in deep, deep denial.

I have no doubt that the Dems will take over both houses in '06. This will drive me to avoid voting Dem in '08. I am a partisan promoter of my own ideals...but you have no idea what they are If you think I'm liberal, think again.

 

[Rebar]

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of '08 GOP presidential candidates are RINOs?

Pretty much, yeah. I'm hoping and praying that Dr. Rice decides to run.

Individually, however, you still have to occasionally cross party lines.

Incorrect.

A basic understanding of how the government works, shows that the majority party sets the agenda. The majority party determines who gets the commitee chairs, majority determines which and when bills come up for votes, majority determines what kind of judges get confirmed.

The party leaders set that agenda. Even if you vote in the rare, honestly pro-gun democrat, all that accomplishes is one more seat for the rabidly anti-gun democratic leadership towards majority status. If they do get majority status, the party leadership can and would apply considerable pressure to conform to the party line, and they would fill the leadership positions with their senior people, and that line is anti-RKBA, those people anti-RKBA.

If we're going to get serious rollbacks on anti-gun legislation, it will take a super-majority of republicans in both houses.

I have no doubt that the Dems will take over both houses in '06.

Perish the thought. There still might be more supreme court judges stepping down (Ginsberg and/or Stevens) who should be replaced by good judges, if they gain majority forget Brown or Clements.

 

[Hunter Rose]

>The democrats are the party of the gun grabbers. Period. This is beyond dispute. If the republicans are not as pro-active in removing anti-gun laws as we might like, they are vastly better on the issue. Especially on the state level.< (emphasis mine)

>and we've gone from 10 to 38 shall-issue states. These events are due to republicans, fighting tooth and nail against democrats, pushing for RKBA< (emphasis mine)

Ya know Rebar, I keep noticing this stuff in almost every thread, but it doesn't relate back to the thread titles. This is state level stuff: how does anything with Billary relate to state level legislation?

Yes, Republican state legiscritters have been getting CCW passed (and some other good laws). The president and Congress have NOTHING to do with that. Nada. Zip. Zero. So it's not a good arguement...

And yes: the Dems would take our guns. I won't argue that. Had Kerry or Gore won, we would probably have a renewed (and strengthened) AWB, as well as a lot of other bad stuff. And? So we're not getting raped beyond the status qou. When will we start seeing things reversed? SCOTUS will probably keep denying cert to any 2A case, and there's no gaurantee they would rule "our way" if they DID hear a case. The AWB was allowed to sunset, but that just meant the Republicans sat on their hands (didn't require any effort). The ONLY thing the federal level Republicans have done was pass the Lawful Commerce in Arms act: nice, but not of direct benefit to gun owners. While I won't vote for a Democrat, I'm debating if I'll vote for Pres at all next cycle. Don't see as I can deal with the lesser of two evils anymore. Gettin' to the point it's a choice between death by asphixiation, and burning at the stake. I'm not interested in either...

And before anyone starts with the Libertarian or Constitution party, they have their own problems. The Libs want to build the pyramid by placing the capstone then filling in the structure. And the Constitution boys are too tied in to religion: something that I think is REALLY turning a lot of America off...

 

[GoSlash27]

Rebar,
#1 Rice is not running. She has been very vocal and unequivocal on the point.
#2 You sum up the machinations of Congress very nicely, but neglect to mention that the president has nothing to do with any of that.
#3 "Perish the thought" is a fancy way of blocking out what you don't want to hear. Do you have any reason to doubt the coming change? I see the pendulum swinging and that sucker's movin' fast.

If you want to promote somebody from the right strictly on the 2nd Amendment, might I suggest Gingrich? I am confident he'd look right into the camera and say exactly what you want to hear: "I will veto any legislative attempt at gun control".
Of course, there's the minor problem of actually getting him past Hillary...

 

[Rebar]

The president and Congress have NOTHING to do with that. Nada. Zip. Zero. So it's not a good arguement...

What happens on the state level does have an effect on congress, and vice versa. Politics does not happen in a vaccuum, and every member of congress was elected on the state level, and needs to be very aware of what the people of their state are thinking. As far as the president, you do know of the electorial college, right?

Rice is not running. She has been very vocal and unequivocal on the point.

Many candidates played coy until their hand was forced.

neglect to mention that the president has nothing to do with any of that.

How do you figure? Besides the obvious matter of the veto and that he's the one that chooses the judicial nominees, he also leads and sets the agenda of the party.

Do you have any reason to doubt the coming change?

I think that the rediculous rhetoric from the left will derail most of the democratic challengers, and that the power of encumbancy will carry the day.

Gingrich

He's a good man, he'd be a great president. Can he beat Hillary? I don't know, it would be close though. I'm sure Rice could beat her.

 

[GoSlash27]

As we wander deeper and deeper into the thicket...

Many candidates played coy until their hand was forced.

Coy?!? Look, hope and pray all you want, but

I won't.. Is that categorical enough?

seems to me to be a bit beyond coy. I could be wrong, but it'd make more sense to pin your hopes on someone a little more tangible.
Besides, the polls have been very clear on this point: Rice cannot beat Clinton. The only guy you have that can is McCain. Since you're so convinced that

I'm sure Rice could beat her.

, perhaps you could scare up some supporting evidence. Or is that just more wishful thinking?

Moving along...

Besides the obvious matter of the veto and that he's the one that chooses the judicial nominees, he also leads and sets the agenda of the party.

But wait! I thought you said Dean and Pelosi set the agenda! If that is true, then wouldn't Richardson set a pro-2nd amendment agenda for the Dems? And wouldn't Pataki set a pro-gun control agenda for the GOP? Something does not compute here....

I think that the rediculous rhetoric from the left will derail most of the democratic challengers, and that the power of encumbancy will carry the day

Okay, I know you're dreaming now. You might not have noticed, but their 'ridiculous rhetoric' has been working pretty darn well so far. And 'incumbency power' didn't seem to save the Dems in '94 (incidentally, the last time public faith in congress was this low).
Wishful thinking will not save a bad situation. If you want to effect a change, you're gonna have to face reality.

 

[Hunter Rose]

>What happens on the state level does have an effect on congress, and vice versa. Politics does not happen in a vaccuum, and every member of congress was elected on the state level, and needs to be very aware of what the people of their state are thinking. As far as the president, you do know of the electorial college, right?<

Rebar: you're starting to sound like one of the conspiracy theorists, who will connect EVERY bad thing that's ever happened to one group of person. None of the above explains why, when someone says "the Republicans haven't done much for us at the federal level since Bush was elected", you always bring up CCW in the states. And it's kinda funny that you won't mention any of my other points...

 

[Rebar]

the polls have been very clear on this point:

Polls, especially polls by the MSM, aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

But wait! I thought you said Dean and Pelosi set the agenda! If that is true, then wouldn't Richardson set a pro-2nd amendment agenda for the Dems?

Last I looked, there were three branches of government. And since you're so concerned with "dream worlds", you're dreaming if you think anyone other than Hillary is going to win the democratic nomination, and McCain has a prayer of getting the republican nomination. He's dead to the conservative base.

Okay, I know you're dreaming now. You might not have noticed, but their 'ridiculous rhetoric' has been working pretty darn well so far

More MSM polls tell you this? Still believe in the easter bunny? Oh wait, I forgot, easter is a bad word now. The "Garden Bunny" then. A litany of complaints is not an agenda, and democrats screaming that Bush is the Devil really won't play, especially since Bush isn't running.

you always bring up CCW in the states.

I reject your premise that the national and state levels are seperated somehow. They most certainly are not, they are interwoven.

 

[GoSlash27]

Rebar,
You may reject every poll taken by every agency whether inside or outside the MSM. I'm tellin' you the train is bearing down on you. If you don't want to acknowledge it's existence that's your problem.
Furthermore, I never predicted, hoped, or prayed for any candidate from either side. I am a realist. I expect to see Clinton vs. Giuliani. Furthermore, I expect to see Clinton *defeat* Giuliani handily.

 

[Rebar]

LOL:

I'm tellin' you the train is bearing down on you.

And, do what exactly? Turn into a berzerk rabid Bush hater? Turn my back on the one party that's fighting for my 2nd Amendment rights? Exactly what are we supposed to do, oh mighty reincarnation of Mrs. Cleo?