The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: gunman42782 on November 12, 2013, 07:57:12 AM
-
The news media is doing the same old crap they always do. Proclaiming Chris Christie the next Republican nominee for President. Well, if that is the best we can come up with, I refuse to vote for another RINO. Last two elections I held my nose and voted for McDoofus and Mutt Romney. They where my last two choices in the primaries, but somehow they won. I wont do it again. Christie is not 10 cents better than Obama, and if he wins the nomination, I will vote Libertarian. To hell with voting the lesser of two evils, I want a real freaking choice! The news media screams only a "middle of the road" Republican can win the Presidency. Anybody remember Ronald Reagan??? The best President we ever had in my lifetime? We need another one just like him! Maybe Rand Paul can pull it out against the Republican establishment.
-
I'm no fan of Christi, but to be fair, the recent gun laws he signed in were all related to strange crap and really didn't affect us much. The ones he sent back to the legislature for modifications (that were just too severe or unjustifiable) were all bills that would have hurt us a good deal here in NJ.
Christi serves himself first (pardon the vague fat joke), but he DOES hear what people are saying before he does what will benefit him the most.
Obama (or Hilary) would sign any jacked up anti gun measure put in front of them. It's not much, but I'm nearly a single issue voter any more.
-
The REAL point to the General election is to get rid of the freaking Democrats.
They have a vision for America that amounts to dictatorship.
The Republicans at least are just politicians.
If you want a "GOOD" guy vote for him in the primary.
In Nov vote out the dems or you are part of the problem.
-
TOm will really need to vote out every one.
-
I could care less about 2016 right now. I'm more concerned about the Senate races in 2014. I don't know how many are up for reelection, but if the Democrats get a super majority look out! They could sign that damn UN antigun/ anti 2nd Amend treaty into law.
Let's focus on 2014 first.
-
I made a protest vote for Perot, helped Clinton One get elected....and I knew better with a degree in political science from a relativel good school in the south... we have a zero sum game where there are only so many conservative votes that will be cast. ... a third party candidate cannot win, and a protest vote for such is the same as a vote for the liberal candidate....
Dr. Ben Carson in 2016
-
Christie is just too big and bitter a pill to swallow, for me, (no matter what kind of cheese you stick it it)..
If these early softening salvos are any indication, they're gonna wrap that bastard in a whole lot of cheese..
(I've become "lactose intolerant" in my old age. The gas always gets me in the ass, and the balls from the hernias. He ain't worth it..)
2014.. First things first..
-
I have heard the same crap my whole life, and have even said it myself, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the Democrat. Well, no it isn't. It is a vote for the 3rd party candidate, pure and simple. How is voting for Christie any better than voting for Hillary, or whoever runs? What the hell is the difference? I only voted for McCain because of Sarah Palin, and only voted for Romney to get Obama out. Not because I liked either one or their policies. Honestly, how smart was it to nominate Romney? The guy that started socialized medicine in MA who claimed to be totally against Obamacare? How many people really bought that? McCain was the idiot that pushed for campaign finance reform that did nothing but prevent groups like the NRA from putting out commercials against anti gun candidates! Did nothing to prevent Soros from pouring all his money into whoever he wanted to elect. Not to mention McCain had anti gun commercials to close the "gun show loophole." How is voting for creeps like this a good thing, ever? Why is voting for Communist light a good thing? I wont be swayed this time by all that BS talk.
-
Vote out the bums in the Congress and Senate first.
Take control and turn the White House into an inept, lame duck for the next admin. We had a chance this last election and the electorate failed to realize the president is not the most important branch of our government. The media and the pols pulled another bait and switch and the ignorant dumbass vote couldn't name their senator or congressman anyway!
-
Christie is just another McCain / Romney RINO who WILL LOSE! If the Republicans want their base to stay home again on election day, all they have to do is run Christie. It's once again guaranteed. The Republicans chances are better if Obama Care train wrecks, than getting in with the candidates they've got.
-
I have heard the same crap my whole life, and have even said it myself, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the Democrat. Well, no it isn't. It is a vote for the 3rd party candidate, pure and simple. How is voting for Christie any better than voting for Hillary, or whoever runs? What the hell is the difference? I only voted for McCain because of Sarah Palin, and only voted for Romney to get Obama out. Not because I liked either one or their policies. Honestly, how smart was it to nominate Romney? The guy that started socialized medicine in MA who claimed to be totally against Obamacare? How many people really bought that? McCain was the idiot that pushed for campaign finance reform that did nothing but prevent groups like the NRA from putting out commercials against anti gun candidates! Did nothing to prevent Soros from pouring all his money into whoever he wanted to elect. Not to mention McCain had anti gun commercials to close the "gun show loophole." How is voting for creeps like this a good thing, ever? Why is voting for Communist light a good thing? I wont be swayed this time by all that BS talk.
You didn't learn a damned thing from the recent Va election did you ?
The DEMS spent over $1MILLION backing a GOOD 3rd party candidate.
He didn't have a hope in hell of winning but he got enough votes from idiots to cost the Republican a 3% victory. instead he lost by 1% and Va residents are now going to get "Detroited" all because of pig headed people who just don't get it..
-
You didn't learn a damned thing from the recent Va election did you ?
The DEMS spent over $1MILLION backing a GOOD 3rd party candidate.
He didn't have a hope in hell of winning but he got enough votes from idiots to cost the Republican a 3% victory. instead he lost by 1% and Va residents are now going to get "Detroited" all because of pig headed people who just don't get it..
Tom, you sound satisfied with the performance of most Republican politicians....either that or you like the performance of a few well enough to buy the whole package.
I and others just are not that pleased with them. While I think they are better than Democrats, it is only because they move in the same path as the Democrats...they just go a bit slower to get there...but get there they will.
Voting for the Democrats or their near twins, the Republicans, will make sure nothing changes. Keep doing the same thing and you can only expect the same results.
If everyone fed up with the Democrats and the Republicans would vote for the strongest 3rd party candidate there would be a chance for different results. Maybe not in the first election cycle, but it would grow. And in the meanwhile, both Republicans and Democrats would rewrite their song and dance to include a few verses and steps from that 3rd party.
Sure, past performance indicates that all the promises will be false from both the Republicans and Democrats, but it might just stick long enough to influence a few issues while the spot light is on them.
Maybe it would be possible to "convert" a party, say the Republicans, to the new 3rd party, but it seems unlikely after watching how the party establishment fights the Tea Party element.
Honestly, I don't expect this to happen. It seems just as improbable to get voters to alter bad patterns as it is to get politicians to do so.
This leads me back to your "Hemp Solution" which seems more and more likely to be how things will need to go. The only feasible, but unlikely, alternative is for a 3rd party to make progress.
-
I don't have enough energy for the whole argument right now, but I need to respond to the question, "How is voting for Christi any different than voting for Hilary?". That's MY whole point.
Voting for Christi would be a lot different than voting for Hilary, because he is not pretending to be an idealogue. He heard the gun people in NJ in spite of the overwheiming Democrat screeching and realized that he can't ignore us completely. He reacted in his own best interest and essentially vetoed the really stupid, bad legislation.
Hilary would have signed those bills into law because of Democratic arrogance. She, Obama, and all the rest of those turds assume they can s**t on the Constitution and conservatives because they can always use the big lie and racism to justify their arrogance.
There's a BIG difference between the two.
NO candidate that will make it to POTUS finals will do a hand job for tea partiers...there just aren't enough of them. Extremism on either side of the aisle is not going to win elections, and you are not going to get 100% of what you want.
-
You didn't learn a damned thing from the recent Va election did you ?
The DEMS spent over $1MILLION backing a GOOD 3rd party candidate.
He didn't have a hope in hell of winning but he got enough votes from idiots to cost the Republican a 3% victory. instead he lost by 1% and Va residents are now going to get "Detroited" all because of pig headed people who just don't get it..
Apparently, you didn't learn much from VA either. From everything I have heard the Republicans for all intents and purposes didn't even try to get their candidate elected! Once again, because he was "too conservative to be elected"! Did you learn anything from the last two presidential elections? Or, I should say, do you think the GOP learned anything? Both times, they attached themselves to the ones the news media picked as "winnable" candidates, nominated them, and then the news media proceeded to tear them a new rear end! Like I said, I felt the same way as you do, but I am sick of voting for people I don't believe in. As Solus said in his post, there is no longer a nickels worth of difference between the R and the D anymore. It is like a freaking game they are playing, and I am sick of playing the game.
By the way, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and thinking the outcome will be different.
-
We have three more years of the fuckstick in chief. Any bets that we'll have a country left to try and rebuild?
I'll do what I decide to do regardless of anyone else's opinion on the matter!
-
I'll do what I decide to do regardless of anyone else's opinion on the matter!
I think we call that freedom.
-
Tom, you sound satisfied with the performance of most Republican politicians....either that or you like the performance of a few well enough to buy the whole package.
I and others just are not that pleased with them. While I think they are better than Democrats, it is only because they move in the same path as the Democrats...they just go a bit slower to get there...but get there they will.
Voting for the Democrats or their near twins, the Republicans, will make sure nothing changes. Keep doing the same thing and you can only expect the same results.
If everyone fed up with the Democrats and the Republicans would vote for the strongest 3rd party candidate there would be a chance for different results. Maybe not in the first election cycle, but it would grow. And in the meanwhile, both Republicans and Democrats would rewrite their song and dance to include a few verses and steps from that 3rd party.
Sure, past performance indicates that all the promises will be false from both the Republicans and Democrats, but it might just stick long enough to influence a few issues while the spot light is on them.
Maybe it would be possible to "convert" a party, say the Republicans, to the new 3rd party, but it seems unlikely after watching how the party establishment fights the Tea Party element.
Honestly, I don't expect this to happen. It seems just as improbable to get voters to alter bad patterns as it is to get politicians to do so.
This leads me back to your "Hemp Solution" which seems more and more likely to be how things will need to go. The only feasible, but unlikely, alternative is for a 3rd party to make progress.
Apparently, you didn't learn much from VA either. From everything I have heard the Republicans for all intents and purposes didn't even try to get their candidate elected! Once again, because he was "too conservative to be elected"! Did you learn anything from the last two presidential elections? Or, I should say, do you think the GOP learned anything? Both times, they attached themselves to the ones the news media picked as "winnable" candidates, nominated them, and then the news media proceeded to tear them a new rear end! Like I said, I felt the same way as you do, but I am sick of voting for people I don't believe in. As Solus said in his post, there is no longer a nickels worth of difference between the R and the D anymore. It is like a freaking game they are playing, and I am sick of playing the game.
By the way, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and thinking the outcome will be different.
You are the ones who don't get it.
Use your heads for more than butt plugs.
Even with the "establishment" repubs working against him the candidate in Va only lost by 1%.
The "Libertarian" financed by the dems took 4.5% of votes from people like you .
The Republicans are a leaderless, aimless clusterf*ck.
Would you prefer leaving the country to the Democrats who have been working single mindedly for 100 years to destroy this country ?
Your genius has already given us 8 years of "Hope and Change".
Are you going to keep repeating the same stupid sh!t ?
Or maybe do something different ?
Only a traitor or an idiot believes ANYTHING is more important in the next 2 elections than getting rid of the Dems.
-
You are the ones who don't get it.
Use your heads for more than butt plugs.
Even with the "establishment" repubs working against him the candidate in Va only lost by 1%.
The "Libertarian" financed by the dems took 4.5% of votes from people like you .
The Republicans are a leaderless, aimless clusterf*ck.
Would you prefer leaving the country to the Democrats who have been working single mindedly for 100 years to destroy this country ?
Your genius has already given us 8 years of "Hope and Change".
Are you going to keep repeating the same stupid sh!t ?
Or maybe do something different ?
Only a traitor or an idiot believes ANYTHING is more important in the next 2 elections than getting rid of the Dems.
Just one question.
How long have you been voting Republican because nothing is more important than getting/keeping the Dems out of office?
And here we are again...with nothing more important than getting rid of the Dems.
The Republicans do little more than keep the seats warm for the Dems and take smaller bites out of our liberties.
This is a classic Good Cop/Bad Cop opperation....work with either one and you lose.
-
Just one question. How long have you been voting Republican because nothing is more important than getting/keeping the Dems out of office? And here we are again...with nothing more important than getting rid of the Dems. The Republicans do little more than keep the seats warm for the Dems and take smaller bites out of our liberties. This is a classic Good Cop/Bad Cop opperation....work with either one and you lose.
All true. However it is all we can do until the Republican Party is taken over by a more hard core conservative bunch. And until they can produce a vibrant, explosive, dynamic, candidate to go along with it. Who in turn will bring out the conservatives and moderate Republicans to the polls, to the point they're knocking each other over to get there.
They need someone who can play hardball with the liberals, and call them out for their overall stupidity. Especially Obama's. Let them play the race card. Political correctness isn't going to mean $h!t when you're sick, and have been dropped by your health care provider because of Obama Care, and can't afford the new premiums you'll be required to pay........... Or else die.
If we waste our time voting for a third party loser, all it will accomplish is getting Hillary.
-
Politics is about getting and using power.
You have to get it before you can use, and voting for a 3rd party ain't the way to get it.
-
I guess you are right.
The Republicans are so dumb, they would never see that they are losing votes to 3rd Parties who offer a stronger "Conservative" platform and change theirs to gain those votes back and more that they never had.
I will be much better to just keep voting for them to encourage them to continue as they are going.
-
You are the ones who don't get it.
Use your heads for more than butt plugs.
Even with the "establishment" repubs working against him the candidate in Va only lost by 1%.
The "Libertarian" financed by the dems took 4.5% of votes from people like you .
The Republicans are a leaderless, aimless clusterf*ck.
Would you prefer leaving the country to the Democrats who have been working single mindedly for 100 years to destroy this country ?
Your genius has already given us 8 years of "Hope and Change".
Are you going to keep repeating the same stupid sh!t ?
Or maybe do something different ?
Only a traitor or an idiot believes ANYTHING is more important in the next 2 elections than getting rid of the Dems.
Nothing I did left us with the hope and change brother, as I said, I voted for the two RINOs. Let me ask you this, would you have voted for Mayor Bloomberg when he claimed to be a Republican????
-
Christi isn't Bloomberg.
You can't paint this with one large brush. Again, I go back to my status as a single issue voter. My local state senator is a Dem but he's SOLID 2A. I'll forgive some of the economic idiocy for that... if a politician is respectful of your constitutional rights, that and THAT ONLY is good enough for me- I'll vote for them every time unless their opponent does that AND has more conservative policies.
Every election is different, every race is different, and every DAY is different in the 2A struggle. I know how Barry and Hilary feel about 2A so I would vote for a zebra wearing a fez smoking a Phillies blunt if it was running against them. I wouldn't vote to send a message to the Republicans I'm unhappy with, I'd vote for the damn zebra to keep a known disease from grabbing hold.
-
Christi isn't Bloomberg.
You can't paint this with one large brush. Again, I go back to my status as a single issue voter. My local state senator is a Dem but he's SOLID 2A. I'll forgive some of the economic idiocy for that... if a politician is respectful of your constitutional rights, that and THAT ONLY is good enough for me- I'll vote for them every time unless their opponent does that AND has more conservative policies.
Every election is different, every race is different, and every DAY is different in the 2A struggle. I know how Barry and Hilary feel about 2A so I would vote for a zebra wearing a fez smoking a Phillies blunt if it was running against them. I wouldn't vote to send a message to the Republicans I'm unhappy with, I'd vote for the damn zebra to keep a known disease from grabbing hold.
I agree with all of that.
That is exactly why I'd vote for a Libertarian candidate on the ballot. Always pro 2A and, depending upon your definition of conservative, more conservative.
My measure of conservatism is how closely the candidate follows the Constitution as intended by the Founders.
-
Trouble is, if you vote for the Libertarian, the Democrat wins. I would LOVE to vote Libertarian, but ironically, I would lose more rights because if enough people vote 3rd party the shitheads get in office. The Democrat shitheads that is.
-
Trouble is, if you vote for the Libertarian, the Democrat wins. I would LOVE to vote Libertarian, but ironically, I would lose more rights because if enough people vote 3rd party the shitheads get in office. The Democrat shitheads that is.
Don't you think that if everyone who thought that voted Libertarian, they might win?
As long as you are not wiling to start making the change noticeable, things will stay the way they are.
Not vote for a Libertarian is a vote to keep things the way they have been going for the past decade or so.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/rules_for_all_republicans.html
Rules for all Republicans
By Sally Zelikovsky
Yes, Virginia. There really is a split in the Republican Party. There always has been and always will be. But the acrimony is spinning out of control and the only people benefitting are the Democrats.
It disturbs me when I'm labeled a sellout if I say something positive about an "establishment" Republican and it's equally infuriating when I'm lectured that Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are part of a "suicide coalition." When I write something favorable to the GOP, my inbox is flooded with angry emails from tea partiers but accolades from party loyalists and, vice versa, if I write something critical of the base or Tea Party. It's insulting when grassroots activists tell me I'm not a true conservative and aggravating when I'm dismissed as "just a tea partier" and flicked off like a fly.
These personal accounts simply mirror what is happening party-wide. If conservatives are ever to regain power in Washington, change has to come from all camps within the GOP.
Obama won by only 5 million votes. Three million Republicans didn't vote in the 2012 Obama-Romney face-off and a hefty number of disgruntled Republicans voted for libertarian Gary Johnson, who garnered 1.5 million votes. Millions of conservatives -- who are not registered Republicans -- also withheld their votes. Imagine if all of those protest votes had gone to Romney?
Conservatives who have "had it" with the GOP and stay home or cast a protest vote might experience a certain amount of self-satisfaction in the short run. But, in the long run, this inhibits the ability of conservatives to gain power in DC as we continue to lose winnable seats. The more GOPers we get into office today, the greater the pressure the conservative wing can exert and the closer we can inch towards our goals.
In a perfect world, we could stop the overspending, graft and waste today, harmoniously agree on effective policies and elect ideal candidates. But we don't live in that world. Republicans deal in realities and the reality is this: political viewpoints are as varied as human behavior. It is this diversity that feeds the marketplace of ideas protected by the First Amendment -- allowing for the full expression of the individual.
We have to work within those confines of human behavior and understand that the road to conservative success is paved on coalition building -- not running to our little corners surrounded only by those with whom we agree 100%. There is no end to the number of ways we could balkanize if we follow that path.
Conservatives don't have consensus on the social issues, approaches to our immigration problems and national security policy. Tea Party leaders instinctively knew this and, at the Tea Party's conception, were careful to focus on the areas of agreement: fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, constitutionally limited government, and free markets.
There was also an implicit understanding among most (but not all) Tea Party leaders, that a third party was not the goal nor was infiltrating and taking over the GOP to make it our own (although some Campaign for Liberty supporters did openly advocate for that). We were in it for the long haul and our intentions were to get the GOP to stay true to its conservative roots, impact policy, help elect conservatives, and effectuate change in the GOP through participation.
Some Tea Party groups were at odds with their local central committees and state parties, but many worked in tandem with the various GOP entities.Then, in the wake of the Romney loss, both sides started to play the blame game. Moderates pointed to Akin and Mourdock as having played a big part in the defeat by fueling the "war on women" mantra -- ushering in calls to moderate. Grassroots conservatives cast Romney as yet another northeast-establishment moderate who wasn't conservative enough to win --leading the frustrated grassroots to threaten to withhold votes in the absence of more conservative candidates.
This was all amplified when moderates tied Cuccinelli's loss to his being a rabid, right-wing extremist and Christie's win to his being a moderate. Tea Partiers countered that the establishment sold Cuccinelli down the river and Christie was a sell-out. And so the cycle of rebuke and rendgoes on and on.
I understand the eye-rolling from moderates when the Todd Akins of the world muck up. And I understand Tea Party frustration when yet another moderate is running. I know how it doesn't look like it will ever end unless we send an unmistakably powerful message to GOP leaders that we will throw in the towel with our support.
But this is a misreading of reality. Five years ago the Tea Party didn't exist -- it was an amorphous part of the Republican base which overlapped with Reagan-type Democrats and Independents. In five years, we have become a force in American politics with a cadre of strong candidates elected to all levels of government. Weare making inroads... slowly, but surely.
It's too early in the game to give up. It's too early to completely dismiss less-than-ideal Republican candidates. If you are playing the long game, then you know we haven't been doing this for so long that it's time to stay home.
The Tea Party has to be reminded of their long-term goals and be prepared to sacrifice some principles in the short run to vote for moderates and prevent the left from amassing more political clout. And the "establishment" has to stop demonizing its own and freezing out candidates they believe are too darn conservative.
If we cannot work together, the GOP will rip apart. Many of you want that. And most establishment Republicans don't think this will happen because conservatives have nowhere else to go. But this is no bluff -- conservatives are serious about defecting. I, for one, do not want that to happen.
We cannot change each other but we can do the following:
(1) Duke it out in the primaries and whole-heartedly support your candidate of choice.
(2) Do not support your preferred candidate by stooping to Democrat levels.
Ex: Do not call Romney a "vulture capitalist" as Newt did. Do not call moderates "RINOs" and do not call Tea Party candidates "extreme or radical."
(3) Never forfeit a "sure thing" candidate for a high risk one.
Ex: When it is clear that a Mike Castle-type Republican can get re-elected in Delaware and a Christine O'Donnell type cannot, cut your losses and go for the strategic win. If O'Donnell was truly such a great candidate, she was young and new enough to be groomed for the next go around but don't gamble away a secure seat with a risky replacement.
(4) Unless an incontrovertible liability, never abandon a viable candidate especially in an important race.
Ex: When there is a Cuccinelli-type candidate running, do not abandon him especially as the race tightens.
(5) In extreme cases, when a candidate is hurting other races, it's okay to withdraw support.
Ex: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
(6) Do not use outliers to formulate strategies for the entire country.
Ex: Christie is a win to celebrate and study but he shouldn't necessarily become the template for all races in the country any more than Cuccinelli's loss or Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock's disgraces should.
(7) Make protest votes a thing of the past -- at least until we regain power and the Republicans have at least one presidential term to right this sinking ship. This means moderates vote for social conservatives and tea partiers; social conservatives and tea partiers vote for moderates.
(8) Think of the end game.
Ex: If Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell win their primaries, the grassroots must support them. This is unacceptable to many, but if McConnell's vote is the one to repeal ObamaCare and a liberal occupies his seat, you just cut off your nose to spite your face. Same for moderates -- if Cuccinelli had been supported and won, that would have been one more red governor in a very strategic state.
(9) Social conservatives and tea partiers should hold any elected Republican's feet to the fire.
(10) Moderates should expect social conservatives and tea partiers to hold their feet to the fire.
(11) Do not air our collective dirty laundry.
Ex: Let's say you don't agree with a tactic being employed by one arm of the party, i.e., the Cruz-Lee tactic to defund or delay or else.
(a) Do not provide the media with your commentary;
(b) If you must comment, find a way to spin it favorably;
(c) If you can't, express that Republicans are doing their best to represent the interests of the people who elected them and, while there might be some disagreement about this tactic, they are doing the will of the People.
(d) If you just can't do that, never, ever call your compatriots -- no matter how much you disagree with them -- wack jobs or insult their intelligence.
(12) Always anticipate the leftwing response, think through your story, then stick to it.
Ex: Quietly withdraw support for a candidate like Todd Akin but don't feed into the Democrat-Media Complex myth that this wack job represents everyone in the GOP. Respond instead: Republicans do not hate women. Millions of Republicans are women and millions of Republican men have wives, sisters, mothers and daughters they love and respect. Republicans are focused on the issues that really matter to women: education, healthcare, job security and the economy. Lay out a few statistics to show how Democrat leadership has hurt women whereas Republican policies support them and their families. Say it over and over no matter how many times the press asks if you agree with or support Todd Akin. Why? Because every time they ask and you give the above answer, someone out there in the audience is listening to the substance of what you are saying. It's free PR. Sure, they'll say you didn't answer the question, but you will get your message out like the left does 24/7.
(13) In politics, as in life, there are people in any group or organization who have varying degrees of commitment. Do not judge them according to your standards of purity. As Hugh Hewitt recently said on his radio show, do not discard Republicans just because you disagree with them and do not disparage them by saying they are not true conservatives. Life and politics just aren't that simple.
Ex: Karl Rove might have missed the mark in 2012 and might not be your cup of tea as a conservative, but he has worked tirelessly for the cause and his knowledge about the Party, elections, and the electoral landscape is encyclopedic. You just don't throw that away. A few weeks ago 600+ San Francisco conservatives heard Charles Krauthammer speak. Not everyone agrees with him on everything, especially in recent months. But we are aligned on 80% of the issues and there was no denying that this was a brilliant mind that had something to offer. Neither men are oracles to be followed blindly but anger over their opinions (or performance, in cases of elected officials like Mitch McConnell) must be tempered.
(14) Use the media to communicate with the PEOPLE. This is your chance to be a PR person for conservatism, even though the press is never on your side.
(a) Don't be too technical or too cerebral. Speak in common terms. Remember you are speaking to the PEOPLE not the reporter.
(b) Focus on the takeaway for the average American if conservative policies are employed. Think "Kitchen Table" conversation.
(c) Use concrete evidence to support your points.
(d) Choose your language carefully.
Ex: "ObamaCare is unfair" by treating different people differently.
(15) Always promote the improved quality of life in Republican-run states andcontrast this with the diminished quality of life in true blue states.
(16) Speak with one voice on the issues where there is consensus.
(17) Where there is no consensus, speak to the fact that we are a diverse party that welcomes debate but, in the end, we are all guided by time-tested conservative principles that promote freedom.
In writing Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky gave a solemn head nod to Lucifer -- "the very first radical...who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom." Although he claimed to be the harbinger of optimism, his entire philosophy is based on dark, evil, destructive politics where demonization, lying, and division rule. Conservatives aren't cut from that cloth but we seem to have lost our way. It's time to be the light to their darkness, the solutions to their conundrums, the sense to their inanity, and the creation to their destruction.
-
Don't you think that if everyone who thought that voted Libertarian, they might win?
As long as you are not wiling to start making the change noticeable, things will stay the way they are.
Not vote for a Libertarian is a vote to keep things the way they have been going for the past decade or so.
To the bold above, "NO" I don't think they would win. The Democrats include a lot of arrogant people, a lot of well meaning people, a lot of misguided people, a lot of elitists, and almost all of the people who don't give a shit. Libertarian votes come from the CONSERVATIVE side of the pie Solus. Any libertarian gain is a republican loss, not a democrat loss. It's THAT SIMPLE.
If you want Democrats in office, vote for the independent. It's THAT SIMPLE.
-
To the bold above, "NO" I don't think they would win. The Democrats include a lot of arrogant people, a lot of well meaning people, a lot of misguided people, a lot of elitists, and almost all of the people who don't give a shit. Libertarian votes come from the CONSERVATIVE side of the pie Solus. Any libertarian gain is a republican loss, not a democrat loss. It's THAT SIMPLE.
If you want Democrats in office, vote for the independent. It's THAT SIMPLE.
Well, I guess that is great if you love the job the Republicans have been doing. I don't. Just the other member of the political tag team folks seem to be set on endorsing.
-
Based on what I read here I would say that the main reason Conservatives lose and have LET the Republican Party go to the left is because they don't deserve to win.
The Democrats Know what they are doing.
They have a set goal, they have a carefully planned, PROVEN, program for getting there, and they know how to win elections.
Nothing at all like the Conservatives.
-
Based on what I read here I would say that the main reason Conservatives lose and have LET the Republican Party go to the left is because they don't deserve to win.
The Democrats Know what they are doing.
They have a set goal, they have a carefully planned, PROVEN, program for getting there, and they know how to win elections.
Nothing at all like the Conservatives.
You are right Tom....and that is disturbing, not because you are right but because of what you are right about and all that it implies.
-
You can also verify that the Dems have had a long term relationship with both organized crime, and Unions.
When "hope and change" don't work they are perfectly capable of using thuggery.
-
Agreed, Tom. Communist Party-like.
The Republicans don't seem to have a cause anymore.
-
It is also blindingly obvious that the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the leftist democrats.
Correct ?
-
The GOP doesn't represent my views. Individual GOP candidates may, but "the Party" doesn't, anymore. Maybe it never did. I don't know at this point.
Cuccinelli was a good candidate. I supported him, but it's not my State.
Perhaps for the sake of equal representation, northern VA should secede..
-
Here is the way I approach, and look at voting. Most people make this way more complicated than it really is. Looking at the last several Presidential elections as examples, we have TWO people we KNOW (without a doubt) that ONE of them WILL become President. These two people are going to receive 80 percent of the votes presented. The rest of the votes are divided between 5 other contestants that have zero chance in hell of winning. Even Ross Perot who spent big bucks couldn't make much of a dent in the two main competitors when he attempted to run for President.
Now lets apply the two different approaches of voting.
Thought 1.) Voting for someone who doesn't even make the news, Doesn't even stand a chance in hell, is just a name on a ballet with fictitious backing that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
A.) The voter casts his vote for this guy because he believes in him. The voter is happy that his vote counted for the "BEST" guy there is. (And it IS the best guy!!). But this guy will NEVER be elected, his running mates have him outclassed beyond even being seen. In other words he is skunked so bad that his running is a joke. But your vote COUNTED for an individual that is extremely well fit for the job.
Thought 2.) Voting for the someone who has a chance to stop someone like Obama. Or the other side of the ilk.
A.) When voting for someone who HAS a chance, your vote is Guaranteed to go towards someone who WILL be elected. It may not be someone you think is qualified, someone you like, or someone you think will do a good job, but this someone is MUCH BETTER than the alternative.
When voting thought 2, one thing is for certain, Voting against the worse of the two evils and not voting for the worthless competitors, guarantees your vote will NOT help that person (like Obama) get elected. Your vote is cast upon someone you *know* will have a chance of being in office, and will be against the person you do not like.
When voting thought 1, One thing is for certain, Your vote that could have helped the worse of two evils get elected, has gone for a candidate that doesn't stand a chance in hell of even being looked at. The result? You are actually helping the person you despise the most.
Is it better to cast a vote for a person who will NEVER get elected, but is qualified to the hilt.
Or.........
Is it better to cast a vote for a person whom you KNOW will be elected, is closest to your ideals, and will be much better than someone you despise. ..like Obama.
-
Here is the way I approach, and look at voting. Most people make this way more complicated than it really is. Looking at the last several Presidential elections as examples, we have TWO people we KNOW (without a doubt) that ONE of them WILL become President. These two people are going to receive 80 percent of the votes presented. The rest of the votes are divided between 5 other contestants that have zero chance in hell of winning. Even Ross Perot who spent big bucks couldn't make much of a dent in the two main competitors when he attempted to run for President.
Now lets apply the two different approaches of voting.
Thought 1.) Voting for someone who doesn't even make the news, Doesn't even stand a chance in hell, is just a name on a ballet with fictitious backing that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
A.) The voter casts his vote for this guy because he believes in him. The voter is happy that his vote counted for the "BEST" guy there is. (And it IS the best guy!!). But this guy will NEVER be elected, his running mates have him outclassed beyond even being seen. In other words he is skunked so bad that his running is a joke. But your vote COUNTED for an individual that is extremely well fit for the job.
Thought 2.) Voting for the someone who has a chance to stop someone like Obama. Or the other side of the ilk.
A.) When voting for someone who HAS a chance, your vote is Guaranteed to go towards someone who WILL be elected. It may not be someone you think is qualified, someone you like, or someone you think will do a good job, but this someone is MUCH BETTER than the alternative.
When voting thought 2, one thing is for certain, Voting against the worse of the two evils and not voting for the worthless competitors, guarantees your vote will NOT help that person (like Obama) get elected. Your vote is cast upon someone you *know* will have a chance of being in office, and will be against the person you do not like.
When voting thought 1, One thing is for certain, Your vote that could have helped the worse of two evils get elected, has gone for a candidate that doesn't stand a chance in hell of even being looked at. The result? You are actually helping the person you despise the most.
Is it better to cast a vote for a person who will NEVER get elected, but is qualified to the hilt.
Or.........
Is it better to cast a vote for a person whom you KNOW will be elected, is closest to your ideals, and will be much better than someone you despise. ..like Obama.
I agree that this is all correct....as long as you limit your goal to the current election and do not care about any long term benefit.
I voted against Obama in the last two elections, going with the Republican candidate, and, in hindsight, I feel my votes were wasted. Because I saw, and still see, BO as such a destructive force for our country, I made those votes in a desperate attempt to avoid him being elected, even though I was not at all fond of his opponents.
My position is that the vote for a good 3rd party candidate is a possible way to effect the outcome of future elections, but it takes voters who are willing to look beyond the current election.
Should enough citizens vote their dissatisfaction with the operations of the Democrats and Republicans, the future might be changed in two ways.
One, as the vote for the 3rd party grows, more voters would be attracted to vote that 3rd party.
Two, as that vote grows the major parties would consider altering their positions to gain those votes.
I know none of this is certain, but voting for Republican in past two elections was not casting "a vote for a person whom you KNOW will be elected".
As to the 3rd party not being generally known, look to the MSN and the 2 parties in power for much of that.
Even candidates who have achieved ballot access in all 57 (is it?) states is not included in the debates. That is where the differences in the candidates would become evident. Watch the Republicans and Democrats to their usual Song and Dance routines around the issues and see if the 3rd party candidate gives details.
The parties in power do very much to restrict ballot access to any 3rd party candidate also.
The normal voter's access to knowledge of the 3rd party candidate is very much controlled by the MSM and the 2 parties in power. Even knowledgeable voters respond to their efforts to remove the choice in candidates by refusing to vote for candidates who haven't been given the publicity and afforded financial benefits afforded the 2 parties in power.
Of course if either the Democrats or Republicans are running the show as you wish it to be run, continue voting for them since they make you happy.
-
I still don't see it Solus. I mean, I UNDERSTAND what you are saying and I agree with it, but if you vote that way for 3 or 4 voting cycles, looking at the long run and in doing so you ensure that the Obama-types are elected, you will not win either. First, by getting back in EACH time because anti-votes are wasted on the third party, the Obamas of the world will continue to undermine the constitution and the slant of the playing field. You allow that to happen for 10, 15, 20 ,more years, there's a good chance you won't even have the RIGHT to VOTE by then.
These people are a repackaged version of communists and socialists...with a much more refined ability to manipulate the media and the message, and a HUGE voting mass on the dole. Voting against them is the only way to hope to hold off the destruction of our nation.
Vote that way and have the fight within the Republican party or form a strong third party or whatever...but don't think you will stop the Democrats by voting for wanna-bes, even if they are the best candidate.
-
The problem with all of this 3rd party banter, is the fact you already have an over 50% majority that wants the socialist in power so they can get free stuff. Everything else be damned. Now how can you possibly attract enough minorities away from the free bandwagon, and get them to vote for lesser government and better jobs through more capitalism? It's all but impossible.
Most who voted for Hussein want hand outs, pure and simple. They're not interested in jobs, and or self reliance. If they were Romney would have won in a landslide. He offered no hand outs, as a result he got nowhere near enough votes. Yes, a lot of Republicans stayed home, and that hurt him badly. But chalk it all up with apathetic voters, minorities who want hand outs, blacks who vote only on skin color regardless of poor performance, (blacks still have a 85% favorability rating on Obama), and a third party candidate has zero chance of winning. It's looking more and more like Hillary won't win, but the Republicans will lose yet again......Especially if they run Christy.
-
The problem with all of this 3rd party banter, is the fact you already have an over 50% majority that wants the socialist in power so they can get free stuff. Everything else be damned. Now how can you possibly attract enough minorities away from the free bandwagon, and get them to vote for lesser government and better jobs through more capitalism? It's all but impossible.
Quite the rub isn't it?
The losers who won't work, want everything handed to them for free and demand more and more from every productive American, have proved themselves the biggest, most motivated voting block in the country. And they outnumber us.
Friggin' disgusting.
-
Which is the main crux of the argument!
At present, the hold our nose and yank the big R handle at the polls may be our only hope in the near term...
Down the road we can dream of the Reagan reincarnation but probably not in the next election!
-
Does anyone remember the last time a third party candidate was elected President? What makes you think a third party candidate has a chance now? I would vote for the Bull Moose party if I thought they could beat the Democrats.
-
Wasn't the Republican party a "third" party or "replacement" party after the Whig party ended?
-
Remember the mathematics as well. With three parties you wind up with a candidate who can win with 34% of the vote. Which means 64% of the voters don't want him.
-
66%
-
Wasn't the Republican party a "third" party or "replacement" party after the Whig party ended?
The way the Republicans won was that no one supported the Whigs .
and the Democrats wound up split on slavery and running 2 separate slates of candidates .
That's the ONLY way a 3rd Party will gain the white house.
-
So you're saying that the public has to become disenfranchised from a given party enough that they leave it and create a third party. I can see that happening.
-
So you're saying that the public has to become disenfranchised from a given party enough that they leave it and create a third party. I can see that happening.
That might get a 3rd party win, but in Tom's example, the strong party was bickering and fielded 2 slates, allowing the 3rd party an easier victory.
I fell pretty confident that most Dems won't leave the party no matter how disenchanted they become...they already believe the government is causing the problems, but don't associate it with how they vote...or if they do, they vote the same any way.
I'm discouraged by this thread along with the one Tom started with a long post about whey the Reps don't win.
I'm not discouraged by this thread because of those how see things differently than me, but because enough facts from both sides just don't paint a very bright picture.
-
I had no intention of starting WW3 when I started this post. Basically, I just wanted to vent about the fact that the liberal news media is picking our candidates. They have the last two elections, and are already working on the next. Chris Christie is not someone I can vote for, period. I am a card carrying Republican, and have been since before I could vote! I was too young to vote for Reagan, but I sure as hell would have if I could have. Have voted Republican in every election since, except when the first Bush stabbed us in the back and by executive order signed the very first assault weapon ban, and renounced his NRA membership (remember that?) I voted for Peroit in that election, and am not ashamed to say it. (I did vote for him the first time he ran.) All that being said, I stand by my original post. I have never voted for a Democrat, and never will, but I honestly fail to see the difference between a Democrat and Chris Christie. After all, Bloomberg ran as a Republican, and he is the most anti-gun SOB in the country!
-
As long as the bulk of the voters believe the crap the liberal Democrats dispense, along with handouts, that is what you're going to get. You still have plenty of Dems that still believe Obama Care is good. How scary is that?
-
The media may have Christie as the preeminent darling of the GOP at the moment but we're a long ways away from the election! Give them a good hard slap in 2014 and we might just see a prominent "something" arise out of the ashes. Regardless of the race in 2016, the president is only one third of the equation...give the DNC another four to eight years and THEY WILL OWN THE SUPREME COURT AS WELL!!!!!!!
Either way, after sitting back and reading this thread for the last week, I'm pretty much convinced I have no other choice. With the exception of a few states, my vote will mean absolutely nothing but cast it I will, none the less...
-
Tim, don't get yourself too down. Obama Care is getting worse by the day. It is certain to get worse.....Much worse, as time goes on. Not a day goes by there isn't another horror story. You could see a Republican rout next November. I'm not saying they'll win, but rather the Dems will hand it to them on a silver platter, the way this is going. This is effecting EVERYONE, or else soon will. If you get 50 million people with their health care cancelled, and can't afford the alternative, they'll want the Dems heads on sticks!
-
I had no intention of starting WW3 when I started this post. Basically, I just wanted to vent about the fact that the liberal news media is picking our candidates. They have the last two elections, and are already working on the next. Chris Christie is not someone I can vote for, period. I am a card carrying Republican, and have been since before I could vote! I was too young to vote for Reagan, but I sure as hell would have if I could have. Have voted Republican in every election since, except when the first Bush stabbed us in the back and by executive order signed the very first assault weapon ban, and renounced his NRA membership (remember that?) I voted for Peroit in that election, and am not ashamed to say it. (I did vote for him the first time he ran.) All that being said, I stand by my original post. I have never voted for a Democrat, and never will, but I honestly fail to see the difference between a Democrat and Chris Christie. After all, Bloomberg ran as a Republican, and he is the most anti-gun SOB in the country!
Didn't start WWIII, Gunman....thread drifted a bit into a good discussion.
Different view were expressed and supported with reasoned arguments in a civil discussion. My feeling is most of us can see the truth in part of the other sides argument but think it more useful to go with the the one in which they see the most hope of a favorable outcome.
Not like a discussion about whether the Glock or 1911 is the better sidearm where the Glock is clearly superior. ;D ;D ;D At least the lady members of Team Glock are more attractive.
-
Tim, don't get yourself too down. Obama Care is getting worse by the day. It is certain to get worse.....Much worse, as time goes on. Not a day goes by there isn't another horror story. You could see a Republican rout next November. I'm not saying they'll win, but rather the Dems will hand it to them on a silver platter, the way this is going. This is effecting EVERYONE, or else soon will. If you get 50 million people with their health care cancelled, and can't afford the alternative, they'll want the Dems heads on sticks!
Bill,
I've lived in MA since '97...I don't get too down, I get motivated and send money to the local GOAL to push my agendas! My vote may mean very little but my voice is still heard... :)
I too have seen the governor of MA taught Romneycare as "working" here when in fact, without Federal money, it falls flat on it's face. We're leaning on the edge of insolvency in MA as it relates to social healthcare. If that's a basis of OdumbassCare, we're well and truly fucked and you're prophecy of Obamacare failing miserably has already been predicted!
;)
-
Neither, Bush signed any AWB's .
That was Clinton .
Bush Sr DID close the machine gun registry, but it was the broken "No new taxes" pledge that that shifted support to Perot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
-
Neither, Bush signed any AWB's .
That was Clinton .
Bush Sr DID close the machine gun registry, but it was the broken "No new taxes" pledge that that shifted support to Perot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Yea, that's my recollection of history as well... GHWB left office on January 20, 1993, about noonish...
-
Sorry guys, but I remember it vividly. He didn't sign a bill, he had an executive order banning the importation of certain assault weapons. He was the reason I became a Life Member of the NRA. This is a clip from Fox News:
In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act, under the determination that they were not “particularly suitable for or readily adapting to sporting purposes.”
-
Sorry guys, but I remember it vividly. He didn't sign a bill, he had an executive order banning the importation of certain assault weapons. He was the reason I became a Life Member of the NRA. This is a clip from Fox News:
In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act, under the determination that they were not “particularly suitable for or readily adapting to sporting purposes.”
I'm not saying I don't believe you Gunman but I just browsed the 166 Exec Orders of GHW Bush and could not find that order. It may well have been buried within the title of another order though!
-
Sorry guys, but I remember it vividly. He didn't sign a bill, he had an executive order banning the importation of certain assault weapons. He was the reason I became a Life Member of the NRA. This is a clip from Fox News:
In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act, under the determination that they were not “particularly suitable for or readily adapting to sporting purposes.”
Link please.
-
In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act, under the determination that they were not “particularly suitable for or readily adapting to sporting purposes.”
I believe this is when he banned the importation of the Chinese Poly Tech AK-47's, and many of the Norinco guns, including the M1-A clone. It was old man Bush, and not Clinton.
"Even so, sales were encouraging until they were banned in 1989 by the Bush ban following the mass murder in Stockton, Calif., where the gunman used an AK-47 to kill all six of his victims, in addition to injuring 29."
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/04/16/chinese-kalashnikov-the-poly-tech-aks-762/#ixzz2lJTWZW8s
-
Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent By SUSAN F. RASKY
Special to The New York Times
Published: July 08, 1989
The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles. Imports of the weapons have been suspended since spring.
The permanent ban affects all but 7 of the 50 models included in the spring suspension. It does not affect the far larger number of virtually identical weapons manufactured domestically, nor does it affect foreign-made semiautomatic weapons already in the United States.
Americans own about three million semiautomatic weapons, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency in the Treasury Department that enforces national gun laws. About 25 percent of those weapons are foreign models, including semiautomatic versions of military assault rifles like the Israeli Uzi or the AK-47 Soviet infantry rifle.
Administration officials said that without the ban 700,000 to one million foreign-made assault weapons would have been imported into the United States this year, but they acknowledged that the slack would easily be taken up by domestic manufacturers. A Significant Step
''We're not saying it will solve the basic problem,'' said Stephen E. Higgins, director of the firearms bureau, who announced the ban.
Today's decision is a significant step in the evolution of the Administration's gun control policies. It puts President Bush clearly at odds with the National Rifle Association and will almost certainly increase pressures on him to approve restrictions or an outright ban on domestic versions of semiautomatic assault weapons.
''The President was informed of the findings and decisions, and fully supports them,'' Alixe Glen, a White House spokeswoman, said of the ban announced today.
Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum of Ohio and Representative Pete Stark of California, both Democrats and leading Congressional advocates of stricter gun control, criticized the President for not going far enough and pledged to press for tighter restrictions on domestically produced assault weapons. Bills Pending in Congress
Several such bills are pending in Congress, and Mr. Stark said that with his action today Mr. Bush had given ''tacit approval'' to the idea of restricting all assault-style weapons. ''If one of these bills goes through, the President certainly will have no logical reason to justify a veto,'' Mr. Stark added.
Senator Metzenbaum said he would ask the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve legislation barring domestically manufactured assault weapons when it meets next Thursday.
Asserting that domestic assault weapons were ''favored by drug dealers and street gangs,'' he added, ''Any police officer will tell you it doesn't matter if you are killed by an imported or American-made assault weapon -you are just as dead.''
Semiautomatic rifles are those that require no manual action except a separate trigger pull to fire each bullet. Automatic weapons like machine guns fire a stream of bullets with a single trigger pull. President Shifts Stand
In the Presidential campaign last year Mr. Bush, a hunter and longtime member of the N.R.A., opposed to any bans on assault weapons. But a public outcry after a drifter armed with an AK-47 killed five schoolchildren in Stockton, Calif., in January helped convince others in the Administration that some limits were needed.
At the urging of William J. Bennett, the director of national drug control policy, the Administration suspended imports of certain types of semiautomatic assault rifles in March. The President expanded that temporary ban as part of a broader anticrime program that he announced in April, and said he would make it permanent for imported weapons that did not have a legitimate sporting use.
The 43 types of semiautomatic rifles now barred from entry into the United States were part of a group of 50 evaluated by the firearms bureau in a three-month study. The bureau has authority under the 1968 Gun Control Act to block imports of weapons not generally suitable to sporting use, but it does not regulate domestic manufacture of weapons.
Mr. Higgins said the bureau concluded that there were ''viable, clear differences between semiautomatic assault rifles and semiautomatic rifles used in traditional sports.'' Some distinguishing features of assault-style weapons, he said, are the ability to accept a detachable magazine and a centerfire cartridge that is less than 2 1/4 inches long. Six Rimfire Rifles Exempted
A centerfire cartridge is one whose detonator is set in the center of the cartridge base, rather than in the rim of the base. High-power rifles typically use centerfire cartridges.
Of the seven models exempted from the import ban, six are .22-caliber rimfire rifles and the other is a gun called the Valmet Hunter, which had been considered during the suspension period to be one of the AK-47 types.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html
Seems that he let the 1968 Gun Control Act enforce the ban rather than write an Executive order. I've now read all 166 of his EO's and cannot find a single word.
Gunman is correct...
-
Thank you Timothy. I thought it was an EO, but whatever it was, I remember it like it was yesterday. Pissed me off enough to join the NRA, and have been a member ever since. (By the way, my name is Timothy too!)
-
Thank you Timothy. I thought it was an EO, but whatever it was, I remember it like it was yesterday. Pissed me off enough to join the NRA, and have been a member ever since. (By the way, my name is Timothy too!)
No problem, Tim..
I like facts, they're stubborn things! :D
T
-
I don't know what this crap is, but judging by the number of AK , G3, and SKS rifles I've bought, all since June of 89 (when I got my first SKS ) This is bullsh!t .
-
<snip>
" nor does it affect foreign-made semiautomatic weapons already in the United States."
-
I still say it's Bullsh!t.
in 1989 the "Cold war" was still in progress, there were NO Russian made AK's, SKS's, Mosin Nagants, ammo, etc, on the legal market in the US.
Every single one of those came in after 1991, in other words, 2 years or more after this so called "permanent" ban.
-
I still say it's Bullsh!t.
in 1989 the "Cold war" was still in progress, there were NO Russian made AK's, SKS's, Mosin Nagants, ammo, etc, on the legal market in the US.
Every single one of those came in after 1991, in other words, 2 years or more after this so called "permanent" ban.
So, the NY Times published an inaccurate story, Tom?
Sarcasm.... you're a fine googlefooer.... find a link... I really don't give a shit anymore what GHW Bush did... It's nothing compared to what's coming...
I read his executive orders, all 166 of them , nd can't find anything but this article to substantiate the claim. There is however, a lot of hearsay on the old interweb...
-
I still say it's Bullsh!t.
in 1989 the "Cold war" was still in progress, there were NO Russian made AK's, SKS's, Mosin Nagants, ammo, etc, on the legal market in the US.
Every single one of those came in after 1991, in other words, 2 years or more after this so called "permanent" ban.
I don't know how old you are, but you can call it bullshit all day. I was there, I remember it being all over the news, I have American Rifleman magazines talking about it, it happened. You either have selective memory or just don't want to admit GHW Bush was anti gun. Hell, GW Bush said he would sign an assault weapon ban if one reached his desk, knowing full well it never would...
-
Bush Sr DID close the machine gun registry.
He did no such thing. The Hughes Amendment closed the Machine Gun Registry, and it was signed into law on May 19, 1986 (along with the Firearms Owners' Protection Act) by Ronnie Raygun.
-
So, the NY Times published an inaccurate story, Tom?
Sarcasm.... you're a fine googlefooer.... find a link... I really don't give a shit anymore what GHW Bush did... It's nothing compared to what's coming...
I read his executive orders, all 166 of them , nd can't find anything but this article to substantiate the claim. There is however, a lot of hearsay on the old interweb...
Are you sh!tting me ?
The NYT has been printing lies since at least the 1920's.
Does the name Jason Blair ring any bells ?
-
I said that was sarcasm, Tom! Lighten up..
Jesus it's getting tough to hang around here these days...
-
I said that was sarcasm, Tom! Lighten up..
Jesus it's getting tough to hang around here these days...
But, DO you remember who Jason Blair is ?
While we're on the subject of "the grey whore" check this out.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/nyt_blames_israel_for_deaths_of_two_lion_cubs.html
NYT Blames Israel for Deaths of Two Lion Cubs
Leo Rennert
Add one more naqba, catastrophe, to Palestinian victimhood, courtesy of the New York Times. And one more opportunity to bash Israel.
In its Nov. 22 edition, the Times runs a two-column headline that reads: "2 Lions, Their Birth Hailed by Gaza, Die Within Days."
According to correspondent Fares Akram reporting from the Gaza Strip, the birth of two lion cubs at a Gaza zoo was hailed by Hamas rulers as "a triumph over the proverbial hardship of life in this Palestinian coastal enclave." The cubs became "symbols of resistance." One was named Fair, Arabic for dawn, a "reference to the long-range rockets that Hamas has fired into Israel." The other cub, Sijil, which means stones of clay, bears Hamas' label for "the cross-border conflict with Israel." (euphemisms in Times parlance for Hamas terror attacks on Israeli civilian targets). To Hamas, the baby lions were a "symbol of beauty, power and strength," Akram writes.
But alas, it was not to be. Although they were born healthy, the cubs died within days. One possibility, readers are told, is that their mother refused to feed them. Another possibility was the November chill. But this being a story based on congruent values and agendas of Hamas and the Times, the finger of blame quickly points to Israel.
"On Tuesday," Akram reports, "an Israeli warplane dropped three bombs on an Islamic Jihad training base in northern Gaza, not far from the zoo, causing the lioness to panic and step on her offspring." The IDF itself seems to buttress this conclusion -- "The Israeli military said it had struck several sites in Gaza in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at soldiers near the border earlier that day."
The IDF's vaunted intelligence evidently failed in this instance. By rights, Israel should have desisted from counter-terrorism operations lest they might disturb the cubs' mother.
In the pages of the New York Times, it turns out, Israeli lives count for less than the fate of two cuddly baby lions.
-
But, DO you remember who Jason Blair is ?
Ain't he the guy who was stealing stories for the NYT some years back? Black fella plagiarizing stories for the paper...got fired didn't he?
-
That's the one .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
Jayson Blair (born March 23, 1976) is a former journalist with The New York Times. He resigned from the newspaper in May 2003 in the wake of the discovery of plagiarism and fabrication in his stories.
-
Dude, I aint Jason Blair, I am a over 20 year member of the NRA, have owned guns for over 30 years, work at Knob Creek Gun Range, home of the biggest machine gun shoot in the USA. I have tried googling some of this info, and the funny thing is the only media I seem to be able to find that mentions the GHW Bush ban is all liberal. I keep thinking about the book 1984 where they would erase all the info they didn't want to sheeple to know. And people would become to believe it. Anyway if you have any old American Rifleman from the period 89 to 90, it is mentioned in those tomes several times. I found this link:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/06/what-right-wing-media-wont-tell-you-about-assau/192553 With this quote:
1989: President George H.W. Bush uses executive action to ban the importation of foreign-made semi-automatic assault weapons, directing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to only allow the importation of firearms "generally recognized as particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."
Yep, it is a liberal website.
Here is another:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726
With this quote:
Allow law-enforcement agencies to confiscate more assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle used in the Aurora shootings by reinstituting a tighter definition of “sporting purposes” when inspecting assault weapons for import. President George H.W. Bush did this in 1989 to ban the import of assault weapons, using powers under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which stipulated that legal rifles had to be “suitable for sporting purposes.” Bush acted after a serial criminal killed five schoolchildren and wounded 29 others with an AK-47 assault rifle on Jan. 27, 1989, in Stockton, Calif.
President Clinton expanded that action with a second executive order in 1998 banning firearm imports and ammunition from China. The elder Bush watched his son, President George W. Bush, preside over the persistent watering down of the “sporting purposes” filter to block assault-weapons imports—a policy Obama has perpetuated. Fifty-three members of Congress wrote Obama on Feb. 12, 2009, urging him to tighten the ban on assault-weapon imports. Obama has ignored such requests.
Once again, an apparently liberal website.
Apparently, the only ones who want to remember that GHW Bush stabbed us all in the back are liberals. I voted for the bastard the first go round, but I voted for Perot the 2nd, and am still proud I did. The only time I didn't vote Republican, and it was precisely because of what he did to us gun owners.
-
Gunman, Ive been following gun laws since the GCA 68.
It could very well be that this is nothing but liberal bullsh!t.
One point is that the "Clinton AWB" was not an "expansion" of anything, it was a law passed by congress, and the decision to ban Chinese Norinco products was due to their shipping Scud missile parts to North Korea.
If you don't believe liberals are liars research what they SAY about Joe McCarthy then look at the actual transcripts of the hearings.
-
Tom, believe what you wish brother. I don't know how old you are, but I was there. It was on the news, it was in the American Rifleman, it is why I joined the NRA to begin with. GHW Bush did it. Believe it or not. I really don't care. There is Republican cool aid same as Democrat cool aid.
-
Maybe you will believe this link from FOX news!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/12/range-executive-actions-possible-on-guns-some-more-controversial-than-others/