Nomination
 

Very insightful analysis. Well done.

Happy 4th of July/Poll
 

I'm going to go with (2), since repealing the 2d Amendment would not of course outlaw guns (merely permit the outlawing, and there are a hell of a lot of gun owners who would stand in the way).

Number (2), however, would seriously interfere with my plan to wrap Bill in that big flag he flies in front of his house like some sort of superpatriot-do-gooder and set him on fire.

Little Reality Check for my Fellow Republicans:

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

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

Mourning the Farce of July -- Iraq & Amerika: http://www.bushflash.com/pax.html
 

It would be nice for these images to be shown to all Americans rather than the humdrum bs we currently are spoonfed.

------------
IRAQ: Let America Be -- http://www.bushflash.com/pax.html

http://www.bushflash.com/pax.html

http://www.bushflash.com/antiwar2.html

http://www.bushflash.com/liberation.html

Look, in the next several months, American politicians and pundits will talk a lot about 'leveling' with the people by speaking the hard truth about Iraq, meaning an admission that the war is sure to rage for years and require an even heavier sacrifice in money and blood. BS from talking heads. Speak Truth to Power? Nope. This 'leveling' will be just the latest spin. What they won't tell you are these two other hard truths:

(1) First, whatever lies ahead in the Iraq War, the outcome is almost certain to be far worse for Iraqis and Americans than it would have been if the U.S.-led invasion had never happened. Despite the uplifting political rhetoric about democracy and peace, the smart money is on a staggering death toll, a grisly civil war, possibly even genocide, with Sunnis killing Shiites and Shiites killing Sunnis.

CIA analysts also have concluded that Iraq is emerging as a far more effective training ground for Islamic terrorists than Afghanistan ever was. Iraq is both more central to the Arab world and provides hands-on experience in bomb-making, kidnapping, assassination and conventional attacks on military targets.

(2) If the Iraq insurgency ever ends, these battle-hardened terrorists also would be freed up to turn their skills on American targets around the world or on pro-U.S. governments in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Jordan, according to an internal CIA analysis written in May 2005. Most of these countries are de facto client-states for the US military-industrial complex. More so than ever.

re saving face n Iraq, in Vietnam, by the spring of '68, it was clear to just about everyone--including our intelligence agencies--that the war was lost. I think that Iraq may be in a similar 'quagmire'. The Tet Offensive made it obvious that the combined forces of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong weren't being defeated or decimated. The United States insisted that it would never talk directly or negotiate with the communist North and their allied partisans in South Vietnam, insisting that the quisling regime in Saigon was the lawful government. So the war dragged on for another five years, killing tens of thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese.

Finally, during 1972-1973, the United States did what it had previously said it wouldn't do: it essentially abandoned its puppet government in South Vietnam and began direct talks with the Vietnamese communists. The communists were magnanimous enough to give the United States a face-saving way out, rather than forcing Washington to admit that it was surrendering. And we left. That Iraq was clearly a mistake is crystalizing as a given.

That's a given. I don't know if Bush will find a way for the U.S. to save face here. Who knows, at this point, there may be no face to save. If that's the case, Bush should just hurry up and bring our gals and boys back now. 2,000 dead for no reason is treason. The more I think about it, the more I agree that Team Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Listen up my California "Republican" friend: I get it now. You graduated from Irvine and have time to post again. I guess its not like you can go daytripping in Mexico, so why not revisit your old haunts. Pretend you are one of us, and then try to convince us why the substance of our beliefs is wrong! Clever, but I'm onto you now.

Anyhoo, tell ya the truth, it ain't the FBI or 101st Airborne Division I'm particularly afraid of, because I know the FBI and the 101st Airborne Division and they ain't coming after me. Hell, I'm close enough to them that I can say with great certainty that I ain't coming after me!

What I'm afraid of is when President Hillary (shudder) invites the minions of her Chinese masters into my city as Peacekeepers.

What they hell do they give you people in California at party meetings anyway? Get with the program or shut the hell up yourself! 56-44, no thanks to you people!

Mourning the Farce of July -- Iraq & Amerika: http://www.bushflash.com/pax.html
 

This is absurd. No matter what happens, almost any Kurd will tell you that no matter what happens it will be better than living under Saddam. Any Iraqi Shitte will tell you the same thing. Only a Sunni would argue that things are worse or will get worse. Following the same of line of reasoning the whites used against the changing of the guard in Rhodesia and South Africa.

After two years not one of them has shown up anywhere outside of Iraq that I know of.

Wrong - Nixon bombed the hell out of North Vietnam. They met at the negotiating table. An armistice was called. The North Stopped invading the South, and the South Vietnamese held its own against the Vietcong. The North Vietnames realized the Vietcong couldn't do it on their own so they started sending troops south again. We bombed the hell out of Hanoi. The troops stopped. Watergate started. The troops started marching again. Congress stopped funding the South Vietnamese government and prevented any further US bombing. The North militarily took over the South. Not the Vietcong but the North Vietnamese army.

You are the type of person that would have argued the revolutoinary army should have surrendered after the loss at Brooklyn Heights.

I post this and I am supposed to take anything you say seriously.

Without Silicon Valley money the Republican party would be nowhere. And there is nothing more pathetic than a Republican that lives in a safe Republican district telling a Republican that lives in a non-safe Republican district how to keep the Republicans in the majority. Without Republicans winning in swing districts there would be no Republican majority, and from your posts you clearly have no idea what it takes to win in a swing district.

I still remember Larry Ellison announcing that the Daleys had made him an honorary south sider. But keep telling yourself how important you are to the national party if it helps you sleep at night.


You talkin to me?


Sure I do. Just not your swing district. Most of this country is pretty easy to figure out, and it mostly doesn't involve selling 20 conflicting lines to 20 different constituencies. I can understand how California "Republicans" like you might feel marginalized in this day and age, but don't blame me. 56-44, no thanks to you people.

Dude, he was #17 on my list. He would be a "fuck you" nomination because he couldn't get confirmed, but it is an interesting proposition. For me, because I don't trust an Ashcroftless government anymore than I trust a government with Ashcroft involved, I am anti-police (meaning I don't trust the police just because they wear a badge. Generally speaking, they undereducated for the authority they are given and not the brightest bulbs on the planet to start with, thus arming them and giving them a license to shake down the public is a scary proposition on its face), except where necessary and am pro-exclusionary rule.

In conclusion, if Bush puts up an honest pick who should be confirmed, let's say Luttig, and he gets shot down, I think Bush, as his second pick should throw up a big "fuck you", Ashcroft or Starr or Bork (the latter two probably would not allow themselves to be used like that, the former might) and after that pick gets shot down, Orrin Hatch could be the unifying choice.

Generally speaking, like say hello, I doubt that I would be in a position where I would be taking on the FBI or the 10st Airborne, but nothing in your post makes me trust or respect the local police anymore than I do, and my post is indicative of that lack of trust and respect. I do respect the rule of law, I just think that we tend to empower and authorize too many morons to enforce it. That is not saying all cops are bad people or are idiots, but too many are for the authority that they are given.

At the end of the day, the message of my post is that I respect my property rights and certain other rights more than I respect a corrupt officials right to tyrannically infringe upon them. Take that for what you will.

I'm not sure I buy this. I'll run this thought by the party people I know here and see what I reaction I get but, while I don't disagree that he got money from Silicon Valley, I don't think this is what put him over the top. I will say you guys have done some amazing work in a generation. I can remember 20 years back when the Republicans won California. Even a guy beholden to the religious right.

Happy 4th of July/Poll
 

Your story loses credibility with posts like this. Try to stay focused and keep consistent. Look at the work of my Infirm socks as your guide. My socks here, no focus, its why I had to get out the game.

Don't worry though, most of the FB doesn't read this board anyway.

Even those often corrupt cops are pretty well armed. Especially the swat teams. Using a gun, even against the local police, is not the brightest move, nor a move I think anyone on this board will take. Guns are useful because they help us protect our lives and property from the criminal element. The best defense against local police is the legal system, not the firearm. The fire and brimstone rhetoric about fire arms and the Second Amendment drive people in droves from the GOP. When you frame the argument in terms of protecting your family from the criminals, people understand. When you start talking about defending your liberties from tyranny, most voters fear militias more than they do the government. Especially the swing voters we need to attract.

Right now Republicans are popping corks all over the country because of the new Republican majority. However, from my point of view, the most liberal man in the Senate almost got elected President. The guy was a traitor during Vietnam (throwing his medal on the White House lawn) and called Daniel Ortega a friend and a guy he can reason with. The 94 landslide put the Republicans in control of many legislatures and that control was kept through 2000. Therefore the Republicans got to Gerrymander a bunch of Congressional seats that had been Gerrymandered the other way. Even with that advantage we lost seats. In addition, there are ten Republican Senators from states Kerry won pretty handily.

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

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

Its not like its that abstract of an idea either. There have been 50 or 100 examples of places in the world in the last 100 years where gun control turned out not to be a great idea.

And not that I take much from Cuba, North Vietnam or Iraq, but some very clever bastards have decided you can still run a dictatorship while arming the population to the teeth. Just like they are afraid of Private Hello kicking in their doors, I'm afraid of them kicking in mine. Not afraid like "afraid", but more like a not not afraid over the long term.

And holy shit do I ever not want this guy speaking at my conventions. He'd scare half the party away.

Roe
 

The president should reject the pressure of the extreme factions of his party that want litmus tests for his nominee. This process shouldn't just be about whether the next justice would help roll back women's rights by overturning Roe v. Wade , the law of the land. It should be about something much more basic: protecting our core constitutional values for generations to come, the freedoms that we've fought for, bled for and died for.

When Kennedy says stuff like this, does the rejection of litmus tests go both ways, i.e. Bush rejects a litmus test for choosing his nominee but likewise the liberals reject employing a pro-choice litmus test for their yea votes? Or is a one-way street? I'm guessing the latter and I don't understand why. Obviously Roe is a problematic decision. Compare it with Brown v Board of Ed. In historical context it was controversial. It certainly revoked 100 years of precedence and yet, there has been no controversy over upholding that decision in the 50 years since it came down, probably because it was a well crafted jurisprudentially solid decision. Yet Roe has been in jeopardy from day one, which jeopardy, methinks, comes from the fact that it was poorly crafted decision to start with and maybe needs to be undone so that the legislator can do their jobs and craft legislation that reflects the wll of the people consistent with constitutional guarantees.

Another question, does Kennedy realize that those "core consitutional values" he is citing were only discovered in 1965?

Did this guy actually ever pass a bar or did the cheating thing prohibit him from lawyerhood?


http://img178.echo.cx/img178/8206/kennedyburp0ld.jpg

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

IMO, the constitution confers a right and whether or not that right helps me protect myself against the FBI, the 101st Airborne, Hillary's wayward Cruise missile or Paddy O'Flanagan my friendly neighborhood beat cop, if keeping a glock in the nightstand helps me sleep nights who is Spanky to argue. I could probably do more damage against the afformentioned authorities by lobbing petrol bombs off the side of my autogyro, but like Spanky's argument it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and my constitutionally protected right to bear arms.