Pure Genius

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by eleanor

To demonize all Democrats instead of working to convince them their future might be decided by pro-gun Democrats might be a way to get it done.

Take a look around -- men's hair seems to be getting longer. Women's fashions seem to be featuring shorter skirts -- very 60's looks -- people are turning against the war, young folks seem to be more concerned about their rights. Looks like we might all be forced to work with the Dems. -- esp if a Democratic President is elected in 2008.

Work with what you have, guys. If we end up losing our gun rights because of a hard and fast stand on ideology -- well, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

So if we end up losing our gun rights because of the democrats, it will be the pro-gunners faults for taking a stand on ideology?

We will only have ourselves (pro-gunners) to blame if the democrats take our rights away, because we didn't work with them?

Interesting....if we don't work with the pro-gun democrats, we can only blame ourselves if we lose our gun rights...

WTF

Frank

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by TexicanKid

BD, I assume you're an XD owner and somewhat pro-gun (from your being on these forums), and I know that the Republicans are not all things to all people. But please realize that if you value your gun freedoms, the Democrats are not your friends.

I side with certain issues from both sides of the aisle, but I know that 2nd Amendment freedoms are most important to me, so I vote Republican, even though I might disagree with many stances they take on other issues.

TexanKid - you're really taking a leap to ask bd to employ logic. He tends to run on liberal talking points and cut & paste.

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

So if we end up losing our gun rights because of the democrats, it will be the pro-gunners faults for taking a stand on ideology?

We will only have ourselves (pro-gunners) to blame if the democrats take our rights away, because we didn't work with them?

Interesting....if we don't work with the pro-gun democrats, we can only blame ourselves if we lose our gun rights...

WTF

Frank

Pragmatism -- or -- in the words of that old 60's song, "If you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with."

If the Dems are in power, if they remain in power -- it would be very good to work with them in order to save our rights. Many of the new Dems are moderate as far as guns go. Unless they realize preserving gun rights is a "make or break" issue, unless they realize it's an issue that can cause them to lose (or win), what kind of leverage do you think you can have?

When the Republicans thought they didn't need any support from those many here malign as "centrists", they didn't pay any attention to them. In fact "moderate Republicans" were cast away -- called "RINO'S".

I'd bet you see more of them again. After all, it might be good to really have a "big tent".

According to all reports, tonights State of The Union speech will focus on domestic policy -- including some new ideas about health care.

Why do you think that's even on the table?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by eleanor

Pragmatism -- or -- in the words of that old 60's song, "If you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with."

If the Dems are in power, if they remain in power -- it would be very good to work with them in order to save our rights. Many of the new Dems are moderate as far as guns go. Unless they realize preserving gun rights is a "make or break" issue, unless they realize it's an issue that can cause them to lose (or win), what kind of leverage do you think you can have?

When the Republicans thought they didn't need any support from those many here malign as "centrists", they didn't pay any attention to them. In fact "moderate Republicans" were cast away -- called "RINO'S".

I'd bet you see more of them again. After all, it might be good to really have a "big tent".

According to all reports, tonights State of The Union speech will focus on domestic policy -- including some new ideas about health care.

Why do you think that's even on the table?

I agree that we shouldn't ignore the middle. Centrists from both parties have often been cast aside, such as Joe Leiberman for example.

Many newly elected blue-dog democrats are pro 2A, like Jim Webb for example. He used to be the Navy Secretary in the Reagan administration. He also used to be a registered Republican. BTW, Webb is the one who the Democrats have picked to deliver the democratic response to the state of the union address--thats quite an honor for a freshman senator.

Because of moderate-dems like Webb, I am hoping that any anti 2A legislation proposed by Pelosi and CO. will be rejected. Many moderate democrats already went against her wishes by refusing to elect Murtha as a leader in the house.

Frank

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I agree that we shouldn't ignore the middle. Centrists from both parties have often been cast aside, such as Joe Leiberman for example.

Many newly elected blue-dog democrats are pro 2A, like Jim Webb for example. He used to be the Navy Secretary in the Reagan administration. He also used to be a registered Republican. BTW, Webb is the one who the Democrats have picked to deliver the democratic response to the state of the union address--thats quite an honor for a freshman senator.

Because of moderate-dems like Webb, I am hoping that any anti 2A legislation proposed by Pelosi and CO. will be rejected. Many moderate democrats already went against her wishes by refusing to elect Murtha as a leader in the house.

Frank

How can you say Joe has been cast aside? He's a swing vote -- EVERYBODY LOVES Joe. In addition, he's been embraced (and elected) by Republicans.

Webb looks like an old fashioned Democratic Populist. I can live with someone who is straight forward, and has the courage of his convictions.

Not a "flip-flopper" like McCain.

I happen to favor John Edwards. He's a straight talker - like Jim Webb.

Mind you, I'm well to the left of them -- but I can live with that kind of honesty.

[Frenchy]

Mind you, I'm well to the left of them -- but I can live with that kind of honesty.

I would have never guessed!

[KaliStyle]

Originally Posted by eleanor

How can you say Joe has been cast aside? He's a swing vote -- EVERYBODY LOVES Joe. In addition, he's been embraced (and elected) by Republicans.

Webb looks like an old fashioned Democratic Populist. I can live with someone who is straight forward, and has the courage of his convictions.

Not a "flip-flopper" like McCain.

I happen to favor John Edwards. He's a straight talker - like Jim Webb.

Mind you, I'm well to the left of them -- but I can live with that kind of honesty.

John Edwards is scumbag trial lawyer who has used courtroom theatrics to ammass a personal fortune. He has contributed to increased healthcare costs and malpractice insurance rates through his actions. Perhaps best known in some circles for his ability to "channel the feelings" of a dead child while in the courtroom to persuade a jury to rule in his favor.

You want this guy to be President?

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I would have never guessed!

Well, I've actually reached the point where I don't care if you "guess" or not.

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by KaliStyle

John Edwards is scumbag trial lawyer who has used courtroom theatrics to ammass a personal fortune. He has contributed to increased healthcare costs and malpractice insurance rates through his actions. Perhaps best known in some circles for his ability to "channel the feelings" of a dead child while in the courtroom to persuade a jury to rule in his favor.

You want this guy to be President?

In other words he's an effective lawyer -- the kind you'd like representing you if you needed him.

[Brickboy240]

So how does his courtroom effectiveness translate into him being the best choice for 2008?

Sorry, I cannot get there from here. You'll convince me that Edwards is the right man, when you convince me that we can control global warming and there is an Easter Bunny.

- Brickboy240