How the GOP could dismantle the Dems in a split-second...

Post by **JimmyMethod** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:23 pm

The GOP has made a point to tarnish everyone in their party's image who isn't white. Powell, Rice, Gonzales, Claude Allen... There aren't any minority republicans that haven't been publicly humiliated. McCain's running mate will be a white male.

Post by **HashiriyaS14** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:39 pm

The current unwashed hawkish neocon swine of the GOP don't think much of Colin Powell, to their detriment, IMO. How my party has fallen......

Anyway, I agree with Jimmy that McCain's running mate will be "another cracker". I just don't see the GOP taking that in any other direction.

Nor, for that matter, do I see Condi Rice being a positive for anyone's campaign. There is no member of the current administration that is associated with ANYTHING other than utter failure in the eyes of the majority of the voting population, even in the GOP.

McCain is a strong candidate and a smart guy, but with the voter turnouts being what they've been thus far in the primaries, it's going to be a very Blue November.

Post by **audtatious** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:40 pm

I would not judge current voter turnouts as a known entity. Some in Ohio are already wanting changes filed against Rush (other states seem to not care as much it seems) for getting Republicans to vote Democrat in order to keep the election going longer.

Rasmussen polls are beginning to slide towards Mac whether it is against Hillary or Obama. Gallup polls show that 28% of Hillary voters would vote for Mac over Obama (while 19% of Obama voters would vote Mac if over Hillary)

Looks interesting for sure

Post by **Repo Man** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:43 am

Whoa! Stop the train boys. It's a LONG time before November. We still have to have McCain square off with Obama in a series of debates in which Obama's record will be called out and he will have no choice but to debate the issues and put up his flowery rhetoric. It will be time for meat and potatoes. I don't think it's a given that whomever the Dem winds up being (it'll be Obama) will have an automatic in. I think the election will be close.

I also think that Hillary will do well, but not well enough to get the nomination. I hope that Obama picks Horatio Sa...er...Bill Richardson as VP. That way when somebody offs Obama, Richardson will be President.

Post by **audtatious** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:58 am

Just showing that nothing is "in stone" regardless.

Post by **JimmyMethod** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:05 am

Richardson would be a very interesting choice. It'd definitely draw votes from those who support more liberal gun laws (yes, liberal means allowing more freedom to gun owners).

When was the last time the NRA endorsed a Democratic presidential hopeful?

Post by **audtatious** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:11 am

So, Democrats are not liberals now?

Post by **rn79870** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:13 am

JimmyMethod wrote:(yes, liberal means allowing more freedom to gun owners).

I think the opposite would be the case. If the liberals had their way, the (hand)guns would be allowed in the hands of law enforcement. Clearly, in a true liberal view, this would prevent all the criminals from having guns. It's a simple as this, more laws equal better government.

Post by **JimmyMethod** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:20 am

Definition: Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value.

Dems are liberal on some issues, and conservative on others. That's why I HATE the autobranding of a either of America's parties as 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

Post by **audtatious** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:30 am

I don't disagree with that. Hell, look at civil rights. Everyone seems to think the Dem party is the "protector of the people and champions for racial diversity" when history shows that is not necessarily the case.

Post by **AZhitman** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:38 am

JimmyMethod wrote:Definition: Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value.

Dems are liberal on some issues, and conservative on others. That's why I HATE the autobranding of a either of America's parties as 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

Jimmy, they missed your point completely (Matty AND Bobby). Liberal gun laws = Happy NRA. Liberal as in "not restrained". Not liberal as in "pantywaste Constitution-burner".

I'd like to edit that definition:

"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that CERTAIN SPECIFIC individual liberties, especially those that run counter to mainstream beliefs, is the primary political value."

Post by **rn79870** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:00 am

AZHitman... As to the 2nd Amendment...A true liberal believes there is no individual right to own a gun, instead, it is a collective right given to the people in general, to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill children and other innocent people.

A true conservative believes in the individual's right to keep and bear arms, to the extent that you have a right to defend yourself against criminals (using guns). More guns mean less crime.

Post by **audtatious** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:04 am

Hmmm

I've never seen a gun go on a rampage killing kids nor anyone else. Mine just lays around and sleeps all day

People kill people with guns. They also kill people with cars, knives, baseball bats, etc...etc...etc...

Post by **AZhitman** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:08 am

rn79870 wrote:AZHitman... As to the 2nd Amendment...A true liberal believes there is no individual right to own a gun, instead, it is a collective right given to the people in general, to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill children and other innocent people.

A true conservative believes in the individual's right to keep and bear arms, to the extent that you have a right to defend yourself against criminals (using guns). More guns mean less crime.

Bobby, I love ya bro, but you gotta go back to 2nd grade with me here.

We're not talking about LIBERAL as a label of a person, but LIBERAL as to the application of something.

"I like a liberal application of peanut butter on my PBJ's."

This does NOT mean I want the peanut butter applied by some hand-wringing, big-government nincompoop who thinks we're all doomed unless some special taxpayer-funded program helps us figure it all out.

This simply means I want a metric crap-tonne of peanut butter, and since I'm a Capitalist, I can probably afford it. But ultimately, it's up to me whether I use a lot or a little, based on foresight and my own personal preferences.

Post by **JimmyMethod** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:17 am

Word definitions seem to confuse some people, and it makes me smile.

Post by **rn79870** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:27 am

I was with you until I read your...

...Liberalism refers to a... individual liberties...

You meant liberal, not liberalism. Liberal as in munificent. I geddit.

Post by **audtatious** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:34 am

I'm old and don't give a shat

Post by **AZhitman** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:18 am

rn79870 wrote:Liberal as in munificent. I geddit.

Damn old people and their big words.

At least he's parsimonious.

Post by **Repo Man** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:23 pm

I think this thread has come down with a case of teh ghey...

How the GOP could dismantle the Dems in a split-second...

Re: (HashiriyaS14)

Re:

Re: Re: (Repo Man)

Re: (JimmyMethod)

Re: (JimmyMethod)

Re: (JimmyMethod)

Re: (JimmyMethod)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (rn79870)

Re: (rn79870)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (JimmyMethod)

Re: (rn79870)

Re: (AZhitman)

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums