Skip to comments.
Why I Am Now Behind Arnold
me
Posted on 08/12/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by DrMartinVonNostrand
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 761-779 next last
To: george wythe
Democrats 45%
Republicans 35%
Independents 15%
Other (Greens, Libertarians, etc)
Democrat voter fraud in California is estimated to be between 5-30% in any given area. It is impossible to know what the exact breakdown is but having lived here all my life, I suspect it is pretty close to even.
361
posted on
08/12/2003 6:53:36 PM PDT
by
Canticle_of_Deborah
(The 12th Republican Commandment: "Thou shalt not alienate thy base")
To: Tamsey
Can you imagine the tug of war in the months ahead? Have a feeling it is going to get worse.
362
posted on
08/12/2003 6:53:46 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(VOTE FOR ARNOLD -- GOP's Best Chance to Tank Hillary for 2004 and beyond!)
To: jwalsh07
You have converted me!
363
posted on
08/12/2003 6:54:56 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(VOTE FOR ARNOLD -- GOP's Best Chance to Tank Hillary for 2004 and beyond!)
To: PhiKapMom
{They are conservative and religious but members of the religious right they are not. J.C., Keating, Nickles have had some things to say about the likes of Robertson and Falwell for a long time!]
Fair enough. Like RINO, the phrase, religious right, is a term that is often misapplied and overused. For example, I have co-workers who think pro-choice Republicans who oppose tax funded abortions are disciples of Jerry Falwell.
364
posted on
08/12/2003 6:55:00 PM PDT
by
Kuksool
(There are no guarantees in the Gray Recall)
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
This is a repost since I mistakenly wrote "involuntary" on the original.LOL, no kidding? I knew what you meant Doc. I'm not a stickler for spelling, grammar or typing skills.
I get your drift quite easily. I don't agree with the the way your drifting but you don't have any problem making projecting your views..
To: PhiKapMom
The thing about the AWB, is it criminalized Semi-auto rifles that were copies of full auto military rifles.
It never was legal to own an M-16, in full auto mode.
The AWB came because of the massacre of the asian schoolkids in Californias central valley.
That was the excuse the libs needed, & They waved those dead kids ( in a rhetorical sense ) & no politician could
stand against.
Fact is, ANY semi-auto action can be made into full auto by a competent machinist.
you can buy a M-1 garand, semi-auto & will take a bayonet
it's a better weapon at long distances, but it doesn't look like a scary " assault rifle "
366
posted on
08/12/2003 6:58:32 PM PDT
by
Mike the lurker
(Let us stand in the gap together)
To: PhiKapMom
You have converted me!:-} Great, you made my day.
To: Mike the lurker; jwalsh07
Thanks for the info! I have gotten an education today from Jwalsh07 and now you.
Would bet if the 2nd amendment folks explained things like the two of you, you would get more converts. No in your face but facts that can be understood!
368
posted on
08/12/2003 7:04:45 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(VOTE FOR ARNOLD -- GOP's Best Chance to Tank Hillary for 2004 and beyond!)
To: All
McClintock is on Greta's show tonight and coming up shortly.
369
posted on
08/12/2003 7:05:26 PM PDT
by
Canticle_of_Deborah
(The 12th Republican Commandment: "Thou shalt not alienate thy base")
To: Tamsey
the hard-core conservatives are pulling the Republican Party as far right as possible and less hard-core conservatives don't appreciate being viciously insulted for not cooperating.
Dang, you just burned up another irony meter.
370
posted on
08/12/2003 7:06:11 PM PDT
by
Sabertooth
(Where do Arnold and McClintock stand on California Drivers' Licenses for Illegal Aliens?)
To: hellinahandcart
"Respecting" in the establishment clause means simply acknowledging or pertaining to. I don't really see where you and I materially differ on that.
Basically, Congress----->no law----->establishment of religion
Of course things are never apprached so simply in law. If they were, there would be no lawyers!
Even still, the above distillation you laid out reaches the same conclusion: Congressional endorsements of the God of Abraham are in direct conflict with the Establishment Clause.
To: PhiKapMom
Have a feeling it is going to get worse.
I agree, it aint gonna be pretty! We'll just have to stick to our guns, so to speak, while they stick to their Uzi's ;-)
372
posted on
08/12/2003 7:06:52 PM PDT
by
Tamzee
(I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
To: jwalsh07; Mike the lurker
Next time a 2nd amendment thread goes up, I suggest you and Mike the Lurker take the lead! You two would get some converts I am sure!
373
posted on
08/12/2003 7:06:59 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(VOTE FOR ARNOLD -- GOP's Best Chance to Tank Hillary for 2004 and beyond!)
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
James Madison said debating the First Amendment: "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."
As another great American said: "stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history. "
My free advice: stick to discussing Arnold and the race, merely as a Californian your opinion on that has some inherent value.
374
posted on
08/12/2003 7:07:05 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: jwalsh07
I might add that in several gated communites surrounding the area, several citizens manned barricades with the same weapons which dissuaded the bad guys from entering their community without a shot being fired.Dr. John Lott has two books("THE BIAS AGAINST GUNS" AND "MORE GUNS LESS CRIME")that back up your arguments 100%
Great posts
To: DrMartinVonNostrand; mrsmith
My free advice: stick to discussing Arnold and the race, merely as a Californian your opinion on that has some inherent value.Ouch!
To: woodyinscc
Thanks Woody.
To: Tamsey
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's good!
378
posted on
08/12/2003 7:12:03 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(VOTE FOR ARNOLD -- GOP's Best Chance to Tank Hillary for 2004 and beyond!)
To: jwalsh07
Do you support the Ninth Circuits recent ruling, since withdrawn, ordering public schools to cease and desist from the recitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" included? Not entirely, but pretty much, yes.
I think that goes about it the wrong way. I'm glad to see the case is being kept alive, and with any luck will reach the Supreme Court. What I would like to see done is that this is handled correctly and the Supreme Court strikes down the law that Congress passed in the 1950s that first introduced the words "under God" into the Pledge, thus restoring it to the proper Historical Pledge.
Surely a return to the Historical text is something any good conservative could support, no?
To: PhiKapMom
Well if I'm out of lurk mode I will help :)
380
posted on
08/12/2003 7:15:26 PM PDT
by
Mike the lurker
(Let us stand in the gap together)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 761-779 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson