PDA

View Full Version : Arnie has a plan to take back the state


CCWFacts
09-08-2007, 2:38 PM
I know, there are solidly pro-RKBA Democrats. But they are mostly in other states. For the most part (not entirely, but mostly) gun rights views break down squarely on party lines in our state assembly and senate. Doesn't work that way in other states, or at the national level, but in CA it does work that way.

Which means we have a big problem. The leg. is firmly in control of Democrats. We might have some luck at converting some of them to pro-RKBA stances, but we really need to unseat some of them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/BAD1S1N1J.DTL

Arnie gave a speech in which he presents his idea for making the Republican party a power again in this state. His idea is to distance the party from some of the more extreme views that do not win support in this state. There is a danger of the Republican party becoming irrelevant in this state, and he is addressing that head-on.

The applause largely died when Schwarzenegger told them that the party was "losing numbers" and that he feared it is on the road to being "relegated to the margins" of California politics.

I'm glad to see someone bringing that up because it is a real risk.

This could be bad. Maybe one of the ideas is to embrace gun control to get moderate voters. But I don't think so; gun control is a losing issue everywhere in this country. Even in CA I'm sure NRA members strongly outnumber Brady Campaign members. So I think this will be good. Gun rights really are a cross-party issue anyway.

I'm happy that someone has a plan to do this, because the more this state is under the control of a party machine, the less freedom we will have. I do not want us to end up in a situation like New Jersey or DC or Chicago, where democracy has wilted, because elections are so tightly controlled. By the way, I would be equally opposed to a Republican party machine because it would end up being different, but just as bad. Political machines are bad, and we're close to having a political machine in this state.

bwiese
09-08-2007, 2:51 PM
There is some good thought to what Arnie is saying.

For all those that disagree with Arnie, you're forgetting one thing - he's about the only Republican that's been elected to statewide office in CA - which says it all.

Frankly, if Arnie gets the GOP to get rid of its Orange County "Christian conservative" focus and S.T.F.U. about choice vs abortion, and creationism in schools, the middle ground can be regained. These non-hardcore could-be-Republicans are concerned about crime and taxes and size of government and could be brought over if these other major issues didn't scare them off; these people live in metro suburbs and can effect legislative districts too.

Kicking a statistically few religionist Republicans in the teeth for a big chunk of middle-of-the-roaders is a very very good political tradeoff. Where else they gonna go? (The Republicans have often pulled this crap on gunnies; it's time they eat their own medicine.)

This will also take the gun issue off the table. I've repeatedly said (backed by multiple surveys and statistics) that gun stuff is way way down the list (about 6 to 8 in order of priority) of concerns of CA swing voters/ middle-of-roaders, in comparison with "choice" (which is generally in the first three items of concerns of such voters).

Maybe we can finally get some pro-gun (or at least not-anti-gun) people into statewide office, because right now Thumper Republicans are not electable statewide.

An unelectable Republican allows free swing to the leftward slant of an opposing Democrat since he can be pretty near Karl Marx and still get elected given the lack of valid (i.e, having a chance of being elected) competition.

California Republicans need to remember they are in California and not backwoods Tennesee.

Bad Voodoo
09-08-2007, 3:11 PM
California Republicans need to remember they are in California and not backwoods Tennesee.

...and when in Rome... :cool:

I'm not at all opposed to a more centrist strategy if it gains "us" seats. Obviously the current strategy isn't worth a damn.

-voodoo

Anthonysmanifesto
09-08-2007, 3:26 PM
I am not pleased with this message at all.



The party ( platform) has not failed our "post-partisan" Governor.

Bad Voodoo
09-08-2007, 3:38 PM
The party has not failed our "post-partisan" Governor.

"The Party" has failed us all. Hence the need to bring those who have abandoned it back from where they fled and continue to flee (I), before they abandon "us" entirely for just about any of the options on the other side of the fence. You can go down holding the flag in a fight to the death with the polar-opposite socialists if you like (hint = you're not winning). I'd prefer to remain in CA and take back then live under a stronger semblance of Liberty than we could ever hope to rescue today given the current political structure.

-voodoo

Knight
09-08-2007, 3:43 PM
Blah blah blah . . .

I could say a lot of things about the Religious Right of the Republican party. Almost all of them I probably shouldn't say on this board. For now, all I will say about it is that it's killing the Republican party, and I think by the time the Republican Party as a whole realizes this, it's going to be far too late. Just my personal take on the situation.

CCWFacts
09-08-2007, 4:15 PM
Very well put BW. Consider me in the camp that wants to vote for smaller government, individual rights, etc, but I have nothing in common with "thumpers" and would have a hard time voting for someone who wants to put creationism is biology textbooks. And there are a lot of such people in this state. Arnie is saying it: if the Repub party wants to stay relevant in this state, it had better get with reality and stop running what a friend of mine calls "theo-cons".

And yes, the Repub party could very well fade into irrelevance in this state. Look at the facts. The leg. is strongly dominated by Dems and shows no sign of changing. In the last Senate race, neither candidate even bothered to run a campaign, and Feinstein won by a landslide. The only thing that is keeping Republicans relevant in this state is the fact that we do have a smart, outsider, centrist, non-thumper governor who got in with the help of his star power and name recognition.

We could very easily go the way of some of the East Coast states, where the Republican party is irrelevant.

And by the way, when I say "thumper" I don't mean to offend religious people. To me a "bible thumper" is someone who makes a public spectacle of his faith, as part of his effort to win office or gain public support. Having religious belief and faith is good; making a public spectacle of it, in order to win votes, is bad (for me).

Rivers
09-08-2007, 4:28 PM
Unfortunately, politics isn't a case of right or wrong. It comes down to math. You either have the votes or you don't.

By a party focusing on a platform favored by a vocal 25% at the edge of the spectrum, it's taking a big risk. When a single argument in that platform alienates the next 40% of moderates, those who like parts of either party's platforms, that block will go to the least objectionable platform.

This goes for both parties. There are a huge number of moderate Dems who truly dislike the ultra liberal slant of the Dem leadership, but not as much as they dislike just a single yet major element in the Republican platform.

Arnold was simply saying what many have thought for years. This isn't anything new, but actually talking about "the elephant in the living room" is a risk. Do Republicans de-emphacize the topics that have so polarized the party in an effort to better fight for the wide range of winnable issues, or does the party tenaciously fight for the single principle that keeps it in a political minority and constantly on the defense?

SemiAutoSam
09-08-2007, 4:33 PM
I plan to ask Arnold what his plan is to remove all of the illegal aliens from the state.

I noticed the interact function on his e mail link.

Anyone else care to send him a e mail about this I will list the links to do so.

CCWFacts
09-08-2007, 4:35 PM
I plan to ask Arnold what his plan is to remove all of the illegal aliens from the state.

You should be asking him, what is your plan for making sure that when illegal immigrants sooner or later get citizenship and start voting, or when their children (who are legal) start voting, what is your plan for making sure they vote Republican? 'Cause I know that the Democrats are asking their version of that question and they have detailed answers and a viable plan for it and if their plan works they will get a pool of tens of millions of life-long dedicated Democratic voters. Remember, IIs have children, and if those children are born in this country, they are US citizens (just like you) and future voters. If Republicans aren't planning to capture those votes somehow, then Republicans are going to become permanently irrelevant, kinda like they were in the South after the Civil War, where they were out of power for about 100 years.

Pthfndr
09-08-2007, 7:02 PM
I have to agree with Anthonysmanifesto.

The party did not fail the governor, the governor failed the party.

Did the party fail it's constituents? I believe so. They (the "party", not individual reps) did not convince the conservatives (NOT the "religous right", just conservatives) that they were working hard enough for what we believe in.

I will agree that the GOP needs to let go of the abortion issue the way the dems have pretty much let go of the gun issue, and focus on rights, smaller and better government, and the economy.

Zhukov
09-08-2007, 9:45 PM
Being a non-partisan voter, I tend to vote with the people who side with my core beliefs. Due to this, I have voted libertarian. To this day, I still do unless I feel I must act and elect someone who will counter someone 10x worse or support my core values as much as the libertarians do. (Yes, I know it's almost pointless to vote libertarian, but at least I'm sticking to my guns and my beliefs)

The only reason I haven't truly voted Republican is because of the conservative religious bloc within the Republican Party. This block frightens me because it advocates forcing religious views on me (gay marriage, choice, etc.). While they tend to support the 2nd Amendment more, their other stances influence me away from voting for them.

Now, if the Party did as Arnold suggested....taking a more moderate/centrist stance and being willing to dump the heavily religious conservative aspects, I'm sure the Republicans could easily sway the swing voters in their favor. All my non-partisan (and even some registered Dems) friends share the EXACT same views as I do and I know I could easily sway them to that side if the Candidates views were less extreme.

It's kind of like how I love Fred Thompson on so many levels, yet his more religiously conservative side about abortion and gay rights pushes me away from his vote. Then again, having Congress controlled by Dems and a Conservative President has its perks...it keeps the crap Gun Control from becoming law and being vetoed.

CalNRA
09-08-2007, 9:55 PM
this whole debate is kinda of ironic.

we are talking about whether or not to ditching some pretty fundamental principals to suit the liberal state. then why should the 2nd be any different? maybe we can modify that too and compromise a little more like the "Republicans" in NYC?

:rolleyes:

I love people's logic for not supporting Fred Thompson.
"he is pro-gun, for small government, etc, etc. But I don't know, his is religious and his abortion views..."

well guess what? it's him or Hil-bama or Giuliani. hey, at least they are pro-choice, right?

you gotta look at the bigger picture. Would the president get to set the abortion laws? no

but what does he do? sign or veto laws. He can VETO anti-gun laws.

The congress we have has as little chance of seeing a religious-right or anti-abortion bill as the last congress of seeing AWB-II. But you guys are sitting here bashing Fred because his religious views and such. We don't have that kind of luxury to pick and choose. If we don't support Fred now, we are looking at an anti-gun congress, an anti-gi president, and an aging supreme court that can radically change the state of the 2A to the other side if an anti-gun president stuffs the court with anti-gun justices..

Good lord people, get real and stop nick-picking waht little hope we have left. If we keep wishing for the perfect candidate we can have the libertarian getting 9 per cent of the vote for the next 3 decades while all the guns are banned. Hell the Democrats love the idea there are libertarians splitting the vote for the GOP, just like how the DEMs were split when Nader came to take votes.

elenius
09-08-2007, 9:56 PM
Then again, having Congress controlled by Dems and a Conservative President has its perks...it keeps the crap Gun Control from becoming law and being vetoed.

Not necessarily. Reagan signed the machine gun ban.

SemiAutoSam
09-08-2007, 10:00 PM
It wasn't a actual BAN it was a tighter control on NEW models.

Not necessarily. Reagan signed the machine gun ban.

CalNRA
09-08-2007, 10:13 PM
It wasn't a actual BAN it was a tighter control on NEW models.

you mean a ban on new models and existing models manufactuered after 1986.:mad:

Not necessarily. Reagan signed the machine gun ban.

a California Republican has as much chance of signing anti-gun laws as a NYC Republican.

SemiAutoSam
09-08-2007, 10:16 PM
Yes thats correct.

McClure Volkmer firearms protection act or something to that effect but most in the industry simply call it the May 19 1986 law. It created 3 types of MG classes. Pre May sample, Transferable, Post May sample.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

BTW NRA had a hand in passing it.

you mean a ban on new models and existing models manufactuered after 1986.:mad:



a California Republican has as much chance of signing anti-gun laws as a NYC Republican.

berto
09-08-2007, 10:18 PM
The fundies always threaten to walk. It's about time their bluff gets called. They can hold their nose and vote for a candidate they agree with 80% of the time or they can go a third way and hand the election to the opposition. That plan worked out great for the Naderites. The fundie element turns far too many away from the republican party. The big tent has room for them, their small tent leads to irrelevance.

CalNRA
09-08-2007, 10:22 PM
BTW NRA had a hand in passing it.

in turn millions of surplus rifles went to yound shooters for 50 dollars a piece and tens of millions of ammo was shot to get a generation of shooters into shooting who otherwise would be priced out of the sport.

I don't like it, don't get me wrong. Then again today's NRA is pretty different from 1986 NRA BTW, FWIW. just like the Democratic party was a lot different in the 50s than in the 80s.

bwiese
09-08-2007, 10:27 PM
in turn millions of surplus rifles went to yound shooters for 50 dollars a piece and tens of millions of ammo was shot to get a generation of shooters into shooting who otherwise would be priced out of the sport.

I don't like it, don't get me wrong. Then again today's NRA is pretty different from 1986 NRA BTW, FWIW. just like the Democratic party was a lot different in the 50s than in the 80s.

Yep, and FOPA = Firearms Owner's Protection Act: Fed law now protects folks travelling thru BS states. It's still weak, but it will (and IS) being used more and more to slap state/local DAs; these things take time. In 10 years a NH resident will be able to drive to VA thru NY & NJ with a bag of Glocks and ARs and the NYC cops will just have to steam.

elenius
09-08-2007, 11:27 PM
I know it wasn't a 100% "ban", and I didn't say Ronnie was wrong to sign FOPA... I was just arguing against the statement that a republican president with a democratic house does not guarantee that there will be no anti-gun laws. Actually, I don't know whether the house was ruled by the dems at the time, but I assume so, as they were able to sneak in the machine gun stuff into FOPA.

CalNRA
09-08-2007, 11:33 PM
I know it wasn't a 100% "ban", and I didn't say Ronnie was wrong to sign FOPA... I was just arguing against the statement that a republican president with a democratic house does not guarantee that there will be no anti-gun laws. Actually, I don't know whether the house was ruled by the dems at the time, but I assume so, as they were able to sneak in the machine gun stuff into FOPA.

right.....of course you meant to say all that with one short sentence.

you gotta admit a Dem house and a GOP president is a helluva better than a Dem house and Dem president.

then again a GOP house and a GOP president saw NO anti0gun bills passed AFAIK.

bwiese
09-09-2007, 12:05 AM
r
then again a GOP house and a GOP president saw NO anti0gun bills passed AFAIK.

Not only did we
(1) not have Fed AW restored,
(2) have Protection for Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act passed,

but we

(3) got Roberts and Alito onto the Supremes.


That's a clean sweep, boys and girls!

Anthonysmanifesto
09-09-2007, 12:13 AM
believe in something boys and girls, even its the realization that this is a two party system and the winners pick the committee chairmanships.

FastFinger
09-09-2007, 6:22 AM
I'm of the camp that thinks Arnold failed the conservative voters. They, and the GOP, did not fail him.

He's been a weak politician who's in love with public adulation and P-whipped by his wife. BTW "P" does not stand for "Pistol."

At the bottom of it all is a very wimpy boy who craves attention, adulation and power. In order to realize those our gov girlieman has done whatever he needed to do.

But that is what it is and we need to deal with it. Our state has been politically carved up to the point that things aren't likely to change, except for the worse. The Democratic party has the clear power advantage and with that they have the tools to strengthen and solidify their position. I hate to be pessimistic, but politically, and by extension quality of life in general, things do not look good for California.

Individual rights, true civil rights, property owner rights, 2nd amendment rights, they're all endangered species in California.

Hoop
09-09-2007, 6:55 AM
California Republicans need to remember they are in California and not backwoods Tennesee.

Right on.

GOP as a whole needs to drop religion/abortion. It's a losing argument. So you piss off a few people on the right - what are they going to do, vote democrat? I doubt it.

Arnie has a good idea, but I'm sure it went over like a lead balloon.

Piper
09-09-2007, 8:01 AM
California has only one thing going for it from where I sit and that's it's geographical area and the variety of environments it encompasses. But one thing that California doesn't have in abundance is a political environment that conservatives are willing to tolerate. We are told to "STFU" when we express our opinions. I am told to "STFU" when expressing my christian viewpoint and I'm told to "STFU" if I dare mention Creationism over Darwinism even though my college Physiology book refutes Darwin and relegates it to the same trash heap that spawned the same misguided medieval theory of the origin of rats.

Certainly Schwarzenegger is better than Grey Davis, but he's no Ronald Reagan. He's not persuading anyone that the lefts ideas of bigger government, more taxes and socialized medicine are the wrong way to go. Instead, Schwarzenegger is allowing the entitlement crowd to propagate which just enhances the socialistic environment so long as the freebies continue to flow freely. The states education system is pathetic and has failed our kids. They aren't given the tools to think critically, instead they are taught that whatever "feels" good to them is how they should think. So our government in California is now based on feel good politics and not logic.

During summer school, I took a required Sociology class, and I was stunned and somewhat disappointed at how very little the 20 something crowd knew about the world. And the outright Marxism and Socialism that this instructor spewed was incredibly irritating. The sad part was that when he said something, alot of the 20 something students in class either sat there and said nothing or they agreed with the instructor. And then when I disagreed with professor socialist, the students became confused. The fact that I was an "A" student in the class just seemed to enhance their confusion which frustrated me even more.

The point I'm making to this post is this. We are being lied to by the politicians that have found a haven to spread their disinformation. We are told to embrace socialism and all of its programs so that we can feel good about helping those that are less fortunate than us. Or how about "it's for the children." We are told to cast aside our freedoms and morality, and government will show us how to think and act that will somehow bring about this wonderful utopian lifestyle that deep down inside is what we really want.

I don't follow someone blindly. In fact, I have a rebel attitude that questions anything that doesn't sound right. And so I'm a conservative with my christian values that abhore abortion and adhere to creationism because that unborn child in the womb is human and it angers me to see someone killed because it's inconvenient for them to live. And I believe in creationism over darwinism because according to "Cell Theory", "new cells arise only from prexisting cells" which means that the theory of evolution is as medieval as people believing that rats grew from garbage. And people buy into that sort of thinking because someone tells them what's right and they either want to go with what's popular and don't want to be given "isolate status" or they're too lazy to figure it out for themselves.

Schwarzenegger seems to be missing the mark in understanding why the Republican party is losing numbers. We're not losing numbers because of christian conservatives, we're losing numbers because conservatives are leaving this socialist enclave. Businesses are going for states that are more business friendly and as we all know, pro-gun people are leaving for pro-gun states. So don't blame me or people like me for my views on the world. Think about this old statement " if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything." Now that's true wisdom.

grywlfbg
09-09-2007, 8:49 AM
There is some good thought to what Arnie is saying.

For all those that disagree with Arnie, you're forgetting one thing - he's about the only Republican that's been elected to statewide office in CA - which says it all.

Frankly, if Arnie gets the GOP to get rid of its Orange County "Christian conservative" focus and S.T.F.U. about choice vs abortion, and creationism in schools, the middle ground can be regained. These non-hardcore could-be-Republicans are concerned about crime and taxes and size of government and could be brought over if these other major issues didn't scare them off; these people live in metro suburbs and can effect legislative districts too.

Kicking a statistically few religionist Republicans in the teeth for a big chunk of middle-of-the-roaders is a very very good political tradeoff. Where else they gonna go? (The Republicans have often pulled this crap on gunnies; it's time they eat their own medicine.)

Preach on Bill. I'm one of these people. I'm Fiscally Conservative and agree w/ the GOP tenets EXCEPT those that Bill stated above. The GOP's constant courting of the Religious Right scares that crap out of me (I find it amusing that some in the GOP decry how horrible Middle Eastern Theocracies are but at the same time wish to start one here.). I also wish the GOP would follow their own historical stances and stay out of my (and everyone else's) bedroom. Members say they hate that Liberals are always trying to "legislate their personal lives" by passing laws like not allowing you to smoke in your own house w/ kids around, etc. I agree these laws are stupid but at least they went through the legislative process. Warrantless wire-tapping has had zero oversight and is the epitome of "government in the bedroom" as they're literally in your bedroom, watching and listening. Gay marriage? Why does this matter again? What does it have to do with you? If gays marry is your marriage going to suddenly self-destruct? If so then you shouldn't have been married in the first place. Don't even get me started on fiscal responsibility. The recent GOP has screwed us economically ("Hey ya'll, let's lower taxes and then start a war and increase spending!" - Idiots.).

Wake up Republicans. Your party is becoming the poster child of, "do as I say, not as I do." There are centrist voters out there and we're waiting for one of the parties to speak to us.

elenius
09-09-2007, 9:41 AM
Preach on Bill. I'm one of these people. I'm Fiscally Conservative and agree w/ the GOP tenets EXCEPT those that Bill stated above. The GOP's constant courting of the Religious Right scares that crap out of me (I find it amusing that some in the GOP decry how horrible Middle Eastern Theocracies are but at the same time wish to start one here.). I also wish the GOP would follow their own historical stances and stay out of my (and everyone else's) bedroom. Members say they hate that Liberals are always trying to "legislate their personal lives" by passing laws like not allowing you to smoke in your own house w/ kids around, etc. I agree these laws are stupid but at least they went through the legislative process. Warrantless wire-tapping has had zero oversight and is the epitome of "government in the bedroom" as they're literally in your bedroom, watching and listening. Gay marriage? Why does this matter again? What does it have to do with you? If gays marry is your marriage going to suddenly self-destruct? If so then you shouldn't have been married in the first place. Don't even get me started on fiscal responsibility. The recent GOP has screwed us economically ("Hey ya'll, let's lower taxes and then start a war and increase spending!" - Idiots.).

Wake up Republicans. Your party is becoming the poster child of, "do as I say, not as I do." There are centrist voters out there and we're waiting for one of the parties to speak to us.

:hurray::iagree:

bulgron
09-09-2007, 10:19 AM
Wake up Republicans. Your party is becoming the poster child of, "do as I say, not as I do." There are centrist voters out there and we're waiting for one of the parties to speak to us.

Yes.

The vast middle ground of this country has been left out in the cold by the extremist behavior of both parties. The first political party that ditches abortion and gun control as an issue, and stops all the religious *****ing and moaning, and then instead actually focuses its energies on reinforcing the middle class is going to take all of government by a landslide.

I don't care what name that party has. When it comes along, I'm joining it.

Piper
09-09-2007, 10:38 AM
To be a centrist, all a person has to do is sit and wait to see what direction the prevailing political wind is blowing and then take the path of least resistance. To that, I will simply say that those of you that actually take a position of getting into the fight over the second amendment do so only because of your interest in firearms. I would venture to say that if like other centrists, you had no interest in firearms, you would simply parrot what the popular cliche is of the day to avoid being provocative or politically incorrect.

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 10:45 AM
And here is a follow-up article which talks about this rift:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/09/BAEBS23R2.DTL

I'll say again, I agree with BW and Arnie. The Repubs should get back to the old days: small government, individual freedom, low taxes. There are a whole lot of voters who are non-religious or non-Christian (like me) who are scared of Republican power because we are not evangelical Christians and do not want a religious-influenced government. Arnie and BW are suggesting that the Repubs should do the simple math: what are the numbers of Christian Republicans vs. small government / low tax people? It's obvious where the numbers are and the party has gotten the small group at the expense of losing the big group. This is bad strategy.

Remember the Dem party is already numerically larger than the Repub party, and in this state, we are heading towards a situation like they have in some East Coast states, where the Repubs are irrelevant and powerless. Shifting the Repub party to capture non-religious or non-Christian voters (like me) is their only way to prevent this.

The challenges posed for the embattled Republican Party in California, dominated by conservative leadership, are particularly daunting: The state GOP is in the minority in both legislative houses, has lost 120,000 voters from its rolls in the past year, operates in the red because of a paucity of donors and has few promising prospects for future statewide elective races.

WAKE UP REPUBLICANS! If it weren't for Arnie, the party would be over in this state, with NO state-wide elected officials and a small minority in the leg. Think about that. Look at the numbers that Poochigian got, as an indicator of how well state-wide Repubs other than Arnie are doing. Once that happens, it becomes very difficult to recruit strong candidates or to raise money. No one wants to support the losing side, so the losing side keeps on losing, and it's very difficult to recover from that. That is what has happened in some East Coast states, for example. If the Repubs maintain their love affair with fundamentalist Christians, that is what's going to happen in this state. Running candidates who want creationism in biology textbooks is going to pay off in the form of having no power in this state.

We, as gun owners, are already in a situation where we don't expect any big gains in the legislature and most of our hopes are pinned on Heller. That's where fire-and-brimstone don't-let-the-gays-marry politicking has gotten us in this state.

Bad Voodoo
09-09-2007, 11:29 AM
To be a centrist, all a person has to do is sit and wait to see what direction the prevailing political wind is blowing and then take the path of least resistance. To that, I will simply say that those of you that actually take a position of getting into the fight over the second amendment do so only because of your interest in firearms. I would venture to say that if like other centrists, you had no interest in firearms, you would simply parrot what the popular cliche is of the day to avoid being provocative or politically incorrect.

Ummm, no. That's called apathy. To your comments I will simply say they are constructed of ignorance and fear, typical of exremism on both sides of the aisle, and attributes that are contributing enormously to the decline and eventual fall of the GOP. Our founders are rolling over in their graves at what the Republican Party has become, to borrow a line from grywlfbg, the party of "do as I say and not as I do" vast, corrupt government in the name of your so-called christian "principles."

I have no use for the extreme left socialists, or the extreme right christian fundamentalists. I'm hoping that the following formula applies to both sooner rather than later: 1+-1=0.

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
--Thomas Jefferson

-voodoo

metalhead357
09-09-2007, 11:42 AM
I could say a lot of things about the Religious Right of the Republican party. Almost all of them I probably shouldn't say on this board. For now, all I will say about it is that it's killing the Republican party, and I think by the time the Republican Party as a whole realizes this, it's going to be far too late. Just my personal take on the situation.

Interesting take...... Interesting as your screen name is rather....christian....and so is your symbol:rolleyes: But hey...even though we may disagree We ARe the same side with guns and getting the other goons OUT!;)

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 11:59 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Party_affiliation_USA.jpg/180px-Party_affiliation_USA.jpg

National-level party affiliations, in millions

Notice that the Repubs are getting stomped here and it is only through very clever maneuvers that they have national power remaining. Notice also how many independent voters there are. Notice that if you add Repubs + independents, it would stomp the Dems solidly. Notice that this isn't happening. I submit that most of these independent voters would back the GOP if they weren't scared of the Religious Right.

Or, gee, they could keep doing what they are doing and go off the cliff with flags flying.

bulgron
09-09-2007, 12:03 PM
Ummm, no. That's called apathy. To your comments I will simply say ....

I'm glad you said this because my response wasn't polite enough for a public discussion board such as this one.

CALI-gula
09-09-2007, 12:03 PM
Let's see if he vetos the microstamping bill first before we start singing "For he's a jolly good fellow..." --- ;)

.

bwiese
09-09-2007, 12:07 PM
I'm of the camp that thinks Arnold failed the conservative voters. They, and the GOP, did not fail him.

He's been a weak politician who's in love with public adulation and P-whipped by his wife. BTW "P" does not stand for "Pistol."

True, maybe he failed the "conservative" voters.

But maybe he's smart enough to win that he knows he has to distance himself from them. He did win, and the others didn't.

But the hyperconservatives (i.e, religious right) have failed the true nonreligious conservatves (McClintock-style) because their overfocus in primaries and party direction renders a whole slough of conservatives unelectable at *statewide* level. (Sure, there are a ton of safe conservative seats in legislature and always will be.)

Tom McClintock, for example, would actually have a chance at statewide office if he was perceived as being at some distance from the religious right (which he actually is, as he's a general conservative and not really part of 'religious right'). If he could STFU about 'choice'/abortion he'd have a chance.

It's a matter of "taint": the valued swing voters are sufficient enough in quantity that they outweigh the numbers of "hard religiious right" types and render them both essentially irrelevant and toxic.

Piper
09-09-2007, 12:24 PM
Ummm, no. That's called apathy. To your comments I will simply say they are constructed of ignorance and fear, typical of exremism on both sides of the aisle, and attributes that are contributing enormously to the decline and eventual fall of the GOP. Our founders are rolling over in their graves at what the Republican Party has become, to borrow a line from grywlfbg, the party of "do as I say and not as I do" vast, corrupt government in the name of your so-called christian "principles."

I have no use for the extreme left socialists, or the extreme right christian fundamentalists. I'm hoping that the following formula applies to both sooner rather than later: 1+-1=0.

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
--Thomas Jefferson
-voodoo

Well, I don't "force" my religious or political views on anyone one, but I do decide who I want to represent me based on those viewpoints. I really don't care if you're a Buddist, Taoist, Hindu or for that matter a Wiccan. But there are certain priciples that to ignore them simply require someone to ignore the obvious. Gun rights are one of those as is abortion and creationism. I want everyone to be free, but I'm not going to "STFU" because you tell me to. As a matter of fact I will become more vocal. I choose to lead by example but if you accuse me of being the source of GOP problems, I refuse to let that go unanswered.

You quote Thomas Jefferson to refute me. I would suggest that you refer to Thomas Paine and his book "Common Sense." So as not to get all "religious" I challenge you to simply read it.

Oh and BTW, centrism is apathetic.

grywlfbg
09-09-2007, 12:54 PM
Oh and BTW, centrism is apathetic.

I disagree. Like it or not, there are 300 million+ people in this country. We don't all agree on everything. We can't function as a society without the ability to compromise. To be "centrist" is to understand that there are shades of grey in the world and that we all need to get along. As I alluded to in my previous post, I like aspects of both parties. I'm Fiscally Conservative and believe in small government, simple tax system, gun rights, etc but I also like the government to protect the environment because business sure as heck won't. I like our non-religious public school system. I like that he government invests in science and technology (I wish it were less wasteful but I like the idea). So I'm willing to pay some amount of taxes for this level of service. In the end, neither party represents me because they're too busy pandering to their bases.

My contention is that centrism takes a lot more work and that being polarizing is apathetic. What if a bunch of Senators simply said, "we're not voting on anything else until everyone agrees that Corvettes are the coolest cars in the world." That's their opinion, just like religion is your opinion. Refusing to compromise on a difference of opinion is being lazy and ignorant of your fellow citizens. I don't want to wade any further into the culture-war topics of religion, gay marriage, and abortion as Kest will quickly lock this sucker (maybe we could have a special reserved date, time, and location to have an all-out flame war around these topics?) so I'll leave it at that.

berto
09-09-2007, 1:16 PM
Oh and BTW, centrism is apathetic.

Some centrists follow the prevailing winds and stand for nothing. Some see the value of compromise and the reality that it's a necessary evil and are willing to give a little to get a little. That doesn't mean they're apathetic, maybe pathetic for compromising in areas where you don't agree with them, but they do care.

Piper
09-09-2007, 1:32 PM
Then I would suggest to anyone who has an opinion about anything that you can't be a centrist. Because to be a centrist means that you take no position on a subject and to have no position is a display of apathy.

bulgron
09-09-2007, 1:34 PM
Then I would suggest to anyone who has an opinion about anything that you can't be a centrist. Because to be a centrist means that you take no position on a subject and to have no position is a display of apathy.

And I'm suddenly beginning to remember why I vote for Democrats so much

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 2:01 PM
Then I would suggest to anyone who has an opinion about anything that you can't be a centrist. Because to be a centrist means that you take no position on a subject and to have no position is a display of apathy.

No way. I take no position on many subjects. Reasons for not taking a position could include:

* I don't understand the subject. What's the right thing to do with the Golden Temple? I have no idea. It's complicated, I don't understand the subject, and I don't have enough time to understand it. So I take no position. I can't possibly know enough about everything to take a stance.

* There isn't an obvious right answer. How do we get peace in the Middle East? I don't know. I wish I did.

* In many cases my view is, it's a personal decision so no stance is needed. I might have a position for myself but would not want to impose that on anyone else. For example, some foods, I do not eat. But it's fine if you eat them.

Scarecrow Repair
09-09-2007, 2:49 PM
And I believe in creationism over darwinism because according to "Cell Theory", "new cells arise only from prexisting cells" which means that the theory of evolution is as medieval as people believing that rats grew from garbage.

This statement shows so much ignorance of evolution and Darwinism that it taints everything else you say. This is an excellent illustration of why the religious right domination of the Republican party renders it impotent in California.

And just to forestall others, I am not going into a sidetrack debate on what evolution is. My point is that you couldn't get a better example of why the Republican party will remain irrelevant in California.

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 3:02 PM
This statement shows so much ignorance of evolution and Darwinism that it taints everything else you say. This is an excellent illustration of why the religious right domination of the Republican party renders it impotent in California.

And just to forestall others, I am not going into a sidetrack debate on what evolution is. My point is that you couldn't get a better example of why the Republican party will remain irrelevant in California.

My thoughts exactly. Anyone who wants to put creationism is science textbooks has no credibility with me, or with millions of other independent California voters who could possibly vote Republican if they weren't put off by such things.

Piper
09-09-2007, 3:03 PM
This statement shows so much ignorance of evolution and Darwinism that it taints everything else you say. This is an excellent illustration of why the religious right domination of the Republican party renders it impotent in California.

And just to forestall others, I am not going into a sidetrack debate on what evolution is. My point is that you couldn't get a better example of why the Republican party will remain irrelevant in California.

Actually, if you really understood modern day "Darwinism" and what Darwin actually thought about "natural selection" you would understand that even Charles Darwin disagrees with modern "Darwinism".

The fact of the matter is in the medieval period, people observed that rats congregated around trash, so they therefore drew the conclusion that rats must evolve from trash. Just the same, modern day Darwinism says that life began out of the primordial gew of a young prehistoric earth several million years ago and those lifeless amino acids evolved into one cell plants and animals which evolved into multicellular organisms. The problem is unless physical science changed over millions of years (not likely) the principles of cellular developement and Darwinism contradict one another.

If need be, I will explain to you how DNA becomes mRNA, tRNA, and rRNA and how they function in conjunction with enzymes to turn amino acids into proteins. Or perhaps you can explain it to me.

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 3:21 PM
I'm holding myself back from making any response to the science claims there....

optimus-primer
09-09-2007, 3:43 PM
True, maybe he failed the "conservative" voters.

But maybe he's smart enough to win that he knows he has to distance himself from them. He did win, and the others didn't.

But the hyperconservatives (i.e, religious right) have failed the true nonreligious conservatves (McClintock-style) because their overfocus in primaries and party direction renders a whole slough of conservatives unelectable at *statewide* level. (Sure, there are a ton of safe conservative seats in legislature and always will be.)

Tom McClintock, for example, would actually have a chance at statewide office if he was perceived as being at some distance from the religious right (which he actually is, as he's a general conservative and not really part of 'religious right'). If he could STFU about 'choice'/abortion he'd have a chance.

It's a matter of "taint": the valued swing voters are sufficient enough in quantity that they outweigh the numbers of "hard religiious right" types and render them both essentially irrelevant and toxic.




He made a few pro-gun statements that got the liberals all bent that didnt have anything to do with christianity so it really wouldnt have mattered in my view. You actually think that liberal CA would vote for pro-gun people if they distanced themselves from christians? Your not that blind are you?

Theres quite a lot of groups that are prolife that do not claim any ties to christian groups, just do a search for gay pro-life groups. Theres also groups that are not christian based that are against guns like lesbians against guns, gays against guns-the list goes on and on. These groups would not vote Rep regardless if the so called person to be elected wasnt backed by a religous group.
Cal is abundant with liberals period. 2nd Amendment groups need the christian vote like it or not, with out them you'll be giving up your red rider bb guns right after your single shot black powder guns.

Piper
09-09-2007, 3:53 PM
I'm holding myself back from making any response to the science claims there....

By all means, if you have something to say, please say it.

SemiAutoSam
09-09-2007, 4:03 PM
This does not make a lot of sense to me maybe you can explain it. Then again maybe I read it wrong not that its importiant to me.

If "new cells arise only from preexisting cells" then how did man come to be at all ?

Where is the beginning cell that we all came from ?

I believe in creationism over Darwinism because according to "Cell Theory", "new cells arise only from preexisting cells" which means that the theory of evolution is as medieval as people believing that rats grew from garbage. And people buy into that sort of thinking because someone tells them what's right and they either want to go with what's popular and don't want to be given "isolate status" or they're too lazy to figure it out for themselves.

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 4:12 PM
Ok, I'm getting drawn into this but I'll keep it simple. "New cells come only from existing cells" is obviously not strictly true, whether you believe in creationism or evolution. Creationist idea: the first cells were created by God. Evolutionist idea: the first cell arose through random physical and chemical processes. Whichever you pick (creationism or evolution), the strict statement "new cells come only from existing cells" can't possibly hold up. The only way it could hold up is if you believe that cellular life has existed forever, ie, there was no starting point in time. No one is claiming that.

So... whichever view you take, the strict and simple statement of the cell theory is an over-simplification and not possible in a strict sense, right? A restatement of the cell theory is, "in our present observations, all cells originate from other cells, but there was some time in the past where a cell started without originating from other cells." That statement could be consist with both evolution and with creation, right?

(This over-simplified statement of cell theory is commonly heard because things do need to be simplified when introducing students to a subject. When teaching someone about guns, I might say, the round fires when the firing pin hits the primer. That's an easy way to explain what is going on, but of course there are guns that don't have firing pins, etc, so I'm over-simplifying to make the concept simple and clear enough for everyone to understand. The same thing is done in all areas of instruction.)

Let's establish that first.

Piper
09-09-2007, 4:20 PM
This does not make a lot of sense to me maybe you can explain it. Then again maybe I read it wrong not that its importiant to me.

If "new cells arise only from preexisting cells" then how did man come to be at all ?

Where is the beginning cell that we all came from ?

I really prefer the term "intelligent design." Of course there is that age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I just find it incredible that people will grasp onto Darwinism before they even consider creation and call me ignorant. Let me put it this way, for a person to believe in Darwinism, they would have to believe that a wristwatch, which is far less complicated than even a single celled organism, can spring spontaneously from random elements. People believe in extra terrestrials, but talk about supernatural intelligence and I'm a nut job. So now who's ignorant?

.223
09-09-2007, 4:21 PM
By all means, if you have something to say, please say it.

I don't want to come off as rude, but take it to off-topic, guys.

As far as the topic goes, Bill's already said everything I would have.

Piper
09-09-2007, 4:33 PM
Ok, I'm getting drawn into this but I'll keep it simple. "New cells come only from existing cells" is obviously not strictly true, whether you believe in creationism or evolution. Creationist idea: the first cells were created by God. Evolutionist idea: the first cell arose through random physical and chemical processes. Whichever you pick (creationism or evolution), the strict statement "new cells come only from existing cells" can't possibly hold up. The only way it could hold up is if you believe that cellular life has existed forever, ie, there was no starting point in time. No one is claiming that.

So... whichever view you take, the strict and simple statement of the cell theory is an over-simplification and not possible in a strict sense, right? A restatement of the cell theory is, "in our present observations, all cells originate from other cells, but there was some time in the past where a cell started without originating from other cells." That statement could be consist with both evolution and with creation, right?

(This over-simplified statement of cell theory is commonly heard because things do need to be simplified when introducing students to a subject. When teaching someone about guns, I might say, the round fires when the firing pin hits the primer. That's an easy way to explain what is going on, but of course there are guns that don't have firing pins, etc, so I'm over-simplifying to make the concept simple and clear enough for everyone to understand. The same thing is done in all areas of instruction.)

Let's establish that first.

Well, however simple it appears to sound, it is the second principle of cell developement in modern biology and physiology, like it or not. It isn't just a simplistic statement given to otherwise ignorant students. Darwinism and creationism are mutually exclusive.

bwiese
09-09-2007, 4:49 PM
I really prefer the term "intelligent design." Of course there is that age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I just find it incredible that people will grasp onto Darwinism before they even consider creation and call me ignorant. Let me put it this way, for a person to believe in Darwinism, they would have to believe that a wristwatch, which is far less complicated than even a single celled organism, can spring spontaneously from random elements. People believe in extra terrestrials, but talk about supernatural intelligence and I'm a nut job. So now who's ignorant?


Let's not call it Darwinism anymore. There's been a few changes since the 1800s, especially with non-Mendelian genetics. While the broad strokes are true, there are molecular matters he did not know of.

For example, we now know about 'horizontal gene transfer' and possible movement of genes/fragments via viruses and bacterial plasmids between organisms. There's a whole unexplored world out there alone - including why we (and most complex organisms) have more in common with archaea (incorrectly called archaebacteria) - some of those weird-chemistry cells that hang out near volcanic vents undersea - than we do with bacteria. It also appears that some more complex viruses (Mimivirus) may have originally been single-celled life that decided it was evolutionarily more advantageous to revert to viral form but retain some advanced protein synthesis ability.

Scientists have already fully synthesized a few viruses from raw off-the shelf- chemicals. Within 20 years, likely sooner, scientists will be able synthesize simple life forms. "Life" really is just protein synthesis from a template plus metabolism plus separation/control of environment: if the template can be copied and surrounded by an exclusionary area (cell membrane) with some ongoing metabolism, reproduction has taken place. Bingo!

Lynn Margulies - Carl Sagan's late former wife, and the developer of the endosymbiont theory (which is pretty much heralded as the way higher-level cells got mitochondria by incorporation of smaller simpler cells in larger ones) - said it was a far bigger step to create the first synthetic life than it would be to modify that into a higher-order form. Single-celled test-tube life in 20 years, pigs from a bottle in 10 years after that! (It's not a joke.)

We already have some bright people who think the boundary from nonliving to life happened on clay surfaces in which RNA variants could catalyze reactions and simple proteins.

BTW your (and your fellow idelogues) 'watchmaker' analogy is a poor one (if one at all). True, watch parts don't assemble themselves. But chemcials in solution do (with energy and reaction surfaces), and the resultant compounds
have 'shape'. Most of big-molecule biochemistry in fact is less about true chemistry than about 'shape' and getting things to fit together. These items can attract or repulse or connect via charge/ionization and build bigger things on their own.

We'll see the first stages of man-made life creation soon, and we'll also see some suicides, retractions, rewrites and exoduses in the religious community as they realize that all their caveman dance worship and cultlike behavior and assumption that some big hand outta the sky created life is absolutely irrelevant, and that we're all just a specialized puddle of chemicals.

I do notice some of the same behaviors of antievolutionists/Creationists as I do with the global warming types; the latter are exhibiting some irrational near-religious behavior themselves.

People wanna think they're special. They're not, we just lucked out with the right mutations for favorable brain chemistry (easo of neuron linkage) and musculature for effective speech communications. There's not much difference between us and apes and monkeys and with suitable suppression of immune chemistry it's likely possible for humans and various primates to mate (at least in a test-tube) and have viable offspring (if horses and donkeys can do it, if housecats with 38 chromosomes and Geoffroy's cats with 36 chromosomes can mate, other complex animals can too.)

VegasND
09-09-2007, 4:58 PM
bwiese

Well Said ^^^

bulgron
09-09-2007, 5:08 PM
What does this conversation have to do with the politics of guns in the State of CA?

Maybe we should just lock this thread and start anew.

bwiese
09-09-2007, 5:14 PM
You actually think that liberal CA would vote for pro-gun people if they distanced themselves from christians? Your not that blind are you?

Not only am I not blind I have stats to back my assertions up.

"Liberal CA" will keep voting for truly left-leaning politicians.

But the broad swing vote in suburban metro areas is what you need to get. These are the people scared of religion in schools and who are generally "pro choice" but as their income levels rise are afraid of taxes and don't want crime and want business to thrive without excessive job-killing regulation. They're "generally conservative" but can't vote for religious conservatives for one or two of the reasons above and end up voting for Demos.

Gun stuff falls way down the list as compared to issues of "choice" and there can well be more middle-ground voters voting for a moderate pro-choice Republican than there would voting agianst that same guy if he's pro-gun.

A nonreligious Republican waving a bag of dead babies and an assault weapon is far more electable than an antigun Republican who's also anti-choice (Dan Lungren is the perfect examplar!).


Theres quite a lot of groups that are prolife that do not claim any ties to christian groups, just do a search for gay pro-life groups.

True, they exist, but they're a very minuscule fraction of electorate and have no sway in primaries.

Theres also groups that are not christian based that are against guns like lesbians against guns, gays against guns-the list goes on and on. These groups would not vote Rep regardless if the so called person to be elected wasnt backed by a religous group.

Again these are very small in number. The Brady types are actually very small in number and gun control is a byproduct, not a driving issue except in a couple of districts.

Cal is abundant with liberals period. 2nd Amendment groups need the christian vote like it or not,

Nope. Your numbers don't work out. The vocieferous religious right in Calif. Republican primaries renders unelectable candidates statewide. We essentially have to start regarding the religious right as de facto antigun because they keep getting losers into the general election that middle-of-road folks won't elect.

Hell, I believe I could get a fairly conservative pro-gun yet pro-choice guy who had a decent biz background elected in a Bay Area suburb. You just gotta get the right people and CA's Orange County relgiious right domination of Republican party can't generate winners because the candidates are running for the wrong election (primary instead of general).

Piper
09-09-2007, 5:20 PM
I understand protein synthesis and I understand that you could potenially create something that might represent a DNA strand, however, you have just proven my point Bill. You can't produce DNA without intelligent thought going into the process. And that's really my whole point. Throwing adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine along with Deoxyribose and monophosphate molocules into a beaker and expecting DNA to be produced isn't going to happen by itself. Intelligent thought must go into the creation. How difficult is that to understand. The same goes for viruses.

Anyway, I'm willing to get back on track.

bwiese
09-09-2007, 5:21 PM
What does this conversation have to do with the politics of guns in the State of CA?

Maybe we should just lock this thread and start anew.

Probably, we've experienced a tad of thread drift. But it's really about why Repblicans are losing and will continue to lose in CA until the STFU about abortion/choice - and since they are generally pro-gun, we're not getting pro-gun people into statewide office.

It does have directly to do with why pro-gun people can't get statewide office, just in protected legislative districts - because generally they have a religious twinge to them that scares off folks in suburbs that are fairly conservative but are (1) pro-choice and (2) anti-creationism in schools. These folks will thus vote Demo even if they're essentially conservative and even if this means their taxes go up - which is an indicator of intensity of belief.

Gun control cannot be considered in a vacuum. The good news is it is NOT a driving issue in an election (it's item 6 to 8 on a list of concerns to swing/middle-of-road votors - in comparison to 'choice', which is always in 1st three) so the other issues come into play.

In suburban middle- and higher-income areas a photogenic Republican waving a bag of dead babies and an assault weapon can often be more electable than an anti-choice antigun politician (Republican or Demo) and at least the Repub. is on even footing.

EVERYTHING IS POLITICS whether or not you like it to be.

Scarecrow Repair
09-09-2007, 5:22 PM
What does this conversation have to do with the politics of guns in the State of CA?

The science itself has nothing to do with Arnie's speech, which is why I will not debate it. But the appalling ignorance and closed minds of creationists who would force their ignorance on everyone else has everything to do with Arnie's speech: that the fundamentalist capture of the Republican party renders it irrelevant. Republicans must choose whether they want to remain irrelevant while a small minority of them wave their flag of ignorance as if it were something to be proud of.

It has nothing to do with guns, but it is the subject of this thread, which is in the off topics section. So strictly speaking, your post is more off topic than the thread itself.

VegasND
09-09-2007, 5:23 PM
Republican party can't generate winners because the candidates are running for the wrong election (primary instead of general).



And there's the problem with the two major parties. They are held hostage to their own splinter groups who continue to have control and will not recognize that the mainstream of voters interests are different than their own. In order to get the nomination, a candidate must move to a position which will placate the party elite, but may and often has, alienated the voters.

bwiese
09-09-2007, 5:28 PM
I understand protein synthesis and I understand that you could potenially create something that might represent a DNA strand, however, you have just proven my point Bill. You can't produce DNA without intelligent thought going into the process. And that's really my whole point. Throwing adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine along with Deoxyribose and monophosphate molocules into a beaker and expecting DNA to be produced isn't going to happen by itself. Intelligent thought must go into the creation. How difficult is that to understand. The same goes for viruses.

That's because we'd be doing it in the lab.

Back off 3-4 billion years ago, CO2/O2 inversion in atmosphere (O2 was toxic to early life forms), lotsa heat/light, rich broths of precursor chemicals in sea - and self-catalyzing pre-RNA can naturally occur. Add containment in a bubble on a clay-like reaction surface and you have a chance of a contained metabolic system offering a chance of reproduction.

Chemicals can fall into nice patterns with a bit of time and energy. Life probably started up and died off thousands of times in, possibly leaving biologically useful wastes to feed the next cycle with an incremental improvement. (The RNA world hypothesis does have issues with RNA stability; no life form (unless you count an RNA virus) uses RNA for its primary genetic storage- but that's "current" RNA - RNA has a TON of variations, and early life forms may have been evolving every metabolic cycle so stability of RNA may not have been as much of an issue esp if early life forms only lasted one or two protein synthesis cycles before dividing.)

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 5:35 PM
Well, however simple it appears to sound, it is the second principle of cell developement in modern biology and physiology, like it or not. It isn't just a simplistic statement given to otherwise ignorant students. Darwinism and creationism are mutually exclusive.

Well, there you go, my simple logic can't even be understood. "All cells come from other cells", no matter if it's the 2nd principle of anything, can't possibly be true unless cellular life has existed forever. We (evolutionists and IDers) all agree that life hasn't existed forever, therefore there was a time when a cell came into existence not from another cell, therefore, "all cells come from other cells" also can't be true. I don't care if some textbook says "all cells come from other cells", or if that's a principle of someone, it's a simplification. It flat-out isn't true and if you are saying, "because Statement A isn't true, evolution isn't true", that is not logic, because Statement A in this case is rejected by the theory of evolution. Evolutionism and ID are in fact mutually exclusive, but neither of them are consistent with "all cells come from other cells".

This is straight-forward logic here which you aren't seeing, and this is why anyone who is advocating creationism or ID can't be taken seriously.

By the way, simplifications are common in science. The gas laws, for example, are not really "laws" but statistical observations of behavior which derives from physical laws. Correctly modeling trillions of gas molecules is totally impossible due to the limitations of our computers, so we come up with gas laws. They don't say this in physics class but those laws are simplifications and approximations of the real behavior. They are not fundamental truths. "All cells come from other cells" is the same kind of statement. It's a good working statement but isn't a fundamental truth of biology. You can't say "all cells come from other cells is impossible therefore evolution is impossible" because "all cells come from other cells" is not an accepted truth in biological sciences and is explicitly contrary to the idea of evolution. A cell originated of a non-cell is an integral part of the evolutionary concept of the origin of life.

Back off 3-4 billion years ago, CO2/O2 inversion in atmosphere (O2 was toxic to early life forms), lotsa heat/light, rich broths of precursor chemicals in sea - and self-catalyzing pre-RNA can naturally occur. Add containment in a bubble on a clay-like reaction surface and you have a chance of a contained metabolic system offering a chance of reproduction.

Also add in a lot more radiation (both from uranium and the sun), and the fact that energy-rich organic molecules didn't decay (no oxygen), and you had a much more energetic, molecule-rich environment, making it a very different world. Then remember that there are a billion chemical reactions per second in every square inch of the world, and that went on for a couple billion years, and chance alone will eventually get it started.

Piper
09-09-2007, 5:40 PM
That's because we'd be doing it in the lab.

Back off 3-4 billion years ago, CO2/O2 inversion in atmosphere (O2 was toxic to early life forms), lotsa heat/light, rich broths of precursor chemicals in sea - and self-catalyzing pre-RNA can naturally occur. Add containment in a bubble on a clay-like reaction surface and you have a chance of a contained metabolic system offering a chance of reproduction.

Chemicals can fall into nice patterns with a bit of time and energy. Life probably started up and died off thousands of times in, possibly leaving biologically useful wastes to feed the next cycle with an incremental improvement. (The RNA world hypothesis does have issues with RNA stability; no life form (unless you count an RNA virus) uses RNA for its primary genetic storage- but that's "current" RNA - RNA has a TON of variations, and early life forms may have been evolving every metabolic cycle so stability of RNA may not have been as much of an issue esp if early life forms only lasted one or two protein synthesis cycles before dividing.)

I won't drag this out, but I've heard the arguements before, like what could have been, or might have been, or or even the may have beens. But unfortunately I prefer what is. I think evolutionists have far more faith than I do because you have to have alot of faith to believe that something as complicated and amazing as life is a random mistake. Can DNA be made in a lab, sure, I think it can. Can viable DNA be made in a lab, maybe. Will it sustain life possibly, but the one factor that can't be left out is the fact that it took intelligent thought to make it. And unless someone can produce random virus or even simpler, a random DNA strand, all of the theories and possibilities mean about zip when it comes to believing evolution.

Your turn.

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 5:54 PM
Will it sustain life possibly, but the one factor that can't be left out is the fact that it took intelligent thought to make it. And unless someone can produce random virus or even simpler, a random DNA strand, all of the theories and possibilities mean about zip when it comes to believing evolution.

This part isn't known. We don't know what the first cell looked like, how it worked, or how it came about. There are two theories: "metabolism first" or "_NA first". Those are two very different models and we don't know which one is correct. So yeah, obviously there are major parts of the story which we don't know.

As for recreating the "first cell" in the lab through random chemical processes: It might never happen. The earth was effectively a planet-sized lab that operated for a couple of billion years before there was one single cell on it. A lab-sized lab operating for a couple of months can only replicate a trillionth of that earth-sized 2bil-year experiment. And conditions on earth were far more varied than we could ever have in a lab: broad ranges and combinations of minerals, rock types, chemical sets, temperatures, energies, radiation, etc. So we might not ever be able to observe this life-from-non-life-by-random-processes event.

bwiese
09-09-2007, 6:20 PM
This part isn't known. We don't know what the first cell looked like, how it worked, or how it came about. There are two theories: "metabolism first" or "_NA first". Those are two very different models and we don't know which one is correct. So yeah, obviously there are major parts of the story which we don't know.

Also 'exobiogenesis': living material, or advanced precursors thereof, could have come from outside the planet (comet, asteroid).

aplinker
09-09-2007, 6:24 PM
You have a simple misunderstanding of the statistics involved. The numbers are unfathomable and difficult to conceive, so you call it "belief."

Further, your inability to understand logical argument leaves you severely ill-equipped for debate. You're a "believer," not a thinker, so please stop trying to argue from a logical perspective. You're making those of us who believe in a creator and understand the topic look bad.


I won't drag this out, but I've heard the arguements before, like what could have been, or might have been, or or even the may have beens. But unfortunately I prefer what is. I think evolutionists have far more faith than I do because you have to have alot of faith to believe that something as complicated and amazing as life is a random mistake. Can DNA be made in a lab, sure, I think it can. Can viable DNA be made in a lab, maybe. Will it sustain life possibly, but the one factor that can't be left out is the fact that it took intelligent thought to make it. And unless someone can produce random virus or even simpler, a random DNA strand, all of the theories and possibilities mean about zip when it comes to believing evolution.

Your turn.

AJAX22
09-09-2007, 6:36 PM
IIRC there have been some interesting experiments over the last ten years or so regarding the creation of self replicating amino acid chains. It's been a while since I took my bio classes, but it made for interesting reading.

I don't recall who published the recent papers on it but I believe they based some of it on the early Stanley Miller experiments from back in the 50's

Piper
09-09-2007, 6:57 PM
You have a simple misunderstanding of the statistics involved. The numbers are unfathomable and difficult to conceive, so you call it "belief."

Further, your inability to understand logical argument leaves you severely ill-equipped for debate. You're a "believer," not a thinker, so please stop trying to argue from a logical perspective. You're making those of us who believe in a creator and understand the topic look bad.

And you are rude and not worthy of an intelligent response from me.

CCWFacts
09-09-2007, 7:02 PM
IIRC there have been some interesting experiments over the last ten years or so regarding the creation of self replicating amino acid chains. It's been a while since I took my bio classes, but it made for interesting reading.

Remember, this was a very different world back then. RNA molecules could act as catalysts to synthesize more molecules and to copy themselves. Ready-made complex organic molecules were plentiful. There was no competition, no predators, no oxygen (poison). A living thing that had hopelessly terrible metabolism could still be viable because there wasn't anything else and there were tons of free ready-made molecules all over the place. The first proto-cells would be hard for us to even recognize as life because they would be so unfit for our current world.

Presumably life started many, many times (millions, billions, whatever). It only "stuck" once, and that one time, as sloppy as it was, was fit enough that no other proto-cells afterwards could survive it.

The closest we'll ever find to "proof" of this is if we find biological systems on other planets that are not related to our biology.

KenpoProfessor
09-09-2007, 7:09 PM
Probably, we've experienced a tad of thread drift. But it's really about why Repblicans are losing and will continue to lose in CA until the STFU about abortion/choice - and since they are generally pro-gun, we're not getting pro-gun people into statewide office.

It does have directly to do with why pro-gun people can't get statewide office, just in protected legislative districts - because generally they have a religious twinge to them that scares off folks in suburbs that are fairly conservative but are (1) pro-choice and (2) anti-creationism in schools. These folks will thus vote Demo even if they're essentially conservative and even if this means their taxes go up - which is an indicator of intensity of belief.

Gun control cannot be considered in a vacuum. The good news is it is NOT a driving issue in an election (it's item 6 to 8 on a list of concerns to swing/middle-of-road votors - in comparison to 'choice', which is always in 1st three) so the other issues come into play.

In suburban middle- and higher-income areas a photogenic Republican waving a bag of dead babies and an assault weapon can often be more electable than an anti-choice antigun politician (Republican or Demo) and at least the Repub. is on even footing.

EVERYTHING IS POLITICS whether or not you like it to be.

I'm with you here Bill, and I think if Thompson leaned to the pro-choice side of the party, he'd win in a landslide.

I ain't got nothin' against gay marriage either, hell, I think they should suffer the same consequences of marriage that a hetero couple does LOL.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Piper
09-09-2007, 7:13 PM
The one thing that's interesting is this, we know that we can create chemical compounds because of the way chemical bonds form between elements be they ionic or covalent bonds. But to date no one has been able to randomly produce even a small nonviable DNA strand without manipulating the components. Some want to be given a pass and say it took billions and billions of years to produce the components of life and because I demand proof the religion of evolution is based on fact and not wishful thinking, I'm ignorant. I love science and I have no problem with scientific principles and facts. But I am amused when I see people jump through hoops and try to convince me that we are not a product of creation. Just another product of wishful thinking in the religion of evolution.

I'M DONE WITH THIS TOPIC.

aplinker
09-09-2007, 7:39 PM
And you are rude and not worthy of an intelligent response from me.

I didn't expect one. I have been reading your prior posts. :p

But to date no one has been able to randomly produce even a small nonviable DNA strand without manipulating the components.

Please explain this meaningless sentence. What are you intending to say by "manipulating the components?"

Do you consider setting up conditions under which a reaction occurs as "manipulation?"

By the way, no theory is ever proven. In fact, scientific theory is based on the idea that theories can only be disproven.

____

Now, on the general topic, I agree that it's a huge issue that many within the Republican party push for candidates that absolutely have no chance to win general elections within the state. It's stunning to see old-school conservatives pushed, only to inevitably lose. Then when a more centrist candidate wins, he's called a traitor by vast chunks of the party and attacked even harder by the other side. No wonder they end up unviable.

elenius
09-09-2007, 8:51 PM
About the "watch" analogy -- it's an old one, and discussed well in the excellent book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

Me, I know I will never personally make all the observations to convince me either way, so I just choose to trust in mainstream science. I have never heard of a proponent of "Intelligent Design" who wasn't also a christian fundamentalist. On the other hand, mainstream biology, which includes evolution, is populated by all sorts of folk, and has a system of peer review in place.

Scarecrow Repair
09-09-2007, 9:08 PM
Science isn't facts and names of chemicals and tidbits taken out of context. Science is a process of coming up with ideas to explain puzzles, making predictions from those new ideas, and coming up with new data to refine the new idea, sometimes more refutation than confirmation.

The key is falsifiablility. If your theory can't be falsified, then it makes no predictions; it is useless and is not science. In a sense, no theory is ever confirmed, it is only refined or possibly refuted. Newton's theory of gravity was not refuted by Einstein's relativity, it was only refined and shown to be increasingly in error under certain circumstances.

Few claim Newton's theory of gravity is "only" a theory like they do with evolution, yet evolution has been proven countless times in theory, in labs, and in the field, whereas there is no theory that actually explains gravity and the gravitational constant is possibly the poorest measurement known to science. Evolution is a bedrock compared to the fog of gravity.

It is amazing how some people try to use science to both prove religion and to disprove science. It is such a bizarre concept that all it really shows is how bankrupt their thought processes are.

If science is wrong about evolution, they are wrong about everything else. Science is a whole; it is not compartmentalized into independent fields. Those of you who doubt evolution are hypocrites unless you also doubt that computers work. If science couldn't get evolution right, fundamental physics would be so wrong that electronics would be impossible and we would still be debating how to capture fire from the next thunderstorm.

You might pick and choose which parts of science are handy to believe in, but science will roll on regardless and leave you in the dust. Those of you who want the Republican party to do that are signing its own death warrant.

chico.cm
09-09-2007, 9:48 PM
From my keyboard, it looks like there are a bunch of republi-tarians on this board; not that there is anything wrong with that.
There are many of us who feel like the Republican Party has failed us completely in supporting those few key ideals that really distance R from D.
Namely: 2A, Abortion, God, privatization, less govt, etc.
Just because a small group of zealots are confused and want to blow up abortion clinics, doesn't mean that the rest of us think the same way.
Being a Christian person and a registered R is becoming more incongruous every day. There are those who say that there is little difference in the mainstream of the two parties. I am starting to see that from where I am stainding.
That said, if the Repub party doesn't want truly religious people anymore, (and the dems certainly don't), who does? Any takers?

BTW: Are we forgetting that Herr Govna signed the .50 cal ban?
Any politician who votes against the 2A, for any reason, loses my vote!

metalhead357
09-09-2007, 10:14 PM
Dna Huhhhh> Intelligent designed What? Darwinsismism:cool:

I leave you guys to play and you turn it into a trollip cart:p

Get back to politicin'...I thought we were talking about Sarah Conner and the Govenator:p

Seriously, we got a chick at work used to help/work for a GOP'r at SAC and she's thrown in the towl 2+ years ago saying its a wash at best.....way too much money here in Cali being spent on Dems than what most repubs can hope for unless there is a mjor change in either party thinking or a mjor turn in voter turn out that we've never yet seen that do follow the repubs..............

In the meantime..it is the undecideds that we need to focus on and Never was an undecided made decided like hitting them in the pocket book and/or placing the fear of God (Forgive the expression) in them over something they DO hold dear............. FIND THAT and the repubs will get the vote.............

Pont
09-09-2007, 10:47 PM
I understand protein synthesis and I understand that you could potenially create something that might represent a DNA strand, however, you have just proven my point Bill. You can't produce DNA without intelligent thought going into the process. And that's really my whole point. Throwing adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine along with Deoxyribose and monophosphate molocules into a beaker and expecting DNA to be produced isn't going to happen by itself. Intelligent thought must go into the creation. How difficult is that to understand. The same goes for viruses.

Anyway, I'm willing to get back on track.

But who the hell cares? The issue that's pissing off moderate voters isn't that you believe in Intelligent Design. It's that fundie nutters are trying to get God-Created-The-Earth-In-Seven-Rotations-Of-The-Sun Creationism taught in Science Class. It's not science!

The public face of it glosses over the Creationism and focuses on ID, but nobody buys it. If they were trying to get a sentence added to the textbooks that said, "this is just a theory and no way proves that God does not exist," it would simply be a niche back-room discussion. But they're not. What they're trying to do is the equivalent of trying to put "Infinity = God therefore X / Jesus = 0" into mathematics. Until such time as the existence of God can be used to predict a physical outcome with repeatable results, He does not exist for the purposes of science and has no place in a Science class.

Not a single one of my science teachers or, as far as I know, my son's teachers nor my daughter's teachers ever preached atheism in science class. Not a single person I've ever met with an IQ above 50 ever lost their faith in God because their public-school science teacher taught a theory for the creation of the earth other than a bearded old man rolling some clay by hand.

So what, exactly, is this worthy principle you are defending in creationism as a political issue? You're losing moderate Christians. Losing them. Not politically losing them. You're turning moderate Christians into agnostics or atheists with these antics. And for what? What can you get if you "win" the political creationism battle? Your kids will be taught Creationism in public school and you won't have to send them to Sunday school anymore??? You won't have to answer any more difficult questions like, "Daddy, why does the Bible say something different than my science book?"

I can't stand the Democrats, but I refuse to be associated with Republican Political Christians.

.223
09-09-2007, 11:51 PM
I can't stand the Democrats, but I refuse to be associated with Republican Political Christians.

You're not alone in that.

mcubed4130
09-10-2007, 12:39 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Party_affiliation_USA.jpg/180px-Party_affiliation_USA.jpg

National-level party affiliations, in millions

Notice that the Repubs are getting stomped here and it is only through very clever maneuvers that they have national power remaining. Notice also how many independent voters there are. Notice that if you add Repubs + independents, it would stomp the Dems solidly. Notice that this isn't happening. I submit that most of these independent voters would back the GOP if they weren't scared of the Religious Right.

Or, gee, they could keep doing what they are doing and go off the cliff with flags flying.

It would be more interesting to see CA numbers... but my comment wouldn't be much different.

When / If - Arnold or any other Republican, can swing the Independent voter, which tends toward the Republican side, more often by far than the Democratic side... then case closed.

All this sillyness about the Republicans needing to go centrist is quite laughable... there is nearly no difference between our Republicans and Democrats on a national level. (Ok fine, the name is spelled differently - but the fact that "D"'s were elected on pro-gun platforms, and "R"s were tossed because they acted like anti-gun "D"s. States my case nicely) - if you all believe the "R"s are extreme right-wingers, you've been living off the major media too long.

The number of Independent voters (mostly conservative) has surged at the direct demise of the Republicans. Why not... The Republicans stand for nothing - if they want to go centrist - have at it. In the meantime, they won't get my vote; centrist or not... when other than "R" they act like a "D"... I'll just vote "D" and then I can 100% blame the "D's" for our problems.

-M3

Glock22Fan
09-10-2007, 10:19 AM
I find it very difficult to remember that Arnie is (supposedly) a Republican.

We had a much better Republican alternative in the recall election, but he didn't have the "Hollywood star" name recognition.

We get what we deserve, which isn't a lot.

bwiese
09-10-2007, 10:34 AM
We had a much better Republican alternative in the recall election, but he didn't have the "Hollywood star" name recognition.

Tom McC. still wouldn't have won the election if Arnie weren't there. I did an analysis of this quite some time ago. Arnie got a fair chunk not only of the middle-of-the road 'swing vote' but quite a bit of crossover vote too.

Tom McClintock is a great guy but he's still seen as somewhat of a religious-right type - whether or not that's correct.

Now, take Tom McC's ideas/stances, put it on a new Republican with a bit more personality, completely remove 'pro life' utternces (at worse) or make some pro choice noises (better) and you have an electable candidate.

gazzavc
09-10-2007, 10:40 AM
Just some food for thought chaps....

What if the Democrats embraced 2A ? I realize that sounds mad, but if they did do away and dissassociate themselves from the gun-grabbers, turn their back on the brady bunch, and embrace 2A in its entirety, how many of you would vote Democrat?

Gaz

bwiese
09-10-2007, 10:48 AM
Just some food for thought chaps....

What if the Democrats embraced 2A ? I realize that sounds mad, but if they did do away and dissassociate themselves from the gun-grabbers, turn their back on the brady bunch, and embrace 2A in its entirety, how many of you would vote Democrat?

If I had to/were able to choose between a strongly pro-gun Demo and milquetoast Republican - and the Democrat party in CA did not have an antigun twist to it - I'd readily vote for the democrat.

The problem in voting for a particularly good progun person on the other side is that you are still voting for the party somewhat as things like committee staffing depend on majorities - so even when voting for a pro-gun Democrat you could be putting your gunrights at risk if ending up affecting committee assignments as well.

If the demos completely pulled 2A issues off the table, let a few metro area loons yammer about it, and stopped throwing out bills, then we could show our support.

Pont
09-10-2007, 10:53 AM
Just some food for thought chaps....

What if the Democrats embraced 2A ? I realize that sounds mad, but if they did do away and dissassociate themselves from the gun-grabbers, turn their back on the brady bunch, and embrace 2A in its entirety, how many of you would vote Democrat?

Gaz

I'm done with voting Democrat or Republican. I want a candidate with a shred of integrity, like Ron Paul or Bill Richardson.

So what if Democrats embraced the 2A? Not gonna happen, of course. That would be admitting they were wrong and, thanks to Bush, politicians are even less likely to do that nowadays. Finally, it would lose the party some of its biggest $$$ contributors, which is what modern elections are really about.

Now, if a candidate who happened to be Democrat embraced the 2A? Maybe they take the angle of "guns are the great equalizer that protects women and old people from large, aggressive men". Who knows. I might vote for them, but I'm not a 1-issue voter.

Annie Oakley
09-10-2007, 11:03 AM
Now, if a candidate who happened to be Democrat embraced the 2A? Maybe they take the angle of "guns are the great equalizer that protects women and old people from large, aggressive men". Who knows. I might vote for them, but I'm not a 1-issue voter.

I see a problem with candidates being in favor of this. Women are expected to empower ourselves with their help. I think their fear might be, if we as women can protect ourselves, what else can we do without their help? As for the elderly, I know AARP is very antigun.

Kestryll
09-10-2007, 11:03 AM
Now, take Tom McC's ideas/stances, put it on a new Republican with a bit more personality, completely remove 'pro life' utternces (at worse) or make some pro choice noises (better) and you have an electable candidate.

But then some of us would likely not support or vote for him.

Life, and politics, is a balancing game. Too much focus on one issue or not enough on another will cost you.

While there is a level to which I will suppress some beliefs to support others, beyond that and it's gets to be too much.

I fully believe in and support the Second Amendment but will not abrogate my faith for it.
Neither will I blindly discount my support for the Second because of other aspects of that faith.

Yet again, the trick is to find that balance and find out where your faith and passions line up.
I firmly believe that I will be held accountable for my ability and desire to protect and defend those I am responsible for. As such my faith requires that I not look to others to protect me and mine nor should I willingly hand over my means to carry out my responsibilities.

Balance, and the connection of my two concerns has been made. No more problem. :)

smogcity
09-10-2007, 11:03 AM
Just some food for thought chaps....

What if the Democrats embraced 2A
Gaz


Then you should duck so you don't get hit by the flying pigs...:D

bwiese
09-10-2007, 11:28 AM
Now, take Tom McC's ideas/stances, put it on a new Republican with a bit more personality, completely remove 'pro life' utternces (at worse) or make some pro choice noises (better) and you have an electable candidate.

But then some of us would likely not support or vote for him.


That is indeed true. But it would behoove the R's to abandon your particular 'political slice' as it's irrelevant statewide (except in certain local/regional elections). No disrespect Kestryll, but in fact if the R party machine kicked the "primarily-pro-life" folks to the curb in a very public fashion, there'd be a chance of not tending toward irrelevancy anymore. Who they gonna vote for, the party trying to kill Prop 13?

Right now the only power the R's have is to stop the budget.

[Oh BTW, for all my posts above, I am not a 'pro choice' person but I do know when the subject is a lost cause, and that is the case in CA - borne out by tons of statisctics. My sole concern if some loon bombs an abortion clinic is simply whether the SUVs parked at adjoining businesses will get the finish on their paint damaged.]

Paladin
09-10-2007, 12:02 PM
There's something like 4 million illegal aliens in CA. Most are Hispanics from Mexico, Central and South America. Most are Catholic and are having a ton of kids in the US. Once the Dems make them legalized, voting Americans (and then they'll get to stop doing "jobs Americans won't do." Duh.), they'll vote pro-life, just like their Pope tells them to. Pro-abort, DINK Dems will be history, not pro-lifers.

Anyway, there's an old saying in politics that you can't make friends of your enemies by making enemies of your friends. GHW Bush and Dole learned that when they belittled or marginalized conservative Christians. Anyone who suggests aliening conservative Christians is the way to reinvigorate the Repub party in CA had better have something to replace those loyal, active, and, most importantly, reliable voters. And they need to have proof, not speculation, that their suggestion will work, because it has failed miserably on the national stage.

FYI statewide office DOESN'T MATTER if you don't have the Assembly and the Senate on your side -- you'll never get a RKBA bill before you to sign. Redistricting reform is a higher priority to get that.

IMHO, this whole thread is a distraction and waste of CGN'ers time. The sheriffs elections are just 3 yrs away. The cutoff for candidates is 2 1/2 yrs away. County level organizations must be started, leadership identified, and strategy and tactics be developed; pro-CCW candidates must be identified and encouraged to file -- there is no time to waste.

bulgron
09-10-2007, 12:37 PM
IMHO, this whole thread is a distraction and waste of CGN'ers time. The sheriffs elections are just 3 yrs away. The cutoff for candidates is 2 1/2 yrs away. County level organizations must be started, leadership identified, and strategy and tactics be developed; pro-CCW candidates must be identified and encouraged to file -- there is no time to waste.

Well now, here's something I can absolutely agree with.

I am an absolute novice where it comes to sheriffs politics. How does one go about finding a challenger for your current anti-CCW sheriff and then starting an campaign for that person?

I imagine you have to have issues beyond CCW in order to have a chance of replacing your current sheriff. So what sort of issues will work to get a largely disinterested electorate willing to give an incumbent sheriff the boot?

IMO, those are great questions and a far better use of time than, say, a creationism debate. :rolleyes:

bwiese
09-10-2007, 12:59 PM
Most are Catholic and are having a ton of kids in the US. Once the Dems make them legalized, voting Americans (and then they'll get to stop doing "jobs Americans won't do." Duh.), they'll vote pro-life, just like their Pope tells them to. Pro-abort, DINK Dems will be history, not pro-lifers.

No, they'll vote machine-racial politics with 'free cookies' offered.

Anyway, there's an old saying in politics that you can't make friends of your enemies by making enemies of your friends. GHW Bush and Dole learned that when they belittled or marginalized conservative Christians.

That may apply on a national basis, but not in CA. CA statewide politics is driven by roughly a half-dozen or so counties - generally, SF Bay Area/SJ, Sacto, LA, SD areas.

Anyone who suggests aliening conservative Christians is the way to reinvigorate the Repub party in CA had better have something to replace those loyal, active, and, most importantly, reliable voters.

The relatively few conservative Christian voters (as separated from generally conservative voters) can be kicked to the wayside because the middle-of-roaders afraid of high taxes will flock to a nonreligious-oriented pro-choice candidate. "Choice" is always one of top three concerns of voters - exit polls, general surveys, regardless of phraseology.

And they need to have proof, not speculation, that their suggestion will work, because it has failed miserably on the national stage.

National stage is irrelevant to CA. We generally have higher incomes, more education, more mental flexibility, more mobility. It's a different ballpark with different rules of the game.

FYI statewide office DOESN'T MATTER if you don't have the Assembly and the Senate on your side -- you'll never get a RKBA bill before you to sign. Redistricting reform is a higher priority to get that.

Redistricting *helps*, of course.

But until R's shun the whole religious/pro-life platform the "nonoutback" districts with educated suburban middle/upper-middle-class voters will not vote for Rs enough to get substantially more seats.

AJAX22
09-10-2007, 2:40 PM
I don't want to get into a debate on pro-life vs. pro-choice, but I go to a VERY liberal school, and have a number of VERY liberal friends who converse with me frequently.

While many of my classmates and friends consider themselves Democrats, they are in fact fiscal conservatives with primarily socially conservative standpoints.

The Pro-Life standpoint of the republican party is the ONLY thing that keeps them calling themselves democrats.

even the more extreme liberals are really only anchored to the Democratic party by the abortion issue.

(well that and everyone thinks bush is an idiot)

stator
09-10-2007, 3:26 PM
I am absolutely amazed at the idiotic views in this thread. Under fair disclosure, I will tell you that I have been a registered Republican since 1978.

First off, the "religious right" is a marketing creation hammered repeatedly by the liberal establishment which largely consists of majority of the Democratic party and media. This is much the same of Hillary's rhetoric,"vast wing conspiracy" statements.

The religious right really does not exists in the Republican party and the core plank of values. The liberals have co-opted the abortion issue as a religious right issue to make their scare tactics stick to the uninformed, or those that are largely liberal but do not realize it yet.

However, the abortion issue is about morality and expenses. Most people who view themselves as pro-choice do not attend church, but do so because they do not want to preside over a country where the grey-line of murder is legal. Other pro-choice voters simple see that if one wants an abortion, they need to counsel their beliefs and make their decisions without taxpayer relief (this is my view).

I am amazed, again, at those that posted in this thread that they are for smaller government, lower taxes, but the Republican party and the "religious right" that bring up the abortion issue are scary. Their ignorance of the fact that they fell for the "religious right" moniker brought forth by liberals is hiding them from their oxymoronic statement that they are for limited government and lower taxes. They fail to realize that the vast majority of abortions in this country are subsidized heavily by the U.S. taxpayer.

Yes, taxpayer subsidies is counter to smaller government and lower taxes. The former cannot exists with the later two.

There is not a single, viable California party outside of the Republican party that is for smaller government and lower taxes. The failed policies of the the democratic party managing this state is simply covered by the incredible technology sector boom that started with semiconductors decades ago.

You can go ahead and be falsely scared of the Democrat's "religious-right" and fracture your small government and lower taxes vote, and vote for another party just like the Democratic party is hoping for.

In the end, though, California has been over-run by voters who have learned to vote themselves money by aligning to the Democratic party and the entitlements they bring forth. More Democratic voters seem to believe that bonds are free money and are not an increase in taxes which is utterly false.

This state has some serious problems which Arnie failed to addressed lately. The new Arnie is nothing like the old Arnie that ran for governor.

simonov
09-10-2007, 3:34 PM
But until R's shun the whole religious/pro-life platform the "nonoutback" districts with educated suburban middle/upper-middle-class voters will not vote for Rs enough to get substantially more seats.

Heh.

Over in the Democratic Underground gun forum, a lot of guys are saying the same thing about gun control: it costs Dems votes in traditional Dem strongholds like the South and the Midwest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

heyjak
09-10-2007, 7:29 PM
This is the best quote in the entire thread. Piper, you've hit the bullseye!
Remember folks, Arnie is a very competitive animal and loves to intimidate his foes. I'm afraid he (unlike myself) will compromise his principles to win. Tolerance of things that are simply WRONG are what makes California such a "liberal" state. As a third generation Californian I DO NOT LIKE the current political climate and I absolutely REFUSE to move to a more conservative state such as Texas or Idaho. Realizing that I'm probably outnumbered, I will have to carefully pick my battles. But, I WILL NOT compromise my principles to win some sort of half-victory. Sorry for you liberals who do not agree with me but, I refuse to give up this battle!:mad:

chico.cm
09-10-2007, 8:32 PM
However, the abortion issue is about morality and expenses...

Their ignorance of the fact that they fell for the "religious right" moniker brought forth by liberals is hiding them from their oxymoronic statement that they are for limited government and lower taxes. They fail to realize that the vast majority of abortions in this country are subsidized heavily by the U.S. taxpayer.


I wish I could have stated that so well. This labelling is not any different in my mind than the 'gun nut' label. The media is quite adept at using the large brush to paint all gun owners with. If someone pulls a 'Columbine' or a 'Va. Tech', (may they rest in Peace), all gun owners are to blame.
IMO, CA has a gerrymandering problem; religion is the excuse of the moment to glaze over the fact that Republicans can't win statewide elections because CA is a blue state.

Piper
09-10-2007, 9:03 PM
I think this will probably be my last post on Calguns. I think it's really sad that people who consider themselves lovers of freedom and liberty would advocate silencing someone because of beliefs that advocate love of life, my fellow man and freedom. You attempt to silence me because I stand on my priciples while you stand for nothing. I won't associate with that.

You call me ignorant because I reject a theory that is fraut with uncertainty, conjecture, speculation and is full of S W A G. You call me unscientific because I marvel at the miracles of the design of the human body and it's incredible systems and consider the intelligence of its design, yet you reject the most modern priciples of science because they don't agree with your religion of evolution.

I think I'll keep looking until I find a place that is less phobic of christians. I was on my own before I found Calguns, I will continue my fight without you.

Kestryll, you can remove my account, I won't be back.

gazzavc
09-10-2007, 9:37 PM
How did this thread manage to get derailed to this extent?

Come on chaps, lets focus....

Gaz

metalhead357
09-10-2007, 9:45 PM
How did this thread manage to get derailed to this extent?

Come on chaps, lets focus....

Gaz


Amen.............. and Sorry there Piper.......... I knowst how ya' feels sometimes in this state and even sometimes here:cool: Hope y'll reconsider.

Pont
09-11-2007, 2:24 AM
Nobody ridiculed you, as far as I can tell. Nobody tried to silence you. The faux persecution complex just reinforces any stereotypes you might be trying to avoid.

We just think Faith and Politics don't mix. Do you believe in the 2nd Ammendment? Because we'll stand by you on that.

I think this will probably be my last post on Calguns. I think it's really sad that people who consider themselves lovers of freedom and liberty would advocate silencing someone because of beliefs that advocate love of life, my fellow man and freedom. You attempt to silence me because I stand on my priciples while you stand for nothing. I won't associate with that.

You call me ignorant because I reject a theory that is fraut with uncertainty, conjecture, speculation and is full of S W A G. You call me unscientific because I marvel at the miracles of the design of the human body and it's incredible systems and consider the intelligence of its design, yet you reject the most modern priciples of science because they don't agree with your religion of evolution.

I think I'll keep looking until I find a place that is less phobic of christians. I was on my own before I found Calguns, I will continue my fight without you.

Kestryll, you can remove my account, I won't be back.

metalhead357
09-11-2007, 4:40 AM
We just think Faith and Politics don't mix. .

Interesting....from Jamestown (what? 1603) to 1954 it was pretty much a VERY big part of politics. 351 years of God & politikin' until the bible gets thrown outta school(s). It mixed well for that long and even helped give/establish/maintain those very rights we're all here so proud of.......

talk about 'original intent' arguments...............

Scarecrow Repair
09-11-2007, 8:06 AM
Kestryll, you can remove my account, I won't be back.

If you really want to remove your account, you can do so yourself. Simply go to the password change page, open up any kind of text window -- command line prompt, text editor, file name change -- type in any random string of nonsense that you can't remember, and paste it into both the password change boxes. Commit, then clear the original random string, and delete the cookies for your account. Bingo! You can't log in again unless you create a new account or get the admin to reset the password.

Kestryll
09-11-2007, 9:51 AM
I tend to agree with Piper and share his displeasure at the attempts to segregate valid convictions.

It really raises several questions for me.
Some suspect that one part of the firearms demographic may be seen as detrimental so we should abandon them.
So what next?
Hispanic gun owners are a liability because of their possibly perceived connection to gangs or illegal immigration so we exclude them too?
Democrats are all diabolical horned monsters out to subjugate us all so we shouldn't give a voice to Democratic firearms enthusiasts, do we have to make room for them under the bus too?
Who else is a potential liability and must be sacrifice so that gun laws can be fixed for.... wait a minute. Who's left? Who was left to do the 'fixing' and reap the rewards? Now that everyone is under the bus what's the point?

So what exactly are the values, moral and convictions that it is okay to just arbitrarily throw away? What is the list that as long as it's just these beliefs or convictions we'll still trust that you hold these others strongly?

How much credence, faith, trust or reliance do we give someone who is so readily willing to throw away what was once claimed to be closely held beliefs because it is expedient? Is that who you want watching your back or covering your sides?

How far do we take this logic?
I've never made any secret, here or elsewhere, of the fact that I am a Second Amendment supporter, firearms enthusiast, conservative, Christian.
So were I to apply the logic presented above should I ban everyone who I think does not further ALL of those stances?
Would we benefit more from that then from what we try to do here, which is to best fit our other beliefs with our support for the 2nd Amendment without requiring that those other beliefs be thrown to the wayside?


Issues like this are nothing other than divisive and destructive to what we are trying to do. There is no benefit to segregation within the firearms community, no 'greater good' that is served by factionalizing ourselves.

One group and only one group benefits and succeeds from this, those who want to strip us of our rights. And threads and comments like this play right into their hands. We give them victory on a plate with side orders.

Bad Voodoo
09-11-2007, 5:32 PM
I couldn't disagree with you and Piper more, Kestryll, but if the veiled insinuation that those of us who consider ourselves politically middle-of-the-road are somehow becoming less tolerant of your Christian beliefs, then perhaps you should ban us. What I’ve seen throughout this thread is a debate that needs to happen for our Party’s political survival.

I personally don't care if you're Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Wiccan. Doesn't matter to me in the least. What does matter is that since most of us have been old enough to vote we've been blindly supporting the (R) Party like a bunch of lemmings, without realizing or understanding the fundamental shift in (R) principles being twisted out of shape before our very eyes. And like lemmings, we’ve all followed The Party right off the edge of the cliff into a fundamentally theocratic government who’s only current interest appears to be infringing upon more and more of our constitutional rights as United States citizens, and maintaining their plan of Middle-East “Crusades.” Granted, our Founders were God-fearing, but we should all thank whatever God or idols we each choose to believe in that they were above all else free-thinkers first. There’s a reason why they felt so strongly about the separation of Church and State. This is a democracy founded on the principles of Liberty, not Christian theocracy.

That’s the hidden theme of this thread. The Party needs to re-focus on its foundation of small government, fiscally conservative restraint, and liberty. I don’t want any part of a political party beholden to a religious majority and the related special interests that follow. I also don’t want any part of a Socialist Party or their special interest baggage. All the people alienated and pushed toward their respective middles by our current Federal government and Clinton’s Socialist government MUST be brought back into the (R) fold before the Socialist (D)s get their hooks into them.

-voodoo

berto
09-11-2007, 7:07 PM
The tent is big enough for all of us. There's no need to leave.

There's room for for the religious and non in the republican party.The problem isn't with the non or less religious wanting to force the more religious out, it's with the threats from the religious fundamentalists that it's their way or no way. They threaten to sit out elections and withhold support if their planks, mainly anti-choice, anti-gay, and let's pray in school aren't holding up the platform. They're the ones with litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees. Call it pro-family if you must but it's those very positions that turn many otherwise agreeable people away from the republican party. I don't want the devout out of the tent, I want a friendlier more inclusive tent where religion plays a smaller role. If the devout want to draw lines in the sand and walk that's fine but don't pretend they were forced out.

I have no problem with a religious view point in the debate but there seem to be some absolutists that have a problem with my views regarding the proper place of religion in politics and the republican party. They see compromise as surrender. I say we work together to protect our gun rights and create a less socialistic nanny state. As much as I don't want the government telling me what I can eat I also don't want a government basing everything on its interpretation of stories from an old book. We can agree to disagree on some issues while working in concert on others. That's not apathy, it's realistic. Will I be cast out of the tent because of my tolerance of other viewpoints and refusal to agree with an emphasis religious beliefs?

Steyr_223
09-11-2007, 8:49 PM
I'll stick to my plan of moving more Democrats, leftists and Tree huggers to support the 2nd..Via dialog and offers of free trips to the range..

:)