Since we live in Oklahoma

[Serenity Now]

The "middle moved"? Surely you are not of the position that the middle moved to the right are you?
If you want to be honest about "movement" then admit how far left the Democratic party has moved. One of my pet peeves is the insinuation that the GOP has moved far to the right. Only in relation to the Democratic Party could anyone ever feel the GOP has moved to the right. Anything looks to the right when compared to the Democratic Party. Heck if JFK came back today, he would be kicked out of the Democratic Party. His "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" is diametrically opposite of the platform of the Democratic Party. And a "TAX CUT"? are you kidding me.

The moniker of "Democratic Lite" fits this Republican Party quite well thank you. And if you want to talk about voter apathy, look no further than it's conservative base staying home in the last few Presidential elections. When there is no remarkable differences in the candidates, why vote? There are more Sic'Ems out there than people may believe.

Agree on JFK. He's the last President to truly practice supply side economics.

Clinton was more conservative in some measure than was Bush.

The base has moved to the right on deal breaker issues like the 2nd Amendment. Reagan passed laws supporting gun control (broad term). NO GOP candidate today could do that. Since 9/11 the hawks are running things. The GOP model of diplomacy is based on John Wayne. That's doing nothing but playing wackamole and is a loser in the long term. Say all you want about Bush's Medicare Modernization but his 12 year war in Iraq in the face of tax cuts is the silliest thing I've ever seen.

The issue that I've stated here before is that no one can go far enough right to get the nomination and then get back to the middle to get the moderates to vote for you.

I'd love to see the left get out of the full on welfare but still do things like the ACA, or RomneyCare as I like to call it.

[Serenity Now]

Here ya go...

http://gilligan.wikia.com/wiki/Wrongway_Feldman

Well played, sir. Well played.

[Ton Loc]

Does anybody see the irony here?

I knew what I was doing.

Really, I just need Turd to come in here and call me an idiot and this thread will fit right in with the rest of them.

[SicEmBaylor]

Cling to...like "my cold dead hands". That's the saying. Everyone loves the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment but for "a well regulated militia". Cray cray.

The "militia" was the body-politic. The word regulate, in period usage, meant to properly train/muster; therefore, the intent was to have a militia composed of the citizenry properly trained to defend itself, its liberties, and its community. To that end, an individual's right to bear arms must not be infringed.

It was not as liberals suggest that it means a government trained/commanded "militia" in the form of a state national guard. It meant that you, me, and others would own our firearms. It meant that we would properly train ourselves in the use of those firearms. It meant that we would join together and train as a local/community defense force. This was for the purpose of protecting one's self and one's community from forces both foreign and domestic should the need arise. Parity with the opposing force is absolutely necessary to ensure that end. The 2nd Amendment absolutely meant that the individual's right to own firearms was sanctimont. In order for the 2nd Amendment to work, as intended, the individual must have unfettered access to weaponry that can compare (reasonably) to his opposition whether it be a foreign invasion or his own government.

[Serenity Now]

The "militia" was the body-politic. The word regulate, in period usage, meant to properly train/muster; therefore, the intent was to have a militia composed of the citizenry properly trained to defend itself, its liberties, and its community. To that end, an individual's right to bear arms must not be infringed.

It was not as liberals suggest that it means a government trained/commanded "militia" in the form of a state national guard. It meant that you, me, and others would own our firearms. It meant that we would properly train ourselves in the use of those firearms. It meant that we would join together and train as a local/community defense force. This was for the purpose of protecting one's self and one's community from forces both foreign and domestic should the need arise. Parity with the opposing force is absolutely necessary to ensure that end. The 2nd Amendment absolutely meant that the individual's right to own firearms was sanctimont. In order for the 2nd Amendment to work, as intended, the individual must have unfettered access to weaponry that can compare (reasonably) to his opposition whether it be a foreign invasion or his own government.

I don't disagree with you. There is no "local militia" anymore. Ours involves my next door neighbor Federal Marshal and the guy that hunts across the street from him. However, drones, cannons, etc. kind of trumps the meaning now. I have no problem with almost all people owning guns. However, I think it's quasi paranoia to "cling" to background checks and gun registration as tightly as they do. To me "a well regulated militia" would translate in modern terms as a state national guard.

[hawaii 5-0]

100 times might have been overstating it a bit.

Might have been is the correct answer.

If Hillary gets the nomination I might vote for her. Or I might not. As a swing voter I'll vote for the best candidate. Usually it boils down to the lesser of two evils.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Meanwhile you think hillary is A-OK.

I laugh when idiots try to tell me what I think.

Enjoy your AA meeting.

5-0

[SicEmBaylor]

I laugh when idiots try to tell me what I think.

Enjoy your AA meeting.

5-0

You're a pinko commie who probably sleeps with a blow up doll of Lenin every night.

[olevetonahill]

I laugh when idiots try to tell me what I think.

Enjoy your AA meeting.

5-0

They have meetings for folks like us? Really? Areshole anonymous! Who knew?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I knew what I was doing.

Really, I just need Turd to come in here and call me an idiot and this thread will fit right in with the rest of them.

**** off, idiot.

[okie52]

**** off, idiot.

Heh heh

[hawaii 5-0]

You're a pinko commie who probably sleeps with a blow up doll of Lenin every night.

Actually it's Natasha Fatale. She's hot.

5-0

[champions77]

Agree on JFK. He's the last President to truly practice supply side economics.

Clinton was more conservative in some measure than was Bush.

The base has moved to the right on deal breaker issues like the 2nd Amendment. Reagan passed laws supporting gun control (broad term). NO GOP candidate today could do that. Since 9/11 the hawks are running things. The GOP model of diplomacy is based on John Wayne. That's doing nothing but playing wackamole and is a loser in the long term. Say all you want about Bush's Medicare Modernization but his 12 year war in Iraq in the face of tax cuts is the silliest thing I've ever seen.

The issue that I've stated here before is that no one can go far enough right to get the nomination and then get back to the middle to get the moderates to vote for you.

I'd love to see the left get out of the full on welfare but still do things like the ACA, or RomneyCare as I like to call it.

The right has "moved" to the right on the second Amendment only in relation to how far to the "left" that the left has moved. Why is it that leftist try and validate their positions by stating that it is the right that has moved their position? In actuality it is the left that has moved radically left in their positions. I can't recall any self described liberals on this forum that has admitted that their positions have moved to the left on any issue, ever. It is always All about the right moving their position.

I dare any leftist on this forum to provide Compelling evidence that the left has NOT moved to the left on most every one of the issues of the day in the last 10-20 years? Please enlighten me.
Hint; do you really believe that an admitted Communist like Obama czar Van Jones would have been allowed a position in any Administration 20 years ago?

[soonergirlNeugene]

Since we live in Oklahoma can we all agree that the supposed Walmart Invasion is like reason #572 that Texas is ridiculous? As a state, it's embarrassing to be seen next to those guys.

[Ton Loc]

**** off, idiot.

Heh, now we're good.

[FaninAma]

I laugh when idiots try to tell me what I think.

Enjoy your AA meeting.

5-0

So you don't think she is okay? Just answer the question instead of acting like you are less partisan than everybody else on the message board. Will you vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democrat nominee? Yes or no? The more you dance around the question and try to give a nuanced answer the more you look like a hypocrite.

[FaninAma]

Might have been is the correct answer.

If Hillary gets the nomination I might vote for her. Or I might not. As a swing voter I'll vote for the best candidate. Usually it boils down to the lesser of two evils.

5-0

Everybody who believes this please give me $10.

[yermom]

who is on the other side?

Romney? i'm probably going Hilary

i would have picked McCain over her though

[SoonerorLater]

who is on the other side?

Romney? i'm probably going Hilary

i would have picked McCain over her though

Take two aspirin and if you aren't better in the morning call your doctor.

[SicEmBaylor]

who is on the other side?

Romney? i'm probably going Hilary

i would have picked McCain over her though

I would have picked a cyanide capsule over McCain.