NationStates Jolt Archive

Need new senators

Most Californians have no clue as to what rights the Constitution grants them and which it does not. For example, Californians have been taught by partisan Democrats that they have an absolute right to privacy even if they are covering up a crime or are in a public place. It is horrible that many people believe these lies despite hundreds of federal court rulings that state your right to privacy becomes invalid once you commit a crime, and that you have no right to privacy if you are in public place such as a street or in a supermarket or a mall.

On the other side, Californians have been falsely told by the same Democrats that they have no right to defend themselves. But I hold it to be an inherent fact the all human beings have an inalienable God given right to self defense. The Dems don't believe in the right to self- defense, that is why they pass laws that violate the Second Amendment.

Even though we are a nation at war, and terrorists are threatening to enter from Mexico, Democrats are demanding, unjustly, that the U.S.-Mexico border be left wide open. Just a while back, a California member of the Congress got irate because the Border Patrol was doing its part in the war on terror and enforcing immigration laws. Rep. Joe Baca claims the rights of the Mexican nationals were violated. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the '90s that non-citizens have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, because it only applies to citizens of the United States of America.

Since being elected, California's Democratic delegation to the Senate and the House of Representatives has done everything it could to undermine the national security of the United States and to undermine our war against terror. I would note that they voted against providing funding so our troops in Iraq could have the armor necessary to save their lives. Now these same Dems are demanding the government give them money for their personal friends' pet pork-barrel projects.

People like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Baca and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer believe in the people of the United States of Mexico and that we should follow the lead of the United States of Europe. I believe in the people of the United States of America. Its OK for them to believe in Mexico, but while they do that, I choose to believe in the people of California and in their God- given rights to self defense and reproductive freedom. In my opinion, its time for California to get a couple of new senators.

Robert Canales

Whittier

Whittier Daily News
January 16, 2005

Rawr, Hulk smash democrats! HUlk hate democrats! Democrats suck, republicans good!

I choose to believe in the people of California and in their God- given rights to self defense and reproductive freedom.Where did the bit about 'reproductive freedom' come from?

Where did the bit about 'reproductive freedom' come from?
Common sense.

I think that the person who wrote that letter should go back and read the Constitution. Anyway this Robert Canales arguements are idiotic and therefore he is a an idiot.

Disclaimer: I am allowed to call people "idiot" inder certain circumstances in accordance to the Angelina Jolie Ruling as documented here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389726&highlight=jolie)

Common sense.Oh, that's always a useful one. Will you elaborate, please?

Need new senators

Most Californians have no clue as to what rights the Constitution grants them and which it does not. For example, Californians have been taught by partisan Democrats that they have an absolute right to privacy even if they are covering up a crime or are in a public place. It is horrible that many people believe these lies despite hundreds of federal court rulings that state your right to privacy becomes invalid once you commit a crime, and that you have no right to privacy if you are in public place such as a street or in a supermarket or a mall.

On the other side, Californians have been falsely told by the same Democrats that they have no right to defend themselves. But I hold it to be an inherent fact the all human beings have an inalienable God given right to self defense. The Dems don't believe in the right to self- defense, that is why they pass laws that violate the Second Amendment.

Even though we are a nation at war, and terrorists are threatening to enter from Mexico, Democrats are demanding, unjustly, that the U.S.-Mexico border be left wide open. Just a while back, a California member of the Congress got irate because the Border Patrol was doing its part in the war on terror and enforcing immigration laws. Rep. Joe Baca claims the rights of the Mexican nationals were violated. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the '90s that non-citizens have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, because it only applies to citizens of the United States of America.

Since being elected, California's Democratic delegation to the Senate and the House of Representatives has done everything it could to undermine the national security of the United States and to undermine our war against terror. I would note that they voted against providing funding so our troops in Iraq could have the armor necessary to save their lives. Now these same Dems are demanding the government give them money for their personal friends' pet pork-barrel projects.

People like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Baca and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer believe in the people of the United States of Mexico and that we should follow the lead of the United States of Europe. I believe in the people of the United States of America. Its OK for them to believe in Mexico, but while they do that, I choose to believe in the people of California and in their God- given rights to self defense and reproductive freedom. In my opinion, its time for California to get a couple of new senators.

Robert Canales

Whittier

Whittier Daily News
January 16, 2005WHAT'S THAT I HEAR?

I think I hear a bit of jealousy to us Californians. :)

Mr Canales obviously doesnt understand another right which californians enjoy - the right to ballot iniative.

Awwwww Whit!

Poor baby!

You are not mad at the fact you and your buddy Arnie couldn't get 12 Democrats tossed?

I hate to be a pest, could you give me some of the case law on this? It's very interesting and I've never heard of some stuff here before, and I'd like to read up on it.

Thanks man. (Oh yeah, I hope you feel lucky living in California, you bastard)

Just hope that Arnold's able to get through the redistricting idea so that the Dem's stranglehold is weakened somewhat. 0% of the seats changing parties in the California House of Representatives, wow.

Need new Senators?

Sounds like sour grapes, I happen to like our democraticly elected senators.

Apparently so do a majority of Californians, that's why Boxer just won another term.

If you're from California, Whittier, I suggest you move. You're in the minority here and it's not likely to change.

If you're not, then STFU.

Just hope that Arnold's able to get through the redistricting idea so that the Dem's stranglehold is weakened somewhat. 0% of the seats changing parties in the California House of Representatives, wow.

Stranglehold? Oh yea the Repubs only want to set up a fair playing field. :rolleyes:

Stranglehold? Oh yea the Repubs only want to set up a fair playing field. :rolleyes:
The GOP plays fair??? What is this, fantasy land?

Stranglehold? Oh yea the Repubs only want to set up a fair playing field. :rolleyes:
In California, on this issue, they do. California is one of the most extreme examples of how bad gerrymandering has become in the US, with an almost absolute lack of competitive seats.

If you're from California, Whittier, I suggest you move. You're in the minority here and it's not likely to change.

If you're not, then STFU.
I take it you don't complain about Bush and the Republicans then, right?

Wait a second... :rolleyes:

In California, on this issue, they do. California is one of the most extreme examples of how bad gerrymandering has become in the US, with an almost absolute lack of competitive seats.

And could it be that the message the Repubs want to spread doesn't sell here?

The major centers of the State have always been liberal minded.

I am sure Whit will have some charts to say we are really conservative republicans but the dumb democrats prevent them from taking power. ;)

In California, on this issue, they do. California is one of the most extreme examples of how bad gerrymandering has become in the US, with an almost absolute lack of competitive seats.The repubs in Cal are just as much to blame on this issue as the Dems. Although the dems have a majority the repubs don't want to lose the few safe seats they have. Any gerrymandering reform will hurt them as much. So both sides block reform.

It helps to know the issue.

And could it be that the message the Repubs want to spread doesn't sell here?

The major centers of the State have always been liberal minded.

I am sure Whit will have some charts to say we are really conservative republicans but the dumb democrats prevent them from taking power. ;)
It could be, and is the fact, that there are more Democrats than Republicans in California. That dosen't mean the seats aren't gerrymandered. Take a look at districts 18 and 11, for example. 20 and 22, 18 and 19, and most of Los Angeles can be looked at, as well.

I take it you don't complain about Bush and the Republicans then, right?

Wait a second... :rolleyes:Well I am a citizen of the US and a registered voter, so yes.

However I don't comment on, say the New Jersey elected officials and call for that state to change it's representatives. Since I don't live there and they don't represent me....

I think that the person who wrote that letter should go back and read the Constitution.
Please expand on this.

Need new Senators?

Sounds like sour grapes, I happen to like our democraticly elected senators.

Apparently so do a majority of Californians, that's why Boxer just won another term.

If you're from California, Whittier, I suggest you move. You're in the minority here and it's not likely to change.

If you're not, then STFU.
Why do you think the Constitution was written? To protect minorities.

Well I am a citizen of the US and a registered voter, so yes.

However I don't comment on, say the New Jersey elected officials and call for that state to change it's representatives. Since I don't live there and they don't represent me....
You said that if he lived in California, you suggest that he move.

So, by that logic (applied on a national scale), shouldn't you just pack your bags and go to Canada?

Need new senators

Most Californians have no clue as to what rights the Constitution grants them and which it does not. For example, Californians have been taught by partisan Democrats that they have an absolute right to privacy even if they are covering up a crime or are in a public place. It is horrible that many people believe these lies despite hundreds of federal court rulings that state your right to privacy becomes invalid once you commit a crime, and that you have no right to privacy if you are in public place such as a street or in a supermarket or a mall.

On the other side, Californians have been falsely told by the same Democrats that they have no right to defend themselves. But I hold it to be an inherent fact the all human beings have an inalienable God given right to self defense. The Dems don't believe in the right to self- defense, that is why they pass laws that violate the Second Amendment.

Even though we are a nation at war, and terrorists are threatening to enter from Mexico, Democrats are demanding, unjustly, that the U.S.-Mexico border be left wide open. Just a while back, a California member of the Congress got irate because the Border Patrol was doing its part in the war on terror and enforcing immigration laws. Rep. Joe Baca claims the rights of the Mexican nationals were violated. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the '90s that non-citizens have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, because it only applies to citizens of the United States of America.

Since being elected, California's Democratic delegation to the Senate and the House of Representatives has done everything it could to undermine the national security of the United States and to undermine our war against terror. I would note that they voted against providing funding so our troops in Iraq could have the armor necessary to save their lives. Now these same Dems are demanding the government give them money for their personal friends' pet pork-barrel projects.

People like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Baca and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer believe in the people of the United States of Mexico and that we should follow the lead of the United States of Europe. I believe in the people of the United States of America. Its OK for them to believe in Mexico, but while they do that, I choose to believe in the people of California and in their God- given rights to self defense and reproductive freedom. In my opinion, its time for California to get a couple of new senators.

Robert Canales

Whittier

Whittier Daily News
January 16, 2005

Or maybe they just don't like the idea of random, uneducated, dangerous people with fire arms?

Self Defense does not equal guns.

/slap

Please expand on this.
Equal protection under the law applies to everyone on US soil not just citizens.

Just hope that Arnold's able to get through the redistricting idea so that the Dem's stranglehold is weakened somewhat. 0% of the seats changing parties in the California House of Representatives, wow.I'm actually for sensible districts too.

It would make real issues a factor in elections.

But when or if it happens it's not gonna really change the make up of our congress. New faces but the same split.

Despite what you believe it's still a majorly liberal state. Getting rid of 'safe seats' isn't gonna miracuously make us all vote republican.

Or maybe they just don't like the idea of random, uneducated, dangerous people with fire arms?
Gun owners, and especially concealed carry permit holders, are some of the most responsible, law-abiding, rational individuals in the country. They're also, on average, better-educated than the population at large. ;)

Fact is, because of California's grossly unconstitutional laws, people can't defend themselves from "random, uneducated, dangerous people with firearms" -- the gangsters, druggies and other criminals.


Self Defense does not equal guns.

Effective self defense does. And just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

The repubs in Cal are just as much to blame on this issue as the Dems. Although the dems have a majority the repubs don't want to lose the few safe seats they have. Any gerrymandering reform will hurt them as much. So both sides block reform.

It helps to know the issue.
Its true that most incumbents want security. The main force behind fair redistricting is a Republican, though.

Equal protection under the law applies to everyone on US soil not just citizens.
Point taken, but the Democratic politician was still wrong: Border Guardsmen aren't violating the rights of illegal Mexican immigrants, because they have no right to enter the country. And the rest, regarding privacy, RKBA, etc., is correct.

I'm actually for sensible districts too.

It would make real issues a factor in elections.

But when or if it happens it's not gonna really change the make up of our congress. New faces but the same split.

Despite what you believe it's still a majorly liberal state. Getting rid of 'safe seats' isn't gonna miracuously make us all vote republican.
I don't believe otherwise. I said a few posts up that its a fact that there's more Democrats than Republicans in California.

You said that if he lived in California, you suggest that he move.

So, by that logic (applied on a national scale), shouldn't you just pack your bags and go to Canada?If he's so vehement about living under a democraticly elected representative he hates that's an option, I pointed it out because California's not likely to elect a replacement he'd agree with either.

I however don't feel so fatalistic about our national leadership and the chance for change there.

Thanks but I'll stick it out.

I don't know why peole continue to listen to Whittier. He's just an attention whore who will twist all the words he can to make a pathetic attempt at a point. I suggest we just ignore him and not appease his falme bait and go on with our lives. It will do nothing to try to correct him, he will just call you a terrorist supporter and think he has won.

Its true that most incumbents want security. The main force behind fair redistricting is a Republican, though.Except he doesn't have the major support of his party.

Still I wish him luck, that's one change that's needed.

I still want case law for this letter...

Self defense can equal guns. But dont you think tranq guns would work just as well? less fatalities, and same effect. Add poison-ivy to the dart so it would hurt like a &*@#^.

Or a sword. Noone expects a sword. And they might just fall over laughing, so you can are indeed well protected.

Gun owners, and especially concealed carry permit holders, are some of the most responsible, law-abiding, rational individuals in the country. They're also, on average, better-educated than the population at large. ;)

Fact is, because of California's grossly unconstitutional laws, people can't defend themselves from "random, uneducated, dangerous people with firearms" -- the gangsters, druggies and other criminals.


Effective self defense does. And just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

No I believe that people who own concealed carrying permits are quite responsible. I trust someone who has that kind of permit. On averaged better educated.. arguable but I'll go along with it.

Who can't defend themselves? Other gangsters, druggies and criminals? I mean yeah if someone comes into your house with a gun and your citizen Joe, I suppose you have a very good right to defend yourself with whatever force necessary. But usualy at my house, home turf advantage is key and I will use that to my victory.

If you need to carry a gun on an average basis to feel safe, I believe the world has become a sad place. One at the one as one thing, but one on your person for personal protection is a bit much.

If you don;t like democrats, just moveto Texas where you can shoot them on sight (provided you have a gun license and they're attacking you) But seriously. Democrats and Republicans are both wrong. politics has become a stale institution being perpetuated to feed the egos of fat old men and young yahoos who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. A new system needs to instated. something fresh, something that prevents the creation of huge beurocracies and carrer politicians. its time for mandatory citizen council rule!. the only sane way run a country is to make everyone contribute. the commies had the right idea they were just flawed in the execution. America needs a new constitution

its time for mandatory citizen council rule!. the only sane way run a country is to make everyone contribute. the commies had the right idea they were just flawed in the execution. America needs a new constitution

Ever read Churchill?

Not exact but:

"The surest cure for democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."

The Constitution is fine the way it is. In fact, it's probably better then what most countries have.

The fact the people are lazy is not the fault of the document.

The fact people are stupid("I always vote Republican/Democrat/Liberterian/Christian/etc") is not the fault of the document.

I really don't know how to engage the people again. I wish I did. But, a new Consititution would not engage them.

How would you make it better? Mob rule never works. Sometimes the minority is right or deserves rights over the majority.

But that is just me.....

Effective self defense does. And just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
What part of "a well regulated millita" don't you understand?

Oh, that's always a useful one. Will you elaborate, please?
Political freedom includes not just the right to elect your representatives or protest the opposing party or own guns, it by necessity must include the right of free will which in turn includes the right to reproductive freedom. I must note however that reproductive freedom does not encompass or include a right to abortion. Reproductive Freedom: the right to use whatever means at your disposal to incur or to avoid becoming pregnant or impregnating a member of the female race. Abortion does not qualify because it does not prevent pregnancy but rather ends it by murdering the fetus.

Need new Senators?

Sounds like sour grapes, I happen to like our democraticly elected senators.

Apparently so do a majority of Californians, that's why Boxer just won another term.

If you're from California, Whittier, I suggest you move. You're in the minority here and it's not likely to change.

If you're not, then STFU.
Boxer has the lowest approval rating of the two senators from Cal. The reason she won, was because there was no viable alternative. The other guy was a wussy.

I am from California.
California is 80% democratic.
It will do no good to put a republican in just cause he's republican.
California needs someone who does not toe the party line. Someone willing to tell his own party to go to hell. Bill Jones is a party man. Diane Fienstein is a party woman. Robert Canales is not a party man. He's an outsider willing to take on special interests and fight pork barrel spending that is costing the American taxpayers hundreds of billions per year.

Boxer has the lowest approval rating of the two senators from Cal. That is probably the most meaningless statistic I've ever heard sited.

Saying she had the second highest approval rating would be just as true,

and be just as vague.

Boxer has the lowest approval rating of the two senators from Cal. The reason she won, was because there was no viable alternative. The other guy was a wussy.

As someone else in california, I have to ask two questions:

1) DId you ever leave high school? Because nobody gives a fuck about popularity contests after that.


2)
I'm bolding and ubersizing this one.

Didn't you say you were leaving and not comming back? Why, oh WHY, did you come back?!

That is probably the most meaningless statistic I've ever heard sited.

Saying she had the second highest approval rating would be just as true,

and be just as vague.
To put it in perspective: her approval rating is around 48%.

As someone else in california, I have to ask two questions:

1) DId you ever leave high school? Because nobody gives a fuck about popularity contests after that.


2)
I'm bolding and ubersizing this one.

Didn't you say you were leaving and not comming back? Why, oh WHY, did you come back?!
The US Senate is not a popularity contest. The fact is that both of those Senators have doing stuff that has been detrimental to the national security of the United States and detrimental to the future of America.
The word "fuck" is not a word we use in proper political debate unless of course, you haven't graduated high school.

To put it in perspective: her approval rating is around 48%.Bush's hovered around 40% for most of his first term so what's your point?

First Shot Fired

Need new senators

Most Californians have no clue as to what rights the Constitution grants them and which it does not. For example, Californians have been taught by partisan Democrats that they have an absolute right to privacy even if they are covering up a crime or are in a public place. It is horrible that many people believe these lies despite hundreds of federal court rulings that state your right to privacy becomes invalid once you commit a crime, and that you have no right to privacy if you are in public place such as a street or in a supermarket or a mall.

On the other side, Californians have been falsely told by the same Democrats that they have no right to defend themselves. But I hold it to be an inherent fact the all human beings have an inalienable God given right to self defense. The Dems don't believe in the right to self- defense, that is why they pass laws that violate the Second Amendment.

Even though we are a nation at war, and terrorists are threatening to enter from Mexico, Democrats are demanding, unjustly, that the U.S.-Mexico border be left wide open. Just a while back, a California member of the Congress got irate because the Border Patrol was doing its part in the war on terror and enforcing immigration laws. Rep. Joe Baca claims the rights of the Mexican nationals were violated. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the '90s that non-citizens have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, because it only applies to citizens of the United States of America.

Since being elected, California's Democratic delegation to the Senate and the House of Representatives has done everything it could to undermine the national security of the United States and to undermine our war against terror. I would note that they voted against providing funding so our troops in Iraq could have the armor necessary to save their lives. Now these same Dems are demanding the government give them money for their personal friends' pet pork-barrel projects.

People like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Baca and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer believe in the people of the United States of Mexico and that we should follow the lead of the United States of Europe. I believe in the people of the United States of America. Its OK for them to believe in Mexico, but while they do that, I choose to believe in the people of California and in their God- given rights to self defense and reproductive freedom. In my opinion, its time for California to get a couple of new senators.

Robert Canales

Whittier

Whittier Daily News
January 16, 2005

Perhaps a more appriate title would be "First shots downed" (shortly before writing this article). :headbang: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Okay, so I'm not being very resonable. I usually try to be. I am tired, onry and don't care right now. I know I am being irrational and rude. I apoligize.
Me :sniper:

Self defense can equal guns. But dont you think tranq guns would work just as well? less fatalities, and same effect. Add poison-ivy to the dart so it would hurt like a &*@#^.

Or a sword. Noone expects a sword. And they might just fall over laughing, so you can are indeed well protected.Nothing is 100% as good as a gun. Tranquilizer darts make terrible defensive weaponry against humans, for a number of reasons. Even the most perfect amount of the drug will not stop a threat nearly as quickly as a handful of hot lead.

I shouldn't have to explain the trouble with a sword. Swords are extremely impractical as weapons to be carried compared with compact pistols, or even full-frame handguns. If you do have one, you need great strength and skill to use it effectively. It's much easier to become proficient with a firearm. If swords were just as good as guns, guns wouldn't have been invented.

Nothing is 100% as good as a gun. Tranquilizer darts make terrible defensive weaponry against humans, for a number of reasons. Even the most perfect amount of the drug will not stop a threat nearly as quickly as a handful of hot lead.

I shouldn't have to explain the trouble with a sword. Swords are extremely impractical as weapons to be carried compared with compact pistols, or even full-frame handguns. If you do have one, you need great strength and skill to use it effectively. It's much easier to become proficient with a firearm. If swords were just as good as guns, guns wouldn't have been invented.Only the first three words of your post are true.

On the other side, Californians have been falsely told by the same Democrats that they have no right to defend themselves. But I hold it to be an inherent fact the all human beings have an inalienable God given right to self defense. The Dems don't believe in the right to self- defense, that is why they pass laws that violate the Second Amendment.


Who's he? Oh yeah! He's my fave fictional character. Seriously boy, the Republicans arent much better. Face it, all politicians suck ass.

The Republican record is a line of deceit, corruption and greed. The democratic record is a line of deceit, corruption and greed.

They all suck.

Political freedom includes not just the right to elect your representatives or protest the opposing party or own guns, it by necessity must include the right of free will which in turn includes the right to reproductive freedom. I must note however that reproductive freedom does not encompass or include a right to abortion. Reproductive Freedom: the right to use whatever means at your disposal to incur or to avoid becoming pregnant or impregnating a member of the female race. Abortion does not qualify because it does not prevent pregnancy but rather ends it by murdering the fetus.

First off, females are a gender, not a race.

Secondly, women do not exist to be breeding cows, if you can kick someone out of your house for mooching off of you then can you not have the same control over your body?

If some hobo moved into your basement (even if you initially welcomed him in)and demanded sustinance you'd be well within your rights to kick him out, even if he dies as a result. You should have the same right over your body.

Self defense can equal guns. But dont you think tranq guns would work just as well?
No, no they wouldn't.

, so you can are indeed well protected.
No, no you aren't.

No I believe that people who own concealed carrying permits are quite responsible. I trust someone who has that kind of permit. On averaged better educated.. arguable but I'll go along with it.

[QUOTE=Zekhaust]
Who can't defend themselves? Other gangsters, druggies and criminals? I mean yeah if someone comes into your house with a gun and your citizen Joe, I suppose you have a very good right to defend yourself with whatever force necessary. But usualy at my house, home turf advantage is key and I will use that to my victory.

If you need to carry a gun on an average basis to feel safe, I believe the world has become a sad place. One at the one as one thing, but one on your person for personal protection is a bit much.
That's not what the Constitution says. So just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

What part of "a well regulated millita" don't you understand?
-sigh-

That is a *SEPERATE* and independant clause! It has no impact on the "The right of the /people/ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, SO THAT well-regulated (read: "in good working order) militias, COMPOSED OF private individuals, CAN be formed.

Only the first three words of your post are true.
EVERYTHING he said is true, and I challenge you to show otherwise.

Wow... you sure do have a lot to say to everybody...

That's not what the Constitution says. So just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Does it say in the constitution that guns shall be carried in self defense? Or even carry guns? It's all about how you perceive it. I perceive it as something to be use to eject a government trying to abuse its power. Not as a right to let you carry a gun.

Thats for each state to figure out.

No, no they wouldn't.



Why wouldn't tranq guns work?
Not that guns are allowed in the UK and we seem to do fine

Bush's hovered around 40% for most of his first term so what's your point?
Bush has only been in for 4 years. Barbara Boxer's been in for 12.

Bush has only been in for 4 years. Barbara Boxer's been in for 12.

If she's so unpopular how does she stay in?

First off, females are a gender, not a race.

Secondly, women do not exist to be breeding cows, if you can kick someone out of your house for mooching off of you then can you not have the same control over your body?

If some hobo moved into your basement (even if you initially welcomed him in)and demanded sustinance you'd be well within your rights to kick him out, even if he dies as a result. You should have the same right over your body.You present a red herring.
When you kick someone out of your basement, you are not killing them. Whereas with abortion you are killing. Big difference. Now if instead of destroying the fetus, you were to transfer it somewhere else where it would still be alive but not in the uterus, then your argument would have merit. But since, at least I haven't heard of any such cases, abortion results in the death of the other person, whereas kicking someone out of your house does not. Your argument holds no weight.

If she's so unpopular how does she stay in?
Voter apathy combined with the power of incumbency. Only 45% of Californians voted in the Senate race last time around.

You present a red herring.
When you kick someone out of your basement, you are not killing them. Whereas with abortion you are killing. Big difference. Now if instead of destroying the fetus, you were to transfer it somewhere else where it would still be alive but not in the uterus, then your argument would have merit. But since, at least I haven't heard of any such cases, abortion results in the death of the other person, whereas kicking someone out of your house does not. Your argument holds no weight.
whether or not its a person is debatable and thus the problem in your argument and everyone elses

Voter apathy combined with the power of incumbency. Only 45% of Californians voted in the Senate race last time around.
i thought california was a mainly democratic state? if im correct, why is it some evil plot of cheating and scandal that democrats control the congress?

Need new senators

Most Californians have no clue as to what rights the Constitution grants them and which it does not.

The US Constitution does not grant any rights to anyone, but it does explicitly recognize a number of them. Most Californians are ignorant about their constitutional rights, but they're not alone in this respect.

For example, Californians have been taught by partisan Democrats that they have an absolute right to privacy even if they are covering up a crime or are in a public place. It is horrible that many people believe these lies despite hundreds of federal court rulings that state your right to privacy becomes invalid once you commit a crime, and that you have no right to privacy if you are in public place such as a street or in a supermarket or a mall.
Just because privacy isn't specifically mentioned, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it. That's what the Ninth Amendment says. Privacy is a complicated issue and I'm not sure what you're trying to say about it.


On the other side, Californians have been falsely told by the same Democrats that they have no right to defend themselves. But I hold it to be an inherent fact the all human beings have an inalienable God given right to self defense. The Dems don't believe in the right to self- defense, that is why they pass laws that violate the Second Amendment.
Makes sense, but can you explain why Republicans pass laws that violate the Second Amendment? Nixon, Reagan, and George Bush Sr. all signed new federal gun control laws, and Reagan did the same thing in California. Bush has not yet had the oppurtunity to sign any gun control. He's promised to sign a renewel of the AWB and I'm sure he would. It would seem that the majority of Americans do not agree with you (or me) about the right to self-defense. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf
Restricting firearm sales and manufacturing the way the '94 AWB did is not compatible with the right to self-defense.


Even though we are a nation at war, and terrorists are threatening to enter from Mexico, Democrats are demanding, unjustly, that the U.S.-Mexico border be left wide open. Just a while back, a California member of the Congress got irate because the Border Patrol was doing its part in the war on terror and enforcing immigration laws. Rep. Joe Baca claims the rights of the Mexican nationals were violated. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the '90s that non-citizens have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, because it only applies to citizens of the United States of America.I'm not familiar with the case law from the 90's you speak of, but everyone has rights and those rights should be respected by the government whether or not citizens and whether or not the supremes say so. I'm not a big fan of the US federal government at all, but if it's to exist it could at least take reasonable measures to secure the borders. This is not happening and Republicans are in charge. It's true that much legal trouble comes from California lawyers and politicians regarding border enforcement issues, but it's not a partisan issue - at least not where it counts the most.


Since being elected, California's Democratic delegation to the Senate and the House of Representatives has done everything it could to undermine the national security of the United States and to undermine our war against terror. I would note that they voted against providing funding so our troops in Iraq could have the armor necessary to save their lives. Now these same Dems are demanding the government give them money for their personal friends' pet pork-barrel projects.Please don't insult my intelligence by referring to the "War on Terror" as if it's a real thing, like an actual war. If the California delegation opposes the war in Iraq, they should've voted against funding it. While some of that money pays for armor, that's a rather insignificant part. In general, the purpose of that money is to facilitate the killing of Iraqis.

People like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Baca and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer believe in the people of the United States of Mexico and that we should follow the lead of the United States of Europe. I believe in the people of the United States of America. Its OK for them to believe in Mexico, but while they do that, I choose to believe in the people of California and in their God- given rights to self defense and reproductive freedom. In my opinion, its time for California to get a couple of new senators.
Here's a thought. Next time you want to tell people why you think California needs to dispose of it's federal delegation, try giving specifics on particular lawmakers like some of the blatant lies Feinstein's told about politically incorrect guns. Even liberal supporters of "reasonable" gun control should be disgusted by some of the things that have come out of her mouth.

Robert Canales

Whittier

Whittier Daily News
January 16, 2005
Don't kid yourself. You're not a professional.

Only the first three words of your post are true.
Then why do cops still carry lethal weapons?

The word "fuck" is not a word we use in proper political debate unless of course, you haven't graduated high school.

Are you telling us Cheney didn't graduate from high school?

Then why do cops still carry lethal weapons?
Your first three words were "Nothing is 100%", even the best option isn't 100%.

Handguns are notoriously inacurate. At a distance of 10 feet, if someone points a gun at you and you're sure they're gonna shoot, go with the odds and run.

You have an 80% chance of getting away unharmed.

If she's so unpopular how does she stay in?-Whittier ignores the obvious fact that she keeps getting re-elected.

-Whittier ignores the obvious fact that she keeps getting re-elected.

majority mandate then lol

Your first three words were "Nothing is 100%", even the best option isn't 100%.

Handguns are notoriously inacurate. At a distance of 10 feet, if someone points a gun at you and you're sure they're gonna shoot, go with the odds and run.

You have an 80% chance of getting away unharmed.Who cares? I'm telling you that traquilizer guns make terrible defensive weapons and you change the subject.

Who cares? I'm telling you that traquilizer guns make terrible defensive weapons and you change the subject.You can't even remember your own post. You said that "nothing is 100% like a gun".

I'm pointing out that that is an erronous statement.

People like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Baca and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer believe in the people of the United States of Mexico and that we should follow the lead of the United States of Europe. I believe in the people of the United States of America. Its OK for them to believe in Mexico, but while they do that, I choose to believe in the people of California and in their God- given rights to self defense and reproductive freedom. In my opinion, its time for California to get a couple of new senators.



Democrats have been chipping away at freedom for decades now, it is inevitable that if they are not challenged, they will use the constitution to wipe their ass. And the best thing to do is find some patriotic Californians that still believe in America to vote these sumbag senators and memebers of congress like pilosi out.

Democrats have been chipping away at freedom for decades now, it is inevitable that if they are not challenged, they will use the constitution to wipe their ass. And the best thing to do is find some patriotic Californians that still believe in America to vote these sumbag senators and memebers of congress like pilosi out.

-Sniff sniff-

Yummmm flamebait!

If we had to wait for a politico that wasn't a scumbag of some sort, elections would never finish.

Democrats have been chipping away at freedom for decades now, it is inevitable that if they are not challenged, they will use the constitution to wipe their ass. And the best thing to do is find some patriotic Californians that still believe in America to vote these sumbag senators and memebers of congress like pilosi out.
Chipping away at freedom?
Is it chipping away at freedom to let homosexuals marry, let us put what we want into our bodies, and keeping our right to privacy?
I'd say that's promoting freedom.

(yes, I *know* I took the bait, but I didn't flame! there's hope for me yet!)

To everyone who thinks California is solidly Democrat (someone mentioned 80%)... how come Bush got 45% of the vote and Kerry 54%? How come we have a Republican Governor? California has moved pretty far to the right in the past few years, just like NY and NJ, and I watched it happen and pushed as much as I could. On some issues (abortion, immigration) the majority holds views to the right of most Republicans in national politics. However the districts do suck bigtime, and that should be changed. I think CA should have 1 D + 1 R senator, or at least 1 D + 1 moderate, instead we have the two evillest (that's not a word but it should be) senators in the country (although NY's Schumer is also a contender).

To everyone who thinks California is solidly Democrat (someone mentioned 80%)... how come Bush got 45% of the vote and Kerry 54%? How come we have a Republican Governor? California has moved pretty far to the right in the past few years, just like NY and NJ, and I watched it happen and pushed as much as I could. On some issues (abortion, immigration) the majority holds views to the right of most Republicans in national politics. However the districts do suck bigtime, and that should be changed. I think CA should have 1 D + 1 R senator, or at least 1 D + 1 moderate, instead we have the two evillest (that's not a word but it should be) senators in the country (although NY's Schumer is also a contender).Since you mention "we", I'll assume you're a fellow Californian.

If true, I'm surprised you can't answer some of these yourself. You should know why Arnold won, He promised what everyone wanted to hear. He made the fiscally unsound promise of reducing the car tax. California is a automobile culture and that and his name recognition was enough to carry him. He's not exactly a mainstream repub you have to admit. He's currently at odds with his party over the redistricting issue. California is bulging with immigrants, not from out of the country (we have a lot of those too) but from other states. These people tend to bring their political ideals with them.

California is mostly liberal in the urban areas but there is a lot of rural conservatives. We're still the #1 agricultural state in the nation, most people outside the state don't realize this. They think LA or SF and forget we produce an amount equal to 25% of what this nation eats. Farmers and urbanites tend to have different politics.

I've been politically active for over 30 years, there's been no major shift in california politics, but you can keep hoping.

As for the choice of senators, field a candidate that can win and you can have your desired split. Otherwise live with the results.

The last thing about California politics that makes it so screwy is the hollywood factor. Both sides play the voters like a bad reality show. We have our share of great minds but also more than our share of TV addicted, short attention span simpletons. With the right ad campaign you can sell them anything. Even convince them that a pot-smoking, steroid using actor and his plan for a 4 billion cut in revinues is the best thing for our state in a time of budget deficits.

Chipping away at freedom?
Is it chipping away at freedom to let homosexuals marry, let us put what we want into our bodies, and keeping our right to privacy?
I'd say that's promoting freedom.

(yes, I *know* I took the bait, but I didn't flame! there's hope for me yet!)
Whether homosexuals should marry is not a federal issue and does not belong in the national realm. Homosexual marriage, just like every other kind of marriage like straight marriage or polygamy is a state issue for the states to decide. Massachussetts has no right to force Maryland to legalize gay marriages just as Texas has no right to force California to bar gay marriages.
Let women put what they want into their own bodies? I'm not sure what you are talking about here. You'll have to elaborate. As far as I'm concern you can do what ever you want with your own body as long as it doesn't harm another person.
The right to privacy is not absolute. Indeed, history shows the right to privacy has been abused to extent of mass murderers getting off the hook by claiming their privacy rights were violated.

Or maybe they just don't like the idea of random, uneducated, dangerous people with fire arms?

Self Defense does not equal guns.

/slap
What copy of the US constitution have you read again?

To everyone who thinks California is solidly Democrat (someone mentioned 80%)... how come Bush got 45% of the vote and Kerry 54%? How come we have a Republican Governor? California has moved pretty far to the right in the past few years, just like NY and NJ, and I watched it happen and pushed as much as I could. On some issues (abortion, immigration) the majority holds views to the right of most Republicans in national politics. However the districts do suck bigtime, and that should be changed. I think CA should have 1 D + 1 R senator, or at least 1 D + 1 moderate, instead we have the two evillest (that's not a word but it should be) senators in the country (although NY's Schumer is also a contender).

Far to the right? Hardly, all the conservatives routinely bitch about the 9Th circut all the time.

So what if we have a republican governor. He won because he was making sense at the time of the circus of replacment choices.

Viewpoints?
Abortion? Arnie would be tossed from office if he ranted about abolishing abortion.

Immigration? You mean illegal immigration. For all the laws, we don't seem to be enforcing it. My last 2 jobs had the usual cleanning staff and I think they were illegals.

The districts suck because the Repubs don't like them.

Redistricting is nothing more of a tool to shift power.

The fact the Repubs hate Diane and Barbra kind of suggests they are doing something right. ;)

Whether homosexuals should marry is not a federal issue and does not belong in the national realm. Homosexual marriage, just like every other kind of marriage like straight marriage or polygamy is a state issue for the states to decide. Massachussetts has no right to force Maryland to legalize gay marriages just as Texas has no right to force California to bar gay marriages.


And yet your President made it a national issue and used it as an election vechicle. Has he dismissed the talk of a Constitutional amendment yet?

I thought I heard they had pulled the amendment back again.

Far to the right? Hardly, all the conservatives routinely bitch about the 9Th circut all the time.

So what if we have a republican governor. He won because he was making sense at the time of the circus of replacment choices.

Viewpoints?
Abortion? Arnie would be tossed from office if he ranted about abolishing abortion.

Immigration? You mean illegal immigration. For all the laws, we don't seem to be enforcing it. My last 2 jobs had the usual cleanning staff and I think they were illegals.

The districts suck because the Repubs don't like them.

Redistricting is nothing more of a tool to shift power.

The fact the Repubs hate Diane and Barbra kind of suggests they are doing something right. ;)
Arnold only won because of his star power. People voted for the actor, not for what he wanted to do in office.
Arnold is solidly proabortion, so fat chance he would ever support a ban.
What makes you think they were illegals?
California's districts, are in fact gerrymandered to benefit both parties not just one or the other. Gerrymandering is one thing the Cal. dems and reps. are very good at working together on to get something done. Albeit to their own benefit instead of the benefit of the people. So next time some talks about Democratic gerrrymandering or republican gerrymandering in California, you might want to remind them that the committee that made the districts was half republican and half democrat. When you talk gerrymandering, both parties participated in bringing about a grievous wrong.

And yet your President made it a national issue and used it as an election vechicle. Has he dismissed the talk of a Constitutional amendment yet?
He can discuss his opinion. In catering the extreme religious folks, he can say he will support this unreasonable expansion of federal power, but it doesn't mean the constitution will be changed. You would basically be saying, "People can only marry who the government tells them to marry." And I for one, don't think the federal government should be in the job of telling you who you should or should not marry. I think you are more than capable of making that decision on your own.

I thought I heard they had pulled the amendment back again.
well, if you notice, we haven't heard anything about it since the election. I am sure once the next Presidential election comes around, they might pull it back out. Does that behavior sound to you like they really care about the issue?

No, seriously, you said you were gonna leave. Why the hell did you come back? We don't need you here. Really, we have enough crackpots as it is.

What makes you think they were illegals?


Well in one case a gal was from Mexico and she and I used to talk all the time. She was the coffee cart gal. One day the weasle looking chracter showed up and bitched her out about talking to people. I asked her what the hell that was about and she said under her breath that she had to do what he said or he could send her away. At the time I thought she meant as in loosing her job but later a guy laughed at me and said she meant deported.

The facilities director of the other job once said he thought there were illegals as well. He speaks spanish and talks to them....

Well in one case a gal was from Mexico and she and I used to talk all the time. She was the coffee cart gal. One day the weasle looking chracter showed up and bitched her out about talking to people. I asked her what the hell that was about and she said under her breath that she had to do what he said or he could send her away. At the time I thought she meant as in loosing her job but later a guy laughed at me and said she meant deported.

The facilities director of the other job once said he thought there were illegals as well. He speaks spanish and talks to them....
Hmmm. So basically the girl was being blackmailed? That's what it sounds like.
If so, was any action taken?

Hmmm. So basically the girl was being blackmailed? That's what it sounds like.
If so, was any action taken?

Doubtful. I mentioned some concerns to HR but I don't think they moved on it. I heard the girl left after I left the company. I was a tad more stupid about such issues back then.

"He remembered Reagan at the time of his death by writing that the former president had "waged a relentless assault on the poor." In fact, the unemployment rate fell from 7.1 percent in 1980 to 5.5 percent in 1988, inflation dropped from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent, and the poverty population, after growing by 7 million people in the 1970s, declined by 4 million during the Reagan years."
I know this is off topic.....but I just wanted to comment on your tag by detailing some truths:

Unemployment during Reagan's first 3.25 years in office:

1981-01-01 7.5
1981-02-01 7.4
1981-03-01 7.4
1981-04-01 7.2
1981-05-01 7.5
1981-06-01 7.5
1981-07-01 7.2
1981-08-01 7.4
1981-09-01 7.6
1981-10-01 7.9
1981-11-01 8.3
1981-12-01 8.5
1982-01-01 8.6
1982-02-01 8.9
1982-03-01 9.0
1982-04-01 9.3
1982-05-01 9.4
1982-06-01 9.6
1982-07-01 9.8
1982-08-01 9.8
1982-09-01 10.1
1982-10-01 10.4
1982-11-01 10.8
1982-12-01 10.8
1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8
1984-03-01 7.8
1984-04-01 7.7

Despite Reagan's generous tax cuts to the wealthy, US unemployment actually increased to double digits during his first term.

Poverty in US:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2003/3e.html#table3.e2

INCREASED 4 million under Reagan from 1980 to 1990

You still are crunching numbers to get them to say what you want?

"He remembered Reagan at the time of his death by writing that the former president had "waged a relentless assault on the poor." In fact, the unemployment rate fell from 7.1 percent in 1980 to 5.5 percent in 1988, inflation dropped from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent, and the poverty population, after growing by 7 million people in the 1970s, declined by 4 million during the Reagan years."
I know this is off topic.....but I just wanted to comment on your tag by detailing some truths:

Unemployment during Reagan's first 3.25 years in office:

1981-01-01 7.5
1981-02-01 7.4
1981-03-01 7.4
1981-04-01 7.2
1981-05-01 7.5
1981-06-01 7.5
1981-07-01 7.2
1981-08-01 7.4
1981-09-01 7.6
1981-10-01 7.9
1981-11-01 8.3
1981-12-01 8.5
1982-01-01 8.6
1982-02-01 8.9
1982-03-01 9.0
1982-04-01 9.3
1982-05-01 9.4
1982-06-01 9.6
1982-07-01 9.8
1982-08-01 9.8
1982-09-01 10.1
1982-10-01 10.4
1982-11-01 10.8
1982-12-01 10.8
1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8
1984-03-01 7.8
1984-04-01 7.7

Despite Reagan's generous tax cuts to the wealthy, US unemployment actually increased to double digits during his first term.

Poverty in US:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2003/3e.html#table3.e2

INCREASED 4 million under Reagan from 1980 to 1990

You still are crunching numbers to get them to say what you want?