California's February Primary Stinks

By moving their primary to near the front of the process, California ensures that only the candidates with the biggest war chests can play.

New Hampshire and Iowa may not be completely representative of the American population, and the entire process may be tediously long, but that has its advantages. The small states at the beginning of the process help improve the chances of a hard working outsider getting some attention. A candidate without vast funding can advance his ideas door to door and be judged on the merit of those ideas. Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, and Gary Hart are a few examples of candidates whose surprising results in New Hampshire helped transform the debate.

The length of the primary process has some benefits too. It's only over the duration of the campaign trail that we get to see the character flaws or quirks of the candidates come to the surface. If we condensed the process to just a snapshot, who knows, we might have seen President Gary Hart or Howard Dean. It helps reveal some insight to their executive temperament to watch our candidates slog through a grueling campaign.

California's February vote may or may not be won by the best qualified candidate - but is very likely to be won by the best financed. The winner won't be assured the nomination, but will have a formidable advantage. California awards convention delegates by district on a winner-take-all basis. So, in a four-way race it might be possible for the "winner" of 26% to capture 173 delegates (7% of those needed for nomination). By the end of the day, February 5th, just over 25% of Republican convention delegates will already be decided.

If California insists on going so early, they should consider awarding their delegates on a proportional basis. At least then the process would more democratically reflect the will of all their voters.

Michael Smith, Republican Candidate for President

Posted by Michael Smith at March 15, 2007 9:40 PM
Comments
Comment #212207
It’s only over the duration of the campaign trail that we get to see the character flaws or quirks of the candidates come to the surface.

Good point. Aren’t there about a dozen other states considering primaries on the same date? Looks like it’ll be all over, what, ten months before the actual election..?

BTW, you left Ross Perot off your list of possible Presidents. He didn’t self-destruct until fairly close to November.

Does anybody know if the parties can withdraw their nominations?

Posted by: American Pundit at March 15, 2007 11:19 PM
Comment #212222

Me thinks Ahhnoold just handed the Democratic Party either Obama or Hillary as the next nominee, and the country the next Democratic President, for good or ill.

Republican contenders are dropping out like flies in a gas attack, because they can’t hope to raise the money to compete with Guiliani or McCain by February.

And neither McCain nor Guiliani have the ability to win against Obama. They have a small chance of beating Hillary. That’s the horse race Ahhnoold gave the nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2007 1:28 AM
Comment #212230

Sorry Michael Smith, I can understand your misgivings, but I happen to think this is a good thing.
California’s economy is the sixth largest economy in the world — and the largest in the nation. We are also the fifth largest supplier of food in the entire world, and for this reason (many of you will probably hate my saying so), this state is one of only a few states that really drives America. So, why shouldn’t we have a chance to affect the outcome of our elections when we give so much to the country?
Besides, our state is full of people of many races, creeds and colors — much more representative of America as a whole. New Hampshire and Iowa, great states that they are, are representative of mostly white people, and as a result, the primary has always had to cater to that demographic a little too much, if you ask me. So this seems like a positive thing for several reasons.
Btw, I also just heard that the state I grew up in, New Jersey, is moving their primary up to the same day as CA. NJ is another state with a large economy that is comprised of people who make up a very good representation of the whole country.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2007 3:47 AM
Comment #212234

I wonder what an early California primary does for Guiliani. I’ve long believed that Guiliani’s frontrunner status is just name recognition. When Republican primary voters start to really make up their minds, many of them will move away from him in droves because of his social views.

But that is based on Republicans voting patterns from smaller “red” states. California is different altogether. On the Republican side, you get some very, very conservative areas, but there are also a lot of “moderate” Republicans. I just don’t know how the mix plays out statewide.

Posted by: Steve K at March 16, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #212238

Michael,

I can’t blame California for moving up their primary, or my own state of Florida for edging toward doing the same. Big states already get screwed in American politics because they only get two Senators. California is doubly screwed these days because everyone expects them to go Democratic, so candidates can ignore them in the general election.

As you admit, Iowa and New Hampshire are far from representative of the US population.

Money is overrated. Surely Californians read and watch the news like everyone else. If they like someone, they’ll vote for him or her.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 16, 2007 9:07 AM
Comment #212239

Looking at the current caucus/primary line-up of the states through the big Feb. 5th primaries, it appears the greater diversity of the states involved will have an impact on both the Democratic and Republican parties as far as the nomination of presidential candidates. For the Democrats, it would seem more likely for a center-left candidate to win the nomination than a centrist as we’ve seen in the nominees from 1992 onward (largely due to having California & Florida in the mix). For the Republicans, it would seem more likely for a center-right candidate to win the nomination than a far-right candidate as we’ve in the nominees from 1980 - with the exception of 1996 — onward (largley due to having California, Florida, & New Jersey in the mix).

Posted by: Allen at March 16, 2007 9:11 AM
Comment #212247

Allen,

I don’t know why you think a Florida primary would push the Dems to the left. This is basically a Republican state. You may have heard of a gentleman named Jeb Bush…

Iowa has not been good to the Democratic party. Here’s a fact to ponder: Since 1980, no non-incumbent Democratic candidate has won the Iowa caucus and went on to become President. In short, only losers win in Iowa (leaving an asterisk for Al Gore).

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 16, 2007 9:54 AM
Comment #212251

I think NH is a pretty good representation of America. Although viewed as very conservative in the way red states are, it’s actually a Yankee conservatism which is another form of classic liberalism; socially progressive and based on traditional values. Although states like CA and NJ may be an amalgam of America’s diverse elements it’s really a very different model of America as a whole (although, personnally, I think they have the right general idea)

Michael,
I think the extended primary season only proves who’s the better politician, not who’s the better person for the job. And that is often the opposite of each other. I think all primaries should be held in July and the conventions in September.

Woody: because they only get two Senators…
That’s why there’s a house and a senate. It gives some extra representation to the smaller states without the problems parliamentry systems have with coalitions. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 16, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #212253

Woody & Dave: Thanks for raising/discussing the “because they only get two Senators” issue. Just an interesting note: when the Constitution was written, the disportionality between the states was not nearly a great as it is today between the 50 states. While, I agree with the Framers’ intent, I’m not sure they would be happy with the current situation as it so distorts reality and creates an egregious inequality. I had a professor years ago who suggested that extremely populous states should consider splitting in order to better serve the people. Unfortunately, that is not possible in the current political environment as the disproportionality currently benefits the minority party to some degree.

Posted by: Allen at March 16, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #212252

I don’t understand why anybody see’s a problem here.
The west coast, northeast states and big cities know how the rest of us should live our lives better than we do.
We are nothing but brainwashed rednecks who contribute nothing to the country.
Why, without good ole California feeding and taking care of us dumb ole hicks, we all would be starving and walking around shooting each other with the thousand guns each of us owns.
We shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #212256

kctim: the problem is that those you described as “brainwashed rednecks,” a clear minority of citizens, now dictate to the majority of citizens. Thanks to “brainwashed rednecks,” science is stymied and denigrated to the detriment of all Americans. Thanks to “brainwashed rednecks,” faux-Christians force their immoral faux-Christian beliefs on all Americans. Thanks to “brainwashed rednecks,” the murder of Americans is approved as divinely ordained. Thanks to “brainwashed rednecks,” the United States has been weakened and become a rogue nation in the eyes of the world. Thanks to “brainwashed rednecks,” the national debt has exploded. Thanks to “brainwashed rednecks,” mediocrity has been elevated to a pedestal.

Hence, I’m not sure the United States has been well-served by your “brainwashed rednecks.”

Posted by: Allen at March 16, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #212260

kctim: you write,

The west coast, northeast states and big cities know how the rest of us should live our lives better than we do.

This statement is demonstrably false. None of the above has told you what you must believe or what you must do. Unfortunately, your “brainwashed rednecks” have told the rest of the country what they must believe and what they must do and what they cannot do.

The problem you have is that, you want “brainwashed rednecks,” comprising less than 30% of the population, to control the lives all 300 million Americans. You want me to live my life (and the that of over 215 million other Americans) according to your “brainwashed redneck” mentality. My question: Why should the minority of “brainwashed rednecks” be permitted to destroy the country of the majority?

Posted by: Allen at March 16, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #212261
Why, without good ole California feeding and taking care of us dumb ole hicks…

Sure, but generally we’re too polite to put it so bluntly. :)

I just don’t know how the mix plays out statewide.

Most California Republicans are moderate-to-liberal. That’s why they think Schwarzenegger is a conservative. You know how Californians are: ‘Republican’ is a cool brand name so they wear it until the next fad comes along.

So, I think the early Ca. primary helps the moderate-to-liberal Giuliani. Which is great. He’s the guy most likely to self-destruct over the long run of the campaign.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 16, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #212262

Allen,
How did a minority of brainwashed rednecks manage to elect a republican president for two terms? Did ultra elite, smart, overeducated, super patriotic democrates just not vote?

Posted by: dolan at March 16, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #212265

You forgot how we all drive pick em up trucks, drink beer, smoke and marry our sisters in your expected stereotypical response there Allen.

Science is not being denigrated in any way. Evolution is still being taught in public schools as a proven fact and global warming is still being taught and sold to us all.
Now, I admit some people believe evolution is only a theory and believe other theories should be offered, but they are silenced fast enough.
I also admit that some people believe the warming and cooling of earth is cyclical and that its going to happen when it happens. But don’t worry, they too are quickly shouted down and silenced.

I have no idea of what “faux-Christian” beliefs are being forced onto others that you are talking about either. I’m an atheist and believe I would have noticed some major legislation along those lines being passed.

Murder of Americans? Are you talking about the death penalty or things like abortion, Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Anyways, I don’t know where your beef is. I said that use dumb ole rednecks need others telling us how we should live our lives. And judging by your alls agenda and desire to control elections, I thought that is what you all wanted.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #212267

Finally something about which Smith and I agree. Having a single large state choosing to be at the beginning of the primarys is bad for our electoral process.

However, I also see a problems with the current process. When individual states choose when they will participate it will always be a mess when talking about national elections. The only equitable solution would be a lottery of potential primary dates, ~ evenly distributed over a two-month period. Of course, that will never happen!

Posted by: don at March 16, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #212269

“None of the above has told you what you must believe or what you must do.”

Really? So it was them damn righty towns and states who want govt to tell me I have to care about everybody else and that I must let govt force me to give my own money to them to help?
And its them damn righty towns and states that tell guns are evil, the 2nd Amendment no longer exists and that I should fear every American with a gun but not armed militant muslims who have declared war on us?
Thanks for clearing that up for me. Gosh darn I was so out in the pasture on those.

“Unfortunately, your “brainwashed rednecks” have told the rest of the country what they must believe and what they must do and what they cannot do.”

We have told you what to believe? Like believing the words of foreign enemies over that of your own President?
What you must do? Like you must “voluntarily” give money to govt to help those in need? or that you must wear seatbelts?
I guess that was my bad again.
What you cannot do? Like telling you that you cannot show respect for your own personal religion in public? or how we cannot serve food with trans fats? or that we cannot own a gun in town?
Sorry again.

“The problem you have is that, you want “brainwashed rednecks,” comprising less than 30% of the population, to control the lives all 300 million Americans.”

Um, no. The problem I have is that I still believe in the Constitution. I want 100% of the population to be able to live their lives as they want, not how California, NH or the large urban areas want them too.

“You want me to live my life (and the that of over 215 million other Americans) according to your “brainwashed redneck” mentality.”

Again, I don’t care how you live your life. You shouldn’t care about mine.

“My question: Why should the minority of “brainwashed rednecks” be permitted to destroy the country of the majority?”

Because you watch too much TV or read too many lefty sites and don’t have a clue as to what kind of people we really are?
Seriously, if you left us alone, we would leave you alone. Its really that easy.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #212272

No need for the smiley face there AP. We both know what the liberals think of us and what we think of them.
The difference is that we don’t care what you guys think and you guys don’t want us thinking for ourselves.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #212273

Dolan
“How did a minority of brainwashed rednecks manage to elect a republican president for two terms? Did ultra elite, smart, overeducated, super patriotic democrates just not vote?”

No. Us dumb rednecks hacked into the govts election machines and rigged it all in 2000 and 2004.
But then we forgot how to do it again 2006.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #212277
The difference is that we don’t care what you guys think and you guys don’t want us thinking for ourselves.

LOL! That’s something I could say as well. Conservatives spent the last 12 years trying to legislate our personal lives. Dictating when Americans are allowed to die and who we can love and what we can watch on TV or listen to on the radio (I miss Howard).

So… Right back atcha, kctim.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 16, 2007 12:16 PM
Comment #212278

This move largely defeats the whole purpose of primaries. If we’re essentially holding big media market, big money, name-recognition driven primaries right out of the blocks in February, we’re facing a “national election” that will be dominated by the big players and the big media. I like the system where a relative unknown can test his appeal in a relatively cheap market and gain momentum over time.

With California doing this, a lot of other states will be forced to as well. NJ and Florida, I understand, are seriously considering moving their primaries to February too and others are talking about it.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2007 12:18 PM
Comment #212279

Science is not being denigrated in any way.

kctim,
Given the habit of some authors on the right to completely ignore the research and consensus of the scientific community, yes, it is being denigrated.

Posted by: Steve K at March 16, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #212280

Now don’t get carried away there AP. You know that I would agree with most of your assessment there. Of course, I would have thrown Tipper and her crusade to censor artists in there, just to be fair you know :)

Howard who?

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #212284

Steve K
What affect do these “authors on the right” have on the science behind everything?
Their only affect is that they offer another perspective on the situation.
Take global warming. It is absolute fact that the earth goes through cooling and warming periods. Is it absolute fact that man is the only cause of this latest warming? No its not.
And I would say that the vast majority of Americans believe reasonable measures should be taken by humans to minimize our affect, also.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #212295

I can remember many years, when I had to be at work long before the polls opened, leaving late afternoon or early evening for me to be able to vote. It was always frustrating and aggravating to hear the election being “called” before a significant number of us could have our say. There were supposedly agreements with the media to not speculate or preconfirm any race, but that never worked out.
So, I guess this is kinda cool that a state as large as California will finally be able to make a fair contribution towards the ultimate results.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 16, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #212294
What affect do these “authors on the right” have on the science behind everything? Their only affect is that they offer another perspective on the situation. Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 12:37 PM
No credibility needs or should be given in public schools to creationist mythology. No credibility needs or should be given to industry generated non-science deriding global climate change. If there is real data, it should be discussed, but we never hear it here, just talking point nonsense cravenly distributed to the “brainwashed rednecks”. I’m glad you acknowledge that mankind is effecting the ecology, BTW, but your final doesn’t seem supported by the other (r)wing posters. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 16, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #212300

Adrienne
Why don’t ya tell like it really is? Basically y’all think that Californians should be the only ones that chose a President. And don’t deny it. I’ve been out there and have heard y’all talk.
“By the time we have our Primary the rest of the country has chosen the candidate. That’s not fair.”
“By the time our poles close the rest of the country has already voted and chosen the President. That’s not fair”.
And my favorite.
“We should be able to vote the day before so we can chose the President”.
I personally believe that the primaries should be held all on the same day like the elections are. With our current primary system there’s the possibility that a good candidate won’t be able to go the distance because of money problems. It makes as much sense as each state holding the elections when ever they decide too.
Absolutely none to absolutely positively none at all.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #212301

kctim,
“authors on the right” (and on the left as well) are simply not qualified to “offer another perspective” when the subject matter is scientific evidence.

Sorry, but, unless you, too are a scientist skilled and qualified to conduct, test, peer review and evaluate relevent scientific research, that is a fact.

Yes, take global warming. If you read the consensus scientific asessments of the National Academies and ICPP, you will see that you are not presenting an “absolute fact” that has any bearing on what they have studied and reported.

Posted by: Steve K at March 16, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #212308

Dave1
The evolution from ape to man has not been proven without a reasonable doubt and creationism has not been disproven. Our beliefs on the matters are just that, beliefs.

Industry generated non-science deriding global climate change? Do you not think that there is also an industry generated group that is promoting man made only climate change?

“but your final doesn’t seem supported by the other (r)wing posters”

No, my final is not supported by the minority of right wing posters just as it is only a minority of left wing posters who believe we should live in huts and walk everywhere and then would still complain because our crap was causing global warming.
Most people on the right, IMO, acknowledge that man made pollution is contributing some to the weather, they just are not hysterical about it and don’t claim the end of the world is near because of it.
The left just needs the voters to think that EVERYBODY on the right are idiots and people shouldn’t vote for them because if they do, polar bears won’t have a home and great floods and storms will happen in 10 or 20 years because they voted for a Republican.

Sandra
A fair contribution towards the ultimate results? How many electoral college votes is Cali worth?

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #212313
This move largely defeats the whole purpose of primaries.

The purpose of primaries was to move the nomination process out of the smoke-filled rooms and empower the people. Right now we are giving wildly disproportionate power to Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa they don’t even use a secret ballot.

The best system: One man, one vote, one primary!

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 16, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #212315

Steve K
Are you saying the National Academies and ICPP reports show that the earth has not gone through cooling and warming periods and that man is solely responsible for any and all warming taking place?
Or are you saying they did not take the records of this natural occurance into account when they came to their conclusion?

I’m a humble person, show me that the earth does not cool and warm on its own and I will look at the issue more closely, admit that I was wrong if needed and will rethink my position.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #212317

show me that the earth does not cool and warm on its own and I will look at the issue more closely, admit that I was wrong if needed and will rethink my position.

kctim,

It’s not about the “earth does cool and warm on its own.” There is a lot more too it than that. Let’s eliminate the middleman. Read the reports.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Posted by: Steve K at March 16, 2007 2:06 PM
Comment #212322

As I’m sure you know, because a state may have a larger number of electoral votes doesn’t always mean the popular vote ends up compatibly…. the quote below taken from : http://encarta.msn.com/column_ElectoralCollege_Tamimhome/The_Electoral_College_Explained_At_Last.html
The contrast was referring to Wyoming.

California, by contrast, has about 12 percent of the country’s population, but its 55 electors amount to roughly 10 percent of the electoral college. Its say-so in presidential election is less than its population would warrant.

I like exercising my right to mark the ballot !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 16, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #212330

Steve K
I have read them and have continued to visit those sites since you first posted them. Thanks for those links btw.
I just don’t think you can totally eliminate the natural effects out of the equation.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #212334

kctim,

You’re welcome. You’re the first skeptic here I can recall who has said he’s read the science.

The scientists do not “eliminate the natural effects out of the equation.” What they do say is that the trends are very likely due to human — not natural — activity. And that is the consensus of the gloabal scientific community.

Posted by: Steve K at March 16, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #212336

The electoral vote vs the popular vote is always a fun debate Sandra.
I think the pandering for and special attention politicians give a Cali over that of a Wyoming makes up that 2 percent difference though.

But, I can see your point.
I think I might lean more towards the popular vote as being more fair. But with that, states like Cali would then dictate how us smaller states live. Moreso than they already do.
Maybe somebody will write about that issue soon.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #212348

kctim and Ron,
You sure are ascribing a hell of a lot of personal smugness and superiority to what I wrote yesterday. But I’m not at all surprised by all the cantankerousness and frustration — since neither one of you two claims to belong to any political party. I wonder if you even vote in your state primary?
Anyway, Sandra makes an excellent point about heading off to vote and having to listen to who won on the way. California has been left out in the cold for too long and made to feel as though our votes don’t matter — even though we have 16 million voters and the largest number of electoral votes of any state in the country. The candidates in years past have come here to raise money among the well heeled at gala fundraisers, but never even bothered to hold a rally or two, or shake a few working peoples hands that have a few callouses on them. We’ve watched for years as those kind of events have taken place all over the country, and it has rubbed a great many of us the wrong way that we are so ignored.
Just our talking about moving up our primary got all the candidates to come out here and give us some speeches and meet some of our people. I think that’s great. With our early primary, Californians are going to find that they won’t just come here to pick our pockets without having to do a little work for it first.
What is really needed is for there to be one primary date for the whole country, but until we get that I see absolutely no reason why a state that contributes as many taxdollars to the American economy as California does should be treated like a red headed stepchild.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #212349

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 01:44 PM

The evolution from ape to man has not been proven without a reasonable doubt
Despite the fact that man didn’t evolve from apes, evolution is essentialy proven as fact.
and creationism has not been disproven. Our beliefs on the matters are just that, beliefs.
Creationism is a faith based belief that is not supported by any physical real world evidence. It exists only if you believe it. Evolution is a scientifically derived understanding supported by observable evidence in the real world everyday. It exists whether you understand it or not. It is not a “belief”.
Industry generated non-science deriding global climate change? Do you not think that there is also an industry generated group that is promoting man made only climate change?
Subjective science identified human effects on global climate change. Energy industries are opposing those conclusions on the basis of selfish profit. Other organizations, including profit based, developed to counter big Oil’s lies. Politicization of the issue doesn’t mean human induced climate change is untrue.
Most people on the right, IMO, acknowledge that man made pollution is contributing some to the weather
Until the last election Dumbya refused to even acknowledge climate change, much less the human effects. The same can be said of most of your (r)wingnut buddies. Many of whom still deny it. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 16, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #212351

Adrienne
Well we do agree on one thing. We need a national primary day just like we have a national election day.
I’ve long been a supporter of this. It just plain makes sense. Maybe that’s why we don’t have it.

BTW, I vote every time the poles are open for any reason. It’s not only my right, it’s my duty.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #212355

“Despite the fact that man didn’t evolve from apes, evolution is essentialy proven as fact.”

Ok Dave1. What I was taught in public school is wrong and my personal belief of where we came from is also wrong. What has man evolved from then?

“Creationism is a faith based belief that is not supported by any physical real world evidence. It exists only if you believe it.”

Yeah, thats what I said.

“Evolution is a scientifically derived understanding supported by observable evidence in the real world everyday. It exists whether you understand it or not. It is not a “belief”.”

So you are saying that yourself or scientists have “observed” the evolution of something into man? Cool.
I always thought, I think its called micro-evolution (sorry if I’m wrong about that), was the only evolution that could be observed.

“Subjective science identified human effects on global climate change.”

But it has not identified human affects as the ONLY cause of global climate change.

“Energy industries are opposing those conclusions on the basis of selfish profit.”

Probably.

“Other organizations, including profit based, developed to counter big Oil’s lies.”

Cool, we agree on that then.

“Politicization of the issue doesn’t mean human induced climate change is untrue.”

I didn’t say it did. But I do believe other factors contribute to this change.

“Until the last election Dumbya refused to even acknowledge climate change, much less the human effects.”

Um, ok. He is an American and therefore is entitlted to his own beliefs, even if I don’t agree them. I know its hard for the left to understand, but everybody doesn’t always have to think the same way.

“The same can be said of most of your (r)wingnut buddies. Many of whom still deny it”

Know alot of right wing type of people do ya?

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #212363

Gotta love how presenting a few facts brings out the “best” of the brainwashed rednecks. Interestingly, denial of science and inbreeding go hand-in-hand. Evolution guarantees the eventual demise of the inbred…. it can’t come too soon for the good for the country. Gotta love how the brainwashed rednecks take the ignorance bait… just like a fish at the end of my line… where’s my fillet knife, when the country needs it most?

Posted by: Allen at March 16, 2007 5:15 PM
Comment #212368

Oh puke. Like science has never changed it’s opinion. That’s fine, you keep sitting there miserable and superior of the rest, maybe even win 1 out of every 8 elections. In the meantime we will continue leading the country.

Posted by: andy at March 16, 2007 5:35 PM
Comment #212370

Its not worth the effort Andy. Personal insults are always the first sign that somebody has nothing intelligent to counter with.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 6:01 PM
Comment #212381

Primaries should be outlawed period!! The Constitution does not say that you have to win a primary, or have a big war chest to be President. If you met the qualification to be President and want to run, your name should be on the ballot.

Posted by: KT at March 16, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #212388

KT
The idea of primaries is to keep form having 10 or 15 people the same party’s ticket. I don’t have anything against them, but I don’t like the way it takes forever to get through them.
That’s why I support holding primaries for every state on the same day. We don’t hold election on different days. Why should the primaries be any different?

Allen
I’m one of them “inbred rednecks”. I don’t deny real science. But I do deny this junk science that wants to claim that my ancestors swung from trees by their tails.
Evolution has NEVER been proved and NEVER WILL BE. Despite y’alls rhetoric otherwise. Even college professors that believe evolution will tell ya that. Try asking one.
I find it very interesting that those that have fallen for the THEORY of evolution keep trying to convince those that haven’t that it’s true. Mean time those that choose to believe creation just present their side but don’t try to convince anyone of it. Maybe that’s because evolutionist need to keep themselves convinced while creationist don’t.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 7:22 PM
Comment #212392

Ron, you better start checking your family tree for you have just denied the science you claim not to deny. The problem is you can’t tell the difference between religious delusion and rational fact.

Posted by: Matt at March 16, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #212398

ron brown

good idea, have all primaries on the same day, that would end the whinning about one state having more influence in deciding the candidate, for that party.

kctim

well said. personal insults are the hallmark of a sore loser. BTW, i,m from cali. i hate that birkenstock wearing limpwristed leftest term. some of us out here actually believe in the const, including the second amendment, and have traditional values, although we’re becoming extinct.

allen

i’d say somthing to you , but then i guess i’m just a brain washed redneck who chooses to live in the wrong part of the country. and i didn’t marry my sister, because i don’t have one, besides you’d just trash me being as i’m inferior and all.

Posted by: dbs at March 16, 2007 8:23 PM
Comment #212399
Know alot of right wing type of people do ya? Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 04:41 PM
No I don’t personaly know lots of wingnuts, although I do know plenty of conservatives. In a prior repub thread the following (r) posters think global climate change doesn’t exist: Clay, rahdigly, scott, catastrophy…, and andy You’ll notice I gave you props for not being one of them.

Also, although a lack of understanding of the difference between Homindae and Cercopithecidae is excusable, the denial of evolution would not be.

this: “personal insults are the hallmark of a sore loser. BTW, i,m from cali. i hate that birkenstock wearing limpwristed leftest term” is funny and I doubt dbs even knew (knows?) why (unless it’s a joke on his part)…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 16, 2007 8:55 PM
Comment #212419

Matt
I know my family tree and there aint no monkeys in it. A few that acted like them, yes, but no actual monkeys.
And the only science I denied is this phony baloney crap that claims evolution is fact. I don’t deny science that claims it just what it is, THEORY. There are a lot of theories I don’t agree with, both scientific and otherwise. And can respect that. But when ya try to shove it down my throat as fact When there’s no evidence to back it up, I’m going to reject it every time.
You might be delusional about your version of religion but I’m not delusional about mine.
I won’t try to push what I believe on you. Just quit trying to push your beliefs on me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #212434

dave

actually it was a joke on my part. i live in orange county, and i don’t like terms like the oc, or other such terms to make something look trendy or cool.i think it cheapens the place iv’e called home since 1971. i’ve lived in california all my life, only to see it taken over by leftist who think they know better how to live my life than i do.


i’ve seen my taxes raised, my 2nd amdt. rights infringed, my right to pass on traditions to my kids the left feels are inapropiate or politicaly incorrect made illegal, my property rights reduced to what ever the sierra club thinks they should be, and i could go on. i think some one earlier in the thread said ” you leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone, i think that says it all.

enough said lets get back to what this thread was originaly about.

Posted by: dbs at March 16, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #212446

Ron, I understand why they have primaries but I don’t agree with it. Nowdays with computers going to be used more then paper ballets, anyone who wants to run, files the correct paper, and meets all the requirements other then being a billionare should have their name on the ballot. Maybe we would finally get someone with some more commonsense then the presidents that have been cents then brains to include the current one.

Posted by: KT at March 17, 2007 12:14 AM
Comment #212480

dbs,

I’m extremely curious

my right to pass on traditions to my kids the left feels are inapropiate or politicaly incorrect made illegal
Which “traditions” are these exactly?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 17, 2007 10:59 AM
Comment #212562

california’s primary keeps moving up to get ahead of other states. First it was moved to June, now February, and eact time the other states moved their dates up earlier. Florida may move their primary to January. If this keeps going, I’m afraid we’ll actually hold our next primary election before the last general election.

Posted by: Indigo Red at March 17, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #212591

Dave1-20-2009: I would think, based on his previous posts, that dbs mourns the demise of such traditions as slavery, segregation, lynching, subjugation of women, wife beating, the sexual, physical, and mental abuse of one’s children, racism, sexism, ageism, religious bigotry, the beating and murder of those with whom we do not agree, hatred of one’s betters, general ignorance, science-free classrooms, and refusing to educate one’s children.

While he claims he has lost his 2nd amendment rights, he, of course, as an individual has never had any 2nd amendment rights — unless he is part of the National Guard. And he’s certainly not lost any property rights guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution.

We must pity those who are unable to cope with modernity…nearly 300 years after its arrival. We see the same problem with the Islamists. Fortunately, each generation passes away and makes room for progress. Unfortunately, too many are hurt in the process of waiting for them to die.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #212598

matt

what a feeble attempt at trolling.

Posted by: dbs at March 18, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #212648

dbs: Nope, just telling the truth which you could not recognize if it hit you in the face. What is feeble, is your attempt to defend bigotry and ignorance. Of course, Dubya has been a perfect role model for you.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2007 11:15 PM
Comment #212670

dbs,

Is Matt right? I’m still waiting for some examples…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 19, 2007 9:49 AM
Comment #212684

okay gentlemen i’ll give it a shot. no pun intended.

dave

althuogh i’m guessing you don’t find it important. it is to myself and many others. that would be to pass on on traditions of hunting and, the use of firearms. as it now stands if i were to allow my kids to to use under my supervision an ar15, ak47 or any other firearm they consider an assault weapon, that i legally own,i would be commiting a crime under cal. law. by the way this is nothing more than a gun banners buzz word. all these so called assault weapons are just gas operated semi-automatic rifles which operate no differently than any semi-automatic hunting rifle. how does a flash supressor or bayonette lug make these rifles any more dangerous? these types of weapons are used in a small portion of crimes, and i’ve still to read of some one affixing a bayonette before commiting thier chosen crime.

matt said

” I would think, based on his previous posts, that dbs mourns the demise of such traditions as slavery, segregation, lynching, subjugation of women, wife beating, the sexual, physical, and mental abuse of one’s children, racism, sexism, ageism, religious bigotry, the beating and murder of those with whom we do not agree, hatred of one’s betters, general ignorance, science-free classrooms, and refusing to educate one’s children. “

where did i say or advocate any of these things?BTW spanking a child is not abuse. i have no problem with scientific theory. i just think if your going to teach evolution, you should also teach creation. after all they are both just theory depending on which side of the aisle your on.

matt said

” While he claims he has lost his 2nd amendment rights, he, of course, as an individual has never had any 2nd amendment rights — unless he is part of the National Guard. And he’s certainly not lost any property rights guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution.”

WRONG. the founders believed that all free men had certain rights, bestowed upon them by thier creator, whatever you perceive that to be. that is the bill of rights is nothing more than a re-affirmation of those rights all free human beings already had. that is that they are the rights of free individuals. and to make sure at some point if gov’t claimed these enumerated rights were all they had they added the 9th amendment. the gov’t has no rights. only individuals have rights. the gov’t is granted powers under the const. and those not given to the fed. gov’t are reserved to the states. to say that the 1st and the rest other than the 2nd, are individual makes no sense. these rights were not granted by the gov’t therefore they are not the gov’ts to take away.

as for your last comment, see the kelo vs new london decision. i’m guessing suzette kelo would strongly disagree.


Posted by: dbs at March 19, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #212700

dbs,

The only “tradition” you identified is a state based law preventing minors from discharging military weapons? Wow. You’re right, that means nothing to me.

Creationism is not science, it is faith, it is religion. It is no different than believing the earth is the back of turtle shell. It does not belong in public school. Evolution is science, it belongs in public schools whether you believe it or not.

Kelo was decided on Eminent Domain, which is in the Constitution.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 19, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #212761

dave said

” The only “tradition” you identified is a state based law preventing minors from discharging military weapons? Wow. You’re right, that means nothing to me. “

no i said that the use of firearms was the the tradition. the state law prevents that. it doesn’t suprise me that you don’t care. that is not the issue. you may have things you choose to pass on certain skills or traditions , what ever you choose to call them. it is not mine nor the gov’ts right to forbid them, or to take them away, if you are hurting no one, or if the state considers them politicaly incorrect. it’s also evident that you know absolutely nothing about firearms. see the explaination in my previuos post.

” And he’s certainly not lost any property rights guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution.”

” Kelo was decided on Eminent Domain, which is in the Constitution”

the constitution allows the taking of private property through eminent domain only for public use, ie infastructure such as roads or schools. in kelo people were thrown out of thier homes so that city could generate more tax revenue. the property was given to another private party. if this is not abuse of eminent domain i don’t know what is. public purpose and public use are not the same thing. the court got it wrong, and as a result all private property owners may suffer.

in my ealier post when i reffered to the sierra club, i was reffering to the law suits against private property owners to stop them from using or developing thier privately owned land as they wished. you have no business telling others what they may or may not do with thier own property.

you should care about the rights of others even if they do not interest you, because someday when they come for your rights, there will be no one who will stand up for you.

Posted by: dbs at March 19, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #212793

You assume a lot and certainly can’t see what’s evident, but I’ll let you have a freebie.

“no i said that the use of firearms was the the tradition. the state law prevents that”
What you said was “if i were to allow my kids to to use … an assault weapon … i would be commiting a crime under cal. law.” Perhaps I needed to add “style” after “military”…would that satisfy you?

The court decided that State Law permitted the takeover. Are you a constitutional scholar, besides your opinions what case law can you cite that said they decided wrongly? The people of the state then started the process to change their laws. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work, or would you have preferred an activist court decision instead, like that moron Chief Justice wanted to do?

To a large extent I agree with you on property rights issues. However, there are some things that people should not be allowed to do. Among them ecological damage that transcends their own borders and activities against the law. Example; do want your neighbor to mine mercury in their backyard? The rain water washing to your yard will kill you within weeks, if not days. Do you want to allow your neighbor to enslave local children to mine that Hg because it’s on their land?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 19, 2007 10:30 PM
Comment #212799

dave

let me put it to you this way. teaching my kids responsible use of guns harms anyone in what way? the weapons banned” assault weapons ” are not an actual type of weapon. there is an assault rifle, which is categorized by its select fire capability, ie it will fire in semi or full auto. none of the banned weapons have this capability therefore they are not assault rifles. they are gas operated semi-automatic rifles no different then than any semi-automatic rifle that is not banned, other than thier cosmetic features.

so the chief justice was a moron hmmm interesting analogy, was this because you disagreed with him? the const. is pretty clear. public use only. it’s in the const. state law does not trump the const. last i checked. if the court had gotten it right, the state would have neede to do nothing

Posted by: dbs at March 19, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #212804

I have absolutely no information on whatever laws you’re referring to. I just think you people are too fixated on weaponry. I was simply pointing out what you had said. And who said I’m against teaching gun safety? Or that anyone is? I went through NRA safety training as a kid, even got my 10 bar marksman award (don’t know how they rank these days).

As for “public use”, that is exactly what was decided. The CT law is clear and constitutional. That’s why the law needs to change.
As for Roberts, the rest of the judges treat him with disdain, even Scalia. The guy is obviously not actually stupid, his philosophies are just contemptable to decent Americans. Just another smelly turd of the Bush legacy.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 20, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #212825

Traditions previously prescribed or permitted by law, and now, thankfully, prohibited:

slavery, segregation, lynching, subjugation of women, wife beating, the sexual, physical, and mental abuse of one’s children, racism, sexism, ageism, religious bigotry, the beating and murder of those with whom we do not agree, hatred of one’s betters, general ignorance, science-free classrooms, refusal to educate one’s children or to provide for their medical care, and trial by ordeal

One must be very concerned for the well-being of dbs’ children as he beats them and teaches the finer points of using assault weapons. Bomb-making cannot be far behind. Talk about home-grown terrorists!

Posted by: Matt at March 20, 2007 9:25 AM
Comment #212933

dave

thats great you had the opportunity to take that course as a kid. future generations may not be as fortunate. if you havent noticed rights are generaly taken away little by little, so it is not so much a fixation as it is i can see what appears to be coming, and it is important to me to try and help prevent it.

i checked the us supreme court case kelo vs new london. rhenquist was actually the presiding chief justice on that case. just curious, does it bother you that because of that decision, the city you live in could take the home you’ve lived your entire life in, and give it to somenoe else, because they could generate more tax revenue with it? hopefully your state doesn’t allow it . right now mine still does. so much for property rights.

Posted by: dbs at March 20, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #212968

dbs: if you don’t like the constitution, amend it! In fact, I see an amendment now: Notwithdstanding any other provision of this constitution, my rights to possessing and using assault weapons against my fellow citizens, beating my wife and children, raping my children, keeping my children as ingornant as possible, holding slaves, maintaining racial segregation, instituting fundamentalist Christianity as the state religion, and denying all constitutional rights of any other person is protected in reverence to the God who has given me the god-given right to use and abuse and murder other people.

Posted by: Matt at March 21, 2007 5:16 AM
Comment #212990

dbs,

If it is a topic of interest, you really need to expand your knowledge of Eminent Domain. Every state has it, every state, every locality can take your land for “public purpose”, and has since there was a constitution. I don’t like it at all but it is the Money first people who take land for profit, not the left.

I’m curious if you can understand why I am so dismissive of your first statement about losing your traditions when it’s simply that assault weapons (not hunting purposed weapons but those modfied for use in combat) are illegal?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 21, 2007 10:14 AM
Comment #213100

dave

” every state, every locality can take your land for “public purpose”

the 5th amenment states - “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

.
the us supreme court said public use , and public purose were the same thing. i would think public purpose is much broader. i believe it was rhenquist, scalia, thomas, and o’ connor who disagreed with the majority. you probably consider the first 3 to be to the right. what did you think of o’connor she seems to be viewed by most to be center. would you agree with her that the court went to far?

” not hunting purposed weapons but those modfied for use in combat) are illegal?”

the point i was making, was that the banned weapons are not true assault rifles, they only look like them, because of cosmetic features. the other point i was trying to make was that if i posess the rifle legally, why should someone else not be able to use it under my supervision? my kid could shoot any other gun i owned under my supervision, when legally possesed why should this one be any different?

the law grandfathered those guns already owned so long as they are regisered, before the ban. this is why i would consider this social engineering ie punishing behavior they don’t agree with whether it hurts anyone or not.

BTW i’m not too impressed with either of the 2 major parties, it seems the majority of politicians seem only interested in thier constituants at re-election time, and there are plenty of crooked ones on both sides of the aisle.they are both beholden to someone, the dems to big labor, and the repubs to big business. what a choice.

i guess we’ve about run this into the ground. it’s been good talking to you . take care.

Posted by: dbs at March 21, 2007 7:42 PM
Post a comment