Quote from: Solid Right on May 22, 2016, 08:49:53 AM
Solar --

You could probably find some company if you declared that the Earth was flat.

Like it or not, Trump is, at least until the convention, the "presumptive nominee."  The safest position for the NRA would have been to make no endorsement at all, but safety in the face of impending disaster can be self-defeating.  Endorsing Cruz, a self-suspended candidate, would have just looked silly and created unnecessary antagonisms.  Cruz would probably have been the most surprised of all.

NRA clearly has the SCOTUS appointment fixed in their scope, and a President Hillary would be a sure and certain threat.    Once again, it is certainty versus uncertainty.  We know, to a high degree of certainty, that a Hillary SCOTUS appointee would be anti-gun.  She makes her position clear at every opportunity.  Not even you can state with that degree of certainty that a Trump appointment would be anti-gun.

Yes, I have had my own unhappy encounters with NRA, but those were over method and path -- not the ultimate objective.   Hell, even my own darlin' Wife occasionally did something that annoyed me, but we still made it almost forty years.

In a choice of certain disaster versus uncertain disaster, I'll take "uncertain" every time.  If we keep our guns, at least we can vote under Rule .308.

Regards,
Russ

Why are you under the illusion the NY Lib would choose a Conservative Justice, or that a Hillary appointee wouldn't be blocked by Congress?
As much as you poo poo the idea, Cruz is still a force to be reckoned with and especially here in Ca.

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/cruz-supporters-dominate-delegates-at-washington-gop-convention/208461161

Quote from: Solid Right on May 22, 2016, 09:06:52 AM
Taxed --

One more time:  It is certainty versus uncertainty.  We know that a Hillary appointment to SCOTUS will be anti-gun.  You cannot make a similar statement, with that degree of certainty, about a Trump appointment.  You are allowing your dislike of Trump to interfere with the logic process.

The NRA did the right thing, under these circumstances.

Regards,
Russ

Neither can you! Trump still has in place "Gun Free Zones" around his hotels, still hasn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he is now against an assault weapon ban, something he once said he supports.
And you claim you can read his mind? Hell Russ, he's flip flopped on every campaign promise he's made so far, and you're willing to trust him over Hillary, a woman without values, but prizes money and power over morals?
In other words, these two are cut from the very same cloth, they are identical twins where policy is concerned, the only difference?
Trump put an (R) next to his name because he knew he couldn't beat Clinton on her own turf.

Quote from: Solar on May 22, 2016, 09:08:57 AM
1 - As much as you poo poo the idea, Cruz is still a force to be reckoned with and especially here in Ca.
2 - Why are you under the illusion
  a.  the NY Lib would choose a Conservative Justice,
  b.  or that a Hillary appointee wouldn't be blocked by Congress?

Solar --

You are flailing, and it's unbecoming.

1.  I have not so done.  However, Cruz is not the "presumptive nominee."  At least until the convention, Trump is.

2a.  I have made no such assertion.  That's your invention.  I have, repeatedly, said that a Trump nominee would be "uncertain."

2b.  Two reasons:
  (1).  Control of the Senate would, in Hillary's case, likely follow the Presidency, and, if not,
  (2).  Those same Republicans who have grabbed their ankles for every Obama wish are now going to block a SCOTUS appointment by the first Womyn President?  I don't theenk so, Lucy.

It's certainty versus uncertainty, Solar.  The NRA did the right thing.

Regards,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on May 22, 2016, 09:46:45 AM
Solar --

You are flailing, and it's unbecoming.

1.  I have not so done.  However, Cruz is not the "presumptive nominee."  At least until the convention, Trump is.

2a.  I have made no such assertion.  That's your invention.  I have, repeatedly, said that a Trump nominee would be "uncertain."

Yet you close with "The NRA did the right thing."?

Quote2b.  Two reasons:
  (1).  Control of the Senate would, in Hillary's case, likely follow the Presidency, and, if not,
  (2).  Those same Republicans who have grabbed their ankles for every Obama wish are now going to block a SCOTUS appointment by the first Womyn President?  I don't theenk so, Lucy.

Not necessarily based on 2010 and 2014 midterms where the base continued to clear out RINO, and considering the Marxist rockstar isn't running, don't expect a rush of voters from the left in Nov.
One can expect a continuation of 2010 and 2014 efforts of TEA in cleaning out the leftist scum from the GOP.

QuoteIt's certainty versus uncertainty, Solar.  The NRA did the right thing.

Regards,
Russ

Did they?
The NRA actually supported a socialist over a Pub, not that there's a whole lot of difference in many cases, but avowed socialists are known for their support of communist ideals, and gun ownership is forboten in socialist circles.

BURLINGTON, Vt. — A few days before Election Day in 1990, the National Rifle Association sent a letter to its 12,000 members in Vermont, with an urgent message about the race for the state's single House seat.

Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. It's important.

"Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than ­Peter Smith," wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was — and still is — a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.

That was odd. Sanders was the ex-hippie ex-mayor of Burlington, running as an independent because the Democrats weren't far enough left. He had never even owned a gun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Quote from: Solar on May 22, 2016, 10:01:04 AM
Yet you close with "The NRA did the right thing."

Solar --

Yup, I did.  Your intense dislike for Trump has caused a disconnect in your logic processor.

I have been running extended tests trying to recover a crashed drive from Ladyfriend's computer.  The tests are done and so am I.

So, to mix my graphic and my metaphor,


Or, as the dog said while screwing the skunk, "I have enjoyed this about as much as I can stand."

But, in a tribute to my time in California,

Have a nice day.

Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on May 22, 2016, 10:57:36 AM
Solar --

Yup, I did.  Your intense dislike for Trump has caused a disconnect in your logic processor.

I have been running extended tests trying to recover a crashed drive from Ladyfriend's computer.  The tests are done and so am I.

So, to mix my graphic and my metaphor,


Or, as the dog said while screwing the skunk, "I have enjoyed this about as much as I can stand."

But, in a tribute to my time in California,

Have a nice day.

Russ

You do realize this is an actual Conservative forum, one that promotes Conservatives, never supports liberals, even those that place an (R) next to their name, right?
Trump is a hardcore lib, one that hired a team to research what Conservatives were pissed about almost two years prior to entering the race.
Even moderates know what the nation is pissed about, they don't need to rely on others to explain whats wrong with the country.
Only a true lib without core values would need to be told what to run on, yet you willingly support whatever the GOP'e throws at you?
This says more about your lack of values than anything.

Can you say flip flop?

‏@Always_Trump
In case you haven't heard, #Trump was endorsed by the @NRA and promises to eliminate Gun-Free Zones! #Trump2016
[/img]

Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary said that I want guns brought into the school classroom. Wrong!
8:55 PM - 21 May 2016

Quote from: Solar on May 22, 2016, 01:09:54 PM1 -  . . . , yet you willingly support whatever the GOP'e throws at you?
2 - This says more about your lack of values than anything.

Well, well, Solar, you clever devil, you managed to tempt me back with just a couple of juvenile cheap shots.  It's Ok, though, I'm transferring the resurrected data back to Ladyfriend's computer, so will amuse myself with this while it copies.

I really didn't come here to engage in an intramural insult contest.  That's not my style, but it appears to be yours, and you are welcome to it.  I just dropped in while some tests were running and found kinship in Hoofer's comment about supporting more than one gun organization.  From there it evolved to whether or not the NRA made a good decision in endorsing Trump.  I have explained, several times, why I think it was a good decision from their perspective.    I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand for you.  You don't agree. and that's fine with me.

Meanwile, you have persisted in assigning to me positions I have not advanced and attributing to me statements I have not made.  That appears to be your style and, once again, you are welcome to it.

1 - I do?  Really?  Golly, it's a good thing you observed that and told me about it.  'Not sure where you observed it or about whom you observed it, but it certainly is interesting.

2 - Aw, gee, is that the best you can do?  I'll bet you think my Momma wears combat boots and my sister worked in a whorehouse -- well, you would be half right.

Take care and be well,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on May 22, 2016, 09:06:52 AM
Taxed --

One more time:  It is certainty versus uncertainty. We know that a Hillary appointment to SCOTUS will be anti-gun.  You cannot make a similar statement, with that degree of certainty, about a Trump appointment.  You are allowing your dislike of Trump to interfere with the logic process.

The NRA did the right thing, under these circumstances.

Regards,
Russ

Russ,
Why must this be an either/or instead of a neither/nor position?

The NRA isn't under pressure to endorse ANYONE, unless they wanted to score political points.  (or is it LOSE political points, meh!)  If it were me, I would have just shut up, and not endorsed.  Now they got half the membership pissed off because their members can actually READ - their magazines and Donald Trumps statements from a hand full of years ago.

This is a crazy year.  First we got Republicans unable to make up their mind and letting a liberal run as a candidate.  Then we got a pro-life & pro-gun organizations endorsing a candidate who has several decades of fighting against them...!?

I'll take no satisfaction in saying, "I told you so!", if Trump or Hillary wins and they do everything they've been doing to 20 years, being liberal democrats!

Granted... it would get my attention if Trump took the lead in abolishing anti-gun legislation!  But even you'd have to admit - it ain't gonna happen.  Therefore, the NRA endorsement is giving a huge swath of territory to Trump - when they didn't need to say or do anything.

I endorse neither Hillary, nor Donald - end-of-position.   Anything else is giving them a "mandate".

Quote from: Hoofer on May 22, 2016, 05:00:35 PM1 - Why must this be an either/or instead of a neither/nor position?

2 - I endorse neither Hillary, nor Donald.

Hoofer --

1 - I don't think it is, or ever was, an either/or position, but somebody, or somebodies, at the NRA saw it differently.  We would have to get inside their heads to understand why, but I think I have a clue.  Remember that their perspective is entirely about gun rights and the critical nature of the next SCOTUS appointment.  I think they saw it as an opportunity to swing some momentum in Trump's direction and create or increase his advantage over Hillary.  Again, it's about "certainty versus uncertainty."   Even the people they piss off are not going to Hillary.  Gun people ain't going there!

2 - Nor do I.  As I said earlier, I am a Cruz supporter -- at least until Nov 7th.  On the 8th, I will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever it might be.  We could argue about that until Hell freezes over, but nobody's mind would be changed on either side of the equation.

I am not as narrowly focused as the NRA, but I do care greatly about preservation of my gun rights.  If the SHTF, there's always Rule .308.

Take care,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on May 22, 2016, 02:33:30 PM
Well, well, Solar, you clever devil, you managed to tempt me back with just a couple of juvenile cheap shots.  It's Ok, though, I'm transferring the resurrected data back to Ladyfriend's computer, so will amuse myself with this while it copies.

I really didn't come here to engage in an intramural insult contest.  That's not my style, but it appears to be yours, and you are welcome to it.  I just dropped in while some tests were running and found kinship in Hoofer's comment about supporting more than one gun organization.  From there it evolved to whether or not the NRA made a good decision in endorsing Trump.  I have explained, several times, why I think it was a good decision from their perspective.    I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand for you.  You don't agree. and that's fine with me.

Meanwile, you have persisted in assigning to me positions I have not advanced and attributing to me statements I have not made.  That appears to be your style and, once again, you are welcome to it.

1 - I do?  Really?  Golly, it's a good thing you observed that and told me about it.  'Not sure where you observed it or about whom you observed it, but it certainly is interesting.

2 - Aw, gee, is that the best you can do?  I'll bet you think my Momma wears combat boots and my sister worked in a whorehouse -- well, you would be half right.

Take care and be well,
Russ

No, you fail on all counts. I showed why backing a candidate on the left leads to nothing but trouble, as in a Sanders the Marxist dim.
I've given countless examples as to Trump's current connection to the left and why supporting him has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
As to your bull shit about my insulting you, grow a set! Anyone that comes here spewing nonsense is sporting a target asking to get their ass kicked, and believe me, I've come nowhere near insulting you. Yet.

So lose the straw man BS, no one here is buying it. If you can't make the case to support your argument, fine, but don't get your panties in a knot when someone exposes your failures in character.

Quote from: Solar on May 23, 2016, 06:13:40 AM
1 - I showed why backing a candidate on the left leads to nothing but trouble, as in a Sanders the Marxist dim. 

2 - I've given countless examples as to Trump's current connection to the left and why supporting him has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

3 -  If you can't make the case to support your argument, fine,

4 -  I've come nowhere near insulting you. Yet.

Solar -

Just can't let it go can you?  You're cute when you act all assertive -- incoherent, but cute.

1 - I noticed that, but I don't even know anybody who is backing the "Marxist dim."

2 - I noticed that, too, but wondered for whom those countless examples were intended, since I'm not supporting Trump.  I thought the discussion was about whether or not the NRA decision made sense from their perspective, but I think, maybe, the subject might have changed to whether or not one is allowed to disagree with Solar.

3 - Well, as I said, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You will have to try to manage that on your own.

4 - Yeah, well, you still have time and a whole World-Wide-Web for source material.

Sorry I can't stay and play, but I have an outside project that will take all day.  I had just been waiting for the markets to open so I could take care of a couple of things before I went out to work.

Be well,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on May 22, 2016, 05:41:52 PM
Hoofer --

1 - I don't think it is, or ever was, an either/or position, but somebody, or somebodies, at the NRA saw it differently.  We would have to get inside their heads to understand why, but I think I have a clue.  Remember that their perspective is entirely about gun rights and the critical nature of the next SCOTUS appointment.  I think they saw it as an opportunity to swing some momentum in Trump's direction and create or increase his advantage over Hillary.  Again, it's about "certainty versus uncertainty."   Even the people they piss off are not going to Hillary.  Gun people ain't going there!

2 - Nor do I.  As I said earlier, I am a Cruz supporter -- at least until Nov 7th.  On the 8th, I will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever it might be.  We could argue about that until Hell freezes over, but nobody's mind would be changed on either side of the equation.

I am not as narrowly focused as the NRA, but I do care greatly about preservation of my gun rights.  If the SHTF, there's always Rule .308.

Take care,
Russ

Nope, the NRA just endorsed a gun-grabber.  As narrowly focused as they should have been, they just jumped on the bandwagon of a man with DECADES of anti-gun rants and supporting anti-gun candidates.   There is no logic or excuse for what they did, they've sold out their supporters.  I'm not exaggerating, neither is Solar - they could have just shut up and did nothing!   If they felt the NEED to endorse someone, they could have helped the pro-gun cause by picking someone else, even a libertarian, independent, conservative - but by picking a known gun-grabber, they've just thrown away credibility!

The NRA did not have to endorse ANYONE, but since they just did..... and a candidate who is known for BUYING OFF OPPOSITION - it raises a larger point, is the NRA endorsement for sale?  sure looks like it!

Quote from: Solid Right on May 23, 2016, 06:54:47 AM
Solar -

Just can't let it go can you?  You're cute when you act all assertive -- incoherent, but cute.

So I prove my point, and am some how guilty of you having to respond?
Are you writing  rules now?

Quote1 - I noticed that, but I don't even know anybody who is backing the "Marxist dim."

Apparently 20% of trump supporters.

Quote2 - I noticed that, too, but wondered for whom those countless examples were intended, since I'm not supporting Trump.  I thought the discussion was about whether or not the NRA decision made sense from their perspective,

Neither you or they, have made a case for supporting the NY Lib.

Quotebut I think, maybe, the subject might have changed to whether or not one is allowed to disagree with Solar.

Why are you trying to make a debate you're failing at, and flailing at, about me?

Quote3 - Well, as I said, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You will have to try to manage that on your own.

Perfect example of failing to make your point. It's not my fault you're lousy at backing the Establishment POV.

Quote4 - Yeah, well, you still have time and a whole World-Wide-Web for source material.

Or...you could show where I actually insulted you, but then, that would most likely expose thin skin on your part.

Quote from: Hoofer on May 23, 2016, 08:02:28 AM
Nope, the NRA just endorsed a gun-grabber.  As narrowly focused as they should have been, they just jumped on the bandwagon of a man with DECADES of anti-gun rants and supporting anti-gun candidates.

Carefull Hoofer, he'll make it personal and accuse you of insulting him.

   

QuoteThere is no logic or excuse for what they did, they've sold out their supporters.  I'm not exaggerating, neither is Solar - they could have just shut up and did nothing!   If they felt the NEED to endorse someone, they could have helped the pro-gun cause by picking someone else, even a libertarian, independent, conservative - but by picking a known gun-grabber, they've just thrown away credibility!

Exactly! Which is why they could have endorsed Cruz a month ago, but held off to back a gun grabbing lib instead.

QuoteThe NRA did not have to endorse ANYONE, but since they just did..... and a candidate who is known for BUYING OFF OPPOSITION - it raises a larger point, is the NRA endorsement for sale?  sure looks like it!

I think you may have hit it home.