FiveseveNForum.com

at this point, is there anything that can stop the dems from pushing major gun control leguislation through??? or is all hope lost?

At this point, Republican fillibuster and democrats from the breadbasket, being smaked over the head by their constituants, are the only hope.

The only hope that major gun control legislation will not be passed is if three of the four final undecided Senate races break for the Republicans. Otherwise, Obama will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, in which case there is nothing that can stop the Democrats from doing whatever they want.

It's obviously too late to emphasize this point, but I'm going to underscore it nevertheless: If the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate (they have 58 votes right now with four races undecided), then they can do whatever they want and there is absolutely nothing the Republicans can do but watch from the sidelines. The Republicans can be ignored with impunity.

Welcome to "Change".

Welcome to Amerika.

Said it before, I'll say it again...I see them recycling EVERY attempt they had previously tried. Why not? They could do it before lunch one morning and never miss a beat. And Obama would sign it just like any other piece of legislation the Dems would send up.
And you've heard it a thousand times before,..."if this would save just ONE child..." the lying, gun-grabbing bastards.

yeeeeehaaaw! Welcome to the Obama'nation BYOBG(bring your own butt grease)

The ONLY hope we have left in the US government is the Supreme Court. If we can bring some of the issues to SCOTUS we may be able to keep some sanity...

f3rr37 wrote:The ONLY hope we have left in the US government is the Supreme Court. If we can bring some of the issues to SCOTUS we may be able to keep some sanity...

Until Obama gets his appointees in.

If you want a good shudder you should read what he has based his criteria for superme court appointments on. He actually uses the word "empathetic".

I'm not too familiar with the process, but from my understanding they justices are appointed for life until they resign. So we just have to hope that they keep up their health and outlast Barry.

Unfortunately a number of the justices are expected to do just that (retire) over the next couple of years.

We'll have to see...

Wollychop wrote:Unfortunately a number of the justices are expected to do just that (retire) over the next couple of years.

We'll have to see...

from what i heard the justices that are retiring are the liberal ones

Sven wrote:It's obviously too late to emphasize this point, but I'm going to underscore it nevertheless: If the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate (they have 58 votes right now with four races undecided), then they can do whatever they want and there is absolutely nothing the Republicans can do but watch from the sidelines. The Republicans can be ignored with impunity.

Sorry to quote myself but I want to update you on the Senate count:

Smith (the Republican) in Oregon LOST his re-election campaign. Therefore, with Lieberman and Barry Sanderson, the Democrats now have 59 votes in the Senate and only need to pick up ONE of the following three races to secure a filibuster-proof majority:

Coleman (Minnesota): Coleman has a 600 vote lead (which, with nearly 3 million votes cast, qualifies for an automatic recount). Stay tuned.

Chambliss (Georgia): Chambliss didn't win a majority in a three-candidate race (nearly 50% to 46% to about 4%). So, there will be a runoff election in December. Stay tuned.

Stevens (Alaska): Stevens won by about a percentage point (maybe less). I think that is also going for a recount. Again, stay tuned.

If the Republicans lose ANY of those three seats, we're f*cked.

Sven wrote:

Sven wrote:
Smith (the Republican) in Oregon LOST his re-election campaign. Therefore, with Lieberman and Barry Sanderson, the Democrats now have 59 votes in the Senate and only need to pick up ONE of the following three races to secure a filibuster-proof majority:

Where did you here the dem won oregon, on aol it says there still counting the votes

Sniperjoe wrote:

Wollychop wrote:Unfortunately a number of the justices are expected to do just that (retire) over the next couple of years.

We'll have to see...

from what i heard the justices that are retiring are the liberal ones

You are correct. My hope is that the more moderate liberals remaining and the conservatives will be wise enough to see that they are the last line of defense for the US Constitution. (Actually, the founding fathers intended it to be that way)

Smith lost.

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/division/el ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gotta think the Constitution party would lean a bit toward the right.
I could be totally wrong, though.
If so...

What sucks is that the minor party candidate cost Smith the race, re: Ross Perot in 1992. Did he realistically think he had a chance to win? Did he not realize that he would be pulling votes from an ally, ensuring the enemy would win? Douchebag!

Gordon H Smith (Republican) 703,157 46.91%
Jeff Merkley (Democrat) 711,427 47.46%
Dave Brownlow (Constitution) 80,236 5.35%
Write-in Votes 4,234 0.28%

http://volokh.com/posts/1225871855.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


interesting artical

Iggimo2 wrote:What sucks is that the minor party candidate cost Smith the race, re: Ross Perot in 1992. Did he realistically think he had a chance to win? Did he not realize that he would be pulling votes from an ally, ensuring the enemy would win? Douchebag!

That's one way to look at it - if you buy into the two party system.

Another way to look at it is that the major party candidate didn't have enough real support to win on his/her own merit in a slightly more competitive race.

Exactly, people need to look at things a little more seriously. This so called two party system has failed us, its time to elect PEOPLE and not PARTIES.

I suppose that's a more accurate assessment of his situation. I am fairly sure that the Constitution party gains votes due to their candidate's position on the issues, instead of people "voting Constitution/Republican/Democrat"

Election reform is needed for so many reasons, I fear it will never happen, at least not in my lifetime.

I officially retract the douchebag statement above.

I'm ready to start my own party...seriously.

I'll bring the booze if Slippy will bring the women...

Iggimo - You sound like maybe you have been sampling the booze all ready. Becare of "slippys" bearing gifts (women including).

Yeah, you don't want em after I've had em.... I think you know where I'm going with that.


But yeah, time for a new party. Nugent/Nixon (Mojo) restoring the true America.

It's time for something new!!

I've talked about starting a 'Southern Democrat' party.
Basically, all things Conservative. Things not specifically listed, left to the states, however, the party has an opininion...and its conservative.
My buddy Jeff and I have bounced this idea back and forth for a while now, but we have no idea what it takes to start a 'political party' and the legalities involved in it. All we know is, we think it's time. We're sick of the whole, 'this is all there is so you you're stuck with it' two party idea.
We're just tired of all the BS. It's time people started taking responsibility for themselves and stopped counting on the government to do it for them. And its time for government to release the strangle hold of power that it has and return it to the people where it belongs.

Built it and they will come Fly.

[quote="MrSlippyFist"]Yeah, you don't want em after I've had em.... I think you know where I'm going with that.

Why, after the first inch or so they would basicly be unused. :p

OUCH. :lmao: