Post by: Balog on February 25, 2008, 04:08:18 PM
I've come to think this isn't the case. In fact, if you really are interested in having not only R's but conservative R's in charge of the House and Senate as well as PotUS, McCain getting in office is the absolute worst thing that can happen. How can I make such an outrageous claim? Two words; global warming.
McCain has drunk well and truly of Algore's Kool Aid (now in minty melted ice cap flavor!) and he's bound and determined to do something about it. And it's not making more nuke plants, sadly.
The onerous regulations he'd push through would cripple manufacturing, drive gas prices sky high, rape the American auto industry (like they aren't screwed enough as it is), and increase energy costs tremendously. After all, who'll stop him?
He just loves working with D's, and not many R's have the balls to defy the party. And believe me, he's vindictive enough to hurt anyone who stands up to him badly enough our fearless R leadership will take out a huge contract with KY to help out when McDaddy bends em over.
When gas is over $5 a gal everywhere and your home energy bill is more than your mortgage payment, whoever is in office at the time will be ran outta town on a rail. And everyone in his party will be too; guilt by association and all. Remeber when the R's took Congress back under Klinton? Same deal, but this'll be much, much worse.
Add in his love of amnesty, gun control, etc and he's the worst thing that could happen to the Republican party.
But either Nobama or the Hildabeast will be a one term wonder; the peanut farmer would leave a better legacy (Jimmy Carter for Tec and others who's knowledge of politics extends to "Bush is a Nazi" *blargh* *foam* etc). About 2 years into their reign of terror people will go "Oh *expletive deleted*it, where's all my money going?" and give conservatives a perfect platform to strike back.
Post by: Balog on February 25, 2008, 04:59:37 PM
So what's the analogy?
McCain is like an adjustable rate mortgage. You get suckered in by the low monthly payments (No new taxes!Just like the 1st Bush Strong on defense!) then screwed royally when it resets because you didn't read the fine print (global warming, gun show loophole, CFR, amnesty).
Post by: grampster on February 25, 2008, 06:01:54 PM
Post by: Bigjake on February 25, 2008, 06:02:18 PM
I do like the thought of a few more years to stock up on guns, given that my finances don't permit me getting the rest of the stuff I NEED before the looming HB 1022.... thats the only positive I can think of for McCain.
Post by: grampster on February 25, 2008, 06:27:06 PM
Post by: Bigjake on February 25, 2008, 07:25:57 PM
Post by: HankB on February 26, 2008, 03:58:38 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 26, 2008, 04:13:37 AM
People don't realize just how much damage the latter two could do. Hillary with her nanny-state strangling grip, Obama with his asinine ideas about meeting with dictators without condition. And both would sign any raised taxes and push to take away your guns. Criminals would be victims and coddled, victims would be criminals if they fought back, just like the UK.
I do not want that to happen.
Post by: xavier fremboe on February 26, 2008, 04:27:35 AM
"2008: Hold your nose or grab your ankles."
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on February 26, 2008, 04:52:12 AM
I'm seriously thinking about not voting because I don't think I want it on my conscience.
As sad as it is, that's about where I am, too.
I don't view it as not exercising my right to vote. I view it as exercising my right not to vote. After all, it is (?) a free country, right?
If voters show up in record LOW numbers, I think that you send a strong message, no?
Post by: Bogie on February 26, 2008, 05:13:58 AM
"Gun people" -were- the second largest voting block in the country. Now, we're just rabble, wandering around the arena.
Post by: HankB on February 26, 2008, 06:26:22 AM
If voters show up in record LOW numbers, I think that you send a strong message, no?
You sure do - it will tell both parties that they can run - and get elected! - complete schmucks . . . and they only have to hoodwink a fraction of the population to do it.They don't care if turnout is low.
They don't care if you don't vote.
They only care that their schmuck gets elected.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on February 26, 2008, 06:48:00 AM
I think that one of the problems regarding 2nd amendment issues is that this time around we negated ourselves.... We had 10% going toward He Who Should Not Be Named, 20% going toward Huck, 20% going toward Fred, 30% going in various other directions, and 20% that was buying the Democrat's line of "any Republican is bad, so stay home."
"Gun people" -were- the second largest voting block in the country. Now, we're just rabble, wandering around the arena.
"Gun people" -were- the second largest voting block in the country. Now, we're just rabble, wandering around the arena.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 26, 2008, 07:01:03 AM
Quote
We had 10% going toward He Who Should Not Be Named
A lot more than 10% in the Firing Line polls. Closer to 65% after Fred dropped out, about 35% before Fred dropped out.
If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations. And, I think he is much more likely to veto a new AWB.
I haven't read any reason to vote Dem this election.
Post by: Scout26 on February 26, 2008, 07:05:58 AM
To hit the reset button.
What was it that Jefferson said about trees and patriots
?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 26, 2008, 07:14:27 AM
I've been mulling this over also. Maybe a Hilbama presidency is what this country needs.....
To hit the reset button.
What was it that Jefferson said about trees and patriots?
To hit the reset button.
What was it that Jefferson said about trees and patriots
?Except for that Supreme Court nomination thing. Those stick around, and I don't want liberal judges.
Post by: Paddy on February 26, 2008, 08:49:29 AM
Post by: Pew pew pew on February 26, 2008, 08:56:29 AM
I think that one of the problems regarding 2nd amendment issues is that this time around we negated ourselves.... We had 10% going toward He Who Should Not Be Named, 20% going toward Huck, 20% going toward Fred, 30% going in various other directions, and 20% that was buying the Democrat's line of "any Republican is bad, so stay home."
"Gun people" -were- the second largest voting block in the country. Now, we're just rabble, wandering around the arena.
"Gun people" -were- the second largest voting block in the country. Now, we're just rabble, wandering around the arena.
Maybe it was the fact that a lot of gun people, such as myself, are independents. Gay rights, ending the war in Iraq, and other "liberal" causes are important to me as well. Perhaps if the Republican party tried to reach out to what is obviously a large segment of the population - independent voters who don't stick strictly to either party line - then a Republican victory could be possible.
Look at these forums! People aren't excited to vote for McCain. People are, however, excited to vote for Obama. McCain is not going to win the presidency - and it's not because he isn't "conservative" enough.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 26, 2008, 09:14:20 AM
The OP might have a point were it not for the fact the current fiscal mess, record national debt, lowest dollar in history, highest gas prices ever, etc et nauseum are a direct result of 27 years of Reaganomics.
Hush... we don't need anyone bringing history and reality to the discussion. 
Which GOP candidate was the most openly pro-gun? Which actually introduced bills to reappeal gun legislation and current gun control laws?
Post by: roo_ster on February 26, 2008, 11:28:58 AM
I'm seriously thinking about not voting because I don't think I want it on my conscience.
Ditto.
Things may change between now & NOV, though.
Post by: grampster on February 26, 2008, 12:02:04 PM
Post by: seeker_two on February 26, 2008, 01:10:00 PM
I voted Obama in the Texas primary (early voting) for this reason. In the general election, I'm voting for the best conservative I can find (probably Constitution Party). And hope and pray that the GOP gets its conservative tail back in the game before they become Whigs......
Post by: Balog on February 26, 2008, 01:32:11 PM
The OP might have a point were it not for the fact the current fiscal mess, record national debt, lowest dollar in history, highest gas prices ever, etc et nauseum are a direct result of 27 years of Reaganomics.
As with so many Riley posts I can only
. Remember, it's the fact that the heat is going up so slowly that keeps the frog happy. Americans get one look at the reality of socialist medicine etc and they will run, not walk, to whoever is gonna make it stop.
Post by: seeker_two on February 26, 2008, 05:36:48 PM
The OP might have a point were it not for the fact the current fiscal mess, record national debt, lowest dollar in history, highest gas prices ever, etc et nauseum are a direct result of 27 years of Reaganomics.
I would agree with you except that every President since Ronald Reagan has been working to undo the practices and programs he instituted......
Erosion happens in politics, too....
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 04:17:02 AM
Maybe it was the fact that a lot of gun people, such as myself, are independents. Gay rights, ending the war in Iraq, and other "liberal" causes are important to me as well. Perhaps if the Republican party tried to reach out to what is obviously a large segment of the population - independent voters who don't stick strictly to either party line - then a Republican victory could be possible.
Why the hell would the Republicans want to pretend to be Democrat Lite by "reaching out" to people they don't agree with? What would that do? The hardcore leftists would still vote for real Democrats, and the Republican base would be disgusted and lose interest. Which is what's happening.
I'm a Republican, and I don't think we should retreat from Iraq, nor do I think that gays deserve special status as a protected class for choices related to their sex life...they're not a race. I do not want the Republicans to support causes that I oppose.
Historically, Republicans (at least, historically) lowered taxes, supported 2A rights, and allowed for personal freedoms and personal entrepreneurship. Democrats raised taxes, wanted to protect everyone from themselves with a nanny state, obsessively tried to take away 2A rights every time they weren't watched closely, and tried to make government bigger and more intrusive, keeping people from rising out of their class through entrepreneurship, stifling the spirit of American capitalism.
I do not like Democrats. At all. I do not want Republicans to move more towards the Democrats' flawed beliefs and policies that I consider abhorrent and repugnant to American ideals. In fact, at this point, a lot of them are what I consider outright traitors to the Constitution. So I have no idea what you're suggesting, there.
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 27, 2008, 04:20:47 AM
Did I mention I employ three people? When Obama raises my taxes, one of them gets the Ax. yeah, that's great for the economy. Thank Obama if it happens.
Post by: Pew pew pew on February 27, 2008, 07:52:09 AM
Quote
I'm a Republican, and I don't think we should retreat from Iraq, nor do I think that gays deserve special status as a protected class for choices related to their sex life...they're not a race.
Well, these are things that the general American populace is starting to disagree with you on. Especially Iraq, and more and more so your foolish view of "special status" for gays. Torture is another losing point which McCain, admittedly, has a good stance on in my opinion.
Quote
Historically, Republicans (at least, historically) lowered taxes, supported 2A rights, and allowed for personal freedoms and personal entrepreneurship.
Lowered taxes and supported second amendment rights I'll give you. Personal freedoms? The Republican party? Are we talking about the current attempts to shield telecoms from prosecution if they take part in illegal wire tapping? Or back further, like how they fought against even allowing gays into the military at all? Or are you talking about the period of time before the Southern Democrats (the ones against the civil rights acts) integrated into the Republican party? Or do you want to go all the way back to 1918, when Republicans ran on an isolationist and pacifistic platform during WWI?
Quote
I do not like Democrats. At all. I do not want Republicans to move more towards the Democrats' flawed beliefs and policies that I consider abhorrent and repugnant to American ideals. In fact, at this point, a lot of them are what I consider outright traitors to the Constitution.
Well, then you're going to be marginalized. Social conservatism is not going to be a winning ticket much longer. Fiscal conservatism is great, but who associates Republicans with fiscal conservatism after the last 8 years?
The reason the Republican party is floundering is not because none of the candidates weren't "conservative enough". It's because of the war and social conservatism and their approach to foreign relations.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 08:09:39 AM
Quote
I'm a Republican, and I don't think we should retreat from Iraq, nor do I think that gays deserve special status as a protected class for choices related to their sex life...they're not a race.
Well, these are things that the general American populace is starting to disagree with you on. Especially Iraq, and more and more so your foolish view of "special status" for gays. Torture is another losing point which McCain, admittedly, has a good stance on in my opinion.
Bull**it. Get out of your liberal fog and look at most of America. Most of America outside of colleges is proud of our troops and wants to leave Iraq after a victory, and things are getting better there despite the defeatist crying of your kind. Even your "secular messiah" Obama is against gay marriage, and he's as left as left comes. Also, note the liberal elitism, that the conservative view is "foolish". Get off it. It's not even amusing, it's annoying.
Quote
I do not like Democrats. At all. I do not want Republicans to move more towards the Democrats' flawed beliefs and policies that I consider abhorrent and repugnant to American ideals. In fact, at this point, a lot of them are what I consider outright traitors to the Constitution.
Well, then you're going to be marginalized. Social conservatism is not going to be a winning ticket much longer. Fiscal conservatism is great, but who associates Republicans with fiscal conservatism after the last 8 years?
Marginalized? By whom? You sound just like the liberals who whine that "we're going to take the guns away from the right".
With with does your sort intend to "marginalize"? Well, with the spreading asinine empty rhetoric fooling more and more already-stupid sheep a la Obama, perhaps, but that'll fade in time when the empty promises aren't kept.
So, what's your strategy, then?
Post by: Pew pew pew on February 27, 2008, 08:46:52 AM
Quote
Bull**it. Get out of your liberal fog and look at most of America. Most of America outside of colleges is proud of our troops and wants to leave Iraq after a victory, and things are getting better there despite the defeatist crying of your kind. Even your "secular messiah" Obama is against gay marriage, and he's as left as left comes. Also, note the liberal elitism, that the conservative view is "foolish". Get off it. It's not even amusing, it's annoying.
First off, I'm not in college. Second, I'm proud of our armed forces; I have friends who are in Iraq. I would prefer they not die in a region we didn't understand when we entered it for a war I do not think we should be fighting. Strangely enough, I garnered most of what you call my "liberal" views in the Air Force. Lastly, Obama is not my messiah by any means. (No, Paul sure as hell isn't either, if you're trying to peg me down in that camp.)
Liberal elitism? I think your opposition to gay marriage and (I have to assume) your support of "don't ask don't tell" is extremely foolish. It doesn't effect you. It does me and anyone else who happens to be gay. I also think that as long as you aren't allowed to discriminate against people based on religion or race, it's only along those same lines of thinking that you can't discriminate based on orientation. Seems simple enough to me and anyone who thinks otherwise I feel is foolish and ignorant. I mean, it does directly effect me and all. I guess that's pretty elitist.
Quote
With with does your sort intend to "marginalize"? Well, with the spreading asinine empty rhetoric fooling more and more already-stupid sheep a la Obama, perhaps, but that'll fade in time when the empty promises aren't kept.
See, this is what strikes me more as elitism. In your mind, anyone who votes for Obama is a stupid sheep. That's pretty elitist right there. You know what, now that I think of it, it's probably the visceral reaction to anything that is branded as "liberal" that is the biggest problem in the "conservative movement" right now.
Post by: keeleon on February 27, 2008, 12:21:57 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 12:46:28 PM
Same people who destroyed Ron Paul by trying to help him.
Post by: keeleon on February 27, 2008, 12:49:41 PM
Post by: Pew pew pew on February 28, 2008, 08:19:44 PM
OK, that makes sense. Is there a "non crazy" alternative that wants "change" in a FREE responsible direction?
No.
The only alternative is to not let politics ruin your life and take any political frustrations out on forum-goers... and drink. Everyone can agree over a drink at least on some level.I don't trust anyone who doesn't drink, though...
By the way, I'd like to take this time to point out that while I may heartily disagree with many people on APS politically, I'd probably gladly have a beer or glass of wine with anyone here. If you ever stop by Arizona I've got a place for you to stay, ammo, and a cold one in the fridge!
Post by: seeker_two on February 29, 2008, 01:04:56 AM
OK, that makes sense. Is there a "non crazy" alternative that wants "change" in a FREE responsible direction?
No.
The only alternative is to not let politics ruin your life and take any political frustrations out on forum-goers... and drink. Everyone can agree over a drink at least on some level.I don't trust anyone who doesn't drink, though...
By the way, I'd like to take this time to point out that while I may heartily disagree with many people on APS politically, I'd probably gladly have a beer or glass of wine with anyone here. If you ever stop by Arizona I've got a place for you to stay, ammo, and a cold one in the fridge!
(jumps aside from the thundering rush....)
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 29, 2008, 07:02:12 AM
Quote
It doesn't have to anarchy, it just meansstay out of other people's business if they don't want you there. If gay people want to marry, fine. If 16 year old girls want to have abortions, fine.
So, you're not really interested in freedom, then. The fact that these things strike you, and many otherwise rational people, as obvious examples of freedom is a major reason why we can't come together on issues of freedom, to support a third party. Until we realize that the widespread and legal murder of infants is the opposite of freedom, Americans will continue to flounder, politically.
Post by: keeleon on February 29, 2008, 07:17:17 AM
Until a "fetus" (note, you said infant, which is DRASTICALLY different) is capable of surviving outside of it's mother's womb, it is a parasite by all definitions of the word. Personally, I disagree with abortion if I HAD to pick a side, but I don't think it should be flat out illegal. there are instances where it might be necesary, case by case scenario as it were. My wife just recently had an ectopic pregnancy, she might have been able to carry the baby full term, but the risk of BOTH of them dieing was so great that she had to have an "abortion". I dare you to call her an infant killer, I dare you.
If it is decided that a fetus is viable after a certain amount of time, then if that women has an "abortion", then she is guilty of murder, and will face the consequences of such. But I think we can all agree that sometimes "murder" is necesary. I disagree with abortions as a means of birth control, and personally I think a woman who has more than one should be sterilized. If you don't have a medical or some other REALLY good reason for it, then go ahead and do it but face the penalty. I know you don't want to hear it, because it is just empty rhetoric, but I feel the lives of the children of women who have "convenience abortions" would be worse off then just being ended. It certainly is better for society in some cases.
Does that sound more rational?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 29, 2008, 07:55:45 AM
Quote
Does that sound more rational?
Much less actually. Now you're saying, among other inanities, that a fetus is a parasite, and that murder is sometimes necessary. Can you name other instances where murder would be necessary?
I know you didn't want to get into an abortion debate, nor do I. But that's the whole point. Those who love freedom, and can agree about limited govt. and a dozen other things, are irreducibly divided on key issues, like abortion, the war on drugs, Iraq, etc.
Post by: keeleon on February 29, 2008, 08:07:06 AM
Quote
Can you name other instances where murder would be necessary?
Like in defending oneself? Or in a war? Or capital punishment? Or perhaps just murdering cows so that you can have dinner? Or murdering trees so you can have paper? I will agree that is not black and white and that's what makes us such a wonderful species, our ability to look at things differently. But you may look at one thing as "murder", where others don't see it that way.
So the question is, can I have mine and you have yours? I suppoe the answer is no, because there is always someone that will come along and feel justified in killing 30 college students. I guess he didn't look at it as murder so in a "free" country we should just let him. I did not mean exactly how it sounded when I brought up abortions, because I will agree with you that that is a very delicate moral argument, "How far is too far?". However that aside, there are MANY issues I think the gov should keep it's nose out of. As long as you aren't hurting anyone else it shouldn't matter what you do. And I suppose a 16 year old girl having an abortion can fall into the category of "hurting someone else".
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 29, 2008, 08:21:32 AM
Murders are unlawful and/or immoral killings. Hence, cases of self-defense, capital punishment, or warfare wouldn't usually be considered "murder."
I don't see abortion as a "delicate moral argument." I see it as a very clear issue, and base my position on simple and widely-known facts and legal principles upon which everyone agrees.
What's with the "I dare you"? What are the consequences of taking your dare?
Post by: seeker_two on February 29, 2008, 11:56:46 AM
2. If abortion is OK because the life terminated is a "parasite", what else is OK to "abort": infants? invalids? the elderly? welfare recipients?
Post by: keeleon on February 29, 2008, 12:41:28 PM
Quote
Murders are unlawful and/or immoral killings.
And that's where the whole argument resides. Whose opinion are we supposed to use on what is and isn't immoral? Some people do think that killing in a war, or in self defense is immoral, and yet you disagree with them just as hardily as you take their position against me. It is a delicate issue because people see things differently. How far back do you want to go? Is a woman a murderer for letting the egg not get impregnated, and "die"? It has just as much biological justification for existing as a fetus. At what exact point is it "murder". Please don't bother answering, it's rhetorical, and not the topic of this thread, but I think you see my point. And for the record, I very clearly see your points, and would agree them as I stated, I didn't represent my initial statement well.
Quote
As long as you aren't hurting anyone else it shouldn't matter what you do. And I suppose a 16 year old girl having an abortion can fall into the category of "hurting someone else".
So is there an outrage over my statement about gay marriage though? That is just as "immoral" to some people, and yet DOESN'T hurt anyone. I'm assuming we can agree on that.
Quote
What's with the "I dare you"? What are the consequences of taking your dare?
What do you think the consequences of telling a woman that has been trying to have a baby for 3 years, that because she chose to "murder" it instead of allowing her and it to die, that she is an immoral person? She would probably cut your balls off. Literally.
Quote
1. Murder only counts for humans. Killing animals without cause is just plain wasteful.
Maybe to you, but not to everyone. If murder is the act of taking life from something, as we are discussing, then it very well can pertain to animals and plants depending on how "morally outraged" you are. You say murder only pertains to humans, and some filthy hippy says it pertains to animals, but of course you are right, because you said so. Right?
Quote
2. If abortion is OK because the life terminated is a "parasite", what else is OK to "abort": infants? invalids? the elderly? welfare recipients?
For the record, I am using the term "parasite" in it's scientific term, not it's figurative term. If someone can't live without a machine keeping them alive, then perhaps it IS their time to go. Although I don't have much of a problem terminating welfare recipients
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 29, 2008, 08:46:24 PM
Quote
Murders are unlawful and/or immoral killings.
And that's where the whole argument resides.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I was only trying to explain to you a rather common word. If you're not clear on the difference between murder and homicide, perhaps you shouldn't opine on abortion just yet.
Quote
Is a woman a murderer for letting the egg not get impregnated, and "die"? It has just as much biological justification for existing as a fetus.
Biological justification for existing? Do you even know what that means? Do you not understand the difference between an egg and a zygote? That one is a part of an organism, and the other is a new organism? I know you didn't want me to answer, but I protest that I was provoked. Your confusion cried out for some light to be shed.
Quote
I very clearly see your points
No, I'm sorry, I don't think you do.
Quote
So is there an outrage over my statement about gay marriage though? That is just as "immoral" to some people, and yet DOESN'T hurt anyone. I'm assuming we can agree on that.
No and no. I'm not outraged about any of your statements, and we cannot agree that "gay marriage" doesn't hurt anyone. Of course, govt. failure to recognize homosexual unions doesn't hurt anyone, so I'm not sure why we need more govt. in that area. You wanted more freedom, and smaller government, right?
Quote
Quote
What's with the "I dare you"? What are the consequences of taking your dare?
What do you think the consequences of telling a woman that has been trying to have a baby for 3 years, that because she chose to "murder" it instead of allowing her and it to die, that she is an immoral person? She would probably cut your balls off. Literally.
So, you're promising me castration, literally, if I say that your wife killed an infant? Are you trying to goad me into saying it? If your wife needs my address, she can get it from RileyMC.
Quote
For the record, I am using the term "parasite" in it's scientific term.
No, you're using it in a rather ignorant and unthinking fashion, to satisfy a polemical need. Offspring are not parasites. Not in a scientific sense.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on March 01, 2008, 01:03:51 AM
Chill y'all.
Post by: seeker_two on March 01, 2008, 05:26:05 AM
Quote from: seeker_two
1. Murder only counts for humans. Killing animals without cause is just plain wasteful.
Maybe to you, but not to everyone. If murder is the act of taking life from something, as we are discussing, then it very well can pertain to animals and plants depending on how "morally outraged" you are. You say murder only pertains to humans, and some filthy hippy says it pertains to animals, but of course you are right, because you said so. Right?
Quote from: seeker_two
2. If abortion is OK because the life terminated is a "parasite", what else is OK to "abort": infants? invalids? the elderly? welfare recipients?
For the record, I am using the term "parasite" in it's scientific term, not it's figurative term. If someone can't live without a machine keeping them alive, then perhaps it IS their time to go. Although I don't have much of a problem terminating welfare recipients
1. According to religious and criminal laws across the world, "murder" only applies to human beings. Not plants or animals. If you can find a legal ruling or religious doctrine stating otherwise, post it.
"Because I said so..." also works.....
2. If you want to get into terms, let's look at the definition of "parasite"....
Quote from: Dictionary.com
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
So, who gets to live?......And, are you Greek?......
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 03:51:34 AM
Quote
If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.
The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 04:06:12 AM
Quote
If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.
The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?
Would you rather have the anti-self-defense liberals that Obama or Clinton would stuff the court with?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 04:21:02 AM
Quote
If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.
The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?
Would you rather have the anti-self-defense liberals that Obama or Clinton would stuff the court with?
Remember McCain voted for Clinton's judicial nominees. The first Clinton's, I mean.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 04:22:54 AM
Quote
If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.
The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?
Would you rather have the anti-self-defense liberals that Obama or Clinton would stuff the court with?
Remember McCain voted for Clinton's judicial nominees. The first Clinton's, I mean.
So? Come fall, there will be either President McCain, or President Obama or President Clinton. Which would do the least damage? Seriously. Those are your only choices.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 04:26:09 AM
So? Come fall, there will be either President McCain, or President Obama or President Clinton. Which would do the least damage? Seriously. Those are your only choices.
Here is a question for you: Do you suggest we should suspend criticism of McCain entirely because 'the liberals are worse'?
Do you have any argument in favor of McCain outside 'Hillary is worse'?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 04:28:36 AM
You can vote for him, or vote for Hilbama, which would destroy everything. There is no option C.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 04:55:42 AM
You need to wake up to reality. McCain is the Republican candidate. That is incontrovertible. Yes, it sucks, but all we can do is minimize the damage.
Where did I claim McCain was not the Republican candidate?
Post by: seeker_two on March 06, 2008, 05:40:27 AM
Do you have any argument in favor of McCain outside 'Hillary is worse'?
I'm interested in the answer to this question as well.....
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 06:26:49 AM
Do you have any argument in favor of McCain outside 'Hillary is worse'?
I'm interested in the answer to this question as well.....
Of course I'm not in favor of him, but there IS NO OTHER OPTION at this point. That is reality. Nobody is going to change the momentum of the political process this year, aside from choosing "bad" or "much, much worse" this fall. What part of that doesn't make sense?
Which would you rather have happen to you, if you have to have one of these two: to be punched, or be shot? You can recover from a punch much more easily.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 06:35:13 AM
Which would you rather have happen to you, if you have to have one of these two: to be punched, or be shot? You can recover from a punch much more easily.
See, here's a few points:
1. I'm not convinced Hillary is THAT much worse.
2. There are options.
Those of us who are US citizens can either vote grudgingly for McCain, while loudly protesting every misdeed of his, or they can start fawning over him and talking about his record as a war hero, and so on, and not subjecting him to any criticism from the right at all
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 06:38:56 AM
1. I'm not convinced Hillary is THAT much worse.
Then I guess you don't own any "evil" guns. And you don't care if your taxes suddenly take a much larger chunk out of your paycheck for daring to not be a financially illiterate failure and trying to make something of yourself.
Socialists like Hillary and Obama want an elite few to be a nanny state for the ignorant masses, kept safely down in their class and on the public dole. They hate the idea that We The People can think for themselves...they think they know better. And will pass laws to that effect.
Unacceptable.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 07:17:13 AM
Then I guess you don't own any "evil" guns. And you don't care if your taxes suddenly take a much larger chunk out of your paycheck for daring to not be a financially illiterate failure and trying to make something of yourself.
And do you seriously think McCain, known for his compromises, will not bow down to a Congress if it'll demand these things - a ban on evil guns, or a bigger tax bill?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 07:25:44 AM
Then I guess you don't own any "evil" guns. And you don't care if your taxes suddenly take a much larger chunk out of your paycheck for daring to not be a financially illiterate failure and trying to make something of yourself.
And do you seriously think McCain, known for his compromises, will not bow down to a Congress if it'll demand these things - a ban on evil guns, or a bigger tax bill?
Do you not think Obama or Hillary would use the presidency as a pulpit to preach gun control and get Congress to take action on it? You want to hear "we need gun control" in the State of the Union speech on all channels?
Post by: longeyes on March 06, 2008, 08:05:20 AM
It's always about buying time.
I don't like McCain much either, but if we get Obama or Clinton we should either resign ourselves to a socialist America or get ready for exile, active or passive.
Post by: Paddy on March 06, 2008, 08:43:44 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 06, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Then I guess you don't own any "evil" guns. And you don't care if your taxes suddenly take a much larger chunk out of your paycheck for daring to not be a financially illiterate failure and trying to make something of yourself.
And do you seriously think McCain, known for his compromises, will not bow down to a Congress if it'll demand these things - a ban on evil guns, or a bigger tax bill?
Do you not think Obama or Hillary would use the presidency as a pulpit to preach gun control and get Congress to take action on it? You want to hear "we need gun control" in the State of the Union speech on all channels?
What about hearing "we need more campaign finance laws"? "We need another Patriot Act"? "WE need more DEAATFFBISNAFU agents with more powers"? Or does the Constitution only have one amendment?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 06, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
Then I guess you don't own any "evil" guns. And you don't care if your taxes suddenly take a much larger chunk out of your paycheck for daring to not be a financially illiterate failure and trying to make something of yourself.
And do you seriously think McCain, known for his compromises, will not bow down to a Congress if it'll demand these things - a ban on evil guns, or a bigger tax bill?
Do you not think Obama or Hillary would use the presidency as a pulpit to preach gun control and get Congress to take action on it? You want to hear "we need gun control" in the State of the Union speech on all channels?
What about hearing "we need more campaign finance laws"? "We need another Patriot Act"? "WE need more DEAATFFBISNAFU agents with more powers"? Or does the Constitution only have one amendment?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Who else are you going to vote for? Obama or Hillary? What?
Post by: RevDisk on March 06, 2008, 06:28:26 PM
Here is the Republican's Great White Hope. I think they're screwed this election cycle.
You know... If I were into conspiracy theories, I'd swear both the RNC and DNC are trying their damnest to tank the election as they don't want to be left holding the bag.
Looking at the three folks in the lead? They're all equally bad. Sure, you could argue from now to election day on which specific point one is worse than the other, but overall... I don't see were even one of them could even theoretically be considered "marginally acceptable". I'm more than tempted to just write in "Screw all of you"
Post by: johnster999 on March 06, 2008, 10:04:42 PM
Post by: LAK on March 06, 2008, 10:41:13 PM
Quote
You know... If I were into conspiracy theories, I'd swear both the RNC and DNC are trying their damnest to tank the election as they don't want to be left holding the bag.
I agree, perhaps for different reasons. No one with a brain wants to be holding that bag, as fast as it is being emptied. I wonder who the sucker is going to be.---------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: longeyes on March 07, 2008, 09:48:53 AM
The key point is holding the Court. If the Left gets a majority of leftists on SCOTUS the choice will be submission or open defiance of the "Rule of Law."
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 10:00:05 AM
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Who else are you going to vote for? Obama or Hillary? What?
Do you deliberately avoid reading my posts?
Post by: Paddy on March 08, 2008, 03:13:24 PM
heh.
Post by: Paddy on March 09, 2008, 04:31:27 PM
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 07:37:24 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 09, 2008, 11:07:53 PM
Because the Libertarian movement was pretty much taken over by people who want fields of pot and who see black helicopters behind every tree.
Boo-hoo the scary pot smokers!
Seriously people. What's the huge hang-up conservatives have with people who want to legalize pot?
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 10, 2008, 09:06:21 AM
Seriously people. What's the huge hang-up conservatives have with people who want to legalize pot?
They like big government nosing in on peoples' business, just so long as it's OTHER peoples' business. Hard to have it both ways, and it has bitten them in the ass time and time again. Sooner or later, we hope they'll just learn to let go of the desire to control others.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 10, 2008, 09:16:00 AM
1. They were disqualified for ALL welfare and assistance. If they want to burn out their brain and become unemployable because they can't remember anything, go for it. But I'm not paying for them with tax dollars. They can expire in the gutter.
2. A test needs to be developed that works like a breathalyzer. Driving under the influence of pot is instant license revocation. I don't want to be rear-ended because someone with the munchies going to get snacks is too "relaxed" to notice that they're coming up on my tail at a stop light.
So sure. Legalize it. But if you use it, you're disqualified for all taxpayer assistance, disqualified from unemployment if fired due to lack of performance, and if you drive within 24 hours, you lose your license permanently. Fair?
Post by: MechAg94 on March 10, 2008, 10:13:21 AM
The only reasons I see people voting FOR McCain is that he will likely keep up the effort in Iraq and Afganistan and he will more than likely select conservative judges if required. I think Medved pointed out that even though McCain led that Gang of 14 deal in the Senate, almost all of Bush's judge appointments were approved. He probably knows more about political wheeling and dealing than Obama and Hillary combined. If that is good or not, you can decide.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 10, 2008, 10:20:26 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 10, 2008, 10:21:29 AM
you gonna apply your same standard to those who use alcohol? or is that ox a lil too close to home. and how about nicotine? wheres your line in the sand?
There are already laws to deal with those who drink and drive, if you hadn't noticed. Don't make up nonsense about "close to home", it makes you look foolish and desperate in your arguments.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 10, 2008, 10:58:28 AM
I could care less about pot smokers as long as:
1. They were disqualified for ALL welfare and assistance. If they want to burn out their brain and become unemployable because they can't remember anything, go for it. But I'm not paying for them with tax dollars. They can expire in the gutter.
2. A test needs to be developed that works like a breathalyzer. Driving under the influence of pot is instant license revocation. I don't want to be rear-ended because someone with the munchies going to get snacks is too "relaxed" to notice that they're coming up on my tail at a stop light.
So sure. Legalize it. But if you use it, you're disqualified for all taxpayer assistance, disqualified from unemployment if fired due to lack of performance, and if you drive within 24 hours, you lose your license permanently. Fair?
1. They were disqualified for ALL welfare and assistance. If they want to burn out their brain and become unemployable because they can't remember anything, go for it. But I'm not paying for them with tax dollars. They can expire in the gutter.
2. A test needs to be developed that works like a breathalyzer. Driving under the influence of pot is instant license revocation. I don't want to be rear-ended because someone with the munchies going to get snacks is too "relaxed" to notice that they're coming up on my tail at a stop light.
So sure. Legalize it. But if you use it, you're disqualified for all taxpayer assistance, disqualified from unemployment if fired due to lack of performance, and if you drive within 24 hours, you lose your license permanently. Fair?
I'm with you on #1: abolish all federal welfare/handouts/entitlement programs, after meeting commitments to people who are now forced to reply upon them.
So, #2 would be punishment without due cause or a fair trial, nice. By the way, I hope you don't ever pop in a fresh piece of gum or take a hit of breath freshener right before you break a minor traffic rule in front of a cop... or that the cop's breathalizer is calibrated/working correctly.
There's just something about "inalienable" that ... some people ... just don't understand...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 10, 2008, 12:31:58 PM
you gonna apply your same standard to those who use alcohol? or is that ox a lil too close to home. and how about nicotine? wheres your line in the sand?
There are already laws to deal with those who drink and drive, if you hadn't noticed. Don't make up nonsense about "close to home", it makes you look foolish and desperate in your arguments.
is theee a standard in your fantasythat cuts folks who use alcohol from benefits?cause i can assure you booze keeps more folks on the public nickle than pot does. you seem a lil vague about your line in the sand
Post by: christopher on March 11, 2008, 02:03:42 AM
1. We can line up like sheep at the voting booth & give our consent to four more years of corruption, mismanagement, pork & high taxes or
2. Stay home & complain that our vote doesn't count.
What I am proposing is a third option. Because the rules have changed & our vote has been hijacked by privilege & special interest.
We must find new ways to be heard, to wrestle control of our government out of the hands of big business & corporate lobbyist.
What I am proposing is that we don't act like sheep on election night & we don't sit at home & complain. What I propose is that we stand up like men & say enough is enough!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, & the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, & to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety & Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient cause; & accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evincesa design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, & to provide new Guards for their future security".
U.S. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
NO MORE RED STATES
NO MORE BLUE STATES
NO MORE REPUBLICANS
NO MORE DEMOCRATS
WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, lets agree not to live like this!
NO MORE BROKEN FAMILIES
NO MORE BROKEN HOMES
NO MORE BROKEN COMMUNITIES
NO MORE BROKEN SCHOOLS, ROADS, DAMS, BRIDGES,
NO MORE BROKEN BORDERS...
NO MORE BROKEN GOVERNMENT!!!
THIS NOVEMBER LETS VOTE THEM ALL OUT!
Post by: christopher on March 13, 2008, 09:32:45 PM
Homeland Security is a joke! When tons of illegal drugs flow over our open borders, 10 to 15 million illegals cross our broken borders & someone with TB can sneak across the Canadian border with a bottle of Jack!
I mean what the fu..
oh wait was this thread about Republican hope or McCain or somethin'?
Allllll of our presidential wannabe's have been bought off. America has been hijacked by privilege & special-interest. We need to vote all the crooks out, come November!
The best thing that any of us can do as Republicans or Democrats is to abandon our parties as they did us. Come together as Americans & take our country back!
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 06:32:50 AM
Post by: christopher on March 14, 2008, 01:46:03 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 14, 2008, 03:22:39 PM
"Kool-Aid"
Ironic, at best.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 06:57:09 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 14, 2008, 08:07:46 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 08:34:20 PM
Post by: grampster on March 15, 2008, 08:22:08 AM
1. Energy
2. Immigration
3. High speed, electrical, elevated national rail system.
America has vast resources of oil, natural gas and coal. 2 trillion barrels estimated in the Green River watershed for example. 1.2 trillion accessible with todays technology at a profit at $40.00 a barrel. They are untapped. Nuclear power needs to be fast tracked as a source of electricity. If McCain would rally the country around beginning to exploit those resources, and steamrollering the obstructionists he's a shoe in. As a side issue to nuclear power plants, he should campaign around the building of a national high speed elevated rail system. Interstate r.o.w. are ideal for this.
Present a workable plan for securing our borders and our ports. No more talk. Action. Once our borders are secure, we can have a national conversation about the illegals who are already here. The solution need not be draconian. Once the borders and ports are secured, we can afford to be gracious to those who are here illegally, but have not commit any other crimes other than sneaking in. Send the rest back to the countries of origin.
Energy demand and prices are what drives or stultifies our nation and national interests. He needs to quit barking about stupid alternate fuels like alcohol. Wind and solar are only good for filling in the gaps, not as a primary source of energy.
McCain would be a shoe in if he isolated on these three issues. America needs something to be optimistic about, even if we have to wait a few years for it all to come together. It won't come together if no one ever actually starts to do something.
But after listening to him interviewed by Hannity the other night, I became so sickened that I turned it off. McCain is a waste of time. He is a boring old man with no vision. The other two are Marxists. If something doesn't change over the next few months, I'm not voting for the first time in my life. Our nation is screwed if any of these people get in and I don't want that on my conscience.
Post by: Paddy on March 15, 2008, 11:36:03 AM
Quote
McCain is a waste of time. He is a boring old man with no vision. The other two are Marxists. If something doesn't change over the next few months, I'm not voting for the first time in my life. Our nation is screwed if any of these people get in and I don't want that on my conscience.
We are in complete agreement, grampster. Also with regard to energy as the #1 national issue.
Post by: longeyes on March 15, 2008, 01:19:14 PM
Post by: christopher on March 15, 2008, 02:38:06 PM
Politicians from both parties allow think tanks funded by big Oil, big Pharmaceutical & big Banking interest to write our domestic policy as well as our foreign policy.
Follow the money:
Who's bought off your candidate?
Barack Obama: Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Capital One, Bank of Montreal, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Butterfield Bank, Resource Bank, Bain Capital, Mutual of America, Telemundo, La Pietra, Sankatt Investments, Transamerica Investment Mgmt., US Venture Partners, Sony Pictures, Warner Music Group, IBM, Lehman Bros., AT&T, Ticketmaster, Alantos Pharmaceuticals, 20th Century Fox, Aragon Global, UCLA Medical Center, AHMC Healthcare Inc., AV International, Fidelity Ventures, Clifford Law Firm, CCMP Capital, Cypruss Funds Investment Mgmt., Kaman Group, Solimar Ventures, Comcast, Sterne Assets, Citilink Investment Corp., Third Security, COSTCO, Sun Capitol Partners, Tudor Investment, Madison Investment, EMC Capital Mgmt., Bel Air Investment, Mirel Capital, Grandhara Capital, Lehman Bros., GB Capital, Citadel Investments, etc.
John McCain: PVS Chemical, Merrill Lynch, The Bank of NY, Univision, JP Morgan Chase, Near East Resources Ltd., Compass Bank, World Savings Bank, New York Life Insurance, Sanguine Gas Exploration, CISCO Systems, Wachovia Bank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Moore Capital, The Carlyle Group, Prime Investments, Tenax LLC, Hantz Group, Hilton Hotels, The AES Corp., Highside Capital, New Mountain Capital, Vector Group LTD, Park Avenue Equity Partners, Red Eagle Venture, Star Lincoln Mercury, Pacific Growth Equities, Budweiser, Myers Financial, Globus Capital, Pomeroy & Pomeroy Insurance, Faison Group, Renco Group, Palmer Investments, QWEST, EM Capital Mgmt., FT Ventures, MGM Mirage International, Ameron International, Anderson Energy Corp., Plaines Capital Bank, NYSE Group, etc.
Hillary Clinton: JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs, Ameriprise Financial, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, China Industrial, Wachovia Securities, HBO, The Husseini Group, Bank of NY, Verizon, Viking Global Investments, Trilogy Capital, Oaktree Capital, Farrallon Capital, Lanwilo Investments, Cimarron Group, Pharmcare, Entrust Capital, Morgan Stanley, KFC, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Charter Communications, Lilby Stearns, Nihigret Group, Black Saut Holding Co., Mahmood investment, America India Foundation, Candela Group, Hellman & Friedman LLC, US Russia Business Council, SBD LLC, Braddock Financial, Bank of SF, Comcast, Sitason International Inc., Cataldo Group, Van Brunt Dubiago & Co., Abrahms Capital, Bear Sterns & Co., Oracle, Scoggin Capital, Sana Security, etc.
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Wednesday, February 20, 2008.
HOW TO READ THIS CHART: Many presidential candidates receive the bulk of their funds from the same industries and Washington-based special- interest groups that dominate giving to all federal politicians and parties.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 15, 2008, 04:15:30 PM
Post by: christopher on March 16, 2008, 04:14:32 PM