Post by: wacki on February 10, 2008, 10:23:01 AM
The issues I hold most dear are energy and the bill of rights. I have personally been impressed with his knowledge of energy and environmental issues. What McCain says about our energy problems tend to parallel with what the scientific community says much more than what Obama and even Hillary says. I know some members here quibble about McCain's 2A stances but I'm not very well versed on this issue. What he says here could be improved but at least he has a history of opposing assault weapons and ammunition restrictions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
He seems a hell of a lot better than Hillery or (center fire banning) Obama to me.
Please correct me where I might be wrong or expound with your own supported-opinions.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 10, 2008, 11:05:33 AM
Post by: SomeKid on February 10, 2008, 11:29:08 AM
I wish he was still in Vietnam. Dead, or POW, it is just as good to me.
Post by: HankB on February 10, 2008, 11:48:10 AM
On illegal immigration . . . F-
On 1st Amendment . . . F -
On taxes . . . F
Post by: grislyatoms on February 10, 2008, 11:53:34 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 12:00:33 PM
And I don't think he'll even bring up 2A, not like Huckabee would. If anything, he'd probably just sign an AWB II.
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 12:15:42 PM
Post by: Bogie on February 10, 2008, 12:59:41 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 01:01:06 PM
Yeah, but he's better than Hillary and Obama combined.
Yes. Hillary or Obama would result in the destruction of America as we know it.
McCain would just result in four more years of the same blah that's going on now, nothing new.
It's not ideal, but...it's better than the alternative.
I do still think Huckabee would do a much better job.
Post by: Iain on February 10, 2008, 01:36:30 PM
That and there is a certain amount of schadenfreude over his (presumed) nomination. Not that I wish you guys ill, but he isn't the candidate many seemed to think the country was ready for. That and the allegation that he has drunk certain 'kool aid'.
My thoughts are pretty simple.
Simple enough that you should probably keep them to yourself. At least until you've added the complications that are respect and decency.
Post by: beatnik on February 10, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
Yeah, but he's better than Hillary and Obama combined.
McCain would just result in four more years of the same blah that's going on now, nothing new. Uh-huh...
which means after four years we'll see all other goods and services catch up with the tanking dollar,
but the same failed economic policy will kick in again and put gas somewhere around $6 a gallon,
metals will go up another 60-100%,
we'll have at least one new front to the "war",
about 3000 more dead soldiers,
PLUS the other non-Bush stuff, like:
Higher taxes,
AWBII signed,
lots of new socialist programs in a deal to get his bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran going on...
...et cetera.
Sounds like a dream candidate to me.
The first thing a democrat is going to do in office is mandate federal funding for 9th trimester abortions without parental consent. Then the country will react by kicking them out of congress in two years, and we'll have two years of stagnation.
I'll take that over McCain, thank you.
Post by: beatnik on February 10, 2008, 01:42:23 PM
Simple enough that you should probably keep them to yourself. At least until you've added the complications that are respect and decency.
He'd get my respect if he wasn't hellbent on putting today's young people in the same situation.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 01:44:29 PM
metals will go up another 60-100%,
I sure hope they do! I'll have lots of money.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 10, 2008, 01:46:19 PM
Quote
9th trimester abortions
Damn, that's a long pregnancy...
Post by: Bogie on February 10, 2008, 01:50:10 PM
Hmm... What if Hitler...
(grin)
You know, just for once, I'd love to see a candidate get up and say "If I'm elected, I'm gonna go to a lot of meetings, and shake a lot of hands, and other than that, do absolutely nothing. We've got enough laws to keep everyone busy for a while."
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on February 10, 2008, 01:53:38 PM
Quote
A lot of people on the right seem to HATE McCain. Limbaugh certainly seems to be a prime example of this.
That would be McCain-Feingold, above all else. Several instances of him siding with the Dems, thus his 'Maverick' status. A 'Maverick' is a higher caste of 'moderate', I suppose. He seems to have a better stance on abortion and 2A than Romney did... but I think Romney changed. Since McCain has a history of jumping party lines from time to time, there's probably no telling what he'd do when faced with those issues. Opposing the AWB probably had more to do with him being senator from Arizona than any opinions on the issue.
McCain gives me the feeling of being somebody in the Clinton mold - opinions on the issues come from polls alone. We'd possibly be better off with Hillary and a GOP congress than McCain and a GOP congress... aside from the Supreme Court issue. Still, most of the justices there now were put in place by Republican presidents, IIRC - and look how well some of them have turned out.
Post by: wacki on February 10, 2008, 02:22:22 PM
My thoughts are pretty simple.
I wish he was still in Vietnam. Dead, or POW, it is just as good to me.
I wish he was still in Vietnam. Dead, or POW, it is just as good to me.
I find this kind of hate curious. Please explain why.
Post by: brer on February 10, 2008, 02:23:02 PM
His war record speaks for itself. He has pretty much earned the right to say anything he wants to.
Post by: wacki on February 10, 2008, 02:31:50 PM
On 1st Amendment . . . F -
HankB, I hold the 1st, as well as all of the BoR, very dear to my heart. Care to explain?
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 02:42:17 PM
Who cares that the man was a POW, does that mean he will make a good POTUS?
Post by: wacki on February 10, 2008, 02:44:15 PM
He drank the global warming koolaid
It is undeniable that he is on the side of the scientific community:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
We can save the debate on the science for another thread but the existence of a consensus among WORKING scientists should be obvious. The best anti-consensus list (the 400 one) to date contains mostly economists, emeritus, TV meteorologists/personalities and even a few British TV gardeners. Although there are exceptions on the list, the vast majority of these 400 do not have a publishing record. That list may look impressive to laymen but economists and TV weathermen generally don't have enough educational background for even a B.Sc. in the hard sciences like biology, geology, etc. So if McCain drank the kool-aid then so did 99.5% of the worlds hard scientists and 50,000+ American Geophysical Union members.
I do not want to debate if anthropogenic global warming is true or not in this thread. We can do that in other threads. I'm simply pointing out that many of his environmental/energy positions are supported by the vast majority of the scientific community.
FYI: soft sciences = psychology and maybe economics as there is often room for debate and ambiguity. hard sciences = biology, chemistry, etc.
Quote
and is 100% wrong on the border, just to name a couple big issues He's on the wrong side of...
I'd love to know more.
Post by: wacki on February 10, 2008, 02:48:42 PM
Post by: Finch on February 10, 2008, 02:49:38 PM
His war record speaks for itself. He has pretty much earned the right to say anything he wants to.
We all have that right, we don't need a war record to use it. And I don't care if McCain has a great war record. That does not automatically mean he understands what this republic is supposed to be. And if his support for past legislation is any indication of what kind of president he will be, I think he may destroy the constitution more than Bush has.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 10, 2008, 02:54:48 PM
Why does everyone here despise McCain-Feingold so much?
Restricts the 1st amendment.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 02:56:33 PM
His war record speaks for itself. He has pretty much earned the right to say anything he wants to.
What, that he got shot down?
What about all the other pilots who served, bombed lots of enemy positions, shot down lots of MiGs and didn't get shot down?
Why does that make him special vs. all the others? Being shot down and being a POW makes you an infallable politician who can speak no wrong? Honestly, WTF?
Post by: Finch on February 10, 2008, 02:59:15 PM
Why does everyone here despise McCain-Feingold so much?
Restricts the 1st amendment.HA! Petty serf. The government can do what they want. It's for your own protection. If you are allowed to speak your mind at will without restriction truths might be exposed. We can't have that or the terrorist might win.
Quote
Why does that make him special vs. all the others? Being shot down and being a POW makes you an infallable politician who can speak no wrong? Honestly, WTF?
He's not a democrat. When a democrat serves, it's all fake and staged for political gain. When McCain does it, he is the second coming of republican greatness here to save us from Hillary/Obama -- even though they are not all that different.
Post by: wacki on February 10, 2008, 03:04:26 PM
Why does everyone here despise McCain-Feingold so much?
Restricts the 1st amendment.
How? What part of this prevents you from saying what you want to say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 03:14:59 PM
Quote
I believe he is nothing but a hypocrite. I am sorry but he opposes freedom and loves corporate sponsorship. He sold his country out a long time ago.
I'd love some of that "proof" you're so fond of demanding, along with links cited.
Quote
He drank the global warming koolaid
It is undeniable that he is on the side of the scientific community:
Global warming is a farce for another thread
Quote
and is 100% wrong on the border, just to name a couple big issues He's on the wrong side of...
I'd love to know more.
I'd love to know more.
He championed the most recent amnest bill (McCain Liberman, I think it was). If thats not enough, google up Hispanic Outreach Director Juan Hernandez.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 10, 2008, 03:15:50 PM
Why does everyone here despise McCain-Feingold so much?
Restricts the 1st amendment.
How? What part of this prevents you from saying what you want to say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
In that article, it's right here...
"The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds."
Post by: SomeKid on February 10, 2008, 03:20:34 PM
My thoughts are pretty simple.
I wish he was still in Vietnam. Dead, or POW, it is just as good to me.
I wish he was still in Vietnam. Dead, or POW, it is just as good to me.
I find this kind of hate curious. Please explain why.
Had he died in Vietnam he would be a name on a wall. Because he survived, he turned into a name on the Senate rolls that damages this country/infringes on my liberty. See why I consider it preferable that he die than have a role in leading this country?
Post by: Bogie on February 10, 2008, 04:05:28 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 04:06:30 PM
Say what you want about him, I'd still rather see him in office than either Hillary or Obama.
Yes. It's just that nothing will change. That's preferable to everything being destroyed.
Another boring day is always preferable to a bulldozer coming through your wall.
Post by: Regolith on February 10, 2008, 04:14:41 PM
Say what you want about him, I'd still rather see him in office than either Hillary or Obama.
This. I don't like the guy either, but Obama and Hillary scare the crap out of me.
Post by: Finch on February 10, 2008, 05:05:39 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 05:36:40 PM
It's foolish to think that McCain is going to do less damage to this nation. He is just going to damage it in a different way.
Is he going to clean out your gunsafe like Hillbama would? Doubtful.
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 06:48:36 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 07:02:04 PM
At the end of the day, and JBT's that try and clean my gunsafe will be just as dead, and I along with them, no matter who is CNC.
Can you elaborate please. Who are the JBT's that you are talking to?
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 07:07:28 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on February 10, 2008, 07:23:37 PM
At the end of the day, any JBT's that try and clean my gunsafe will be just as dead, and I along with them, no matter who is CNC.
Prime example of "cold, dead fingers" mentality: sets everyone back decades.
Plus, the self-aggrandizing idea that -- if JBTs came for your stuff -- you could do a damned thing about it is laughable.
There's lots of ways to fight such a long-shot eventuality, but idle boasting is not impactful. I recommend voting.
Post by: GigaBuist on February 10, 2008, 07:52:36 PM
Why does everyone here despise McCain-Feingold so much?
Restricts the 1st amendment.
How? What part of this prevents you from saying what you want to say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
Well, the NRA, as a corporation, isn't free to do what they want during the blackout period. I'm a member of the NRA (or at least I think I am, I need to check my status) and part of the reason I pay my dues is so that they can promote proper candidates.
They're now limited in that function. This is why they spawned the "NRA News" branch of the organization. IIRC they get some journalist protection with that, shielding themselves from McCain-Feingold.
It also places limits on how much I'm allowed to donate. I don't like that. I'm not in any danger of hitting that $2300 limit right now, but I might be some day. Further, with the precedent set, what's to say that the limit won't be $100 later on?
Finally, when it was passed there was a pretty big hub-bub in the blog community on what actually constitutes a campaign donation. As I understand it the law is written rather vague and it is only because the FEC doesn't want to mess with the blog community that they're not trying to interfere there at all. If the FEC ever affixed a dollar value to blog postings, mass emails, or even board postings we'd see a serious infringement on our 1st amendment rights. Yes, it's far fetched, but the FEC is under control of the Executive branch. Placing a fellow that's all for restricting political speech, based on cost, at the helm seems like a really bad idea to me.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 08:50:40 PM
consider your post ignored.
This is in itself a response to my posting. 
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 08:57:02 PM
At the end of the day, any JBT's that try and clean my gunsafe will be just as dead, and I along with them, no matter who is CNC.
Prime example of "cold, dead fingers" mentality: sets everyone back decades.
Plus, the self-aggrandizing idea that -- if JBTs came for your stuff -- you could do a damned thing about it is laughable.
There's lots of ways to fight such a long-shot eventuality, but idle boasting is not impactful. I recommend voting.
And I definitely agree that it is laughable. I have my doubts whether a group of civilian gun owners could fight a highly trained SWAT team or other paramilitary group. Hell, just go to a gun show and see the numerous gun owners walking around who could fight off a chihuahua due to their weight. I for one will take your advice and continue voting for pro-freedom candidates such as Ron Paul. I think he is the best hope we have against John McCain.
Post by: Finch on February 10, 2008, 08:59:13 PM
Is he going to clean out your gunsafe like Hillbama would? Doubtful.
Well, if that were the only freedom I worried about then your point would be valid, but I also like my privacy and right to an attorney.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 10, 2008, 09:11:54 PM
Quote from: Wacki's Wiki article
In June of 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpetation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Some election law experts believe the new exception will render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless, while others believe the new exception is quite narrow. The Federal Election Commission's interpretation and application of the new exception during the 2008 election cycle will determine the true scope and impact of the Court's decision.
In other McCain news, the Gang of Fourteen
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 09:12:12 PM
Is he going to clean out your gunsafe like Hillbama would? Doubtful.
Well, if that were the only freedom I worried about then your point would be valid, but I also like my privacy and right to an attorney.
Post by: Finch on February 10, 2008, 10:25:33 PM
In other McCain news, the Gang of Fourteen
We also got the Keating Five...
Post by: Manedwolf on February 11, 2008, 04:52:46 AM
Is he going to clean out your gunsafe like Hillbama would? Doubtful.
Well, if that were the only freedom I worried about then your point would be valid, but I also like my privacy and right to an attorney.
2A is the one that lets you have a last "break glass in case of tyranny" option if all the other rights are taken away. If everyone is disarmed, and THEN the other rights are taken...what are you gonna do about it? The hypothetical fascists' forces have guns, and you don't. Game over.
The fact that many Americans are armed is something that has always, and will always dissuade would-be dictators from even trying, thus ensuring peace and the continuance of a republic, flawed or not.
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 06:01:13 AM
Quote
Say what you want about him, I'd still rather see him in office than either Hillary or Obama.
This. I don't like the guy either, but Obama and Hillary scare the crap out of me. We survived 8 years of pure Clinton evil before. No reason we can't do it again. Could be the spark that forces people to vote some of the low lives out of congress again. Hopefully, those that replace them will be better.
Obama is something else though. he can use the race card for 100 years and no one an ever call him on it. It gives him a huge advantage. that makes him a potentially more serious danger to our liberties.
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 11, 2008, 06:06:59 AM
Say what you want about him, I'd still rather see him in office than either Hillary or Obama.
Yes. It's just that nothing will change. That's preferable to everything being destroyed.
Another boring day is always preferable to a bulldozer coming through your wall.
Well said.
If McCain is the nominee (I'm conceding nothing!), then that's who we're left with. Sad, because there were several superior choices at the beginning of the race. But, my new rallying cry will become, "McCain ! Better than Hillbama !"
As I understand it, McCain voted against the AWB, and I read recently where he was committed to nominating very conservative Supreme Court Justices. Those two items are very important to me, and I believe Hillbama would fail both tests.
Further, while McCain sponsored the despised McCain-Feingold act, I'm guessing (I haven't looked it up, I don't know where to look it up) that Clinton and Obama voted for it also, so that issue is nearly a wash.
Post by: K Frame on February 11, 2008, 06:13:06 AM
Hillary is far worse than Bill ever was.
Grasping and power hungry barely scratch the surface.
Remember her comment about theirs being a co-presidency?
A movie quote comes to mind...
There is only one Lord of Mordor, and he does not share power.
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 06:28:27 AM
"We survived 8 years of pure Clinton evil before. No reason we can't do it again."
Hillary is far worse than Bill ever was.
Grasping and power hungry barely scratch the surface.
Remember her comment about theirs being a co-presidency?
A movie quote comes to mind...
There is only one Lord of Mordor, and he does not share power.
I don't believe Hillary is any worse than Bill. Bill is just more likable, so people tend to give him a pass.
Hillary is far worse than Bill ever was.
Grasping and power hungry barely scratch the surface.
Remember her comment about theirs being a co-presidency?
A movie quote comes to mind...
There is only one Lord of Mordor, and he does not share power.
Post by: seeker_two on February 11, 2008, 06:59:31 AM
"We survived 8 years of pure Clinton evil before. No reason we can't do it again."
Hillary is far worse than Bill ever was.
Grasping and power hungry barely scratch the surface.
Remember her comment about theirs being a co-presidency?
A movie quote comes to mind...
There is only one Lord of Mordor, and he does not share power.
I don't believe Hillary is any worse than Bill. Bill is just more likable, so people tend to give him a pass. Hillary is far worse than Bill ever was.
Grasping and power hungry barely scratch the surface.
Remember her comment about theirs being a co-presidency?
A movie quote comes to mind...
There is only one Lord of Mordor, and he does not share power.
That's why I'm voting for Obama in the Texas primary and then vote for a third-party conservative in the general election. Obama is a one-termer at best....
Post by: roo_ster on February 11, 2008, 07:05:47 AM
He has drunk the global warming kool-aid
Amnesty bill
Wants to "close the gun show loophole"
An economic illiterate
Contemptuous of folks who worked hard to earn their money instead of marrying it like he did
Wants to outlaw more vigorous interrogation techniques but expects our men to break those laws if need be
His only private-sector job was given him by his FIL and was held for around a year before he ran for Congress
I could go on...
Post by: Ron on February 11, 2008, 02:23:51 PM
McCain-Fiengold Incumbent Protection and First Amendment Defenestration Act
He has drunk the global warming kool-aid
Amnesty bill
Wants to "close the gun show loophole"
An economic illiterate
Contemptuous of folks who worked hard to earn their money instead of marrying it like he did
Wants to outlaw more vigorous interrogation techniques but expects our men to break those laws if need be
His only private-sector job was given him by his FIL and was held for around a year before he ran for Congress
I could go on...
He has drunk the global warming kool-aid
Amnesty bill
Wants to "close the gun show loophole"
An economic illiterate
Contemptuous of folks who worked hard to earn their money instead of marrying it like he did
Wants to outlaw more vigorous interrogation techniques but expects our men to break those laws if need be
His only private-sector job was given him by his FIL and was held for around a year before he ran for Congress
I could go on...
Still light years better than Obama/Clinton
Post by: K Frame on February 11, 2008, 04:33:17 PM
Well, you hold on to that dream/fantasy/hope.
I have absolutely no doubt that Hillary isn't just as bad as Bill, she's pure, unadulterated evil of a kind that's normally only seen in the leaders of third world nations.
Post by: Ryan in Maine on February 11, 2008, 04:50:27 PM
Post by: Paddy on February 11, 2008, 04:55:15 PM
Do you have any rational basis for that Mike? Or is is just a gut reaction of some kind? I'd much rather see Hillary in the Whitehouse than Obama.
Post by: Bogie on February 11, 2008, 05:14:34 PM
And may actually get folks out to vote.
As for McCain... I see him as a one-term president. He's not going to get a honeymoon period. And the media and internet crews will be hard at work skewing public opinion against him.
And both Obama and Clinton are making promises that they're not gonna be able to keep. And that's gonna piss off their voters.
All told, I'd like to see Hillary go against McCain. I think McCain will get it, and then he's gonna be awful durn busy.
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 11, 2008, 05:36:50 PM
Quote
McCain-Fiengold Incumbent Protection and First Amendment Defenestration Act
This is bad all right. Did Hillbama vote for these, though ? Im guessing they did, and if so, theyre nearly as bad as McCain (as sponsor) on this issue.
Quote
He has drunk the global warming kool-aid
Same for Hillbama, Im guessing.
Quote
Wants to "close the gun show loophole"
And Hillbama would push for and sign a new AWB, which to my mind is far worse than the gun show loophole.
Quote
An economic illiterate
Worse than socialists ?
Quote
Contemptuous of folks who worked hard to earn their money instead of marrying it like he did
Worse than the socialists about being contemptuous of the little people ?
Quote
His only private-sector job was given him by his FIL and was held for around a year before he ran for Congress
So ?
I dont think youve identified any issue where McCain is worse than Hillbama. And I think he will be much better than Hillbama on the issues of Supreme Court Justice nominees and not signing an AWB.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 11, 2008, 06:07:19 PM
These might be deal-breaking if you were comparing McCain to Ron Paul, but when youre comparing McCain to Hillbama & well, lets take a look.
This is bad all right. Did Hillbama vote for these, though ? Im guessing they did, and if so, theyre nearly as bad as McCain (as sponsor) on this issue.
Same for Hillbama, Im guessing.
And Hillbama would push for and sign a new AWB, which to my mind is far worse than the gun show loophole.
Worse than socialists ?
Worse than the socialists about being contemptuous of the little people ?
So ?
I dont think youve identified any issue where McCain is worse than Hillbama. And I think he will be much better than Hillbama on the issues of Supreme Court Justice nominees and not signing an AWB.
There is an awful lot of speculation in your post. Lots of guesswork if you know what I mean...
Quote
McCain-Fiengold Incumbent Protection and First Amendment Defenestration Act
This is bad all right. Did Hillbama vote for these, though ? Im guessing they did, and if so, theyre nearly as bad as McCain (as sponsor) on this issue.
Quote
He has drunk the global warming kool-aid
Same for Hillbama, Im guessing.
Quote
Wants to "close the gun show loophole"
And Hillbama would push for and sign a new AWB, which to my mind is far worse than the gun show loophole.
Quote
An economic illiterate
Worse than socialists ?
Quote
Contemptuous of folks who worked hard to earn their money instead of marrying it like he did
Worse than the socialists about being contemptuous of the little people ?
Quote
His only private-sector job was given him by his FIL and was held for around a year before he ran for Congress
So ?
I dont think youve identified any issue where McCain is worse than Hillbama. And I think he will be much better than Hillbama on the issues of Supreme Court Justice nominees and not signing an AWB.
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 11, 2008, 07:57:39 PM
I mean, the original post was put forth without documentation also. I don't see that my "insights" are any less substantiated.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 12, 2008, 01:28:27 AM
Ban the sale or transfer of ALL semiautomatics. ALL. Got a Garand in your family to be passed down from generation to generation? Too bad, the government will take it and destroy it. Not yours.
and
Have a national ban on concealed carry for all but retired police and military. I.E., police state.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 12, 2008, 01:49:39 AM
I know what he has said and done. I am an IL resident.
However I just am bothered by quotes like this... "This is bad all right. Did Hillbama vote for these, though ? Im guessing they did, and if so, theyre nearly as bad as McCain (as sponsor) on this issue." THis one also comes to mind.. "Same for Hillbama, Im guessing."
The fact that your guessing and making assumptions just was interesting. Thats all.
Post by: Scout26 on February 12, 2008, 02:39:35 AM
Quote from: jfuser
Defenestration
One of my All-Time favorite words.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheranism/99284
Quote
...snip....The Second Defenestration of Prague occured in 1618. In this second defenestration, two vice-regents of the Austrian monarch and some governors of the Czech lands were thrown out of a tower window at Prague Castle. They were not killed, however. They fell onto a pile of garbage (mostly straw) which had accumulated in the castle moat. Obviously the irate group involved in this defenestration didn't plan as well as their Hussite forbears.
But this second defenestration is noteworthy because it is pointed out as the igniter of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648).
But this second defenestration is noteworthy because it is pointed out as the igniter of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648).
Post by: LAK on February 12, 2008, 02:40:00 AM
Quote
A lot of people on the right seem to HATE McCain. Limbaugh certainly seems to be a prime example of this. Yet is is probably the rights most electable candidate. I'm curious to know what the members of this forum think of him and more importantly... why they think that way.
"Hate" or "love" are not what come to mind when I think of national leaders. More in terms of their specific ideas; and what exactly are they going to do as president.Certainly useful to know what their views are on this or that topic; rights, money, foreign policy etc. However, to make of judgement of McCain or anyone else I want to know what are they going to do about them - or not do about them.
McCain has made it clear, by omission, that he really is not going to do anything that needs doing. He is simply another, "Well ... you don't want [so and so] in office do you??!!" So, the show can go on. Corporate-government can have business as usual, the geopolitical agenda will continue, and we can be fleeced in the process while our rights and Constitution will continue to be chipped away.
I'd rather have another Clinton in the WH than McCain. She won't fool as many as McCain.
-------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Scout26 on February 12, 2008, 03:22:20 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
She's pure, unadulterated evil of a kind that's normally only seen in the leaders of third world nations.
Bill could and does hide his evil very well with his "Aw shucks, I'm for the litte guy." sthick. Hillary just can't lie/decieve as well as Bill does.
And yes, I've already have my reservation for the Re-Education camp once Hillary gets elected.
Hillary '08 - Stalin was a piker !!
Post by: Manedwolf on February 12, 2008, 03:33:21 AM
Buy stock in any companies that produce cosmoline. Their sales will have an unexplained spike.
Post by: roo_ster on February 12, 2008, 06:09:13 AM
There is no question of my voting for him in the Texas primary. I'll likely vote for the Weirdo Magnet, Ron Paul, since my gag reflex kicks in whenever I think seriously of endorsing Mccain or Huck as my choice for Republican candidate.
My decision for the general election is all fraught with ambivalence.
Hillobama will not get my vote in this universe. I just don't know if I can yank the lever for Mccain.
I can see the Republicans in Congress fighting a whole lot more with Hillobama in the WH than with one who shares the GOP label. And I really don't want McAmnesty as the leader of the party for 4 years.
Oh, well, I still have time.
================
My wife has a clearer path. She does not worry about positive votes FOR anyone, just making sure she votes AGAINST the Democrat, whatever the office in question.
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 12, 2008, 06:23:37 AM
Quote
My point was not that Hillobama is better than Mccain on the issues, as the OP asked about my views on McAmnesty.
That's true; I jumped the gun by assuming you were trying to make a case to vote for Hillbama over McCain.
Post by: seeker_two on February 12, 2008, 06:27:26 AM
Tecumseh, Obama has outright stated that he wants to:
Ban the sale or transfer of ALL semiautomatics. ALL. Got a Garand in your family to be passed down from generation to generation? Too bad, the government will take it and destroy it. Not yours.
and
Have a national ban on concealed carry for all but retired police and military. I.E., police state.
Ban the sale or transfer of ALL semiautomatics. ALL. Got a Garand in your family to be passed down from generation to generation? Too bad, the government will take it and destroy it. Not yours.
and
Have a national ban on concealed carry for all but retired police and military. I.E., police state.
True....but how much of a chance does that have of getting through a Congress with Republicans who know their political careers are on the line after the conservatives make an example of the Great McCain Defeat of '08?.......
That's why I want One-Term Obama to win the Democrat primary. He doesn't have the backbone or bag 'o dirty tricks to push through that legislation that Hillary will, and McCain would sign it just to slap conservatives down.
America can survive four years of Obama.....but not eight years of McCain or a lifetime of Hillary......
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 12, 2008, 07:17:39 AM
Quote
True....but how much of a chance does that have of getting through a Congress with Republicans who know their political careers are on the line after the conservatives make an example of the Great McCain Defeat of '08?
How do you know that in the '08 election, as Obama is elected, that more Democrats won't be elected in Congress and the Senate to overwhelm the Republican votes ? A better chance for "gridlock" is to vote in a Republican president; the Senate and Congress are already Democrat.
Post by: seeker_two on February 12, 2008, 07:32:10 AM
Quote
True....but how much of a chance does that have of getting through a Congress with Republicans who know their political careers are on the line after the conservatives make an example of the Great McCain Defeat of '08?
How do you know that in the '08 election, as Obama is elected, that more Democrats won't be elected in Congress and the Senate to overwhelm the Republican votes ? A better chance for "gridlock" is to vote in a Republican president; the Senate and Congress are already Democrat.
That would work if a "Republican" was running.....
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2008, 07:50:10 AM
Unless I misread this.
-BP
Post by: Bogie on February 12, 2008, 11:45:08 AM
With Obama in, I think we'd see a rapid removal of troops from the middle east. You may think that's good, but I think it'll be seen viewed by the population over there as a surrender and a sign of weakness, which means that they should then go on the offensive. Not good. Hillary's gonna pull out too, but I think it'll end up being slower and more pragmatic about getting the governments over there stabilized.
McCain? How many B52s do we have available?
I think that Obama is a worst case scenario. I don't think that Hillary will be able to accomplish much, but if Obama gets in, there's gonna be a RUSH of stuff that we're NOT going to like... And it's all gonna get pushed through. With Hillary, she's not going to get a honeymoon period, and she's going to run into -strong- opposition. Plus, I think that she'll sell a lot of guns. People who are so-so/apathetic about Obama get rabid about her... I think she'll get a LOT more Republican voters out on election day than Obama will...
Post by: Paddy on February 12, 2008, 02:43:06 PM
Post by: Bogie on February 12, 2008, 03:40:17 PM
I mean, the guy's coming across squeaky clean. And he's a Chicago politician. Those two do NOT go together.
She's already doing setups for it - Today they were talking about how she was saying she had no undiscovered skeletons in -her- closet... and by insinuation, that he does...
Post by: seeker_two on February 13, 2008, 01:49:15 AM
Post by: RoadKingLarry on February 13, 2008, 08:40:35 AM
Quote
but the existence of a consensus among WORKING scientists should be obvious
Science is not about "consensus". If those on the side of "consensus" were willing to entertain debate and discusion about the issueI might have respect for that side. As it is anyone who dares raise the possiblilty that "global warming", oh wait, now its "climate change" might not be man made is lambasted and threatened with censure and loss of acedemic credentials.
As for McCain as veteran I resepct the hell out of what that man did for this country while in the military but I don't much care for his politics. I will however vote for him before either the beast or hussein.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 13, 2008, 08:55:29 AM
As for McCain as veteran I resepct the hell out of what that man did for this country while in the military but I don't much care for his politics. I will however vote for him before either the beast or hussein.
There are a lot of other veterans out there, including former POWs, who just served honorably and now don't really talk about it. They just go on with their lives.
McCain has MILKED his POW status (so he got shot down, does that make him better than the pilots who didn't get shot down...?) for political gain, and I really can't respect that.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on February 13, 2008, 11:00:41 AM
Of course Hillary's got dirt on these two.....the Clintons still have access to FBI files and national archives.....and who was the attorney with the stuffed pants?.....
Are you refereing to sandy
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 13, 2008, 01:49:17 PM
As for McCain as veteran I resepct the hell out of what that man did for this country while in the military but I don't much care for his politics. I will however vote for him before either the beast or hussein.
There are a lot of other veterans out there, including former POWs, who just served honorably and now don't really talk about it. They just go on with their lives.
McCain has MILKED his POW status (so he got shot down, does that make him better than the pilots who didn't get shot down...?) for political gain, and I really can't respect that.
how do you percieve hes "milked " his status?
Post by: Finch on February 13, 2008, 01:53:56 PM
As for McCain as veteran I resepct the hell out of what that man did for this country while in the military but I don't much care for his politics. I will however vote for him before either the beast or hussein.
There are a lot of other veterans out there, including former POWs, who just served honorably and now don't really talk about it. They just go on with their lives.
McCain has MILKED his POW status (so he got shot down, does that make him better than the pilots who didn't get shot down...?) for political gain, and I really can't respect that.
how do you percieve hes "milked " his status?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywXFhulpVPk
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 13, 2008, 02:14:38 PM
Post by: seeker_two on February 13, 2008, 02:16:46 PM
Of course Hillary's got dirt on these two.....the Clintons still have access to FBI files and national archives.....and who was the attorney with the stuffed pants?.....
Are you refereing to sandy
THAT'S the guy........McCain & Obama may be a zipper-pull away from a scandal....
Post by: geronimotwo on February 14, 2008, 01:54:13 AM
Post by: Finch on February 14, 2008, 10:44:24 AM
i hope ron paul runs as an independant. he is the only one with the integrity to tell it like it is.
He has confirmed that he will not run as an independent. Which is a shame, I would have loved to see him split the republican vote and delivery a victory to Hillbama.
Post by: geronimotwo on February 14, 2008, 11:34:55 AM
i hope ron paul runs as an independant. he is the only one with the integrity to tell it like it is.
He has confirmed that he will not run as an independent. Which is a shame, I would have loved to see him split the republican vote and delivery a victory to Hillbama.
do you mean to say that he would take the republican votes, and leave the psudo-republicans behind?
Post by: Archie on February 14, 2008, 12:15:20 PM
The Democrat candidate will be either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. From my point of view as a life-long American who believes in the Constitution as originally written, sucess based on effort and ability, and so forth, both of them are worse than the other. Both will actively work - and that means manipulate, bullyrag, manuever, wheedle, cheat lie and steal - to destroy private enterprize, personal responsibility, any religion that rivals Secular Humanism and the benefits and rights in the Constitution toward the populace.
Senator McCain has his own drawbacks. He is currently the likely Republican candidate. He is, as the saying goes, the lesser of two evils. I think - and pray - his nominees for the Supreme Court will be more Constitutionally oriented than those of the Democrat candidate. THAT, if nothing else - and he does seem a bit more pro gun (but that's like saying he's the leper with the most fingers) - is the reason we have to elect Senator McCain.
To those who feel they will rise above the rest of us and '... not waste a vote on the lesser of two evils...' try to get this through your head. Ron Paul will not win the general election. I like Dr. Paul (other than his total and absolute lack of world politics), but he's not going to ever win the Presidency. A vote for Ron Paul - or Huckabee - or Fred Thomson (who I really like) in the general election is a vote for whoever gets the pennant for the Democrats. Understand that; if you don't vote for the Republican nominee, you're electing the Democrat.
The same applies to those who are going to vote to show President Bush how much you hate him.
I have invented a new drink which I have named in honor of Senator McCain. It's two jiggers of tequila - in honor of Senator McCain's proximity to Mexico - and two jiggers of Maalox - in defense of my stomach.
Post by: Finch on February 14, 2008, 12:36:00 PM
Whoever wins, we lose.
Post by: Bogie on February 14, 2008, 12:47:49 PM
I mean, we've had a constant media bombardment for the past seven years... And since it's been constant, it has eventually "stuck."
That's the nature of "big lie" propaganda - Keep repeating it, and people begin to believe it.
And if it rhymes, it's even better!
Post by: seeker_two on February 15, 2008, 01:33:29 AM
Archie, you assume that we all think that Hillbama is worse than McCain. I don't view one worse than the other. I think they both suck and neither of them should or can be president. I honestly think we will be equally screwed with McCain or Hillbama, just in different ways. McCain will lead us to financial ruin through endless wars that we don't need, and Hillbama will lead us to financial ruin through welfare and entitlements. McCain will destroy our freedoms to "protect" us from a band of thugs, Hillbama will destroy our freedoms to protect us from ourselves.
Whoever wins, we lose.
Whoever wins, we lose.
Couldn't agree with you more. This election, we have a choice of bonfires on which to burn the Constitution......
Post by: SomeKid on February 15, 2008, 01:58:00 AM
Consider this theory:
McCain wins, acts like a crazy liberal, makes everyone hate Republicans even more. 2010 Democrats strenghten their holds on Congress. 2012 a Deomcrat beats him. Democrats now have a STRONG margin in Congress, and, a DEM POTUS. People are pissed at the GOP for everything, and the party takes a decade or more to recover, and come back as a conservative power. In the meantime, for years and maybe decades on end, Democrats hold onto Congress tightly. We could maybe even re-live the 70's...
Hill/Hussein wins, acts like a psychotic liberal, has a slim Democrat lead in Congress. In two years, everyone is mad enough to cause another 1994 in 2010 causing gridlock with a GOP congress and Dem president. Democrats are viewed again by many as being the evil group they are. People stop blaming every bad thing up to and including the death of Christ on the GOP. GOP leaders remember (for the nth time) that being conservative America loving/freedom supporting good guys wins them elections. GOP shifts right after re-learning these lessons in 2008. 2012 a conservative, gun owner supporting, border closing, tax cutting, penny pinching pro-lifer gets nominated. 2012 Republicans kick out the psychotic liberal in the POTUS, reinforce their Congressional lead.
Here one of two things happen. They screw up like they did for Bush's first 6 years, acting like Democrats, or they act like conservatives, keep the base happy, woo people over to the good side, and stay in power.
As seeker said, this time it is a question of who rapes the country. I say let the democrats get themselves dirty. It will give us a chance to re-form the GOP, hopefully into a better party. If done quickly and completely, the rape of our country won't last the rest of my lifetime.
Post by: Bogie on February 15, 2008, 06:58:05 AM
Post by: Sheng_Pao on February 17, 2008, 10:42:25 AM
McCain= Preservation of True Conservatism to a certain extent.
Hillary/Obama= The end of America as a free nation. The beginning of the Fourth Reich.
Ron Paul= The REbirth of America. Criminals, gang-bangers and perverts would be hiding in caves shivering with terror. No more of that ridiculous thing called a "parole".
Post by: Manedwolf on February 17, 2008, 10:47:42 AM
Not that it matters, because he's less of a footnote than Ross Perot ever was, but it's annoying when people are so evangelical without knowing anything about what they promote.
Post by: Sheng_Pao on February 17, 2008, 10:52:53 AM
I read EVERYTHING Ron Paul has written, and the more I read, the more my heart swelled with pride. He has the courage to say things and say truths that most people nowadays would deny even if they realize, all for the sake of political correctness. Seriously, if I have the chance to rename New York City, I would name it something much, much worse, something associated with the place in prison where the worst of the worst scumbags are housed.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 17, 2008, 11:03:36 AM
Manedwolf, should we call that poor guy a lunatic just because he said the TRUTH?
I read EVERYTHING Ron Paul has written, and the more I read, the more my heart swelled with pride. He has the courage to say things and say truths that most people nowadays would deny even if they realize, all for the sake of political correctness. Seriously, if I have the chance to rename New York City, I would name it something much, much worse, something associated with the place in prison where the worst of the worst scumbags are housed.
I read EVERYTHING Ron Paul has written, and the more I read, the more my heart swelled with pride. He has the courage to say things and say truths that most people nowadays would deny even if they realize, all for the sake of political correctness. Seriously, if I have the chance to rename New York City, I would name it something much, much worse, something associated with the place in prison where the worst of the worst scumbags are housed.
Are you referring to the disgustingly racist swill he published in his newsletter?
Quote
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."
If so, I have a very low opinion of you about now. Speaking of cultural problems is one thing. But his writings went well into the realm of calling people horrendous names for being of skin colors other than white, and that is NEVER acceptable. That garbage belongs on Stormfront and other pestulant sewers on the internet, out of sight of civilized people.
Perhaps you ought to stand behind David Duke, instead.
Post by: Sheng_Pao on February 17, 2008, 11:08:05 AM
Quote
Are you referring to the disgustingly racist swill he published in his newsletter?
Okay, don't mean to be racist, but WHO THE HELL commits a majority of crimes in the US?
Hint: A quadraplegic was thrown out of his wheelchair this week.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 17, 2008, 11:08:53 AM
Quote
Are you referring to the disgustingly racist swill he published in his newsletter?
Okay, don't mean to be racist, but WHO THE HELL commits a majority of crimes in the US?
Criminals.
And yeah, you do mean to be racist.
Post by: Sheng_Pao on February 17, 2008, 11:11:12 AM
Quote
Criminals.
And yeah, you do mean to be racist.
And yeah, you do mean to be racist.
Lets not argue, but please see the facts.
What if you were a relative of that poor man that was hurled out of his wheelchair and then kicked while on the ground?
Post by: Sheng_Pao on February 17, 2008, 11:18:01 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 17, 2008, 01:34:31 PM
Ah, but don't confuse "conservative voter" with "religious voter." Remember that most of the "evangelicals" were Democrats up until Carter...
This has been claimed a million times, mainly by you. Can anyone demonstrate why I should believe that?
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 17, 2008, 03:37:51 PM
Quote
Okay, okay Manedwolf. I am sorry for having offended you.
Don't get carried away. There are a surprising number of folks here who go to extremes to try and justify the fact (to themselves, they're not convincing anybody else) that they are not voting for the best RKBA candidate.
You hang around here long enough and you'll see some real fancy dancin' !
Post by: Manedwolf on February 17, 2008, 03:44:55 PM
Quote
Okay, okay Manedwolf. I am sorry for having offended you.
Don't get carried away. There are a surprising number of folks here who go to extremes to try and justify the fact (to themselves, they're not convincing anybody else) that they are not voting for the best RKBA candidate.
You hang around here long enough and you'll see some real fancy dancin' !
And there's also some people who I suspect of having a mini altar to Ron Paul in their closet, covered with photos of the guy.
Post by: Bogie on February 17, 2008, 05:21:53 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 17, 2008, 05:37:58 PM
Manedwolf, should we call that poor guy a lunatic just because he said the TRUTH?
I read EVERYTHING Ron Paul has written, and the more I read, the more my heart swelled with pride. He has the courage to say things and say truths that most people nowadays would deny even if they realize, all for the sake of political correctness. Seriously, if I have the chance to rename New York City, I would name it something much, much worse, something associated with the place in prison where the worst of the worst scumbags are housed.
I read EVERYTHING Ron Paul has written, and the more I read, the more my heart swelled with pride. He has the courage to say things and say truths that most people nowadays would deny even if they realize, all for the sake of political correctness. Seriously, if I have the chance to rename New York City, I would name it something much, much worse, something associated with the place in prison where the worst of the worst scumbags are housed.
do you really expect us to believe you read everything paul has written? or are you another poster child for why paul can't win? gonna be one more nail in his creditability? his biggextr flaw is the way he draws flakes the way a candle draws moths
Post by: LAK on February 18, 2008, 01:03:36 AM
They ought to have their hero Pastor step forward as a running mate for John U.N. McCain.
--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Manedwolf on February 18, 2008, 12:17:47 PM
I suspect there are some folks here who would prefer someone like Robert A. Pastor in the WH instead of a genuine patriot like Ron Paul.
They ought to have their hero Pastor step forward as a running mate for John U.N. McCain.
--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
They ought to have their hero Pastor step forward as a running mate for John U.N. McCain.
--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Regarding my previous post vs. this one...
What've you got, candles, or incense?
Post by: HK-91-762MM on February 18, 2008, 04:13:18 PM
AT least he supports an assault weapon ban -!
And thats the reason I support another posters opinion =I wish he was still in nam better yet dead!
We have no one to vote for this election !
MCcstain is a RINO and will get the support of Liberal Republicans AND liberal demoncraps in Banning MY GUNS!
I have no use for his kind !!!!
Post by: Bogie on February 18, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Or we can fragment the firearms community even further, and completely negate our numbers as a voting block. If the election is close, we're going to be seeing a LOT of folks saying "just don't vote" or "vote third party." They're the ones who don't care what happens to our gun rights, as long as we don't vote for McCain - because every vote McCain gathers is one that Obama or Hillary will have to match/beat.
It's that simple. It's the lesser of two evils. It sucks. But hey, sometimes suckage is all you've got.
Post by: ilbob on February 18, 2008, 05:05:00 PM
Ah, but don't confuse "conservative voter" with "religious voter." Remember that most of the "evangelicals" were Democrats up until Carter...
This has been claimed a million times, mainly by you. Can anyone demonstrate why I should believe that?
many in the south were democrats, back when democrats were not in cahoots with the left to destroy the country.
they started leaving the democratic party in 1968 to vote for Nixon, and few ever went back, as the democratic party became the party that hates anyone with serious religious convictions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2008, 07:37:06 PM
Ah, but don't confuse "conservative voter" with "religious voter." Remember that most of the "evangelicals" were Democrats up until Carter...
This has been claimed a million times, mainly by you. Can anyone demonstrate why I should believe that?
OK, nothing so far.
Post by: Finch on February 18, 2008, 10:02:48 PM
They're the ones who don't care what happens to our gun rights,
No, they are the ones who care about all their rights.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2008, 06:04:01 AM
They're the ones who don't care what happens to our gun rights,
No, they are the ones who care about all their rights.
By performing the voting equivalent of dousing themselves with gasoline and lighting themselves on fire. Does it make a statement? Sure. Does it accomplish anything?
Nope.
And don't try to pretend differently, or you're deluding yourself. Diverting votes from the flawed Republican is giving them to the Democrats who want to destroy everything.
Post by: Bogie on February 19, 2008, 07:25:03 AM
I _do_ remember my childhood in the south. And a sudden swing when the religious folks were suddenly Republicans - Falwell's Moral Majority, etc...
FWIW, we had some of Jim and Tammy Faye's folks move into town (and those folks were -tacky-), and we tended to pay attention to that sort of thing...
Post by: seeker_two on February 19, 2008, 07:42:40 AM
......I can't add anything to make it any funnier than that.....
Post by: Tecumseh on February 19, 2008, 08:50:56 AM
Ah, but don't confuse "conservative voter" with "religious voter." Remember that most of the "evangelicals" were Democrats up until Carter...
This has been claimed a million times, mainly by you. Can anyone demonstrate why I should believe that?
many in the south were democrats, back when democrats were not in cahoots with the left to destroy the country.
they started leaving the democratic party in 1968 to vote for Nixon, and few ever went back, as the democratic party became the party that hates anyone with serious religious convictions.
I believe many in the South were democrats simply because their ancestors were all the way back until the GOP was founded. Republicans wanted to free slaves, and the early democrats did not. Many simply vote the way their family voted. The Southerners wanted to keep slaves and the Democrats at the time were ok with that.
Today I would argue it is the GOP that would allow slavery and the Democrats would ban it. But that is another discussion.
In the end I think that the GOP is guilty as well as the Democrats in trying to destroy the country. Need we look further than the current administration.
Post by: HK-91-762MM on February 19, 2008, 08:58:20 AM
I live in NY stinking state and we defeated Mario Cuomo MR assault weapon banner himself! [qt we will ban these killing machines ]
We replaced him with The KING of all RINOs - Gov. G.Patakki. Who proceeded to Shove gun bans up our butts the likes of would make Cuomo Dance with glee!
I fear the Liberals will introduce a Gun Ban Renewal -and the Liberal Repubs will go along -IF McCstain Is president he will go along and sign the Bill!
Better we have a Hitlery or YOmomma Ohbomma signing and getting credit fir any Gun Bans -
Remember -First they banned My assault rifles [Hunters did not complain]= Then they Banned 50 Cal target rifles =No one complained ]Then they banned small handguns [A few people complained ] =then they banned scoped sniper rifles[deer rifles] [Skeet and trap shooters Cared less ] when they came for everyone elses shotgun[DEADLY MULTI PROJECTILE FIRING WEAPONS ] No one was left to fight !
Sorry if I sound Down in the dumps -! I need cheering up :-)
Post by: Finch on February 19, 2008, 09:21:15 AM
And don't try to pretend differently, or you're deluding yourself. Diverting votes from the flawed Republican is giving them to the Democrats who want to destroy everything.
Saying they are flawed is a gross understatement. Our current breed of republicans are doing a fine job of destroying things -- like liberty. McCain is a compromiser. That is more than evident with McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold. Thinking that he won't sign anti-gun legislation is wishful at best.
Post by: Sheng_Pao on February 19, 2008, 05:16:46 PM
Quote
do you really expect us to believe you read everything paul has written? or are you another poster child for why paul can't win? gonna be one more nail in his creditability? his biggextr flaw is the way he draws flakes the way a candle draws moths
Ron Paul is the only hope we have for America, and we still have people trying to trample all over him. Come ON ALREADY! Does it take another Klintonista to make us realize what we done wrong??? Remember, LIBERTY is just like LIFE. We can only give it away ONCE.
Post by: Bogie on February 19, 2008, 06:54:57 PM
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 19, 2008, 07:09:30 PM
Quote
And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
Well, yeah, most of our houses have reflective insulation.
Post by: LAK on February 19, 2008, 10:06:51 PM
John U.N. McCain is more than flawed; he's just another globalist frontman.
Just like George W Bush.
-------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2008, 10:10:50 PM
So, you vote for Ron Paul, who doesn't get elected. Does that accomplish ANYTHING?
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
Well, I hope the Paulistinians enjoy burning their RON PAUL signs in their fireplace the first winter after President Obama or President Clinton taxes them so hard they're left with pocket change. Because they'll have helped put them in office.
The term "useful idiots" comes to mind.
Post by: SomeKid on February 19, 2008, 10:22:21 PM
"Flawed republicans"?
John U.N. McCain is more than flawed; he's just another globalist frontman.
John U.N. McCain is more than flawed; he's just another globalist frontman.
If that were his only fault, I would not wish he was still in Vietnam, as a POW, or a corpse.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 20, 2008, 06:58:44 AM
Post by: seeker_two on February 20, 2008, 07:21:13 AM
So, you vote for Ron Paul, who doesn't get elected. Does that accomplish ANYTHING?
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
Well, I hope the Paulistinians enjoy burning their RON PAUL signs in their fireplace the first winter after President Obama or President Clinton taxes them so hard they're left with pocket change. Because they'll have helped put them in office.
The term "useful idiots" comes to mind.
And McCain will be any better?.........
....the same McCain who received the endorsement from George HW Bush, who assured us that McCain would not raise taxes?.........
....I'm tired of reading lips......
Post by: Manedwolf on February 20, 2008, 07:36:23 AM
So, you vote for Ron Paul, who doesn't get elected. Does that accomplish ANYTHING?
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
Well, I hope the Paulistinians enjoy burning their RON PAUL signs in their fireplace the first winter after President Obama or President Clinton taxes them so hard they're left with pocket change. Because they'll have helped put them in office.
The term "useful idiots" comes to mind.
And McCain will be any better?.........
....the same McCain who received the endorsement from George HW Bush, who assured us that McCain would not raise taxes?.........
....I'm tired of reading lips......
You're still not getting it.
THE CHOICE IS:
McCain
or
Hillary/Obama
I don't CARE if you don't like it. Neither do I! But that's reality! Nothing you do will change that, nothing the Paulistinians can do will change that, all they can do is waste votes and put the latter in office. You want to help with that, go right ahead, but don't DARE whine later about what Obama or Hillary do.
Post by: Finch on February 20, 2008, 09:53:23 AM
You're still not getting it.
THE CHOICE IS:
McCain
or
Hillary/Obama
I don't CARE if you don't like it. Neither do I! But that's reality! Nothing you do will change that, nothing the Paulistinians can do will change that, all they can do is waste votes and put the latter in office. You want to help with that, go right ahead, but don't DARE whine later about what Obama or Hillary do.
THE CHOICE IS:
McCain
or
Hillary/Obama
I don't CARE if you don't like it. Neither do I! But that's reality! Nothing you do will change that, nothing the Paulistinians can do will change that, all they can do is waste votes and put the latter in office. You want to help with that, go right ahead, but don't DARE whine later about what Obama or Hillary do.
And you're not getting it.
THEY ARE THE SAME!
Both will destroy this country and it's constitution. I'm not saying this as a Paul supporter. I know Paul is done. Fine, whatever. But McCain is no second choice. He is not a choice at all. He will not better this country. Just like Hillbama will not better this country. We are screwed either way.
Post by: Paddy on February 20, 2008, 12:05:44 PM
Add that to the number of Republicans and former Republicans who will just stay home, and he's gonna get beat like a redheaded stepchild.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 20, 2008, 12:07:10 PM
1. Isn't saying a damn thing.
2. Is a socialist.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 20, 2008, 12:11:23 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2008, 12:19:54 PM
On the contrary, the more Obama talks, the more people realize he:
1. Isn't saying a damn thing.
2. Is a socialist.
1. Isn't saying a damn thing.
2. Is a socialist.
Are you serious?
So far, every additional hour of exposure has catapulted him to more votes. You will notice that his winning streak is vastly increasing, and his poll numbers are going up every month.
Maybe you really want for this to be the case, but the facts do not support this view.
If the superdelegates don't select Hillary, it is extremely likely at this point that Obama will win the 2008 election. McCain is simply not that good at politics-he couldn't beat George Bush in 2000. He is hated by his party's core supporters. And if there is an antonym to charisma, it will be the word used to describe him when he stands next to the democratic nominee in the debates.
A continuation of the "conservative" winning streak of the 90's is fantasy at this point. GW has done too much damage to the movement, and it would take someone with the charisma and organizational skills of...Obama....to put up a realistic fight on the republican side.
Or hillary on the dem side, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen anyway.
Post by: Paddy on February 20, 2008, 12:21:10 PM
Quote
On the contrary, the more Obama talks, the more people realize he:
1. Isn't saying a damn thing.
2. Is a socialist.
1. Isn't saying a damn thing.
2. Is a socialist.
Completely agree. He's an empty suit who won't get anywhere near the stuff done he's promising. He'll disappoint everyone who votes for him. He'll also be a one termer if elected IMO.
You're on, cassandra'sdaddy.
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2008, 12:23:11 PM
Quote
On the contrary, the more Obama talks, the more people realize he:
1. Isn't saying a damn thing.
2. Is a socialist.
1. Isn't saying a damn thing.
2. Is a socialist.
Completely agree. He's an empty suit who won't get anywhere near the stuff done he's promising. He'll disappoint everyone who votes for him. He'll also be a one termer if elected IMO.
You're on, cassandra'sdaddy.
You mean like Slick Willie Clinton?
It's impossible to underestimate the power of good political organization and image advertising. You don't need to implement that many policies or do anything spectacular if you have those two things in America; Clinton proved that, and to a lesser degree, so did Bush (definitely more organization than image).
Even now there are people who pay homage to the Clinton years, despite the obvious fact that they accomplished nothing. He remains popular everywhere he goes. I think you are focusing on details that, while they should be important, just aren't key to winning elections in this country. "character" means a whole lot more than policy.
Post by: Paddy on February 20, 2008, 12:30:21 PM
1) The economic boom of the 90's for which he took credit. Remember, Bush Sr left us in a recession.
2) His opponent was wheezy old Bob Dole.
Obama (if elected) will not enjoy a prosperous economy during his first term. He won't deliver the stuff he's promising, either. People will want 'change'. He's got 'one term' written all over him.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 20, 2008, 12:32:21 PM
That would be catastrophic for many regions' stability and human rights, too.
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2008, 12:35:39 PM
There are two reasons Clinton was re-elected
1) The economic boom of the 90's for which he took credit. Remember, Bush Sr left us in a recession.
2) His opponent was wheezy old Bob Dole.
Obama (if elected) will not enjoy a prosperous economy during his first term. He won't deliver the stuff he's promising, either. People will want 'change'. He's got 'one term' written all over him.
1) The economic boom of the 90's for which he took credit. Remember, Bush Sr left us in a recession.
2) His opponent was wheezy old Bob Dole.
Obama (if elected) will not enjoy a prosperous economy during his first term. He won't deliver the stuff he's promising, either. People will want 'change'. He's got 'one term' written all over him.
1) The boom was just beginning in 1996, when Clinton faced re-election for the first time. He was also hated by an enormously popular conservative movement at that time. The same electorate that put Newt Gingrich in the driver's seat of Congress is the one that gave it to Clinton over Dole.
2) Couldn't agree more-the comparisons to McCain and any foreseeable candidate in 2012 are obvious. Obama in 2012 would face the likes of Mitt Romney, or someone who was similarly incapable of beating John McCain this time....not good prospects.
Obama will not need to deliver anything except a good speech and to avoid rocking the boat. That's how Clinton won term two, and that's how GW won term two...except without the good speech part.
I wish policy were more important in elections, but it is a simple fact that it isn't. This has been true at least since Carter/Reagan, and there's no reason why it will change with 2008's election.
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2008, 12:37:23 PM
He would, however, immediately go meet with dictators without condition, get used as a prop, and let those dictators reinforce their grip on power because "America the superpower recognizes them".
That would be catastrophic for many regions' stability and human rights, too.
That would be catastrophic for many regions' stability and human rights, too.
The tenacity of dictatorships has never had anything to do with American elections, and it won't this time either. Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam wasn't even on the radar during 04. This idea that Obama meeting with someone in such a way that they clown on him (think of the people you're talking about here-ahmadinejad and kim jong, or who?) is totally unrealistic.
Not only can you be sure that the polls will govern all of Obama's meetings, you can be equally sure that anyone he meets with (if anyone) will be too stupid to capitalize on it.
Post by: Paddy on February 20, 2008, 12:39:43 PM
The Obama Delusion
Post by: Manedwolf on February 20, 2008, 12:40:10 PM
He would, however, immediately go meet with dictators without condition, get used as a prop, and let those dictators reinforce their grip on power because "America the superpower recognizes them".
That would be catastrophic for many regions' stability and human rights, too.
That would be catastrophic for many regions' stability and human rights, too.
The tenacity of dictatorships has never had anything to do with American elections, and it won't this time either. Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam wasn't even on the radar during 04. This idea that Obama meeting with someone in such a way that they clown on him (think of the people you're talking about here-ahmadinejad and kim jong, or who?) is totally unrealistic.
Rumsfeld was not the President of the United States, a face everyone on the planet knows.
Post by: seeker_two on February 20, 2008, 01:59:20 PM
So, you vote for Ron Paul, who doesn't get elected. Does that accomplish ANYTHING?
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
He's getting a solid 5% across the country. And I'm thinking that at least 20% of those are folks who have lined their homes with aluminum foil...
Well, I hope the Paulistinians enjoy burning their RON PAUL signs in their fireplace the first winter after President Obama or President Clinton taxes them so hard they're left with pocket change. Because they'll have helped put them in office.
The term "useful idiots" comes to mind.
And McCain will be any better?.........
....the same McCain who received the endorsement from George HW Bush, who assured us that McCain would not raise taxes?.........
....I'm tired of reading lips......
You're still not getting it.
THE CHOICE IS:
McCain
or
Hillary/Obama
I don't CARE if you don't like it. Neither do I! But that's reality! Nothing you do will change that, nothing the Paulistinians can do will change that, all they can do is waste votes and put the latter in office. You want to help with that, go right ahead, but don't DARE whine later about what Obama or Hillary do.
And when McCain signs the Democrat-supported bills that do the exact same thing as anything proposed by Hillbama, I expect you to stifle your cries of agony as well......
I refuse to be an accomplice to the slow murder of this Republic and its Constitution......
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on February 20, 2008, 02:47:49 PM
Post by: grampster on February 20, 2008, 03:18:02 PM
"I give you hope, hahh. I give you change, hahh. Top O the world, Hahh....
At least the Baptist minister's sermon is about the Truth the Light and the Way.
One would hope that if it's McCain V Obama, that McCain will have some very astute folks who will be able to disect everything than Obama says and counters it with reason, light and cause and effect.
Post by: Bogie on February 20, 2008, 03:25:51 PM
McCain won't be picking his - he'll rubber stamp them, but they'll basically be picked by the party at large. He's going to be wanting to play nice with is folks in hopes of a second term. I suspect that we'll get some fairly conservative judges with him. Won't have to do a lot of worrying about 2nd amendment stuff.
Hillary will likely use the positions as rewards, and they'll be moderate to left leaning Democrats. Not a lot of immediate problems, but not good either.
Obama will likely go with the far left democrats. Picture Jesse Jackson in the supreme court.
I'm hoping it goes to McCain/Clinton... Because Obama speaks real nice, and acts real nice, and the people who watch a lot of TV will vote for him.
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2008, 03:39:28 PM
Quote
I'm hoping it goes to McCain/Clinton... Because Obama speaks real nice, and acts real nice, and the people who watch a lot of TV will vote for him.
You mean like the vast majority of the population?
Conservative judges do not care about the second amendment-it's not a battle that is going to be won in the courts. But that doesn't mean Obama is good for gun rights, obviously. Just means that worrying about the federal court nominees is focusing on the wrong details.
Post by: Paddy on February 20, 2008, 03:52:09 PM
Quote
You mean like the vast majority of the population?
And at one time, the vast majority of the population thought that owning black slaves was ok. Popular public opinion can be wrong. Very wrong.
Post by: grampster on February 20, 2008, 06:06:17 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2008, 06:59:43 PM
Quote
You mean like the vast majority of the population?
And at one time, the vast majority of the population thought that owning black slaves was ok. Popular public opinion can be wrong. Very wrong.
Not only can it be wrong-it has proven itself to be wrong, just like you point out.
This very real fact doesn't change the odds on this election, though.
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 20, 2008, 07:10:47 PM
Quote
The term "useful idiots" comes to mind.
Uh-oh ! Somebody had a bad Saint Valentine's Night !
Post by: SomeKid on February 20, 2008, 08:39:46 PM
saying something stupid twice makes a statement probably not the one you are trying for but one never knows
Being entirely unable to use even a semblance of proper grammar sends a message to.
Post by: LAK on February 20, 2008, 11:01:08 PM
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2008, 07:17:15 AM
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on February 21, 2008, 07:42:17 AM
Quote
The media steer the election, the electorate follows. The masses are asses.
Very true. I don't know that this is expected to have any impact on the election - I think it may just be the media's way of saying "yeah, we chose the winner. Look how dumb you are to listen to us. Ha ha."
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2008, 07:54:04 AM
Check the news - McStain boinked a lobbyist. Isn't he married or something? And he is not even elected yet! Next stop: Hillary's dirt on Obama. The media steer the election, the electorate follows. The masses are asses.
What news? That came from the "fifth column" New York Times. That's not a news source.
Post by: seeker_two on February 21, 2008, 08:01:32 AM
Check the news - McStain boinked a lobbyist. Isn't he married or something? And he is not even elected yet!
Maybe he IS Presidential material after all......
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 21, 2008, 11:50:06 AM
saying something stupid twice makes a statement probably not the one you are trying for but one never knows
Being entirely unable to use even a semblance of proper grammar sends a message to.
theres some irony there that escapes you.... too
Post by: seeker_two on February 21, 2008, 01:02:54 PM
saying something stupid twice makes a statement probably not the one you are trying for but one never knows
Being entirely unable to use even a semblance of proper grammar sends a message to.
theres some irony there that escapes you.... too
fistful needs to give y'all some English lessons.....