Huntergirl
New member
Heehee, well put, tongue in cheek.
Obama finally forced to resign!
- Thread starter LanceOregon
- Start date
Ok, me on Obama.
Given the choice between him and McCain, it's not that hard for me.
I disagree strongly with Senator Obama on guns. That's a big issue for me, but it's not the only one I care about, and some explanations are required, so here goes:
1. When it comes to the Democratic Party and gun control, I really think the worm has turned. The tail hasn't passed the head yet, but it's moving that way. There's no chance of changing the minds of the Kennedys and Feinsteins of the world, but the up and coming leaders of the Party, folks like Chairman Howard Dean, Brian Schwietzer of Montana, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Jim Webb of Virginia, are about as pro-gun as we're likely to see in leadership from either party. The future looks pretty good for us gunnies.
2. The national Party has been taught a tough lesson. They thought, back in 1994, that supporting the AWB would help to dispel the whole "soft on crime" thing, and also that it wouldn't make anybody mad who wasn't already lost to them as a potential voter. It didn't work out so well for them, and they know it. Hands burned.... they're not going near the stove again. HR 1022 (most ironic number for a bill ever!) never even made it out of committee. Did it even get a vote there?
3. Heller v District of Columbia. A clear definition of what the 2nd Amendment means will be huge. Yeah, yeah, I know. We already know what it means. And we're right, but as none of us are in a position to actually apply that meaning, what we know doesn't matter. I'm actually quite confident that we're going to win pretty big on this. When was the last time any Court has had the chance to define the textual meaning of a BoR amendment? It's gotta be back in the 19th Century.
4. Me. And, of course, pro-gun liberals like me, who are far more common than anybody on the Right knows, or seems willing to believe. We really exist, and more than that, we're changing opinions from the bottom up.
Basically, I'm of the opinion that the tide of the last 40 years is turning in our favor, and I also don't think that Senator Obama cares enough about gun issues enough, one way or the other, to risk the damage that would result from pushing it. I don't think he'll go there.
And since the only other serious choice is Senator McCain, who I disagree with on a whole list of issues, social, economic and foreign, I'm left with Senator Obama.
Yes, I could vote third-party, except that there isn't one that matches me all that well, or abstain, but one of these two men will be our next President. My understanding of my duty as a citizen is to make a choice.
Hope that helps clarify. Sorry it took so long, but a lot of people asked, and the answer isn't simple.
--Shannon
Given the choice between him and McCain, it's not that hard for me.
I disagree strongly with Senator Obama on guns. That's a big issue for me, but it's not the only one I care about, and some explanations are required, so here goes:
1. When it comes to the Democratic Party and gun control, I really think the worm has turned. The tail hasn't passed the head yet, but it's moving that way. There's no chance of changing the minds of the Kennedys and Feinsteins of the world, but the up and coming leaders of the Party, folks like Chairman Howard Dean, Brian Schwietzer of Montana, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Jim Webb of Virginia, are about as pro-gun as we're likely to see in leadership from either party. The future looks pretty good for us gunnies.
2. The national Party has been taught a tough lesson. They thought, back in 1994, that supporting the AWB would help to dispel the whole "soft on crime" thing, and also that it wouldn't make anybody mad who wasn't already lost to them as a potential voter. It didn't work out so well for them, and they know it. Hands burned.... they're not going near the stove again. HR 1022 (most ironic number for a bill ever!) never even made it out of committee. Did it even get a vote there?
3. Heller v District of Columbia. A clear definition of what the 2nd Amendment means will be huge. Yeah, yeah, I know. We already know what it means. And we're right, but as none of us are in a position to actually apply that meaning, what we know doesn't matter. I'm actually quite confident that we're going to win pretty big on this. When was the last time any Court has had the chance to define the textual meaning of a BoR amendment? It's gotta be back in the 19th Century.
4. Me. And, of course, pro-gun liberals like me, who are far more common than anybody on the Right knows, or seems willing to believe. We really exist, and more than that, we're changing opinions from the bottom up.
Basically, I'm of the opinion that the tide of the last 40 years is turning in our favor, and I also don't think that Senator Obama cares enough about gun issues enough, one way or the other, to risk the damage that would result from pushing it. I don't think he'll go there.
And since the only other serious choice is Senator McCain, who I disagree with on a whole list of issues, social, economic and foreign, I'm left with Senator Obama.
Yes, I could vote third-party, except that there isn't one that matches me all that well, or abstain, but one of these two men will be our next President. My understanding of my duty as a citizen is to make a choice.
Hope that helps clarify. Sorry it took so long, but a lot of people asked, and the answer isn't simple.
--Shannon
And what exactly is Obama's position on all of those subjects? Whatever McCain's position, Obama is off the chart to the left. And the democrats have NOT learned their lesson on gun control. They still push their anti-gun bills. The only reason we have not had any new gun control is because the democrats have not had both congress and the White House. With Obama, they will.
benign.neglect
Moderator
The Democrats have had control of the House and Congress for two years now, with a president who was on record saying he would renew the AWB. Nothing has passed. Nothing has even left committee. You are fear mongering.
benign.neglect
Moderator
LOL... they haven't even sent an anti-gun bill out of committe!!
Frankly, I don’t see the attraction of Barack Obama. Despite his Harvard law degree, he seems like an idiot.
He claimed there were 10,000 deaths from the Kansas tornadoes. For perspective, the worst death toll by natural disaster in the US was the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, in which a little over 3,000 people died. Somehow, Obama believed that the Kansas tornadoes killed more than 3 times as many people as were killed by our worst natural disaster. The actual death toll in Kansas was 12.
He spent 20 years in a church in which the minister spouted racist rhetoric and anti-American conspiracies by the government against blacks. During that time, he was baptized, married, and had his children baptized by that minister. Somehow, despite the close association he had with this church and its minister, he failed to figure out what was going on. However, over the past few months in which he was not even at the church, he now has figured it out. When he was there, no clue; when he’s not there, enlightenment. That’s not a demonstration of intelligence.
He doesn’t even know his own family history. He claimed his father came to the US via a Kennedy-sponsored airlift, but his father actually arrived here a year before the airlift. He claimed he was conceived as a result of the Selma March, but that march happened 4 years after he was born. He claimed his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, but he doesn’t have an uncle (not to mention that the Soviets liberated Auschwitz). In 2002, he claimed, “My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.” But in his autobiography, "Dreams of My Father," he states his grandfather never engaged in combat. "Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat, and the family moved to California, where he enrolled at Berkeley under the GI bill." Army records show that Dunham signed up June 18, 1942, six months after Pearl Harbor. And oh, US forces still did not liberate Aushwitz.
In short, Obama is a stranger to his own family.
Over the past Memorial Day weekend, he said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Given that “fallen heroes” means people who have died, he saw dead veterans in his audience. Also, Memorial Day is to commemorate fallen veterans, and Veterans’ Day is to commemorate all veterans. If you look at the speeches of Bush and McCain, they knew this and got it right. Obama clearly failed on both counts.
Recently, Obama said that he's been to 57 states and had 1 more to go. So now we have 58 states. Even if he misspoke and meant 47 rather than 57, that still leaves him believing the US has 48 states. Given that he lived in Hawaii from 5th grade until he graduated from high school, he must have been exposed to the fact that we have 50 states because Hawaii is the 50th state. (For those who have never lived in Hawaii, the Hawaiians get irritated if you say, “I’m going stateside” to mean going back to the continental US; they will quickly and forcefully remind you that you are already stateside because Hawaii is the 50th state, and that the proper expression is “going to the mainland.”)
He also said that Hillary won Kentucky because she once was from Arkansas, and that Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois is. Illinois shares a border with Kentucky; Arkansas does not. A misspeak intended to express a political rather than geographical closeness? Not if you look at what he said: “What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country,” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known — not only because of her time in the White House with her husband — but also coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” Illinois is one of those states in the middle; actually, it’s closer to the geographic middle of the country than Kentucky is.
In Pendleton, Oregon, he claimed that by Soviet standards, Iran and others “don’t pose a serious threat to us.” The very next day in Billings, Montana, he claimed, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” As the saying goes, what a difference a day makes.
In Cape Girardeau, Missouri, he bemoaned the lack of Arabic translators in Afghanistan: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” Given that the Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, and other non-Arabic languages, I don’t see the utility of sending Arabic translators there.
He’s against the war in Iraq, but he wants to attack Pakistan ... and tells the entire world about it.
There’s a difference between misspeaking, where one confuses two or more relatively close things, and being an idiot, where one’s statements clearly don’t match reality at all.
He claimed there were 10,000 deaths from the Kansas tornadoes. For perspective, the worst death toll by natural disaster in the US was the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, in which a little over 3,000 people died. Somehow, Obama believed that the Kansas tornadoes killed more than 3 times as many people as were killed by our worst natural disaster. The actual death toll in Kansas was 12.
He spent 20 years in a church in which the minister spouted racist rhetoric and anti-American conspiracies by the government against blacks. During that time, he was baptized, married, and had his children baptized by that minister. Somehow, despite the close association he had with this church and its minister, he failed to figure out what was going on. However, over the past few months in which he was not even at the church, he now has figured it out. When he was there, no clue; when he’s not there, enlightenment. That’s not a demonstration of intelligence.
He doesn’t even know his own family history. He claimed his father came to the US via a Kennedy-sponsored airlift, but his father actually arrived here a year before the airlift. He claimed he was conceived as a result of the Selma March, but that march happened 4 years after he was born. He claimed his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, but he doesn’t have an uncle (not to mention that the Soviets liberated Auschwitz). In 2002, he claimed, “My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.” But in his autobiography, "Dreams of My Father," he states his grandfather never engaged in combat. "Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat, and the family moved to California, where he enrolled at Berkeley under the GI bill." Army records show that Dunham signed up June 18, 1942, six months after Pearl Harbor. And oh, US forces still did not liberate Aushwitz.
In short, Obama is a stranger to his own family.
Over the past Memorial Day weekend, he said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Given that “fallen heroes” means people who have died, he saw dead veterans in his audience. Also, Memorial Day is to commemorate fallen veterans, and Veterans’ Day is to commemorate all veterans. If you look at the speeches of Bush and McCain, they knew this and got it right. Obama clearly failed on both counts.
Recently, Obama said that he's been to 57 states and had 1 more to go. So now we have 58 states. Even if he misspoke and meant 47 rather than 57, that still leaves him believing the US has 48 states. Given that he lived in Hawaii from 5th grade until he graduated from high school, he must have been exposed to the fact that we have 50 states because Hawaii is the 50th state. (For those who have never lived in Hawaii, the Hawaiians get irritated if you say, “I’m going stateside” to mean going back to the continental US; they will quickly and forcefully remind you that you are already stateside because Hawaii is the 50th state, and that the proper expression is “going to the mainland.”)
He also said that Hillary won Kentucky because she once was from Arkansas, and that Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois is. Illinois shares a border with Kentucky; Arkansas does not. A misspeak intended to express a political rather than geographical closeness? Not if you look at what he said: “What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country,” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known — not only because of her time in the White House with her husband — but also coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” Illinois is one of those states in the middle; actually, it’s closer to the geographic middle of the country than Kentucky is.
In Pendleton, Oregon, he claimed that by Soviet standards, Iran and others “don’t pose a serious threat to us.” The very next day in Billings, Montana, he claimed, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” As the saying goes, what a difference a day makes.
In Cape Girardeau, Missouri, he bemoaned the lack of Arabic translators in Afghanistan: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” Given that the Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, and other non-Arabic languages, I don’t see the utility of sending Arabic translators there.
He’s against the war in Iraq, but he wants to attack Pakistan ... and tells the entire world about it.
There’s a difference between misspeaking, where one confuses two or more relatively close things, and being an idiot, where one’s statements clearly don’t match reality at all.
Huntergirl
New member
WOW! Er, I mean Woa. I guess many people have short memories or no TVs, or are just plain ignorant. Either way, Woa,,
Duh. Have you seen many presidential elections? The democrats gained control of congress in the 2006 election. In the year immediately preceding a presidential election, democrats don't come within 100 miles of an anti gun bill. They do it right AFTER the election so there is time for your memory to fade.
Should your memory go back far enough, you will remember that the democrats tried for several years to get a semi-automatic assault weapon ban. A soon as Clinton was elected, they got one.
benign.neglect
Moderator
No thats not correct. Assault Weapons Ban have been introduced every year, including this year.
Our best governments have been when the Legislative and Executive branches are controlled by different parties. I am just fine with Democrats staying in control of the legislative branch as long as Republicans hold the presidency.
benign.neglect
Moderator
No, its because the rank and file democrats don't support it. But whatever. I think we are going to see a massive landslide victory by Democrats in November, and they will take seats in the House and Senate, and absolutley blow McCain out of the water for the Presidency. This will be a landslide the likes of which we have not seen since the Reagan revolution.
I am sure if you are correct, their true intentions will come out shortly.
I am sure if you are correct, their true intentions will come out shortly.
harrys ghost
New member
I'm not sure what the definitive worst natural disaster in the US was but Galveston Texas was wiped out by a hurricane in September of 1900. It is estimated that between 6,000 and 12,000 were killed.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
They will within one year of the onset of an Obama Administration.
It is incredibly naive to think that folks like Jim Webb were sincere in their expressions of support for the Second Amendment, or that they will have the standing to resist Democratic Party directives to vote for passage of a new Assault Weapons bill.
I stand corrected. The Galveston disaster was worse than San Fran. From the figures that I can find, the death toll was between 6,000 and 8,000, which would still put it at 2,000 less than what Obama claimed. Plus, the actual death toll in Kansas was 12.
If we lost 8,000 lives in Galveston, my original number was off by about 2.7 times. Obama was off by more than 833 times.
Ummm... no.
First, on what basis are you questioning Senator Webb's sincerity? Do you know him? If not, you are claiming something you cannot possibly know.
Second, what would be the risk for a popular Senator from Virginia in resisting the leadership on any bill, especially one that anyone who can read would know would be very unpopular with his constituents?
Did the Republican Senate leadership, which by the way was one of the most rigorously disciplined caucuses anyone has ever seen, do anything to punish liberal Republicans from Democratic-leaning states? Of course they didn't. They weren't that stupid.
There's nothing that the Democratic Congressional leadership could do to punish legislators from pro-gun areas that would be worse than what their constituents would do to them. And everybody knows it.
--Shannon
First, on what basis are you questioning Senator Webb's sincerity? Do you know him? If not, you are claiming something you cannot possibly know.
Second, what would be the risk for a popular Senator from Virginia in resisting the leadership on any bill, especially one that anyone who can read would know would be very unpopular with his constituents?
Did the Republican Senate leadership, which by the way was one of the most rigorously disciplined caucuses anyone has ever seen, do anything to punish liberal Republicans from Democratic-leaning states? Of course they didn't. They weren't that stupid.
There's nothing that the Democratic Congressional leadership could do to punish legislators from pro-gun areas that would be worse than what their constituents would do to them. And everybody knows it.
--Shannon
benign.neglect
Moderator
Yea. Everyone was saying the same thing when the Democrats took the House and Senate. But it didnt happen. And it probably won't happen again. If it does, it is because the American people got so sick and tired of the lies, mismanagement, and hubris of the Bush administration and Republican party.
I am not voting for Obama, but I don't see an Obama presidency as ending the world as we know it. Some things will change. Hopefully he will quit using the US military as his own personal Risk game. We might lose some gun rights. Taxes might go up. Maybe at least he will try to run an honest administration. Hopefully utter defeat of the Republican party will cause it to rethink its conservative roots.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
I don't recall anyone saying that. The margin in the Senate is 49-49-2 and the Democrats know Cheney would vote down any new AWB in the event of a tie.
The last time we had a veto proof Democrat majority in Congress combined with a Democrat president we were handed a new Assault Weapons ban.
Obama is very much in favor of a new AWB as are all of the senior leadership of the Democratic Party. They will not have any difficulty in getting supposedly pro-Second Amendment back benchers like Jim Webb to vote in favor of a new AWB.
A vote for Obama is a vote for the certain passage of new, draconian gun control laws.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Right. Like I have to be on the man's bowling team to know how he's likely to vote.
Gee, I dunno, how about the millions of dollars that the Democratic Party would withhold from his reelection campaign?, the earmark requests of Webb's that would be trashed?, the Webb fundraisers that President Obama or Vice President Hillary wouldn't attend?, the Union and other endorsements that Webb wouldn't receive?, the Webb-sponsored Bills that wouldn't make it out of committee?, the committee assignments critically important to a Virginia Senator (Armed Services, Ways and Means, Government Oversight, Appropriations, etc.) Webb would lose or never get? You mean other than those minor things?
Webb's latest approval ratings in Virginia are at 46%, well below average for a Senator (54%). Disapproval is at 41%. He's hardly what one would describe as "popular"
They couldn't discipline the RINOs because they had a bare one vote majority and had to take into consideration that RINOs like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee would leave the Party if disciplined.
Are you saying that Harry Reid would be so solicitous to maverick Democrats if he had a veto-proof majority in the Senate? Dream on.
Absolutely false.
Here's a great piece from Robert Novak detailing how these supposedly conservative junior (Blue Dog) Democrats are ALREADY toeing the Liberal line and voting in lockstep for the Liberal policy agenda.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20297