Who do you support for President?

Your favorite cadidate is......


  • Total voters
    160
  • Poll closed .
Voting 3rd party = vote for Hillary/Obama. Do what you want, but when the socialist bastards start regulating our guns out of existence, I don't want to hear any of you complaining, since under the above scenario, you all are allowing it to happen.:barf: Anyone is better than Hillary, even McCain.
 
Voting 3rd party = vote for Hillary/Obama. Do what you want, but when the socialist bastards start regulating our guns out of existence, I don't want to hear any of you complaining, since under the above scenario, you all are allowing it to happen. Anyone is better than Hillary, even McCain.
In your opinion.

You only have to see McCain speaking from the floor of the Senate in support of his McCain-Feingold anti-freedom of speech act, when he names the NRA as a target of that act, to fully understand where this man's position with regard to firearms is.

On gun owners rights McCain= Hillary Clinton.

Still, it's too early to speak of third parties in my opinion. We have a viable conservative, pro-Second Amendment candidate in Ron Paul, he's a Republican and should be supported in his candidacy.
 
Right now there are no third parties choices to discuss let alone be critised for thinking about. Hell the primaries aren't even over. By September 4th we will have 2 major party choices and that is when I and others will have to make a decision about whether or not we can stomach our two major party choices. Until then I plan on supporting Republican primary candidate Ron Paul with my money and time.
 
John Edwards is the one that I favour the most. I don't vote just for gun politics and Edwards is a real progressive while being moderately pro-gun, unlike those center-right jokes Clinton and Obama.

Furthermore, it doesn't look like he's going to get the nomination, so if Obama or Clinton get it, I'm voting for McCain.

If it's Clinton/Obama vs. Romney or some other joke, I'll just cast my vote for the Libertarian ticket or another.
 
' Voting 3rd party = vote for Hillary/Obama. Do what you want, but when the socialist bastards start regulating our guns out of existence, I don't want to hear any of you complaining, since under the above scenario, you all are allowing it to happen. Anyone is better than Hillary, even McCain. '

I agree, McCain is much better than Clinton or Obama, but voting 3rd party is not meaningless if you are personally disgusted with all of the candidates. It's the principle.

It's also perplexing how some of guys lump Obama and Clinton, two center-rightists, in with 'Socialists'. Couldn't be more opposite from the economic point of view.

I also seriously doubt that anyone is ever going to succeed in an outright ban of firearms in the United States in the near future, even with an anti-gun president, like Obama or Clinton.
 
I'd like to vote for Paul, if only he would remove the Jimmy Carter lens and be a more realistic foreign policy hawk like the founding fathers were.
The Founders were not foreign policy hawks. In particular, they warned us against entangling alliances. America has not heeded that warning, so we have mutual defense contracts with many countries and bases all over the world. What do we get out of it?

Here's a good read that has probably never been more relevant than it is today. It goes against everything Bush and his neocon puppeteers have been advocating:

John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy (1821)
October 2001

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.


She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty.
Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

When John Quincy Adams served as U. S. Secretary of State, he delivered this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.
http://www.fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp
 
#1 Paul
#2 Thompson (Although he is gone now. To bad he showed ZERO enthusiasm for the job. If I had volunteered time for him I would feel pretty betrayed.)
#3 ???? Probably Libertarian.

I will not vote for Clinton or Obama because they are true antis and would look to spend like drunken sailors (probably worse than the current sell out in the White House). Rudy is nothing but a Liberal running as a Rep. McCain would set fire to an infant for the presidency and is a sell out attention whore. Romney strikes me as pretty liberal also.

Finally, I refuse to vote a priest into the White House. Sorry but I believe religious policy should be separate from gov't and I do not believe any ordained minister who would tell me that they would keep their religious views separate from the COTUS and not fight to incorporate religion into the law.
 
Voting 3rd party = vote for Hillary/Obama. Do what you want, but when the socialist bastards start regulating our guns out of existence, I don't want to hear any of you complaining, since under the above scenario, you all are allowing it to happen. Anyone is better than Hillary, even McCain.

No, it is a vote the Rep party can clearly see could have been theirs if they had not sold themselves out. Sorry, but unless this party understands it cannot win by being a prostitute then it will never get any better. I really don't see how a McCain in office is any worse than the Dems, he has sided with them enough.
 
The Founders were not foreign policy hawks. In particular, they warned us against entangling alliances. America has not heeded that warning, so we have mutual defense contracts with many countries and bases all over the world. What do we get out of it?

How long did it take to get to the USA from Europe in 1776? How about today? How more closely tied is our economy to the rest of the world than in the 18th century.

Recognize that there are changes in the world. If the FF REALLY wanted to enshrine isolationism they could have been more specific in the COTUS but they were not. They ADVISED it since it fit the time. The time has changed. That does not mean I am in favor of what is going on in Iraq but it does mean I know we cannot keep our head in the sand.
 
Musketeer: It isn't isolationism that I advocate, but rather avoidance of military conflicts unless absolutely necessary. I thought Afghanistan was justified (and so did Ron Paul), but Iraq most certainly was not.
 
It was a link Steelcore, click it. The US was justifiably fighting back against jihad in George Washington's day.

Almost immediately after independence, the U.S. government found itself in conflict with the Barbary sheikhdoms of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli. For centuries, these states filled their coffers by piracy, stealing cargoes, enslaving crew, and collecting ransom. European sea-going nations often entered into treaty and tribute arrangements with the Barbary leaders in order to buy immunity and curtail competition.[5] In 1784, Moroccan pirates hijacked the U.S. merchant ship Betsy in the Mediterranean and enslaved her crew. A year later, Algerine pirates seized two more vessels, the Maria from Boston and the Dauphin from Philadelphia. The U.S. ministers to England and France, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson oversaw a peace treaty with Morocco, but the Algerine leadership refused any accommodation. In 1796, President George Washington ordered construction of six warships to form a U.S. navy and to protect U.S. shipping from Barbary pirates. In 1801, in the wake of an upsurge in piracy, President Thomas Jefferson entered into war with Tripoli, bombarding the city three years later and winning the release of American hostages.[6] Peace did not last. With the U.S. military embroiled in the War of 1812, Algerine pirates again began terrorizing American crewmen and disrupting U.S. trade. They miscalculated. In 1815, President James Madison dispatched a squadron of U.S. Navy frigates, which defeated the pirate fleet and won reparations from Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.[7]
 
Musketeer: It isn't isolationism that I advocate, but rather avoidance of military conflicts unless absolutely necessary. I thought Afghanistan was justified (and so did Ron Paul), but Iraq most certainly was not.
I see we do agree. I do believe that Iraq was justified given the evidence provided (to me at least, I am not getting into arguments of exaggerated evidence and such here). I don't see a reason to sick around long term though.
 
With Thompson out now, those of you who supported him, who will you support now?
On the issues, the next closest to Thompson and the only other real conservative is Ron Paul. Giuliani will most likely be out soon, he;s out of money and has lost 50%+ of the anticipated Florida support. Huckabee and McCain are also broke. Romney has plenty of his own money!
From visiting the Fred Thompson forum, I saw a poll there where almost all ( 98%+ )of the supporters now support Ron Paul!!
 
Whoever said it, a vote for McCain, even though he hides behind his 'R', is nearly the same as a vote for Billary or Ubama. McCain is an enemy of freedom and rights as surely as those two. Look at his record.
 
Back
Top