Why so anti-McCain?

And you think they wouldn't have simply gone around to everyone with a concealed carry permit or a hunting license if they didn't have registration papers lying around? Again, if you're worried about the government breaking its own rules, then you'd need to worry about getting people involved in their government, as being corrupt and unlawful is very difficult when you're being watched, and buying silence is very expensive when you're being watched by a whole lot of people.
 
Actually, I brought up two concepts. The first was that in order for guns sold privately to be effectively tracked, you would have to register them all. Coming up on 300 million of them, last I heard, many of them owned by law abiding people like myself, who might just want to break such a law, and many owned by those not so law abiding, who wouldn't give it a second thought.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old slippery slope.

We must close the gun show loophole to prevent criminals and terrorists from buying guns without a background check! (Ya, right!)

We've closed the gun show loophole, but a new loophole has been identified. The private sale loophole. We must close the private sale loophole to keep terrorists and criminals from buying guns without a background check.

We've closed the private sale loophole, but we can't track private sales without having all of the guns sold in private transactions, registered.

We've got to get all handguns and deadly sniper rifles registered so we know where a criminal got his guns if he is caught with them.

Handguns are too dangerous, like assault weapons. We have most of them registered. We will be sending out letters to registered owners giving them 30 days and 100 dolloars to turn them in. This is necessary for public safety, and thus, according to the Bush Justice Dept. is a reasonable regulation of firearms and does not violate the Second Amendment.

We think that all guns should be stored at a private club and you must be a member of that club to have a license to keep a firearm there. The violence with guns is just getting out of hand.



We know how well Canada's gun registration has worked out for them. And it was so cheap. They have far less people and guns than we do and it still cost over a Billion dollars to implement the system. It's still missing about 30% of the estimated guns, but some folks think it's even higher than 30%.

We all know how the UK's ban on guns has dropped violent crime like a stone. Ya, right.

The slippery slope does not lead to reduced crime rates. It only leads to reduced freedom for the law abiding. That's my opinion and gosh darn it, I like it. Cause I'm good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it, my family likes me. ;)
 
aside from all the other reasons...

Recent endorsements by:

--The New York Times
--Rudy Giuliani (aka Super-RINO)
--Ahnold Scwartzenegger (aka CA Super-RINO)
--Rick Perry (aka Senor RINO)
..and many more to come.

Remember that childhood homily about birds of a feather? :rolleyes:
 
A radio program I was listening to earlier today was also playing clips of McCain in his pre-candidate days saying that he thought Kerry would have made a good President, and that he (McCain) would have served as VP under Kerry if asked. This weasel is a true RINO, and it's sad that the Republicans aren't going to have a true conservative in the race; Thompson dropped out, Paul appears to be from another planet and he's surrounded himself with verifiable kooks, and any other moderately-right candidate seems to think that the US should be a theocracy.
 
"Paul appears to be from another planet and he's surrounded himself with verifiable kooks"

This may be the least bad thing any candidate has going. Of all the runners, he's still the most intelligent and honest. He's winning ME so far and should take 1st! 2nd in NV 1st in LA....He still has a chance, as good or better than Huckabee's odds.
 
"Paul appears to be from another planet and he's surrounded himself with verifiable kooks"

He's got my vote. As I see the field, his main drawback is an inability to speak well before a camera. I suppose we could elect another Hollywood actor... Maybe Arnie?
 
If it was a Hollywood actor of the Ronald Reagan type, sure; the fact that Paul is so cozy with flakes of most any description, from rabid anti-semites and white supremacists, to people who believe that "fire doesn't melt steel" and that the US attacked itself on 9/11/01, should give pause to ANYONE who values freedom. Throw into the mix some of his wacky foreign policy and economic ideas, and the line "there are squirrels juggling knives in his brain" comes to mind.
 
Well, I've had enough trying to convince people that Ron is great. You're mistaken and ill informed is you think he's a nut, or racist or an isolationist. George W has isolated us, McCain will isolate us. RP can strengthen our foreign ties and allies. He's got my vote, his son Rand is brilliant too, I hope he runs some day.

....so, here's why McCain is evil!! Check these out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvk0IhGBXbs&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjNUtRYkqxE&feature=related
 
Sure they will, that's why I am anti-all 3 of them. I think you may be getting the point now. McCain is no better than Clinton or Obama.
 
Of course he is. Don't be ridiculous.

Sure he's not perfect, or even in my top 100, but to say that he's as bad as Clinton or Obama seriously undermines what little crediblility you might have.

Of course, if you're in the America Last camp, I can see why YOU would believe it.
 
On some issues John Mcclain is certainly as bad as Obama and Clinton:

Promising to close the prison holding terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a big applause line for Democratic presidential candidates...... Among the 10 announced Republican candidates, only Arizona Sen. John McCain and Texas Rep. Ron Paul favor closing the prison.


Legislation in the Senate to close Guantanamo has won support from three of the eight Democratic candidates: New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden. Clinton and Dodd are co-sponsors of a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"In the eyes of the world, Guantanamo is ammunition for our enemies, and it is time to close Guantanamo and to deal with both the security and the legal challenges," Clinton said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in April.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has not backed either bill though he repeatedly calls for closing Guantanamo and restoring the right of prisoners to challenge their detention. "Ultimately, he supports Guantanamo closing and is still working to find the best possible solution for the prisoners who are there right now," said spokesman Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman.

None of the Democrats have specific plans on how to shut down the prison. McCain and Biden advocate moving the Guantanamo prisoners to the military's only maximum-security prison, Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. That might run into a space crunch: The military prison there can hold 500 prisoners and currently has 450 inmates, according to Janet Wray, Fort Leavenworth spokeswoman.

McCain wants to close Guantanamo, he says, because its existence is damaging U.S. credibility abroad. He also wants to speed up trials. "He would want to speed up the tribunal process for prisoners, because he doesn't support indefinite detentions," McCain spokesman Danny Diaz says.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-18-gitmo-candidates_N.htm

John McClain wants to bring them to the US for trials. BALONEY !!!
 
McCain is not necessarily 'worse' than Hillary. But if he is all the R's can offer, then the party has abandoned gun owners, individualists, constitutionalists and freedom-loving people in general.

For this, the Republican party deserves whatever it gets- and in that light, 'Hillary winning' may be the crucible that restores the Republican party as a sanctuary for those folks mentioned at the end of the paragraph above.

If not, it is time for a third party. There is no other answer. Being 'married' to a party is like being married to a hooker. They are going to 'cheat'. It's just a matter of whether you can reconcile that for the benefit, real or imagined, gained. When you can't reconcile it any longer, it's time to move on. I am at that point with the Republican party, and I won't be associated with the Democrats. The platform includes too many things I find vile and disgusting.

I will not vote for McCain or his ilk. I can, if necessary, survive one or two terms of Libs running the show. It is a sacrifice I am willing to make if that's what it takes to find us disenfranchised 'gun owners, individualists, constitutionalists and freedom-loving people' a new home.
 
Never thought I would say this and not be joking, but as a Republican, I will probably vote for Hillary. First I believe McCain is about as liberal as Hillary, but I have another reason. McCain is an old timer (like me) and I know what happens when you get to his age. You are even less inclined to change to accommodate voters. Yes, McCain changed his stand on border security, but he knew this was a must do change or not get elected. I use to complain that Hillary would not know what to eat for breakfast unless she reads the polls. But at least she might moderate her stand on some issues because she wants to get re-elected. Both, IMO are terrible choices, but that's what we are down to....terrible choices.:barf:

I just read that Geraldo Rivera supports McCain....I wonder why?
 
Hillary/Obama and McCain are equally bad in different ways. I think less will die if Hillary is pres, but we'll be less safe, have less rights and pay more taxes.
McCain, more war, more taxes, weakened economy, more illegals, more terrorism....
Tough choice if it comes to Hillary/McCain. I'll still have to vote Ron Paul and say I tried. The GOP might learn from their mistakes and be smarter in 2012 if we're all still around.
 
Actually Thumper, I am in the Constitution First camp, which I would assume puts me also in the America First camp. And, sure the exact details where they (McCain, Clinton, & Obama) are bad may differ, but the end result is they willingly violate the constitution, and in that, they are the same, incredible as you may find that to be.
 
Based upon his position on the 2A as outlined on his website, John McCain....

Based on his voting record he is a gun grabbing, big government RINO. That being said, if he is the republican nominee I'll vote for him. As bad as he is, it's better to have him nominate the next SCOTUS justices than Hitlery or Bama-Lama-Ding-Dong.
 
We sit at our respective keyboards arguing over which toad has the least lovely warts and blithely forget that they're all toads! Hillary, Romney, McCain, Obama and even Ron Paul (to a lesser extent) are all politicians and will lie, cheat and steal to win an election.

When there's no election on the horizon we all agree that we can tell when a politician is lying by watching his lips. Yet when he/she/it comes up for election all too many of us hang on every word of a chosen candidate and base our decisions on those particular lies.

One thing I think we sometimes miss in our efforts to further the chances of one particular candidate over the others is their real attitude on gun ownership. Folks, they're politicians and they know full well that they will (at some point) have to support a gun control bill. It probably won't be a confiscation bill because that would really toss the defecant into the fan but it might be an ammunition control bill or one of those "reasonable" laws to make it a felony to take your gun out of your house. If you can't load your gun or carry it outside... they don't need to confiscate it, do they?

Now, have any of the candidates still in the running EVER voted for a gun control bill or said he/she would? The four big ones all fall into that category and if any of you think they'll change their spots because of a few lies they told to get elected you're off in a dream-world 'way beyond anything you claim Ron Paul is living in.

There is only one candidate who has an unbroken record of voting strictly according to constitutional principles and you all know who he is. Perhaps it's his steadfast adherence to those principles that cause some people to lash out at him and his supporters, calling them names and accusing them of things for which there is no proof. Perhaps they are afraid he will turn our ship of state onto a different course than that which too many previous Presidents have steered.

I don't know. I can't look into your minds and see what drives you. All I can do is read what you type and try to understand what could cause you to say this stuff. From watching and listening to high-school boys for the past thirty years (I had a bunch of girls) I can make some comparisons. Much of what is said about Ron Paul is wrung from sheer bravado much as those boys would strut and preen and exclaim what they would do to the guys from school "Y" when, in fact they had no idea what those guys from school "Y" were like and whether or not they could accomplish their claims.

Too many people are afraid of Ron Paul. Not because of his intention to pull out of Iraq as they claim but because he might just cause our wandering Republican party to get back on track and live up to its platform. How many police officers do we have here that might be out of a job if Federal money were to dry up? How many teachers would have to start teaching instead of accruing tenure? How many engineers and computer programmers have their livelihood inextricably tied to the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about? How many work in grocery stores and Wal Marts that depend on federal money in some way, shape or form? Remember, government is the single, largest employer in the nation.

If Ron Paul had his way you guys could be in big trouble. America might be better off but you'd be scratching at the bottom of the barrel.

Of course, even if he were to be elected he wouldn't get his way... at least not to that extent. He could cut back on funds presently distributed to a bunch of entitlement programs but congress would just jump up and find another way to waste the money... probably on the same programs.

So after four years of his administration we'd still be up to our eyeballs in debt to half the countries in the world, we'd still have troops in over a hundred of those countries, we'd still be paying for abortions in Africa and running drugs to select customers who'll look the other way as our troops infiltrate thyeir countries. All in all it would be business as usual with one small difference: Ron Paul would tell us what was really happening rather than blowing smoke up our butts like the last few administrations have done. Of course some of us have found that smoke to be habitforming.
 
Dinky, where the heck do you get the idea that he's a gun grabber? You referenced his website? Let's have a look:
  • Gun manufacturer liability: Against. Confirmed by vote.
  • Assault weapons ban: Against. Confirmed by vote.
  • Ammunition bans ("armor piercing" rifle rounds, etc...): Against. Confirmed by vote.
  • Waiting periods: Against.
  • Confiscation: Against. Apparantly a vote against it.
About the only "anti" things he's done that I've been able to find on his site and ontheissues is supported mandating of trigger locks being included in product packaging, and background checks (whether at gun shows or retail outlets). This is not the record of a "gun grabber," this is more like the record of a "pro-rights moderate."

Doesn't McCain have enough legitimate flaws for you to pick on without you needing to mindlessly sling accusations that aren't true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top