Why so anti-McCain?

Anyway, unlike a lot of people here, I'm not under the illusion that in any sort of democratic system that I can get something that's perfectly like what I want. McCain may not be an ideal candidate, but he's nowhere near as heinous and duplicitous as you'd like to believe. Sometimes you just need to hold your nose and vote for the moderate if the conservative can't win (McCain is quite interesting for a moderate though, holding some rather extreme positions from both sides of the aisle). Far from perfect, even for me, but he's a non-objectionable candidate. And he's not exactly an enemy of the second amendment, despite what you'd like to believe. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
His take on foreign policy will depress the economy, make our borders less secure, cause more chaos and make us more vulnerable to terrorism. I'm no prophet, but I can see that McCain will lead us right into more wars and we'll see a draft.
I think Huckabee is a "hold your nose" we can deal with him guy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by Sarge
McCain/Feingold insinuates that We the People are so dumb that we cannot process WHATEVER information is offered before an election, and make a rational decision. No, we must be spoon-fed government-approved pablum-flavored information. What horse manure.

I am inclined to believe that anyone who holds the First Amendment in such disregard, will soon sell out on rest. McCain already has demonstrated a willingness to sell out OUR freedom for the sake of 'bipartisan harmony'.
Click to expand...

I have to go with Sarge and Bluesman on this one. Its really a common sense issue. Its in black and white. He doesn't bother hiding his intentions, and he's not fooling anyone now.....
 
He's too liberal for Conservatives.
He's not too conservative for liberals. That's why they like him. If he won the office the libs would be fairly well off.

I do not believe he would protect our gun rights.

He wants amnesty for the 20 million illegal alien immigrants here now.
He wants them to be able to recieve our social security benefits along with all of the other benefits they are squeezing out of our economy.
The only reason he says now that he will secure the border is because we forced it upon Washington with our outcry to his proposed bill.
Twenty one years ago when he voted for the first amnesty of illegals, we were told by Washington and Kennedy that they would never ask it of us again. That there would be no more amnesties.
I guess this is why Kennedy/McCain tried to get this amnesty throught the back door, so they wouldn't have to ask us to approve it.
Bottom line is McCain is part of the problem in Washington.
And to anyone that says our economy would be destroyed if the illegals had to leave, I say that's hogwash. Our economy and our people will survive.

What makes it even worse, now I find out McCain has Juan Hernandez on his staff as an advisor for immigration/hispanic relations. This is the Juan Hernadez that calls the millions of 'illegal alien mexicans' "the new American Pioneers".

Add to this his support to giving the terrorists at Guantanamo constitutional rights. They don't even qualify for Geneva convention rights since they meet none of the requirements for Geneva consideration. He has continually attacked our men and women in uniform claiming they are torturing the enemy also. Sounds exactly what is coming out of the liberal democratic camp.

Some mention that he's be only 1/3 of Washington. True but if the congress is dem he'd send us down the road to the left with them, just not as fast if we had a democratic Pres/Senate/Congress.

My first choice (Newt Gingrich) has decided not to run, so it looks like I'll be voting for Mitt. He's not from Washington, his business and economic sense will benefit us and he is not beholding to the lobbyists.

You decide for yourself, but if we have a dem senate and congress, there is no way a dem president is going to do us any good.



:)
" The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
 
Last edited:
The Private Sale "Loophole"

Waitone said:
Dear Editor,

Maybe it would be a good idea to close down gun shows instead of merely closing the gun-show loophole. A lot of people I know certainly think so. But Congress and the public should make that choice consciously, not get stuck with it secretly by a deceptively crafted bill.

As currently written, the so-called gun-show loophole is the most minor aspect of the McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill (S.890). The news media have reported on the bill widely -- but clearly, reporters have failed to read it. As the author of six books on gun laws I'm used to reading the bills themselves. I've just finished studying these eight pages of convoluted legalese, and here is what it calls for:

1. Currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in order to operate. The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show -- or even to plan or promote one -- carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in advance.

2. Anyone who attends must be centrally registered, whether they buy anything or not. We're talking about millions upon millions of federal records annually, only on the innocent.

3. All vendors -- not just gun vendors -- must be pre-registered. If I were to sell my books at a show without being federally registered, I could be imprisoned, and the gun-show operator could go to jail too.

4. Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show. That's in addition to anyone who walks in, plus "any other information" the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself.

Isn't this supposed to be about requiring background checks? What's going on here? None of this even deals with the criminals for Pete's sake.

It's so bizarre that many people don't believe it, so I posted the technical details and citations on my website, gunlaws.com. The most astonishing part was discovered by attorney Michael P. Anthony, my collaborator on the unabridged guide, "Gun Laws of America."

Here's the real hidden Catch 22. If a gun-show operator allows even a single unlicensed gun vendor to attend the show, federal agents can lock up the operator. They have a ton of extra money in this bill for exactly such enforcement.

If any person attending the show offers (not even sells, but offers) a gun to anyone else at the show -- even a gun they don't have with them -- they become, by the bill's definitions, an unlicensed vendor, and everyone is subject to arrest -- the seller, the buyer, and the gun-show operator. You don't even need a prohibited possessor (a criminal) involved. No one will run a show exposed to that kind of legal risk.

To protect against this, the only way a gun-show operator could safely run a show, would be to pre-register everyone in attendance as a vendor, not just as an attendee. That means personal ID and centralized registration at pretty much the level an FFL (licensed gun dealer) must endure.

The McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill, promoted as a way to prevent criminals from avoiding background checks, is instead a sneak attack on the very existence of gun shows, and crushes fundamental freedoms Americans hold dear. That's no way to run Congress. The promoters of this travesty should be ashamed.

It's my belief that reporters have an ethical duty to clarify the situation, and to call these Senators to task for their actions. Which would be worse -- the Senators don't know what's in their own bills, or that they knew all along and didn't say?

Sincerely,

Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Bloomfield Press, 4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 • Scottsdale, AZ 85254 • 602-996-4020 • alan@gunlaws.com • http://www.gunlaws.com • "We publish the gun laws."
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this, Waitone. Gun shows are among the places where I am free to sell a gun to another citizen, or buy one from another citizen, without holding a FFL. Other such places include, well, more or less everywhere.

If that is soooo darn bad at a gun show, why should it remain legal in my living room? And, how many people have to show up in my living room for it to be a "gun show"? My answers: it shouldn't, and one. Those are the only logical answers. They seek not only to shut down gun shows by making it so that everyone in attendance must hold a FFL, but also to shut down all private sales of weapons, everywhere.

This is reason enough to refuse to support McCain, but the McCain-Feingold thing is a bigger reason to me.
 
The 2008 presidential election campaign is on track to spend a record $1 billion.
Seems like there is still a lot of "free" speeech going on.
Click to expand...

It's probably more, because I'm willing to be that money spent by people hiring Liberty Political Advertising to fly the Ron Paul Blimp is not being counted in that total. ;)

$1 billion is not a lot of money to spend trying to decide who will be executive in charge of spending over $3 trillion per year. If you're about to spend $3,000 on your house, would you spend a buck evaluating the potential contractors?
 
P42, I don't know about all of that. But the re-post about the McCain Lieberman bill is disturbing. Problem is, what choice are you going to have. Is Romney better? Can't imagine that Clinton or Obama would be. Looks like it is narrowed down to those four unless Rudy ressurects in FL. Rudy has no pro gun reputation. Sucks, doesn't it.
 
He is also for closing down gun shows.
Click to expand...

Now that is simply not true. He supports instant background checks for private sales at gun shows, IF they can be instant, and not interfere with the sale.

While I do not support his position on that issue, its a far cry from closing down gun shows.
 
MIchelle Malkin, the conservative columnist, revealed on 1/25/08 the story of McCain having a former Mexican cabinet member as a key advisor to his campaign. This individual, with dual citizenship, has been an advocate for open borders and interfering with any effective enforcement of our border or illegal immigration. What is most critical about this is not just that McCain obviously still does not really support securing our borders, but the arrogance and dishonesty that he exhibits in his statements that "now I get it" on being tough on illegal immigration. His clear hypocrisy on this issue makes me doubt how really sincerely his 2A support is.

Here's the link to the Malkin article: http://michellemalkin.com/.
 
I'm against illegal immigration. But,you can't put all the milk back in the bottle. If you send them all back tomorrow then you could expect dirty motel rooms, a bottleneck in painting, sheetrock, concrete, carpentry, road construction, most all domestic work. Then, if you want to pay $30 an hour wages for that work that everbody accuses immigrants of depressing, then you can pay that much more for everything. If you send them all back then be prepared for the recession that will occur until the economy adjusts for this new cost and lack of labor.
Click to expand...

I'll take the increase in cost of these services as an INCONVENIENCE compared to the current situation.

Illegals are currently sucking the life out of the medical field's cost. Ever researched how much it's costing taxpayers' dollars to care for them? They waltz in a hospital to have their kids free of charge. Any injuries/illnesses are free. Surgeries, medicines, you name it. And for us taxpayers? Hundreds of millions.
Then, you have the bleeding hearts that claim since their kids are born here, that makes them a citizen automatically. Illegals here along with people that make excuses to keep them here is a cancer that's spreading so fast it will kill the host in no time.
Ever got into a serious car wreck with one and you were injured? Good luck on trying to get them to pay for damages and YOUR medical bills. Illegals have wrecked our economy enough as it is. We need to boot them out, take our lumps, and get back on track on track of an economy with a solid foundation.

My so called rise in cost for services in NO excuse for illegals to break the law.

McCain has been a representative for Arizona for quite some time and has done NOTHING to stop the influx of illegals. If you live in Phoenix or Tucson, YOU are the minority as far as citizenship. Our country is being overrun and McCain isn't the answer to the illegal immigration issue. Most others here have given the same reason why I'm not voting for him.
 
Last edited:
That's correct. If all illegals were properly deported tomorrow, the small rise in some prices would be offset by a factor of at least 500% in reduced cost of services.

Illegals, and to a significant extent legals, are a net drain on the economy.
 
Zerojunk said:
P42, I don't know about all of that. But the re-post about the McCain Lieberman bill is disturbing. Problem is, what choice are you going to have.
Click to expand...
If Ron Paul doesn't make it, there will be choices, just not mainstream ones with a chance of winning this time around.

Unregistered said:
He supports instant background checks for private sales at gun shows, IF they can be instant, and not interfere with the sale.
Click to expand...

Please see this post. What the law says, in effect, is "Sure, you can have a gun show! (As long as EVERYONE who attends has had the same background checks as a FFL holder)."

Translation: no gun shows. Additional inference: other private sales are next.
 
all illegals were properly deported tomorrow, the small rise in some prices would be offset by a factor of at least 500% in reduced cost of services.

Illegals, and to a significant extent legals, are a net drain on the economy.
Click to expand...

That net drain is $10 to 20 billion according to non agenda estimates. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are $ 1500 billion. Hard to find 500% in there.
 
For those that point at the McCain/Fiengold Act and the 1st Amendment, do a bit of reading up on the "we the people act" as proposed by Ron Paul.

And just how does Huckabee intend to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"? I don't get a warm fuzzy from that statement. By amending the Constitution does he intend to control the judiciary and mold the Constitution into a theocratic document to align with the evangelical agenda? One can only wonder.

That leaves Rudy and Romney. Does anyone here seriously think that either of those two are going to watch out for your 2A rights? Does either of these two seriously think they know a lick about national security? Rudy claims he has more expertise on national security than anyone running. I think that is bunk.

As for illegal immigration, McCain is NOT responsible for this old and ongoing problem and the resultant economic drain. As someone pointed out already, it is hard to put the milk back in the bottle. But, as I see it, at least McCain made an attempt to do something about it. I do agree that the proposal was inherently flawed. I also agree that illegal immigrants need to be found and booted out of this country, whatever the economic consequence, but those who are against birthright citizenship should look at the 14th Amendment again and decide if that Amendment is expendable as well. I am always reminded of the old saying, "You cant please all of the people all of the time"...

So, BluesMan, to answer your question: No. I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer yet. For my buck, I will be betting on McCain to beat the Hillary/Barrack ticket. Those two, indiviually or combined, will do more to wreck this country than I can imagine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top