View Full Version : NRA Annual Meeting and John McCain
Senator McCain is speaking right now at the NRA. Fantastic and he has my vote! Make no mistake, he is our best choice....period.
View it live here: http://www.nra.org/
I'm going to see where this Bob Barr thing goes before I commit to McCain.
variablebinary
05-16-08, 17:02
Unless McCain is willingl to vow on record, to Veto any and all bans that reach his desk, nothing he says really interest me.
I dont like McCain, I dont trust McCain. He has a record of being in bed with the left. I havent forgotten it, nor should anyone else
I'm going to see where this Bob Barr thing goes before I commit to McCain.
About 0.4%, the same place any other 3rd party candidate goes.
Well it's him in bed with the left or the guy that fell off the left side of the field?? As usual its a lesser of two evil's.
About 0.4%, the same place any other 3rd party candidate goes.
You're right and that's too bad.
Gutshot John
05-16-08, 17:15
Unless McCain is willingl to vow on record, to Veto any and all bans that reach his desk, nothing he says really interest me.
I presume than that you don't vote for people that have a snowball's chance of getting elected. Fair enough.
I dont like McCain, I dont trust McCain. He has a record of being in bed with the left. I havent forgotten it, nor should anyone else
In "bed with the left" don't make me laugh. You don't have to like him, but let's not just make things up.
If you want to waste your vote, by all means, but trying to soft-peddle some sort of far-right delusion of McCain as a lefty is just goofy.
variablebinary
05-16-08, 17:37
I presume than that you don't vote for people that have a snowball's chance of getting elected. Fair enough.
You do what you got to do.
I don't go to bed with whores, and I don't wake up with whores. When Election day is over I will have a clear conscience because I voted with my principles; not with half hearted strategic measures, or for what some political party and national media outlet defecated in front of me
Gutshot John
05-16-08, 18:32
That's fine, but an entirely different animal.
If we ascribe to your standard, than all politicians are whores.
I presume you just don't vote.
In "bed with the left" don't make me laugh. You don't have to like him, but let's not just make things up.
How do you explain his positions on:
o the global warming hoax
o illegal immigration (he's consistently supported an amnesty/citizenship program)
o his vote against the so-called "Bush tax cuts"
o multiple instances of supporting anti-RKBA measures, such as his support of eliminating gun shows under the guise of "closing the loophole"
These are all examples of agreement with the left, if not being "in bed" with them.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 07:55
How do you explain his positions on:
o the global warming hoax
o illegal immigration (he's consistently supported an amnesty/citizenship program)
o his vote against the so-called "Bush tax cuts"
o multiple instances of supporting anti-RKBA measures, such as his support of eliminating gun shows under the guise of "closing the loophole"
These are all examples of agreement with the left, if not being "in bed" with them.
How do you explain the left's villification of him? I think they'd laugh at this characterization
1. Global warming hoax? The earth is warming, the only question is whether the cause is manmade. All that being said, what a filthy radical to want clean air and water and have us no longer dependent on fossil fuels bought from people that want to KILL us. I guess I must be one too.
2. You can disagree with his stance on immigration, but for what it's worth, President Bush didn't disagree...is he in bed with the left too?
3. See above, but while tax cuts are fabulous they have to go hand in hand with fiscal discipline. I fail to see any "conservative" virtue in a borrow and spend republican over a tax and spend democrat. Even still he's trying to make them permanent...what else would you like him to do?
4. I disagree that the 2a debate is a question of right v. left. Democrat v. Republican maybe but even still I know lots of stupid republicans...INCLUDING Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 who sold out gun owners for political expediency. At least McCain is honest about his views.
I'd argue that if the far-right thinks McCain is a lefty, and the far-left thinks he's a Fascist...then he's probably right in the middle where most of us are comfortable.
OldNavyGuy
05-17-08, 08:25
Unless McCain is willingl to vow on record, to Veto any and all bans that reach his desk, nothing he says really interest me.
I dont like McCain, I dont trust McCain. He has a record of being in bed with the left. I havent forgotten it, nor should anyone else
I AGREE !
what are your thoughts about getting in bed with his Viet Cong captors ?? it is all here: http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/index.htm
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 08:35
I AGREE !
what are your thoughts about getting in bed with his Viet Cong captors ??
Well s#!^ if its on the internet it must be true. :rolleyes:
Were you held as a POW for 5+years? It seems like every person I've seen interviewed who actually served time in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain thinks he's pretty much a hero.
Even still the link you provided makes no claim of collaboration only that he "was singled out" why? because his dad was an admiral and they thought he could be good PR.
Even still...did he collaborate...by refusing their parole in favor of others who had been there longer and not wanting to be made a propaganda tool? What planet are you from?
You don't have to like McCain or even vote for him, but making stuff up? Frankly this character assasination is disgusting.
PS. On a historic note...John McCain wasn't held by the Viet Cong. He was in North Vietnam. Big difference that doesn't speak to much credibility.
Were you held as a POW for 5+years? It seems like every person I've seen interviewed who actually served time in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain thinks he's pretty much a hero.
You don't have to like McCain or even vote for him, but making stuff up? Frankly this character assasination is disgusting.
PS. On a historic note...John McCain wasn't held by the Viet Cong. He was in North Vietnam. Big difference that doesn't speak to much credibility.
While I disagree with him on some issues, I also do agree that some of the McCain bashing is getting out of hand. The man can't even raise his damn arms above his chest as a result of crippling torture, but now some say he was singled out for softer treatment?
I believe it is a miracle he is as sane and as strong as he is after 5 years plus in that NVA, not VC, prison/hell hole. No, he's not sitting on the extreme right, but let's get a grip.
Edit: After reading a bit more, I will say that I am disturbed to see that he has Juan Hernandez as part of his campaign. That man wants total anarchy with regard to illegal Mexicans. John, you have voiced your disgust with the run of the mill politician and even more so with those that elect them, and he is playing right into that with crappy allies like Hernandez.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 12:28
Edit: After reading a bit more, I will say that I am disturbed to see that he has Juan Hernandez as part of his campaign. That man wants total anarchy with regard to illegal Mexicans. John, you have voiced your disgust with the run of the mill politician and even more so with those that elect them, and he is playing right into that with crappy allies like Hernandez.
I'm not familiar with the Hernandez "anarchy" stance. I do know that I have little use for the blatherings of people like Lou Dobbs or Michelle Malkin. I don't think anyone including McCain has said that illegal immigration shouldn't be regulated. That being said what exists now is anarchy.
This issue has been discussed in depth on Socnet.com and there are plenty of BTDT's who have the same opinion of McCain and some of them have discussed his time in N. Vietnam as well as his role on the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs. It's worth taking a look at.
Well s#!^ if its on the internet it must be true. :rolleyes:
Were you held as a POW for 5+years? It seems like every person I've seen interviewed who actually served time in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain thinks he's pretty much a hero.
Even still the link you provided makes no claim of collaboration only that he "was singled out" why? because his dad was an admiral and they thought he could be good PR.
Even still...did he collaborate...by refusing their parole in favor of others who had been there longer and not wanting to be made a propaganda tool? What planet are you from?
You don't have to like McCain or even vote for him, but making stuff up? Frankly this character assasination is disgusting.
PS. On a historic note...John McCain wasn't held by the Viet Cong. He was in North Vietnam. Big difference that doesn't speak to much credibility.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 12:38
This issue has been discussed in depth on Socnet.com and there are plenty of BTDT's who have the same opinion of McCain and some of them have discussed his time in N. Vietnam as well as his role on the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs. It's worth taking a look at.
I'm quite familiar with his Senate career. That he urged normalization with a former enemy makes him a collaborator? That doesn't hold water.
I'd submit that unless someone has endured 5 years of torture in the Hanoi hilton...he really hasn't BTDT. McCain owes no explantion to anyone other than them.
1. Global warming hoax? The earth is warming, the only question is whether the cause is manmade. All that being said, what a filthy radical to want clean air and water and have us no longer dependent on fossil fuels bought from people that want to KILL us. I guess I must be one too.
The hoax is the propogation of anthropogenic causes for temperature increases as a "fact," especially when the doomsday fantasies are used to support the hoax. It's another tool to control and manipulate people by playing on their need to feel guilty and in some cases need to blame humans for all of the worlds ills, both real and otherwise. McCain has bought into this and supports the Kyoto Protocols. Your sarcasm does not change this, nor does a desire for clean water or alternatives to fossil fuels have much to do with it.
2. You can disagree with his stance on immigration, but for what it's worth, President Bush didn't disagree...is he in bed with the left too?
The current president has nothing to do with this, and you know that.
However, the president's position on illegal immigration from certain countries such as Mexico is as bad if not worse than McCain's. That and the failure to address securing the borders are probably Dubya's most glaring and unforgivable mistakes.
But Dubya is not the topic of this discussion. It's Senator McCain.
3. See above, but while tax cuts are fabulous they have to go hand in hand with fiscal discipline. I fail to see any "conservative" virtue in a borrow and spend republican over a tax and spend democrat. Even still he's trying to make them permanent...what else would you like him to do?
Again, beside the point. Fiscal discipline is something that should be required of any candidate or office holder, but failure to support tax cuts is a related but separate mistake. The fact that Sen. McCain may be supporting making those tax cuts permanent now is a shift in gears, and while some would attribute that to learning from mistakes, I think it's pre-election pandering.
4. I disagree that the 2a debate is a question of right v. left. Democrat v. Republican maybe but even still I know lots of stupid republicans...INCLUDING Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 who sold out gun owners for political expediency. At least McCain is honest about his views.
No one asserted that any president in recent history was adequately pro-RKBA. However, I'm not sure how you claim Sen. McCain is honest about his views, given that he now claims that there should be "no gun control" (his own words heard by me during a television soundbite). I'd be elated if he truly felt that way and would do everything in his power as chief executive to make it so, but I don't believe it.
If he gets elected, I'll be glad to be proven wrong. He can start by issuing executive orders rescinding or nullifying all of those of past presidents that have compromised our individual right to keep and bear arms.
I'd argue that if the far-right thinks McCain is a lefty, and the far-left thinks he's a Fascist...then he's probably right in the middle where most of us are comfortable.
The "middle" should start from adherence to the principles of the US Consitution (all of it), but such silly notions have been relegated to the so-called "right." Most of us do not agree that he's where we are "comfortable."
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 14:51
McCain has bought into this and supports the Kyoto Protocols.
John McCain and 94 other Senators specifically voted AGAINST the Kyoto Protocols.
The current president has nothing to do with this, and you know that.
I know that GWB proposed the exact same immigration/guest worker plan that McCain did. The difference was that McCain eventually agreed that the border would have to be secured.
You're right it is about McCain...but if your standard is that McCain is in bed with the left due to his immigration stance, than GWB must be as well.
Again, beside the point. Fiscal discipline is something that should be required of any candidate or office holder, but failure to support tax cuts is a related but separate mistake. The fact that Sen. McCain may be supporting making those tax cuts permanent now is a shift in gears, and while some would attribute that to learning from mistakes, I think it's pre-election pandering.
I'm not sure how something can be related, but separate.
No one asserted that any president in recent history was adequately pro-RKBA. However, I'm not sure how you claim Sen. McCain is honest about his views, given that he now claims that there should be "no gun control" (his own words heard by me during a television soundbite). I'd be elated if he truly felt that way and would do everything in his power as chief executive to make it so, but I don't believe it.
Your claim was that McCain's stance on 2a was "left-wing." If we accept that standard than those presidents are similarly left-wing. Since that is obviously flawed, by extension the conflation of McCain with the left is likewise incorrect.
The "middle" should start from adherence to the principles of the US Consitution (all of it), but such silly notions have been relegated to the so-called "right." Most of us do not agree that he's where we are "comfortable."
Funny that the far-right is perfectly willing to ignore the principles of the Constitution when it serves their purposes...hence the reason why Republicans are in such deep kimchee.
You seem to enjoy arguing.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 15:03
I do...as do you.
Actually I was referring to the fact that he completely ignored and shut out those who wanted to present credible evidence that we in fact left MIA's in Vietnam. And yes there are a few guys on Socnet who in fact were POW's. I highly suggest you go there and read the Why I Won't Vote for John McCain thread. Also, do some research into when his name and picture appeared in the French newspaper and compare that to the timeline of when he was captured and how long it took him to breakdown.
I am not taking anything away from him. But, there are many of us who have served that believe he betrayed his Brothers in Arms. Will I vote for him? Possibly. Only because I cannot stand by and watch BHO get elected.
I'm quite familiar with his Senate career. That he urged normalization with a former enemy makes him a collaborator? That doesn't hold water.
I'd submit that unless someone has endured 5 years of torture in the Hanoi hilton...he really hasn't BTDT. McCain owes no explantion to anyone other than them.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 15:28
So these are men, that we know were captured by the Vietnamese...who were taken as POW...who were then subsequently left behind at the urging of John McCain? If he did indeed do this...than I won't vote for him.
If you're talking about MIA...we left thousands of MIA on the fields of Europe/Pacific, how is this any different?
I don't know how long it took McCain to break down...it would have taken me all of five minutes, so I'm not going to hold him to a higher standard. I also don't believe everything I read in the press...French or otherwise.
If you (the general you) were POW, tortured and held out longer than McCain, than you certainly have a right to question his actions. I would not deny that. But no one can withstand torture indefinitely. Those that served with McCain...and were tortured alongside him...have more credibility than a legion of soldiers who never once saw Hanoi. They all seem to hold him in high regard...as such I give their opinions more credibility than others.
I disagree vehemently with many of Sen. McCain's political and social opinions. I do not particularly like him from what I've seen either.
However, I will in no way impugn his service to our country, or dismiss the suffering he experienced at the hands of our enemies. While others have the right to do so, especially those who truly are just asking questions, I do not think it is appropriate to suggest that Sen. McCain acted inappropriately during the war.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 15:38
I disagree vehemently with many of Sen. McCain's political and social opinions. I do not particularly like him from what I've seen either.
That's a completely fair assessment.
Of course, I plan to vote for him. In my opinion, it's the only realistic choice, even if Bob Barr does run as an independent or Libertarian.
I'd love to live in a world where I could choose a candidate based on their character, principles, and policies. Unfortunately, our two-party system has removed that possibility, except perhaps at the local level. I don't like that I have to weigh the lesser of evils, but it's the reality.
If other parties would work harder to grow candidates from the city/county council upward, they would stand a better chance. Trying to start at the US Congressional level and upward is doomed to failure against the two-party machine currently in place.
I'd really like to see Bob Barr be president. However, I think if he runs, it will only help a genuine socialist-statist (i.e. either Obama or Clinton) win.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 16:01
If other parties would work harder to grow candidates from the city/county council upward, they would stand a better chance. Trying to start at the US Congressional level and upward is doomed to failure against the two-party machine currently in place.
That is EXACTLY the problem. In order to make it to national office you have to pay your dues at the local level to ingratiate yourself to the party apparatus.
To advance in that system you have to, by definition, put your personal and partisan ambition above all else. In that regard McCain is indeed no different than any other politician.
INCLUDING Reagan ... who sold out gun owners for political expediency.
I don't really think Reagan belongs in that list. He signed the 86 FOPA, which was a big leap forward for gun owners. It did have that pesky little 86 machine gun ban but my understanding is Reagan was willing to veto it because of the ban but was convinced by his pro-gun advisors that the plusses far outweighed the minuses and so he signed it.
I would like to know what you think Bush43 did to be on the list.
Chad
Gutshot,
Rather than me try and explain all of this to you and what transpired you can go the website that I mentioned and read it for yourself. This should clarify things for you. It has nothing to do with how long it took for him to break, etc....
So these are men, that we know were captured by the Vietnamese...who were taken as POW...who were then subsequently left behind at the urging of John McCain? If he did indeed do this...than I won't vote for him.
If you're talking about MIA...we left thousands of MIA on the fields of Europe/Pacific, how is this any different?
I don't know how long it took McCain to break down...it would have taken me all of five minutes, so I'm not going to hold him to a higher standard. I also don't believe everything I read in the press...French or otherwise.
If you (the general you) were POW, tortured and held out longer than McCain, than you certainly have a right to question his actions. I would not deny that. But no one can withstand torture indefinitely. Those that served with McCain...and were tortured alongside him...have more credibility than a legion of soldiers who never once saw Hanoi. They all seem to hold him in high regard...as such I give their opinions more credibility than others.
Gutshot John
05-17-08, 22:17
Gutshot,
Rather than me try and explain all of this to you and what transpired you can go the website that I mentioned and read it for yourself. This should clarify things for you. It has nothing to do with how long it took for him to break, etc....
I'm really not that interested, if it can't be distilled and easily verified or dismissed it becomes just another in a long line of political hack jobs.
If you would care to make specific allegations, I will address them to the best of my ability.
Let me say that if you can prove that John McCain betrayed his comarades, I will be the first to vote against him.
If on the other hand you want me to go pick through another anonymous website and try and disproove each of their accusations, I really have better things to do.
In short, those that make accusations have the burden of proof...not the other way around.
Earlier this evening I skimmed through an interview with Sen. McCain in the new issue of NRA's First Freedom. If all it in can be believed, I feel a lot better about voting for him than I did this afternoon. Heck, if 25% of it is true (and he lives up to it), he'd be the most pro-RKBA president we've had since Teddy Roosevelt.
He's still weak on the gunshow thing. He didn't state it outright, but he still believes in the "loophole" and reading between the lines, I don't think he approves of private transfers of firearms at all.
I don't believe (nor did I in the past) that he would ever sign any kind of bill that banned any types of guns.
He's still not my ideal candidate, but if elected, he'll be better for our individual RKBA than anyone who has held the office in the last several decades.
Gutshot,
Apparently you like to argue and pick things apart just for the sake of doing it. The guys on Socnet who post on this subject are all verified SF types and many, if not all have BTDT. There are specific links to documents as well as excerpts from things McCain has said in the past. There is plenty of info there. Don't believe me just take a look on your own.
If you want to vote for McCain that is your deal. But, I highly doubt that unless you what has been said and shown you can disprove anything.
I'm really not that interested, if it can't be distilled and easily verified or dismissed it becomes just another in a long line of political hack jobs.
If you would care to make specific allegations, I will address them to the best of my ability.
Let me say that if you can prove that John McCain betrayed his comarades, I will be the first to vote against him.
If on the other hand you want me to go pick through another anonymous website and try and disproove each of their accusations, I really have better things to do.
In short, those that make accusations have the burden of proof...not the other way around.
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 09:10
Gutshot,
Apparently you like to argue and pick things apart just for the sake of doing it. The guys on Socnet who post on this subject are all verified SF types and many, if not all have BTDT. There are specific links to documents as well as excerpts from things McCain has said in the past. There is plenty of info there. Don't believe me just take a look on your own.
If you want to vote for McCain that is your deal. But, I highly doubt that unless you what has been said and shown you can disprove anything.
The problem is that I'm not arguing with you, in fact quite the contrary. You've given me nothing to argue with other than vague, unsubstantiated rumors. If you have a specific allegation, from someone who served in the Hanoi Hilton, than give me his name and his story. I'm NOT going to do your research for you.
So far as I know, and according to our system of justice, accusations must be proved. Those that make the accusations have the burden to prove them.
If you're unwilling to do that, why should I care, let alone believe?
Nathan_Bell
05-18-08, 09:27
I don't really think Reagan belongs in that list. He signed the 86 FOPA, which was a big leap forward for gun owners. It did have that pesky little 86 machine gun ban but my understanding is Reagan was willing to veto it because of the ban but was convinced by his pro-gun advisors that the plusses far outweighed the minuses and so he signed it.
I would like to know what you think Bush43 did to be on the list.
Chad
I am still slightly pissed at B43 for stating he would sign a new AWB if it hit his desk.
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 09:31
I am still slightly pissed at B43 for stating he would sign a new AWB if it hit his desk.
Let's not forget the brief he filed on the Heller case.
As for 86, what you're saying is that Reagan compromised on gun control legislation. That's fine if it helps us (though I'm not clear how it does) but compromise remains part of any politician's repertoire McCain is no different than any of his Republican predecessors.
Earlier this evening I skimmed through an interview with Sen. McCain in the new issue of NRA's First Freedom. If all it in can be believed, I feel a lot better about voting for him than I did this afternoon.
I just got this issue, and he does seem to be on the right side of things overall. Assuming he wasn't pandering of course, but I have no reason to doubt him at this point.
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 10:16
I just got this issue, and he does seem to be on the right side of things overall. Assuming he wasn't pandering, of course.
Oh he was pandering, the question is whether he follows through on the pander. We all agree that Clintobama also pander to gunowners but NO ONE here believes they have ANY intention on following through. Like Rhino said, if he follows through on 25% of what he promised he may be the most pro-2a President since Teddy.
I'm under no illusions that we're dealing with politicians.
Let's not forget the brief he filed on the Heller case.
As for 86, what you're saying is that Reagan compromised on gun control legislation. That's fine if it helps us (though I'm not clear how it does) but compromise remains part of any politician's repertoire McCain is no different than any of his Republican predecessors.
To be fair, Bush43 did not file the brief. The Justice dept did and while Bush is the head of the executive branch, it is not clear he personally directed them to file the brief.
I am not saying B43 is a godsend for RKBA. But he did not push any bans, did not sign any bans, and probably had nothing personal to do with the Heller Brief to begin with. He can be faulted for not having them withdraw it.
With regards to 86 and the "compromise." Yes it was a compromise. And the plusses far outweighed the negatives. We can buy ammo through the mail, without having to fill out paperwork for mmo purchases. I believe the 86 FOPA (Firearms Owner Protection Act) is what made it that we can buy long guns out of state, and a million other good things. About the only bad (and really annoying thing) was the 86 machine gun manufacture ban.
Unfortunately in politics, you have to compromise to make progress. As long as the compromise leads to net gains in RKBA/freedom, then I am all for it. I only am 100% opposed to compromise when it leads to a net loss. That is the time to dig in your heels and say "Hell No".
Too may pro RKBA folk are 100% opposed to compromise. The antis have long ago perfected it. They get what they want a little at a time. We have to learn to do the same thing. Get what we want back, a little at a time. We certainly aren't getting anywhere by being 100% hard ass about it. As long as the compromise is in the positive direction then we should go for it. We can take back the freedom of RKBA a little at a time.
Chad
I am still slightly pissed at B43 for stating he would sign a new AWB if it hit his desk.
Yes that was bad. But it was probably a political statement. B43 did not push any sort of bad gun ban at all. Clinton led the fight for bans. Bush did not. That is a big difference.
It is also important to look at McCain the same way. McCain is not perfect. But gun control is not his passion. As long as he is not pushing legislation and we can keep the Congress occupied, such legislation is not going anywhere.
Chad
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 15:09
To be fair, Bush43 did not file the brief. The Justice dept did and while Bush is the head of the executive branch, it is not clear he personally directed them to file the brief.
The executive bureaucracy doesn't act independently of the President's instructions. Their whole purpose is to execute his policies/priorities. They are separate but he could tell them to "stand down." If he cannot get them to stand down, than this speaks to the level of power in a federal bureaucracy. That should scare any American that a non-elected, extra-constitutional branch of government falls outside of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch control.
I could be mistaken but I believe that the Solicitor General, the President's own attorney, also submitted a brief supporting Justice's position. I'm sorry but they really are his policies. I'm not saying Bush is somehow anti-gun, I'm just saying let's not be pollyannish about it.
In terms of 86, so you agree that it's compromise. I'm a bit annoyed that I can't really buy full-auto without cutting off my left nut, but oh well, but McCain isn't any different so long as he gets us more than he loses.
You do what you got to do.
I don't go to bed with whores, and I don't wake up with whores. When Election day is over I will have a clear conscience because I voted with my principles; not with half hearted strategic measures, or for what some political party and national media outlet defecated in front of me
I'm there; McCain's issue with the nonexistent "gun show loophole" indicates he has as little knowledge of gun laws/rights as he does economic/fiscal policies. Can't support that, myself.
-B
The executive bureaucracy doesn't act independently of the President's instructions. Their whole purpose is to execute his policies/priorities. They are separate but he could tell them to "stand down." If he cannot get them to stand down, than this speaks to the level of power in a federal bureaucracy. That should scare any American that a non-elected, extra-constitutional branch of government falls outside of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch control.
I could be mistaken but I believe that the Solicitor General, the President's own attorney, also submitted a brief supporting Justice's position. I'm sorry but they really are his policies. I'm not saying Bush is somehow anti-gun, I'm just saying let's not be pollyannish about it.
The Solicitor General is not the President's own Attorney. He is the Attorney for the Executive Branch for official things. The White House has its own attorneys as well (remember harriet Myers?). I think Bush would have to cough up his own attorneys if he had personal problems he needed legal representation for.
There is nothing Pollyannish about it. I severely doubt that B43 told the Justice Dept to file the brief. Some lawyers there thought it a good idea [the whole purpose of it was to present the case of leaving the gov'ts options open in the future] and it went up the chain of command and was done. Somewhere B43 probably had to OK it and probably did. Without thinking through what the effects of it were. Is he at fault for not telling them to stand down and to withdraw it? Yes. But I do not think it indicates B43 personal beliefs of policies (it may, it is just not an indication of it). Only rather that he trusted his advisors and the briefing he got on it may not have been 100% accurate -- they stressed their points without any of the anti-gun ramifications. He signed off based on the briefing he got on it.
The job of the President is not to micromanage the country and he relies on advisors and his cabinet and the bureaucracy to run the government. There are millions of examples where departments do things that don't reflect the beliefs of the President. The recent State Department driven multi-department intelligence brief on Iran, for example, which was authored by known anti-Bush / Pro Iran careerists at the State Department and has since been shown to contain lots of factual errors.
The Heller brief was disappointing and we can fault B43 for not having it withdrawn, but I am not sure we can fault him for it originally being written and presented with the contents it had. Yes, he approved it, but probably based on the recommendations of his advisors. We can fault him for allowing it to stand.
Bush has not been an anti-RKBA President. He has not been a leading advocate for the RKBA but he has not lead any charge against RKBA either. For that we have to thank him.
I think McCain would be the same. RKBA (for or against) is not his passion and he would not make it one of the causes he politically fights for. That would have to come from the Congress. And lots of the new Democrats being elected are pro-gun conservative Democrats in the South. Most analyses show that the anto-gunness of the Congress won't change much this year. And based on historical precedence, we probably can assume that if McCain gets in he will bring more (R) into the Congress with him and that, in general, is probably good for the RKBA. And, based on his sayings, he will also probably nominate good people to the SCOTUS which is good for the RKBA
Chad
I'm there; McCain's issue with the nonexistent "gun show loophole" indicates he has as little knowledge of gun laws/rights as he does economic/fiscal policies. Can't support that, myself.
-B
Then don't. Don't support McCain based on that. Support him because he will, as President, be nominating justices to SCOTUS and most likely, based on his record and his sayings, such nominations would be good for RKBA.
Obama and Hillary would NOT do that.
If for no other reason that should be enough.
The RKBA was not decimated over night. It was decimated through a 10000 small paper cuts of compromise, always in the wrong direction. We will never get the perfect candidate running in Nov of any election year and to think we will, and to vote against the "lesser of two evils" is ridiculous. We need to start "compromising" back the other direction.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
-- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
That is what happens when we don't throw our support behind McCain as gun owners and get him elected. SCOTUS, the likely increase in good people in Congress (while not all (R) are pro gun, a majority probably are and coattails is important -- McCain would probably help (R) Congresscritters get elected), and McCain's general lack of passion for gun control (not his thing) so he is unlikely to push from the Executive side gun control measures, should be reason enough to vote for McCain, imperfect though he is. The alternative is a much worse one.
Chad
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 18:55
The Solicitor General is not the President's own Attorney. He is the Attorney for the Executive Branch for official things.
Yes I know...that's EXACTLY what I meant. The President GWB ordered the Solicitor General...to argue in support of Justice. He's putting the stature of his office...not his personal opinion...on the line. By definition this means he supports it.
Even if he didn't say "GO ARGUE THIS WAY" they couldn't file it without his approval. So in the end what's the difference?
There is nothing Pollyannish about it. I severely doubt that B43 told the Justice Dept to file the brief.
If the standard of legitimate compromise are GWB's actions/words, than I don't see what the problems are with John McCain.
Yes I know...that's EXACTLY what I meant. The President GWB ordered the Solicitor General...to argue in support of Justice. He's putting the stature of his office...not his personal opinion...on the line. By definition this means he supports it.
Even if he didn't say "GO ARGUE THIS WAY" they couldn't file it without his approval. So in the end what's the difference?
Like I said, he was briefed on the situation and probably did what his advisors told him to do. My whole point is that GWB probably did not say "We need to beat back the gun nuts and the 2A -- Go support Justice." He probably had a briefing where he was filled in on the details (that the lawyers thought were important) and he probably said "sounds good -- go take care of it". I was not there, but my point is that this was not a personal decision of GWB -- something that he was pushing. It is more a reflection on his hands-off management than any pro or anti 2A feelings he has.
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 19:06
Like I said, he was briefed on the situation and probably did what his advisors told him to do. My whole point is that GWB probably did not say "We need to beat back the gun nuts and the 2A -- Go support Justice." He probably had a briefing where he was filled in on the details (that the lawyers thought were important) and he probably said "sounds good -- go take care of it". I was not there, but my point is that this was not a personal decision of GWB -- something that he was pushing. It is more a reflection on his hands-off management than any pro or anti 2A feelings he has.
So what's the difference for you or me?
Is the point to have a pro-2a president who pays no attention to 2a issues?
If he pays no attention, is he pro-2a? or is he just another in a long line that pays lip-service to the idea?
So what's the difference for you or me?
Is the point to have a pro-2a president who pays no attention to 2a issues?
If he pays no attention, is he pro-2a? or is he just another in a long line that pays lip-service to the idea?
The difference is between such a "pay no attention to 2A issues" President and one who is actively anti-2A is that the first is not out there pushing the agenda. No major anti-gun legislation was passed during GWB terms. That is partially to the thanks of certain Congressional leaders and partly due to the lack of any sort of agenda from the WH to push such legislation. Contrast that to Clinton who had it as his personal agenda to get bad stuff passed.
While I'd rather have a definitive Pro 2A President out there actively rolling back stuff, that is rather unlikely to happen. So I will take the "pay no attention" sort so that we have one less enemy to worry about and can take the fight to those who do push the agenda.
I am not trying to sing GWB praise. Far from it. But I don't think it fair to throw him in the anti-2A crowd. And we have not lost 2A ground under Bush and probably gained some due to his SCOTUS appointments over the long term.
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 19:33
But I don't think it fair to throw him in the anti-2A crowd.
If you go back and re-read what I wrote...I said EXACTLY that.
My whole point was that if the standard for John McCain is rigid adherence to 2a, than Reagan, B41 and B43 all fail that same standard and if it's unfair to say they are anti-2a than it's equally unfair to say that John McCain is anti-2a.
I'm going to see where this Bob Barr thing goes before I commit to McCain.
I love Bob Barr. He was my Congressman when I lived in GA but moved to TN. He made me want to move back so he could represent me again.
However, as much as I like the guy and his politics, he would damage the only real chance we have.
I would prefer that he does run to give voice to the Conservative view and possibly cause McCain to remember where his constituency lies, and then, after securing some solid concessions, withdraw and throw his support behind the Majority nominee.
IMO, there is a real place for him in the party but not by tearing it apart from within but by helping to turn the compass.
Unfortunately, unless he runs and poses some kind of threat, he is powerless to compel the Republicans to do anything different than what they are thinking about right now.
He's been dealt a good hand. I just hope he knows how to play it...
So what's the difference for you or me?
Is the point to have a pro-2a president who pays no attention to 2a issues?
If he pays no attention, is he pro-2a? or is he just another in a long line that pays lip-service to the idea?
sometimes simply not being against something is equal to being for it.
in contrast with Obama, I'd say there's no choice who we want in charge. the contrast makes this clear.
I know it's a shame we can't have exactly who we all want as our perfect candidate, but he's the best chance we got. why throw that away?
Gutshot John
05-18-08, 22:23
I know it's a shame we can't have exactly who we all want as our perfect candidate, but he's the best chance we got. why throw that away?
You misunderstand, I completely agree.
You misunderstand, I completely agree.
sorry. I see that on second look.
Then don't. Don't support McCain based on that. Support him because he will, as President, be nominating justices to SCOTUS and most likely, based on his record and his sayings, such nominations would be good for RKBA.
Not saying he wouldn't, but I'd like to know why you are confident he'd do this. The issues that are most important to me he's weakest in; not even in the "conservative" or "liberal" sense, but simply in that he's not informed enough to even consider making a good decision. How do we know that he will nominate good justices, or any? How do we know if they'll get the OK by Congress? Considering the crowd he's pandering to in Congress, you and I both know there's only a slim margin of compromise they're willing to give for new Justices being any kind of "conservative".
I see an excess in faith in the Judicial branch; they won't make the laws, and they can't strike laws down federal laws on their own.
So no, that reason isn't enough. We cannot have someone as ignorant as he is on several important (not important to me, but to the nation) issues be the one we count on to nominate good Justices.
The RKBA was not decimated over night. It was decimated through a 10000 small paper cuts of compromise, always in the wrong direction. We will never get the perfect candidate running in Nov of any election year and to think we will, and to vote against the "lesser of two evils" is ridiculous. We need to start "compromising" back the other direction.
What have you seen in Senator McCain to convince you he will start compromising in the other direction? You and I both know the only way he can close on his "close the gunshow loophole" is to bring an end to non-FFL sales between individuals, and like hell if that's a compromise any of us should be willing to make. It's the only thing anti-gun he's really pushing for, but I absolutely believe it's more than enough on that particular issue for us to be legitimately concerned about him.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
-- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
That is what happens when we don't throw our support behind McCain as gun owners and get him elected. SCOTUS, the likely increase in good people in Congress (while not all (R) are pro gun, a majority probably are and coattails is important -- McCain would probably help (R) Congresscritters get elected), and McCain's general lack of passion for gun control (not his thing) so he is unlikely to push from the Executive side gun control measures, should be reason enough to vote for McCain, imperfect though he is. The alternative is a much worse one.
Scare-tactics and bogus logic at that. I'm not buying it.
Senator McCain has not proven that he will be consistent in his values; indeed, we've recently witnessed several changing in recent months from where they were only a few years ago. His immigration policies (NOT a minor detail) are atrocious. He has developed a reputation for pandering just as much as any other politician. How on earth is this the kind of Republican who will "probably help" more Republican congressmen and women get elected? That's not rhetorical, I really do want to know. Please explain to me how voting for McCain is preventing the triumph of evil by doing something, because it looks suspiciously like a "lesser of evils" to me, which is another way of saying "compromise".
At what point do we stop compromising?
-B
Not saying he wouldn't, but I'd like to know why you are confident he'd do this. The issues that are most important to me he's weakest in; not even in the "conservative" or "liberal" sense, but simply in that he's not informed enough to even consider making a good decision. How do we know that he will nominate good justices, or any? How do we know if they'll get the OK by Congress? Considering the crowd he's pandering to in Congress, you and I both know there's only a slim margin of compromise they're willing to give for new Justices being any kind of "conservative".
McCain just gave a big speech on this. And his own voting record on judges -- he voted for Bork as well as Roberts and Alito.
I see an excess in faith in the Judicial branch; they won't make the laws, and they can't strike laws down federal laws on their own.
because they are the last line. Once it gets past them there is no changing it.
So no, that reason isn't enough. We cannot have someone as ignorant as he is on several important (not important to me, but to the nation) issues be the one we count on to nominate good Justices.
Again, look at his own record on Justices he supported as Senator. And his recent speech. I would rather take my chance on McCain than on Obama or Clinton. There is no guarantee in life but I would rather take a chance on the guy who is not perfect to the guy/gal who is guaranteed bad.
What have you seen in Senator McCain to convince you he will start compromising in the other direction? You and I both know the only way he can close on his "close the gunshow loophole" is to bring an end to non-FFL sales between individuals, and like hell if that's a compromise any of us should be willing to make.
Gun Control of any sort is not McCain's thing. He is not out there pushing it. That is better than someone who is more likely to make an issue of it. At the very least. Also, if he gets strong gun-owner support he is more likely to have pro-gun advisors. If gun owners give him the shaft publicly, he will likely NOT have pro gun advisors.
It's the only thing anti-gun he's really pushing for, but I absolutely believe it's more than enough on that particular issue for us to be legitimately concerned about him.
Obama and Clinton want to do more than just close the "gunshow loophole".
You do not have any other choices. Do your best with the choice you have and don't whine about the choice that you don't have.
If McCain becomes President, and he tries to "close the gunshow loophole" then we work hard to convince him he is wrong and get Congress to not do it etc. It is a chance you have to take.
Scare-tactics and bogus logic at that. I'm not buying it.
How is it bogus logic? Again, to paraphrase, evil succeeds because good men do nothing. How is not supporting McCain going to help RKBA? The alternative is worse. You and I are (amongst) the good men. To sit back and sit out this is a vote for evil.
Senator McCain has not proven that he will be consistent in his values; indeed, we've recently witnessed several changing in recent months from where they were only a few years ago. His immigration policies (NOT a minor detail) are atrocious.
I agree they are/were atrocious. They are not worse than the alternative and in MANY THINGS much better. You will not get a your perfect candidate. The primaries are the time to be worried about that. Once we get past the primaries, whether we like it or not, there are 2 choices. Whining about it only lets the evil slip in.
He has developed a reputation for pandering just as much as any other politician. How on earth is this the kind of Republican who will "probably help" more Republican congressmen and women get elected?
Historically the winning President brings along extra votes for his party's Congressional candidates and usually increases his party's Congressional showing. There are a LOT of people who will vote the party line (many jurisdictions have that as an option on the ballot) and so they are really voting for President only and happen to vote for all the other people of the same party,
That's not rhetorical, I really do want to know. Please explain to me how voting for McCain is preventing the triumph of evil by doing something, because it looks suspiciously like a "lesser of evils" to me, which is another way of saying "compromise".
We live in the real world. Not some fictional world. Once we get past the primaries there are only 2 people to vote for. That is fact. Nothing you or I can do about it. We live in a political world. You have to take what is given to you and make the best out of that, not cry for something you don't have.
You may vote what you call "lesser of two evils" but that is much better than voting for the "greater of two evils" and not voting is the same thing as voting for the lesser of two evils.
Obama/Clinton are much more anti-RKBA than McCain. And maybe in his run for President, McCain has learned something. He is talking a much better talk now on RKBA. If we are going to "Hell in a Handbasket" I'd rather get there by walking and not riding a Ninja or other bullet bike. At least walking, we have more time to figure out ways to reverse the course.
We do not live in a perfect world. We are in the spot we are in now because for too long the anti gun people have figured out the politics of compromise and how to get where they want to go that way. We need to learn the politics and stop being the "draw the line in the sand" absolutists because absolutist philosophy has gotten us exactly no where. We need to turn it around and compromise back the other direction. The first step in not doing that is to stop or slow down the forward motion so you have room to maneuver.
I am not a McCain fan. But all gun owners need to come out and show very strong support for him or else we are all screwed. I'd rather take a chance on maybe getting screwed a little by McCain than to bend over and pass out the Vaseline that will happen with Obama/Clinton and an expanded Democrat Congress.
Also, please explain to me how NOT supporting McCain helps the RKBA.
At what point do we stop compromising?
-B
You never stop compromising. You just make sure the compromises are in your favor.
Not supporting McCain is not "stopping compromising." It is accelerating the necessity for the bad compromises -- it is putting the pro-RKBA politicians into a corner and making their job a lot harder. Remember, you cannot just "do nothing."
to summarize:
the time to be an idealist is before/during the primaries.
once you get to the general election you have to be a realist and do the best with what you have and not cry about what you don't have.
The successes in the world make the best of the situation they are in and not worry and whine about what might have been.
I am not a McCain fan. But all gun owners need to come out and show very strong support for him or else we are all screwed. I'd rather take a chance on maybe getting screwed a little by McCain than to bend over and pass out the Vaseline that will happen with Obama/Clinton and an expanded Democrat Congress.
Also, please explain to me how NOT supporting McCain helps the RKBA.
Agreed.
As well, I imagine registered Republicans not supporting McCain is supposed to affirm discontent amongst the party. As far as it's likely effectiveness, maybe after 100 years or so, sadly.
variablebinary
05-19-08, 05:37
For what it's worth, I think Mccain will get slaughtered in the Generals by Obama.
Granted, political tides shift daily before the big end game in november, but if the election were held today, I think Mccain would lose to Obama
I say this because people actually like Obama. They believe in him, want to be near him, and have great passion for his causes.
Who does McCain have? Some people who dont want Obama in the office. Real conservatives want nothing to do with the guy, and left leading independents would rather have Obama. No way in hell McCain is going to out-liberal a liberal with his so-called centrist bullshit.
When do you ever seen McCain packing in voters like this...
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/05/18/PH2008051801901.jpg
That's 75,000 making it one hell of a politcal rally that McCain only dreams about.
Kerry couldnt win because the left hated GWB. McCain cant win because the right hates Obama. These is not a winning campaing slogan:
"McCain 08; at least I'm not Obama."
or how about
"McCain 08: I suck a little less than Obama"
I dont have a single reason to support McCain other than trying to thwart Obama. Well, sorry, that isnt enough to earn my vote.
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/1ascrewed002.jpg
First, eguns, I need to clarify something to you since you have a misconception about my own intentions. I will not sit this election out. Not voting is not an option. I already know who I'm voting for, and it's none of the "big three" because all of them are seriously flawed, and I have a hard time believing any of them are "less evil" enough to matter for all intents and purposes.
On SC Justices: does not matter. If elected president, McCain can nominate whoever he wants, but then he has to contend with the Democratic majority in the Senate to confirm his nominees. Nothing will change that. Considering the balance shift Bush Junior pushed into the Supreme Court, and the anti-Republican bend so many Congressmen/women are taking lately, do you honestly believe he'll get good people into the Supreme Court? He can nominate them, but do you think they'll get there? Reminds me of that annoying phrase "It's the thought that counts."
On gun control, McCain has no real position on it. So he won't sign the AWB, cool. He campaigned with "closing the gun show loophole" as a plank he's voiced often. He's appeared on commercials with the two big Democratic Party candidates about it. He's mentioned it in speeches outside the so-called "debates". I don't care if it's "his thing" or not, he's made very clear his views and they're intolerable. To dismiss his views as not being strong or overriding does not change the fact that he has a policy in mind he'd probably implement (policy that, by the way, was introduced in Congress within the last couple days). He doesn't have to personally push for it; he just has to let the Democratic majority in Congress push it to his desk.
"Obama and Clinton want to do more than just close the 'gunshow loophole' ". That's a red herring. We're not talking about either of those candidates since there can't get my vote, ever. Since they're not options, focus on who is. That said, I do have options. There's a lot more than three people running for president (heck, there's still two people in the Republican party, the less popular of which is doing a number on local-level politics in determining delegates). The garbage that "a vote for <insert name> is a vote for Clinton/Obama" has no moral or practical bearing. Actually, it could be construed as a good thing. The RNC might finally realize its base is fed up with its choices and it won't compromise values anymore.
It is a chance you have to take.
No, it's not. It's a choice you have to take. My choice has been made up. I'm not compromising my vote for a lesser of evils because that lesser of evils can still do incredible harm. How you can stomach that is beyond me.
As for bogus logic, let's examine that, yes?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
-- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
That is what happens when we don't throw our support behind McCain as gun owners and get him elected. SCOTUS, the likely increase in good people in Congress (while not all (R) are pro gun, a majority probably are and coattails is important -- McCain would probably help (R) Congresscritters get elected), and McCain's general lack of passion for gun control (not his thing) so he is unlikely to push from the Executive side gun control measures, should be reason enough to vote for McCain, imperfect though he is. The alternative is a much worse one.
Statement: Evil triumphs if good does nothing
Claim: Evil will triumph if McCain is not supported
Support: ?
Claim: Lack of passion means less push from Executive branch
Support: ?
Supporting McCain is not supporting good, it's supporting McCain, a Senator with some serious character flaws and a slightly-off moral compass. Voting McCain into the White House still puts evil into the White House. Even if you disagree, you have no objective basis by which to measure good and evil and where McCain falls on that continuum.
Further, "lack of passion" means nothing if the Congress is already set-up (as it is now) to push through what it can. A ban might reach his desk, he vetoes it. A registration might reach his desk, he might veto it. A bill like, say, S.2577 Gun Show Background Check Act of 2008, reaches his desk and what do you suspect will happen? He campaigned for it while running, he's commented on it long before he was running, and now it sits on his desk without him having even to push for it. Unless you know something we don't, that doesn't sound like something to be dismissive about.
You see, I don't need a "perfect candidate". I'm not asking for a candidate to align perfectly with me on views. I'm only asking for a candidate who promises to do his job and only his job, per his job description (we call it the Constitution here), and preferably to share my views on economic/fiscal policy and re-consolidation of national defense resources. I have that candidate and it is absolutely not in McCain, who hasn't the foggiest idea of the scope and workings of economic and fiscal policies and whose judgment on the conflict overseas yet lack of concern for our own borders is suspect.
Please explain to me how NOT supporting McCain helps the RKBA.
You're asking me to prove a negative and to compromise my position in the argument. You must first explain how supporting McCain helps the RKBA, and as I've described above we have good reason to believe he won't. Of the three major pieces of gun control legislation in their infancy in Congress, one he said he won't sign, one he campaigned for, and the other is unknown. The Democratic candidates are exactly one bill better.
I won't be "doing nothing". I'll keep fight all three of those media-beloved candidates in the same way I fight unconstitutional bills in Congress; with my voice, with my vote, and by organizing others of like mind to do the same.
-B
variablebinary, while I agree with you on virtually every point, to be fair I think most Republicans have already assumed who the nominee is and don't see a point in "going to visit" if they believe that A) have a good idea who the nominee is and B) can learn what they need to know from the news/internet.
Anyway, your final comment rings pretty true for me. Sucking less is still sucking.
-B
"Obama and Clinton want to do more than just close the 'gunshow loophole' ". That's a red herring. We're not talking about either of those candidates since there can't get my vote, ever. Since they're not options, focus on who is. That said, I do have options. There's a lot more than three people running for president (heck, there's still two people in the Republican party, the less popular of which is doing a number on local-level politics in determining delegates). The garbage that "a vote for <insert name> is a vote for Clinton/Obama" has no moral or practical bearing. Actually, it could be construed as a good thing. The RNC might finally realize its base is fed up with its choices and it won't compromise values anymore.
It's not a red herring if you acknowledge the FACT that one of two (three if you give Hillary a chance) people will take the oath of office as the President next January; John McCain or Barack Obama. Period. Ron Paul is not winning, nor is Bob Barr or anyone else.
I am certainly no McCain fan but he easily wins the plusses/minuses against B.H.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.