View Full Version : How bad does it bother you knowing Obama will win
Take for example the NPR's predicition (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html) or the CNN Election map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) or the Real clear politics map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5). All three sources show Obama with a lead. If you were to give each candidate each state that is currently leaning towards them, and then all tossup states to McCain, McCain is still behind according to three different sources.
Bases on the three results the electoral turnout would be (McCain/Obama)...
NPR: 265/273
CNN: 261/277
RCP: 252/286
The only predicition map that gives McCain a chance is 270 to win at 274/264. (http://www.270towin.com/). It seems to have less Obama leaning states, and more tossup states. Unfortunately, giving McCain all the tossups still only puts them at a 269-269 tie, according to 270towin's blog updated one week ago (http://www.270towin.com/blog/).
It's done for McCain, especially after his recent senior moments.
Whatever, I don't care, but seeing as how you all are the most rage-filled people that get butthurt at the slightest news of a Democrat taking office, I'd like to see what you all think.
Oh, and voting Obama and still owning ARs, pistols, high cap mags, and PVC. I really am not worried about it.
I will wait till the votes are counted and then they figure out how many votres are false thanks to acorn
the idea of the left is to say its over so they hope you dont go out and vote for McCain
so you think nothing is going to happen to the price of ammo or your rights related to firearms with obama in office ?
guess we can come back to this thread if he wins in a few years see how things are ?
then again maybe if he gets in and things get worse all the lefties can still blame bush thats all the left and most all dems I know are good for is blaming others and never taking responsibility for anything
O_o
I don't even know what to make of this topic.
"It ain't over till it's over" Do not get all wrapped around a bunch of "Obama has won the election" BS from the left that is designed to keep the McCain voters from going to vote. The polls had Reagan down a few weeks before the election too. They are also guessing that the democrats will pick up seats in the house and senate. They have been in charge for 2 years and have a lower approval rating than "evil Bush".
I don't see anyone here as "rage filled or butthurt" as you conveniently describe all of us.
But it does raise the question, why anyone who owns guns, would be planning to vote for two far left socialist gun banners. Makes me think you might be some sort of leftist infiltraitor inside the wire posing as one of us.
:eek:
variablebinary
10-18-08, 04:31
Very sickening
There have been a number of articles written lately about the difference between the pre-election polls and the actual election results going back 40 years or more. The +/- 3% margin of error business is baloney. They are historical off by a wide margin in almost every election. And almost ALWAYS off in one specific direction... :rolleyes:
Don't fall victim to the enemy's PSYOPS which is intended to get you to give up, right? Like dropping leaflets. Vote and wait to see what really happens.
Polls mean nothing. People will say different stuff on the phone vs the polling place. What were Bush's 2004 pre election polling numbers? I remember well how bad Kerry was beating him in the exit polls on election day. Clearly polls have issues if they can't even properly figure out who someone just voted for a couple of minutes ago.
Business_Casual
10-18-08, 08:07
Citing polls that show there is no way to win is as bad as voter suppression. In fact, that what those pollls are designed to do - suppress and demoralize the Replublicans.
Don't believe the hype - get out and vote and make sure your conservative friends do as well.
M_P
VooDoo6Actual
10-18-08, 08:37
You don't KNOW until the last card is turned over.
No doubt, It does not look good.
Very bad. The end of all life as Gun Owner's currently know it. I will still cast as many votes as I can for my guy.
I have envision what it would be like to have b. Hussein o. as a POTUS and I don't like it a bit. I can't even make myself say his name.:mad:
But like others said, I'm not a quitter and won't give up. If we're going by the pollsters, why the hell do we bother to hold elections? :confused: Just let the communist news network select the president.
Go vote for McCain/Palin and let the chip falls on November 4th.
Joe_Friday
10-18-08, 09:00
It's not over and the fat lady has not sung. I am not really a big believer in polls but even this mornings Gallup poll shows Obama at 49% and McCain at 47%. Well within the margin of error. I agree though, that these anti-McCain/Republican adds do not help the cause due to the sheer number of sheeple in the USA.
RogerinTPA
10-18-08, 09:24
He will only win if voter apathy sets in (It works both ways). If you are a right leaning gun owner, you cannot throw in the towel just yet. Get out and vote.
Whatever, I don't care, but seeing as how you all are the most rage-filled people that get butthurt at the slightest news of a Democrat taking office, I'd like to see what you all think.
According to James Carville, the enemy is the one we have to be concerned about most if they lose the election:
"Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5- point lead and losing this election, the consequences are -- bull, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David it's a point to bring up.
"But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there..."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/07/acd.02.html
Very, Very, Very dramatic? Wow, that's three verys! :eek: Sounds pretty rage-filled to me.
Good thing there are a lot of well armed, reasonable people here who are ready to deal with this kind of potentially violent unrest should it be brought to our doorsteps.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. (Mark Twain)
Here are a few excepts from a column by Ann Coulter about presidential elections, statistics, and particularly, polls. She did a study of polls and statistics going back to every election since 1976. Cited from the McCarville Report Online (http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/10/coulter-history-of-presidential-polls.html).
* Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.
* In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.
* Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.
* In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
* In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.
* So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points. In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.
* In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or John Kerry 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.
The point of all this? Draw your own conclusions, but in general, polls are among the most imprecise things around, far from reliable. That whole business about "+ or - 3% points" of accuracy is hogwash. In the history of the statistics just cited, the polls could be off by as many as 17 percentage points!!!
Public opinion polls, IMHO, are one of the most pernicious and manipulative things ever invented, particularly when dealing with highly subjective matters concerning politics, culture, values, etc. It's one thing to take a poll and ask something like: Did you buy vacuum cleaner brand X? Did it break down within the first year? Those are yes/no questions, fairly objective. Those kinds of polls are quite useful.
But polls asking questions about politics and how people are going to vote and so forth, can be, and ARE, used to sway the outcome of the election. How else can someone explain why polls from certain organizations just seem to coincidentally always be "wrong" in a certain direction? As Coulter said, why is it that polls from the New York Times always seem to be wrong in favor of the liberal and/or Democratic candidates?
Clearly the "vast left-wing conspiracy" in America exists. It is a movement that wants to turn America into yet another pansy, Euro-socialist empire like France or Sweden, with handouts for all, and government running EVERYTHING. And the public opinion polls, whose questions can be subtly tweaked and whose results can be so easily predetermined, are their favorite tool.
what bothers me is that people blindly follow him and take him for his "word" and not his record.
I still feel in my joints that Obama is not going to win.
EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY'D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER (http://www.anncoulter.com/)
October 15, 2008, by Ann Coulter
Ann is always a hoot and this article covers how many times Democrats have led in the polls - but lost. And how strangely, the polls never seem to ever benefit Republicans this way... hmmm.
Makes me think you might be some sort of leftist infiltraitor inside the wire posing as one of us.
:eek:
Hahahaha. Because a gun owner can't just be a gun owner AND a liberal.
what bothers me is that people blindly follow him and take him for his "word" and not his record.
but people blindly vote for McCain simply because he is republican.
what bothers me is that people blindly follow him and take him for his "word" and not his record.
Or that he has NEVER held an executive position before. In his life. This will in fact be his "first job" in that regard. The implications of a newly elected president who is on 100% OJT -- not just as a president but as a leader in ANY capacity -- is almost beyond comprehension. It would be like interviewing a college graduate and liking him so much you decide to make him CEO -- When can you start?!
Because a gun owner can't just be a gun owner AND a liberal.
Well not for very long, anyway. Kind of a temporary state.
John_Wayne777
10-18-08, 11:54
An election is a lot like a gunfight. You don't call quitsies in the middle of it and the only way to know who won is to do an assessment after the smoke has cleared.
An election is a lot like a gunfight. You don't call quitsies in the middle of it and the only way to know who won is to do an assessment after the smoke has cleared.
And in your state, we need you to keep that attitude!
John_Wayne777
10-18-08, 12:07
Hahahaha. Because a gun owner can't just be a gun owner AND a liberal.
but people blindly vote for McCain simply because he is republican.
"Blindly?"
Dude, I don't know where you came from, but you're trolling the wrong ****ing site.
Obama is completely opposed to the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of stopping assholes who want to kill us. That's a non starter on a site dedicated to the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of stopping assholes who want to kill us.
Obama wants to surrender in the war on terrorists who want to kill us. That's a non starter for a lot of the members of this site who support the idea of killing terrorists so much that they've spent years in government service shooting the evil mother****ers in the face.
There's nothing "blind" about who the vast majority of people on this site support.
Obama is a feckless clown and most of us have enough sense to realize that while he's not trampling our important rights he'll be so busy fouling up foreign policy so bad that the Bill Clinton screwups which gave us 9/11 and Iraq will look TAME. It's bad enough that tons of other sites are overflowing with democrat trolls trying to wage a propaganda war....
We don't need that crap here. Feel free to announce your intention to poke us in the ****ing eye at your encounter group or to your life partner, but shutup about it here.
Mods, if I'm out of line, do whatcha gotta do.
EDIT -- Rage filled? Butt hurt? I don't think I have to worry much about the mods. As soon as a mod sees your stupid ****ing posts they'll flush your account like the turd it is. Hasta la vista, mother****er.
Or that he has NEVER held an executive position before. In his life. This will in fact be his "first job" in that regard. The implications of a newly elected president who is on 100% OJT -- not just as a president but as a leader in ANY capacity -- is almost beyond comprehension. It would be like interviewing a college graduate and liking him so much you decide to make him CEO -- When can you start?!
McCain has never held an executive position. Or Biden. McCain had time in the military, what, 20 combat hours and 23 flights. Somehow earning him 28 medals. Of course you'll get a Lt. Commander position when your daddy is Admiral. So what, having control over a 1000 people in the military might be leadership, but its far from an executive seat.
Only Palin, and she's dumber than hell who lies through her teeth.
John_Wayne777
10-18-08, 12:14
McCain has never held an executive position. Or Biden. McCain had time in the military, what, 20 combat hours and 23 flights. Somehow earning him 28 medals. Of course you'll get a Lt. Commander position when your daddy is Admiral. So what, having control over a 1000 people in the military might be leadership, but its far from an executive seat.
You're too ****ing stupid for words.
Will some kind mod or staffer please whack this mole?
Only Palin, and she's dumber than hell who lies through her teeth.
What is the highest grade that you completed? You speak with the eloquence of a true Obama supporter...
Obama wants to surrender in the war on terrorists who want to kill us. That's a non starter for a lot of the members of this site who support the idea of killing terrorists so much that they've spent years in government service shooting the evil mother****ers in the face.
Contact your local service branch for a follow up PTSD treatment.
Obama wants to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the current threat of Al Qaeda terrorists cells are real. What he wants is to get out of Iraq, which has, zero absolute connection to the 9/11 attacks, and never had WMDs that we as the American people were so quick to believe after Colin Powell so convincingly stood in front of us on national Television holding a vial of Anthrax.
So saying that Obama wants to surrender is a completely ignorant thing to say.
Osama Bin Laden conducted the attacks in America, have most of forgotten that? How does pulling out of Iraq make someone surrender to the War on Terror?
What is the highest grade that you completed? You speak with the eloquence of a true Obama supporter...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ
She lies. Through her teeth. She doesn't answer question. She roundabouts answers. Nice try.
Joe_Friday
10-18-08, 12:39
You're too ****ing stupid for words.
Will some kind mod or staffer please whack this mole?
Thanks JW777, I could not have said it better myself!
She doesn't answer question.
See, that would be "She doesn't answer questions" -- it's plural the way you used it. "She doesn't answer question" makes no sense.
She roundabouts answers.
Uh, I won't even bother with this one... What grade was that again?
Take for example the NPR's predicition (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html) or the CNN Election map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) or the Real clear politics map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5). All three sources show Obama with a lead. If you were to give each candidate each state that is currently leaning towards them, and then all tossup states to McCain, McCain is still behind according to three different sources.
Bases on the three results the electoral turnout would be (McCain/Obama)...
NPR: 265/273
CNN: 261/277
RCP: 252/286
The only predicition map that gives McCain a chance is 270 to win at 274/264. (http://www.270towin.com/). It seems to have less Obama leaning states, and more tossup states. Unfortunately, giving McCain all the tossups still only puts them at a 269-269 tie, according to 270towin's blog updated one week ago (http://www.270towin.com/blog/).
It's done for McCain, especially after his recent senior moments.
Whatever, I don't care, but seeing as how you all are the most rage-filled people that get butthurt at the slightest news of a Democrat taking office, I'd like to see what you all think.
Oh, and voting Obama and still owning ARs, pistols, high cap mags, and PVC. I really am not worried about it.
You're a fool.
Take a moment to reflect upon the fact that Obama's "tax cut" consists of an actual no-shit free check for $500 - $3500 or more to the slightly more than 50% of the work force that effectively pays no federal income taxes. When the effects of his bullshit socialist "spreading the wealth around" (I quote him directly) hit your wallet, we'll point at you and laugh.
When you're stuck in lines waiting for your shitty "free" healthcare, we'll point at you and laugh.
When you turn on the radio on the way to work and get nothing but the same drivel on every station because of the "fairness doctrine", we'll point at you and laugh.
When you start to see businesses around you shut their doors after being driven into the ground by unions who are free to strong-arm workers because they no longer have to use secret ballots, we'll point at you and laugh.
We'll be laughing because you were stupid enough to buy his bullshit. I'm no conservative, and I'm no McCain fan, but I'm not a bloody idiot either.
Contact your local service branch for a follow up PTSD treatment.
Obama wants to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the current threat of Al Qaeda terrorists cells are real. What he wants is to get out of Iraq, which has, zero absolute connection to the 9/11 attacks, and never had WMDs that we as the American people were so quick to believe after Colin Powell so convincingly stood in front of us on national Television holding a vial of Anthrax.
So saying that Obama wants to surrender is a completely ignorant thing to say.
Osama Bin Laden conducted the attacks in America, have most of forgotten that? How does pulling out of Iraq make someone surrender to the War on Terror?
Are you kidding me?
The definition of a WMD is fairly wide, it doesn't pertain solely to "nukes". Saddam had a stockpile of chemical agents--which can be just as deadly (and arguably more practical to use).
It's called "psychological warfare", I'd suggest reading up on it. Or rather maybe you could take a class on it. Granted you probably won't find anything at your local liberal university, but you never know.
Obama has ZERO first-hand military knowledge. ZERO.
This will be my first and last reply in this thread. It will surely be locked in a few hours. Enjoy your stay.
Hahahaha. Because a gun owner can't just be a gun owner AND a liberal.
but people blindly vote for McCain simply because he is republican.
You don't seem to understand, this really isn't about McCain, and it isn't about "politics as usual", Republican vs Democrat, and all that. It's about much larger issues than a typical election.
Personally, not meaning any disrespect to John McCain as a man, but I am actually not happy that he won the Republican nomination. I have never liked McCain's politics or his style.
However, the problem is that Obama is fundamentally out of step with America's history, its values, and its Constitution. I think that many of us--and for sure this is where I stand--view Obama as essentially un-American. He is attempting to alter our most cherished values and to undermine our Constitution, and for that reason, I don't think it would be putting it too strongly or dramatically to say that I view Barack Obama as an ENEMY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. He is, in effect, a political terrorist--if not a military one--who will most certainly attempt to hijack our Constitution and turn our country into something completely different from what our founding fathers intended. For this reason, even if he should manage to somehow pull the wool over enough American eyes to 'win' this election, I will never accept him as my President, and will always view him as a usurper and someone to be resisted by every legitimate and legal means.
This is why I will vote for McCain: not because I love McCain--who seems rather a dolt, to me--but because I view Obama as an evil traitor to our country, who will damage us so badly that we may never recover.
Joe_Friday
10-18-08, 13:42
Not that I am a big fan, but straight fron Wiki:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
Um, Redsel, you there???
Are you kidding me?
The definition of a WMD is fairly wide, it doesn't pertain solely to "nukes". Saddam had a stockpile of chemical agents--which can be just as deadly (and arguably more practical to use).
It's called "psychological warfare", I'd suggest reading up on it. Or rather maybe you could take a class on it. Granted you probably won't find anything at your local liberal university, but you never know.
Obama has ZERO first-hand military knowledge. ZERO.
This will be my first and last reply in this thread. It will surely be locked in a few hours. Enjoy your stay.
Go back to TFR, Autophile, I liked you more there.
What really gets me is how everyone seems to be pretty raged.
I'll bet anyone 10 PMags that Obama gets elected. I'll even bet my LMT Standard Service that he does nothing to hinder gun ownership at the end of his first four years.
And no, this wasn't a troll. I asked how upset does it make you that he is going to get elected and it clearly shows you all get quite upset. Especially when you all have an avid gun owner that is not Republican amongst your kind.
Hahahaha. Because a gun owner can't just be a gun owner AND a liberal.
You may be an owner, but you can't be a supporter of gun rights and an American Liberal, they are mutually exclusive. Gun ownership is and individual right. Liberalism emphasizes the rights of the group over the individual through state mandate. Modern liberals seek to deprive the individual of his right to self defense because of a fundamental lack of trust for the individual and because gun ownership by the individual will weaken his dependency on, and fear of the state.
Contact your local service branch for a follow up PTSD treatment.
Attempting to make fun of those in service to our country will garner you no support here.
You may be an owner, but you can't be a supporter of gun rights and an American Liberal, they are mutually exclusive. Gun ownership is and individual right. Liberalism emphasizes the rights of the group over the individual through state mandate. Modern liberals seek to deprive the individual of his right to self defense because of a fundamental lack of trust for the individual and because gun ownership by the individual will weaken his dependency on, and fear of the state.
Attempting to make fun of those in service to our country will garner you no support here.
You're classifying a singular belief into a unitary whole. I don't consider myself Liberal, more moderate if anything. I never said I was voting Obama because my "liberal group" told me so. Do you think I like Obama's plan of ceasing to build Nukes, and in return asking everyone else to disarm?
Holy shit, that is one thing about Obama that I hate. America has dug itself a deep hole as far as image goes. If we want the support, trust and respect of other nations, I see no better way than to start setting good examples. However, Obama wants to set an example, and as a form of reciprocity he wants other countries to disarm? Hell no I don't believe in that. I believe ceasing to make nukes could very well be a good thing, I don't see it as a security risk for the U.S. considering we have over 2800. I see it as a good thing that other countries might see that we are taming down our nuclear arms, and in return they might as well. But asking countries to completely disarm on behalf of the fact that we stopped the production of nuclear missiles, that's bullshit. I don't know where you stand on this specific issue, but you can clearly see I don't support Obama on his decisions here. I think some people take it too far and think that Obama is somehow turning his back on the country by doing this though.
Secondly,
Whoa hey now, I'm not the one that boasted about shooting people in the face.
and Joe Friday, I have to go out for a while, is that going to be ok? You seem to have this control issue over me if I don't reply within 10 minutes. It's 61 degrees here with 1-2 mph winds and 61% humidity. I think it sounds like a good day to shoot 600 yards instead of bullshit politics.
I believe ceasing to make nukes could very well be a good thing, I don't see it as a security risk for the U.S. considering we have over 2800. I see it as a good thing that other countries might see that we are taming down our nuclear arms, and in return they might as well.
I think you must be some 18 year old kid who has never been out of mommy and daddies house
and if you are older you must have never traveled and are brain dead to think this ????
also sadly I guess you must be one of the people that dont pay taxes in this country expecting others to take care of you !!!!
me I dont want obama giving away my money to someone who refuses to work harder to get ahead
he is lying about his tax plan a $500 check is not a tax cut
he will give me a check then charge me another %20 on my taxes
Hahahaha. Because a gun owner can't just be a gun owner AND a liberal.
Actually, a liberal can own a gun but is then most likely a hypocrite. Liberals believe in government control and intervention. Government knows best. If the government can intervene in every other aspect of your life, what is to stop them from intervening in your gun ownership?
but people blindly vote for McCain simply because he is republican.
No, because Obama is a gun grabber marxist with no experience at anything who behaves like an entitled rock star. He wants to turn the USA into a Banana Republic socialist worker's haven. That is why people are voting for McCain.
People are voting for McCain out of their own best interest. It is a lot better than blindly voting for Obama because he is
1) a Democrat
2) because he likes "change" (not to bother with the fact that his "change" is a retreat to failed old policies like windfall profits tax, higher capital gains taxes, government take over of health care, income redistribution in the name of "fairness", etc -- not one of his "change" policies is new and exciting -- all failed old policies of the past, of LBJ, of Carter, of others)
3) he is a rock star Messiah and you "just have to believe"
4) He is not Bush
Obama voters are Lemmings. Most cannot even tell you 1 concrete thing Obama stands for.
And a vote for Obama is a vote against the 2A, firearms ownership, and freedom. It is a vote for dependency and slavery to the government, who gets to decide who is entitled to what.
Holy shit, that is one thing about Obama that I hate. America has dug itself a deep hole as far as image goes. If we want the support, trust and respect of other nations, I see no better way than to start setting good examples.
America has only lost image to the unwashed masses of the world. In the corridors of power, the USA still stands at the top and is respected by all. Who is the first country that is approached to help fix a problem? The USA. Why? Because we stand by our word and follow through. Bush has been stellar about that.
Obama would destroy that. His fawning to the world's masses and leaders and "apologizing" on behalf of the USA would destroy the respect and make us look wishy washy and not standing up for our beliefs.
Obama wants us to be loved, not respected. I'd rather be respected than loved.
The USA is not popular on the masses level, but who cares. They are all misguided. Why should we change our beliefs to fit the misguided masses of the world? Most of whom live in socialized countries RIFE with their own problems?
There was an interesting article a couple of years ago -- the link I have is now dead so that I cannot post it. However, the basic premise was that the more we are disliked on the streets of Europe, or anywhere, the more likely it is we are doing the right things. The right things are not usually popular or easy or pleasant, but they are the right things. Obama wants to be popular and is not fit to lead. PERIOD.
You're classifying a singular belief into a unitary whole. I don't consider myself Liberal, more moderate if anything. I never said I was voting Obama because my "liberal group" told me so. Do you think I like Obama's plan of ceasing to build Nukes, and in return asking everyone else to disarm?
Secondly,
Whoa hey now, I'm not the one that boasted about shooting people in the face.
More of an outlook on life than a singular belief.
Liberals champion freedom of speech only when you are saying what they believe. Children in school receive lesser grades or ridicule when the don't regurgitate the liberal philosophy of the teacher. The fairness docrine, hatred for dissenting news organizations (i.e. Fox news), redistribution of wealth, increased government power/authority, freedom FROM religion religion rather than freedom of religion, and the welfare state.
All of the above is meant to usurp individual rights for the (perceived) rights of the group. Liberals try to break down traditional, family, or religious structures so there is nothing left but the government and the group.
Secondly,
What exactly do you think the military does?
MisterWilson
10-18-08, 15:18
Hahahaha. Because a gun owner can't just be a gun owner AND a liberal.
but people blindly vote for McCain simply because he is republican.
What in the hell are you smoking man?
I suppose you could be a gun owning liberal, much like an unborn fetus could be pro-choice. It's self defeating.
I'm socially liberal, I don't fall in lockstep with all conservative values, but when it comes to MY guns and MY money, I know which side my bread's buttered on. You would be well served to learn the same.
As for why people vote "blindly" for McCain, because he's a republican, what an ever-loving crock of shit man. How about because he's the most likely candidate to pick Supreme Court Justices who are most likely to support the cause and the RIGHT of gun ownership.
You're a gun owner but you still don't see the purpose nor is it as important to you as it is to us. If it was, you'd be singing a different tune. I'd wager that it's no more than a hobby or novelty to you. Something you feel you could live without and don't truly "need". You vote accordingly.
To us, we see it as a way of life, a means to protect that way of life. We vote accordingly as well.
ETA: And your absolutist perspective on who will obviously win the election shows your ignorance to reality, much less history.
Alpha Sierra
10-18-08, 15:31
Oh, and voting Obama and still owning ARs, pistols, high cap mags, and PVC. I really am not worried about it.
Then you are a certifiable idiot or a troll. Which is it?
Well, Redsel, wrap your lips around this; The Brady Campaign has just endorsed Acrock Osamabama for president. The last I heard, the Brady Bunch was ANTI-gun!
And, Redsel, don't YOU forget to vote. I strongly believe Acrock Osamabama is going to need the help.
First off, Redsel, if you're not here to troll, then you should consider doing something besides stirring the pot in Obama-related threads, and starting threads that have no purpose other than poking the hornets nest with a stick. If you just want to be the Token Gun-owning Liberal, eat your heart out, but don't get all pissy when everyone gangs up on you when you go out of your way to be contrarian. I won't sign up on DemocraticUnderground under the screen name "ReaganiteGunNut" or open a bacon-cheeseburger stand in downtown Tehran, either.
As far as the topic at hand, of course the idea of "knowing Obama will win" bothers us. Just as "knowing" McCain will win would obviously piss you off. Of course a big part of the problem is that we don't know that Obama will win. We're constantly bombarded with praise for him in the media, projections, polls, etc., along with evidence of active voter fraud efforts on a national scale. And yet the margin of error covers the gap in many of the polls! This whole thing isn't over until it's over, and most folks here aren't the type to just roll over and stop caring because we've been told we lost. That's why the M4Carbine.net crowd is so adverse to your line of questioning.
Furthermore, why shouldn't we be bothered at the thought of his winning? Barak Obama's platform, policies, and history of actions are fundamentally opposed to pretty much everything I believe in. "Wealth redistribution"? Tax structure designed to penalize success (and industry)? Socialized healthcare? Anti-defense? Weak foreign policy? Disdain for gun ownership? That's just the beginning. I believe Obama's administration will have all the wrong answers. Period. For me to be anything less than bothered by an Obama victory, would be ridiculous...
John_Wayne777
10-18-08, 15:58
First off, Redsel, if you're not here to troll,
Half the threads he's been involved in have been locked...and he's been warned by at least one moderator for his shenanigans already.
He's a troll.
He's toast.
HAMMERDROP
10-18-08, 15:59
It gives me the runs ...:mad:
Michael
Half the threads he's been involved in have been locked...and he's been warned by at least one moderator for his shenanigans already.
He's a troll.
He's toast.
You're absolutely right ;)
Redsel - Most of the moderators are out of town attending a class. Until they get back and I can get this sorted out this thread and your account are closed. I don't care what your political affiliation is or whether or not you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative. You can't act like a jackass here. Your posts in this thread and others proves you just like the stir the pot. There are plenty of places on the internet to that but this place isn't one of them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.