POLITICS - Fresh info on McCain

crs · Post by **crs** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:53 pm

With a bit of humor and sarcasm, here is Ann Coulters latest e-letter on the presidential primaries.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24752

North Bender · Post by **North Bender** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:55 pm

Somebody actually reads Ann Coulter?

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:57 pm

Anybody but a democrat or Ron Paul.

Rebel1972 · Post by **Rebel1972** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:19 pm

Swampman wrote:Anybody but a democrat or Ron Paul.

or McCain

Duff L Bagg · Post by **Duff L Bagg** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:22 pm

Vote for McCain?

He can kiss my big fat hairy butt, and I will loan him a razor so that he can shave his teeth when he is through!!!!

mescalero1 · Post by **mescalero1** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:51 pm

That jusst sounds bad

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:24 am

North Bender wrote:Somebody actually reads Ann Coulter?

Yeah. Why, what do you read? Al Franken?

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:35 am

Swampman wrote:

Anybody but a democrat or Ron Paul.

Ron Paul from the CNN "debate" 1-30-08

â€œThe Constitution is very clear that the president is commander in chief of the military, but the president isnâ€™t commander in chief of the economy or the people,â€

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:46 am

I'll probably vote for Ron if it come's down to him or Hillary. If it comes down to him or Obama I'll have to think about it.

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:30 am

Anything Ann Coulter says is gospel to me. I would even go as far to say I would throw my Winchesters in the river if she would marry me. (wait a minute, I'm already married

) John McCain is just a big dope. The two top runners for the Dems don't need mentioning. Romney is another flip-flopper. Ron Paul is pretty cool but he just looks like a worm. I'm voting for Jim Taylor---------------Sixgun

WyrTwister · Post by **WyrTwister** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:35 am

crs wrote:With a bit of humor and sarcasm, here is Ann Coulters latest e-letter on the presidential primaries.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24752

Reading anything written by any of these " political people " is like having to take bad tasting medicine , when you were a kid .

However , getting to look at Ann Coulters is like having a little sugar added to the bad tasting medicine , to make it more pleasant to take .

God bless
Wyr

crs · Post by **crs** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:25 am

More political commentary sugar for WyrTwister:

http://michellemalkin.com/

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/30/th ... n-library/

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Mich ... republican

Enjoy!

Mike-in-WV · Post by **Mike-in-WV** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:51 am

If it comes down to anyone running now and McCain I will take McCain any day! There is no way I would vote for gun hating Hillary or Omama. They are both worthless lier's and political butt kissers.
MicCain is all for us keeping our guns and leaving the constitution alone. He also knows what war is all about and he sure payed his dues as an American and a politician. Mike

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:16 pm

Ummm, gunhating elitist Mrs. Clinton or gunhating elitist McCain?

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:19 pm

Hobie wrote:Ummm, gunhating elitist Mrs. Clinton or gunhating elitist McCain?

Don't drink the KookAid

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Mc ... ontrol.htm

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:21 pm

BlaineG wrote:
Hobie wrote:Ummm, gunhating elitist Mrs. Clinton or gunhating elitist McCain?
Don't drink the KookAid

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Mc ... ontrol.htm

And, No....he's not my choice, but it's about hundred times better than throwing away your vote on a LoserTearian Third Party Unelectable Shmuck......

Leverluver · Post by **Leverluver** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:44 pm

I don't like McCain either but like the options of the other party even less. Going into the voting booth next November is going to be like going to a two holer outhouse that already has one hole occupied; just close your eyes, hold your nose, do your business, and go home.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:57 pm

Thats not cool aid Blaine?

These quotes I dont find real pro gun. Thers alot of people that cant buy a gun if its expensive, likely they live where they might need one more than a more wealthy person. But he would ban guns affordable to poorer folks even though it has zero to do with crime. I carry a gun every day I bought new for less than $200. Why should it be banned?

He's also it seems all for smart guns so this way, if your getting pounded & your wife, friend, kid, whatever gets your weapon its useless.

His comment about carrying a 45 in the Army is irrelevant & neither pro or anti gun. Dont mean nuthing. Now if he said he had one in his belt on the campaign that would be different.

Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks
McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999

Banning assault weapons is ok too depending on the details? I wonder if his popularity is one of those details. Then, if you notice, in one quote it says he's against banning ammo types but in another he wants to ban armor piercing ammo.

Supports ban on certain assault weapons
McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
* McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were"armor-piercing."

And I guess the above quote & the below one dont show a bit of hypocracy eh?

Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types

* McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans.

Here he says he supports repeal of existing gun law. Has he ever introduced legislation to this effect? At least he acknowledges its already againt the law to use guns in crime.

Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use

* McCain supports the following principles regarding gun issues: Repeal federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
* Favor allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms.
* McCain says, â€œThere are penalties for criminals who use firearms.â€

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:08 pm

I'm holding my nose as we speak....... I hope someone has a plan, but I'm not going to vote as to deliberatly give the election of a "D" which these days means socialist/commie

Mike-in-WV · Post by **Mike-in-WV** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:10 pm

Hobie, Does this look like McCain is against our right to guns? I don't think so. If you want to nit-pick some of his feelings on things like armor piercing ammo that's fine but it's not going to bother me or most of us if they did ban it. I have no need for such things in my area.
I sure don't agree with all he says and does but anything is better then the alternative to the presidency!

Mike

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:07 pm

Is it just me or does it seem like some of us have missed the fact that RON PAUL can be president if vote him in hte primary? It seems like a lot of people are waiting until November or as my boss put it today "Yeah but I don't think Ron Paul would win the Presidency" when I ask him about who he would vote for in the Primary!? Well no, not unless he is there in November, but the voting has already started.

McCain, Romney, & Guiliani(sp) are not what I want for a President. And let me say this for the Huckabee crowd. I like Mike. But Mike put into affect in Arkansas that illegals in school should be allowed the same college assistance as everyone else. He also supported Bush's Amnesty Act that would keep illegals in the US. Therefore I can not in good faith vote for Mike. And again, I was on his side for quite a while, but come the PRIMARY I will vote for Ron Paul.

Johnny

North Bender · Post by **North Bender** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:16 pm

claybob86 wrote:
North Bender wrote:Somebody actually reads Ann Coulter?
Yeah. Why, what do you read? Al Franken?

Claybob, if your choice of reading material is limited to Ann Coulter or Al Franken, you need to get out of the trailer park more often. There's a Big World out there.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:04 pm

...you need to get out of the trailer park more often...

That's just plain rude.

North Bender · Post by **North Bender** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:08 pm

rude reply to rude comment

LeverBob · Post by **LeverBob** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:49 pm

Let's draft Newt...heh!

LeverBob

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:56 pm

North Bender wrote:rude reply to rude comment

If you don't want to catch a fish, don't go fishin'!

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:57 pm

North Bender wrote:rude reply to rude comment

More like rude reply to rude reply to rude comment. Cut it out.

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:28 pm

I'm sorry, Hobie.

I'm sorry, North Bender.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:54 pm

As much as I disdain John McCain, I will vote for him if my choices are between him and either Obama or Clinton. Ever since McCain came out in support of the gun show laws in Colorado and Oregon, he's been on my list, but I sure don't kid myself that Clinton or Obama is a friend of gun owners!

North Bender · Post by **North Bender** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:13 pm

claybob86 wrote:I'm sorry, Hobie.
I'm sorry, North Bender.

I'm sorry Claybob.

I should know better than to even open up political threads. Especially presidential election threads. Especially this presidential election.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:35 pm

Mike-in-WV wrote:Hobie, Does this look like McCain is against our right to guns? I don't think so. If you want to nit-pick some of his feelings on things like armor piercing ammo that's fine but it's not going to bother me or most of us if they did ban it. I have no need for such things in my area.
I sure don't agree with all he says and does but anything is better then the alternative to the presidency! Mike

Well, in McCains defence, he's only against armor piercing ammo sometimes.

Thing is, what we need isn't the limit of what we can have. Start baseing it on need & the games over. The founders would say that we need the best technology available, thats what they beat the Brits with.
Besides it would effect you, thats why he says he's against banning it, when thats what he says. Just as assault weapon means different things when its applied to us armor piercing ammo means different things to the legislature than it does to the military. Make no mistake, modern hunting ammo will defeat about all police body armor & thats what ends up on the table. Next thing we may be like France & they just ban all military calibers period.
I MIGHT vote for him if he's there & Ron Paul isn't but I doubt it.
More likely I'll go hunting.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:27 am

Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dem ... 03-28.html

Of course, McCain denys it.

McCain - Proud member of the Keating 5
McCain - Proud enemy of the U.S. Constitution
McCain - Proud supporter of Illegal Immigration

John McCain on the 2nd Amendment, GOA rating:
2000 - C-
2002 - C-
2004 - F-
2006 - F-

Hail to the chief.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:40 am

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I will vote for the devil himself in a race against Hillary. I don't want McCain to be the nominee, but he may have a good chance of beating Hillary as he will pull in the moderate and independent vote. He is certainly just the lesser of two evils - and not by much.

That being said, he strongly supported Judge Bork during the Reagan years, and Judges Roberts and Alito recently. He gives us at least a small chance of nominating a constitutional constructionist to the bench to replace Steves and Ginsberg - both of whom will retire during the next four years. With Hillary, we have NO CHANCE whatsoever. The SCOTUS is more important to our rights than the POTUS, so I'd rather take a small chance than no chance.

Pinch your noses boys, but remember, one of these fools will be the next President, so do you really want to help Hillary be the one???

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:33 am

It's like taking a dose of Castor Oil; you hold your nose, take it and see what happens

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:59 am

Yes, but having taken castor-oil in the past, I am well aware of what comes next.

A first timer might be able to claim ignorance, but how many times can one make a choice to swallow the tonic and still claim that he doesn't know the end result will be a big pile of s**t?

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:02 am

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:17 am

Idahoser wrote:I'm taking the lesser evil this time

Anybody but McCain

Thank you for your support, sez Hillary

donw · Post by **donw** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:55 am

perhaps mccain is taking his position based on his navy career and his time spent as a POW; he knows first hand the potential of armor piercing ammo and assault weapons.

mind you, i'm not defending some of his 'anti-gun' stances, but i too believe that there should be some limits put on what civilians may or may own or possess. i spent time in a hostile environment in SE asia using fully auto and exsplosive weapons, too. IMO, i do not believe civilians need explosive or FULLY AUTO weapons...semi-auto, self loading is another matter. i see nothing wrong with the AR style rifles as long as they are not fully auto.

there has to be some 'regulation' and the second amendment does specificy "a well REGULATED......."; the states are give the right by law to 'regulate' firearms.

california, and a few other states, has taken the so-called 'ban' and the "regulate" to an extreme, though.

good common sense and decency should also be factors but they some times are not. remember that legislators (a great number, if not , most) are not well informed or educated about firearms and lean more toward the emotional side of any issue involving the use or possession of a firearm...

we, as responsible gunowners/operators must insure that our use and possession of firearms is not abusive to our non-firearms owning friends and neighbors. owning a firearm is after all, a symbol of power as well as a right; just as freedom of speech or assembly. (there may come a time when the second amendment may be crucial in the preservation of the rest of the constitution though)

anyway...mccain may not be as large a threat as hillary or obama. and he is a senator for the state of arizona which is one of the states that permits the use and ownership of fully auto, silencers and hi-cap magazines.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:32 pm

there has to be some 'regulation' and the second amendment does specificy "a well REGULATED......."; the states are give the right by law to 'regulate' firearms.

They did not mean by well regulated that the militia should be armed with inferior guns & they didn't mean the states could say what we could have.

If there were full auto armor piercing guns in the 18th century you better believe they would have wanted them in the hands of the militia.

The ammendment, as much as it means anything else, was meant to curtail the states powers just like it limits federal power. What good is a constitution if the states are exempt?

They thought that the states would take their responsibility seriously enough that they would maintain a civilian militia & a well organized one is more effective than an armed mob. That the states neglect this doesn't change the intent. The intent was for you & me to have acess to THE SAME arms as the military. Look it up, militias were even required to have field pieces, yup artillery.

The states have a right by law to form a militia, they have no right to keep military weapons from us or to ban military ammo.

Fact is they have more right to ban lever guns & cast bullets since the intent of the 2nd was for the populous to be an effective military force. But, laws dont matter anymore if the limit Gov't.

McCain is basing his hypocracy on what he thinks his position needs to be to get elected.

Only one man in the running is baseing his stance on what he really believes & what the constitution allows regardless of public opinion.
& because he's not a good enough showman he's deemed unelectable.
Principals dont mean much in America anymore.

Honestly, I think if either Hillery or Obamma get nominated its almost a shoe in for the Rep party. Regardless of our modernity I dont think we will see a woman or minority in the Whitehouse anytime soon.

Post by **Hobie** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:01 pm

I always listen to what other folks have to say and went to another sourceon McCain's votes...

On S AMDT 1626 to S 397: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun. to Vote to adopt an amendment that requires all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices. He voted yes. I consider this a mixed bag as it is a tax on gun buyers but exempted us from liablity if we stored our guns in a secure container with locks. However, the camel's nose is under the door on that one. He voted down another bill on the subject sponsored by Boxer et al.

He also voted against confiscation in emergencies and for liability protection for firearms manufacturers. Now that's reasonable but also for reasons other than purely "gun rights" reasons.

He voted against the gun show registration scheme. That's just good.

So it would seem his recent voting record on gun control is pretty good but that's not always his rhetoric. He seems to think that some guns are bad. That's just wrong. However, I should note that he's not much different from Romney in this regard.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:15 pm

Hobie wrote:I always listen to what other folks have to say and went to another sourceon McCain's votes...

On S AMDT 1626 to S 397: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun. to Vote to adopt an amendment that requires all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices. He voted yes. I consider this a mixed bag as it is a tax on gun buyers but exempted us from liablity if we stored our guns in a secure container with locks. However, the camel's nose is under the door on that one. He voted down another bill on the subject sponsored by Boxer et al.

He also voted against confiscation in emergencies and for liability protection for firearms manufacturers. Now that's reasonable but also for reasons other than purely "gun rights" reasons.

He voted against the gun show registration scheme. That's just good.

So it would seem his recent voting record on gun control is pretty good but that's not always his rhetoric. He seems to think that some guns are bad. That's just wrong. However, I should note that he's not much different from Romney in this regard.

I wish it were different, but if you start doing a Ron Paul and saying ill advised phrases like Individuals should have full auto and armor piercing should be legal for all, then you are going to lose. Period. Get it through your head that if and when we need rocket launchers, America will have been gone for sometime and the Constitution flushed long since that event....... My conventional arms in any configuration are untouchable, my SKS is untouchable. You start holding out for WDMs and you are going to be disappointed

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:35 pm

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:39 pm

Idahoser wrote:
BlaineG wrote:
Idahoser wrote:I'm taking the lesser evil this time

Anybody but McCain
Thank you for your support, sez Hillary
If that's who gets it, that's fine. I'm serious as a heart attack, I will vote and I will not vote for McCain. Take it for what it's worth, if you care about who I vote for.

You cared enough to share.....Best expect a response, Bubba

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:11 pm

The inability of Republican voters to agree on anything that is good for the country will ensure our defeat.

I can see why the dems think we are stupid, unlearned, & backward. What I have seen & heard out of Republicans lately including Rush & Coulter (whom I've always admired and supported) make me ashamed to call myself a Republican.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:10 pm

Seems that some of us have a proclivity towards "us and them" in statements like:

IMO, i do not believe civilians need explosive or FULLY AUTO weapons...semi-auto, self loading is another matter. i see nothing wrong with the AR style rifles as long as they are not fully auto.

It has always been my belief that the second ammendment secured the right of "civilians" or "the people" to keep and bare arms with the intent of giving them equal opportunity to defend against foes both foreign AND DOMESTIC. This is an easy step to assume that the foes might be military in nature, therefore "common sense" dictates that "the people" should be able to arm themselves in like manner as to what could be considered foe. It is a slippery slope down into the abyss when you attempt to regulate to what is acceptable "arms" to "the people", not that far of a step at outlawing an "auto", to a "semi-auto", to a BB gun.

Slick · Post by **Slick** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:17 pm

bunklocoempire wrote:I'll write in Ron Paul if I have to? Oooo scary!

That's what I'll be doing too... I'm sick of the way the media ignores him as a choice or tries to stigmatize his supporters as "nut jobs".

I agree with more of Ron Paul's stances on issues (but not all of them) then any other candidate. If that makes me a "nut job", then I'll wear the title proudly..

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:13 pm

Should people be able to own nukes. I mean after all they are arms that could be used to protect ones self.

I have no problem with any firearm, but let's face it there are already limits and when Hildebeast becomes president there'll be a lot more limits.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:32 pm

Well, in a way we already do. We own what the country owns. After all its not their money, whoever they are.

I'm not seriously advocateing that folks should be able to buy mortars at Walmart. But the RKBA should be taken seriously by our leaders & guns, small arms, shouldn't be subject to their whims. Anymore than another persons church should or what a person has to say.
Rights are rights. You cant very well keep & bear a nuke or a howitzer or tank, but a Barret 50 shouldn't matter, or a full auto AR or AK.
Need is irrelevant. By the time you know you need more firepower its a little late to go trying to obtain it.

Maybe Chaney should take Hillery dove hunting.

JJ_Miller · Post by **JJ_Miller** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:30 pm

I don't know where we are heading...............JJ

POLITICS - Fresh info on McCain

POLITICS - Fresh info on McCain

Re: Fresh info on McCain

McCain nearly abandoned GOP