Mcain's VP NRA memebr... I'm sold., page 3

reply to post by ZindoDoone

---

well that's bad.

You know, Hitler never invaded because of their armed population (or so I hear). Funny that the EU should try where Hitler failed.

reply to post by kinda kurious

---

Problem is that Obama claims change and then selects an old school politician.

So, it begs to question what exactly he means by change.

McCain chose a modernist woman who is already "changed" from her predecessors. So it begs to question if McCain is really that old school, or is serious in considering change.

reply to post by Gorman91

---

Whatever. Just face it Gman, It is Dems turn at bat.

Heaven knows they can't do any more damage than Pubs already have.

Did you think this failed Republican legacy would last forever?

If I were you, I'd be "Scoping out" a lifeboat. GOP = Titanic.

There is no squel to thi horror flick.

regards....kk

[edit on 30-8-2008 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by kinda kurious

---

Problem is that Obama claims change and then selects an old school politician.

So, it begs to question what exactly he means by change.

McCain chose a modernist woman who is already "changed" from her predecessors. So it begs to question if McCain is really that old school, or is serious in considering change.

Well I have visited both John Mccain.com and Barrack Obama .com


One thing I have noticed is that is their ISSUES section.

Obamas is much larger and much more sweeping. From everything to economy to energy...

And in this alone there is much that is different or new (change)... I particularly think the energy plan will revitalize the economy. A good point is that the US has been involved every technological steam engine... That being said the race is on for new technologies and the US is already very far behind China Germany India... John Mccains plan does not address this... I my view this could be the first time AMERICA
is NOT the leader in a MAJOR leap forward Technologically. So in a way John Mccain is about change... but this change could come back to bite us in the butt like no other.
Imagine if the US did not lead in Microprocessing technologies in the past? Or electricity, or telecommunications???




And John Mccains plan is well, not very broad. In fact the economic plan is the same as BUSH + three changes.

Lower the Corporate tax from 35% to 25%

Give up to 10% tax credit on R&D - up 3%

Further cut capital gains tax depending on if you are in the top 1% or 10% or so...

Anyhow I Think John Mccain choice was knee jerk... Considering he has only met the women once... This approach is also a change but I do not like the fact that Mccain is more politically calculated then thorough.

Anyhow I think OBAMA is about change, his plans are very well thought out and seem efficient.

John's are not very sweeping and do not go the DISTANCE if you look side by side.

Anyhow Either way I think guns are safe...

reply to post by badmedia

---

Heh thanks being prior military and being in Iraq with a purple heart I am well aware of the recoil from the M-16. Thanks for your opinion on me I am sure it matters to someone. Untill than I will let you know when you matter...

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BloodRedSky

---

I don't know about you, but America really hasn't been known for "just following orders". In WW2, many generals ignored or created their own orders. Some generals in Korea would have invaded china against presidential orders, but didn't. Even today, in Iraq, generals make their own orders.

So I think under a dictatorship, many generals would break off and join with the civilian armed forces.

No, I disagree. Times have certainly changed for the worse. If the money, or punishment, is right most people (even a so-called patriot) will do anything, even if it means ripping our constitution to shreds.

reply to post by intrepid

---

It's not like it would be a bad thing to have More as Secretary of state, it just wouldn't be good. It would just be meh. Any attempt for him to change things socially would be down shot by his higher ups, but he'd do good in his limited position in some things, just not a lot.


reply to post bykinda kurious

---

This is a fallacy. You do not simply vote because it's time to give another group a chance or because one has been in too long. It's very simple: you vote on issues. Obama does have his head straight on some issues, but others I simply do not know. Democrats have a history of helping the economy, but the economy is different then it was in those days.

I just don't like people who say they're voting because "it's time" or, "it's they're turn". That rarely ends up good.


reply to post by Frankidealist35

---

If you betray the NRA by getting rid of guns, they already have guns to say they disagree with you.

reply to post by mental modulator

---

In my opinion both candidates are flawed. McCain especially. But unlike the current prez, who is essentially controlled by the VP, this time if the repubs win we will have a VP who isn't in the business of war profiteering.

If the dems win I really don't know. Obama will help the economy somewhat, but I can't trust his or McCain's word on the economy because very few presidents ever fix the economy. Even FDR, who we think saved us from the depression, only got us through it, he didn't fix much.

When it comes to the economy, there's no real "I can fix it", because there's no guarantee you'll be listened to by business. You need to treat the economy like an atom ore something similar: by that I mean, you can't touch it, you can't see it, but you can indirectly read and manipulate it. In this way, both Obama and McCain's plans could work. In theory, if we provide for technology growth, you can progress us forward. But at the same time, if you get more oil, there's the chance you could begin exporting it, and use that money to profit, then research hydro electric.

I know no one like the North American Union, but in theory it could lead us to massive wealth. If we can begin collecting the continents total oil, we could compete with the ME and Russia, get rich, and fund technological growth a whole lot better. It's easier to fund technology when you're not fighting foreign wars or paying for them.


reply to post by ColoradoJens

---

I know I may be wrong, but wasn't it the dems who were against lifting the D.C. weapons ban? Repubs are no better at times, but with an NRA VP, if she betrays them, she's screwed politically for life.


reply to post by BloodRedSky

---

In the event of a dictatorship I cannot predict the actions of people. But I do take the fact that very few generals like Bush as evidence some would break off from him.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post bykinda kurious

---

This is a fallacy. You do not simply vote because it's time to give another group a chance or because one has been in too long. It's very simple: you vote on issues. Obama does have his head straight on some issues, but others I simply do not know. Democrats have a history of helping the economy, but the economy is different then it was in those days.

Gee, I thought we lived in a Democracy, which in the history of the USA has been dominated primarily by a two-party system. Republicans and Democrats.

If a single party stays in power......isn't that a dictatorship or monarchy?
What's the word I'm searching for?

It is the bottom of the inning and the Pubs have 3 strikes, why do they deserve to remain at bat?

I just don't like people who say they're voting because "it's time" or, "it's they're turn".

Then you don't like me. I can live with that.

Happy hunting dude.

regards.......kk


[edit on 30-8-2008 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Gorman91

---

If that's the most important thing in your life, you need to pay more attention to politics. I can't belive the "greatest democracy on earth" has people like you in it. Wow. How pathetic.

reply to post by kinda kurious

---

Actually, it's suppose to be a contitutional republic, because "all democracy is is 51% controlling 49%" (Jefferson). The whole democracy thing is kind of incorrect.

Also, collective assumptions never work. You can't always assume a personality based on one's party.

Just look at Bush vs Ron Paul vs Giuliani.

The individual has a right to an opinion, and he cannot be held responsible for the actions of his compatriots.

Collective blame or collective applause is bad because it's simple presumptuous, generalizes people with sometimes contradicting viewpoints, and often leads to semi-forms of dictatorship (collectively punishing groups for the actions of more radical members).

But if you want to go backwards instead of forwards into a tolerant-of-all society, be my guest.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Frankidealist35

---

Of course not, but it opens the possibility. With an NRA member, if she betrays the, she's screwed for life politically, and it's not a good idea to screw over a large amount of the nation.

Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 16 days ago with 276 member flags

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
  Posted 12 days ago with 138 member flags

The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
  Posted 1 days ago with 136 member flags

Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 12 days ago with 122 member flags

STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 18 days ago with 115 member flags

Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 17 days ago with 96 member flags

The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 15 days ago with 85 member flags

Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
  Posted 6 days ago with 85 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: