It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mcain's VP NRA memebr... I'm sold.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
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.




posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Sarah is kind of, you know business lady hot.


I hate to admit I was thinking same Mop. GILF. Governor......etc.

If she owns a Liquor Store, I'd say she'd make the perfect Mrs. Kurious.

Sorry, back to maintaining thread decorum, regarding McCain VIP pick:

Although she is of the right caliber (pun intended) to suit OP,
I think it is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Pubs had their chance for 8 years, and look where we are. (aren't)

Hey, didn't Cheney like guns too?

GAME OVER!

regards......kk





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



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Mcain's VP NRA memebr... I'm sold.

I don't know much about her but I find the logic a little flawed. You're sold because she's an NRA member. By that line of thought you'd be OK if McCain appointed Michael Moore as Secretary of State? He's an NRA member too.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by drift393
Sorry to say but seeing the news clip of her firing an m-16 in three round burst got my vote. Im easy... Seriously you show me a clip of any politician in a regular shirt a baseball style cap and firing a machine gun well. That says enough for me.


Umm, the M-16 is a rifle, it doesn't have any real recoil. If it had recoil, then the 3 round burst would be useless in combat.

I think your post is a pretty good example of why we keep getting crappy politicians. Not only are your standards low, but you are easily amused.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
I am not a socialist. I am a mixer. Both 100% capitalism and 100% socialism have been shown to be made of fail. The proper mixing of both works like a charm though.


But you don't seem to have a problem with them completely ignoring the constitution and abusing the general welfare clause.

If any of those politicians actually cared about the constitution they wouldn't abuse the general welfare clause. Which allows the politicians to do anything they want as long as they present it as being for the good of the people.

Where are the democrats working to pass amendments and do these things legally? You see, if you actually follow the constitution then you don't abuse the general welfare clause, you are smart enough and honest enough to understand the general welfare clause is where congress is given permission to uphold the amendments as per the 10th amendment which states congress shall only do the things listed. The preamble also says part of the constitution is to promote the general welfare, and obviously it is referring to the amendments.

But all we get are people looking for special rights for their special lobbyists and services that corporations are happy to provide. Where as if these people actually gave a damn then they would be trying to add an amendment.

Because guess what. If you add a healthcare amendment, then it is automatically applied to everyone equally. No special rights. And that goes for all these other abuses of the general welfare clause.

I'm so sick of people trying to pretend they actually understand the constitution or government in general and don't even realize they read the constitution as a document of limited rights rather than a limited government.

And this is why you all deserve exactly what is coming. You openly ask to be screwed.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I don't understand what's so great about an NRA member being Vice President. As far as I understand it would basically circumvent John Mccain's campaign to be within the interests of the NRA and would do nothing but limit what John Mccain could do. It's a bad move IMO. Barack Obama has a better understanding of politics than Mccain does.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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...



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
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...



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by drift393
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...


Sorry, but the military card only works with people have haven't served. Your opinion is no more valid than someone who hasn't served. Although it certainly isn't new for someone to use their service as a way of saying "I'm better than you".

If you knew the M-16 has no recoil, then it just goes to point out how superficial your opinion is even more.

You sir are part of the problem. How about you let me know when you have an opinion that is actually based on something valid?

[edit on 30-8-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
If you seriously believe that when Obama is in office (if he wins) you will see your guns vanish from your homes, you are not thinking straight. Never will this happen. Why do you think any regulation of a lethal weapon is bad? Your gun will stay in your hand, calm down.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I'm confused here. Why are there people here so happy that an NRA member is VP? It's not like Barack Obama will take away your gun ownership rights or anything.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
I'm sold.


Where were you sold, At the Five and Dime? What makes you think a VP or even the President himself can protect your gun rights from a legislative branch with a clear majority which is determined to restrict those rights?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join