Are we ready to concede yet?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:01 AM by SwatMedic

I didnt read all the posts in the thread but pose this response as to the OP's question.

Anyone fooling themselves into thinking this election will result in an Obama landslide is really kidding themselves.

Despite the MSM giving the Obama and his campaign verbal BJ's every waking second and trashing McCain/Palin with every breath they can muster the election will be won by a razor thin margin.

There will be the largest voter turnout in history for this election and this would be true even without ACORN signing up dead people and convicts.

Dont concede anything yet. Polls are often way off the mark and, as always, dont believe everything the media is feeding you.

I dont hear Roseanne signing the National Anthem again, so it aint over!

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:43 AM by GamerGal

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by sos37

the "right to bear arm's" is not the right to bear any weapon you wish, by that logic people should be free to have a nuke in the back yard and a chemical weapons lab in their basement.

Let me ask you... Where do you draw the line under the Second Amendment? Where can you say, "You can't arm yourself with that," and not infringe the right to bear arms?

And who gets to decide where that line is drawn? Who is so noble and worthy?

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Amaterasu]

So according to you if I make anthrax and use it on a city, I'm protected under the second amendment? Maybe Saddam should have moved to America before gassing the Kurds. You would have stopped those evil liberals from taking away his WMDs. And Sos, nice way to totally ignore the truth that Bush used scare tactics to get the PA passed.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 09:12 AM by davion

Originally posted by sos37
Check the link I posted. If you still maintain that passing the Patriot Act wasn't bi-partisan then you're denying facts - you're denying the voting record itself POSTED ON THE SENATE WEBSITE, which only proves that you're either incompetent of rational thought or blindly following Obama based on your hatred of the Bush Administration. I suspect hatred because based on your posts you don't seem to be stupid at all.

So was the bill Clinton signed into law, Clinton was a Democrat in a Republican majority Congress at the time. So, if you can cherry pick arguments that you think are bipartisan or one-sided then so can I.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 10:25 AM by disgustedbyhumanity

reply to post by kettlebellysmith

Much very well said. However, the conclusion you draw opposes the tenets of your very arguments.

You admit we have been trampled to death by business interests. Yet you also seem to be opposed to moving toward a system which limits the ability of business to subjucate the people (i.e socialism). You rally against Obama's ability to do anything, yet no where do you mention that you may think McCain would be any better. So what's the answer?

Are you simply basing your decision on the right to bear arms? Well I got news for you, had the automatic rifles of today's age been around when this right was given (they weren't so any discussion/opinion is really naught and is based on speculation), I would bet my behind that they also would have excluded these firearms from the rights.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 05:57 PM by Amaterasu

Originally posted by GamerGal

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by sos37

the "right to bear arm's" is not the right to bear any weapon you wish, by that logic people should be free to have a nuke in the back yard and a chemical weapons lab in their basement.

Let me ask you... Where do you draw the line under the Second Amendment? Where can you say, "You can't arm yourself with that," and not infringe the right to bear arms?

And who gets to decide where that line is drawn? Who is so noble and worthy?

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Amaterasu]

So according to you if I make anthrax and use it on a city, I'm protected under the second amendment?

I looked and looked and absolutely could NOT see where I said that at all. According to me, if you made anthrax, and kept it safely, and had a need to use it to protect you and yours, absolutely, you're protected under the 2nd.

If you made it and wantonly killed others... I mean, WTF? You are joking, right?

Maybe Saddam should have moved to America before gassing the Kurds.

If he had moved here, would he have been threatened by the Kurds? In fact... Was he EVER in dire danger from an attack by them? What a load of reactionary illogic.

You would have stopped those evil liberals from taking away his WMDs.

No... As I can tell, no one is immanently threatened by MASSES. It is individuals that threaten one's life. One should, however, have the right to arm oneself in defense with the same level (or even greater) as one is likely to be attacked with. More reactionary lack of thinking, this.

Darling, I suspect you haven't developed your critical thinking skills, nor, it would seem, your reading skills.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 06:03 PM by Amaterasu

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
reply to post by kettlebellysmith

You admit we have been trampled to death by business interests. Yet you also seem to be opposed to moving toward a system which limits the ability of business to subjucate the people (i.e socialism).

Or (FAR better) a high-tech (robots and computers doing work no one wants to do), resource-driven (as opposed to money) economy.

In such a setup, we all would live in abundance (have what we want when we want it), and each might follow his/her own bliss.

reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 12:28 AM by GamerGal

reply to post by Amaterasu

So again, if I say, buy a nuke from a former Soviet nation and use it on a city killing millions... 2nd Amendment? You'd be my lawyer defending me from about four million 1st degree murder charges claiming I needed that nuke for self defense? Right, makes sense...

reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 04:00 AM by TheAgentNineteen

Concede.... are you mad?! Lol. Seriously though, the Polls mean very little, and increasingly they are appearing more as Election Manipulators, as opposed to Election Reporters. How many times have the Exit Polls (which are taken at the Polling Centers ON Election Day) even been dead wrong?

However, if you wish to go by Polls, look at it this way. In the 2008 Primary Race in New Hampshire, Senator Clinton was trailing Senator Obama by 13 Points (in that State) only ONE WEEK before the Vote there. What were the actual results? Senator Clinton took that state by 40%, whereas Senator Obama received around 35% of the Votes. Then when John Edwards and Governor Richardson soon dropped out thereafter, Senator Clinton began taking States by 2/3 of the Vote.

Bottom line, if you allow Polls to affect your vote, or lack of Vote, then you lose your right to complain if the "opposition" wins.

BTW, again, if you wish to use Polls, Senator Obama's "lead" dropped from 11 Points to 7 Points after the Ayers "issue" began coming out. Rasmussen has the difference at only 5 Points as of now. Counting the Margin of Error, these two Candidates (according to these Polls) could possibly be within 3-4 Points of eachother. That is a CLOSE RACE by any standards. President Bush was behind Al Gore 5 Points in the Polls leading right up to his Victory. President Reagan was behind 10 Points according to the Polls back then, yet he hammered his opponents twice in landslides.

Have Hope, Ye Of Lil' Faith.

reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 08:02 AM by Amaterasu

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by Amaterasu

So again, if I say, buy a nuke from a former Soviet nation and use it on a city killing millions... 2nd Amendment?

Ah, geez, honey, what is it that you are missing here? Is the whole city attacking you personally? Is it self-defense to kill millions? Again, of COURSE not.

You'd be my lawyer defending me from about four million 1st degree murder charges claiming I needed that nuke for self defense? Right, makes sense...

No, I would not. If you had the nuke, and actually used it in self defense, then yes. But if you are killing people who are going about their daily lives, clearly the use is not in self defense.

I will defend your right to HAVE the nuke, but if you USE it, it would have to be against only those who are attacking you and yours personally. (Though I am hard pressed to see how you would accomplish that...)

Again, I think you are missing some critical point here.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:59 AM by kettlebellysmith

reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity

At no time did I say we had been trampled by big business. I simply stated the truth. Businesses, especially corporations, don't pay taxes. The semi-socialist state we now live in was started by FDR as an effort to end the Great Depression. What it did, in fact, was extend it, causing us to have to become embroiled in WWII.
It is my opinion that McCain will cut taxes on business and corporations. If this is done properly, it will encourage these entities remain in the United States, rather that outsourcing everything to Mexico, India, and Asia.
Universal Health Care is a joke! Many countries that have tried it are now moving away from. Canadians routinely cross the border into the United States to have procedures done so they don't have to wait six months to a year.
You, sir, miss the point entirely. I am a died in the wool free market capitalist that thinks the government should get out of my life and stay out of it. And I feel that Senator McCain and Governor Palin have those same ideals.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:45 PM by jjkenobi

Zogby Poll 10-15-08

Obama 48.2%
McCain 44.4%
Other 7.4%

Rasmussen Poll 10-15-08

Obama 50%
McCain 45%
Other 2%
Undecided 3%

Despite the MSM's most dedicated attempts to call the election early and celebrate the defeat of the evil and mean spirited conservatives I'm sure it will come down to the wire just in the last couple POTUS elections.

Just for laughs check out MSNBC mixing up Illinois and Indiana on their electoral map.

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:53 PM by sos37

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

Actually, I've taken fellow Republicans' advice and decided not to stop fighting the good fight until there's a concession speech on the table.

Obama has been revealing the true nature of his policies these last couple of weeks, because he's being asked GENUINE questions by actual voters and not stupid pseudo-questions made up by Democratic plants.

He's revealed to Joe the Plumber that he likes to take money from the middle and job creating classes and spread the wealth around to the least productive classes - proof that his beliefs are truly socialist.

If more real voters actually asked Obama the TOUGH questions like they've been asking McCain and Palin, Obama's policies would come unraveling apart, even with the positive spin of the liberal media.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by sos37]

reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:08 PM by Grafilthy

reply to post by sos37

He's revealed to Joe the Plumber that he likes to take money from the middle and job creating classes and spread the wealth around to the least productive classes - proof that his beliefs are truly socialist.

Talk about spin.....

What exactly is the "job creating class" and how does one become a member??

Joe the plumber......I would guess he would fall into the 97% of small businesses that would actually pay less or the same in taxes.

How much do you make a year??? Would you say that you make less than $226,000 a year???? Then that would make you a member of the "least productive class" and therefore give YOU a tax break.