Why should I vote for McCain? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Derwood · 10-27-2008, 11:34 AM

Hertzberg has a pretty good rebuttal to all this non-sense in The New Yorker

Disclaimer-This is an elite magazine for the elites so if you're a "Joe six-pack" it may burn your eyes.

Like, Socialism: Comment: The New Yorker

Quote:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .

MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

Edit: I also meant to add these comments too

Quote:

During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.”

ratbastid · 10-27-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

most productive people

.. By which I'm to read "people who make over $250,000 a year?"

McCain today blustered that (and I paraphrase) "Obama's idea of change is to take your money and give it to other people."

I sort of wonder who the "you" in that sentence is. Is it as clear to everyone else as it is to me exactly who McCain is speaking to?

intecel · 10-27-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

This was exactly the OP's point. He doesn't want reasons NOT to vote for Obama (which, I understand, you have quite a list of), but reasons to vote FOR McCain. Two different things.

So, as a McCain supporter (I assume), give the OP the reasons you're voting for him. If your vote for McCain is really just a vote against Obama, I think that speaks to the weakness of McCain as a legit candidate.
-----Added 24/10/2008 at 08 : 46 : 17-----

like and respect are two different things.

I've been away from the computer all weekend, so finally catching up. That's exactly what I'm looking for. I want someone to try to sell me on McCain for reasons that will help me personally. I want to know the reasons why others are voting for him, and not just voting because it's a vote against Obama.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 05 : 55 : 03-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

And many liberals act the same way. Welcome to sociology 101: people like to form groups to use as their identity

My feeling is that if you (the OP) have gone through the issues and compared the views of the candidates to your own and you have to ask the question, it means one of two things.

1) You already know the answer and are looking for confirmation or

2) You are just trolling for a forum to either attack the candidate or demean the candidate's supporters.

I hope that it's the first reason in this case, since I definitely think you already know the answer that you want

Actually, for #1, I have ideas on what he stands for, but I want to see the reasons he is being voted for by others.

For #2, have I attacked either candidate? Have I shown disrespect to either candidate? I haven't said one bad word, nor implied that either candidate's plan is better than the other. I just want to hear reasons why people are voting mccain.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 06 : 00 : 45-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The differences between Republicans and Democrats has been getting smaller over the years. I am 48. I was raised in a Democratic party (my dad was a Union man) household and primarily believed that the Democratic Party was the party that cared about the "little guy". I generally voted Democratic through my 20's. In my 30's has I started saving, investing, raising a family, planning for my future - I became Republican, primarily because I believed Republicans would do things to allow me to succeed on my own merits. When I started my own business I went to the Libetarian Party, I concluded Republicans supported big business or corporate welfare and Democrats supported welfare for everyone else - all to be paid for by small/medium size business. I also became disappointed with the political games being played in Washington. After spending time with Libertarians, I realized it was a waste of time and I did not support their view of the Iraq war - I am now a Republican, primarily for national defense and my desire to have our tax code changed (I think the best way to get it done is with Republicans). I think many of the Democratic Party platform issues intended to help people actually hurt them. I support McCain.

I think your choice will depend on where you want to go in life. If you are satisfied with an average job, average salary, live in an average home, drive average cars (no horse power to meet EPA standards, and gov. help to keep GM alive and producing average cars), etc, then you will be very comfortable being a Democrat and voting for Obama. I am not passing judgment on that being better or worse. I know exceptionally good people across the spectrum.

Bottom line: If you desire to be above average, Obama will make it more difficult, McCain will make it easier.

This is more like what I'm looking for in reply to my question.

remy1492 · 10-27-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Why would I need a lesson when I live in Iceland, pay 40% of our taxes (we actually pay DOUBLE taxation, to Iceland AND the US!), 25% sales tax, and am still quite happy with the health care and education system that I see around me, as a result? I don't need a "lesson," thanks. I (along with millions of others on this side of the ocean) am living the very scenario what you are afraid of, and look!!! I'm not bleeding out of all orifices here, am I? Quite the opposite--my vote goes gladly to Obama, particularly based on my experience living outside the US and seeing how much better we could be as a nation if we took a few lessons from other countries on how to take care of one's people.

/waits for the accusation that I am not a "real" American, lol.

Real America is a huge country. Iceland is a homogeneous society the size of a postage stamp. That is like saying that in Luxembourg a certain program works well so it should work equally as well in China if just mulitiplied x1000.

Or vice versa, US military strategy and spending GDP should work for Iceland if shrunk x1000.

A homogeneous society with a social identity and a historical and future path that everybody agrees on (like Iceland) can do anything it sets its mind on. I also wouldnt mind 50% income tax if it were used right and nobody freeloaded off of it.

But America is too big and there are too many ideas with scattered strategies that lack checks and balances. the money would be lost, wasted or flat out disappear.
What one race or culture in America sees as "right" is flat out wrong to others. Just look at the old South vs North mentality that prevails to this day.

Iceland doesn't have such a strong divide in race or cultural identity. (Guns Germs and Steel analogy stolen from Diamond)

Our closest model is Canada, and even then, they are a fraction of our population. Their taxes and health care system also leaves a lot to be desired. I don't like BIG government and how its managed.

I agree with the other posters, Obama=Marxist. Go visit Trier for a weekend, see the homeland of Marxism.

aceventura3 · 10-27-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

What is it with conservatives wanting to redefine words? First ace and now you, mcgeedo.

Please clarify what word I've redefined and how I redefined it?

intecel · 10-27-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

44 posts in, and I still haven't heard one reason to vote for John McCain that isn't in reference to Barack Obama. I'm now all but convinced that there's NOBODY voting McCain this year that isn't REALLY voting AGAINST Obama. Which is fine, I just think it's interesting.

Would it have been different if it was Romney or Giuliani? Or if McCain had gone with Liberman as VP?

That would have made a big difference to me. I think I may have voted Romney over Obama because of what I read about him during the primaries.

abaya · 10-28-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remy1492

Real America is a huge country. Iceland is a homogeneous society the size of a postage stamp. That is like saying that in Luxembourg a certain program works well so it should work equally as well in China if just mulitiplied x1000

Would you say the same about the other Scandinavian countries? All of the Nordic countries have quite high percentages of immigrants at this point... they are no longer the "culturally and racially pure" societies that you imagine, I can assure you.

Iceland may be small, but it is no longer very homogeneous, nor does everyone agree on what path it should take in the future. Iceland based its banking practices on American ideals (yes, American) and now the country is on the edge of bankruptcy, at least with regards to the currency and banking systems. Everyone has been conflicted about this issue, not agreeing on what to do and where... they are begging the IMF to step in and fix things.

And you assume that no one freeloads off the system in Iceland and the other Nordic countries? Oh, people do, most certainly--and my god, they're not the immigrants, either! But that doesn't change the fact that people BELIEVE in a social democracy where you are charged with taking care of the people around you, no matter who they are or what they look like or what their status is. The Icelandic health care system takes care of EVERYONE here, regardless of whether they are a citizen or not. It is an ethical issue, and people are willing to put up the money to maintain that ethic. It doesn't make the Icelandic people "Marxist," for god's sake.

Frankly, I don't think it really matters what I say. No one is going to persuade you of anything if these are your foundational assumptions/beliefs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by remy1492

I don't like BIG government and how its managed.

I agree with the other posters, Obama=Marxist.

aceventura3 · 10-28-2008, 07:32 AM

I was reading the November issue of American Rifleman (NRA magazine) last night, they rate Obama an "F", meaning a "A true enemy of gun owners". Anyone who owns a private gun or cares about using a gun for self defense would be a fool to vote for Obama. Some of Obama's campaign statements have not been consistent with his voting record on individual gun ownership issues.

roachboy · 10-28-2008, 07:40 AM

the nra?
i think that organization made an enormous mistake scurrying to the extreme right. now they're stuck there. one consequence of that is arguments that they generate are self-evidently geared toward the extreme right. it didn't have to be that way--they had a choice and could just as easily have remained an organization that advocated in a non-partisan manner for gun owners---but they didn't.

i am agnostic on the question of gun control, btw. i support it in cities. i am less in favor of it in other geographical areas. but i am definitely in favor of it in urban environments.

ratbastid · 10-28-2008, 07:45 AM

89 posts. STILL nothing saying why vote for McCain that's not "because Obama is X". Doesn't this tell you something?

Re "obama = marxist":

Quote:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Know where that's from? Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776. Basically the bible of capitalism. In short, you don't know what you're talking about, you're spouting Fox News talking points, and you should just close your mouth and stop looking like an ass.

Overtaxed: Comment: The New Yorker

Poppinjay · 10-28-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Anyone who owns a private gun or cares about using a gun for self defense would be a fool to vote for Obama.

Because that's all that matters. In good times, you can shoot people who try to take your stuff. In bad times, you can shoot people and take their stuff.

I agree strongly with RB, it was a HUGE mistake for the NRA to jerk right. I was taught gun safety by the NRA as a kid, then comes the '90's and all of a sudden they're freaks.

The NRA used the same argument in '92. Are all your guns gone? Did Clinton take them away?

Derwood · 10-28-2008, 09:39 AM

I hate guns, so I guess this should make me vote for Obama

aceventura3 · 10-28-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the nra?
i think that organization made an enormous mistake scurrying to the extreme right. now they're stuck there. one consequence of that is arguments that they generate are self-evidently geared toward the extreme right. it didn't have to be that way--they had a choice and could just as easily have remained an organization that advocated in a non-partisan manner for gun owners---but they didn't.

Supporting the rights of individual to own and use firearms is extreme right? I think the 2nd amendment and the interpretation allowing individuals to own firearms is a part of the fundamental fabric of this nation.

As you say the NRA is "scurrying", what do you call what Obama is doing on the campaign trail?

Quote:

Barack Obama claims he is a friend of gun owners. He certainly has convinced the media.

On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times said the NRA's opposition to Obama seemed strange because "Obama does not oppose gun rights. He has made a point of pounding this home to rural audiences, telling them he has no intention of taking their guns away: not their shotguns, not their handguns, not anything."

Taking aim at Obama's stance on gun control | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/14/2008

Which is the real Obama, his voting record or his rhetoric?
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 01 : 50 : 46-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

89 posts. STILL nothing saying why vote for McCain that's not "because Obama is X". Doesn't this tell you something?

No one is going to give you a reason to vote for McCain, because there is no reason other than he is not Obama. That is McCain's case, that is what he has been running on, we know that now and we knew it since he got the nomination. His only hope to win is if Obama makes a mistake or if people wake up and see Obama for what he is.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 02 : 00 : 15-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Because that's all that matters. In good times, you can shoot people who try to take your stuff. In bad times, you can shoot people and take their stuff.

I agree strongly with RB, it was a HUGE mistake for the NRA to jerk right. I was taught gun safety by the NRA as a kid, then comes the '90's and all of a sudden they're freaks.

The NRA used the same argument in '92. Are all your guns gone? Did Clinton take them away?

Again, look at actual voting records or what people did in positions of authority. Bill Clinton was strongly opposed by the NRA and was not allowed to do what he wanted in this area. Clinton's obsession with gun control is partly to blame for the Waco mess. The matter could have been easily handled without a show-down.

Gun bans in areas that had them in the US did not result in less crime, in many cases violent crime increased. No lawful person wants to shoot people.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 02 : 03 : 16-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I hate guns, so I guess this should make me vote for Obama

Yes. But do you also hate the US Constitution? Do you care about standing up for the rights of others even when you do not agree with them or what they do? What are you willing to do to those who use guns in criminal activities?

asaris · 10-28-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Supporting the rights of individual to own and use firearms is extreme right? I think the 2nd amendment and the interpretation allowing individuals to own firearms is a part of the fundamental fabric of this nation.

Yes. But do you also hate the US Constitution? Do you care about standing up for the rights of others even when you do not agree with them or what they do? What are you willing to do to those who use guns in criminal activities?

I'm not really familiar with the positions of the NRA, and don't really follow gun control arguments, but I suspect that the problem isn't merely asserting that individuals have the right to own guns. There are basically two extreme positions on gun control; one is that all guns should be banned, and the other is that all regulations on guns are illegitimate. I would be very surprised if Obama held the former view; it at least seems sometimes as if the NRA espouses the latter view.

Those who use guns in criminal activities are almost always punished more severely than if they hadn't used a gun. In the federal system, it takes the form of a sentencing enhancement if a gun is used in the course of a criminal transaction. In my view, this has been interpreted too broadly. If I'm selling you drugs, and I happen to have a gun in the car, I'll be hit with the firearm enhancement. But it's easy to see why such an enhancement is a good idea in general. Crime is dangerous enough as it is; it's even more dangerous when guns are involved.

And I thought that the organization that stood up for people's rights, regardless of whether they agreed with them, was the ACLU. I don't agree with every position the ACLU has ever taken. But they have a long record of taking cases that are unpopular with the left, the right, or even everyone.

roachboy · 10-28-2008, 11:41 AM

ace--i don't think there's anything that is not clear in what i posted.
stop with this juvenile "whaddya call what obama's doing" bullshit.
i've had enough of it.
all i meant to argue is that the decision on the part of the nra to drift politically to the extreme right has undermined their ability to advocate their positions and not find themselves grouped with the far right of the republican party. if they really want to defend gun ownership in its absolutist form (all control=evil) then they made a mistake.
the reason i noted this self-evident fact (if you pay attention to such things in the empirical world) is that it hardly matters what the nra says about obama at this point because of the gamble they have made over the past years to alilgn with the far right.
so they're talking to a subset of the population that they hope to reach, and appeal mostly to folk like you, who need no convincing about this as gun control is one of the legion of republican-fabricated "wedge issues"...

aceventura3 · 10-28-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

And I thought that the organization that stood up for people's rights, regardless of whether they agreed with them, was the ACLU. I don't agree with every position the ACLU has ever taken. But they have a long record of taking cases that are unpopular with the left, the right, or even everyone.

The ACLU stands up for the causes they support, as does the NRA. I value these organizations even if I don't always agree with their agendas. They help keep the system honest.

I support what I consider reasonable gun control laws, like registration, waiting periods, background checks, mandatory training, and a few other controls - I am not in 100% agreement with the NRA. Most gun owners I know have similar views to mine. Obama has wanted to make it punitive for a person to use a firearm for self defense in their own home and supported a complete ban on handguns. Again, I understand people having opposing views on the issue of the degree of controls, but Obama's record indicates his views are out of step with the views of most reasonable people on the issue, and is now inconsistent with his words on the campaign trail.

dc_dux · 10-28-2008, 11:55 AM

Once agaiin, Obama's position is being distorted by the NRA, Op eds and ace.

It should be more accurately described as supporting state/local options to enact their own legislation to limit or restrict gun ownership that meet a Constitutional test.

The only restriction that I believe he supports at the federal level is a return of the ban on semi-automatics that had bi-partisan support when first enacted in the 90s but not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster when it was up for reauthorization several years ago.

aceventura3 · 10-28-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace--i don't think there's anything that is not clear in what i posted.
stop with this juvenile "whaddya call what obama's doing" bullshit.
i've had enough of it.

First, my questions regarding Obama are my questions and I consider them legitimate. I don't care what you like or don't like. My question regarding his inconsitencies goes unanswered will will never be answered until he starts to execute his real agenda.

Quote:

all i meant to argue is that the decision on the part of the nra to drift politically to the extreme right has undermined their ability to advocate their positions and not find themselves grouped with the far right of the republican party. if they really want to defend gun ownership in its absolutist form (all control=evil) then they made a mistake.

I don't agree with your premise. I don't think the NRA has "drifted". I think they have been consistent in their views and actions. You provide no support for your premise.

Quote:

the reason i noted this self-evident fact (if you pay attention to such things in the empirical world) is that it hardly matters what the nra says about obama at this point because of the gamble they have made over the past years to alilgn with the far right.

The NRA has a singular focus. The organization does not champion "right wing" issues, the champion gun rights issues. What is "self-evident" to you is not to me.

Quote:

so they're talking to a subset of the population that they hope to reach, and appeal mostly to folk like you, who need no convincing about this as gun control is one of the legion of republican-fabricated "wedge issues"...

The NRA is a politically active group because they believe there is a need for them to be politically active, their political activity has increased because the threat to gun ownership has increased. The only thing we can honestly assume NRA members have in common, is the interest in guns. That is the subset. The issue is real, not fabricated. If those wanting to end the "wedge" on this stop trying to infringe on my rights the issue will stop being a "wedge issue".

dc_dux · 10-28-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

First, my questions regarding Obama are my questions and I consider them legitimate. I don't care what you like or don't like. My question regarding his inconsitencies goes unanswered will will never be answered until he starts to execute his real agenda.

Obama's position on gun control is only inconsistent if taken out of context.

aceventura3 · 10-28-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Once agaiin, Obama's position is being distorted by the NRA, Op eds and ace.

Poor Obama, he seems to always have his position distorted. This one is simple. He or you can set the record straight.

Quote:

It should be more accurately described as supporting state/local options to enact their own legislation to limit or restrict gun ownership that meet a Constitutional test.

Please give a source.

How do you reconcile the above with national gun control legislation he has supported? In 2005 Obama voted for legislation that would have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition.

Quote:

The only restriction that I believe he supports at the federal level is a return of the ban on semi-automatics that had bi-partisan support when first enacted in the 90s but not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster when it was up for reauthorization several years ago.

I don't want to be accused of repeating talking points because the only information I have seen on this issue has come from a small number of sources (I have looked for Obama's positions and could not find much), so I will simply state that Obama has not answered questions on this issue, perhaps partly because the biased media has not asked him questions but regardless he has not done it. At this point he wont clarify his position, and I think it would be foolish for any "gun rights" person to vote for Obama.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 04 : 13 : 51-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Obama's position on gun control is only inconsistent if taken out of context.

Give his position. My context is as follows: I want the right to purchase and own handguns and rifles. I want to purchase ammunition. I don't want excessive taxes on guns and ammunition. I want the right to qualify for conceal carry. I want the right to protect my family and my person using lethal force if necessary.

dc_dux · 10-28-2008, 12:16 PM

ace...here is his voting record on federal legislation:

Project Vote Smart - Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. - Voting Record (under - gun issues)

You can twist his vote on the Firearms Protection Liability bill and say it would "have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition" and I can say that blanket liability protection for gun manufacturers, bought and paid for by the NRA, is bullshit.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 04 : 25 : 43-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Give his position. My context is as follows: I want the right to purchase and own handguns and rifles. I want to purchase ammunition. I don't want excessive taxes on guns and ammunition. I want the right to qualify for conceal carry. I want the right to protect my family and my person using lethal force if necessary.

His position is that it is a local issue. If the majority of citizens of DC or San Fransisco or Boise or Witcha want to enact local laws that go farther than the Brady Act and pass a Constitutional test, that should be their right.

Its called federalism, something the right wants on other issues, but not guns...go figure.

aceventura3 · 10-28-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...here is his voting record on federal legislation:

Project Vote Smart - Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. - Voting Record

You can twist his vote on the Firearms Protection Liability bill and say it would "have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition" and I can say that blanket liability protection for gun manufacturers, bought and paid for by the NRA, is bullshit.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 04 : 25 : 43-----

His position is that it is a local issue. If the majority of citizens of DC or San Fransisco or Boise or Witcha want to enact local laws that go farther than the Brady Act and pass a Constitutional test, that should be their right.

Its called federalism, something the right wants on other issues, but not guns...go figure.

Thanks for your attempt at addressing this issue. My view has not changed and I don't feel my questions have been addressed. I apologize if my bringing this issue up has offended any Obama supporters. Obama is clearly for and against gun control.

dc_dux · 10-28-2008, 12:41 PM

ace...you are always looking for how Obama voted aganst the Democratic leadrership.

Look no farther than the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment that passed 84-16.

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

He voted with the Republican majority....not the 16 (Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Feiinstein, Kennedy, Shumer.....) who voted against it.

Derwood · 10-28-2008, 12:41 PM

the NRA hasn't drifted on their focus or their views, they've drifted to the extreme side of the political spectrum in order to get what they want. all roachboy is suggesting is that they may have been smarter to stay non-partisan in order to get what they wanted, as they are now being used by the RNC to get voters, which isn't the NRA's goal.

aceventura3 · 10-28-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...you are always looking for how Obama voted aganst the Democratic leadrership.

Look no farther than the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment that passed 84-16.

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

He voted with the Republican majority....not the 16 (Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Feiinstein, Kennedy, Shumer.....) who voted against it.

Yes, I looked at that vote and it further confused me regarding his views on gun laws. I also looked at his website and read his positions on the use of firearms for hunting and then his position on urban crime as it relates to gun control. Given, his postitions as a state Senator, his early positions on gun control, his US Senate votes on gun issues (including court nominees), his positions on the Supreme Court decision on individual's right to have guns, his campaign rhetoric, and website - I have no clue what he would do as President. Like I said earlier, thanks for the attempt.

I acknowledge his vote against his party.

dc_dux · 10-28-2008, 02:20 PM

ace....if you want to see inconsistencies in Obama's positions, you will.

But if you believe that residents of a community should have the right to enact strict crime control measures, including gun control, that pass a Constitutional test...then you share Obama's position.

If you believe that the federal government should not have the right to take away lawfully owned firearms during a "state of emergency" in a city/state, then you share Obama's position.

If you believe that firearm manufacturers should not have near blanket liability immunity for the misuse of their product that no other product in the country has, then you share Obama's position.

If you believe that the manufacturing, sale or importation of armor piercing ammunition should be restricted, then you share Obama's position.

And if you believe that the only additional federal legislation that should be considered are child safety devices on guns, better background checks at gun shows and the reauthorization of the ban on semi-automatic weapons, then you share Obama's position.

The case against Obama is more fear and smear.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 06 : 40 : 11-----
FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

flstf · 10-28-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The case against Obama is more fear and smear.

I don't think so. I disagree with Obama on almost all the issues dealing with guns especially the ban on semi-autos (assault guns) which is just stupid. In my opinion he is just wrong and it has nothing to do with fear and smear.

dc_dux · 10-28-2008, 02:41 PM

flstf...I understand that the ban on semi-autos is the deal breaker for many, despite the fact that it had bi-partisan support when first enacted.

The "fear and smear" is the manner in which his positions have been mischaracterized by the NRA and more recently, McCain/Palin

(see the fact check in my post above for examples of the fear and smear)

"A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition."

NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense" - false

NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting" - false

NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" - false

NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm" - false

NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry" - false

NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms" - partly true

NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment" - unsupported

NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" - uncertain

NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America" - uncertain

NRA Claim: "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime" - mostly true - if by giving ex-felons voting rights might also mean they could have a right to own a gun.

There are alot of smears in there, mixed with a lesser number of claims for which there might be some uncertainty.

And many of ace's claims perpetuate the same gross exaggerations as the NRA, particularly that Obama's support for legislation that would NOT give firearms manufacturers blanket liability protection (with few exceptions) that NO other US industry has, would have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition.

One fair critique is that some may feel uncertain about the details of Obama's positions (applies to most candidates on most issues...the devil is in the details)...but it is also reasonable to say that neither Obama nor the Democrats in Congress have any intent of making federal gun control a central issue, particularly when they know that their own Blue Dogs wouldnt be on board.

flstf · 10-28-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

(see the fact check in my post above for examples of the fear and smear)

I just read your factcheck link and it does seem like they are trying to make his positions much worse than they are. I am getting rather numb with all the campaign smears in this election. We are getting about 2 Republican robo-calls a day now, we even heard from "Joe the Plumber" today warning us against the socialist.

Derwood · 10-28-2008, 07:30 PM

Wait, people seriously are pissed that they can't own semi-automatic or assault rifles for personal use? Really?

flstf · 10-28-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Wait, people seriously are pissed that they can't own semi-automatic or assault rifles for personal use? Really?

Yes. Semi-auto has nothing to do with automatic, machine guns were and are already illegal. It just means the rifle will fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The assault rifle ban did not get rid of guns that fire this way, only ones that look mean. In my opinion it was just a stupid political gimmick. There are many other threads here discussing these gun law issues.

ratbastid · 10-29-2008, 05:22 AM

Nuance is dead.

Things are either black-and-white, or they're too confusing to be understood.

It's a sad day.

Paq · 10-29-2008, 05:52 AM

you know what i find funny about this thread....

from here, i've learned more about mccain's platform than i have from a month of debates and RNC ads.

i'm not kidding.

roachboy · 10-29-2008, 06:11 AM

to the other rb: i remember hearing that irony was dead a while back. judging by all kinds of recent happenings, that seems to have been premature.
that's why i have a nuanced hope for nuance: it's still around.
it's just been pushed to the background by a flood of idiocy.
even a confederacy of dunces can't kill it entirely.

dksuddeth · 11-04-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the nra?
i think that organization made an enormous mistake scurrying to the extreme right. now they're stuck there. one consequence of that is arguments that they generate are self-evidently geared toward the extreme right. it didn't have to be that way--they had a choice and could just as easily have remained an organization that advocated in a non-partisan manner for gun owners---but they didn't.

i am agnostic on the question of gun control, btw. i support it in cities. i am less in favor of it in other geographical areas. but i am definitely in favor of it in urban environments.

how does that figure, that the NRA is geared to the exreme right, when they've endorsed numerous democrat candidates over the last 3 years?
-----Added 4/11/2008 at 01 : 41 : 15-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Yes. Semi-auto has nothing to do with automatic, machine guns were and are already illegal. It just means the rifle will fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The assault rifle ban did not get rid of guns that fire this way, only ones that look mean. In my opinion it was just a stupid political gimmick. There are many other threads here discussing these gun law issues.

machine guns are NOT illegal to own. They just require an inordinate amount of 'hoops' to jump through to acquire one as well as they only are available to the wealthy anymore due to the registry being closed in1986. Machine guns ARE legal to own.

10-28-2008, 07:32 AM	#88 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I was reading the November issue of American Rifleman (NRA magazine) last night, they rate Obama an "F", meaning a "A true enemy of gun owners". Anyone who owns a private gun or cares about using a gun for self defense would be a fool to vote for Obama. Some of Obama's campaign statements have not been consistent with his voting record on individual gun ownership issues. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-28-2008, 07:40 AM	#89 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the nra? i think that organization made an enormous mistake scurrying to the extreme right. now they're stuck there. one consequence of that is arguments that they generate are self-evidently geared toward the extreme right. it didn't have to be that way--they had a choice and could just as easily have remained an organization that advocated in a non-partisan manner for gun owners---but they didn't. i am agnostic on the question of gun control, btw. i support it in cities. i am less in favor of it in other geographical areas. but i am definitely in favor of it in urban environments. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2008, 11:41 AM	#95 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace--i don't think there's anything that is not clear in what i posted. stop with this juvenile "whaddya call what obama's doing" bullshit. i've had enough of it. all i meant to argue is that the decision on the part of the nra to drift politically to the extreme right has undermined their ability to advocate their positions and not find themselves grouped with the far right of the republican party. if they really want to defend gun ownership in its absolutist form (all control=evil) then they made a mistake. the reason i noted this self-evident fact (if you pay attention to such things in the empirical world) is that it hardly matters what the nra says about obama at this point because of the gamble they have made over the past years to alilgn with the far right. so they're talking to a subset of the population that they hope to reach, and appeal mostly to folk like you, who need no convincing about this as gun control is one of the legion of republican-fabricated "wedge issues"... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2008, 11:55 AM	#97 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Once agaiin, Obama's position is being distorted by the NRA, Op eds and ace. It should be more accurately described as supporting state/local options to enact their own legislation to limit or restrict gun ownership that meet a Constitutional test. The only restriction that I believe he supports at the federal level is a return of the ban on semi-automatics that had bi-partisan support when first enacted in the 90s but not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster when it was up for reauthorization several years ago. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2008 at 11:58 AM..

10-28-2008, 12:41 PM	#103 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...you are always looking for how Obama voted aganst the Democratic leadrership. Look no farther than the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment that passed 84-16. To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law. U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote He voted with the Republican majority....not the 16 (Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Feiinstein, Kennedy, Shumer.....) who voted against it. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2008 at 12:47 PM..

10-28-2008, 09:39 AM	#92 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I hate guns, so I guess this should make me vote for Obama

10-28-2008, 12:41 PM	#104 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	the NRA hasn't drifted on their focus or their views, they've drifted to the extreme side of the political spectrum in order to get what they want. all roachboy is suggesting is that they may have been smarter to stay non-partisan in order to get what they wanted, as they are now being used by the RNC to get voters, which isn't the NRA's goal.

10-28-2008, 02:20 PM	#106 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....if you want to see inconsistencies in Obama's positions, you will. But if you believe that residents of a community should have the right to enact strict crime control measures, including gun control, that pass a Constitutional test...then you share Obama's position. If you believe that the federal government should not have the right to take away lawfully owned firearms during a "state of emergency" in a city/state, then you share Obama's position. If you believe that firearm manufacturers should not have near blanket liability immunity for the misuse of their product that no other product in the country has, then you share Obama's position. If you believe that the manufacturing, sale or importation of armor piercing ammunition should be restricted, then you share Obama's position. And if you believe that the only additional federal legislation that should be considered are child safety devices on guns, better background checks at gun shows and the reauthorization of the ban on semi-automatic weapons, then you share Obama's position. The case against Obama is more fear and smear. -----Added 28/10/2008 at 06 : 40 : 11----- FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2008 at 02:40 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

10-28-2008, 02:41 PM	#108 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	flstf...I understand that the ban on semi-autos is the deal breaker for many, despite the fact that it had bi-partisan support when first enacted. The "fear and smear" is the manner in which his positions have been mischaracterized by the NRA and more recently, McCain/Palin (see the fact check in my post above for examples of the fear and smear) "A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition." NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense" - false NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting" - false NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" - false NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm" - false NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry" - false NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms" - partly true NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment" - unsupported NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" - uncertain NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America" - uncertain NRA Claim: "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime" - mostly true - if by giving ex-felons voting rights might also mean they could have a right to own a gun. There are alot of smears in there, mixed with a lesser number of claims for which there might be some uncertainty. And many of ace's claims perpetuate the same gross exaggerations as the NRA, particularly that Obama's support for legislation that would NOT give firearms manufacturers blanket liability protection (with few exceptions) that NO other US industry has, would have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition. One fair critique is that some may feel uncertain about the details of Obama's positions (applies to most candidates on most issues...the devil is in the details)...but it is also reasonable to say that neither Obama nor the Democrats in Congress have any intent of making federal gun control a central issue, particularly when they know that their own Blue Dogs wouldnt be on board. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2008 at 04:41 PM..

10-28-2008, 07:30 PM	#110 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Wait, people seriously are pissed that they can't own semi-automatic or assault rifles for personal use? Really?

10-29-2008, 05:22 AM	#112 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Nuance is dead. Things are either black-and-white, or they're too confusing to be understood. It's a sad day.

10-29-2008, 05:52 AM	#113 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	you know what i find funny about this thread.... from here, i've learned more about mccain's platform than i have from a month of debates and RNC ads. i'm not kidding. __________________ Live. Chris

10-29-2008, 06:11 AM	#114 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	to the other rb: i remember hearing that irony was dead a while back. judging by all kinds of recent happenings, that seems to have been premature. that's why i have a nuanced hope for nuance: it's still around. it's just been pushed to the background by a flood of idiocy. even a confederacy of dunces can't kill it entirely. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite