McCain backs Obama's call for 'stand your ground' review

[JAB]

Some folks want to act as if McCain is some kind of anomaly within the Republican party but that simply is not the case.  I mean, this guy was chosen as their candidate for President in the next to last election.  That means enough Republicans (or, at least, enough of the Republicans that matter - the ones who really pull the puppet strings) thought he represented everything the party believes and stands for that he was picked as their '#1 guy' less than eight years ago.  Perhaps even more than the Obama vs. Romney nonchoice, the Obama vs. McCain election was proof positive that it really doesn't matter which side of the plug nickel we vote for as the 'differences' between the two major parties really aren't all that different.  McCain is simply confirming that fact, again.

Edited July 23, 2013 by JAB

[bubbiesdad]

[K191145]

 

They need to add Lamar to that toon, i'm sure he's in that line behind the big fat SOB.

Edited July 28, 2013 by K191145

[leroy]

RE:  The McCain "respect" thing.   I think we make mistakes passing out the term "respect" in lots of cases; and the McCain thing is one of them.   Its important that "respect" be passed out for action that gained it.  It is not "eternal" .... . It can be lost; and that is what has happened with McCain..  Said another way, respect is earned for the actions that precipitated that "respect"...   It can be lost.   It is not enduring.   The fact of the matter is that john mccain is an old hippie with a backbone; nothin else.  I dont like hippies on principle, and i damn sure dont like MCCain.  Havin said that, i held my nose and voted for him because i couldnt stand the alternative that we have now.  

 

McCain is a genuine product of the rarified atmosphere that permeates the majority of the "Inside the Beltway Crowd" and the top echelons of the military. He symbolizes all that is wrong with politics today, both within the Republican party and politics in general.

 

He believes everything he says is right and that us delightful rustics should bow down and do what he says.. period.  John McCain is exactly like John Glenn.  He is a shameless politico who has used military service as a stepping stone to political debauchery.  He no more is a patriot today than i am an russian cosmonaut. 

 

He is an old statist, out to tell us delightful rustics what to do and what to think.  After all, he is "...The best and brightest..." and we should bow down.  I say pooey.  Forget it.....I aint doin it; and i aint gonna honor anyone like McCain nor let him disarm me. 

 

Remember, military service doesnt translate to patriotism.  It may translate to heroism, but it does not translate to patriotism.  The Hessians were german mercanaries for the British in the Revolutionary War.

 

non believin leroy

[Guest Bassman17SC]

McCain, bless his heart, seems to be in the latter stage of that mental disorder known as liberalism.  Both Alexander and Corker are in the early stages, IMHO.

[whitewolf001]

McCain is now a card carrying member of Libtardia.

[Ted S.]

Hope no one is surprised.........

 

:2cents:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Some folks want to act as if McCain is some kind of anomaly within the Republican party but that simply is not the case.  I mean, this guy was chosen as their candidate for President in the next to last election.  That means enough Republicans (or, at least, enough of the Republicans that matter - the ones who really pull the puppet strings) thought he represented everything the party believes and stands for that he was picked as their '#1 guy' less than eight years ago.  Perhaps even more than the Obama vs. Romney nonchoice, the Obama vs. McCain election was proof positive that it really doesn't matter which side of the plug nickel we vote for as the 'differences' between the two major parties really aren't all that different.  McCain is simply confirming that fact, again.

That's just not true, what you said about the leaders picking who they think the people all can believe in. I think the

leadership picked those candidates based on seniority from within the system, and who they believe will best serve

their political goals, not the people's.

 

If it was true, what you said, we wouldn't have people like Karl Rove trashing Republican candidates like he does.

It's a battle between two completely different ideals from within the Republican Party. This came to face when

Barry Goldwater was defeated in his bid, and has been obvious ever since. The Rockefeller Republicans want a

more progressive bent to shine out from the Republican Party, and will do anything to destroy a more conservative

party. That's the road block.

Edited August 4, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

RE:  The McCain "respect" thing.   I think we make mistakes passing out the term "respect" in lots of cases; and the McCain thing is one of them.   Its important that "respect" be passed out for action that gained it.  It is not "eternal" .... . It can be lost; and that is what has happened with McCain..  Said another way, respect is earned for the actions that precipitated that "respect"...   It can be lost.   It is not enduring....

Sorry but I can't agree with that, at least not totally.

 

One of my best friends is about as liberal of a Democrat as exists but he volunteered for service and wore the uniform in Vietnam, was combat wounded and still carries some of the shrapnel in his body 40 years later.  He and I will never agree politically but I will never disrespect his service.

It is very, very rare that I agree with McCain on politics/issues of the day but I will never disrespect his service unless he does something specifically to disrespect it himself (such as, in my opinion, ketchup man Kerry did after his service).  I can detest a man's politics/issues on positions without detesting the man or his honorable military service.

 

There are tens of thousands of veterans out there who have had their lives horribly changed because of their service; who will carry scars (some visible and some not so visible) for the rest of their lives; do we dismiss them as well if their politics don't match up with our own?

Edited August 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Only if you wish to judge a person based on his military service. Leroy wasn't.

[RobertNashville]

Only if you wish to judge a person based on his military service. Leroy wasn't.

I'm not saying anything about judging or not judging someone based on or only on his military service; I'm simply saying that honorable military service should always be honored and respected.  To not do so is, in my opinion, an affront to all veterans and their service.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

I think we can all agree that McCain deserves the appropriate respect for his service.....having said that, some of the things he says and does (while wearing the mantle of the Republican party -and ostensibly the CONSERVATIVE side) might make one think back to the Manchurian Candidate....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate where the "conservative" candidate is really controlled by communists. 

 

NO...I'm Not saying he's Raymond Shaw and he's going to assassinate anyone....let's be clear about that. It is not a 1 for 1 comparison to the movie or book .If anything he'd be more like a combination of Raymond Shaw and vice presidential candidate John Iselin. Shaw was an unwitting brainwashed pawn and Iselin was the "Manchurian Candidate" who would "for the sake of our safety" would use his power to usher in communist rule in the USA. 

 

 I'm saying it sometimes makes you  wonder at the things McCain says that are a bit far left which side he REALLY is on ....

Edited August 5, 2013 by Cruel Hand Luke

[JAB]

That's just not true, what you said about the leaders picking who they think the people all can believe in. I think the

leadership picked those candidates based on seniority from within the system, and who they believe will best serve

their political goals, not the people's.

 

If it was true, what you said, we wouldn't have people like Karl Rove trashing Republican candidates like he does.

It's a battle between two completely different ideals from within the Republican Party. This came to face when

Barry Goldwater was defeated in his bid, and has been obvious ever since. The Rockefeller Republicans want a

more progressive bent to shine out from the Republican Party, and will do anything to destroy a more conservative

party. That's the road block.

 

Unfortunately, in today's political world it appears not to really matter what the 'rank and file' might want.  It is the 'leaders' who choose what candidates will actually get the nod to grab for the big prize and (as evidenced by the discussions/disagreements I had with some folks on here during the last election) even if the leaders choose a piss-poor candidate that doesn't really reflect the values and beliefs of the average Republican, the rank and file will shut up, rally behind 'their guy', hold their nose and vote for him because - even though there may be very little, practical difference between him and the Democrat candidate - they just can't have the Dems winning the Super Bowl winning the World Series winning Wrestlemania winning the election.  So, then, the supposedly 'conservative' rank and file will rally behind the 'progressive' candidate chosen by the leadership and even go so far as to act like anyone who questions the conservative chops of said progressive candidate is crazy (despite the fact that they, themselves, held just as low an opinion of that candidate during the primaries.)  Hence, those so-called conservatives go all gung ho in support of the McCains and Romneys of the world instead of showing any dissent.  Beyond that, they will even go so far as to tell folks like me that I am wasting my vote if I don't support their piss-poor, RINO candidate (as if voting for one of two poor choices, neither of whom I want to win, isn't wasting my vote.)  Therefore, I stand by my statement and hold that, in a practical sense, it is absolutely true that McCain and his ilk represent the Republican party in its current form.

Edited August 5, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

Unfortunately, in today's political world it appears not to really matter what the 'rank and file' might want.  It is the 'leaders' who choose what candidates will actually get the nod to grab for the big prize and (as evidenced by the discussions/disagreements I had with some folks on here during the last election) even if the leaders choose a piss-poor candidate that doesn't really reflect the values and beliefs of the average Republican, the rank and file will shut up, rally behind 'their guy', hold their nose and vote for him because - even though there may be very little, practical difference between him and the Democrat candidate - they just can't have the Dems winning the Super Bowl winning the World Series winning Wrestlemania winning the election.  So, then, the supposedly 'conservative' rank and file will rally behind the 'progressive' candidate chosen by the leadership and even go so far as to act like anyone who questions the conservative chops of said progressive candidate is crazy (despite the fact that they, themselves, posed the held just as low an opinion of that candidate during the primaries.)  Hence, those so-called conservatives go all gung ho in support of the McCains and Romneys of the world instead of showing any dissent.  Beyond that, they will even go so far as to tell folks like me that I am wasting my vote if I don't support their piss-poor, RINO candidate (as if voting for one of two poor choices, neither of whom I want to win, isn't wasting my vote.)  Therefore, I stand by my statement and hold that, in a practical sense, it is absolutely true that McCain and his ilk represent the Republican party in its current form.

No, he and his ilk represent a component of the Republican party but not the entire party.  There is another faction vying for control led by the likes of Paul and Cruize, etc...claiming that McCain represents the entire party is simply not accurate.

 

As to last election, it was a lot more than just "not wanting the Democrats to win the Superbowl"...we haven't even seen the half of the damage Obama will do before he leaves office...once Obamacare kicks in and he appoints a couple of justices to the Supreme Court you might as well kiss any semblance of the Constitution being meaningful goodby; that will be Obama's true legacy and it's a legacy that will be felt for decades. That's why it was worth voting for Romney.

 

Alas, elections have consequences and we are going to face some bad ones.

[Chucktshoes]

I recognize this debate! It's the one where Republican apologists stake out the position of voting against the Democrats for fear of the harm they cause and libertarians attempt to explain that there is no functional difference between the parties and that they are both controlled by progressives that think it is perfectly ok to use the government to legislate control of how other people live their lives and spend their money. The libertarians eventually lose patience and get snarky, the Republican apologists get offended and there are tears and recriminations for weeks on end.

Cue the butthurt in 3...2...1...

[JAB]

No, he and his ilk represent a component of the Republican party but not the entire party. 

 

Once such candidates get 'the nod' does the entire party (or, at least, most of the party) rally behind 'their guy' to win the election?  Does the entire party (or, at least, most of the party) start telling everyone why 'their guy' is the best choice?  If yes then, functionally, he and his ilk do represent the entire Republican party.  Sure, some members may bitch and moan a bit but if, in the end, they end up voting for candidates like McCain then they must, on some level, believe that he deserves their support, in the form of their vote, if only because they happen to have that 'R' by their name.  Otherwise, logically, they wouldn't vote for him or his ilk - and as long as the rank and file are willing to shut up and support whoever the party 'leaders' choose then nothing is going to change - at least not for the better.

Edited August 5, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

Once such candidates get 'the nod' does the entire party (or, at least, most of the party) rally behind 'their guy' to win the election?  Does the entire party (or, at least, most of the party) start telling everyone why 'their guy' is the best choice?  If yes then, functionally, he and his ilk do represent the entire Republican party.  Sure, some members may bitch and moan a bit but if, in the end, they end up voting for candidates like McCain then they must, on some level, believe that he deserves their support, in the form of their vote, if only because they happen to have that 'R' by their name.  Otherwise, logically, they wouldn't vote for him or his ilk - and as long as the rank and file are willing to shut up and support whoever the party 'leaders' choose then nothing is going to change - at least not for the better.

You can look at it that way if you wish but to claim that any one person actually "represents" any group as large as the Republican Party and the actual views of its members then you are simply ignoring common sense to arrive at the narrative you want. Although some may come closer than other, I've yet to see any candidate from any party that was a perfect candidate or that could truly represent all the views of everyone in an entire party of that might encompass hundreds of thousands of members.

 

As to your logic about Republicans not voting for "him or his ilk", who, pray tell, is the "rank and file" Republicans (or those who generally vote Republican) supposed to support if not the Republican candidate?  As much as you want there to be there hasn't been any other viable choice other than the Republican or Democrat since at least the mid 1800s.

Edited August 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JAB]

As much as you want there to be there hasn't been any other viable choice other than the Republican or Democrat since at least the mid 1800s.

 

And that is precisely BECAUSE the rank and file are willing to shut up, hold their nose and vote for a slightly retarted canary if you put an 'R' by its name rather than even consider other, possible options.

[Oh Shoot]

And that is precisely BECAUSE the rank and file are willing to shut up, hold their nose and vote for a slightly retarted canary if you put an 'R' by its name rather than even consider other, possible options.

 

The specific problem for our special focus group here, though, is that as soon as the Dems get a majority in both Houses, maybe even with a Rep prez, there will be anti-gun legislation passed, you can take that to the bank.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

The specific problem for our special focus group here, though, is that as soon as the Dems get a majority in both Houses, maybe even with a Rep prez, there will be anti-gun legislation passed, you can take that to the bank.

 

- OS

 

Yep. It's a helluva lot bigger deal than some folks want to admit. It baffles me more now than before the war on guns started. Every major attack on gun owners across this country has come from Democrats. No amount of Gary Johnson weed is gonna help if those assholes gain majorities.

 

At least one of their favorite predictions will finally come true. There will probably be some blood in the streets.

Edited August 6, 2013 by mikegideon

[RobertNashville]

And that is precisely BECAUSE the rank and file are willing to shut up, hold their nose and vote for a slightly retarted canary if you put an 'R' by its name rather than even consider other, possible options.

I think you are being slightly insulting just to be slightly insulting.

 

The "rank and file" have only one opportunity to pick their party's candidate and that is in the primary. Once that process is over IT'S OVER.*

 

At that point, you either vote for the best choice (which in most of my adult life has been the Republican candidate) or you just don't bother to vote because there aren't 'other possible options"; at least not options with a snow ball's chance on hell of wining the election. Now; you can complain about it being that way all you want but complaining about it wont' change the simple truth of the situation.

 

 

 

* I do remember the days when conventions still had a bit of excitement and when there was at least a chance that the final nominee of the part was not decided weeks or month before the convention date but it's just not that way any more (even though some of the RP faithful claimed it would be during the 2012 convention).

Edited August 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Yep. It's a helluva lot bigger deal than some folks want to admit. It baffles me more now than before the war on guns started. Every major attack on gun owners across this country has come from Democrats. No amount of Gary Johnson weed is gonna help if those assholes gain majorities.

 

At least one of their favorite predictions will finally come true. There will probably be some blood in the streets.

We should probably be thankful for Obamacare...had Obama's desire for universal, government healthcare not been such a high priority for he and the Democrats we would likely have firearm laws on the books right now that would make those recently passed in NY and Colorado look wildly free!

[mikegideon]

We should probably be thankful for Obamacare...had Obama's desire for universal, government healthcare not been such a high priority for he and the Democrats we would likely have firearm laws on the books right now that would make those recently passed in NY and Colorado look wildly free!

 

Agree. I'm thankful for Obamacare every day. It distracted them from doing a lot of irreparable damage. It will eventually fly apart. The gun laws would have probably had more staying power.

[E4 No More]

It frustrates me to see people on here who think that if a candidate doesn't match their way of thinking 100% of the time then they aren't going to vote for them. They are defacto holding a freak'n politician to a higher standard than they do their own spouses.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The specific problem for our special focus group here, though, is that as soon as the Dems get a majority in both Houses, maybe even with a Rep prez, there will be anti-gun legislation passed, you can take that to the bank.

 

- OS

I doubt the House will go to the Dems, and I still think the Senate will change hands. I haven't seen anything that

would make me change my mind on that, yet.