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

[mikegideon]

Yeah, because the Republicans in the TN House, Senate and Governor's office have proven to be soooo supportive of our firearms rights since gaining control.  Heck, the way they have completely let us down on firearms rights issues after blaming the Democrats for a lack of progress in that area for so long was pretty much the final straw in my deciding that they aren't any different from the Dems.  Think about it - we saw more progress under Bredesen and Naifeh (castle doctrine laws, stand your ground laws, etc.) than we have since the Republicans got more control.  Much like professional wrestling, I think a lot of their 'conflicts' are staged to get the fans (voters) fired up for the next pay per view event (aka 'election) while, in reality, they are patting each other on the back in the dressing room and laughing at how gullible we all are.

 

Move to New York, Illinois, Kalifornia, even Colorado and then preach it. Get you a FOID card, and then tell me how bad these Republicans are. What I'm sayin'... you only THINK you're all pissed off.

[RobertNashville]

And you saying that my vote for candidate x is a vote for candidate y doesn't make such an illogical argument 'so', either.  Funny thing is, I have had Demuplicans tell me that my vote for a third party is a 'defacto' vote for the Republicrats and Republicrats tell me that my vote for a third party is a 'defacto' vote for the Dempublicans.  Cool - I guess that means by voting third party I am actually voting twice!  Or maybe it just means that worn out, old meme is nonsense.

 

What many refuse to grasp is that some of us haven't wanted the recent Republican candidates to win any more than we have wanted the recent Democrats to win.  So, telling us that we have to vote for Romney/McCain/a mentally deficient aardvark because, 'at least he isn't the Democrat' is akin to telling us we should choose to be eaten alive by sharks because that would be vastly preferable to being eaten alive by piranha.  It is a false choice and, as I see the one is no better than the other, I'll choose to at least try to grab for the life raft, even if there is pretty much no chance of getting aboard.

In the last two (and frankly all presidential elections, at least in the modern era), there has been two and only two candidates who had a legitimate chance to receive enough votes to actually win the election. Mathematically, voting for one of the inconsequential candidates or even not voting at all had an impact on which of the two legitimate candidates would win...which of the two was impacted the most and whether they were negatively or positively impacted depends on many factors and not really worth going into here.

 

As to what many grasp or don't grasp...if anyone is refusing to grasp anything I think it's those who refuse to grasp that their third-rate third-parties do absolutely noting to solve the problem the members of those parties claim they want to solve. Moreover, the notion that any of the third-party candidates ever offered up were actually "better" than the two main choices is laughable.

 

Now, if someone wants to vote for whatever warmed-over politician the third-parties put up that's their business but if they believe they are actually affecting change by doing so then they are fooling themselves.

Edited August 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

There's the rub. As long as folks believe the garbage about "wasting your vote" and "it's a defacto vote for x" they won't quit voting for the total and complete bags of #### that the R and D parties put up....

It's not a matter of believe; it's a math.

When there are only two candidates with a legitimate chance to win an election; voting for anyone other than those two (or not voting at all) is a wasted vote because it does absolutely nothing to change anything.

[mikegideon]

It's not a matter of believe; it's a math.

When there are only two candidates with a legitimate chance to win an election; voting for anyone other than those two (or not voting at all) is a wasted vote because it does absolutely nothing to change anything.

 

Not exactly. It can take votes away from the best guy, which is the same outcome as voting for the worst. Math has its place, even remedial math like that.

 

BTW... it doesn't bother me so much when friends in Tennessee vote for the Pro weed candidate, 'cause this state is a long way from being retarded enough to go blue. It bothers me when my friends in California do it. Talk about making your own bed.

Edited August 7, 2013 by mikegideon

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, because the Republicans in the TN House, Senate and Governor's office have proven to be soooo supportive of our firearms rights since gaining control.  Heck, the way they have completely let us down on firearms rights issues after blaming the Democrats for a lack of progress in that area for so long was pretty much the final straw in my deciding that they aren't any different from the Dems.  Think about it - we saw more progress under Bredesen and Naifeh (castle doctrine laws, stand your ground laws, etc.) than we have since the Republicans got more control.  Much like professional wrestling, I think a lot of their 'conflicts' are staged to get the fans (voters) fired up for the next pay per view event (aka 'election) while, in reality, they are patting each other on the back in the dressing room and laughing at how gullible we all are.

We don't need "Republicans" or "Democrats"; we need men and women with conservative principles.  In the meantime, however, I'll settle for a Republican controlled legislature who knows they had better not do anything to take away our firearm rights over a Democratic controlled one that likely would be trying to do exactly that following Sandy Hook.

[RobertNashville]

Not exactly. It can take votes away from the best guy, which is the same outcome as voting for the worst. Math has its place, even remedial math like that.

 

BTW... it doesn't bother me so much when friends in Tennessee vote for the Pro weed candidate, 'cause this state is a long way from being retarded enough to go blue. It bothers me when my friends in California do it. Talk about making your own bed.

Yes, every vote cast or not cased has an impact but I think you misunderstood the intent/subject of the section you highlighted, Mike.

What it doesn't change is the status quo of two major parties, two major candidates, one of whom will win - it doesn't make the inconsequential third-party any more consequential...it doesn't force the Republicans to select better candidates, etc. etc...that's the waste.
 

Edited August 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

Gotcha (there you go, Lester).

[Oh Shoot]

Move to New York, Illinois, Kalifornia, even Colorado and then preach it. Get you a FOID card, and then tell me how bad these Republicans are. What I'm sayin'... you only THINK you're all pissed off.

 

Yep. You can debate the overall impact of each party over the various aspects of The American Experiment, but one bottom line for the focus of this forum is simple:

 

Democrats = Anti-Gun Laws

 

- OS

[E4 No More]

And you saying that my vote for candidate x is a vote for candidate y doesn't make such an illogical argument 'so', either.  Funny thing is, I have had Demuplicans tell me that my vote for a third party is a 'defacto' vote for the Republicrats and Republicrats tell me that my vote for a third party is a 'defacto' vote for the Dempublicans.  Cool - I guess that means by voting third party I am actually voting twice!  Or maybe it just means that worn out, old meme is nonsense.

 

What many refuse to grasp is that some of us haven't wanted the recent Republican candidates to win any more than we have wanted the recent Democrats to win.  If we accepted the argument that the liberal progressive from Arizona named McCain or the liberal progressive from Massachusetts name Romney would really do a better job than the liberal progressive from Kenya named Obama then the argument might hold water.  However, once you get past the platitudes and campaign lies, some of us truly don't see them as being, functionally, all that different.  So, telling us that we have to vote for Romney/McCain/a mentally deficient aardvark because, 'at least he isn't the Democrat' is akin to telling us we should choose to be eaten alive by sharks because that would be vastly preferable to being eaten alive by piranha.  It is a false choice and, as I see the one as no better than the other, I'll choose to at least try to grab for the life raft, even if there is pretty much no chance of getting aboard.

This is a fallacious argument, IMHO. If you could show that McCain voted with Obama on every issue then I would agree.

[E4 No More]

Yeah, because the Republicans in the TN House, Senate and Governor's office have proven to be soooo supportive of our firearms rights since gaining control.  Heck, the way they have completely let us down on firearms rights issues after blaming the Democrats for a lack of progress in that area for so long was pretty much the final straw in my deciding that they aren't any different from the Dems.  Think about it - we saw more progress under Bredesen and Naifeh (castle doctrine laws, stand your ground laws, etc.) than we have since the Republicans got more control.  Much like professional wrestling, I think a lot of their 'conflicts' are staged to get the fans (voters) fired up for the next pay per view event (aka 'election) while, in reality, they are patting each other on the back in the dressing room and laughing at how gullible we all are.

So you are a one-issue voter. Got it!

[Chucktshoes]

I had a nice long reply typed out, but decided to delete it as I am sure it crossed lines that the moderation staff here would be unable to ignore within regards to advocating violence against government officials. I'm out of this one. Enjoy continuing to fool yourself into believing that there is truly a functional difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

[mikegideon]

I had a nice long reply typed out, but decided to delete it as I am sure it crossed lines that the moderation staff here would be unable to ignore within regards to advocating violence against government officials. I'm out of this one. Enjoy continuing to fool yourself into believing that there is truly a functional difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

 

Have you heard the news? Magpul is moving.

[Chucktshoes]

[mikegideon]

Magpul!

[frankmako]

two fools.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Got to thinking that the two party paradigm might be a hobson's choice--  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobsons_choice

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses, he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

But the article mentioned other alternatives with various merits--

Hobson's choice is different from:

• Dilemma: a choice between two or more options, none of which is attractive
• False dilemma: only two choices are considered, when in fact there are others
• Catch-22: a logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired by not being in that very situation
• Morton's fork, and a double bind: choices yield equivalent, often undesirable, results
• Blackmail and extortion: the choice between paying money (or some non-monetary good or deed) and suffering an unpleasant action

 

If we get exactly the same result regardless which of two parties for which we vote, then that sounds like a Hobson's choice. However, perhaps the two party paradigm is more a Dilemma than a Hobson's Choice? If the results of the binary vote always turn out bad, but the bad results for the two choices have different natures, then that sounds more like a dilemma?

 

Or perhaps from the perspective of an overly-optimistic libertarian, the two party paradigm might be considered a False Dilemma? If enough voters would spurn the false dilemma of democrat vs republican, and vote libertarian instead-- In that case everything would be perfect forever after. :)

 

Buridan's Ass is another which might be applicable-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

Buridan's ass ... refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the ass will always go to whichever is closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision to choose one over the other.

 

Consider the Jewish voter in 1930's Germany-- He could either vote for commies who wish to nationalize all his property, or he could vote for nazis who merely wish to kill him.

 

"Classic" stereotypes of dems vs republicans-- One might have the choice between voting for high taxes and increased economic regulation, but the democrats will stay out of your bedroom and they won't read yer mail. Wheras the republicans would want to regulate all forms of "aberrant non-christian behavior" and you can't buy beer on sunday and you can't buy groceries at all before sunday afternoon, but at least they won't regulate your business quite so strictly and they will let you keep a little bit more of yer own money.

 

But those distinctions, if they ever existed except in broken campaign promises, seem to have disappeared. Both parties will read yer mail and mess with yer personal lives. Just different ways of messing in yer personal life. And both parties are war-mongers. And both parties increase business regulations and taxes. And both parties pick winners and losers. And both parties will take yer guns if given half a chance.

 

"Centrists" might win elections, but there are so many flavors of centrism.

Folks who believe in a heavy government hand regulating BOTH personal behavior and economic behavior, are equally far from left wing and right wing and therefore can claim to be centrist. That describes many "centrist" republicans and democrats. A radical libertarian has equal claim to centrism, because that fella is also exactly in the middle of the left-right spectrum. He just wants minimal government intrusion in the personal and economic spheres. And then the fellas in the center of the grid, who are happy with "a little bit of tyranny" in both the personal and economic domains.

 

The Tea Party started out primarily focused on economic freedom, and there were lots of libertarians in the early demonstrations. Then later on, various folks tried to saddle the Tea Party up to their social conservative hobby horses. Lbertarians didn't like that so much and found better things to do. So the Tea Party has devolved to a fairly typical "pure right wing" thang nowadays, as far as I can see. They just want to drag the republican party farther down there to the lower-right quadrant, and away from the center of the grid, and closer to the lower-right than lower-left of the chart.

 

If the Tea Party could chase off the social conservatives, maybe they could replace them with democrats who don't like high taxes and heavy regulation, but it is probably too late at this point because people's minds are probably "made up" already, about what "tea party" means.

[RobertNashville]

At the risk of straying from your excellent post a bit, Lester, let me ask...

 

When people (society) showed at least some respected Christian values (rather than hostility and denigration)...when we had such things as blue laws...when, as a society, we weren't afraid to call "sin", SIN...when we weren't afraid to mention "Gog" in schools and in all other public gatherings...when we celebrated "Christmas" and "Easter" (rather than the "holidays" and "spring break")...when there was such as thing as "shame" (rather than defiance and anger) when someone did something wrong and was caught in the act; were things in this country better than they are now or worse? For me, I'd gladly return to the days of and just prior to my breathing air even if things were a little too "Victorian" for some folks.

 

I don't hold myself out as any sort of perfect Christian; I haven't attended church on a regular basis for years but I'm still a "Christian"...I still believe in God and Jesus and I still at least try to live a moral, "Christian" life but am I a "social conservative"?  I'm a conservative who happens to believe that we have social issues that need to be addressed (although perhaps not as many or not in the same way as other conservatives might think/want)...I also think we have fiscal, and regulatory and many other issues that need to be addressed but am I a social conservative or just a conservative?  If I'm a social conservative and the Tea Party should chase me away in favor of a particular class of Democrats am I supposed to just stay home and not be involved any more (kind of like the libertarians)? :)

 

I didn't and don't consider the choice we had if 2012 as between "bad" and equally "bad"...while Mit Romney was not by first choice to head the ticket, I had no problem casting my vote for him because more important to me than individual "issues" was that I believe the Mit was a good person with a working moral compass who would actually try to do what he felt was "RIGHT" for the country (even if I didn't happen to agree with him).  Of course, he wasn't good enough for many of my libertarian friends so they either stayed home or voted for a candidate that had zero chance of winning so we remain stuck with the America hating, Constitution hating, socialist, tin-plated dictator want-a-be who wants to and just about has fundamentally transformed America.

 

Perhaps if libertarians would be a little more flexible they would understand that working with the Tea Party to support conservative candidates would be better than just taking their marbles and going off into the corner?  Unfortunately, I suspect that unless the Republicans run a "perfect libertarian" candidate, libertarians will never be satisfied with the Republican Party or their candidate.

[JAB]

 

Yes.  This.  Exactly.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

At the risk of straying from your excellent post a bit, Lester, let me ask...

 

When people (society) showed at least some respected Christian values (rather than hostility and denigration)...when we had such things as blue laws...when, as a society, we weren't afraid to call "sin", SIN...when we weren't afraid to mention "Gog" in schools and in all other public gatherings...when we celebrated "Christmas" and "Easter" (rather than the "holidays" and "spring break")...when there was such as thing as "shame" (rather than defiance and anger) when someone did something wrong and was caught in the act; were things in this country better than they are now or worse? For me, I'd gladly return to the days of and just prior to my breathing air even if things were a little too "Victorian" for some folks.

 

I don't hold myself out as any sort of perfect Christian; I haven't attended church on a regular basis for years but I'm still a "Christian"...I still believe in God and Jesus and I still at least try to live a moral, "Christian" life but am I a "social conservative"?  I'm a conservative who happens to believe that we have social issues that need to be addressed (although perhaps not as many or not in the same way as other conservatives might think/want)...I also think we have fiscal, and regulatory and many other issues that need to be addressed but am I a social conservative or just a conservative?  If I'm a social conservative and the Tea Party should chase me away in favor of a particular class of Democrats am I supposed to just stay home and not be involved any more (kind of like the libertarians)? :)

 

Thanks Robert. I don't have a problem with any religion or lack of religion. I don't think there is much of any kind of lifestyle that bugs me, as long as people are not "pushy" about it. If people want to eat only veggies, never drink, smoke, or dance, and go to church every time the doors are open, its fine with me. If people want to kill themselves with every bad habit under the sun, then that is fine with me as well, as long as they stay out of my yard. I'm not exactly a wild party animal and blue laws wouldn't cramp my style very much. I just think that it ain't none of the gubmint's business as long as people keep it to themselves.

 

What good does it do for a devout christian to make political speeches laced with religion? What good does it do for a confirmed atheist to make political speeches endorsing atheism? Maybe such folk are just "drifting off topic" or maybe they want the christians or atheists to personally like them, though they actually have no intention of using the gubmint to regulate such thangs.

 

When folks put such stuff in political campaigns then I don't think that it is unreasonable for a voter to suspect that they intend to use the gubmint to enforce their standards on everybody else. If a politician doesn't intend to regulate an aspect of life, then he should just shut up on that issue. In my opinion. Maybe he's just running off at the mouth, but it sure am easy to assume that a fella who is pushing a trip in his political campaign, ain't saying it just to make noise.

 

There are libertarians of all kinds of religion and lack of it, but if they are "real" libertarians then they don't intend to make everybody behave according to their own beliefs. When the Tea Party started preaching on the podium, and adding personal behavior issues to the platform-- That just weakened the movement by diluting the support base. You can find small-government people of all religions or lack of it. You can find small-government people of all sexes, sex preferences, and ages. If a conservative wants small-government I got no problem with it.

 

Some of my relatives and in-laws are almost fanatic hard-core christians. Great folks. However they are generally libertarian because they don't want politicians enforcing "the wrong" religion on them. Straight-laced hard-core Adventists don't do much from sunset friday til sunset saturday. But if they wanna go to the grocery sunday morning then they probably don't much approve of sunday blue laws! :)

 

So I guess the "social conservatives" are the ones who want to regulate people's lives according to their religion. And then there are the "radical atheists" who want to regulate people's lives according to lack of religion.

 

It is just a dicey proposition to attract a big enough voting bloc to win elections, who all happen to agree on economic freedoms, without adding in social conservative ideas to political speeches and therefore running off fiscal conservative homos, running off fiscal conservative peaceniks, fiscal conservative atheists, fiscal conservative womanizers and party animals, whatever.;

[JAB]

So you are a one-issue voter. Got it!

 

Largely, yes - and I am not ashamed of it.  However, perhaps not in the way you imply.  The way I have it figured, any candidate that is in favor of expanding firearms freedoms (not paying lip service then, at best, maintaining the status quo) has shown himself or herself to be in favor of expanding the personal liberty of American citizens, in general.  They have said, "I trust the average citizen, even so far as trusting them with tools of deadly potential, and believe that those citizens should be less fettered in their private lives and choices by governmental regulations."  This is opposed to politicians who support further limitations on firearms freedoms, oppose expanding firearms freedoms or, at best, say, "I don't want to deal with any gun issues this session."  The reason being that the latter are either saying, "The average citizen needs the government to regulate them even if they have committed no criminal act and have behaved responsibly," or (in the case of those that 'don't want to deal with gun issues') are saying that personal freedoms aren't all that important an issue to be wasting their time on.

 

So, yeah, the first thing I look at is a candidate's HISTORY on gun control (not his BS lip service "well, I shoved that down people's throats as governor of my state but wouldn't want it for the entire country" lies.) 

 

After Second Amendment issues, I look at the candidate's history on abortion (probably unlike many on this forum, I don't think it is any of my business to tell a woman she can't have an abortion and will, when possible, avoid supporting politicians who believe that it is.)  Again, I view a politician's desire to outlaw abortion as another indicator that they are not supportive of individual liberty.

 

Thirdly (and this view probably largely separates me from many capital 'L' Libertarians), I look at their stance on illegal immigration.  Yes, we are a nation of immigrants - and I don't think any reasonable person is saying that we should stop all immigration - but illegal aliens are foreign invaders and, by the very nature of how they came here, illegal.  We shouldn't allow some misplaced sense of guilt that our country isn't a third-world craphole to advance the idea of 'levelling the playing field' by allowing illegals to overrun our country, ruin our economy and turn our country into a third-world craphole just like the one from which they came.  Instead of amnesty, they should get a one-way ticket back to their country of origin.  No exceptions - I don't care if they have an anchor baby or if they were brought here as a five year old and are now in high school.  Maybe that doesn't jibe with the 'ideal' of some Libertarian philosophy.  However, in order to maintain a country, that country must have borders and those borders must be enforced.  I guess, for me, it comes down to pragmatism and practicality over pure philosophy.

 

There may be other factors I will look at but those are the big three, for me.  I am really not sure where McCain truly stands on abortion but I am certain (judging by his actions, not his words) that his is an anti-gun, pro-amnesty for illegals POS.  I am not really sure where Romney stands on illegal immigration.  I think he would go whichever way the wind blows on abortion and, judging by his past actions (not BS 'but I'm really pro-gun rights' lip service) I would no more vote for him than I would for the other anti-gun politician he was running against.

Edited August 8, 2013 by JAB

[JAB]

What good does it do for a devout christian to make political speeches laced with religion? What good does it do for a confirmed atheist to make political speeches endorsing atheism? Maybe such folk are just "drifting off topic" or maybe they want the christians or atheists to personally like them, though they actually have no intention of using the gubmint to regulate such thangs.

 

When folks put such stuff in political campaigns then I don't think that it is unreasonable for a voter to suspect that they intend to use the gubmint to enforce their standards on everybody else. If a politician doesn't intend to regulate an aspect of life, then he should just shut up on that issue. In my opinion. Maybe he's just running off at the mouth, but it sure am easy to assume that a fella who is pushing a trip in his political campaign, ain't saying it just to make noise.

 

There are libertarians of all kinds of religion and lack of it, but if they are "real" libertarians then they don't intend to make everybody behave according to their own beliefs. When the Tea Party started preaching on the podium, and adding personal behavior issues to the platform-- That just weakened the movement by diluting the support base. You can find small-government people of all religions or lack of it. You can find small-government people of all sexes, sex preferences, and ages. If a conservative wants small-government I got no problem with it.

 

I loved this part of your post.  You put into words many of the doubts and notions I have but have not, previously, figured out how best to express - as well as the reason my initial optimism about the 'Tea Party' rather quickly petered out.

Edited August 8, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

I understand...pretty much agree with you Lester...I guess where I start to get "confused" is that for me, I don't and am not sure I can separate my political views from my societal views from my views about God and the relationship between God and man. My belief in God...my "Christianity" is part of who I am and impacts, sometimes very greatly impacts, what I believe about many things, including the proper role of government.

 

Part of the reason I believe in a small, fiscally responsible government is my Christian faith because I know, from the Bible, how God views debt and living beyond your means (He doesn't like it). :)

[mikegideon]

Yes.  This.  Exactly.

Magpul!

[Chucktshoes]

Magpul!

Christie!

[mikegideon]

Christie!

 

Knothead   :x: