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

[Chucktshoes]

Knothead :x:

:lol:

I can bring it closer to home as well.

Haslam!

Wasn't he a member of MAIG prior to deciding to be governor and quitting for political expediency?

[mikegideon]

Didn't both of our RINO senators vote against the war on guns?

[Chucktshoes]

Didn't both of our RINO senators vote against the war on guns?

Which time? Seems to me they went both ways on the issue. The voted yes before they voted no.

[Oh Shoot]

Which time? Seems to me they went both ways on the issue. The voted yes before they voted no.

 

Be fair. They voted to end the filibuster so the bill could actually get an up or down vote. Then voted down.

 

I think that was more of a statement to the nation than allowing the antis the keep raving about how the "American people never got a vote" on the issue, and was the boldest and most decisive things the namby pamby Senate has done in a long time.

 

- OS

[Chucktshoes]

That's crap. A strong statement would have been "we don't take a vote on fundamental human rights that are not granted but only acknowledged by the Bill of Rights." What we got was, "I'm not comfortable with voting for this right now, my constituents don't like it. Maybe next time." Edited August 8, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

That's crap. A strong statement would have been "we don't take a vote on fundamental human rights that are not granted but only acknowledged by the Bill of Rights." What we got was, "I'm not comfortable with voting for this right now, my constituents don't like it. Maybe next time."

On this issue I think you are just looking for another reason be pissed at Alexander and Corker...they actually did the right thing (with both votes) on that one proving, once a gain, the old adage that even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then.

 

If you really want to be pissed, I would suggest that your angst would be better spend directed toward the wonderful senators who introduced the bill they had to vote down.

Edited August 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

On this issue I think you are just looking for another reason be pissed at Alexander and Corker...they actually did the right thing (with both votes) on that one proving, once a gain, the old adage that even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then.

If you really want to be pissed, I would suggest that your angst would be better spend directed toward the wonderful senators who introduced the bill they had to vote down.

You still don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. Fundamental human rights are not something that can be legitimately voted on. Your inability to understand that places you and your Republican compatriots in the same category as all of those Democrats you dislike so much. I'm reminded of the old joke about Churchill at the dinner party and the woman whom he asked to sleep with him for varying amounts if money. What you are is clear, it is only to what degree that is yet to be determined. Republican, Democrat, fascist, communist all are authoritarian statists with only minor degrees of difference between them.

[RobertNashville]

You still don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. Fundamental human rights are not something that can be legitimately voted on. Your inability to understand that places you and your Republican compatriots in the same category as all of those Democrats you dislike so much. I'm reminded of the old joke about Churchill at the dinner party and the woman whom he asked to sleep with him for varying amounts if money. What you are is clear, it is only to what degree that is yet to be determined. Republican, Democrat, fascist, communist all are authoritarian statists with only minor degrees of difference between them.

I understand perfectly, thank you very much and you really don't have to get your panties in a wad and not so vaguely insult me by asserting that I'm a Republican (which I haven't been for more years than you've been old enough to vote) and therefore a statist just because I don't agree with your "superior insight" (perhaps insulting people is just your way of eliciting their support for your way of political thought?  :screwy:).

 

The bill needed to be voted to the floor so it could be defeated...I highly suspect, although I don't have time to do so right now, that similar procedural things have been done by our founding fathers since the earliest days of our nation; but I suppose you would probably call them statists too! 

 

But that's okay; if you want to hate on Corker and Alexander for actually doing something right for once or hate on me for that matter, I won't stand in your way.   :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  

Edited August 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

Have you ever wondered about people who complain about politicians compromising on anything, and also complain about the government's inability to get anything done? :shrug:

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Have you ever wondered about people who complain about politicians compromising on anything, and also complain about the government's inability to get anything done? :shrug:

 

I don't think they should hardly compromise on anything. The lack of compromise will ideally result in gridlock, where they do little or nothing. I'd be happy to pay the politicians much higher salaries if they would merely go up to washington or nashville and do little or nothing. Leave us the heck alone.

[Chucktshoes]

You still don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. Fundamental human rights are not something that can be legitimately voted on. Your inability to understand that places you and your Republican compatriots in the same category as all of those Democrats you dislike so much. I'm reminded of the old joke about Churchill at the dinner party and the woman whom he asked to sleep with him for varying amounts if money. What you are is clear, it is only to what degree that is yet to be determined. Republican, Democrat, fascist, communist all are authoritarian statists with only minor degrees of difference between them.

I understand perfectly, thank you very much and you really don't have to get your panties in a wad and not so vaguely insult me by asserting that I'm a Republican (which I haven't been for more years than you've been old enough to vote) and therefore a statist just because I don't agree with your "superior insight" (perhaps insulting people is just your way of eliciting their support for your way of political thought? :screwy:).

The bill needed to be voted to the floor so it could be defeated...I highly suspect, although I don't have time to do so right now, that similar procedural things have been done by our founding fathers since the earliest days of our nation; but I suppose you would probably call them statists too!

But that's okay; if you want to hate on Corker and Alexander for actually doing something right for once or hate on me for that matter, I won't stand in your way. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

How useful was that procedural action "that had to be done" when Harry Reid can recall the measure for another vote at any time?

[Chucktshoes]

Have you ever wondered about people who complain about politicians compromising on anything, and also complain about the government's inability to get anything done? :shrug:

I don't think they should hardly compromise on anything. The lack of compromise will ideally result in gridlock, where they do little or nothing. I'd be happy to pay the politicians much higher salaries if they would merely go up to washington or nashville and do little or nothing. Leave us the heck alone.

This. You will never hear me complain about the inability of government to get things done. That's the whole problem in the first place! They do too many things they have no business doing with money stolen from the people. If we could dump the entirety of the federal government (literally down to the last man or woman) into the Washington incinerator, we would all be better off.

[tnguy]

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.

 

McCain mostly gained ground in open primaries where Democrats were allowed to vote.

[E4 No More]

This. You will never hear me complain about the inability of government to get things done. That's the whole problem in the first place! They do too many things they have no business doing with money stolen from the people. If we could dump the entirety of the federal government (literally down to the last man or woman) into the Washington incinerator, we would all be better off.

You mean like funding the military with stolen funds? Things like that?

[tnguy]

So in other words,neither way works to elect anyone worthwhile?  That seems to be the logical conclusion.

 

In any case, I think working within the Republican party and trying to electing the best candidate that can win has a better chance of electing a worthy candidate than to vote for someone who cannot win.  :shrug:

 

Yes, neither way got either of your desired result but when the votes were counted, yours was tallied against a guy who didn't represent your ideals.

 

 

it doesn't make the inconsequential third-party any more consequential...
 

 

You yourself said you wouldn't vote for these parties because they had no chance to win. Every vote they can get is a step closer to being considered a viable choice for more people.

Edited August 9, 2013 by tnguy

[mikegideon]

 

You yourself said you wouldn't vote for these parties because they had no chance to win. Every vote they can get is a step closer to being considered a viable choice for more people.

 

That assumes that polls mean nothing. They are always off some, but are good enough to tell you that some guy polling 2% is not gonna get 51%

[tnguy]

But the polls are calculated (ideally) to predict the outcome, not reveal the candidate with the most sympathetic proposals.

 

I'm not unsympathetic to the whole "lesser evil" philosophy (though I think it's misguided), I would suggest this. If your "gotta vote for a winner" party is going to win by a landslide, or lose by a landslide, pick the candidate who most represents your views and vote for them.

Edited August 9, 2013 by tnguy

[Chucktshoes]

You mean like funding the military with stolen funds? Things like that?

If the military is doing anything other than waging a war in direct response to an act of aggression on our sovereign territory, then yep, that too. 12 years of elective war and nation building have not only sold our children and their children ino debt slavery, but it has also spent thousands of lives needlessly along with going a far piece towards stripping our nation of its last vestiges of the concepts of individual liberty and freedom from government meddling in our day to day lives. The modern surveillance state has been built upon the ashes of the twin towers. Just as "the only way to save the village was to destroy it" was said in the past, apparently the only way to protect our liberty was to strip it from us.

[mikegideon]

If the military is doing anything other than waging a war in direct response to an act of aggression on our sovereign territory, then yep, that too. 12 years of elective war and nation building have not only sold our children and their children ino debt slavery, but it has also spent thousands of lives needlessly along with going a far piece towards stripping our nation of its last vestiges of the concepts of individual liberty and freedom from government meddling in our day to day lives. The modern surveillance state has been built upon the ashes of the twin towers. Just as "the only way to save the village was to destroy it" was said in the past, apparently the only way to protect our liberty was to strip it from us.

 

One thing's for sure. They were killing each other and humping goats when we showed up, and they'll still be doing it when were gone. I agree with you on all of that. I'll just fight against getting another Obama in office, even if he's only slightly better. As far as fixing our liberty... prolly won't happen in the voting booth, no matter who wins.

[RobertNashville]

That assumes that polls mean nothing. They are always off some, but are good enough to tell you that some guy polling 2% is not gonna get 51%

Hell, Mike...all the third-parties in 2012 combined didn't even quite get 1% of the vote!  I guess they really showed those wrascally Republicans didn't they! ;)

 

I suppose however, that, if in each election cycle, these meaningless third parties garner a few more votes, in about 1,000 years they may be getting enough votes to actually get attention.   :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl: 

[E4 No More]

If the military is doing anything other than waging a war in direct response to an act of aggression on our sovereign territory, then yep, that too. 12 years of elective war and nation building have not only sold our children and their children ino debt slavery, but it has also spent thousands of lives needlessly along with going a far piece towards stripping our nation of its last vestiges of the concepts of individual liberty and freedom from government meddling in our day to day lives. The modern surveillance state has been built upon the ashes of the twin towers. Just as "the only way to save the village was to destroy it" was said in the past, apparently the only way to protect our liberty was to strip it from us.

If you had your way we wouldn't have those freedoms that we DO have now.

 

EDIT: You'd be speaking Russian or Chinese by now.

Edited August 9, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[RobertNashville]

How useful was that procedural action "that had to be done" when Harry Reid can recall the measure for another vote at any time?

Assuming he can, so what? How exactly does that change anything?  :screwy:

[RobertNashville]

If the military is doing anything other than waging a war in direct response to an act of aggression on our sovereign territory...

 If I recall correctly, you are Libertarian aren't you? Tell you what, I say recall all our military and put them on the southern border (after they've taken back all the land on OUR side of the border that the drug lords now have control of) and then close our border and stop the invasion. Oh wait, Libertarians believe in "open borders" don't they. I guess I just don't understand how it's possible to have any sovereign territory with a policy of open borders. :rofl:

 

, then yep, that too. 12 years of elective war and nation building have not only sold our children and their children ino debt slavery...

Debt? If you mean the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that added to the national debt that cost is nothing compared to the other stuff the government is spending money on...if you are worried about debt there are dozens if not hundreds of government expenditures that need your concern long before the cost of the wars.

More importantly, anyone truly concerned about the debt this country is in maybe shouldn't have been so eager let Obama remain in office for a second term rather then vote for a candidate that could win...you want to talk about debt...well...you anin't seen nothing yet.

I don't claim that Romney would have been a cure for our spending but I damn sure know that Obama is the disease.

Edited August 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

. Edited August 9, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Chucktshoes]

If you had your way we wouldn't have those freedoms that we DO have now.

EDIT: You'd be speaking Russian or Chinese by now.

:lol: Really?! That's the best you got? You don't understand my position at all do you? I don't believe in war adventuring in other countries. I do believe that when we are directly attacked by another country the proper response is to go in and lay waste to everything we encounter Old Testament style until they surrender completely. Then we go home and leave them to clean up the mess they caused. For example, I would have seen us never engage Iraq, but Afghanistan would still be glowing in the dark. Get the idea? Edited August 9, 2013 by Chucktshoes