*2008 Presidential Thread* McCain vs Obama *Poll*

[Guest]

I kinda forgot about the write-in option as well. I'll probably go that route actually now that I think of it....heck, I did give the guy some money, I suppose the least I could do is vote for him...my 2nd choice is still Obama. As a gun owner, yes, I have concerns as well, but as stated earlier, I think he is in a better position to ban "assault rifles" as a senator rather than a president....and he hasn't even attempted that as far as I can tell. Also, the vast majority of my weapons (AK47/MAK90/SKS) were purchased DURING the assault weapon ban. I really don't see how it affected me or anyone else I know that purchased those guns during that time. My father in law purchased his AR15 during that time as well I am told (didn't know him back then). If he proposed making it illegal to own those guns, well then I have issues with him, but even other republican friends of mine acknowledge that there is virtually no chance of that happening in our lifetimes.

[Guest]

oh, and why is it I don't get "I'm voting FOR McCain because 'x' 'y' or 'z' policy" yet you will vote against another person because of 1 issue. Give me 5 good reasons to vote McCain....and PLEASE don't try and tell me it's because he's a conservative (far from it)

[integra_gsr98]

AR15:

Fastest way - Walk into Scheels/Outdoorsman/Sportsmans Warehouse/Gander Mountain

Buy any model DPMS or Bushmaster rifle. They are approximately $750+.

I bought a complete lower receiver from the outdoorsman and built mine by ordering parts online. The lower receiver is the only piece of the firearm that requires paperwork unless you build an SBR or buy a can, in which you will need other paperwork to make the rifle legal.

I will be picking up a couple more stripped lower recievers before November. These are all I will need to get past another AW ban if it does happen. Preban purchases FTW.

[DaveH]

tjamz;221261 wrote:
oh, and why is it I don't get "I'm voting FOR McCain because 'x' 'y' or 'z' policy" yet you will vote against another person because of 1 issue. Give me 5 good reasons to vote McCain....and PLEASE don't try and tell me it's because he's a conservative (far from it)

I'm too lazy so I'll only give you 4 reasons. Look at Tads list in the 3rd post in this thread. McCain won't do those 4 things that Obama will do. No change is much better than bad change.

[torbs]

tjamz;221261 wrote:
oh, and why is it I don't get "I'm voting FOR McCain because 'x' 'y' or 'z' policy" yet you will vote against another person because of 1 issue. Give me 5 good reasons to vote McCain....and PLEASE don't try and tell me it's because he's a conservative (far from it)

I hate McCain...but here's 5 things going for him:

1. he's for a flat-tax
2. he's not against the 2nd ammendment
3. he won't place in socialism (nationalized healthcare)
4. he won't tax people for being productive (taxing the rich)...the bottom 40% of this nation actually makes money off of our tax system already. We already have wealth redistribution.
5. he will extend the bush tax cuts...if those aren't extended, we will have the largest tax increase since WWII...all this at a time when ppl are struggling to buy food and pay for gas in their tanks.

[Burthwick]

I think Obama will win. McCain is gonna be like Bush. He's just in it for the war and money. Our so called country has down-graded since bush took office, it will continue to go down hill if McCain hits the office.

jus my .02 cents

[Grr]

word, obama is really the worst person in most of the government to be president. Igf you look at his voting record he is the most liberal senator, period. There is no argument to that, his record shows it.
Also his relations and freindships with psychotic, racist, and terrorist people is very troubling. The issues with his church he spent 20yrs in is also a very big concern. As GW Bush said, he looks to god and his faith for his hardest decisions. Do you want someone with racist and very far left/borderline communist faith and teachings looking there for advice? I think not. On top of that, his associations with Farakkahn (sp?). This guy is a terrorist, bombed the pentagon, NYC police station, and brags about it. Obama went to him for advice and called it a pilgrimage of his faith. Thats fucked up.

Socialized medicine. It doesnt work, ruins progress, and kills more people than it could ever dream of helping. If you think its a good thing and works, you dont know economics, statistics, and/or are just fucking stupid.

Those are just a couple reasons. I think McCain sucks balls too, but he is leaps ahead of obama. His main fault is amnesty for illegals, and this stupid fucking global warming shit. It has been stated by many GOVERNMENT agencies even, that this cap& trade carbon emmissions shit will singlehandedly bring america to its knees. 40% energy price increases, 5 new government agencys to fund and staff, 1.5 milliion job losses to overseas in the next 10 years, the list goes on. Ill put up more tomorrow after this gets some responces
Gary

[torbs]

will write in Ron Paul

i think the poll should be reset and have write in RP as an option.

[Guest]

So, now the question is, IF Obama gets in and gets some of his programs through that fix some of our current problems, will those on the far right give him credit for this or will they instead claim that Bush's programs are what fixed the problems, Obama was just there at the right time?

[DaveH]

tjamz;221298 wrote:
So, now the question is, IF Obama gets in and gets some of his programs through that fix some of our current problems, will those on the far right give him credit for this or will they instead claim that Bush's programs are what fixed the problems, Obama was just there at the right time?

Please list a program or two that he has that is a solution to a problem.

[Guest]

I'm not saying he does/doesn't. He isn't my ideal candidate either. But lets just use one of his "ideas". Let's say he goes to Iran, sits down with the leaders of that country and convinces them to allow IAC inspectors and give up it's weapons grade nuke program....which they (in my scenario...maybe not reality, but none of us can predict the future) agree to and actually follow. In this case, he may have stopped another war from starting/expanding. IMO, that would be a successful policy.

Because, again IMO, there are only 2 ways to end a war...and they should be pursued in the following order:

1. Come to a peaceful conclusion.
   If that fails
2. Kill everyone who disagrees with you.

[DaveH]

tjamz;221303 wrote:
I'm not saying he does/doesn't. He isn't my ideal candidate either. But lets just use one of his "ideas". Let's say he goes to Iran, sits down with the leaders of that country and convinces them to allow IAC inspectors and give up it's weapons grade nuke program....which they (in my scenario...maybe not reality, but none of us can predict the future) agree to and actually follow. In this case, he may have stopped another war from starting/expanding. IMO, that would be a successful policy.

Because, again IMO, there are only 2 ways to end a war...and they should be pursued in the following order:

1. Come to a peaceful conclusion.
   If that fails
2. Kill everyone who disagrees with you.

IMO, there are 2 ways to end a war... they should be pursued in the following order:

1. Win
2. Lose

If Obama goes over and convinces Iran that we are really good guys and they shouldn't be trying to kill all of us infidels, I'll give him all the props in the world.

[Guest]

DaveH;221309 wrote:
IMO, there are 2 ways to end a war... they should be pursued in the following order:

1. Win
2. Lose

But how do you arrive at those results? Either peaceful surrender by one side or the others, or kill everyone who doesn't agree with you.

If Obama goes over and convinces Iran that we are really good guys and they shouldn't be trying to kill all of us infidels, I'll give him all the props in the world.

But by not at least attempting diplomacy, what options do we have? Kill/imprison everyone who doesn't agree with us? That won't work...it didn't work for Hitler in WWII and won't work for us now....especially with the war-crime laws currently in force. My view is avoid war at all cost, but IF you are left with no choice but to go to war, fucking annihilate your opponent as quickly as possible w/o regard to civilian casualty..... IOW speak softly and carry a big stick. I believe it was a Republican President (albeit progressive-republican who advocated for Universal Health Care and National Health Insurance) by the name of Teddy Roosevelt.

[drift86]

Haha first off a country leader like that of iran will not listen to a "new" leader like obama if there is still "war" as u call it in iraq. As long as there is still a threat in another terrorist country there will always be threat in iran and others that have nukes or chemical weapons. No matter how many years pass we will always have this problem.

[DaveH]

tjamz;221311 wrote:
But how do you arrive at those results? Either peaceful surrender by one side or the others, or kill everyone who doesn't agree with you.
But by not at least attempting diplomacy, what options do we have? Kill/imprison everyone who doesn't agree with us? That won't work...it didn't work for Hitler in WWII and won't work for us now....especially with the war-crime laws currently in force. My view is avoid war at all cost, but IF you are left with no choice but to go to war, fucking annihilate your opponent as quickly as possible w/o regard to civilian casualty..... IOW speak softly and carry a big stick. I believe it was a Republican President (albeit progressive-republican who advocated for Universal Health Care and National Health Insurance) by the name of Teddy Roosevelt.

The only problem with your argument, is that you are assuming we are trying diplomacy with rational people. They would rather cut Obama's head off with a spoon and send it back to the US in a bag if they had their way. By having the US even showing up at the table, they see it as a sign of weakness on our part and rally their people around the fact that they are weakening us. The only thing they understand is force and death. We have to make it imminently clear that one misstep on their part and we crush them like a 300lb man stepping on a grape.

[Grr]

You are absolutely right dave, many people dont realize this aspect. Most, if not all of people in these areas have been bred, raised, taught, etc. one thing: the west is the devil and must be killed at all cost. They have no respect for life, liberty, or advancement. If they had their way, anyone that disagreed with them would be dead and we would live in a pre-1900's world ruled by an absolute fascist dictator for all of eternity. These are not civilized people in any sense of the word. One of the main reasons we dont associate with iran (obama doesnt get this point) is its absolute hatred of our ally isreal. Iran wont even acknowledge that the halocaust happened, and refers to israel as "a stinking corpse that i vow to destroy in any way possible". If someone said that about one of your freinds, would you sit down and have make up sex with them? Fuck no you would go kick their ass.

[Guest]

I never said they were rational people. I never even said it would work to talk with them, I just said it is a necessary step prior to declaring war upon them. If they are defiant and refuse to cooperate, we crush every facility that we even think may have anything to do with any of their nuclear programs.....if they still don't want to talk, we take down the entire country.

Remember that Iranians are not un-familiar with a form of democracy. Prior to February 1979, they were a democratic people. Yes, the leaders are tyrants, but their people may/may not be (I'm guessing a little of both). Iran is (IMO) the best bet for democracy in the middle east. But really, why do they have to follow our form of gov't? They could have a democracy and still not be civil in their actions....it's not the same over here as it is over there, and probably never will be. Their traditions (as a country/people) date back thousands of years, whereas ours really only date back to 1776. Who are we to tell them to change their culture/views. The way I see it is like this, even if we killed every single Iraqi and Iranian citizen living over there, we would not stop terrorism/hatred towards us. If someone killed a friend of yours, would you be willing to listen to them or would you retaliate at every chance you had. In their eyes we are the terrorists.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and Iraq had invaded Canada and started forcing their ideas on them....would we sit back idly and watch our would we see that as an act of aggression and start gearing up in the event that they invaded our country?

[DaveH]

tjamz;221322 wrote:
I never said they were rational people. I never even said it would work to talk with them, I just said it is a necessary step prior to declaring war upon them. ?

I'd agree with you if we weren't helping their master plan just by showing up at talks.

tjamz;221322 wrote:
Who are we to tell them to change their culture/views. ?

We are the one shining beacon of freedom and hope in the world (I know, the lefty's don't see it that way). We aren't telling them to do anything, we are simply allowing them the opportunity.

tjamz;221322 wrote:
Imagine if the roles were reversed and Iraq had invaded Canada and started forcing their ideas on them....would we sit back idly and watch our would we see that as an act of aggression and start gearing up in the event that they invaded our country?

You are comparing apples to dogfood. See answer above this one.

[StangerBanger96]

To all who say we are a Democracy, you are wrong, we are a Republic.

[Guest]

tjamz;221322 wrote:
I never said they were rational people. I never even said it would work to talk with them, I just said it is a necessary step prior to declaring war upon them. ?

I'd agree with you if we weren't helping their master plan just by showing up at talks.

I honestly don't see how it can hurt. Does it show weakness if we go in and demand that they stop their nuclear programs, etc....? I know we don't negotiate with terrorists, but really, what other solution is there to try short of killing all of them?

tjamz;221322 wrote:
Who are we to tell them to change their culture/views. ?

We are the one shining beacon of freedom and hope in the world (I know, the lefty's don't see it that way). We aren't telling them to do anything, we are simply allowing them the opportunity.

I know full good and well that we are the one shining beacon of hope & freedom....if we weren't you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. But what if they don't follow our ways once we've gone to war with them (ie Iraq)? Do we stay until we've killed all of those who disagree with the opportunity we've presented?

tjamz;221322 wrote:
Imagine if the roles were reversed and Iraq had invaded Canada and started forcing their ideas on them....would we sit back idly and watch our would we see that as an act of aggression and start gearing up in the event that they invaded our country?

You are comparing apples to dogfood. See answer above this one.

I still think I am apples-to-apples on this one. If I really try hard, I can see their view (but I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT):

We tell them that they can/cannot develop weapons, etc...and we impose sanctions when they don't follow our orders. They see that as an act of terror on them. So they retaliate, then we retaliate, and it goes back and forth till there is a full on war....with both sides thinking they are fighting for their freedoms.

Basically, I wish we'd quit fucking around in Iraq, start dropping MOAB's like a MOFO and give them something to be scared of. "shock and awe" turned into "meh and bleh" in my opinion. And I blame both parties for being pussies on this issue.