If this guy gets in

OK, after my unsuccessful and humorous attempt to drag Sutton into this thread, it's time to be serious. Six months ago, I would have voted only to attempt to keep the Senate, House and the Executive branch out of the hands of one party. Now with what I’ve learned, and with what I’ve seen, I will crawl to the pole booth if I have to; to vote for Senator John McCain for President.

Hitch
 
"Right on Harry. Under Bill Clinton, we ended up with a surplus - Under Bush we have to largest deficit in History. Look at history, Dems have cleaned up Repub overspending over and over again. I would rather increase taxes than borrow money from China. Clinton's dalliances have nothing to do with the job he did as prez. I'm pulling for Hillary in hopes of a 2 fer, along with a strong military..... and most of all a prez who has brains even though she merely represents for me the best of a sorry lot."

Bill Clinton was fortunate to come in on the heels of Regan and Bush1 and inherited the "peace dividend" from the victory of the cold war. I fail to see anything Clinton did other than gutting our military and CIA to show an "paperwork" surplus on the balance sheets.
Click to expand...

I agree with Lee. Clinton inherited the benefits of the Regan era. What I (and many other tax paying citizens) got from Clinton was laid off with the defense cuts.

I don't expect much else from Hilary. The military will be neutered, and the guys in the mid-east will be abandoned for short-termed political gains. And, with Bill as the "first gentleman" for lack of a better analogy to "first lady", the adminsitration will be more busy with addressing his indescretions than getting anything done. He'll make Billy Carter look like a scholar.

Regards,

BS
 
I better be careful how I reply to some of this.
An AR15 is only a semi auto just like any other semi auto. If you are OK with banning one because of how it looks..well I better not say it. Looks don't make the gun. All semi auto shotguns and rifles work the same way. Pull trigger gun shoots, it is so easy to modify any gun that is semi auto to hold many many rounds I don't see how you can not support a ban on all of them. If it is really only because of how it looks then I'm at a loss... They are very accurate guns that can take a beating that is why coyote hunters use them. Many use 5 shot clips in them while hunting because of state regs and how much easier the gun can be to handled with a shorter clip. Most are not shooting mutiple shots at coyotes like Zumbo implied.

When I look at a candidate guns have nothing to do with hunting. When a candidate says they believe hunters should have guns they are hiding the fact they don't believe people have the right to protect themselves. That is all I care about, hunting could be banned next week. If I'm going to worry about hunting while voting then things like farm spending and public land use are what I look at.
If you haven't seen what liberals can do to gun laws you must be living in denial. When you look in catalogs and it gives a list of states where guns, ammo or muzzleloaders won't be sent it isn't because postage is too much. CA has to OK every make of gun that goes in to make sure they are 'safe' for the shooter, yeah right. The supreme court isn't looking into the DC gun ban because this is the slow time of year. No liberals don't do anything when they get control.
Notice I didn't say democrats, there are some who believe in the 2nd amendment. Even SD's only representative who is a democrat has publicly stated she will not vote for any ban. She isn't my ideal rep but as far as guns go she's OK with me. Many of the newer reps in the house are pro 2nd amendment and that is why no bans have came out even though Bush does support some.

Now for those who say we need a split government that fine with me. It's harder for change and I'm all about as little change as I can get. You better back McCain then because there is absolutely no way that the house or senate will not become more dominated by democrats. Many republicans are retiring because I guess they can't take being in the minority, same thing happens in the other party. When they can't get their pet bills through and give their states tax money they leave. That is one thing McCain has on nearly everyone else in DC, he doesn't seek ear-marks for his home state. He wants to stop them and I believe that is really the first step in getting states rights back. Most states are so scared to say no to the federal government that they just take every bit of money that comes out of DC without thought of the strings attached. I have a great deal of respect for New Hampshire. SD has tried to fight the strings several times but we seem to always back down.

There are really only about 4 or 5 main beliefs that make or break a candidate for me. McCain sure doesn't get all of them with me but he comes much closer then the other two. Just for example private property rights are a big thing for me and if you can tell me what Obama thinks about that I'd be glad to listen...but I doubt I'd agree.

Tim
 
So I have a question for all you "gun" guys. Don't take that label wrong, it's meant for the group of people that believe we will lose our guns with a Dem in control. I too own guns, and will continue to until they pry them from my cold dead hand.

So here is the question.....

Vermont is known/accused as being liberal. Other then our current Republican Governor, our majority of voters tend to vote Democrat. With that being put out there, why is it Vermont has the LEAST amount of gun laws? I can buy one in any town, leave with it that day, carry it anywhere I want concealed and loaded without a permit. Other then a federal building and school grounds, there is NO RESTRICTIONS on guns in an otherwise liberal/democrat state. When you can give me a real answer for this, I will start to listen to your fear about losing your guns. Until then..... well you won't come up with the answer because you refuse to think anything other then Democrats only want to take your guns. Hasn't happend amongst all the tree hugging liberal democrats in VT.

So as to the AK47/AR15 thing someone brought up, then linked to saying they don't think I should be able to type my opinion. First off, I don't care if you have one. I was never trying to take it from you. I beleive that guns like that should be regulated to some degree. I hear all the oooh only a 5 shot clip nonsense with the FULL understanding that with very basic tools and skill these can be made into full auto weapons with very high round capacities. With the crime we have today I fully believe we should look into WHO is buying them. I never agreed to remove them, or not allow them, I just think there are areas that need to be regulated. If in fact you are a law abiding person that choses to use one to hunt, or go to the range and blow 1000 rounds....great. I have no issue with that. Do I think that people buying those guns should fall under a little more regulations...yes. Do I feel the need to hunt with one, or go to the range with one...no I get my little high off other stuff like hunting and skiing. It's also a pretty safe bet that most owners of these guns are not using them for hunting, but more because they feel the need to have their ego stroked.
 
Last edited:
Dave, this is merely a good debate, not a personal issue. Bring your guns down here, anytime.

1900-1930s: A generation that served with '03 springfield and 1917 Enfield bolt guns, and made the bolt gun popular in America.

1940s-1960's: A generation that served with Garands, M14s, etc. and made the semi-auto hunting rifle popular in America.

1960's to the present: Multiple generations that have served our country with the M16/AR15 family of rifles and they are IMMENSELY popular....but not really because of any nefarious or dismissive reasons. They are familiar to legions of us.

Nobody wants to regulate PEOPLE and their freedoms quite like a democrat. Vermont is a very small, non-diverse sample of a population to base gun statistics vs laws upon. Rhode Island could probably have no gun laws and equal Vermont's statistics. Alabama has a LOT of folks that'll vote democrat too....it's a tradition down here...kinda like fried chicken. However, if you polled most of those same folks on issues they're conservative and figured out long ago that our state democrats are okay, but anyone we send to Washington should mostly be Republican. As long as they leave the status quo alone, I'd guess your voters have no reason to change. I'd bet Vermont's democrat politicians know this too.


The point is our attitudes as gun owners, hunters, and Americans. I thin we often allow our opinions or views of what others may/may not need or what they do to become confused with their right to have or do. That clouds our judgement when it comes down to defending those rights against gov't or mere opinion.

Back on topic, our issues are bigger in this country right now: our values are being eroded; our education system is brainwashing our children while failing to educate; we're allowing left-wing, minoritiy, political groups to use media to control our nation; and we're allowing those same forces to convince us it's okay to undermine our morals and to cut each other's throats over semantics (like gun rights, hunting, immigration, etc.).....all while they make little changes around the edges that we don't notice until it's too late.

You can't lay blame at the current president's feet, either. Congress is a much bigger problem child for America right now. I don't think our balance of powers is very balanced...at this time.
 
Dave, this is merely a good debate, not a personal issue. Bring your guns down here, anytime.

1900-1930s: A generation that served with '03 springfield and 1917 Enfield bolt guns, and made the bolt gun popular in America.

1940s-1960's: A generation that served with Garands, M14s, etc. and made the semi-auto hunting rifle popular in America.

1960's to the present: Multiple generations that have served our country with the M16/AR15 family of rifles and they are IMMENSELY popular....but not really because of any nefarious or dismissive reasons. They are familiar to legions of us.

Nobody wants to regulate PEOPLE and their freedoms quite like a democrat.

You can't lay blame at the current president's feet, either. Congress is a much bigger problem child for America right now. I don't think our balance of powers is very balanced...at this time. Every law abiding citizen shoul be able to own the current military small arms.It's important that we don't ignore the type of guns,simply because we don't want to use them.Besides Hunting, shooting competitions,and collecting,many have them for home defense.I defend that right,regardless of whether or not I would have that type of weapon.When any one weapon gets banned,then others will follow.Look at England and Australia.
Click to expand...
 
A traveling man, huh? Me, too. Springfield, AR Lodge #127, WM.

And while I wholeheartedly agree that politics can be a divisive issue, almost as much as religion, I think it is time for this country to seriously consider where it is headed. My personal belief is that the Democratic party holds nothing for me; I believe that my life and my actions are my choices, and the consequences are something that I will have to accept. Nobody else is responsible; freedom means that I can do as I wish, but the consequences, no matter how dire, are also mine to take. Great freedom = great responsibility. I do not believe that the government knows how to choose for me better than I can choose for myself.

I firmly believe that no matter which candidate takes the oath next January, this country has a long row to hoe. And, I am very sorry to say, we no longer have candidates who represent the best of what this country has to offer for leadership, vision, and ability. I no longer see honor among the candidates, nor conviction. I see a contest of largesse - who can give the most, rather than lead the best. I truly hate the comparison, but it is similar to the Roman Empire; people are focused on the spectacle and the bread being handed out, rather than the substance of the people and their ideas.

Perhaps I have said too much, but I do firmly believe that we have to have some fundamental changes if we are going to get back to the ideals and values that founded this country.
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree Rick. The only problem is that Bush and his republican congress have done a whole lot to mess up our country, that's not just my opinion it's a fact. Iraq alone has been a huge and expensive mistake. So which side do we choose? More of the same? Or take a chance on fixing some problems in exchange for creating others?

I honestly don't know who I'm voting for in Nov. I can't stand any of our choices.
 
Dave,
I'm a conservative not a republican, republicans just happen to be the side that I agree with most so I am a member of that party. There are good 2nd amendment democrats. Democrats also have liberals and socialists among them. That does not make any one democrat bad just because of the party. Maybe we need 4 or 5 parties in this country but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

I'm not sure I'd put Vermont up as one of the most liberal states even though it is mostly under the control of democrats. It is a very rural state from my understanding, I think it is areas with big city elitists who are more of a problem then just being a democrat, can you say Obama. Heck there are many elitist republicans who I trust less then some democrats, like Rudy Giuliani. I think you are lucky to live in the state that you do. I would almost bet democrats in your state have nearly as many beliefs in common with libertarians as they do liberals. Many rural democrats here aren't willing to give up any guns and sure don't want the government in their business. All you have to do is look at CA, IL, MA, NJ, DC and NY to see what true elitist liberals will do. All of those places have restrictions that you and I would see as totally foreign.

I doubt we will ever convince each other about the AR15. I've shot it, it isn't any different then any other .223 semi auto. I don't see people going around spraying rounds at animals.

Tim
 


I absolutely agree Rick. The only problem is that Bush and his republican congress have done a whole lot to mess up our country, that's not just my opinion it's a fact. Iraq alone has been a huge and expensive mistake. So which side do we choose? More of the same? Or take a chance on fixing some problems in exchange for creating others?

I honestly don't know who I'm voting for in Nov. I can't stand any of our choices.
[/QUOTE]


What has President Bush done to mess up this country and why is Iraq a mistake? I want to hear what in particular you think he has done, and why Iraq is a mistake; cause and effect...and please be specific in each case.

Hitch
 
Well, that's the nice thing about honest debate. We can agree, disagree, and/or agree to disagree.

I see that the problems with our country are all related. You can't pick one item and say, "if we eliminated __________________, then this country would be back on track". We all tend to focus on one or two issues that seem most germaine to us, but it really is a complicated problem. Maybe it's more of a mindset, I don't know. And in the end, that mindset, or that group of related issues shows itself in the form of our government.

My personal opinion is that we have wandered from the path that the founders of this country set up and anticipated, and I don't believe that getting back on that path will be easy.

At any rate, brother, you are welcome to visit. Send me an email when you are coming over here, and depending on where you'll be and when, I will try to find out which Lodge or Lodges you might visit. I've sat with brothers from Kentucky, and I like to hear about the differences in the craft.
 
I want to know that too. I think that blaming the current president is just placing blame. The things he does now or the presidents in the past affect our future not present. There is some exceptions to this like immediate actions. Most bills and laws are generated and take many years to get through congress. I think the decline started after Ronald Regan. As far as the weapons issues, they are tools used to accomplish a task. How you go about accomplishing yours, is probably different than mine. Just like our opinions.
 
I absolutely agree Rick. The only problem is that Bush and his republican congress have done a whole lot to mess up our country, that's not just my opinion it's a fact. Iraq alone has been a huge and expensive mistake. So which side do we choose? More of the same? Or take a chance on fixing some problems in exchange for creating others?

I honestly don't know who I'm voting for in Nov. I can't stand any of our choices.
Click to expand...


What has President Bush done to mess up this country and why is Iraq a mistake? I want to hear what in particular you think he has done, and why Iraq is a mistake; cause and effect...and please be specific in each case.

Hitch
[/QUOTE]


First let me ask you what you think he has done correctly and/or well. Also, please list/desribe the benefits that we have received from our war with Iraq. That will give us some starting points to base our discussion upon.

BTW-I'm not just out to bust anyone's chops over Bush/Iraq. I am seriously interested in what others perceive as positives from Bush/Iraq. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
First let me ask you what you think he has done correctly and/or well. Also, please list/desribe the benefits that we have received from our war with Iraq. That will give us some starting points to base our discussion upon.

BTW-I'm not just out to bust anyone's chops over Bush/Iraq. I am seriously interested in what others perceive as positives from Bush/Iraq. Maybe I'm missing something.
Click to expand...


Well, there is where 'belief' has all the bearing on 'perception'. Anyone that believes President Bush does not genuinely love America and what it stands for is way off base, IMO. Now, does that mean every decision will be best for America in 6mos, 2 years, 10 years, etc? No. The President is a man, just like you and I. To take issue with Iraq, you really have to believe his were NOT the best of intentions and that he really was not doing what he actually thought best for America, it's safety, and it's future in the world. Now, if you can take those intentions as being genuine, then it matters not if mistakes were made between point A and point B, but where you go from point B and how you get there. If you MUST think his intentions were NOT genuine, then you can believe it's about oil, special interests, etc. and you can say 'he screwed it up'. ...point being, you have to think the man hates America to believe his intent was anything other than doing what he (and MILLIONS of others, including MOST democrats) thought best for our nation at the time. Blame game.LOL
Click to expand...
 
You presented a statement of fact. Hitch asked for your proof/opinion to back the statement. You can't then turn around and ask Hitch to prove a negative (i.e., that it wasn't a mistake). You established the ground rules. Fact: Bush and his republican congress have done a whole lot to mess up our country, that's not just my opinion.

So, give us your list of evidence that proves factually Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush and his Republican congress messed up the country. Not points-of-view, anecdotes, or the, "I had more money when Clinton was in office" proof.
 
First let me ask you what you think he has done correctly and/or well. Also, please list/desribe the benefits that we have received from our war with Iraq. That will give us some starting points to base our discussion upon.

BTW-I'm not just out to bust anyone's chops over Bush/Iraq. I am seriously interested in what others perceive as positives from Bush/Iraq. Maybe I'm missing something.
Click to expand...


Well, there is where 'belief' has all the bearing on 'perception'. Anyone that believes President Bush does not genuinely love America and what it stands for is way off base, IMO. Now, does that mean every decision will be best for America in 6mos, 2 years, 10 years, etc? No. The President is a man, just like you and I. To take issue with Iraq, you really have to believe his were NOT the best of intentions and that he really was not doing what he actually thought best for America, it's safety, and it's future in the world. Now, if you can take those intentions as being genuine, then it matters not if mistakes were made between point A and point B, but where you go from point B and how you get there. If you MUST think his intentions were NOT genuine, then you can believe it's about oil, special interests, etc. and you can say 'he screwed it up'. ...point being, you have to think the man hates America to believe his intent was anything other than doing what he (and MILLIONS of others, including MOST democrats) thought best for our nation at the time. Blame game.LOL
Click to expand...
I guess this is where the points of view start to diverge. In my opinion it doesn't matter how good his intentions have been, it's the results that matter and how he should be held accountable for those decisions and their results. Mistakes are mistakes regardless of intent. Maybe the crux of the argument is that Bush supporters think he's OK because he seems like a good guy, whereas the Bush opposers are keeping score of the actual events? Maybe I'm biased because I have a preconceived notion that all politicians are untrustworthy, the only difference beween them is how and how much. I guess I don't understand why everyone else should be held accountable for his/her own actions (as in the Republican mantra of individual rights and responsibilities for one's own success), but not hold the president to the same standards?
Click to expand...
 
You presented a statement of fact. Hitch asked for your proof/opinion to back the statement. You can't then turn around and ask Hitch to prove a negative (i.e., that it wasn't a mistake). You established the ground rules. Fact: Bush and his republican congress have done a whole lot to mess up our country, that's not just my opinion.

So, give us your list of evidence that proves factually Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush and his Republican congress messed up the country. Not points-of-view, anecdotes, or the, "I had more money when Clinton was in office" proof.
Click to expand...


I can do whatever I please. I don't recall you being appointed hall monitor.
 
There is a good possibility that history will view the war in Iraq, although initiated out of faulty intelligence, as the true genius of the GW Bush administration. Terrorism after being let out of the bag by Jimmy Carter, was and is only escalating. It was the first time our country found themselves pitted not against a foreign government, but against an independent ideology.

The Iraq war provided a battle field, not on our soil, or that of any allies, but where a problem regime already resided. We have drawn out radical terrorist, from multiple factions, while diverting attacks (so far) in our own country. It also gives us a strong needed presence in an unstable region, outside of Israel.

I know radical liberals believe there would be no terrorism with if it weren't for Bush, but this kind of naiveté can destroy a country.
 
There is a good possibility that history will view the war in Iraq, although initiated out of faulty intelligence, as the true genius of the GW Bush administration. Terrorism after being let out of the bag by Jimmy Carter, was and is only escalating. It was the first time our country found themselves pitted not against a foreign government, but against an independent ideology.

The Iraq war provided a battle field, not on our soil, or that of any allies, but where a problem regime already resided. We have drawn out radical terrorist, from multiple factions, while diverting attacks (so far) in our own country. It also gives us a strong needed presence in an unstable region, outside of Israel.

I know radical liberals believe there would be no terrorism with if it weren't for Bush, but this kind of naiveté can destroy a country.
Click to expand...


Mike,

The only problem with your "possibility" is that it's just as likely if not moreso to have a long-term nagative effect on Iraq and the mideast. Add that to the FACT that (as per the 9/11 commission) there is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was directly or knowingly supporting terrorists. In fact he was an enemy of Al Queda. Iraq was far less likely to act as a breeding ground (now and then) for terrorism than many other mideast countries. For starters- all but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

So the whole concept of the Iraq war providing a means to fight terrorism on foreign soil rather than the U.S. is just plain idealistic and completely without supporting evidence. Please provide opposing proof that this is just naivete'.
 
Saddam was a problem for the USA and NATO, that is a fact. Iran is supplying weapons to terrorists in Iraq; another fact. So the "big bomb" wasn't found; doesn't mean that it wasn't being worked on or deployed elsewhere. Weapons seem to be coming into Iraq, why couldn't they be removed or hidden else where as well. For not having weapons of mass destruction...they sure have killed a lot of Americans, as well as our allies.

No major terrorist attack has taken place on US soil, since 9/11; fact. Terrorist not not part of Saddams regime have been killed and captured on Iraqi soil; fact

You don't think Iran and Syria, have slowed their nuclear programs due to US presence? We are never coming home from Iraq, and every major candidate running for President knows this. Some are trying do deceive their political base of this fact, but if we haven't come from Germany in over 60 years, we sure are not planning to leave this volatile region!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top