McCain defending Obama

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

McCain defending Obama

Postby semo88 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:26 pm

Did anyone see the clips today of McCain defending Obama? That is the John McCain I know and always liked until he was forced to turn into the typical Presidential candidate. John was answering questions and a guy said something about being scared of raising a child in America with Obama as President. McCain responded that while he feels that he is the better candidate, Obama is a good man and is not someone you should be scared of. A woman in the crowd later mentioned that she doesn’t trust Obama and that he’s an Arab. McCain took the microphone and corrected her that he is not an Arab, and that he is a good family man.

You know, if candidates would act like this more often, people would be a lot less cynical of politicians. This sure reminds me why I used to think so highly of McCain until he had to start changing the way he is in order to try to win votes on a national level (as all Presidential candidates do).


By the way, before this turns into a debate, I did not post this for any partisan reasons. I just think it is GREAT to see a candidate act like a decent human being at the risk of losing votes, rather than continue to buy into all the overhyped claims that come up during election years.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri


Postby Preacher1011 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:13 pm

It's good he did that. If he would do that then he would have a lot higher ratings. No one likes a basher. I think the NRA is harming McCain more than anyone. They're posting a bunch of anti-Obama stuff in tons of magazines, which probably is turning people away from McCain although the NRA pays for it.
Locked&Loaded wrote: I got out shot by a 13 yeard old girl.


jrockncash wrote:Is that mask only for ghosts or can fat guys with little weiners use it too?


Image
User avatar
Preacher1011
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 8468
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:14 pm
Location: Blount County, TN

Postby PL_duckhunter12 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:45 pm

i also think its great, im getting kinda sick of all the attack adds

on another note, if mccain loses votes for defending obama, there's something wrong
let 'em go, let 'em grow
PL_duckhunter12
hunter
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: scott county, minnesota

Postby DuckinFool » Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:57 pm

Perhaps being an appeasing apologist for the Socialist in addition to pushing a big government spending spree at taxpayer expense is why McCain is handing this election all tidy and gift wrapped to the Dems. :mad:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby Brydog » Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:31 am

DuckinFool wrote:Perhaps being an appeasing apologist for the Socialist in addition to pushing a big government spending spree at taxpayer expense is why McCain is handing this election all tidy and gift wrapped to the Dems. :mad:

McCain hasn't gift wrapped anything and handed it to the Dems. He simply lost his standing with your party by demonstrating his desperation to win, and Sexy Sarah just put the final final kill shot into the head of the beast by being found guilty of "Abuse of Power".
These two don't deserve to be in charge of this country, Nor are they qualified !

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

Obama isn't the best choice for POTUS, but its better than having McCain walk in Shrubbies shoes and continue to feed the rich.
It's looking like we'll be living in a Socialist country very soon. :sad:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
~Stephen Roberts
User avatar
Brydog
Banned
 
Posts: 4941
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:00 pm
Location: Lake Isabella Michigan, Houghton Lake Michigan

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:17 am

The rich have been taking a bloodbath lately. How has that worked out for the "working" people?

This insane notion that the Federal Government can and should try to individually help of the 300 million people in the U.S. is insane. They should try to build a sound economic policy, which is and always will be low tax rates and minimal rational regulations that are enforced vigorously. This will help the rich, but it will also help every person in the country that bothers to help themselves.

Worker's salaries are governed by the law of supply and demand like everything. That is an unavoidable reality.

Rich getting richer means they have to compete for workers. Rich getting poorer like right now means there is a surplus of workers. Supply is up and demand is down. What do you think is going to happen to worker's compensation packages?

Read Obama's 2nd book. Look at his record. He is clueless and the leftist/socialist pseudo-intellectual crowd has had his ear since he moved to Chicago. If you thought Jimmy Carter was good, Obama's is going to give you more of the same.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby DuckinFool » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:49 pm

Ole barry is going to have a helluva time sticking it to the rich who it appears will all have their money far away from Wall Street and tucked tidy into offshore accounts.

Well hell if sticking it to the rich don't work out guess who falls in line next to get it stuck to. :yes: Somebody is going to pay for the bill for the New Socialist Republic and it sure as hell wont be the leech class.
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby Rat Creek » Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:47 pm

I also saw the McCain clip and thought I would throw up. McCain doesn’t have to worry about Obama, but the rest of us do.

This is the left’s version of bipartisanship. Join their side. The truth of the matter is McCain is a democrat who is strong on defense, like Lieberman.

There isn’t a conservative in the race. The choice is a traditional democrat with experience (McCain) or a Marxist with no experience (Obama). A chance we can believe in.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Postby semo88 » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:18 pm

All I can say is the Republicans nominated him, so that’s the only folks you can complain to. Same with Obama and the Dems. It’s been said many times before, but there really isn’t a very good choice either way in this election.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby Rat Creek » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:58 pm

Well sort of. The dems and libs in the early blue states put him in front and he rode it to the finish.

Though I am not a Hillary or Clinton fan for that matter, I was surprised Obama was able to take her out with "Hope and Future."

A change we can believe in. Wow, how thin is that?

Though I don't care much for either McCain or Obama, I don't think socialism is the answer.

I just want as little govenment in my life as possible.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Postby devildog28 » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:05 pm

Rat Creek wrote:
Though I don't care much for either McCain or Obama, I don't think socialism is the answer.

I just want as little govenment in my life as possible.


Exactly! Just leave me the hell alone!!!! :mad:
User avatar
devildog28
hunter
 
Posts: 2265
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Katy, TX

Postby semo88 » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:19 pm

Rat Creek wrote:Well sort of. The dems and libs in the early blue states put him in front and he rode it to the finish.


:no: Always those damn liberals pickin' on the Republicans.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby dudejcb » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:01 am

McCain did the right thing and showed a glimmer of his past honor. I say glimmer becasue the misleading ads are still running.

Duckin fool, what's with the "Barry" stuff. That's the kind of thing McCain was talking about.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:24 am

Misleading ads like I'm going to cut taxes on 95% of the people when only about 65% of the people pay taxes. That's right. That's not misleading. That's an out right lie. I get your point now.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:59 pm

you are splitting hairs and obfuscating the message (new word for the day). It was pretty clear to me that he said 95% of taxpayers woudl see a tax decrease. that would not include non-tax payers woudl it?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:19 pm

Not what he said at all.

Direct quote from last debate.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008c.html
what I want to do is provide a middle class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans
95% of Americans are middle class :rofl:

So you say he mispoke. Then directly from his website.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.


He is talking about welfare checks to those that owe no income tax.

Sorry you are wrong again, so do you now agree that this is a blatant lie or do you want to make up a new excuse.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:29 pm

I went to the second link you posted, and have to admit it... his tax plan looks pretty good. I didn't bother to sift through the entire debate transcript to try and find whatever it is that's giving you pain... but I do feel your pain. Just don't understand it.

Are you making more than $250,000 or are you part of the wealthiest 1 %. If so, I'll try to feel you pain in that regard as well, but I can't promise much.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:45 pm

Obama is lying about 95% of people getting a tax cut because that is impossible since only about 65% of the people pay income tax. Apparently, lies only give you pain when they are Republicans telling them. Which is why you have to change the subject from the fact you had no idea what you were talking about to anything else.

Second, this is virtually identical to what Bill Clinton promised and somehow never materialized. It will not happen this time either. There will be excuses about how things are worse then they thought, blah, blah, blah, and it just won't get done. Nobody seriously believes it will happen and I know you won't hold his feet to the fire when it doesn't happen. Did you hold Bill Clinton's feet to the fire for telling the same lies? Didn't think so.

You do know what his day job is don't you? He could have put all of the "great" ideas into bills. He can even do this if he loses. The Democrats have controlled congress for 2 years now. Why haven't these things been put into bills and forced through Congress? You can't really believe this will happen if he's sitting in the Oval Office. He would have done it already.

Liars always have the best plans. It so much easier to sound good when you aren't bound by reality.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Please. you need to calm down.

Things probably are worse than anyone knows. In fact that's one thing everyone seems to agree on.

I think saying the Dems have "controlled" congress for the last two years is a stretch. They've had a majority, but not of sufficient size to defeat a filibuster, or override a veto. and of course the one thing Dems can alwasy be relied upon for is that they will never all agree on anything. Remeber Will Rogers famous line? Paraphrasing... "I'm not part of any organized political association... I'm a Democrat!"

How's that "Contract with America" thing going?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:20 pm

dudejcb wrote:How's that "Contract with America" thing going?
Since you probably have no clue what it actual was, it went very well. Everything was voted on exactly as they promised. I believe everything passed the House. They went back on none of the promises in the Contract with America. This was written promises by Republicans. They actually keep them.

What has the Democrats proposed that has been filibustered? Nothing, so this is irrelevant.

What has the Democrats passed that was vetoed? Nothing, so this is another red herring.

They should have had bill after bill being pushed through if they had a clue. That's what the Republicans did during the Clinton days. Force the President to sign it or veto it. There ideas are so dumb they couldn't risk this, but when Obama is in charge, it will all be slipped in. Tucked neatly into giant bills, exactly like they did when they raised the minimum wage and this insane bailout bill.

Absolutely, positively nothing that Obama proposed because he didn't propose anything. He couldn't risk it. It's easier to do nothing and lie about what you are going to do in the future. Especially, when you get caught in a lie, you have people that will change the subject as quickly as possible.

Is there anything the Obama has done that causes you any fear? Any concern at all?

All hail the great Obama :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby DUCKCUTR » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:32 pm

User avatar
DUCKCUTR
hunter
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:41 am
Location: Stedman, NC

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:20 pm

Great clip, but you do understand that even though he agreed that he supported the DC gun ban on February 11th, that isn't what he meant. Agreeing and disagreeing doesn't mean he is trying to have it both ways. You just aren't as smart as he is to understand all the nuance of this issue.

Obama said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual Constitutional right that can be superceded by local ordinance. What they hell are they teaching at Harvard Law School? What was he teaching in his law class?

What other Constitutional rights can be superceded by local ordinance? Rights cannot be superceded by local ordinance. It's sort of part of the definition of a right.

You still don't think he is a socialist. The very definition of an individual right as being inferior to local ordinance is the most fundamental difference between freedom and tyranny. If the rights of the collective are superior to the rights of the individual, you as an individual have no rights. None whatsoever.

Now we will here all the spin from the Obama worshipers, but really think about what he said. You have an individual right and the local government has a right that is superior to this right. It simply is not a Constitutional right if local, state, or federal law can supercede it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:33 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Obama said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual Constitutional right that can be superceded by local ordinance. What they hell are they teaching at Harvard Law School? What was he teaching in his law class?

What other Constitutional rights can be superceded by local ordinance? Rights cannot be superceded by local ordinance. It's sort of part of the definition of a right.

You still don't think he is a socialist. The very definition of an individual right as being inferior to local ordinance is the most fundamental difference between freedom and tyranny. If the rights of the collective are superior to the rights of the individual, you as an individual have no rights. None whatsoever.

Now we will here all the spin from the Obama worshipers, but really think about what he said. You have an individual right and the local government has a right that is superior to this right. It simply is not a Constitutional right if local, state, or federal law can supercede it.
You need to clean your ears. He said there are two conflicting interests... the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns, and need to keep guns out of the hands of law breakers, psych jobs, and angry women (oops, I repeated myself).

I didn't hear him say a local ordinace supercedes the constitution. Would you agree that sometimes the wrong people have guns too easily available? Tell me there's no violence problem in inner cities so there's no reason to do anything.

Is gun availability the only reason we have a violence problem? No. Is it potentially part of the problem?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:05 pm

dudejcb wrote:Is gun availability the only reason we have a violence problem? No. Is it potentially part of the problem?
No to answer your second question.

He said a lot of nonsense about illegal guns. All handguns were illegal to keep and bear in Washington DC, Chicago, etc. It is nonresponsive. Just like the babbling about traditions and everything else. He is a "Constitutional Scholar" and this is his answer. That is pathetic. Harvard should be embarrassed.

Why can't we supercede people's right to privacy? We could search the homes and person's of every teenager that is acting suspiciously. Just go to their house and toss their rooms and pat them down. It would be highly effective.

It would also be highly illegal because it is unconstitutional for the government to do this, even if there are "conflicting interests" Constitutional rights supercede all other interests. I am not a person that takes this extremely broad view of Constitutional rights, but whatever your view of where the line falls between a Constititional right and a legislative issue, rights are superior to all else. If they are not, then they are not rights.

Cops don't get to illegally search simply because it's the easier or more effective way to reduce violence.

These trial things are just hindering our efforts to stop violence. We need to get rid of them, so we can put the criminals in jail. :no:

What does a right mean? Obama's definition makes it meaningless.

By this definition how can Bush take rights away. Doesn't the laws passed and enacted by Congress always supercede any perceived right you though you had?

How about an easy question? He agreed then he said that's not what I said. You at least saw that he changed his tune. Didn't you?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:21 pm

Spinner,

you are really adrift. Hunting is a tradition for many of us and our guns and bows, and knives are all tools of that tradition. (notice I left out running shoes, sticks, and stones.)

Cops do't get to search at will becasue searching at whim in violation of one's privacy would make us a police state. True, crime would fall. but once you're a police state what else might fall by the wayside.

Constitution and laws are pretty closely related. constitutional rights are law, and legislation that is not constitutional is not a law once it's legally reviewed and struck down (Marbury v Madison). Constitutional laws may define rights or make certain rights de facto legally.

I think he did support the DC law initially (as an effort to confront reality), and when the Supreme's struck it down he supported their decision but recognized that the issues behind the attempt, that remain troublesome and in place.

I'm getting dizzy going in circles with you.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests