# McCain for president?



## john doe.

Am I the only one who is perplexed and dismayed at Senator McCain being the top republican candidate? I thought republicans were suppose to be conservative... and least I was hoping so.:smt076

Hopefully next Tuesday will turn things around.

I’ll have a tuff time deciding between McCain, Clinton or Obama. There is not much difference and either one in office will make me VERY concerned of retaining my Constitutional rights in the near future. :smt086


----------



## Mike Barham

Senator McCain is pretty conservative on a lot of issues. However, he is wobbly on several very important (to me, at least) issues.

1. He is against the First Amendment (see "Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act," aka _McCain-Feingold_).
2. He wants to "close the gun show loophole," which will lead to the elimination of private gun sales.
3. He was co-sponsor of legislation granting amnesty to illegal aliens, which is doubly irritating since he is a senator from *Arizona*.
4. He wants to continue the current less-than-intelligent prosecution of a perpetual, multiple-fronted "war on terrorism."

Only in the latter of these four issues does he differ from Senator Clinton and Obama, though of course both of them would likely go much further on gun control. Sen. McCain would probably wait until his second term (assuming he got one and wasn't dead or senile) to pursue a serious gun control agenda.

Mr. Giuliani will drop out of the race and endorse Senator McCain. Mr. Huckabee showed rather poorly in Florida, and has no money. Rep. Paul only garnered 3% of the vote in Florida, and never had a chance of gaining the nomination anyway.

That leaves Senator McCain and Mr. Romney. The latter is _very_ suspect on gun control, though slightly better than McCain on immigration, and has flip-flopped on a bunch of issues after he "saw the conservative light" (read: decided to run for national office). However, he claims to oppose McCain-Feingold, which is a good thing if he is being truthful. His position on the war is basically the same as Senator McCain's, though both are better than the present administration's, at least as I see it.

Senator McCain has a lot of momentum going into Super Tuesday, and I'm not sure there's much real difference between he and Mr. Romney, anyway. I don't think I can be persuaded to vote for either of them. I didn't even bother to request a primary ballot for Super Tuesday, and if it's McCain versus Clinton or Obama, I will probably just abstain in the general election or vote for some wacky third party.


----------



## AirForceShooter

Florida got rid of Rudy for you.
Now it's up to others to get rid of McCain.

AFS


----------



## Shipwreck

I'll never vote for Mccain after that immigration debacle he tried to get thru....

If he gets the nomination, I probably will not vote.


----------



## MLB

Not voting really isn't something I'd consider. At the very least, I'd like to oppose a Democratically controlled Legislative and Executive branch. Can you say to yourself that you have no preference between (say) McCain and Clinton/Obama?


----------



## Shipwreck

MLB said:


> Not voting really isn't something I'd consider. At the very least, I'd like to oppose a Democratically controlled Legislative and Executive branch. Can you say to yourself that you have no preference between (say) McCain and Clinton/Obama?


I hear ya, but they both suck. And, Texas will go to the republicans anyway. So, yes, I probably will not vote. I can't vote for Mccain in good conscience.


----------



## Todd

I'll take my chances with whatever Republican gets the nod. I've never agreed with a candidate completely, but I'd feel better if McCain was in the White House than Obama or worse, the tag team, co-presidency of Bill and Hillary.


----------



## spacedoggy

If we end up with McCain we will lose the election because the conservative voters will stay home on election day and the Dems will win. 

He would really be a boring president.


----------



## Ram Rod




----------



## TOF

Look out, I think I'm going to be sick. :smt078


:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham

spacedoggy said:


> If we end up with McCain we will lose the election because the conservative voters will stay home on election day and the Dems will win.


Just looking at this thread we can see some people abstaining. I simply won't vote for an authoritarian like Senator McCain, who would very much like to stomp out Amendments I, II and IV, wants to offer amnesty to law breakers, and would continue a bellicose foreign policy.

I think McCain can pull a lot of independents and "centrists," though, and that might be enough to get him elected if he faces Senator Clinton, who is for some reason a much bigger bogeyman to conservatives than the far more liberal Senator Obama.

He can do it without my vote, though.


----------



## SuckLead

Unfortunetly, as most elections go, you end up voting against someone or for the lesser of two evils. 

I was glad to see Edwards go. And Giuliani. Both of them make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Although with this election, my hair is probably going to just fall out. There isn't anyone running that I could feel completely good about voting for.

It really is ashame that who runs comes down to money. It would be nice to see some regular joe in office.


----------



## dourdave

Amazing ! Why would any mature citizen not vote ? Amazing !


----------



## john doe.

Well, if it came down to McCain and whom ever, I would be forced to vote for McCain. Personally, I don't feel that not voting will prove anything. It will only help the candidate who I really don't want in. By not voting for someone who I really don’t like but like more than the other moron will only give that other moron a vote advantage and that compounding by others like me can turn the tables on the lesser evil.

Ever since I was old enough to vote for a president, I voted. I feel it’s my responsibility to do so.


----------



## Mike Barham

dourdave said:


> Amazing ! Why would any mature citizen not vote ? Amazing !


Several reasons:

1. Because I am not brainwashed into believing that voting for someone who holds beliefs I oppose is somehow my "civic duty." A candidate must _earn_ my vote, and because I value my vote, it is not something I just give away to someone merely because they are not quite as lousy as their opponent.

2. I am extremely tired of voting for crappy GOP candidates, and if they lose a few times, maybe they will start putting up better candidates. What we're doing now is like buying crappy food over and over again, but expecting that someday the restaurant will miraculously offer a gourmet meal. Without some kind of pressure they understand - like losing elections - the GOP will continue to serve up these awful candidates.

3. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. I realize that every election is a qualified disaster, and that compromise in often necessary on some issues. However, there are some things I am unwilling to compromise, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights, which Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama have all busied themselves viciously attacking.


----------



## dourdave

Thanks for your explanation, Mike. 

I too would like a Government that thinks like I do. Unfortunately, most people think differently. Nevertheless, being part of "something" is one of the best ways to influence "it's" actions.

Thank you for serving your Country, and me, so that we may differ in the role of the people with respect to the choices of their Government.

Dave


----------



## Mike Barham

dourdave said:


> I too would like a Government that thinks like I do. Unfortunately, most people think differently. Nevertheless, being part of "something" is one of the best ways to influence "it's" actions.


I agree completely. That's why I am registered as a Republican. But I didn't even request a Super Tuesday primary ballot because all the GOP candidates completely suck.

Maybe you and I should both run for office - that's really being part of the problem!



> Thank you for serving your Country, and me, so that we may differ in the role of the people with respect to the choices of their Government.


No problem! Thanks for paying my bills.


----------



## dallaswood43

*i don't know what to do*

i live in utah so my vote definitely doesn't really count, the state goes to the republicans by 80 to 20 percent vote. i'm mormon but i don't really think romney will win if he is the republican candidate because so many evangelicals are scared to death of mormons so he will chase off many would be republican voters. i think its in the better interest of the republican party and conservatives that mccain win. however i think bush has screwed up so severely that the candidate for the democrats will win almost by default.

these things are cyclical and tend to swing like the pendulum. republican for a while, democrat for a while and back and forth. thus things stay pretty close to the center over the long haul. i also fear, however, that democrats in charge of all branches of the federal government could spell disaster (judicial branch is almost forced to be liberal due to case law and precedent).


----------



## dallaswood43

*war on terrorism*

i agree with mike's point #4 above. a war declared on an improper noun is not a winnable war. these aren't his words exactly but that is how i interpret them.


----------



## john doe.

If Clinton or I'll bomb ya wins then they (democrats) will have total control of the federal government. At least with a republican in the White house it will have a little checks and balances. Even if it is a liberal republican like McCain.

That’s why I have to vote because if the left wins by a close margin and I didn’t vote then I will be very disappointed in myself and others like me who were staying away because we didn’t want to vote for the lesser evil. No candidate has my 100% approval so I must compromise, which is something I don’t like to do in politics, but it’s the nature of the game. 

So, for those of you staying away from the polls don't whine when the left starts taking away our rights because you did nothing to try to stop it. This is a harse statement I know, but I stand by it.


----------



## Mike Barham

tnoisaw said:


> At least with a republican in the White house it will have a little checks and balances.


A divided government is a good thing. But I don't know that Senator "Maverick" McCain would so much "divide" it with his "bipartisan" approach.



> So, for those of you staying away from the polls don't whine when the left starts taking away our rights because you did nothing to try to stop it. This is a harse statement I know, but I stand by it.


Fair enough. But don't come crying when President McCain closes down gun shows, signs another campaign finance law that stomps on the First Amendment, backs Patriot Act II, institutes amnesty for the "hardworking laborers" from Mexico, empowers the EPA to fight "global warming" by regulatory fiat, and sends more good men to their deaths in Iran.


----------



## dallaswood43

*mike has no worries*

i'm pretty sure arizona will go to mccain whether mike votes or not. the "swing states" are those that truly decide the election because certain states are almost locked in as republican or democrat.


----------



## mc2

*Barack Obama for President!!!!​*


----------



## Guest

From the state of nitwits that gave John McCain (without help from me) his first victory I supported Romney (after it became apparent by his actions or lack of that Fred wasn't really interested) because I felt he was the only real alternative to McCain. Before I retired I worked in Mass (lived in NH) and saw Romney in person at a few events when he was pushing his economic package for the state. The package worked in Mass. and he left with a surplus.

I think he would provide good leadership on the economy, be strong on defense, strong on immigration and somewhat soft on guns. I could envision him signing an assault weapons ban as he did in Mass. although he might back away if he felt it would cost him his base.

I'm guessing whoever is nominated will likely pick a conservative to balance the ticket in an attempt to appease the base. It won't work.

The only point I can make on voting is if you can't bear to vote for president then don't but be sure to vote for congress, state reps, Governor etc. as that is more important this year with the poor presidential choices.


----------



## Snowman

TerryP said:


> ... be sure to vote for congress, state reps, Governor etc. as that is more important this year with the poor presidential choices.


That's true. If we actually followed the Constitution as written, your governor would be far more influential than the president. It's a shame how much power has been stripped from the states.


----------



## Mike Barham

dallaswood43 said:


> i'm pretty sure arizona will go to mccain whether mike votes or not.


Yup! :mrgreen:

That's another reason I didn't bother to request a primary ballot. Senator McCain apparently remains unaccountably popular in Arizona. Must be all the transplants from California.


----------



## john doe.

Mike Barham said:


> A divided government is a good thing. But I don't know that Senator "Maverick" McCain would so much "divide" it with his "bipartisan" approach.
> 
> Fair enough. But don't come crying when President McCain closes down gun shows, signs another campaign finance law that stomps on the First Amendment, backs Patriot Act II, institutes amnesty for the "hardworking laborers" from Mexico, empowers the EPA to fight "global warming" by regulatory fiat, and sends more good men to their deaths in Iran.


But who would be worse? McCain, Clinton or I'll bomb ya. I hate the fact that I have to choose a lesser evil but the lesser evil is better than the most evil.


----------



## john doe.

mc2 said:


> *Barack Obama for President!!!!​*


*I do hope this was a joke otherwise be careful for what you wish for and be prepared to give up your Smith and Glock if he should become president.*


----------



## cz85b

Well, IF the Republicans nominated Ron Paul, I would vote Republican... HOWEVER, they will most likely nominate the biggest corporate WHORE on the planet, McCain....

I will be voting Libertarian.. I realize Libertarians can't win, but given the choices, the "lesser evil" makes me want to shoot myself! God have mercy on our nation... When it comes to this election, the least common denominator in intelligence will be who picks our next "leader" Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be a very long, painful, and sad year for the United States.

Ciao, CZ


----------



## BarbedWireSmile

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/


----------



## Mike Barham

My decision is a strategic one. My current plan to abstain if Senator McCain gets the GOP nod will be in hopes that the GOP loses the election, forcing them to reexamine their choice of candidates, and reevaluate their flirtations with "neoconservatism" and total fiscal irresponsibility the next time around. Of course Senator McCain will likely carry Arizona regardless of my abstention, so I am under illusions that I actually matter.

Rep. Paul is strong on the Second Amendment, but he has surrounded himself with enough lunatics that I cannot cast a vote for him. Anyway, his speaking skills are poor and he can't adequately explain his apparent inconsistencies, so Senators Clinton or Obama would eat him alive in a debate. 

I do think McCain would beat the tar out of Obama in a one-on-one debate, probably reminiscent of Reagan versus Carter, and could at least hold his own with Clinton.


----------



## john doe.

Mike Barham said:


> My decision is a strategic one. My current plan to abstain if Senator McCain gets the GOP nod will be in hopes that the GOP loses the election, forcing them to reexamine their choice of candidates, and reevaluate their flirtations with "neoconservatism" and total fiscal irresponsibility the next time around. Of course Senator McCain will likely carry Arizona regardless of my abstention, so I am under illusions that I actually matter.
> 
> Rep. Paul is strong on the Second Amendment, but he has surrounded himself with enough lunatics that I cannot cast a vote for him. Anyway, his speaking skills are poor and he can't adequately explain his apparent inconsistencies, so Senators Clinton or Obama would eat him alive in a debate.
> 
> I do think McCain would beat the tar out of Obama in a one-on-one debate, probably reminiscent of Reagan versus Carter, and could at least hold his own with Clinton.


Sorry Mike but I don't understand your logic though I've heard it from others too. I'd rather tell the GOP to get it together without losing the White house. Having a socialist in that office would not be good for this great country.


----------



## Mike Barham

tnoisaw said:


> Sorry Mike but I don't understand your logic though I've heard it from others too. I'd rather tell the GOP to get it together without losing the White house. Having a socialist in that office would not be good for this great country.


If we keep voting for the lousy candidates the GOP has been putting up lately, what incentive do they have to change? Politics is just another marketplace, and if we keep buying the lousy stuff, only lousy stuff will appear on the shelves. See WalMart for an example.

How is continuously voting for lousy candidates telling the GOP to "get it together?" If anything, it encourages even more lousy candidates. Voting for the lousy GOP candidates in the past has had the result of giving us "choices" like McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and our current president, none of whom are actually conservatives and most of whom are authoritarians who delight in grinding the Constitution under their heel.

How is an anti-gun, anti-rights, pro-amnesty, warmongering authoritarian better than a anti-gun, anti-rights, pro-amnesty peacenik socialist?

Enduring a few years of pain may wake up the GOP and make them realize they need to find candidates who are actual conservatives, not this current crop of liberals in conservative lipstick.


----------



## BarbedWireSmile

Mike Barham said:


> If we keep voting for the lousy candidates the GOP has been putting up lately, what incentive do they have to change?


Exactly the reason to vote Ron Paul if you in fact support him.. or to vote for whoever's platform you support regardless of whether or not the mainstream media say he's "unelectable". If we keep voting for the "product" candidate, we'll keep getting what we've been getting.

I vote two issues, and two issues only: 2nd amendment and taxation. So for those who feel the same, the choice is very clear.

:smt1099


----------



## submoa

At the risk of being flamed, I don't like any of the current crop of candidates. I'm extremely disappointed in the 2 politcal parties for not giving us a better choice:

Angry old man
Rich robot (who spends over $30mil of his own money to get a 250k job?)
Angry wife with no BJ for Hubby
Dubious guy with terrorist name

And none of these guys is even funny! Dubya used to be funny in a stupid kinda way, but now he's all serious and angry. The State of the Onion on Monday was boring... blah, blah, blah. The GOP hasn't had a decent candidate with a sense of humor since Bob Dole, even then it was a crazy kind of funny... referring to himself in the third person. I loved Reagan, he was funniest of them all.


----------



## TOF

Logical thinking, if you listen to the news, tells us that McCain will win Arizona Tuesday. I am not all that certain. Most of my friends are republican but some are Democrat. I have yet to hear one of them indicate they wanted Hillary, Obama or McCain. I am not in total agreement with what is left but will vote for one of them. It may take a coin toss but I refuse to NOT vote.

To not vote is to surrender to the Media selection.

Grit your teeth and do your duty be your selection right wrong or indifferent in my eyes.

:smt1099


----------



## mc2

tnoisaw said:


> *I do hope this was a joke otherwise be careful for what you wish for and be prepared to give up your Smith and Glock if he should become president.*


Changing the second ammendment is not on his agenda, but I'd gladly give up my pistols if it was.


----------



## teknoid

mc2 said:


> Changing the second ammendment is not on his agenda, but I'd gladly give up my pistols if it was.


Until I saw this, I had decided to vote Libertarian rather than choose between two Democrats (McCain and whoever). Now, I'll have to vote for the one calling himself a Republican. If nothing else, I can cancel out a vote for Osama or Billary.


----------



## dallaswood43

*eloquent??*

i think its actually one of the great tragedies of how we select our political leaders that someone who could potentially be the greatest leader we've ever known would never get elected due to their lack of eloquence. so Ron Paul might get eaten alive in a debate due to his lack of public speaking skills and that would cost him the election, and that's just a travesty. it's not debate team or a public speaking contest but that's how we decide.

another pet peeve is our president has to look a certain way. we want them to look like someone who would play president in a movie. as mentioned before romney is mormon and so am i but i can't help but think he's a leading candidate because he looks handsome. think of it, none of the candidates are really super models but they are all average to above average looking people too.

i don't know what other basis we could use to decide, but it sure would be great if we could actually know each candidate personally and choose that way, but that is obviously impossible.


----------



## Snowman

mc2 said:


> Changing the second ammendment is not on his agenda, but I'd gladly give up my pistols if it was.


Maybe you should give them up anyway since they mean so little to you. :smt019


----------



## js

I will vote for anyone running against Hillary or Obama, period.

Obama has been endorsed by 2 people who should be "Insert Fate Here" instead of endorsing political candidates.... Louis Farrakhan and Ted Kennedy.

It's odd though... Ron Paul is being endorsed by nut jobs and has no chance. Obama is being endorsed by nut jobs and you would think God himself is running. Of course, this explains the mindset of a liberal.

Personally... I'm waiting for Paul Revere to be resurrected. I'm sick and tired of the crap.

As for Obama... I'll just finish with a couple quotes from him.



> "I believe we need to renew--not roll back--this common sense gun law," Obama said. - In reference to the 1994 AWB.





> ...the passage of legal protection for the gun industry would mark an enormous setback for gun control advocates and for leaders of cities such as Chicago, who have filed suit against gun dealers and manufacturers.


screw Obama....

all that being said...

screw John McCain as well, but I will vote for the lesser of 3 evils. At this point it's who's going to screw me the least.


----------



## john doe.

mc2 said:


> Changing the second ammendment is not on his agenda, but I'd gladly give up my pistols if it was.


Are you a troll?


----------



## Todd

tnoisaw said:


> Are you a troll?


:anim_lol::anim_lol::anim_lol::anim_lol:

I was thinking along the same lines. I don't think a troll will ever admit to being a troll though.


----------



## Mike Barham

I'm giving *mc2* the benefit of the doubt here. I mean, not everyone who owns a gun or is interested in them is a die-hard defender of the Second Amendment. If they were, the NRA would have a lot more than four million members.

I read his/her post more like, "I like my guns, but there are things about Senator Obama's platform that I would trade for his stance on guns." I think most people have a hierarchy of issues that are important to them, and evidently guns aren't high on *mc2's* list. Kinda makes me wonder why he's on a gun board, but hey, we're all about diversity, right? :mrgreen:


----------



## Todd

Yeah, maybe troll was a bit harsh. To hear a member of a gun board say he'd be willing to give up his guns would be like hearing Rosie O'Donnell say she's willing to give up food; it's something I thought I'd never hear.


----------



## MLB

submoa said:


> At the risk of being flamed, I don't like any of the current crop of candidates. I'm extremely disappointed in the 2 politcal parties for not giving us a better choice:
> 
> Angry old man
> Rich robot (who spends over $30mil of his own money to get a 250k job?)
> Angry wife with no BJ for Hubby
> Dubious guy with terrorist name
> 
> And none of these guys is even funny! Dubya used to be funny in a stupid kinda way, but now he's all serious and angry. The State of the Onion on Monday was boring... blah, blah, blah. The GOP hasn't had a decent candidate with a sense of humor since Bob Dole, even then it was a crazy kind of funny... referring to himself in the third person. I loved Reagan, he was funniest of them all.


Far from flaming, I'd rather read a dissenting opinion rather than listen to a hundred parroting voices. It's even more interesting if the reasoning behind it is solid though.

If you're choosing based on the candidate's comedic talent, bank account, choice of bedroom activities, or what their name rhymes with, perhaps sticking with voting on American Idol is better entertainment. I'm sure you have better reasons.

Mike's 'benefit of the doubt' for MC2's post is gracious. Personally, it looks like pot-stirring to me. If we're lucky, I'm wrong and we'll have some solid arguments for Obama to consider.


----------



## Fred40

I think this would be game over:

Rumor - When either Clinton or Obama becomes the front runner for the Democratic ticket the other is very likely to become his/her running mate.

Game over if that happens. They would get most of the Women voters, virtually all of the black voters and essentially all of the liberal vote to boot. I don't see ANY Republican that could stand a chance against that. So be ready.....if the see a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket it's over. The only thing that could save the Republicans is if you have the votes divided between Obama and Clinton......but together!........game over.


----------



## hideit

there is not going to be a clinton/obama or obama/clinton ticket
it was on the news today


----------



## Todd

I would think that both of their egos are too big to be the running mate of the other.

Besides Hillary already has Bill. Or is it the other way 'round? :smt017


----------



## PanaDP

To abstain from voting when the "perfect" candidate doesn't present him or herself is a serious weakness of judgement and character. It suggests to me that when a fight isn't already won, that you don't feel the need to fight it.:smt1099


----------



## cvillechopper

I was a bit surprised at how few people on here would even consider voting for the dems this year and then I remembered where I am. It's funny how many people look at me like I've got 3 heads when I tell them that I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and usually vote for a candidate that is not Republican. 
A system that forces you to decide between two completely unrelated issues like gun control and fiscal responsibility, women's freedom to do what they want with their body and capital punishment, etc. is very flawed. 
I'll be voting no matter who is put on the ballot but won't be able to decide which is truly the lesser of the evils until the day of the election most likely. Here's hoping one candidate starts to put something forward that I can get behind.


----------



## GTD

My first choice would be Ted Nugent, oh wait he’s not running. OK Mike Huckabee, but I hate to say it, John McCain may be our best bet against Hillery or Obama, he is more to the left then the other GOP candidates, witch may appeal to a lot of people who are riding the fence on who to vote for. I think I'll vote for Huckabee. God help us all!


----------



## Mike Barham

PanaDP said:


> To abstain from voting when the "perfect" candidate doesn't present him or herself is a serious weakness of judgement and character. It suggests to me that when a fight isn't already won, that you don't feel the need to fight it.:smt1099


I would and have voted for candidates whom I did not consider "perfect," and will very probably do so in the future. However, when it comes to Senator McCain, there are just too many issues with which I disagree to cast a conscionable vote for him. I cannot abide his stances on very major things like the First Amendment, gun shows, the Fourth Amendment, global warming, and Iraq. While I could forgive a difference on guns shows and possibly global warming, the other things are deal-breakers for me.

I could maybe, possibly hold my nose and vote for Romney, just hoping that his flip-flops have finally landed him somewhere to the right of the Democrat (but who would know for sure?). But McCain isn't just imperfect. I consider him just as bad - if not worse, since he an outright authoritarian - than the Democrats. I cannot vote for that kind of person.


----------



## john doe.

cvillechopper said:


> I was a bit surprised at how few people on here would even consider voting for the dems this year and then I remembered where I am. It's funny how many people look at me like I've got 3 heads when I tell them that I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and usually vote for a candidate that is not Republican.
> A system that forces you to decide between two completely unrelated issues like gun control and fiscal responsibility, women's freedom to do what they want with their body and capital punishment, etc. is very flawed.
> I'll be voting no matter who is put on the ballot but won't be able to decide which is truly the lesser of the evils until the day of the election most likely. Here's hoping one candidate starts to put something forward that I can get behind.


Lord, please give me the strength NOT to respond to this. Amen


----------



## Jackle1886

GTD said:


> My first choice would be Ted Nugent, oh wait he's not running. OK Mike Huckabee, but I hate to say it, John McCain may be our best bet against Hillery or Obama, he is more to the left then the other GOP candidates, witch may appeal to a lot of people who are riding the fence on who to vote for. I think I'll vote for Huckabee. God help us all!


Ted for POTUS!!! HEll ya I'd vote for him. This is what we need!!!!


----------



## MLB

tnoisaw said:


> Lord, please give me the strength NOT to respond to this. Amen


Didn't work. Pray harder. :mrgreen:

If cvillechopper's intent was to convey that one should vote for the best overall candidate, rather than the one who waves the right banner (Republican in this case), I'm right with him. Voting is not a team sport.


----------



## Guest

The new 'Bob Dole'.


----------



## Mike Barham

cvillechopper said:


> A system that forces you to decide between two completely unrelated issues like gun control and fiscal responsibility, women's freedom to do what they want with their body and capital punishment, etc. is very flawed.


All the issues you mentioned, and more, can be related back to an individual's responsibility for their actions. If your overarching philosophy is one of taking as much responsibility as possible for yourself and your actions, you will gravitate toward one political way of thinking. If your overarching philosophy runs more toward "I am my brother's keeper" or "it takes a village," then you will naturally go the other way on those issues.

We have the worst system in the world - except for all the others.


----------



## cvillechopper

MLB said:


> Didn't work. Pray harder. :mrgreen:
> 
> If cvillechopper's intent was to convey that one should vote for the best overall candidate, rather than the one who waves the right banner (Republican in this case), I'm right with him. Voting is not a team sport.


Exactly.


----------



## cvillechopper

Mike Barham said:


> All the issues you mentioned, and more, can be related back to an individual's responsibility for their actions. If your overarching philosophy is one of taking as much responsibility as possible for yourself and your actions, you will gravitate toward one political way of thinking. If your overarching philosophy runs more toward "I am my brother's keeper" or "it takes a village," then you will naturally go the other way on those issues.


I disagree. One party favors gun control but wants to allow a women her choice. The other is the opposite on both issues. How does an individual who agrees with one party on one issue and the other on another make a decision? He/she has to give up on one issue for the sake of the other. For small issues, compromise is understandable. For larger issues, like these, I'd rather it not be an all or nothing situation but that would require more public input to the law-making process and elimination of many seats in DC so that will never happen. A true democracy would be impossible.

Additionally, on just the PERSONAL responsibility issue, if that is really the sway of a party they would not waste so much energy of attempting to dictate what a woman can do with her body or who can be legally married, etc. Either let each to their own or don't, but don't pretend that you favor individual freedom/responsibility when you're working to restrict it.

Truthfully, when you look at the individual issues, McCain is much closer to being in line with my beliefs than many other candidates but I'll wait until I've seen who sticks to their guns before making my decision.


----------



## Mike Barham

Well, without delving too deeply into the abortion issue on a firearms forum, if the woman was responsible with birth control she wouldn't have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. So in a sense, abortion is about avoiding responsibility, and possibly at the expense of another life...much like many things advocated by the Left.

I'm a bit of a fence-sitter on abortion in the first trimester, just because I haven't seen truly convincing evidence on exactly when consciousness exists. I don't "work to restrict it."


----------



## cvillechopper

Mike Barham said:


> Well, without delving too deeply into the abortion issue on a firearms forum, if the woman was responsible with birth control she wouldn't have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. So in a sense, abortion is about avoiding responsibility, and possibly at the expense of another life...much like many things advocated by the Left.
> 
> I'm a bit of a fence-sitter on abortion in the first trimester, just because I haven't seen truly convincing evidence on exactly when consciousness exists. I don't "work to restrict it."


A bit of a fence sitter on any issue shows the ability to truly consider either side. Personally, I don't like absolutes on ANY issue so I tip my hat to you.


----------



## glock27bill

The primary reason to vote is to prevent Clinton or Obama for appointing their life-long judges to SCOTUS.

Did anyone see the South Park episode where the elementary school was replacing its mascot? The choices were a talking douche and a turd sandwich. The choices were so repugnant that once of the characters (Stan) was not going to vote. His parent taught him a very valuable life lesson: ALL elections are a choice between a talking douche and a turd sandwich. Amen.


----------



## john doe.

OK, I guess I didn't pray hard enough.

I agree that a women has a right to do with her body as she pleases. But what's that got to do with abortion? We are not talking about the women's body but a separate body with similar but separate DNA.

If a women wants to abort herself then, though I'd hate to see it done, go for it. Just don't kill an innocent child with the sole offense was being conceived by irresponsible parents.

Now you've really


----------



## Mike Barham

Let's steer this thread away from abortion and back to Senator McCain, who just swept Super Tuesday and is the presumptive GOP candidate. Threads debating abortion tend to go south pretty quickly, and I would hate to have to close another good and popular thread. 

Anyway, I could have probably held my nose and voted for ANY of the GOP candidates except John McCain. Seeing today's results, my wife has decided to abstain as well.

While Clinton/Obama will stomp on some liberties, so will John McCain if his history is any guide. Just pick and choose the liberties you want to see ground under their heels. 

But they can do it without my tacit approval.


----------



## teknoid

McCain, Obama, and Hillary...

Looks like I'll be voting Libertarian. I thought about voting for McCain, briefly. There are just too many things I completely disagree with him on. Just about everything, in fact.


----------



## hberttmank

As much as I dislike McCain, he is still a better choice than a lib like Hillary. This election has the worst choices that I've ever seen. Anymore it seems like it is a matter of voting for who ever will screw you the least.


----------



## cbrgator

Anybody starting to feel like we can't lead ourselves anymore? Between Bush and ANY of of the next candidates, I am starting to feel that way.


----------



## babs

Doesn't matter which Obama or the Hilderbeast.. It'll be an election between the socialist and the RINO (Republican in Name Only).

McCain =


----------



## MLB

With so many important issues, you can't reasonably expect a candidate to agree with your feelings on each. It's a decision on who matches the closest on the ones that are important to you.

If you have "deal breaker" issues with all of the candidates, well then you still have the option to wait it out until the next 4 years is up, or pick one and harrass the hell out of them on the point.


----------



## Guest

hberttmank said:


> As much as I dislike McCain, he is still a better choice than a lib like Hillary. This election has the worst choices that I've ever seen. Anymore it seems like it is a matter of voting for who ever will screw you the least.


I believe I read a while back (before McCain's stunning come back) he was to be considered a running mate for Hillary. Not much difference.


----------



## MLB

I think they differ on far too many issues for that to work. McCain's deviation from the Republican-appropriate responses are few. ( http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm ) Although I don't always agree with them, I'd fear more a simple talking head for the Republican party.


----------



## babs

It convinces me that this nation cannot elect a candidate to the presidency who is pro founding-constitution, minimal-govt, private property, free speech, individual rights, .. etc.. basically OF and FOR the people. The power in this country is now under siege at the whim of the new world order I'm afraid. Buy 'em up while you can boys before the men in black with plexi-face helmets show up to take them.

:smt1099 <---- while I still can


----------



## Fred40

babs said:


> It convinces me that this nation cannot elect a candidate to the presidency who is pro founding-constitution, minimal-govt, private property, free speech, individual rights, .. etc.. basically OF and FOR the people. The power in this country is now under siege at the whim of the new world order I'm afraid. Buy 'em up while you can boys before the men in black with plexi-face helmets show up to take them.


What the hell am I ?

I'm pro constitution. I'm pro minimal government, private property, free speech, individual rights and for people taking MORE responsibility for their own actions......yet at the same time I find myself more often than not leaning towards the Dems come election time! Why?

While I'm pro everything listed above I'm also VERY PRO - LIVE AND LET LIVE. Keep your morals to yourself and don't push them on me and mine. The Republicans are to God Damned in my face with Religion and trying to TELL me what is right and what is wrong. I'm a 40 year old loving father of two who is very happily married. I've never cheated on my wife and never would. My kids are two of the most polite children you could ever hope to meet. They are still young (9) and (7) but they ALWAYS say please and thank you. They almost never act up in public. I help out in my community as does my wife. When I give you my word it is binding and you could bet your life on it. I hate hypocrisy.

Why am I telling you all this? Because I'm also Pro gay marriage, pro stem cell research, pro woman's right to choose (not pro abortion.....and yes there is a HUGE difference). I don't want prayer in schools (that is anti-constitutional) I don't want to hear another word about "Intelligent Design" (a bigger oxymoron has never existed.), and I certainly don't want it taught in schools.

LIVE AND LET LIVE. The pursuit of happiness! If you want to be gay or lesbian that is your choice. Who am I to say a word about it. Freedom of religion.....any religion....or none at all. If you and your wife want to be "swingers".......swing away. Who am I to stand in your way. Live and let live. If the republicans can ever do that I'll vote for one.

I want smaller government. I would love to see local authority have more control and the government have less......a lot less. I would love to see the constitution upheld as the founding fathers intended (they are some of my biggest hero's) and I want to see everyone have the freedom to live as they see fit so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others........that last part is where the republicans fall flat time and time again.


----------



## john doe.

Fred40 said:


> What the hell am I ?
> 
> I'm pro constitution. I'm pro minimal government, private property, free speech, individual rights and for people taking MORE responsibility for their own actions......yet at the same time I find myself more often than not leaning towards the Dems come election time! Why?
> 
> While I'm pro everything listed above I'm also VERY PRO - LIVE AND LET LIVE. Keep your morals to yourself and don't push them on me and mine. Is a law not a moral rule to prevent harm to others ie. Murder? The Republicans are to God Damned in my face with Religion and trying to TELL me what is right and what is wrong. Humm, which Republicans are you talking about? The perception is just what the leftst media wants you to think. The fact is, we, Christians, wants freedom to practice our religion without the government trying to take it away- such as prayer in school. There is nothing in our Constitution about the seperation of church and state. In fact it's just the opposite and states that we have the right to practice our religion without the feds saying who or what we have to worship. the no prayer in school takes away that right. When kids are expelled for praying SILENTLY to themselves at lunch then we have a big problem. I'm a 40 year old loving father of two who is very happily married. I've never cheated on my wife and never would. My kids are two of the most polite children you could ever hope to meet. They are still young (9) and (7) but they ALWAYS say please and thank you. They almost never act up in public. I help out in my community as does my wife. When I give you my word it is binding and you could bet your life on it. I hate hypocrisy.
> 
> Why am I telling you all this? Because I'm also Pro gay marriage, pro stem cell research, pro woman's right to choose (not pro abortion.....and yes there is a HUGE difference). I don't want prayer in schools (that is anti-constitutional) Were in the Constitution is that clause? I don't want to hear another word about "Intelligent Design" (a bigger oxymoron has never existed.), and I certainly don't want it taught in schools. Hey what a minute! Darwinism is forced down my kids throut but I'm sure you don't complain about that. Why not teach both? Though I'd rather have creationism taught since it's based on fact and not fiction.
> 
> LIVE AND LET LIVE. The pursuit of happiness! If you want to be gay or lesbian that is your choice. Who am I to say a word about it. Freedom of religion.....any religion....or none at all. If you and your wife want to be "swingers".......swing away. Who am I to stand in your way. Live and let live. If the republicans can ever do that I'll vote for one.
> 
> I want smaller government. I would love to see local authority have more control and the government have less......a lot less. I would love to see the constitution upheld as the founding fathers intended (they are some of my biggest hero's) and I want to see everyone have the freedom to live as they see fit so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others........that last part is where the republicans fall flat time and time again.


 Sadley, both sides fail on that but I see things in a different light than you. How is democrats taking away our rights good?

Bill of Rights

First Amendment 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
So no prayer in school is a violation of the first admendment.

Second Amendment - Right to keep and bear arms. 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 
This is a no brainer becuase we all know how the democrats wnat to take away all our rights and abolish the Second Amendment.

Third Amendment -
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment - 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
_"We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches."_ 
Ron Paul

Fifth Amendment - 
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 
Eminent Domain. See above Ron Paul quote.

Sixth Amendment - 
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment - 
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment - Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - 
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 
Both sides of the political arena violate this all the time.

Mike, yes this has been hijacked but I started the original discussion anyway so I've given myself that right.:mrgreen:

Please don't restrict constructive conversation unless it gets personal. Many of these discusions are stopped way too prematurely. That's the complaints I've heard about the 1911 forum.


----------



## Guest

babs said:


> It convinces me that this nation cannot elect a candidate to the presidency who is pro founding-constitution, minimal-govt, private property, free speech, individual rights, .. etc.. basically OF and FOR the people. The power in this country is now under siege at the whim of the new world order I'm afraid. Buy 'em up while you can boys before the men in black with plexi-face helmets show up to take them.
> 
> :smt1099 <---- while I still can


Good post babs.The 'people' only know what is spoon fed to them. (and damed if they don't believe it!!) They say they are Constitutionalists,but when it comes to voting for a candidate who is,the old ring is in the nose.Where are all these 'people come election day? What do they do? hold their nose and and vote against the Constitution.Hypocrites! The only one who fits the above (in my opinion)would be Ron Paul.


----------



## submoa

As much as I want to avoid the abortion debate, some of the extreme posts I've seen, force me to chime in here.

What if the woman... or child... is a victim of incest or rape?


----------



## DLSeeAmerica

I'm new here, but I promise I'm not a troll. See my post in the welcome forum to find out why I'm really here.

That said, I hope I'm not starting off on the wrong foot by saying I support Ron Paul. I hear so many here saying they are for a pro-Second Amendment, small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal president. At the same time, I hear a lot of "he can't win" and "he's a kook" statements.

Like many of you, my biggest issue is his "Pro-Life" position. That's his PERSONAL position. At the same time, he stresses that it's not a Constitutional Issue, and therefore FedGov should just stay out of it!

On other issues where I had concerns, I found that when I really learned his stand, I generally found a better understanding of the issue or "agreed to disagree".

Overriding EVERY other issue for me is one supreme concern. Dr. Paul is PRO-LIBERTY, and the only candidate to take that stand. Every other candidate is telling you government should be bigger and more intrusive. He's the only one championing the belief that it should be much smaller and much more concerned with its customers, the voters, than with itself.

Since I believe the same things, a vote for any other candidate is a wasted vote for me, because it doesn't reflect my core values.

I promise I'll be seeing you all in the semi-auto and CCW discussions. Thanks for listening.


----------



## john doe.

submoa said:


> As much as I want to avoid the abortion debate, some of the extreme posts I've seen, force me to chime in here.
> 
> What if the woman... or child... is a victim of incest or rape?


Tricky question. Do we punish the child for the crime or stupidity of the parents? Personally, I would draw the line at saving a woman's life. If it was between my wife and my baby I would choose my wife. Luckily, this is very rare.

I've seen the premie babies so small that they looked unreal. One of my nieces was a premature baby and is a healthy 14 year old. Medicine is always pushing back the time of, "viability" to such a point that it is more common now to have a healthy premature baby now than when Roe v. Wade was fought in the Supreme Court.


----------



## john doe.

Can a citizen do a right in vote for a presidential general election?


----------



## TOF

tnoisaw said:


> Can a citizen do a right in vote for a presidential general election?


I believe you can in Arizona but I have been wrong before. I doubted myself once and was proven wrong.

I will vote for you and you can vote for me then we can know and say we did our duty.

:smt1099


----------



## cvillechopper

tnoisaw said:


> Tricky question. Do we punish the child for the crime or stupidity of the parents? Personally, I would draw the line at saving a woman's life. If it was between my wife and my baby I would choose my wife. Luckily, this is very rare.
> 
> I've seen the premie babies so small that they looked unreal. One of my nieces was a premature baby and is a healthy 14 year old. Medicine is always pushing back the time of, "viability" to such a point that it is more common now to have a healthy premature baby now than when Roe v. Wade was fought in the Supreme Court.


Who cares! It's no ones right but the woman (possibly the man has SOME input) to decide. Give up on the "life is precious" sh!t. If there were less unplanned children in this world, everyone would be better off. The morning after pill should be available over the counter as far as I'm concerned. It'd be much more responsible than idiots trying to legally forcing a woman to have a child (for whatever reason she became pregnant).

You are obviously not as concerned with making this world better but with forcing your beliefs on everyone else, regardless of their personal take on the situation. Sounds kinda like a dictator mentality to me.

Seriously, I didn't want to make this post continue on this vein but I can't stand narrow mindedness.

Yeh 2nd amendment, forget the rest of the discussion cause no one's going to be won over on this one.


----------



## Mike Barham

I fear this thread has run its useful course, since it has devolved to an abortion debate, but I am going to conditionally keep it open because there have been a couple of good, intelligent posts about the BoR and how the candidates on both sides of the aisle support different parts of it...and trample on others.

My general position is that Sen. McCain will trample of some parts of it, and the Democrats will trample on others. I don't want to give my tacit approval to either, since I care about the whole BoR.

I don't care at all for Rep. Paul after the things with Stormfront, 9/11 Truth, the Sean Hannity incident (not that I like Hannity), and the racist Lew Rockwell ghostwriting. Anyway, he has zero chance of getting the GOP nod, which McCain has now locked up with Mr. Romney bowing out. He clearly can't win running on a platform that most GOP primary voters think is kooky. I'm not familiar with his quote about "special interests," but the 4A is a restraint on government, not private entities.

There is clearly room for debate on prayer in school (maybe it should be allowed but not required?), "intelligent design" (I don't think it has any scientific validity, but maybe schools should present all sides of any debate?), abortion (do we have a definitive answer on when consciousness begins, or pain can be felt?), and even gun control (if cities with gun control are safer than those without, does the 2A preempt the safety of the very citizens it is meant to secure?).

So lets keep the thread going, but when we disagree, let's do it politely and respectfully.


----------



## Snowman

Will someone tell me how abortion is somehow more acceptable than murdering a newborn? Abortion is nothing but a disgusting way to dodge responsibility. Give the baby up for adoption or take responsibility and keep it. Either way, the kid has a chance to grow up and enjoy the gift of life.

Ok, suppose the shoe was on the other foot and evolution was not taught in school. You wouldn't like that. I don't like creationism being censored. Why not present both sides instead of teaching evolution as fact?

Let's be civil.


----------



## john doe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
I fear this thread has run its useful course, since it has devolved to an abortion debate, but I am going to conditionally keep it open because there have been a couple of good, intelligent posts about the BoR and how the candidates on both sides of the aisle support different parts of it...and trample on others.

My general position is that Sen. McCain will trample of some parts of it, and the Democrats will trample on others. I don't want to give my tacit approval to either, since I care about the whole BoR.

I don't care at all for Rep. Paul after the things with Stormfront, 9/11 Truth, the Sean Hannity incident (not that I like Hannity), and the racist Lew Rockwell ghostwriting. Anyway, he has zero chance of getting the GOP nod, which McCain has now locked up with Mr. Romney bowing out. He clearly can't win running on a platform that most GOP primary voters think is kooky. I'm not familiar with his quote about "special interests," but the 4A is a restraint on government, not private entities.

There is clearly room for debate on prayer in school (maybe it should be allowed but not required?),*That's just it! This is how it stands now but the left (democrats) want to take that right away which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.* "intelligent design" (I don't think it has any scientific validity, but maybe schools should present all sides of any debate?), *I don't like the phrase, "intelligent design". I my view, God created- therefor it's creationism. To me it's a no brainier. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter-no errors. What are the odds of this happening in a book written thousands of years ago? It's been calculated that the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than 1 in 10 to the power of 2000!* abortion (do we have a definitive answer on when consciousness begins, or pain can be felt?), *If we define life as "when consciousness begins, or pain can be felt", this can be used against many people outside the womb. A heart starts beating at eight weeks inside the womb. No heart beat, no life (Though I believe it goes back to conception)*. and even gun control (if cities with gun control are safer than those without, does the 2A preempt the safety of the very citizens it is meant to secure?).

So lets keep the thread going, but when we disagree, let's do it politely and respectfully.

*You are right Mike in that we've diverted my original question into other area's. I usually sit and just read posts that I disagree with and often say nothing but I am obviously very passionate about the killing of our unborn children. I'll leave it at that...for now.

Before moving on I wanted to comment on the post that said Republicans force religion down our throat. This statement really hit home with me because I've heard the same thing from my father in relationship to two of my brothers. He has told me many times how he doesn't like it when my brothers try to force religion down his throat. The thing is, my brothers avoid this subject (and politics) with my dad because they are aware that he thinks this way. Do they do this by osmosis?

My dad believes in God/Jesus and four out of five of his boys and five out of five of his girls are born-again Christians. His false preconception on this issue stems from his childhood.

My dad says there are two subjects that he won't discuss with his kids. Politics and religion. We discuss them often with him though and guess who brings it up, yep, my dad.

There is a false preconception about religious Christian that we all try to force Jesus onto people. I will admit, many are like that, but not all. We get lumped into this false idea because of what we believe. I'm often lumped into this category because of the way I live. People notice my lack of profanity et. and rightly assume that I'm religious. That's okay with me because that means I'm doing something right.

I can say that the anti-Christian left tries to force their views down my throat through all the pro gay TV shows, environmental radicalism and many other issues. Some do try to force their views... and some don't.

I want to end this discussion on this end of religion and politics... for me anyway. This is an area that we will never have total consensus even with very similar views.

What do we/or can we do about poor candidates for the most important job in the world? I don't like the fact that I may have to vote for McCain just because I don't want my lack of vote going to the left. I was really hoping Newt Gingrich would have run. He's the closest man to President Reagan that I know of.
*


----------



## Mike Barham

Just for the record, I have never felt that any Christians have tried to shove religion down my throat, and I say that as a non-religious person who travels mainly in conservative circles.

I understand the point about arguments for abortion being transferred to euthanasia. But, *tnoisaw*, I don't quite understand your overall position. Does life begin at conception or when the heartbeat starts? If at conception, why, since you also stated that "no heartbeat, no life"? And if life begins at the heartbeat, how would an abortion in the first seven weeks then be murder? Not being flippant, these are serious questions asked respectfully.

I don't know about any 2500 prophecies. I do know that most of the arguments like that I have heard have involved pretty vague statements, sometimes taken out of context, from the Bible. People did the same thing with the "prophecies" of Nostrodamus, and of course according to them, the world was supposed to blow up in like 1982. I'm pretty skeptical about prophecies.


----------



## Fred40

I say this in all honesty an sincereness with regards to "Intelligent Design" VS. Evolution:

I have never met anyone who understood (really understood) the mechanisms of evolution and still disregarded it.......not one. It took A LOT of time and research for me to finally understand and truly grasp the concepts and the implications of evolution. Evolution is only a theory in the EXACT same sense that Gravity is only a theory. That being said I have (unfortunately) met a rather disappointingly few number of individuals who fully comprehend evolution.

Another thing, Just because evolution is true does not in any way = the non existence of God (or Gods for that matter). You can believe in evolution and still believe in a higher being.

If anyone truly believes that the Earth is only 6000 or so years old then I could not carry on any further discussions with such a person (I used to try in the past but now realize I'm just spinning my wheels).......such individuals are deluded beyond the ability for logical and rational discussion.......IMHO. I seriously mean no offense to anyone. Just voicing my opinion. If I have offended you (dear reader) than I do apologize. Now back to the gun talk. :smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham

*Fred40*, do you have links to any websites that really solidified your understanding of evolutionary mechanisms? I admit to not understanding it as well as I'd like.


----------



## submoa

Mike Barham said:


> *Fred40*, do you have links to any websites that really solidified your understanding of evolutionary mechanisms? I admit to not understanding it as well as I'd like.


To summarise Darwin's Theory of Evolution;

1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.
2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources.
3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.
4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.
5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits
are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Charles-Darwin-Theory-Evolution.htm

Let's apply Darwinism to a popular example:

1. Variation: Freaks are everywhere.
2. Competition: Britney Spears is rich.
3. Offspring: Sad news for at least one of Britney's kids if left in her care.
4. Genetics: Britney's kids will peak at 17.
5. Natural Selection: The boy who becomes a spoiled rich hollywood douchebag will get laid first (equally likely to be gay).


----------



## Snowman

Fred40 said:


> I say this in all honesty an sincereness with regards to "Intelligent Design" VS. Evolution:
> 
> I have never met anyone who understood (really understood) the mechanisms of evolution and still disregarded it.......not one. It took A LOT of time and research for me to finally understand and truly grasp the concepts and the implications of evolution. Evolution is only a theory in the EXACT same sense that Gravity is only a theory. That being said I have (unfortunately) met a rather disappointingly few number of individuals who fully comprehend evolution.


Just realize that someone who commits to studying something like that will certainly be more willing to buy in once he "gets it." There is no comparison to gravity. It's Newton's *Law* of Universal Gravitation and is quite easily measurable. Only theories have been offered to explain how evolution might have happened based on what we can see. This doesn't address how life actually began or where anything came from.


----------



## submoa

Fred40 said:


> "Intelligent Design"


As much as I like the end result, was it so "intelligent" to put the maternity ward so close to the sewage treatment plant?


----------



## Mike Barham

Thanks, *submoa*. I have a pretty good grasp of the basics, but it seemed like *Fred40* was hinting at something a bit deeper. I'll check into the links you posted.


----------



## Todd

Wow! This thread has gone from McCain, to abortion, to Darwin & Britney Spears. With all due respect, I've gotta bow out of this one now before my brain gets fried.


----------



## john doe.

Mike Barham said:


> ...I don't know about any 2500 prophecies. I do know that most of the arguments like that I have heard have involved pretty vague statements, sometimes taken out of context, from the Bible. People did the same thing with the "prophecies" of Nostrodamus, and of course according to them, the world was supposed to blow up in like 1982. I'm pretty skeptical about prophecies.


I can certainly understand how the prophesies could be confusing because I certainly don't understand them all and am not even close to a theologian. I'm not even close to a model Christian even though I've been born again since 1972. Let's just say, when I'm single my little head does the thinking and my big head suffers from temporary veggitism. That's why being married is good for me- I won't cheat on my wife.

Through the years as I've studied the bible many things have come to be understood by me that were previously very confusing. It hasn't been but the last ten years of my Christian life that I've actually studied Christianity to understand Christianity.

So what if only a handful of prophesies were as clear as our knowledge that Glock is the best handgun ever made.:mrgreen: Many prophesies about Jesus are that way-even the fact of Him being crucified on the cross. This prophesy was told before crucification was invented. The odds of these coming true by one man would be pretty unbelievable would they not?

I hope this doesn't appear to be preaching to ya because that's not the way I am. I'm not one of those in your face Christians and yes, I've known many of them. All they do is turn people off of the real truth which really pisses me off.

You said your skeptical on these things. So was Thomas, one of Jesus's disciples. Heck, he would not believe what Jesus said about Him being raised from the dead until he saw the scars on his hands. Nothing wrong with skepticism as long as it doesn't cloud the truth. Like those anti-Glockers out there.:mrgreen:

Well, as usual, I'm on this forum instead of getting ready for work so I better get moving. I'm really surprised my keyboard is not layered with Cocoa Wheat's, oatmeal and toast crumbs.


----------



## MLB

Sorry to drift back towards the topic ;D but I'm always disappointed when I hear of McCain being described as the "presumptive GOP" candidate. Late last year, Guilani was considered the "front runner" despite the lack of any popular vote. Today he's an also-ran.

My point is that the vast majority of the American people have not voiced thier opinion on the matter, and it is a disservice to them to suggest that they shouldn't bother since it's going to be McCain anyway. 

If you think Ron Paul is the guy, put it on paper (or magnetic tape as it were.) I personally think that Huckabee has a chance, but will not garner the votes to show it, partially due to "calling" of the race before it's run.

Polling and media coverage are useful and dangerous things. I'm all for the best man winning in the eyes of the American people (even if it is McCain, or a Democrat for that matter). It's not too far fetched to imagine media prognostication being self-fulfilling though.


----------



## Fred40

Mike:

There is a lot of good information on Evolution on the internet and as you can guess there is even more disinformation. Here is a better link to understanding "Modern" evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Several things to remember:

1) While Darwin is the father of evolutionary theory modern evolution theory has moved beyond (way beyond) what Darwin had developed. Darwin's Theory is no longer the prevailing theory. It's currently referred to as Modern evolutionary synthesis......which incorporates our understanding of genetics, something Darwin knew nothing about.

2) There is a HUGE misconception within the general public on what a scientific theory really is. _Theory _ in the scientific sense DOES NOT MEAN BEST GUESS. Please (really please) read this link regarding just what a _Theory_ is. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

3) Evolution does not work by chance alone. Also, there is no GOAL. Evolution "happens" because genes cannot make perfect copies of themselves every time. _Mutations_ occur. Most Mutations are harmful and are therefore removed. Every once in a great while a mutation has benefits....these are then carried forward in the population.

Described in its simplest terms, evolution is easy to understand. Due to mutation, organisms undergo random changes, some of which are beneficial, while others are not. The organisms with beneficial changes enjoy a competitive advantage, and these changes are passed on throughout the population and become common; those with deleterious changes are at a disadvantage, are less likely to reproduce, and do not pass these changes on, causing them to disappear out of the population.

I think the problem for most people is in understanding the time scales involved. We live a century or so at best. It is very difficult to understand hundreds of thousands of years let alone billions. Our planet is over 4 billion years old.....that really is an incomprehensible amount of time.

Once our planet cooled enough it had all the ingredients to support life. The problem was (and still is) how did it start? Basic elements coming together to form a more complex compound was not all that rare. The odds of those compounds coming together to form a self replicating molecule would appear to be so unimaginably minuscule as to be virtually impossible.......on timescales we comprehend........but on time scales of hundreds of millions of years even the improbable can become probable. Here is the kicker.....IT ONLY HAD TO HAPPEN ONCE. One time, one time in hundreds of millions of years. Once it happened.....once you had a self replicating molecule evolution was off and running. Errors in replication began to occur (mutation). Most resulted in the demise of the molecule..... some resulted in an ecological advantage.

I would have to say my epiphany came when I read: _The Selfish Gene _ by Richard Dawkins


----------



## john doe.

Any time I see Berkeley as a reference point I stop.


----------



## john doe.

MLB said:


> Sorry to drift back towards the topic ;D but I'm always disappointed when I hear of McCain being described as the "presumptive GOP" candidate. Late last year, Guilani was considered the "front runner" despite the lack of any popular vote. Today he's an also-ran.
> 
> My point is that the vast majority of the American people have not voiced thier opinion on the matter, and it is a disservice to them to suggest that they shouldn't bother since it's going to be McCain anyway.
> 
> If you think Ron Paul is the guy, put it on paper (or magnetic tape as it were.) I personally think that Huckabee has a chance, but will not garner the votes to show it, partially due to "calling" of the race before it's run.
> 
> Polling and media coverage are useful and dangerous things. I'm all for the best man winning in the eyes of the American people (even if it is McCain, or a Democrat for that matter). It's not too far fetched to imagine media prognostication being self-fulfilling though.


It seems a year ago Guilani was a sure win. Umm, what happened there? Not that I'm upset. I like the guy but not as a president. This is all very discouraging to me to see our lack of choices.


----------



## dourdave

I offer that the vast majority of American people do not understand what this thread has discussed. 

I offer that the vast majority of American people are enamored and excited by "Change" while not knowing what the change will be. 

I offer that the vast majority of American people will gladly and unknowingly choose "freebies" while ceding "Liberties". 

I offer that Mike and I should run for Office. Any Office.


----------



## submoa

tnoisaw said:


> It seems a year ago Guilani was a sure win. Umm, what happened there?


He opened his mouth.

PS. Also anti-gun.


----------



## Mike Barham

According to the current delegate count, McCain is WAY ahead, Huckabee is hurting very badly, and Paul is completely out of it. It's all about the delegates when the nominating convention rolls around. This is why Obama and Clinton are still duking it out - they are almost tied with delegates.

Thanks for the links, *Fred40*. I will follow up with some reading, and may also order the Dawkins book you mentioned. I won't dismiss Berkeley's science department based on the prattlings of their humanities people. :mrgreen:

Anyway, even if a scientist holds stupid political beliefs doesn't mean his science sucks. Einstein thought nuclear deterrence ("MAD") wouldn't work with the USSR...but it did.


----------



## Mike Barham

dourdave said:


> I offer that Mike and I should run for Office. Any Office.


The guy who ran (the younger) John Sununu's successful senate campaign has offered to help me run for local or state office when I get back. Seriously. He pesters me about it every time I see him.

I piss off way too many people to run for office, though. ;-)


----------



## babs

Both the DNC and RNC both are in league at this point I'm convinced... So probably a good idea if you have 'em, stash 'em or they'll be taking them from either the gun-owners or from our kids. The wolves disarming the rabbit so the rabbits can no longer contest the votes about the lunch menu.

Mike, 
It's only an issue you piss off the wrong people or the right people. :smt023


----------



## Mike Barham

I actually think the strategy will be to progressively make becoming a new gun owner more difficult. Fewer and fewer people will go to the trouble, and eventually the "grandfathered" generations of gun owners will die off. Then there will be no gun owners left. "Problem" solved in about two generations.


----------



## janer151

We lost our Senator John McCain. Obama defeated him but I love him a lot because of his efforts for our nation. He helped local businesses while copying a key business promoted in his time very much.


----------

