JOHN McCAIN IS A LIBERAL GUN GRABBER

[manyplews]

Originally Posted by Elmar

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not only still voting for evil but encouraging the choice of only evil A or evil B by showing you accept the terms of the choice.

There are more than two people running for President.

Yeah,but only McCain and Obama have a chance.
Voting for anyone else is throwing your vote away!
As my mother used to say - Cutting your nose off to spite your face is stupid !

[manyplews]

Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal

Actually, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for RON PAUL!

No,a vote for Ron Paul instead of voting for McCain,is a vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

[manyplews]

Originally Posted by LastManOut

Thanks! I thot I was the lone voice in the wilderness.

Here are my guestimates of how "We The People" could win in November:

• 40% of voters are Dems
• 40% of voters are Repubs
• The remainder are of a 3rd party or Independent

Assuming there are 125,000,000 US voters (based on 2004)

• If 33% of the Repubs vote 3rd party or ~16million
• If 10% of the Dems vote 3rd party or 5 million
• If 50% of Independent voters vote 3rd party or 12 million

That would be 33 million votes for a 3rd party candidate, if they could agree on who. So it is possible, if everyone I personally have heard/read say they are ONLY voting for McCain because they "have no other choice" or "he is the lesser of two evils" (which is the majority not 1/3 of the conservatives) Ron Paul or Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin could be a squeaker, but possible.

Yeah,that's how the Clinton's got in when Ross Perot ran.
Remember the ASSAULT weapons ban?
Remember the hi-capacity magazine ban?
Remember Bubba Bill pushing every anti-gun issue that came along?

As my mother used to say "Wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which gets full the quickest!" I think that applies to your "guestimate".

[nijwnfi]

A choice between Obama and McCain is an easy one for me. In the next 4 years, Supreme Court Justices are going to retire. Do you want Obama or McCain to nominate new ones? Also, when you type in Obama, spellcheck questions it. Gotta be something funny going on.

[LastManOut]

Originally Posted by manyplews

Yeah,that's how the Clinton's got in when Ross Perot ran.
Remember the ASSAULT weapons ban?
Remember the hi-capacity magazine ban?
Remember Bubba Bill pushing every anti-gun issue that came along?

As my mother used to say "Wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which gets full the quickest!" I think that applies to your "guestimate".

Remember the Patriot Act,
Remember Mexican border security,
Remember No Child Left Behind,
Remember Medicare Prescription Drug Plan,
Remember billions of dollars in "aid" to Arab nations (the same ones that sell us oil), etc.


The two choices are clearly a choice of the lesser of two evils. The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

We got here after 60 years of Dems controlling Congress, then 6 years of Repbs control now back to the Dems in 2006. Meanwhile we've had, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton and now Bush Jr.

Are you better off today than you were 40 years ago?

[Pector55]

Originally Posted by LastManOut

Are you better off today than you were 40 years ago?

Well, for starters, I wasn't born yet 40 yrs ago so I have to go with yes. As for the past 8 yrs, yeah, my salary has doubled.

McCain vote here because he has a great chance to drop kick the Messiah and I like his voting record.

[LastManOut]

I suppose that is the problem we have convincing the younger voters, they do not remember how much more Freedom we had 40 or more years ago, and how different this country is today. And, of course, we FOGs are just cranky because our Depends are tight, and we didn't go as far in college as you did, so obviously we ain't that smart.

[General Geoff]

Originally Posted by manyplews

No,a vote for Ron Paul instead of voting for McCain,is a vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

You assume the person voting for Ron Paul would have voted for McCain had he not voted for Ron Paul. This is a logical fallacy.


Personally, I couldn't vote for McCain or Obama in good conscience, as I believe neither of them are qualified for the position of President. Thus I will be voting third party.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by General Geoff

You assume the person voting for Ron Paul would have voted for McCain had he not voted for Ron Paul. This is a logical fallacy.


Personally, I couldn't vote for McCain or Obama in good conscience, as I believe neither of them are qualified for the position of President. Thus I will be voting third party.

I gotta say that's a bit of a stretch. What qualifies one for the Presidancy? Agreeing with you? I would argue that no matter what you think of McCain's policies he is without a doubt qualified to be President.

Since Ron Paul and Bob Barr are both for a smaller government, less spending, more personal freedoms, among other things that are usually the consistant with the views of a true conservative I have a hard time seeing how more than a small minority of their voters would be coming from the hordes on the left. I just don't see the falicy with that logic.

I totally respect your voting your conscience. That's what this country is all about. I just think saying you don't think McCain is qualified makes me wonder what it takes to be qualified.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by adymond

IWhat qualifies one for the Presidancy?

to me, the primary qualification is believing in and supporting the constitution.

there hasn't been a single major party presidential nominee who was actually qualified (by the above standard) to be president at least since i've been old enough to vote.

just sayin'...

(i'm still prolly going to diverge from my usual path and vote for mccain instead of bob barr this time around, though.)