BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[SoCoKHntr]

expatriate wrote: Personally, I'm disgusted at the sleight of hand being played by the left on McCain's military career -- the mantra that his military service doesn't qualify him to be president.

Nobody said that it did. But you can't escape the fact that we're at war -- like it or not. All other issues aside, one aspect (ONE) of either candidate's qualifications is his ability and judgment to lead the most powerful armed force in the world as Commander in Chief. You have two choices:

1. A man who graduated from Annapolis and spent 23 years in the Navy. He spent time in combat during Vietnam, to include narrowly escaping death when a plane exploded next to his during the Forrestal disaster. He was later shot down, badly wounded, and spent five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton, where he was tortured. When the Vietnamese found out who his father was, they tried to release him earlier than other prisoners who had been there longer. He refused, and suffered harsher treatment afterward. When he was eventually reinstated, he pushed himself to get back on flight status. To this day, his wartime injuries prevent him from combing his own hair because he can't lift his hands above his shoulders. He has since served in Congress for 26 years.

2. A freshman senator with absolutely no military experience whatsoever that has been in Washington for less than four years.

The question at hand is not whether McCain's service is the sole qualifier for president. The question at hand is when it comes to the application of military power and the cost of war, which of those two candidates do you think has a clearer understanding? The Democrats seem to have absolutely no idea how stupid they look for trying to argue this point.

I can respect that your view is his military experience gives him your vote for the reasons you stated. I simply disagree that those experiences make one better suited to make decisions regarding strategic military and geo political decisions.

When he was running against Bush in 2000 for the nomination did you support him or Bush? If you supported Bush why did you then think non combat National Guard service trumped Vietnam combat and POW experience.

Many Repubs who couldn't stand Mcain and who didn't think his service was that big a deal are now stuck with him as their only choice and suddenly have done an about face regarding their feelings about touting his service.

[expatriate]

The question is whether his experiences make him more qualified to address the military and geopolitical issues you raise -- as opposed to Obama, who has NOTHING.

As for my support in 2000, I was behind Bush. But that's not because of military experience; it's because of the whole package. I'm a Reagan fan who would prefer someone other than McCain for the GOP, but even with McCain's shortcomings he's far superior than Obama. And oh, by the way -- even in 2000 I would've argued that McCain had a far better qualifications to lead the military than Bush.

Remember that we elected Jimmy Carter in '76 because we were mad at the GOP, wanted change, and liked a charismatic outsider. Obama's platform isn't that much different from Carter, and he's tapping the same vein to get elected. We saw what it got us between '76 and '80 -- a nice guy wringing his hands, paralyzed by his inability to make things happen. No matter what Obama says, experience matters. As I said, he has less than four years in Washington. He's never held an executive position in government, either. Opinions are great, but vision without action is hallucination. Leadership hinges on one's ability to enact his vision -- and Obama is woefully inexperienced at government.

[SoCoKHntr]

jfrench wrote: I think the experience part of this campaign is a very important issue. When I first saw Obama, I remember saying "who is this guy? Where did he come from"? To me he came out of no where. I had never heard of him. I have taken the time to look over his campaign site to try and figure out who he is, and where he stands. I still don't know exactly where he stands, which only strengthens my original views. When I look at both campaigns right now, I see two major factors. McCain's campaign (to me) appears very organized, straight foward, and shows what he wants to accomplish. When I look at Obama's campaign his too appears well organized, but I noticed two things missing. First, no where on his site does he speak about the second amednment. Second, his campaign is very emotional and to me is not straight foward. In alot of his speaches, Obama sounds like he is selling a real estate program on some tv program, so we can make a better life for ourselves. Like those ads I'm not buying it. He also brings up the phrase Pluralistic Society many times. What exactly does he want for America? What is his plan? As for the war, why hasn't congress just pulled the plug? They have the power, and isn't the house majority Democratic right now? So exactly where does the Democratic Party stand on that issue? Is it they don't want to make a decision? Or is it they don't want people getting angry? We're talking about running a nation, not a five and dime.
If I sound ignorant, I'm sorry. Set me straight.

In regard to your question on the 2nd amendment let me ask you a hypothetical question. If someone said I will give you unlimited and unrestrained access to any and all guns/firearms to include the latest high tech machine guns, but with this right you will have health care costs at 300 to 500 hundred dollars of your monthly income, you will be paying $5 to $6 dollars at the pump, food costs due to higher fuel costs will go up and the cost of brass and ammo will rise considerably.

Hell, you'll be able have your machine guns and high capacity clips but will be lucky to afford the ammo to load them with or the gas to drive to the range and shoot them. My point is you can't have tunnel vision regarding one issue and be damned with the rest and the scenario I describe above is pretty much reality at this point.

Also, I apologize in advance and only say this in all honesty. I believe that you and many who hold your beliefs would never vote for Obama in a million years. He is after all what you describe as a 'liberal' the most evil thing apparently from how I hear you guys talk about them. Second he is a black man who is a Democrat which to you means liberal. To me that pretty much mean most people on the right have already made up their mind and then use reasons like "Obama sounds like he is selling a real estate program on some tv program, so we can make a better life for ourselves" to appear like they thought it through more deeply.

Again, the reasons listed above, health care costs, gas, food costs, are pretty much the result of eight years of Repub rule. Remember the Dems have only gotten control of congress for a year and a half and Bush still has Veto power and the dems barely control Congress, its not a strong majority rule and it takes time to correct the situation the Repubs had six unrestrained years of creating.

Well, I am sure you will now say 'I, don't judge anyone on color,' and that will be the only thing you take from my post. I hope it isn't. Rather I would like to hear your definition of a liberal to see if I as a Democrat fall under it.

[jfrench]

SoCoKHntr, I've got to run out on business. I'll be back in an hour hopefully. I never saw anyones replies after my posting. Apparently sitting on the page and refreshing my screen didn't work. I had to leave the post and come back in. ::-k ????

[CVC]

SoCoKHntr wrote: jfrench wrote: I think the experience part of this campaign is a very important issue. When I first saw Obama, I remember saying "who is this guy? Where did he come from"? To me he came out of no where. I had never heard of him. I have taken the time to look over his campaign site to try and figure out who he is, and where he stands. I still don't know exactly where he stands, which only strengthens my original views. When I look at both campaigns right now, I see two major factors. McCain's campaign (to me) appears very organized, straight foward, and shows what he wants to accomplish. When I look at Obama's campaign his too appears well organized, but I noticed two things missing. First, no where on his site does he speak about the second amednment. Second, his campaign is very emotional and to me is not straight foward. In alot of his speaches, Obama sounds like he is selling a real estate program on some tv program, so we can make a better life for ourselves. Like those ads I'm not buying it. He also brings up the phrase Pluralistic Society many times. What exactly does he want for America? What is his plan? As for the war, why hasn't congress just pulled the plug? They have the power, and isn't the house majority Democratic right now? So exactly where does the Democratic Party stand on that issue? Is it they don't want to make a decision? Or is it they don't want people getting angry? We're talking about running a nation, not a five and dime.
If I sound ignorant, I'm sorry. Set me straight.

In regard to your question on the 2nd amendment let me ask you a hypothetical question. If someone said I will give you unlimited and unrestrained access to any and all guns/firearms to include the latest high tech machine guns, but with this right you will have health care costs at 300 to 500 hundred dollars of your monthly income, you will be paying $5 to $6 dollars at the pump, food costs due to higher fuel costs will go up and the cost of brass and ammo will rise considerably.

Hell, you'll be able have your machine guns and high capacity clips but will be lucky to afford the ammo to load them with or the gas to drive to the range and shoot them. My point is you can't have tunnel vision regarding one issue and be damned with the rest and the scenario I describe above is pretty much reality at this point.

Also, I apologize in advance and only say this in all honesty. I believe that you and many who hold your beliefs would never vote for Obama in a million years. He is after all what you describe as a 'liberal' the most evil thing apparently from how I hear you guys talk about them. Second he is a black man who is a Democrat which to you means liberal. To me that pretty much mean most people on the right have already made up their mind and then use reasons like "Obama sounds like he is selling a real estate program on some tv program, so we can make a better life for ourselves" to appear like they thought it through more deeply.

Again, the reasons listed above, health care costs, gas, food costs, are pretty much the result of eight years of Repub rule. Remember the Dems have only gotten control of congress for a year and a half and Bush still has Veto power and the dems barely control Congress, its not a strong majority rule and it takes time to correct the situation the Repubs had six unrestrained years of creating.

Well, I am sure you will now say 'I, don't judge anyone on color,' and that will be the only thing you take from my post. I hope it isn't. Rather I would like to hear your definition of a liberal to see if I as a Democrat fall under it.

We don't need anyone to give us the right to bear arms. That right is already granted in the second amendment. We need protection to see that that right is not infringed upon.

One of my favorite candidate, albeit, unelectable, is Alan Keyes. I actively supported his campaign for US Senate in MD many years ago. Last I looked, he is black. Race has nothing to do with my support of a candidate.

I voted for Nancy Boyda, who last I checked is a Democrat. Political affliation has nothing to do with whom I support. Their positions on important issues and my confidence in their ability to get the job done is what matters to me.

You are correct I won't vote for BHO but it isn't because he is of mixed race, but because I believe he has not substance and that his views on taxes, national security, etc., don't match with mine. I suppose the biggest issue with him is that I see him as not being trustworthy.

Will I vote for McCain - don't know. Yeah, I know you know what I'm doing, but I don't. I may, but if there is a candidate on the ballot that better suits me I will vote for them, even though some will say it is throwing my vote away. So be it, I'd rather stick to my principles.

BTW, it is really a sign of weakness to play the race card. Anyone can do it - right up there with cursing and name calling instead of debating an issue.

[SoCoKHntr]

I believe you when you say your vote isn't based on race. However, I believe it is naive of you not to admit there are many on mainly (not all) on the conservative side who would never vote for a 'liberal' much less a black 'liberal'. I've seen enough to know this.

What about that pin that was being circulated by Repubs in TX where it said "it won't be the White House any longer,"?

C'mon CVC, don't tell me you really don't think there are many who don't think like that?

[CVC]

Of course there are those that won't vote for him because he is mixed-race, but then there are others who are basing their vote for him because he is mixed-race. Each is equally ignorant.

Here is a challenge for you, which of the posters here do you think is basing their position on Obama because of his race? I don't think any of those that have been in this debate are racist - do you?

Your statement, "I believe it is naive of you not to admit there are many on mainly (not all) on the conservative side who would never vote for a 'liberal'

You are stating the obvious and it has absolutely no merit. Of course, conservatives are not going to vote for liberals when they have a conservative choice.

Do you think liberals are going to vote for conservatives? I bet Nancy Pelosi really voted for George Bush, don't you?

Or maybe, if a really strong republican candidate emerged, Ted Kennedy might vote for them over Barack - come on - it ain't happening. 99.9% of the people are going to vote for the candidate that they most identify as sharing their values and positions.

[jfrench]

First of all, how do you what ethnicity I come from? Or what party I belong to?

I don't judge individuals by color, religion, etc... Is Obama Liberal???? I have always thought that a liberal was an individual (or individuals) who are bent at doing everything possible to secure a better environment even at the cost of restricting or removing my rights as an outdoorsman. (that part is very narrow minded) Someone who is care free of troubles and would rather be happy, smoke dope, and love. Yep the hippie thing. (that's judging) You know what though? I was blinded by those who spoke politics to me and around me while growing up. I know alot of people who fit the above description, and they are democrats, liberals, and republicans (a few don't even vote. Ignorant). So I see how you can become upset thinking that you are being branded, or Obama is being branded, by party affilliation. I know the definition of a Liberal is someone who wants to secure free economic status by changing constitional, legislative, and administrative entities, but what does that mean? And to what cost?

About gun rights, I completely understand what you are saying. Quite honestly I neither want or need a machine gun. Neither do I need higher prices more than anyone else for everyday items. The fact is, prices are going to go up no matter what. If they didn't we'd still be buying soda for 5 cents at the local garage. But that still dosen't answer where Obama stands with second amendment rights. Does he just not want us to buy machine guns? Or would he prefer to mandate a return of all smokeless guns? Not saying he would, but where does he stand??? I don't want to find out the hard way.

As for party affiliation. Obama made a speach where he said that part of America's problem that needed to be addressed was right in our own homes. He said that parents needed to get their kids away from tv and video games. That's great, I'm a strict advocate for involving kids in other things. Just as I'm sure other people are throughout the country. However, what he said next concerned me. He stated as President he would implement such policies to do just that. What the heck is he talking about? What did he mean? He sure didn't ponder any further on it. Is he planning on creating more youth programs, cut the cost of passes to federal park systems? That's not policy. To me policy means law will be passed. Does he plan on telling me how to raise my familly? Is he planning on shutting the networks off, and letting them show only certain programming when he feels is appropriate? What party affiliation is that?

I'm not saying that's what is coming if he is elected. What I would like to know is why he doesn't get specific.

Did this help a little as to where I'm coming from and concerns? Or did it seem like I was rambling? And did I answer you're question about Liberals? I feel I kind of walked around that one in a way.

[SoCoKHntr]

You want me to point out specific people on this thread and claim they are racist? Nope, sorry but that would make it easier for you to get the lynch mob out on me.

The truth is I don't know for sure, there may be some who would never vote for a black man period, but not admit to that or everyone here may truly not care about ones race only issues. Doesn't mean it there aren't large numbers in America who wouldn't vote for a candidate simply based on their race as in not being white.

As to your argument many are voting for Obama due to him being 'mixed race' or black. You are saying in essence that black people are voting for him simply because he is black. If that was true, blacks just voting for blacks, Alan Keys would have won his bid.

While there may be a portion of black americans who are simply voting for the black democrat I believe that is a small portion. I believe the great majority of Americans voting for Obama whether white, black, brown, yellow, red, purple, and calico, are voting for him because they see an intelligent man who has a plan for America that they like and believe in. They, and I, see an honest man who does care about Americans, all American, not just a top percentage of Americans.

I don't buy the argument I'm hearing that the majority of black America or any other color is voting for him simply because of his skin color. I think it is a far stronger assumption that more people would never vote for for him due to race then people simply automatically voting for him due to race.

[SoCoKHntr]

jfrench wrote: First of all, how do you what ethnicity I come from? Or what party I belong to?

I don't judge individuals by color, religion, etc... Is Obama Liberal???? I have always thought that a liberal was an individual (or individuals) who are bent at doing everything possible to secure a better environment even at the cost of restricting or removing my rights as an outdoorsman. (that part is very narrow minded) Someone who is care free of troubles and would rather be happy, smoke dope, and love. Yep the hippie thing. (that's judging) You know what though? I was blinded by those who spoke politics to me and around me while growing up. I know alot of people who fit the above description, and they are democrats, liberals, and republicans (a few don't even vote. Ignorant). So I see how you can become upset thinking that you are being branded, or Obama is being branded, by party affilliation. I know the definition of a Liberal is someone who wants to secure free economic status by changing constitional, legislative, and administrative entities, but what does that mean? And to what cost?

About gun rights, I completely understand what you are saying. Quite honestly I neither want or need a machine gun. Neither do I need higher prices more than anyone else for everyday items. The fact is, prices are going to go up no matter what. If they didn't we'd still be buying soda for 5 cents at the local garage. But that still dosen't answer where Obama stands with second amendment rights. Does he just not want us to buy machine guns? Or would he prefer to mandate a return of all smokeless guns? Not saying he would, but where does he stand??? I don't want to find out the hard way.

As for party affiliation. Obama made a speach where he said that part of America's problem that needed to be addressed was right in our own homes. He said that parents needed to get their kids away from tv and video games. That's great, I'm a strict advocate for involving kids in other things. Just as I'm sure other people are throughout the country. However, what he said next concerned me. He stated as President he would implement such policies to do just that. What the heck is he talking about? What did he mean? He sure didn't ponder any further on it. Is he planning on creating more youth programs, cut the cost of passes to federal park systems? That's not policy. To me policy means law will be passed. Does he plan on telling me how to raise my familly? Is he planning on shutting the networks off, and letting them show only certain programming when he feels is appropriate? What party affiliation is that?

I'm not saying that's what is coming if he is elected. What I would like to know is why he doesn't get specific.

Did this help a little as to where I'm coming from and concerns? Or did it seem like I was rambling? And did I answer you're question about Liberals? I feel I kind of walked around that one in a way.

Appreciate the response. In regard to:

"I have always thought that a liberal was an individual (or individuals) who are bent at doing everything possible to secure a better environment even at the cost of restricting or removing my rights as an outdoorsman. (that part is very narrow minded) Someone who is care free of troubles and would rather be happy, smoke dope, and love. Yep the hippie thing. "

There are many conservatives who do believe for the most part these very things. While there may be some on the extreme who fit that description it certainly isn't the majority of Democrats. I being a hunter am concerned with the environment and not to remove my or your rights, but rather that I still have an environment to hunt on. In my lifetime I've already seen lots of land I used to be able to hunt on as a kid gone. Sold to developers and closed off. So, when I think of the drilling and opening up of once guarded lands to ATV's and such it does cause very mixed feelings for me. Color me guilty if it's about keeping some of our wild lands wild.

This I guess makes me liberal.

As far as being care free an problem free, smoking dope, and loving it up, holy shiat! I don't think the majority of people like that even vote.

Hum, lets see, I pay two mortgages (me and the wife) have investments, have kids to care for, I work out religiously so physical fitness is a top priority for me, and hunt, shoot, reload, have a horse to care for, hardly what I would call a carefree pot smoking free love kind of life. My dad is also a hard working man retired from the State Colo. as my Mom is. They never smoked dope and earned a very good living. The friends and relatives I have who are Democrats all pretty much fall under these specifics. Most of them hunt and own guns as well.

From my observations the biggest difference between Repubs and Dems comes from a religious angle. I myself consider myself an agnostic which if you don't know is accepting that I don't know the secrets of the Universe. I am open to the possibility that their could be a divine creator or their could be another explanation for things. I am not religious as I don't practice a faith or go to church. I believe any human should be able to worship whatever spirituality that guides them and gives them meaning. Hopefully in a positive coexistence with the rest of the world. I think that religion should be a private issue a person has with their family and church and I personally believe it should be separate from Gov. and school.

That type of thinking makes me liberal I guess.

I also believe that even as offensive as it might be to me two consenting adults have the right to do what they will with each other behind closed doors.

Again. this makes me liberal.

I believe just as big business is good for America, I also believe their needs to be measures put into place that watch out for the worker so they aren't taken advantage of and have the opportunity to have a decent standard of living.

That makes me liberal.

I believe that spending billions of tax dollars on a sinkhole like Iraq, which our children will be paying for while CEO's of Halliburton and Blackwater are getting rich while we suffer at the pump, when this tax money could be spent on improving health care for children in America is wrong.

I guess that makes me liberal.

In reference to:

"He stated as President he would implement such policies to do just that. What the heck is he talking about? What did he mean? He sure didn't ponder any further on it. Is he planning on creating more youth programs, cut the cost of passes to federal park systems? That's not policy. To me policy means law will be passed. Does he plan on telling me how to raise my familly? Is he planning on shutting the networks off, and letting them show only certain programming when he feels is appropriate? What party affiliation is that?"

You are really worried about that? I don't think there are going to be any Draconian measures put into place telling you or me how to raise or families or what we can watch on TV if he's elected. Remember, he's a 'liberal' there usually not the ones wanting to restrict the movies or TV we can watch. Usually that's your side.

And finally in regard to the 2nd Amendment. My views on this in regard to Obama are well know to you. I don't feel we are in any more danger in losing our guns then if Mcain was elected. As said before I stake my guns on it.

[jfrench]

SoCoKHntr

I understand your views on the 2nd amendment. What I'm comprehending from what you write, is that you are gambling your rights to a candidate without actually knowing where he stands. Again, I havn't heard his stance on gun issues. I very well know McCain's. As a matter of fact, he visited my local gun shop. (They have a picture of him standing in front of a rack that had a lever action I had up for sale at the time. I thought that was neat).

I too am upset about childhood land lost to developements. There are quite a few places I wish I could show my kids that are now loss. However, I've found new places that are as good or better. I care for the environment too, but why can't we explore into drilling while at the same time searching for alternate sources of energy?

As for you smoking pot, I'm glad you don't. I never said you did, so I hope you were not thinking that. I think religion should be a private issue too, unless you personally decide to be open with it. It is a touchy subject.

As for big business. I agree. Does that make me liberal?

As for the tv thing, my point is "Is he Liberal". He didn't vote that way today.

[SoCoKHntr]

Oh, I didn't think you were saying I smoke pot. I was just referring the sometimes perception of a Dem as a 'hippie liberal'.

What scares me about the land is that with all the growth it will be gone as we have known it someday. I am in a way glad I won't be around in a hundred or more years as it doesn't seem like there will be much wild land around. That is unless one is extremely wealthy and can pay for access.

I hope I am wrong about that for future generations.

Take care and it's been good talking to you.

[jfrench]

Same here.

[CVC]

SoCoKHntr wrote:
As to your argument many are voting for Obama due to him being 'mixed race' or black. You are saying in essence that black people are voting for him simply because he is black. If that was true, blacks just voting for blacks, Alan Keys would have won his bid.


I don't buy the argument I'm hearing that the majority of black America or any other color is voting for him simply because of his skin color. I think it is a far stronger assumption that more people would never vote for for him due to race then people simply automatically voting for him due to race.

Couple of points. The lynch mob is not because of your differing views, it is because of you repeated misstating or entirely making up what someone says. My disdain for you is not that your views are different but how you deal with people. You cast aspersions, you try to put words into their mouths, you play the race card, you and you don't respond to the points someone makes. Instead you launch into a canned diatribe intended to inflame.

Look at what you wrote and attribute to me and take a look at my actual quote.

"Of course there are those that won't vote for him because he is mixed-race, but then there are others who are basing their vote for him because he is mixed-race. Each is equally ignorant. "

No where do I state "many" or "blacks" I was acknowledging the fact that some people won't vote for him because he is black and then pointing out that the reverse is also true and that both are wrong.

You state that if blacks voted for blacks that Alan Keyes would have won the election. There is a reason they are called a "minority." All the blacks could vote for someone and they could still lose if the candidate doesn't carry the white and other minority votes.

I feel sorry for you.

[jfrench]

Now I have some kind of insight. On Obama's stance with gun control.

http://www.ontheissues.org/200.....ontrol.htm