BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

bitmasher · Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 2652 Location: Colorado

This is one of the better op-ed position pieces on McCain.

http://online.wsj.com/public/a.....55395.html

Personally I don't understand the vitriol that has been thrown at McCain over the last few weeks by conservative pundits. I can understand disagreement and needing to slap him around a bit to make sure he realizes which side of the field he's on, but Hillary over McCain??? I don't get it.

I like the Regan quote at the end as well...

Quote:
Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff.

expatriate · Joined: 26 Oct 2002 Posts: 1520 Location: Alaska

Frankly, I don't get it either.

I'm upset with McCain for much the same reason I was upset with Bob Dole in '96 -- this is the best the GOP can offer? IMO the GOP has allowed itself to be manipulated into putting up a candidate the Democrats can beat. Obama's popularity stems from representing new ideas and change -- even though he's really fuzzy on what that means. The GOP is responding by putting forward the oldest candidate of the bunch, who's been a Washington insider for decades.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pout and sit home. I understand the theory -- if we're going to have liberal politics, we might as well have it on the watch of a Democrat so when it fails people will wake up. But the problem is what could happen if we gave liberals like Hillary or Obama the presidency with majorities in both the House and the Senate. The damage that could be done in even four years of that cold be devastating -- particularly when you have four Supreme Court judges getting pretty old that could need replacement.

I'm no big McCain fan -- but the alternative is too scary to consider.

jfrench · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 533 Location: New Hampshire

I'm not just afraid of what could happen during a term if the democrats get it, but the long lasting effects of bills passed during that term.

kevin davis · Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 304 Location: texas

as i told my brother the other day, the only change that ever comes out of washington is the percentage of my income that i do not get. i need only worry how much obama wants for his "change". :laugh: truly, that percentage has never actually gone down, just up. :[-X

expatriate · Joined: 26 Oct 2002 Posts: 1520 Location: Alaska

It seems a lot of people lost in their Obamagasm have forgotten that change works both ways. He's not doing a very good job of defining what he means by "change", but if anyone dares to ask they get labeled.

Chuck-n-Alaska · Joined: 26 Apr 2007 Posts: 63 Location: Alaska

I think most don't like him because of the way McCain bounces on issues while with Hillary and Obama you know where you stand. Myself I don't see much good coming from any of the three.

WesternHunter · Joined: 05 May 2006 Posts: 685 Location: Western USA

Did any of you watch the speaches that the Republican candidates gave in front of the NRA. It was recorded and you can watch it if you go to the NRA's website. After watching and listening to them I'll tell you this - Giulliani and McCain really disgust me. Heck Giulliani, for being a Republican is one of the most anti-gun politicians out there, yet he stands there in front of the NRA and talks about how he values our constitutional rights.

It's like Chuck-n-Alsaka says, at least you know where Hillary and Osama.......excuse me ah I meant Obama, least you know where they stand. I hate it when so-called conservatives stand up there and lie to me about there stance on issues. Right now I see Hillary as the most conservative of the three.

Chuck-n-Alaska · Joined: 26 Apr 2007 Posts: 63 Location: Alaska

Quote: Right now I see Hillary as the most conservative of the three.

This does not bode well for the future ::eek:

bitmasher · Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 2652 Location: Colorado

WesternHunter wrote: Right now I see Hillary as the most conservative of the three.

Back it up with facts. On what issues, past or present?

Certainly not guns. Certainly not health care. Certainly not taxation. Certainly not on Iraq or terrorism. Its a bad cliche for those disappointed in McCain that has no basis in fact.

WesternHunter · Joined: 05 May 2006 Posts: 685 Location: Western USA

bitmasher wrote: WesternHunter wrote: Right now I see Hillary as the most conservative of the three.

Back it up with facts. On what issues, past or present?

Certainly not guns. Certainly not health care. Certainly not taxation. Certainly not on Iraq or terrorism. Its a bad cliche for those disappointed in McCain that has no basis in fact.

Past or present?? Exactly!! What are McCains stances on gun ownership and other conservative issues? Past or present. He's just as whishy washy as the rest.

That was meant to convey how dissatisfied I've become with the choice of candidates we have. I'm not convinced that McCain is any more conservative on gun issues than Hillary is, just bases on past decisions. In the past the NRA has given him a C rating and Gun Owners of American gave him an F for his support of past anti-gun legislation.

On a different note I will say that Hillary has gone on record in an interview with MSNBC in 2002, when asked if she believes in the right to gay marriage or domemstic partnership, and has flat out stated without hesitation that she believes that marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Certainly she has enough ball to stand up and let the world know where she stands on that issue, especially in the face of all her liberal supporters. I'm not backing Hillary, nor would I vote for her. I'm simply saying that there are areas where she is not as left wing liberal as everyone may think.

I think that McCain and Giuliani have proved that not all republicans are conservative on gun issues. Giuliani claims that banning guns in NY have played a major part in reducing crime in NY. I don't buy it. I think the single most important part of what has helped to reduce crime in NY is cleaning up the NYPD and getting better cops in there. The NYPD for decades was one of the most corrupt police department in the country. Taking away law abiding citizens constitutional rights does nothing to curb crime. But if you can weed out all the corruption in law enforcement and get more productive cops in there, well you have a better chance of making a safer city, don't ya think? But no, Giuliani credits taking away our constitutional rights as the main reason.

Chuck-n-Alaska · Joined: 26 Apr 2007 Posts: 63 Location: Alaska

According to Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of Ameriica JOHN McCAIN isn't doing so good on 2nd Amendment issue himself.

Every one who owns a gun should read this and think long and hard about voting for McCain. The has only been one candidate who has stood firm on gun rights and he hasn't been able to get the time of day from the major media.

Just compare Ron Paul to John McCain there is no contest.

expatriate · Joined: 26 Oct 2002 Posts: 1520 Location: Alaska

More than likely, you'll have two choices this fall:

1) Grit your teeth and vote for McCain, which will require you to suffer his past stances on McCain-Feingold and gun shows.

2) Vote for Obama and his stated goals of limiting gun purchases to one per month, eliminating right to carry, banning semi autos, photographing and fingerprinting gun owners, etc. This is a guy who is willing to ignore volumes of documentation proving that the 2nd Amendment is about protection from an abusive government and has redefined gun ownership as only applying to sportsmen.

If you think there's a third option (staying home in protest), you're really selecting Option 2. And frankly, in so doing you forfeit your right to criticize the outcome. If you don't vote, you've got no business complaining about how government operates. As for Ron Paul, it ain't gonna happen. Libertarianism has never resonated with the population because it takes liberal views conservatives hate most and combines them with conservative views liberals can't stand.

Granted, Hillary is more conservative than Obama. But Hillary has gone on record to defend New Orleans Mayor Nagin's post-Katrina gun confiscation program -- which took legal property from law-abiding gun owners without due process or compensation and never returned it. If Hillary's OK with such tyrannical tactics against the law abiding, where do you think Obama stands?

Those are your choices -- bad breath or no breath at all.

bitmasher · Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 2652 Location: Colorado

Well put Ex.

McCain gets dinged on the gun front because he voted for requiring gun locks with handgun sales. He voted for background checks at gunshows, but then he has voted against it too.

Frankly I think the GOA is slamming McCain because of McCain-Lieberman and McCain-Feingold, rather than his gun record.

McCain has:

Voted against the AWB and against extending the AWB.
Voted for firearm manufacturing lawsuit protection, twice.
Voted for ATF reform.

Hillary voted to extend the AWB and has a lot of other plans for gun control. She is not more conservative on guns.

With respect to gay-marriage, its basically a draw. Hillary defines marriage as a man and woman, but she also supports civil-unions. Legally civil-unions can be the same as marriage in all but name.

Chuck-n-Alaska · Joined: 26 Apr 2007 Posts: 63 Location: Alaska

It is a little more than gun locks which in itself should be enough. Check it out There are 14 vote or actions. .How McCain voted or failed to vote are listed at the bottom of the page.

expatriate · Joined: 26 Oct 2002 Posts: 1520 Location: Alaska

Uh-huh...and how is this worse than Hillary or Obama again?