A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

I don't think many voters care about "gun control." This battle has been going on for decades, and interest in this subject died some time ago with the general electorate.

Most people are more concerned about our economy and Iraq. Gun control is w---a---y down there.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't think many voters care about "gun control." This battle has been going on for decades, and interest in this subject died some time ago with the general electorate.

Most people are more concerned about our economy and Iraq. Gun control is w---a---y down there.

It's w---a---y down there because no politician lately has been extreme on this issue. Obama wants to BAN 95% of all handguns, and all other semi-automatic weapons.

That is more extreme than any politican in my lifetime.

It WILL bite him in the ass in the general, believe that.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

blatham wrote:
The main significance of the McCain/Hagee matter is that McCain's connection to Hagee is considerably closer than is that of Obama/Farrakhan.

I am betting John McCain will be able to weather this storm much better than Barack Obama will handle his second amendment problem - he's way out of touch with even mainline Democratic voters on gun control.

I can see the attack ads now.......a black muslim who want's to take away American's guns........

That statement is several miles further then I would ever go, but it will not be me running against Obama.

And he is way out of touch with almost all Americans on this issue.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

blatham wrote:
The main significance of the McCain/Hagee matter is that McCain's connection to Hagee is considerably closer than is that of Obama/Farrakhan.

I am betting John McCain will be able to weather this storm much better than Barack Obama will handle his second amendment problem - he's way out of touch with even mainline Democratic voters on gun control.

Where do you establish the mainline (or center or largest consensus) for Dem voters? How do you establish a factual basis for this?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The thing in my mind is that Bill Donohue is himself a droll pig of a man with the integrity of a slug on a wet lawn that has fallen into a dish of beer.

Interesting turns of phrase. Perhaps you would like to elaborate or provide us with some evidence or argument to support your proposition.

Or is it merely the narrow-minded, prejudicial nonsence it appears to be??

0 Replies

georgeob wrote:

the narrow-minded, prejudicial nonsence it appears to be??

appears to be?

0 Replies

I can't stay sore at you Dys, ... even when I try. Laughing

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
blatham wrote:
The main significance of the McCain/Hagee matter is that McCain's connection to Hagee is considerably closer than is that of Obama/Farrakhan.

I am betting John McCain will be able to weather this storm much better than Barack Obama will handle his second amendment problem - he's way out of touch with even mainline Democratic voters on gun control.

Where do you establish the mainline (or center or largest consensus) for Dem voters? How do you establish a factual basis for this?

I take it you disagree. Maybe I should have said conservative Democrats. There were quite a few pro-gun Democrats elected last cycle, and although there are more Republican gun owners, I think the overall shift has been to the middle. From one poll I recall, more than 50% of union workers (typically a Democratic constituency) own guns.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, The 9-11 study group said as much; no AQ connection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

So you believe them?
Arent you the one that said...

Quote:
The 9/11 commission report isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and has been found to be not only inaccurate but heavily influenced by the Republican hacks who sat on it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says.

Cycloptichorn

So the 9/11 study group is either wrong or they are right.
They cant be both.

Sure they can, MM.

You just don't know Liberals.

They can maintain both views.

'The 9/11 commission is not to be trusted. We need to listen to the 9/11 commission. '

There. Just say it a few times. Feels good doesn't it? That's what Liberalism is all about, feeling good and feeling superior to others.

The difference between Hillary and 'Present' Obama would be in their ability to get support within their own party for their initiatives.

The Clinton machine, for good or ill, can strong arm the troops and get what they want done.

'Present' Obama has no real constituency within the party. As a rookie senator, nobody owes him anything. He'd be a lame duck on Jan 21.

Therefore, any attempts by 'Present' Obama to hinder the spread of terrorism would suffer crushing defeat by the Democratic rank and file. You've not seen a more hapless figure since '76.

Hilly, on the other hand, would be Clinton II in more ways than one. Remember during Clinton I how the US was attacked by terrorists at least 4 times and we did virtually nothing? Get ready for a repeat. Her efforts will be greeted by a yawn, but she'll keep the party (except for minorities who will leave it in droves) together.

The D's face a tough choice which is why they haven't made one.

The race may go to the convention still without a wrap. Then watch for the compromise candidate to be rolled out as the savior to the D's hopes and dreams.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

blatham wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
blatham wrote:
The main significance of the McCain/Hagee matter is that McCain's connection to Hagee is considerably closer than is that of Obama/Farrakhan.

I am betting John McCain will be able to weather this storm much better than Barack Obama will handle his second amendment problem - he's way out of touch with even mainline Democratic voters on gun control.

Where do you establish the mainline (or center or largest consensus) for Dem voters? How do you establish a factual basis for this?

I take it you disagree. Maybe I should have said conservative Democrats. There were quite a few pro-gun Democrats elected last cycle, and although there are more Republican gun owners, I think the overall shift has been to the middle. From one poll I recall, more than 50% of union workers (typically a Democratic constituency) own guns.

I don't have the data to disagree though I expect one might be able to dig it up from sources not aligned with either side of this uniquely american debate. My point was merely to alert you to that bad habit of making a truth claim when you don't have the evidentiary warrant to do so.

0 Replies

hey, real life

There's a clear way you can demonstrate that superiority liberals suppose but conservatives of your species actually possess.

I suggest a wager. Wagers are brave and they are resolute. They bespeak confidence.

You just predicted, based on your superior insights and wisdom that the dem nomination contest will go right up to the convention. My lack of insight and wisdom tells me otherwise.

So, confident, brave and resolute conservative... how about $100 on that one? Take my money away. We can even make it higher. Your call. I'll only spend it on drugs and traitorous literature and that surely engages a moral responsibility on your part to take this opportunity to knock satan back a few steps, or a liberal, same thing really.

Or perhaps you'd like to wager on seats gained/lost in either or both houses? Or perhaps on the Presidency?

Take me to the cleaners. Demonstrate to one and all that you've actually got the moxie to put real cash on that same line where your mouth does its business.

0 Replies

Do you think, as Michigan's governor does, that the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated long before the convention?

Other sources seem to think they'll be seated at the convention. That could make a difference, I suppose, if it stays close from here on out.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, The 9-11 study group said as much; no AQ connection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

So you believe them?
Arent you the one that said...

Quote:
The 9/11 commission report isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and has been found to be not only inaccurate but heavily influenced by the Republican hacks who sat on it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says.

Cycloptichorn

So the 9/11 study group is either wrong or they are right.
They cant be both.

Sure they can, MM.

You just don't know Liberals.

They can maintain both views.

'The 9/11 commission is not to be trusted. We need to listen to the 9/11 commission. '

There. Just say it a few times. Feels good doesn't it? That's what Liberalism is all about, feeling good and feeling superior to others.

The difference between Hillary and 'Present' Obama would be in their ability to get support within their own party for their initiatives.

The Clinton machine, for good or ill, can strong arm the troops and get what they want done.

'Present' Obama has no real constituency within the party. As a rookie senator, nobody owes him anything. He'd be a lame duck on Jan 21.

Therefore, any attempts by 'Present' Obama to hinder the spread of terrorism would suffer crushing defeat by the Democratic rank and file. You've not seen a more hapless figure since '76.

Hilly, on the other hand, would be Clinton II in more ways than one. Remember during Clinton I how the US was attacked by terrorists at least 4 times and we did virtually nothing? Get ready for a repeat. Her efforts will be greeted by a yawn, but she'll keep the party (except for minorities who will leave it in droves) together.

The D's face a tough choice which is why they haven't made one.

The race may go to the convention still without a wrap. Then watch for the compromise candidate to be rolled out as the savior to the D's hopes and dreams.

First of all, you're completely incorrect about everything.

Now that this is out of the way, perhaps you will realize that MM quoted two different people in his post, and yes, some Democrats do disagree on issues. Shocking, isn't it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Absolutely shocking! Some democrats have the audacity to even consider voting for McCain.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Absolutely shocking! Some democrats have the audacity to even consider voting for McCain.

How very dare they?

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Do you think, as Michigan's governor does, that the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated long before the convention?

Other sources seem to think they'll be seated at the convention. That could make a difference, I suppose, if it stays close from here on out.

If this was addressed to me... don't know what they'll do.

0 Replies

Both Hillary and Barack have promised to steal for their constituencies if elected. So which one do you think is the more experienced thief?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Both Hillary and Barack have promised to steal for their constituencies if elected. So which one do you think is the more experienced thief?

Which one is further to the right?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Both Hillary and Barack have promised to steal for their constituencies if elected. So which one do you think is the more experienced thief?

Which one is further to the right?

More relevant is which one is further to the left?
Both have declared they will take profits from those who earned them and give them to those who did not earn them. At this point its difficult to tell which one will steal the most.

0 Replies

Its for the children, icann.

Its an age old trick of all demagogues.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know