God I don't know if I can stomach Romney as VP.... - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - God I don't know if I can stomach Romney as VP.... (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 7/15/2008 7:50:40 PM EDT

[#1]

And Obama would be what in comparison?

Posted: 7/15/2008 7:53:58 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Even the conservative Mormons here were all dying to blow this guy because he was running.

Wrong, but thank you for painting with such a wide brush. I was pulling for Fred.

Honestly, I'm as patient as the next guy. Nevertheless, the dogpile/mob mentality of Mormon and doctor bashing in GD here is enough to make me puke. Grow up, people.

If conservatives/gun owners can't get over our own internal xenophobia, how can we possibly be expected to do anything other than hand the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial (by nomination) branches to the liberals?

Don't give me this song and dance about "teaching a lesson" by voting for a third party or Obama. If your conscience truly dictates a third party candidate, then go for it. Realize that your emotions must be tempered with reality, knowing the likely effects of your vote in our de facto 2 party system.

Posted: 7/15/2008 7:55:52 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Oh... so this is how you think it should work?

I should give money to the guy I have hated since the 90's to keep the other guy out of office?

And some how it is my fault for not funding the guy I hate less, that he is going to get some money from a guy I hate more than him... but just a little less than the guy I hate the most.

Where is my checkbook?

Holy shit!

I am out of touch.

Is this what we are really running as a campaign?

"Hey... at least I am not him!"

Yep, that's the 2008 campaign in a nutshell.

It's not going to be a vote for McCain, it's going to be a referendum on Obama.

Kevin "Sucks, but true."

Posted: 7/15/2008 7:56:13 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even the conservative Mormons here were all dying to blow this guy because he was running.

Wrong, but thank you for painting with such a wide brush. I was pulling for Fred.

Honestly, I'm as patient as the next guy. Nevertheless, the dogpile/mob mentality of Mormon and doctor bashing in GD here is enough to make me puke. Grow up, people.

If conservatives/gun owners can't get over our own internal xenophobia, how can we possibly be expected to do anything other than hand the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial (by nomination) branches to the liberals?

I have no problem with Mormons, as long as they dont state on Meet The Press that they will sign into law the AWB2

Posted: 7/15/2008 7:58:17 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I have no problem with Mormons, as long as they dont state on Meet The Press that they will sign into law the AWB2

Yeah, no kidding. Remember his quote after signing the oppressive MA AWB: "This won't make me best friends with the NRA" or something similar?

I lived in MA while he was elected - you've gotta be pretty liberal and anti-gun to become Governor in that state. I didn't like his policies then, and didn't like them now.

Posted: 7/15/2008 7:58:23 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Is this what we are really running as a campaign?

"Hey... at least I am not him!"

Well it's worked really well for Congress so they're going to keep going with it!

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:02:53 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Wrong, but thank you for painting with such a wide brush. I was pulling for Fred.

Honestly, I'm as patient as the next guy. Nevertheless, the dogpile/mob mentality of Mormon and doctor bashing in GD here is enough to make me puke. Grow up, people.

If conservatives/gun owners can't get over our own internal xenophobia, how can we possibly be expected to do anything other than hand the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial (by nomination) branches to the liberals?

Ironic, distressing, or just plain enlightening?

Your first sentence is remarking upon someone else making a generalization and then you proceed into generalizing that all gun owners are conservatives. I thought it was a commonly accepted piece of information that the vast majority of gun owners in the USA only own a single firearm, have almost no idea how to operate it, and are from all walks of life. That includes liberals. The people on this website are not an accurate representation of American gun owners.

Incidentally, you asked about handing the branches of the government over to the liberals... hold McCain and Romney up against Reagan instead of Obama. Is he still a "Conservative" or is he the dreaded "Liberal" that you're so scared of?

Each successive President since Reagan appears to be getting more and more "Liberal" as time wears on regardless of what cute little (D) or (R) they have after their name in history books. This November is clearly a contest of Liberal vs Liberal.

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:05:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Each successive President since Reagan appears to be getting more and more "Liberal" as time wears on regardless of what cute little (D) or (R) they have after their name in history books. This November is clearly a contest of Liberal vs Liberal.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:12:36 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even the conservative Mormons here were all dying to blow this guy because he was running.

Wrong, but thank you for painting with such a wide brush. I was pulling for Fred.

Wrong?
Romney ran away with around 90% of the primary vote here in UTAH.
EVERYONE here, with a few exceptions, were tripping over themselves to hail this guy as our political savior.

It's a wide brush, and it was very accurate. 9 out of 10 registered republicans voted for him in the primary. You can't refute that.

And I'm not mormon bashing. I am mormon. I was one of the few who couldn't stomach the Romney-worshipping that went on here in Utah during those months.

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:13:36 PM EDT

[#10]

You needn't be condescending with me, PFC-Demon.

Actually, I wasn't intending to lump conservatives and gun owners into the same bowl.

The "/" was meant to represent and/or. Thank you for the politics lesson, but it may surprise you to know that I already knew what you were typing. Chalk it up to laziness typing, while trying to juggle my clinical duties. My father is a Democrat, but is also a gun owner. Until last year, he was safe but minimally competent. All it takes is one trip to a public range to see the true face of most nationwide gun owners.

I recognize fully that our government has been increasingly heading in one direction. I further recognize that Romney is indeed liberal - note the last part of my comment. HOWEVER, I also believe that Obama is even more liberal - he was voted the most lib member of the Senate.

As a white, religious, physician gun-owner, I sit directly in the sights of Obama, Hillary, Dean, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, et. al. When the time comes to pull the lever, I may be dissatisfied with the "less liberal" choice, but I'm not fool enough vote far left and hand my head on a platter to those who wish to have it for breakfast.

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:16:35 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
This election season you just have to vote for the lesser of the two democrats.

It's not a perfect system, but it's all we've got.

McCain '08.

Screw that. Vote 3rd party or "write in".

I voted "lesser evil" for most of the 26 years I've been voting, and all it's gotten us is further into this bullshit situation. You guys better wake the fuck up. It is way past time for an "about face", because this country is waaay too socialist already and the only thing anyone will get by voting for mccain over osama is to see the country continue on the same road to hell at 70mph instead of 80mph. Big fucking whoop. It's like choosing between Lennin and Stalin.

You fucking doofuses just keep on voting for the lesser evil and we'll be just like europe in no time. Hell, we're almost there already. Fuck yall if you don't wake up and vote outside the mainstream one party republicrat system.

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:21:40 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
What is the 'conservative' fascination with this tool?

He's a gun-grabbing, tax and spend, free healthcare for illegals, Massachusetts liberal. WTF makes him so conservative where he is the only way that McCain can consolidate his "base"? To tell the truth I would prefer Lieberman over that plastic hair-hat assmaster... he's as phony as a 3 dollar bill.... but the talk radio pukes like Sean Vanity are always licking his sack. Hell, why not Guiliani... at least he could maybe get NY... Mitt is a flip flopping freak!

So you are willing to vote for a liberal president, but not a liberal president + a liberal VP?

Well, at least you are partially on the right track...

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:25:16 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
You fucking doofuses just keep on voting for the lesser evil and we'll be just like europe in no time. Hell, we're almost there already. Fuck yall if you don't wake up and vote outside the mainstream one party republicrat system.

So, please remind me when the last President was elected from a party other than Democrat or Republican. Convince me that we do not have an essentially two-party system. Convince me that voting your way will do anything other than make me feel better about not voting for any of the mainstream candidates and allow me the latitude to say "Well, I didn't vote for him" when things go bad.

Let's extend your driving analogy. I'd rather hit a brick wall at 70mph than 80mph. Voting in a party is akin to at least trying to steer the car away despite a terrible skid. Your version is akin to being a non-steering but very vocal and critical passenger. It doesn't help much, but distracts the driver from being able to try avoiding the brick wall.

You also are ignoring the coattail effect of state and national representatives being elected (or not, as is the case with our current administration

), largely on the merits and political party of the President. Of course, we can also get a wholesale loss of the majority as we have seen. Do you in any way think that voting third party will somehow bring a legislative majority back? Is your 3rd party candidate going to have a realistic shot at the presidency, and those important lifetime Supreme Court nominations?

Want a hint on the 3rd party? Millard Fillmore in 1850 - a Whig. The 20th and 21st century have been dominated by two political parties, whether you like to believe that or not. It's been going on much longer than your 26 years.

Oh, and your post is a COC violation. Can you not have a political debate without the personal attacks? That's not exactly convincing me of your political acumen.

Posted: 7/15/2008 8:52:56 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is the 'conservative' fascination with this tool?

He's a gun-grabbing, tax and spend, free healthcare for illegals, Massachusetts liberal. WTF makes him so conservative where he is the only way that McCain can consolidate his "base"? To tell the truth I would prefer Lieberman over that plastic hair-hat assmaster... he's as phony as a 3 dollar bill.... but the talk radio pukes like Sean Vanity are always licking his sack. Hell, why not Guiliani... at least he could maybe get NY... Mitt is a flip flopping freak!

So you are willing to vote for a liberal president, but not a liberal president + a liberal VP?

Well, at least you are partially on the right track...

Yeah, he's just one of those tax lowering, spending cutting, pro-Military, pro-gun, anti-abortion, American war hero liberals with a long record of supporting smaller government.

John McCain Addresses The National Rifle Association

September 21, 2007

John McCain delivered remarks to the National Rifle Association Friday, September 21st at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Below are McCain's remarks as prepared for delivery:

It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning. I see a lot of old friends here, friends like Jim Baker whom I worked with as long ago as the 1980s in the struggle to preserve firearms freedom. His hair was not so gray back then -- and I had a lot more of it.

This is a sophisticated crowd. You know politics, and you know politicians. You are pretty used to hearing aspirants for public office come before you and pledge fealty to the cause of the Second Amendment. You know you need to dig into a politician's record to find out where they really stand. You know some will change their position or have little record for you to judge. That is not the case with me.

When I first ran for Congress in 1982, I was proud to have the support of gun owners and the National Rifle Association. For more than two decades, I've opposed the efforts of the anti-gun crowd to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and paint gun owners as some kind of fringe group, dangerous in "modern" America. Some even call you "extremists." My friends, gun owners are not extremists, you are the core of modern America. The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers.

But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners -- and those who make and sell firearms -- for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun crowd comes up with a plan to capitalize on tragedy and limit Second Amendment rights for all Americans. I opposed the ban on so-called "assault weapons" which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. I thought it made no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I opposed waiting periods for gun purchases. We lost on both of those in the short run, but it has worked out better in the long-run. Fortunately, that gun ban sunsetted after 10 long years. And, I was proud to vote against those who tried to extend it in 2004.

I also opposed efforts to cripple our firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. This was a particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers. A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities. Fortunately, we are able to protect manufacturers from these frivolous lawsuits.

In my years in Washington, I have seen what I will call three myths used by politicians to excuse their support for gun control. First, is the big city myth: that it is acceptable -- even necessary -- to fight crime in big cities. If you have a crime problem, they say it's really a gun problem. So instead of increasing police patrols, instituting tough sentences for lawbreakers and other measures that would actually address crime, we restrict ownership of guns and limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

We are meeting today in a city that represents the worst of this myth. The citizens of the nation's capital do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law abiding citizens in the District of Colombia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona, it is for all of America.

The second myth is that of the "bad gun." This was at the core of the debate over so-called "assault weapons." Proponents of this myth argue that some kinds of guns are acceptable -- for now -- but others are not if they have certain features -- like a pistol grip or an extended magazine. I will continue to oppose those who want to ration the Second Amendment based on their views of what guns it applies to.

Finally, there is the hunting myth -- if you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support for gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about freedom.

Over the years, we have not agreed on every issue. We had differences over my efforts to standardize the sales procedures at gun shows and to clean up our campaign finance system. I understand and respect your position. But while we may disagree on the means we do agree on the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and, in light of the number of my colleagues who have been disgraced, are under investigation and are worried about indictment, agree that Washington needs cleaning up. Americans have lost trust in their government and that trust must be restored.

But these minor differences pale in comparison to our shared vision of a Second Amendment protected from political vagaries. And we have real differences with many of those running for President. Democratic presidential candidates have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They pose for the cameras in camouflage. But that is all they are doing -- posing. Just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they don't want gun control. Let's be clear. If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards are elected President, they will go after the rights of law abiding gun owners -- just as Bill Clinton did when he was president. Moveon.org, which seems to be calling the shots in the Democratic Party these days, will have more influence on gun control in the Oval Office, not John Dingell. These Democratic candidates voted to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existen ce as Senators. Think how much worse it would be if they had the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, name Attorneys General and use the full power of the federal government.

And just as the Democratic candidates are fundamentally wrong about the Second Amendment, they are fundamentally wrong about the key threats facing America in the 21st century.

As we meet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. As we all know, the war in Iraq has not gone well, and the American people have grown sick and tired of it. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything -- seriously endanger the country I have served all my adult life.

In the coming month we will face a fork in the road. We can pursue our opportunity for victory in Iraq, strengthen our hand in the larger war against Islamic extremists, and make our nation more secure. Or we can fold our tents, embolden our enemies, throw a region into instability, and increase the risks faced on our home soil. Which way requires greater leadership? I am leading the fight on the floor of the United States Senate to support our troops and in support of victory and against a plan for surrender.

We have new commanders in Iraq, and they are following a counterinsurgency strategy that I have advocated from the beginning of this war, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics failed. Although the outcome remains uncertain, we must give General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to command adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people. To concede defeat now would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would impose even greater sacrifices on us.

Our defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and I cannot be complicit in it. I will do whatever I can to help avert it. That is all I can offer my country. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that and am humbled by it. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my fellow Americans, as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I have many responsibilities to the American people, and I try to take them all seriously. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others -- and that is to use whatever meager talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted so we can defeat our enemies. That is how I construe my responsibility to my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. It is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

Thank you for your attention.

Link

John McCain On Gun Control
Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)

Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)

Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Ontheissues.org

John McCain on Heller Case

"a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

"This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."

John McCain On Taxes And Spending

Require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes

McCain believes taxes should be low, simple, and fair.
Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families: Permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Keep Tax Rates Low: Make the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent.
Make It Harder To Raise Taxes: It should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes.
Reward Saving, Investment and Risk-Taking: Keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains and fight anti-growth efforts by Democrats.

Veto any tax increase; worst thing now is to raise taxes

Q: As president, will you veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress?
A: Yes. I think the worst thing we can do right now--we've got some shaky economic times--is to increase people's taxes. And I think that what we need is more tax cuts. We need to make Bush tax cuts permanent. We need to get rid of the AMT. We need to cut corporate taxes. We need to give people reasons to write off and depreciation their business investments and equipment investments.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 "Choosing the President" interviews Feb 3, 2008

Use veto power to reduce government spending

McCAIN [to Bush]: You seem to depict the role of the president as a hapless bystander. [Clinton] is threatening to shut down the government and vetoing bills to force the congress to spend more money. An active president, i.e. me, will veto bills and threaten to shut down the government to make them spend less money.
Bush: It’s the president’s job to make sure Congress doesn’t have the money to spend in the first place. It is the president’s job to stand up to express the will of the people, advocate and fight for a meaningful real tax cut. And that’s what I’m going to do.

Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.

Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act; Bill S. 1932 ; vote number 2005-363 on Dec 21, 2005

Veto all pork-barrel bills and announce pork spenders

Q: How will you be different, in any way, from Pres. Bush?
A: I would have vetoed spending bill after spending bill after pork-barrel project after pork-barrel project, in the tradition of President Reagan. The first pork-barrel bill that crosses my desk, I'm going to veto it and make the authors of those pork-barrel items famous all over America. We're going to stop it.
Q: What specific programs would you cut if you were president?
A: Line-item veto is the best tool. We need it very badly.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Congress spends money like a drunken sailor

We lost the election in 2006 because we lost our way. We began to value principle over power, and spending got out of control. Spending lurched completely out of control. Ronald Reagan used to say, we spend money like a drunken sailor. I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination of the Congress. I received an e-mail recently from a guy who said, "As a former drunken sailor, I resent being compared to members of Congress."
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Republicans have forgotten how to control spending

Q: Have Republicans forgotten how to control spending?
A: Absolutely. We let spending lurch completely out of control. As president of the United States, I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And we've got to stop it and stop it now. I look forward to it.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Loss of economic strength leads to losing military strength

Q: Does our country's financial situation creates a security risk?
A: Of course, any nation that no longer has economic strength sooner or later will lose its military strength, so it's a national security issue. We have many trillions of dollars of unfunded liability. Obviously, we've been on a spending spree. If oil reaches $100 a barrel, which many people think it may, $400 billion of America treasure will go to oil-producing countries. Some of those monies will go to terrorist organizations.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican debate Dec 12, 2007

Impose some fiscal discipline to revive the economy

Q: Why should we continue a Republican in the White House with the current kind of economic record?
A: I will, as president, veto every one of these big spending bills. I will impose some fiscal discipline. We will clean up our act and we will regain the confidence of the American people as being careful stewards of our tax dollars, and we will fix this problem with having to borrow money from China, then we will balance our budget, just like every governor in America has been required to do.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

To avoid recession, stop out-of-control spending

Q: If we're talking about a recession in the next few months, in 2008, what kind of short-term, more immediate government fixes would you propose to try to keep the slowdown diminished or to reverse it? And would you support them even if they added to th government deficit?
A: The first thing we need to do is stop the out-of-control spending. Out-of-control spending is what caused the interest rates to rise. It causes people to be less able to afford to own their own homes. We need to stop the spending And the way we can get our budget under control is to have strong, fundamental fiscal underpinnings. The second thing that we need to do, of course, is stop spending $400 billion a year overseas to oil-producing countries that come right out of our economy immediately. Some of that money goes, unfortunately, to fund terrorist organizations. We've got to develop technologies to reduce this dependency on foreign oil, and eventually eliminate it, and stop this outflow of some $400 billion a year.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in S.C. sponsored by Fox News Jan 10, 2008

When I first came to Congress, we were in the middle of the Reagan revolution, and I was proud to be a foot soldier in that revolution. And we cut taxes. But we cut spending. And Ronald Reagan insisted that we cut spending, because he knew that it was vital, if we were going to keep the deficit down and not have the fiscal difficulties we have today, we had to cut spending. I'm proud to have supported those tax cuts. And I believe that if we had done what I wanted to do--cut taxes and, at the same time, cut spending--we'd be talking about more tax cuts today. But we let spending get out of control. Unfortunately, we betrayed one of the principles of the Republican Party. I'm in favor of tax cuts. We'll do them. But we'll cut spending when I'm president.
Source: 2008 Fox News NH Republican primary debate Jan 6, 2008

- John McCain

Opposed to the Bush tax cuts as spending got out of control
I voted on the tax cuts because I knew that unless we had spending under control, we were going to face a disaster. We let spending get completely out of control. Those tax cuts have to remain permanent, otherwise people experience a tax increase. We let spending get out of control. We presided over the biggest increase in the size of government that with--since the "Great Society." We let it get out of control. I we had the spending restraints that I proposed, we would be talking about more tax cuts today. We would be talking about more tax cuts. The trust and confidence in our base was eroded. I will restore that trust and confidence because I will restrain spending along with further tax cuts. I'm very proud of my record. If you look at those organizations that grade people, my record is very, very high for a consistent record of being a fiscal conservative. But I'm going to stop the pork barrel spending, and we're not going to have any more "Bridges to Nowhere."
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

- John McCain

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:02:54 PM EDT

[#15]

Would pretty much guarantee RINOs permanent control of what's left of the Republican Party until it disappears and it's Aztlaners vs Democrats.

McCain has personally used up 100% of the tolerable RINO allocation. If he doubles it by adding Romney and making him the heir apparent, I genuinely hope they lose.

If this is a trial balloon, I shit on it.

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:15:21 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Yeah, he's just one of those tax lowering, spending cutting, pro-Military, pro-gun, anti-abortion, American war hero liberals with a long record of supporting smaller government.

Ahh, so we are only supposed to exclusively look at McCains conservative record and ignore his liberal record, but with Romney we are supposed to do the opposite. Can you say "double standard"?

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:32:58 PM EDT

[#17]

Dave is correct in assessing the epic suckitude of romney.

If he is ever in power you may notice the inceased stealitization of your tax money in a fashion previously associated with democrats.

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:38:00 PM EDT

[#18]

Romney is who I had in mind when I made this post. And, as I said in that post, we'll HAVE to eat our shit sandwich lest we end up with Obama.

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:41:59 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
This election season you just have to vote for the lesser of the two democrats.

It's not a perfect system, but it's all we've got.

McCain '08.

I'm leaning towards Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:50:42 PM EDT

[#20]

You know, I was just starting to consider holding my nose on McCain after reading about his proposed tax breaks for small businesses.

Now this...

Bob Barr '08

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:51:46 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This election season you just have to vote for the lesser of the two democrats.

It's not a perfect system, but it's all we've got.

McCain '08.

+ 1 million.

maybe some of ya'll were hoping for Hilly Bama?

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:57:04 PM EDT

[#22]

I hate him. And I'm mormon!

what pisses me off is the dang mormons around here things he's great. when i point out that he's the only douche out of all of them that has signed both an abortion AND an assault weapons bill they just give me a

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:57:39 PM EDT

[#23]

Well, one ogod thing if he's the pick. I can stop worrying about whether I'm going to hold my nose and vote for McCain. Because I won't.

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:58:12 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yeah, he's just one of those tax lowering, spending cutting, pro-Military, pro-gun, anti-abortion, American war hero liberals with a long record of supporting smaller government.

Ahh, so we are only supposed to exclusively look at McCains conservative record and ignore his liberal record, but with Romney we are supposed to do the opposite. Can you say "double standard"?

Romney has no conservative record whatsoever, none.

McCain's record is about 80% conservative.

Romney's is about 80% liberal.

Posted: 7/15/2008 10:04:38 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Did I miss something? Did Mittens get picked?

Nope, most people around here don't seem to bother reading beyond the thread title before posting...

Posted: 7/16/2008 3:02:29 AM EDT

[#26]

If McCain picks mittens as veep, I just won't vote.

If McCain doesn't pick mittens as veep, I still might not vote.

Posted: 7/16/2008 3:04:46 AM EDT

[#27]

I'd much would prefer the Huskster.........out of the pool of presidential candidates other than Fred, I would rather see Duncan Hunter.

Posted: 7/16/2008 5:56:24 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
www.rightontheright.com/files/RomneyMcCain.jpg

Like I said, get used to it boys.

He's going to be the pick.

He's got charisma. And most importantly...

He's got MONEY.

Obamamessiah was already raising 40 million a MONTH before he got the nod. You are going to see him raise astronomical sums of money.

McCain can't raise money for shit. Have any of you guys contributed to his campaign?Didn't think so.

So the fact that Romney has $247 million dollars available to him is going to be HUGE.

Kevin "Watch."

Why the fuck would I give that asshole money

There are lots that would hold their nose and vote for him here, but I bet few that would fork over hard earned money. I gave to Fred Thompson, not much but what I could afford. Only the second time I ever gave money to someone running for office.

I agree with McCain maybe 10% or so, obama 0%.

This election is gonna suck.

Posted: 7/16/2008 6:02:27 AM EDT

[#29]

Guys, I'm no McCain fan either.

But....

We have to choose between a Democrat and a Socialist in November. McCain being the Democrat, is much less damaging that Barry Obama. I have an issue with voting for McCain as well, but we have little choice.

Think about it before you stay home this November.

Posted: 7/16/2008 6:04:24 AM EDT

[#30]

Originally Posted By KC-130 FLT ENG:
If McCain picks mittens as veep, I just won't vote.

If McCain doesn't pick mittens as veep, I still might not vote.

This is what I hate more than anything.... my god man, vote. Vote for a third party, hold your nose and vote more McCain, or write in Ron Paul or Santa Clause if you have to... but stand up and be counted!

If nothing else be part of the percentage that "did not want Obama as president"

Posted: 7/16/2008 8:54:18 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
This is what I hate more than anything.... my god man, vote. Vote for a third party, hold your nose and vote more McCain, or write in Ron Paul or Santa Clause if you have to... but stand up and be counted!

If nothing else be part of the percentage that "did not want Obama as president"

+1

Not voting is NOT an option for me. Like you said; at the very least he would be counted among the tens of millions who don't want Senator Hussein to become pharaoh.

Posted: 7/16/2008 8:57:51 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
It is getting harder and harder to pull that lever, but would still be better than Oboma.

I'm not voting FOR anyone. However, I will be voting against Obama.

Posted: 7/16/2008 9:00:24 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It must be difficult to be a Republican. You people spend all of your time either attacking Democrats or making excuses for the things Republican politicians do that are identical to what you attack Democrats for.

Yes it is our cross to bear. But it still beats supporting candidates who openly embrace the failed socialist themes that have been proven to ruin countries. But hey, as long as you get your "change", I guess you are all good, eh?

It must make bearing your cross a bit more difficult to assume anyone that is not like you is your twin-like enemy. You don't even know who to pretend to be different from!

About the response I'd expect from a college liberal arts major who has had his first political science class.

It must gall you no end to think that all this political action is going on in the world, and all the players have the audacity to NOT CALL AND ASK YOUR OPINION!

Somewhere you must have missed the class where they explained, for better or worse, the United States is a two party system. You can espouse the Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders until your fingers are bloody stumps on your blog, but the simple fact is that the system is gamed to elect a republican or a democrat. Only a huge paradigm shift (real war where American cities get destroyed, or massive recession or depression) is going to budge the two party system.

So, then, grasshopper, we are left with the (pardon the pun) the Left, or the Right. Many of us here on this board are upset with the Right, but will try our best to hold our nose and vote for them, because those on the Left have wholesale embraced principals alien to those on which this country was founded. Let me ennumerate some of them for you:

- Massive redistribution of wealth.
- Goverment control over large segments of the economy.
- Government restriction of basic freedoms of self defense.
- Surrender to our enemies when we are in a postion of strength.
- Provide aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war through propagandistic statements and legislative action/inaction.
- Really the list goes on and on.

To directly answer your drivel: I know exactly who to be different from. Asshats like you.

Posted: 7/16/2008 9:07:32 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
God help us.

+111,000,000,000 (that's eleventy one billion, folks).

McCain is a 'hold your nose and vote (R)' candidate. Add Romney to the ticket and you have to close your eyes, too. The problem is that with eyes closed and nose held, there's a pretty good chance that you might vote for somebody else 'by mistake'.

We are screwed. God is unlikely to help us with this one.

I hope for change because change brings hope.

Posted: 7/16/2008 10:07:25 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This election season you just have to vote for the lesser of the two democrats.

It's not a perfect system, but it's all we've got.

McCain '08.

+2

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:29:13 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Why the fuck would I give that asshole money

Um, to prevent Obama from becoming President?

Kevin "Kinda the point."

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:34:35 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
About the response I'd expect from a college liberal arts major who has had his first political science class.

It must gall you no end to think that all this political action is going on in the world, and all the players have the audacity to NOT CALL AND ASK YOUR OPINION!

Somewhere you must have missed the class where they explained, for better or worse, the United States is a two party system. You can espouse the Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders until your fingers are bloody stumps on your blog, but the simple fact is that the system is gamed to elect a republican or a democrat. Only a huge paradigm shift (real war where American cities get destroyed, or massive recession or depression) is going to budge the two party system.

So, then, grasshopper, we are left with the (pardon the pun) the Left, or the Right. Many of us here on this board are upset with the Right, but will try our best to hold our nose and vote for them, because those on the Left have wholesale embraced principals alien to those on which this country was founded. Let me ennumerate some of them for you:

- Massive redistribution of wealth.
- Goverment control over large segments of the economy.
- Government restriction of basic freedoms of self defense.
- Surrender to our enemies when we are in a postion of strength.
- Provide aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war through propagandistic statements and legislative action/inaction.
- Really the list goes on and on.

To directly answer your drivel: I know exactly who to be different from. Asshats like you.

Judging by your completely baseless and incorrect jumps to conclusion, you're very, very different from me. Don't forget to vote Liberal (D) or Liberal (R) this November! It'll make your whining for the next 4 years both ironic and meritless!

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:36:16 AM EDT

[#38]

I am tired of having to settle for the lesser of two evils. I am tired of the Republican party nominating "social liberals" and telling us "its either us or them". My wife decided a few weeks ago to not vote because she isn't happy with McCain. If he picks Romney, I might not either.

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:42:40 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Why the fuck would I give that asshole money

Um, to prevent Obama from becoming President?

Kevin "Kinda the point."

So its going to be a domestic version of Lend-Lease where instead of giving a guy you don't like, Stalin, money, guns, tanks and trucks (because you REALLY don't like Hitler) you're giving money to a guy you don't like, McCain, because you REALLY don't like Obama?

Besides the moderately extortionist satisfaction of not being beaten up by School Yard Bully #1 by hiring School Yard Bully #2 (and thus being subjected to his abuse which you somehow find more tolerable) what net gain is there for you to bankroll someone you know is going to be bad for this country?

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:45:07 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
This election season you just have to vote for the lesser of the two democrats.

It's not a perfect system, but it's all we've got.

McCain '08.

sad but true

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:48:40 AM EDT

[#41]

I firmly believe MR is going to be the VP choice.

Just can't think of anyone else that McCain would choose at this point.

Yes, we would all like to see Jindal but that's not going to happen.

And I think Mitt is going to get the nod before Huck.

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:53:53 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
I hate Romney too. I just don't hate him as much as I hate Obama.

It's a toss-up for me.

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:58:49 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
I hate him. And I'm mormon!

what pisses me off is the dang mormons around here things he's great. when i point out that he's the only douche out of all of them that has signed both an abortion AND an assault weapons bill they just give me a

They tend to try and explain it away by suggesting that it was what Romney had to do to get into and stay in office in Mass. My answer is that he shouldn't have been gov. of Mass then. How can a man so willing to sell his principles be trusted?

I had a brother-in-law send me multiple emails trying to recruit me into Romney's political camp. I responded that I couldn't and explained why. I mentioned that one litmus test of a candidate's patriotism is their stance on gun ownership.

Posted: 7/16/2008 2:04:41 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I hate him. And I'm mormon!

what pisses me off is the dang mormons around here things he's great. when i point out that he's the only douche out of all of them that has signed both an abortion AND an assault weapons bill they just give me a

They tend to try and explain it away by suggesting that it was what Romney had to do to get into and stay in office in Mass. My answer is that he shouldn't have been gov. of Mass then. How can a man so willing to sell his principles be trusted?

I had a brother-in-law send me multiple emails trying to recruit me into Romney's political camp. I responded that I couldn't and explained why. I mentioned that one litmus test of a candidate's patriotism is their stance on gun ownership.

I believe that Mitt's personal principles are one thing and what he takes as positions on issues for public office are another thing. Case in point: MA was in dire financial straits having spent itself into oblivion. Huge deficit. Romney stepped up and said he could use his business skills to fix that for us. You guys have no idea how insanely liberal the majority is around here. It makes me want to puke. Unless you live here, you cannot possibly know how bad it is. Anyway, Romney was there to do a job for the state of getting us back on firm financial footing. He was there to represent the people of MA and I think he tried very hard to do that by doing what the people who elected him wanted.

On guns, I don't really think Romney is strongly set either way. If you do some digging, you will find that the so-called AWB that he signed in MA actually BANNED NOTHING and even gave seom ground back to gun owners. Strange, but true. The anti-gun rhetoric was there, but the actions were not.

I am not a Romney apologist, but I paid attention while he was governor here (I am NOT from here originally, BTW) and some of what pisses us off as gun owners and conservatives or libertarians is spin from the media designed to divide us and make us hate the guy. He is not great by any measure (except business skills), but he is nowhere near as bad as some people posting here think. His record here in MA is that he kept his word about what he said he would do or not do.

Posted: 7/16/2008 2:10:59 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I hate him. And I'm mormon!

what pisses me off is the dang mormons around here things he's great. when i point out that he's the only douche out of all of them that has signed both an abortion AND an assault weapons bill they just give me a

They tend to try and explain it away by suggesting that it was what Romney had to do to get into and stay in office in Mass. My answer is that he shouldn't have been gov. of Mass then. How can a man so willing to sell his principles be trusted?

I had a brother-in-law send me multiple emails trying to recruit me into Romney's political camp. I responded that I couldn't and explained why. I mentioned that one litmus test of a candidate's patriotism is their stance on gun ownership.

I believe that Mitt's personal principles are one thing and what he takes as positions on issues for public office are another thing. Case in point: MA was in dire financial straits having spent itself into oblivion. Huge deficit. Romney stepped up and said he could use his business skills to fix that for us. You guys have no idea how insanely liberal the majority is around here. It makes me want to puke. Unless you live here, you cannot possibly know how bad it is. Anyway, Romney was there to do a job for the state of getting us back on firm financial footing. He was there to represent the people of MA and I think he tried very hard to do that by doing what the people who elected him wanted.

On guns, I don't really think Romney is strongly set either way. If you do some digging, you will find that the so-called AWB that he signed in MA actually BANNED NOTHING and even gave seom ground back to gun owners. Strange, but true. The anti-gun rhetoric was there, but the actions were not.

I am not a Romney apologist, but I paid attention while he was governor here (I am NOT from here originally, BTW) and some of what pisses us off as gun owners and conservatives or libertarians is spin from the media designed to divide us and make us hate the guy. He is not great by any measure (except business skills), but he is nowhere near as bad as some people posting here think. His record here in MA is that he kept his word about what he said he would do or not do.

I appreciate the input.

Still, I'm sure you understand that his remarks about gun ownership aren't going to endear him to gun owners.

Posted: 7/16/2008 2:15:48 PM EDT

[#46]

I haven't met a non-Mormon who would consider Romney a conservative.

He only got elected as Gov in MA because of "checks and balances" for an otherwise Dem controlled State government and he took advantage of that by making an "assault weapon" ban permanent and raising the cost of the may-issue LTC (CCW permit) fourfold.

Posted: 7/16/2008 2:16:04 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
After Fred dropped out, Mitt was the most conservative candidate left. Somehow that got him branded as a REAL conservative. That's the best I can figure.

No, McCain was the most conservative candidate left...

Mitt Romney is a John Kerry clone with an (R) after his name...

He is far, far left...

Thank you

Posted: 7/16/2008 2:21:47 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
I haven't met a non-Mormon who would call Romney a conservative.

He only got elected as Gov in MA because of "checks and balances" for an otherwise Dem controlled State government and he took advantage of that by making an "assault weapon" ban permanent and raising the cost of the may-issue LTC (CCW permit) fourfold.

He was raising fees left and right, and not just for CCW permits. He was trying to get Massachusetts' budget out of the red and any state-collected fees that could be raised were raised.

Posted: 7/16/2008 2:27:48 PM EDT

[#49]

He is still better than ANYTHING the Democrats are putting out. Bitch & whine all you want, but the fact is it's either McCain & ? or Obama & ?. I will take McCain over Obama any day. Even if Mitt is the VP.

Posted: 7/16/2008 2:31:56 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
So its going to be a domestic version of Lend-Lease where instead of giving a guy you don't like, Stalin, money, guns, tanks and trucks (because you REALLY don't like Hitler) you're giving money to a guy you don't like, McCain, because you REALLY don't like Obama?

Besides the moderately extortionist satisfaction of not being beaten up by School Yard Bully #1 by hiring School Yard Bully #2 (and thus being subjected to his abuse which you somehow find more tolerable) what net gain is there for you to bankroll someone you know is going to be bad for this country?

And the alternative is.....?

Kevin "

"

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - God I don't know if I can stomach Romney as VP.... (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us