Politics- More on McCain

[Rusty]

Yesterday morning I was sitting here at the house before I went to bed ( I work nights) and the local AM morning talk show was on. Here in Tampa Bay that is Am 970 WFLA. They did an interview with McCain. The lead interviewer is more moderate and he was really asking kind of general platform question and McCain was answering with the kind of answers that people wanted to hear. McCain was saying how we needed to get tough on imigration and build a border fence. I thought these were the things McCain was AGAINST... someone correct me on this please.
The second interviewer is one of the few people I know who is as conservative as I am. He is the son of a Cuban imigrant that you'd have to know to appreciate. I swap e-mail with him and dine with him on occasion. He was doing his best to be on his best behavior and not give McCain a rough way to go when he asked the final question: Senator McCain is Sheriff Joe Arpiro (sp?) backing you? McCain had to admit that Sheriff Joe is backing Romney.
I know there has been quite a lot said about Sheriff Joe on these pages and not all of it have been flattering to the Sheriff, but I'd have to say that the one answer he gave pretty much summed it all up.

Rusty <><

[J Miller]

No Joe Arpaio is not supporting McCain, but Sylvester Stallone is .
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/200 ... orses.html

J:roll:e

[Rusty]

I thought it was interesting that McCain DID say Arpaio is supporting Romney.

Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut on that count.

Rusty <><

[piller]

I just cannot bring myself to support Mccain. Maybe it is from all the times he has turned on conservatives and bit the hands which feed him. I am still undecided about Romney and Giuliani. I wish J.C. Watts were running.

[Swampman]

I'll likely vote for McCain on Tuesday and in November.

[North Bender]

No Joe Arpaio is not supporting McCain, but Sylvester Stallone is .
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/200 ... orses.html

J:roll:e

Sly endorses McCain? Well, because Sly decided to leave the country during our missfortune in SE Asia and teach dance in Sweden instead of facing the draft, that is an endorsement that rings ... hollow?

[JerryB]

Good stuff Rusty,I am still praying that Huckabee will make it. I would probably vote for Joe if he ran. That would sure set the liberals off.

[Scott64A]

No Joe Arpaio is not supporting McCain, but Sylvester Stallone is .
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/200 ... orses.html

J:roll:e

Sly endorses McCain? Well, because Sly decided to leave the country during our missfortune in SE Asia and teach dance in Sweden instead of facing the draft, that is an endorsement that rings ... hollow?

Holy stuff, I just shot water out of my nose...

[bunklocoempire]

North Bender wrote:

Sly endorses McCain? Well, because Sly decided to leave the country during our missfortune in SE Asia and teach dance in Sweden instead of facing the draft, that is an endorsement that rings ... hollow?

I wonder if Sly was hangin' out with Romney, oh wait Romney was in France on his deferment. Yeah, let's get McCain & Romney in, they can beat Hillary. Wouldn't want to lose to the democrats now would we.

Bunkloco

[mescalero1]

I notice that people around the country seem to like our sherrif.
As a resident of Maricopa county ( sherrifs jurisdiction ) I am less enamored with him.
Maybe it is because my girlfriends mother knew him when he was at DEA,
and she told us about him in those days

[claybob86]

I notice that people around the country seem to like our sherrif.
As a resident of Maricopa county ( sherrifs jurisdiction ) I am less enamored with him.
Maybe it is because my girlfriends mother knew him when he was at DEA,
and she told us about him in those days

Details, man, details! Let's hear it!

[bigbore442001]

I beleive the reason Sheriff Joe is supporting Mitt Romney is his stance on illegal immigration. When he was the governor of Massachusetts, he empowered the Mass State Police to enforce immigration laws and make arrests. Then the new Dummycrat governor Deval aka Devolve Patrick nixed that policy and the darned fool wants to give in state tuition to illegal criminal aliens.

I'd give Mitt some credit. He was able to govern as a Republican in a rabidly Democrat state.

[Rusty]

That's why I qualified my statement saying that I know a lot of people here don't care for Joe, but I do think his opinion carried some weight in the grand scheme of things.

Rusty <><

[azoil]

Yep,
I'm in Maricopa County as well (Sheriff Joe's County). I do not know his history as a DEA agent, but I am happy with what he has done and is doing in his current role.

As for McCain, he deserves respect and recognition for what he endured in battle. The problem is that he hasn't done anything - that I am aware of - for the State of Arizona since he first got elected. Seems all he has done for at least the last 15 years is run for President.

[AJMD429]

After reading on Romney's background as far as gun control, there is NO WAY I could vote for him or Giuliani. McCain I think morphed in from one of many POWs with perhaps some consequent insight, to just another opportunistic and unprincipled politician.

He says he's pro-gun, but his votes haven't always been that way.
He says he's for the people, but his 'campaign finance reform' was for the big media and big political parties, not the people.

So, if Stallone endorses him, well gee, what a feather in his cap - but I'm not inclined to abandon the candidate(s) I prefer just to push in yet another status-quo politician who is the lesser evil vs. O'billary.

[El Mac]

No Joe Arpaio is not supporting McCain, but Sylvester Stallone is .
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/200 ... orses.html

J:roll:e

I just threw up a little bit.

[azoil]

I just threw up a little bit.

[Jeff Quinn]

It seems pretty obvious that us conservatives are in the minority. The conservative candidates were the first to go. Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson, and Thompson.

Folks today seem more interested in voting for the candidate who promises to give out the most welfare. The voters in the US have a "What will he/she do for me?" attitude.

We should be more concerned with what we can do to better support our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We are at war. There are many who just cannot grasp that concept.

We (as a nation) want free health care, cheap food, cheap gas, cheap clothes, cheap shoes, big cars, soft beds, high wages, free education, and a big tax "refund", even if we paid no taxes. We want to confiscate money from those who earned it, to give to those who won't even try. We want affordable housing, but panic when house prices drop. We buy cheap junk toys for our kids, and then scream at the government for not protecting us from the cheap paint used on the Com-Bloc products. We want American jobs protected, but buy our stuff from China. We want our concrete and drywall finished at the lowest possible price, but gripe because brown people are doing the work. We want everything. We now are calling free health care and education a "right". We insist that the government protect our families, but don't want anyone interfering with our "right" to kill our unborn kids.

I love America, but most citizens are spoiled, selfish, and leaning more socialist everyday.

[azoil]

It seems pretty obvious that us conservatives are in the minority. The conservative candidates were the first to go. Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson, and Thompson.

Folks today seem more interested in voting for the candidate who promises to give out the most welfare. The voters in the US have a "What will he/she do for me?" attitude.

We should be more concerned with what we can do to better support our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We are at war. There are many who just cannot grasp that concept.

We (as a nation) want free health care, cheap food, cheap gas, cheap clothes, cheap shoes, big cars, soft beds, high wages, free education, and a big tax "refund", even if we paid no taxes. We want to confiscate money from those who earned it, to give to those who won't even try. We want affordable housing, but panic when house prices drop. We buy cheap junk toys for our kids, and then scream at the government for not protecting us from the cheap paint used on the Com-Bloc products. We want American jobs protected, but buy our stuff from China. We want our concrete and drywall finished at the lowest possible price, but gripe because brown people are doing the work. We want everything. We now are calling free health care and education a "right". We insist that the government protect our families, but don't want anyone interfering with our "right" to kill our unborn kids.

I love America, but most citizens are spoiled, selfish, and leaning more socialist everyday.

Amen!

[bunklocoempire]

Jeff Quinn wrote:

We should be more concerned with what we can do to better support our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We are at war. There are many who just cannot grasp that concept.

An examination of strategy is first and foremost. Along with knowing the enemy.

Bunkloco

[Swampman]

"We are at war. There are many who just cannot grasp that concept."

Most seem like they could care less.

[Jeff Quinn]

Jeff Quinn wrote:

We should be more concerned with what we can do to better support our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We are at war. There are many who just cannot grasp that concept.

An examination of strategy is first and foremost. Along with knowing the enemy.

Bunkloco

For me to do an examination of strategy would require me to pretend that I know more about running the war than the President, VP, Joint Chiefs, and General Petraeus. I know that we are at war. We were attacked. Iraq is but one battlefield in the war. I do not know the enemy, but must put my trust in those that we send to do our fighting for us.

[piller]

Jeff, I agree with you.

[bunklocoempire]

Jeff Quinn wrote:

For me to do an examination of strategy would require me to pretend that I know more about running the war than the President, VP, Joint Chiefs, and General Petraeus. I know that we are at war. We were attacked. Iraq is but one battlefield in the war. I do not know the enemy, but must put my trust in those that we send to do our fighting for us.

Like yourself I do put my trust in those that we send to do our fighting for us, and that's where my trust ends. Now before any get on me for "dissention in time of war" realize this, since many of our elected officials have eluded to a war on terror being on going, when is a good time to be talking about this? Again, I support the troops but not the current strategy or the notion that Congress shirks its responsibility to declare war. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid. The strategy part comes in when our President decides to occupy a country.

Bunkloco

[Leverdude]

Cant say I recall a war where we started rebuilding while we were still fighting it. Must be Bush's strategy.
Our current actions seem somewhat comical if not for the cost in blood.

We're trying to convince a people who's Govt we overthrew & country we destroyed that we have their best interests at heart while we occupy their land & attract every lunitic Muslim in the world to their backyard.
Our President said, I forget how many years ago, that the war was won but we're still there even tho the guys we want are in Pakistan or Afganistan & came from Saudi Arabia.

So, I guess we should be proud that we toppled 2 peon countries that never pretended to be our friends while we overlook the backstabbing by 2 countries that deserve our anger because its not good politics to blow up the Saudis or Pakistanis. At the same time we are ready to take out Iran because they MIGHT have nuclear capability some day but again we ignore Pakistan that does have it.

All this is ok with us but we have the nerve to think our Govt should respect our civil rights.

Make no mistake, I have all the respect in the world for our men & women in uniform. I have enough respect for them that I think it immoral to keep silent when theyre being misused. As they are today. They dont choose their battles, but Bush aint suposed to either.

This war is by & large for the benefit of the powers that be, we all know it, none of those countries are a viable threat to our security & terrorism isn't going away because we invade terrorist countries.

Truth is if we honestly thought any of them were a real threat we would wipe them out. We havent because theyre not.

People seem to forget too that the administration has not listened to commanders on the ground very well, instead they switch men when things dont go as they choose. Havent seen a single interview of a senior military man who said anything except this is a cluster #@ck.

But WTF do I know, I'm just a civilian taxpayer trying to get by in the worlds most agressive country of this time.

[piller]

I have an odd question for all of the above. Why are we still in Bosnia, and what were our interests there? No American as far as I know was in any danger from the civil unrest there and we are wasting money and resources there. To top this off, does anyone remember the New York Times reporting that the U.N. had most of Saddam's WMD's in its building in New York? The head of the U.N. said they forgot they had them.

[Idahoser]

[Swampman]

"This war is by & large for the benefit of the powers that be, we all know it, none of those countries are a viable threat to our security"

Entirely false....

[longhair1957]

I thought you might like this about McCain!
Also understand that we here in the state were in the process of a recall election for McCain for his "Across the isle (I'll support more liberals then conservatives) attitude, but then 911 happened and we decided that the contry had more important things to worry about. Also check out his record for supporting anti-gun bills! He must sleep with Sarah Brady as bad as he is!


Posted by Bobby Eberle
January 29, 2008 at 7:35 am


Conservatives have a special relationship with the New York Times, the newspaper that has been caught in scandal after scandal and which is the epitome of extreme liberalism. Remember the full page ad by MoveOn.org against Gen. David Petraeus that appeared in the New York Times? We later learned that the paper "accidentally" gave MoveOn.org a discounted rate.

Time and time again, the New York Times has attacked conservatives and their beliefs. The paper went full-out in its support for the amnesty bill in the U.S. Senate, saying it would be a "legislative achievement for the new Democratic leaders in Congress." Now, the Times has come out with its recommendations for president of the United States. The Times is talking.... and I'm listening...


In a recent editorial, the New York Times chose Sen. John McCain as its pick for the GOP presidential nomination. The Times, that beacon of liberalism, says of McCain, "He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate."

Fundamental American values? Are they serious? Fundamental American values are notions such as respecting the rule of law and believing that a primary role of the federal government is to protect U.S. borders.

The Times notes, "With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field." Just exactly what "sound bipartisan legislation" is the Times referring to? Two pieces of legislation which come to mind and which bear McCain's name are McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform.

McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. With McCain-Feingold, America was given legislation that was a direct assault on First Amendment rights. It was not conservative at all. And for this legislation, McCain chose to team up with Sen. Russ Feingold -- a senator who has a lifetime ACU Rating of 11.8.

With McCain-Kennedy, the Senate tried, not once, but multiple times to defy the will of the American people by turning a blind eye to America's laws and American sovereignty by attempting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. McCain teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy who has a lifetime ACU rating of 2.5.

Now, on the one hand, Sen. McCain is bashing Gov. Mitt Romney for "flip-flopping," while on the other hand he's saying that he "learned his lesson" and has changed his position on immigration reform and supports border security first. Do you believe him? Sorry, I don't.

Sen. McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 82.3. What's more problematic than just his score, as compared to his Arizona counterpart Sen. Kyl (96.6), is that McCain's rating continues to go down. His 2005 rating was 80, and his 2006 rating was 65.

Then, there is the issue of judges and Sen. McCain's involvement in the so-called "Gang of 14." The deals organized by this group meant the jettisoning of qualified conservatives so that other "more acceptable" candidates could get a vote. As John Fund of the Wall Street Journal recently noted, "Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain."

Conservatives might not have the next Ronald Reagan in the current line-up of candidates, but we haven't had a Ronald Reagan since.... Ronald Reagan. We didn't have a Reagan in 1988, 1992, or 1996. We certainly didn't have a Reagan in 2000 or 2004. But we do have a choice.

The election looks more and more like it is coming down to McCain and Romney. The Florida primary battle shows just how close things are. Reps. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are out, so is former Sen. Fred Thompson. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's "strong" stand he was to make in Florida is fading, and so is the campaign of former Gov. Mike Huckabee. Also, despite being the "people's choice" as I hear from angry supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, he has yet to win any contest, and he won't. This leaves McCain and Romney.

What we've seen over the past 7 years is what the establishment will do to the conservative movement, and it has been tragic. McCain has been a part of that establishment for decades, and if someone believes that he will actually "change Washington," that person is clearly misinformed. Out of Romney and McCain, the clear problem-solver is Romney. With the economy on shaky ground, we need someone who has proven himself to meet a payroll, build a business, and lead. I believe Romney is that person.

But, if you don't believe me, that's OK. Just look at the endorsements that have been coming from the McCain campaign in recent days. Endorsements like pro-amnesty Sen. Mel Martinez and a host of establishment Republicans. Oh, and of course, there's that New York Times endorsement. Enough said.

[Swampman]

McCain's stance on gun control is about the best of the lot. It's even better than Whacko Ron's. I voted for McCain today and I'll vote for him in November.

[longhair1957]

Here is one just before 911


While a Flurry of New Gun Bills Descends upon Capitol Hill...
A proposed McCain bill requires your attention right now

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408


(Friday, February 9, 2001) -- Now that the 107th Congress is underway, legislators on Capitol Hill are scurrying to get their bills introduced. As one would suspect, many anti-gun bills have already been introduced, and many of them by the usual suspects: Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, etc.

Gun Owners of America is currently analyzing all bills affecting gun rights and hopes to have them summarized on our website by the end of next week. Once the flurry of new bills subsides to a mere trickle, GOA will also report on the bills that gun owners especially need to watch -- as well as the ones that need support.

But one bill deserves your attention right now. Earlier, GOA heard whispers on the Hill about a proposed bill being crafted by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Well, those whispers are no longer mere speculation.

Roll Call, one of the newspapers that covers events and legislation on Capitol Hill, announced yesterday that both Senators were working on a gun control "compromise" aimed at putting heat upon the new President, as well as the Republican leadership. (See an excerpt of the story below.) While it still has yet to be introduced, the McCain-Lieberman bill:

* Would slam the door on private sales at gun shows unless the buyer submits to a registration background check;
* Would force gun owners to purchase "lock up your safety" devices; and
* Even more troubling, would force federal agents to increase efforts at arresting and convicting honest gun owners who, in many cases, may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.
A gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old son (when the son does not have written permission to handle the firearm) could find Project Exile sending him or her to prison. And an individual who uses a gun for self-defense in a way that a court subsequently finds to be inappropriate could be sent to prison for a MANDATORY MINIMUM of five years.

And a few more reports:
Anti gun Schumer amendment, Sen McCain actually voted for an amendment offered by the notoriously anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. This amendment would have restricted the legitimate transfer of firearms over the internet. (Source: Congressional Record 5/14/99, p. S5327.)

Expand The Brady Law. McCain voted to extend the restrictions of the Brady bill to pawn shops and gun repair shops.(Source: Congressional Record 5/20/99, p.S5642.)

Clinton Gun Control. John McCain also voted AGAINST efforts to kill the Clinton gun control package during the last Congress. This gun bill contained al kinds of new gun restrictions, including a ban on many kinds of private gun sales. (Source: Congressional Record 7/28/99, P. S9451.)

[Swampman]

Let's take a look at those pesky facts.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

[longhair1957]

from your link:

I know how to use guns; but I don't own one
Q: Tell us about your gun collection, roughly how many you own, what your favorite make, model and caliber is, if any of them require a tax stamp?
A: For a long time I used a lot of guns, including carrying a .45 as a pilot flying in combat over Vietnam. I know how to use guns. I don't own one now.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007


Supports ban on certain assault weapons
McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearingsâ€

[azoil]

I agree longhair. I have no use for him - a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a "What's in it for McCain" individual. Do some checking on how he treated his first wife who waited for him to return from a POW. I am absolutely sick of career politicians - especially those with no integrity whatsoever. I have decided to not even vote in the primary election (flame me if you want). I'm just sick and tired of having to choose between the lesser of the evils. The US Government (Congress in particular) has completely strayed from their original charter. McCain is just another "victim" of the process. Too bad.

[Swampman]

Did you miss the pesky facts.

It's going to be Obama & McCain in the end. Do you think the democrats are your friends?

[longhair1957]

Did you miss the pesky facts.

It's going to be Obama & McCain in the end. Do you think the democrats are your friends?

No I dont that is why I said that I wont support him UNLESS my choice is him or Hillary / Obama.

[azoil]

Did you miss the pesky facts.

It's going to be Obama & McCain in the end. Do you think the democrats are your friends?

Nope. I didn't miss anything. Do you think McCain is your friend?? Have you or do you live in AZ?

[Rusty]

Well at 22:07 hrs it looks like McCain won Florida by a slim margin. I guess my voting is over for the year. Now if all those people would just quit calling me on the phone. actually they don't have the decency to call me they have a machine do it.

Rusty <><

[CowboyTutt]

Rusty, I just read the same thing. I don't trust McCain at all. I think that Romney would cave in to party pressure before McCain would. Thats what scares me. McCain is a loose cannon guys. He always has been. He was for illegal immigration, now he's changed. If he gets the Republican nomination, I bet $10 bucks he will be pro-immigration to get the vote against whoever his Democratic rival is. Just watch.

-Tutt

[azoil]

Rusty, I just read the same thing. I don't trust McCain at all. I think that Romney would cave in to party pressure before McCain would. Thats what scares me. McCain is a loose cannon guys. He always has been. He was for illegal immigration, now he's changed. If he gets the Republican nomination, I bet $10 bucks he will be pro-immigration to get the vote against whoever his Democratic rival is. Just watch.

-Tutt

yup.....

[Swampman]

I'm pro-immigration myself. That's one of the reasons I voted for him. The fact that he can win in November was the other.

Anybody but Hillary.

[TedH]

I don't really like him either, but he's probably the only one that can capture enough independents to beat Hillary or Obama.

TED IS RIGHT HE IS PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN PULL IN DEMS AND CENTER TYPES IN THE PRES ELECTION.... BUT I STILL DON'T LIKE HIM I THINK HE IS TWO FACED... AND TOO READY TO COMPROMISE.... PACO

[Ysabel Kid]

I love America, but most citizens are spoiled, selfish, and leaning more socialist everyday.

The sad truth, in a nutshell. I fear my children will never truly taste freedom - but they do know it, from what I teach them...

[Idahoser]

[FWiedner]

I don't trust McCain.

I believe that he will betray the Constitution and the American people to our enemies.

Under President McCain, America will take a giant leap toward becoming just another prison camp.

Kennedy/McCain/Clinton...

Three heads of the same demon.

[crs]

+1 for what Idahoser and Wiedner said.
Mccain should be running in the Democratic primary!

[Paco]

[b] SHERIFF JOE WAS MY BOSS IN DEA. HE WAS PROFESSIONAL AND TOUGH... BUT HE WAS ALSO A VERY FINE MAN, AND TOOK CARE OF HIS TROOPS.... MANY DISLIKE HIM, BUT HE DOES GET THE JOB DONE. I WISH WE HAD HIM IN TUCSON.... PACO :wink[/b]:

[deerwhacker444]

I have decided to not even vote in the primary election (flame me if you want). I'm just sick and tired of having to choose between the lesser of the evils.

I would have to agree. The only issues I deeply care about are immigration and the 2nd amendment. It makes no difference whether I vote for Obama, Hillary or McCain, the end results will all be the same.

I also absolutely HATE the current process for picking a presidential candidate. Every election, after 4-6 primaries, the field is drastically cut for the remaining states. Everyone I wanted to vote for has been force out of running by the time my piddly little state gets to vote. It should be a level playing field, everyone voting on the same day so the Liberal press doesn't have time to spin anything.

Am I missing something on this? If so, somebody please explain why a political lightweight like New Hampshire gets to decide who the other states will get to choose from. Tradition be darned..!

Also, is this forum censored? I typed danmed and it posted darned.

[El Mac]

I agree longhair. I have no use for him - a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a "What's in it for McCain" individual. Do some checking on how he treated his first wife who waited for him to return from a POW. I am absolutely sick of career politicians - especially those with no integrity whatsoever. I have decided to not even vote in the primary election (flame me if you want). I'm just sick and tired of having to choose between the lesser of the evils. The US Government (Congress in particular) has completely strayed from their original charter. McCain is just another "victim" of the process. Too bad.

I kinda followed you ok up until you got to the "victim" part. McCain is not a victim of Congress. He is a member. He chose to be one of them.

[El Mac]

Whenever the NY Times endorses a candidate, you can rest assured that it does not bode well for gun owners.

McCain drank the koolaid a long time ago. Unfortunately.