McCain's Speech to The NRA

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
276
Likes
4
Location
SPFLD MA
"Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue. I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement. I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife. "

[puke]
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,957
Likes
24,626
I was disappointed in the "interview" with McCain in the American Rifleman. It was a puff piece that had the NRA interviewer asking only question where McCain could give the 100% NRA party line as the answer, and absolutely nothing about the gun show record check position McCain is known for. It would have been more appropriately labeled a campaign ad for McCain, rather than an interview.

At least McCain gave a direct answer in the speech, rather than the non-answers Hillary loves to give on so many issues.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,957
Likes
24,626
I believe this is in the Rifleman mag - I read it. He's a politician
True, but the "interviewer" gave him only softball questions, and did ask him about any issues with which he and the NRA disagree. It was a campaign ad from the NRA, not an interview.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,398
Likes
646
It wasn't bad. As long as you're not fooled by the intentions of the interview to promote McCain to us NRA members, and by the intentions of McCain to win over gunowners. It's has a safe feeling about it, but we expected that. No suprises, but thats okay it doesn't affect who I am going to vote for. I'm still voting for McCain.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
1,422
Likes
106
Location
PA
Bob Barr's looking better every day. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

Too bad he's running as a 'Libertarian' and the guy loves shoving his morals down people's throats. Just the opposite of the Libertarian party's platform of Get the hell out of my bedroom.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,862
Likes
721
Location
Boston
Bob Barr's looking better every day. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

A vote for Mr. Barr is a vote that helps to elect Barak Obama. Before you waste your vote with a futile feel-good protest, think about what that does to the rest of us.
 

joemcg

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
105
Likes
3
Who says that a vote for Obama is such a bad thing? After 4 years of absolute socialism coming from Washington, no Democrat will win an election for 10 years.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,398
Likes
646
Who says that a vote for Obama is such a bad thing? After 4 years of absolute socialism coming from Washington, no Democrat will win an election for 10 years.

Socialism may be an incurable disease if it is allowed to progress.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
Too bad he's running as a 'Libertarian' and the guy loves shoving his morals down people's throats. Just the opposite of the Libertarian party's platform of Get the hell out of my bedroom.

Here's a perfect illustration of one fatal flaw in the Libertarian Party. The LP is bipolar. You have the disaffected Conservatives, like me, and what's been called the guns-drugs-and-sex crowd ... like you?

I would be taking a close look at Barr, whom I've followed for years, if he were running under ANY party banner.

For the moment, I'm willing to forget that Barr switched to the Libertarian Party in 2006, and just vote for him because he's where I am politically.

I don't know what you mean by "get the hell out of my bedroom", but I suspect that Barr's position that homosexual marriage should be a matter for the states to decide, rather than a matter for federal law, has something to do with it.

As a Conservative, and an erstwhile Libertarian, I don't care a whit who you have in your bedroom, or what you do there. But if you want laws to protect your right to perform sex acts in the public streets (google: "Fulsom Street"), or to indoctrinate kids into the homosexual lifestyle, or to require "gender neutral" toilet facilities is all public places (even elementary schools: see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55892) then I say ... Bite Me.

I support the right to be left alone.

Barr is more traditional Conservative than pure Libertarian. I'm good with that.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
A vote for Mr. Barr is a vote that helps to elect Barak Obama. Before you waste your vote with a futile feel-good protest, think about what that does to the rest of us.

Got to disagree with you there, RKJ, although I understand your point. But I live in Massachusetts and a vote for McCain (assuming that's your alternative) is as wasted a vote as there ever was.

I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary ... I had to write him in. As a Conservative trapped behind enemy lines in the PRM my vote is best used, I think, to send a signal to the Republican party powers that there is still a right wing of that party, that it exists, and that that fact should be kept in mind as they form the party platform ... now and in the future.

I wish I had Scrivener's signature line handy ... I don't ... but I recall that it speaks to this issue.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
1,422
Likes
106
Location
PA
Here's a perfect illustration of one fatal flaw in the Libertarian Party. The LP is bipolar. You have the disaffected Conservatives, like me, and what's been called the guns-drugs-and-sex crowd ... like you?

What's wrong with drugs and sex? I've never used drugs but don't see a whole lot of use keeping them illegal (different thread), but have had sex. Wasn't too bad.

I don't know what you mean by "get the hell out of my bedroom", but I suspect that Barr's position that homosexual marriage should be a matter for the states to decide, rather than a matter for federal law, has something to do with it.

Yes, States Rights. A concept which has becoming strange to a lot of people.


For the moment, I'm willing to forget that Barr switched to the Libertarian Party in 2006, and just vote for him because he's where I am politically.

Given his stance on foreign and economic policy then I will probably vote for him as well. I haven't looked into his stance on such things as the Patroit Act and similar 'protections' that have been forced upon us, so that will come into my decision as well.

As a Conservative, and an erstwhile Libertarian, I don't care a whit who you have in your bedroom, or what you do there. But if you want laws to protect your right to perform sex acts in the public streets (google: "Fulsom Street"), or to indoctrinate kids into the homosexual lifestyle, or to require "gender neutral" toilet facilities is all public places (even elementary schools: see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55892) then I say ... Bite Me.

I don't believe those examples are part of the Libertarian platform. If so then that's over over the top.

I support the right to be left alone.

Yes, I thought that was pretty much a Conservative way of thinking; not counting the religious right anyway.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
2,842
Likes
98
Location
Nashua, NH
Here's a perfect illustration of one fatal flaw in the Libertarian Party. The LP is bipolar. You have the disaffected Conservatives, like me, and what's been called the guns-drugs-and-sex crowd ... like you?

Although I wouldn't quite put it in those terms you're quite right.


I would be taking a close look at Barr, whom I've followed for years, if he were running under ANY party banner.

For the moment, I'm willing to forget that Barr switched to the Libertarian Party in 2006, and just vote for him because he's where I am politically.

I don't know what you mean by "get the hell out of my bedroom", but I suspect that Barr's position that homosexual marriage should be a matter for the states to decide, rather than a matter for federal law, has something to do with it.

Yes and no. Certainly a Libertarian would be a big supporter of states-rights, and having a small Federal government. However a true Libertarian would also want the Government out of peoples lives at ALL levels of Government (federal, state and local). So WRT the marriage issue most Libertarians would prefer to see that issue left to individuals rather than any government agency.

As a Conservative, and an erstwhile Libertarian, I don't care a whit who you have in your bedroom, or what you do there. But if you want laws to protect your right to perform sex acts in the public streets (google: "Fulsom Street"), or to indoctrinate kids into the homosexual lifestyle, or to require "gender neutral" toilet facilities is all public places (even elementary schools: see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55892) then I say ... Bite Me.

Not sure what you mean about that....Libertarians support the right of consenting adults to be free to do what they want, providing it doesn't cause harm to non-consenting parties. That's pretty much it. "Harm" doesn't include stopping you from getting offended.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
Not sure what you mean about that....Libertarians support the right of consenting adults to be free to do what they want, providing it doesn't cause harm to non-consenting parties. That's pretty much it. "Harm" doesn't include stopping you from getting offended.

Sex acts performed in public view offend me. Call me old fashioned. Does it rise to the level of "harm"?

I don't know where a Libertarian might come down on the issue of the Fulsom Street Festival, or State laws requiring equal time for "alternative lifestyles", (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55808). Neither do I know if there's anything in the Libertarian Party platform on these matters because, frankly, I haven't looked at the party platform.

In the Fulsom photos I've seen, little kids are parading past this carnal carnival, which is held in public spaces. In this instance, I consider it harm. Exposing minor children to sexual acts constitutes abuse, in most jurisdictions. If you keep your sex in your bedroom, or in the steam room or motel, then who cares? Drag it out into the public streets and parks, then I have a problem.

Indoctinating children, in the public schools, into the homosexual lifestyle offends me. Does it rise to the level of "harm"? Obama says we should be teaching sex ed as early as Kindergarten, in order to assure that "alternative" family situations are respected. California has essentially mandated this (don't they have a Republican Governor?). I say, keep your sexual preferences and practices to yourself. What you practice within your family is no business of mine. Making your perversions a matter of state curriculum ... that I have a problem with.

Does that clear things up a bit?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
2,842
Likes
98
Location
Nashua, NH
Sex acts performed in public view offend me. Call me old fashioned. Does it rise to the level of "harm"?

I don't know where a Libertarian might come down on the issue of the Fulsom Street Festival, or State laws requiring equal time for "alternative lifestyles", (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55808). Neither do I know if there's anything in the Libertarian Party platform on these matters because, frankly, I haven't looked at the party platform.

In the Fulsom photos I've seen, little kids are parading past this carnal carnival, which is held in public spaces. In this instance, I consider it harm. Exposing minor children to sexual acts constitutes abuse, in most jurisdictions. If you keep your sex in your bedroom, or in the steam room or motel, then who cares? Drag it out into the public streets and parks, then I have a problem.

Indoctinating children, in the public schools, into the homosexual lifestyle offends me. Does it rise to the level of "harm"? Obama says we should be teaching sex ed as early as Kindergarten, in order to assure that "alternative" family situations are respected. California has essentially mandated this (don't they have a Republican Governor?). I say, keep your sexual preferences and practices to yourself. What you practice within your family is no business of mine. Making your perversions a matter of state curriculum ... that I have a problem with.

Does that clear things up a bit?

I don't want to see kids exposed to sex acts in public either. But to play Devil's advocate here the Folsom "festival" is well known both within and outside the gay community for been rather risque (to use a freaking understatement). Although I wouldn't want to attend the event myself and CERTAINLY wouldn't want my 4 year old to go, it seems to me that it's the parents of these kids that need their asses kicking for having their kids there in the first place. It would be a bit like going to a St. Patrick's Day parade and complaining there are drunk people. Of course, the issue is it's a public street.

As for public schools. IMO they should really be there to provide for a useful education only. No sex, no religion, no useless crap. I don't mind public education, but I do want the best bang for my buck.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
I don't want to see kids exposed to sex acts in public either. But to play Devil's advocate here the Folsom "festival" is well known both within and outside the gay community for been rather risque (to use a freaking understatement). Although I wouldn't want to attend the event myself and CERTAINLY wouldn't want my 4 year old to go, it seems to me that it's the parents of these kids that need their asses kicking for having their kids there in the first place. It would be a bit like going to a St. Patrick's Day parade and complaining there are drunk people. Of course, the issue is it's a public street.
As for public schools. IMO they should really be there to provide for a useful education only. No sex, no religion, no useless crap. I don't mind public education, but I do want the best bang for my buck.

So you're drawing a moral equivalence between public drinking and public sex? Hmmm ... Both are illegal activities, but somehow I think there's more to it than just that.

In either event, I don't think you can tell people that they should stay out of the public spaces and off the streets that they pay for through taxation, just because any particular group plans a moral outrage there on a particular day.

Whether public drunkeness, or public sex, people have a reasonable right to expect that these illegal activities will not infringe on their right to travel freely. While the occasional public inebriate may be tolerated from time to time, the public sodomite seems to fall, these days, under the protection of "civil rights". When do we, or should we, expect the law to turn a blind eye?

Or should we all just plan on heading out of town on "Gay Pride" day?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
2,842
Likes
98
Location
Nashua, NH
So you're drawing a moral equivalence between public drinking and public sex? Hmmm ... Both are illegal activities, but somehow I think there's more to it than just that. In either event, I don't think you can tell people that they should stay out of the public spaces and off the streets that they pay for through taxation, just because any particular group plans a moral outrage there on a particular day. Whether public drunkeness, or public sex, people have a reasonable right to expect that these illegal activities will not infringe on their right to travel freely. While the occasional public inebriate may be tolerated from time to time, the public sodomite seems to fall, these days, under the protection of "civil rights". When do we, or should we, expect the law to turn a blind eye? Or should we all just plan on heading out of town on "Gay Pride" day?

There's a significant difference between a random group of folks having sex on public streets and a well known event. The street in question is the "gayest" street in San Fran, which is itself the "gayest" city on the planet. Honestly, I can't imagine there's a single resident of that street that objects. It's not as if they're walking down Broadway!!!

Personally I would prefer them to hold it on a private field, (and wouldn't want to attend the event), but as a Libertarian I'm not willing to impose laws on such behavior.

That in a nutshell marks a true Libertarian from a fake. A true Libertarian might despise a particular behavior, but would be unwilling to impose regulations to limit that behavior. Criticize it, pray against it, claim it's imoral or offensive - but impose laws? No!
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
That in a nutshell marks a true Libertarian from a fake. A true Libertarian might despise a particular behavior, but would be unwilling to impose regulations to limit that behavior. Criticize it, pray against it, claim it's imoral or offensive - but impose laws? No!

A public space is a public space. The "gayest" street wasn't always. And any public behavior, once tolerated, is condoned. Shall every city have a gays-only quarter? Everyone else can just move, I suppose, to make way for sexual freedom. Where does it end?

What people do privately is a private matter. What is done publically is a public matter. I don't think that a "true Libertarian" opposes ALL laws. But I may be misinformed.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,398
Likes
646
That in a nutshell marks a true Libertarian from a fake. A true Libertarian might despise a particular behavior, but would be unwilling to impose regulations to limit that behavior. Criticize it, pray against it, claim it's imoral or offensive - but impose laws? No!

That just sounds dumb to me. I like the law that says it's illegal to rape people. I like the one that says it's illegal to murder someone.

Disagree? If you do your not a libertarian, you're a liberal.

I don't care what you do in private. I really don't care what or who you have sex with or are in a relationship with it's not my business. You don't have the right to tell me who I should be with either so thats my take on homosexuals.

If I go to take my son or daughter to the ballpark and on my front door step is two dudes screwing eachother, they're getting kicked in the teeth with my steel toe. Hard. And then even harder.

Guess that makes me a gay basher. But I'd feel the same way if it was a guy and a girl.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,398
Likes
646
That just sounds dumb to me. I like the law that says it's illegal to rape people. I like the one that says it's illegal to murder someone.

Disagree? If you do your not a libertarian, you're a liberal.

Correction to my own post:

You're not a liberal if you feel this way. Liberals think everything should be illegal. We just shouldn't punsih the ones that commit the most heinous crimes.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
2,842
Likes
98
Location
Nashua, NH
That just sounds dumb to me. I like the law that says it's illegal to rape people. I like the one that says it's illegal to murder someone.

Disagree? If you do your not a libertarian, you're a liberal.


Well, Duh....poor use of a strawman there.....That's the definition of a Libertatian. Punish crime where there is a victim, but not where there isn't a victim.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,398
Likes
646
Well, Duh....poor use of a strawman there.....That's the definition of a Libertatian. Punish crime where there is a victim, but not where there isn't a victim.

Sounds good to me. I like a lot of the libertarian views. I wouldn't say I am one however, because I don't believe that classifying myself as one thing or another is beneficial to myself or anyone else for that matter. Safety in numbers is always good I suppose but that also comes with a price. I am an individual and therefore am not interested in associating myself with any one particular set of views other than the ones my own.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
1,422
Likes
106
Location
PA
Indoctinating children, in the public schools, into the homosexual lifestyle offends me. Does it rise to the level of "harm"? Obama says we should be teaching sex ed as early as Kindergarten, in order to assure that "alternative" family situations are respected. California has essentially mandated this (don't they have a Republican Governor?). I say, keep your sexual preferences and practices to yourself. What you practice within your family is no business of mine. Making your perversions a matter of state curriculum ... that I have a problem with.

Does that clear things up a bit?

I read your article and am still looking for this 'Indoctrination' you spoke of. I expected to see an article about 4 year olds being lined up and forced to have sex with each other. Or maybe just being enrolled as Alter Boys. I don't recall seeing any studies, besides from bible thumpers, concerning a boy, or girl, being turned gay. Just doesn't happen. Nature is going to override. I know people who just figured it out after many years. Nobody turned or 'indoctrinated' them. And since then I haven't seen them trying to make anyone else around them turn gay. I'm wondering how you feel when walking in public and see a man and woman kissing. Does it make you want to blindfold your children and run the other way? If not then what happens if you see two men or two women kissing? I'm guessing it's a different reaction but it is just a guess.
 
Top Bottom