What is Digg?120 Comments
- cg4et, on 05/17/2008, -4/+61Will the real John McCain please stand up?
- barackoblogger, on 05/17/2008, -4/+45straight talk express... derailed.
- Gemfinder, on 05/17/2008, -3/+34You don't have to be a Republican to be pro-gun. I know lots of Libertarians and Democrats who support the Second Amendment.
- thezettabytes, on 05/17/2008, -3/+20Wow! McCain is having quite a debate with himself.
- Deodrus, on 05/17/2008, -4/+21Y'all act like you never seen a white politician before
- mikexcore, on 05/17/2008, -3/+19Another prime example of how McCain is a flip-flopper.
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -10/+24When will you stupid republicans realize what a POS McCain is? He has an F- rating from Gun Owners of America. www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
He's as or more liberal than the liberals running. He's all about getting rid of the 1st amendment (McCain-Feingold) and has his sites set on the 2nd amendment.
You can be sure that his chances of winning are slim to none. Most of us who typically vote republican as the lesser of the two evils have no intentions of voting for him. - ankankr, on 05/17/2008, -1/+14This guy is a serial flip-flopper.
I am John McCain and I am confused about my message! - MadEnvoy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+13Jaws all on the floor like Hillary, like Obama just burst in the door
- mrgreg, on 05/17/2008, -3/+12Crap like this shows why McCain is clearly NOT a choice for true conservatives and 2nd Amendment supporters. I can't believe the NRA would endorse him over Ron Paul, who stands behind firearm owners so much more than flip flop McCain.
- JettaMan, on 05/17/2008, -5/+14Why doesn't he just admit that he is a Democrat that has infiltrated the Republican Party? He seems to think that Freedom to Bear Arms is just some funny little thing that hunters do. The founders had very clear and important reasons for adding the 2nd amendment and it wasn't for sports enthusiasts who like hunting. It is to protect the democracy against tyranny from the state.
- Enasni1212, on 05/17/2008, -1/+9Republican as the lesser of two evils? There's a new one.
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -2/+10Wouldn't gun rights advocates favor a bill that limits gun control?
- homah, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8Parties are irrelevant...there is garbage on both sides of the fence. They want us to fight over stupid ***** like which party is better instead of focusing on the real issues.
- innocentsinner, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8Flip-flopper was last election. 'Elitist' is the new buzzword
- subcomandante, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8I'm very much to the left, but I do support the Second Amendment.
- LumpyRevolution, on 05/17/2008, -0/+7McCain is globalist CFR scum. When we revolt, and we will, he'll be hung from trees with the rest.
(Daddy Bush metaphor intended) - totorototoro, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8Its embarrassing to watch both parties bend over for the NRA. Mitt Romney claiming he was a lifelong hunter until it turned out he never had a license? John Kerry walking around awkwardly wearing hunting gear and toting a rifle?
- spritom, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6McCain is far from anything that gun-rights advocates would want. Having him in office would most definitely be a time when no bills favoring gun-rights would go through. And likely a few slightly-left-leaning bills would go through.
In contrast, Clinton or Obama would actively seek to pass more stringent gun legislation.
The question is...do conservatives hold their nose and vote for McCain and be an "enabler" to the party? Or vote for a true conservative even if that person doesn't have a chance of winning the election? It may (or may not) send a message to the party, but it would also mean 4-8 years of a left-leaning person in the White House.
Personally, the conservative side of this election is reminding me of '96 with Bob Dole. Very little conservative excitement. In '04, the Republicans really got out the vote...this time, I just don't see it. - ZeroIce, on 05/17/2008, -1/+7I bet 99% of libertarians would support the 2nd Amendment. The majority of democrats just wanna take the guns away for the frightened unarmed Americans and those who complain about the "shootings".
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5Anti-American? You sit here, arguing for the removal of people's 1st-Amendment rights, and you want to talk about being anti-American? Do you even consider the people who have sacrificed their lives to give you the right to act like a total douche bag?
- pintomp3, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5now it's the doubletalk express.
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4The NRA was originally started as a gun control organization. Give them the boot and stick with Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms. The NRA is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
- Zarokima, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6So why exactly SHOULDN'T two men/women who love each other be allowed to marry? You speak of fighting for freedom, but it seems that you're fighting AGAINST freedom there.
Also, McCain supports torture after himself going through some pretty bad treatment as a POW. If he gets elected, we'll have yet another Republican president with no integrity (Eisenhower being the last with any).
**side note before "but-but-but Clinton!" reply** Yes, I agree he had a serious lack of integrity, but an adulterous blowjob is a damn sight better (on a national scale) than the ***** pulled by Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. - Pillage, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6thinkpropaganda
- MurphyWatson, on 05/17/2008, -7/+11He only has a C+ rating from the NRA(its not like they love the guy or anything).
The sad thing is that he was right when he said they shouldn't influence policy. - Gerbil_Juice, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5I'm sure as hell not what is considered a Republican these days but I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
- firecaptain, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5It's not a "freedom", it's a RIGHT.
- apophenic, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5It's been derailed so many times it doesn't matter anymore. He can do anything, and the media will parrot whatever he tells them to.
- jdaniel284, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5"Go ahead and vote for a third party candidate. I'll bet you a billion dollars he or she doesn't win. You have to choose."
It's not important whether you win or lose. It is only important that you FIGHT. And I will be voting for the candidate that best supports my liberty and freedom, which is a long way from either Obama or McCain. - Arcueid01, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6I just can't believe that anyone but Paul got the nomination. I tell you these Neo-con scum need to get out of politics and go live in some totalitarian country. They have absolutely no understand of the Constitution and the reason our country is so great.
- BloodWenis, on 05/17/2008, -6/+10Neocon Douchebag.
Him getting the nomination, Fox News (specifically Hannity) pushed candidates on us while disenfranchising true conservatives and their candidates (e.g. Paul), sent me over the edge. After voted in the primary I (and my money) switched to Libertarian. - spritom, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5It's been no secret that McCain's views have not matched those of NRA members. McCain's been in the middle to middle-left of a number of issues that the NRA is interested in. But McCain in office would likely be a neutral time frame for the NRA.
By comparison, it's also no secret that Obama and Clinton have actively sought to work on things in opposition of the NRA. Either of these two in office would have the NRA on the political defensive.
Right or wrong, left or right, the NRA made a political choice to endorse McCain. But he's far from the NRA poster boy. - lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Neo-cons are liberal. they have liberal foreign policies, and have just enough of a right wing flavor to trick republicans into thinking they love God, Guns and restricting just the right kind of freedoms at home to make you feel comfortable. but when you want to overhaul the whole infrastructure, that is considered liberal, Neo-cons don't want social freedoms to prevail. if you consider yourself conservative for any respectable reason (and there are few) it should be because you don't the government larger/exerting more power. Neocons cant get enough power.
- vinnyvenus, on 05/17/2008, -10/+13 Obama sponsored a bill to limit gun control in inner cities but now he is supposedly for 2nd amendment. All politicians Obamans pander to voters.
- wjackson, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3No, no, no...you did it wrong.
- JettaMan, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3It's quite easy to figure out what they meant. Read the papers that they wrote around the same time (they write articles and letters to one another) and it quickly becomes clear the comma doesn't matter.
- bubba9999, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Anyone who's watched McCain should realize that for the last 20 years, he's been working any angle he can that he thinks will give him an advantage to land in the White House. Hell, he very nearly split with the GOP 16 years ago and went at it as an independant before realizing that the GOP's coffers were more attractive than the fringe vote.
During Dubya's administration, he worked hard to try to tie himself to the party wagon in order to appear to support mainstream party platforms specifically to gather support to prepare for this election. Remember when Dubya's administration was young and everyone was surprised when he fell in line? That was no accident.
The dude obviously wants to be President more than anything in the world. He's willing to do anything to get it - lie, cheat, steal. I don't think that makes him any better or worse than anyone else, but I personally can't trust that sort of indiscriminate zealotry. - swrostmore, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3You're right about one thing, he is going to look REAL young.
- faceless323, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3McCain is going to pull a Mission Accomplished on us. He is going to say straight meant "hetero" and not "honest"
McCain take a viagra so your heart can explode. - calantus, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4Obviously, you have no idea what Deodrus is referring to, cg4et either.
- MWeather, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Many do disagree, like the drafters of the ammendment, and English teachers.
Either "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a restriction, or it is not. The comma doesn't change that.
The only way you could assume it was a restriction, though, is if you think "being" means "so long as" and not "because".
If it IS a restriction, then it means that if the militia is not needed for security, then the government can infringe on the PEOPLE'S right keep to bear arms.
But the right is still that of the people. In no case does the right to bear arms fall on the militia.
The amendment is quite clear: Because of the fact that a well-trained militia is needed for security, the government may not infringe on the people's right to keep bear arms.
It offers no guidance on what the government may do if a militia is no longer required, it merely states the reason the restriction was placed on the government. - lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Actually, I am a democrat, and have untill McCain started pandering so hardcore to the Right, had a lot of respect for him. he has been up until recently been pandering. in fact I was hoping he would win the GOP nom in 00, but Bush had to suggest to voters that McCain may have an 'illegitimate' baby who he was taking care of? (the child was adopted.)
- stonewaljacksn, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5I think its awesome that when John McCain like or flip flops, he's covering up how GOOD of a candidate he really is. I like the guy, but I do not like the current republican party values that he has to align himself with.
- facelesscoward, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Maybe I'm naive because I've only been alive for 18 years, but from what I've seen, the GOP gives less of a ***** about the Bill of Rights (barring the Second and occasionally the Tenth Amendment) than the Democrats do.
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3I'd say you're full of feces.
- Mothrog, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Why do we have to pick and choose?
- MWeather, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2So you think the second amendment prevents the government from taking the government's guns? Why do you feel the people has a different meanin in the second ammendment than it has in all the pother amendments that mention the people?
Or do you have this view of all mentions of the people, like : "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Given your view the above would mean that the government has even more powers than those enumerated in the constitution, rendering the whole document (sans the bill of rights amendments that don't apply to "the people") moot.
Is that really what you think? - OverkillTASF, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5As, shall we say, a "gun owning" and disenfranchised former Republican, the only reason I will vote for the tool that is John McCain is that as crappy as he is, he's still loads better than Obama or Clinton when compared to my views. Now, if we have a solid independent candidate, my vote will go elsewhere. But, personally, it's insane to me that the Democrats have two candidates who absolutely bury the needle in liberal thought, but the Republicans can't muster up someone who even tips the scales... Yuck.
- mrgreg, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3He still crossed the lines and became anti-gun in 2000, and has since flip flopped on that issue, in addition to many others. I can't vote for someone whose beliefs change so much. Why put my support into someone for what they say now when they may say the opposite a few years later?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is