Obama considering run for president


PDA






Remington788
October 22, 2006, 02:15 PM
All I have to say is :barf:

Obama acknowledges he's considering run for president in 2008
Last Updated 10/22/2006 11:45:21 AM


WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.

The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.

"That was how I was thinking at that time," said Obama, when asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" about his previous statements.

"Given the response I've been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. "My focus is on '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down and consider it."

Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, Obama's face fills the cover next to the headline, "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President." He is currently on a tour promoting his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream."

On Sunday, Obama dismissed notions that he might not be ready to run for president because of his limited experience in national politics. He agreed the job requires a "certain soberness and seriousness" and "can't be something you pursue on the basis of vanity and ambition."

"I'm not sure anyone is ready to be president before they're president," Obama said. "I trust the judgment of the American people.

"We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the paces pretty well," Obama said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama considering run for president" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
aspen1964
October 22, 2006, 02:36 PM
..he wanted to run at least as early as when he gave his 'highly touted' speech at the last DNC ...shocking!:what: :what:...'vanity & ambition'?...then he must ask Hillary to withdraw for those reasons!!!!

aspen1964
October 22, 2006, 02:44 PM
..but what are his true politics of the issues..who cares if he speaks with flattering words(the trait that a good con-man must posess..right?)

River Wraith
October 22, 2006, 02:48 PM
He's a socialist. He's not fit to be a citizen of the United States, much less its president.

Nitrogen
October 22, 2006, 02:51 PM
PS River, I love hearing people comment on who is and who isn't fit to be a citizen of the United States.
Such talk makes me furious, this country is for EVERYONE, EVEN those we disagree with.

Before anyone says anything else:
Barak Obama From Ontheissues.org:

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

* Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
* Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
* Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
* Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
* Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Now, Hillary:

Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them
We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000

Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs
We have to make sure that our schools are safe. Our schools need more help from parents and from communities, and we also need more social workers and counselors who are trained to see the early warning signs. No school security system or metal detector can keep out the culture of violence that dominates the lives of so many of our children. We have to address issues of culture, and we have to ensure that young people do not have easy access to weapons; not only firearms but bomb making material.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Safe Schools” Sep 9, 2000

License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000

Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands
I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.
Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999

Gun control protects our children
We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999

Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation
We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.
Source: Remarks to NEA in Orlando, Florida Jul 5, 1999

Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun... make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999

Ban kids’ unsupervised access to guns
Q: What actions can students take to help gun control further? A: Young people, especially teenagers, [should pledge] to not give any child unsupervised access to a firearm; not to go into homes, or let your younger siblings go into homes where you know guns are and are not safely stored and taken care of. You guys are going to a party, make sure there are no guns around. If you own a gun or you know people who do, make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

* Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
* Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
* Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
* Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
* Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.


Now, neither of them are good, but Hilary is "better"
jeez, I feel like I need a shower with a wire brush.

Steelcore
October 22, 2006, 02:55 PM
Osama Obama + Hitlery
Perfect Democratic ticket.The Republicans could nominate Viagra Bob Dole and win agianst those two.

longeyes
October 22, 2006, 02:58 PM
I wouldn't rule him out, not in these times. The kid's got game.

Malone LaVeigh
October 22, 2006, 03:01 PM
He's a socialist. He's not fit to be a citizen of the United States, much less its president.

Who are you to say who's fit to be a citizen? If you ask me, a statement like that makes you a pretty poor excuse for an American.

River Wraith
October 22, 2006, 03:05 PM
I don't much care what you think, since I put you in about the same category.

SomeKid
October 22, 2006, 03:06 PM
Wow, we need to fight them harder. a full third of Obamas wants are fulfilled already.


* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

real_name
October 22, 2006, 03:12 PM
Please don't use the name Hitler so lightly, regardless of anyone's present political affiliations it is beyond poor taste to compare anyone in the USA to Adolf Hitler.
Even Donald Rumsfeld's photocopied signature on letters of condolence to families of troops lost in Iraq wasn't Hitleresque.

aspen1964
October 22, 2006, 03:19 PM
...I haven't researched what Bambi stands for yet...my gut feeling intially tells me he has the wrong politics for the good of America...the evidence will bear that out or pursuade me otherwise...beacuse the Democrats have degenerated so much it is hard for me to see voting for one of their chosen..and the Replublicans need to cleanse their party of a fair amount of scum and grime trying to pass themselves off as decent, moral conservatives..and as to oprah?...I haven't seen a show in many years nor do I care to...I place modern celebrities near the bottom of the scum pond...filthy rich scum but still scum...

Kingcreek
October 22, 2006, 03:37 PM
In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate...

Centrist? he is not.
He is very liberal, very charismatic, and the darling of the Democratic liberal wing. He is much more "electable" than Hillary because he doesn't have the baggage.
I have met him and heard him speak and he scares the hell out of me.
A million dollar smile, he oozes folksy charm, and he is smart enough to win a debate with almost anyone. especially our current crop of mealy-mouthed republican pseudo-conservatives.
I'm not usually the one saying the sky is falling, but we should be very worried.

ArmedBear
October 22, 2006, 03:49 PM
Please don't use the name Hitler so lightly, regardless of anyone's present political affiliations it is beyond poor taste to compare anyone in the USA to Adolf Hitler.

My entire ancestry including both parents suffered under Hitler's regime, greatly. I take such comparisons VERY seriously.

However, I think your post is unadulterated crap. The comparison can be legitimate, and it can be useful, especially if we want to prevent Hitler's political objectives from happening here.

Barak Obama isn't Hitler, though. He's an empty suit.

Just my 2 cents.

real_name
October 22, 2006, 03:52 PM
He is very liberal, very charismatic, and the darling of the Democratic liberal wing.

You might think he is but in reality he is viewed with suspicion.
Read these comments from Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/) regarding their lead story about his possible candidacy for '08.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/22/sen-obama-says-hes-weig_n_32238.html) to page, not censored for swearing.

My entire ancestry including both parents suffered under Hitler's regime, greatly.

Mine too,which is why I take exception at using the name as a term of abuse for Mrs. Clinton.
Even Dick Cheney isn't as bad as Hitler.

Cosmoline
October 22, 2006, 03:54 PM
Hillary learned her lesson about overt socialism in her husband's first term. She's pulled back her rhetoric and has tried hard to appear to be more "moderate." But she hasn't changed. It's just a new song and dance. Obama is getting lots of press because he's light skinned enough to be acceptable to Democrats.

longeyes
October 22, 2006, 03:58 PM
Barak Obama isn't Hitler, though. He's an empty suit.

I wouldn't call him an empty suit. Just the contrary. A perfect "GQ" candidate.

The ultra-Left isn't keen on him because they want a socialist matriarchy and figure Obama might wake up one day and have a hankering for a good 1911.

hillbilly
October 22, 2006, 04:22 PM
In a lot of ways, Barak is the PERFECT leftist Dem candidate.

He's all image.

He doesn't have the substance, the weight, "the lead" if you will (the heavy soft metal used in the bullets, not the word pronounced 'leed') to really be president.

In that way, he's perfect for the leftist Dems.....who really do think that all they have to do is find a better way to package their message.

They don't realize that the problem IS their message.

He's a freshman congresscritter, who's claim to fame is that he gave a good speech.....once.

You can TRY to make the same comparison to Slick Willy Clinton if you want, but it falls apart.

Even Slick Willy Clinton had several years of experience serving in an executive branch position (gov. of Arkansas) and had even lost the gov's race once before he chose to run for President.

Obama is nothing but image and style.

He has no weight whatsoever.

hillbilly

nico
October 22, 2006, 04:56 PM
I realize this is off topic, but I just had to point out this gem in Real_Name's link:

2008 Democratic National Convention Schedule

7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.

7:15 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance to the United Nations.

7:30 PM. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Nonreligious prayer and worship: Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

8:05 P.M Ceremonial tree hugging.

8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding: Barney Frank, presiding.

8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally: Cindy Sheehan, Susan Sarandon.

9:00 P.M. Keynote speech: "The Proper Etiquette for Surrender" French President Jacques Chirac.

9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden Kidney Transplant Fund.

9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay: Sean Penn.

9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military: A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton.

9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

9:50 P.M. Dan Rather receives "Truth in Broadcasting" award, presented by Michael Moore.

9:55 P.M., Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

10:00 P.M. Presentation: "How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers", by Howard Dean.

10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President by Mahmud Ahnadinejad.

11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

11:05 P.M. Sen. Obama nominated for VP.

11:15 P.M. "Our Troops are War Criminals", presented by John Kerry.

11:30 P.M Coronation of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

12:00 AM. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

12:05 A.M Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.

I know I risk being misinterpreted by saying this, but I think there's a significant number of people who wouldn't vote for Obama purely because he's black. I think this is an absurd reason to vote against someone, but it could work in our favor.

44Brent
October 22, 2006, 05:15 PM
In Illinois he voted against gun owners at every opportunity. Among the bills he voted against was the "Hagel DeMar" bill. This was the bill that would protect gun owners who were charged with violating local handgun bans, in the event that the person who owned the handgun used the handgun to protect themselves in their homes against home invasions.

When he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he made a pronouncement that he was going to "protect" the people in Illinois from people who carried guns in other states. In other words, this was his way of saying that he was going to try to find a way to kill right-to-carry at a national level.

1 old 0311
October 22, 2006, 05:21 PM
Liberal? Democrat? Chicago? Named 'OBAMA?' Try to sell that to mainstream America.

aspen1964
October 22, 2006, 05:24 PM
...if what I am seeing is true, any chance of all of me voting for him is fast diminshing...

CAPTAIN MIKE
October 22, 2006, 05:32 PM
Whatever your true politics, if you really want to be President of the United States, you must:

1. "Capture the Center". If you appear to the general electoral public to have captured the moderate center of the political spectrum, you have a good chance of winning.

2. "Paint the Other Guy as Extreme". If you come across to the general electoral public as being "Reasonable" and you make the opponent(s) look like extremists who can't mind their tempers or their manners, you have a good chance of winning.

3. "Charisma and Charm Count". In an era where "gotcha" politics gets personal with loud name-calling and finger-pointing, coming across with class (and humor) will give you a good chance of wining. For example during a Presidential Debate with then Vice-President Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan (the oldest man ever to run for the office) was asked whether his age and physical health might be an impediment to his serving as President. The Great Communicator simply smiled and said into microphone "Well.....I'm not going to hold the youth and inexperience of my opponent against him." Reagan, Mondale and everyone watching all cracked up.

Winning the Presidence is unlike winning any other office. Americans look to the President to have qualities of charisma, charm, wit, and most of all a sense of leadership and decisiveness (without coming across as pompous and arrogant). Obama is a walking United Nations in terms of his background and experience. His politics reflect the core values of the Democratic Party. He and Hilary would be a very formidable ticket and should not be under-estimated.

That said, I'm still hoping to see Elizabeth Dole or Dr. Condoleeza Rice in the race. Maybe my long-revered Republican party will pull a good one out of the hat, but so far no one I see really impresses me as having what it takes to actually WIN the Presidency in 2008.

Glockfan.45
October 22, 2006, 06:28 PM
Liberal? Democrat? Chicago? Named 'OBAMA?' Try to sell that to mainstream America

Yes the name alone will make some flinch at the polls. Barak Obama doesnt sound very American, sounds almost like a name you would hear on a terrorist watch list. Plus the obvious that only one person has stated thus far, he is black. No reason not to vote for somebody but people are fickle. Remember the majority of voters are older folks. Can you honestly see Grandma or Grandpa voting for a black man named Obama?

Edmond
October 22, 2006, 07:01 PM
I know I risk being misinterpreted by saying this, but I think there's a significant number of people who wouldn't vote for Obama purely because he's black. I think this is an absurd reason to vote against someone, but it could work in our favor.

No misinterpretation by me. In fact, that's the way a lot of black folks think in the Crook County area. One of the papers recently did a pool on who they would vote for in the Crook County Presidential race. Despite having less experience, having been placed in his position and being the son of John Stroger, most blacks said they would vote for Todd Stroger against Peraica.

alan
October 22, 2006, 07:24 PM
Re the senators "admission" on Meet The Press this A.M., is anyone surprised?

one eyed fatman
October 22, 2006, 09:54 PM
He doesn't have the substance, the weight, "the lead" if you will (the heavy soft metal used in the bullets, not the word pronounced 'leed') to really be president.


That fits most politicians these days. Most of em are bought and sold like pigs going to market.

longeyes
October 22, 2006, 10:23 PM
Obama is a great "New America," "diversity rules" candidate. He will appeal to young people who have been brainwashed, guilty liberals, and everyone who puts appearance before substance.

We keep thinking an Obama can't be elected. Wrong. He can and will be (if not this Obama another Obama down the road). Our job is to find a way to save the essence of America before it gets swamped by what the last forty years hath wrought.

Kingcreek
October 22, 2006, 10:50 PM
Obama is a great "New America," "diversity rules" candidate. He will appeal to young people who have been brainwashed, guilty liberals, and everyone who puts appearance before substance.

We keep thinking an Obama can't be elected. Wrong. He can and will be (if not this Obama another Obama down the road). Our job is to find a way to save the essence of America before it gets swamped by what the last forty years hath wrought.
AMEN! Longeyes
Barak Obama can work a crowd like nobody I've ever seen. Even folks that don't agree with everything he says love him. He can connect with the "common man" even better than Slick Willie Clinton.
Watch him, and watch out!

Don Gwinn
October 22, 2006, 11:24 PM
I was in a packed room (gun owners filled the hearing room plus the rotunda walkway outside) for a committee vote in the Illinois legislature when Obama was on the committee. I'd never heard of him before, and he came off as a reasonable, educable man who simply didn't understand the issue--he actually stated at one point that there must be some compromise position whereby people couldn't shoot assault weapons, but gun collectors could keep their machine guns. It has since become clear that he's not interested in learning anything or hearing anything that might point up problems with banning guns. He's not interested in doing anything that might be controversial to the big-time Democrats out there--ever. But when I was in a room with him, he had me convinced.

His charisma and persuasion are formidable. The importance of his "one big speech" is that it proved to the Democrat power players that his charisma comes across on TV and in giant halls. That was only his demonstration that he's ready for prime time. The important groundwork was all laid long beforehand; otherwise he never would have been given the chance to speak at the DNC convention.


The fact that he's black and has an Islamic-sounding name is not going to matter much to most people, nor should it. Counting on something like that to save the day is going to lead to disappointment.

Dan from MI
October 22, 2006, 11:35 PM
Obama is just like Ted Kennedy on guns. In fact he voted for his ban on '30-30 (all centerfire) ammunition.

Kowboy
October 22, 2006, 11:58 PM
All:

I'll tell you why you're all going to have your a$$e$ handed to you on election day.

It's guys like me. Second Amendment-supporting, gun-owning guys like me.

I've owned and run a small business and that'll make you conservative more quickly than anything.

However, I cannot abide the complete contempt and lack of understanding of the Constitution shown by the President and his supporters. Bush can declare the Democratic nominee for President an enemy combatant and have him held without trial for life. I am not exaggerating one bit.

I'm sick to death of these page-lusting hypocrites passing discriminatory laws against my gay friends and family. At least my friends and family are honest about their sexuality, unlike the congressman and his coverers.

Keep your God out of my government.

As much as I will want to vomit with Polosi as Speaker of the House, I am morally compelled to end this madness and will vote these bums out without reservation.

So when you're licking your wounds November 7, 2006, now you'll know why.

Kowboy

Kingcreek
October 23, 2006, 01:06 AM
Kowboy,
your reply is all over the place. Exactly what is all of that supposed mean?
FYI, I own and run my own business (actually three if you count the farm) and I'm as solidly pro 2A and conservative as anybody you'll find in middle america.
and by the way, I have an openly lesbian adult daughter, but I cannot make sense of your post in the context of this thread.
Help me see what I must be missing.

gunsmith
October 23, 2006, 04:38 AM
you are willing to let extremist homophobes have guns while making sure
your gay and lesbian friends can not?:barf: :barf: :barf:

crazed_ss
October 23, 2006, 04:53 AM
I think what he's saying is the Dems arent as bad as the Republicans. Everyone here is having fun teeing off on Obama and calling him a socialist and other names, when it's the Republicans who have been steadily chipping away at civil liberties for the last few years.

Metapotent
October 23, 2006, 05:52 AM
Plus the obvious that only one person has stated thus far, he is black. No reason not to vote for somebody but people are fickle. Remember the majority of voters are older folks. Can you honestly see Grandma or Grandpa voting for a black man named Obama?

Come on now. I think America is passed that. The fact that Obama is black shouldn't be an issue to anyone. It makes me lose respect in ANY American, no matter how old, or how patriotic if they simply don't vote for someone based on their race.

With that said, I will not vote for Obama. I like some of the things he has said, he seems to be one of the most moderate Democrats out there beyond Lieberman. But the fact is that a Democrat as President will still have to submit to the will of Democrats in Congress, and as we all know Democrats overwhelmingly are morons.

I would vote for Obama if he was running on the Republican or independent ticket for sure if he was to actually adhere to what he has personally claimed his policies are. But Democrats are Democrats, they are a hivemind for the most part. Barrack Obama's policies would be shoved aside to further the liberal agenda. Thats why I won't vote for him.

If anyone uses the fact that he is black as a reason not to vote for him than those people shouldn't be vote wielders IMO.

gunsmith
October 23, 2006, 06:04 AM
spying on terrorist ??

It's far more likely Billary would declare a repub an enemy combatant then vice/versa.

i don't agree with the republicans on many issues, and things are grim for gun owners if our so called moderate repbs like ghoulianni and mcclib get in power

but if the gov't goes as haywire as the leftymoon bats say it is, I would think they would want more guns not less

Kim
October 23, 2006, 01:08 PM
I woke up one morning and found out I was living in a foreign country. God is dead, Gay marriage was invented, everyone was stoned on drugs, guns were banned and I was working for the government. The family unit had been done away with and the Village had taken my children. But somehow my civil rights were intact. I found out I could go to a government library and check out governemt owned books and the government could not find out what book it owned I was reading. The librarians were happy. So my civil rights were intact. I went to the government physician and got placed in a government psychiatric ward cause they said I was non social and needed just a little drug treatment. Then the .gov decided I was just to dang old and not worth the time so I was euthanized for the common good. But my civil rights were intact. Yea Obama and those like him are what are needed so my civil rights will be intact. Does this sound nutty? I expect so. Just like the drivil from the left sounds nutty today about all the civil rights the evil Bush cabal, regime, PNAC and God are taking away from us. Get a grip on reality sometime before it is too late.:what:

Nitrogen
October 23, 2006, 01:16 PM
Reading threads like this make me seriously reconsider my membership in this forum.

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 01:41 PM
the Republicans who have been steadily chipping away at civil liberties for the last few years.

Let's get real here.

They haven't been chipping away at any that impact me in the least. That's what matters to me, and I think that's what matters to most Americans.

The Democrats did over the last decade, and they want to some more. "Fairness Doctrine", gun bans, speech codes, racial quotas,"hate crimes", "hate speech" laws, smoking bans, erosion of property rights, higher taxes, laws governing exactly what I do with my children, dog bans, etc. These all impact me. Someone listening to overseas phone calls does not, and I expected that it was happening anyway.

And I drove the mosque where two of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped their false god, and guess what? It was business as usual. I didn't see any jack-booted thugs surrounding the place, and I never did. That's a pretty sharp contrast to Waco.

BTW, here's the NYT saying, essentially, "Well, the SWIFT program is legal, and it hasn't been abused. So now we think it's okay."

http://instapundit.com/archives/033429.php

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 01:43 PM
Bush can declare the Democratic nominee for President an enemy combatant and have him held without trial for life. I am not exaggerating one bit.

That is a load of crap. It's simply not true. The fact that you and others believe it just argues in favor of the axiom that, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

mljdeckard
October 23, 2006, 01:50 PM
I'm with gunsmith and armedbear. Remember, the NSA ran the Eschelon program under Clinton, which was MUCH more intrusive, even than the Patriot Act, the only difference was, you didn't know about it at the time.

Using every electronic surveillance trick in the book to listen to your enemy when you are at war is just good strategy. (You're crazy if you think the enemy didn't take it for granted that we were doing it.) Passing comprehensive legislation to close the gaps in the current law is part of being at war. Doing these things AND BANNING GUNS TOO is something to worry about. Again, as long as they trust me to be armed, I will trust them to be my government.

You know what you get when you protest vote to hand control over to the democrats? You get the Patriot Act AND the renewed, revised, Assualt Weapons Ban.

AirForceShooter
October 23, 2006, 01:58 PM
On the surface O'bama is an awesome candidate.
Good looking, good talking, great background.
But underneath a total lightweight.

Armedbear: the Patriot Act didn't impact your civil liberties?

AFS

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 02:13 PM
Armedbear: the Patriot Act didn't impact your civil liberties?

Perhaps you could point out something to me that I might have noticed?

In California, I'm looking over my shoulder because I'm probably breaking some trivial law or other a lot of the time. I have done horrible things like having a beer in the park, or even playing fetch with my dog in an empty field. When we have the kid, I figure I'll probably be breaking a lot of laws regarding childrearing, like the state law that makes it a crime to leave your kid in the car when you step to the ATM to get a 20, or your dog in the car for a little bit longer. An acquaintance got a ticket for SMOKING IN HIS OWN ENCLOSED CAR. THAT stuff, I notice.

Last I checked, Miranda rights were still in force. I still have freedom of speech, at least "subject to community standards of decency" and other such disgusting twisting of the BoR, none of which have anything to do with USAPATRIOT.

My home is not safe from seizure by profiteers because of a vile SCOTUS ruling not USAPATRIOT, and this has happened to people around me in San Diego, recently. I am not allowed to buy a pistol magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, to defend my home. I am an instant felon if I put the wrong muzzle brake on my plinker. I know otherwise law-abiding schoolteachers whose lives could be wrecked if they're ever found with the pot they smoke.

So, in all seriousness, I DON'T feel particularly free here, because I'm not. But USAPATRIOT, whether I like it or not, has nothing to do with it.

Kim
October 23, 2006, 02:17 PM
How many people here have actually read the patriot act? If read how many decided on their own what it meant legally? Or did everyone who is saying MY civil liberities are being shreaded get their info from the ACLU, Daily Kos or MoveOn. org or the NYT editorial page? How many democrats voted for the patriot act? Is everything these groups say always right? Do you think their is any bias? Do you think the ACLU really cares about anything but THEIR legal theories of civil liberities? Who made the ACLU the Lord of all that is legally correct? I call BS. They are just another special interest group with their own biasis and agenda. I just got through watching some left wing International Human Rights group panel on c-span. The guy recommends reinstating Saddam as President cause the war is illegal and his trial does not fit his great ideas of international human rights theory. In other word he was not tried at the very honorable ICC. Yea the one that that is nothing but a hot bed for lefty thought and has never seen a typrant they did not love. Except Bush. They think he is an international war criminal. I do not want these people to rule the country where I live. They are dangerous and ignorant and a enemy of all that is good.

Kowboy
October 23, 2006, 02:26 PM
Amed Bear:

"simply not true" eh?

The first prong of the Military Commission Act of 2006 definition is unjustifiably broad. But the second prong of the definition is far worse. It appears to delegate to the President or Secretary of Defense unrestricted power to deem anyone an unlawful enemy combatant. All it requires is that a "competent tribunal" like a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) make the determination. (CSRTs are the administrative boards that review detentions at Guantanamo.) The bill itself says nothing about the substance of the criteria that the tribunal should apply.

Check facts before typing, please.

Kowboy

Kowboy
October 23, 2006, 02:32 PM
Kingcreek:

Im trying to tell my fellow gun-owning conservatives why they are going down to defeat in a few days. I cannot turn my back on the rest of the Constitution to defend the Second Amendment. The religious bigots, the American Taliban if you will, (Dobeson, Falwell, etc.) are a much larger threat to freedom than the Democrats.

Hope that helps,

Kowboy

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 02:35 PM
Check facts before typing, please.

It seems you didn't even read what was written HERE a few days ago.

Check your own facts.

The Constitution overrides this law, for Americans. Laws that described the treatment of prisoners in past wars over the past 200+ years didn't apply to Americans, either, unless, perhaps, they were found wearing German uniforms or something.

mljdeckard
October 23, 2006, 02:40 PM
I took a seminar on The Patriot Act. Mostly fill. All subject to judicial review. honestly mostly a token effort, with little that isn't either duplicated or almost duplicated by existing law.

El Barto
October 23, 2006, 02:41 PM
I personally believe that instead of Bush/Chaney or Gore/Lieberman, it should have been Powell/McCain.

nico
October 23, 2006, 03:47 PM
And I drove the mosque where two of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped their false god, and guess what?
I hate to break it to you, but Muslims believe in the same god as Christians and Jews.

Bruce H
October 23, 2006, 04:06 PM
With a middle name of Hussein he will do well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

He is an educated person with great oratory skills. If he has any substance to him he does a very good job of shielding it from public view. He has an ivy league law degree. How many more ot those do we need in government at any stage?

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 04:15 PM
I hate to break it to you, but Muslims believe in the same god as Christians and Jews.

Did I say I was either?:rolleyes:

Sry0fcr
October 23, 2006, 05:00 PM
Im trying to tell my fellow gun-owning conservatives why they are going down to defeat in a few days. I cannot turn my back on the rest of the Constitution to defend the Second Amendment. The religious bigots, the American Taliban if you will, (Dobeson, Falwell, etc.) are a much larger threat to freedom than the Democrats.

Trading away some freedoms in exchange for others isn't the answer. There's more out there than just D's and R's. If the rest of America would realize this we'd be better off.

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 06:19 PM
James Dobson is a greater threat to our freedom than Hillary Clinton?

Give me a break.

The world's full of speaker/writer types with opinions about everything. Maureen Dowd, Jerry Falwell, Paul Krugman, etc. all have their following, and they all have some influence. But not one of them has ever actually voted one way or another in the Senate.

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 06:22 PM
There's more out there than just D's and R's.

Not really.

Can you name a candidate who is neither, who is a contender for Senate?

I can name one, and he was a D until a few months ago -- and will be again, when he wins.

Step 1: Get viable candidates that you like before the voters. Party doesn't matter too much. The primary elections are a good time to get candidates out there.
Step 2: Campaign for your best actual choice in the final election.

Unless they are die-hard party people, Americans tend to vote for candidates. Can you name, say, a Libertarian candidate, right now, who could get a plurality of votes? I can't. Bummer, but it's reality.

Until the Libertarians get a candidate who really gets people fired up, we have little chance of winning AS Libertarians.

Kowboy
October 23, 2006, 08:46 PM
Bear:

"James Dobson is a greater threat to our freedom than Hillary Clinton?

Give me a break."

Hey Bear, let me remind you, these are the guys who told the nation that 9/11 was caused by abortionists and homosexuals.

That is delusional, as are any of their followers.

You may not like Hillary, I'm not a fan, but she is rational, unlike these Theocrats.

Kowboy

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 08:52 PM
Hey Bear, let me remind you, these are the guys who told the nation that 9/11 was caused by abortionists and homosexuals.

James Dobson? Let me see the quote. Come on, let me see it.

This is what I can find on PFAW, in Dobson's own words:

"I certainly believe that God is displeased with America for its pride and arrogance, for killing 40 million unborn babies, for the universality of profanity and for other forms of immorality. However, rather than trying to forge a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the terrorist attacks and America’s abandonment of biblical principles, which I think is wrong, we need to accept the truth that this nation will suffer in many ways for departing from the principles of righteousness. "The wages of sin is death," as it says in Romans 6, both for individuals and for entire cultures."

A far cry from blaming 9/11 on homosexuals.



That is delusional, as are any of their followers.

You may not like Hillary, I'm not a fan, but she is rational, unlike these Theocrats.

Uh, so what? Rationally power-hungry? Rationally vindictive? Rationally opposed to all I hold dear as an American?

Like I said, Hillary actually casts votes in the Senate and will run for President soon. James Dobson and Jerry Falwell don't and won't.

Not everyone you disagree with is a threat to you, Kowboy.

vito
October 23, 2006, 09:52 PM
I'm a retired Army officer who served 24 years, including my time in Vietnam. I've never run for office but vote every election. I have sworn to protect this nation and the U.S. Constitution. I consider myself a patriot who understands that the U.S.A. may be the last hope for mankind, and is the greatest nation that has ever existed on this earth. As an avid reader of this forum I am more than dismayed at the ignorance and foolishness of so many contributors to this thread. And for those of you who think that there are more important rights that those guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment I hope you never have to find out how the 2nd Amendment is truly the most important that insures the rest. On a practical level, I use a politician's position on the 2A as a litmus test for his or her faith in the common man. The elected official who fears, distrusts and condescends to the common man does not want that same common man to possess the means of self defense. I believe in the American people, and I believe that this nation is one of the people, for the people and by the people. Anyone who does not trust the people does not deserve my vote. God Bless America and God help us if even those of us who believe in the right to keep and bear arms cannot unite behind those who support that right.

Lone_Gunman
October 23, 2006, 09:55 PM
Vito, did you vote for Bush?

lionking
October 23, 2006, 10:31 PM
vito thanks

I just don't see the Dems doing any better on a wide array of issues.They are hostile to gunrights thats for sure.Doubt the aftermath of 9-11 would have been better with Dems at the healm,though might not be in Iraq now....we still would be debating for the UN's seal of approval to do something?

Libertarians could be better than Repubs on certain issues.Its the wrong Repubs and Dems getting into the spotlight.Somewhere there are those that might actually be somewhat decent leaders but they get subverted by the elite.

I dont trust Obama,he might have charisma but so did Clinton.......

River Wraith
October 23, 2006, 10:57 PM
I would vote Libertarian or Republican, but not Democrat. I will not vote for socialists. The plan of the Fabian society worked in Great Britain and seems to be working here, although it's on hold at the moment.

bg
October 24, 2006, 01:49 PM
This reporter tells it like it is regarding this Obama
character..Some say he'd be good for the Nation as
President. I've heard some say mixing water & oil
won't hurt anything either..:rolleyes:
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=11640

Gun Control - Again, Obama is among the more extreme members of the U.S. Senate. In the last year, he has voted against shielding firearms manufacturers from lawsuits due to gun violence and in favor of legislation that would ban the sale or transfer of any and all semi-automatic firearms.

vmfrantz
October 24, 2006, 09:34 PM
It truely is amazing that you never here libs wanting to enforce laws or have death penalties for people that commit crimes with firearms. Its always punish the good guy. People should see that this is there way to force rule on the majority that dont want them. They could care less abouth the people these murders kill or wound. It is just a way to force there political agenda on us.

Shel
October 24, 2006, 09:52 PM
Let's hope he doesnt win... I really doubt he will. When I lived in IL I voted AGAINST him.

River Wraith
October 24, 2006, 09:58 PM
Let's hope he doesnt win... I really doubt he will. When I lived in IL I voted AGAINST him.
A lot of good that did, huh? At least you guys tried, but there are just too many liberals in Illinois and now we're stuck with his ass for 4 more years. I hope the American people have more sense, but you never know what might happen. I felt bad for you guys in Illinois when he was elected.

longeyes
October 24, 2006, 10:30 PM
Obama, or another Obama down the road, will be President of the America-aborning, if not in '08, then all too soon. It's an inevitability given the values being imbued by schools and media and entertainment. Those of us who care and are realists will be figuring where and how to preserve the values of the Founding Fathers.

Kowboy
October 25, 2006, 09:52 PM
Armed Bear:

Per your request:

THE TRANSCRIPT
Here are their comments in context:

Pat Robertson began the interview asking Falwell what his response has been to the terrorist attacks. Falwell said there had been a massive prayer gathering of members of his congregation along with students from Liberty University. He told the TV audience that they had humbled themselves before God, prayed for President Bush and his advisers and for the victims of the attacks.

Falwell then likened the attacks to Pearl Harbor and that at that time, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews and conquer the world. Now, "Islamic fundamentalists, radical terrorists, Middle-Eastern monsters" want to destroy Israel and conquer the world.

The two men then talked about religious revival and whether the events of September 11 might spark spiritual renewal in America.

Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."
Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."

Hillary Clinton has never said and/or done anything remotely as delusional as these Theocrats.

Happy to oblige,

Kowboy

Kim
October 26, 2006, 01:24 AM
You said James Dobson. That you posted is Falwell and Robertson. Where is James Dobson remarks. Ever read the Bible. God did decipline or punish people and nations all the time for their sin. Now you do not have to believe any of that. But it is there. Of coarse it played out over time and most people at the time probably did not understand the punishment for what it was. But the Prophets of the Old Testament did. Of coarse they were killed. You have to understand the Bible to understand those who are speaking of biblical things. You can even make a different interpretation if you want. But they have as much right to understand it as most have for centuries. Some people do not see the Bible as a comic book. But you do have the right to make fun of them if you want. Do I think they are always right or wrong---No. But I will not call them theocrats as that is just silly fearmongering of the left varity.

ArmedBear
October 26, 2006, 01:54 AM
Kim's right.

I quoted Dobson. People For the American Way found that quote to be one of the most "offensive" things he's ever said. Funny thing is, far-left professors are ALWAYS saying that the sins of the United States are coming 'round to bite us in the butt. The various groups just disagree about which "sins" are important, but the message is pretty darned similar.

No one takes Falwell seriously in the political arena, or has for years, and Robertson has been known to run in primaries. He's an opponent, not a supporter, of other candidates, at least in his mind. And he's just a rich TV preacher, to most ot them.

James Dobson and Jerry Falwell are very different people. To refer them as "those theocrats" indicates one of three things:

1. You don't know anything about them.
2. You have an agenda of your own, to lump them together and discredit all Christians who dare speak out about anything.
3. You are a bigot who can't tell one preacher from another.

Hillary Clinton is a politician. She votes in the Senate. She has a record to examine.

She may not be "delusional", but who cares?

No_Brakes23
October 26, 2006, 03:52 AM
Too bad he is an anti, cause he is smoother than Bill Clinton.

And the Republicans possibilities for '08 don't look a whole lot better. McCain isn't very pro 2a and Guiliani is downright anti. Who else are the Repubs putting up?


It truely is amazing that you never here libs wanting to enforce laws or have death penalties for people that commit crimes with firearms. Its always punish the good guy.I am a liberal, and I support the enforcement of most current laws, (Some laws violate the 2a, I don't support those,) I support the death penalty, and I do not support punishing the good guy.

Care to adjust your statement, or at least qualify it with a word besides never?

Art Eatman
October 26, 2006, 10:36 AM
Obama is the subject of this thread. Not the ACLU, religion, Falwell, or personal opinions of one another among the posters...

Art

longeyes
October 26, 2006, 12:11 PM
Yes, America, high cheekbones ARE enough.

Let's face what we've become.

Hold on.

real_name
October 27, 2006, 06:50 PM
From this weeks Onion...

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onionmagazine_archive_55a.jpg

aspen1964
October 28, 2006, 02:40 AM
style not substance..Bambi is another photo-prop candidate...

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama considering run for president" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!