FishUSA.com Forums
Forums Home Search Photo Gallery Calendar Policies Logout Old Boards FishUSA.com Tackle Shop My Profile My Forums My Subscriptions My Address Book My Inbox Member List RSS News Feed

Log In      

RE: Obama

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania >> RE: Obama Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 2:24:01 PM   
Inukshuk


Posts: 1441
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

Lets see--Over 90% blacks voted for Obama over Hillary (who was considered the Blacks friend). Over 40% Whites also voted for Obama. And who is calling whites racist.


If you are argueing against the fact that many whites will not vote for Obama just because he is black, and this all the support you need, then I dont even know how to respond.

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 31
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 3:12:30 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
I'am glad your at a loss of words.  You seemed to be saying that most of the whites won't vote for him because of color. 40% won't because he is a Democrat and a very liberal one at that. The gun owners won't, the pro lifers won't, the conservatives won't, most hunters and trappers won't. But 90% of the blacks and most PETA members and most of hollywood will.  Try Powell or Rice and see how the mix changes.

(in reply to Inukshuk)
Post #: 32
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 3:18:51 PM   
Inukshuk


Posts: 1441
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

I'am glad your at a loss of words.  You seemed to be saying that most of the whites won't vote for him because of color. 40% won't because he is a Democrat and a very liberal one at that. The gun owners won't, the pro lifers won't, the conservatives won't, most hunters and trappers won't. But 90% of the blacks and most PETA members and most of hollywood will.  Try Powell or Rice and see how the mix changes.


I'm not saying that most whites will not vote for him because of color, I dont know how you could possibly get that from my previous posts. I am saying that there are some who definitely will not vote for him because of color.  I am at a lost for words because I have to keep explaining my point.

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 33
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 4:13:12 PM   
Bughawk


Posts: 6106
Status: online
Obama is half white....  It seems we are only seeing what we want. 

S-10 you make some rather sweeping statements about gun owners, hunters, trappers, etc...  Do you have a scientific poll to back that up or you just assuming that most gun owners, hunters, trappers are conservative pro lifer republicans that will simply vote against him because they could not possibly make up their mind on their own and will do everything they are told to do?

This election has more to do with people's individual pet pevies and name calling.   Under the Clinton administration I hunted, bought and sold guns, went to the shooting range, shot trap at the local gun club, etc...  No one showed up on my doorstep demanding my guns.  No one told me I could not go hunting, except some of the land I used to hunt was sold and the new owner does not permit hunting, but that is a personal decision on their part and their right.....  I still own and shoot many of the guns my father gave me close to 20 years ago. 

I certainly do not plan on making my choice for a presidental candidate based on someone's claim about what a particular candidate might or not do.  Which BTW - the president is not the only one making decisions...  Congress and the Supreme Court have a say as well.

The bottom line is there is a lot of scare tactics going on.  Liberal means someone who is going to force women to have abortions, send in jack booted FBI agents to raid your homes and take all of your guns.  All hunting will be banned and fishing as well.  We will all be eating tofu burgers because raising cows will be made illegal, and yes Ben and Jerry's ice will be made with human breast milk.  I almost forgot, they will take all of your money away and give it to lazy crackheads and welfare moms, all the while encouraging illegal Mexicans to come into the country to run the drug gangs that supply the crack to the crackheads.

On the other side of the coin, all conservatives will seek the death penality for any woman who has an abortion because she murdered her unborn child, everyone will be issued a fully automatic assualt rifle to protect themselves from the bands of roaming degenerate liberals seeking to force them to eat tofu, all land will be open to hunting except that which is owned by someone who owns more than you and basically will shoot you if you step on the land they have the right to defend with the aforementioned assault rifle, will force everyone currently on welfare to work and yes repeal all minimum wages, and when these people do not have enough to live one, will chant the ever popular,"Get a job you lazy bum!" that will somehow make themselves feel better, and magically the poor will be feed.  All taxes will be repealed and life will go on as it did in the imaginary land of make believe we selectively remember as the "Good ole days", and on and on.....

What we need is to stop all this stupid fear mongering, stereotyping, name calling and come up with some level headed, common sense approaches to our problems such as the economic mess we are in, the war in Iraq that could go on forever, the mess our administration has made in the area of foreign affairs, and so forth.  We can do better if we are honest with ourselves and quit the bickering. 

_____________________________

pax vobiscum +

(in reply to Inukshuk)
Post #: 34
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 4:58:14 PM   
rapala11

 

Posts: 2951
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline
the pro lifers won't

this one makes me mad.  bush ran the first time on a pro-life stance.  (colin powell was pro choice).  i voted for him.  i am pro-life.  he had a whole house and senate (repubs) behind him for six years and in that time, never once, was roe vs. wade challenged.  has nothing to do with the supreme court, this stance was never once challenged by anyone.  i felt ripped off.  just more political rhetoric.  at least we know where obama stands, though i strongly disagree with him. 

as pro-life goes, that is all life.  iraq?  4100 americans dead, 100,000 civilians dead....not pro-life.......but, no life......

i still say we have to demand integrity instead of political (fear-mongering) rhetorical bullcrap from both sides.

had a truck driver in our place lose it friday.  he kept yelling why are these two (obama and mccain) spending millions and millions for a job that only pays 300,000?  i have seen friendships break up over the dirty doings of the current administration and the current presidential campaigns.  when you look at it, neither side has our interests at heart.

in the end, i may not vote for a candidate but rather to block one. 

< Message edited by rapala11 -- 9/28/2008 5:04:50 PM >


_____________________________

silence means consent.....

..."Old men start wars...young men die in them."

(in reply to Bughawk)
Post #: 35
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 5:27:01 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
Bug- the reason you have guns is because some don't ignore the threat but spend considerable time fighting gun confiscation and follow the politicans stance on the issue. Look at the countries who assumed the politicans wouldn't take them away. We were one vote away from losing everything just this year.  Read This---









Barack Obama on Gun Control
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)



Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008


FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008


Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008


Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008


2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007


Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."
It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007


Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007


Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006


Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004


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

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








Other candidates on Gun Control:
Barack Obama on other issues:

IL Gubernatorial:
Rod Blagojevich
IL Senatorial:
Larry Stafford
Richard Durbin


2008 Senate retirements:

Wayne Allard(R,CO)
Larry Craig(R,ID)
Pete Domenici(R,NM)
Chuck Hagel(R,NE)
Trent Lott(R,MS)
Craig Thomas(R,WY)
John Warner(R,VA)

2008 Presidential Contenders:

Chuck Baldwin(C)
Rep.Bob Barr(L)
Sen.Hillary Clinton(D)
Sen.Mike Gravel(L)
Alan Keyes(C)
Sen.John McCain(R)
Rep.Cynthia McKinney(G)
Ralph Nader(I)
Sen.Barack Obama(D)
Rep.Ron Paul(R)

[size=2 colspan="2"]2008 Senate Races:
AK:Stevens v.Begich v.Cuddy v.Sikma
AL:Sessions v.Figures
AR:Pryor v.Kennedy
CO:Schaffer v.Udall
DE:Biden v.O`Donnell
GA:Chambliss v.Cardwell v.Jones v.Buckley
IA:Harkin v.Reed
ID:Risch v.LaRocco
IL:Durbin v.Sauerberg v.Stafford
KS:Roberts v.Jones v.Slattery
KY:McConnell v.Lunsford
LA:Landrieu v.Kennedy
MA:Kerry v.O`Reilly v.Beatty
ME:Collins v.Allen
MI:Levin v.Hoogendyk
MN:Coleman v.Franken v.Ventura v.Cavlan v.Pallmeyer
MS4:Wicker v.Musgrove
MS6:Cochran v.Fleming
MT:Baucus v.Kelleher
NC:Dole v.Hagan
NE:Johanns v.Kleeb v.Raimondo v.Larrick
NH:Sununu v.Shaheen
NJ:Lautenberg v.Zimmer
NM:Wilson v.Pearce v.Udall
OR:Smith v.Merkley v.Brownlow
OK:Inhofe v.Rice
RI:Reed v.Young v.Tingley
SC:Graham v.Cone v.Conley v.McBride
SD:Johnson v.Dykstra
TN:Alexander v.Eaton v.Padgett v.Tuke v.Lugo
TX:Cornyn v.Noriega v.Jameson
VA:Gilmore v.Warner v.Marshall
WV:Rockefeller v.Wolfe
WY4:Barrasso v.Carter v.Goodenough
WY6:Enzi v.Rothfuss

Abortion

(in reply to Bughawk)
Post #: 36
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 5:37:40 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
Humane Society Legislative Fund Endorses Obama-Biden


One of the guiding principles of the Humane Society Legislative Fund is that we evaluate candidates based on a single criterion: where they stand on animal protection policies. We don’t make decisions based on party affiliation, or any other social issue, or even how many pets they have. We care about their views and actions on the major policy debates relating to animal welfare.
It stirs controversy to get involved in candidate elections. But we believe that candidates for office and current lawmakers must be held accountable, or they will see the animal protection movement as a largely irrelevant political constituency. In order to have good laws, we need good lawmakers, and involvement in elections is an essential strategy for any serious social movement, including our cause.
While we’ve endorsed hundreds of congressional candidates for election, both Democrats and Republicans, we’ve never before endorsed a presidential candidate. We have members on the left, in the center, and on the right, and we knew it could be controversial to choose either party’s candidate for the top office in the nation. But in an era of sweeping presidential power, we must weigh in on this most important political race in the country. Standing on the sidelines is no longer an option for us.
I’m proud to announce today that the HSLF board of directors—which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a solid supporter of animal protection at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state senator, he backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including those to strengthen the

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 37
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 5:38:16 PM   
pappy69


Posts: 381
Joined: 6/18/2006
Status: offline
S-10,

You should explain to us why an assault weapon is something that a hunter needs.

YOU: "Like, wow look at all of those deer coming over the field, and I ain't worth a hoot with one round of ammo! OMG wish I had a full round with my assault weapon so I could, maybe actually, hit an f...en deer without any sense of marksmanship. Oh Yah!"

THE REST OF US: "If I can't take this deer, there will be more along this path."

Or is it, that you don't trust the government of the United States?


_____________________________

Pappy

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 38
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:03:58 PM   
rapala11

 

Posts: 2951
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline
McCAIN REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST VETERANS’ HEALTH BENEFITS
McCain Opposes the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Is Too Generous. McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would “encourage more people to leave the military.” (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)
McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans’ Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
Opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans’ Health Care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans’ population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)
McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans’ Care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)
Voted Against Establishing a $1 Billion Trust Fund for Military Health Facilities. McCain voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to improve military health facilities by refusing to repeal tax cuts for those making more than $1 million a year. (S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297, Vote 7, 2/2/06)
McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)
McCain Voted in Support of Disabled Veterans Only 25 Percent of the Time from 2004-2005. While McCain claims he “has been a leading advocate” for veterans with disabilities, statistics show he supported the Disabled American Veterans’ interests only 25 percent of the time in 2004-2005. In 2006, that figure slipped to 20 percent of the time. (Project Vote Smart)
McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-ofliving adjustments for certain veterans’ benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)
INCLUDING BETTER ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR GUARD AND RESERVISTS
McCain Opposed Increasing Spending on TRICARE and Giving Greater Access to National Guard and Reservists. Although his campaign website devotes a large section to veterans issues, including expanding benefits for reservists and members of the National Guard, McCain voted against increasing spending on the TRICARE program by $20.3 billion over 10 years to give members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families greater access to the health care program. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts for the wealthy. (www.johnmccain.com/Informing/ Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm; S.Amdt. 324 to S.C.R. 23, Vote 81, 3/25/03)
McCAIN ALSO VOTED TO OUTSOURCE JOBS AT MILITARY FACILITIES
McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)
He Also Supported Outsourcing at Walter Reed. McCain opposed an amendment to prevent the outsourcing of 350 federal employee jobs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center—outsourcing that contributed to the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed that McCain called a “disgrace.” (S.Amdt. 4895 to H.R. 5631, Vote 234, 9/6/06; Speech to VFW in Kansas City, Mo., 4/4/08)
AND HE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR THE VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
2003: McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)
2001: McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)
2000: McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)
1999: McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)
1996: McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)
1995: McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)
1995: McCain Voted Against Closing Tax Loopholes to Increase Veterans Funding by $74 Million. McCain voted against eliminating tax breaks and closing tax loopholes to provide revenue to restore some of the proposed cuts in Veterans Affairs spending. (S.C.R. 13, Vote 226, 5/25/95)
1994: McCain Voted Against Funding the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of nine senators to vote against appropriating $90 billion in budget authority for the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development departments. (H.R. 4624, Vote 306, 9/27/94)

_____________________________

silence means consent.....

..."Old men start wars...young men die in them."

(in reply to pappy69)
Post #: 39
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:05:29 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
Because by the definition of assult weapon in most of the leglistation proposed over the years both my Winchester 1400 and Remington 1100 shotguns would be outlawed. The devil is always in the details. I don't trust liberal senators who just want reasonable restrictions when their definition of reasonable is no guns. It has nothing to do with hunting deer with a auto and most people who follow the issue know that.

(in reply to pappy69)
Post #: 40
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:06:37 PM   
rapala11

 

Posts: 2951
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline
i contend that vets are national treasures and that they and their care should be a national priority.  if we can bail out companies that fail because of greed and ineptitude, we sure as he'' can take care of those who protect us.

obama fails in the gun control arena and mccain fails in the above.  so where do we stand?  as a hunter and one that feels the need to defend vets, i am at a loss.

_____________________________

silence means consent.....

..."Old men start wars...young men die in them."

(in reply to rapala11)
Post #: 41
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:17:32 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
Are you sure McCain fails with the vets? Maybe you should read this one.



A Retired Rear Admiral Visits American Legion and VFW Posts
And Hears About Reaction to Sens. Clinton and Obama

Below is an e-mail that I received on Sunday, May 18, from Rear Adm. David Stone, who has been an active volunteer supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) presidential campaign among veterans’ groups.
Retired Rear Adm. Stone graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and served for 32 years in the Navy. His operational commands included: commander, Nimitz Battlegroup; commander, NATO's Standing Naval Force Mediterranean; commander, U.S. Middle East Force/CDS-50; and commander, USS John Hancock. Rear Adm. Stone also served as the assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration and was nominated by President Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate for that position. He is currently president and CEO of the Alacrity Homeland Group. Stone is a supporter of Sen. Clinton for president and has been a part of a volunteer group of veterans who have visited with veterans in the various primary states, primarily in American Legion and VFW posts.
My support for Sen. Clinton should be well-known to readers of this blog. Obviously one purpose of my posting Rear Adm. Stone's e-mail is to strengthen my argument that she is the stronger candidate against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in a general election. Veterans are an important voter bloc in this country, and Rear Adm. Stone's anecdotal evidence is that many veterans support Sen. Clinton and recognize and appreciate her legislative record on their behalf as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Thus, I hope that superdelegates and other un-pledged delegates will read and consider Stone's "Report from Veterans" e-mail as an honest report.
However, if Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) becomes the party's nominee, Rear Adm. Stone's e-mail offers insight into the challenges he faces in defeating Sen. McCain.
Here is Rear Adm. Stone's e-mail, with only minor editing.
— Lanny J. Davis
(Mr. Davis is a longtime friend and supporter of Sen. Clinton's and a fundraiser in her presidential campaign.)
————-
From Rear Adm. David Stone:
The Democratic Party has its work cut out for it with Vets if Hillary does not get the Democratic nomination .
After visiting American Legion Halls and VFW's across the country, it is very clear that there are two kinds of voters in these establishments. One group is passionate about HRC and the work she has done for Vets and her position against the War and the other group loves McCain and his record of service to country as a POW. From my experience in talking to Vets, Sen. Clinton has a slight edge over McCain. (Approx 6 out of 10 support her) in the American Legion Halls and VFW establishments because of her position on ending the war which most Vets agree with her on, as opposed to McCain who is more aligned with the view of a prolonged presence in Iraq. [Emphasis added by L. Davis]
Of note, Sen. Obama has zero — repeat zero — traction in the VFW and American Legion Halls. Veterans cite his refusal (until recently) to wear the American Flag pin, the photo where he is shown not saluting the Flag with his hand over his heart, . . . his alleged MoveOn.Org relationship and that organization's innuendo (in an ad) of Gen. Petraeus as a traitor, his relationship with Rev. Wright (who once said "God Damn America" in a sermon), Mrs. Obama's comment about only recently being proud to be an American, and Sen. Obama's recent comment that some people were "bitter" about their economic situation and thus "cling" to guns and religion as a result….
I could go on, but in summary, it is going to be a very steep climb for Sen. Obama with this particular demographic.
For example, I was in an American Legion Hall in Kentucky and the experience provided a classic example of what I am talking about. While speaking to a veteran he told me that Hillary had his vote and he liked where she stood on the key issues. However, he added: "If Hillary doesn't win, don't come back and see me in the fall, because there is no way I will vote for Obama but instead will vote for McCain". The above feedback is reflective of the view of many veterans I have met who seek change from the course that the Bush Administration has us on currently on but are totally against Sen. Obama.
This email is not meant as an "anti-Obama" email but is sent merely to give you a "reality pulse point" on what life is really like today on the ground in the VFW and American Legion Halls across many of the states I have visited. [L. Davis emphasis] The really bad news is that this is the actual pulse point "before" the actual campaign against the Republican Party starts and the deluge of negative campaign ads about Obama are launched if he is the Democratic nominee. The climate in these Vet establishments will only worsen and solidify once that campaign commences.
The good news for Obama supporters is that we are a large and diverse country with many different segments of voters of which the Veterans Groups is only one segment.
… I am very proud to be out campaigning for Hillary Clinton in Kentucky. So many people love her and admire what she stands for. They believe she will make a difference in their lives and so do I. As a woman in a Waffle House in Paducah, Kentucky told me this morning" please tell Hillary not to quit fighting - we need her now more than ever!"
Sincerely, Dave

(in reply to rapala11)
Post #: 42
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:38:34 PM   
pappy69


Posts: 381
Joined: 6/18/2006
Status: offline
quote:

S-10,

You should explain to us why an assault weapon is something that a hunter needs.


Guess, I need to say this again, since you are unable to answer the question.

Your response is that anyone who follows the issue knows the answer. The issue is over two hundred years old. The basic definition has to do with the fact that people who want to defend themselves against an unresponsive government should have the right to bear arms against such a government. I understand that issue quite well.

My question is, why do you need an assault rifle to hunt?

_____________________________

Pappy

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 43
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:40:26 PM   
rapala11

 

Posts: 2951
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline
s, the bills that mccain voted for or against are listed, by number, above.  these aren't opinions, but factual.  if obama fails vets, as is opined by rear adm. stone, then he too should be admonished.  as i said, i am at a loss.  however, there is a big difference between capital hill and the american legion.  i also count many vets who served overseas as my closest friends and the majority of them say that they will vote against mccain.  seems as though i like him more than they.

again, remember what doubletaper said, we need a party to address our needs as neither of the two seem to do so anymore. 

_____________________________

silence means consent.....

..."Old men start wars...young men die in them."

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 44
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:43:16 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
pappy69 wrote= My question is, why do you need an assault rifle to hunt?

Define assault rifle

(in reply to rapala11)
Post #: 45
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 6:57:42 PM   
pappy69


Posts: 381
Joined: 6/18/2006
Status: offline
No, you define assault rifle, and with a little luck you'll be able to explain why you are unable to hunt without one.

_____________________________

Pappy

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 46
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 7:17:01 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
Sounds like a typical anti gun reply. Therin lies the problem--the real definition of an assault rifle is not the same one used in legislation to ban them. I don't own any under the real definition but may under yours. If you want to challenge me then define assault rifle, if you can't then go back to sleep.

(in reply to pappy69)
Post #: 47
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 7:22:59 PM   
rapala11

 

Posts: 2951
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline
An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine (not to be confused with a semi-automatic only replica) firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, the G3, the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to single fire only, even though classified in the United States as assault rifles by the now defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, are not generally counted as assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

_____________________________

silence means consent.....

..."Old men start wars...young men die in them."

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 48
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 7:25:06 PM   
rapala11

 

Posts: 2951
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline
once had a winchester semi-automatic .22 rifle.  not being a wiseguy, but i ask this as i really don't know the answer.  is this considered an assault rifle?

btw, i am a duck hunter and turkey hunter and only use pump shotguns, so i plead dumb.......

< Message edited by rapala11 -- 9/28/2008 7:26:38 PM >


_____________________________

silence means consent.....

..."Old men start wars...young men die in them."

(in reply to rapala11)
Post #: 49
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 7:43:12 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online
Not under the real definition but depending on how it was made( folding stock, shroud, amount ammo, etc) it could be under different legislation. If in N.Y. under legs introduced last year it would be up to the Attorny General to decide. Better hope he is not anti gun.

(in reply to rapala11)
Post #: 50
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 7:50:48 PM   
rapala11

 

Posts: 2951
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline
think i'll stick to my scatterguns here in ohio.

_____________________________

silence means consent.....

..."Old men start wars...young men die in them."

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 51
RE: Obama - 9/28/2008 8:02:31 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2