http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/mccain-palin-ca.html

Quote :

"For a time this morning, the McCain-Palin campaign was refusing to allow any editorial presence -- no reporters or producers -- to go with a network pool camera to take pictures of Palin meeting with Afghan Pres Hamid Karzai, Colombian Pres Alvaro Uribe and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger."

lol

9/23/2008 1:18:07 PM

whew, I'm convinced

thanks for the link, I will now go tell every gun owner that they have no reason to worry, Obama is legit.. I mean, he has a guy vouch for him in one his ads, that's solid

9/23/2008 1:19:48 PM

The man in question is the head of one of the largest gun rights organizations in this country. Please continue to be thoroughly uninformed.

9/23/2008 1:21:47 PM

We actually agree on more than we disagree now. gg brolly

gg, get rid of israel for me. lol

9/23/2008 1:26:54 PM

^Why is he allowed to post still?

9/23/2008 1:29:58 PM

Quote :

"AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented. For instance, AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy. In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. And one of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits."

who's misinformed?

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=232&issue=011

9/23/2008 1:31:22 PM

Obama never gives any specifics. Really, he just talked for 20 minutes without saying anything specific OMG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmTgpZ8X51I

9/23/2008 1:42:12 PM

Yes, the NRA who is upset about this new group drawing members away.

9/23/2008 1:42:26 PM

Quote :

"Going on strike and walking off the job aren't the same thing. Pull your head out of your ass. "

really? How so? Now the reason why you are walking off the job might differ, but the act is still the same. Maybe it isnt me that needs to pull something out of my ass.

9/23/2008 1:42:53 PM

In order to go on strike, it requires a vote of the union membership. If an employee walks off the job without a strike vote then they are leaving their job and that employee can be replaced based upon the collective bargaining agreement.

9/23/2008 1:44:39 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the NRA who is upset about this new group drawing members away."

lol, that's your comeback... to me showing you that you pretty much just provided evidence that Obama is in the same category of anti-gun politicians who that organization has backed previously

come back at me with something that makes sense

9/23/2008 1:45:03 PM

You keep calling them anti-gun as if that is something of merit in stated. Of course the NRA will call anyone who doesn't support complete and universal access to guns anti-gun.

9/23/2008 1:46:09 PM

Quote :

" Journalists, displeased with Sarah Palin’s efforts to restrict their access to her, are threatening not to cover her events surrounding the United Nations conference here unless they're allowed more access. The unfolding boycott is the latest development in a rocky relationship between Palin’s handlers and the press, in which the campaign has sought to tightly control her interactions with the media. He reports that the campaign tried to prevent CNN from sending a producer to photo sprays, and relented only after the network threatened to pull its camera."

What a bunch of bullshit. Palin sucks, it is pathetic that she can't be ready to field a presser or even host the MSM reporters. You could say that Obama's trip overseas was to bolster his credentials like this but at least he had press access and was asked qusetions, held pressers and so forth. For Palin it just looks bad and continues this line of presentation of the McCain campaign protecting her because she isn't ready.

SHES YOUR POTENTIAL VP FELLAS.

9/23/2008 1:50:36 PM

again nuts, you can try to spin it all you want.. but ill just refer you back to my prior statement.

Quote :

"Now the reason why you are walking off the job might differ, but the act is still the same."

So by your explaination.. If i own a business and you and your friends work for me. If you all get together on sunday night and decide you arent showing up on monday.. Thats ok. I shouldnt be allowed to replace you.. bc there was a vote and all. But if you just get pissed off on monday and leave.. THen I can replace you? You realize how dumb that sounds?
Of course the bottom line is the fact that I need to replace you either way.

Kainen, that is bullshit. I thought it was journalists job to report the news, not blackmail people into talking to them.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 1:55:22 PM

there's no NRA bias in the facts of ASHA's leaders supporting handgun control groups and anti-gun politicians

Any real guns rights organization knows this group is bullshit and trying to confuse gun owners. They're very anti-handgun which is what all this gun talk is really about. Of course the hunters have nothing to worry about, anti-gun politicians are out to prevent/restrict/whatever the hell you want to call it individuals from owning and obtaining handguns, which is a violation of the constitution.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 1:56:02 PM

Do you understand what collective bargaining agreements mean?

Quote :

"there's no NRA bias in the facts of ASHA's leaders supporting handgun control groups and anti-gun politicians Any real guns rights organization knows this group is bullshit and trying to confuse gun owners. They're very anti-handgun which is what all this gun talk is really about. Of course the hunters have nothing to worry about, anti-gun politicians are out to prevent/restrict/whatever the hell you want to call it individuals from owning and obtaining handguns guns, which is a violation of the constitution. "

you can be pro-gun rights and not be at the degree in which the NRA is. You keep using charged words such as anti-gun and anti-handgun as if there is real meaning behind them.

Also, the Constitution, as was supported in the Supreme Court ruling allows for the regulation of handguns. It doesn't allow for a carte blanche ban, but it allows for regulation.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 1:56:03 PM

yeah, it allows for it

gun owners don't want it

obama does

9/23/2008 1:59:37 PM

so we are back to the initial argument of erroding rights, which he is not for. Thanks for playing the game.

9/23/2008 2:00:20 PM

the extent of how much is allowed/how much Obama wants to is unknown

9/23/2008 2:01:21 PM

So, again, you have nothing to support the notion that Obama wants to tread on gun ownership rights.

9/23/2008 2:04:32 PM

again, my first post included his history of voting on the issues... which are pretty clearly more restrictive than current laws

9/23/2008 2:05:53 PM

Quote :

"Kainen, that is bullshit. I thought it was journalists job to report the news, not blackmail people into talking to them."

no no no...you just don't DEMAND camera and photo access for your little glamor shots photo op with Palin and the UN people she is 'meeting with' but then flip it and not take questions or even have journalists in the room to cover the story.

That's bullshit, it's saying that all they want is the photographs and vids to run but then have Palin GTFO oso she doesn't have to have a singular chance of real coverage god forbid any scrutiny. She may embarrass herself. Weak.

If she wanted that she should have invited E!'s camera crews over.

9/23/2008 2:12:48 PM

Quote :

"again, my first post included his history of voting on the issues... which are pretty clearly more restrictive than current laws"

you are confusing laws and rights.

9/23/2008 2:15:01 PM

Kainen,

Palin is not my favorite person on earth. I think she is more pragmatic than the folks on DailyKos and TPM make her sound, though she's still a bit too conservative for my tastes.

But, honestly, the fact that she is saying "Fuck You" to the press only makes me like her MORE.

Things have changed in the press. For the better part of the decade, the press spent all their time doing "he-said, she-said" journalism and no time checking facts of a story. This led to a lot of people being widely misinformed about a number of issues (e.g., initial lead up to Iraq War).

But now they're swinging the other way. 90% of coverage these days is opinion. It's all commentary. And almost all of that commentary has been Pro-Obama. Maybe that's because Bush radicalized the press. Maybe it's because they realized that commentary sells better than straight news (see success of Fox News). Either way, the press should not be rewarded for this kinda behavior. WTG Palin!!

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ``]

9/23/2008 2:15:02 PM

Quote :

"you are confusing laws and rights."

future laws, under Obama, may eventually restrict what many people feel is their right.... and people are afraid of that based on some of things he has said/done earlier

9/23/2008 2:17:37 PM

Quote :

"future laws, under Obama, may eventually restrict what many people feel is their right.... and people are afraid of that based on some of things he has said/done earlier"

I feel I have the right to punch someone in the face, that doesn't make it so.

9/23/2008 2:20:25 PM

well when that becomes an amendment, let me know

9/23/2008 2:22:38 PM

The amendment does not allow for universal right, if it did the amendment would simple and would statement of fact and would not have other clauses.

9/23/2008 2:27:57 PM

wow, nutsmacker is trying to deflect the discussion to distract you from his orginal and flawed argument.

But remember, this is not a discussion about what is a "right".

It's about how gun laws will likely change under an Obama administration.

On that count, Aim wins hands down.

NEXT CASE!!

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ``]

9/23/2008 2:30:43 PM

who the fuck said anything about universal right? I'm not sure who you're arguing with now

you ignored the fact I never said anything about him completely taking guns away from existing gun owners and now you're talking about the universal right

9/23/2008 2:31:45 PM

Quote :

"wow, nutsmacker is trying to deflect the discussion to distract you from his orginal and flawed argument. But remember, this is not a discussion about what is a "right". It's about how gun laws will likely change under an Obama administration. On that count, Aim wins hands down. NEXT CASE!!"

please keep track of the discussion. eyedr made a claim that Obama is against our rights. I asked him for instances in which Obama has stated he was against our rights. Aimorris came in and posted information, then later conceded that Obama wants to change what the law is, but that doesn't mean the law are rights as protected by the Constitution. Keep up hayseed boy.

Quote :

"who the fuck said anything about universal right? I'm not sure who you're arguing with now you ignored the fact I never said anything about him completely taking guns away from existing gun owners and now you're talking about the universal right"

Then you concede the point that Obama does not want to removed constitutionally protect gun ownership rights?

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 2:33:36 PM

nutsmacker,

Saying that you are arguing over semantics doesn't help your case. Being a former history major, you (should) know that there is difference between literal and correct interpretations. Didn't y'all read books and shit?

Yehaw.



[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 2:38 PM. Reason : Hayseed County instead of Haywood County actually made me laff]

9/23/2008 2:37:05 PM

Don't make me out to be the anal one here. they explicitly said Obama wanted to removed gun rights. They cannot find evidence to support that.

and here I thought you were the one that was "all about policies."

9/23/2008 2:39:35 PM

putting in restrictions, mandatory waiting periods, limits on numbers of guns that you own... all "tread" on the an individual's right to gun ownership without the complete outright removal of it

sometimes the regulations end up being so much bullshit, that it essentially is a ban


and my point and the opinion of most gun owners is that under Obama, you don't know just how far those regulations will be pushed. I know people that are making an effort to get their concealed carry and buy however many handguns they're allowed to now because if Obama gets elected, they have no idea what to expect

9/23/2008 2:39:38 PM

restrictions, waiting periods, etc do not tread on the right to own guns. The supreme court has already held that waiting periods and regulations are within the spirit of the constitution.

Furthermore, just because people think their rights are being treading or infringed does not make that so. you are now arguing for, as you have been prior in this thread, but deny it, a universalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, concealed carry permits are up to the states.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 2:41:43 PM

So Obama is currently holding a press conference where he is actually answering tough questions about the economy and other issues. He did this a couple times last week too.

McCain hasn't done this. Bush hasn't done this. Palin........lol. Obama understands the situation and can actually speak candidly about it. McCain and Bush don't. How can people not see this? Why do people still say Obama has no real plan, when he's spoken about it in detail on multiple occasions. Oh yeah, those people are complete fucking idiots.

Last week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubBFIw6HedQ

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 2:55 PM. Reason : :]

9/23/2008 2:46:51 PM

Thank you for responding to me via inbox Socks. I still do not see the differences you are trying to explain so intricately at all.....and I still do not see why a conservative commentator like George Will (much less the points he makes in the well written piece) ought to be thrown out with the bathwater with some perceived length of bias. He's an intellectually respected conservative commentator.

I mean, I would have linked this same article from Arianna Huffington because the material coupled with the McCain's campaign tact has been so distasteful to me that I don't recognize the guy from 2000 and before he claims he still is. I don't draw the same parallels to Clinton because they weren't born out in his campaign the same way or even in any public forum from the same way I see McCain. Besides, I don't think Clinton has the same risk precipice as McCain does...NO WHERE close.

Quote :

" But now they're swinging the other way. 90% of coverage these days is opinion. It's all commentary. "

Agree. It's like ESPN covering sports. I do agree with this, they frame the narrative and tell you what you should be thinking. Although I do think opinionated shows deserve their place on these networks, the by and large should be forced objectivity. That goes not just for Fox but also MSNBC. But, that's not what gets the ratings huh? I blame both the networks AND the viewers that pile on.

Quote :

"And almost all of that commentary has been Pro-Obama."

I get so sick of hearing this, it's not true at all. You pick your show outside of Hardball and Countdown and you honestly tell me you don't hear the knocks on Obama any given week? I do. But you are biased, I don't expect you to do anything but be in 100% defense / liberal media mode...it's one of the flags your party has to raise annually to get by. I understand that. I will say that lately the memo has been that McCain has been deceitful and deceptive and well HE HAS! You reap what you sow. Complaining to the refs like the petulant rats that Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt have been doing makes me laugh, It's a shady campaign - plain and simple.

9/23/2008 2:55:33 PM

Shrike,

Did he ever decide if the AIG buy-out was a good idea or a bad idea? Because one minute, Joe Biden agrees with John McCain that it was a bad idea. The next minute, Obama says Biden should have waited to respond and that he was still considering his position.

I can't watch the press conference (@work), but I'd imagine that's the same level of discourse he's displaying. Plenty of platitudes about how markets need to be regulated to work properly and lots of fingering pointing and Bush and McCain. HOPE AND CHANGE!

Send me a transcript if he's changed his rhetoric.

9/23/2008 2:57:16 PM

Quote :

"Joe Biden agrees with John McCain that it was a bad idea. The next minute, Obama says Biden should have waited to respond and that he was still considering his position."

Thinking through an issue instead of spouting out the partisan line immediately?

Can't say I see anything wrong with that... I might end up voting for Obama yet if he tones down his support for tax-driven charity.

9/23/2008 3:02:04 PM

eh well you know there will be more lawsuits and more Supreme Court rulings and the 5-4 ruling in the last decision wasn't exactly a landslide so that makes the next Supreme Court decisions that much more important, which Obama may play a huge role in. We already know he's not a supporter of a few current judges, so there's an area of concern for gun-owning voters.

9/23/2008 3:03:34 PM

not only do you not know what if means you also don't know what judicial precedent means too.

9/23/2008 3:07:11 PM

I was talking about other related gun lawsuits, not the same exact ruling

you know damn well that's what I meant, get your semantics bullshit out of the conversation

9/23/2008 3:09:46 PM

Quote :

"McCain Transition Head Lobbied for Freddie Mac Before Takeover By Jonathan D. Salant and Timothy J. Burger Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) -- [b]The lobbying firm of the man Republicans say John McCain has chosen to begin planning a presidential transition earned more than a quarter of a million dollars this year representing Freddie Mac, one of the companies McCain blames for the nation's financial crisis. Timmons & Co., whose founder and chairman emeritus is William Timmons Sr., was registered to lobby for Freddie Mac from 2000 through this month, when the federal government took over both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Newly available congressional records show Timmons's firm received $260,000 this year before its lobbying activities were barred under terms of the government rescue of the failed mortgage giant. Timmons, 77, is listed as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac on the company's midyear financial-disclosure form. While Republicans say Timmons is making plans for the transition if McCain wins in November, the campaign wouldn't confirm his role. Timmons didn't return a phone call seeking comment. McCain has labeled Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as prime culprits in creating the financial storm that has roiled Wall Street and Washington. "At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,'' he [McCain] said last week in Green Bay, Wisconsin. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aQIOOr9klOnE&refer=politics

Whoopsie.

9/23/2008 3:12:41 PM

Quote :

"I was talking about other related gun lawsuits, not the same exact ruling you know damn well that's what I meant, get your semantics bullshit out of the conversation"

what lawsuits would we in fact see? I have a feeling barely any gun related suits will make it back to the supreme court in the next decade or so.

9/23/2008 3:22:28 PM

Quote :

"Did he ever decide if the AIG buy-out was a good idea or a bad idea? Because one minute, Joe Biden agrees with John McCain that it was a bad idea. The next minute, Obama says Biden should have waited to respond and that he was still considering his position."

Uh, Obama never changed his position. Biden disagreed with the bailout, Obama did not. Frankly, I'll be glad if we have a VP who isn't just a yes (wo)man (or in Cheney's case, the guy actually in control).

Quote :

"I can't watch the press conference (@work), but I'd imagine that's the same level of discourse he's displaying. Plenty of platitudes about how markets need to be regulated to work properly and lots of fingering pointing and Bush and McCain. HOPE AND CHANGE!"

Have you ever even listened to the man speak or do you just get these talking points from Drudge? Finger pointing? For fucks sakes, so far the McCain campaign has singled out Obama as the reason for not only our current economic crisis, but also the rise in energy costs and dead babies. No one who's actually paid attention to Obama's campaign could possibly disregard his plans as simple "rhetoric".

The fact is, throughout this economic crisis, he's acted more like a president than either McCain or Bush. Watching the guy take questions and give thoughtful answers is so fucking refreshing after watching 8 years of Bush give prepared statements then run for cover, which is all McCain has done as well. Not that I blame either of them. You shouldn't talk about stuff you don't understand.

9/23/2008 3:42:25 PM

Quote :

"what lawsuits would we in fact see? I have a feeling barely any gun related suits will make it back to the supreme court in the next decade or so."

yeah I'll admit my mistake there, I missed the part where they said the details would be handled by state and local courts

forget that part

9/23/2008 3:47:53 PM

Shrike,

Obama did not disagree with Biden's position. Obama has NO position on the AIG bailout. He simply has not said what his position is one way or the other. This is simply a fact. Here is Jake Tapper at ABC on a speech Obama gave last week.

Quote :

"You'll notice that Obama doesn't really assert anywhere in here that he supports -- or opposes -- this bailout."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/does-obama-supp.html

Maybe he is actually discussing the real situation today (i wont know till i get home). Stating what's wrong and how we should fix it *in detail*. But everything I've heard come out of the man's mouth has been vague platitudes about how this is Republican's fault (or rather, their "philosophy" whatever the fuck that means). That is NOT what I call thoughtful answers.

Here are some examples.

Quote :

"“I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to,” the Obama statement said. “It’s a philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years — one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.” “We have to have transparency,” Obama told voters in Dover, N.H., on Friday. "

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/15/obama-mccains-philosophy-not-mccain-at-fault-in-wall-st-mess/

Senator, could you be anymore vague, please?

But maybe there is a reason Obama is treading lightly, not wanting to piss-off people that may not understand why some companies should be bailed out at tax payers expense and others shouldn't....

Quote :

" Obama has received some $370,000, while McCain has won $117,000 in backing from [Leheman Brothers] employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/15/obama-mccains-philosophy-not-mccain-at-fault-in-wall-st-mess/

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ``]

9/23/2008 4:32:45 PM

Quote :

"Obama has received some $370,000, while McCain has won $117,000 in backing from employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics"

those numbers usually exclude executives and managers. you know, people who actually have influence over politicians. And that says nothing about what the company itself gave to the campaigns.

9/23/2008 4:37:03 PM

Agent,

It is illegal for corporations to give money directly to candidates.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

And executives are considered employees.

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ``]

9/23/2008 4:40:48 PM

What about the PACs Socks``?

9/23/2008 4:41:28 PM