via the TurkeyBlog, from McCain's NRA speech [rquoter] Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the Sta te of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. The consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for premature withdrawal, as both Senators Obama and Clinton do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. Thanks to the counterinsurgency instigated by General Petreaus, after four years of terribly costly mistakes, we have a realistic chance to succeed in helping the forces of political reconciliation prevail in Iraq, and the democratically elected Iraqi Government, with a professional and competent Iraqi army, impose its authority throughout the country and defend its borders. We have a realistic chance of denying al Qaeda any sanctuary in Iraq. We have a realistic chance of leaving behind in Iraq a force for stability and peace in the region, and not a cause for a wider and far more dangerous war. I do not argue against withdrawal because I am indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later. I want our soldiers home, too, just as quickly as we can bring them back without risking everything they suffered for, and burdening them with greater sacrifices in the years ahead. That I will not do. I have spent my life in service to my country, and I will never, never, never risk her security for the sake of my own ambitions. I will defend her, and all her freedoms, so help me God. And I ask you to help me in that good cause. Thank you, and God bless you.[/rquoter] until Barack can make a similar declaration, his campaign will remain an Obamanation.
Absurd. When McCain can say that, his campaign might have a chance at winning. Sadly, at one time, McCain could have easily said it (and probably did), but he's been so busy sucking up to the right-wing wackos over the past several years that he is bound by winger rhetoric. (Notice the amount of specificity... the issues mentioned... in the two quotes.) Everything Obama says he will undo, McCain voted to do. Everything he wants to do, McCain voted against doing. McCain's the definition of the classic Greek heroic figure... nobody doubts his personal service and sacrifice to his country, but by reaching too aggressively for the Presidency and sucking up to the wingers, he has tragically abandoned his core self, betrayed his principles, and will fall short of his goal. The tragedy is evident in this line: Who's he talking about there? The only two Americans at the level of national politics that have risked our security for personal ambitions that I can think of are Aaron Burr and George W. Bush. Since he's probably not making a Burr reference, it's got to be W he's talking about... yet he supports all the policies of W. Sad.
Is anyone else really tired of basso's threads? Seriously B, stop posting links to articles and videos without any of your own thoughts or points. This BBS is not your own personal blog.
Of course, you could do something novel, and don't read them. This is the debate & discussion forum. If a poster provides an article, it is fair game to post it to open debate and/or discussion. Yet you seek to squelch that. Odd. I believe that most of the articles that basso posts are biased op ed pieces. I choose not to respond to most of them. Perhaps you should consider acting likewise.
Basso gives counter-balance and also a window on the Bush Conservative perspective that a noticeable chunk of the electorate has. When his links are flawed, people rightfully corrects them with their points. If there are any victims here, it's self-inflicted. Though I did wonder how long and what big news he was saving that "Obamanation" tag for...
90% you pull that number from your butt or from thin air? which laws do not apply at gun shows? oh yeah, they all apply.
I'd argue that once this happens, they HAVE accomplished their goal. I mean, isn't this what it takes for you to be elected into any office?
Keeping in mind that I have a FFL, and I have sitting in front of me my official ATF published Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, as well as the ATF's guide to State Laws and Ordinances, 26th Ed. (which were handed to me after extensive discussion with an ATF agent) sitting on the desk in front of me, are you sure you want to start? Because usually when people don't know what they are talking about and start acting like a dick, it usually doesn't end well. And at this point, you really are out of your depth.
wow well ask your ATF buddies if your theory of a 40mm flare launcher being legal pans out or is just total BS that you also pulled from somewhere. Also which one of those says 90%? Neither one?
You purchased the gun from a license holder. The vast majority of transactions at gun shows are individual to individual. These don't require NICS checks. In fact, it is impossible for a non-license holder to initiate a NICS check even if they want to do it. I will bet you $5000 that all sales of firearms at gun shows by individuals not holding FFL's do not require NICS checks. You can pay me in cash at your earliest convienience. Either that, or I will accept your apology for being both an @sshole and a fool.
Its cool to do it once in a while, but to basically flood a forum with it, not cool. And yeah, I don't read most of them. In fact, I hardly read any of them anymore. But I get tired of blast-o's spam pushing the decent threads away.
Does the bet also say that 90% of gun transactions are from non-ffl types thus do not involve NICS? Cause if that is in the bet than I accept. And how does this make any of the laws inside a gun show different than outside exactly? Where did the 90% come from? (I am gonna guess your butt)
Please point out where I said laws outside a gunshow were different than they are inside. TIA. You said that you hate Obama because "NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows" in contravention to what Obama said. You were wrong. Repeat - you were wrong, and when this was pointed out you started puffing out your chest like a horny rooster. You can try to obfuscate that fact all you want, but it just makes you look like you are so lacking in self esteem that you are incapable of admiting when you are proven wrong, in addition to the fact that you are a buffoon.
well I am not sure where Obama came into play here because the entire thread is about McCain Just to get it straight since it seems you didn't read the thread this is what I said and I was replying to this that I put in bold. have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows Saying that the B/G checks do not apply at gunshows means that for somereason a gunshow must be different. Otherwise how can they not apply "at gunshows" Also how can you possibly think you are holding the high ground when all I have attacked are your numbers (which you have yet to backup) when you have basically gone to name calling.
