BF2S Forums COMPARE!! Obama and McCain

TrueMusou wrote:

I mean, as a red blooded, beef loving American, I like guns and war movies just as much as the next guy.

But seriously, as regular civilians, we do not need an extensive arsenal sitting under our pillows. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time where local militias were necessary, nowadays the ownership of guns has created more problems than it has solved.

I think it's fair. The argument for most people is that we have guns for self-defense/home-defense. According to what you listed above, it does not exclude shot-guns. For the purpose of self/home-defense shotguns are the most effective anyways. If you're a hunter, you're in the free according the the proposed, just as long as you're not hunting with automatic machine guns.

Wha?  Who are you to say how many guns I can own?  I thought Senators took and Oath to defend and uphold the Constitution... Not distort ignor it.  Actually if you research it, you'll see that you're wrong.  When the civilized law abiding populace is armed, there is a drop crime.   

Man am I glad the gun laws don't reflect your stance.

Damn you Lowing, I thought you might have actually made an interesting informative post that actually told us what the candidates positions were on things, not your own take on it.

ghettoperson wrote:

Damn you Lowing, I thought you might have actually made an interesting informative post that actually told us what the candidates positions were on things, not your own take on it.

I recieved this via e-mail.......I provided the links to all the info: I apologize to everyone if they do not like how their candidate looks.

I do have my take on it, however, I posted this to inform not to bash. So I am staying out of it.

If people think this is biased, please feel free to post a comparison where their candidate does not look like such a fuckin' dipshit.

All I know is that John McCain will be bad for the rest of the world and what's bad for the rest of the world is bad for America because as much as the rest of the world relies on America, America relies on the rest of the world.

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Damn you Lowing, I thought you might have actually made an interesting informative post that actually told us what the candidates positions were on things, not your own take on it.

I recieved this via e-mail.......I provided the links to all the info: I apologize to everyone if they do not like how their candidate looks.

I do have my take on it, however, I posted this to inform not to bash. So I am staying out of it.

If people think this is biased, please feel free to post a comparison where their candidate does not look like such a fuckin' dipshit.

I was going to make one based on the candidates websites, but looking at the amount of stuff there it'd take me a good couple of hours and about 5 minutes after posting it it would dissolve into a flame war.

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Damn you Lowing, I thought you might have actually made an interesting informative post that actually told us what the candidates positions were on things, not your own take on it.

I recieved this via e-mail.......I provided the links to all the info: I apologize to everyone if they do not like how their candidate looks.

I do have my take on it, however, I posted this to inform not to bash. So I am staying out of it.

If people think this is biased, please feel free to post a comparison where their candidate does not look like such a fuckin' dipshit.

I was going to make one based on the candidates websites, but looking at the amount of stuff there it'd take me a good couple of hours and about 5 minutes after posting it it would dissolve into a flame war.

Pretty much why I am a spectator in this thread. My mere presence is enough to start a war lately

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

All I know is that John McCain will be bad for the rest of the world and what's bad for the rest of the world is bad for America because as much as the rest of the world relies on America, America relies on the rest of the world.

I do agree with you Cam 100%

The real reason why however is, The rest of the world wants America to adopt THEIR way of life to make THEIR way of life better, regardless if it is in the best interest of AMERICANS to do so.

The rest of the world aren't forcing jackshit on the US of A. If you believe that then you are deluded. I've never been to a more insular country - to suggest the rest of the world are actually imposing themselves on you is ludicrous (aside perhaps from some Mexicans streaming over your southern border).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-03 07:54:51)

lowing wrote:

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes John McCain
No Barak Obama

/

Um, how is that a fact and not an opinion? 

Unless Obama said "no, I want to appoint judges who will rule the country forever, muwahhahaha" I'm calling bullshit on your entire OP

chittydog wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

All I know is that John McCain will be bad for the rest of the world and what's bad for the rest of the world is bad for America because as much as the rest of the world relies on America, America relies on the rest of the world.

FOR POTATOES

A lot of people in Idaho will not agree with that statement.

But let's not forget where we get half of our oil, or all of our electronics, or half of our (horribly incompetent) phone support, a large portion of our IT, most of our clothes, a lot of our cars... Do we produce anything anymore, aside from food and lumber?

Porn and Movies.  Don't forget the porn.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

I mean, as a red blooded, beef loving American, I like guns and war movies just as much as the next guy.

But seriously, as regular civilians, we do not need an extensive arsenal sitting under our pillows. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time where local militias were necessary, nowadays the ownership of guns has created more problems than it has solved.

I think it's fair. The argument for most people is that we have guns for self-defense/home-defense. According to what you listed above, it does not exclude shot-guns. For the purpose of self/home-defense shotguns are the most effective anyways. If you're a hunter, you're in the free according the the proposed, just as long as you're not hunting with automatic machine guns.

Wha?  Who are you to say how many guns I can own?  I thought Senators took and Oath to defend and uphold the Constitution... Not distort ignor it.  Actually if you research it, you'll see that you're wrong.  When the civilized law abiding populace is armed, there is a drop crime.   

Man am I glad the gun laws don't reflect your stance.

WRONG

#8      United States:    80.0645 per 1,000 people    
#9      Netherlands:    79.5779 per 1,000 people    
#10      South Africa:    77.1862 per 1,000 people    
#11      Germany:    75.9996 per 1,000 people    
#12      Canada:    75.4921 per 1,000 people    
#13      Norway:    71.8639 per 1,000 people    
#14      France:    62.1843 per 1,000 people    
#15      Seychelles:    52.9265 per 1,000 people    
#16      Hungary:    44.9763 per 1,000 people    
#17      Estonia:    43.3601 per 1,000 people    
#18      Czech Republic:    38.2257 per 1,000 people    
#19      Italy:    37.9633 per 1,000 people    
#20      Switzerland:    36.1864 per 1,000 people    
#21      Portugal:    34.3833 per 1,000 people    
#22      Slovenia:    33.6236 per 1,000 people    
#23      Poland:    32.8573 per 1,000 people    
#24      Korea, South:    31.7267 per 1,000 people    

O look, the country with guns is higher than the ones without, even former Soviet Block countries have lower crime and they have shit loads of black market guns.

God it annoys me that people use this "excuse" which is WRONG.

If you just said I want guns fair enough, I can think your a fucking moron, but its your choice, but as soon as you try to justify it with a lie, I know that you also know its wrong which makes you an even bigger moron or that your just damn naive.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-09-03 14:33:45)

pierro wrote:

War Man wrote:

Yeah, but the economy in the 50s isn't as bad as it is now.

I don't understand but I'm tempted to say ask whose going to continue the policies of the guy that got us here

Guy that got us here? It isn't all Bushes fault as you liberals like to say, part of it is the democrats fault too(even more than Bush). And McCain isn't another Bush, because for one thing(there are more but I can't remember at the moment) unlike Bush, McCain saw Putin as a KGB while Bush saw him as a friend.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

All I know is that John McCain will be bad for the rest of the world and what's bad for the rest of the world is bad for America because as much as the rest of the world relies on America, America relies on the rest of the world.

I do agree with you Cam 100%

The real reason why however is, The rest of the world wants America to adopt THEIR way of life to make THEIR way of life better, regardless if it is in the best interest of AMERICANS to do so.

The rest of the world aren't forcing jackshit on the US of A. If you believe that then you are deluded. I've never been to a more insular country - to suggest the rest of the world are actually imposing themselves on you is ludicrous (aside perhaps from some Mexicans streaming over your southern border).

Wow I hadda go back and check and nope! I can not find anywhere in my post where I said the rest of the world is "forcing" or trying to "force" the US to do anything. I said the rest of the worlds "WANTS" the US to adopt their way of life.