Who To Vote For?

[karlunity]

The Hippy hates Romy as he is a morman..she does NOT approve of polygamy. I don't don't like his record.

McCain.. the gang of 14 and open borders....good luck and Huck..is a junior McCain but at least good on guns and right to life..but another open borders type.

 

any ideas

 

 

Karl

[Dr.Hess]

When Huck was governor of Arkansas, he didn't screw anything up. That's about the best you can say for any of them.

 

This whole election and the next 4-8 years is gonna be bad. Hillary is the dem nominee. It was always her's to lose. Osama, err, Obama is just someone for her to beat and "gain momentum" at the primary. Any serious look at his platform sends even leftists running. On the Republican side, it is looking like McCain, which is bad for all because he is a dem in a R suite anyway. Mitt and Rudy are nothing but Hillary Lite.

 

So, I see it as Huck v. the rest. Every one of them wants free Mexican labor and screw us all. Huck at least is giving lip service to "close the borders" now.

 

Note that Ron Paul would be best, I think, but he doesn't stand a chance. The Fix Is In, and it isn't for Paul.

 

[brokengun]

Dr.Hess your right Ron Paul is the Best. The main stream media is trying everything they can to undermine Ron Paul.

 

Paul has placed 2nd in Nevada and 2nd in Louisiana yet the media is silent.

 

The Ron Paul message is getting out there, I just got my latest shotgun news and there are 2 ads in it for Ron Paul, both paid for by private citizens.

 

Personally I’m voting Ron Paul. I know their undermining him but if there is NO clear leader going into the GOP convention, then the issues that Ron Paul supports will have to get some attention.

 

Hilary or Obama will be a gun owner’s night-mare but my hope is that Ron's strong support for gun rights will be part of the republican plat-form.

 

[Doble Troble]

Guys, as much as I despise some of the career politian A-HOLES in the Republican party...if you value your Second Ammendment rights you'll vote for which ever Republican A-HOLE candidate that gets nominated (Ross Perot single-handedly got Clinton "the first" elected.).

 

You can kiss semi-auto rifles and hi-cap pistols bye-bye otherwise.

 

Maybe enough of us could band together with "hunting" arms to dissuade all-out Socialism for awhile, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

Billary LOVES Ron Paul and HOPES (but doesn't pray) that you vote for him.

 

I like him too and agree that freedom is the most important right that Americans have. Unfortunately Ron Paul is UNELECTABLE - hopefully in the future a Libertarian will become viable as a candidate. At this point a Libertarian vote is a vote for Billary - DON"T DO IT!

 

Buy an AR-15, ammo and 30 round magazines while you still can!

[karlunity]

DT is right about that I voted for Ross and got 8 years of Bill.

Ron will get us 8 years of Hill and it is that simple.

 

I think that Ron paul is honest, I disagree with him on the war, but I would vote for him in a local election.

 

But I have been been rossed before and only a fool is burned in the same fire twice.

 

karl

[724wd]

i agree with karl. buy any semi auto, hi cap mags you may want. i just bought a CETME because in november, we may not be able to any more. i am also getting whatever mags i need. 20's, 30's, a drum if i could afford it. and i need to find decent 7.62 ammo. i dont like the idea of using some of that dirty 3rd world stuff. i have access to a good amount of 60's-70's vintage national guard ammo, but not enough to survive the "end of the world"

 

like it or not, i see a democrat being elected this november. i won't be voting for one, but there's so much crap floating out there about the bush administration, be it true or not, that people will try for something "different." never mind that "different" isn't "better" by any means. the only thing i see that might save a republican victory will be the gun vote. but we have to get that information out there to EVERYONE! without the 2nd amendment, what protects the others? that's the kind of thing people have to think about. the government of the US is not out there to protect us. they're out there to protect the US, not it's citizens.

[Dr.Hess]

Yes, but consider this: George The First sold out the gun owners and it cost him the election. This did not go unnoticed by George The Second, who you might notice has not sold us out. George The First put a gun ban in place. It is still with us (driving a U.S. made parts cottage industry). Uncle Bill put a ban in place. It is gone. Which did more damage? The Republican or the Democrat? Now picture a Romney or McCain, both rabid anti-gun people versus a (gasp) lizard queen or Osama (whatever). Who's gun ban would last? Either way we are screwed. Which way are we screwed less? I voted for Perot also, and I have at times regretted that decision, but in hind sight, I can't say as it was totally wrong. For one thing, it taught the Republicans that they don't own us gun owners.

 

That billionare from New York is thinking of a third party run. I don't think it would hurt the Republicans like Perot did. If anything, I think it would hurt the Lizard Queen more. She is despised in her own party almost as much as outside of her party, and that other a-hole from New York would only pull votes from her. The only way she can win guaranteed is if the Republicans put up McCain, Romney or Rudy. Huck stands a 50:50 chance against her, but it would get real ugly. He is already only mentioned in the media as a religious nut case. He was governor here and I didn't even know he was a preacher until the national media started broadcasting it every time they mentioned him.

 

This election will be decided in the Republican primary.

[dindvik]

When Huck was governor of Arkansas, he didn't screw anything up. That's about the best you can say for any of them.

 

This whole election and the next 4-8 years is gonna be bad. Hillary is the dem nominee. It was always her's to lose. Osama, err, Obama is just someone for her to beat and "gain momentum" at the primary. Any serious look at his platform sends even leftists running. On the Republican side, it is looking like McCain, which is bad for all because he is a dem in a R suite anyway. Mitt and Rudy are nothing but Hillary Lite.

 

So, I see it as Huck v. the rest. Every one of them wants free Mexican labor and screw us all. Huck at least is giving lip service to "close the borders" now.

 

Note that Ron Paul would be best, I think, but he doesn't stand a chance. The Fix Is In, and it isn't for Paul.

except to rase taxes

[AzRednek]

except to rase taxes

 

After reading "I consistently opposed banning assault weapons and opposed the Brady Bill" on Huckabee's website he has my vote.

 

 

[littlecanoe]

I just re-read the posts on this thread.

 

It's really depressing to me to look at the choices on both sides.

 

I'm beating the same drum but where is a "Reaganesque" man of character these days?

 

Is this really what the Republican party has become since Newt was scuttled?

[J.B]

Although I would rather not see Mccain as president, if it is him against a Democrat, every gun owner must vote for mccain. Staying home and not voting because you dont agree 100% with either candidate is stupid and gets you no where when there is so much at stake as there is in this election, I believe McCain will end up being president.

[dindvik]

Yes, but consider this: George The First sold out the gun owners and it cost him the election. This did not go unnoticed by George The Second, who you might notice has not sold us out. George The First put a gun ban in place. It is still with us (driving a U.S. made parts cottage industry). Uncle Bill put a ban in place. It is gone. Which did more damage? The Republican or the Democrat? Now picture a Romney or McCain, both rabid anti-gun people versus a (gasp) lizard queen or Osama (whatever). Who's gun ban would last? Either way we are screwed. Which way are we screwed less? I voted for Perot also, and I have at times regretted that decision, but in hind sight, I can't say as it was totally wrong. For one thing, it taught the Republicans that they don't own us gun owners.

 

That billionare from New York is thinking of a third party run. I don't think it would hurt the Republicans like Perot did. If anything, I think it would hurt the Lizard Queen more. She is despised in her own party almost as much as outside of her party, and that other a-hole from New York would only pull votes from her. The only way she can win guaranteed is if the Republicans put up McCain, Romney or Rudy. Huck stands a 50:50 chance against her, but it would get real ugly. He is already only mentioned in the media as a religious nut case. He was governor here and I didn't even know he was a preacher until the national media started broadcasting it every time they mentioned him.

 

This election will be decided in the Republican primary.

if you did"nt know he was a preacher you should not vote

[dindvik]

Monica lewinskie has endorsed Mcain she said the dems.left a bad taste

[dindvik]

QUOTE (J.B @ Feb 2 2008, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although I would rather not see Mccain as president, if it is him against a Democrat, every gun owner must vote for mccain. Staying home and not voting because you dont agree 100% with either candidate is stupid and gets you no where when there is so much at stake as there is in this election, I believe McCain will end up being president.

when kerry was running a reporter asked mccain about him running with him as vp and he said he would consider it

[karlunity]

You should NEVER say anything is not possible in life.

I would have bet my whole collection against a rusty .45 a box of ammo that there was no person on earth who could make me vote for or at the least not vote against Hil...and than the GOP comes up with the little mac.

 

life is strange.

karl

[Horsefly]

I'm done,I'm finished.There's no one I want,but want the Muslim,Dragon Lady,and the Hot Headed fence staddler less than anyone else.I care not a mans religon as long as it's not a violent religon.Jerry

[littlecanoe]

(I care not a mans religon as long as it's not a violent religon.Jerry)

 

Good point.

 

I'm not a Romney supporter by any means. I am not Mormon's and don't agree with their doctrines.

 

However, when I consider the "Christian" example that Bill Clinton left us after 8 years and remember all

the photo op's taken at churches I realize that I'd have no problem pulling the lever for a Mormon.

Election lever not Ol'Sparky's lever LOL.

 

Doctrine aside, I like that Mormon's have strong family values and ascribe to good moral values as a whole.

[Dr.Hess]

I respect Jack Wheeler. This is frightening:

 

from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=60020

 

How the Clintons will undo McCain

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: February 4, 2008

1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

 

By Dr. Jack Wheeler

 

 

 

The number of fellow senators who think John McCain is psychologically unstable is large. Some will admit it publicly, like Thad Cochran who says, "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine."

 

Others relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum or Jim Inhofe. "The man is unhinged," one senator told me. "He is frighteningly unfit to be commander-in-chief."

 

That John McCain is clinically nuts is scary enough. What worries a small group of GOP senators and congressmen even more is a deep and dark skeletal secret in McCain's glorified past to which they are privy, and which the Clintons will use to blackmail him.

 

They have been having discussions with a Russian whom we'll call "T" for translator. T's father was the Soviet military intelligence officer who ran the "Hanoi Hilton" prison holding captured Americans during the Vietnam War. One of those prisoners was John McCain.

 

The GRU – Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije or main intelligence directorate of the Soviet (now Russian) Armed Forces – operated the entire North Vietnamese prison system holding American prisoners of war. GRU officers, all of whom were Russians, oversaw the interrogation of every American POW.

 

The interrogations themselves were conducted by Vietnamese who spoke some English. After each interrogation session, which could often include torturing the prisoners at the direction of the GRU officers, the Vietnamese interrogator would write a report of the session – in Vietnamese.

 

These reports had to be translated into Russian. T, a bright teenager living in the GRU compound in Hanoi, had become fluent in Vietnamese, and ended up translating many of the reports and interrogators' notes.

 

John McCain, flying his A-4 Skyhawk, was shot down over Hanoi on Oct. 26, 1967. Badly injured from the ejection, he was beaten and abused by his captors. In July, 1968, his father, U.S. Navy Adm. J. S. McCain, was made CINCPAC, commander in chief, Pacific Command, commander of all U.S. military forces in the Vietnam theatre. Upon learning this, the Vietnamese offered – according to McCain – to release him.

 

McCain claims he refused, because he demanded all American POWs captured before him be released as well. He thus remained a prisoner when he could have gone home, and was subjected to constant brutal beatings and torture for years: that is the source of the "war-hero" saga making McCain a greater war-hero than any other American POW.

 

Yet the offer of release would had to have been approved by the GRU overseers of the North Vietnamese – and T does not recall any such offer being made. T admits, however, that this took place before McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by the POWs. T had only direct knowledge of what happened at Hoa Loa, and not the other prisons, where T's father was in charge.

 

McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators' notes and reports regarding John McCain.

 

According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.

 

The notes and reports written in Vietnamese were sent to Moscow, where T was a now a college student, for T's translation into Russian, then placed into GRU archives. That's where they stayed until 1991. Late that year, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the CIA and the GRU made a deal for a document swap.

 

All of what it involved, T doesn't know. What T's father, by now retired but still with substantial contacts within the GRU, did learn (and thus T learned) was that the swap included all of T's translations.

 

In other words, the CIA has in its possession the notes and reports of John McCain's interrogators at the Hanoi Hilton, in both the original Vietnamese and translated Russian, showing collaboration with his Communist captors.

 

Allegations of this nature have been made over the years, many by Vietnam veterans. There is an even an organization, Vietnam Veterans Against McCain. But they are based on suspicions and circumstantial claims. There has never been any hard, direct evidence.

 

What T says the CIA has is such evidence. Its release would destroy McCain. The threat of its release could force McCain to take a fall, blow the election and lose on purpose. And just who do you suppose would know what the CIA has and work with them to release it?

 

Someone who has been a CIA asset since he was recruited by London station chief Cord Meyer while a student at Oxford in 1968?

 

(Back in the '90s, years after he retired, if Cord drank a little too much Scotch he would laugh derisively at those conspiracists who accused Bill Clinton of being connected with the KGB. "They all darkly point to Bill's participation in anti-war peace conferences in Stockholm and Oslo, and his trip to Leningrad, Moscow and Prague while he was at Oxford. 'Who could have paid for this?' they ask. 'It had to be the KGB!' they claim." Cord would shake his head. "What rot – we paid for it. We recruited Bill the first week he was at Oxford. Bill's been an asset of The Three Bad Words ever since." Cord passed on in 2001.)

 

The small group of senators and congressmen who have been briefed by T have been unable to confirm with the CIA any details of its document swap with the GRU beyond an admission that such a swap "may have happened." They are very nervous about pursuing the matter any further.

 

The Clintons are not nervous. They are utterly ruthless, and they have buddies at Langley all too happy to help them.

 

It has been noted many times in To The Point that while most folks think the CIA is a right-wing outfit, it is not. The CIA has been dominated by left-wing hyper-liberals for years.

 

The CIA is a left-wing, liberal outfit, and its main job for some time now is not attacking America's enemies but conservatives in general and George W. Bush in particular. The story is best told by friend Ken Timmerman in his new book "Shadow Warriors."

 

When the time is right, the Clintons will see to the leaking of the GRU archives on McCain to the media. Bet on it, just as you can bet they'll follow it up with media disclosures of the lady lobbyists in Washington having adulterous affairs with McCain. (There are at least three of them; I know the name of one, but I'm not going to put it in writing.)

 

Maybe McCain will try to fight back by confirming Hillary's well-known bisexuality and her lesbian affair with her beautiful assistant, Huma Abedin. Google "Hillary" and "Huma Abedin," and you'll get almost 6,000 hits. Turns out Huma is a Muslim who grew up in Saudi Arabia and is strongly suspected of working for Saudi intelligence.

 

Or maybe he'll capitulate to Clinton blackmail. You never can tell what a psychologically unstable guy will do.

 

And that last point is why – be prepared for this, folks – I would not in any circumstances vote for John McCain, not if either Hillary or Obama were the alternative. Evil is safer than crazy. Leftie, amateur inexperience is safer than crazy. So I agree with Ann Coulter who says:

 

"I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility."

 

How in the world can the Republican Party get saddled with a nutcase wack job who knows nothing about economics, is so anti-capitalist he uses "profit" as a term of derision, has never run a business or had any job outside of government, will raise taxes, is so stupid that he believes "stopping global warming" is worth destroying the American economy, won't drill ANWR, won't appoint strict constructionist justices, won't protect marriage, will give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, is beloved by the New York Times and lives in a delusionary world of vanity and rage?

 

Rush is right. A McCain presidency will be the destruction of the Republican Party. It needs to be rebuilt, not wiped out with the field clear for the fascists of the left to consolidate power and eliminate freedom.

 

And maybe the only way to rebuild it is in dedicated impassioned opposition to a Clinton White House. That should be the subject of Ann Coulter's next book. I've already got the title for her. Her last book was "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."

 

Ann needs to now write this book: "If Republicans Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans." (A Yogi Berra note: There still is a chance for Romney, the last remaining hope. If he can win enough delegates on Super Tuesday next week, combined with Huckabee winning Georgia and other southern states, it may still be possible for McCain to end up with only a plurality of delegates, not a majority, at the end of primary season. An open convention is still possible, during which Republicans could come to their senses. It's not over until it's over.)