jackattack

We are in a recession now. With the economy as the number one issue McCain should definitely pick Romney. That or Lieberman. He's probably begging to be vp since the democrats turned on him. If they pick up even 1 or 2 seats he's going to lose his committee.

I completely disagree with this thought process. The Bill of Rights HAS been altered. It has been added to numerous times. It is absolutly plausable that the Bill of Rights will be altered. Congress would be in it's right mind to institute gun control. In other countries where similar policies have been adopted, the results have been fantastic. Honestly, what's the point of owning a gun anyway? Saftey? I disagree. Most studies find that guns are rarely used for saftey purposes. Guns also kill about 30,000 people a year (and that's just within the United States, not counting war). Also, in most instances that guns are actually used to save people, it is likely that another gun is the weapon being used to put the defensive person's life in danger. Riots? Protests? I certainly disagree. I don't understand why people are so willing to have civil liberties such as privacy taken away, but are not willing to have objects capable of killing people removed from society. I just don't understand what you base this scenario off of. A civil war? That seems a little drastic. I'd say that a very small minority of people would really care so much that they would resort to violence. Besides, if guns were indeed removed, what would we go to war with? : The original bill of rights hasn't been changed. And how can you say guns are rarely used for safety purposes? 2 million times a year isn't that rare.

Just another weird person looking for attention.

Ever heard of the Strategic petroleum reserve?

Olbermann is hardly intelligent. How he has the audacity to call himself a journalist is beyond me. And I'm pretty sure McCain didn't vote on it at all. He was only against it because his bill was better. You hope gas continues to rise? Perfect liberal logic. Who cares about families that are hit hardest by high gas prices? Who cares about businesses or the price of goods? Same as Obama. He doesn't care about high prices, he just wishes they hadn't [bleep]ed(especially under the democratic congress). edit: You know the worst thing about olbermann? He thinks he's funny.

I don't really dream much or I probably do and don't remember them. The only one I can remember was kinda like Benny's dream from the sandlot.

Sure you don't. Didn't you post a video of some rant of his about Hillary Clinton a few months back? Anyway, he doesn't think we are being to generous it's that the bill would have hurt retention. After the amendment that would allow the benefits to be transfered which would help retention he supported it. And I'm pretty sure his bill had more money for veterans. How can you say he doesn't care for veterans? Does he hate his own sons? He probably beat them when they were babies. He wants to put poor baby alex in a wood chipper right? And no liberal will say offshore drilling is bad they just keep spouting the same made up garbage about unused leases and speculators. And how are the tax cuts bad? Raising the capital gains taxes for the purpose of "Fairness" even though it won't increase revenue is.

Uh oh. Get out the incinerators guys... we've got some donkeys to cull. I suppose by this logic, heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are also 'wrong'? In fact, how about a couple in which one or both members are sterile or incapable of having children? I've been wondering that for a while.

I'm pretty sure i know the bill you're talking about. The one with the Feinstein amendment? The bill didn't ban waterboading it was only one provision of a bigger bill. That wasn't a waterboarding ban it would have required CIA and the FBI to operate by the army field manual. That is completely another thing, not to mention ridiculous. I would hardly say that makes him for waterboarding when he is one of the most vocal critics of it in the Senate. And I didn't have time to write a long answer earlier so... Once again, getting a little too much of your info from keith olbermann. Do you honestly think that John McCain is against veterans benefits? The only reason he was against that bill was because it would have lowered retention in the military. He had introduced a competing bill that I think had more money and also wouldn't have hurt retention because people who serve longer would get more benefits. Of course Obama and the media either didn't take time to understand the issue or didn't care and just attacked him. Barack Obama just went on "exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions" And once an amendment was added that allowed the benefits to be transfered which would encourage longer service he supported it. I'd assume you mean school vouchers? Those are a good thing. Good thing. Good thing.

Have you heard of the McCain detainee act? Where do you get your facts? The daily kos or moveon.org?

^^ I don't think that the iris will competely stop warming. It may cancel out other positive feedbacks. I think the whole idea of positive feedbacks is whats fueling the hysteria around global warming. From climate sensitivity of 1.6 degrees to co2 people end up with 12 degrees of warming. The idea of unstoppable global warming is silly. Clouds *could* be a positive feedback but they've observed evidence supporting Lindzens theory. And it hasn't technically warmed since 1998. That doesn't really mean anything but it's the same as people who cherry pick years to start from like 1980.

I meant appeal to it. As in making another law banning guns appealing to the second amendment saying that it meant militias because it's been interpreted now. It could be repealed but thats probably not going to happen.

How does a "cohesive view of the natural world"[*] prove that it is of Divine inspiration? It is as much proof of the existence of a God as it is proof of the existence of intellectually superior aliens. And do you believe the entire Bible? You must, if you consider it the word of God, right? If to you, ANY of the Bible, yes ANY of it, is open for interpretation, you must realise that your interpretation is simply you choosing to believe what you want - which would totally undermine the idea of the Bible being "the word of God." [*]Coherent. Infallible. Coherent world view. It cannot be considered coherent when virtually all of it is open for intepretation. If it is open for interpretation, than it cannot possibly be infallible. As said earlier, it cannot have a coherent world view if it is open for interpretation. What about all the contradictions? It's not that any of it is open to interpretation, it's that it's not literal. The only people who take the bible literally are anti-religious people. I've met people who say the bible is literal but no one is an actual literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move. It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea. Does that mean that there really are sea monsters? No, the author was trying to convey another point.

^^ Doesn't understand the value of a dollar.

^^ Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed the iris hypothesis. http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf And the team at the University of Alabama Huntsville found some evidence potentially supporting it. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2 ... 9698.shtml If this is right it could explain why the world hasn't warmed this century and we might not get any further warming.

Does it make you giccle too?Couldn't help it.

^^ The whole group of 9 crack dealers?

I meant appeal to the second amendment. My bad.

Believe me, i'd love to be able to see the troops come home more then anyone. Its just not that simple. People don't understand that. Thats why you never heard politicians promising to withdrawl everyone at once. You just can't do it. Its a slow process. We are there right now because we have a civil duty to the citizens of the nation or Iraq. We can't come home until we further this. Make sure they are stable. So why aren't we withdrawing them "slowly" then? They want us out, they want a timetable, what is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't make any sense that we are still there, we have NO RIGHT to be there... How does it not make sense that we are still there? If we leave the country goes to hell, people die, al qaida has a new haven, and the whole region is de-stabilized. Makes sense to me. They want a timetable? They got one. We are withdrawing. We've already gone down to around pre-surge levels. Admiral Mullin and General Patreus are probably going to recommend further troop withdrawals and we will probably begin withdrawing by the end of the year. If we do begin withdrawing and al qaida resurges and violence soars you don't continue to withdraw. What is so hard to understand about that? Obama's plan isn't "we are winning so we can begin to withdraw" it's "this war never should have been fought, positive developments can continue or not, we are getting the hell out of here no matter what happens to the Iraqis." He doesn't care about winning. He's on the same boat as Harry Reid in thinking the war is already lost. He sponsored legislation to stop the surge and have all troops out by March 31st of this year. That would have literally guaranteed defeat.

I haven't done anything too in depth in another country. I've done the thing where you go down to TJ and build houses. I'm doing Jamaica next summer. That should actually be fun.

Well Antonin Scalia and I would agree that the second amendment protects an individuals right to own a gun. It's pretty clear wording. And they can't really appeal the second amendment because that would be unconstitutional. So you might be waiting a while to have a party.

Oh no? The point with McCain is that he's got in line with Bushes views on policies pretty much everytime, and since Bush was such a disaster people don't want a repeat. Regardless of Obama's voting record, he's different, which is what matters for the purpose of this argument. Like what? Which policies exactly? Besides the war what policies that have been a disaster does he agree with?

Kranked, why would we not go for the head of the snake? There's are reasons we haven't had another terrorist attack since 9/11. One of them is that since 2001 the U.S. has rolled up over 5,000 terrorists worldwide. It's something like 80 or 90% of the pre 9/11 senior al qaida leadership is dead or captured. Sure guys take their place but they have nowhere the same experience.

Not invade Pakistan. Why would we do that? They're our ally.

So San Jose state would have been better? And they are still being fought in Afghanistan. Thats one thing I'll give Obama credit on. He said he would go into Pakistan and get Bin Laden.