Does Palin win the VP debate if...

[Sueven]

Cad is right.

Additionally, the Supreme Court just decided Heller, with the 4 conservatives and Kennedy in the majority. Unlikely that any of them leave the court during an Obama presidency (although not totally out of the question).

There are more ways in which the situation isn't analogous, but I'll leave it at that. If you want more depth, I'll try to go into it later.

[Forthe]

And on the other hand you have the 2nd Amendment not surviving an Obama presidency.

Lets just look at the logic of your statement:
-Obama has stated he believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. He is under no significant political pressure due to this, he only gets flack from the very far left.
-What would Obama's politcal motivation be to kill the 2nd Amendment? I'm pretty sure he will want to be re-elected.

-McCain has stated he wants RvW overturned. He is under heavy politcal pressure on this issue from a significant portion of his supporters.
-I'm pretty sure McCain will want to be re-elected (if he lives that long) and he would have no chance if he did not appoint a pro-lifer.

[Aslanna]

The Republican Party does not get to decide to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court does. Do you honestly think that McCain would appoint a pro-choice justice? Because that's likely the only way that Roe v. Wade survives a McCain presidency, absent Stevens and Ginsburg somehow making it through to another Democratic president, which is unlikely.

And on the other hand you have the 2nd Amendment not surviving an Obama presidency.

You people keep saying that but what exactly do you base that hypothesis upon? It was very clearly laid out how RvW is barely holding on and how it could easily be overturned during a McCain presidency perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to how Obama would kill the second amendment of the US Constitution? I've yet to hear any sort of argument other than FUD.

I have more faith in McCain/Palin pulling the necessary political strings to have RvW overturned than Obama ever being able to kill the second amendment.

[Zaelath]

Who's the hysterical one issue voters now? hehehe

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

And on the other hand you have the 2nd Amendment not surviving an Obama presidency.

Lets just look at the logic of your statement:
-Obama has stated he believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. He is under no significant political pressure due to this, he only gets flack from the very far left.
-What would Obama's politcal motivation be to kill the 2nd Amendment? I'm pretty sure he will want to be re-elected.

-McCain has stated he wants RvW overturned. He is under heavy politcal pressure on this issue from a significant portion of his supporters.
-I'm pretty sure McCain will want to be re-elected (if he lives that long) and he would have no chance if he did not appoint a pro-lifer.

1) NObama has publicly stated he wants to abandon the Consitution as it is now and have a "living Constitution".

2) NObama has publicly been on record as saying the following:
a) he supports legislation to ban the manufcature, sale, and possession of handguns.
b) would allow cities and states to enact local laws that would supercede federal law
c) supports banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
d) eliminate concealed carry federally

3) NObama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

4) NObama endorsed an Illinois handgun ban and then lied about endorsing it.

5) NObama voted to allow prosecution of people who use a firearm in self defense.

6) NObama voted to ban nearly all commonly used rifle ammuntion used for hunting and sport shooting.


Now lets add that to the fact that the Dems control both houses of Congress and he will be replacing a pro 2nd Amendment Justice on the SCOTUS during his term and you have the most anti-gun administration in the history of the US.

[Winnow]

Boring debate. Palin did fine, Biden won. No real change from status quo.

Many Republicans that vote for their party don't agree with their stance on abortion. It's ONE issue. Can't vote based on one issue. If they were stupid enough to overturn RvW they'd have half of their own party pissed at them. The fundys can't win an election alone. It would destroy the Republican party.

The Republican Party does not get to decide to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court does. Do you honestly think that McCain would appoint a pro-choice justice? Because that's likely the only way that Roe v. Wade survives a McCain presidency, absent Stevens and Ginsburg somehow making it through to another Democratic president, which is unlikely.

Are you seriously studying to be a lawyer?

Read my post again. Congress can fix the number of Supreme Court judges. If something wacky like Roe V Wade went down, the democrat majority in congress would add more judges the next time a Democrat President was in office to "fix" things. I never said the Republicans could overturn Roe V Wade. I mentioned that if it happened, it would destroy the Republican party.

The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to fix the number of Justices.

You and your room mate are a tag team of hilarity.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Don't cloud their rainbows and utopias with facts.

[Kaldaur]

Bullshit. FDR couldn't get Congress to change the number of Supreme Court justices, and the entire nation was drinking from his polio lovestick. What makes you think Obama would be able to force that change down an almost evenly-split Congress?

And Kilmoll, I don't know what you're trying to do by saying NObama like it's a fucking play on words. We get it, you don't like him. We could feel your distaste for that closet Muslim without you putting another letter in front of his last name.

[valryte]

Killmoll will you shut up with that crap already. You sound like a fucking NRA rep spouting that bullshit. I swear that shit is straight out of an NRA ad.

2a) he supports legislation to ban the manufcature, sale, and possession of handguns.

WRONG - based not on any bills he voted on, but on some survey. What he does believe in are reasonable restrictions. Like limiting how many you should be able to buy, require all sellers to carry a state license, require people to apply for licenses in person, etc...Basically trying to close up all the loopholes used by assholes who try to circumvent the laws to sell a gun to anyone. Those are the guys that fuck it up for law abiding citizens. So if you want to blame anyone for threatening our constitutional right to bear arms (which I strongly believe in) then go hunt down the mother fuckers who don't give a shit about the constitution and simply want to sell a gun and make a buck. Hell, maybe you're one of them? Sell a gun to a crack dealer lately?

2b) would allow cities and states to enact local laws that would supercede federal law

This one isn't an easy answer. If a city is having an issue with handguns that is out of control, what do they do? Do they not have the right to do whatever they can to protect themselves? Bad handguns? Don't. I don't know. I don't have an answer. I can't hold this position against anyone if they think one way or the other. It's not really an easy answer. Unfortunately, in the end, I can't say what the right or wrong answer is, but I don't believe banning handguns is really the solution and I stated this before when I commented on the DC issue. Hopefully we'll find the solution one day.

2c) supports banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

WRONG - He supports the same ban put in place by President Clinton, which covers specific versions of semi-automatic weapons, mostly know as assault weapons. Guns like AK47s. None of his policy statements have ever mentioned extending that list only, only bringing back the same legislation that expired. Don't even bother trying to respond to this, there is absolutely no possible sane nor logical reasoning to allowing normal everyday citizens from owning an AK47 or anything similar.

2d) eliminate concealed carry federally

Wow, an actual fact! He believes it opens up more problems, like people getting guns legally that shouldn't. So I have to disagree with Obama on this one. I don't think a ban is the right way to go. Just fix the problems that allowed people who shouldn't have gotten a gun in the first place.

3) NObama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

This is from when he was pushing to stop people from selling guns out of their home and making them sell them from storefronts. At the time, yeah the 5 mile figure was probably pulled out of thin air and wasn't well thought out, but this is not something he's really pushed. Hell it never even came from any bill he was trying to push, just some article.

4) NObama endorsed an Illinois handgun ban and then lied about endorsing it.
5) NObama voted to allow prosecution of people who use a firearm in self defense.

WRONG - 4/5 were taking from the same source. Obama opposed a bill which created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws. Basically, if you were caught using an illegal gun, but somehow proved that you used it defensively, you were off the hook. So a drug dealer, with an illegal weapon was ok to use it, if he was defending himself.

Here's the wording he was opposed to...

It states that in any Illinois municipality where gun registration is required it shall be an "affirmative defense" if the person accused of violating the registration requirement can show that the weapon was used "in an act of self-defense or defense of another ... when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business."

In other words, big ass loophole for illegal gun owners. Granted, someone near you, that maybe picked up the gun and defended you, shouldn't be included with a criminal. So the wording has to leave a clear seperation between the actual people its doesn't to create a loophole for (criminals) and law abiding citizens. So until its worded correctly, no it should not be supported.

6) NObama voted to ban nearly all commonly used rifle ammuntion used for hunting and sport shooting.

WRONG - Unless you're out shooting deer with armor-piercing bullets. Guess the deer got smart and started wearing kevlar right?

[Aslanna]

Don't cloud his rainbows and utopias with facts.

[Sylvus]

I've found that rainbows are almost always accompanied by clouds.

There were clouds in Utopia, too.

[Sueven]

he will be replacing a pro 2nd Amendment Justice on the SCOTUS during his term

Which one?

Read my post again. Congress can fix the number of Supreme Court judges. If something wacky like Roe V Wade went down, the democrat majority in congress would add more judges the next time a Democrat President was in office to "fix" things. I never said the Republicans could overturn Roe V Wade. I mentioned that if it happened, it would destroy the Republican party.

I'll just assume that your little scenario is in any way reasonable. You're arguing that what happens in a McCain presidency is Roe v. Wade being overturned, followed by the enactment of a number of statewide abortion bans, followed by an implosion of the Republican party and the election of a Democratic president, followed by the number of Supreme Court justices being changed for the first time in... I don't know how long, probably at least 150 years, followed by that newly constituted Supreme Court making a second baldly political reversal in the Constitutional law regarding abortion. I personally think that this scenario is ludicrously laughable, but even if that's what you believe... that's not enough of a disaster to be worthy of consideration in how you vote? Jesus man, you're arguing against yourself.

"You shouldn't worry about abortion with John McCain as President, the only thing that would happen to abortion is a reversal of Roe v. Wade and a decade or so of statewide bans, resulting in the complete implosion of one of the three branches of government of the United States. No big deal!" Great argument.

[Winnow]

That pretty much sums it up. It's not going to happen. Roe V Wade would never be overturned. It's a scare tactic. If it did, it would be time for that implosion to happen anyway and for revolution to break out as Xatrei seems to want.

[Sueven]

You've produced no argument for why Roe v. Wade would not be overturned. You said it would be stupid, which it certainly would be, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. So explain why it wouldn't.

Would McCain appoint a pro-choice justice?

If not, how would he or anyone in the Republican party prevent it from being overturned?

[Spang]

They single biggest thing Palin does that irritaites me is replacing periods with "and also". The woman seriously needs to learn how to end one sentence and start another.

I did notice a few things like this that bugged me, but she's far more than enough of a milf for me to forgive her for it.

That's the only reason she's where she is today.

[Truant]

just wanted to add I'm lol'ing at Winnow drowning in his own retardation.

[Winnow]

Anyone thinking Roe v Wade will be overturned is nuts!

[Gonzoie - Luclin]

So you admit Palin is nuts?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4493093n

Biden explains Roe v Wade and agrees with it, while Palin wants to take the federalism out of Roe v Wade and leave it to the states. Im pretty sure that would require overturning Roe v Wade. She obviously thinks its possible to do if she gets in office.

[Winnow]

Palin is nuts. She's a religious whack job.

When they were discussing same sex marriage in the debate, I thought she was going to lose her grip and say something stupid but she managed to get though it. You could tell she was dying to say something. That's one of the main points she totally avoided when asked directly. Biden supported everything for same sex contracts, benefits, etc all the way up to, but not including marriage. Palin just said she'd be tolerant and was against same sex marriage.

[Aslanna]

Palin is nuts. She's a religious whack job.

And yet you'd vote for McCain anyway? Now who is the one who is nuts...

[Nick]

Jump from the ship little rat, before its too late Winnow!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Could you have made a longer post for me to respond to?

Quote:
2a) he supports legislation to ban the manufcature, sale, and possession of handguns.

WRONG - based not on any bills he voted on, but on some survey. What he does believe in are reasonable restrictions. Like limiting how many you should be able to buy, require all sellers to carry a state license, require people to apply for licenses in person, etc...Basically trying to close up all the loopholes used by assholes who try to circumvent the laws to sell a gun to anyone.

He has not voted on it because they have not put a bill out on it. This came from a survey that was conducted by an Illinois voters panel before the elections in 1996. What it tells me is that any bill that comes to his desk banning anything firearm related is getting signed.

Quote:
2c) supports banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

WRONG - He supports the same ban put in place by President Clinton, which covers specific versions of semi-automatic weapons, mostly know as assault weapons. Guns like AK47s. None of his policy statements have ever mentioned extending that list only, only bringing back the same legislation that expired. Don't even bother trying to respond to this, there is absolutely no possible sane nor logical reasoning to allowing normal everyday citizens from owning an AK47 or anything similar.

You sir, are incorrect. In another voting survey he filled out in 1998, he backed the outright ban of all semi automatics.
http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=BS030017#826

Quote:
4) NObama endorsed an Illinois handgun ban and then lied about endorsing it.
5) NObama voted to allow prosecution of people who use a firearm in self defense.

WRONG - 4/5 were taking from the same source. Obama opposed a bill which created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws. Basically, if you were caught using an illegal gun, but somehow proved that you used it defensively, you were off the hook. So a drug dealer, with an illegal weapon was ok to use it, if he was defending himself.

The problem here is that it required you to get a license to own a firearm to protect yourself in the city. If you used the firearm to protect yourself and did not have that, then you could be prosecuted for murder.

Quote:
6) NObama voted to ban nearly all commonly used rifle ammuntion used for hunting and sport shooting.

WRONG - Unless you're out shooting deer with armor-piercing bullets. Guess the deer got smart and started wearing kevlar right?

The legislation adopted a proposal that by its own wording could have been used to ban every rifle cartridge and many handgun cartridges. ALL centerfire rifle rounds are armor defeating rounds. Standard kevlar vests will not stop anything but handgun ammunition.....which would have EASILY led to every liberal state in banning them outright.

The one thing I went back through and noticed on some of the forums I read is that the Dems in many states are changing gears and comign up with ways to flat out ban ammunition entirely. I have seen a few bills that have bee propsed that would make it a crime to store powder and primers in the same area....even in a finished shell. Another one is trying to ban lead in a certain quantity that would make owning more than like 10 rounds a crime. Why don't these fuckheads aactually try making criminals worry about going to prison instead of coming up with new shit that affects NO ONE except people who do obey laws?

[Winnow]

I've never said who I'm voting for. I'm undecided at the moment.

In observing the candidates, from an election point of view, it looked to me like McCain would be the next president back in January. I've expressed the issues I have with McCain. Despite democrats sucking royally in election campaigns, it appears there's way too much crap for the Republicans to overcome in this race.

Old vs Unprepared

I wish the candidates had to tell us exactly who the members of their cabinet would be before the election.

From an election standpoint, Obama has this one wrapped up (as I've said, almost by default this year) barring an October surprise which could happen. For myself, I'm still undecided on who I'll vote for. So far, I won't be voting to reelect sheriff Joe Arpaio here locally in Arizona.

[Fairweather Pure]

Keep the fucking Winnow curse off Obama please.

[Forthe]

I wish the candidates had to tell us exactly who the members of their cabinet would be before the election.

I doubt you'll see this. I expect this will be the first thing Obama does that will drive lefties crazy.

[valryte]

Could you have made a longer post for me to respond to?

I simply responded to the numerous statements you made. Unlike you who simply posts little tidbits that you extracted to make your statements as misleading as possible (same NRA tactics), I actually responded with clear statements. I didn't just extract parts of facts to simply counter all your statments. I could have easily posted excerpts to make all your statements sound completely off base. In some cases there was some truth, but their interpretations were a bit wrong.

He has not voted on it because they have not put a bill out on it. This came from a survey that was conducted by an Illinois voters panel before the elections in 1996. What it tells me is that any bill that comes to his desk banning anything firearm related is getting signed.

It doesn't tell you jack squat. Most of those surveys are bullshit and try similar tactics like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and the only choices are Yes and No. So stop with your paranoid delusions of "oh no he's a going to take away my guns!".

The problem here is that it required you to get a license to own a firearm to protect yourself in the city. If you used the firearm to protect yourself and did not have that, then you could be prosecuted for murder.

And again, voting for it leaves open for criminals to get off the hook if they pursue the defense strategy. So I'm glad he voted no. Voting no doesn't mean he's trying to get you. It's simply stating that in its current form it leaves a terrible loophole for criminals, so go back and reword it so it doesn't criminalize lawful citizens and at the same time doesn't let criminals off the hook. You can't tell me that you really are not intelligent enough to not understand this. Or does agreeing with it simply make it look like you agree with Obama regarding a piece of gun legislature and somehow that will turn your whole world of "he's after my gun" upside down?

The one thing I went back through and noticed on some of the forums I read is that the Dems in many states are changing gears and comign up with ways to flat out ban ammunition entirely. I have seen a few bills that have bee propsed that would make it a crime to store powder and primers in the same area....even in a finished shell. Another one is trying to ban lead in a certain quantity that would make owning more than like 10 rounds a crime. Why don't these fuckheads aactually try making criminals worry about going to prison instead of coming up with new shit that affects NO ONE except people who do obey laws?

You want to know something I've noticed. A tactic that I've seen a lot of cities use is creating laws that give them a large net to go after criminals which a lot of times could be used against law abiding citizens, but rarely are as that wasn't their purpose. But I agree, unfortunately we always have that one fucktard in office that blatantly uses some obscure law for his own personal agenda. So I guess it's one of those dilemmas that government officials will forever be dealing with.

[Sueven]

So far, I won't be voting to reelect sheriff Joe Arpaio here locally in Arizona.

Good! He's an ass.

[Spang]

Palin debate recap

For those of you not doing your job while at work, this is a YouTube video.

Also, this.

[Funkmasterr]

You've produced no argument for why Roe v. Wade would not be overturned. You said it would be stupid, which it certainly would be, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. So explain why it wouldn't.

Would McCain appoint a pro-choice justice?

If not, how would he or anyone in the Republican party prevent it from being overturned?

There is no way it would be overturned, imo. There are far more people in grey area on the issue (from both sides of the fence) which makes me not really be concerned. I think the issues that people are clinging to (this one in particular) are silly. There are far more important things to be worried about that are far more likely to actually happen.

[Xyun]

[Metanis]

Obama on November 4th...

[Xyun]

A more accurate caption would be: George Bush 2001-2008.

[Tyek]

I will be voting Obama for President and then I will be voting against any sitting Senate or House member. The mad scramble to blame after the bailout vote on Monday just re-emphasized my belief that there is no true party, just a bunch of assholes trying to get re-elected. No one was offering solutions, help etc, I just saw a bunch of kackasses trying to deflect blame on the other side.

I watched some asshole Democratic statesmen claim that we were witnessing the end of the Republican party, apparently they are the only ones to blame. Bullshit, this was an equal opportunity fuck up that will cost thousands and thousands their jobs and I just feel like the people who helped create it should understand what the unemployment line is like.

I truely want to see change, so I will go with Obama, but I am going to try and make sure he has a bunch of new Representatives and some new Senators to help him with the changes.

[Spang]

Live from New York, it's Sarah Palin!

[Canelek]

As irrelavent as SNL is, damn fine job by Tina Fey. I am guessing that Palin speaks in tongues at some point. That may be difficult to emulate.

I am looking forward to Tuesday, even though McCain's cold, dead stare really freaks me out. Also, I hope that he does not produce nude photos of General Patreaus. He seems to really, really like the man.

[Aabidano]

I wish the candidates had to tell us exactly who the members of their cabinet would be before the election.

I doubt you'll see this. I expect this will be the first thing Obama does that will drive lefties crazy.

He doesn't have a choice if he wants an effective first term. Look at his donors, they aren't lefties and he'll be following the money. The left is just his ladder into office.

[Funkmasterr]

As irrelavent as SNL is, damn fine job by Tina Fey. I am guessing that Palin speaks in tongues at some point. That may be difficult to emulate.

I am looking forward to Tuesday, even though McCain's cold, dead stare really freaks me out. Also, I hope that he does not produce nude photos of General Patreaus. He seems to really, really like the man.

I haven't bothered to watch those skits yet on SNL, I personally have been kind of appalled by the shit the lefties have been doing this election.

Not sure what you mean about the stare, and as far as the general.. It's one of his talking points, Obama has them too, and they annoy the shit out of me.

I don't know how many more "change in 08" bumper stickers I can see before I get out of my car, rip it off, and make the person driving eat it. Change? - LOL, Right.

[Fairweather Pure]

Man, SNL nailed that one again. Tina Fey is just so good, it's creepy. I mean really, it's creepy. The guy who played Biden had the smile down pretty well too.

[Aslanna]

I haven't bothered to watch those skits yet on SNL, I personally have been kind of appalled by the shit the lefties have been doing this election.

What? It's a comedy show. Have you even watched it at any point within the past 30 years? It has nothing to do with "the lefties" you ignorant fuck.

[Funkmasterr]

I haven't bothered to watch those skits yet on SNL, I personally have been kind of appalled by the shit the lefties have been doing this election.

What? It's a comedy show. Have you even watched it at any point within the past 30 years? It has nothing to do with "the lefties" you ignorant fuck.

OH I FORGOT. You need everything spelled out for you. The other shit that the democratic party (hint: not SNL) has done this election has disgusted me so much, that I am not even interested in seeing this shit cause I've already got a bad vibe going for anything liberal, and SNL is VERY LIBERAL, it always has been. While it's a comedy show, there is some base in reality for the people doing the skits, I'd imagine, and that's enough for me to write it off without seeing it.

Oh, and to answer your question - yes I've watched the show. There were even some funny skits on it a couple of decades ago.

[Nick]

Care to highlight some of the "Disgusting" things the dems have done? You live in a fucking fantasy world mate.

Oh snap! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

I guess you think Rasmussen is "LEFTY BIAS", but then again, you are a fucking turd of a human being.

[Sylvus]

Wow, you don't like any comedy that may have a liberal slant.

What options does that leave you then, for conservative comedy? Just Larry the Cable Guy?

[cadalano]

funk's vagina is very conservative

[Aslanna]

OH I FORGOT. You need everything spelled out for you.

Thanks for spelling out to me that you're a moron. However that was already very clear so you didn't need to bother pointing out the obvious.

[Funkmasterr]

Wow, you don't like any comedy that may have a liberal slant.

What options does that leave you then, for conservative comedy? Just Larry the Cable Guy?

It has a huge liberal slant, but if it makes you and your gang of retards have more fun pwning me (lolz), you can pretend like that's not the case.

I don't like having actors political views pushed on me, but these shows might not even bother me if I didn't already have a sour taste in my mouth from the dems this year.

P.S. - It's funny the leprechaun tries to ask me a question that I assume he thought I might answer and laces it with his usual bullshit insults. I seriously hope he chokes on his vomit in a self induced alcoholic coma.

P.S.S. - Larry the Cable Guy, Jeff Foxworthy, and any of those other down south retards are not funny. They've never said anything remotely funny - ever and never will. I am actually pretty sure Larry the Cable Guy isn't actually worth the oxygen he uses to live. Hope that answers your question.

[Sylvus]

So there isn't any comedy that you like, is that what you're saying?

It would explain why you're always so angry, and want to spit on people or shove things up their asses and such.

The good news is that if Obama gets elected, the Daily Show and SNL will go back to making fun of democrats, like they did when Clinton was President, so maybe you'll have new avenues to get some laughs and be a little less high strung.

[Funkmasterr]

So there isn't any comedy that you like, is that what you're saying?

It would explain why you're always so angry, and want to spit on people or shove things up their asses and such.

The good news is that if Obama gets elected, the Daily Show and SNL will go back to making fun of democrats, like they did when Clinton was President, so maybe you'll have new avenues to get some laughs and be a little less high strung.

I like comedy. I don't like actors using their position in society and their shows to push their political beliefs. For example: I will go out of my way (as will many other people I know) to not give Matt Damon any more of my money after he spouted his ignorant bullshit off.

Politics irritate me, so I'd rather my comedy was about something other than politics. I like mostly black comedians - Tommy Davidson, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, etc. Sure, they get political, but it's not very common.

Yes, I'm high strung and have almost no temper. I'm fine with it, and I think everyone here knows it, trying to prove some kind of point about me being that way is a waste of your time.

[Spang]

Chris Rock supports Barack Obama.

[Fairweather Pure]

So does Dave Chappelle.

[Funkmasterr]

Did I not cover the point you two morons are trying to prove in my last post? Yes, I did.