doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

Larry --
One thing I appreciate about your posts is that you can disagree without being disagreeable. Here is something that isn't hyperbole: the PDM that stated "Bin Laden determined to strike the U.S." I suppose, though, I should be mollified since Condaleeza Rice determined that this was an "historical" document.

Try to stay on point Lowell. I said the way the Administration DEALT with the disaster. Regards, Jake

Just responding to your "Much More" jake. Thought maybe you knew something we didn't?

Thanks, Will. I made a New Years resolution to try my best not to be disagreeable. Need to go to confession (or I would if I were Catholic), because here it is mid-February and I've already transgressed a few times!

I think you mean PDB, as in President's Daily Brief. However, if you read that particular PDB, you will find that there are no specifics as to when, where, or how AQ is planning to strike. Back when I was a brigade intelligence officer, the Old Man might have made some use of such non-specific information by putting the troops on alert, but he would've also kicked me in the ass and told me to come back with more specific information. What they call "priority intelligence requirements" in the military do indeed include whether the enemy will attack . . . but they also include when, where, and in what strength. And that PDB was dated August 6. To put the entire nation on red alert for over a month, based on a non-specific threat--especially prior to 9/11--would have been pretty unusual. And given the nature of the attack, I doubt such an alert would have succeeded in stopping it.

And those who point to that particular PDB always seem to overlook another one. See the 9/11 Commission Report, pp 128-129: "SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks". Even more specific, wouldn't you say, than the Aug 01 PDB item? And the date on this one: Dec 4, 1998. The text refers specifically to an attempt to bargain for the release of "the blind sheikh" who planned the first WTC attack in 1993, but it also talks specifically about AQ and aircraft hijack training. Based on that very specific warning, Will, you might want to look at the measures put into place by the Clinton Administration, in their final two years in office, to prevent aircraft hijacking. I think you'll find they did . . . pretty much nothing.

Bill didn't have time for things like that.

He was busy lubing up his Havanas....I bet he can't wait to get back in the Oval office.

Wonder who the next Monaca will be ?

Your forays into the vulgar always smack of experience or envy when one lifts the veil of feigned disgust.

We're all in this together, Larry. If this is a "war" on terrorism, by definition it's a never-ending one and, on the evidence, waged by native sons and daughters as much from extremists from overseas.

Extreme acts remain an abiding part of our existence. Societies will decide how much they want to give up in money and civil liberties for greater protection---but there will be no end to terrorism. I don't blame any government.

Too bad there's not a black woman in the mix. All the candidates have an instrumentalist view of electioneering--you can't get to be where you think you might want to be to accomplish what you think you might want to accomplish without being all things to all men or not much of anything to a large number of them. This is very much about the swipe and very little about making change. At least Mike Huckabee could do a reasonably solid impression of "Mr. Smith". I would vote for both him and Ron Paul out of gratitude for entertainment value received.

jack

Traditionally, Democrats stand for and support the following (in no particular order):

1. More Taxes
2. More Gun Control
3. Weak Military
4. Soft on Crime
5. Gay Marriage Rights
6. Abortion Rights
7. Welfare/Food Stamps (And More of Them)
8. Illegal Alien Amnesty
9. Soft on Terrorism
10 Bigger Government

In addition to turning tail and running from the War on Terror, who ever wins intends to force feed us National Health Care. National Health Care sounds like a good idea, but they fail to discuss how and who will pay for it (Most likely, you and me). As in Number 7 & 8, we will be paying for THEIR health care, since they pay for nothing else and sponge off of us already.

Although I respect Senator McCain, and he will get my vote, I can't help but think he will be more of the same. However, I could never vote for those who support the numbered items above, regardless of how "charismatic a speaker" they are. I have read that he supports amnesty for illegals, but I think that is inevitable anyway regardless of who wins. JMHO.

I may be missing it, but I think that over the past couple of months, the results of the primaries have indicated that the majority of those casting ballots want a move to the center. Many among the general public are sick and tired of both the far left and the far right. In reality, even though my personal polital leanings are just to the right of Atilla, there are fragments that are a bit further left. I feel that those poiticians that are centrist actually reflect the majority of the folks out there.

Being as BO has the most liberal voting record in the senate, I cannot possibly consider voting for him. That and he just does not have the experience in dealing with with a polarized legislative branch. The hard core politicians will chew him up, as will foreign leaders, particularly our enemies.

That said, and I hate to defend him, I will defend the truth. The crap going around on the internet about him is just that, crap. He does say the pledge and he was never a muslim. The relationship with the pastor at his church is another thing. His pastor seems to look favorably upon Louis Farakahn, a very polarizing figure to say the least.

There is NO WAY I will vote for Billary ...... I just cannot bring myself to beleve a word she says. Not after all the crap that happened during that administration. He may have the political savvy, but is not one I can imagine as the Commander-in-Chief of this great country.

McCain, while I may not have agreed with some of the legistation he has co-sponsored in the past, I feel is the best of the rest and is, despite our feelings, the one that has been selected to represent the Republican party by those that voted in the primaries.

Right now, in my humble opinion, the safety of our nation and our nation's interests are what is paramount. It has to be. While some may think that the ecomomy is more so, I have to say that there is little that a President can do about the ecomomy, and oft times doing nothing is better than interfering at all.

While with National Defense and long lasting foreign policy is the nearly exclusive domain of the Executive branch. Our military might and the continuance of that might by R&D, Training and continuing positive support is too important. A guy like Obama, who thinks he can talk to our enemies will not have the respect for the military that a CnC needs to have.

While McCain may not be the perfect Right Wing Candidate, nor may he not ignite the fundamentalist Christians as do others, he is still the Best of the Rest and deserves the GOP's support in order to prevent the perversion of the presidency as witnessed by the Clinton years.

What is trurely Sad is that the vote is in the hands of those that can't find China on a map..... some cannot even find their own state on a map if the US. That, my friends, it VERY sad.