PDA

View Full Version : John McCain's Campaign Manager Resigns


recxjake
07-10-2007, 10:45 AM
Weaver and Nelson out


John McCain's campaign manager and top strategist have both departed his campaign, another sign of the senator's grave position in the GOP race.

The campaign issued statements from Terry Nelson, who had been the campaign manager, and John Weaver, McCain's longtime consultant, this morning where both indicated that they had resigned their posts. It's uncertain if they were forced out.

Weaver declined to elaborate and Nelson did not immediately return an email.

The news comes as McCain delivers a speech on the Senate floor this morning about his recent trip to Iraq.


"This morning I informed Senator McCain that I would be resigning from his presidential campaign, effective immediately. It has been a tremendous honor to serve Senator McCain and work on his campaign. I believe John McCain is the most experienced and prepared candidate to represent the Republican Party and defeat the Democratic nominee next year." - Terry Nelson, Campaign Manager

"As of today, I have resigned my position as chief strategist to John McCain's presidential campaign. It has been my honor and a distinct privilege to serve someone who has always put our country first. I believe that most Americans will come to the conclusion that I have long known there is only one person equipped to serve as our nation's chief executive and deal with the challenges we face, and that person is John McCain." - John Weaver, Chief Strategist

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0707/Weaver_and_Nelson_out.html

recxjake
07-10-2007, 11:05 AM
Davis in charge as Nelson fired and Weaver and Salter quit


Rick Davis, who managed Sen. John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign but had a more limited role in this contest, will take the helm of the Arizonan's troubled candidacy, according to two McCain sources.

McCain fired his campaign manager this morning, prompting his longtime chief strategist to resign. Soon after, McCain's chief of staff of 18 years followed the two out the door.

Terry Nelson, an Iowan who had been a top operative in the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, was forced out, reportedly at the urging of Davis. With Nelson gone, John Weaver, McCain's closest political adviser going back to the 2000 campaign and a sometimes Davis rival, tendered his resignation. Weaver's move then spurred Mark Salter, perhaps the closest personally of any staffer to McCain and the co-author of all his books, to also resign his post as campaign COO.

As one McCain source put it, "It's Rick Davis's show now."

recxjake
07-10-2007, 12:48 PM
Two more McCain aides quit


Two more top McCain aides departed the campaign at Noon today, 45 minutes after campaign manager Terry Nelson alerted staffers that he was on his way out.

A McCain aide confirms that Reed Galen, who had been serving as McCain's deputy campaign manager, and Rob Jesmer, the campaign's political director, have tendered their resignations.

Galen, who held a similar post for Gov. Arnold Schrwarzenegger's campaign last year, and Jesmer, a former RNC and NRCC aide, were both brought to the campaign by Nelson.

Nelson informed McCain staffers via email at 11:14 that he had "submitted his resignation to Senator McCain"

"It has been an honor and privilege to serve with each of you," he wrote, adding his regret "mak[ing] you all aware through the email."

"You are an excellent team and Senator McCain is a fine man.

"I wish you, the campaign, and Senator McCain the best going forward."

noa
07-10-2007, 03:56 PM
One of my friends was recently fired from the McCain campaign. He still claims that there's no way McCain will drop out before primaries, but things are looking grim.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 05:05 PM
One of my friends was recently fired from the McCain campaign. He still claims that there's no way McCain will drop out before primaries, but things are looking grim.

I heard a bunch of the old mccain workers are going to work for F. Thompson.... is your buddy?

The old campaign manager for mccain terry nelson is a university of iowa grad... I hope he gets another gig.

Logical
07-10-2007, 05:16 PM
In other news recxjake splooges all over himself with this information.

noa
07-10-2007, 05:29 PM
I heard a bunch of the old mccain workers are going to work for F. Thompson.... is your buddy?


Not sure where he's going to end up, but he said definitely not Giuliani (not meant as a jab at you, he really said that). Going to Thompson definitely wouldn't surprise me.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 06:17 PM
In other news recxjake splooges all over himself with this information.

I am almost to the point that I wouldn't vote for Rudy if he was the ONLY one running.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 07:35 PM
Not sure where he's going to end up, but he said definitely not Giuliani (not meant as a jab at you, he really said that). Going to Thompson definitely wouldn't surprise me.

Thats ok... What state did he work in? The one thing I've learned this summer is all the campaign workers know eachother, the people in Giuliani's campaign in Iowa are really good friends with the McCain people in Iowa. They all go back to the RNC.

Thompson needs a staff, and I don't see any reason why he wouldn't hire the ex mccain workers... they know what they are doing and already have the areas they were assigned figured out. McCains failures had nothing to do with the workers, it had everything to do with McCain.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 07:38 PM
In other news recxjake splooges all over himself with this information.


? I love McCain..... I hope he sticks it out to the end.

My picks....

1. Rudy
2. Fred
3. John
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Duncan Hunter
6. Sam Brownback
7. Mitt
8. Tommy Thompson
9. Ron Paul
10. Jim Gilmore
11. Tom Tancredo

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 07:41 PM
REX, let me straighten you out on something.......a candidate who is anti 2d Amendment (read anti Civil Liberties) is a dead horse. You pimping him constantly doesn't make him any more attractive to me.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 07:45 PM
REX, let me straighten you out on something.......a candidate who is anti 2d Amendment (read anti Civil Liberties) is a dead horse. You pimping him constantly doesn't make him any more attractive to me.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Eh7WOhFkmSI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Eh7WOhFkmSI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


He isn't taking your gun away.

Here's another great video on it....

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626962068?bclid=662538597&bctid=1078629667

Second Amendment
Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 07:51 PM
I'm not sure how you can possibly say he is anti second amendment after watching those two videos. But if he's not your guy, he's not your guy and thats ok.

I believe in Rudy for many reasons. I think he can make America a much better place. I believe he will actually reform Washington. He did in New York and he will do in DC. I don't agree with him on every issue, however I feel he is the only candidate running that can beat Hillary. So my theory is, I would rather vote for a person that is 90% with and get him elected, then sit back and let someone who is 100% against me win.

Logical
07-10-2007, 08:19 PM
Guns and Rudy: The Whole Story
By Michael J. Gaynor
MichNews.com (http://www.michnews.com/)
May 28, 2007

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has dressed up as a woman of several occasions, but he never had a sex change operation. He was posing, in order to please an audience. Posing is something Rudy does. He poses as a person who hates abortion, in an effort to make his pro-abortion position more palatable to pro-lifers. He poses as a Second Amendment supporter while suing the gun industry, to please those displeased with the Second Amendement right to bear arms

As the only pro-abortion advocate in the large field of Republican presidential hopefuls, announced (ten) and unannounced (at least two), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani should be expected to top the polls now. However, a recent poll showed Rudy as the great favorite of gun owners. What does that signify? That gun owners know what everyone knows--that Rudy was New York City's Mayor on September 11, 2001 and opposes terror and crime...AND DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND GUNS WAS WHEN HE WAS MAYOR.


...

"The suit seeks an as yet unspecified amount of damages for the many ways in which these illegal practices and illegal guns harm New York City and its residents-including, for instance, the $17 million per year spent by the City Health and Hospitals Corporation treating gunshot wounds.
"Defendants named in the suit include most major gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers currently operating the United States, or who export large numbers of guns to the United States.
"Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the City of New York, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, City Council Speaker Peter F. Vallone, and the Health and Hospitals Corporation. The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York."

... http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_16925.shtml

recxjake
07-10-2007, 08:26 PM
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_16925.shtml

"'Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent federal gun licensing requirements,' Mayor Giuliani said. 'His proposals include: prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns; requiring proof of residency, including a photo I.D. and a utility bill in the buyer's name; making "cop killer", or teflon-coated, armor-piercing bullets illegal; and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands of children.

I'm wondering where the problem is with his stance? I'd assume that 99% of Americans would agree with these standards.

Logical
07-10-2007, 08:36 PM
"'Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent federal gun licensing requirements,' Mayor Giuliani said. 'His proposals include: prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns; requiring proof of residency, including a photo I.D. and a utility bill in the buyer's name; making "cop killer", or teflon-coated, armor-piercing bullets illegal; and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands of children.

I'm wondering where the problem is with his stance? I'd assume that 99% of Americans would agree with these standards.

No 99% of Americans would not agree with it being OK for gun manufacturers to be sued for the actions of criminals.:rolleyes:

Are you really that naive when it comes to the way Americans feel???

recxjake
07-10-2007, 08:38 PM
No 99% of Americans would not agree with it being OK for gun manufacturers to be sued for the actions of criminals.:rolleyes:

Are you really that naive when it comes to the way Americans feel???

Don't put words in my mouth, I said they would agree with what I quoted. Those are reasonable restrictions.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 08:38 PM
Are you really that naive when it comes to the way Americans feel???

Only when it comes to his man crush on Rudy and GM.

C'mon Logical...Didn't you know everything when you were a college kid?

Don't put words in my mouth, I said they would agree with what I quoted. Those are reasonable restrictions.


He didn't put words in your mouth. You are defending Rudy's position on Gun Control. Suing Gun Manufacturers for the actions of criminals is part of that, otherwise he would not have filed the suit.

You also know it's a liability for him, or you would not be ignoring and redirecting from Rudy's actions.

I hope for the sake of your university you are not involved with their debating team. LMAO

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 08:43 PM
Only when it comes to his man crush on Rudy and GM.

C'mon Logical...Didn't you know everything when you were a college kid?




He didn't put words in your mouth. You are defending Rudy's position on Gun Control. Suing Gun Manufacturers for the actions of criminals is part of that, otherwise he would not have filed the suit.

I hope for the sake of your university you are not involved with their debating team. LMAO

But, but, but Rudy LOVES the Constitution and especially the 2d Amendment. LMAO

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 08:46 PM
Don't put words in my mouth, I said they would agree with what I quoted. Those are reasonable restrictions.

OK Rex, explain to me how those are REASONABLE restrictions on my 2d Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? I am waiting with bated breath.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 08:47 PM
You guys can bash him all you want. Rudy is in first place in the polls. He is rasing the most money and he has the best shot of all the Republicans in beating Hillary. Nobody thought he would last in first place... yet from Jan though July he has. The most recent national poll has him up 10%. Polls show that w/ McCain out he takes almost all of his support.

I don't care if you guys don't like him, the fact is though, many do.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 08:50 PM
OK Rex, explain to me how those are REASONABLE restrictions on my 2d Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? I am waiting with bated breath.

What one of these do you not agree with?

Prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns; requiring proof of residency, including a photo I.D. and a utility bill in the buyer's name; making "cop killer", or teflon-coated, armor-piercing bullets illegal; and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands of children.

You want non citizens to have the right to buy guns in America? You are against child safety locks for fedreal officials?

Logical
07-10-2007, 08:51 PM
Don't put words in my mouth, I said they would agree with what I quoted. Those are reasonable restrictions.
Here let me stick to only your words, since you want to ignore Rudy's actual actions:
and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands of children.

No I don't think that 99% of all Americans would want their FBI agents, Presidential security teams, DEA agents, and other federal officials to have to unlock a child safety lock to bear their weapons and use them.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 08:53 PM
Here let me stick to only your words, since you want to ignore Rudy's actual actions:



No I don't think that 99% of all Americans would want their FBI agents, Presidential security teams, DEA agents, and other feceral officials to have to unlock a child safety lock to bear their weapons and use them.

This was for when they were at home, not on the job.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 08:55 PM
No I don't think that 99% of all Americans would want their FBI agents, Presidential security teams, DEA agents, and other federal officials to have to unlock a child safety lock to bear their weapons and use them.


No kidding.

This was for when they were at home, not on the job.

Just a thought, but if a Fed who is authorized to carry isn't smart enough to keep the gun from Junior, WTF are they doing in that role (FBI, DEA, ATF, Secret Service) in the first place?

Talk about lame rhetoric. Lame when BC suggested it, equally lame when RG agrees.



What about that other elephant in the room regarding the 2nd Amendment? Rudy obviously thinks it's OK to sue a Gun Manufacturer for the actions of a criminal. Agree with that, and you are reinforcing the mentality of the blubberbutt who sues McDonalds because he got fat and had a heart attack eating there 10 times a week.

Logical
07-10-2007, 08:56 PM
No kidding.

Just a thought, but if a Fed who is authorized to carry isn't smart enough to keep the gun from Junior, WTF are they doing in that role in the first place?

Talk about lame rhetoric. Lame when BC suggested it, equally lame when RG agrees.Exactly, if recxjake was smart he would be looking into Hillary and Obama's positions and arguing that Rudy is less bad.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:02 PM
What one of these do you not agree with?

Prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns; requiring proof of residency, including a photo I.D. and a utility bill in the buyer's name; making "cop killer", or teflon-coated, armor-piercing bullets illegal; and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands of children.

You want non citizens to have the right to buy guns in America? You are against child safety locks for fedreal officials?

So, let me get this straight. I served my country for 11 years, I and my children have NEVER harmed nor ever wanted to harm ANYONE with a firearm, and I own personally 12+ guns.........why the f*ck should I consent to ANY TYPE of regulation by my government? Can you explain that lucidly to me?

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:04 PM
So, let me get this straight. I served my country for 11 years, I and my children have NEVER harmed nor ever wanted to harm ANYONE with a firearm, and I own personally 12+ guns.........why the f*ck should I consent to ANY TYPE of regulation by my government? Can you explain that lucidly to me?

Because this counry isn't filled with people like you.

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:06 PM
Because this counry isn't filled with people like you.Well there goes your 99% illustration right the f*ck out the window.ROFL

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:08 PM
Because this counry isn't filled with people like you.

So is this country filled with crooks? What is your point? Our Civil Liberties should be sacrificed on account of a few crooks? Let me ask you something Rex. When is the last time a gun loaded and discharged itself?

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 09:08 PM
Well there goes your 99% illustration right the f*ck out the window.ROFL

:LOL:

Once again...


I hope for the sake of your university you are not involved with their debating team.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:09 PM
So is this country filled with crooks? What is your point? Our Civil Liberties should be sacrificed on account of a few crooks? Let me ask you something Rex. When is the last time a gun loaded and discharged itself?

I find no problem making sure somone is a legal US resident when they purchase a gun.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:12 PM
Well there goes your 99% illustration right the f*ck out the window.ROFL

LMAO Jim, I haven't laughed so hard in a LONG time.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:15 PM
I find no problem making sure somone is a legal US resident when they purchase a gun.

Now you are deflecting. ANSWER THE EFFING QUESTIONS PLEASE.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:16 PM
LMAO Jim, I haven't laughed so hard in a LONG time.

So we know you don't agree with Rudy on guns... even though he has stated that he would keep the status quo. (the main reason he has to be hard on guns was due to the situation going on in his city) but my question is if the election was down to Rudy, Hillary, Bloomberg and Nader who would you vote for, if anyone?

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:20 PM
So we know you don't agree with Rudy on guns... even though he has stated that he would keep the status quo. (the main reason he has to be hard on guns was due to the situation going on in his city) but my question is if the election was down to Rudy, Hillary, Bloomberg and Nader who would you vote for, if anyone?

The status quo being what? Regulating my possession of them? Regulating what type of ammo I possess? F*ck him.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:21 PM
The status quo being what? Regulating my possession of them? Regulating what type of ammo I possess? F*ck him.

The current gun laws

Who are you gonna vote for?

Rudy, Hillary, Bloomberg or Nader?

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:22 PM
Oh, BTW Rex, do you have any idea what the gun crime rate difference is between NYC and where I live? WE ALL HAVE THOSE EVIL GUNS AND AMMO and a fraction of the gun crime rate.

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:24 PM
:LOL:

Once again...Scary thing is he believes he wants to be a lawyer. I am pretty sure I could destroy him in a courtroom and I know my son could. He has a lot of growing up to do and he will have to sharpen his rhetorical abilities greatly before he will be successful as a lawyer.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:24 PM
The current gun laws

The current gun laws? Sure. We basically do whatever the f*ck we want and nobody gets hurt in the process.

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:25 PM
The current gun laws

Who are you gonna vote for?

Rudy, Hillary, Bloomberg or Nader?Nothing guarantees Rudy will be the Rep candidate, you may learn that soon enough.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:25 PM
Oh, BTW Rex, do you have any idea what the gun crime rate difference is between NYC and where I live? WE ALL HAVE THOSE EVIL GUNS AND AMMO and a fraction of the gun crime rate.

Gun control should be a state and local issue, I can't disagree with you. Rudy believes this too.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:26 PM
Nothing guarantees Rudy will be the Rep candidate, you may learn that soon enough.

I've been hearing that for months....

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:27 PM
So we know you don't agree with Rudy on guns... even though he has stated that he would keep the status quo. (the main reason he has to be hard on guns was due to the situation going on in his city) but my question is if the election was down to Rudy, Hillary, Bloomberg and Nader who would you vote for, if anyone?I need to know more about Bloomberg, but he will have to actually become a candidate for me to truly research him.

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 09:27 PM
I find no problem making sure somone is a legal US resident when they purchase a gun.


Perhaps you could direct me to the part of the 2nd Ammendment that says I have have to show a government issued Identification card to possess a firearm?

Does Rudy also think I should present proper identification prior to exercising my right to freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment? Do I need to show my drivers license when I want to go to church or hire an attorney?

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 09:28 PM
Scary thing is he believes he wants to be a lawyer. I am pretty sure I could destroy him in a courtroom and I know my son could. He has a lot of growing up to do and he will have to sharpen his rhetorical abilities greatly before he will be successful as a lawyer.


A dash of common sense would help more than rhetorical skills.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:29 PM
Perhaps you could direct me to the part of the 2nd Ammendment that says I have have to show a government issued Identification card to possess a firearm?

Does Rudy also think I should present proper identification prior to exercising my right to freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment? Do I need to show my drivers license when I want to go to church or hire an attorney?

So you think any fool can just walk in and buy a gun?

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:29 PM
Perhaps you could direct me to the part of the 2nd Ammendment that says I have have to show a government issued Identification card to possess a firearm?

Does Rudy also think I should present proper identification prior to exercising my right to freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment? Do I need to show my drivers license when I want to go to church or hire an attorney?

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!!!!! We have a winner!

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 09:29 PM
Oh, BTW Rex, do you have any idea what the gun crime rate difference is between NYC and where I live? WE ALL HAVE THOSE EVIL GUNS AND AMMO and a fraction of the gun crime rate.


Chief4ever..I think you are blowing his college-kid Political Science mentality.

After all, if you oppose Rudy, you must be a die hard Pinko ComSymp Hillaryite! :p

(ducks for cover)

Gun control should be a state and local issue, I can't disagree with you. Rudy believes this too.

How about the right to sue Gun Manufacturers? Rudy clearly believes in it. How about you? Also, how do you think that position will go over with folks that actually believe in the second amendment as it was written?

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:29 PM
I need to know more about Bloomberg, but he will have to actually become a candidate for me to truly research him.

You think Rudy was tough on guns... research Bloomberg.... this guy is farther left then Hillary.

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 09:33 PM
So you think any fool can just walk in and buy a gun?



You are suggesting that the Bill of Rights is based on intelligence?

"Sorry Mr. Jones, your IQ is only 98. Under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution you CAN be forced to testify against yourself unless your IQ is 110 or higher. Please take the stand."

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:33 PM
You think Rudy was tough on guns... research Bloomberg.... this guy is farther left then Hillary.

Dude, we aren't talking about Bloomass, we are talking about Rudy. Let's stay on topic. Why do you, as an American , support someone who is anti 2d Amendment?

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:33 PM
...


How about the right to sue Gun Manufacturers? Rudy clearly believes in it. How about you? Also, how do you think that position will go over with folks that actually believe in the second amendment as it was written?Quoted because I really want to hear recxjakes answer to this question.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:35 PM
You are suggesting that the Bill of Rights is based on intelligence?

"Sorry Mr. Jones, your IQ is only 98. Under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution you CAN be forced to testify against yourself unless your IQ is 110 or higher. Please take the stand."

LMAO

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:36 PM
You are suggesting that the Bill of Rights is based on intelligence?

"Sorry Mr. Jones, your IQ is only 98. Under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution you CAN be forced to testify against yourself unless your IQ is 110 or higher. Please take the stand."

Don't make it something it's not.... A simple check of someones status as a legal or illegal resident along with a background check is ok to me because I don't want incidents like Virginia Tech to happen.

The same argument can be made for the patriot act. I believe in it because I know it has nothing to do with me.

I have a shotgun. I'm glad they checked my background to make sure I wasn't some nut.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:37 PM
Dude, we aren't talking about Bloomass, we are talking about Rudy. Let's stay on topic. Why do you, as an American , support someone who is anti 2d Amendment?

I don't believe that he is anti 2nd Amendment.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 09:39 PM
Quoted because I really want to hear recxjakes answer to this question.


Which is why we likely won't get one. Some political operative. Can't even face a tough question about his candidate.

LMAO

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:40 PM
Don't make it something it's not.... A simple check of someones status as a legal or illegal resident along with a background check is ok to me because I don't want incidents like Virginia Tech to happen.

So you think Virginia Tech happened because of lack of GUN CONTROL? :shake:

The same argument can be made for the patriot act. I believe in it because I know it has nothing to do with me.

So you aren't a citizen then?

I have a shotgun. I'm glad they checked my background to make sure I wasn't some nut.

Evidently they didn't check closely enough. The system is broken. :p

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:42 PM
I don't believe that he is anti 2nd Amendment.
How is he NOT anti 2d Amendment? Did he or did he not, in his past political career, limit guns?

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:44 PM
I believe that if Rudy had to do it over again he wouldn't have sued the gun makers, he wouldn't have married his second cousin, he wouldn't have dressed up in drag...... but this was in the past, and I believe looking into the future that Rudy is by the best man for the job....

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:45 PM
How is he NOT anti 2d Amendment? Did he or did he not, in his past political career, limit guns?

Yes he limited guns in a city that in a crime crisis.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:48 PM
Yes he limited guns in a city that in a crime crisis.

So, using your information, I can reasonably assume that he will likewise attempt to limit my civil liberties under the 2d Amendment if he is elected. Got it. F*ck him.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:49 PM
So, using your information, I can reasonably assume that he will likewise attempt to limit my civil liberties under the 2d Amendment if he is elected. Got it. F*ck him.

Nope.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 09:52 PM
I believe that if Rudy had to do it over again he wouldn't have sued the gun makers, he wouldn't have married his second cousin, he wouldn't have dressed up in drag...... but this was in the past, and I believe looking into the future that Rudy is by the best man for the job....

You enjoy your wishful thinking.

I'll continue to believe that past behavior is one of the best tools for predicting future behavior.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:53 PM
You enjoy your wishful thinking.

I'll continue to believe that past behavior is one of the best tools for predicting future behavior.

May I ask who you are currently supporting?

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 09:55 PM
May I ask who you are currently supporting?

Thus far I am supporting Adept Havelock. He only has 1 vote but it is a solid one.

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 09:57 PM
Don't make it something it's not.... A simple check of someones status as a legal or illegal resident along with a background check is ok to me because I don't want incidents like Virginia Tech to happen.

The same argument can be made for the patriot act. I believe in it because I know it has nothing to do with me.

I have a shotgun. I'm glad they checked my background to make sure I wasn't some nut.


That was your suggestion, not mine.

The killings at Virginia Tech were committed by a U.S. citizen who had purchased his firearms through an FFL dealer and had conducted background checks on the the purchaser. So how did that help?

Unicorns don't have anything to do with you either.

I'm glad you don't mind having to get government permission to exercise your rights. Fortunately, not everyone agrees with you that you should have to get government permission, pass a test, and get an insurance policy before buying a firearm.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 09:59 PM
May I ask who you are currently supporting?


Right now I don't see much I like. Granted, I seldom do. There are elements of a few folks platforms I can appreciate, but not nearly enough to bring me to endorse them. Right now...perhaps Fred...it depends on how likely he is to push "Social Conservativism" in carrying water for the Religious Right. If he ends up kissing up to the Dobsonites, then I likely won't have a horse in this race I like. I don't care for Rudy for a number of reasons (2nd amendment among them), but mainly because I agree he is Corporate America's selected empty suit the continue to nonsense of the last few years.

I'll likely end up voting like I did the last couple of times. If it looks like the Dems are going to hold on to the House and Senate, I'll vote for the Repub. If it looks very likely they will lose one or the other, I'll vote for the Dem.

My main priority is, and always has been a divided government. That way they need to compromise and ignore the fringe elements to get anything done, or are too busy fighting to screw with the average citizen.

Thus far I am supporting Adept Havelock. He only has 1 vote but it is a solid one.

Thank you kindly.
I'm just not sure America is ready for a Hedonist Borderline-Rational Anarchist Chief Executive. :D

Ironically, I believe I just endorsed a RainMan/Chief4Ever ticket (or vice versa, I'm good with that too!) over in the hypothetical thread.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 10:02 PM
Right now I don't see much I like. Granted, I seldom do. There are elements of a few folks platforms I can appreciate, but not nearly enough to bring me to endorse them. Right now...perhaps Fred...it depends on how likely he is to push "Social Conservativism" in carrying water for the Religious Right. If he ends up kissing up to the Dobsonites, then I likely won't have a horse in this race I like. I don't care for Rudy for a number of reasons (2nd amendment among them), but mainly because I agree he is Corporate America's selected empty suit to continue to nonsense of the last few years.

I'll likely end up voting like I did the last couple of times. If it looks like the Dems are going to hold on to the House and Senate, I'll vote for the Repub. If it looks very likely they will lose one or the other, I'll vote for the Dem.

My main priority is, and always has been a divided government. That way they need to compromise and ignore the fringe elements to get anything done, or are too busy fighting to screw with the average citizen.



Thank you kindly. :D Ironically, I believe I just endorsed a RainMan/Chief4Ever ticket (or vice versa, I'm good with that too!) over in the hypothetical thread.

So if it was hillary, rudy, bloomberg and nader who would you vote for?

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 10:03 PM
So if it was hillary, rudy, bloomberg and nader who would you vote for?

Like I said, given those four...it would depend on how likely it seems that the Dems will hang on to the House and Senate.

What part of my view on a Divided Government is too complicated for you?

recxjake
07-10-2007, 10:08 PM
Like I said, given those four...it would depend on how likely it seems that the Dems will hang on to the House and Senate.

What part of my view on a Divided Government is too complicated for you?

I just don't think that makes much sense.... Rudy and Hillary and completely different ends of the spectrucm....... If you are pro tax cuts, you would vote for Hillary just because you assume that Republicans would take back congress....??@!

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 10:13 PM
Yes he limited guns in a city that in a crime crisis.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

-James Madison-


the relationship between arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.

-George Mason-

Both Federalist and Anti Federalist factions recognized early on that attempting to limit the right to bear arms would limit the ability of the citizens to influence the governance of the populace.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 10:16 PM
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

-James Madison-


the relationship between arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.

-George Mason-

Both Federalist and Anti Federalist factions recognized early on that attempting to limit the right to bear arms would limit the ability of the citizens to influence the governance of the populace.

It worked in New York


Before Rudy became Mayor, New York City was averaging close to 2,000 murders a year and more than 11,000 major crimes per week. He put more cops on the street and more criminals in jail. He cut crime in half and reduced murders by two-thirds. He improved response times in the Fire Department and created the Office of Emergency Management. Rudy improved the quality of life for all citizens and turned New York into the safest large city in America, according to FBI crime statistics.

Logical
07-10-2007, 10:16 PM
You are suggesting that the Bill of Rights is based on intelligence?

"Sorry Mr. Jones, your IQ is only 98. Under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution you CAN be forced to testify against yourself unless your IQ is 110 or higher. Please take the stand."ROFL How did I miss this, beautiful.

Logical
07-10-2007, 10:18 PM
I believe that if Rudy had to do it over again he wouldn't have sued the gun makers, he wouldn't have married his second cousin, he wouldn't have dressed up in drag...... but this was in the past, and I believe looking into the future that Rudy is by the best man for the job....OMG R O F L MAO

Logical
07-10-2007, 10:22 PM
So, using your information, I can reasonably assume that he will likewise attempt to limit my civil liberties under the 2d Amendment if he is elected. Got it. F*ck him.No silly he just will sue the pants off people who would allow our Bill of Rights freedoms so they stop supporting them.

Don't like porn sue the magazines and websites.

Don't like guns sue the manufacturers

Don't like the Bible sue the publishers (oh wait Jake would have a problem with this one)

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 10:26 PM
It worked in New York


Before Rudy became Mayor, New York City was averaging close to 2,000 murders a year and more than 11,000 major crimes per week. He put more cops on the street and more criminals in jail. He cut crime in half and reduced murders by two-thirds. He improved response times in the Fire Department and created the Office of Emergency Management. Rudy improved the quality of life for all citizens and turned New York into the safest large city in America, according to FBI crime statistics.

So you didn't read the quotes I posted. WGAF what he did in NYC? NYC isn't the United States. It is NYC. You still haven't explained to me why his policy in NYC is = to the rest of the nation. Limiting the 2d Amendment is NEVER the right solution.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 10:27 PM
I just don't think that makes much sense.... Rudy and Hillary and completely different ends of the spectrucm....... If you are pro tax cuts, you would vote for Hillary just because you assume that Republicans would take back congress....??@!


Sorry you don't get it. I think it's a pretty simple concept. :shrug:

Ideally, I believe there should be no taxation, that it's an immoral burden placed on a citizen by a govenment (which, Ideally, I want doing as few things as possible). I'm also enough of a pragmatist to acknowledge that Idealism frequently equates to folly. That taxes are the price we pay for what we call "civilization", and the nature of Homo Sapien mandates the presence of a government if we do not wish to live by the law of the jungle. As to what that should be? I'm paleo-conservative (fiscally) for the most part, except I think Society should set out a few (LIMITED!) safety nets, and that poor choice as it may be, the Government has to take a role in that. I differ from the Liberals in that I think it should be a very limited role. Socially...Live and Let Live. I'm probably further "Left" on that subject than most others here. :shrug:

I'm also pro tax-cuts...on some taxes.

However much I may be "pro" or "anti" anything, the one thing I am "anti" above any other is allowing one party control of the Legislative and the Executive. In our two party system, I can find no greater folly or danger. JMO.

I also believe the history of our nation supports this view. From what I've seen (and studied) everytime one party gets complete control the country suffers for it.

If it makes sense to you or not...well, it does to me.

I don't plan on changing my voting habits anytime soon.

(And yes, that means if it looks like the Dems will hold the Legislature, and Rudy is the GOP nominee, I'll quite likely pull the lever for him. Hoping I don't regret it too much.)

recxjake
07-10-2007, 10:29 PM
So you didn't read the quotes I posted. WGAF what he did in NYC? NYC isn't the United States. It is NYC. You still haven't explained to me why his policy in NYC is = to the rest of the nation. Limiting the 2d Amendment is NEVER the right solution.

But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 10:30 PM
No silly he just will sue the pants off people who would allow our Bill of Rights freedoms so they stop supporting them.

Don't like porn sue the magazines and websites.

Don't like guns sue the manufacturers

Don't like the Bible sue the publishers (oh wait Jake would have a problem with this one)

Silly me. :shake: I must be an idiot to want my Civil Liberties. :shake:

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 10:32 PM
But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.


Does his website include a list of states where the Bill of Rights doesn't apply? Maybe you know off the top of your head. Do I have Constitutional rights in Kansas?

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 10:36 PM
Does his website include a list of states where the Bill of Rights doesn't apply? Maybe you know off the top of your head. Do I have Constitutional rights in Kansas?


Well, The 2nd amendment is not valid in NY...so did they toss the 5th in Kansas?

Please imagine the words "And Rudy G" added to the pic below, due to my nonexistent photo editing skills.

.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2007, 10:40 PM
You seem to find some excellent images Adept....despite a lack of PS skills.

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 10:42 PM
Well, The 2nd amendment is not valid in NY...so did they toss the 5th in Kansas?

Please imagine the words "And Rudy G" added to the pic below, due to my nonexistent photo editing skills.

.



I used to think the Bill of Rights granted me protection in all 50 states and territories. But I suppose this 'variable rights by state' concept would explain why lawyers have to pass a separate bar exam in each different state.

Logical
07-10-2007, 10:42 PM
Well, The 2nd amendment is not valid in NY...so did they toss the 5th in Kansas?

Please imagine the words "And Rudy G" added to the pic below, due to my nonexistent photo editing skills.
http://67.18.68.69/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=70952&stc=1
.Wow perfect.

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 10:45 PM
Wow perfect.


No, THIS is perfect....


The same argument can be made for the patriot act. I believe in it because I know it has nothing to do with me.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 10:46 PM
But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.

So basically what you are saying is he doesn't have a problem f*cking the people of NYC over but he 'promises' he won't do it to us. Got it.

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 10:51 PM
So basically what you are saying is he doesn't have a problem f*cking the people of NYC over but he 'promises' he won't do it to us. Got it.


Well, if he had just said that in the first place.....

ClevelandBronco
07-10-2007, 11:41 PM
Perhaps you could direct me to the part of the 2nd Ammendment that says I have have to show a government issued Identification card to possess a firearm?

Does Rudy also think I should present proper identification prior to exercising my right to freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment? Do I need to show my drivers license when I want to go to church or hire an attorney?

Very often groups are required to get a permit to peaceably assemble, even though that right is guaranteed by the first amendment. Freedom of the press is not absolute, or all libel laws would be unconstitutional. Freedoms of speech and religion have restrictions attached to them.

I don't see the big deal with setting reasonable limits on the second amendment. The limits that rexcjake quotes Rudy on seem pretty reasonable to me.

Allowing victims to sue gun manufacturers is silly. That like letting victims sue Ford and Budweiser because some idiot got behind the wheel of his F-150 after one too many, reached back to adjust his gun rack, swerved into the oncoming lane and wiped out the father of a family of four.

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 12:51 AM
Very often groups are required to get a permit to peaceably assemble, even though that right is guaranteed by the first amendment. Freedom of the press is not absolute, or all libel laws would be unconstitutional. Freedoms of speech and religion have restrictions attached to them.

Yes and no. The right to free speech is protected. The Supreme Court has determined that reasonable time and place restrictions are appropriate in some instances. However, content or message based restrictions are almost never considered constitutional.

Your second example is an interesting parallel with the 2nd Ammendment. Libel and slander laws are not restrictions on freedom of speech or the press. They hold people responsible, after the fact, for what they say. They do not constitue a prospective restriction. There is not a government agency that reviews newspapers prior to publication and prohibits libelous stories. There is not an agency screening public speakers for slander.

Firearms regulations do the opposite. They are not created to hold people responsible for their actions, they attempt to prospectively restrict the right of citizens.



I don't see the big deal with setting reasonable limits on the second amendment. The limits that rexcjake quotes Rudy on seem pretty reasonable to me.

Rudy had to use an entire can of 'turd polish' to come up with that description. And there was a lot in the 1997 legislation that was left out, including encouragement for municipalities to sue firearms manufacturers and some ridiculous penalties for minor violations of firearms laws such as a year in prison for more than one error on the books of a FFL dealer.


Allowing victims to sue gun manufacturers is silly. That like letting victims sue Ford and Budweiser because some idiot got behind the wheel of his F-150 after one too many, reached back to adjust his gun rack, swerved into the oncoming lane and wiped out the father of a family of four.

It's worse than that. It wasn't even the victims suing Ford and Budweiser. It was the City and County governments suing the manufacturers. As silly as it would be, at least in your scenario the family would have gotten some money out of the deal. This was simply a big shakedown by NYC, New Orleans, Atlanta and others to squeeze money out of firearms manufacturers. No actual victims would have ever seen a cent.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 03:13 AM
Yes and no...

All very well reasoned arguments. I see that I should have limited myself to instances in which government permission is required before citizens exercise their rights.

You didn't specifically address my first point: That in many cases citizens must get a permit from government before they peaceably assemble.

I'll try to come up with other examples if I can, but do you have any thoughts about that specific point?

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 09:27 AM
You didn't specifically address my first point: That in many cases citizens must get a permit from government before they peaceably assemble.


I cannot think on any instance where citizens must get a permit before they are allowed to peaceably assemble on private property.

Many cities require a permit before groups may hold rallies on public property, marches down city streets, in parks and the like. In doing so, these groups prevent other citizens from easily getting in and out of city buildings, driving down the street or enjoying the park. Often law enforcement will have to reroute traffic or the Parks Dept will bring in portajohns.

The distinction is, of course, that my purchase of a firearm does not prevent anyone else from doing the same, at exactly the same time. It doesn't cause congestion around city buildings, demand people find another location to walk their dog, and, to my knowledge, my possession of a firearm has never caused a traffic jam.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 03:55 PM
What is hilarious about this whole McCain deal is the way the media is trying to play it up.

They keep trying to act like his support has fallen off due to Iraq, when his stance on that has not changed as his political fortunes have, or that him "buddying up" to Bush is the reason. Obviously, his high-profile support of the immigration bill hurt him severely, but the media doesn't want you to think that. They want everyone to believe that supporting Iraq is suicide - but actually, supporting complete and unconditional surrender like the loony left does is suicide. Just ask the Democrats in Congress, that's the only reason why they haven't cut the breaker for the whole operation yet.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 11:07 AM
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

-James Madison-


the relationship between arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.

-George Mason-

Both Federalist and Anti Federalist factions recognized early on that attempting to limit the right to bear arms would limit the ability of the citizens to influence the governance of the populace.

It worked in New York


Before Rudy became Mayor, New York City was averaging close to 2,000 murders a year and more than 11,000 major crimes per week. He put more cops on the street and more criminals in jail. He cut crime in half and reduced murders by two-thirds. He improved response times in the Fire Department and created the Office of Emergency Management. Rudy improved the quality of life for all citizens and turned New York into the safest large city in America, according to FBI crime statistics.

So how exactly did your post address the concern I had expressed with your lame ass candidate and his views on controlling guns, especially in light of the intent of the founding fathers? I don't give a flying f*ck where you THINK it worked...IT..IS..UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So eff him.