Gun hoarding? For real?

In a by-gone era, the party completely chose the VP nominee in the similar backroom deals that produced presidential candidates. Nowadays, I think the presumptive nominee chooses his running mate, and the party chooses whether or not to accept that nomination at the party convention. Typically, this acceptance is a mere formality.

That said, Palin didn’t drive McCain’s campaign into the ground. What drove his campaign into the ground was the economic collapse. If you look at poll figures released just days before the downturn, McCain was trending upwards and was polling higher than Obama. I recall neither candidate having a projected majority of electoral votes, but McCain was leading by about 30. Things might have been severely different if not for the economy.

Well, to give him credit, he did suspend his campaign for a week to fix the economy.

It just… didn’t work.

There have always been gun-hoarding, government-distrusting survivalists. I don’t care what they hoard, so long as they do it way out in the middle of nowhere and leave everyone else alone.

As for Obama, I’m not gonna judge him just yet because he hasn’t been in office very long. For fuck’s sake people, he can’t undo eight years of shit in less than a few months. Srsly. He’s not gonna magically pull a plan of Instant Awesome Country Economy out of his ass. :stuck_out_tongue:

They think that’s the reason we’re hoarding guns? No, no, no, no my friends. The reason we’re hoarding guns is because a number of sources (The Book of Revelations and Nostrodomos primarily) tell us that the end of times may be near. Or a zombie apocalypse. The guns are in case of the zombie apocalypse.

He could have not bombed Pakistan for those few months.

Basically, fuck Obama. I’m not going to look at shit and act like it grew into a homunculus because that’s what I hoped would happen. He’s not the worst, probably better than McCain could’ve been, but I have no use for him.

Unfortunately, some of us live in the middle of nowhere. D:)

At least I’m not stupid enough to go to a town hall meeting where people come off the street with MOTHERFUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES!!!

We’ve got some serious fucking issues here.

I haven’t heard of any gun hoarding outside the typical Georgian who just lives in the woods. But altering any of the Bill of Rights sounds pretty ludicrous, since the terminolgy in the Preamble suggests them as those certain inalienable rights.

A noble reason to hoard weapons indeed, but swords don’t run out of bullets. I just need to get some guns to deal with the people who have guns and want my food.

<-- Sleeps with a machete under his pillow [STRIKE]just in case[/STRIKE] hoping that zombies will attack him in his sleep.

You just reminded me of Chris Rock’s $5,000 bullets.

Hey Killmore… Kill more? KILL MORE!
Suddenly I don’t feel comfortable about your posting on this thread.

Meanwhile, I am buying a few shares of Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Company.
I already own Pfizer and Eli Lilly, makers of Viagra and Cialis respectively – I’ve got the feeling that most of these gun/bullet hoarders are heavy user of ED meds.

It’s a pun off the old Dragon Warrior spell naming convention. If I feel the need should arise I could upgrade my username to Killmost (or should it be KillMAX in regards to Defeat upgrading into DefeatMAX).

That’s cool. More than just cool. Cool to the max.
I should’ve ended that line (my previous post) with a smiley.

He could have asked the makers of Scribblenauts to include one though.

Fancy explaining what you mean by progressive?

Obama certainly didn’t rain rainbows, but I still prefer him to McCain. The surge of troops in Afghanistan once again showed guns aren’t enough to win wars that have been lost on political & social grounds, that stupid anti-missile shield has been trashed (though a new Mediterranean one may be in the works) and a health reform is being discussed.

To be fair though, Afghanistan isn’t exactly what I would call conquerable. In fact I would go so far as to call it the exact opposite of conquerable.

Both candidates were very progressive about the environment, spending reform, government transparency, deficit reduction, and social security reform. They were both looking for change.

McCain was actually much more radical than Obama in some of these areas (especially spending reform) but Obama was a lot more adamant about a variety of very interesting social programs and he was a much better campaigner.

In my opinion it was a really tough choice. On one hand you had a person who would actively attempt to do everything you could dream of for the government, and claimed to somehow be able to do it while reducing the deficit. On the other hand you had somebody who wanted to make relatively few very important changes (especially to government spending and the deficit) but had a very solid and reasonable plan for how to move forward.

On the other hand the candidates brought some big negatives to the table. Obama was inexperienced and had promised away such an incredible amount of money that his ideas to reduce the deficit wouldn’t have ever mattered. McCain would have brought a psychobitch worse than Hilary one step away from the presidency and had no direct plans for a withdrawal or endgame strategy for Iraq (though the withdrawal was made moot before the election because the Iraqi government requested the current partial withdrawal on a stricter timetable than even Obama had suggested, or rather it would have been moot if the American people payed a bit of attention to the world around them).

I voted for McCain, mostly because the legislature he wanted to introduce was already there and because of the bold statement he made with the veto ultimatum. I’m not dissatisfied with the results of the election at all, just a little scared of disappointment.

Overall it was nice to have a ‘greater of two goods’ election, instead of the usual ‘lesser of two evils.’ it kinda makes me long for the days when the presidential runner-up was the vice president.

Yeah, uh, under that system, each Elector was given two electoral votes. Then there was backroom dealing that the “running mate” would receive the same number of electoral votes as the person meant to be president less one. If that system were still around, all that would have changed would be, assuming the parties were better organized than the debacle in the 1800 election, that Biden would have received one fewer vote than Jefferson. There would have been no Obama/McCain administration.

I was more referring to the first 2 or 3 elections before political parties screwed up the system significantly.

Also, there almost was an Obama/McCain administration in a way. McCain was one of Obama’s main choices for secretary of state. Instead he chose Hilary… Yay Hilary.

At least he got Bill as a part of the deal, he’s done more for the administration than Hilary has so far. Take his trip to North Korea as an example,

Exactly. From the dithyrambs of 2001/2 about the new Afghanistan the West is stuck supporting a guy with 25% fake votes and only a couple novels remind of the advertised women’s emancipation.

A political system where a MOR word like socialist is a tarnishing name doesn’t allow much variety in the two contestants’ positions. But that’s a long discussion.