McCain picks woman for VP slot

[bush_cheney2004]

By that logic, the average hobo on the street corner would be an acceptable choice (as would many members of the Taliban).

Somehow, I think the bar should be set a little higher.

Well, let's see...America gets bitchin' and moaning whether the "qualified" or "unqualified" candidates are nominated / elected. I think America should just take a cue from Ricky Nelson, and not give a damn what others think about the "bar" being set higher.

In America, even a hobo can be president. Sorry, that includes the "black" ones too.

[jdobbin]

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_pal.../29/126139.html

http://thechillingeffect.org/2008/08/28/a-...nd-trade-plans/

Taken from McCain's own website which you refused to read:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/S...BD83AB62D8D.htm

When our cap-and-trade policy is in place, there will be a sudden and sustained pursuit in the market for new investment opportunities in low-emission fuel sources. And here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions. We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about twenty percent of our electricity. These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released every year. That's the annual equivalent of nearly all emissions from all the cars we drive in America. Europe, for its part, has 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. Those good practices contribute to the more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided every year, worldwide, because of nuclear energy. It doesn't take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.

In a cap-and-trade energy economy, the cost of building new reactors will be less prohibitive. The incentives to invest in a mature, zero-emissions technology will be stronger. New research and innovation will help the industry to overcome the well known drawbacks to nuclear power, such as the transport and storage of waste. And our government can help in these efforts. We can support research to extend the use of existing plants. Above all, we must make certain that every plant in America is safe from the designs of terrorists. And when all of this is assured, it will be time again to expand our use of one of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable sources of energy on earth.

And if China doesn't go along:

In my approach to global climate-control efforts, we will apply the principle of equal treatment. We will apply the same environmental standards to industries in China, India, and elsewhere that we apply to our own industries. And if industrializing countries seek an economic advantage by evading those standards, I would work with the European Union and other like-minded governments that plan to address the global warming problem to develop effective diplomacy, effect a transfer of technology, or other means to engage those countries that decline to enact a similar cap.

Any plan that is conditional on the participation of India and China is equivalent to saying the US will do nothing.

And on the abortion issue:

Spoken with the same moral rhetoric that an anti-abortion fanatic would use. However, in their case they would likely charaterize it as a choice between stopping the mass murder of innocent children or a job killing tax grab.

The standard of care for women prior to safe abortions is as I described it.

Who exactly would characterize it as you have described?

Edited August 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

Any plan that is conditional on the participation of India and China is equivalent to saying the US will do nothing.

This is false...the US has already done more than Canada with no consideration for India or China.

The standard of care for women prior to safe abortions is as I described it.

Politically, yes, but not in the real world, where access to safe abortions (illegal or otherwise) varied widely from state to state, based mostly on ability to pay.

[Riverwind]

Taken from McCain's own website which you refused to read:

I read it before - I know what it says and can see the weasel words. It reads a lot like the 1992 red book which promised to "replace" the GST *IF* the provinces co-operated. The provinces didn't so the GST stayed and a lot of people got pissed off at the liberals breaking their promise when they really had not if you read the text carefully. You need to read McCain's platform a little more carefully.

The difference between republicans and democrats on this is a question of pragamitism. Republicans recognize that GW is only economic issue and can be trusted to be sensible. The democrats have turned it into a moral issue. It has become the left wing equivalent of the anti-abortion crusade. For that reason, the democrats cannot be trusted.

In fact, your choice of the term "saving the planet" betrays you own extremist veiws on the topic. There is no credible science that suggests that GW will "destroy" the planet. All the science says is that human society, as it is currently structured, will find it difficult to adapt to changes in climate - particularily if the human food supply is threatened. Many other species will have no such problems and with thrive.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

I read it before - I know what it says and can see the weasel words. It reads a lot like the 1992 book which promised to "replace" the GST if the provinces co-operated. The provinces didn't so the GST stayed and a lot of people got pissed off at the liberals breaking their promise when they really had not if you read the test carefully. You need read McCain's platform a little more carefully.

I think you are reading with rose coloured glasses. It is a case of wish fulfillment.

The difference between republicans and democrats on this is a question of pragamitism. Republicans recognize that GW is only economic issue and can be trusted to be sensible. The democrats have turned it into a moral issue. It has become the left wing equivalent of the anti-abortion crusade. For that reason, the democrats cannot be trusted.

Once again you have no evidence of McCain's pragmatism. You are hoping for it but there are many speeches that McCain has made on the cost of his plan on global warming and it is an aggressive plan compared to Harper's.

In fact, your choice of the term "saving the planet" betrays you own extremist veiws on the topic. There is no credible science that suggests that GW will "destroy" the planet. All the science says is that human society, as it is currently structured, will find it difficult to adapt to changes in climate - particularily if the human food supply is threatened. Many other species will have no such problems and with thrive.

Tell that to McCain who accepts the science of global warming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24576479/

Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argued that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.

In remarks delivered Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender said expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also set a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

Where are the weasel words?

Edited August 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Tell that to McCain who accepts the science of global warming.

McCain accepts the politics of GW.

Where are the weasel words?

http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/20/the-...gies-dont-work/

When you say wind solar and tide, most every expert that I know says that, if you maximize that in every possible way, the contribution that that would make given the present state of technology is very small, is very small.

McCain is pushing nuclear - the only non-GHG emitting source of power that has a chace of reducing emissions. His policy statement indicates that cap and trade would be used to fund nuclear - a pragmatic trade off given the options available. He for expanding the supply of US oil even if he wants to limit GHGs - democrats are against that. All the evidences suggest that whatever rhetoric McCain chooses he is understands that the problem is basically unsolveable but will make an effort to do things that will likely help. Democrats live in a la la land and think that they can wave a magic wand and make fossil fuels dissappear. By biggest concern is they will get in power, try and fail and severely damage the US economy in the process. Edited August 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

McCain accepts the politics of GW.

That's just more wish fulfillment. He said global warming is undeniable. Not a weasel word.

McCain is pushing nuclear - the only non-GHG emitting source of power that has a chace of reducing emissions. His policy statement indicates that cap and trade would be used to fund nuclear - a pragmatic trade off given the options available. He for expanding the supply of US oil even if he wants to limit GHGs - democrats are against that. All the evidences suggest that whatever rhetoric McCain chooses he is understands that the problem is basically unsolveable but will make an effort to do things that will likely help. Democrat live in a la la land and think that they can wave a magic wand and make fossil fuels dissappear.

Obama supports more nuclear plants, plenty more if they can be constructed clean and safe. Said so in his speech this week. He also said he would tap natural gas reserves and invest in renewables.

I don't see as many differences in the plans outlined by either man. They are certainly more than Harper's plan.

To me, it seems some on the right are hoping beyond hope that McCain is somehow mouthing the words on global warming but somehow doesn't mean them. Isn't that a secret agenda and doesn't the right deny there is such a thing?

Edited August 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

To me, it seems some on the right are hoping beyond hope that McCain is somehow mouthing the words on global warming but somehow doesn't mean them. Isn't that a secret agenda and doesn't the right deny there is such a thing?

I only have to look a Canada's Liberals. How many years did they go on about GW without doing a single thing? (other than sign kyoto when they knew there was no way Canada could meet the targets). The difference is the Liberals were not true believers - they did it because they thought it would get them votes. Now Dion is a true believer and that makes him dangerous.

You also must remember that he just picked a VP that does not believe GW is caused by humans. Even if McCain believes it himself it is hard to believe that it is a view he holds that dearly if he would pick a VP that would contradict him on that front.

In any case, we will see. I remember having a conversation with someone before the 1992 election. He was arguing that I should not vote for the liberals because of their stupid promise to scrap the GST. I said that the liberals were being deliberately deceptive and there was no way they would get rid of the GST. I was right that time and I suspect I will be right this time (in the unlikely event that McCain actually wins).

Edited August 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

Did you even read the post/comment that I was responding to? If you did, and you still don't get my point, I'm afraid repeating it won't help, but here goes anyway:

It was said that: "If America wants change Palin should be popular. Obama parrots the same old leftist rhetoric the Democratic party has been spouting for the last three or four decades so how's he riding on the "Change" theme?"

My point is that Palin isn't bringing any "change." She "parrots the same old rightist rhetoric the Republican party has been spouting...."

It is Obama who is campaigning for "change" and it probably only means him being President. Palin isn't campaigning for change and may be more honest, perhaps out of political naivety, about delivering on Republican rhetoric -that would be a change. But the biggest change would be in not having someone who is so connected to Washington political circles who have been playing the same old political games, of which Barrack appears to be no exception.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Pliny

[kimmy]

I'm a Hillary supporter who wanted Hillary to win, not "a woman." Some people talk as if any woman will do; as it it wasn't about Hillary as a person, but only Hillary as a woman. Hillary and Palin have very different views. I can't see why a lot of people would switch from supporting Hillary to supporting Palin, and I don't think it's going to happen.

I think you're underestimating the allure of identity. Case in point: sometime back in spring, August provided me with a statistic that blacks were supporting Obama over Hilary by a ratio of about 10 to 1.

While I am sure that there were those who were not influenced by either color or gender, I can't believe for a moment that blacks' overwhelming preference for Obama over Clinton was strictly because they liked his policies better.

I don't know about you, but personally I hope to see a woman become President of the United States some day. I don't know if it'll happen during my lifetime (if Hilary couldn't do it, what chance has any other woman got?) but I would like to see it. I think there are probably lots of women who feel the same. I think that a lot of women who don't like Sarah Palin's politics will still at least feel some amount of empathy for her because they want to see women have a bigger role in politics. When Joe Biden said Palin's nomination "is one more indicator of this country moving forward ... one more hit against that glass ceiling," he's certainly speaking to women voters who don't share Palin's views but still want to see women have a bigger presence in politics.

And if all the Obama supporters were as respectful of Palin as Biden was, there'd be nothing to worry about. But I read a blog posting earlier today that Obama is already warning his staffers and supporters to watch what they say about Palin, just as he earlier had to warn them to mind their manners when it came to how they talked about Hilary.

Another couple of months of this and this and this and I am going to want to see her win just to wipe the sneers off the faces of the douchebags who are writing this kind of garbage. She's been nominated for less than 48 hours and I'm already sick of the tone of the attacks being made against her.

-k

[jdobbin]

I only have to look a Canada's Liberals. How many years did they go on about GW without doing a single thing? (other than sign kyoto when they knew there was no way Canada could meet the targets). The difference is the Liberals were not true believers - they did it because they thought it would get them votes. Now Dion is a true believer and that makes him dangerous.

You also must remember that he just picked a VP that does not believe GW is caused by humans. Even if McCain believes it himself it is hard to believe that it is a view he holds that dearly if he would pick a VP that would contradict him on that front.

Just as Reagan picked a VP who didn't believe in "voodoo economics." The President is the boss and what he says goes.

I think you are hoping and wishing that McCain is doing the same thing but you have no evidence of it at all and can't point to any. You are saying to read between the lines or suggesting a hidden agenda.

You are also colouring your views with those of Canada which is fairly irrelevant to this discussion.

In any case, we will see. I remember having a conversation with someone before the 1992 election. He was arguing that I should not vote for the liberals because of their stupid promise to scrap the GST. I said that the liberals were being deliberately deceptive and there was no way they would get rid of the GST. I was right that time and I suspect I will be right this time (in the unlikely event that McCain actually wins).

I "suspect" is code for "wish" and is another way of saying you hope that McCain is lying. Once again you are drawing from your Canadian experience that is irrelevant to to the discussion. It isn't evidence of the American experience or of McCain's.

If you are supportive of McCain, by all means carry on . However, don't try and say he is mouthing words on an issue when you have no evidence at all to back it up.

Edited August 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[maldon_road]

Well duh! CNN is the CBC of the USA. Wouldn't have mattered WHO he chose, the response would have been the same.

Nothing more useless than an on-line poll.

Let's see how Palin does. The convention is as spontaneous as a Papal encyclical so we won't learn anything there.

But I want to hear how she handles the credit crunch, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia's saber rattling out on the hustings and when scrummed by the media. And of course the debate with Biden.

She is only marginally less qualified for the job than Obama and half the US population seems like it is prepared to vote for him as Prez.

I'ts too early to make an assessment of her.

[Guest American Woman]

I think you're underestimating the allure of identity. Case in point: sometime back in spring, August provided me with a statistic that blacks were supporting Obama over Hilary by a ratio of about 10 to 1.

While I am sure that there were those who were not influenced by either color or gender, I can't believe for a moment that blacks' overwhelming preference for Obama over Clinton was strictly because they liked his policies better.

Maybe they liked both of their policies; after all, they're both Democrats. So in that instance, why not go with the one you identify with more? In the case of Hillary and Palin, they don't share similar political views.

I don't know about you, but personally I hope to see a woman become President of the United States some day. I don't know if it'll happen during my lifetime (if Hilary couldn't do it, what chance has any other woman got?) but I would like to see it. I think there are probably lots of women who feel the same. I think that a lot of women who don't like Sarah Palin's politics will still at least feel some amount of empathy for her because they want to see women have a bigger role in politics.

I hope to see a woman become POTUS some day too, but I'd like that woman to be qualified. If a woman who was not qualified ended up being the first president and did therefore was mediocre at best, I think it would do women more harm than good. I can see it now. 'See? Women do make crappy presidents.'

I can feel empathy for Palin and want women to have a bigger role in politics without wanting to see her elected. It makes no sense that I would actually vote for someone who would go against the things I want for myself and my family and my country just because she's a woman.

When Joe Biden said Palin's nomination "is one more indicator of this country moving forward ... one more hit against that glass ceiling," he's certainly speaking to women voters who don't share Palin's views but still want to see women have a bigger presence in politics.

I would hope he was talking to all of America.

And if all the Obama supporters were as respectful of Palin as Biden was, there'd be nothing to worry about. But I read a blog posting earlier today that Obama is already warning his staffers and supporters to watch what they say about Palin, just as he earlier had to warn them to mind their manners when it came to how they talked about Hilary.

Blogs don't mean anything to me. How would a blogger know what Obama has had to say to his staff? What was his/her source? That I would be interested in.

Another couple of months of this and this and this and I am going to want to see her win just to wipe the sneers off the faces of the douchebags who are writing this kind of garbage. She's been nominated for less than 48 hours and I'm already sick of the tone of the attacks being made against her.

-k

I'm sick of the tone of attacks made against all candidates and have been for some time. I seriously hate election time. Her getting called "miss congeniality" is no different from Reagan being called a movie star. As for those links, they most definitely are disgusting. But what candidate hasn't had disgusting attacks directed at them? I avoid stuff like that and stick to the mainstream. I'm very selective about what kind of garbage I'll subject myself to.

Palin will have to deal with sexism just like Hillary did, and that is wrong, but Hillary earned her chance as a presidential candidate, while I don't for a moment believe that Palin has earned her chance as VP, or more importantly, a possible shot at the White House. McCain's age does make this a real possibility and I've already endured almost eight years of miserable leadership, so my country doesn't need more of that. I don't want to see Palin win just because she's a woman. In fact, I believe if she were a man and had the exact same qualifications and experience, McCain wouldn't have looked twice at 'him.'

I agree with this take completely: In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama. “I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.

Edited August 31, 2008 by American Woman

[Shady]

I agree with this take completely: In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama. “I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.

I completely disagree. Comparing the inexperience of a possible VP, to the inexperience of a possible President, is a debate the McCain campaign is comfortable having.

[Drea]

I completely disagree. Comparing the inexperience of a possible VP, to the inexperience of a possible President, is a debate the McCain campaign is comfortable having.

If something happens to the president, the VP takes over.

So it does matter. Even though you righties are trying with all yer might to justify why McCain would pick such an inexperienced running mate.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Drea

[jdobbin]

I completely disagree. Comparing the inexperience of a possible VP, to the inexperience of a possible President, is a debate the McCain campaign is comfortable having.

Given the possibility that she might need to take over for McCain, the issue of whether she has what it takes to do the job isn't about to go away.

[moderateamericain]

I held off from commenting tell I had read a little bit more on her. Love this pick. I take my 2nd amendments rights very very seriously. They day some government agent comes to collect my guns is the day i become a terrorist to the US. This women is by far one of the best candidate that they could have come up with. I encourage all of you to look into her Bio. I am now more firmly behind the Mccain party then ever.

[peter_puck]

I completely disagree. Comparing the inexperience of a possible VP, to the inexperience of a possible President, is a debate the McCain campaign is comfortable having.

Here is a test. Go look at all the liberals who were critical of Biden as unfit. Then go look at all the non-social conservatives who have criticized Palin.

To have this sort of debate within your own party AFTER you have made the pick has unprecedented. Even Quayle did not garner this sort of reaction at the start.

To turn your biggest advantage into a weakness is suicide (to quote one conservative commentator)

If I could vote there, I would vote for McCain, but I sure hope he takes his vitamins.

Edited August 31, 2008 by peter_puck

[Stephen Best]

The fact that McCain's choice of VP is being questioned at all, and questioned legitimately, mean's McCain picked poorly. No one seriously questioned Joe Biden's qualifications. Millions are questioning Palin's, and doing so they doubt McCain's judgment. And rightly so.

[Liam]

If that's the case, then Barack Obama has no business being President, let alone being a heartbeat away. I tend to agree with Hillary Clinton when she stated "I know Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002".

Not true. Obama put himself out there as a candidate and over the past eighteen months has shown himself to have mastered international and domestic issues. His qualifications have been assessed by the people and his election as his party's nominee says that a large number of Americans have decided he meets the commander-in-chief test. Palin, on the other hand, has only received one vote of confidence, and that comes from McCain.

I am very troubled by McCain's choice (and I say that as someone who may have voted for him -- not now, no way). First, it tells me that McCain is more interested in winning the election than in protecting the nation's interests (the very charge he made against Obama). Second, it tells me that McCain's arguments of experience, particularly where national security is concerned, were not only baseless and false, but that McCain himself could not have possibly believed them when he made the arguments against Obama. In other words, he's been lying to us all along while on the campaign trail. Third, he met Palin once and based on that one meeting decided she was best qualified to stand in as president should he need to step down. I'm a parent and I couldn't imagine leaving my kids in the custody of someone I met once. But McCain is leaving the US in the custody of a person he barely knows. He's trusting all our futures and our safety in the hand of someone who was barely aware of the Surge in Iraq. And what does it say about McCain when you consider who he passed up?? Palin is better qualified than Condi Rice? Than Tom Ridge or Mitt Romney or even Rudy Giuliani? Colin Powell?!?!?!

Lastly, what I find troubling is that conservatives are falling all over themselves regarding this pick. This decision shows recklessness, a lack of seriousness and a lack of sobriety. It shows someone who is willing to gamble with our nation's interests all to win an election. Conservatives don't act that way, or at least they didn't in the past. They are supposed to look at things in a very skeptical way and to be somewhat risk averse. Personal achievement, merit and experience were, at one time, the hallmarks of the conservative movement but the elation over Palin tells me modern conservatism is just one step away from self-destruction. I'm sorry, but I cannot get on board with this pick.

[Guest American Woman]

I held off from commenting tell I had read a little bit more on her. Love this pick. I take my 2nd amendments rights very very seriously. They day some government agent comes to collect my guns is the day i become a terrorist to the US. This women is by far one of the best candidate that they could have come up with. I encourage all of you to look into her Bio. I am now more firmly behind the Mccain party then ever.

Spoken like a true "gun nut." You're basically saying that terrorist acts against the U.S. are justified when one doesn't agree with the government. I find your attitude despicable.

Edited August 31, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Not true. Obama put himself out there as a candidate and over the past eighteen months has shown himself to have mastered international and domestic issues. His qualifications have been assessed by the people and his election as his party's nominee says that a large number of Americans have decided he meets the commander-in-chief test. Palin, on the other hand, has only received one vote of confidence, and that comes from McCain.

One can't even find Palin's stand on foreign policy. This is an interesting quote that's shown up, though: In March 2007, John McCain’s vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said: “I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.

I am very troubled by McCain's choice (and I say that as someone who may have voted for him -- not now, no way).

I've heard similar reactions from others. People who would have voted for him are starting to seriously wonder about him.

First, it tells me that McCain is more interested in winning the election than in protecting the nation's interests (the very charge he made against Obama). Second, it tells me that McCain's arguments of experience, particularly where national security is concerned, were not only baseless and false, but that McCain himself could not have possibly believed them when he made the arguments against Obama. In other words, he's been lying to us all along while on the campaign trail.

All very good points.

Third, he met Palin once and based on that one meeting decided she was best qualified to stand in as president should he need to step down. I'm a parent and I couldn't imagine leaving my kids in the custody of someone I met once. But McCain is leaving the US in the custody of a person he barely knows. He's trusting all our futures and our safety in the hand of someone who was barely aware of the Surge in Iraq.

I find this interesting because it's my thoughts exactly. I even thought of the 'who to leave the kids to' scenario, thinking your thoughts exactly.

And what does it say about McCain when you consider who he passed up?? Palin is better qualified than Condi Rice? Than Tom Ridge or Mitt Romney or even Rudy Giuliani? Colin Powell?!?!?!

Romney would have been a good choice since Michigan, along with Pennsylvania, is going to be a critical state to win.

Lastly, what I find troubling is that conservatives are falling all over themselves regarding this pick. This decision shows recklessness, a lack of seriousness and a lack of sobriety. It shows someone who is willing to gamble with our nation's interests all to win an election.

Again, I totally agree.

Good post.

Edited August 31, 2008 by American Woman

[Drea]

Spoken like a true "gun nut." You're basically saying that terrorist acts against the U.S. are justified when one doesn't agree with the government. I find your attitude despicable.

IMO, I was always told that the second ammendment was there so that the citizens could protect themselves from the government when the time came -- that time is now.

Fighting tyranny is not being a terrorist.

GW Bush has already all but destroyed your constitution and you are "protective" of your government AW?

You will need to protect yourself -- too bad America's left hasn't woken up to the fact that the 2nd amendment (why all the "amending" anyway? But that is a different topic) is meant to protect you from your own government.

From Wikepedia:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was to simply take away the people's arms and make it an offense to keep them.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

Edited August 31, 2008 by Drea

[Argus]

Well duh! CNN is the CBC of the USA. Wouldn't have mattered WHO he chose, the response would have been the same.

Uhh, you've never watched Caferty, have you? Watch his rants on illegal immigration and corrupt politicians sometime. The guy would horrify the CBC.

[Guest American Woman]

IMO, I was always told that the second ammendment was there so that the citizens could protect themselves from the government when the time came -- that time is now.

Well, you're wrong. Our gun laws aren't in place to be used against the government.

Fighting tyranny is not being a terrorist.

And amending laws isn't "tyranny."

GW Bush has already all but destroyed your constitution and you are "protective" of your government AW?

First of all, the "U.S.," "our government," and "Bush" all different things; and in spite of what Bush has done, I most definitely wouldn't condone "terrorist acts" against him.

But here's the statement I was responding to: "They [sic] day some government agent comes to collect my guns is the day i become a terrorist to the US."

"... a terrorist to the U.S." Now if you think he has the right to become a terrorist to my country because laws were passed restricting gun ownership, you're quite over-the-top insane.