Smoking out McCain

[LUVMYSIGP225]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I'm voting for Ron Paul. You can too. I believe he will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Wouldn't that be a vote for Obama?

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

I think McCain might realize that either one of the Dem candidates will be easy to defeat on their voting records and their platforms alone. No need to bring up Bill, Rev. Wright or any other unpleasantries...why? Their views and voting records are bad enough that theres no need for deep mudslinging. I mean, really...what HAS Hillary or Obama REALLY done during their political careers?

I hope McCain realizes how easy he really has it.

- Brickboy240

So, you just went on record as predicting an "easy" victory for McCain.

Good luck with that.

Let us know what name you will be re registering under after the election results come out.

BTW: the eelction results will hinge on how bad it gets in Iraq in the months before the election. McCain's "War as Before" platform will kill him if Iraq proves itself to be an endless sinkhole run by corrupt fools whose only goal is a civil war and personal plunder. The voters will never elect a fool who has promised at least five more years of pouring US resources down that drain.

If they can make actual tangible progress towards a stable regime, McCain will probably win because he can claim he has the right foreign policy.

[Judge]

In her case, I believe it's a vote for McCain.

Originally Posted by LUVMYSIGP225

Wouldn't that be a vote for Obama?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

Wrong, he said it'd be 100 if necessary. He didn't say he'd make it 100 years no matter what. You skew and twist words as much as the libs do. You take things out of context and make them say what you want.



The warmonger party? No it's called doing what's right and finishing the job. It's called not being a pussy and tucking tail and running as soon as things get tough. No one anticipated Iran would be equipping, funding, and training our opposition. I'd rather be in the warmonger party than in the party with a bunch of hypocritical socialist arrogant leftist elitists. You want someone to tell you what's best for you, vote Democrat.

You know what, what's most important to the average citizen Joe Baggadonuts is not always what's most important to the security and sanctity of this country. Being a leader means making tough decisions, unpopular decisions, and then standing by them. It's called having guts to do the right thing and do it the whole way. No bending over because it's a tough job. That's the problem with this country, people feel it's their God given right that they live a life of comfort and that struggle is a bad thing. Struggles and challenges are what make people overcome. The strong overcome and become stronger and the weak succumb. I see which side you support.

You're picking numbers from a poll that's convenient to your view. Everyone was pro war and united against terror on 9/12/2001. The job is tougher than anticipated and unforeseen obstacles have been discovered. Now that it's tough and the Democrats are crying us a river over anything and everything, people want out. Look at Nancy Pelosi interrupt and not want to hear Petraeus answer her questions...why, because he had good answers and comments that were appropriate and not what she wanted to hear. You have people in Congress and Democrats in general who have no military experience whatsoever trying to make military decisions. Petraeus wrote the book on counterinsurgency...don't you think he knows what he's doing and what he's talking about?

What direction is this country headed in that people disagree with? Everything in my eyes says we're getting closer and closer to leftist socialism...I guess the people don't want that. More and more people are crying out for troop reductions and ending the war, surrendering, handing the victory to our enemies who want to destroy you and me...that seems to be the direction we're heading and according to your polls, people don't want that. Yeah, I'm joking about that and twisting it, sue me.

I want to know specifically what people feel is the right direction for this country? What do the expert citizens who apparently know more than congress and our president know about leading a country and what direction to take it? Why don't these people run for a political position?

I am a conservative, my only viable option for a candidate who stands a chance to win is McCain. I am all for conservative values. I disagree with Ron Paul's view and his theory that isolationism is the answer...it doesn't work. Did it work when the Japanese bombed us in WW2 while we were isolating ourselves from that conflict? Did it work all of the 90s while we were ignoring global terror even after every incident against US embassies, USS Cole, first WTC attack, etc etc etc....isolationism doesn't work. Especially when you are the one of the strongest and most elite countries in the world.

Ask our soldiers if they think we're losing the war. Ask them if they want to surrender and give up? As them if they want to come home defeated?

Perhaps you should listen to this speech:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hF6CPwOeS38&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hF6CPwOeS38&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

This speech means something to me. It should mean something to you. Watch it again. Listen to it.



Drunken sailors? That's a new one. Please elaborate. I haven't seen any government socialized healthcare across the board...I haven't seen tax increases, I haven't seen isolationism, I haven't seen more gun control, I haven't seen extended benefits for welfare...

Are there things we can complain about, like the Medicare Part D plan? Absolutely. But with Obama and Hillary, they're a guarantee. We already know how you feel about having a woman in office because it's time to have someone other than a white male, you said it yourself. I'm finding you to be more and more troll like with your continued attempts to stir the pot. You know most people on this site have conservative views, but you continue to post this garbage nonsense where most of the claims and allegations are not backed up with evidence, statistics, or even citations. I don't care it's on opinion piece, if it's running in a the MSM, responsible journalism should apply...the MSM simply is not held accountable for publishing content that is true, complete, and backed up with factual information. They feed on people like you who simply find stats and info to meet your agenda. It's just like the "science" behind global warming...these people already know what the answer they're looking for is and skew accordingly the tests and data to prove what they want the answer to be. They don't go in without bias towards the results. You're doing the same.

Most have also said that McCain is not their favorite choice, but he's the best of the three that actually have a chance. You can vote for Ron Paul, but he's not going to win. He's not campaigning, he knows it. Everyone knows he isn't going to win but you and handful of others. Would I prefer him over McCain...maybe, but I'm not going to cast a vote that gives a better chance to either Obama or Hillary to win.

My vote for Ron Paul is a protest vote, and because I agree with his admonitions on the money we are spending and his foreign policy views. I voted for Bush I in 1988, Bush I in 1992, Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004. I'm done with both parties, as they are presently constituted.


Hey, if McCain was that stupid to let it slip that he wouldn't mind being in Iraq for 100 years, if I was his opponent, I would definitely nail him on it.

Drunken sailors in that Bush beats out Lyndon Johnson for biggest spending president - by quite a hefty margin. Republicans in Congress did nothing to stop him. Nor did the Democrats.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

Amen. That's why I stick to unboased news sources like FOX. Rupert won't stand for anybody in his organization putting spin on the content. All the facts all the time..... that's FOX. You just can't trust anybody else in the media. If your smart, you will have the remote control on your TV modified to disable all the "commie" news channels so your mind won't accidentally be tainted as you are scanning by them to get to the FOX channel.

And on the subject of:

FOX still hasn't taken down this little gem they put up way back when despite the fact it was a total hoax that they bit on:

FOXNews.com - Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex - U.S. &amp; World

I've heard of FoxNews referred to as the FauxNews network, everyone has their complaints with the media.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

My vote for Ron Paul is a protest vote, and because I agree with his admonitions on the money we are spending and his foreign policy views. I voted for Bush I in 1988, Bush I in 1992, Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004. I'm done with both parties, as they are presently constituted.


Hey, if McCain was that stupid to let it slip that he wouldn't mind being in Iraq for 100 years, if I was his opponent, I would definitely nail him on it.

Drunken sailors in that Bush beats out Lyndon Johnson for biggest spending president - by quite a hefty margin. Republicans in Congress did nothing to stop him. Nor did the Democrats.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

On numbers maybe, but compare inflation and the cost of technology...I'd say it's far less with Bush considering how massively fewer the number of death benefits we're paying out to the families of deceased soldiers, and correct me if I'm wrong, we have fewer troops on the ground.

Your vote may be a protest vote, but no one is listening. Just like people who voted for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in the past...where did it get us? Nowhere.

Your vote may be a protest vote, but it will be as effective as the march from Tibet to the Chinese border. It will be as effective as those calling on President Bush to boycott the Olympics and not send athletes.

Voting for Ron Paul in the general and perhaps causing McCain to lose the election by a few percent is not a hill worth dying on to me. The benefit (and perhaps arrogance or smugness) of voting for Ron Paul in an effort to protest the current system are far smaller than the cost of seeing Hillary or Obama elected as a result.

[jtkratzer]

The cost of the war will be high, there is no doubt about it, but what will the cost in American lives, freedom, security, safety, and property damage be if we stick our heads in the sand and ignore terrorism and radical Islam? What will happen if we play the CHILD's game of "If I can't see you, you can't see me" or "If I can't see it, it will go away"...what happens if we do that?

Call me selfish, but I'd rather fight these issues on their turf. No one here is trying to get a point across with suicide bombings. You're not protesting the two party system with a firebomb/carbomb/Etta Place bomb...you simply voice your opinion in a rational way. Suicide bombings don't get those people anywhere but backwards due to the retaliation. No one has compromised with these people to get them to stop their terror...it doesn't work that way. If you do, you recognize and legitimize them and give them power to blow people up any time they have a complaint.

[XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact]

I never liked McCain, as far as I'm concerned we're screwed any way you slice it, I'm just voting for McCain because he'll be slightly less painfull to have as prez than the other two alternatives.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact

I never liked McCain, as far as I'm concerned we're screwed any way you slice it, I'm just voting for McCain because he'll be slightly less painfull to have as prez than the other two alternatives.

I think it will be a bit better than "slightly less painful"

[Dotagious]

weak article. shows the libs are nervous and must target the independants who might consider him.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Dotagious

weak article. shows the libs are nervous and must target the independants who might consider him.

I think this article IS an effort to influence independents and even Democrats who might support McCain based on his rep as a maverick. He published a more recent one in the New York Times. But, as I mentioned, the author is supposedly a libertarian. He is the editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, a libertarian publication.

March 26, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
John McCain Wants You
By MATT WELCH
Correction Appended

Washington

BEHIND any successful politician lies a usable contradiction, and John McCain’s is this: We love him (and occasionally hate him) for his stubborn individualism, yet his politics are best understood as a decade-long attack on the individual.

The presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party has seduced the press and the public with frank confessions of his failings, from his hard-living flyboy days to his adulterous first marriage to the Keating Five scandal. But in both legislation and rhetoric, Mr. McCain has consistently sought to restrict the very freedoms he once exercised, in the common national enterprise of “serving a cause greater than self-interest.”

Such sentiment can sound stirring coming from a lone citizen freely choosing public service. But from a potential president, Mr. McCain’s exaltation of sacrifice over the private pursuit of happiness — “I did it out of patriotism, not for profit,” he snarled to Mitt Romney during the final Republican presidential debate — reflects a worryingly militaristic view of citizenship.

“We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests,” Mr. McCain warned in a speech during his 2000 presidential campaign. He added that “cynicism threatens to become a ceiling on our greatness.”

Where there are threats to national greatness, there are activities that Mr. McCain insists the federal government should curtail. And the most maverick individuals among us are destined to bear the brunt.

Teenagers are cynical about professional sports because of steroids (a “transcendent issue,” Mr. McCain once thundered in the Senate), so he has proposed that the government be given the authority to demand that even Division II college athletes be subject to the personal intrusion of random drug testing and punishment. Likewise, because betting on college sports could make one cynical about games possibly being thrown, Mr. McCain wanted to make that a federal offense.

The senator’s ideas for “reform” — taxing cigarettes, banning ultimate fighting, giving the president a line-item veto — typically empower the executive branch at the expense of American citizens and their representatives. Even his efforts to prohibit torture and overhaul immigration proved hostile to individual rights. His ban on the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees was packaged with provisions that jeopardized habeas corpus. And his immigration bill would have required American workers to prove their citizenship.

Nowhere is this dynamic more apparent than in Mr. McCain’s signature issue: the corrupting influence of money in politics. His solution, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, placed onerous restrictions on citizens who have no affiliation with sitting politicians.

When people raised First Amendment objections to the law, which prohibits citizen advertisements that so much as mention a federal candidate’s name within 60 days of an election, Mr. McCain responded, “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt.” When the Supreme Court questioned the law’s constitutionality, he complained in a legal brief that ads were targeting “candidates in close contests — and almost invariably in a partisan manner.”

Mr. McCain’s stump speeches, as well as his five books, are chockablock with calls to elevate national greatness, collective duty and Washington rejuvenation over whatever individual roads we might be pursuing. In “Worth the Fighting For,” he wrote that “our greatness depends upon our patriotism, and our patriotism is hardly encouraged when we cannot take pride in the highest public institutions.” These institutions, Mr. McCain wrote, should “fortify the public’s allegiance to the national community.”

Like many country-first, party-second military officers who began second careers in Washington, Mr. McCain is often mischaracterized as a politician without any identifiable ideology. But all of his actions can be seen as an attempt to use the federal government to restore your faith in ... the federal government. Once we all put our shoulder on the same wheel, there’s nothing this country can’t do.

It can be a bracing approach when his issues line up with yours — I, for one, would welcome President McCain’s unilateral wars on pork-barrel spending and waterboarding — but it’s treacherous territory for those of us who consider “the pursuit of happiness” as something best defined by individuals, not crusading presidents-to-be.

Matt Welch is the editor in chief of Reason magazine and the author of “McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.”

Correction: April 2, 2008
An article on the Op-Ed page on March 26 about John McCain mischaracterized an aspect of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The law does not prohibit “citizen advertisements” that mention a federal candidate’s name within 60 days of an election; it requires the groups that buy such ads to abide by the same money-raising restrictions that are placed on political action committees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/op...th&oref=slogin