Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Right-Wing Patriot

'08 Election

Recommended Posts

Guest Right-Wing Patriot

Who in their right mind would vote for either Billary or Obama ? Billary is a one-term Senator

the only thing on her resume is: She slept in the White House for 8 years (and

probably in her own bedroom ). We can't afford her national healthcare, welfare and other

giveaway programs for illegal aliens. And do we really want Bubba supervising the Intern

Program ?

Obama is also a one-term Senator who voted "present" 140 times while in office, what does

that say about "decisive" ? He's also further left than Billary; he's already said he wants to

give driver's licenses to illegal aliens (can he say "national security") ?

Of course the Loony Lefties are programed to vote, not think, so Billary/Obama will get a

certain amount of votes. I'm confident moderates and conservatives will unite to elect either

Romney or McCain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Who in their right mind would vote for either Billary or Obama ? Billary is a one-term Senator

the only thing on her resume is: She slept in the White House for 8 years (and

probably in her own bedroom ). We can't afford her national healthcare, welfare and other

giveaway programs for illegal aliens. And do we really want Bubba supervising the Intern

Program ?

Obama is also a one-term Senator who voted "present" 140 times while in office, what does

that say about "decisive" ? He's also further left than Billary; he's already said he wants to

give driver's licenses to illegal aliens (can he say "national security") ?

Of course the Loony Lefties are programed to vote, not think, so Billary/Obama will get a

certain amount of votes. I'm confident moderates and conservatives will unite to elect either

Romney or McCain.

The last seven years under right wing misrule have been based on a fantasy, so by all means dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Who in their right mind would vote for either Billary or Obama ? Billary is a one-term Senator

the only thing on her resume is: She slept in the White House for 8 years (and

probably in her own bedroom ). We can't afford her national healthcare, welfare and other

giveaway programs for illegal aliens. And do we really want Bubba supervising the Intern

Program ?

Obama is also a one-term Senator who voted "present" 140 times while in office, what does

that say about "decisive" ? He's also further left than Billary; he's already said he wants to

give driver's licenses to illegal aliens (can he say "national security") ?

Of course the Loony Lefties are programed to vote, not think, so Billary/Obama will get a

certain amount of votes. I'm confident moderates and conservatives will unite to elect either

Romney or McCain.

Your hero GW has quite literally damaged this country far worse than the terrorist on 9-11 could have hoped for. From lying us into an illegal war to the largest deficit in U.S. history and everything in between. Great work Georgie, your idiocy is exceed only by that of your unbelievable ignorance! It could quite conceivably take one or even two generations to undo what he has done provided that we stop the bleeding now. All that and you still have the nerve to throw stones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Who in their right mind would vote for either Billary or Obama ?

Anyone.

Both McCain and Romney are stupid enough to want to fund abstinence-only programs, which have proven to be a spectacular failure (plus the Bible Belt is the national leader of teen pregnancy, hmmmmm).

Both are anti-choice.

Both favor gender discrimination in marriage.

McCain thinks the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles", despite this fallacy having been corrected countless times.

And that's just scraping the tip of the iceberg. Even the first thing is enough to keep me from voting for someone--I don't favor throwing money away on useless programs. You know, when it comes to anything else, we rightly decide that the best way to keep kids from being irresponsible with something is to give them information. We inform them about drugs, about gangs, about all kinds of stuff. But when it comes to sex, idiot right-wingers think the best idea is to tell the kids nothing; the extent of their lesson to the kids is "you'd better not." Are you f*cking kidding me? Hormones speak louder than words, and it's been proven that the more REAL sex ed a kid has, the less likely that they're going to jump in bed with whoever tickles their fancy.

Sorry for the rant, but thinking about this plus the "war" just got me pissed off about these idiot neocons throwing our money out the window for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sgt Rock
Your hero GW has quite literally damaged this country far worse than the terrorist on 9-11 could have hoped for. From lying us into an illegal war to the largest deficit in U.S. history and everything in between. Great work Georgie, your idiocy is exceed only by that of your unbelievable ignorance! It could quite conceivably take one or even two generations to undo what he has done provided that we stop the bleeding now. All that and you still have the nerve to throw stones?

Oh Please--Do tell us what is so illegal about this war Son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
Anyone.

Both McCain and Romney are stupid enough to want to fund abstinence-only programs, which have proven to be a spectacular failure (plus the Bible Belt is the national leader of teen pregnancy, hmmmmm).

Both are anti-choice.

Both favor gender discrimination in marriage.

McCain thinks the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles", despite this fallacy having been corrected countless times.

And that's just scraping the tip of the iceberg. Even the first thing is enough to keep me from voting for someone--I don't favor throwing money away on useless programs. You know, when it comes to anything else, we rightly decide that the best way to keep kids from being irresponsible with something is to give them information. We inform them about drugs, about gangs, about all kinds of stuff. But when it comes to sex, idiot right-wingers think the best idea is to tell the kids nothing; the extent of their lesson to the kids is "you'd better not." Are you f*cking kidding me? Hormones speak louder than words, and it's been proven that the more REAL sex ed a kid has, the less likely that they're going to jump in bed with whoever tickles their fancy.

Sorry for the rant, but thinking about this plus the "war" just got me pissed off about these idiot neocons throwing our money out the window for nothing.

Romney - oh, I hope the Republicans nominate that moron. We'll be watching video of "Who let the dogs out - hoo - hoo" and "bling bling" for months. "Hey, look at me, I've got my arm around a real black person!"

What a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Anyone.

Both McCain and Romney are stupid enough to want to fund abstinence-only programs, which have proven to be a spectacular failure (plus the Bible Belt is the national leader of teen pregnancy, hmmmmm).

Both are anti-choice.

Both favor gender discrimination in marriage.

McCain thinks the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles", despite this fallacy having been corrected countless times.

And that's just scraping the tip of the iceberg. Even the first thing is enough to keep me from voting for someone--I don't favor throwing money away on useless programs. You know, when it comes to anything else, we rightly decide that the best way to keep kids from being irresponsible with something is to give them information. We inform them about drugs, about gangs, about all kinds of stuff. But when it comes to sex, idiot right-wingers think the best idea is to tell the kids nothing; the extent of their lesson to the kids is "you'd better not." Are you f*cking kidding me? Hormones speak louder than words, and it's been proven that the more REAL sex ed a kid has, the less likely that they're going to jump in bed with whoever tickles their fancy.

Sorry for the rant, but thinking about this plus the "war" just got me pissed off about these idiot neocons throwing our money out the window for nothing.

This is your brain on drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Oh Please--Do tell us what is so illegal about this war Son.

Five words:

Only Congress can declare war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Romney - oh, I hope the Republicans nominate that moron. We'll be watching video of "Who let the dogs out - hoo - hoo" and "bling bling" for months. "Hey, look at me, I've got my arm around a real black person!"

What a moron.

The man's only a large diamond pinky ring and cheap cigar away from a great career in cinema, being type-cast as a shady used car salesman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

PattyRatty, is that you you REMF wanker or some other self-professed PatRat who's clueless about the meaning of the word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Five words:

Only Congress can declare war.

Another five words: Congress approved invasion of Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Oh Please--Do tell us what is so illegal about this war Son.

Five words:

Only Congress can declare war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Another five words: Congress approved invasion of Iraq.

Under conditions that Bush DID NOT MEET.

"Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium." --http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Five words:

Only Congress can declare war.

Thirteen words:

You are trying to present FACTS to those in the state of denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Under conditions that Bush DID NOT MEET.

"Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium." --http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

Drink more Kool-Aid, you may start believing this comical nonsense yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
Thirteen words:

You are trying to present FACTS to those in the state of denial.

It's not even denial. The radical right doesn't care about facts. All they care about is forcing their idology on the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving back to the topic of the election, I would like to vote for McCain. I can not vote in the primary but it seems pretty obvious that he will move on to the general elections. Unless Romney has a miracle on Tuesday, he will not be able to beat McCain who is currently leading by 35 delegates I believe. Too save people the time of asking why, if they even care, here is some excerpts from a website that I enjoy that puts my ideas in more eloquent and articulate terms:

"One thing I don't think anyone can say is that John McCain is not committed to our nation. He has lived a life of public service. He was a POW in North Vietnam who REFUSED to be released when the North Vietnamese offered it to him because they learned that his father was an Admiral in command of the region. That is service my friends, that is commitment. So we know he is a man who loves our great nation. But is he trustworthy? I say yes. He has a history of sticking to his political principles. He opposed the Bush tax cuts that easily passed in 2001. He knew that would make him unpopular within the Republican ranks. But he did it anyway because he saw that tax cuts without spending limits were a recipe for massive deficits and inflation...exactly what we have seen in the last four years. In his Senate career, John McCain has been a strong advocate against pork-barrel spending. The GOP has been horrible over the last few years with spending, god damn horrible. He will put a stop to it. Does that make him popular with Senators or lobbyists? Does it make it easy for him to go to groups who typically rob the government for support and campaign donations? Surely not. But he sticks to his guns on the issues that are important to him and that is exactly the type of man we need to lead us."

"I am not writting this endorsement to castigate other Republicans but I have no choice but to point out a few things on this issue. I was strongly considering endorsing Mitt Romney. The problem I found was that every time I looked into any issue I saw a duplicity in what he says now vs. what he did in the past. He was pro-abortion and now he is against it. He was for gun control in Massachusetts and now he is a "hunter". He was an "independent in 1994 and did not want a repeat of Reagan." Now he loves Ronnie. I call b.s my friend. I think he is a good man much in the mold of John Kerry. Good guy but weak minded..I cannot have that. One thing I admire about a man is their ability to stand up against the hurricane of public opinion. Bush has been able to do it...but his father and Clinton were not up to that task. I believe that John McCain will be able to weather the inevitable cry "foul" from an uneducated and apathetic public."

"Another reason I am endorsing Senator McCain is his stance on religion. What is that? I don't know and that is how I like it. I am not sure if he is a Christian and that is a good thing to me. If you are forced to campaign on sharing religious beliefs with people it means you have very little record to stand on. Romney and Mike Huckabee are fighting a religious war and it is pathetic. It goes a little something like this: Romney "I am a Christian who believes in magic underwear and golden tablets"..Huckabee "Mormons are weird and I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old". Absurd. Huckabee is to blame for this religious test problem. He has injected his personal beliefs into every possible photo op and it has led Romney to defend himself. This is one of the many reasons I will not endorse Huckabee among many others (nanny state belief system, utter lack of foreign policy experience, etc)."

"John McCain is not a threat to our 2nd amendment rights. I know that the gun-lobby is not a huge fan of John McCain but I do feel that there is some fanaticism at play here. He was against the defunct "assault weapons" ban. He co-sponsored a bill to allow the five law abiding citizens of Washington DC to own handguns. He opposed waiting periods for purchase of firearms. He voted against ammunition laws that would restrict certain types of ammunition that were labeled "armor piercing". The gun lobby has been pissed at McCain for his support of gun locks. To my understanding, these are placed on the weapons during transport. That seems like a reasonable rule to me. He also attracted the ire of some gun-rights folks when he agreed that existing laws for gun purchases be extended to gun shows. Why should gun show purchases be different than in store purchases? They are not. He is a friend of the 2nd amendment and his record proves it. Don't believe me...look into his record as a whole, not just what the GOA tells you. Most of the NRA's problem with McCain is his bill to reform our campaign finance laws. This is true because they are a huge lobby and it is a lobby that I support. The idea of limiting monetary access to our lawmakers is a good idea and while his bill may not be the best solution I agree with his sentiment. So rather than read the NRA or GOA's assessment of McCain, just look at his ACTUAL gun rights record and you will see that you will not lose your right to bear arms by electing John McCain."

"McCain's record from a national defense standpoint is outstanding. He has consistently supported pay raises for military personnel to help with recruiting and retention. His has also been a supporter of the war in Iraq and was one of the early proponents of the surge that has been so successful in Iraq. He was critical of the war plan in Iraq from the outset, saying that there were not enough ground forces from the start and he was proven correct when Generals finally received increased manpower. McCain understands we must win in Iraq and install a democracy. There is no way we can leave until the task is completed. He has told anyone who will listen that Iran cannot get nukes and is on record as saying that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons that WE WILL ATTACK. I believe him."

"I believe that Giuliani is more electable in a national election. He is more charismatic than McCain and more well liked by the public at large. The problem with Rudy is that he is barely a Republican. His personal life is very questionable but more damning to me is his record of heavy-handed tactics in fighting crime. He is lauded for cutting crime in New York but the untold story is that he banned certain types of legitimate businesses that tended to be robbed. That is a communist way of fighting crime and I fear that those types of ideas would be extended. So as much as I know that Rudy is more electable, I cannot endorse him. McCain is not the most electric figure on the campaign but he is quite forthright with what he believes, which will contrast well with the slimy Cliton. I have no doubt that he can beat Hillary. McCain is not a hard-core religious conservative, which will play well with non-Christian independents. His record is socially conservative but his stances are solidly grounded on Constitutional limits of government rather than religious beliefs. His sometimes prickly relationship with President Bush is also a good thing in the eyes of the voters. I believe that voters see him as independent of Bush which does not help him in our primary but will be an advantage in the national election. I honestly believe that he is our best choice to stave off the communists while adhering to our nation's Constitutional heritage."

"Senator McCain also has a decent record of environmentalism. He sees the ethanol subsidy for what it is...a pork boondoggle. He has a roughly 50% rating from environmental groups which means he has a mixed record which in my view is a good thing. He advocates a nuclear and hydrogen based economy, and recognizes that our dependence on Middle East oil is a threat to national security. He, like me, sees economic benefits to environmental protections and that the two are not mutually exclusive."

"John McCain is the most experienced candidate running for President, case closed. No candidate on either side of the aisle can match his distinguished record of service. They all seem like rookies if you look at their records; one term senators, wives of powerful men, one term governors, mayors.. f**king amateurs. I want our next President to know what the hell is going on from the day he is elected."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Moving back to the topic of the election, I would like to vote for McCain. I can not vote in the primary but it seems pretty obvious that he will move on to the general elections. Unless Romney has a miracle on Tuesday, he will not be able to beat McCain who is currently leading by 35 delegates I believe. Too save people the time of asking why, if they even care, here is some excerpts from a website that I enjoy that puts my ideas in more eloquent and articulate terms:

"One thing I don't think anyone can say is that John McCain is not committed to our nation. He has lived a life of public service. He was a POW in North Vietnam who REFUSED to be released when the North Vietnamese offered it to him because they learned that his father was an Admiral in command of the region. That is service my friends, that is commitment. So we know he is a man who loves our great nation. But is he trustworthy? I say yes. He has a history of sticking to his political principles. He opposed the Bush tax cuts that easily passed in 2001. He knew that would make him unpopular within the Republican ranks. But he did it anyway because he saw that tax cuts without spending limits were a recipe for massive deficits and inflation...exactly what we have seen in the last four years. In his Senate career, John McCain has been a strong advocate against pork-barrel spending. The GOP has been horrible over the last few years with spending, god damn horrible. He will put a stop to it. Does that make him popular with Senators or lobbyists? Does it make it easy for him to go to groups who typically rob the government for support and campaign donations? Surely not. But he sticks to his guns on the issues that are important to him and that is exactly the type of man we need to lead us."

"I am not writting this endorsement to castigate other Republicans but I have no choice but to point out a few things on this issue. I was strongly considering endorsing Mitt Romney. The problem I found was that every time I looked into any issue I saw a duplicity in what he says now vs. what he did in the past. He was pro-abortion and now he is against it. He was for gun control in Massachusetts and now he is a "hunter". He was an "independent in 1994 and did not want a repeat of Reagan." Now he loves Ronnie. I call b.s my friend. I think he is a good man much in the mold of John Kerry. Good guy but weak minded..I cannot have that. One thing I admire about a man is their ability to stand up against the hurricane of public opinion. Bush has been able to do it...but his father and Clinton were not up to that task. I believe that John McCain will be able to weather the inevitable cry "foul" from an uneducated and apathetic public."

"Another reason I am endorsing Senator McCain is his stance on religion. What is that? I don't know and that is how I like it. I am not sure if he is a Christian and that is a good thing to me. If you are forced to campaign on sharing religious beliefs with people it means you have very little record to stand on. Romney and Mike Huckabee are fighting a religious war and it is pathetic. It goes a little something like this: Romney "I am a Christian who believes in magic underwear and golden tablets"..Huckabee "Mormons are weird and I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old". Absurd. Huckabee is to blame for this religious test problem. He has injected his personal beliefs into every possible photo op and it has led Romney to defend himself. This is one of the many reasons I will not endorse Huckabee among many others (nanny state belief system, utter lack of foreign policy experience, etc)."

"John McCain is not a threat to our 2nd amendment rights. I know that the gun-lobby is not a huge fan of John McCain but I do feel that there is some fanaticism at play here. He was against the defunct "assault weapons" ban. He co-sponsored a bill to allow the five law abiding citizens of Washington DC to own handguns. He opposed waiting periods for purchase of firearms. He voted against ammunition laws that would restrict certain types of ammunition that were labeled "armor piercing". The gun lobby has been pissed at McCain for his support of gun locks. To my understanding, these are placed on the weapons during transport. That seems like a reasonable rule to me. He also attracted the ire of some gun-rights folks when he agreed that existing laws for gun purchases be extended to gun shows. Why should gun show purchases be different than in store purchases? They are not. He is a friend of the 2nd amendment and his record proves it. Don't believe me...look into his record as a whole, not just what the GOA tells you. Most of the NRA's problem with McCain is his bill to reform our campaign finance laws. This is true because they are a huge lobby and it is a lobby that I support. The idea of limiting monetary access to our lawmakers is a good idea and while his bill may not be the best solution I agree with his sentiment. So rather than read the NRA or GOA's assessment of McCain, just look at his ACTUAL gun rights record and you will see that you will not lose your right to bear arms by electing John McCain."

"McCain's record from a national defense standpoint is outstanding. He has consistently supported pay raises for military personnel to help with recruiting and retention. His has also been a supporter of the war in Iraq and was one of the early proponents of the surge that has been so successful in Iraq. He was critical of the war plan in Iraq from the outset, saying that there were not enough ground forces from the start and he was proven correct when Generals finally received increased manpower. McCain understands we must win in Iraq and install a democracy. There is no way we can leave until the task is completed. He has told anyone who will listen that Iran cannot get nukes and is on record as saying that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons that WE WILL ATTACK. I believe him."

"I believe that Giuliani is more electable in a national election. He is more charismatic than McCain and more well liked by the public at large. The problem with Rudy is that he is barely a Republican. His personal life is very questionable but more damning to me is his record of heavy-handed tactics in fighting crime. He is lauded for cutting crime in New York but the untold story is that he banned certain types of legitimate businesses that tended to be robbed. That is a communist way of fighting crime and I fear that those types of ideas would be extended. So as much as I know that Rudy is more electable, I cannot endorse him. McCain is not the most electric figure on the campaign but he is quite forthright with what he believes, which will contrast well with the slimy Cliton. I have no doubt that he can beat Hillary. McCain is not a hard-core religious conservative, which will play well with non-Christian independents. His record is socially conservative but his stances are solidly grounded on Constitutional limits of government rather than religious beliefs. His sometimes prickly relationship with President Bush is also a good thing in the eyes of the voters. I believe that voters see him as independent of Bush which does not help him in our primary but will be an advantage in the national election. I honestly believe that he is our best choice to stave off the communists while adhering to our nation's Constitutional heritage."

"Senator McCain also has a decent record of environmentalism. He sees the ethanol subsidy for what it is...a pork boondoggle. He has a roughly 50% rating from environmental groups which means he has a mixed record which in my view is a good thing. He advocates a nuclear and hydrogen based economy, and recognizes that our dependence on Middle East oil is a threat to national security. He, like me, sees economic benefits to environmental protections and that the two are not mutually exclusive."

"John McCain is the most experienced candidate running for President, case closed. No candidate on either side of the aisle can match his distinguished record of service. They all seem like rookies if you look at their records; one term senators, wives of powerful men, one term governors, mayors.. f**king amateurs. I want our next President to know what the hell is going on from the day he is elected."

You have way too much time on your hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Drink more Kool-Aid, you may start believing this comical nonsense yourself.

He's directly quoting Congress, you buffoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Punkie, me boy, why on earth do you want to vote for a Republican?

They're prepared to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. McCain specifically said so, so if he is elected, you can count on us being there throughout his term, which is not good for our country or the world, and it's not what the American people want. That can only divide this country, which is already at the breaking point politically. After how the Republicans have abused power these past many years (including McCain for going along with it in Congress), it makes no sense to support a Republican for president. Their position on the war alone disqualifies McCain, or any of the Republicans except Ron Paul (who isn't going to be nominated and isn't credible for dozens of other reasons) from any credible claim on the next presidential term.

Then you take the disastrous policies of the current Republican party, including:

- massive redistribution of wealth toward people who aren't earning the income, thereby

--- devastating the middle class, which is the backbone of any economy

--- handing huge amounts of wealth and power to people who haven't earned the wealth and can't be trusted with the power

--- creating a new class of inherited wealth, which is completely contrary to the spirit that builds a country and keeps it moving economically

- disregard for the environment

- disregard for civil liberties and the Constitution

- indifference to health care

- indifference to education and the fact that the USA keeps falling further and further behind the rest of the world in the sciences

- indifference to our natural environment

- indifference to the massive debt they've piled up so they could give our money to people who are richer than sin

- indifference to the fact that corporate executives make obscene salaries at our expense

- indifference to the sub-prime disaster, which is throwing our country into a recession and will cause millions of people to lose their homes if something that Republicans aren't willing to do isn't done about it

- apparent indifference to the real threats we face in the world, including terrorism, which is gaining strength while our military is stetched paper thin trying to make up for Mr. Bush's mess.

McCain knows the Bush tax cuts were wrong. He voted against them because he knew they were going to result in an enormous debt. Now he wants to make them permanent. Great. That's like saying "what the hell, I spent most of my life's savings on booze, I might as well spend the rest."

Not to mention the fact that McCain would be 72 years old when he took office. What makes you think a person that age should lead the country, when we have capable people in their prime who can do it?

Not to mention the fact that his time in a POW camp is a double-edged sword. Yes, he's a hero, but an experience like that wounds in a person in ways he never recovers from. You can see it when he speaks. Heroism isn't enough. We need someone who can take the country forward, and McCain is not that person.

You're young, punkie. What's wrong with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
Moving back to the topic of the election, I would like to vote for McCain. I can not vote in the primary but it seems pretty obvious that he will move on to the general elections. Unless Romney has a miracle on Tuesday, he will not be able to beat McCain who is currently leading by 35 delegates I believe. Too save people the time of asking why, if they even care, here is some excerpts from a website that I enjoy that puts my ideas in more eloquent and articulate terms:

"One thing I don't think anyone can say is that John McCain is not committed to our nation. He has lived a life of public service. He was a POW in North Vietnam who REFUSED to be released when the North Vietnamese offered it to him because they learned that his father was an Admiral in command of the region. That is service my friends, that is commitment. So we know he is a man who loves our great nation. But is he trustworthy? I say yes. He has a history of sticking to his political principles. He opposed the Bush tax cuts that easily passed in 2001. He knew that would make him unpopular within the Republican ranks. But he did it anyway because he saw that tax cuts without spending limits were a recipe for massive deficits and inflation...exactly what we have seen in the last four years. In his Senate career, John McCain has been a strong advocate against pork-barrel spending. The GOP has been horrible over the last few years with spending, god damn horrible. He will put a stop to it. Does that make him popular with Senators or lobbyists? Does it make it easy for him to go to groups who typically rob the government for support and campaign donations? Surely not. But he sticks to his guns on the issues that are important to him and that is exactly the type of man we need to lead us."

"I am not writting this endorsement to castigate other Republicans but I have no choice but to point out a few things on this issue. I was strongly considering endorsing Mitt Romney. The problem I found was that every time I looked into any issue I saw a duplicity in what he says now vs. what he did in the past. He was pro-abortion and now he is against it. He was for gun control in Massachusetts and now he is a "hunter". He was an "independent in 1994 and did not want a repeat of Reagan." Now he loves Ronnie. I call b.s my friend. I think he is a good man much in the mold of John Kerry. Good guy but weak minded..I cannot have that. One thing I admire about a man is their ability to stand up against the hurricane of public opinion. Bush has been able to do it...but his father and Clinton were not up to that task. I believe that John McCain will be able to weather the inevitable cry "foul" from an uneducated and apathetic public."

"Another reason I am endorsing Senator McCain is his stance on religion. What is that? I don't know and that is how I like it. I am not sure if he is a Christian and that is a good thing to me. If you are forced to campaign on sharing religious beliefs with people it means you have very little record to stand on. Romney and Mike Huckabee are fighting a religious war and it is pathetic. It goes a little something like this: Romney "I am a Christian who believes in magic underwear and golden tablets"..Huckabee "Mormons are weird and I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old". Absurd. Huckabee is to blame for this religious test problem. He has injected his personal beliefs into every possible photo op and it has led Romney to defend himself. This is one of the many reasons I will not endorse Huckabee among many others (nanny state belief system, utter lack of foreign policy experience, etc)."

"John McCain is not a threat to our 2nd amendment rights. I know that the gun-lobby is not a huge fan of John McCain but I do feel that there is some fanaticism at play here. He was against the defunct "assault weapons" ban. He co-sponsored a bill to allow the five law abiding citizens of Washington DC to own handguns. He opposed waiting periods for purchase of firearms. He voted against ammunition laws that would restrict certain types of ammunition that were labeled "armor piercing". The gun lobby has been pissed at McCain for his support of gun locks. To my understanding, these are placed on the weapons during transport. That seems like a reasonable rule to me. He also attracted the ire of some gun-rights folks when he agreed that existing laws for gun purchases be extended to gun shows. Why should gun show purchases be different than in store purchases? They are not. He is a friend of the 2nd amendment and his record proves it. Don't believe me...look into his record as a whole, not just what the GOA tells you. Most of the NRA's problem with McCain is his bill to reform our campaign finance laws. This is true because they are a huge lobby and it is a lobby that I support. The idea of limiting monetary access to our lawmakers is a good idea and while his bill may not be the best solution I agree with his sentiment. So rather than read the NRA or GOA's assessment of McCain, just look at his ACTUAL gun rights record and you will see that you will not lose your right to bear arms by electing John McCain."

"McCain's record from a national defense standpoint is outstanding. He has consistently supported pay raises for military personnel to help with recruiting and retention. His has also been a supporter of the war in Iraq and was one of the early proponents of the surge that has been so successful in Iraq. He was critical of the war plan in Iraq from the outset, saying that there were not enough ground forces from the start and he was proven correct when Generals finally received increased manpower. McCain understands we must win in Iraq and install a democracy. There is no way we can leave until the task is completed. He has told anyone who will listen that Iran cannot get nukes and is on record as saying that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons that WE WILL ATTACK. I believe him."

"I believe that Giuliani is more electable in a national election. He is more charismatic than McCain and more well liked by the public at large. The problem with Rudy is that he is barely a Republican. His personal life is very questionable but more damning to me is his record of heavy-handed tactics in fighting crime. He is lauded for cutting crime in New York but the untold story is that he banned certain types of legitimate businesses that tended to be robbed. That is a communist way of fighting crime and I fear that those types of ideas would be extended. So as much as I know that Rudy is more electable, I cannot endorse him. McCain is not the most electric figure on the campaign but he is quite forthright with what he believes, which will contrast well with the slimy Cliton. I have no doubt that he can beat Hillary. McCain is not a hard-core religious conservative, which will play well with non-Christian independents. His record is socially conservative but his stances are solidly grounded on Constitutional limits of government rather than religious beliefs. His sometimes prickly relationship with President Bush is also a good thing in the eyes of the voters. I believe that voters see him as independent of Bush which does not help him in our primary but will be an advantage in the national election. I honestly believe that he is our best choice to stave off the communists while adhering to our nation's Constitutional heritage."

"Senator McCain also has a decent record of environmentalism. He sees the ethanol subsidy for what it is...a pork boondoggle. He has a roughly 50% rating from environmental groups which means he has a mixed record which in my view is a good thing. He advocates a nuclear and hydrogen based economy, and recognizes that our dependence on Middle East oil is a threat to national security. He, like me, sees economic benefits to environmental protections and that the two are not mutually exclusive."

"John McCain is the most experienced candidate running for President, case closed. No candidate on either side of the aisle can match his distinguished record of service. They all seem like rookies if you look at their records; one term senators, wives of powerful men, one term governors, mayors.. f**king amateurs. I want our next President to know what the hell is going on from the day he is elected."

It is refreshing to see a well thought out explanation, clearly written and with what appears to be good research. Although I won't be voting for Mc Cain, if all of the posts on here were as intelligent as yours we might actually be able to open up a decent dialogue. Personally, I'm s registered Democrat who once was a republican. I am pretty sure I am voting for Obama in spite of his inexperience. But things change over the course of an election cycle so no one really knows who will be the best until the time comes to vote on Election Day. However, if I were a republican I would vote for Mc Cain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest *Autonomous*
You have way too much time on your hands.

So you don't even like people on your own side? McCain's a Republican, moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It is refreshing to see a well thought out explanation, clearly written and with what appears to be good research. Although I won't be voting for Mc Cain, if all of the posts on here were as intelligent as yours we might actually be able to open up a decent dialogue. Personally, I'm s registered Democrat who once was a republican. I am pretty sure I am voting for Obama in spite of his inexperience. But things change over the course of an election cycle so no one really knows who will be the best until the time comes to vote on Election Day. However, if I were a republican I would vote for Mc Cain.

I didn't think it was a good piece at all. It is naive and selective. The author isn't really considering the most important points that are relevant to the selection of the next president. He just picks out his biases, makes them come out in favor of McCain despite considerable evidence to the contrary (he was a pandering fool for quite a long time, not that paragon of virtue of current myth), and declares the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
I didn't think it was a good piece at all. It is naive and selective. The author isn't really considering the most important points that are relevant to the selection of the next president. He just picks out his biases, makes them come out in favor of McCain despite considerable evidence to the contrary (he was a pandering fool for quite a long time, not that paragon of virtue of current myth), and declares the result.

While you may not agree with what he said, his reasoning is exactly correct. Every candidate who runs for office has strong points and weak points. But this is a young person, who at this stage won't be voting on election day. He simply makes an arguement why he likes Mc Cain. We may not agree with him but thats what voting is all about. The right to choose the candidate of your choice. Please let's not criticize him. It's tough enough to get young people involved in the process and as the election cycle goes on he may change his mind. Our election is next tuesday and my wife and I are still not sure who we are voting for although we are leaning towards Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...