McCain!

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

hanno wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
hanno wrote:
There's nothing to prove, they're here and more could be here if they wanted to, they just ain't doing too much except getting apprehended now and then. You got to know they had access to the joint in the Clinton administration something like 9/11 takes more'n 13 months to work out.

As for telling someone to 'STFU' in a forum - were you an only child? Parents, father at least over 35 perhaps?

no and no and mind your f*cking business.... how 'bout that?

Come on, it's called a forum for a reason - if I'm wrong tell me I'm wrong. Did your folks own a Chrysler at some point? Biggish house perhaps - my nurturing-atmosphere detector has buried the needle...

my mum and I were so poor I scrounged pop bottles to raise money for a pot pie or I went without dinner... I didn't own a car until I was 19 and my mum never owned one.... so... no.... I was not nurtured... nice try though...

I never said rich - nurturing was a sub-optimal choice, I assume it to mean in a bad way, should have said overbearing. I mean, your tendency to assume you can tell people how to behave, and have it be in order and produce somekindof result means you have to have spent time and found some level of enfranchisement in an environment where that kind of thing happened.

This is my very problem with all liberals and many republicans - you grow up in an environment where everyones interests overlap and collide like several choir boys getting felt up simultaneously by a priest, and you don't know how to live in harmony. Requiring Judo and Latin studies in grade school would solve the hell out of it whether kids understood the higher realities of the fields or not and offend less people than German, Spanish and dodge ball.

McCain solves the problem two ways - first off he keeps us a-prosperin' so we don't start missing meals and having to share and second he keeps people's interests out of each other's way - like, so I don't got to support anyone else's sub-prime loan when I don't own a house myself. Not an elitist in the sense of blue-bloods like Bush, more of an anti-populist.

We need to remember - it was the nature of the beast at first that we had space in America - and it still is relative to any other nation, developed or otherwise - but we need to remember how it defined us and empowered us to excel, and use that mindset once more, deliberately. We've got to find the land of the free within ourselves! Luckily there's someone, a patriotic fightin'-man with ass-loads of experience, out there cruising around in a bus just champing at the bit to lend a hand...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This is typical of a silly sort of tit for tat advocacy that argues: "Yeah my guy was a real jerk but yours was a worse one!"

Well, except that "my guy" - Obama - was never quoted using this kind of foulmouthed language, which currently has rightwingers tut-tutting over Wright, himself at all. So if this is a silly tit for tat, it's more of a "Yeah OK, so a good friend of my guy turns out to be a real jerk, but your guy seems to be a big jerk himself!" kind of one.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Sorry nimh, but I am just not going to take the word of a guy trying to make millions on a book who, on a second hand basis, cites anonymous sources. I doubt you would either if the tables were turned.

Fair enough.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You seem to pride yourself in what amounts to nimhish objectivity and reason, and yet you repeat this tripe as if it were undisputed fact.

Well, I wouldnt quite equate "John McCain appears to be" with "It is undisputed fact"; thats careless reading. But sure, yes, thin evidence. Count me hesitant about believing it until more similar stuff turns up.

Or rather, until I read up about more similar stuff from McCain, because apparently this outburst wasnt particularly out of character. But I havent really delved into this stuff myself yet, so I dunno.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Even if it turns out to be entirely accurate, will that, in some way, excuse any and all of Obama's failings as respects the Rev Wright?

Of course not. If it turns out to be entirely accurate, it would make me raise my eyebrows about whether you want a guy with such a violent, resentful temper as President.

The link with Wright, on the other hand, was just an admittedly flippant aside, directed at all the tut-tutting from conservatives here about the morally corrupting influence of Wright talking about "riding dirty" and making the accompanying hip shake. That kind of silliness seems nicely relativated with this story of your guy calling his wife a c*nt. But sure, that whole comparison is just an aside.

I happen to be one of those conservatives who found Wright's words and gesticulations around his "Bill was do'in Monica" sermons utterly inappropriate for a self-professed man of God preaching before a group of men women AND children.

I love the way you guys have all agreed to refer to Wright's dry humping the podium as a "hip shake."

In any case, if it proves to be accurate that McCain called his wife a c*unt in public, I'll join you in his condemnation, and will agree that such a display of raw rage is something voters should strongly consider in making their decision.

Again, however, we have a videos of Wright's "hip shake" and nasty comments, and any number of quotes from Obama concerning his close relationship with the man, and we have annonymous sources telling us McCain dropped the C-bomb on his wife in public.

The distinction is clear to me.

0 Replies

Quote:

'NYT' Sunday Preview: Norquist Defends McCain on Tax Cut Switcheroo

By Greg Mitchell

Published: April 11, 2008 10:40 AM ET

NEW YORK While the cover story on Chris Matthews has already drawn attention to this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine, a Q & A with tax-cut guru Grover G. Norquist should not be overlooked.

Norquist reveals that he is now working with John McCain, despite once mocking him, and in return McCain "reciprocates by sending at least one person to each of our Center-Right meetings."

Norquist now admits that calling McCain a "gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik" was "an overstatement." At the same 2005 College Republicans gathering he referred to McCain as "the nut-job from Arizona."

Ask why McCain once opposed Bush tax cuts but now favors making them permanent, Norquist explains, "He was unhappy about losing the presidential nomination in 2000. He was very mad at Bush. He was mad at me, too."

When Deborah Solomon asks, "You're saying he [McCain] opposed the tax cuts out of spite?" Norquist replies, "Out of understandable pique."

Norquist also argues that the Iraq war has not hurt the economy and that his mother was the town tax assessor in Weston, Mass.

After the 2005 "nut job" comment, Mark Salter, a senior adviser for McCain, issued a statement that said, "John McCain hasn't spent five seconds in his entire life thinking about Grover Norquist. He's not going to start now."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003788666

0 Replies

Quote:

More Straight Talk

John McCain, correctly, suggests that the U.S. should stop replenishing the Strategic Petroleum reserve, which is a nice gesture but won't do much for the price of gasoline.

Beyond that, though, he's turned into a latter-day Jimmy Carter, only with fewer policy initiatives: "In addition, Sen. McCain is calling on Americans to cut back on energy use, though he was not specific as to how. "I ask every American to consider how you can sacrifice a bit for the common good and cut back where you can on your energy use," he said." Cleary, this is the kind of straight America needs in a President.

Reducing America's energy consumption in general and oil consumption in particular is going to require doing more than just having the President ask nicely. What, exactly, McCain is prepared to do on this front has been left completely unspecified.

April 10, 2008
Nick Beaudrot

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Quote:
More Straight Talk

John McCain, correctly, suggests that the U.S. should stop replenishing the Strategic Petroleum reserve, which is a nice gesture but won't do much for the price of gasoline.

Beyond that, though, he's turned into a latter-day Jimmy Carter, only with fewer policy initiatives: "In addition, Sen. McCain is calling on Americans to cut back on energy use, though he was not specific as to how. "I ask every American to consider how you can sacrifice a bit for the common good and cut back where you can on your energy use," he said." Cleary, this is the kind of straight America needs in a President.

Reducing America's energy consumption in general and oil consumption in particular is going to require doing more than just having the President ask nicely. What, exactly, McCain is prepared to do on this front has been left completely unspecified.

April 10, 2008
Nick Beaudrot

Firstoff, he's for nuclear power. Second emptying out that reserve will help us to read the writing on the walls at our own pace, let the market forces move us to alternative fuels. Third, once that happens we're in high cotton because agriculture will be worth something again, and we'll have a president in place to cut off the subsidies.

Look at the EPA - those slime want a shitstorm. Like those wind-farms. As of 2-years ago one windmill wouldn't produce the energy that was required to create it before the bearings wore out and then tree huggers start calling them 'bird guillotines'. It's all about behavior - we need to solve the energy issue with a minimum of it, as a society. Every time we lift a finger we screw up - we've got a wolf by the ears. The EPA wants you to hate yourself and buy them more power - the Vatican must be jealous. What we've got to do is roll with the punches and take an elegant solution when it's offered to us.

What's about to happen with nuclear power and synfuels is very elegant. Think about it - tomatoes will stop coming from California, be produced locally, take away a chunk of the trucking industry, create stable local jobs. Food won't be expensive per se but it'll join the continuum of living costs, so suddenly reproducing ones self will not be a cheaper way to have fun than going to the movies...

0 Replies

The market really worked well in the mortgage meltdown.

0 Replies

Swift Kids for Truth:

Snow job ....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oW7s8TuvZ8U

0 Replies

Swift Kids for Truth:

Hillary's cookies ... "flip flop" ...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oW7s8TuvZ8U

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

The market really worked well in the mortgage meltdown.

Yes it did, but I guess that depends upon how you define "working."

If you define "working" as everyone accumulates increasing wealth and no one loses any, clearly it didn't work.

If you define "working" as allowing people to make stupid and ill informed decisions without any possibility of consequence, clearly it didn't work.

If you define "working" as an ideally self-regulating system able to shrug off the unintended consequences of externally imposed regulations, clearly it didn't work.

There weren't too many liberals complaining about how the market worked when they were buying houses they couldn't afford, and consumer goods that only 2nd and 3rd mortgages could finance.

Obviously it wasn't just liberals who got caught up in the fervor, but they seem to be the one most loudly blaming the market for what was essentially an inevitable correction.

Saying the market didn't work as respects the sub-prime mortage situation is like saying nature isn't working when wildfires burn up thousands of acres land surface, including a large number of homes.

The casting of people who are now losing houses they never should have bought in the first place, as blameless victims is classic modern American liberalism at work.

Were there less than scrupulous lenders trying very hard to convince these folks that they could afford these houses? Yes, of course, but as with any con, success depended upon the greed and willing suspension of disbelief of the Marks.

The old adage that if something looks to good to be true, it's generally not, is as valid today as it has been for hundreds of years.

Another symptom of modern American liberalism(MAL) is the implication that all of the victims in any given disaster have a child's mentality and are incapable of appreciating the dynamics of risk and the possibility of malfeasence.

And yet, MAL also tries to tell us that the paranoid conspiracy theories of some African-Americans relative to the government's role in the AIDs epidemic is understandable if not, through some sort of Bizzaro quantum physics, actually accurate.

The market worked. That some people found themselve with the short end of the stick does not prove otherwise.

0 Replies

John McCain: No Friend of Veterans

by Aaron Glantz

http://www.opednews.com

Everyone knows McCain is a former POW, but did you know he refuses to support a bipartisan effort to modernize the GI Billand has voted against nearly every effort to increase funding for health care and disability benefits for wounded soldiers? Did you know that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a D+ when they scored his voting record (whereas Obama got a B+ and Clinton an A-). Do you know that he voted with the interests of Disabled American Veterans only 20 percent of the time?

Check out this new internet video urging Senator McCain to support modernizing the GI Bill. The video, which is a joint project of Brave New Films, VoteVets.org, and General Wesley Clark's WesPAC features four veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, testifying about the problems they have with the current GI Bill.
link

0 Replies

Work according to Karl marx is make it worthy to buy.
But work according to the capaitalist market is demean, debase, debouch the working class.

0 Replies

link

0 Replies

If I were McCain
I will give a lovely speech and
end my career and enjoy my life.
But song to sing and money to reap.

0 Replies

Quote:

[..] tax-cut guru Grover G. Norquist [..] reveals that he is now working with John McCain, [..] and in return McCain "reciprocates by sending at least one person to each of our Center-Right meetings."

Norquist now admits that calling McCain a "gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik" was "an overstatement."

I gather that the 2005 statement of senior McCain adviser Mark Salter that "John McCain hasn't spent five seconds in his entire life thinking about Grover Norquist [and] he's not going to start now" no longer applies either. :wink:

(link)

0 Replies

This quote from a NYT article was excerpted on a blog under the title, "Details, details"...:

Quote:

The McCain campaign does not figure the costs of extending the tax cuts into its deficit projections, although the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost an extra $2.2 trillion over the next decade.

0 Replies

LOL the RNC is demanding that CNN, etc not run the DNC Anti-McCain ad depicting his own words saying we could stay in Iraq a hundred years.

0 Replies

McCain Strongly Rejected Long-Term Iraq Presence: "Bring Them All Home"
April 28, 2008 09:16 PM
Sam Stein
The Huffington Post
When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it.

Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.

In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan -- something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign -- the senator offered nothing short of a categorical "no."

"I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"

McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."

The January 2005 comments, which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to McCain's current rhetoric.

They also run squarely against his image as having a steadfast, unwavering idea for U.S. policy in Iraq -- and provide further evidence to those, including some prominent GOP foreign policy figures in the "realist" camp, who believe McCain is increasingly adopting policies shared by neoconservatives.

Finally, the comments undercut much of the criticism the senator has launched at his Democratic and even Republican opponents.

On the campaign trail, for example, McCain has accused Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of a "failure of leadership" by advocating a policy of drawing down troops. But in the MSNBC interview, McCain was arguing that U.S. "visibility" was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America's presence - positions held by both Obama and Clinton.

Somewhere along the way, McCain's position changed. Perhaps twice. As Think Progress reported, in August 2007, as the troops surge was underway, McCain told the Charlie Rose Show that the Korea model was "exactly" the right template for U.S. forces in Iraq. Only three months later, and on the same show, he completely reversed himself.

"Do you think that this - Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be," Rose asked in November 2007.

"I don't think so," replied McCain.

"Even if there are no casualties?" Rose chimed in.

"No," said McCain. "But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws."

Then, in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary, the senator famously said that he wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. in Iraq for a hundred years, "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." And when his political opponents used that statement against him, McCain responded by saying he was drawing an analogy to the current military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

And yet, when he was asked by Matthews in 2005, if he "would you be happy with [Iraq] being the home of a U.S. garrison" like Germany, McCain again said no.

The McCain campaign did not return a request for comment.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

LOL the RNC is demanding that CNN, etc not run the DNC Anti-McCain ad depicting his own words saying we could stay in Iraq a hundred years.

And yet he'd offer the same courtesy...

ABC - McCain sez no to exploiting Wright...

At any rate, on the matter of tax refund/balanced budget, cost is an ugly word at that level - I mean, it's all about carbeuretting the economy, like placing consumption and GDP at certain places on a line from $0-infinity, when they are of course entwined and there are limits to how we can jiggle 'em. Therein we must consider the ultimate goal, for those un-superstitious enough to be down with universal egoism at least - to get them both as far up the line as we can. They roughly follow one another - like the first day we add a zero to everyones pay we'll produce our asses off, or if instead we all produced our asses off for some other reason we'd be inclined to drop some stove-coal. The first scenario would snap the link between the two because cash would lose meaning, and the second just doesn't happen on its own much, or does at a rate which has been roughly normalized by population growth or blah blah blah.

So the job of the Fed under a Republican is to pull the GDP forward as fast as it can via consumption without breaking the link, like pulling a boat with a truck. Whereas under a Democrat the idea is to make the two numbers the same, in just the opposite manner in which a Libertarian, such as myself, would have it done. Specifically, they wanna assign people (even CEO's, Ha!) where they eat at the trough, whereas I want everyone to eat when and how they please under internationally favorable and societally effective conditions, and going back, the Republicans want to make when and how people feed just a little more productive by carrot-and-sticking them a bit. In my balanced budget (or appreciably close) scenario I count on human nature and the superiority of our national character to move the then-single number forward, and such things as crop failures at least to no longer be a threat, whereas with the Dems it's like a global-hippy-communist thing. In that sense, that I prefer some economic battle plan/level of self-determination to floating still in the water, and having a recreational interest in behavioral science, I'm more amenable to the Republican's cause, and at times, when market forces behave excessively un-ideally can get right on board with 'em.

0 Replies

All are not equal.

Henry Miller of Franck Harris are not Shakespeare

Let us learn from others
instead of belittling /demeaning the views of others.

0 Replies

Under a McCain health plan, millions lose coverage, health care suffers, and insurance and drug companies profit.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccain-health-plan-millions-lose-coverage-health-costs-worsen-and-insurance-and-drug-indu

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know