hanno
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 04:23 pm
I know it can happen, like Ross Perot taking constituency off Bush I, letting the door open, but for one thing Paul is known to be a good fit for something other than a traditional Republican so we don't got to worry about him breaking away a chunk of the GOP and making his own party. More charismatic and a more marketable set of ideas than Perot though so if he did get a wild hare...

As for just drawing attention to the LNC, I'm probably not the only Young American to have this idea, if McCain's running away with it, a vote for a Libertarian candidate might send a good message. I mean, there's this 'party of principle' thing, like to further the cause, if not to win to get a nice fat percent and rattle some cages, but then he's a hard-grizzled veteran and the other guys a pinko - it hasn't been this one sided 'long as I remember. Still, my logic, and I don't think I'm alone, is that in addition to McCain being cool for Libertarian-compatible reasons, a Democrat this year, with both houses and that nice big self-righteous chip on their shoulders, would cause setbacks that even decades of Libertarian administration couldn't sort out - permanently rip our national fabric, put out some eternal flames.

Also - and this is a hard thing to say since neither Hilly nor Barack is the type to take a hint, McCain might change the flavor of the GOP to my liking and I don't consider him a compromise at all in that he'd always have a place near the top, even in a trimmed-down Libertarian government - after this I don't intend to vote for anyone affiliated with a party I'm not on board with again. It's hard to say, you know, one almost wants to see populism go as far as it will, and let the LNC be like a reactionary thing, but I don't want to have the country harmed to make a point, and then on the other hand, if either the GOP or the Dems gets smart and starts pandering to freedom-loving Americans (we know Barack likes to play 'let's make a deal'), could be a good thing, but when the masses get involved it could be like a frog-in-a-pot, they could keep weaseling away freedoms indefinitely if we don't make a clean break.

Anyway, on the plus side however remote the chances, I've been saying for a while a McCain/Paul ticket would be beautiful. I mean, kick everyone else's ass, switch to hard currency, decriminalize some stuff, cut the pork - even if it were a disaster the rest of the world would be too awestruck to exploit it - Europe would just merge into one nation and nuclear-disarm themselves...
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 06:05 pm
While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the Golden Gate

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. Wha t we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St.
Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours ha ve gone by and St.
Peter returns.

"Well then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the midd le of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 06:43 pm
nimh wrote:
Laughing Laughing

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."


The NRA in 2001:

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has now become one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment."

The NRA in 2008:

"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."

link
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 11:08 am
G.I. Bill necessary
Maura Hardy,

Stephen Ambrose named the G.I. Bill "the greatest piece of legislation ever passed" and many veterans agree. The bill signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was created for modern middle-class veterans so that they could become doctors, lawyers, teachers, and engineers. It was intended to give those that serve our country a chance to be fully educated.

As it stands, the G.I. Bill is failing to keep up with the costs of college. In its current form it doesn't even cover half of the tuition for a public college; even for an in-state student.

John McCain has recently introduced legislation that would reduce the college benefits even further, leaving many without the ability to attend college.

McCain's bill says that a veteran who has served two tours in Iraq and has lost a limb during service is not as important as a veteran who has served in-country for 12 years.

I am calling for every member of Congress to reject McCain's watered-down bill, and support S. 22. S. 22 is the bipartisan legislation that would increase the benefits and promise a full education to those who defend our country!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 12:28 am
Setanta wrote:
Absent the evidence of a majority of the members of the First Congress to the effect that they heavily edited the very different and prolix proposal which you cited, i have no good reason to believe your contention.


The heavy editing you refer to was done by James Madison. He took all the proposals made by the ratifying conventions and boiled them down to more concise language, then presented them to Congress. But he didn't intend any change in the meaning of the rights when he pared down the text.

The only significant debate about the Second Amendment in the records of the First Congress was over a right that Madison mixed in with the Second Amendment when he was reducing the text of all the Amendments, which would have exempted religious conscientious objectors from militia duty.



Setanta wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
On the contrary, the federal government is prohibited from doing anything the Constitution does not give it the express power to do. That is what the Tenth Amendment is all about.

(That also makes most federal gun control unconstitutional even without the Second Amendment.)


This is the complete text of the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no mention there of a prohibition based on express powers granted to the United States


The term "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" refers to the express powers granted to the federal government.




Setanta wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
What they said was that the Second Amendment was intended to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia. And it could only be interpreted in light of that goal.


That was precisely what i had said when i quoted their remark in full: With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. You offer your remark as though that somehow refutes my comment to the effect that: " . . . and the comment of the Supremes in Miller, when they state that the amendment can only be interpreted in the light of the powers granted Congress in Article One, Section Eight."


Saying that the Second Amendment has to be interpreted in light of the goal of protecting the militia, and saying the Second Amendment has to be interpreted in light of Congress' power to arm the militia, are very different things.



Setanta wrote:
Your answer to the portion of my post which you quoted is not an answer at all. It does not answer the point i made that individuals arming themselves, but not subject to the controlling powers granted Congress do not constitute a well-regulated militia.


I didn't address that because I saw nothing objectionable to it. I tend to focus on the parts I disagree with.

I agree that a bunch of unorganized individuals are not going to be a well-regulated militia.

I'd love for the government to set up a militia that would satisfy people's Second Amendment rights (the Swiss Militia would be the perfect model to use).



Setanta wrote:
As for you continuing to insist about the National Guard not taking their arms home, and serving overseas, i will point out once again that you can readily prove your point by taking a case against the Dick Act to Federal Court, with the view to eventually convincing the Supremes of your argument.


Who's picking up my legal bills for taking such a case all the way to the Supreme Court?



Setanta wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
That is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment limits the federal government to only those powers that the Constitution enumerates for it.


No, you are incorrect. Once again, offering your opinion that the tenth amendment limits the United States to those powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution does not constitute a valid statement from authority. I'll quote the tenth Amendment once again.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Powers reserved to the people can be granted to the Congress inferentially by the election of Representatives and Senators. Were the Congress prohibited from doing anything except what it were expressly granted the power to do, the Constitution would say as much. It doesn't.


The Federalists were quite clear in their arguments that the federal government would be limited to only those powers that were granted to it. So even without the Tenth Amendment, there would be a rock solid case that the government was limited to only what was expressly granted to it.



Setanta wrote:
Nor does the tenth amendment.


Actually, limiting the powers of the federal government in this way is the entire point of the Tenth Amendment.

The Anti-Federalists didn't trust the verbal guarantees of the Federalists, and insisted that the Constitution be amended to put the limits in writing.



Setanta wrote:
As always, you are preaching your opinion as though it were settled fact.


I don't see how you can get any closer to settled fact than the principle that the federal government is limited to what powers are expressly granted to it. That is one of the basic principles of Constitutional law.



Setanta wrote:
As for your claim that the ninth amendment grants to the people the right to carry arms for their self defense is not an answer to the denial on my part of your previous claim that the second amendment grants them that right. And, additionally, the text of the ninth amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--is not evidence that the people are entitled to exercise any "rights" they can dream up.


Yes, but I'm not referring to a right that was just dreamt up. I am referring to a right that existed in common law at the time the Ninth Amendment was passed, and which is thus protected by that amendment.

(I suspect the Supreme Court might claim this right is covered by the Second Amendment when they rule on Heller. We'll find out soon enough.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 12:43 am
nimh wrote:
nimh wrote:
Laughing Laughing

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."


The NRA in 2001:

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has now become one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment."

The NRA in 2008:

"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."

link


McCain isn't 100% perfect on the Second Amendment (neither was W), but he isn't all that bad (neither was W).

Obama has called for a federal statute to bar state governments from issuing concealed carry licenses, and has voted for a federal ban on ammo for a number of extremely popular hunting rifles.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 06:50 am
The thing is that McCain has totally flipped on all the issues which made him a maverick in the first place in order to placate the right wing of the conservative party. I don't see how the right wing can trust him to remain true to his changed position and everyone else can trust him to change back once he is elected.

Today another person in his compaign had to resign because of ties to lobbyist. I just find it so hypcritical of McCain who once compaigned so hard for compaign and election reform to be so tied with lobbyiest and other such things as once was so opposed to.

McCain's Finance Co-Chair Resigns in Ongoing Lobbyist Purge

Either McCain is clueless or a bit of an actor to act like he had no idea so many on his compaign staff have ties to lobbyist.

What he used to say on lobbyist.

Quote:
Fight iron triangle: special interests, money, & legislation

Q: Bush said he's still a reformer, he's still an outsider, [but elected officials] support him because they like him.

A: It's fair to say that I did not win Miss Congeniality in the US Senate this year. I have to admit that to you.

Q: You're not popular in the Senate.

A: No, because I've taken on the iron triangle: special interests, money and legislation, which we've been gridlocked by in Washington, DC. We've taken the government away from the people. Young people are being turned off in droves. I've been involved [with the] lobbying ban, gift ban, line-item veto. I've attacked pork barrel spending and wasteful spending, which is now worse than it's ever been, and I didn't make a lot of friends, because I point out these spendings. And I'll fight for reform until the last breath I draw so that we can get the American people back connected with their government. I'm trying to change this party, to bring it into the 21st century as a reform party in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000


source
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 07:14 am
Are the people with ties to lobbyists continuing to work on the campaign?

Nope.

Don't you have anything honest to criticize McCain about besides this? If this is it, please refer to the "What will you likke best about the McCain Presidency?" thread as he will walk away with the election.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 07:18 am
A campaign or much anything else politically will not work without lobbyist involvement. Obama has learned this.

Excerpt:

In a new television ad his campaign unveiled last week, Obama says that cynics "don't believe we can limit the power of lobbyists who block our progress, or that we can trust the American people with the truth. . . . In 20 years of public service, I've brought Democrats and Republicans together to solve problems that touch the lives of everyday people. I've taken on the drug and insurance companies and won."

And yet while serving in Illinois, Obama was willing to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. Obama's state Senate campaign committee accepted contributions from insurance companies and their lobbyists - including $1,000 from the Professional Independent Insurance Agents PAC in June 2003, and $1,000 from the Illinois Insurance PAC in December 2003 - while the Health Care Justice Act was wending its way through the Illinois General Assembly. Obama also collected money from the insurance industry and its lobbyists for his successful US Senate campaign in 2004.

<snip>

"At the end of the day," said Kim Maisch, Illinois state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, "he realized that if he wanted to pass something, you have to work" with lobbyists.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/

Obama flip flopped on it too.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 07:26 am
Well; I have to give you one on that, Brandx. A little surprising.

Nevertheless, the compaign stuff is not the only thing McCain has flipped on, the list is endless.

McG the point is that he had them on his staff and his wasn't until they were being exposed that McCain started to get rid of them.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 07:32 am
revel wrote:
Well; I have to give you one on that, Brandx. A little surprising.

Nevertheless, the compaign stuff is not the only thing McCain has flipped on, the list is endless.

McG the point is that he had them on his staff and his wasn't until they were being exposed that McCain started to get rid of them.


I agree, McGaffe has left a sordid trail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 03:47 pm
This is hilarious, Gonzo-journalism - at least hit the second video, it makes fun of his age. Part of why I'm feeling alright about breaking rank to be for McCain - even the stuff he gets criticized for and that ain't what I'm about per se, worst-case-scenario, as part of the big-picture of an ass-kicking, foul-mouthed yet soft spoken war-hero, I can dig it...

Something Awful - McCain 2013
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 03:13 pm
CNN - McCain in good health, records show

Well, well, well, weren't folk around here saying he had something to hide? Or were the records fabricated like the POW thing? I wasn't worried, during interviews he's got the bearing of a pacing jungle-cat, calm, serene, yet charged with deliberate ferocity. This presidency could be the magnum opus of a long, action-packed life, the culmination what has been right and good in the last half-century of western civilization...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 03:22 pm
hanno wrote:
CNN - McCain in good health, records show

Well, well, well, weren't folk around here saying he had something to hide? Or were the records fabricated like the POW thing? I wasn't worried, during interviews he's got the bearing of a pacing jungle-cat, calm, serene, yet charged with deliberate ferocity. This presidency could be the magnum opus of a long, action-packed life, the culmination what has been right and good in the last half-century of western civilization...


Dude, you need to honestly wake up. He's a dishonest guy who is in bed with the Neocons in Washington.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 05:05 pm
McCain Gaffe Alert: Iran
by Moira Whelan

It is looking increasingly like John McCain really knows nothing about Iran, despite wanting to bomb them.

Yesterday, in his big non-proliferation speech, McCain took his gaffes to a new level. He actually invented 20 years of negotiations between the United States and Tehran. In his speech, McCain said:

"Today, some people seem to think they've discovered a brand new cause, something no one before them ever thought of. Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades."


McCain has clearly forgotten what Max Bergmann points out: The stated policy of the United States since April 7, 1980 has been that we don't talk to the Iranians. Never has the United States had communications, or tried to have communications, with the Iranian government on their nuclear program. Iran's nuclear communications have been limited to working through the European Union (led by France and Germany, countries John McCain has referred to as "vacuous" and "posturing").


Taken with his other many gaffes on Iran (repeated Sunni/Shia screw up, the use of Khamenei and Ahmajinedad interchangeably) there should be real questions about whether McCain has any knowledge of US-Iranian relations. Given that this one was in his prepared text, it also makes you wonder what his foreign policy team actually knows about Iran. For a man running for President on his foreign policy aptitude such confusion should sound alarm bells.

So to review John McCain's policy toward Iran:
1) He thinks that there is no difference between Sunni and Shia.
2) He thinks that Khumeni and Amajenadad are the same.
3) He thinks we've been talking to them for 20 years.
4) He thinks we should "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Three of his stated beliefs are simply false. The fourth is simply reckless and is a clear display that John McCain is more extreme than Bush on the issue conservatives would like you to believe is the biggest threat facing America today.
link
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 08:58 pm
Cyclo - only cuz it's you I read the Wikipedia article on 'Neocons'. I learned nothing new.

The other day it came to my attention that one of the little hanno-cadets would have to wear slacks for school. Levi's 505's ain't just-nothin' to me, I always wore them, for obvious reasons, but when the chance came to make some money when I needed it they (or boot-cuts) were required so that if I got lit on fire there'd be no plastic to melt into my flesh... No big deal there, relative to the lad, except that this nation, his nation, wasn't built and isn't maintained any more than it's guided by folks in slacks and dress-shirts. Anyway the boy doesn't like jeans, digs cargo-pants, but the clothes he does wear he takes seriously - so I say he should do as he damn well pleases. It's like how the Quakers won't drop their hats in court. I dropped my hat in court one time, I swear to Christ my defender was in a seersucker suit and the table at which I addressed 'the court' was plastic resin and I wasn't the only dude from my company who chose to be there that day. I got off, more or less, but that **** don't need to befall the kids. I thought to fight the dress-code thing, the Supreme-Court supports objectors, but then my lad would be the only one.

It ain't news to me that a politico may or might-well be 'dishonest'- but whether or not the one that gets elected will be full of ****, I'd say, has has yet to be decided...
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 08:17 am
McCain's About-Face on Yucca Mountain
Wednesday 28 May 2008

ยป
by: Jon Ralston, The Las Vegas Sun


John McCain did an about-face on Yucca Mountain this week to woo Nevada voters.
(Photo: The New Scientist)
"I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada."

- John McCain, 5/27/08

If a man told you for years that he didn't love you, essentially had no regard for you at all, and then suddenly, when he needed you, told you he adored you, would you fall for it?

As John McCain, alighting in Reno today, tries to woo Nevada voters, he is hoping for the kind of short-term memory loss Christopher Nolan wrote about and filmed in "Memento." If Nevadans keep forgetting what he has said and done before, McCain might actually be able to convince voters here that his love for the state has simply been well-hidden. Very well-hidden.

Voters everywhere are used to being treated like ingenuous dumbbells by politicians trolling for their votes. But not since George W. Bush declined all interviews on the subject and uttered his "sound science" mantra has a White House hopeful so obviously taken the state for a bunch of rubes.

McCain made his comments in Denver as part of a larger speech on nuclear power the day before he is scheduled to be in Northern Nevada, which is either one of the largest coincidences in the history of politics or a calculated strategy to help him win a pivotal swing state. (Not that he needs to be right on Yucca Mountain, which will probably factor into few Nevadans' decisions in November, if history is any guide. Just ask the president.)

McCain's proposal would seem more sincere if only he hadn't been so sincerely committed to the dump - and been so unabashed and frank about his support. But on the eve of his trip to Reno and on the eve of a general election in which Nevada could well be critical, the Straight Talk Express took a detour from its planned stop at Yucca Mountain.

McCain is an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power and a fervent backer of Yucca Mountain as a suitable storage site. The evidence is plentiful:

In 2002, when final approval was assured after 20 years of debate, McCain told his home-state newspaper, The Arizona Republic, that the Nevada dump site would help the federal government resolve "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people."

Just over a year ago, he was described as adopting a mocking tone when he told the Deseret News in Utah: "Oh, you have to travel through states ... I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America."

Less than three weeks ago, Reuters ran a piece that said McCain "supports the Yucca Mountain storage facility and believes opposition to it is harmful to U.S. interests." And the piece quoted one of his advisers as saying, "The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized."
So in the past few weeks, McCain has experienced an epiphany and decided there should be some sort of international repository for the fuel that he had so long wanted to come here? This is believable?

And such a cockamamie solution, too.

We are going to ship nuclear waste overseas? Will Kathie Lee Gifford be seen dancing on a Carnival deck, pointing to canisters and promising cut rates to those tourists who travel onboard? John McCain's Love Boat?

And exactly where overseas are we going to ship the waste? There's plenty of room inside the Colosseum, right? I am sure it would be safe for, say 100, even 10,000 years, in Baghdad now that the war is almost over. Or perhaps Myanmar - I hear the weather is always lovely there.

I find it fitting that McCain would come up with this harebrained solution, which makes little policy or political sense and does not jibe with his past positions, on the same day the Nevada delegation began a petition drive to urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject the licensing of Yucca Mountain. If this really isn't the typical one-election stand that politicians have been promising Nevada every four years, and if McCain wants to prove his love is real, I am sure he would be happy to sign the petition when he arrives in Nevada today.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 07:02 pm
Alright - I was on a higher level there - generally I go with the 'say what you're going to say, say it, then say what you said' approach as a matter of professionalism, I mean, one can't count on other posters body of knowledge for much - but that last post just kindof flowed.

Anyway, everything that happens you kids are ready to call 'turd in the punchbowl' like you can guide others to understanding that way, to that I say 'no ****, but are we learning or just preaching'? If we were learning we'd know politicians ain't us, populism is aberrant and self-perpetuating, and unfortunately the behavior of the voting public is a modelable, hence exploitable, phenomena. It's pleasant to think one of the folks with a chance to win is the solution. We ain't that lucky, maybe someday if the LNC works out, but in the meantime we ain't helpless either. I mean, they can leave you alone about grass and mushroom-stamp you about guns, or do it the other way around, but either way the walls are closing in, once something hits the bargaining table it's lost just that quick - I'd rather have no healthcare than have it waved in front of me and what I'll be doing determined with it as leverage - it ain't that bad, I can only die once. Guns don't mean anything to me at all except when I gotta hear how little me and Hinckley could be trusted with one and then I gotta think why someone would want me more harmless than usual. So I say, as long as we're getting a Republican or a Democrat let's have some perspective about this.

Which one has something in his being other than politician-ness? Yeah, you know it. I wouldn't care if he robbed liquor stores when he wasn't senator-ing as long as he was good for something else, but as it turns out we get a high-octane war-hero with a sense of humor instead. Which one ain't going to put anything else on the bargaining table that ain't already there? Testify my brothers and sisters!
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 12:45 am
I hate to double post, but the quote of the day lies herein.

Two that caught my eye here. Firstoff the EU wants international gun control. Would Br'er Zippo please lead us in reciting that old paranoid-anarchist spiritual 'It's the zionist-new-world-order!'? Anyway the list of people I got to get permission from to take a whiz just keeps getting longer - only exceptional people ever give up power, and there's too many of these johnny-bananas for 'em all to be exceptional. The irony, Nazi Germany plays mass-hysteria/credulity/helplessness like a stradivarius, they get out of hand, we fix 'em the UN to control themselves, and now their using it to try the trick that started it all on us! The first link has them (in the form of a German council member) browbeating the USA and stating explicitly it's cool to sacrifice civil liberties - the second is just further reading, the UN trying to put it on us.

Int'l Herald Tribune - EU Legis. push tougher gun controls

Gunweek - UN renews push for small arms control

Second, Ahmedinejad (my first attempt to spell was only off by a vowel - perhaps its a sign that the American Public of which I am part is vectoring in on this joker...) getting pretty overt in his threats. Don't get me wrong, Israel, Iran, I've got a country and it ain't them, I don't sympathize with either (as I do with Taiwan for example) just that I'm all about skipping the tie with a suit, so it's not a matter of taking sides. My thing is I want the US to make a good showing of it.

Foxnews - Ahmedinejad calls US 'Satanic', Israel 'About to die'

Anyway, where was I? Ah yes, McCain won't protect our freedoms, he's a weak kneed sell-out on a power trip, crazy has-been poseur, one foot in the grave other on a banana peel, will leave us with a war or two extra and a bill when he stinks up the office with his post-mortem defecation... I'd object to the materiality of any of that as such, but it's all shades of grey - I mean, they're both on someone's payroll other'n yours and mine, the will of the people is a fuzzy concept, constitutions a living document unfortunately - someone says 'Cuba's healthcare is better' or 'McCain's a tool' like it means something just like that with no units attached - platitudes pure and simple. I mean, whoever wins in this squishy, high-handed, corporate/populist oligarchy of ours, we're all going to pay for it in some form of currency we'd rather not part with - it's compromise for everyone except the guy at the wheel and sooner or later they get everyone.

I say all that to say this - one thing we can pin down, one possible indicator of optimality that requires no external qualification is this - which candidate do you think those gun grabbers in the UN/EU, all those nosy, jealous, fascist nations what think they know for us, and Ahmedinejad don't want to see take the oath? McCain, baby!

I say, If we're going to screw ourselves to some measurably positive extent (hey I wish more folk had the bladder control to be Libertarians), lets make sure of one thing - that we take these primates down with us! They're strainin' for a McCainin'!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 06:53 pm
People everywhere, here too, have gone head to head quite a bit by now about the meaning of McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment, and about what attacks on that are legit or not.

I havent said anything about it, but now I came across a TNR The Plank item about his latest related remark that sums up what I feel about it nice and brief:

Quote:
McCain's "Not Too Important" Remarks

The controversy du jour is John McCain's comment this morning that it's "not too important" when American troops come home. McCain's campaign is hitting back on this, and it's certainly true that McCain proceeds to say that what matters is whether American troops are taking casualties. But I think McCain's comment, like his "100 years" commment, is an important and legitimate thing for Obama to focus on for two reasons:

1. McCain's goal of turning Iraq into a place where American soldiers can stay peacefully, like West Germany or South Korea, is wildly unrealistic. I won't say it's impossible, because anything is possible. But the history of the Middle East suggests that Iraqis are never going to accept a long-term American military presence. Indeed, even if you thought Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators, which was optimistic but not totally crazy, it would take a whole different level of delusional optimism to think that they'd also welcome scores of permanent U.S. bases in the country. So these comments are a window into McCain's rosy scenario that ought to be challenged.

2. McCain will never say how long he's willing to fight on in order to get to this casualty-free scenario he envisions. Yes, he wants the Iraq occupation to become like the West German occupation, but right now it's not, and McCain won't concede there's any limit to how long the status quo is acceptable to him. He repeatedly turns questions about how long the current war can go on into postulates about a hypothetical future peaceful occupation. It's not the same thing as saying he's willing to keep taking casualties for 100 years, but it is the answer he gives to that question, and as such it's highly suggestive.

--Jonathan Chait
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain!
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 08:18:35