What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

no point in a pissing contest hero... I asked a legitimate question... Mcgentrix responded... I responded.

the fact that McCain represents the promise of 4 more years of bush foreign and domestic policy has a LOT to do with it....

Does he really?
Everyone thought that about Bush Sr after he was elected, following his 8 years as the Reagan VP.
It turned out not to be true then either.

So, there is no evidence that he will be another Bush.

0 Replies

ooookay.

0 Replies

I will like the fact that we have a superhero as a president. Did you ever see the footage of him on the deck of that aircraft carrier where all the planes were exploding? Even though he was in the plane RIGHT NEXT TO the one that started the whole series of explosions, he somehow managed to get to safety. He also survived another time when his plane crash-landed somewhere and sank to the bottom of a lake WITH HIM STILL IN IT!

He's Aquaman or something, I tell you.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

no point in a pissing contest hero... I asked a legitimate question... Mcgentrix responded... I responded.

the fact that McCain represents the promise of 4 more years of bush foreign and domestic policy has a LOT to do with it....

Actually, he will promise 4 (8 hopefully) years of McCain foreign and domestic policy.

McCain is a Republican, Bush is a Republican... they aren't the same man despite what the tabloids at the piggly wiggly tell you.

0 Replies

I shop at whole foods...they don't stock tabloids...

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I will like the fact that we have a superhero as a president. Did you ever see the footage of him on the deck of that aircraft carrier where all the planes were exploding? Even though he was in the plane RIGHT NEXT TO the one that started the whole series of explosions, he somehow managed to get to safety. He also survived another time when his plane crash-landed somewhere and sank to the bottom of a lake WITH HIM STILL IN IT!

He's Aquaman or something, I tell you.

He was aboard the USS Forrestal

http://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv59.htm

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

kickycan wrote:
I will like the fact that we have a superhero as a president. Did you ever see the footage of him on the deck of that aircraft carrier where all the planes were exploding? Even though he was in the plane RIGHT NEXT TO the one that started the whole series of explosions, he somehow managed to get to safety. He also survived another time when his plane crash-landed somewhere and sank to the bottom of a lake WITH HIM STILL IN IT!

He's Aquaman or something, I tell you.

He was aboard the USS Forrestal

http://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv59.htm

I gotta admit, the guy was a bad mofo. I guess that's one reason he got that hot wife. I mean for an old lady, she's kind of a babe. I'm sure she was an uber-babe back before electricity. Hey, maybe she'll do some kind of playboy spread at some point. There's something to look forward to...

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
kickycan wrote:
I will like the fact that we have a superhero as a president. Did you ever see the footage of him on the deck of that aircraft carrier where all the planes were exploding? Even though he was in the plane RIGHT NEXT TO the one that started the whole series of explosions, he somehow managed to get to safety. He also survived another time when his plane crash-landed somewhere and sank to the bottom of a lake WITH HIM STILL IN IT!

He's Aquaman or something, I tell you.

He was aboard the USS Forrestal

http://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv59.htm

I gotta admit, the guy was a bad mofo. I guess that's one reason he got that hot wife. I mean for an old lady, she's kind of a babe. I'm sure she was an uber-babe back before electricity. Hey, maybe she'll do some kind of playboy spread at some point. There's something to look forward to...

Speaking of an uber-babe in politics today...

New US Ambassador To Barbados Mary Ourisman
http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/new-us-ambassador-to-barbados-mary-ourisman-cute-blonde-and-hot/

She is fine!!!
And yes thats her picture.

0 Replies

McCain Gaffe: "Common Knowledge" That Iran Is Training Al-Qaida
Washington Post | Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear | March 18, 2008 11:35 AM

Sen. John McCain is taking this week to travel the Middle East (as well as stop of in London for a fundraiser). Today in Jordan, he falsely claimed that the predominantly Sunni terrorist organization Al-Qaida was receiving training from predominantly Shia Iran:

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

Continue reading here.

UPDATE: McCain made these statements yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq.
Listen to the audio here.

UPDATE: The McCain campaign has offered a statement acknowledging the mistake, and saying Democrats are making mountains out of molehills:

"In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda -- as the transcript shows. Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates' judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief."
The statement does not address his mistake from yesterday.

0 Replies

McCain Senior Moment VIDEO

McBush's Bad Hair Day

March 19, 2008 5:00 am

This is a time of testing for the nation's media. Yesterday, Barack Obama challenged them to lift their game, to deal with the difficult issue of race as seriously and responsibly as he did in his speech at Philadelphia's Freedom Hall. So far, many outside Fox News adherents appear to be rising to the challenge -- and credit where credit is due, Chris Matthews. (ABC, CBS?)

On the same day, John McCain, whom the media treats with reverence and declares to be wise and experienced about foreign policy, showed he didn't even know who's playing the game. How will the media explain this:?

Was the old warrior just momentarily confused? Does that happen often? Or Did John McCain just illustrate he is as dangerously misinformed as the President? Neither man can sort out Sunnies from Shia, al Qaeda from the Iranians, and who hates whom, but both men are certain the lives and treasure they've sacrificed in fighting -- whom? -- were worth it.

Bush gave his most recent "why we can never leave Iraq" speech yesterday, warning that a US withdrawal would result in a scenario so implausible no one in the intelligence community would believe it:

"If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate and Iraq could descend into chaos," Bush said. "Al-Qaida would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq's borders, with serious consequences to the world economy.

"Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened with new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America," Bush said in his remarks. "An emboldened al-Qaida with access to Iraq's oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations. Iran could be emboldened as well with a renewed determination to develop nuclear weapons and impose its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And our enemies would see an American failure in Iraq as evidence of weakness and lack of resolve."

I think that translates to this: If we withdraw, the surge's "success" in achieving reconciliation would evaporate, meaning it's accomplished nothing. The 60-90,000 Sunni insurgents we've been paying to arm themselves against the Iranians/Shia but not fight us will join a handful of al Qaeda fighters they hate and previously rejected before the surge. After overwhelming the vastly larger Iranian backed Iraq army and huge Shia militias, including the Mahdi Army, and presumably the Iranian Army if needed, the minority Sunnis will take over Iraq and its oil fields. The defeated Iranians will then rule over the Middle East, and they will help Al Qaeda acquire nuclear weapons, because al Qaeda and Shia Iran are buddies.

The Iranians will cooperate in this fantastic scenario, because as John McCain said three times yesterday before being corrected by Graham and Lieberman (h/t Eli), the Iranians have been training al Qaeda and sending them back into Iraq to fight . . . someone.

When McCain returns, he will no doubt tout his foreign policy experience, and he may even show off his foreign policy team, using that clip. Perhaps he can get Senator Clinton to mention his readiness to be Commander in Chief, even though he's a little confused about who his Army if fighting after taking over 30,000 casualties at his urging.

Yesterday, Thomas Fingar, deputy director of National Intelligence, told Congress the Bush Administration's so-called "intelligence" on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was the "single worst product" he'd seen in his 38 year career in intelligence. It was like "a yearbook photo on your worst hair day ever," he noted. The WMD claims were as credible as the fabrication that Saddam Hussein had some meaningful link with al Qaeda, a lie Dick Cheney continues to spin even after the Pentagon has thoroughly repudiated it.

These men, often wrong, but never in doubt, now assure us that the war against Iraq was worth fighting, that losing 4,000 US soldiers, 28,000 wounded and a half trillion dollars -- we don't count Iraqi losses -- based on ignorance, lies and delusions were the right decision.

Back in the real world, most Americans have come to a different conclusion. The latest CBS poll shows that 64 percent of American do not believe anything we've accomplished in Iraq was worth the loss in lives and treasure. And the Iraqis want us out. Wonder why.

0 Replies

Robert Gentel wrote:

"What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?"

Everything other than his hawkish side.

And to be specific, I applaud him for his "surge" support. I think he's closer to right on Iraq in specific details than many others, but I am very wary of his overall hawkishness, as this is the exact brand of stupidity that opened up the Iraq mess in the first place.

Being hawkish on foreign policy and being a war-monger are two entirely different things.

McCain is a veteran of war and has suffered from it as much as anyone. He is hardly the sort of "Chicken-Hawk," that we have become accustomed to getting the US into wars:

Woodrow Wilson - Dem - WWI
FDR - Dem - WWII
Harry Truman - Dem - Korea
LBJ - Dem - Vietnam
Bill Clinton - Dem - Bosnia/Kosova
George W Bush - Repub - Iraq

I hasten to add that I believe all but Wilson and possibly LBJ made the right decision to involve America in these conflicts.

Nevertheless, some patterns seem to emerge.

I'm sure McCain will carry a big stick, and I am also sure that if he believes America goes to war he will wage that war to win, but I do not at all believe that he will be inclined to use war as a political tool---quite the opposite.

WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia/Kosova, and Iraq were for America, arguably, political wars. This doesn't mean they were not justifiable, but only WWII was existential (despite the crack-pots who argue England had Germany beat when America entered the war for profit --- they never seem to have an argument about Japan).

Actually, I expect, if he is elected, McCain to receive criticism in certain intellectual circles because he not likely to appreciate war as a political tool, and will constrain its use to existential threats to the US and its allies. Of course, if you believe that McCain views a comments by Hugo Chavez as an existential threat you'll be worried. You'll also be an idiot, but you'll be a worried idiot.

As much as Operation Pink and MoveOn.com would like to strike it, hawkish foreign policy is not a function of ideology, it's a function of common sense. If the art of negotiation is some part of your livelihood, you readily understand that you will find yourself in the Poor House if you do not, more times than not, negotiate from strength.

If the lone superpower on the planet announces to the world that it will never use our stupendously overwhelming military advantage, it will immediately place itself at the international power level of Switzerland, Germany, Japan et al. A position, I might add, below that of China, and possibly the resurgent Russia.

If the world knows we aint going to use our military might to get our way, why have the most powerful military on the planet?

I know, I know, ebrown and friends will happily argue "You're right! Let's spend the trillions we devote to defense on the homeless and HIV sufferers!"

OK, let's do so. Let's be a "centered" nation and stop all of this testosterone imbued aggression!

Now what happens?

Europe, which relies on our military might to protect their asses maintains the status quo?

Japan, Korea, India,Singapore, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia and even Australia that rely on our military might to protect their asses, maintain the status quo?

Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, the Gulf States that rely on our military might to protect their asses, maintain the status quo?

China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any number of other tin-pot dictatorships that stay, to some extent, in check, because of our military might will maintain the status quo?

No, no, no, and no!

Should America retreat from Superpower status, the militaristic arms build up that would ensue around the world will make the pre-WWI planet look like third-graders playing Dodge Ball.

So-called Progressives in America have been longing for a One World Government as long as I have taken breath, and yet do they really want it? Not as long as America is at the core!

Not so if the One World economy runs afoul of Progressive American labor unions.

Ideology is idiotic without common sense. Left-wing ideology is without common sense and thus idiotic.

There was a time when Left-wing ideology tried to trump common sense with visionary passion.Heroics! Who is immune to that cultural influence? Not me, and I entered The Left when it was gasping for ideological air.

Now though, there is only the efforts of Leftist romantics to resurrect a long gone time.

The manufacture of righteousness (How dare the NYC Fire Dept refuse employment to a 5' 1" woman weighing 110 pounds) repelled me from the Left

You know what? You Progessives won, and then some. Our society makes ridiculous concessions to "minorities", but that aint good enough for you, is it?

Why isn't it? Because you all want to feel like fiery rebels.

How utterly pathetic.

The Left in the developed world is a feeble antique, manufacturing cause for which to fight.

If you Progressive want your own Motorcycle Diaries, leave the US where you are hapless dillitantes, and go fight the good fight in Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Ubekistan, Burma, half the nations in sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, The Sudan, Bellarus, etc etc etc.

In a world where eagles are preying upon the flock, how pathetic is the hero that wages war against mosquitos?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
"What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?"

Everything other than his hawkish side.

And to be specific, I applaud him for his "surge" support. I think he's closer to right on Iraq in specific details than many others, but I am very wary of his overall hawkishness, as this is the exact brand of stupidity that opened up the Iraq mess in the first place.

Being hawkish on foreign policy and being a war-monger are two entirely different things.

McCain is a veteran ...s?

I think you're losin' it, buddy, big time.

0 Replies

Maher: McCain Dumber, Not Tougher on Iraq

Maher praises Obama speech, slams McCain on war
David Edwards and Mike Sheehan
Published: Wednesday March 19, 2008

Real Time host Bill Maher, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball, had words of praise for White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and jeers for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

"I thought it was a great speech," said Maher of Obama's milestone address on race. "He never fails to rise to the occasion. I think history will look back and see him as ... the Jackie Robinson of politics."

Maher added, "It was such a pleasure to hear a speech for adults, to adults, that didn't pander, that was eloquent."

Elaborating on the hubbub over remarks by Obama's onetime pastor, Maher said, "Americans are so narcissistic, they're such navel-gazers, they only live in their own little world. ... People wouldn't know what goes on in a black church, they could be preaching jihad every week and nobody would know about it. I mean we learn this every time there's a racial episode in this country ... [E]very time people are absolutely shocked at what's going on, because obviously there really isn't a lot of dialogue between the two races."

Matthews began laughing hysterically as he brought up how Bill O'Reilly was stunned by the civility he experienced in a black restaurant. Quipped Maher, "He thought it was gonna be 'Dinnertime at the Apollo.' He was just gonna have dinner, stay for a little of the dogfighting, and then leave."

When it came to McCain, Maher let loose with more of his trademark caustic wit. "We're one terrorist attack away from John McCain rising in the polls by ten points because people think he's tougher. Of course he's not tougher about the war, he's dumber about the war ... because he thinks that by keeping troops in the heart of the Muslim world, that's gonna help the war on terror."

0 Replies

We is gonna make dem muslims have two car garages, leafy streets, worry about their investments and play golf if it's the last thing we do. They deserve it. They are a sweet people. I know.

They just have ***** for leaders and that's all gonna change. And about time too.

0 Replies

He will early on assure our allies, around the world, that they still have a United States of America that is on their side. That will say it all.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

He will early on assure our allies, around the world, that they still have a United States of America that is on their side. That will say it all.

Jesus, won't that make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

0 Replies

Whichever of the three contenders is elected, I'll have been proved wrong on one point. I've often remarked that no current member of the House or Senate can get elected president. It seems that, up until now anyway, the public has little relished the idea of a sitting member of Congress moving into the White House; and who's to say the majority of the populace much care for any of the present candidates? Maybe it's as I've heard said: even if folks like their own members, they don't necessarily like the other 500 or so oddbods.

So then, who was the last one to make it ... JFK? I don't recall whether he was still a senator in 1960. And if he was, when last before Kennedy was a sitting member elected prez? Certainly 'twas before my time, and I'm older'n hell.

0 Replies

McCain,Lying,Stupid, or Both?

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2008/03/john-mccain.JPG

One day after Joe Lieberman corrected him in public for once again stating his oft-repeated false claim that that Iran, a majority Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda, McCain unbelieveably repeated the false claim again:

For the third time in two days, the Arizona Republican has pushed the definitively false statement that the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was getting assistance from Iran, even though he was publicly ridiculed for the same false assertion on Tuesday.

This time, in a statement from his campaign honoring the fifth year anniversary of the war, McCain wrote:

"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated."

On Tuesday, the senator, appearing in Israel, made a nearly identical assertion that al-Qaeda was leaving Iraq to retool and regroup in Iran.

[...]

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was accompanying McCain on the trip, was forced to lean over and whisper in McCain's ear that it was Shiite extremists, not Sunni al-Qaeda, that was going to predominantly Shiite Iran.

So he's still repeating a spiel he knows -- and has been told, in public yet -- is wrong.

There are three possible explanations:

1) He is knowingly and deliberately telling an untruth -- that's known as lying, for you rib-stuffed members of the press corps who have trouble seeing the many flaws in Mister Not-So-Straight-Talk.

2) He is dumber than paint and/or has debilitatingly severe memory-loss issues to go with his known anger-management problem.

3) Both of the above.

Honestly, that last one seems to fit best the known facts. Which makes it all the more amazing -- and sickening -- to see America's press corps covering for him.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Being hawkish on foreign policy and being a war-monger are two entirely different things.

I understand this Finn. As I'm sure you know, it is merely political shorthand to signify one who is more willing to use the military than "doves" or those in between and I'm not using it as an epithet. I don't think they are "chicken hawks" (a vapid derogation in every political case I've seen it used) or "war mongers". Just people who are more willing than other leaders (and thusly in some situations too willing by my estimate) to wage war and people whose reluctance to try other tools can render them ineffective (the tools).

I don't think hawks will have any political capital for wars without something like 9/11 for the duration of McCain's term, so quite frankly I'm not concerned of a new war of agression. But that doesn't mean his hawkishness would not hurt chances for success outside of war.

Specifically, I contend that hawks don't tend to use the tools outside of the hawk toolbox well, just as doves tend to use the military poorly. Given that there is no more political capital in the hawk's bank account these days a hawk would, to me, represent someone who best knows how to use a hammer in a situation where a hammer isn't a viable option due to the last hawk's overuse.

Quote:

I hasten to add that I believe all but Wilson and possibly LBJ made the right decision to involve America in these conflicts.

If you think Vietnam is a maybe and Iraq was a good idea then we just have irreconcilable differences of opinion. I think the invasion of Iraq the worst presidential decision of all time and Vietnam a decision based on a very naive interpretation of geopolitics and national politics that was subsequently prosecuted ham-handedly.

I think reasonable people can disagree on this, and will spare you the ideological rants you are so generous with.

Quote:

I'm sure McCain will carry a big stick, and I am also sure that if he believes America goes to war he will wage that war to win, but I do not at all believe that he will be inclined to use war as a political tool---quite the opposite.

I'd like to agree with you, but that's not the take I have on the man. I feel he has a dangerous temper and is too hawkish and am concerned that this combination isn't going to be very useful right now. "Bomb Iran" (reference) would be a bad idea in most scenarios that are likely to come up in his presidency and though I'm sure he can't possibly be that stupid he leans closer to it than do others.

That being said, he is no "war monger", just as Bush isn't. They are just dead wrong about some geopolitical objectives and strategies (in my opinion of course). Whether he would wage "political" war or not isn't all I care about. What I care about is whether the president will use the wrong tool for the job.

Quote:

As much as Operation Pink and MoveOn.com would like to strike it, hawkish foreign policy is not a function of ideology, it's a function of common sense. If the art of negotiation is some part of your livelihood, you readily understand that you will find yourself in the Poor House if you do not, more times than not, negotiate from strength.

That's a convenient definition of hawkism, but not one I share. You seem to be defining hawkish policies as anything other than fatally dovish policies and ignoring a portion of the spectrum that is less easily debunked. That's fine but it has nothing to do with my contention that McCain is too hawkish for the current job.

Quote:

If the lone superpower on the planet announces to the world that it will never use our stupendously overwhelming military advantage, it will immediately place itself at the international power level of Switzerland, Germany, Japan et al. A position, I might add, below that of China, and possibly the resurgent Russia.

And like I said above, this has nothing to do with being hawkish or not and I'm not advocating any such thing.

Quote:

If the world knows we aint going to use our military might to get our way, why have the most powerful military on the planet?

There are plenty of good reasons to have the most powerful military on the planet, and no legitimate candidate would do anything to change that. That doesn't mean that there aren't bad uses for the military or excessive resource support and again isn't anything I or any other legitimate candidate (Ron Paul is the only one who even advocated such isolationism) is talking about.

So yes, McCain would be preferable to your imaginary candidate.

Quote:

I know, I know, ebrown and friends will happily argue "You're right! Let's spend the trillions we devote to defense on the homeless and HIV sufferers!"

Again, you are arguing against a position that I don't hold nor do any of the candidates in this election.

I don't have any desire to disband the US military. That would be bad for the US and the world. But the trillions being spent in Iraq have nothing to do with developing and having a strong military and everything to do with using it in a situation where it shouldn't have been used. Those trillions I object and the trillions spent on the defense infrastructure itself are largely a non-issue to me.

Quote:

So-called Progressives in America have been longing for a One World Government as long as I have taken breath, and yet do they really want it? Not as long as America is at the core!

Some on the right advocate turning the mid-east into a parking lot and killing all "rag heads". But I'm not bringing up irrelevant nonsense to try to make a point and don't see why you need to. Is any legitimate alternative to McCain advocating this? No.

So what on earth are you on about?

Quote:

Ideology is idiotic without common sense. Left-wing ideology is without common sense and thus idiotic.

I'm not even talking about left wing vs. right wing. McCain is someone I always wanted to see as president and would have preferred to Bush. However after Bush he's a bit too similar on the hawkish front for me. So if you want to pretend that the right has a lock on reason that's an indulgence I'll have to leave you to because I am no fan of the rant of an ideologue and can't provide you a foil for yours.

Quote:

There was a time when Left-wing ideology tried to trump common sense with visionary passion.Heroics! Who is immune to that cultural influence? Not me, and I entered The Left when it was gasping for ideological air.

Yes yes, you were once a leftist of sorts. That's not uncommon, and many people become more conservative with age. I don't get why this oft-repeated credential of yours is relevant here so I'll just leave it at that: I've seen you tell your story before.

Quote:

Now though, there is only the efforts of Leftist romantics to resurrect a long gone time.

The manufacture of righteousness (How dare the NYC Fire Dept refuse employment to a 5' 1" woman weighing 110 pounds) repelled me from the Left

And what on earth does this have to do with what I said? Even with the most creative interpretation of what I said that you can come up with can you in any way tie your response to my post to my actual post?

Quote:

You know what? You Progessives won, and then some. Our society makes ridiculous concessions to "minorities", but that aint good enough for you, is it?

Finn, where is this coming from? What on earth does your problem with the race relations of America have to do with my contention that McCain is too hawkish for me at this time?

Quote:

Why isn't it? Because you all want to feel like fiery rebels.

What (other than projection) makes you think I want to feel like a "fiery rebel" Finn? You need to find a new windmill.

Quote:

How utterly pathetic.

I'll have to take your word for it. I have no idea what you are on about.

Quote:

The Left in the developed world is a feeble antique, manufacturing cause for which to fight.

You'll have to manufacture a different opponent to froth at the mouth at because I am no ideologue. All I said is that I would like almost everything about a McCain presidency than his hawkishness. Find a leftist ideologue to play your foil, Finn. I am not interested in this level of discourse.

0 Replies

Maher VIDEO

0 Replies

What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know