The Case Against John McCain

CI:
Your post is so long, I chose to reply here. I became sick to my stomach at reading that list; the raping of one's own child, sodomy and the list goes on and on! These are your "strict constructionists", "fiscal conservatives" "born again christians", "Family values", yada yada yada! They're on Capitol Hill and living next door! Going to join the NRA and keep a pistol cocked for these creeps!

Thank you kindly for defending what I had to say. He thinks all that Blacks do is ask for handouts. Nothing could be further from the truth! Blacks have to watch their children closely to keep rogue cops from shooting first then ask questions. Just heard yesterday, a gun "accidentally" went off! It's not going to bring the kid back that was killed! (New York area). This is happening nation wide. The so-called keepers of the law, only keep the law for themselves, while my tax dollars "PAY" to have my kids killed!

The 3 strikes and you're in, law has resulted in over 2 million Blacks incarcerated for crimes, whites go to rehab for. When a white star has a kid out of wedlock as they're ALL doing, it's okay when you have money!
They skip off to rehab, when they've snorted more than they can handle and that goes for ALL druggies and you ALKIES out there!

Okay, stepping down off my soap box! Thanks, CI! :wink:

0 Replies

teenyboone, As a minority myself, and having lived through discrimination during my youth and young adulthood, I'll speak out against racial bigots and discrimination against any group they have a mind to create.

It galls me to see the republicans always mention Clinton's sexual indisgression, but fail to point their finger at all those in their own party who are guilty of much worse sexual crimes. At least Clinton's was consensual by two adults.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

teenyboone, As a minority myself, and having lived through discrimination during my youth and young adulthood, I'll speak out against racial bigots and discrimination against any group they have a mind to create.

It galls me to see the republicans always mention Clinton's sexual indisgression, but fail to point their finger at all those in their own party who are guilty of much worse sexual crimes. At least Clinton's was consensual by two adults.

They have a juvenile approach to sexuality, because they are either repressed or have been abused themselves and think what they do is the norm, when in fact they are as kinky as hell! :wink:

0 Replies

When they use their pea brains to throw spit balls, all we have to do is throw it back to them with their own kind. Even then, I know it won't sink into their pea brains. They don't know what "fear" is.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When they use their pea brains to throw spit balls, all we have to do is throw it back to them with their own kind. Even then, I know it won't sink into their pea brains. They don't know what "fear" is.

ROTFLMAO! :wink:

0 Replies

back to the main subject.

"?'Everyone Deserves a Place to Sleep at Night'
C. Fraser Smith

The problem is more difficult than most people realize. I work for a city that does make an effort to house as many of the homeless as it can, for one of the agencies that struggles to do this. We put a lot of them in SRO (single room occupancy) hotels all of which are in the poor skid-row parts of town, and even then it's difficult to get some of the long-time homeless to go in. Some of them get used to being outdoors and feel confined in hotel rooms, many are mentally ill and are too disorganized to manage rooms unless intensive case management therapists work with them. The city I live in has a pretty good lobby for the homeless, a lot of organizations trying to help them. But there are many more than the agencies can deal with. City government would love to have them be gone because they interfere with the primary industry here (tourism), but there isn't enough money in the budget (so we're told) to have enough staff and resources to do it right.

Many of the homeless are behaviorally difficult and not very presentable, and middle class folks have a tough time having sympathy for them, believing the homeless could, if they wanted to, clean up their act and stop bothering people ?- remember Ronald Reagan saying that most of them were "homeless by choice"?

As the economy continues to deteriorate, their numbers will surely increase, perhaps even including me. Remember that old song that Phil Ochs wrote and Joan Baez used to sing "there but for fortune go you or I"?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/03/10778/
The name which adore this title of the subject will be the last American who will strive hared the AMERICAN DREAM or the DREAMS OF AMERICAN.
Sorry

0 Replies

One of the most appealing things about Edwards was always his marriage to Elizabeth. The news is a low, low blow to a great woman who has been an incredible support to him, a terrific advocate for health care and families, and a role model and inspiration for cancer survivors. She also has a fan base of her own more devoted than Hillary supporters at peak umbrage.

You have to wonder if there is a gene for philandering closely linked to the political ambition gene.

Although conservatives will make hay out of the scandal, Edwards doesn't come near to topping Newt Gingrich, who served his wife divorce papers in her hospital bed. Nor, for that matter, does McCain have the high ground after his treatment of his first wife, and his serial verbal abuse and sexist mockery of his current spouse.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc080808.html

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

One of the most appealing things about Edwards was always his marriage to Elizabeth. The news is a low, low blow to a great woman who has been an incredible support to him, a terrific advocate for health care and families, and a role model and inspiration for cancer survivors. She also has a fan base of her own more devoted than Hillary supporters at peak umbrage.

You have to wonder if there is a gene for philandering closely linked to the political ambition gene.

Although conservatives will make hay out of the scandal, Edwards doesn't come near to topping Newt Gingrich, who served his wife divorce papers in her hospital bed. Nor, for that matter, does McCain have the high ground after his treatment of his first wife, and his serial verbal abuse and sexist mockery of his current spouse.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc080808.html

As happened (frequently) to Clinton, the blood drained from Edward's brain. Of course, there is the saying that those on top need someone under them.

Also, marriage is not all that it is cracked up to be. People change and grow apart, but face terrific pressure to remain in the marriage. Also, those in the marriage have different sexual drives, which must be recognized.

0 Replies

Personal weakness need not be the subject of discussion.
I am happily married and not a moralist nor I have betrayed my wife.
Politics is nothing to do with sports nor with the intim life. Those bushtards who proclaim themselves as compassionate, conservatives should clean their toilet first before casting aspersions.

0 Replies

McCain voted against Bush's big tax cuts, but now says he supports extending them rather than risking damage to the economy. Flip-flop? Not if you believe, as Burkeans often do, that sudden and large policy changes deserve skepticism, but that when a policy becomes well established and woven into everyday life, as the tax cuts have, continuity should get the benefit of the doubt.

In the face of resistance from Bush and his own party, McCain fought heroically for a law restraining harsh treatment of terror-war detainees, yet more recently he voted against legislation imposing on the Central Intelligence Agency the same stringent ban on coercive interrogation that the U.S. Army observes. Hypocrisy? Not if you believe that brutal interrogation methods should be illegal, but that holding the CIA to the military's white-glove constraints, even in emergencies, goes too far the other way.

McCain, in short, is an antirevolutionary, not a counterrevolutionary. No wonder, then, he invoked Burke twice to an audience of skeptical conservatives?-or, perhaps more accurately, skeptical "conservatives." And no wonder some of them booed. To movement conservatives, McCain represented heresy. But to the conservative movement, he represented a return to home truth.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/mccain-conservatism

0 Replies

McCain is a true reactionary. His so-called energy plan sucks. For instance, it includes no conservation. And, of course, he is very actively misleading the country on the alleged benefits of drilling offshore.

0 Replies

Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

0 Replies

Here's Johnny ......

klik

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

teenyboone, As a minority myself, and having lived through discrimination during my youth and young adulthood, I'll speak out against racial bigots and discrimination against any group they have a mind to create.

It galls me to see the republicans always mention Clinton's sexual indisgression, but fail to point their finger at all those in their own party who are guilty of much worse sexual crimes. At least Clinton's was consensual by two adults.

A case could be made for Clinton ( as well as Edwards ) that what took place was sexual harrassment, the employer manipulating his employee to satisfy himself.

A woman would be put in a very difficult predicament by refusal of the demands of a powerful employer.

'Consensual' implies that the woman could refuse with no consequence, and it's not clear at all that this was the case.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Here's Johnny ......

klik

He is a scary guy. It is so hard to believe that he may be our next president.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

Well the cost is a valid concern to reasonable people. As for the limited supply bit, the limitations apply only to current cheap easily extracted supplies of high quality fuel. There are ample additional sources in the Arctic seas, the South Atlantic, and possibly off shore in the United States. In addition there are huge reserves of petroleum in other forms such as the tar sands of Alberta. They won't last forever, and increasing demand resulting from increased prosperity in Asia, has raised the price. However, in terms of the general interest of humanity this is a good thing, not a bad one.

There are other energy sources and technologies available. If we are wise enough to allow normal competition and innovation to have their effect we will be able to count on continuing ample sources of relatively cheap emnergy. If we are foolish enough to imagine our governments are capable of the creativity, adaptability, flexibility and attention to the wants and needs of the consumers all needed to do this job then we are in for trouble.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

Well the cost is a valid concern to reasonable people. As for the limited supply bit, the limitations apply only to current cheap easily extracted supplies of high quality fuel. There are ample additional sources in the Arctic seas, the South Atlantic, and possibly off shore in the United States. In addition there are huge reserves of petroleum in other forms such as the tar sands of Alberta. They won't last forever, and increasing demand resulting from increased prosperity in Asia, has raised the price. However, in terms of the general interest of humanity this is a good thing, not a bad one.

There are other energy sources and technologies available. If we are wise enough to allow normal competition and innovation to have their effect we will be able to count on continuing ample sources of relatively cheap emnergy. If we are foolish enough to imagine our governments are capable of the creativity, adaptability, flexibility and attention to the wants and needs of the consumers all needed to do this job then we are in for trouble.

This is a typical response from a rightist. Drill, drill, and drill! We have to get away from dissolving the earth's carbon deposits into the atmosphere. We should be slowing global warming, which probably cannot be stopped.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

Well the cost is a valid concern to reasonable people. As for the limited supply bit, the limitations apply only to current cheap easily extracted supplies of high quality fuel. There are ample additional sources in the Arctic seas, the South Atlantic, and possibly off shore in the United States. In addition there are huge reserves of petroleum in other forms such as the tar sands of Alberta. They won't last forever, and increasing demand resulting from increased prosperity in Asia, has raised the price. However, in terms of the general interest of humanity this is a good thing, not a bad one.

There are other energy sources and technologies available. If we are wise enough to allow normal competition and innovation to have their effect we will be able to count on continuing ample sources of relatively cheap emnergy. If we are foolish enough to imagine our governments are capable of the creativity, adaptability, flexibility and attention to the wants and needs of the consumers all needed to do this job then we are in for trouble.

georgeob, It's still about the energy companies willingness to extract those energy to increase the supply, but have not done so for various reasons - including the high cost that must be included in the retail price.

They're always weighing the cost to extract those energies vs their ability to make a profit.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

Well the cost is a valid concern to reasonable people. As for the limited supply bit, the limitations apply only to current cheap easily extracted supplies of high quality fuel. There are ample additional sources in the Arctic seas, the South Atlantic, and possibly off shore in the United States. In addition there are huge reserves of petroleum in other forms such as the tar sands of Alberta. They won't last forever, and increasing demand resulting from increased prosperity in Asia, has raised the price. However, in terms of the general interest of humanity this is a good thing, not a bad one.

There are other energy sources and technologies available. If we are wise enough to allow normal competition and innovation to have their effect we will be able to count on continuing ample sources of relatively cheap emnergy. If we are foolish enough to imagine our governments are capable of the creativity, adaptability, flexibility and attention to the wants and needs of the consumers all needed to do this job then we are in for trouble.

This is a typical response from a rightist. Drill, drill, and drill! We have to get away from dissolving the earth's carbon deposits into the atmosphere. We should be slowing global warming, which probably cannot be stopped.

What is the difference to the earth's environment if we burn foreign oil or burn our own? None.

What you're saying seems to be that we can conserve our way out of the energy bottleneck that we are in , and that's not accurate.

Energy demand will continue to go up and you can't save your way out of it.

Additional production of energy, more oil in the near term and additional sources in the long term, are the only sensible route.

We should fast track as many nuclear power plants as possible to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels for electricity and the burning of fuel oil for heat.

Beyond that, conservation measures can be useful in reducing auto usage. Promoting telecommuting will cost $0 from government and require the passage of no laws. Maybe that's why liberals show little interest in it.

0 Replies

real, Do you ever know what you are talking about? Energy conservation can be implemented by governments very easily; reduce the speed limit, require auto makers to produce more efficient cars, and create more public transportation where the demand is already there.

0 Replies

The Case Against John McCain

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know