McCain takes strong Command, Conservatives Mad!
John McCain basically swept Super Tuesday and made him all but unstoppable. He was able to rack up enough convention delegates in Super Tuesday’s voting to put him within arms reach of the coveted GOP presidential nomination that eluded him eight long years ago.
McCain led among moderate Republicans of course, while Romney held strong support from conservative Republicans, according to early results of exit polling in 16 states for the AP and television networks.
On candidate qualities, McCain got strong support from people valuing experience, leadership and the ability to beat Democrats in a general election. He was widely considered the best Republican to be commander in chief. On the other hand, Romney dominated among voters looking for a candidate who shared their social values and those who want to enforce illegal immigration.
and the Backlash begins…
First, there was Anne Coulter’s official endorsement of Hillary Clinton if McCain gets the Republican nomination. Wow.
Then, leading radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh warned that McCain spelled danger for the Republican Party on conservative ideology; and callers to his show condemned McCain’s “liberal” views, saying:
He lacks the bedrock convictions of former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican hero.
Also, after listening to Michael Savage’s radio program the other day, it’s clear that he will be not be endorsing McCain anytime soon; and he’s not getting any love from Sean Hannity either.
The New York Post wrote an interesting piece earlier today that if McCain wins the general election, that he will make a sharp left turn, politically:
He claims the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He even claims the mantle of Barry Goldwater, conservatism’s crack version of Reagan. But as McCain clinches the GOP nomination, he will begin his usual leftward lurch. He will return to his lifelong positions as soft on illegal immigration, skeptical of tax cuts and favoring strong federal control over things like campaign financing.
Then, quoting Republican Senator Thad Cochran (Mississippi.) from an interview last Friday, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada said:
The thought of him [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me.
James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, said he would not vote for McCain “as a matter of conscience,” and described McCain as someone with a “legendary temper” who “often uses foul and obscene language.” Dobson said he would sit out the general election if McCain was the GOP nominee.
I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative, and in fact has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are.
The reality is that McCain has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him. Scary thought.
Technorati Tags: GOP White House candidates, Republican candidates, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, comments about McCain, conservative
Share this post
I'm voting for the democrat if McCain wins. We're looking at 70% decrease in the output from the #2 oil field in the world (Mexico) where we get a huge amount of oil. That means roughly 1 in 10 barrels of oil will have to come from somewhere else. Retirees will start pulling their funds from the IRAs starting in 2010 reducing the stock market. McCain will imprison our good men and women who have ensured no terrorist attacks on American soil for the past 6 years so we're going to get hit again. All kinds of garbage is going to happen no matter what the president does but if it's a socialist like McCain, Obama or Clinton, then I'd rather the overt socialist take the blame for the downturn and the subsequent badness they cause rather than the Republican nominee.
This nightmare situation. Out of the three bad choices left Sen. McCain is the worst. He pretends to be a republican but taxes and spends like a dem. I have to hope now that Mitt Romney gets the nod. I just can not vote for the other guy who does believes the earth is only about 6000 years old. Math and science is what gave me the ability to do so much and made America the Superpower that it is for the last 60 years.
Gentlemen and respected members of this august body, may I offer up thanks to our concerted efforts over these past few years. Last night's primary vote totals show that our efforts to split and nullify the GOP have been proven successful.
While many Republicans turn out in mediocre numbers the base of their party have taken the bait. Our Dixie Land associates have successfully fed enough of our carefully crafted misinformation into the churches and clan halls of the south to push Our McCain into the lead throughout the nation.
As planned the Southern Evangelical voters have hoisted their champion, Huckabee, high upon their shoulders to proclaim their hate filled rhetoric and doctrines in a number of southern states. They have taken votes away from their only real conservative in this race and have separated themselves from the rest of the Republican voting block that is voting for a left leaning Republicrat we have dressed up as a war hawk.
The Kansas hate churches have separated the more intelligent factions of the GOP from the evangelicals and continue to spread the anti Romney message throughout multiple denominations and mega churches and luckily for us, all this they have done on their own. Ironically it seems that their hateful version of deity has punished their own voters in Arkansas and Tennessee with powerful tornados and storms for their voting last night.
The Our Giuliani Camp has successfully pushed forth legislation creating winner take all delegations for state primary elections. We knew Romney and Huckabee could not garnish enough votes to win major states so the winner take all delegation campaign has worked in our favor. Little do they know that by doing so they are moving more toward Democracy and less toward their beloved Republic ideals they so proudly tout.
Soon our efforts to separate the more independent and rational sectors of the GOP from the dregs of their fickle society will prove successful. We have increased the production of more yellow ribbon stickers and flags to be sold at the convenience stores throughout the South. We have even contracted another country music artist to record an emotional country song to amp up the fanatical patriots in their trailer parks. If the Republicans can consider bottom of the barrel their base, then this is all they will have left once this project is completed.
John McCain will most certainly obtain the nomination. Our money and influence will pay out in November. In the interim let us continue to make our calls into the talk radio and provide the wedge to split the party. The pundits can work for us in our favor. Let us continue to frame the "Liberals" of the Republican Party as a cancer that must be cut off.
Gentlemen I forecast the fracture of the GOP within 12 months. They cannot withstand the force of their own hate machine. Their guns of hate have been pointed at their own heads for the last 8 years. We have supplied the ammunition. All we have now to do is wait, while they dismember themselves in efforts to purify the Party of God.
While Democrats line up in record numbers trying to decide which candidate is the greatest the Republicans are lining up and voting for the Democrat we installed years ago. Eerily we have the neo-cons and Karl Rove's minions to thank for this. We will continue to press forward in this fight and remember. The future is now in our hands. We have been given this opportunity by ones that opposed us for so long. Let us never forget our vision. The future is past. We have already won.
Sincerely,
W.O.F.
Am I missing something? Dobson has always supported Romney. Follow the money: Edgar Prince was a cofounder of the Family Research Council, Cofer Black is a major Romney supporter, Erik Prince's sister is married to Rich Devos's (Amway) son for Chrissake! Half of Jeb Bush's staff is Romney's Florida election committee.
Here's the thing,.
Hilary and Bill-socialists/communists-can you say 'Chinese/Saudi Scholarship'?
Obama-islamic fundamentalist-wonna roll them dice?
McCain-Liberal mascerading as a conservative.-put Vietnam to rest and consider National Security. Anybody who wants to succeed in the War On Terror would righteously be in favor of Boarder Security.
Romney is the choice. Oh yeah, I am froim Connecticut. HELP. Save America.
we must come together and vote Hillary. If Obama or McCain is president then conservatism dies. Do we want liberal Obama with a possible liberal House and Senate? Do we want McCain to ruin the ideology of conservatism? at least if Hillary is president conservatives will rally around each other again and create the bound we need. We should try our best of avoiding an Obama nomination by voting for Hillary. Sadly, the McCain nomination is a lock.
And Romney just suspended his campaign. Fuck.
What Middle Eastern Regime will respect diplomatic relations with a country who's president or sstate is a female? The boarders are open and if Hillary is in,
she will defund the military (which is how we got here-Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton).
The markets will correct themselves, the people will press on only if there is less government intervention.
There should be new legislation which says military budgets may not be decreased for 40 years. OR have the liberals stand a post without a weapon.
George Bush is correct about one thing. This is the 'ideological struggle' for the next 100 years.
Whom does Osama BinLaden wish to win the US presidential race?
And oh no, the only former governor in the race has just suspended his campaign.
The truth is, the destroying-rats share a lot more with the Islamic terrorists than they do with conservatives: they both proclaim that they are the voice of the downtrodden against the establishment when the reality they are the usurpurs of the poor to propel themselves to uncontested affluence. Islamic (especially Shiites) militants use many of the same arguments the communists used, the democrats use daily and that resonates with the movers and shakers at the upper echelons of the liberal movement. They see themselves as economic suicide bomber organizers.
But I still can't vote for McCain. I don't need a Souter or a O'Connor in the white house when another Ginsberg is sent to the bench and where Reid rules in the Congress.
.......all of this is heart-warming to a Liberal. But i will hold any joy in check until the right is rejected and discredited totally, and that will indeed take longer......
I actually like McCain, and ended up voting for him in the caucus, despite the fact that I've always voted as a die hard conservative until Tuesday. McCain simply won me over in the last few weeks, even though I was pulling more for Romney before.
My reasons are:
He ran for the nomination 7 years ago. That means he REALLY wants this job. He wants this job more than any of the other guys. I really doubt you'll see any of them running again next time a nomination is up.
He spent 22 years in the military, serving this country, and I believe he will continue to serve this country, in whichever way possible.
He was a POW. He knows the dark nature of human beings better than any of the other candidates.
He has a hard-headed streak, pissing off people on the right and the left. He's a rebel. A maverick. This has always been a problem we've had with him, and we will continue to have it with him. But guess what? When there is real trouble to this nation, he will rise fiercely to the occasion.
He has been wrestling with politicians in Washington since all the other guys were in high school and college. He knows Washington and how it works better than anyone. To me, his age is an asset!
He knows how far he can push either side. This makes him appear liberal to conservatives, and conservative to liberals. He does not bother aiming for that which he doesn't think he can achieve in this day and age.
He may not be as conservative as we like, but I think he'll get things done in Washington ... he knows his game. Romney means well, but I doubt he'd be able to carry out any of his campaign promises.
He's waaaaaaaaaay better than Obama or Hillery. The things people like Ann Coulter are saying is incredibly foolish (and since when has Dr. Dobson become the "white evangelical Al Sharpton", meddling with politics to this degree?).
The hysteria in my own party was a big turn off to Romney for me. A few weeks ago, McCain was ignored, and Romney was labeled "too liberal". Now suddenly, Romney is the "golden conservative god", and McCain is fiercely hated. Such fickleness!
I don't think the country would vote for Romney. Things have turned too liberal, Romney isn't a strong enough personality that independents will want to vote for (despite his conservatism); John McCain is a compromise right down the middle.
Nor do I think John McCain is the end of conservatism. We just simply don't have a Ronald Reagan in the running right now. Romney is not a Ronald Reagan; he's just a guy running who's a bit more conservative than McCain. This is just our lot this time. Doesn't mean we won't have strong electable conservative candidates in the future.
I think it's high time conservatives get over the hysteria and rally behind McCain. Or else we might find ourselves WAY worse off under Obama or Hillary.
@ Brutal
Thanks for sharing. I do think that McCain will be tough on the War on Terror (which for all you libs, is REAL); and you bring up some great points.
- Ucon
This Liberal can hardly see how we can be ANY worse off...........
"..............................find ourselves WAY worse off under Obama or Hillary."-Brutal Mustang
...than we are now after 8 years of leadership under the poster-child of conservatism.
Urban, your a smart guy, if only you'd take off those "War on Terror" blinders.
david - do you really think that there isn't a problem with Islamic terrorists?
Urban....... almost 25 years ago, i work'd at a secure site for HHQ82ndAbn.
i was, at that time in my career, 81Q2p.....a military geographical intelligence specialist
(i made maps), my area of expertise was Central America, but my co-worker was a mid east specialist.......and against op-sec, we would discuss shit, like what was going on in afghanistan in '84-86.(i'd show him pics of pot fields growin')
Do you understand the term "blow-back"? The cia did, that's part of the reason our involvement was so secretive...........
Anyway, welcome to the 21st century..........all kinds of people hate america's policies......over quite a period. i used to wonder why.......but as i got older, i understood.
I have even heard Mike Huckabee make comments alluding to our(america's) contribution to this Mother of all F**k-Ups(the iraq war)
David - I'm the first to admit that the US has made a ton of mistakes since our birth. One day, we are helping Afghanistan fight the Soviets and the next minute Afghanistan is breeding terrorists that want to kill our children. We have allies one day and enemies the next day. That is completely natural; War (unfortunately) is a natural tendency. Its peace that is unnatural. Why? Because…it takes a lot of work, negotiation, sacrifice, compromise and tolerance.
The fact of the matter is Islamic terrorists hate the US because it’s easy (and natural) to hate people who don’t believe what you believe. They hate us because of our support for Israel, our societal tendencies of glorifying sex, drugs, and in their eyes total immorality. They hate us because we respect our women. They hate us because we are a nation with (somewhat) Christian principles – although those are deteriorating each day. They don’t care if it’s a conservative, liberal, democrat or republican in the office. But I am sure if they could have it their way, they would vote for a liberal because they know that a conservative won’t put up with their shit; and they will get dealt with in a heartbeat. That is one reason why I respect Israel so much. If a country attacks one of theirs…they will attack back twice as hard. And, the reality is that if all the Arab/Muslim countries that surround Israel were to get rid of their weaponry and declare peace, there would indeed be peace. However, on the other hand, if Israel were to get rid of their weaponry, army, etc….there would be millions of dead Jews. It’s a reality that I don’t think you or most liberals understand.
And, I was in Somalia in 1993 and remember seeing 12 yr old Muslim kids walking around with AK47s….don’t tell me this isn’t a real threat!
And, I own this blog. Not madrone. He exists here because I let him exist. LOL….yes, this site is based on Fascist principles…deal with it.
Urban
I wasn't kidding when i said you're a smart guy......so i know i can communicate with you(fascist site not-with-standing.......that was a friendly jab!)
Hell yeah i understand........"remember seeing 12 yr old Muslim kids walking around with AK47s….don’t tell me this isn’t a real threat!"..........this tells me you do too.
"why exactly do we need virgina class submarines to fight the taliban? and why do our soldiers and schools lack funds for basic equipment? not one democratic presidential candidate supports cutting the defense budget."..........this was from a fellow liberal, and he made a point quite clear......one that mirrors my own understanding of the problem......
and perhaps the next president will do no better than this one, and that is a real possibility if they(who ever that may be)are beholden to defense industry lobbies....
I think what most liberals don't and almost can't understand is the fact that terrorism is an economic problem. And it's not an economic problem because the leaders of the movement can be dealt with economically; those thugs, reprobates and purely evil people would kill, slash, burn and detonate innocent life no matter how much money or power they had (see Usama bin Laden-very wealthy Saudi; total scumbag). This is an economic issue because every AK47 toting, kat chewing 10 year old in Somalia, the 8 and 10 year olds that my buddy killed in Kuwait after they opened up on his buddy (the same kids that they gave a soccer ball to a few weeks before), the children and women strapping on bombs and killing as many people as they can on a bus or in a market—the reason nearly all of them are willing to do these suicidal actions is due to utter lack of economic opportunity. There’s a lot of people screaming that it’s a religious fervor that’s running this trend but those kids would never enter the madrassa if they could make a living outside of it.
The leaders of the group don’t simply hate us because we’re Christians or because we have money; they hate the fact that we have freedom and see it as a blasphemy. They then take that rhetoric and co-opt children who know they don’t have any chance of a decent living and start by giving them an orange with their sermon. Then a small job, then carrying something simple to one of their operatives, etc. All the while, they’re looking for the kids that are hard, that are serious, someone they can strap an explosive vest on and send them into a market to die for their cause. If there were more economic opportunity (free market, capitalist stuff), less of those kids would end up in radical tutelage.
THAT’S what Iraq is all about. If we can make Iraq work, if we can give them that extra opportunity and show that the country starts to make progress, it will ignite in the region a desire for those rights, benefits and lifestyle that will compete directly with radical Islam. Then those people will have a choice. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do because it actually has a way to win. Sitting back and hoping they’d sort this out is a failed policy that simply cannot work. Never take a murder’s pretext for killing as a way to avoid murder; they were going to kill anyway. They just needed something to sound good to garner support for their cause.
Staying and winning in Iraq is the ONLY course on the side of peace.
You don't fight the Taliban with a Virginia class submarine but you use that submarine to discourage China or Russia from contributing too much or too openly to the cause so that your SEAL team you deploy on the Afghan shore with the sub has an easier time. The FUD the democrats throw out there only sounds good to the neophytes and blinded partisans on the left. Especially the utter nonsense that no liberal wants to cut the military when that's what every single one of them did to the contrary of what they said. Will Hillary cut defense? If they follow what they did in the 90s, absolutely. She abhors the military. Why would she increase the funding, especially because she's not going to get votes from them (for her, it's never about what's good for the country-right/wrong, it's all about what gets a Clinton one more vote)?
.......aaaaah, Mike(common guys, i'm on my 3rd joint here!)
"You don't fight the Taliban with a Virginia class submarine but you use that submarine to discourage China or Russia from contributing too much or too openly to the cause so that your SEAL team you deploy on the Afghan shore"
am i to understand there is an afghan shore?
..........this is a GEM, from my career in Mining for Ignorance........to be collected and cherished!
But none of this brings me sadness, for it is my mission to dispel the dark veil of ignorance.
Davidthe BadAss'dLiberal
You're too right, my liberal friend, there is no warm water coast in Afghanistan but I was speaking more metaphorically than literally here (perhaps another joint would clear that up). I was counting on your powers of abstraction and extension that has obviously failed us. But I certainly appreciate your picking a small pebble from the wall of my argument and objecting to it's color and taste (since I don't think you have a pebble in hand right now nor a wall erected by myself nearby, this is yet again a metaphor that attempts to explain...uh, just have another joint...)
"perhaps another joint would clear that up"
I cannot stop laughing!
.........and it did!Wow.......man, groovy
i did my 1st jump from the 250 ft tower stoned(ft benning)
We conservatives have let the neo-conservatives take control of leadership of the Republican Party and the nation. You might say we have pooped in our own nest.
I mean when Joseph Isadore "Joe" Lieberman who ran as a Democratic Vice-President with Al Gore only eight years now is stumping for McVain. Hello!! Is any body home in the Republican Party.
Since how is wasting $500,000,000,000.00 in a sand pile across the pond considered conservative and good for national security vs. having an open border and giving amnesty to 20,000,000 illegal aliens. As someone that lives dead center of the United States with illegal aliens at every turn I don’t see the threat coming from over the pond but from crossing the Rio Grande. So what if you still think we need to be at war some where other than home. Get over it!
This old gray haired guy is voting for the only real fiscal conservative for president and is asking anyone with BRAINS (as Ann Coulter put on her book cover) to support and vote RonPaul2008.com
"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."
– Ron Paul
So you want a JBS advocate running the country? Who would you like for his running mate? David Duke?
David(the conservative)said: "Since how is wasting $500,000,000,000.00 in a sand pile across the pond considered conservative and good for national security vs. having an open border and giving amnesty to 20,000,000 illegal aliens."
.............nicely put.
dissolve.....good to see you back!
My problem with McCain is that he wants us to believe that he is a voice for Christian Conservatives. He carried on numerous adulterous affairs while married to his first wife, Carol. He left her for a much younger, richer woman after Carol was in a serious car accident. His actions speak volumes and speak to his real character. How can we trust that he will honor his word, when he couldn't honor his marriage vows? If he can lie to his wife, why wouldn't he lie to the American people to advance his cause? I will write in a candidate in November rather than sacrifice my ideals and principals to vote for such an undeserving man as McCain. I don't care if he is the lesser of two evils, evil is just that.. evil. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is the right thing.
After the betrayal of the conservative base by Gov.Romney yesterday,a tap in the back of Sen.McCain by Pres.Bush is all the social conservatives wanted to see today...Sen.McCain is the trojan horse of the liberals that will eventually destroy the republican party.Unfortunately as a conservative that voted for Gov.Romney already,i urge all the social conservatives in the remaining states to vote for either Gov.Huckabee or Congr.Paul.
dissolvethecorporation said "So you want a JBS advocate running the country? Who would you like for his running mate? David Duke?"
Actually I would hope he might ask judge Andrew P. Napolitano to be his running mate.
He recently authored a book entitled "A Nation of Sheep" A rather fitting title I might add.
I am not a JBS member but they are an original conservative group. By the way I understand "Joe" Lieberman has been on the short list for VP for the Mac Attack! Isn't that special.
Actually Napolitano is a good choice. Now if he could only convince his bosses at Faux News not to be one of the shepherds...
Can some tell how GWB is the poster-child of conservatism. He spends in ways drunken sailors can not imagine in their dreams. 3.1 trillion and everyone know that is under by at least 500 billion from what will be spent. To be conservative means understanding fiscal constraint something the President has not even tried. Read something today about the female governor of AK as possible VP. The brief bio in the story sounded good/
"Can some tell how GWB is the poster-child of conservatism."
Who said that? and the fact of the matter is that he is not very conservative...at least he doesn't govern as if he is.
For Jark:
than we are now after 8 years of leadership under the poster-child of conservatism.
Urban, your a smart guy, if only you'd take off those "War on Terror" blinders.
February 7th, 2008 12:15 pm davidwwalters
I still have land near Appleton
Mccain only wants the job because of his HUGE ego. He is a career politician and is this not the ultimate? Romney, I am sure has an ego but his reasons for wanting to be president were genuine. I guess he will just go back and continue to make millions more, rather than 400k and millions in the private sector.
Mccain can not be trusted. He has shown us an example of that they way he ran his run so far. If you can not trust a guy to be honest in getting the office, how can he be trusted once he gets the job. Impossible. He will get angy start calling Iran a bunch of M and Fers and push the red button. We are screwed
Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here. This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals.
How is handing the whole country over to far left liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?
There is a serious difference between McCain and a purebread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanantly.
Today’s liberal is not like the Bill Clinton’s Presidency. It’s moved radically left... Clinton is now considered a moderated, and loosing it’s power because it’s not radically liberal enough.
The Democratic candidate that is surging now, Obama, is bottom of the barrel liberal. He is about to take power, unless conservatives stop fighting and get serious.
This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left.
Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they will allow our country spiral out of control.
There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of radical liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues?
Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck.... But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government. Our kids deserve better out of us.
I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here that requires that we do everything we can to minimize the damage this election can cause to our society.
I’d rather have 50% of McCains ear, than 0% of a liberals ear.
Give it some thought, friends.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
http://thalunatic.blogspot.com
The thing is Danny
Does not McCain have a now time honored tradition of screwing over conservatives?
If a Democrat gets the presidency (especially a polorizing liberal) will not the Republicans fight them on legislation?
McCain has a history of making seedy-to-conservative-principles backdoor deals with his liberal buddies. Dont get me wrong. I am for a president who can get things done in today's bipartisan split nation, but MCCAIN???
He will push liberal absurdity through Congress in his own way of striking deals and the GOP will back him like beaten dogs wagging their tails in approval to their master.
I don't agree with him on any single issue of importance and I dont trust him at all.
He is a politician in the worst sort of Clinton way. Do and say what it takes to get the vote.
And please, anyone, google McCain on his statements about the economy.
He is a frickin moron.
The true conservative plan is to fiercely campaign, vote, support our local officials for local and federal positions. We will get a chunk of Congress and actually get things done. Forget the projections. Just get out of your lazyboys put down the GIJOE doll and go vote.
As for the presidency, I am voting write-in or third party.
And another thing...
If anyone mentions Huckapee one more time...
I live in Arkansas. Ive seen him when he was fat.
10 years ago, my town used to have one mexican restaurant (if you can call it that) Taco Bell.
Now. 7.
I kid you not.
Between the Arkansas economy and Mike's "guest workers" ,my old construction job has gone the way of the YoQuiero Taco Bell dog.
"If a Democrat gets the presidency (especially a polorizing liberal) will not the Republicans fight them on legislation?"
Zachary, I am no fan of McCain but will hold my nose and vote for him. Republicans may fight if a Democrat is in the White House but to what end? Dems will control the White House, House and Senate. Income taxes will go up, capital gains will go up, we will pull out of Iraq and the next President will most likely place one to three justices on the Supreme Court.
I remember in 92' some of my friends were so unhappy with Bush that they supported Perot thinking that 4 years of Clinton was better than eight more years of Bush. Anybody think we are better off for eight years of Clinton? Ready for eight more?
McCain will feel pressure to run with a conservative vp. Whoever is the vp will have the inside track at the nomination when McCain is done. Also, if he wins, McCain will be the oldest man ever elected president. A McCain win is important at this point.
"I remember in 92' some of my friends were so unhappy with Bush that they supported Perot thinking that 4 years of Clinton was better than eight more years of Bush. Anybody think we are better off for eight years of Clinton?"
Sorry, I meant 4 more years of Bush.
Jonas
Actually, the eight years preceeding bush Jr, were relatively good........i didn't vote for bush in 2000, and tried to convince my conservative friends the folly a "conservative" oilman in the white house would be for america. i say "conservative", because up until those approval ratings went south, the shrub was the darling of the consevatives(or at least as far as i could tell by listening to Rush.........)
There is NO satisfaction in vindication however.....
David(a liberal)
Zachary, can you truly say you don't agree with him on anything? Pro-Life? Controlled spending? properly finishing the job in Iraq?
If this is true, then none of the candidates except the truly liberal will fit into your scope it seems.
YES, I agree, he sells the conservatives out some 30% to 50% of the time...
But that in NO way will parallel what the liberals plan to do...
They are RABID in their zeal to crush all conservative thought.... RABID to ban faith from every public place - so that it doesn't see the light of day. RABID in their zeal to pull troops out of Iraq, which will lead to hundreds of thousands of slaughtered people...
Yes, we may have a pretty awkward situation here - voting for someone who irritates true conservatives...
But irritation doesn't equal what liberals plan to do. They do not desire to be an irritant. They will depreciate our values in a way that we may never get back..
Look, if conservativism has lost ground in some ways while we had a Republican President AND a Republican Congress - then imagine what happens when you remove ALL barriers to the liberal movement. A liberal mandate (which is what we'll get) will make what we have right now look like the 'good old days'....
This also gives the liberals the opportunity to reverse the one good thing we've gotten out of the last 8 years - the Supereme Court.
McCain may put a moderate in there....if he gets the chance.... But an Obama will nominate the most liberal qualified Judge he can find.
One last thought...
There is nothing wrong with voting for gridlock in washington....
This could be an excellent strategy to just keep things locked up enough to give conservatives a second chance next time around...
Letting liberals sweep all three branches would not give us gridlock.
Danny Vice
http://thalunatic.blogspot.com
and as for the 3rd party....
Well, that's your choice of course... but that allows a vote for one of the most liberal senators in existence to stand..... and puts him one vote closer to the white house...
The problem here is, the media has not yet explored Obamas record.... the general public knows very little about him, because all he talks about is change.....change.....change.....
Before you decide to punish McCain for not being conservative enough - please take a look at what the result will be....
We can punish McCain all we want during his presidency..... but an extreme liberal in power will use your non-vote against you.....
You will hear non-stop on the news (Americans voted for a liberal agenda....Americans no longer support conservative thinking....)
This is what's known as a mandate - and when that happens, the lack of gridlock in congress leads to the passage of liberal law....
And once laws are passed, it's twice as hard to get them repealed...
I'm sorry to say, but if you punish McCain, it will just end up punishing all conservatives.
I wish conservatives would stop shooting themselves in the foot like this....
Jonas said "McCain will feel pressure to run with a conservative vp. Whoever is the vp will have the inside track at the nomination when McCain is done."
Other than the first one term George when has this happened.
Zachary said "As for the presidency, I am voting write-in or third party."
That is my plan.
Voting for the less of two evils is still evil.
This liberal is amazed at the strategic thinking going on.......
"There is nothing wrong with voting for gridlock in washington....
This could be an excellent strategy to just keep things locked up enough to give conservatives a second chance next time around...
Letting liberals sweep all three branches would not give us gridlock."
.............i would think that applying a bit of strategic thinking to the many foreign policy issues that face our country would be in order.........
Choosing someone to deal with these issues trumps all other considerations.
I understand the gridlock comment and I wish it would work that way. However, McCain is running on a platform of reaching across the isle with a background of dealing with (read: under-the-table) the most liberal people in congress. What he says matches what he's done for the past 8 years so I'm inclined to believe this is precisely what he's going to continue doing over the next 4, at least, whether he's the president or a senator. We won't have gridlock no matter who gets in there. but at least when the liberal agenda is rammed through the congress, if a liberal is at the helm, it will be their failed policies and programs rather than a fake conservative.
So Mike, i am to understand that you wish your country to fail.....albeit under "liberal" guidance.......?
A vote for McCain would be a vote for the democrats! Why else would the Times endorse him!? Why else would he play so friendly with Hillary!? McCains a turncoat! He may not have given it up for the communist while in another country but he sure has shown his true colors while he's been home! McCain or Hillary in 08? We're done either way! www.buycommonsense.com
I'd really prefer that it not fail but we don't have that choice, at this point. McCain is not the best of 2 evils. His choices and his rhetoric match up. Why should we believe he will do anything other than march right in step with his liberal friends?
His constant lies on the campaign trail about conservatives (the laughable assertion that the Repulicans in congress attacked him on his views of the war when, in fact, it was his liberal friends doing all the attacking while he was bending to their wishes and whims) clearly shows his disdain for conservatism.
I would prefer that the country not go through another Carter era but that choice has already been made by all those misguided and deceived people voting for McCain. Anyone familiar with his famous temper and bouts of irrational action cannot seriously believe he should sit in the oval office with his finger over the button.
If there was someone that would act differently from a liberal, anyone at all, I would vote for them. Not this man. He's not only a liberal but he's a dangerous person, an empty vessel about to crack under the strain of his own ambition. I don't want the party and the movement I love remotely associated with someone I truly believe will do far more damage than either Hillary or Obama. If you can presuade me on that point, perhaps I can look past the temper issue.
"I don't want the party and the movement I love remotely associated with someone I truly believe will do far more damage "
Mike......is the "movement" more important than the country,
and "damage" to what......?(.....are you referring to?)
The movement is conservatism (not necessarily the Republican party). And this is my point: McCain will act indistinguishably from the liberals running against him. If they destroy the country, so would he because he would do exactly what they did except for leaving the troops in Iraq. They would all imprison faithful members of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies that have procured information that has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Fiscally, they're a dead heat. Values are things they consult when making stock purchases rather than deep seated beliefs that guide their actions (all the while, all 3 of them would be chanting class warfare and the scacity doctrine). You're intimating that we have a choice between destruction and non-destruction when I don't see McCain as benefitting the country the way you're hinting that he will. Why don't you convince me.
But while you're attempting that, think about what will happen when a "conservative" gets ticked off while speaking from the bully pulpit, drops some F-bombs, calls his fellow republicans random names (you know this is going to happen if you've followed McCain), etc. What will the news media do to him? To conservatives? The only time he will be effective at all is when he does their will. They will own him. Bush rarely became angry and when he did, he held his cool (for the most part) and look at what the media said about him. What happens when a Republican gives them a real story, when what they say is actually true, what happens then?
We don't have an option of liberal vs conservative in this election. Our choice is between a liberal who can choose for themselves what makes sense for the country (the media will cut them as much slack as they can) and a closet liberal who attempts to hide their identity and blows up at the slightest challenge to his supremacy, someone who will be torn to pieces even if they don't do anything overtly wrong just because they have an R at the end of their title.
McCain will do precisely what Obama or Clinton will do and worse. His policital legs will be cut out from under him within the first few months of his presidency. He has shown what he will do when that happens: go to the left, seek support and do whatever it takes to get people to start liking him again. He isn't this rock that everyone says he is: he's a liberal appeaser and only looked like a rock because he opposed Bush who, at the time, was proposing conservative initiatives. McCain is the worst of all options.
Mike said:(speaking of liberals i suppose)
"They would all imprison faithful members of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies that have procured information that has saved hundreds if not thousands.."
So, i see your fears,
and these fears do not seem to be of the Republic, rather certain agencies within the government. And i can see how perpetuating a conflict overseas can further the aims of someone who cannot otherwise justify it........
McCain was an option i once entertained(no longer), so maybe that will further galvanize your distaste for him. Maybe he'll win, so be it........but just as long as our country's interests are furthered in a positive way, i can live with that.
You know, I'm beginning to think all you fellow conservatives out there who are saying McCain is as bad as Obama don't know what you're talking about. Or perhaps you DON'T LOVE AMERICA as much as you claim!
Do you want the lives of our soldiers who have died in Iraq go to waste?
Do you want socialism to take hold in our society so strong, it will be irreversible? Once people get dependent on socialism, it's damp near impossible to undo.
Do you want extremely liberal judges voted in, instead of moderate judges?
Do you want no chance at Roe VS. Wade being overturned?
Or do you just care that only a true conservative wins?
And for all you libs who think the Clinton years were great: Clinton got the dot com bubble to dance around in (which bursted before the end of his presidency), while President Bush got 9/11.
Ms Mustang......
"Do you want the lives of our soldiers who have died in Iraq go to waste?"
i hate to say it, but the lives of our soldiers have been wasted. Whatever has or will take place, will not add up to the life of one American Soldier, Sailor,Airman, or Marine.
When you rhetorically ask if we want the soldiers who've died to go to waste, the mistake I think you're making is you're assuming McCain will do things that will make their sacrifice worth something. He may leave them there but I don't think he has the overall picture of WHY they have to stay there until the job is done (and I don't think he gets what success looks like, either). It's not about how many car bombs go off or how many men are killed in a week (which is what McCain will look at because he's not very bright and he's a military man, not a businessman or a statesman--some people in the military are the best and the brightest but McCain ain't that guy).
We win in Iraq when there is economic success and stability there to support jobs for all of its people and for those in neighboring countries. When Jordan, Iran, etc. start seeing their people go to Iraq simply because there's more economic opportunity there, THAT'S when we've won. It's where Iraq's economy competes for jobs that currently only the madrassas are fulfilling. When a mother or a father is rational and actually loves their child, they'll want them to get a job and live a happy life rather than throw it away with a C4 tuxedo.
McCain doesn't even understand our economy let alone something as nuanced as that. And people say, "Well, he's the leader. He'll hire managers for that." I think everyone has worked for a sack of slime like that. McCain is the pointy haired boss type who hires based on their own security rather than the good of the enterprise, people who will play ball as opposed to getting the job done. B players hire C and D people. A players hire A players because they're not threatened by others' performance. Did you see the endorsement of McCain by Romney: McCain was totally insecure. The first question went to Romney who fielded it expertly. McCain came along and bumbled a reply that practically mimiced everything Romney had just said but did it in a caustic, negative tone with all the grace of a cat stapled to a lounge chair tumbling down 20 flights of stairs.
While Hillary and Obama (and why don't we call her Clinton...rhetorical) would pull the troops out as soon as possible, it will be roughly the same situation just a little sooner. This isn't an Iraqi security question; it's a question of prosperity competing with terrorist influences and jobs.
I wish Hansen's interpretation were true. From what I observe of BU$HCO, selling weapons to both sides of a civil war for 100 years is 'mission accomplished.'
Mike Hansen's interpretation of solving the iraq problem:
"...........it's a question of prosperity competing with terrorist influences and jobs."
Mike, i may be wrong, but it seems to me as if you believe that "prosperity" can only emanate from the usa; that is a flawed premise. Their prosperity will come naturally when someone is able to secure their land. That it may not be us(as in the usa) that is able to secure that fractured nation, maybe because we lack ALL credibility in that corner of the world.
David,
Unfortunately, that's not my premise. No where in my statement does it say that prosperity has to come from the US. I said that the prosperity had to be internal to Iraq based on its processes, government programs, etc. But if we help Iraq to stand up, get its legs underneath it and help where we can, then their economy will take off on its own. That will help give us credibility because we'll show that we're willing to help an Arab nation as well as the Jewish state. The credibility issue revolves around our assistance to Israel. However, those people are mostly inconsolable and trying to appease them won't work. We have to find a new generation of people to bring into success that will rise up and replace the generation that was brought up sucking from the nipple of Islamic hate (some of these people were taught that Muslim people ruled the world from ~600AD to 1928 and that our western culture is an anamalous aberation of culture...one they plan to violently stamp out).
But just as Japan succeeded based on our help and principles, Iraq has to get this done on their own. All we can do is help.
We can, and are making a big difference in Iraq. Over here, people whine that we're wasting money on the war, and that we should be spending it on health care instead. To me, that is a totally narcissistic statement! Evidently people who say that haven't been paying attention to the good news ... the little girls that can now go to school, the people who aren't worried about rape rooms and plastic shredders, the water lines being built, roads, hospitals. In effect, we're in a position to help a country faaaaaaar worse off than we are, and make things more secure for us at the same time. I think that's wonderful!
Mike....oKay, for the sake of argument, i say, alright, my bad......."Unfortunately, that's not my premise. No where in my statement does it say that prosperity has to come from the US." then you say:
"But if we help Iraq to stand up, get its legs underneath it and help where we can, then their economy will take off on its own. That will help give us credibility.............."
I hope i am wrong(".......maybe because we lack ALL credibility in that corner of the world."; ---i said)........but you do admit we have a credibility problem,
bad news is........it's gonna cost MASSIVE sums of money to fix that one, ain't it?
"........................ because we'll show that we're willing to help an Arab nation as well as the Jewish state. The credibility issue revolves around our assistance to Israel........."
----Didn't Jr.(bush)just go to israel and promise how much in arms&aid........?
(We have no credibility..............who else sees this as nothing more than securing oil on one front and selling arms on another?)
Why is anyone on this site bothering to read anything from "davidwlaters"? It is only my second time here but I just reviewed a number of his commnets. Looks like he reads posts, picks out a few words or sentences and then tries to frame a debate but there is no point. Are you all trying to convince him of something? Doesn't seem to be much hope there.
There is hope for good conservatives who are reading this. I voted to Romney and was disappointed he wasn't able to carry on. Still, for those of you who think a McCain loss is acceptable, please revisit your logic. That would mean running from Iraq and leaving a void to be filled by terrorists. It would give us 21st century versions of Ginsberg and Breyer on the Court. It would raise taxes, not just let the Bush taxes expire but raise them. McCain is much better for this country than the alternatives.
The good news is that the Democrat party over the last 80 years has needed some extraordinary event to take place to capture the White House. FDR had the Great Depression, Truman succeeded a dead President (historically any vp in this situation wins another term), Kennedy needed dead people to vote in Illinois, Johnson succedded a dead President, Carter followed up Watergate, Clinton had Ross Perot. In a flat out one on one contest Dem's just don't win. Their hope is that Iraq falls apart or the economy get worse than anyone is predicting. They wish for some catastrophe because they know it is their chance but by overplaying how "bad" things are and rooting against the country they doom their chances.
Look at history. Most of the oldest voters alive became eligible in the late 1940's. Five times since 1948 the winner of the election has received more than 55% of the popular vote. The only Dem to do it was Johnson after Kennedy was killed. The last Dem to win even 50% of the popular vote was Carter who only got 50.1% of the popular vote so soon after Watergate.
In 1992 Clinton with the lowest percentage of the popular vote of any winner in the 20th century, 43%. Clinton, the hero of the Dems, won twice but never got 50% of the popular vote.
Fact of the matter is that very few people around today were ever alive in an Amercia that didn't lean Republican in Presidential elections. That is just a fact.
A liberal would likely look at all these numbers and try to movethe debate toward the 2000 election. That would miss the point. The point is that in their absolute best years over most all our lifetimes the Democrat candidate has been unable to get even 51% of the American people behind them, except LBJ after JFK's death, in a strong economy and against a Republican party split.
Dems need us to help them win, they need us split. Their candidate will likely be a rookie Senator and who has outlined almost no policy specifics. I will give him credit for running an untraditional Dem campaign based on positive "hope" but I hope it is not enough.
Jonas comments:(davidwwalters)"Looks like he reads posts, picks out a few words or sentences and then tries to frame a debate but there is no point. Are you all trying to convince him of something? Doesn't seem to be much hope there."----No Jonas, i'm just here to keep the arguments intellectually honest.....
Jonas "............ and rooting against the country they(democrats) doom their chances."
Who's rooting against the country.........?
For the most part, conservatives and liberals alike want the best for our country. Liberals like davidwwalters and McCain are just wrong about what policies will keep America alive, great, and filled with opportunities.
Danny Vice and Jonas: as for Citizen McCain: "Pro-Life? Controlled spending? properly finishing the job in Iraq?" Please dont mention anything about McCain's fiscal policies. I just had breakfast.
I trust his economics as much as he understands economics.
As for the war...I am probably not on the same conservative flagship as everyone else here. An immediate troop withdrawel would be very irresponsible of us. We have to help build back up what Dems and Repubs both voted to obliterate. But stay there 100 YEARS??? What kind of occupation is that? We DO want the Iraqis to eventually be able to defend themselves DONT WE?And then one day have American troops back in America. McCain doesnt even know why we are there. Its just a position to garner GOP support.
Straight Talk Express...HA
As for the judges. I do fear extreme libs on the bench. So Im with you boys on that one.
McCain did say that he will not appoint someone who wears his "conservatism on his sleeve." Whatever that means. More straight talk i guess.
Something else: When exactly was this liberal mentality of America building world peace / world democracy crap adopted by all true conservatives?
This is a Wilsonian liberal way of thinking.
We are better and we should force others beneath us into a certain way of life?
That is liberal.
What happened to national security and our nation's interests?
That one was for you davidwwalters, my friend. You and your buddies should be advocating world domination...I mean LIBeration.
Maybe I could convert you to conservatism pending the repeal of this neocon ideology. What do you say?
Zachary! "........Liberals like davidwwalters and McCain are just wrong about what policies will keep America alive, great, and filled with opportunities."
John McCain(maybe wrong...) about keeping this country "......alive, great.....",
but not i.........Just keep in mind Zach that what is keeping america down is not liberals but neo-con ideology gone terribly wrong........and John doesn't want to distance himself from that, in fact he's trying very hard to suck up to the very worst of neo-con thought......(flip-flopping on torture among them).
As to Wilsonian liberal thinking........good point! My thoughts? i think conservatives have developed a cozy relationship with the "military-industrial complex" since world war2
(........it's a good investment!)
"................Maybe I could convert you to conservatism pending the repeal of this neocon ideology. What do you say?" Actually, (i was once a conservative, voting for Regan 2x)........but real conservatives treat everything like a commodity ........and i haven't lost enough humility for that yet.
Ah...The "war is business and business is good" classic "military industrial complex" argument. We were told to fear that. It always makes for a solid point on the upper end of the elite, but what about the scores of followers who dont benefit?
And dont tell me its because we are ignorant. Im talking about intelligent people being indoctrinated into Bush's ideological religion.
They oppose the would be socialists in America but support domineering reconstructurist policies on foreign soil.
Terrorism is bad. No lib is going to argue against that. But are military strikes based on hear say, threats of attack, and shakey intelligence really the answer?
Shouldnt we fight it with solid intelligence before open war on Middle Eastern nations.
Gosh Zach, you're asking why neo-con policy WAS so popular....? Maybe it's the way the "complex" has been "established" through out the various congressional districts of the nation......
...for that matter i am beholden to it(or should be, for i was born and raised on a military base)--and i am a consumer, we all need oil.....it's part of our fabric in a scary way.....
"But are military strikes based on hear say, threats of attack, and shakey intelligence really the answer?
Shouldnt we fight it with solid intelligence before open war on Middle Eastern nations."
My biggest complaint with neo-cons is their distance from the realities of such mundane terms as "air strikes"........i've seen air strikes gone bad.........
and their inability to understand the long story of "blow-back". Sure terrorism is bad, sure we gotta fight it.......but not the stupid way we've been waging war.....(you gotta use your head when you poke at a hornets nest!)
Just an idea for anyone in the Chicago area. It might be fun to look into Obama, Bobby Rush, 21 st century Growth and development, and a man named Gator and the connection to a person in Colorado. I will vote for McCain because good people died defeating communists and I sure do not want to allow it to stroll into the WH. I think Hillzilla's statement makes it clear " I will take from you to distribute it for the common good" that is close but please accept it as a paraphrase. As far as Iraq I have no problem saying we went for the oil. The cost is too high but it is better than China having unfettered access.
Saddam was OUR lunatic. We armed him, he turned on us. Like Noriega before, and Musharrif now. What part of BLOWBACK do you not understand?
"ELLSBERG: In 1963, when there was a brief uprising of the Ba'ath, we supplied specifically Saddam with lists, as we did in Indonesia, lists of people to be eliminated. And since he's a murderous thug, but at that time our murderous thug, he eliminated them..."---Daniel Ellsberg(Pentagon Paper fame) speaking to Mr. Kristol(".......I'm talking about Kristol's two-hour appearance on C-Span's Washington Journal on March 28, 2003, just nine days after the President launched his invasion of Iraq."
Read it here, again,: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174894/jonathan_schwarz_bill_kristol_s_obscure_masterpiece
Iran was in our pocket in 1963. The CIA and Brits put the Shah in power after the elected government wanted to nationalize the oil in 1953. That turned out well.
Which brings us back to now, and the present danger this country faces, who is will.....not manage, but LEAD this nation out of this disaster we find ourselves in.....?
But Michael;
Let us remember who lost Iran and in so doing created the first hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. Who was that? Oh, yes. Jimmy the Wimp Carter!
If in 1979 we had had a President with even a modicum of testosterone we would have responded to the hostage taking in the same way Israelis do. They don't bargain for hostages, they attack the hostage takers.
But limp Jimmy? No, he lets our hostages rot, he lets the Shah fall and radical Islam ascends to the leadership of Iran.
And that's how we got to where we are today.
Do you think it conincidence that on the very day of Reagan taking the Oath of Office Iran releases the hostage? Heck, the Iranians knew if they didn't, Reagan's first action as President would be a massive military assault against their country.
hcapper......how can you say Carter lost iran? it was never ours to loose in the first place......That he inherited a ticking bomb from previous administrations, now that would been a much closer approximation to the truth of the situation. No, for all your bluff&blunder.......this kind of thinking is what gets people killed for no good reason......
We lost enough men in the iranian desert, and the rise to prominence of islamists in iran in particular is because of the public perception in iran of cia collusion with SAVAK. That's why we saw the embassy attacked. Yeah, send the cav in.......that solves every problem.
We lost Iran in 1953 when our puppet Shah deposed of nationalist Mossadegh. Same as Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, and on and on and on...
OkAY! thanx dissolvethecorp........
And the point being, this country needs to step back and take a hard look at the past 50 yrs of history(or more if you want)and see how many of our problems today are due to "Blow-back" from recent past machinations into the affairs of sovereign governments around the world.
i grew up thinking american was the greatest......i questioned why america wasn't being venerated .......i mean after all we have "saved" the world from Nazis and commies and now islamists.....it seemed to me everyone was questioning our motives. How could that be? yeah, think about that!
davidwwalters
"Iran was not ours to lose"? You clearly have no basic understanding of the fundamental levers of Imperialism -- the capitalization is intentional. It's like saying "Cuba was not ours to take back from Castro -- if we had just invaded the island in the '60 - pre Bay of Pigs - Cuba would be our Las Vegas in the East....such a lost initiative.
I live in San Francisco and totally understand what it means to be a member of an oppressed minority -- they only "embrace the diversity" they agree with. And one is in a distinct minority if one espouses Imperalism and American-ethno-centric supremacy.
So let me lay down how I look at the world -- otherwise we'er going to have pointless jabber to no useful end. You're not gonna change my view nor I yours.
I define "peace" as all of my country's enemies are dead.
I believe the first and foremost obligation of our Federal Government is "provide for the common defense".
Protect us from our enemies external and stand back and let us - the productive - create wealth and profit internal.
Seems like a fairly straight forward idea.
hcapper.....
::I believe the first and foremost obligation of our Federal Government is "provide for the common defense"::
Wow.....we agree on something! But let me ask you a question? Who is our enemies? Some kid with an AK shooting at foreign troops in his own country, or or a Lobby trying to "be productive" by getting a fat government contract? Me?.......i know our enemies and i am ready for the day when justice will be served.......and if it must come from a gun, i can do........done it before, by gun, by hand.......whatever means it takes.
OOps!----"Who is our enemies?"
My Bad......it should read......."Who are our enemies?"
I still haven't made my mind up who I'll vote for, although the odds of my voting for either of the Democratic front-runners is roughly the same as the chance that the November election will be interrupted by an invasion of space aliens and Elvis clones.
Whatever else, this election is shaking quite a few loose nuts out of the trees.
* Obama is an Islamic fifth columnist.
* Clinton is a commie sympathizer
* McCain is a commie sympathizer, and he's gonna steal your money
Personally, I'd have liked to see Huckabee in the Oval Office: if only to watch northeast urbanites and Boston Brahmans have fits over a southerner with a name like that being their president.
At this point, given what I know, I could vote for McCain. There's a very real enemy, trying to kill people who aren't sufficiently "Islamic" (by their standards), and the Great Satan America is in their cross hairs.
McCain may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I think these times call for a wolf, not a Shih Tzu.
Clinton and Obama are not sympathizers they are communists.
We must help all our young people to understand that ours is still a very poor country, that we cannot change this situation radically in a short time, and that only through the united efforts of our younger generation and all our people, working with their own hands, can the US be made strong and prosperous within a period of several decades. The establishment of our socialist system has opened the road leading to the ideal society of the future, but to translate this ideal into reality needs hard work.
On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957), 1st pocket ed., pp. 44-45.
Because of their lack of political and social experience, quite a number of young people are unable to see the contrast between the old US and the new, and it is not easy for them thoroughly to comprehend the hardships our people went through in the struggle to free themselves from the oppression of the imperialists and reactionaries, or the long period of arduous work needed before a happy socialist society can be established. That is why we must constantly carry on lively and effective political education among the masses and should always tell them the truth about the difficulties that crop up and discuss with them how to surmount these difficulties.
I only changed China to US. I have heard both commies use this language in their speeches.
A reasonable person will want to read "The road to serfdom" by Hayek before considering the dems ideas of change and hope as anything other than the road to the end of a free republic.Pres. Bush may ignore the US constitution when it suits him, but completing the circle to communists will be in place with the dems taking the obscene power and dictating all major parts of life, money, and health.
To the socialist that posted that ridiculous missive on becoming a "happy socialist society", how would you know when we achieved it? No other country in history has been able to do this and, in reality, every country that has tried has decided against it when faced with certain insolvency. Socialism doesn't work. Period. End of sentence, paragraph, page, book, tome, encyclopedia, compilation. This isn't one of those ideas where you take a look at it, run the numbers and decide that if the execution is effective, the objectives could be achieved. Socialism and Marxism CANNOT work. Just looking at what is proposed clearly dissembles any attempt to prop up this type of society. The only people that propose it are the naive and the ultra power hungry, the type of people who wish to grab power by force rather than earn it through business and peaceful means. And they're the types that can and will enforce their will and their happy society via the most draconian methods imaginable (East Germany - a democracy and a socialist country that folded exactly the way conservatives and capitalists predicted it would).
Our Republic (not a democracy) was instituted so that the majority couldn't enforce its will on the minority like they did in East Germany and elsewhere. You putting on the airs of the experienced old man in the group only shows that you've got old ideas that have failed, will fail and cannot work. Socialism is dead. Perhaps when people like you die off as well we won't have to point out the blatantly obvious anymore.
@ Mike,
You are the one that is naive and power hungry. If socialism has failed, it is because those greedy and powerful enough to undermine it have no limits to the amount of violence they are willing to resort to in order to thwart it.
I don't aspire to a 'happy socialist society.' I would be satisfied if the basic food, housing and medical needs of the working class were being met.
How long can you arrogant bastards live your empty lives in unnecessary 10,000
square foot homes while millions of honest, hard working people are sliding deeper into poverty and despair?
@ Mike
I posted the quotes from Chairman Mao to show that Clinton and Obama both make very strong communist speeches and to give point of reference I know communism fails, been there and I have seen it. So welcoming it in with open arms is maddening to me.