I hate to pick on John McCain, but ...

Post Reply New Topic

Ragtime started it . Unlike Ragtime's hearsay, here's some YouTube videos so you can hear his gaffs for yourself.

John McCain vs John McCain
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI[/youtube]

McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c[/youtube]

McCain's Spiritual Guide
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&feature=user[/youtube]

The last one is particularly scary .

Last on is very scary make's what Obama's preacher said not so bad. Why must they play up to these idiots

I'll not vote for McCain, because I can't stomach the man's dishonest attacking of
the conservatives in his own party, but even a crazy conservative is a better bet than a far-left liberal like Obama,
or Mrs. Clinton, who lies even as much as Obama does, which certainly takes a Clinton to accomplish!

Therefore, anyone who makes fun of McCain is a self-made fool if they vote for Obama or Hillary.
Doing so is like saying "I HATE RED!! IT'S AN AWFUL COLOR!! I'm going to choose red instead."
It's free of the bounds of sanity.

As Rush said, McCain is "reaching across the isle to talk to Romney" about the vice presidency.
If you get that joke, than you understand how liberal McCain really is.

Last edited by Ragtime on 23 May 2008, 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

McCain has rejected Hagee and that other nut job evangelical. I am a conservative but am just so sick of the evangelical hate mongers. Mitt Romney was the best choice for president so it will be a good thing if McCain chooses him as a running mate. Mormons can be a little flaky at times but all of the ones I know really know how to get things done.

Fixed it for you

Hmm, McCain flip-flops over the war, gay marriage, and his knowlege of the economy, and you call Obama the liar? In the other thread, the best you could do is critisize Obama for saying Arkansas was nearby Kentucky . Saying that 'lies' like that are on the level of McCain's double-talking is the thing free from the bounds of sanity.

Why must there only be one liar? Hmmm? All three of them lie to the public every single day, from what I know.
Let me translate that for you:
1. Obama is a liar.
2. Clinton is a liar.
3. McCain is a liar.



Now who's lying? (We have four liars now: the three presidential candidates and you.)
That comparison I made was one of the weakest Obamisms, and was picked out from the other
by an Obama supporter, specifically because it was one of the weakest of the bunch of embarassing speeches by Obama.
How 'bout the fact that he said he's campained in 57 states?
How 'bout him saying that 10,000 died in Kansas tornadoes all at once?

Last edited by Ragtime on 23 May 2008, 1:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

A bit harsh, but it captures the essense of my arguement.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unp-wN84OfM&feature=related[/youtube]

I have been into politics since 5th grade when I first got a serious education in American history and read The Way Things Ought To Be. In a time when other kids called each other boogerhead as an insult, I favored the term, "liberal."

For more of my years than most 26 year olds could ever claim, I have been a Republican, but no more after John McCain.

Bash him all you like on this thread. Make up stuff, say true stuff, say stuff that doesn't even make any sense. I sincerely don't care. For true believers like myself in conservative principles, I'd prefer to be thought of as a Randian actually if you want to know, this is the Alien VS. Predator election. No matter who wins, we lose.

-Frank

I actually feel sad to hear you say that. It's important to have a lot of different views in politics - if one voice dominates, then to me that shows that something is wrong.

I don't really understand why you feel that your values are so threatened by the current political scene. The totality of my knowlege of Rand comes from 2 minutes of google-fu, so perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly, but none of the canidates seem to be proposing the dystopia that Rand faced.

I would actually like to have a more reasonable debate about the actual politics, and not the individuals. And not with people hurling 'liberal' and 'conservative' like they were insults.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... n0522.html

According to this article, John McCain is hosting
several VP possibilities at his Arizona ranch
for Memorial Day weekend.

This is very important because I am convince he will die in office if elected. He looks bad jst don't think he will make it as president for four years

My problems with McCain are ideological and rational. They come from a deep respect for the rights of the individual over the collective. McCain may realize the importance of a strong national defense in maintaining individual liberty, but even there he's got some weak points. He wants to shut down Gitmo and bring those prisoners here to receive civil trials. Part of the rights one has when undergoing a civil trial in this country is to review the evidence against you, which in this case would be classified intelligence documents. That's the whole point of keeping them technically outside the U.S., so rules meant to protect the rights of American citizens don't end up undermining national security. If he is concerned that torture is happening there, then I'm pretty sure as president he could make the military he is commander and chief of quit it, but it's reckless and unnecessary to sacrifice national security concerns to solve the problem.

Global warming is also a huge problem I have with him. He appears to want to aggressively fight the problem. Considering that I don't believe it is a problem, or at least one that man contributes to significantly, this irks me on that level, but I'll leave that fight for another time. Assume for a moment that global warming is real. The way to fight it advocated endlessly by activists is for the American people to give up their way of life. Our entire economy is built on vast supplies of affordable energy, energy that the whole world wants and that China and India are about to compete for with a vengeance. Aggressively fighting global warming means getting used to a lower standard of living, being beholden to the control of other nations, and becoming more like Western Europe. Couldn't we just innovate? Come up with newer and better fuel sources, power plants of all kinds, and actually keep the highest standard of living the world has ever known? Considering our entire way of life and uniquely American individual liberty is on the line, seems worth the trouble.

Illegal immigration is something I don't trust him to fight. He tried to shove amnesty down our throats already and clearly doesn't get the idea that it's modern day slavery these people are put through. If you disagree, how's about explaining to me how a group of people working in terrible conditions with no benefits, no legal protection, no workman's comp, and for a lower wage than American workers require to even survive is NOT modern day slavery? These people are being used, abused, and marginalized, not because they are Mexican anymore than because slaves were black, but because they are available and can be treated with cruelty beyond what Marx ever imagined for the working class.

Tax cuts are a vital part of what my brand of conservatism is all about. I'm a trickle-down, Reaganomics, supply-sider and I don't apologize for it one little bit. Cutting taxes mean people get to keep more of what they earn. If they're rich, they get to invest more in growing the economy and creating jobs and if they're not so rich they get to have more money to support their family. The only one with less money with a tax cut is the government, and I think being nearly 9 trillion in debt tells me that the purse strings should cinch up a bit howsaboutit? McCain does understand spending is out of control and looks to do something about it, which is his saving grace on financial issues.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of my problems with McCain. I can expand if you like.

-Frank

There was a time when I could tolerate McCain's economics (back when he focused on fiscal responsibility). Now he's even given that up, and anyways that was never enough to redeem his foreign policy views.

Parsely and Hagee are televangelists and McCain accepted their endorsement. Unlike Obama who has been a part of Wright's congregation for years.

McCain lost my support when he accepted Hagee. He has since not accepted either of the two's endorsement.

The problem with keeping everything secret is that the torture photos are continuing to be shown around the world, and are being used to stir up anti-American sentiment. It's being used as indoctrination for sucide bombers. It's also not America rules that are being broken. The Geneva Conventions do matter, and that is also hurting America diplomatically. It's one of the big reasons why most first-world countries are so hostile towards the United States.I have several other arguements, but they're a bit more liberal, so I'll only go into them if you ask.

Anyway, it makes a lot of sense to start moving the non-essential prisoners into the civil system. As far as I can see, it's one of the best ways to regain America's good name around the world.



While I strongly disagree with your assessment of the threat, I do agree with the solution. Innovation is the best way to deal with the problem in the long term; asking people to go back to living like the Amish is stupid.

The problem is that several groups have already come up with several good solutions, but they haven't been given any funding or have even been actively blocked. A really good example is energy conservation- stuff like better insulation, and energy efficient light bulbs. In the long run this actually leads to people making more money, since they're spending less on electricity.

The problem is that while given time installing conservation methods will pay for themselves, they can cost a fair amount to install. But here's a good idea - why not create a superfund that will give out interest-free loans to people to implement these measures, then have them pay back the loans using the money they save from the conservation? It'll cost them nothing, and once the loan is all paid off they'll get the savings all to themselves!

Problem is, who's going to get the money together to create the superfund? The returns aren't really enough to attract the commercial sector, especially considering the up-front investment. And, no matter how you spin it, it will result in the electicity producers selling less product, causing them to loss money or raise prices; IMO that's a stupid arguement, but some people have been using it to try to shout down the idea. Anyways, pretty much the only group that would be able to pull it off would be government, using taxpayer money.

Unless some funding is put into issues like this, they might never get off the ground.



I don't know enough about this issue to comment. Sorry



I do agree with this arguement in principle - a rising tide raises all ships after all. But it seems like most tax cuts are going to the super rich, which I don't think helps very much. And I'm simply to pragmatic to not believe that Keysnian economics is never the answer. Friedman Economics is too close to idealology in my opinion - some amount of socialism is healthy and necessary.



Yes, I would. So long as you are okay with the fact that I may not agree with you. As I said before, I feel that disagreement is healthy in politics, so long as its friendly.

Okay, on the Gitmo thing what I said that you didn't really address is that terrorists would get to see classified documents. That's really not any kind of okay and is a serious threat to national security. National security is more important than...oh...anything. Stop violating the Geneva convention if you want. Hell, put cameras in there and let Amnesty International monitor the terrorists 24/7 if they want. I don't care. They don't get to come into this country and suddenly have all sorts of rights that endanger our national security. Nothing doing.

As to the global warming thing, the free market has to solve it. I don't really care if you don't like that. There's a hybrid car out there now made by Chevy, I forget the name, but it's a big good looking SUV. NOW my mom is willing to buy a hybrid car. Imagine if the government made a hybrid car and made you buy it. Think that would be a car anyone would actually buy of their own free will? No. Capitalism is always the best way out. If you want people and businesses to conserve energy, make it so they want to do that. Chevy's already showing the country how that's done by making a hybrid SUV that's as big and cool as a non-hybrid SUV. You have to convince people to conserve, because if you force them you're just grinding them underneath your heal in the name of being green because you think those ends justify those means.

Tax cuts only benefit the super-rich eh? Care to give a net worth or even a salary range that you think constitutes rich? Also, would someone please explain to me how tax cuts for the poor are supposed to create new jobs. Jobs are CREATED by the rich, which often includes small business owners who employ people in small towns. The money they make at their business? Capital gains tax. That business when it's passed onto their children? Death tax usually is so severe it will force their children to sell the business just to pay the taxes. The real question anyone opposed to tax cuts for the rich should ask themselves is if they're willing to prevent more jobs from being created just so people with more money don't get any more. Seems awfully petty and short-sighted to me.

-Frank