Why McCain would be worse than Bush

Ah, yes: It was about the dominoes. If the Viet Nam domino fell, the Thailand, Phillipines, Japanese, and Korean dominos would fall. The Viet Nam domino did fall and none of the others did.
Click to expand...

So, you think if we had not blew the hell out of their stuff, blew all their planes out of the air, and generally cost the hell out of them for several years they would have just stopped there?
 
meanwhile back on topic

Lot of interesting history being posted but most of it is off topic. Some of us would like to hear some opinions other than our own on McCain. I don't like him but that does not mean I won't listen to another opinion.
 
Pat, how did he get elected governor of the Great State of Texas?
Click to expand...
That's a demonstration of the power of the oil industry in Texas, which the Bush family married into when G.H.W.Bush, aka Bush I, moved to Texas to enter the oil business there. The Bush family is an old, moneyed New England blue blood family. They've been a part of the ruling oligarchy in America over well over a century.
 
New York Times just endorsed McCain.

This indicates to me that McCain must be even more liberal than the other choices, since IMO the NYT is an extreme liberal leaning paper.
Click to expand...

Amazing. It took an endorsement by the NYT for you to realize that McCain is a liberal in Conservative clothing? His voting record in the US Senate is anything but conservative.

There is a reason that liberal rags like the NYT, the Boston Globe, the Washington Compost and others endorse Republican candidates like McCain. Their hope is that conservative, and sorta-conservative voters, will just decide not to vote for a liberal like McCain, and stay home.
 
Last edited:
An 83 out of 100 isn't more liberal than conservative. I wouldn't put it past the leftwing media to endorse someone in the hopes it turns some rightwingers off. These people didn't just start playing this game yesterday. I'd rather not dance to their music and decide for myself but I think it's a mistake to sit out the election if you feel he isn't conservative enough. Like Reagan said "If you agree with me 70 percent of the time, you're not my enemy."
 
hmmmmmm...

Why isn't there a box we can punch/mark/push button a choice on all voting ballets that give "WE THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO SAY....


"NONE OF THE ABOVE"......??

Back to reloading.
 
Ron Paul is the only good candidate as far as I'm concerned. There's not another single candidate I will vote for. I used to vote Libertarian, but I don't even think I can support them anymore.

To me, if Paul doesn't get elected then I don't care who does because I can't stand any of the others. Gun grabbers, pro-illegal invasion, religious wackos...they all suck equally.

Too bad more Americans don't have the cojones to vote their convictions rather than fold to the morons who blather on so vehemently about "throwing away your vote" and who ignorantly support our "bad or worse" two party system.

A vote is only powerful when you vote for the candidate that you believe in, to hell with the odds.

The election will probably be fixed anyway and the puppetmasters-that-be will just inject into office whatever puppet they feel like playing with for the next 4 years. So you might as well vote your conscience.
 
somebody......any one from the "lesser of two evils crap logic types" please tell me how my guns are safe from Mr amnesty or Mr assault weapons ban or Obama or Clinton????

Really......really
 
Some additional commentary by National Review's John Derbyshire, with commentary by Rockwell's Nick Bradley.

Derbyshire Bashes McCain and Romney, Donates to Paul
Posted by Nick Bradley at 09:05 AM

A great post by NRO's token Paul supporter, John Derbyshire, this morning:

Oh, stop whining. So what if the likely GOP nominee believes in restraints on free speech, higher taxation, bigger government, open borders, and 100-year U.S. armies of occupation everywhere from Albania to Zimbabwe? Romney believes in those things too — at least, he does when he's in a room full of people that want him to.

You already have a genuinely conservative candidate on offer. He's just not slick enough for you. What, he has positions you don't agree with? More than the other guys? Actually, I have heard very little complaining about Paul's positions. What I have mostly heard is (a) He's funny looking, (b) He can't win, and (c) He has a lot of icky supporters.

The answer to (a) is to put aside the New York Times "Style" section for five minutes and think. The answer to (b) is, that if conservatism is going to lose big in 2008 anyway (newsflash: it is), it should at least make a stand, to inspire future generations. The answer to (c) is, get in there and swell the ranks of non-icky Paul supporters — there are plenty of us — to drown out the nutsos.

While you guys are crying into your light-blended crème frappuccinos, I'll be making a campaign donation to help Ron & Carol celebrate their 51st wedding anniversary Friday.
Click to expand...

Once Romney drops out, the Ostrowski prediction will come true, and Paul will be the only conservative alternative to McCain -- the neoconservative, tax-hiking, free speech-killing, immigration-subsidizing, global warming nutjob who has spit in the eye of the GOP base one too many times.

Note: Although McCain claims that he's an "outsider", he's been part of the establishment for more of his life than any candidate in US history: Born on a naval base as the son of an admiral (and grandson of an admiral), lived on a military base his entire childhood, went off to the Naval Academy, served a full military career, immediately ran for congress in '82 after retiring from active duty, moved on to the Senate in '86, and has been there ever since. So McCain has been a paid employee of the US Gov't for 54 years and grew up in an elite military family before that. You can't get any more 'establishment' than John McCain.
Click to expand...

Look out for a McCain/Leiberman ticket.
 
Laura Ingram is pissed on the radio today telling conservatives to wake up ...that the conservative movement is on the last thread if McCain is it...........and and in the same breath telling Ron Paulers that we are all tin foil looneys..........

Laura...look in the mirror...the death of the conservative movement is on YOUR hands NOT mine.........

I'm for Ron Paul BECAUSE he is a conservative........

(or does Laura think conservatism is just a foreign war entanglement movement??)

Wake up Laura!!!!

:mad:
 
McCain is only doing well because he convinced a faction of the Republican party that he made a mistake with the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill. He says he now "gets it" and that we should secure the border first. But then he hired Juan Hernadez to be his lead for Hispanic relations. That just proves where he really (McCain stands) on border security and illegal immigration. IMO, Hilliary could not be worse for turning this country over to illegals. Bottom line is I don't believe McCain has changed his stripes. And am I the only person to wonder why someone has to tell you that border security should come first...shouldn't you know this without being told? I think the only thing McCain gets is that he needs to lie about his real feelings to get elected. Yes, he could be worse than Senor Bush.....or Hillary.
 
McCain and paybacks

You can not expect a 20 plus year Senator to not have a lot of paybacks. I fear he will show who he owes when he starts making appointments. A number of those he is indebted to are not going to be favorable choices. Now we are beginning to hear Rudy as AG. That is enough good old boy politics for me to never support McCain. Rudy as AG and we might all as well own slingshots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top