You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
Re: Republicans on verge of bailing on McCain
I've been saying since this election started that a McCain nomination would be a disaster. He's got some nutswingers left, but the bailout has begun. Ann Coulter is now claiming she will actually endorse Hillary if McCain gets the nomination. Love or hate Anne, she does have influence. Some others bailing on this fiasco:
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michael Savage
Its only begun.
The reason people are starting to bail is because he's not a real conservative. Conservatives are not for century long wars, unlimited spending, and handing out green cards like they grow on trees. Looks like conservatives are going to attempt to take back the republican party(hooray!! maybe I can go back to the party then) and willing to lynch McCain and endorse either a Hillary or Obama presidency(for only this election of course).
Two terms of a fake conservative have damaged this party, and more people are starting to realize that.
This should have been done in 04, and conservatives found a credible candidate to oppose Bush.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Republicans on verge of bailing on McCain
James do you think about what you write before you post it? Republicans are going to endorse Obama or Hillary over McCain because McCain "wants to pass out green cards" and stay the course in Iraq. Maybe you don't watch the debates or read proposed policies, but both Obama and Hillary are for a much more stronger "amnesty" program than the one proposed by McCain. Neither Hillary or Obama have stated a time that they will guaruntee us out of Iraq. McCain's 100 year war is so commonly misquoted and used under false pretenses, I almost immediately ignore someone when they raise the point. His point is that we'll stay in Iraq until the region is secure; Obama and Hillary have said the same.
Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh represent the neo-con sector of the Republican party or far right if you will. If McCain dominates Super Tuesday, and he will, I can't see how the Coulters can keep saying McCain isnt't being chosen by Republicans. For once we have a candidate who truly crosses party lines to do what's best for America, and people are attacking him because he doesn't blindly stick to an ideology. If it's "The Economy Stupid" why would you want to put people in office who will raise taxes and implement more social programs, the biggest ever being social medicine, and plunder more of our money? All of the European nations are embrassing free market programs. France and England have seen dramatic increases in their GDP over the past 10 years which is attributed to their free-market policies that were implemented at that time. China is growing because of its free market principles. You can't be a world's super power and provide every luxury of life to people.
It amazes me that the same people who were screaming Freedom Fries and for the head of every Arab in 2001-2003 are now backtracking at the exspense of others. They chose not to serve and dodge bullets for their cause, but now that they think their pocket book may be crimped, they're willing to gamble with national security. As soon as we get attacked again, the same tempermental people will scream for the military to go back into the fire. When they get bored again, they'll change their mind as easily as they originaly made their decision and expect everyone else to hup to.
Personally I have no respect for politicians or "leaders" who don't wear the uniform and take a stand for what they supposedly believe in. Anyone can flip burgers, manage a store or sit at home and pop out kids. That takes no effort and is a life entirely dedicated to one's self. Clinton, Obama, Romney and Huckabee are nothing but life long oppurtunist like 99% of Americans who do nothing but what is in their best interest. This is fine of course, because this is what those who make sacrifices for America want everyone else to do, but I'll be damned if some average, mercenary, self involved civilians are going to claim they have a clue what selfless service and dedication mean.
/endrant
Re: Republicans on verge of bailing on McCain
Who was screaming to kill arabs in Iraq? Bush, and only Bush. I don't know anyone that was opposed to the actual war on terror. All Bush did was create an easy battlefield for those people to come to.
The war on terror will NEVER be won as long as a battlefield exists in Iraq.
James do you think about what you write before you post it? Republicans are going to endorse Obama or Hillary over McCain because McCain "wants to pass out green cards" and stay the course in Iraq. Maybe you don't watch the debates or read proposed policies, but both Obama and Hillary are for a much more stronger "amnesty" program than the one proposed by McCain.
There's a key difference. Obama and Hillary don't try and pass themselves off as conservatives.
McCain's 100 year war is so commonly misquoted and used under false pretenses, I almost immediately ignore someone when they raise the point. His point is that we'll stay in Iraq until the region is secure; Obama and Hillary have said the same.
So you ignore something McCain said, and others who bring it up? Sounds like the strategy he will use, which will play a role in his defeat.
Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh represent the neo-con sector of the Republican party or far right if you will. If McCain dominates Super Tuesday, and he will, I can't see how the Coulters can keep saying McCain isnt't being chosen by Republicans. For once we have a candidate who truly crosses party lines to do what's best for America, and people are attacking him because he doesn't blindly stick to an ideology.
I love how republicans worship those people when it suits their needs, but then are quick to distance themselves from them as soon as they don't agree with the shit they spew.
This party is a fucking mess.
If it's "The Economy Stupid" why would you want to put people in office who will raise taxes and implement more social programs, the biggest ever being social medicine, and plunder more of our money?
Lets present ourselves with two choices..
Choice one: a president who spends constantly yet makes sure tax revenue is coming in to pay for it so we don't sink even further than we already are.
Choice two: a president who spends constantly but doesn't care where the money comes from even though our dollar is collapsing because of it and could send us into a depression.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out choice one is the only logical choice. You might have a desire for your money to become worthless, but I sure don't.
It amazes me that the same people who were screaming Freedom Fries and for the head of every Arab in 2001-2003 are now backtracking at the exspense of others. They chose not to serve and dodge bullets for their cause, but now that they think their pocket book may be crimped, they're willing to gamble with national security. As soon as we get attacked again, the same tempermental people will scream for the military to go back into the fire. When they get bored again, they'll change their mind as easily as they originaly made their decision and expect everyone else to hup to.
War on Terror and the war in Iraq are two separate things.
Personally I have no respect for politicians or "leaders" who don't wear the uniform and take a stand for what they supposedly believe in. Anyone can flip burgers, manage a store or sit at home and pop out kids. That takes no effort and is a life entirely dedicated to one's self. Clinton, Obama, Romney and Huckabee are nothing but life long oppurtunist like 99% of Americans who do nothing but what is in their best interest. This is fine of course, because this is what those who make sacrifices for America want everyone else to do, but I'll be damned if some average, mercenary, self involved civilians are going to claim they have a clue what selfless service and dedication mean.
Are you referring to the draft dodger currently in office?
Re: Republicans on verge of bailing on McCain
Regarding Iraq, this is pretty much my feelings on it...
If we HAD to go in there, then we should have bombed them back into the stone age and got the hell out of there. I don't think many were opposed to an actual military operation. The opposition comes from the implementation of it.
Lets look at some of the mission objectives:
Get Hussein....accomplished
WMD...none there so its irrelevant
The various violation of UN resolutions....The regime has been destroyed, so its irrelevant.
So what are we doing there? I don't remember any mission objectives that said we were gonna police the region and fight terrorists on a battlefield we created.
Our presence there doesn't help anything.
Re: Republicans on verge of bailing on McCain
If it's "The Economy Stupid" why would you want to put people in office who will raise taxes and implement more social programs, the biggest ever being social medicine, and plunder more of our money?
/endrant
Much like you 'dismiss' people who quote McCain's 100 year war statement, I laugh at people who say Democrats raise taxes. Do you make over 150K, no offense, but I doubt it. Then chances are Democrats will not raise your taxes. It's called trickle down economics, Reagan invented it. Republicans redduce taxes TO THE EXTREMELY RICH, thinking if they spend more, it provides more jobs in retail, mgmt, marketing etc. That's the THEORY, although in use, it doesn't really work (how's the economy under Bush). Democrats beleive the opposite, tax the extremely rich more, and give breaks to the middle class, and programs, college funds etc. If you disagree with Democrats that's one thing, but to include yourself in categories your not in is being mislead. And Republicans are in no position to talk about responsible fiscal spending. As James has often pointed out, this regime spends money like it grows on trees. Reagan raised the national debt, Clinton balances the budget, and Bush blows it all and raises the national debt exponentially. How are the Republicans the frugal one's is beyond me.
Also, the Democrats can simply shift the spending from not wasteful spending on thsi war. And no, Obama nor Clinton will not agree to being there 100 years. Nor should we. They both stated at some point Iraq will need to take ownership and become responsible for their own country, and they should. (both said 1 year to 1 1/2) Why should we occupy and police Iraq?! Don't say terrorist because they're also in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. Sure insurgents are resisting our troops, but if we overthrew other governments we'd have the same thing. If we fought Columbia Drug lords would be attacking us. If we fought most African countries (Kenya, Libya, Somalia) their dictators army would be fighting us. We INVADED them. If a country invaded us, either the North or the South, during our Civil war don't you think either of them (North or South) would have fought back.
We fought the wrong war. The people wanted to fight a war on terror, instead we're in the Iraq War. Huge difference. I understand the need for a military service being in charge, but that's what the Commander in Chief is for (Norman Swazkopf for example). We're are not, and should not become a Military State, I don't think most free countries are. There's alot involved with government (economics, foreign relations, domestic issues & spending), it isn't all war all the time. Also, as to why people have turned (I personally was not for the war from the start, and with friends would argue with other friends that the war was going to be ridiculous from the start. The friends who we'd argue with have since turned) is they recalled, and were under the impression, the war would be in & out. Remember the 3 days of bombing, Rumsfeld said he's never seen a war fought with such precision as it was being handled. That was Day 1 or Day 2, then George Bush on the aircraft carrier stated his infamous "Mission Accomplished" statement. Now coming up on 6 years later, we're still at war. And I know alot of good is being done over there, but alot of good could be done in many countries. Including our own. We are not the World Police. You can say Saddam was an evil dictator, but Kim Jung Il of North Korea is likely worse, we don't even know how bad things are over there (can't get in or out). And I'll tell you, starting a war with Iran could be a major fuckup. That is serious shit right there, a bees nest. Literall, a nuclear war could start, I'm not fucking around. The military supporters can say, so what, we'll win, but getting a bomb dropped in the US because we start a war with them also is no victory in my mind. Do not fuck with them. (Yeah, go ahead, call me chicken or scared or whatever you want. If you do I hope the bomb gets dropped on your city then not mine.)
Pages: 1
