Reply With Quote
Paul is who I'd like to see, but he doesn't have a chance in because he's not who the establishment wants to see in there *sigh*.
At this point my major concern is that it's anyone but Hillary.
Did I even claim that Romney flip flopped at all?
The answer to that simple question is no, bag.
Your dumb ass simply inferred incorrectly.
He flips -- over even the most trivial things. He can't be counted upon to maintain any position. Somehow you find that desirable in a candidate, eh?
Why don't I see Battlefield Earth listed on his website as one of his favorite books?
Paul is who I'd like to see, but he doesn't have a chance in because he's not who the establishment wants to see in there *sigh*.
At this point my major concern is that it's anyone but Hillary.
Romney feigned interest in pro-choice and gay marriage rights in Massachusetts. McCain authored at least 2 major pieces of legislation which were diametrically opposed to conservative GOP positions as a US senator, not to mention he voted against the Bush tax cuts of 2001.
That said, McCain has the only winning general election formula for a GOP candidate if he faces Clinton with his appeal to independent and moderate voters.
Yeah but HC, it is going to be like holding your nose and
voting for a dimm when you vote for McCain.
I just don't see that...
Based on everything I've seen, McCain is for small government and would use the majority of the federal budget on national defense, which he views as the top responsibility bestowed upon the government by its people.
There won't be a rash of government-funded social programs or an increase in the size of government under McCain I do not believe.
Sure, McCain has voted contrary to conservative thought on some issues, but he's not going to continue to spend this country into oblivion. That's my main concern with the democratic candidate, who will most likely have a rash of social programs they'll look to bolster and at least one they'll look to invent (universal healthcare).
Bottom Line: There are some VERY distinct differences between McCain and either of the democratic candidates vying for the nomination....especially on the role and size of government.
"role and size of govt" is and has been a priority of the Repugs for 30+ years.
Reagan did all about the size of govt while running up the deficit 3x. He fired a bunch air-traffic controllers and did a lot of union-busting as demanded by the corps, but he didn't even scratch the govt dragon.
dubya did all about the size of govt while making sure the govt privatized many functions into the no-bid/cost-plus grubby hands of his cronies. dubya also made sure that he politicized and ed up every bit of govt professionalism he could find.
Execs will come and go, but the govts under the Execs have been repeatedly proven to be effectively unassailable.
I think the best an Exec can hope for is to increase efficiency of the govt, not reduce its size or complexity.
And then there is the rapacious, untouchable, gluttonously wasteful military budget financing high-tech, junk toys to go fight asymmetrically with ragheads sporting AK47s and RPGs.
"Semper Fi" is short for "Semper Fiscalis".
I love it when the Dims spout off at how horrible Reagan was. I guess they seem to forget how he won both of his elections by huge margins, THE HORROR, THE HORROR!!! Clinton couldnt even get a majority of 50% of the country to vote for him."role and size of govt" is and has been a priority of the Repugs for 30+ years.
Reagan did all about the size of govt while running up the deficit 3x. He fired a bunch air-traffic controllers and did a lot of union-busting as demanded by the corps, but he didn't even scratch the govt dragon.
dubya did all about the size of govt while making sure the govt privatized many functions into the no-bid/cost-plus grubby hands of his cronies. dubya also made sure that he politicized and ed up every bit of govt professionalism he could find.
Execs will come and go, but the govts under the Execs have been repeatedly proven to be effectively unassailable.
I think the best an Exec can hope for is to increase efficiency of the govt, not reduce its size or complexity.
And then there is the rapacious, untouchable, gluttonously wasteful military budget financing high-tech, junk toys to go fight asymmetrically with ragheads sporting AK47s and RPGs.
"Semper Fi" is short for "Semper Fiscalis".
Getting elected president by any margin is totally different from performing the job of President. Getting elected is mostly a superficial beauty contest (dubya is ugly). Reag was Hollywood guy who hit his marks and learned his lines, and had a great voice. Running the Exec is supposedly a little more difficult.
And using Reagan's election margins as indicative of something positive about his actual performance invites us to point out dubya lost the 2000 election by 600K votes and winning as bogus "war president" in 2004 with the smallest winning in bent margin, combined with his disastrous, totally ed up performane in office. So what do dubya's margins telll us about dubya's performance in office?
Who said I was happy with Dubya's performance? He''s too much of a Boufon type leader.
To the extent that McCain is a "maverick" for chastening fellow Republican senators about earmarks and corporate welfare, that's a good thing. The problem lies in that his major legislative efforts amount to conservative apostasy (ie McCain-Feingold & McCain-Kennedy).
I forget, but I guess he voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Puffing up his chest about earmarks amounting to a few billon per year while having no qualms about another half trillion+ addition to an en lement program is a bit rich.
Anyways, should Clinton win the Demo nomination then most Republican conservatives will find Jesus and support McCain in the general. McCain's campaign is built first and foremost on his bio, specifically his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton. Next it is built on the War on Terror and like it or not, there hasn't been a follow up attack to 9-11 on American soil. Third, he is making Iraq about victory or defeat. While the war is unpopular, defeat is even moreso for a majority of Americans. Clinton has high negatives and her changing stances on Iraq make her rather vulnerable.
Obama, however, can take out McCain. He's been clearly against the war and people like him. Plus his candidacy is just as appealing to independents and moderates, if not moreso.
So, giving all the illegals amnesty (and hence adding them to the tab for Medicare and SS) won't add to our social program liability?There won't be a rash of government-funded social programs or an increase in the size of government under McCain I do not believe.
"there hasn't been a follow up attack to 9-11 on American soil."
If McCain is implicated in post-9/11 attacklessness, then he's implicated in pre-9/11 dereliction of duty.
"defeat is even moreso for a majority of Americans"
Most Americans, the overwhelming majority against the war and dubya now, do not simplistically consider the Iraq war as representing AMERICA's defeat, or even the defeat of the under-manned/equipped military, but only a defeat for dubya/ head/neo- s/supporters and the incompetent, ideological mother ers they installed to run Iraq.
For the millionth time,
dubya/ head/neo- s/supporters .DOES.NOT.EQUAL. USA
Perhaps for the lunatic fringe. The sane won't care.
Like it or not it won't be hard to paint a withdrawal as a cut and run. Americans love a winner and as much as they hate this war, they hate the thought of losing even more.
"defeat is even moreso for a majority of Americans"
Most Americans, the overwhelming majority against the war and dubya now, do not simplistically consider the Iraq war as representing AMERICA's defeat, or even the defeat of the under-manned/equipped military, but only a defeat for dubya/ head/neo- s/supporters and the incompetent, ideological mother ers they installed to run Iraq.
And for the trillionth time, your reality is shared by a few. Also, don't be surprised if the US is still in Iraq in 4 years even if a Demo is elected this time around.For the millionth time,
dubya/ head/neo- s/supporters .DOES.NOT.EQUAL. USA
Here's what I don't understand about the anti-path-to-citizenship position....
Why the would any illegal immigrant give him/herself up when the result will be the same as if they get caught while hiding out?
Huckabee's shtick about people "holding their heads high" means all when you're talking about providing for your family.
I have a hard time believing any plan to deal with illegal immigration that results ultimately in the deportation of said illegals is going to be successful. There has to be something in it for them.
Finally, your point has one fundamental flaw. If they're given a path to citizenship then they pay the same taxes as everyone else that support the medicare/ss programs they become a part of. It's theoretically not a net loss.
Stop complaining. Then don't vote if its that bad.
THE WAR ON TERROR. You still spinning that slogan? The Terror is there because of the US occupation. "Yankee go home" because the US invasion is responsible for the anti american scare tactic attacks on civilians in Iraq. How many suicide bombings were happening before the US invaded Iraq?
You spin 9-11 then why did the US still not get Bin Laden who was behind 9-11? Maybe 9-11 is not so important after all. You mean to tell me the mighty US still can't capture Bin Laden after all these years?
9-11 was an isolated incident carried out by a small group. Iraq or the US being in Iraq has nothing to do with no incidents on american soil since 9-11.
No, but McCain is.
Again, not spinning, but that's what McCain is saying and it's not an easily dismissed message. Who wants to tell the American people that they are going to lose in an election year? McCain is playing up the surge and so far, in the public eye, it's working.The Terror is there because of the US occupation. "Yankee go home" because the US invasion is responsible for the anti american scare tactic attacks on civilians in Iraq. How many suicide bombings were happening before the US invaded Iraq?
You spin 9-11 then why did the US still not get Bin Laden who was behind 9-11? Maybe 9-11 is not so important after all. You mean to tell me the mighty US still can't capture Bin Laden after all these years?
Doesn't matter. The public doesn't want to vote for a defeat. McCain is making his campaign about victory, be it in Iraq or in the greater 'War on Terror.'9-11 was an isolated incident carried out by a small group. Iraq or the US being in Iraq has nothing to do with no incidents on american soil since 9-11.
You silly, silly, person. If you had a brain you would
take it out and play with it.
It would be absolutely impossible to answer you questions.
Why? Because we might use words you would have
a hard time understanding.
What a twerp!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
