Comments for McCain faces doubts among Republican conservatives »
Posted By ybdogsct 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsRepublicans used the PA, IN, and NC primaries to register their unhappiness with McCain by voting for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. In Penn, 27% opted for Huckabee or Paul; in N Carolina and Indiana, McCain opponents earned 23% of the vote. The Washington Times calculated that McCain had garnered no more than 45% of the Republican vote.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 323 of 324 Comments
-
Neutral
TheRealizer1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
blinkers1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, that's certainly true (though Obama looks rather distinguished to me), but you'd find similar sentiments expressed in most of the genuine democracies around the world, about the choices before the electorates.
Japan and Italy, in particular stand out in this regard. Fukuda and Berlesconi seem to be, respectively, a nonentity and a rogue!
I wonder if there are any academic studies on why this seems to be so widespread.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's one. This was written about America, but its basic principles have been borne out in all democracies.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_ind...
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WOW there is 11 attempts to sink this. I think you are gett under someones skin. Look, how long can you lie to people before they realize that you are. I am just shocked that it took these guys this long to realize this fact about the GOPers.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This doesn't bode well for McCain at all. Nope. My guess is that a lot of Republicans who were thoroughly disillusioned, duped, and basically repeatedly lied to by Bush are going to stay home and chill out on the barcalounger on election day. And who could blame them, really? The party had control of all three branches of government for 6 years and what do they have to show for it? Extreme and disgraceful failure everywhere you turn. It's like they can't even turn on the TV without being reminded that what they got for their loyalty to Bush, Cheney and Big Oil are record national debt, $4 gas, $4 milk, incompetence, corruption, lies, destruction of the planet, and the disgust and disdain from the international community. Cosmic failure beyond all comprehension. McCain will be lucky to get a quarter of the vote Bush got in his second term. Oh well...
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
libsRfunny,
I usually don't call people out for negative votes--it's your prerogative.
But why would you neg my comment that included a link to the full text of Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," which is still taught today in most high-school history classes as one of the most incisive analyses of the pros and cons of democracy?
Is it simply too long for you to read?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beau7890 - He does that to anyone that doesn't agree with his way of thinking, He will neg anything I post, if even it says god is good! I will make a post that gets 50 pos and one neg, however, this is how you know you are on point because he only does that to those who's makes sense. It's just stupid because he doesen't like McCain!
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Id hesitate a guess to say the figures being presented are the ones who can be manipulated by the real powers that be. If you look at the REPUBLICAN candidates since RayGun they have fallen into the senile, althzhiemer, idiot category (with possibly the exception of Bush I who is a string puller). They can easily be manipulated by the men behind the curtain.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
DaneL1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dumbkirk,
You know I am amazed with reality. I wake up every morning and know that anything I want to accomplish I can if I want it bad enough and willing to work for it.
You on the other hand wake up everyday and see nothing but negative. I really feel sorry for you.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama is the first candidate I have ever been excited about in my life.
He is a populist instead of a `party` candidate. The establishment on the right has chosen YET another immoral, unethical flip-flopping puppet in John McCain. The establishment on the left has chosen Hillary, because let`s face it, the Clintons are a huge part of that establishment for good or bad.
Which is why of all three candidates, I am excited about Obama! It`s time to take back OUR govt.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm with TheRealizer on this one. Obama has beautiful rhetoric, for sure. He also had no positions on issues when he started campaigning, and voted "present" instead of making decisions on hard issues in the senate
He's also supporting what democratic author Naomi Wolf warns against. He is very anti-second amendment (although he's tried to downplay it), and has served on a foundation that actually funds key gun-ban advocates.
I don't trust anyone who thinks s/he knows more than Thomas Jefferson, and I don't feel very comfortable with any one of the candidates.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'm with TheRealizer on this one. Obama has beautiful rhetoric, for sure. He also had no positions on issues when he started campaigning, and voted "present" instead of making decisions on hard issues in the senate"
--You sound extremely dangerously misinformed (like someone who has been reading right wing campaign literature without using your brain even once to research the other side). Lots of talking points in your post which makes you sound like an obvious plant or a conned sheep. What have you bothered to do in the way of research to understand why Obama holds the positions he does? I suspect very, very little. ;-(
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's an interesting change of tactics. The anti-Obama crowd use to claim Obama has no substance and that he has no clear policy direction. Now that it is obvious he DOES, they are switching to, "We'll he HAD no positions early in his campaign."
WTF?
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hear ya...I'm always suspicious of posters whose comments are spiked with stale sound bites about Obama. For instance, why must I read for the million time (and yet phrased in a way that clearly suggest the poster believes he or she originated the observation) that Obama is articulate? Or about this voting "present" nonsense (which he has responded to repeatedly)? LOL Is there a living soul left on the planet who doesn't know that Barack Obama is a liberal? That Obama "has beautiful rhetoric" isn't some groundbreaking news and when I see simplistic CRAP like that post, I don't have to wonder how our country has deteriorated to the sh*thole it is today. WTF, indeed.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meso, I've reviewed every bill he's sponsored and many he has cosponsored at the national and state levels; read his own words; reviewed his activity with groups such as the Joyce Foundation, the U.N., etc.; and pretty much read everything I find about him.
On key presidential-level policy, he pretty much parroted Clinton until he found his own legs (which he did). "Change we can believe in" just seems empty to me.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I'm flattered you read my post.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"meso, I've reviewed every bill he's sponsored and many he has cosponsored at the national and state levels; "
--I see...I find it breathtaking that, after reading all of the more than 800 bills he submitted in the Illinois State Senate, somehow you were still left with the impression that he "had no positions on issues." Fascinating. Even more intriguing is the fact that you are perplexed that Hillary and Obama hold similar (if not identical) views on certain issues. You see, the problem I have with your post above is that there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that you've done any kind of fact checking about Obama. I've lost track of the number of times the question of his voting "present" came up in interviews and debates, but you write as if you're just learning of his voting record today. And why are you pretending that you're *completely* clueless regarding the Democratic Party's political agenda? This is the part I don't get...
Reply-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MD-btw, I didn't say "read," I said "reviewed." I have no idea how many there are--I just looked up his name and the bills he sponsored and skimmed through them. You can stop putting words in my mouth, if you don't mind. And you seem clueless yourself if you think all the democrats follow the same political agenda. That's one reason we have primaries. The nuances can be significant even if a candidate adopts an entire general platform.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How can he have no positions on issues, but be very anti-second amendment? I hear that a lot, in variations.
Does that go with him being an elitist but a socialist?
And Obama probably feels he knows better than Jefferson, on at least one subject.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
memestryker's post reminds me of one of those cute little campaign postcards some candidates send out at election time. You know, the ones with a photo of the candidate kissing a baby or hugging a bunny or planting a rainforest or whatever politicians do to appear human these days and with a handful of bullets listing their opponent's shortcomings. Anyway, it's as if some people read the bulleted statements on the card but the critical thinking switch in their brain (the one that in normal people says, "find out what the opponent is saying in his or her defense) shorts out and remains stuck in the off position. Wow...
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He was weak on major issues like healthcare at the beginning of his campaign, and then started to sound like Clinton before he finally developed it later in the game.
He's been doggedly anti-second amendment, even serving as a board member on the Joyce Foundation, which spends huge sums of money funding the most extreme anti-second amendment organizations, and he supports the U.N.'s citizen disarmament program (see their Millenium Declaration at http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares55...
Elitists like to disarm everyone else. Here is a taste of what others might be calling his "socialism": http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He's been doggedly anti-second amendment, even serving as a board member on the Joyce Foundation, which spends huge sums of money funding the most extreme anti-second amendment organizations"
--See, again you're writing as if these are bombshells. I believe the majority of Democrats support some degree of gun control and, in general, Democrats are for diplomacy over senselessly funding the military industrial complex. These aren't issues that require super sleuthing to learn what his positions are. Yet, based on your words, it would seem that this was the first Presidential election in the entire history of elections and you're discovering the Democratic party's platform this year. Are you a new citizen? I'm just curious...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No problem.
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think he's unbeatable, with the right running mate. He's well-spoken and inspirational. I honestly hope he's as good as people believe he is and not just another Jimmy Carter.
I knew he was in the game when he clearly and publicly stated his own opinion with respect to those expressed by Pastor Wright. He took care of business.
I think I already provided links and data to support my "allegations" in an earlier post. Let me know if there is something specific I missed.
Don't get me wrong--I may well vote for him (after I see his running mate).
Prohibition (alcohol, abortion, guns, or most products and services) simply pushes items onto the black market. I remember when abortion was illegal--and common. Restrictions are moving it back into the black market. Drugs are illegal and common. Guns are easy to make, so criminals would love to capture that market. I'd like to see Obama state the obvious.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would be especially FOR my constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense if I lived on the West Side of Chicago.
Do some homework on his involvement with the Joyce Foundation (who funds anti-gun extremists who pose as "non-violence educators to get 501(c)3 non-profit status so donors can make tax-deductible donations); his support of disarming the U.S. under the auspices of the U.N. in the Millenium Declaration; his endless attempts to ban semi-automatics, handguns, and rifles (using Horwitz' "assault weapon" terminology to scare people), and it goes on.
I am totally with Mr. O on many issues, but I think he is dead wrong on thinking that disarming law-abiding citizens or making laws that turn them into instant felons is going to stop lunatics and criminals from manufacturing, distributing, possessing, and using guns. Prohibition doesn't work for abortion, for alcohol, for drugs, and it won't work for guns. Period.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Americans in general are too violent and poorly educated for us to distribute guns to everyone as if it were candy. If the people in Congress pushing for expanded gun rights were as enthusiastic about extending statehood rights to DC where I live (instead of imagining that every black person they see is armed and dangerous) their motives wouldn't be so questionable. By no means do I want to see more and bigger guns in the hands of people who voted for Bush. It's terrifying enough knowing they actually have the right to vote.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MD, Thomas Jefferson and a lot of other very bright people disagreed with you. They thought ordinary citizens were trustworthy, and would normally do the right thing. We've seen it play out repeatedly--at Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, New Life Ministries in Colorado, etc. See, for example, http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-m...
The Supreme Court actually upheld a lower court's ruling that the police have no duty to protect you. Citizens are responsible for their own self-defense. See http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protec...
Concealed carry weapon permitholders are less likely to commit crimes than the general population. Prior to the late 1960s, when most children were routinely taught safe firearms handling and played with toy guns, were around their family's hunting rifles and shotguns and dad's service pistol; drew them in school; could buy them at 14, etc., accidents and violence were rare.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I should add that, given the number of guns in private hands, accidents and violence is still very rare. Certain groups commit most of the violence, and it's not families that hung on to dad's pistol they once kept loaded in a drawer in case of home invasion (now it's locked up and unuseable in an emergency).
The statistics on dropped 911 calls are horrific--and 911 is useless if a violent crime is in progress. Most rapes and child molestations don't involve guns, and I consider those the most heinous crimes of all. Also--something that amazed me--about 95% of the time, all one has to do is show a gun--not even point it or use it, and the attacker will retreat or be controllable until police arrive.
Criminals and lunatics are the ones breaking the law, so abridging the constitutionally-protected rights of law-abiding citizens jeopardizes their safety and is unconstitutional.
Kids used to make guns in shop class, so banning them won't stop criminals from manufacturing them.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In all fairness to McCain and Obama, until recently we didn't have the statistics to show this. We still have funny stats floating around because of all the so-called "anti-violence" groups that are shills for gun-ban orgs so they can keep collecting those tax-deductible donations while they attack our Bill of Rights and give the U.N. more power over us.
Take the time to read the federalist/anti-federalist history to see what the Second Amendment means. The Supreme Court knowingly used their popular "judicial activism" in the 1930s to sideline the 2nd.
We're talking about the same SCOTUS that upheld unwarranted searches, seizures of private property with guilty until the accused proves himself innocent, and freedom of those providing tax-payer funded services to hire and fire based on religion.
Clinton knows the assault weapons ban was an abject failure and the stats never supported it to begin with, yet she's still for it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then you are obviously too young to remember Kennedy (JFK and RFK) back in the 60's. Both would have been elected had RFK not been assasinated in 1968.
Those of us who do remember those years see Obama as the same type of candidate. At least our generation has seen this twice in our lifetime.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's Amazing how sure these people are of what Obama is but in the same vain will remind that they don't know what he stands for, and have no idea whet he is all about.
This can only make sense to a person who follows like a lemming and does no thinking for themselves. I listen to rush for a bit yesterday and he is saying this same foolish crap. For the love of country please start to do some thinking of your own! It really makes you seem silly repeating what this guy says he is an idiot.
Reply -
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
JFK DID cut the marginal tax rates (at least as the percentage of tax appears on paper), but he actually raised them by closing the loopholes that the rich were using to avoid taxes. The result was that the rich actually DID pay more of their fair share...
Reply -
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
JFK was a fiscal conservative. Something a contemporary Republican would attack.
Obama sounds like he`s hawk enough to me. He intends to go after the terrorists and finish the job that Bush could not be bothered to start, despite Bush`s promises to not rest until OBL was brought to justice. Remember 9/11?
McCain has raised taxes, stolen private property for cronies, flip-flopped on the most important issues because of pressure from his own party (if he thinks that is pressure, how do you think he will stand up to the heat of the WH), he is for handouts for cronies, he is the opposite of a fiscal conservative, he is anti-vet, anti-child, anti-healthcare (hypocrite gets best socialized medicine in world), etc.
Many of the Republicans I know would rather vote for Obama than McCain.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting fact, IanFraigun: When RFK was young he aligned himself with McCarthy (communist witch-hunter). My perception is the democratic party has actually moved left since then. RFK was certainly well-loved.
Obama needs to be wary of Soros and keep him at arm's length, since Soros has actually stated that he welcomes the economic decline of the U.S. and the rise of China. Of course, Soros made his own money in the U.S.!
I actually suspected that, due to the extreme right turn of the Bush administration, we were going to have to snap left. My biggest concern is the Supreme Court, if you want to know the truth. I'd much rather see a dem appoint the next judge/s than a repub. That's the real legacy of a president.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He's a senator now but he got his start in politics by earning the seal of approval from community activist like Ayers & Reverend Wright and soon climbed the political ladder by gaining the trust ogf the Cook County Crooks who throughout Illinois history have stolen more elections than they actually won.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
obama could have taken the easy route and gotten any federal clerkship he wanted. He did graduate top of his class at Harvard Law, he`s a minority, and is internationally experienced. He could have had a job at any law firm in the nation in fact.
So, if all he was interested in was politics, do you really truly honestly believe he would give all that up to become a lowly community activist in a poor neighborhood in Chicago? Come on man, use your own head.
Its not like he dumped his wife and the mother of his three children for the money, political connections, and easy street or anything.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Look at Chicago! Do you want the rest of the Country to be like that. Obama District is FULL OF MURDERS AND SLUMS!"
--That sounds eerily similar to the transformation the Bush administration has brought to Iraq over the past five years. ;-(
Reply -
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lum:
You are an idiot. Obama doesn't control the police or the housing authority in his district. He's a senator, and he used to be a state senator.
America is full of murders and slums. How do you propose dealing with it? How does McCain or anyone else propose to deal with it?
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lum-chate,
The problem is that legislators focus on abridging rights--that's what they do all day. Since only law-abiding citizens obey laws, the laws are not that useful for catching criminals, who ignore them and are resourceful enough to work around them. But legislators just pass more and more laws to cover every little needling hole they think they may have left open, until more and more law-abiding citizens are in jail and the criminals continue to run loose.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lum-cate, give the man a break. We don't know how to solve poverty and crime, and we keep trying things that don't work. Social programs don't do it, corporatist programs don't do it, putting more people in prison doesn't do it, prohibiting more goods and services doesn't do it.
The real problem is both the repubs and dems think criminalizing more things so more ordinary citizens will go to jail will actually make a difference. It won't. They may jail them using different abridgements of rights, but it really doesn't matter much.
Right now we are suffering much like Mexico, where gangsters and cartels have backfilled behind laws with black markets. We need to figure out how to improve parent quality and mainstream the disenfranchised. Criminalizing behaviors and building more prisons doesn't do it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
SpareChange1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, you get candidates like these when it takes $100 million to run for president.
Change how campaigns are funded and we'll get different candidates.
Corporations are buying the candidates they want, we, as citizens, need to buy the candidates we want - and then not abandon them when the swift boaters show up.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course McCain and his camp are in doubt, NOW! They thought and hoped that Hillary was the nominee, they had plenty they could throw at her. Obama is a different story, and Democrats are registering in droves, especially young people. It's time for them to get scared.
The free pass the media gave McCain got him the nomination very early in the primary, it's not going to be as easy for him in the general.
CNN needs to get rid of Wolf Blitzer!! I hope he's not one of the debate moderators in the general, he is too biased.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
rightfromwrong1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wolf blitzer is a baffoon. A X jewish lobbyist and patriot of Israel.
Ron Paul would be great and I think in most cases the voting was rigged...his website always most got a massive number of hits and he had lots of donations from mostly small donors as he is not held hostage like the other candidates by corportism or the Jewish lobby group.
Reply -
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user32 Replies
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't be the only one who is sick of privileged brats running for office. We don't need royalty in the white house. We need someone to represent Americans who know what it is to shop in the supermarket, who have to budget food expenses, and who have to fill their cars with gas. When was the last time John McCain or George Bush stepped into a supermarket or had to juggle the food budget to make ends meet? (How about never!)
Reply -
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lokcy12:
You failed to recognize the truth, as usual. Obama is the only candidate that knows what it is like to live from meal to meal. With a single parent and the need for food stamps, he had to struggle to rise from his modest background. It was only a few years ago that he finished paying off his college loans. He did not get into Harvard because this father was an alumni. And he did not need to elude penalties for misconduct because his father was an admiral or a Washington insider.
Is it that you lack the awareness of who the candidates are, or the integrity to admit that Obama is the only candidate that did not grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth?
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive21 Replies
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Imagine poor John McCain and his family living off the govt teet and the worlds best socialist healthcare (despite having enough money to buy their own hospital chain). Meanwhile, McCain votes FIVE times AGAINST the slavery of military funding for the VA for those other Americans who got even less rice from the Viet Cong. (McCain got treated special by the VC, better than the others cuz of daddy - and now he treats them like dirt)
Reply-
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You gotta remember, some liberals HATE anything Republican so much they just make ****** up as they go.
Real special treatment, McCain was beaten daily, bayonetted, suffered broken bones, and nearly starved to death.
If you disagree with the man and his policies, that is fine. But making up BS like "McCain got treated special by the VC" is complete garbage anyone with any shred of integrity knows that.
But obviously alot of people don't know it because 7 of your liberal, full of hatred for Republicans, sheep gave that statement positives.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ahhh, I think you are misdirectin your outrage there dj.
I dont know where Lurch got that comment - but I can tell you that up until McCain won the nomination ... the only poeple I been hearin comments liek that from was .... fellow Conservatives.
One of the comments I heard from Republicans who DESPISED McCain was that he was a TRAITOR!
Again --- this is what REPUBLICANS were sayin.
They also called him a RINO. (Republican in Name Only)
Why?
Because he wasnt sufficiently insane about invadin other nations I spose.
THATS why he hadta promise to stay in Iraq forever. To appeal to the Vast Right Wing Insane Asylum.
See how the crazies are rulin the roost?
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goppy,
I think both the far left and far right are crazies, and it's gotten pretty similar to what we saw back when the Republicans were busy killing off church-state separation by adding "god" to everything in the 1950s and when the Democrats got busy with social programs to give away tax dollars instead of finding ways to allow people to be productive in exchange for them in the 1960s.
FDR was hated by the right for not just putting all those nasty begging-stealing street folk who lost their living and homes in the Great Depression in prison camps, and setting up work camps for them instead. But the right loves social programs like mortgage bail-outs!
The right fights to let capitalism run amok, so even people are commoditized, while the left says quick, there are lunatics and criminals attacking us--let's disarm ourselves!
Reply -
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goppy,
You know me, I don`t make up a thing. So, here ya go:
A former Vietnamese Communist Party official is claiming Sen. John McCain was "quickly singled out for softer treatment" as a POW because "he was the son of an American admiral. Phung Van Chung, 70, who was a Communist Party official at the time McCain was captured said "top" Vietnamese leaders wanted to use McCain "for negotiations." Chung also said McCain is refusing "to acknowledge" the heroism of Mai Van On, a Vietnamese peasant who the Vietnamese say swam out during the bombing raid and rescued McCain from drowning.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
Despite the torture, I find it interesting that the Vietnamese saved McCain`s life a couple of times, yet he calls them, `gooks`.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, btw, the complete garbage you said I posted, the link is above. Also, a two-second google search will get you plenty more.
Myself, I heard about this months ago on a documentary I saw on PBS.
Thought it was no big-deal at the time, but now with the anti-vet (voted against VA funding 5 times) McCain trying to run on his POW status, it just makes me sick.
Anytime you need educating, I`m yer man. Cheers.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
heh, if that vet-hater McCain is going to try to run on his military background (he`s got nothing else, I know), then you had better get ready for some serious doses of reality.
Everybody who knows any of McCain`s history knows the only reason he survived passed day two was because the VC found out they had the admiral`s own son. THEN they gave him medicine and brought him back to health.
Yes, they treated him better than the other POWs, and he turns around and denies them their VA funding.
BTW, you have a strange way of thanking someone for the education. [you`re welcome]
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lurch:
McCain is entirely wrong in his poor support for veterans, and for benefits to those still fighting. You are correct that he has the typical attitude of a rich republican; let the poor eat flags.
But don't mess with McCain's service in the war. He fought, he was a prisoner for years, he was brave; he was tortured.
Honor McCain's service the way they should have honored John Kerry's service.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No worries. I have no intention of attacking the medals or honors he earned. Also, you will note that I have never attacked and never will attack the statement he signed under threat of torture. That is beyond politics and uncalled for.
However, I will tell the truth and show his hypocrisy. He had it very bad, others had it even worse, and now, I feel he is stabbing them and others in the back.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Locky took off the blinders long enough to investigate the issues and the candidates stances vs previous words/actions, he would be supporting Obama right now.
If Americans would be informed enough to vote in their own self-interest, there would be no more Republican Party, at least not as we know it.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Heh heh heh. Nostalgia said:
"Is that code for "what can the government give me that they take from someone else"?"
THATS WHAT GW SAID when he got the goverment of Arlington to build his stadium!
Oh man!
We Republicans sure do know how to divert money from the middle classes to aide the wealthy!!
Its liek a religion for us!
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WEll unfortunately Goppy the voters in Arlington didn't listen when they voted for that fiasco
It's not like they weren't warned
And it may surprise you to learn that there were many Republicans in the area speaking out against it
Many Democrats pushed for it - economic development you know?? More jobs, they said. Guess selling hot dogs and beer were the "jobs" they kept touting
AND the voters in Arlington repeated their same mistake again - they voted for the Cowboys new stadium. The Democrats again told them - economic development, more jobs
Those voters in Arlington are VERY slow learners!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many Demos may have pushed for it.
But it was GWs plan all the way. Dint matter that the cabal GW was associated with coulda afforded to build the stadium themselves 4 times over.
GW saw that effectively usin his connections, he could get goverment to build the stadium FOR them!
Soon after it was built, he sold his share for a cool profit of $17 Million.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama is mostly an unknown, other than reviewing his record in Illinois, since he voted "present" and let other votes decide issues in the U.S. Senate.
He's finally got a platform together, but I'd like to see him adopt a slogan more substantial than "change we can believe in." Not real change--just Santa Claus change. He cherry-picks the Constitution, as all the candidates do, which I think is a bad idea.
I think the First and Second Amendments are first and second for a reason that the founders understood only too well. And I didn't realize until recently that civics is no longer required in middle school, so the bit of history and government people learn in high school is all they get to help them understand all three branches of government and the Constitution and its history. Frightening. If they don't understand how the system works, what are they really voting for?
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can read a "present" vote in Illinois as a "no." It has the same effect.
Obama's had his detailed platform on his website as a downloadable PDF (as opposed to the summary, which is simply listed on the "issues" page) since the beginning of his campaign, but most people didn't bother looking for it.
What difference does it make what his slogan is to people who look at issues?
You say all candidates "cherry-pick" the Constitution--I'd extend that to say all elected officials do. Hardly anyone wants to take every part of the Constitution literally. (I'd be happy if Congress would try to clarify the sections they don't agree with, and if they'd begin movements to amend them--it'd be more honest than what we see now. But that's another issue entirely.)
What's your opinion of the 9th and 10th amendments, and how they've been subverted since John Adams' day?
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I read his platform. I thought it was pretty weak. He's filled in a lot with his more recent speeches.
I disagree his slogan is to people who look at issues. I think it's vague so people's emotions and imagination can fill in the blanks.
And I'd say all people cherry-pick (not just politicians). We all have our bias and our own filter.
You first on the 9th and 10th, since I don't know your angle. I just wrote something and decided not to post it for that reason.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All slogans are vague enough to allow people's emotions to fill in the blanks. That's why they're slogans--much like advertising taglines. They're not meant to promote any real thinking. (Think "Just do it," "Think different," or "I'm lovin' it." Or "Building a bridge to the 21st century" or "a kinder and gentler America," or "compassionate conservatism.")
I'm not a fan of sloganeering either, but all candidates use them, and people seem to need a simplistic hook to latch on to. What I meant is that people who look at issues don't use slogans to prove anything--they're simply rhetorical devices. You can't formulate a complex and detailed position in a slogan, and that's not what they're used for.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My opinion on the 9th and 10th amendments is that we'd be living in a very different country if they'd been taken seriously for the past 200 years. Good or bad, centuries of legal opinions have changed their interpretation and use from what may have been the founders' meaning. That ship has sailed--short of revolution, there's no way to change back to their original intent.
I'd say the 2nd amendment is the same as the 9th and 10th in that way. Regardless of anyone's position about whether it requires a "well Regulated Militia," individuals simply can't force the government to adhere to its commitments by using firearms. It's just not possible today--we'd be outgunned, literally. So that argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the 2nd is moot.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think Obama wants to change the interpretation of the 1st amendment, or that he'd want to continue Bush's "unitary executive theory" and further destroy the balance between branches of government, as I took your original comment to imply. Please explain what you meant.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your "outgunned" argument doesn't hold. Basic civil disobedience using hardly any guns and mostly rocks and fire were enough to make government back down in the late 1960s, and the same thing occurred earlier, during the industrial revolution when capitalists just fired workers whose arms were cut off when machines malfunctioned.
We've seen asymmetrical warfare work during the American Revolution against the British, and in Vietnam and Iraq against the U.S.
I think the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the 2nd is what keeps fascists and totalitarians of all kinds honest. And Montana's statehood agreement says that, if you infringe the 2nd, Montana stops being a state. I read that Texas and Louisiana may push to be something besides states if it goes too far--just good friends and trading partners with the rest of the "U.S." Lots of repercussions.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The government of the late '60s was nowhere near as stubborn or single-minded as the government of today. And I'm not sure what you're referring to anyway--what did the government back down on at that time?
They tear-gassed students en masse (not just the ones rioting) in Berkeley and on other campuses; they shot four students dead at Kent State, and police rioted throughout downtown Chicago. What changed that the protestors wanted?
But your argument also negates the need for guns. Rocks and nonviolence should work, as you said. When citizens bring out the guns, the government will come in with the military. And this is not Iraq, where the insurgents can hide out until we pull back--it's the same country where the military is based. There is no way the U.S. populace can use guns to rebel against the government.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK. Madison spoke of two prongs to the 9th--the people retaining rights and government not expanding power, which he thought were the same thing. So the 9th made this explicit to cover any place it might be construed otherwise, although it was already implicit in the Constitution itself and explicit in some, but not all, amendments. The 2nd explicitly states this, and the 9th adds teeth. But power elites don't care about little details like constitutions or rule of law.
On the 10th, we know that power elites are not above seeking out the infamous "loophole" themselves when it suits their bias. So states can be coerced to apply unconstitutional federal laws through sanctions. But on the 2nd, most states joined the Union under specific conditions, and those states that don't specifically have a right similar to the 2nd generally say they automatically follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Maryland does this, for example).
Continued.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So...don't vote for anyone who won't revert to the original intent of the 9th and 10th amendments? How practical is that? And I for one have a hard time imagining how the nation would work in today's day and age without a strong federal government imposing at least somewhat uniform rules on the states.
For all practical purposes, if the 10th amendment were taken literally, we'd have a collection of 50 nations--likely often at odds or even war with each other.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And as I said, ALL politicians do the same thing. If you don't believe me, look at advertising. It's very effective, and it relies predominantly on emotional appeals. The sad truth is, people don't buy features of products; they buy an emotional pitch. (How else would you explain the tech sector's immense popularity, though they come out with new products with more bells and whistles--that often don't work properly--before fixing the old problems?)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The food stamp claim is a little misleading
Have you read the interview he gave to Joe Klein in 2006??
"I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D."
If you look at the information in his books:
His mother was getting her PhD from 1974-1977
Obama was in an expensive private prep school in Hawaii. During that time Madelyn Dunham, Obama's grandmother, was Vice-President at the Bank of Hawaii
Hardly a background of poverty
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And you can see exactly who they are by the negs!
Wouldn't you think that if you were going to support someone in a political campaign, you would want to learn as much as possible about them??
I doubt that many of them have actually read the books he wrote let alone go back and read the interviews he has given!
Reply-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many of us HAVE read Barack Obama's books and HAVE done our own research and we like what we see...
Have YOU read "The Audacity of Hope"? Have YOU actually gone beyond your usual biased sources in order to form your OWN opinion? Or are you just talking out of your a**?
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scott I certainly did read it
I didn't get past the prologue before red flags stated to go up
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." and "My treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete" were disturbing
Over 350 pages as I recall and nothing of substance
Reply-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I fail to see how anyone could read that book and not be inspired as an American.
But then, I read it with an open mind ...after I'd initially supported another candidate. I did not read it with any preconceived notions.
Could you actually say the same?
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama speaks and writes with a lot of feeling. His actual public background gives even more insights into what he might actually do in office. How did he vote on issues before coming to the Senate? Whose company has he kept over the years as far as political alliances go? At given points in time, who was by his side as he took positions on issues? Where he's served on boards, what were the primary activities of those organizations while he was an encumbent?
I also don't give McCain a pass. He's demonstrated dogged social conservativm on some issues, was tricked by war-mongers (I was, too--that Colin Powell C-SPAN presentation was convincing enough that I didn't act on my own gut instinct about Iraq). I don't trust him at all--especially since he has actively sought to disarm ordinary citizens.
My grades: Church-state separation (Obama D/McCain F), freedom of speech (McCain F/Obama unknown), and right to keep and bear arms (McCain D/Obama F).
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Truth is as truth does.
We Righties still support GW ... and hes been proven to be in the highest tier of bold faced liars this nation has seen!
But we certainly forgive him because ... well ... for one thing ... hes OUR liar ... for another ... he lies in aparticularly partisan manner that we liek.
IE, he uses FEAR as his reasons for lyin so much..
We Righties LIEK that.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You left out his sleight-of-hand, pushing HR 1955, for example. He also has supported private prisons, which even his religious base is mostly against.
Heck, he'd like to give cells rights and imprison any man who wears a condom or any women who uses foam for birth control!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
vidman041 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Considering Locky and aceofspades contributions on this thread, I might as well sit back and watch FOX news for the cheap shots and mindless slurs."
As opposed to the BS the others have posted? You people kill me, your point of view is ALWAYS right, anyone not agreeing with you is ALWAYS wrong...what big fricking EGOS you have..
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Comeon now ... if you want big ego and mindless slurs posin as BS... Check out THIS little ditty.
-------------
I'm from North Carolina and it doesn't surprise me that he got 90% of the black vote. Most of them are uneducated and living on welfare in the area I'm from, so electing him assures them more government handouts....most wouldn't know anything about any issue, they just want a black man elected...
-------------
To those not familiar with the waxins of vidman04 ... THAT is how HE enlightens debates.
What a frickin EGO is right.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, that's three for three. This was supposed to go on the end of the article, not as a response to raats6662.
I'm not too surprised. There haven't been any real conservatives nominated by the Republicans since Barry Goldwater, and the people that call themselves conservatives today have applauded nation building, empire building and a ten trillion dollar tax increase (disguised as a deficit). They aren't even bright enough to figure out that they are going to have to pay that increase off at some point.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your post really saddens me, ET.
Its clear that our Right Wing Propaganda has simply not worked on you.
Its sad that you have not succumbed to our sleight of hand.
Well, perhaps we will capture your loyalty if we increase the drumbeat that Obama is a Marxist and a Socialist!
We on the right been usin that one to great effect ... although ... you dont seem liek you are particularly stoopid enough to fall for that one.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the formula to get the votes of me and my kind. Run the deficit up to $20 trillion, but this time transfer the money the government borrows to me and my buddies. We promise to take REAL good care of the elected officials who do that.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
HONEYDAD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He will be the GOP candidate not the conservative voters'candidate. I doubt he has taken a conservative position that he will not quickly abandon should he be elected. He does not even like the lst amendment and sponsered a bill to infringe that right. Whoever wins in November will be the real loser in January. That person will get to raise taxes and cut spending just to stay even at $9.4 trillion in the hole. Cutting federal entitlement programs and economic collapse will provided great opportunity for anarchy.
Reply -
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I read many of the comments on this story and I'm sure glad that I'm a Canadian, OUr political process is alot different than your and I'm glad that it is. I've read comments on the candidates being everthing from nearly commies to fascists the only thinng that got left out was total dictator and I've even seen that mentioned, whether we want to accept it or not nearly all democratic countries move to the left over time the point of elections is to determine the speed at which they do so. President Bush was elected to slow the movement to the left but his policies did not ( and this is only my opinion) reflect true conservative values. Earlier McCain did look like a person who would represent a moderate conservative but he has made alot of flip flops and now I wonder if Ron Paul would not have been a better choice, When it comes to the Democrats we have Hillary and I won't go into that, but with Barack I feel his picture will change by the time Nov. comes around.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, weare a feisty bunch here south of the border.
Weare ADHD nation.
I sometimes wonder if we came by this naturally, or if we been trained by 30 years of Television - with its devoted use of mis-information - soundbytes - and attention divertin devices.
Where else in the world where - the TV makes a BIG DEAL bout a candidates Lapel Wearin habits - and ignores realistic interviews?
Yeah ... you Canadians can laugh at our bouncin off the political walls - but at least we got changes in seasons.
Although, with golbal warmin ... Canada might wind up bein the last refuge.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The U.S. is not a democracy, although we try to plant them wherever we go. We are a democratic republic, and it sometimes self-corrects a bit better than democracy.
Unfortunately, we always have extremists pulling us right and left, and we use both socialism and corporatism, with a pinch of religious extremism and strong issues-based political ideologies to stir the mix.
The candidates cherry-pick from the Constitution, with each side accusing the other of trampling on the document.
We have crossed a line with church-state entanglement and unless we can recover from it, religious zealots may gain more control over government.
All the candidates seek to disarm ordinary citizens using various schemes that seem "reasonable" to those who don't read the fine print.
The Supreme Court has killed off rights to freedom from seizures, religious-based hiring practices, and unwarranted searches.
And both Obama and McCain unintentionally support a police state.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
engine3000gt1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/black-hairstyles-e...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/black-girl-hairsty...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/braids-black-hairs...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/popular-black-hair...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/sophistacated-blac...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/black-braid-hairst...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/hairstyles-for-sho...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/black-male-perm-ha...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/celebrity-style-ha...
http://hairstyle.fastsit.com/celebrity-formal-h...
Reply -
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I'm on record as opposing all three of the current "favored" candidates. As for the supreme court appointing dealie, I have to say that the MAIN thing to look for in a candidate is one who can READ our Constitution and simply APPLY it to a given case. And to NOT look for a knucklehead who is going to "interpret" the Constitution to suit a particular religious or political agenda. That is definitely NOT what they are supposed to be doing.
Reply -
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, I think John has had a bit of a hiatus from under the microscope while the Democrats are still slinging dirt at each other. Eventually, it'll get back to Democrats and Republicans slinging dirt - THEN John will be taking some hits again, I expect.
Reply -
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When Obama ran for Senator in Illinois the Republicans basically conceded the election to him. Their candidate was exposed as another of the long line of "family" value men who wanted his wife to go to sex clubs (i.e. jeri Ryan of Star Trek) and dropped from the race. He;s done a great job for Illinois and won handily even in downstate regions which typically vote Republican. They have to be scared, he talks straight and follows what he says. To your typical Republican that alone is a scary thought.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dunkirk, I agree and disagree. He's done a lot, but he's also put on blinders on some issues and even strongly gone against the Constitution in favor of commonly-held fear-based positions at times. He's been back-pedaling recently, but I hope he picks a running mate that proves he's not as leftist as his voting record suggests.
I want to see him demonstrate a knowledge of the history of the Constitution and not just a partisan or popularized one. I think he's finally shaped some solid views on issues, and I hope he turns out to be more than a Jimmy Carter clone.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The three front runners are not so different. They all received their top campaign donations from Big Business. They all rub elbows with lobbyists, they all are corporate money takers, they all will keep us at "war" in the middle east. The only candidate promoting real change is the one being ignored by the media and both parties...Ron Paul has received his top donations from the men/women in the US Army, Navy and Airforce. Ron Paul is not afraid to stand up to the establishment and tell them how they are breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution. He is being ignored, not because he is a "quack", but because he is a true Patriot and, afterall, public ignorance is the governments bestfriend.
Reply -
Neutral
watsitallabout1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would to add a comment on the McCain campaigners. It does not bother me when I get a phone call with the caller ID reading MCCAIN 2008 and I think it's a pretty slick idea. Being registered Republican I am leaning towards McCain. I will say this though: DOING THAT SLICK CAMPAIGN CALL ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON DOES NOT INSPIRE ME TO VOTE FOR A MAN WHO APPROVES THAT TYPE OF CALL ON A DAY WHEN MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER INVIOLATE TO THAT TYPE OF PESTERING PHONE STUFF. Whew, glad I got that out of my system. Anyway if there are any people involved in the campaign who might just happen to read this, I hope you take it to heart.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WARNING WARNING WILL ROBINSON ( err, I mean watsitallabout):
there have been calls sent out pretending to be from a candidate, but with the real intent of making you mad at that candidate.
It can do so by calling too often, or calling at the wrong time, or by having a message that is subtly trying to annoy you.
I know that sounds paranoid, but it is apparently standard practice in places where a small amount of votes decide the diference.
Reply-
-
Neutral
blinkers1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think pages will be taken from Richard Nixon's book of dirty tricks, CRYM. His team were the masters at underhand tactics designed to discredit any opposition, wherever it was suspected.
To this day, there are apparently unsolved cases of mysterious break-ins during the Nixon years, into offices and premises of anyone suspected of being on the "other side"
(Anthony Summers' "Richard Nixon: The Arrogance of Power" is a masterful examination of this enigmatic president).
Reply
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've gotten calls from McCain, Obama, and Clinton (probably due to where I live) and McCain was the only one that showed up on callerid.
I do like that, but didn't like the fact that none seemed particularly interested in where I disagree with their candidates except the Obama campaign. I actually had the caller agree with me that he disagreed with some of Obama's positions. That was refreshing, too.
They all 3 wanted money, of course.
Reply
-
-
-
-
OldHickoryComment removed: Hard Banned
-
OldHickoryComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think the November election will be a blow-out one way or the other. Many of the people predicting a landslide for McCain also predicted that the Republicans would add to their majority in the House and Senate in 2006. There are many unknowns going into November and so many potential scandals for all three presidential candidates. I don't think anyone here can make a realistic prediction.
I also doubt that any of the three candidates will do any of the extreme things that their opponents on propeller are insisting they will do. For most presidents-elect (and GWB was one of the big exceptions--part of the reason he's such a poor president), reality sets in between the time they are elected and the time they take office. Reality has a way of moderating a lot of political hubris.
Reply -
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is laughable that people believe the illusion that there are many differences between McCain, Hilary, and Obama. All three candidates take lots of money from Big Business and rub elbows with corporate lobbyists. All three voted FOR the 'war', voted FOR the 'patriot act', and all three voted FOR NAFTA. All three candidates are also affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. If you don't know much about the CFR, I implore you to do some research.
The only candidate that is being ignored by both parties and the media is the only one that voted AGAINST the before mentioned policies. His money has mostly come from the men/women in the military and other regular working class folks, not Big Business and the oil cartel. If Americans really want 'change' and not just talk of change..they will research Ron Paul. He has written award winning economic papers, has been a Dr for years (would have some insight on fixing the healthcare system) and has been a Congressman for decades
Reply -
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive62 Replies
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Go to http://electoral-vote.com/
Click on "Obama vs McCain" then go back and click on "Clinton vs McCain".
Obama is such a winner.
One of the things that people writing this forget that McCain is already poised to take that middle 10% that control who wins. Obama is so far left he has to write off those votes and loses. Clinton is more to the right of Obama and better able to go for the middle.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I dont know bout all that Endo.
We Christian Conservatives have already REJECTED McCain.
Dontcha remember the 2000 presdiential election?
I do.
We assessed John McCain to be LESS WORTHY to represent our Right Wing Values than a draft dodgin, silver spoon fed, cocaine-usin, alcoholic, whose first real job was bein appointed to be on the Board of Directors for an oil company.
AND GET THIS...!!!
We only agreed - RELUCTANTLY - to accept McCain in 2008 over Romney and Giulilanni if he PROMISED to continue the Neo-Con policies of Goerge W. Bush and Kick Cheney.
What ARE those policies?
I believe they can be summed up in one, concise word.
Failure and Fraud.
Oh... 3 words.
Reply -
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are right, they will change big time.
McCain will pick up PA, and OH, MI, and FL will become bigtime Republican winners.
That map shows just what I said, by not listening to the People the Democrats ensure that McCain wins the swing states?
And which States is McCain winning? Wow! Look at that! OH, MI, PA, KY, WV, FL, and TN! The exact ones I said...
You guys can "hope" and "change" and be "the ones we've been waiting for" all you want but you are ignoring reality.
You aren't trained in this, I am. You don't understand election trends or the American people. McCain is going to win because the DNC screwed over Hillary and the voters of MI and FL. That isn't partisan ramblings, that is fact. Mark my words.
I want money from all of you when McCain wins because Obama couldn't capture any of the Eastern Swing State: WV, TN, KY, OH, PA, MI, and FL.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MEMESTRYKER
You sound reasonable for an Obama supporter. McCain must pick Crist of Florida. In this era of identity politics 95% of blacks for Obama, Crist Greek heritage will help greatly in New York, New Jersey & Conn. where Greek ancestry is more prominent than in the rest of the country. Remember Nixon picking Agnew in 68 & 72 Agnew was the only person of greek heritage ever to be on a presidential ticket & it helped Nixon win a large percentage of the northeastern BLUE STATES.
I like Huckabee & Romney for lesser reasons. Anyone else I think would be a mistake.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't support anyone until I see the running mates and final state of their platforms, and I don't vote along party lines.
Romney's got good business sense, is a clear thinker, and is poor on RKBA. Huckabee would be a dealbreaker for me.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it is a given that Barack Obama will be picking up all the traditional "blue" states picked up by Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004. But unlike Kerry and Gore, Obama has activated many, many more new voters. If he is the Democratic nominee, look for record numbers at the polls this fall.
In the end, I wouldn't be so sure about OH, MI, and PA. John McCain may get KY, WV, FL, and TN...maybe. But Obama may also win an unexpected Southern state like, say, SC or even GA.
You watch. Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't deny that Obama has activated many, many more new voters. Most of them in states he would have already won though.
And add the disillusionment that many Hillary voters will experience and its all for nothing. Obama might get PA, but its very doubtful. Either way, all that matters are OH, FL, and MI will go Republican and the treatment of Hillary has turned those 3 states solidly red. KY, WV, and TN are just added bonuses.
To make matters worse for the Obamaist, after West Virginia and Kentucky have spoken in the primaries Hillary might be up in the popular vote AND can lay claim to having won more states (I believe that will give her more states). Early polling in WV shows Hillary pulling 60%. If that holds true, and 600,000 people vote...she is ahead in the popular.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can see Obama or Clinton picking up Missouri as well. The fact is that from the electoral system Hillary is more electable but I can see Obama getting a higher popular vote lead. In the end its the electoral college who decides and I can see either Democrat beating McCain as of the moment.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain has his hands full just holding onto Republicans, let alone taking voters from the left or middle.
The guy just has the spark of Bob Dole (before Viagra) mixed with the failed policies, lies, and cronyism of George W Bush. Obama is already stealing Republican voters on top of bringing out non-voters and first-timer voters.
McCain is in trouble, and he is his own worst enemy. It will take a ton of smearboating to even make this a close race.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.