OT: Has McCain Thrown in the Towel?

[RossValoryRocks]

I can't wait to see what bullshit he pulls out of his ass for this one.

Again, the Republican Congress were maniacal overspenders, following in the footsteps of their recent predecessors and Reagan and Bush I. The Democrats have had to reel them in and control them every time. Fiscal conservatism, once a foundation of Republican politics, is no more.

Oh I quite agree with you there. But it is BOTH parties that do this now.

But your view of History is sadly skewed. I can and do admit the failings of republicans, you on the other hand are so busy line up for the cum shot from Democrats that you cannot see what their collective faults are.

[RossValoryRocks]

I can't wait to see what bullshit he pulls out of his ass for this one.

Again, the Republican Congress were maniacal overspenders, following in the footsteps of their recent predecessors and Reagan and Bush I. The Democrats have had to reel them in and control them every time. Fiscal conservatism, once a foundation of Republican politics, is no more.

You are on a roll today. Is it possible at all for you to criticize anything the Democrats have done? You seriously don't know why the Dem party is known as the party of tax and spend? Just curious.

I can answer for 7Douches....No and No.

[Onestepper]

I can't wait to see what bullshit he pulls out of his ass for this one.

Again, the Republican Congress were maniacal overspenders, following in the footsteps of their recent predecessors and Reagan and Bush I. The Democrats have had to reel them in and control them every time. Fiscal conservatism, once a foundation of Republican politics, is no more.

Oh I quite agree with you there. But it is BOTH parties that do this now.

But your view of History is sadly skewed. I can and do admit the failings of republicans, you on the other hand are so busy line up for the cum shot from Democrats that you cannot see what their collective faults are.

Exactly. I tend to completely disregard anyone that is so partisan, right or left. If you cannot find fault with yourself, don't be casting stones big boy.

[RossValoryRocks]

I cannot stand how much Bush has exploded the government and the debt.

Good... now you're coming around and using some common sense instead of just blind loyalty to the GOP. I did the same thing a few years ago and bailed out of the failed party. The Bush/McCain/GOP platform is a joke. Obama will follow democratic principles and turn the economy back into the black just like Clinton did.

You cannot deny the facts, as much as you would like to spin them:







Trying to spin these facts would be a full time job.

Yeah...and with the execption of the 2000-2006 power mad Republican controlled congress every other President besides Clinton had a Democrat controlled congress. You do know basic government right???

The CONGRESS spends...not the President.

[7 Wishes]

Clinton did shit as President economically. The Internet Boom was funded almost SOLELY by the lowering of the Capital Gains tax which allowed people to invest money without getting soaked by taxes when they rolled it into a new investment.

I don't know where you get your dubious facts about the '90 but we achieved IN SPITE of Clinton, not because of him.

Trickle-down doesn't work because, unlike water, money flows uphill. No matter where money is inserted into an economic system, it begins it inexorable movement upward. This is why tax cuts for the rich benefit no one but the rich, the very people who don't need it.

Who ramps up production in the absence of increased demand? No one, obviously. Who hires "extra" help? Ridiculous idea. Tax cuts for the rich is a patently ridiculous idea. It is economic fraud, driven no doubt by greed.

Clinton inherited massive, record deficits from the Reagan and Bush administrations and by the time he ws leaving we had surpluses; he balanced the budget and cut spending (ironic that the money spending liberal saved money and the conservatives have spent more money than any other pres in our history)

Clinton also cut welfare spending nearly in half..

Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.

Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).

The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

Again, Clinton had to fight an over-spending trickle-down brainwashed Congress to get his legislation passed.

[S2M]

Stu, I have a question for you...and I apologize for asking a personal question. I've never spoken to you before, therefore not sure if you will be offended...

What's makes YOU a republican, or more specifically: Why do you relate to the republican philosophy? And why do you stick by party lines?

Just asking....you don't need to answer.....thought it would shed light on your responses a bit....

I am not a republican...I am a conservative libertarian.

Less government. Less taxes. Screw and marry who you want. Do all the drugs you want. PERSONAL responsibility above all.

Those are the things I believe in.

So everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, just as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else, right?

Also...I take it you are against universal healthcare since you are for LESS government....but how would you clean up the health care system as far as fleecing the public? I know if the government was in it there would be that kind of fleecing, but I digress....what do you think the answer is?

Perhaps the government should be allowed to dispense drugs...then we could nix taxes altogether....Government would get all the money it needed from vices: smokes, drugs, alcohol, gambling.....how about that? And even the two-faced catholic church could finally admit it's hypocracy of being against gambling, but enjoying bingo events.....

Personally, I agree with everything you said....I couldn't care less if my neighbor was hooked on drugs....just as long as it didn't affect me. A bit selfish, perhaps....

and how do you feel about me working my ARSE off to finish college, even with Pell grants, and such....but some, excuse my arabic, towel head coming over here and going to school for free so the university can appear diverse?

How do you like that the Jews, Japanese, and whoever else own nearly 3/4 of this country?

I'm a postal carrier, and I have delivered in some pretty horrid neighborhoods. I delivered EIGHT checks to one house in the projects. To a Laotian(sp) family. They lived in a - the only way I can describe it is a shack/project type dwelling. FIVE dishes on the roof. Acura, Infiniti, and Mercedes in the driveway....trash-filled yard. Smelled of garbage. And here I am delivering these checks to foreigners, who contribute NOTHING to this country, yet I work my ass off for EVERYTHING I have(which ain't much)....

What would a conservative libertarian say about that?

[S2M]

I can't wait to see what bullshit he pulls out of his ass for this one.

Again, the Republican Congress were maniacal overspenders, following in the footsteps of their recent predecessors and Reagan and Bush I. The Democrats have had to reel them in and control them every time. Fiscal conservatism, once a foundation of Republican politics, is no more.

You are on a roll today. Is it possible at all for you to criticize anything the Democrats have done? You seriously don't know why the Dem party is known as the party of tax and spend? Just curious.

If may add on...

here is a phrase that needs retired: "tax and spend," as in calling someone a tax and spend liberal/Democrat/politician. Really. Whoever is in control of the congress, there will be taxes and there will be spending, and indeed, there has been a lot of deficit spending as well. The description "tax and spend" doesn't make me angry, but it is a tired trope.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The Congress recieved the same intelligence and the President had. Period. End of Story.

That simply does not comport with reality.
The differing versions of the Congressional and White House NIEs has been exhaustively detailed, and putting that aside, it is widely known that Congress is not privy to the President's daily intelligence briefs.
As if that weren't enough, there's the Manning Street memo, the testimony of Colin Powell's chief of staff, the Office of Special Plans etc. etc.
If not proof positive, damning indeed.

Notice many of the quotes came BEFORE President Bush was even elected.

It is widely known that the same members of the PNAC that petitioned Clinton for Iraq reigme change would go on to work in the highest corridors of the Bush administration.

[styxman]

Stu, I have a question for you...and I apologize for asking a personal question. I've never spoken to you before, therefore not sure if you will be offended...

What's makes YOU a republican, or more specifically: Why do you relate to the republican philosophy? And why do you stick by party lines?

Just asking....you don't need to answer.....thought it would shed light on your responses a bit....

I am not a republican...I am a conservative libertarian.

Less government. Less taxes. Screw and marry who you want. Do all the drugs you want. PERSONAL responsibility above all.

Those are the things I believe in.

So everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, just as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else, right?

Also...I take it you are against universal healthcare since you are for LESS government....but how would you clean up the health care system as far as fleecing the public? I know if the government was in it there would be that kind of fleecing, but I digress....what do you think the answer is?

Perhaps the government should be allowed to dispense drugs...then we could nix taxes altogether....Government would get all the money it needed from vices: smokes, drugs, alcohol, gambling.....how about that? And even the two-faced catholic church could finally admit it's hypocracy of being against gambling, but enjoying bingo events.....

Personally, I agree with everything you said....I couldn't care less if my neighbor was hooked on drugs....just as long as it didn't affect me. A bit selfish, perhaps....

and how do you feel about me working my ARSE off to finish college, even with Pell grants, and such....but some, excuse my arabic, towel head coming over here and going to school for free so the university can appear diverse?

How do you like that the Jews, Japanese, and whoever else own nearly 3/4 of this country?

I'm a postal carrier, and I have delivered in some pretty horrid neighborhoods. I delivered EIGHT checks to one house in the projects. To a Laotian(sp) family. They lived in a - the only way I can describe it is a shack/project type dwelling. FIVE dishes on the roof. Acura, Infiniti, and Mercedes in the driveway....trash-filled yard. Smelled of garbage. And here I am delivering these checks to foreigners, who contribute NOTHING to this country, yet I work my ass off for EVERYTHING I have(which ain't much)....

What would a conservative libertarian say about that?

Would NYC be as diverse without Little Italy...Las Vegas and Frank Sinatra wouldn't be an American instution without the help of Foreigners...fuck...America wouldn't have had alcohol for a while without some friendly help from the Italian's. They do the jobs some don't want to...............ain't Crash taught you anything dude

[RossValoryRocks]

Lots of things

What would a conservative libertarian say about that?

I think you know the answers.

Welfare has destroyed our inner cities.

It ecourages dependence on the government, and therefor on those people who pander to the welfare users.

The system encourages fraud.

I worked my ass off for my college education as well. I appreciate where you are coming from and kudos to you for busting your ass to make yourself better.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You seriously don't know why the Dem party is known as the party of tax and spend? Just curious.

Beats spend and borrow from Chinese communist bankers.

[RossValoryRocks]

You seriously don't know why the Dem party is known as the party of tax and spend? Just curious.

Beats spend and borrow from Chinese communist bankers.

I cannot agree more. The 2000-2006 republican congress lost their way when it came to economics. The 2006-2008 Democrats aren't any better.

The only fiscally responsible congress in recent history was the 1995 to 1999 republican controlled congress...then they went an became arrogant and powermad.

[styxman]

You seriously don't know why the Dem party is known as the party of tax and spend? Just curious.

Beats spend and borrow from Chinese communist bankers.

The Chinese have just bought a large stake in one of our great insurrance institutes 'Prudential' in the UK, so like it or not it's the Chinese and not Saudi investment giants that are going to eat up America with glee over the next 10 years, easy picking for them.

[Voyager]

Yeah...and with the execption of the 2000-2006 power mad Republican controlled congress every other President besides Clinton had a Democrat controlled congress. You do know basic government right???

The CONGRESS spends...not the President.

So why didn't the surplus continue into Dubya's first term when we still had a GOP-controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency? Even after tossing the GOP Congress at the beginning of 2007, the Dems still couldn't stop Dubya's lust for deficit spending - not to mention his $10-billion/month war. Even though the Democrats have had control of Congress for over a year now (after 12 years of Republican rule), they cannot get anything done to stop Dubya's out-of-control spending. It will take years and years to dig us out of the deep sinkhole that Dick & Bush pushed us into.

What is the answer? Dump the Bush/McCain agenda and get Obama/Biden into office.

[Voyager]

You know what happens when you put a Dick and a Bush together don't you?

Someone gets fucked.

[RossValoryRocks]

Yeah...and with the execption of the 2000-2006 power mad Republican controlled congress every other President besides Clinton had a Democrat controlled congress. You do know basic government right???

The CONGRESS spends...not the President.

So why didn't the surplus continue into Dubya's first term when we still had a GOP-controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency? Even after tossing the GOP Congress at the beginning of 2007, the Dems still couldn't stop Dubya's lust for deficit spending - not to mention his $10-billion/month war. Even though the Democrats have had control of Congress for over a year now (after 12 years of Republican rule), they cannot get anything done to stop Dubya's out-of-control spending. It will take years and years to dig us out of the deep sinkhole that Dick & Bush pushed us into.

What is the answer? Dump the Bush/McCain agenda and get Obama/Biden into office.

You are simply out of your mind, you also need a basic civics course.

McCain is about a close to Bush as Obama is.

You folks are running against the wrong person, Bush is not running. So running against him is not going to do any good.

McCain is going to win.

[Voyager]

McCain is going to win.

Not short of some kind of Obama/Biden catastrophical failure, based on the polls.

[Voyager]

McCain is about a close to Bush as Obama is.

You're talking aout the OLD McCain, whom I also had a lot of respect for. I don't know what happened to that guy... I liked his independent spirit. But the NEW McCain started parroting and rubber-stamping the Bush agenda about 20 months ago, and lost all of my respect.

Talk about a flip-flop! McCain used to be the anti-Bush Republican... then he flopped about 20 months ago and has become one of the biggest the pro-Bush Replublicans in Congress.





I miss the OLD McCain.

[RossValoryRocks]

McCain is going to win.

Not short of some kind of Obama/Biden catastrophical failure, based on the polls.

Obama has no bounce coming out of the Convention.

The polls are all within the margin of error. Hell Kerry was doing better Obama against Bush in 2004 at this point than Obama against McCain.

[Voyager]

Hell Kerry was doing better Obama against Bush in 2004 at this point than Obama against McCain.

I never cared for Kerry... he seemed too plastic and fake to me. I cannot stand politicians who seem phony and insincere. Hillary comes across to me that way too. Obama, on the other hand, seems very passionate, compelling, and sincere. I don't judge him solely based on those qualities.. but they are good character traits for a leader to have.

[RossValoryRocks]

Hell Kerry was doing better Obama against Bush in 2004 at this point than Obama against McCain.

I never cared for Kerry... he seemed too plastic and fake to me. I cannot stand politicians who seem phony and insincere. Hillary comes across to me that way too. Obama, on the other hand, seems very passionate, compelling, and sincere. I don't judge him solely based on those qualities.. but they are good character traits for a leader to have.

I think Senator Obama is an example of what people can aspire to in this country. I believe he loves his country, I am immensely proud of him. That he has come as far as he has and stands where he does is an inspiration to everyone and everyone should stand up and applaud him, and Senator Clinton for that matter, for coming as far as they have. A woman and an African-American with legitimate shots of becoming President. It says much about our country and how far we have come in the last 50 years.

I however disagree fundementally with everything he is politically.

Unlike the liberals and their treatment of John McCain I refuse to run the man down in any other way other than to highlight my disagreements with his stances.

He is a great man period.

[Voyager]

I think Senator Obama is an example of what people can aspire to in this country. I believe he loves his country, I am immensely proud of him. That he has come as far as he has and stands where he does is an inspiration to everyone and everyone should stand up and applaud him, and Senator Clinton for that matter, for coming as far as they have. A woman and an African-American with legitimate shots of becoming President. It says much about our country and how far we have come in the last 50 years.

I however disagree fundementally with everything he is politically.

Well, if Obama REALLY means "change" then he will go against his liberal leanings when it comes to doing what is RIGHT for the country. If he doesn't really mean "change" then it will be politics as usual. But we will really never see Obama or McCain's true colors until they become President. Everything up until then is simply an educated guess on the voter's part.

What we really need is a leader who sincerely has the interest and will of the people at heart. I haven't seen that in a long time... not even here in Illinois. We've had two corrupt governors in a row who have done nothing but their OWN will instead of the will of the people.

Good points!

[separate_wayz]

If the electoral map says Obama 273, McCain 265 right now (see my previous post in this thread), then McCain has an interesting set of possibilities to win.

In the U.S., presidential candidates win by accumulating a minimum of 270 electoral votes. We can talk about national polls and whatever else. It doesn't matter. What matters is getting at least 270 electoral votes.

Let's assume that all the states are aligned-up with each candidate as polls right now suggest. This scenario results in a predicted Obama victory of 273 electoral votes to McCain's 265. But several states within that total are toss-ups (see my previous post). If just one of several of those states switches from Obama to McCain, McCain wins (albeit by a narrow margin). For example, if Colorado switches from Obama to McCain, McCain wins 274 electoral votes to Obama with 264 electoral votes. According to realclearpoltics.com, Obama is ahead by only 0.4% in Colorado. So this scenario is entirely plausible.

If New Mexico switches from Obama to McCain, McCain wins with 270 electoral votes to Obama with 268 electoral votes -- an even more narrow victory than if Colorado switches. But it's a victory for McCain nonetheless. The realclearpolitics.com website has Obama ahead by 4.3%. Bush won the state in 2004 by 0.7%. So this state is also in play.

One thing has not been mentioned among the media yet: the choice of Palin probably helps McCain in these broadly-defined Rocky Mountain states (Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Colorado). In these states, middle-of-the-road voters typically balance their regional economic and recreational concerns (oil drilling, logging, mining, hunting) with moderate conservationism (as opposed to environmentalism). In states like the Rocky Mountain states, voters tend to realize that the two need to exist side-by-side. They realize that their economies depend as much on oil drilling, logging, mining, and hunting, as they do on tourism and recreation (like skiing), where tourists want to appreciate pristine wilderness while they ski or recreate in some other way.

Alaska resembles those Rocky Mountain states very closely. Its economy depends on both kinds of activities (e.g., oil drilling and tourism). Voters will likely hear in the next few months about Palin's involvement with fishing and hunting, while also serving on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I am not so sure you can underestimate the effect this might have on voters in those states.

Palin's background will likely help her in other states, like Michigan (upstate) and New Hampshire, where realclearpolitics.com has Obama ahead by 0.3%. If this state switches from Obama to McCain .... both candidates end-up with 269 electoral votes each, and the election gets thrown into the House of Representatives.

[7 Wishes]

Unlike the liberals and their treatment of John McCain I refuse to run the man down in any other way other than to highlight my disagreements with his stances.
He is a great man period.

Right. I have seen nothing but respect for McCain on this board from the token Democrats who post here.

Obama, on the other hand, has been slandered and slaughtered. What a ridiculous assertion...as usual.

[S2M]

Hell Kerry was doing better Obama against Bush in 2004 at this point than Obama against McCain.

I never cared for Kerry... he seemed too plastic and fake to me. I cannot stand politicians who seem phony and insincere. Hillary comes across to me that way too. Obama, on the other hand, seems very passionate, compelling, and sincere. I don't judge him solely based on those qualities.. but they are good character traits for a leader to have.

But that also could be mistaken for ignorance. A young, inexperienced politician who does not know what is will be ABLE to change. Could end up being pie in the sky, empty promises. Sure, he talks the talk. Will he be able to walk the walk?

Change is nice. Going through with it is a whole 'nother thing.

[Eric]

CNN is about as impartial as they come.

[Eric]

Unlike the liberals and their treatment of John McCain I refuse to run the man down in any other way other than to highlight my disagreements with his stances.
He is a great man period.

Right. I have seen nothing but respect for McCain on this board from the token Democrats who post here.

Obama, on the other hand, has been slandered and slaughtered. What a ridiculous assertion...as usual.

What exactly has Obama done????

[Eric]

I will happily admit that President Bush has had many many failings and fell far short of the things I had hoped when I cast my votes for him. You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could, especially with a Democrat controlled Congress.

Funny, that is exactly the type of stuff people were saying when Clinton first ran...and it only became 'fucked up' again when a Bush was put back in charge.

Fucked up? Like leaving a recession and a terrorist attack on our soil when you left office? When you ignore problems for 8 years you don't have to worry about dealing with or paying for them. Clinton didn't take care of business...he was otherwise occupied. The dot com boom has artificially given the guy WAY more credit than he deserves.

[Rick]

I will happily admit that President Bush has had many many failings and fell far short of the things I had hoped when I cast my votes for him. You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could, especially with a Democrat controlled Congress.

Funny, that is exactly the type of stuff people were saying when Clinton first ran...and it only became 'fucked up' again when a Bush was put back in charge.

Fucked up? Like leaving a recession and a terrorist attack on our soil when you left office? When you ignore problems for 8 years you don't have to worry about dealing with or paying for them. Clinton didn't take care of business...he was otherwise occupied. The dot com boom has artificially given the guy WAY more credit than he deserves.

I think I read somewhere that 9/11 was after Bush took office. Far more terrorism happens when a Republican is in office. Makes you wonder.

The country was not in a recession when Bush took office.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/

[RossValoryRocks]

I will happily admit that President Bush has had many many failings and fell far short of the things I had hoped when I cast my votes for him. You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could, especially with a Democrat controlled Congress.

Funny, that is exactly the type of stuff people were saying when Clinton first ran...and it only became 'fucked up' again when a Bush was put back in charge.

Fucked up? Like leaving a recession and a terrorist attack on our soil when you left office? When you ignore problems for 8 years you don't have to worry about dealing with or paying for them. Clinton didn't take care of business...he was otherwise occupied. The dot com boom has artificially given the guy WAY more credit than he deserves.

I think I read somewhere that 9/11 was after Bush took office. Far more terrorism happens when a Republican is in office. Makes you wonder.

The country was not in a recession when Bush took office.

#1...The Cole...the Embassy bombing...the first attack on the World Trade Center and Tim McVeigh and the OK City bombing...ALL on Clinton's watch...9/11 during the first 8 months into a new Presidency.

#2 The Economy most certainly was in recession during the first 2 quarters of 2001. http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2002/n ... light.html (A non partisan source)