OT: Has McCain Thrown in the Towel?

[Monker]

Fact: We have won the war in Iraq. Actually this is in despite of Bush, so you may have a point.

The 'war' in Iraq ended years ago when Saddam crawled into his hole. What we have been doing ever since is nation building.

When the war first started, I said to you and others that this was a war would could not afford to fight. I said it was a war against a nation which posed absolutely no threat to us. It was very, very, very obvsious to me.

But, you and other 'conservatives' are so worried about taxes that you don't give a damn about deficit spending, borrowing money from China, stressing an already stressed economy to a breakng point. You would rather spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a "war on terror" against a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism...and CREATE a potential terrorist breeding ground.

It is sickening to point to Iraq as some kind of positive for Bush, or anybody else, Democrat or Republican, who supported the initial action. It was wrong from the beginning - obviously wrong.

[conversationpc]

But, you and other 'conservatives' are so worried about taxes that you don't give a damn about deficit spending, borrowing money from China, stressing an already stressed economy to a breakng point.

You don't read much here do you? Stu and others, including myself, have spoken out against these issues here. Do your research before you just slap down an accusation.

[Monker]

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

A fiscal conservative would never, ever have supported the Iraq war.

[RossValoryRocks]

Yeah...and the first 2 years of the Clinton presidency were fucked up...he raised taxes hand in hand with the Democrat controlled congress and the economy gound to a halt. Then the republicans came in after the '94 elections and cut taxes and the economy went nuts.

But this time it won't be like that.

There won't be saving the economy from the likes of Pelosi and Reid.

Of course not...

Let's see...years into the mini-Bush's first term, you guys blamed Clinton for the economy. You have no recollection that the economy was tanking under daddy-Bush's, which is a HUGE reason why he was not reelected. And, you give credit to Republicans even though Clinton faught, and won, against much of the 'contract with America'. And, you forget that daddy-Bush promised 'no new taxes', and raised them anyway. So, whenever anything 'bad' happens, it's never a Republican's fault...and all good is given credit to the Republicans. And, you point out what you percieve as negatives on one side of the fence, and ignore it on the other. Makes perfect partison sense.

The FACT is the the economy was tanking under the first Bush, and it is tanking right now as the second one leaves. Argue it any way you want, but that is the fact.

No that is not a fact not even close. The country was already out of the recession by the time Clinton took office.

Clinton's tax increases killed the economy. The final year of the George H.W. Bush presidency was close to 5%, by the second year of President Clinton's it had contracted to barely 2% and was stagnating.

Clinton was FORCED to move to the center by the Republican Congress elected in 1994. Taxes were cut and the "Clinton" economy took off.

Now does that mean I liked everything about either President Bush??? NO. Does that mean I dislike everything about President Clinton, NO.

I think President Clinton was a rather good President in most respects; Once he moved more to the right. His moral lapses aside, he worked with very well with the Congress to get things done.

But in NO WAY would he had done so had he not been forced to do so by the political winds (And Dick Morris).

Those are not just facts, the are certified HISTORY.

[Monker]

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.

Libertarians also believe in military restraint - obviously you are not a strict libertarian, or conservative since you like to fund unnecessary wars.

[7 Wishes]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the state of the economy Bush inherited, but what many Democrats fail to realize is that Clinton was, historically, a classic fiscal conservative with a broader, more liberal social agenda. Perhaps that's why I liked him so much. He would have been judged much differently in present times, and 100 years in the future, had he not lied under oath about his liaison with Lewinsky.

[Monker]

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.

What a bunch of baloney. The "internet boom" happened because it was a new industry. People saw Amazon and Google take off and suddenly .com's were the 'in' thing. It 'boomed' because it was new. The automobile industry did the same thing when it was new...and just like the .com's, it busted.

[Monker]

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.

And, the Republicans are the party of "cut taxes, and spend more...and blame the Democrats for the deficit."

[RossValoryRocks]

It was very, very, very obvsious to me.

Of course because you are the most intelligent human on the planet!

But, you and other 'conservatives' are so worried about taxes that you don't give a damn about deficit spending, borrowing money from China, stressing an already stressed economy to a breakng point. You would rather spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a "war on terror" against a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism...and CREATE a potential terrorist breeding ground.

Yeah yeah yeah...The conservatives here have said repeatedly we hate the deficit spending. You and the other liberals seem to have missed the basic government classes taught in grade school, the Congress spends the money. They hold the purse strings. That doesn't absolve the republicans who got arrogant in their power and spent like drunken sailors (a note Dave and I and the other conservatives have repeatedly said we opposed).

It is sickening to point to Iraq as some kind of positive for Bush, or anybody else, Democrat or Republican, who supported the initial action. It was wrong from the beginning - obviously wrong.

It was not wrong, I know 7Wishes will be on trying to tell you otherwise, and you seem to think so too...but EVERY intelligence agency in the WORLD said Iraq had WMD's. I would much rather be wrong about him having them than to do nothing and lose a city. If you think for ONE moment Saddam Hussein wouldn't have given terrorist weapons you are saddly deluded.

[Monker]

[quote="7 WishesTrickle-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.[/quote]

If I was a billionaire and had 10 yachts, and taxes were cut so I had another 10million, would I really feel the need to buy another yacht?

"Trickle down" is bullshit. Unless they are using the extra cash for porn. Then 'trickle down' could have a different meaning.

[RossValoryRocks]

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.

What a bunch of baloney. The "internet boom" happened because it was a new industry. People saw Amazon and Google take off and suddenly .com's were the 'in' thing. It 'boomed' because it was new. The automobile industry did the same thing when it was new...and just like the .com's, it busted.

Where do you think the money came from Brainiac? Where do you think the seed money came from? Before the lowering of the capital gains tax no one wanted to really invest in "new technology" as you put it (Even though the backbone of the internet had been around since the 70's).

You are a complete and utter buffoon Monker. You obviously do not know history, you obviously never had a business during that time (I did, made a killing because the government didn't take huge capital gains away from me, so I could start other businesses) and obviously are an economic moron.

YAY YOU! Idiot.

[Monker]

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.

Not if he continues running the Hillary Clinton campaign.

[Monker]

Complete and utter bullshit there...find me 10 who say there was NO recession in 2000-2001...and find them on NON-partisan sites please.

You won't be able to.

...and he did absolutely NOTHING to stop it but the stupid early rebate checks. Then 9/11 happened and you guys could have something else to blame besides Clinton.

As someone said, when you ignore a problem, it gets worse. Bush has ignored the economy from day 1...and it has gotten a lot worse.

[RossValoryRocks]

Complete and utter bullshit there...find me 10 who say there was NO recession in 2000-2001...and find them on NON-partisan sites please.

You won't be able to.

...and he did absolutely NOTHING to stop it but the stupid early rebate checks. Then 9/11 happened and you guys could have something else to blame besides Clinton.

As someone said, when you ignore a problem, it gets worse. Bush has ignored the economy from day 1...and it has gotten a lot worse.

Ummm...brainiac...the rebate checks came as a result of cutting taxes. Which helped make the recession one of the shortest in US history.

Yeah President Bush did nothing.

Keep it up...you are just another sufferer of BDS.

[Monker]

Leading Democrats have never trusted the President. If you really believe Biden's statement then, as the old saying goes, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

You’re naive.
A rally around the flag effect takes place anytime America becomes engaged militarily or her security is threatened.
9-11 was no exception.

...and there were some being up for reelection who were not about to be seen as 'unpatriotic' and have to endure a smear campaign.

IMO, anybody who voted for the war should have been/should be voted out of office.

[7 Wishes]

RWF, not to be abrupt, but most economists agree the rebates were a temporary fix - a band-aid over a proverbial laceration of the fiscal carotid artery.

[conversationpc]

RWF, not to be abrupt, but most economists agree the rebates were a temporary fix - a band-aid over a proverbial laceration of the fiscal carotid artery.

I don't think anyone here really disagrees with that statement.

[S2M]

Memo to all you war supporters: WHO cares if Iraq had WMD....WE have them.

I guess we are the only country that should have them, huh?

Probably catch shit for that comment, but whatever.

[Monker]

But, you and other 'conservatives' are so worried about taxes that you don't give a damn about deficit spending, borrowing money from China, stressing an already stressed economy to a breakng point.

You don't read much here do you? Stu and others, including myself, have spoken out against these issues here. Do your research before you just slap down an accusation.

I'm talking about when this war first happened and we were talking about this on BT's Watercooler, not the talk on THIS forum.

Funny how you consider those things NOW, but when the war was first being discussed, how it affected the economy was IGNORED. It's a bit TOO LATE for 'conservative' talk NOW.

[conversationpc]

Memo to all you war supporters: WHO cares if Iraq had WMD....WE have them.

I guess we are the only country that should have them, huh?

Probably catch shit for that comment, but whatever.

Are you serious? No country has ever had so much power and abused it as little as we have. The reason we have them and most other countries don't is as a deterrent to keep them out of the hands of countries that will use them for little or no reason.

[S2M]

Memo to all you war supporters: WHO cares if Iraq had WMD....WE have them.

I guess we are the only country that should have them, huh?

Probably catch shit for that comment, but whatever.

Are you serious? No country has ever had so much power and abused it as little as we have. The reason we have them and most other countries don't is as a deterrent to keep them out of the hands of countries that will use them for little or no reason.

Yes, I am serious. Our intentions can be disingenuous to other countries.....WE know we have them only as a defense. But to other countries - we look like the bad, bad bully on the block....

This country better stop staring at it's reflection in the pool.....

[Monker]

Of course because you are the most intelligent human on the planet!

No, I'm just an independent thinker who does not belong to any party or go 'rah rah' just because a popular president makes a decision.

It was OBVIOUSLY wrong...and anybody should have seen that.

But, you and other 'conservatives' are so worried about taxes that you don't give a damn about deficit spending, borrowing money from China, stressing an already stressed economy to a breakng point. You would rather spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a "war on terror" against a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism...and CREATE a potential terrorist breeding ground.

Yeah yeah yeah...The conservatives here have said repeatedly we hate the deficit spending.

As I said, you were not so concerned about that BEFORE this war started.

You and the other liberals seem to have missed the basic government classes taught in grade school, the Congress spends the money. [/quote

Funny how you call me a liberal for believing VERY STRONGLY that spending billions of dollars on an unecessary war was a very, very bad decision.

It is sickening to point to Iraq as some kind of positive for Bush, or anybody else, Democrat or Republican, who supported the initial action. It was wrong from the beginning - obviously wrong.

It was not wrong, I know 7Wishes will be on trying to tell you otherwise, and you seem to think so too...but EVERY intelligence agency in the WORLD said Iraq had WMD's.

Even if Iraq had WMD's, they were STILL no threat to the US. They were a threat to Iran and the middle east, not the US. It is absolute bullshit to argue otherwise.

I would much rather be wrong about him having them than to do nothing and lose a city.

Where were you when he used them against his own people? Were you turning the other way with the daddy-Bush? Where were you when we were supporting him during the Reagain year?

You obviously didn't give a shit, until your President TOLD YOU you should.

If you think for ONE moment Saddam Hussein wouldn't have given terrorist weapons you are saddly deluded.

You are sadly diluted since a muslim fundamentalist would have sided with Iran and would more likely use them against Iraq then for a leader who murdered thousands of muslims to stay in power. Saddam had a lust for power...that lust would not be satisfied by attacking the US.

[Monker]

Where do you think the money came from Brainiac? Where do you think the seed money came from? Before the lowering of the capital gains tax no one wanted to really invest in "new technology" as you put it (Even though the backbone of the internet had been around since the 70's).

[

It's irrelevant where it came from. The .com boom would have happened regardless of any tax cut. It was as inevitable as a Republican hating Clinton.

[conversationpc]

It's irrelevant where it came from. The .com boom would have happened regardless of any tax cut. It was as inevitable as a Republican hating Clinton.

...or a certain cave-dwelling Iowan displaying full-on BDS.

[Monker]

Ummm...brainiac...the rebate checks came as a result of cutting taxes. Which helped make the recession one of the shortest in US history.

Yeah President Bush did nothing.

Keep it up...you are just another sufferer of BDS.

It delayed the recession, it did not 'stop' anything.

[conversationpc]

Ummm...brainiac...the rebate checks came as a result of cutting taxes. Which helped make the recession one of the shortest in US history.

Yeah President Bush did nothing.

Keep it up...you are just another sufferer of BDS.

It delayed the recession, it did not 'stop' anything.

The rebate checks, if we're talking about the ones back in 2001 may not have helped us out of the recession but they certainly didn't hurt, either.

[Eric]

Even if Iraq had WMD's, they were STILL no threat to the US. They were a threat to Iran and the middle east, not the US. It is absolute bullshit to argue otherwise.

On 9-10 that was true, but on 9-12 and after it wasn't.

[The_Noble_Cause]

On 9-10 that was true, but on 9-12 and after it wasn't.

By virtue of what?
Mere possession of weapons?
In that case, we've got a whole lot more invading to do.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Proclaimed right winger scribbler and former McCain confidante caught bashing Palin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/0 ... 23647.html

[conversationpc]

Proclaimed right winger scribbler and former McCain confidante caught bashing Palin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/0 ... 23647.html

Considering the tone of the quotes and their consistent referring to "The Republicans", it doesn't sound like they're particularly friendly towards the McCain campaign regardless of their former affiliation with it. My guess is they're upset with the views of Palin as opposed to Kay Bailey Hutchinson because she's not pro-abortion like Hutchinson or as liberal in some of her other views. They possibly have a point about experience but my gut feeling is that's not really what's behind their vitriol.