Why McCain must lose ("will do away with tax cuts, will promote amnesty for illegal aliens...")

World Net Daily ^ | 05/19/2008 | Joseph Farah

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

On the other hand, if John McCain wins, he will institute most of the same policy prescriptions. He will steal your money to fight phantom problems like "global warming." He will do away with tax cuts he opposed in the first place. He will approve federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He will promote amnesty for illegal aliens. He will sign legislation attacking constitutionally protected political speech. He will nominate judges who will get the easy approval of the Democrats in the Senate.

It's really difficult for me to see any substantive difference between McCain and Obama or McCain and Clinton.

Oh, he will continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he will ensure our troops are handcuffed by rules of engagement dictated by politicians who simply have no comprehension of the kind of enemy we face. And McCain will be content to keep fighting, presumably without victory, for 100 years, as he suggested.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ping!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

[Greenpees]

When he repeats the 100 year mantra, he’s gone off the deep end. McCain never said it that way, so why is this guy doing the job of MSNBC?

[Greenpees]

When he repeats the 100 year mantra, he’s gone off the deep end. McCain never said it that way, so why is this guy doing the job of MSNBC?

[SolidWood]

Why McCain must lose

Mr Farah really wants Obama badly.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

If McCain genuinely wants the support of conservatives, now and through November, then he needs to do what every politician seeking the support of any given voting bloc routinely does, and meet their specifically vocalized needs to such an extent as to earn said support.

As the recent outpouring of raw, naked outrage on the NRCC web site makes both manifest and plain: insofar as the voting conservative base is concerned, he demonstrably has not done so.

Responsibility for the adamant rejection of John McCain by the conservative voting bloc, therefore, rests ultimately with the unsatisfactory candidate, and he alone.

It does no good whatsoever for McCainiacs to hop up and down (as the majority of them reflexively do) like so many amphetamined spider monkeys, agitatedly shrilling "OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMAOBAMAOBAMA!!!," as Barack Obama is not running as the Republican candidate for the presidency this year; McCain is. He either closes the deal himself, based on his ability to persuade conservatives what he himself has to offer them (if anything)... or: he does not.

[SolidWood]

Joseph Farah: "I'd rather watch the Democrats destroy America for the next four years, holding out hope that a new kind of Republican leadership might arise to fight back in 2012."

There you go... so party politics come before patriotism.

[Lancey Howard]

It's really difficult for me to see any substantive difference between McCain and Obama or McCain and Clinton.

If this is true - - and not the simple-minded rhetoric I presume it is - - then Farah is a moron and not worth wasting a minute of life reading.

[Greenpees]

Well, I’ve always been a part of your so-called “conservative voting block”, and whether you approve or not, I will continue to be. My very first vote was for Reagan, and the republican ticket of the day. I have faithfully voted for R’s over D’s all of my voting life, with very few local office exceptions. I haven’t always been happy with the results, but I always knew that I was making the best choice I could, given the choices.

About 8 yrs ago, I voted for McCain in the primaries over GWB. He didn’t get the nod, but I’ve been a supporter of GWB nonethelss. I’m not blind either. I can see when Bush and others have gone liberal on some issues. But, McCain is no marxist, and he will make a good President. Especially, when one considers the other choices.

I wish you luck with whatever third party candidate you may choose. I don’t dog you over it. I just believe that this is no time to entertain phyric victories. Obama should never be president, and I will do my part in seeing to it.

As a little side note. If Obama does become president, God truly forbid, there will never be any doubt in my mind that your individual “block” played a devastating role. I don’t know how you could live with that knowledge. I really do believe that an Obama presidency will force the next Republican that runs to be even more in line with the left, not less. Keep in mind, the media isn’t as nice than it was during the Reagan years. Losing this marker (McCain), may also mean we lose a seat at the table.

[x_plus_one]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. With a republican congress, McCain will be checkmated into oblivion and a footnote in the history of the presidency.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

and whether you approve or not, I will continue to be.

Stopped reading right there, as you are plainly arguing with some mysterious voice (or voices) in your head, rather than anything I happened to type.

Best of luck with that, by all means.

[x_plus_one]

Joe Farah and cohorts would cut off their nose to spite their face...

[truthguy]

This is Garbage. As bad as McCain is Obama would be far worse. At least McCain is pretty good on National Defense and National Security. Obama is an absolute buffoon.
McCain would appoint decent judges or at least we would have a chance of good judges. Obama would appoint far left buffoons.
McCain will support Nuclear Power. Obama is against it.
Yes we must hold our noses and support McCain. The country can survive McCain, it cannot support Obama.

[AmericaUnited]

then Farah is a moron and not worth wasting a minute of life reading

Birds of a feather, use other birds articles as rallying points.

[Greenpees]

Ok, well..you’re kindof right about that. I just needed to get the thought out. Sorry.

[Impy]

So Obama can ration food and ban home heating?

[Impy]

So Obama can ration food and ban home heating?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ok, well..you’re kindof right about that. I just needed to get the thought out. Sorry.

No prob. ;)

[AmericaUnited]

Obama will make people long for the competance of Jimmy Carter.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Anytime an Arab of any stripe endorses Barack Hussein Muhammad Obama (PBUH), a red flag goes up on my part, whether it be a Hamas leader, Helen Thomas or Joseph Farah.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Farah gave Obama his "endorsement?" Really?

Where?

[SolidWood]

Joseph Farah: "I'd rather watch the Democrats destroy America for the next four years, holding out hope that a new kind of Republican leadership might arise to fight back in 2012."

Whatever the motivation... he obviously prefers Obama.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Whatever the motivation... *snip*

No "endorsement," then.

Gotcha.

[NavVet]

Distorts the “100 year” comment, but otherwise spot on.

[SolidWood]

Does it matter? I consider it actually worse to let the country be wrecked by someone you know to be the worst, than genuinely thinking he is a good choice.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Distorts the “100 year” comment, but otherwise spot on.

Yup. Amazing to see how FReepers provide no actual counterargument whatsoever, to anything stated by Farah, that doesn't parse down to its base elements as: "OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMAOBAMAOBAMA!!!"

Not gonna win much of anything that way, come November...

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I consider it actually worse to let the country be wrecked by someone you know to be the worst, than genuinely thinking he is a good choice.

Go here, and start reading. That's precisely the nature of the conservative voting bloc's manifest difficulty, re: Juan McCain.

[verklaring]

Oh, he will continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he will ensure our troops are handcuffed by rules of engagement dictated by politicians who simply have no comprehension of the kind of enemy we face. And McCain will be content to keep fighting, presumably without victory, for 100 years, as he suggested.

I have little use for J. Farah, but his point is not the distortion of the "100 years," his point is "our troops are handcuffed by rules of engagement dictated by politicians, " if McCain is elected. In this he is correct: Proof. 1) McCain wants to close Gitmo, 2) he said he will consult, (like a leader of the British Parliament) with legislators - violating the separation of powers and let them shape his policy.

[2ndDivisionVet]

"Farah gave Obama his "endorsement?" Really?

Where?"

There's de jure and de facto. In this case, it's de facto.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

In this case, it's de facto.

"It all depends on what you think 'is' is."

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not a supporter of McCain at all, but the 100 years comment is taken out of context. That wasn’t his intent and it’s not reasoned to take him to task as if it was.

I do agree with Farah’s overall take on McCain though.

[DoughtyOne]

Exactly!

[DoughtyOne]

Not only that, he has said we need to listen to Europe more. If than doesn’t disqualify the guy to be CIC, I don’t know what would.

Europe hasn’t had a backbone in thirty plus years.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Not only that, he has said we need to listen to Europe more. If than doesn’t disqualify the guy to be CIC, I don’t know what would.

Yup. And just a scant four years ago, FReepers were (rightly) excoriating John Effin' Kerry for advancing precisely that same noxious notion.

Sad to see how badly things have deteriorated around here, since then.

[DoughtyOne]

Well don’t forget we had dufus running in 2000, and everyone defended him. He didn’t have the negative track record of McCain, but you could tell he had a screw loose as it related to Conserevative values. This is just more of the same, only worse.

That’s the problem with going along to get along. You continue to slide down hill. Not this time!

I’m off the reservation if McCain is the Chief.

[David Isaac]

My first vote was for Nixon, in ‘68, and also have never voted for a Dem, especially at the local level (though I have met some life-long Dems that I thought highly of, though not lately).

The GOP is being torn apart and portions of that party are the ones responsible. We should have seen the handwriting on the wall when Newt, instead of being celebrated after engineering a staggering GOP victory in ‘94, was instead, kicked to the curb. Republicans immediately began to “outdem” the Dems.

I will neither forgive nor forget. No vote for McCain coming from this corner. An abomination against an Obomanation, some choice.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

An abomination against an Obomanation

Admirably and accurately phrased. ;)

[Rocky]

Why McCain must win: Obama

[lexusppd]

Another McCain hater. McCain has said he wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent. There is no evidence to the contrary. He has said he has “heard America” about immigration and to claim there is no “substantive” difference between the 2 libs and McCain is begging the question for the authors description of substantive.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Amazing to see how FReepers provide no actual counterargument whatsoever, to anything stated by Farah, that doesn't parse down to its base elements as: "OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMAOBAMAOBAMA!!!"

Why McCain must win: Obama

NavVet: Case in point. ;)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

He has said he has “heard America” about immigration

Central and South America? Doubtless.

[lexusppd]

"If Obama does become president, God truly forbid, there will never be any doubt in my mind that your individual “block” played a devastating role. I don’t know how you could live with that knowledge. I really do believe that an Obama presidency will force the next Republican that runs to be even more in line with the left, not less. Keep in mind, the media isn’t as nice than it was during the Reagan years. Losing this marker (McCain), may also mean we lose a seat at the table.

Of course you are dead right. It brings to mind the saying "None are so blind as those who refuse to see"

[sushiman]

I will not vote for ANYBODY who will give Amnesty to illegal aliens from south of the border .

[lexusppd]

Counter argument? Are you serious? It is more then apparent you have not heard a word out of the mouth of Hussein Obama over the past 12 months. He himself is the best argument against everything Farah has said.

It's difficult to engage in a debate with a person who merely accepts the premises of another such as you have done. Does it not make you question the veracity of the author when he makes the time worn and provably bogus claim that McCain is fine with our fighting in Iraq for 100 years.

[livius]

McCain is awful. But do you seriously think Osama Obama is going to be better on any of these issues?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

It's difficult to engage in a debate with a person who merely accepts the premises of another such as you have done.

It must be even more difficult for you to "engage in a debate" with others, provided that they (as I do) point and giggle uncontrollably at bald attempts at mischaracterizing the statements of others as spastic and failed as yours, right here.

Back to Post #7 with you.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

But do you seriously think Osama Obama is going to be better on any of these issues?

I stated that? Really?

Where?