Posted on 05/06/2008 1:11:25 AM PDT by Yosemitest
That isn't my attitude. That isn't anywhere close to my attitude.
Correct!
Sorry for the delatyed response--I had an emergency to attend to.
You really didn't address my questions. Your assertion that the United states will "do nothing" is simply contrary to reality. You are suggesting that the entire DHS, DOD, CIA, NSA, and a myriad of other government agencies will all stand down in the wake of terrorist acts. Contrary to the perception that some would like to portray, these agencies are filled with non-partisan, well trained employees that love this country as you and I do. To suggest that these bodies will all remain silent is just not credible. While you may disagree with the democrats approach to foreign policy (as do I), to suggest that they would also stand idle in the face of attacks is campaign hyperbole, IMO and insults the intelligence of most Americans.
The problem is that McCain shows no vision as to what he will actually do other than making broad brush comments like "I will find Osama bin Laden... I know how and I will get it done" (without giving any details, of course.) Well whoop-dee-doo! Ya mean we have a sitting Senator who has a grand secret plan within his possession that would bring down bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, yet after 7 years he still can't find anyone in the administration that will take him seriously and give his super-successful secret plan a try? It defies credibility. As to him being aggressive (someone said that), aggression by itself is not a solution. And during at least one interview he has said that he'll cut and run from Iraq as soon as "the streets are safe." The man is all over the place and gives me ZERO confidence as to his CIC abilities. Don't even get me started on his "league of democracies."
On top of all that, he is a proponent of amnesty that would allow millions of aliens currently residing in the United States to be given citizenship. Now tell me how that does not open the door for the same type of terrorists that ultimately manned the 9/11 aircraft.
McCain is currently on the road talking about judicial activism and looking for judges who do not abuse the constitution. Well, those words sound pretty good on the surface. But coming from a senator who has made a career of abusing the constitution, I find it hypocritical.
I just did (above). But you didn't address my post #54. You seem to be having a hard time addressing my repeated question (among others):
I notice that you didn't address the other items I mentioned ... Do you think those concerns are "crap"? (global warming regulation, amnesty, big-government, Law of the Sea, class warfare)
The WOT is ONE important issue facing us today. McCain himself has placed Global Warming on his priority list as a threat on par with the WOT. The problem is, McCain's solution to global warming will do more to destroy the United States as we know it than anything he may do in Iraq--all without firing a shot.
The author of the article doesn't like McCain, you don't either so you agree with him. To me it is not a question of like or dislike it is a question of who is better prepared to save our very asses from the nut bags. McCain is and neither of the others are.
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking McCain--it has to do with his record, his character, and his policies. As Mr. McCarthy lays out in great detail, McCain is not prepared at all to "save our very asses from the nut bags."
California is a State and as a State it is OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat in it's makeup of elected officials as well as it's population. The presidency is quite different in that the constituency is nationwide and far more evenly split then CA. To get re elected Schwatrzenegger needs to satisfy mostly all liberals, for the Republican president to get re elected he would have to satisfy a certain number of Ind and republicans. there is no comparison between the two.
LOL. Too many innacuracies in your post to address. FYI, the demographics as to party are not much different than they were in the Reagan gubernatorial era. There go your "Party credentials" and knowledge that you touted earlier in the thread.
I've been called a lot of things before--that isn't one of them. Sumthin' new every day! LOL
Yep. All of the above, I believe. Do google searches and you'll find it, or speeches about being a good "global citizen" or his "new global order."
Is it? Where were you during the Cliton presidency? Did I somehow miss their swift and strong actions against NUMEROUS terrorists attacks against the US?
While you may disagree with the democrats approach to foreign policy (as do I), to suggest that they would also stand idle in the face of attacks is campaign hyperbole, IMO and insults the intelligence of most Americans.
You're right. Nancy Pelosi's vist to Syria, Barack Obama's promise to hold dialogues with Iran, N Korea, etc. - all that is surely a sign of prudence on their part. Let's get real here: your notion that the Dems in power will do anything other than actively cower and "seek dialogue" in the face of terrorist aggression is an absurdity. Have you forgotten who holds Congress as well?
The very idea that you put your life in the hands of someone like Obama and a Pelosi-led Congress astonishes me. Well, that's your choice I guess. I will also see you in November.
I don’t think those concerns are crap. I cited what I thought was crap. I’ll also add you are mischaracterizing certain things, but that’s to be expected.
Nice selective excerpting.
You said there would be attacks on US soil that would go unanswered. I simply do not believe that.
Do you oppose *all* “dialogue”? Is military aggression your only solution?
Thanks for finally answering.
I cited what I thought was crap.
Then, hopefully, you will respect those who think those items are basis enough to not support John McCain.
I’ll also add you are mischaracterizing certain things, but that’s to be expected.
Mischaracterized what? "Expected" why?
McCain's Senior Team - questions about John McCain's foreign policy plans
Insight on the News, March 13, 2000 by J. Michael Waller(snip)
National-security issues, which McCain sees as one of his strongest points, may end up being his Achilles' heel. Already there is concern among his conservative friends that McCain may lack the disposition to command, showing an uncertain sense of purpose and outright bad political judgment.
"What's the first thing you would do as president?" the Detroit News recently asked McCain.
"The first thing I would do," the candidate answered, "is call in John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel and several others and say we've got to get foreign-policy, national-security issues back on track."
Global warming is being played by him as an issue and will come to nothing. The mounting evidence against this gore created junk science is more and more evident each day and that will give him cover to turn away from it. I find it strange that you believe somehow a politician, in your case a conservatyive one will never do what they do best, pander. It's all about votes. Then WOT is the most important issue we have EVER faced in our history. The second most important thing in the near term is the USSC. McCain's record in this area is solid despite his vote for Ginsberg, which is easily explainable given when he made it. He voted for Scalia, Roberts and Alito. That's good enough for me.
As for todays demographics in CA being similar to when Reagan ran for president, you are delusional. Let's keep in mind Reagan was at one time a Democrat and when he switched Party's he took advantage of both Party's he managed to keep Democrats with him to a great extent and had the Republicans with him due to his switch. In 1982 California was seeing a Rep resurgence. From Wilkpedia: The Republican Party held sway in California until 1974, when Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. was elected. Brown came into office shortly after the Watergate scandal hurt the Republican Party throughout the United States and resulted in an upsurge in Democratic registration in California. Jerry Brown served two terms as governor. His 1982 defeat in a bid for United States Senate and Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley's defeat for Governor, signaled a resurgence of Republican power in California. Mayor Bradley's second defeat for Governor in 1986, coupled with Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential loss in California, saw the decline of Democratic registration. In 1992, California was hurting more than most states, from a national recession. The Cold War had ended and the public was disenchanted with the Republicans' 12-year-hold in the White House, and 10 year domination of the governorship. The California Democratic Party began re-organizing in 1991 and in 1992, won the greatest victories in the history of California -- not only with President Clinton winning California's 54 electoral votes -- but also with the election of two women Democratic U.S. Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Even though redistricting (reapportionment) was executed by a Republican State Supreme Court, California Democrats in November 1992 had increased their margin at all levels -- Congressional, State Assembly and in the State Senate. In 1992 Democrats increased their registration by 1.13 million while the Republicans only increased by 522,641. This ratio of two-to-one had not been accomplished by Democrats since 1976. In 1994 California Democrats suffered a setback by losing the governor's race for the fourth time in a row, and the Democrats became a minority in the State Assembly. However despite $29 million spent by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Michael Huffington, Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein won re-election. The 1996 elections proved to be a dramatic turnaround from the results of 1994, as President Bill Clinton won California's 54 electoral votes for a second consecutive time. Three Republican Congressman were also defeated, including Bob Dornan in the former conservative stronghold of Orange County. In addition, California Democrats also regained the majority in the State Assembly while adding to their majority in the State Senate. 1998 was a banner year for California Democrats. An overwhelming majority of Californians elected Gray Davis, the first Democratic Governor in 16 years and re-elected U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. Six of eight candidates for statewide constitutional offices won including Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Treasurer Phil Angelides, Controller Kathleen Connell and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin. In addition, California Democrats increased their majority in the State Assembly from 43 to 48 and also in the State Senate from 23 to 25. In 2000 not only was Senator Dianne Feinstein reelected by 20 points, but Democrats increased their margins in local races. Congress +4 (32 Dems - 20 Reps) and State Senate +1 (26 Dems - 14 Reps) and Assembly +4 (50 Dems - 30 Reps). Also Republican State Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush resigned in disgrace. Governor Gray Davis appointed Harry Low giving Democrats 7 out of 8 Constitutional officers along with 2 U.S. Senators. Holding off a national Republican trend in 2002, California Democrats won all eight statewide offices for the first time since 1882. Governor Gray Davis, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and State Treasurer Phil Angelides were all re-elected while Steve Westly was elected State Controller, Kevin Shelley was elected Secretary of State, John Garamendi was elected Insurance Commissioner and Jack O'Connell was elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_Party
Sorry... there is a whole lot that matters. McCain, as "standard bearer" of the Republican party will allow millions of criminal aliens to become citizens, subject us to a host of internationl law (and taxation), and will "doom" conservatism for decades to come. Those things DO matter.
I find it strange that you believe somehow a politician, in your case a conservatyive one will never do what they do best, pander.
I find it strange that you refer to McCain as conservative.
Global warming is being played by him as an issue and will come to nothing.
Uh-huh... sure. You obviously have not been watching his record.
John McCain Subscribes to Global Warming HoaxMcCain's Nose-Under-the-Tent Strategy
Fight Global Warming For $20 a Year . . .
Promising Vote on Global Warming
McCain heads overseas to observe global warming effects
The Turning Point on Global Warming (McCain and Lieberman Op-Ed)
World 'at tipping point over global warming' (McCain)
McCain slams Bush on global warming, Iraq policy
Global warming is the real deal, not 'Hollywood' myth, sez McCain
McCain: Global warming is fact, must be addressed [hurl alert]
McCain Sides With Leading Dems on Global Warming
Global warming bill advances in Senate
The One Environmental Issue (Huck and McCain side with dems on Gorebull Warming)
McCain Sides With Leading Dems on Global Warming (NH voter reminder ALERT)
LAT Endorses McCain: Weak on Fences, Strong on Global Warming
McCain-Lieberman: Higher Gas Prices, Anywhere From 26 Cents To 50 Cents To 68 Cents Per Gallon:
John McCain For President? (someone who favors higher taxes, illegals and global warming)
Election Watch: Paul Bashes McCain for Global Warming Alliance with Gore
There is lots more... but I doubt you'll read them, anyway.
Yeah, that's what we hear every 4 years. Vote for the liberal cuz they other guy is worse! And what has it gotten us? Bigger government than ever. No thanks.
A better analogy is that we conservatives are Poland, and we get to choose between Hitler and Stalin. I'll just sit it out, thanks.
Sorry... wrong again. The only change has been for folks to register as independents (and those independents vote pretty much in the same ratio as the D/R ratio). There was a "Rep resurgence" (slight) because Reagan actually had a message--and that message did not involve pandering and catering to liberals as you suggest is the road to victory.
California - Voter Registration for Gubernatorial races: Year Democrat Republican Other Total Governor elected 1966 56.6% 40.2% 3.2% 100.0% Reagan (R) 1970 54.9% 39.8% 5.2% 100.0% Reagan (R) 1974 56.6% 36.0% 7.4% 100.0% Brown (D) 1978 56.6% 34.2% 9.2% 100.0% Brown (D) 1982 53.2% 34.9% 11.9% 100.0% Deukmejian (R) 1986 50.8% 38.3% 10.9% 100.0% Deukmejian (R) 1990 49.5% 39.3% 11.2% 100.0% Wilson (R) 1994 49.0% 37.2% 13.8% 100.0% Wilson (R) 1998 46.7% 35.5% 17.8% 100.0% Davis (D) 2002 44.6% 35.2% 20.2% 100.0% Davis (D) 2003 43.7% 35.3% 21.0% 100.0% Schwarzenegger (R) 2006 42.7% 34.4% 22.9% 100.0% Schwarzenegger (R)
From Wilkpedia: The Republican Party held sway in California until 1974, when Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. was elected. ...
LOL. Well, is Wikipedia where you established your "party credentials"?
That was one of my thoughts as well. Neither the President nor Congress, even if Democrat, is going to dismantle all that has been done in those agencies to combat terrorism. It isn't credible.
It applied to the core of my argument and your refutation, so I quoted it. I only oppose dialogue with known terrorists regimes - they have this notorious little habit of lying through their teeth and betraying all of their agreements, while actively planning your destruction. You'll note that I cited 3 known terrorists regimes, yes? ALL OF WHOM the current Dems in power wish to "dialogue" with. And, finally, I am sorry you do not believe what I say. You would think that 8 years of Clinton's impotency in that regard would convince you otherwise.
It is not a matter of “believing” what you say because all of that is simply your “opinion,” not fact. I simply “disagree” with you on many things.
I don’t discount the threat... I just don’t buy into your “doom” and “destruction” hyperbole that the world will end if a democrat is in office.
Nixon talked to China. Reagan talked to the Soviet Union. All promises from our enemies should be looked upon skeptically but it does not mean that aggression is the only solution. Non-dialogue, especially when combined with aggression, often escalates the situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.