Posted on 05/06/2008 1:11:25 AM PDT by Yosemitest
You imply that posters should consider your “experience or back round” and your “many years experience within the Party and a of Conservative credentials”. Now you choose not to share it but to throw insults around.
Whatever.
That is illogical nonsense. You claim to have great credentials but must keep them a secret. Your credentials aren't open to scrutiny but it's a reflection on us that we don't accept your otherwise unsupported opinions? The fact that they don't make sense in light of what we do know about McCain ought to make it a requirement that you give us some other reason to consider your thoughts. The "I know things you don't" claim is rather empty.
Would you like to know something funny, Lexus? All these Mccain haters talk about John Mccain more than Mccain HIMSELF! Even more irony: no one cares! They’re all just saying the same crap, every thread, convincing nobody but themselves of anything. I’ve never seen such negative energy put to such....zero use.
Like all McCain supporters you can’t name one rational reason to support him but, like McCain, you are free and easy with the put downs. LOL
Do you consider Andrew McCarthy a "McCain hater"? What do you think of the issues he raises?
They’re all just saying the same crap, every thread, convincing nobody but themselves of anything.
All that crap? Like global warming regulation, amnesty, big-government, Law of the Sea, class warfare, clueless foreign policy.... etc.
You think those qualify as "crap"?
FYI, Conservatives oppose these things. (FR sure ain't what it used to be.)
Entirely false. Both statements. I am impressed. Let's parse:
1. I can name one rational reason to support Mccain: our War with Islam. The other candidates would happily lose it and doom our country to a quick end.
2. Put downs? The absolute BLACK WHOLE of negative crap-slinging on Free Republic are these Mccain threads, almost entirely written by Mccain "critics". The very idea that you can't count up the insults on this thread alone boggles the mind.
Keep laughing. You're the one disenfranchised, not me. LOL indeed.
THIS is what I posted:
"I am merely trying to add to the discourse and yours or anyone else's refusal to accept for discussion my thoughts reflects back on you (and them) and not at all in a favorable way."
From that, how on earth to you come to a conclusion that encourages you to write this:
"... but it's a reflection on us that we don't accept your otherwise unsupported opinions?"
Where did I ask you or anyone to accept my opinion? I clearly said I was offering up my opinion for consideration and discourse.
Clearly you need to take a course in understanding the English language.
Just for discussion purposes, can you tell me how they will do this?
Are you saying neither one will engage the DoD, no matter what our enemies may do? That the DoD and the American people will just sit back and not do anything?
What form will "doom" take on--and what do you mean by "quick end"? Will the American people no longer exist, the Constitution replaced by another document, the country nuked or? Will the other candidates also be victim to this "quick end" or will they and their family somehow avoid the destruction?
Please be specific.
I would guess "yes". I was referencing FR's "True/Strong Conservative Brigade", however.
All that crap? Like global warming regulation, amnesty, big-government, Law of the Sea, class warfare, clueless foreign policy.... etc. You think those qualify as "crap"?
"Crap" meaning the clearly ridiculous assertions concerning Mccain. Such as "clueless foreign policy". There are definitely viable points to criticize Mccain on. I don't find many of them in these threads.
FYI, Conservatives oppose these things. (FR sure ain't what it used to be.)
Ah. Sorry, but I come from the camp where I don't look to other "conservatives" to tell me how to think conservatively. See, that's my philosophy: liberals think they know what's best for everyone else. Conservatives think they know what's good for themselves. I think I far prefer my definition.
Excellent questions. My thoughts are this: first, appeasement of terrorist regimes. Cessation of hostilities against AQ. AQ rebuilds. Attacks are planned. Attacks are carried out. Small at first. Nothing is done. More attacks. Nothing is done (does this sound familiar?). The terrorist as a whole are further emboldened. Siginificant funds and resources are now going to AQ towards a super 9/11. Militant Islam begins showing it's head in the US (like Britain), and the powers that be urge patience.
And then, disaster. Like, a whole damn city. Recovering from 9/11 was quite difficult, remember? Just think about that times a few thousand, and replace GWB with Barack Obama, and perhaps you now see where I see "doom".
You have gotten back plenty of that so why this? ...
...and yours or anyone else's refusal to accept for discussion my thoughts reflects back on you (and them) and not at all in a favorable way."
It doesn't make sense.
The part McCarthy leaves out is the damage done to America if either of the other 2 win.
Please clarify your comment. What damage do you forsee? Be specific.
This idea of my way or the highway that many Conservatives have is both wrong headed and dangerous.
Did McCarthy say that? I didn't get that out of his article, at all. Do you agree with anything he wrote, or reject it all? Does any of it cause you concern?
Helping McCain to win and then trying to push him right or even trying to replace him in 2012 is far far more sensible then caving in and heading for the caves for the next 4-8 years.
Are you familiar with Arnold Schwarzenegger? Tell me how well this same strategy, that was touted here on FR by party operatives and campaign hacks, has worked out for California. Were they able to influence him to move to the right? Were they able to get him to sway from his liberal-leanings and love for big-government solutions? Were they able to withstand his push for global warming regulation? Did his "big tent" philosophy do anything for the GOP other than elevate himself? Here is a hint: He has been able to accomplish more for liberal causes than any Democrat could have dreamed of. He has left the state party bankrupt. He has worked against conservative causes. Why would "Maverick" McCain be any different?
Which is easily refuted (and often is) by looking at McCain's plans to close GTMO and make terrorists eligible for all the civil rights of citizens and his opposition to waterboarding on the grounds that it's torture and "it puts our troops in danger of being tortured by the enemy."
...The other candidates would happily lose it and doom our country to a quick end.
That isn't a rational argument. It is highly unlikely that a Dem Pres. would have the support to "end the war quickly" and it's pure paranoia to claim that it would "doom our country to a quick end." Sky is falling nonsense.
The absolute BLACK WHOLE of negative crap-slinging on Free Republic are these Mccain threads, almost entirely written by Mccain "critics". The very idea that you can't count up the insults on this thread alone boggles the mind.
There is hardly a subject discussed here on FR that doesn't generate those kind of posts. It doesn't change the fact that plenty of substantive information on McCain's perfidy and liberal policies are posted but never refuted. The ratio of flaming-to-substance is much higher from McCain supporters as this thread demonstrates and your own postings confirm.
I suppose that Andrew McCarthy would heartily disagree with you and would find being called a "hater" reason to dismiss most of your other opinions--as some seem to be doing on FR. As to a "Brigade"... I know of no such group. Conservatives do tend to agree on many issues, however. If you find yourself on the opposite side of those discussions, you might ponder as to why. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with "hate" on either side of the argument.
"Crap" meaning the clearly ridiculous assertions concerning Mccain. Such as "clueless foreign policy". There are definitely viable points to criticize Mccain on. I don't find many of them in these threads.
Well, you were talking about all sorts of threads. To my recollection, this is the first thread that seriously challenged his foreign policy in any way... although I think many people were thinking it. I notice that you didn't address the other items I mentioned that are often mentioned on threads. Do you think those concerns are "crap"? (global warming regulation, amnesty, big-government, Law of the Sea, class warfare)
Ah. Sorry, but I come from the camp where I don't look to other "conservatives" to tell me how to think conservatively. See, that's my philosophy: liberals think they know what's best for everyone else. Conservatives think they know what's good for themselves. I think I far prefer my definition.
I don't look to anyone tell me how to think, either. But conservatism, with respect to politics, does have a few defintions. Most do not favor big-government solutions (like intervention in baseball, for example). Most favor a respect for the law and show love of country (and are disturbed when someone suggests that lawbreakers should be rewarded with citizenship). Most do not want their beloved USA to be subject to international law, taxation, and regulation as McCain would have us be with LOST and Global Warming regulation. Most think businesses should be able to operate in a predominantly capitalistic manner without Government teling them that they pay their CEOs too much money. I could go on... but I think you get the idea. See what I mean?
Here are about 50-60 links to viable negative articles about McCain. At least 90% of them are FR threads and they go back eight years so there is nothing new on FR about disdain for McCain.
Agreed, they are really talking to themselves and other haters of JM and, I think, trying to convince themselves that staying home really is the right thing to do.
By that definition McCain is solidly liberal.
There you have it, calcowgirl. We can try to engage them on substantive issues until our faces turn blue but they will just turn right around and sling some farcical innuendos and pretend no one ever tried to discuss the political realities. The pattern has become as predictable as sunrise and sunset.
"Please clarify your comment. What damage do you forsee? Be specific."
The damage will be that all our gains in the WOT will be lost because both candidates will pull the troops, if not immediately as Hussein promises then on a public time table and NOT one events driven. That will be a clear victory for the savages and will, like the encouragement they have received from the Democrats give them reason to fight on and on. Iraq will be lost and become a satellite of Iran which will then control, totally the largest oil reserves in the world.
The terrorists will further be emboldened to strike elsewhere without fear we will engage them as long as a Democrat is in the WH. They probably will hit us here, in shopping centers and schools, something they have not dared do while there is a "crazy" Republican in the WH.
This idea of my way or the highway that many Conservatives have is both wrong headed and dangerous.
Did McCarthy say that? I didn't get that out of his article, at all. Do you agree with anything he wrote, or reject it all? Does any of it cause you concern?
No, I said it. I never said he did. I have posted at length what I believe and the crux of it is that the WOT and it's being prosecuted aggressively is by far the single most important thing today. 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.
Helping McCain to win and then trying to push him right or even trying to replace him in 2012 is far far more sensible then caving in and heading for the caves for the next 4-8 years.
Are you familiar with Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Oh sure, I have all his movies. Not a very good actor but as high camp he's fine.
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.
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.