Just Say NO to Mcbama and Ocain! [thread left up as a pinata, rules suspended-Jim]

Various of my friends and members of my extended family are urging me to vote for Sen. John McCain for President in the rapidly approaching general election. Few of them have much or anything positive to say about McCain himself, but they tell me that the dangers presented by the election of Barack Obama leaves us no alternative but to vote for McCain, thus blocking an Obama presidency. As always, we are told on all fronts that this is the "most important election in history."

For several reasons, I disagree with these friends and family members that our only alternative is to vote for John McCain.

There is not a real difference between the two presidential candidates of the major political parties in philosophy, worldview, or integrity. One is Black, and one is White. One is old, and one is young. I claim that, in spite of the rhetoric, this is where the differences end. In recent sound bites, on the topic of personal liberty and the Constitution, Obama sounds slightly more conservative than McCain. On abortion, McCain sounds a little more conservative than Obama. On foreign policy, McCain sounds slightly more hyper-interventionist than Obama, and neither sound conservative. But when you consider all of the rhetoric, their records, and the practical implications of their stated goals, all the supposed differences melt away, and we are left with another Bush Administration, or another Clinton Administration, with a slightly different flavor, but the same old direction for our nation: rapidly toward more foreign interventionism, more economic interventionism, more suppression of liberty, more complete reliance on government, more tax funding for all manner of evil, including abortion, unjust war, welfare for politically connected multinational corporations, more official corruption, and, eventually, bankruptcy, chaos and/or brutal totalitarianism.

To know how a President McCain would govern in the realm of economics, one only has to remember his actions of a few weeks ago, when he pushed for unprecedented powers for the Secretary of Treasury, and, along with Bush's urging and Obama's help, lead the way for the Senate to pass the infamous bailout bill, which was the exact bill which angry voters had just persuaded the House to reject, only now with over 450 pages of earmarks (pork), tax "extenders," and new powers for the IRS added to it. McCain publicly chided House Republicans for listening to their constituents and stopping the first monstrous bill in the House! Bush and McCain and Obama told us we were all going to suffer financial ruin if we did not pipe down and hand over our children's wallets to the banksters. Now that they have had their way, we have seen dramatic drops in all of the world's stock markets. What better example do we need to see that McCain and Obama are on the same page when it comes to economics?

What about the right to be armed? Surely McCain is better than Obama on that issue? For the answer to that question, I would direct the reader to this web address: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm. It is a compendium put together by Gun Owner's of America, of John McCain's gun-control record.

What about immigration? More than even most Democrats, McCain has been a consistent advocate of uncontrolled immigration. In 2007, he was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy Act, which sought, among other things, to legalize the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country. This was being pushed during the jostling for position in the primary elections, and was a very unpopular bill among the Republican rank-and-file in an election in which opposition to unchecked immigration was expected to play a huge role. Yet, somehow, John McCain managed to win the primary popular vote. Incidentally, none other than Barack Obama was an ardent supporter of this act, and also a co-sponsor.

Free speech? See the McCain-Feingold Act, a famously unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Foreign policy? Both candidates have advocated aggressive interventionism and nation-building. Both support our illogical and immoral policies in the Balkans, and hypocritically support the independence of a Muslim Kosovo, but oppose the independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Both want to increase and expand our current quagmire in the Middle East.

Abortion, I am told, is where the important difference lies between John McCain and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is famously tolerant of all abortions, any time, any where. McCain, on the other hand, currently claims to be pro-life, and promises to select judges that are "strict constructionists," implying that he would nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe vs. Wade, if given the chance. But John McCain has flip-flopped on this issue, like so many others in his political career, several times. He has made statements in recent years that he does not want to see Roe vs Wade overturned. Also, McCain's role in promoting justice David Souter, the currently important role of Warren Rudman in McCain's campaign, and his voting record for past nominations in the Senate, is an indication of what kind of Supreme Court justices we really would get under a McCain presidency; they are not likely to be justices that would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.

John McCain has repeatedly stated his support for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and has even implied that it should be increased.

McCain shows no tendencies to stop the over $1 billion of Federal funds that go to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America every year, and under a McCain presidency, funding for this and other abortion "services" would likely increase, as it has under the Bush Administration. Until those of us who are pro-life get away from the distraction of the fight for the Supreme Court, and trying to Federalize laws against a certain kind of murder, and instead focus on the right of a state to protect the lives of its citizens without Federal interference, and, more importantly, insist that those politicians who call themselves pro-life do all they can within their sphere to stop the taxpayer funding of abortions and pro-abortion propaganda, we will never make any political ground against the Culture of Death. It's easy to call oneself pro-life, but it's another thing to stand for life consistently.

Although conservatives today have chosen to support nearly all wars waged by the Federal government, and believe any and all justifications for these wars, unjust and needless wars are also the taking of innocent lives. In other words, it is state-sponsored mass murder. Why do we rightly speak out against the evil slaughter of millions of babies through abortion, but tolerate and even support the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies in other countries in wars that are based on government falsehoods and flimsy justifications?

Others will admit that there is no essential difference between the politics of McCain and Obama, but that Obama is a man of bad character, and associates with bad eggs, while McCain is a war hero.

While I, too, am very disturbed by Obama's personal and political associations, and do think his character is a relevant and important topic, I am equally disturbed by the associations of John McCain. Disturbingly, there is even some overlap in the nefarious associations of the two men. In the interest of space, I will leave it to the reader to investigate for themselves the following partial list of associations with John McCain: The regime in Libya, the regime in Georgia (the country, not the state), mob boss Joe "Bananas" Bonano, Charles Keating (how can we forget that?), George Soros, and Juan Hernandez (McCain's Director of Hispanic Outreach).

As for the designation of John McCain as a war hero, it is indisputable that he was shot down on a bombing raid, and that he spent over 5 years as a Prisoner of War (POW) in North Vietnam. However, what happened to him as a POW is disputed. Many Vietnam veterans, including some of his fellow POWs, claim that McCain cooperated with his communist captors without undergoing the torture he claims was administered. They claim that he was given special treatment by the North Vietnamese, because of his special status as the son of an Admiral, and because of his willingness to cooperate in producing propaganda with them.

These men who make these claims are also veterans, and were also held captive by the enemy as POWs, so there is no reason to automatically discount their claims, or to say they are less credible than McCain because of McCain's status as a war hero. Two things give credence to their claims, in my view. One is the frequency with which John McCain lies today (he has been caught in too many blatant and public lies to itemize here), proving that the truth is not something he finds to be important. Secondly, John McCain, as a US Senator, has doggedly stonewalled attempted investigations into the fate of the many POWs and MIAs left in Southeast Asia. The surviving loved ones of the many missing US Servicemen have been publicly belittled by McCain, and have been the recipients of displays of his famous violent temper, for simply wanting to know the truth about the fate of their missing family members. Further, McCain stated that no POWs in Vietnam were interrogated by Soviet agents. We now know through evidence and testimony that has since come to public light that this statement is not true, and also that McCain had to have known it was not true, based on his seat in the Senate. The demeanor of McCain toward these surviving family members of POWs and MIAs and their advocates, and his tireless efforts (teaming up with Senator John Kerry) to block their searches for answers, seems incongruous with his claims regarding his years as a POW.

John McCain's military career before being shot down in Vietnam was spotty, at best. He was known as a party animal, and lost five aircraft, including the one shot down over North Vietnam. Only two of these crashes could be considered combat-related, including a fiery explosion on an aircraft carrier that killed 134 sailors.

While I'm writing about character, I will mention the fact that McCain left his first wife after she was in a car wreck that left her confined to a wheelchair, for a younger, much richer woman who has better political connections. He may repudiate the foolishness of his youth, and one need not be perfect to advocate virtue, but the abandonment of his first wife does understandably cast doubt on his character, and does not put him on strong moral ground to advocate family values.

Some argue that I should vote for John McCain because of his running mate, Sarah Palin. They agree that there is no difference in the character or policy views of McCain and Obama, but that McCain is old, and may die in office, and the true conservative Palin will take his place. But leaving aside doubts of the stories about her fighting corruption within the GOP in Alaska, and whether her professed feminism is good or bad for her family and our society, Sarah Palin shows her true colors by even being willing to be the running mate of John McCain, and being willing to promote him and his politics. She has embraced McCain's politics, and has already been willing to compromise her past views. If she is half the woman her supporters think she is, she will be somehow removed by the current corrupt GOP leaders, or she will remove herself.

In conclusion, I believe that a John McCain presidency would be at least as bad for our nation and our families as an Obama presidency, and perhaps even worse, since he would be falsely viewed as the conservative choice of the voters, though he would run the country in no appreciably different way than would Barack Hussein Obama. (I use the phrase "run the country" because thanks to the Congresses and the Administrations of the last 20 years, the President of the United States is for all practical purposes a dictator.) As we have seen with George W Bush, a Republican President gets support from much of the conservative portion of the population when he does things that would incite near riot by the same people if he were a Democrat. Therefore, perhaps it is better for a Democrat to hold that obscenely powerful position for now, with the hope for some popular resistance to his actions, and some unity in the opposition among conservatives.

Each election, conservatives reluctantly vote for someone for President who is more progressive, more socialistic, and less Constitutional than the candidate in the previous election. When will it end? When will we say "no more?"

I have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party. I urge all Americans who are tired of the lawlessness, corruption, and increasing totalitarianism of our current government to vote with me for Chuck Baldwin, or to vote for another Third Party, or to write in someone else, or to not vote for President at all. Don't throw away your vote! Why choose between drowning and hanging? Why choose between Benito Mussolini and Vladimir Lenin? This election, let's not give these nihilistic demagogues our consent to govern us. Just say no to Ocain and Mcbama!

Note that none of the “I hate negative campaigning folks” have debated the merits of the arguments put forth by negative campaigning. Is it negative campaigning to point out the fact that Obama has a history of hanging out with radicals who hate our country, and in some cases, have attacked its institutions and killed its citizens? Is it negative to point out the fact that his association with ACORN involved intimidating banks into giving loans to risky borrowers? Is it negative campaigning to point out the fact that he participated in an educational foundation with an admitted, arrogant, unrepentant terrorist, and that the foundation’s goals included the education of Chicago schoolchildren in how to be radicals?

Candidates in political campaigns have to do at least two things: 1) convince people to vote for them, and 2) convince people that voting for the other candidate(s) would have a negative or even dangerous effect. What you see as negative campaigning, I see as fulfilling goal #2 of political campaigns.

I suggest that those complaining about “negative campaigning” need to man up.

Chuck Baldwin will never be President of the United States.

I don't even want Baldwin to be president if I could appoint him. He's a chicken____!!!

This egomaniac cares for more about his ego than his country. Shame on him and anyone who votes for him. It's a vote for Obama.

Yup... and I’ve seen articles posted here in which writers are referring to Ayers as a “so-called” and “alleged” leftist. Riiiight. That picture of him stomping on an American flag in a Chicago magazine article indicate his profound conversion to patriotism.

>>Wake up Republicans you are your own worse enemy as your policies destroy you from within. <<

I’m a registered Independent who supports Sarah Palin. Unless she is voted in, she slides into obsurity. If she wins, every one of us sends money to the GOP FOR her. Written plainly on the check.

Now is not the time to teach lessons (as a dear FRiend of mine stated last night) Now is the time to act to get an actual conservative in the White House.

We should be saying, four years of McCain isn’t going to be all that bad.
Sarah changed his mind on drilling, what else can she do? We’ll never know if we don’t get her in.

You can state it all you want, any way you want, but past is past and the big 0 will take this country down the tubes for sure. McCain/Palin may not. I’ll take my chances with the second, rather than pick the sure thing on my own self-righteousness.

That’s right... the general election is not the time to be teaching lessons. We should’ve done that effectively in the primaries, but we didn’t. Now we have a reasonably conservative McCain, and a seriously conservative Palin, and they’re the only things standing in the way of a zealously pro-abortion socialist with radical America-hating friends occupying the White House. It’s not the time to stand on principle - it’s the time for pragmatism.

And if McCain/Palin lose, and they lose by less than the percentage of people voting for relatively conservative third-party candidates, I’m going to be in the face of every one of these third-party voter I know from now until 2012, blaming them for giving us 0bama.

My eyes were opened to these cowards during the 2000 and 2004 elections. I was stupid enough to send these parasites some of my hard-earned money until I heard their disgusting radio ads. They were running ads against Bush--not Gore or Kerry.

Sorry, they could never convince me that Bush was more dangerous than Gore or Kerry. What were they trying to do? Elect Gore or Kerry.

Then I got to thinking that they get to go out there and try to fool gullibles (like me) that they really were more pure than the Republicans.

The truth is they care not one twit about their country. If they really did, they would be running as Republicans where they have a chance at actually getting elected. I have to assume they don't want to run that risk. It's more fun to stand there, beating their chests and asking voters to look at them--they're so virtuous!! They are cowards and egomaniacs.

They have the added benefit of not being muddied by the two major parties, and can stand on the sidelines when this country starts to disintegrate, and say, “See, I TOLD you this would happen!”

Apparently they’re not confident in their abilities to actually win as Republicans. And when your candidate as nutty as Chuck Baldwin, that shouldn’t come as a surprise.

*protest voter emulation*
“But.. it’s to SEND A MESSAGE!”
*End protest voter emulation*

I thought ‘sending messages’ went out with ‘sending messages’ to the vietcong in ‘75’..

In 2006 some really wise so called republicans/conservatives* suffering from severe BDS, decided that we needed to "teach the country a lesson" by handing power over to the Dem/Commies. They assured us, that the resulting shambles would bring about the next great conservative revolution. We got the shambles all right, but somehow, no one seems to make the connection as to who got us here.
If those brilliant peoples's minds* were right, the Dems should be cowering in hidey-holes like Sadaam for fear of the public's retribution.
Instead, they are poised to destroy America once and for all.
Nancy to Barney and Harry, "As long as we control the mediots and so called conservatives, who suffer from BDS and blame Bush for everything. We, the elite/rich/white liberal criminals in Congress will have no problem. Just remember everything is Bush's fault! Heh! Heh!"

*Now the same mentally ill idiots filled with same BDS, want Sarah and John to lose to really teach America a lesson.

This is rather long, but it’s an exhaustive defense for those of us who are rejecting the supposed “choice” we have this election.

Yep you nailed it ........... That’s why I’m rejecting that Swamp water preacher.

In 1992 the Republic Haters claiming to be conservatives enabled the Clintoons to be in power for 8 years. America is still suffering from those 8 years. Close to 3000 innocent Americans died on 9/11 as another gift from these insane walk on water creatures.

Now in their latest suicidal action, they want us to hand the country over to 0baMa0, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and other anti Americans.

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.