Posted on 08/30/2008 10:50:47 AM PDT by davidosborne
For the record I voted for Sarah Palin in the FR poll, but was disapointed that only 40% of FReepers agreed with me.. I would like to see a new FR poll asking how many FReepers are happy with Sarah Palin.. I bet it would be 90% ---- the same as her approval rating in Alaska.... and soon to be her approval in the USA !!
On another note I wonder if anyone is making bumber stickers that say Vote for Sarah PALIN for VP... because come November that is what I will be doing... John McCain is tha “baggage” that comes with that vote.. and then in 2012 we (THE GOP) can regroup and consider are options at that time.. but for now.. I am fully on board with Sarah Palin as VP ——
now.... here is a line I have not used in a while
TOWARD VICTORY !!!
Note New Tag Line
You're sorry that I called him what he is? Let's see: by definition, a newbie in the context of David's original post (containing his join date of today) is someone who is new to a particular message board or forum (like FR). And, since panglostwo joined today, that makes him a "newbie" to FR.
“I am in now way “bashing” McCain.”
Did I say you were? I spoke of your childish behavior and the insults to others that don’t agree with you.
I have no use for people who espouse one thing and behave opposite of it.
Personally I respect your willingness to vote for McCain and I respect your unwillingness to fall down and worship at his feet even more.
I’m still not voting for him.
(First one to accuse me of voting for Obama gets a cookie)
You know good and well that when you use the term newbie, it is used as a term of derision.
Nice job there, trying to distract me and appeal to my emotions.
My point, of course, was that McCain may never have "been on the reservation" in the first place, at least with regards to the issue of immigration and of border security. And, to back up my assertion, I offered up his votes in 1989 and 1990 with regards to a previous Kennedy immigration bill, with the assumption that you had not been living under a rock and at least knew of the more recent McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill.
Instead of addressing my point, you committed multiple logical fallacies that invalidate your argument in favor of McCain. You appealed to the consequences and appealed to my implied fear (as a conservative) of Obama in an attempt to shut down the debate.
The reality here is that there is no logically valid reason for a conservative to defend McCain and his liberal tendencies, much less vote for him. Most folks reluctantly support him because they perceive that there is no better alternative. However, this does not mean that debate (I said debate, not baseless "trashing") over McCain should end; in fact, it should continue, preferably before the election.
Otherwise, McCain will be McCain, and he will spurn conservatives after the election is done. And, with a liberal Democrat-controlled Congress, he is capable of doing just as much damage as Obama.
[As an aside, and I risk the wrath of Freepers who are unfamiliar with the rules of mathematical logic and proof: if, as you say, we need to stop questioning McCain because doing so prevents a good outcome (i.e., it prevents Obama from losing and thereby gaining power to sign off on harmful laws), then the ends justify the means, and if the ends justify the means, more generally, then, given the absence of alternatives, is it acceptable to kill an individual on life support because his or her organs might help save the lives of multiple people? After all, such an outcome is more favorable than what might otherwise have transpired. Take a moment to chew on that example and figure out why your argument of "the ends justify the means" doesn't work.]
Just like when you referred to folks like David and myself as "childish" in a previous post?
Oops, I talked about you...ping to post 386.
I dunno. In an election with no good choice for President, I don’t feel like bashing any conservative who supports McCain, or even Obama. (Yes, there are some “ObamaCons”—they believe that an outrageously radical Obama Presidency will be more effective in mobilizing a new conservative movement than a pseudo-conservative McCain Presidency.)
I save my heavy-duty bashing on FR for Serbophobes, Orthodox Christian-haters, “human-rightser” New World Order supporters, and muslim shills.
I REALLY like Sarah Palin. But whoever wins the Presidency, we’re in for a bumpy ride the next four years. Lord have mercy!!!!
Welcome to Free Republic. I hope you stick around.
nah.. newbie just refers to how long.. uhhh short a time a poster has been a registered FReeper.. and use their FIRST day as a registered FReeper to criticize those of us who have been fighting this fight a very long time..
David
I understand your point my FRiend.. however, we need to make sure he gets the message loud and clear that MANY of us are voting for him IN SPITE of his record of “stabbing” conservatives in the back... we are willing to forgive, but NEVER forget.... we need to remind him daily that he OWES the conservative base a LOT if he wins !!
First, in this case, the ends (keeping Obama out of the White House so that he can’t name 3-4 Ruth Souter Breyers to the Supreme Court) do justify the means (electing McCain, who was not the first or second choice of most people on this board but will be much more likely to give us several more Alito/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas types than the alternative). An ends-justify-the-means argument is not always wrong. In the example you gave, clearly you don’t kill the individual to save the life of those several others who could benefit from his or her organs.
However, what about if there were a jet loaded with passengers that was hijacked, and the government had reliable evidence that suggested the hijackers were flying the jet towards a high-rise building occupied by thousands of people, with the intent to destroy the building? Would the government be justified in shooting down the jet before the hijackers could carry out their plans? Would it be acceptable for the government to kill 100-200 people to save thousands? The answer in this case is a little less easy than it is in the case you suggested.
What if it were just two people in the jet - the highjacker and the pilot? Certainly the ends (protecting thousands of people) would justify the means (blowing the jet out of the sky, killing the pilot and the highjacker) in that case.
Second, I never attempted to “shut down the debate” about John McCain. He’s not the most reliably conservative candidate we could have ended up with - about that there is no doubt. However, he’s no Barack Obama, and in his first major official act as our nominee-in-waiting, he named a woman as his running mate who has almost universally pleased conservatives across America. For that, he deserves a lot of credit, because he could have gone in a different direction with that choice.
I have never said anybody should stop questioning McCain. My problem with this thread originated with David Osborne, who continues to refer to John McCain (the war hero who has spent his life in service to his country) as “baggage”. That’s disrespectful and not helpful or constructive in any way.
Should have pinged you to previous post.
Thanks for the courtesy ping.. I don’t find the term “baggage” as disrespectful at all.. it’s merely an analogy... a very good analogy IMHO, that describes the feelings of MANY conservatives who are thrilled to vote for Sarah Palin for VP... IN SPITE of the fact that in doing so are voting for John McCain as well... something that they (myself included) would NEVER consider doing if McCain had picked a liberal for VP.... which many of us actually expected him to do.... I intend to reward McCain for getting Sarah Palin to agree to be on the balot with him by voting for him... but that is as far it goes for me.. we (conservatives) have a very tough fight ahead regardless of who wins..... the only reason I keep hammering this point is this... I don’t want to be on record as cheering for a guy who has shifted the Republican Party so far to the left that it will take years to recover.. if we ever do...
TOWARD VICTORY in 2012’ —— in the meantime SARAH PALIN FOR VP in 2008 !!!
Good response, rab.
If McCain’s past actons are inconsequential, then why were Romney’s, Guiliani’s, etc, brought up repeatedly during the primaries? Because, unlike the stock market, past performance IS an indication of future results.
There are so many here that are using the lib’s exact same arguments. The end justifies the means, win at all costs even with a terribly flawed candidate, emotional appeals devoid of logic, threats, and my personal favorite: change the candidate after they are in office. Ha!
First I would like to say that we are a free country. People are entitled to their own opinions. But here’s my two cents, and a lot of people aren’t going to like it:
I understand your sentiment. McCain is likely to be the next president. He’s also a war hero. We need to keep a seat at the table. Just last night, Hannity had an interview with McCain’s daughter. She’s very sweet and smart. There’s no need to jab sticks at the McCain family. Hearing her reminded me that the McCains are human beings.
I just want to see him elected right now. At least we got a promise from him of ‘safe borders first’. That’s the best we can expect during this election.
Grow up David!
John brought us Sarah.
Without John, we would not have known Sarah.
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.