Posted on 04/29/2008 10:07:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
We all are...
Agreed. All points.
I don’t think it’s necessary to go after the man’s military service.
That’s downright tacky, and doesn’t reflect well on you.
Lord knows...you have plenty of ammo on him, politically speaking.
Why not use that?
LOL!
I wondered what your point was. ;o)
Thank you for the video.
That was not easy to watch, but I hope it's been widely viewed.
Irritating times we live in...huh?
I’m spending more and more time in a cranky mood.
Thank goodness for the ‘Rats’ predicament. ;o)
To tell you the truth...I don’t think there is anyone in DC who’s worthy to sit in the oval office.
One thing we can count on is that there’s plenty of dirt to go around!
Ditto!
“Thank goodness for the ‘Rats’ predicament. ;o)”
It’s the only thing that makes this election season palatable.
You got that right!
John McCain deserves praise and credit for what he was and what he did 40 years ago. Unfortunately, we have to deal with him as he is now, and that ain’t nothing to brag about.
I'd like to see philetus offer some evidence that McCain is lying about the reason he can't reach over his head, and some actual evidence that he has lied about torture. I've seen a lot of people with broken arms, but I never saw one who never raised his hands above his head again. An explanation of how a man beyond reproach like Bud Day decided to support a traitor would be nice, too.
I had my fill of people lying about Vietnam vets a long time ago, and I'm not cutting you any slack just because you're one. Put up or shut up.
Thanks for the link. Very sad what our POW's endured.
Whew! ;o)
I agree with your entire post, too.
I lived on base with the wives and families of the POWs/KIAs, and many POWs came home to that base.
McCain has plenty of political points to go after without impugning his service.
You can’t dismiss that as “speculation.” You know full well that every time you put a RINO in charge of government (be it state or federal), the party shrinks rapidly in size. Look at Eisenhower, who couldn’t be bothered to do the necessary party work and we went from having majorities in the House and Senate to only 1/3rd of Congress in 1958. 6 years. It took a quarter century to recover from the Senate losses. It took FORTY years to recover from the House losses.
You think this country will survive 40 more years of the anti-American party in charge of Congress ? That’s not speculation. That’s reality. McCain has always been more interested in playing footsie with the rodents (and was quite prepared in 2004 to become one). Ignore that at your own peril. I won’t.
Well, let me share something with you. In Jimmy Carter's midterm election, we picked up 30 seats. Riding Reagan's coattails we picked up 34 in 1980. But in 1982, we lost 26, then gained, then lost a few...
Jimmy Carter II is not worth picking up an amount of seats in the low double digits.
You're picking Jimmy Carter. I'm picking FDR.
It’s really hard to respect your opinion when you equate a guy who suffered for his country—no matter how much we disagree with the guy—with a sissy-boy racist who wouldn’t know strike package from a writer’s strike.
Exactly. Whoever the next president is, we’ve demonstrated that committed activism can put us in a position where we have Congress by the short hairs.
No we didn't. We picked up a paltry 3 Senate seats in 1978 and a disappointingly low 15 seats in the House. But what does that have to do with McCain or my Eisenhower example ?
"Riding Reagan's coattails we picked up 34 in 1980."
Correct. But that was AGAINST Carter and a huge number of unpopular Dem incumbents. That's not going to happen this year. We're going to LOSE seats this year (most especially on the Senate side) even if McCain wins.
"But in 1982, we lost 26, then gained, then lost a few..."
OK, but what, again, does that have to do with anything I said ? You're going off in a different direction here that has nothing to do with McCain. And McCain is no Reagan.
"Jimmy Carter II is not worth picking up an amount of seats in the low double digits."
So your preference is to continue to lose seats in Congress. I'm thinking Snobama, with zero executive experience, will see the GOP in 2010 make gains more like 1994. You do remember 1994, don't you ?
"You're picking Jimmy Carter. I'm picking FDR."
That's even worse. We had 89 (!) House Republicans in 1936 against 333 Democrats and 17 (!) Senate Republicans against 75 Democrats. So that's what you want ? That's a recipe for epic disaster for the GOP.
In all seriousness, consider the following:
If Hillary is elected, government will grow. If you doubt me, take a look at the Clinton budgets after 1994.
If Obama is elected, government will grow. He will likely have a Dem Congress...and we know he'll be treated like the second coming of Jack Kennedy.
If McCain is elected, he might just kill some pork, and we'll probably get a sane health care plan. But what if all the spending hawk stuff goes away when he gets in office? Well, then he'll probably spend as much as Hillary.
So, we can pretend that we're going to stop the growth of government with a Dem in the White House, even though we did no such thing before, or we can back a guy who hates pork. Easy pick.
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.