Posted on 06/08/2008 9:41:11 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
And you folks need to start putting the future welfare of the nation above teaching the GOP a lesson. Did the Clintons do damage to America, or was everything peachy keen when they left office? The only thing that stopped the Clintons from doing even more damage to the nation (which is what the poll is asking) is that Billy couldn't keep his zipper zipped up. From Waco, to not responding harshly enough when the WTC was first attacked, which led to 3000 dead Americans on Bush's early watch and a costly Middle East war, to Somalia, to selling nuke secrets to the Chicoms, to attempting to nationalize healthcare, to a war in Serbia where he killed thousands of Christians so he could help out his muslim buddies, to a bunch of other crap those idiots screwed up and tried to screw up. Yes, they helped our conservatives gain control of Congress for the first time in a generation or 2, and I'm sure those 3000 dead Americans on 911 are happy about that. I put my country above my ideology. If you knew in 1992 that a vote for a centrist Republican would mean that 3000 American lives would be saved along with the heart of our financial trading center, because he wouldn't have been a pussy about going after the perps that tried to bring the WTC down on his watch, would you have voted for Clinton just to teach the GOP a lesson about how they weren't conservative enough, consequences be damned?
8 years of Clinton's crap governance was worth it just to get a conservative congress? If the only way we can sell conservatism is to elect people and hope they will screw everything up bad enough that conservatism appeals to the average voter, that's pretty damned sad.
What if Obama has enough self control to not have the media and his political opposition occupying his time via constant scandal? Had Clinton had any self control, he would have been able to go alot farther than he did in his ability to perform idiocy from the White House and damage this nation.
I'm an American 1st, and a conservative 2nd. I don't put my political ideology above the welfare of my nation. I'll take a McCain "mole" over a blatant marxist any day.
McCain might not be a conservative, but he's not a marxist either, unless you want to tell me he fell in love with the politcal ideology of the people that tortured him for 5 years in Vietnam.
By your logic, we should elect Obama, and hope we get hit with a nuke, then the GOP will come crawling back to the conservatives! Well worth the trade-off! Sure, a few cities are gone along with a few million people, but hey, it was all worth it, conservatives are loved again! I'll take a pass on that kind of logic.
At least we know not to take you seriously.
You'd have to be insane or part of the Obama terrorist camp to allow this Muslim POS in the White House.
Good lord, patriot08, is there ANY thread you won't post this damn thing?
Your recent posts -- most featuring this same boring, fear-mongering graphic
I hope you realize you have begun to look very foolish. FReepers are, in general, not easily intimidated by your Party-line scare tactics.
Can't you think of ANYTHING positive to say about McCain?
Is your best argument really just: "BUT...BUT...BUT THE OTHER GUY IS LIKE, WOW, AWFUL!"????
No, those people aren't kidding.
I'm not voting for Obama, but I'm not voting for McCain either. And don't bore me with your rant about how a vote for someone else, or none, is a vote for Obama. Go back to elementary school and re-learn your arithmetic.
At the moment I'm most likely to vote for "The Ghost of Barry Goldwater", but it's still a long way to the election... neither convention has happened yet.
Definitely BO.
No comment.
“Did the Clintons do severe damage to Conservatism, or did they cause it to rally?”
But Bill Clinton wasn’t even that liberal (well, not compared to the Schumers, Kennedies, Durbins, and Pelosis of the world). The man was corrupt to the core, but he’s far preferable to what you see with the Dems now.
If you go back and look, he was actually looking into privatising social security. He also had removal of Saddam Hussein as a policy objective.
I’m just not sure if it was Clinton’s liberalism so much as his complete lack of character that rallied Republicans.
Just me thinking out loud a bit.
Some choice!
This is like choosing your manner of getting hanged — either drop through a trapdoor, or hoisted to a treebranch.
Which would you prefer?
You are 100% RIGHT.
“fear-mongering graphic”
When Iran, the largest state-sponsor of terror, states their goal is the destruction of America, and plans to ‘fill the void’ should the U.S. leave Iraq, and al-Qaeda, who plans on using Iraq as a center of their caliphate to launch terror attacks against America, they are simply fear-mongering?
“I’m not voting for Obama, but I’m not voting for McCain either.”
Yeah, let others choose your president for you. No thanks.
Thank you for your thoughtful and well written posts here. And you are right about putting America before ideology. It reminds me of why I admire Tammy Bruce. Even though she disagrees with Bush on a lot of things, she voted for him because not being hit by a Nuke is a lot more important to her than anything else.
barr has an obsession to let terrorist go because HE believes we owe them due process. He is an aclu board member. That should cover all of his best qualities.
“Poll to Freep: Who would be worse for the country? John McCain or Barack Obama”
That question would be a good one for the old radio show, “It Pays To Be Ignorant”. Other questions that stumped them were “How many lakes are in the five Great Lakes?” and “Who’s buried in Grant’s Tomb?”.
I would not want to live with the conscience of voters who stayed home and let Barack HUSSEIN Obama become President of these United States and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.
That would be like sitting with a loaded pistol and letting criminals take over your home.
Stupid!
> Yeah, let others choose your president for you. No thanks.
Maybe your vote will matter. Mine won't, regardless.
I live in upstate NY. The heavy Dem deadweight of NY City means that NO MATTER WHOM I VOTE FOR, NY GOES FOR THE DEM. I can vote my conscience because my vote is already meaningless with regard to McCain vs. Obama.
So since both McCain and Obama make me sick, I'm going to vote for someone who I think would make a good President. That's SUPPOSED to be the idea anyway, remember?
So that graphic that pops up on every political thread is really starting to annoy me. I don't need to be told "I have no choice" by some RNC shill. I have every choice in America. Get it?
Jun 09, 2008
Who would be worse for the country?
President John McCain
36% (421 votes)
President Barack Obama
64% (733 votes)
Total votes: 1154
Is there an option for "YES"?
Obama will be a disaster of the worst sort.
We can survive Obama's socialism, but we will not be able to survive his foreign policy ineptitude. When JFK decided it was a good idea to meet with Khrushchev, the Soviet leader determine he was weak. This led directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Fortunately, JFK was a patriot, had some gonads and was also a quick learner. He knew he was perceived as weak and had the courage to face down Khrushchev.
Obama, with his political inexperience and elitist arrogance, has already announced he will meet with terrorist without precondition. This statement alone should disqualify him. Our enemies already perceive him as weak, and a future meeting with them will do nothing to dispel this belief. Unfortunately, Obama is not smart enough to realize he made a mistake. When the newly emboldened terrorist network take action, Obama will neither have the gonads or the courage to face them down.
Ultimately, this will get us into a war that will make Iraq appear as child's play. All wars come about because the enemy is thought to be vulnerable - and that is exactly the way our enemies will think of Obama.
Let’s see...
On reforming social security trust fund liabilities that threaten to bankrupt the country?
On resisting environmentalist whackos that will bankrupt the country with their carbon caps?
On keeping taxes low to avoid bankrupting the productive sector?
On resisting new public spending entitlements?
Who’s threatening to raise capital gains taxes and corporate taxes and letting the Bush tax cuts expire?
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.