McCain: tea-party 'foolish' on balanced budget (McCain rips Tea Party - THANK YOU, SARAH PALIN!)

Politico ^ | 2011-07-27

[rabscuttle385]

Veteran Sen. John McCain has had enough with tea-party-aligned lawmakers who have vowed not to vote to raise the debt ceiling before passage of a constitutional balanced budget amendment.

The Arizona Republican, the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee, described their position as “foolish,” “deceiving, even bizarro,” given Americans’ anxiety about the sliding stock market, a halt on hiring and the possibility of higher interest rates related to the looming default.

[rabscuttle385]

Such fine judgment on your part, such discernment, such compelling insight.

I voted for the most conservative candidate on my ballot.

Did you?

To date, you have repeatedly dodged answering as to who you voted for.

And since you have expressed derision for voting for "certifiable" men, clearly, you didn't vote for McCain, so it's only logical to conclude that you voted for Obama and that you're too cowardly to admit it openly.

[Lakeshark]

It's obvious you're too embarrassed to say what you want to on this forum. I called you on it, and you just weaseled out of it over and over again.

One last time for yucks, just where were you headed when you asked that question? It's pretty clear to most anyone who cares to look at the conversation, but you continue to weasel.

Weasel.

See, I'm just as intelligent as you now.......

Good night, we await your further weasel discussions......

Dang it, if I could only do the font as clever as he does............:-)

[Lakeshark]

Certifiable is voting for a candidate who believed that US black ops actually caused the earthquake in Haiti. Certifiable is voting for Ron Paul for president or who he says to vote for.

What else would anyone call that?

Anyone? Beuller?

[DoughtyOne]

This was the sixth time you demanded a clarification from me.

How’s that working out for ya?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2754883/posts?page=148#148

[stephenjohnbanker]

You won’t get an answer. I guess it is ok to campaign for the devil himself if you “owe” him ;-)

[Chunga]

Anyone who comes out and says that she agrees with McCain and what he stands for is a traitor just like him.

So Sarah Palin is a TRAITOR to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Come on out and say what you mean. LOL!

I dunno, rabs. I can't believe I don't hear the mewing of Viking Kitties.

[rabscuttle385]

I dunno, rabs. I can't believe I don't hear the mewing of Viking Kitties.

What mewing?

We all know exactly what McCain stands for - after all, he was the one who publicly told Americans that they had nothing to fear from Obama as president!

Palin publicly said that she agrees with him with regard to the direction that he wants to take America.

To date, she has made no such retraction of any of her treacherous statements, spoken or printed, as in the case of her op-ed in The Arizona Republic.

McCain is for amnesty, for higher taxes, for reducing members of the U.S. armed services to the status of mere mercenaries (as in Libya), for restrictions on the First Amendment, and for Obama.

This of course doesn't even take into account his disgusting and scandalous treatment of the families of Vietnam War POWs and MIAs during the debate over the normalization of U.S. relations with Vietnam in the early 1990s.

We all know where McCain wants to go - the way of Soros, the way of Obama, the way of American subjugation to the New World Order.

If Palin wants to go there too, then I will not support her, and I have no qualms about attacking her for aiding and abetting McCain, for giving aid and comfort to a known and unrepentant traitor - and for her implicit refusal to repent of her treachery against conservatism and against her fellow Americans.

I will, however, feel free to give my support to candidates - like Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul, and Jim DeMint - who have and continue to fight the good fight against the growth of Big Government.

If you feel the need to keep attacking me personally merely because the facts that I continue to draw attention too make you feel uncomfortable, it shows the shallowness of your argument (or lack thereof) - and your willingness to silence anyone who disagrees with you with good cause.

Now, if Jim Robinson wants my head for my refusal to budge on this matter, then he may have it - after all, this is his forum. However, I will wait for him to speak on his own behalf, unlike you, who presumes to speak for him.

[LomanBill]

Hey Juan, who ripped Penny Pritzker and Barry Obama circa August 2008 on their role in the systemic corruption of our financial infrastructure?

 

Certainly not you, Chuckee Keating, or anyone else in the RINO Jackwagon/closet you were riding/hiding in.

 

R   I   N   O   that's YOU, Juan.   

Don't you have a three legged gay horse to wobble off into the sunset on or something?

[DoughtyOne]

...that a long time Palin derider such as yourself would be suggesting she is a traitor for supporting a traitor.

Anyone who comes out and says that she agrees with McCain and what he stands for is a traitor just like him.

It was not my intent to head in that direction.  As strange as it may seem to some of the brain-trusts around here, sometimes a simple question is just a simple question.  I'm not referring ot you BTW Rabs.

This was the question.  "Is it okay to support a traitor to our cause? Yes or no."

A simple yes reponse would have gotten a comment along the lines of, "Don't we owe it to ourselves and our cause to be more true to our core values than that?"

A simple no answer would have gotten a comment along the lines of, "Then please quit defending people doing things you know to be wrong."

That's it.  Instead of answering the question, LakeSnark accused me of something that wasn't true at all.  He actually preferred to lie, than answer the simple question truthfully.  He knew he had painted himself into a corner.  This angered him, so he decided to go with the big lie.  That's the Rules for Radicals training evidently.

So instead, the question got asked a number of more times, with no reponse.  It just hung out there like a drying road apple, the stench building because Mr. Smarty-Pants completely misread the situation.  And then having done so, he had to go on the attack lest he have to fess up and address the question candidly.

Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious.  I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated.  When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.

Nice work LakeSnark, you raised the visibility of this to the point you finally got someone to address it.  Happy now?

I have never thought Sarah Palin was the sharpest pencil in the box.  For this reason I don't assert the same "Traitor to our cause" comment I do to McCain.  If you're an informed Conservative, you don't ask your State's Senators to try to get the U.S. to sign on the Law of the Sea Treaty.  LINK  If you're an informed Conservative you may join a man on a ticket to moderate him, but you sure as hell don't back him for reelection so he can play the part of the destroy for another six years.  This is John McCain.  The information is out there.  Palin, reportedly a very bright person didn't at some point think it was important enough to search for the materials I did?  LINK

I have never made the assertion that Palin backed the LOST Treaty out of a desire to harm the U.S.  None the less she saw her state's interests as the primary interests.  She didn't understant the evil nature of what the U.N. was trying to set up with the Law of the Sea Treaty, and tried to get her Senators to help ram it through.  That was a massive mistake.  It was a mistake due to her being clueless to the overall impact of the LOST Treaty on the U.S. if it became fully functional and we were participating.  Not no, but hell no.

As for her backing McCain, she probably did see it as something that broke down to her owing him a favor.  Folks, do we do return favors for the enemies of our cause, and our nation?

All one has to do is read about what McCain has been up to for nearly his whole life, to know he is unfit to hold public office.  Endorse him?  I don't think there are more than twenty people on this forum who would endorse him, because they recognize what a scumbag he is.  And yet, it doesn't matter to these same people that someone they want to lead them would.

It absolutely baffles me why anyone would want a person to lead them, who thought John McCain was fit to return to Washington, D. C. for another six years.

Rabsctuttle385 has posted a LINK here that reveals Palin's stated agreement with where McCain wants to lead the nation.  This wasn't in 2008 either.  It's in 2010.  Really folks?  This is the person you want to lead you?  Why?

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him.  Which of these two traits convinces you she is fit to lead us?

Is she evil like McCain?  My personal opinion is no.  Is she informed enough to lead us?  Honestly, in my opinion, no.

[rabscuttle385]

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him.

I think she knows exactly what she stands for...and she agrees with him.

Direct quote, straight from the horse's mouth:

Long before the summer of 2008, I respected the man known as the "maverick of the Senate." From up in the Last Frontier state, I'd watched with deep admiration as he fought tirelessly against wasteful spending and corruption. I was inspired by his willingness to buck his political party - and even his president - to do what he believed was right for this country.

Link

Palin has openly said that she "respected" McCain "long before...2008" and that she "watched with deep admiration" as he "buck[ed]" the GOP "to do what...was right for this country."

Either she's lying through her teeth, she's being manipulated by her handlers like a marionette, or she's a RINO traitor like McCain.

[Lakeshark]

I started to read and thought to myself, oh, he's finally being clear, but the more I read, the more you dance and shuffle like a minstrel.

If you had stopped with, It was not my intent to head in that direction., you would have shown good character.

But no, you had to claim He actually preferred to lie, even though several others thought you were saying the same thing. It wasn't just me blue boy. Nor did I lie. I really thought you were going there, and suspect you still were from what you eventually said in your latest too obtuse reply.

Here's the money quotes: Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.

All one has to do is read about what McCain has been up to for nearly his whole life, to know he is unfit to hold public office. Endorse him? I don't think there are more than twenty people on this forum who would endorse him, because they recognize what a scumbag he is. And yet, it doesn't matter to these same people that someone they want to lead them would.

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him. Which of these two traits convinces you she is fit to lead us?

Now I know you said some other things, but it's clear to anyone reading your screeds you really want to say what Rabadash said, that you really deep down believe she's a traitor because she endorsed McCain, that you step to the edge of saying it, but then pull back because you know you won't stay on this forum if you actually, you know, say it.

At any rate, I wish you had stopped at that first sentence, but your Freudian slip appears to be showing.

If I'm wrong, just stop at the first sentence like you should have. If I'm right, give us another obtuse, and confusing reply.

[Lakeshark]

The rearless leader Rabadash has spoken.

You think she's nothing but a RINO traitor, right? I think that's what you just said, even more clearly than D1 quoted.

[stephenjohnbanker]

I think she knows exactly what she stands for...and she agrees with him.

Direct quote, straight from the horse’s mouth:

Long before the summer of 2008, I respected the man known as the “maverick of the Senate.” From up in the Last Frontier state, I’d watched with deep admiration as he fought tirelessly against wasteful spending and corruption. I was inspired by his willingness to buck his political party - and even his president - to do what he believed was right for this country.

This was verbatim one of 2 radio ads Palin blasted all over Arizona.

[DoughtyOne]

Rabs, I cannot deny the impression you have is justifiable. She has fostered that impression herself. I have taken it to mean she simply isn’t aware of what McCain is. Even that is extremely unflattering to her, considering the volume of information that is out there, easily accessible to anyone.

I guess to many people that will make me inflicted with PDS.

To my way of thinking, it merely indicates I’m lucid, something that can’t be said for quite a few folks around these parts these days.

[DoughtyOne]

I started to read and thought to myself, oh, he's finally being clear, but the more I read, the more you dance and shuffle like a minstrel.  LakeSnark, a clear pattern has developed here.  You claim you don't understand what I have posted.  You claim that I dance and shuffle like a minstrel.  You lie about what I have said.  All indications are that you are an illiterate liar.  By this point in our discussion, it's hard to believe otherwise.

If you had stopped with, It was not my intent to head in that direction., you would have shown good character.  This coming from a guy who has lied about what I have said at least twice here.  You have been called on it.  You have been proven wrong.  You still refuse to man up and apologize.  You're not even coherent enough to realize how you come off.  You made at least six attempts to get me to explain the meaning of a very simple question, rather than answer yes or no.  During that process you insisted that I was calling Palin a traitor to the Conservative cause.  It was a question.  It was not a declaritive statement.  It did not infer anything other than that Palin had actually supported a broadly recognized traitor to our cause, John McCain.
<> But no, you had to claim He actually preferred to lie, even though several others thought you were saying the same thing.   I haven't mentioned this point yet.  I've let you flap your gums to your hearts content about other unnamed people who agree with you.  I could state that others have expressed agreement with me.  What difference would it make?  If you said the moon appeared aqua blue, it still wouldn't make it aqua blue.  If you said every other person on the planet agreed with you, it still wouldn't make the moon aqua blue.

Here is the question again: Is it okay to support a traitor to our cause? Yes or no.  LINK

Where in the Sam Hell did you get the idea that was calling Palin a traitor.  We had been talking about Palin support for McCain at length.  All of a sudden you veer off course and attribute this to my saying Palin is a traitor to our cause.  There are only two options here.  Either you're a moronic simpleton, or you're a manipulative liar.  Which is it?  You seem to be trying to build the case for the moronic simpleton vote, so I'm going to have to go with that at least in part.  At the same time, this question was so simple, a person with an I.Q. of 90 could answer it.  So I am also faced with the reality that you are a manipulative liar as well.  You've certainly covered all the bases here.

It wasn't just me blue boy. Nor did I lie. I really thought you were going there, and suspect you still were from what you eventually said in your latest too obtuse reply.  Too obtuse reply?  Why do you participate here if you're too illiterate to read and comprehend what is posted here?

As for the 'blue boy' comment, I give you the respect of posting your comments in light gray, and address the points you have raised directly in blue.  Does that merit you belittling me for doing it?  On every count, you continue to show yourself up for the illiterate liar and gutter-snipe that you are.  You're burying yourself here.  Why?

Here's the money quotes: Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.  For once we agree.  That was the money quote.  I know you're too much of a simpleton to understand why, you've made that abundantly clear, but it actually does address the core of the problem.

All one has to do is read about what McCain has been up to for nearly his whole life, to know he is unfit to hold public office. Endorse him? I don't think there are more than twenty people on this forum who would endorse him, because they recognize what a scumbag he is. And yet, it doesn't matter to these same people that someone they want to lead them would.

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him. Which of these two traits convinces you she is fit to lead us?

Now I know you said some other things, but it's clear to anyone reading your screeds you really want to say what Rabadash said, that you really deep down believe she's a traitor because she endorsed McCain, that you step to the edge of saying it, but then pull back because you know you won't stay on this forum if you actually, you know, say it.  Is Rabscuttle385 still here?  Yes.  So much for your comment that people who say such things will be kicked off the forum.  I have a slightly different take on it, but I don't think his reasoning is flawed at all.  He is a citizen who has the right to express his thoughts here as much as anyone else.  For heaven's sake, he is quoting Palin's own comments.

Look at what I wrote in that last paragraph.  It reveals precisely what my thoughts on this issue are.  None the less, you in all your glory (as if), have devined what I really think, even though I laid it out as simply as I could.  Once again, you have evidenced yourself incapable of reading and comprehending what you have read.

At any rate, I wish you had stopped at that first sentence,...  I'm sure you do.  Anything longer than one sentence is just too taxing for you.  Anything that doesn't confirm your wildest fantacies, is beyond your comprehension.  And make no mistake about it, our discussion here has been necessary because you couldn't understand the simplest of concepts.  Is it wrong to support bad people?

To this point, you still don't know.  To this point, it's just too hard of a question for you to contemplate and come up with a coherant response on point.  I am to believe, that yes or no, is just too complex or difficult a response for you to provide.

...but your Freudian slip appears to be showing.   Ah yes, if you can't cope, if you can't read and comprehend the thoughts expressed, it has to be someone elses fault.  Bud, seek help.

You are expressing a complete inability to recognize right from wrong, and oppose the wrong.
If I'm wrong, just stop at the first sentence like you should have.  Why should I have stopped at one sentence?  Not only do I have to agree with you or you'll lie about what I have said, but I have to respond in the exact format and length of statement you demand.  Does that sound rational to you?  Which forum posting rule-book are you quoting from here?  Should have?  Are you nuts?  Let me correct that.  I am sorry you are nuts.

If I'm right, give us another obtuse, and confusing reply.  I am writing responses in English.  I am expressing fairly simple concepts.  It amazes me how this puts too much stress on you.  It amazes me how you seem to want to advance the theory that you are incapable of comprehending what is presented to you.

Is that so you'll have an out if pressed?  "Oh, I'm just too stupid to be responsible for what I have said?"  So far that's exactly what you are claiming.

FAIL!

[roamer_1]

A brilliant post, as always D1.

Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.

Let that bit soak in a while, folks. There is a simple but very important wisdom here.

I have never thought Sarah Palin was the sharpest pencil in the box. For this reason I don't assert the same "Traitor to our cause" comment I do to McCain.

You seem to be following this line of thinking:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte

...Which I applaud, I really do. And normally I would be content to embrace a similar attitude. But in our current state, and in the present political economy, while I might be congenial enough to waive off such things in the general sense, the raw statistical risk is one I daresay we cannot afford.

Once again I rise to present the terms of the Reagan Coalition: *No* conservative faction should be expected to 'take one for the team' when it comes to their basic unmovable principles. Our point of compromise *must* begin after the point where those principles are served.

Is it right to support a candidate who supported LOST? This is no mere faux pas - this erodes the very sovereignty of our nation. And the follow-on question: Is it right to expect our defenders of the Constitution, that faction among us who are civil-libertarian minded, and those in the military who are put at risk by LOST, to compromise... to take one for the team?

With that as an example, I must react with a jaundiced eye. WHATEVER my personal feelings might be, I know that many of our brothers-in-arms will not be able to swallow that 'mistake' and vote for her. And I know that they will likely support someone else, causing a fracture which immediately spells defeat.

And if by chance there is victory, and whether by malice or ignorance, if there comes a day when LOST is once again before the president's pen... that victory will be a Pyrrhic one indeed.

So if one is to err, I would submit that it is better to err toward suspecting malice - toward assuming the worst and acting accordingly... at the very least, where conservative principles are concerned. Folks seem to forget how many of our elected representatives crow Conservatism until they are in office - whereupon they drop the act and revert to form. Perhaps that is a cynical view, but it is one earned by many years of betrayal.

[DoughtyOne]

I want you two to understand that I am not making the case that you are wrong. I do see it differently, but you have every reason to think what you do, and every right to express those thoughts.

They are based on Palin’s own comments. She has made it abundantly clear that she thinks he’s swell.

My point is that I’m not convinced she knows about his Vietnam/MIA problem. I don’t think she quite grasps that he was doing his damndest to get even with Bush, even if it meant screwing the nation to do it. I don’t think she grasps that McCain wasn’t “saving the nation” every time he opposed Bush. I don’t think she understands that at times he was preventing Bush from pushing through decent legislation. And Lord knows, Bush didn’t burn up the path to Congress to present a large quantity of decent bills either. I don’t think she grasps the Soros/McCain connection. I don’t think she has done much research at all, related to what John McCain has exhibited in his Washington years.

Is this damning in and of itself? Yes. Quite so. Is it proof positive that she agrees with all that McCain is. No. I think she knows him, and supports him because he’s some “Lion of the Senate (R)”, and can’t get beyond that.

I could very easily be wrong. My overall perception of Palin is that she is not the brilliant tactician people give her credit for being. I honestly think she’s running on empty.

Her early support for involvement in Libya should give folks serious pause for concern. The woman means well, but she doesn’t have the grasp of issues to back it up.

That’s why I cut her more slack than you guys do.

Overall, we agree that she was terribly wrong to support McCain. We see the reason somewhat differently. I do not see her as currently being presidential material.

I actually wish I could. If she had refused to back McCain. If she had put her nose to the grind-stone to get up to speed on issues both nationally, and internationally, I would have been pleased to support and vote for her.

That didn’t play out, and I am faced with the reality of that.

We do not need another George Bush, with or without a skirt.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate the opening.  Thank you.  Your response was informative, reinforcing, and instructive.  For that reason, and of course partially because we agree, I see your response in the same terms.

The quotes were timely, fitting, and enlightening.  The issues you addressed were important.  Your thoughts were clearly expressed, and carried weight.

At the end of the day, when bad legislation is passed, when bad policies are enacted, when our nation is ultimately harmed, it makes no difference if it resulted from malice or ignorance.  It is harmed.

It is not harmed less, if the person did it by accident.  And so, it does make a certain sense to consider each such act to carry the weight of malace, as this does frame the accidental harm for the full force it carries.

I generally like to grade on the old standard, A, B, C, D, F.  When it comes to presidential contenders, I have a pass/fail standard.  If a person is too shallow, or is known to be of questionable character (not of sound Conservative mind, and not above doing things that will harm our nation on purpose), they get a fail from me.

At then end of the day, I do want to adhere to Bonaparte's line of reasoning.  That doesn't mean I want any unfit person to sit in the Oval Office chair.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.  I enjoyed it.

One thing is certain, we have each had our fill of promises and reversions.

[Chunga]

To my way of thinking, it merely indicates I’m lucid

Do the people in your life want to know what you think about yourself?

[Lakeshark]

Good grief you are obtuse and idiotic. I haven't read your post because it's obvious you are simply way into yourself, you are nothing but a bore who thinks way too highly of himself.

Lose some weight, stop thinking people think you're smart and want to read your blue drivel, and please start figuring out how to enjoy your life.

I hope you said something that catches your fancy, because no one else is interested.

Get a life and go bitch somewhere else......