Skip to comments.
A Question for FR McCain Detractors
FR
| 2-23-08
| Bob J
Posted on 02/23/2008 10:56:29 AM PST by Bob J
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 721-734 next last
To: JasonC
Re: McCain-Feingold
(1) made no difference in practice, but is bad law and should be rejected by the courts. Perhaps the Supreme Court?
Stopped reading.
321
posted on
02/23/2008 12:56:17 PM PST
by
The Citizen Soldier
("There is only one reason to be a Christian: because it's true" – Francis Schaeffer)
To: exit82
322
posted on
02/23/2008 12:56:18 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(We've got Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dumber left. Name them in order. I dare ya.)
To: mountainfolk
I will be back, my son is kicking me off the computer...mine is not working at the moment. See you in a bit!
323
posted on
02/23/2008 12:56:35 PM PST
by
nyconse
To: CharacterCounts
"Many of us think that the conservative movement will recover quicker with a Dem in office." Righto. Bush 41 gave us Perot, Perot gave us Clinton and Clinton gave us a Republican Congress and Bush 43 gave it back to the Dems. Time for a conservative congress again in 2 years and a Conservative President in 4.
324
posted on
02/23/2008 12:56:35 PM PST
by
ex-snook
("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
To: William Terrell
your position comes about as close as I’ve seen to mine. I have to sleep at night feeling like I have not sold every scrap of my integrity.
325
posted on
02/23/2008 12:56:49 PM PST
by
stompk
To: calcowgirl
When is the D9 going to get here to tear down my house for the new Saudi toll road???LOL
326
posted on
02/23/2008 12:57:23 PM PST
by
org.whodat
(What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
To: sugarbabe
No, it isn't remotely enough. Name one on which Obama is better.
327
posted on
02/23/2008 12:57:28 PM PST
by
JasonC
To: nyconse
Some of us believe that McCain is potentially more damaging than Obama because we believe he will pursue a Dem agenda. He will continue reaching across the aisle and will ram through leftist legislation-including a new fairness doctrine-by colluding with Dems and strong arming congressional Repubs. One can expect the Repubs to oppose Obama, but how are they going to oppose McCain? There is no reason for anyone to believe McCain would govern in a conservative or even Repub manner based on the last nine years.
BIG Bump! That is exactly what has happened in California under Schwarzenegger who has accomplished more for the liberal agenda than any Democrat could have dreamed of.
328
posted on
02/23/2008 12:57:44 PM PST
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: nyconse
I would love to be wrong. We are in for a tough few years no matter what.Bump that.
329
posted on
02/23/2008 12:58:51 PM PST
by
StarCMC
(http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com; http://starcmc.wordpress.com/ - The Enemedia is inside the gates.)
To: JasonC
You can decry him over immigration, but you have to decry Bush too. They are one. You can lament the fact that there are any men in politics at all, who are not all true blue conservative - but it is whistling dixie. THAT was said like a tried and true liberal. Congrats JasonC, you win the big prize, open borders and the end of the US as we know it. Hooyah!
330
posted on
02/23/2008 12:59:01 PM PST
by
dforest
To: The Citizen Soldier
Why stop reading? It should be rejected by the courts. I do not say it will be or has been, I say it ought to be. They can revisit their decisions, and given a clear enough case on the facts, we can hope they might. For that matter, we can work to repeal it. But it has not had any practical effect.
331
posted on
02/23/2008 12:59:51 PM PST
by
JasonC
To: Polybius
I hate to tell you but the war is over, 65% of the Americans people say so, therefore it is just a matter of time, whether 12 months are 24 months.
332
posted on
02/23/2008 1:01:15 PM PST
by
org.whodat
(What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
To: nyconse
McCain will not win the war...his Dem buddies will force a withdrawal...I am sorry to say. Like they forced him back to back withdrawal in 2006?
The only thing that will guarantee losing the war is large enough number of voters who are gazing at their belly bottons chanting the mantra:
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
"We have lost the war because the Democrats want us to lose it."
Tell ya what, from now until November, you chant your mantra of defeat and, from now until November, I will do whatever I can to put some spine back into the American Sheeple and win this war.
**********
Obama 13 months ago:
Published Jan. 30, 2007 ...... Obama wants troops home by spring 08
. Illinois senator, presidential candidate introduces bill to force redeployment
**********
Hillary 13 months ago:
Published January 17, 2007 ........ Hillary Clinton opposes Iraq troops 'surge'
**********
McCain 14 months ago:
Published December 27, 2006 ..... Novak: McCain's 'aggressive surge' stance backfiring ........ conservative columnist Robert Novak suggests that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "aggressive" push for a U.S. troop expansion -- or "surge" -- in Iraq may be costing the top 2008 GOP contender in the polls, especially when matched against another presumed front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). "The decline in the polls of [McCain], as measured against [Clinton], reflects more than declining Republican popularity ......... "It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a 'surge' of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq
"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right, what I believe is right and what my experience and knowledge and background tells me is the right thing to do in order to save this situation in Iraq ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." - Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report, 2006
**********
Three months ago in Iraq:
Troop Surge, Iraqis Anger Puts al Qaeda On the Run
**********
To: org.whodat
Thank you. I appreciate it.
334
posted on
02/23/2008 1:01:45 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(We've got Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dumber left. Name them in order. I dare ya.)
To: Bob J
"Even on most issues where McCain is closer to the left than to us, O&H are much farther to the left than he is and would do much more damage than McCain."
McCain is not "closer to the left than to us" on certain issues, he is in the SAME PLACE as Hillary and Obama and will do an equal amount of damage to the country as either of them will do. The difference is if McCain should by some strange stroke of fate be elected, he will destroy the Republican party, force conservatives to find a new party, AND the damage he does to the country will be blamed on conservatives, not on Republicans or the left. Surely, that isn't too hard to understand unless you think he's just a tad bit to the left "of us" and we should ditch our conservative principles just a little bit to support him.
I would no more vote for McCain than I would consider voting for either of the Democrats and for exactly the same reason - they're all PROGRESSIVE puppets of George Soros, Theresa Heinz, etc. None of the three would be where they are right now if they were not bought and paid for, willing to do the bidding of the elites to destroy our sovereignty. If you're comfortable ratifying their sell-out of this country, then vote for him, or any of the three, but I will not.
335
posted on
02/23/2008 1:02:43 PM PST
by
penowa
To: indylindy
I am against illegal immigration, for legal immigration, and to the right of both Bush and McCain on the matter. But no, the country is not at stake in the matter, and will be fine regardless. We should control illegal immigration for the sake of general law abidingness, fairness to those who obey the rules, and to give policy the ability to regulate the pace of immigration to what assimilation processes can handle, to shape its composition, etc. All important things, but no, the existence and even the success of the country are not at stake in them. We are bigger and stronger than that, have done fine regardless, and would continue to do so. Not a reason not to fix it, but it is a reason not to be hysterical about it.
The sky won't fall if we build another power plant, either. Hysterical scaremongering hyperbole is no more attractive when pretend conservatives engage in it, than when the left does.
336
posted on
02/23/2008 1:04:29 PM PST
by
JasonC
To: backtothestreets
You summed that up quite nicely.
I'm afraid I have lost all patience with those here on FR, and elsewhere, that cannot see what voting for the lesser of evils (ie: for the slow death of the Republic) has brought, and until my voice, and vote is taken away, I shall speak my mind, and vote for whom I damn well please.
If I wanted to live as do the Europeans, or Canadians, I would move there.
337
posted on
02/23/2008 1:05:00 PM PST
by
G.Mason
(And what is intelligence if not the craft of out-thinking our adversaries?)
To: nyconse
Obviously, if party loyalty was my be all end all, I would vote for McCain. It isnt and I wont.You McCainiacs are just like the conservative members of the GOP who are sent to Washington to represent the heartland and then abandon their principles so the WaPo and NYT will love them. You'd rather jettison your principles in the hope that George and Laura will send you a Christmas card instead of fighting for what is right. You'll go along to get along. You even use the same language The WaPo and NYT does to praise GOP congressmen who've betrayed their values. "They've grown in office." "They've come to see the bigger picture."
When you tell us to see the bigger picture, what you're really saying is, "Shut up and sit down. Be a good boy and we'll give you more of the same crap we've been giving you for the last seven years" or "Yes, John McCain is a senile, psychotic mediocrity but Hillary is worse".
Well, this time around, I'm not buying the same old tripe.
338
posted on
02/23/2008 1:06:11 PM PST
by
E. Cartman
(Huckaboob will never be Vice President.)
To: JasonC
“Israel, on the other hand...”
...is perfectly capable of nuking Iran themselves, if it comes to that. Not every a*s that needs to be kicked in the world needs to be kicked by the US military.
339
posted on
02/23/2008 1:08:03 PM PST
by
LadyNavyVet
(“I will offer a choice, not an echo.” Barry Goldwater)
To: IllumiNaughtyByNature
Here are my thoughts;
I look at the senate when repubs decided to do this very thing... If it weren’t for President Bush and vetoing some of the Dimwads we would have a LOT of problems to deal with.
SO Now Let’s have the Republican voters do the same thing with the Presidential vote? No veto, we get hosed big time.
Be CAREFUL what you vote for people.
I look at it this way, our troops do not cut and run IF a situation only looks partly good. They fight the fight.
So If I only have part of an arsenal Do I drop the ball and run? not me.
BE REALLY SURE you want the outcome of your vote people because it really is going to count this time.
your friend,
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 721-734 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson