DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on March 11, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
-
Comments are hereby solicited...
"John McCain is the Republican nominee. Nothing we can do will change that.
McCain likes to pose as a maverick, but he is a third generation Country Club Republican who grew up in Washington political society. He is solidly aligned with the Country Club Liberal wing of the party, which has never been much good for conservatives; and his personal history shows he will do much to remain in office, and one supposes that means he will do much to get it. He was a spoiled brat in his youth, but he did go to Annapolis, and he did not shirk combat duty. The Legions see him as one of themselves. If this sounds a bit like Mark Anthony, so be it; but he hasn't Anthony's brains or ruthlessness, which is just as well.
McCain cannot win without the support of the Conservatives. Indeed he cannot win without the enthusiastic support of the conservatives. He will also need the votes of the Republican party, the independent conservatives who will generally vote Republican, and some Democrats. In a word he?s going to need much of the old Reagan coalition; but like all the Country Club Republicans, he hasn?t any real troops. The liberal wing of the Republican Party is good at raising money and using hired campaign workers, but it hasn?t any real party building strength. It doesn?t inspire enthusiasm or zeal.
McCain will gather a number of centrist and conservative Democrats, and he will do that without any need for movement Conservatives to be involved; but without us he won?t be able to stir the base and get out the vote. Many will sit on their hands unless motivated by the conservatives.
He needs us. Now: what do we want?
We are not going to get a movement Conservative. McCain is no Goldwater and never will be. He is a Washington politician with deep ties to the liberal establishment and the country club Republicans. He is not merely soft but squishy on immigration, he is committed to an insane campaign reform effort, and he is not unfriendly to the self-contradictory notion of "Big Government Conservatism" and "Compassionate Conservatism" on a Federal level.
Note that I am not denouncing the idea of compassion. For a man to love his country, his country ought to be lovely, and no country is lovely when there are people in misery in its streets. Moreover, there are things government can do to make the country more lovely. However, these are seldom things that the National Government can do, and in fact it's not often the state governments can do much. These are matters for local government, and even more so for what Tocqueville called "the associations": non-government organizations in Tocqueville's America and long afterward up into my lifetime doing much of the relief work, civic improvement, hospitals and food services, clinics, shelters, missions: the YMCA and YWCA when they were real. The Boy Scouts, Lions, Eagles, Moose, Masons, Knights of Columbus, Rotary, Optimists -- you get the idea. To the extent that the Federal government acts with these it is to suppress them, and to replace them, and this is a disastrous trend for freedom. Having said that, I doubt that McCain will understand, agree, or even care. His view of Big Government Conservatism is not likely to be much different from that of Bush II.
However: he has made a bid for Conservative support. Part of that bid is a promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. If he will do that, much can be done to dismantle the bureaucratic suppression of the associations.
One great threat to local institutions is illegal aliens. Hospitals, privately funded by charities, are required to take all comers to emergency rooms: and soon they must close because they can't afford to be free clinics. Illegal immigrants swamp city services. San Diego is bankrupt because of illegals. Los Angeles is forced to raise taxes. Allies of the illegals take key positions in the California legislature and hold the people hostage. "We want more money," they say; and they will never give up.
McCain has horrible positions on border control and will never use ICE to deport illegals here. He wants and amnesty which would be a disaster. However: he has promised to secure the border first. I have no reason to believe that this former Legion officer is not a man of his word. He has pledged his word. We need him to confirm that offer: and if he does, we can consider the matter closed. He will not secure that border in 4 years; he cannot go for his amnesty until he has done that; and this is an end to the matter. This is the best the movement conservatives will get, and it is better than we have now with Bush II; what more do we want? A Democrat who will demand amnesty without securing the borders?
We will have to live with "campaign reform". We will have to live with fiscal irresponsibility and lack of enthusiasm for tax cuts. We will have to live with the notion of federal intervention by ham handed bureaucrats in our local affairs. Even there, though, McCain has said he is changing his position on spending and taxes.
What we need is a good negotiator to get a pact with McCain: what he will promise the conservative movement in exchange for our enthusiastic -- and I mean enthusiastic even if we must fake some of the enthusiasm -- support.
In particular we want a reiteration of promises already made: strict constructionist judges both on Supreme and lower courts; secure borders before any comprehensive immigration reform; and a bit more enthusiasm for tax cuts.
We can get all that, and it is far better than we will get from any Democrat. We should take it, and get to work.
PS: If we can get Fred Thompson for VP, it will certainly make it easier to generate some zeal."
--Jerry Pournelle
-
PS: If we can get Fred Thompson for VP, it will certainly make it easier to generate some zeal."
===================================================
ZEAL, surely you jest.
More like ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
as in laZZZZZZZZZZy
Politically, the guy's a sloth. He should go back to acting, where he belongs.
-
PS: If we can get Fred Thompson for VP, it will certainly make it easier to generate some zeal."
Are you freakin kidding me?
Fred Thompson?
Yeah all we need is another guy that looks like he has one foot in the grave
Is a horrible, boring speaker, and didn't win a primary.
Our only chance to defeat the "Trojan Horse" in Nov is to gamble.
We probably are going to lose anyway
So why not go for the home run?
I am not sure who would be the best
There are people that are experts on this stuff like Dick Morris
But I say do something crazy, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Joe Lieberman, Tommy Franks, Roger Staubach,
Baloney the conservatives wont turn out if we gamble
They will
we have to "not play by the rules" to have a chance
I say bet the ranch and gamble
what do we have to lose?
-
John McCain is the Republican nominee. Nothing we can do will change that.
Exactly why I will not be voting Republican again this election. The support for McCain in Republican circles is a puzzle to me. He is among the more untrustworthy politicians, and seems rather nonconservative on just about everything but warmo- uh, I mean national defense.
As Matt Welch (who investigated McCain enough to write a whole book about the man) has pointed out, "when McCain says a variation on 'I have never' -- especially when it's volunteered, as opposed to being hissed as a defensive response to an inquiry -- take special note of what comes after, because it's usually a decent insight into what he actually is." (Emphasis in original (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125316.html).) Welch noted this in response to McCain's "I have never believed I was destined be President" speech. Which, frankly, even taken at face value I find to be rather creepy. The idea of choosing between McCain and Clinton is like the idea of choosing between a snake and a serpent. Obama is shaping up to be not a whole lot better. If you want someone to attempt to lead the country rather than attempt to rule it, you're out of luck this election season.
No, really, I meant national defense. Really.
-
support for McCain in Republican circles is a puzzle to me
It's simple.
Trying to prevent "the most liberal member of the US Senate in 2007" (Barack Hussein Obama)
from nominating anti-business, anti-capitalism nominees to lifetime appointments on the US Supreme Court.
If there isn't a chance in hell the Prom Queen will be your date for Prom it's a pretty easy
choice to go with the girl thats a "6" over the girl thats a "2".
-
>>Exactly why I will not be voting Republican again this election.<<
So you'll be helping your ideological polar opposite win.
The country thanks you.
This is were you and I respectfully part company. I respect your principled stance on the issues, I always have, but throwing the baby out with the bath water just irks me. So go ahead, stand on your principle. I hope they can keep your head above water.
-
I say bet the ranch and gamble
what do we have to lose?
================================
Dick Cheney for FOUR MORE YEARS!
Yeah! That's the ticket!
Totally unexpected, and as big a gamble as could be made.
-
Boy, Xo, sure does have an apparent obsession with Cheney. It's almost painful to watch......."almost", which would make Xo's standard comback to simply not read his comments, null & void
-
It's simple.
Trying to prevent "the most liberal member of the US Senate in 2007" (Barack Hussein Obama)
from nominating anti-business, anti-capitalism nominees to lifetime appointments on the US Supreme Court.
Near as can I can tell, I have no reason to believe McCain won't be doing the same thing. McCain is the man, after all, who pushed for campaign finance "reform" that tramples all over First Amendment rights, and apparently feels righteous about doing so. He does not come across as a man who trusts the market or the citizens.
If there isn't a chance in hell the Prom Queen will be your date for Prom it's a pretty easy
choice to go with the girl thats a "6" over the girl thats a "2".
Heh. From where I sit, it's more like choosing between a 2, a 2 and a 2 1/4. I'd rather stay home.
-
>>Exactly why I will not be voting Republican again this election.<<
So you'll be helping your ideological polar opposite win.
Which one? There seem to be three such candidates at the moment.
This is were you and I respectfully part company. I respect your principled stance on the issues, I always have, but throwing the baby out with the bath water just irks me.
What baby? McCain is so untrustworthy that I can't believe any campaign promise he might make regarding any policy except perhaps about the "wars" in the Middle East. He definately seems gung-ho about that. Can I trust him to protect individual rights? No. To reduce taxes and economic regulations? No. So what baby? The baby was thrown out some time ago as best I can tell. Keeping the dirty bathwater in the name of beating someone with a (D) behind their name seems pointless if we haven't a baby to go with it.
So go ahead, stand on your principle. I hope they can keep your head above water.
Well above. Thanks for your concern.
-
the most liberal member of the US Senate in 2007" (Barack Hussein Obama
==========================================
How did John Kerry lose this title?
He was the most liberal four years ago.
Is it perhaps bestowed by Rush?
-
>>Well above. Thanks for your concern.<<
Sorry if you took it negatively, but then you always do.
I guess being a libertarian means always being able to say, "Aren't I wonderful?" while the rest of us have to actually live in reality and try and work for compromise within a real political party. When it's all over you can continue to be what you'll always been; irrelevant.
-
Prince does have a point, Rich. Of the 3 candidates you have 2 socialists, and 1 liberal lite. We all know how Bush wasn't this Reagan-like conservative the left kept trying to portray him as, and McCain was to the left of him, so let's not fool ourselves into thinking he's any kind of Conservative.
That said, Rich is right that simply "sitting it out" largely makes whatever criticism one wishes to lodge moot, since that person made no effort to at least shape the country via their vote. I had absolutely NO intentions of voting for McCain, and had made that very clear early on. Now that I see the alternatives, and that there are no other viable candidates, I guess this partisan conservative is going to vote liberal-lite, this election cycle. The alternative repercussions to National Defense, the Constitution, and to the Judiciary are far too scary for me not to.
-
How did John Kerry lose this title?
He was the most liberal four years ago.
Is it perhaps bestowed by Rush?
Well, Obama was just entering the Senate four years ago. Things change.
-
If Sirs stays home and a Democrat wins, then Richie's cunning ploy of voting for Hillary will have been in vain. :'(
-
And why would sirs say home?
-
>>Prince does have a point, Rich...<<
Like I said earlier, he usually makes good points. I've nothing but respect for his principled stance on the issues. The problem is that he isn't part of the solution, he remains part of the problem. At least Ron Paul saw the wisdom of working with people who at least agree with you 90 percent of the time rather than sitting on your high horse handing power over to people you disagree with 99 percent of the time.
I don't like McCain much either. But vote for a democrat for president? Not bloody likely.
-
I don't like McCain much either. But vote for a democrat for president? Not bloody likely.
I'd consider Lieberman.....depending on who he's running against. Definately would consider Zell Miller over McCain.
Alas, It'll be cold day in hell before the MMoore/GSoros contingent of the party ever let that happen
-
I guess being a libertarian means always being able to say, "Aren't I wonderful?" while the rest of us have to actually live in reality and try and work for compromise within a real political party.
No. More like always being able to say "principles matter" and mean it while other people compromise principles in the name of pragmatism.
People sometimes talk about the difficulty of committing to going to church or church programs. As one Youth Pastor I know says, what it really comes down to is people looking for a better offer for their time because if church services and church programs were actually important to them, they would make the time to be there.
Seems to me, if the principles really matter to people, they will find the way to adhere to them. Not saying one cannot work with others and maintain principles. Just the opposite. If compromise is your priority, then compromise is what you'll do. And if compromise with people whose principles are your "ideological polar opposite" is what you work for, then you're giving in to those people. You're helping them win. Not me.
I'm not opposed to compromise completely. Ron Paul and I don't agree about certain issues, like immigration. But I would be quite willing to compromise and give him my vote. (And I did in the primary.) Voting for someone like McCain, however, with whom I disagree much and cannot trust on anything where we might agree, that isn't compromise. That is capitulation. I'm not interested in that.
When it's all over you can continue to be what you'll always been; irrelevant.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Sorry if you took it negatively, but then you always do.
Not sure how "So go ahead, stand on your principle. I hope they can keep your head above water." ends up being a complement. Feel free to explain.
-
Near as can I can tell, I have no reason to believe McCain won't be doing the same thing.
Well UP honestly reality does not bear that out.
John McCain has a lifetime rating of 80 from the American Conservation Union.
Senator Barack Obama has a lifetime rating of 8 from the American Conservative Union.
Senator Obama is rated as the "most liberal member of the US Senate in 2007".
John McCain is far from perfect, but he is miles from being in the same ballpark as Obama.
To pretend McCain & Obama would govern the same or appoint the same judges is with all due respect foolhardy.
-
The problem is that he isn't part of the solution, he remains part of the problem.
Or, from a different perspective, I'm part of the solution, not part of those seeking to compromise with the problem.
-
>>I'd consider Lieberman.....depending on who he's running against. Definately would consider Zell Miller over McCain.<<
I can go along with that.
-
To pretend McCain & Obama would govern the same or appoint the same judges is with all due respect foolhardy.
I didn't say they would govern the same or appoint the same judges. But I think the overall effect of either one's Presidency would be quite uncomfortably similar.
-
"How did John Kerry lose this title?
He was the most liberal four years ago.
Is it perhaps bestowed by Rush ?"
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)
-
>>Or, from a different perspective, I'm part of the solution, not part of those seeking to compromise with the problem.<<
Wonderful. Not sit over there in the corner stroking your perspective while the rest of us try and hash this out. I'm sure you'll be telling us how wrong we are from time to time but excuse us if we ignore you because we've got work to do.
I know you will take offense, but I'm not trying to pick a fight. I really do applauder you and your principles.
-
That said, Rich is right that simply "sitting it out" largely makes whatever criticism one wishes to lodge moot, since that person made no effort to at least shape the country via their vote.
I did not say I would not vote. I only said I wouldn't be voting Republican.
There is a case to be made, however, that voting does little to shape the country and essentially gives support to a bad system run by "lesser" evils. Vote for Mephistopheles or Beelzebub, and if you don't vote you haven't tried to be part of the "solution". Vote for arrogance or hubris, and if you complain then you're not being pragmatic about the reality of the situation. Vote for pestilence or plague, and if you object then you're irrelevant and have no right to complain about the direction this country takes.
I'm not saying the country is that bad just yet, but I am trying to make a point about how the "pragmatism over principles" argument sometimes, if not frequently, appears to folks on the other side of it.
-
Not sit over there in the corner stroking your perspective while the rest of us try and hash this out. I'm sure you'll be telling us how wrong we are from time to time but excuse us if we ignore you because we've got work to do.
Or, from a different perspective, I'll be working on the solution while you sit around figuring out how to make a "lesser" evil seem good.
I know you will take offense, but I'm not trying to pick a fight. I really do applauder you and your principles.
Thanks. Just don't get snippy then when I, ahem, poke back.
-
>> I'll be working on the solution ... <<
Fine, work on the solution. The problem is you won't be able to implement it sitting over there stroking it. You have to become part of the process. Until then, unfortunately, you're just a fridge voice in the wilderness.
-
UP McCain just named RON PAUL his VP
Now whats ya gonna do?
;)
-
Fine, work on the solution. The problem is you won't be able to implement it sitting over there stroking it. You have to become part of the process. Until then, unfortunately, you're just a fridge voice in the wilderness.
A fridge voice? I know, typo, I know. Still, it's funny.
I don't know why you keep assuming that the plan is to sit in the corner. That I'm not supporting McCain doesn't mean nothing is being done.
-
So what's the plan?
-
UP McCain just named RON PAUL his VP
I find extremely difficult to believe McCain would ever do such a thing. But let's take the hypothetical. What would I do? Wait to hear why Paul would accept being McCain's running mate. If I liked it enough, there is a remote possibility I would vote for the ticket. However, more likely I'd still not vote for McCain. Because if he won, McCain would still be president.
-
In broad strokes, right now, fight at the local levels and promote awareness. Possibly also to look for ways to try the civil disobedience idea. One step at a time. Or perhaps more appropriate, the old joke: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time."
-
However, more likely I'd still not vote for McCain. Because if he won, McCain would still be president.
========================================
A very, very OLD president, who has yet to release his health records, so I hear.
-
Ahh, so now we shouldn't vote for him because "he's old and might die sometime"? Should I pull out all the sudden deaths of young people, including perfectly fit athletes, who had underlying medical issues they never knew about??
News flash Xo, age, unless they're using a walker, hooked up to an IV, and with memory issues, are the LAST reason for anyone not to vote for the guy you don't like. Stick with what's actually valid.....perhaps his positions on immigration, or on taxes, or on the size & scope of Government
-
Ahh, so now we shouldn't vote for him because "he's old and might die sometime"? Should I pull out all the sudden deaths of young people, including perfectly fit athletes, who had underlying medical issues they never knew about??
News flash Xo, age, unless they're using a walker, hooked up to an IV, and with memory issues, are the LAST reason for anyone not to vote for the guy you don't like. Stick with what's actually valid.....perhaps his positions on immigration, or on taxes, or on the size & scope of Government.
=================================================
You have totally missed my point.
It was suggested to UP that McCain might name Ron Paul his VP.
UP suggested that McCain would still be president, so this would not be so big a deal.
But THEN I suggested that McCain was ancient of days, which implies that he just might not live so long, and then Ron Paul would be the first quasi-Libertarian President in history, thereby filling UP with glee (I am assuming).
============================
I see McCain as more war. I see the GOP as an assortment of clowns who gave us the awful Juniorbush and the (dare I say it?) ghastly Cheney, thereby deserving of harsh treatment and many lashings about the head and shoulders.
I can't see myself voting for either McCain the Warmonger or the GOP.
-
Ahh, so now we shouldn't vote for him because "he's old and might die sometime"? Should I pull out all the sudden deaths of young people, including perfectly fit athletes, who had underlying medical issues they never knew about??
News flash Xo, age, unless they're using a walker, hooked up to an IV, and with memory issues, are the LAST reason for anyone not to vote for the guy you don't like.
It was suggested to UP that McCain might name Ron Paul his VP. UP suggested that McCain would still be president, so this would not be so big a deal. But THEN I suggested that McCain was ancient of days, which implies that he just might not live so long, and then Ron Paul would be the first quasi-Libertarian President in history, thereby filling UP with glee (I am assuming).
Because.......he might die? So could Obama, so could Hillary. Congenital defect in the heart, perhaps a ruptured Aortic aneurism. But if your point was to "make a joke".....your punch line was far too long, I'm afraid
-
If Sirs stays home and a Democrat wins, then Richie's cunning ploy of voting for Hillary will have been in vain. :'(
Careful reading shows that Sirs will vote for McCain.
UP is a libertarian, my guess is he will vote for the Libertarian candidate.
Rich's ploy to vote for Hillary will be in in only if she wins the nomination. And that depends on the number of corpses left on the side of the road in her wake.
-
The liberal wing of the Republican Party is good at raising money and using hired campaign workers, but it hasn't any real party building strength.
===========================================================
The Republican Party doesn't have a liberal wing, and hasn't had one for decades, unless you count Sen. Olympia Snow.
Nelson Rockefeller, Lowell Weicker. they were liberal Republicans.
-
Here's my reasoning for voting for McCain, as of now. It's still early yet, and these may change.
1) The Senate will almost certainly have a Democrat majority, as will the House. I do not like and never have liked the idea of one party in control of both. I think that a lot of Bush's missteps, especially in regard to Iraq, had a lot to do with poor Congressional oversight. Yes, some Republicans disagreed with him on some issues, but there is a reason that he didn't veto anything until 6 years into his term, when there was suddenly a Democratic Congress. A President unchecked is a bad thing, whether it's Republican or Democrat.
2) I like the idea of having someone who actually served in the military running the country while we're in Iraq. I don't care about the rank, just someone who has had the experience. Combat experience is a plus. Perhaps it's just me, but I trust someone who has been to war when they talk about war more than someone who took deferments and flew planes once in awhile in the National Guard. McCain might keep us in Iraq, but I'm hoping that the situation will be managed a lot better than it has been in the past (though I think that a lot of that lies more with Rumsfeld than with Bush).
3) McCain is not popular with the NeoCons. That's a plus in my book. The old fashioned conservatives I can live with, as we have some beliefs in common, but the NeoCons are another matter. Perhaps Colin Powell would come back to the government.
4) He's old. He has nothing to lose, and can do as he wants, within reason, as he'll theoretically be constrained by a Dem Congress. He won't have to pander to the fringe of the Republican party. I tend to think that he'll be more bipartisan and may have more of a willingness to work with the Congress than Bush has, perhaps this is because Bush was a governor and McCain a Senator, I don't know.
I will be far more interested in either candidate when the primary season is over and they both begin to pander to the center. Right now they're just preaching to the choirs, it'll be interesting when they have to preach to the populace.
I've said before, and I'll reiterate, if Richardson becomes a VP nominee I will probably vote for that ticket, even if Hillary is the headliner. I do think that if Obama wins the nomination, and picks Richardson as a VP, that it'll all be over.
-
Nothing useful ever happens when the President and the Congress are of different parties. They cancel each other out, now even more than ever, since they are so polarized.
If we have another deadlock, the war will drag on forever, there will be no health care, no bill on immigration, no Social Security reform, no anything, except lower taxes to please the GOP and more services to please the Democrats.
McCain is the dying breath of Vietnam and its aftermath, a godawful mess that should have expired long, long ago. Insead they found a rhyme for it in Iraq.
The GOP clearly has no ideas, no plan, they have run out of steam. After the mess Juniorbush caused, they don't DESERVE to be elected, none of them I can think of. Some of the Democrats are lame as well, but jeez we need solutions, not more gridlock.
-
Nothing useful ever happens when the President and the Congress are of different parties. They cancel each other out, now even more than ever, since they are so polarized.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
-
I like the idea of having someone who actually served in the military running the country while we're in Iraq. I don't care about the rank, just someone who has had the experience. Combat experience is a plus. Perhaps it's just me, but I trust someone who has been to war when they talk about war more than someone who took deferments and flew planes once in awhile in the National Guard. McCain might keep us in Iraq, but I'm hoping that the situation will be managed a lot better than it has been in the past (though I think that a lot of that lies more with Rumsfeld than with Bush).
That is a reasonable point, and I'd agree if I thought McCain would be reasonable about the war, but I honestly do not get that impression from his speeches. He seems a very "Us v. Them" sort of guy. While he might question mistakes made in prosecuting a war, he seems uninterested in avoiding war. He may not be someone who wants to go to war, but I don't see anything that indicates he would try to avoid military conflict. To put this another way, while he might consider choices in a war to be a mistake, he seems not to consider that going to war in the first place might be a mistake. It's not getting into a fight that is a mistake, just losing the fight. That is what I perceive to be John McCain's attitude. And for that reason, among others, I am uncomfortable trusting McCain to be the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief Executive of the country.
-
While he might question mistakes made in prosecuting a war, he seems uninterested in avoiding war. He may not be someone who wants to go to war, but I don't see anything that indicates he would try to avoid military conflict.
I'll have to disagree with you here.
If anything McCain has shown a willingness to compromise, to reach out across the aisle, to go his own way, bucking his own party. At least legislatively, he has shown that tendency. Why would that not follow in foreign affairs and international crisis?
-
"Nothing useful ever happens when the President and the Congress are of different parties"
Didn't we get Welfare Reform under Clinton & a Republican Congress?
-
"Nothing useful ever happens when the President and the Congress are of different parties"
Didn't we get Welfare Reform under Clinton & a Republican Congress?
AND some fiscal discipline, when Congress wouldn't allow Clinton to spend like a drunken sailor
-
AND some fiscal discipline, when Congress wouldn't allow Clinton to spend like a drunken sailor
=========================================================
Juniorbush & Cheney have been pissing away money like a whole drunken navy. Borrow and squander is even worse than tax and spend. Of course, this is just to defend us from all those Iraqis that are threatening to walk across the ocean and kick us all in the nuts.
Expecting restraint from the GOP is like expecting sobriety from Ned the Wino.
-
Expecting restraint from the GOP is like expecting sobriety from Ned the Wino.
Good thing the current Democratic Congress is keeping a tight reign on the pocketbook, huh?
-
AND some fiscal discipline, when Congress wouldn't allow Clinton to spend like a drunken sailor
=========================================================
Juniorbush & Cheney have been pissing away money like a whole drunken navy.
And again with Cheney, as if he's so involved in this process. Seriously Xo, this fetish with Cheney is bordering on unhealthy. But more to the point, the acute LACK of fiscal discipline is precisly one of the reasons conservatives knew before Bush's inauguration, that he wasn't this hard core RW conservative, you guys kept trying to paint him as, and one of the reasons he's consistely criticized by Conservatives. Thankfully we had a GOP congress that did prevent Clinton from spending like a drunken navy
Borrow and squander (spend) is even worse than tax and spend (squander).
No, they're EQUALLY as bad.
Of course, this is just to defend us from all those Iraqis that are threatening to walk across the ocean and kick us all in the nuts.
Ahhh, the ever famous leftist lie on why we're in Iraq. Food for the ignorant
Expecting restraint from the GOP is like expecting sobriety from Ned the Wino.
More of that projection phenomenon, I see
Expecting restraint from the GOP is like expecting sobriety from Ned the Wino.
Good thing the current Democratic Congress is keeping a tight reign on the pocketbook, huh?
:D
-
Borrow and squander (spend) is even worse than tax and spend (squander).
No, they're EQUALLY as bad.
==================================
Untrue: Borrow and squander results is a much larger deficit.
By squander I mean piss away money that could be spent for Americans in America on an unwinnable war in Iraq.
There is and was NO reason to invade Iraq. Spending more on it will not give it a purpose.
-
Borrow and squander (spend) is even worse than tax and spend (squander).
No, they're EQUALLY as bad.
==================================
Untrue: Borrow and squander results is a much larger deficit.
Tax and squander results in just as much deficit as the above....with the common denominator SPEND
By squander I mean piss away money that could be spent for Americans in America on an unwinnable war in Iraq.
And by squander, I mean piss away money in an ever expanding egregious extra-constitutional bureacracy, that makes it harder and harder for the average American to better themselves, in an unwinnable cycle of ever-increasing Government
There is and was NO reason to invade Iraq.
Says you.
Spending more on it will not give it a purpose.
Yes, it will, though the purpose has been there since the get go.
-
Yes, it will, though the purpose has been there since the get go.
==================================================
What purpose? To insure full employment for munitions makers, uniform makers, mercenary armies like Blackwater?
Or was it to prevent Saddam from nuking us (Condi's 'mushroom cloud')?
There was no reason to invade, and now that Saddam is gone, all that remains is to leave. It's their country, it will never be our country.
-
Yes, it will, though the purpose has been there since the get go.
==================================================
What purpose?
Been there, said it
- to cease any possibility Saddam may have had at offloading some of his WMD (that nearly everyone believed he had, including nearly the entire global intelligence community), into the hands of terrorists, such as AlQeada, that iraq did have both direct and indirect ties with.
As I said, been there since the get go
There was no reason to invade,
The intel and common sense, said otherwise.
and now that Saddam is gone, all that remains is to leave.
As soon as we fix it, and they say its fixed. Then I'm right there with you
It's their country, it will never be our country.
Good thing then, we never wanted it
-
If Sirs stays home and a Democrat wins, then Richie's cunning ploy of voting for Hillary will have been in vain. :'(
Careful reading shows that Sirs will vote for McCain.
UP is a libertarian, my guess is he will vote for the Libertarian candidate.
Rich's ploy to vote for Hillary will be in in only if she wins the nomination. And that depends on the number of corpses left on the side of the road in her wake.
I wonder if the Big Money Guys of the Party will allow this bloodbath to continue. This black versus white "thang" could cause longterm hurt to the Party and they know it, or do they?
-
<<Rich's ploy to vote for Hillary will be in in only if she wins the nomination. And that depends on the number of corpses left on the side of the road in her wake.<<
The ploy was to ensure that there are corpses, not to ensure Mrs. Clinton's nomination. The ploy was keep them pecking each others eyes so we won't have to. Although I, and I think most Republicans believe Mrs. Clinton will be easier to defeat.