Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by peeker643 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:31 pm
by Hi Oktane » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:50 pm
by swerb » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:53 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:54 pm
by mrburns » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:04 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Allburn wrote:Huckabee would get destroyed in a general election, especially when people figure out that the "Fair Tax" concept he's been pimping is a joke. "The Economist" pretty much dismissed it in about three sentences.
by skatingtripods » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:12 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:24 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:Sad day for you Mac. Props to you though for jumping on the McCain train. I've sent in my info to learn about volunteering options in Ohio already.Gotta bring it home for the GOP, regardless of who it is.
by skatingtripods » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:42 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:I agree. I was mad last week but have since come to my senses. I hope that others have as well.
I'm glad Senator McCain has indicated he plans to sit down with Romney. I'd really love for Romney to be brought on as his economic advisor and hinted that a nomination for Secretary of the Treasury would be likely under McCain. I think most Republicans recognize Romney's economic prowess and I'm positive McCain does as well. Romney needs to get his fundraising apparatus behind Senator McCain. We need to be sure our nominee is flush with cash going forward.
I know you like Mike as VP, but I definitely think the party would be best served by him attempting to win us the Senate seat in Arkansas. His national exposure would get him a lot on $$$ for a Senate campaign and the Democrat incumbent is not strong.
It's time to strategize for November. Let's let the Dems tear themselves apart and fail to get together a strategy for November. I pray that Dean reinstates Florida and Michigan's delegates as he's indicated because that could lead to a lot of pissed off Obama voters that might not vote in November or might just punch McCain and other Republicans' names just out of spite.
It is time to rebuild a majority and return this country to true conservative principles. McCain will trim the budget and may be able to create a surplus. It's time to get excited about winning this thing and setting a positive course for our nation.
by RC » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:37 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:07 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:You tore JMC apart last week. Don't give the Dems any more ammunition!
I agree wholeheartedly. I'd be very comfortable with Romney in a Cabinet position. I liked Romney on immigration and economic policy. Outside of his health care plan and the way he came off, I liked him. I like a little bit more radical, "build the military size and strength" policy on foreign policy and military spending too.
I really do like the idea of Huckabee as VP. He can reach out to the south, steal some moderate votes from Obama, and he's the social conservative that McCain is lacking a little bit. I don't mind stealing a Senate seat as well.
I don't keep up with Congressional seats a lot. Are we going to lose even more seats this election, or can we gain some ground back, possibly a slight majority?
The Dems are doing a pretty good job of beating themselves up so far. Most of the people I know that are Obama supporters are so disenfranchised that they would vote for Hillary anyway, but I doubt the rest of the country is really like that. Now that McCain has the nomination sealed, he really needs to campaign Presidentially through the important swing states. He needs to spend A LOT of time in New York, Ohio, California, etc. Centralizing his focus should help him to save some money too.
Absolutely. I look forward to living under four years of John McCain. I think he will be a great President because he's going to be strong and steadfast in the ongoing war against fundamental Islamic terrorists and, with Romney's help, get the economy back on track. There is far too much panic in the NYSE right now. I also think McCain is the right guy to be going forward with OPEC because he won't deal with the bullshit from those countries.
Here's a question. A little while ago, someone proposed Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf for Sec. of Defense. I'm not sure if he would take the position, but what kind of boost do you think that would be going forward?
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:10 pm
RC wrote:Now that there are no even half baked conservatives left on the ballet looks like I'll be voting for a third party candidate or just writing my name in or something.No way I am voting for McCain. And I'm not voting for Obama or Hillary either.Oh well.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:40 pm
by peeker643 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:57 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:45 am
by Apex777 » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:48 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Good article on McCain's youngest son, Jimmy. He entered the Marines two years ago. He's serving in Iraq presently. Another son, Jack, is attending the Naval Academy. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 28,00.htmlThe Dems can't lambaste McCain about none of his children serving. He supports the war and his kids are serving. McCain himself served as honorably as anyone has ever in our history.
by rawdawgexpress » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:23 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:37 pm
rawdawgexpress wrote:So did you work on John Kerry's campaign in 2004?
by Orenthal » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:07 pm
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:11 am
by Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:05 am
schlobbin31 wrote:Mac, I like you man, but you're crazy.It is absolutely stunning to see the complete 180 you have done in a matter of days. How is someone supposed to take your POV seriously with the "flip-flopping" you have just done? Just to clarify the following are all Mac posts:2/7 Say NO to socialized medicine and YES to individual liberty. Vote John McCain.1/31 John McCain is for: 1. Restricting free speech (McCain-Feingold)1/31 If John McCain is the nominee then we need to be prepared for socialized medicine, a Democrat congress, and all the other things that come with it.
2/7 John McCain will be getting my time, money, and support as the nominee. I will work hard to ensure that he becomes out next President so that we do not allow this country to fade into the night.1/31 If John McCain were a true patriot he would drop out right now because he knows he can't win. Instead he's just looking after John McCain. He was brave in Vietnam, but he's been a horrible politician and an even worse leader. 1/31 There's nothing this man can do to get my vote and I might even be encouraged to campaign against him.
2/7 It is time to rebuild a majority and return this country to true conservative principles.1/31 The nomination of McCain would mean the end of the Reagan coalition and the conservative ideals that Reagan fought for. It would attempt to steer the Republican Party to the left, taking us in the direction of carbon credits and a ruined economy.
I just can't take your posts seriously after reading this. You talk about what the Hilary smear campaign is going to be if she wins the Dem primary but wtf was that? Then there is this:2/7 We need to turn our deficit into surplus. We need to end earmarks and thin out bureaucracy.The republican party cares about balancing the budget the same way the Pirates care about winning the NL penant. They don't, but the people that root for them like to pretend that they do.
I wonder too what you would be saying about Obama or Hilary if they had already admitted to this:1/30 Romney needs to keep it on the economy. He needs to hammer McCain's complete ineptitude on the subject (the man admitted he knew very little about how things worked economically) and show his leadership.I wonder how someone can their opinion so drastically in under two weeks.
Though I am sure there are more posts where he bad mouths McCain.
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:06 am
Bullshit. Yes, there have been some Republicans that have lost sight and some of that is due to President Bush's own willful disregard for the deficit. It was the Republicans that balanced the budget (kinda, it wasn't truly balanced) a decade ago. Clinton signed it and assisted because he was legacy building, but it was the Republican Congress that got it done. President Bush threw it away by not keeping his own party in check. The Republicans screwed up, no doubt. Hopefully they know their base feels this way and will correct it when they come back into power.
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:31 am
McCain still knows little on the economy and has admitted as much. He's said he wants to farm it out and I'd love to see Romney come on board to do so. I think Romney would make a great Secretary of the Treasury or VP. That would solve his economic problem.
But what kind of human being would I be if I never changed my mind? I'd just be a stubborn ass. McCain is the nominee barring a miracle. I've decided to focus on the good things instead of being a reason why the party splinters. It's not worth it. There are still many things I have issues with about McCain, but I've seen positive things this week and will support him, contribute to him, and campaign for him.
by rawdawgexpress » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:43 am
by peeker643 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:45 am
Didn't take long for all that Romney wind to start blowing into McCain's sails, did it?
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:18 pm
Schlobbin, that was pretty much the point of the above post.
Paralysis by Polarization.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:36 pm
schlobbin31 wrote:BS?So what you are telling me is:1. Regan and the Republican Congress did not balance the budget, but we won't consider this.
2. Bush I and Republican Congress did not balance the budget, but we won't consider this.
3. Bill Clinton and the Republican congress balanced the budget thanks to the Republican Congress, and Clinton was smart enough to let the Republican Congress help with his legacy.
4. George Bush II and the Republican Congress could not balance the budget, even though they were handed a surplus. This, of course, is the fault of the President and not of the congress.
So during the past 28 years we have had one Democratic president and that time period was the only time that the budget was balanced, but no thanks to the Dem?
And I am supposed to believe that after reading all of that partisan crap from you the past 10 days in which you have back tracked faster than Champ Bailey?I call BS on you. Your credibility is shot and the Republican party has lost their way. All they had to do was produce a true conservative for the White House and this thing would be a lock but they can't do that. You know why? They aren't conservatives.
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:06 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:38 pm
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:49 pm
by skatingtripods » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:20 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:27 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:Not to answer for Mac here, but he was pretty upset last week about McCain winning in Florida, a state where Mac worked hard on Romney's campaign. He's calmed down since then and really got out of his pro-Romney stance that put down JMC often.Responding with a knee jerk, off-the-cuff answer is something I've done on here based on emotion instead of thinking it through. Mac was just upset with what went on in Florida and McCain really isn't the strongest conservative of the party. Either way, all Republicans have to band together behind McCain, whether they agree with everything he has done in the past or not. He's still a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:02 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:13 pm
schlobbin31 wrote:But that still does not deal with my point of how hypocritical you are. You actually continued to reinforce my point with your reply. You talk about how I don't understand the constitution when that is nothing more than a straw man argument.
I made a history error that had nothing to do with how the government worked but you turned it in to something else to try to make me look bad. It's the exact same thing as lying a week ago about how bad of a candidate McCain is to try to get what you want. It's the exact same thing as lying about how good of a candidate McCain is this week to get what you want.
In the end you are just left with exaggerations that are thrown out with an agenda. Like I said earlier, I get the same vibe from McCain and Clinton.
I don't get that from Obama. In fact his campaign is based off of not doing that because the general population is tired of the kind of politics that you display.
I prefer to vote for a candidate thats message isn't so bad that he has to lie about the other guy or himself.
Pending socialized medicine (because I will be affected more than 99% of the people on here by it) I am pretty confidant on who I will vote for if he beats Clinton.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:36 pm
I'm not the hypocrite. Your man, Obama, is the hypocrite. He's an empty shirt AND a liar who will stab the American people in the back if he gets elected. Is he the guy you want in office when Iran goes nuclear?
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:13 pm
Changing your opinion on something is not hypocritical at all. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. Instead, I changed my opinion on the matter and fully stated my reasons.
It's not lying about anything. I stressed that I thought McCain would cause disunity in the party last week. I stressed things I didn't like about him last week.
Well, at least he's not a liar like John McCain. He's admitted to a change in his position. John McCain is for: 1. Restricting free speech (McCain-Feingold) 2. Increasing taxes substantially (McCain-Lieberman, a bill that would raise the gas taxes by $0.50 a gallon and increase most people's energy bills by 50%) 3. Amnesty to illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy, sure they'd have to pay fines if they want to be US citizens, but anyone else can get a Z Visa and stay here until they die without penalty while cutting ahead of all those who try to get here legally).
And you did make more than a history error because you implied I was wrong in discounting Clinton's role in the "balanced" budget.
They're not exaggerations at all. It's hard to call a future outlook an exaggeration when the future has yet to come to pass.
I'm not the hypocrite. Your man, Obama, is the hypocrite. He's an empty shirt AND a liar who will stab the American people in the back if he gets elected.
Is he the guy you want in office when Iran goes nuclear?
by skatingtripods » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:19 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Is fear mongering the only startegy you republicans know? Obama is the one I want to deal with Iran because instead of dropping bombs and getting US Soldiers killed he will use diplomacy to get the job done.
by HoodooMan » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:32 pm
by skatingtripods » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:35 pm
HoodooMan wrote:Barack Obama is one of the least qualified candidates to ever runSo true.You'd have to go all the way back to Bush II to find a comparably inept candidate.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:47 pm
You want to use diplomacy on an enemy that wants nothing to do with any form of American ideals? That's the most naive thing I have ever heard in my life.
by schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:57 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Is fear mongering the only startegy you republicans know? Obama is the one I want to deal with Iran because instead of dropping bombs and getting US Soldiers killed he will use diplomacy to get the job done.You want to use diplomacy on an enemy that wants nothing to do with any form of American ideals? That's the most naive thing I have ever heard in my life.
Bush addressed the issue during comments at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington.He emphasized that his administration is trying to resolve concerns over Iran through diplomacy. (Watch Iran's tough targets --1:34)"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," the president said."... We hear in Washington, you know, 'prevention means force.' It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy.
by HoodooMan » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:02 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:31 am
Republicans care about 2 things.1. Money2. Appearing to be a Patriot (NOT Mccain he is an American Hero)
The notion that another Republican should be president is laughable at best.Romney couldnt even bow out with class he mentioned the war and how he didnt want to his campaing to get in the way of us fighting the "War on Terror". What a load of horse shit he dropped out because his wife was tired of him spending the family fortune.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:41 am
by skatingtripods » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:42 am
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Why should Iran be forced to have American ideals? The US has no right to tell Iran what to do. Israel has Nuclear weapons and they are running amok in Palestine but we give them $30 Billion dollars a year in aide. You cant force Ideals on anyone no matter how many people you kill.
Talk about naive you know nothing about Iran, only what Fox News feeds you. Iran has a growing Pro-Democracy movement mainly led by students and normal everyday Iranians. The old Khomeni guard is dying and if you give it time there will be a secular revolution.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:53 am
schlobbin31 wrote:Read more, post less.http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/ ... index.htmlBush addressed the issue during comments at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington.He emphasized that his administration is trying to resolve concerns over Iran through diplomacy. (Watch Iran's tough targets --1:34)"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," the president said."... We hear in Washington, you know, 'prevention means force.' It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:42 am
Skating Tripods wrote:Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Why should Iran be forced to have American ideals? The US has no right to tell Iran what to do. Israel has Nuclear weapons and they are running amok in Palestine but we give them $30 Billion dollars a year in aide. You cant force Ideals on anyone no matter how many people you kill.I didn't say that they should be forced to have American ideals.If you don't want a strong, harsh stance against a country with a tyrannical leader, with developing nuclear capabilities, then you enjoy the outcome of trying to talk to them. I'm sure it'll get really far.Talk about naive you know nothing about Iran, only what Fox News feeds you. Iran has a growing Pro-Democracy movement mainly led by students and normal everyday Iranians. The old Khomeni guard is dying and if you give it time there will be a secular revolution.And you know what the Communist News Network feeds you. Iran's people, oppressed mind you, are forming a pro-Democracy movement? I'm sure that Ahmedajad will really allow that to happen.You know more than I do about Iran, eh? You been there? Yeah, neither have I. I know that the people are oppressed, the leader threatens world countries with his uranium enrichment programs and labels them as "nuclear power". No one is stupid enough to believe that.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:58 am
Wow, what a cynical ass you are.
Truth does not equal fear mongering. Fear mongering is scaring people to death over global warming and crap like that, stuff that is known to not cause as drastic consequences as some would like us to believe. If you think that Iran can be dealt with diplomatically then you have no idea who we're dealing with. Obama can try that and when they get the nuke and use it it will be too late. Fact is that if it comes to it, we will need to either bomb Iranian nuclear facilities or allow Israel to do it.
So it is unAmerican to want to make a profit? I assume that you don't work for a living and have no interest in increasing your income?
Still, get things straight. Dems love money just as much as the next guy.
Honestly, to think that most on either side of the aisle care is laughable. The difference is that at least the Republicans favor personal responsibility, fewer regulations, and unencumbered trade.
by Orenthal » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:51 pm
Maybe an Obama victory will force the Repubs to take a look in the mirror and see they went astray. The whole country would be better off if they did.
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests