Text Size

No Holds Barred

Romney Bows Out

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Romney Bows Out

Unread postby peeker643 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:31 pm

$35m deep from his own cake pile too.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22680
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Unread postby Hi Oktane » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:50 pm

Can Huckabee pick up enough support from Romney backers to make this thing interesting into next month when Ohioans and Texans go to the polls? Seems a long shot, but Huck does have some momentum.
"At least the Scots didn't have to tune in with the rest of the country and watch their women get plowed by Longshanks and his men."
~Commodore Perry on the difference between baseball's flawed economics : Indians :: prima nocta : Scots
User avatar
Hi Oktane
TPS Report Grader
 
Posts: 4835
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:23 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Favorite Player: Brother Red
Least Favorite Player: IHS

Unread postby swerb » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:53 pm

No way, he's too religious. No foreign policy experience in these turbulent times.

Game, set, match ... McCain.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17918
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:54 pm

No. Huckabee needs to get out as well. The Democrats will be the ones that get to tear themselves apart over the next several months. It is time to unite behind McCain. His speech just concluded at CPAC was quite good and it sounds like Romney may come aboard as his economics advisor. That's good news.

The Huckabee talk for VP needs to end now as well. We need Huckabee to go back to Arkansas and challenge for the Senate seat. He can win that and pick one up for the Republicans.

It's most important now to create strategy for November to take the White House and both houses of Congress.

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.
Last edited by Mr. MacPhisto on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby mrburns » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:04 pm

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.
User avatar
mrburns
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: Erie, PA
Favorite Player: Rusty Branyan
Least Favorite Player: Rapist QBs

Unread postby 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.


Yeah, it's nice in concept but it has far too many problems. The largest issue is that people would have to pay taxes twice on anything they saved over the years or taxable income that went into retirement accounts. Best thing is to simplify the current system.

McCain should co-op Guiliani's simplified tax structure to go along with Romney's cut of the bottom tax % down to 7.5% and cut of corporate taxes down to 20%.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:12 pm

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.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby 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.


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.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby 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.


You tore JMC apart last week. Don't give the Dems any more ammunition!

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 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 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.


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?

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.


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.

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.


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?
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby RC » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:37 pm

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.
User avatar
RC
Keepin' The Faith In Y-Town
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:22 am
Location: Girard, OH
Favorite Player: Kyrie Irving
Least Favorite Player: Chris Grant

Unread postby 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 was a little pissed off last week, I'm sure you could tell.

I have issues with McCain on some things and I wasn't in 100% agreement with Romney, but I know that I will not go to bed at night fearing for our nation with McCain as Commander in Chief. I know he will honor all of our men and women in uniform and do good by them.

I loved listenign to Hugh Hewitt, another Romney supporter, on the radio after Super Tuesday. He had lunch with people from Investors' Business Daily and asked for them to all say something good about McCain. The first guy said that he'd scare the crap out of Hugo Chavez. That's a pretty good reason to vote for him. Obama wants to sit down and have tea with Chavez. That's unacceptable.

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 agree. We need to rebuild the military, give our current men and women serving more $$$, and add to their numbers. They are the vanguard for freedom all around the world.

I loved what Mitt Romney said today in his speech about our nation and the brave men and women who serve it in the military:

"Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. "First," he said, "I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world." The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America!"

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 agree there about the south, but there are others like Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Mark Sanford of South Carolina that can shore up the south as well while helping McCain's social conservative cred. I don't have a problem with Huckabee being on the ticket (or Romney for that matter), but I think Huckabee could help the party and the country out most by picking up that Senate seat. It wouldn't hurt any future ambitions for the Presidency either. Believe it or not, VP has historically not been the gateway to the Presidency. It's often the Secretary of State that makes the strongest candidate or a former Governor. Mike's got the governor thing down, but time in the Senate would add to his resume and help the party.

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?


There were nearly 50 seats won in historically Republican districts in 2006 because the base was unhappy and unenthused. Of course, they knew we still held the Presidency at that point.

We need 18 seats to retake a majority in the House and I think we can pick up 30-40 and maybe over 50 if McCain's ticket can get coattails. A pick up of 40 seats would give us a 43 seat majority in the 435 member House.

We need three Senate seats because a victorious John McCain will be replaced by a Democrat because the Governor is a Democrat. It is possible that the Republican majority in the Arizona legislature could attempt to change the law prior to next January, but the Governor would not sign the law. I'm not sure what the Arizona Constitution requires to overcome a Gubernatiorial veto or if the Republicans have enough votes to do it.

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.


I think in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan that he could use Romney to campaign for him. Romney understands the economic situation in the rust belt and could address it, especially if McCain makes him his chief economic guy. Romney resonated in Michigan because he showed a commitment to rebuilding US industry under new technologies. He needs to do that to keep Ohio and Indiana on our side and swing Michigan and maybe Pennsylvania. If we can turn Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota Red while keeping Ohio and Indiana then the Dems will struggle mightily. We need the Midwest and the South.

I think McCain does put California into play and will hold the South. A win in California makes everything else academic. I don't think the Dems can win the Presidency without California's 55 electors (and I don't know if they've changed elector distribution or not).

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.


I agree on all of that. McCain does need to loosen up on some things like ANWR and we need to let them uncap those Texas oil wells. Massive oil exploration in the US will cause the price of oil to plummet - I guarantee it. We need to give tax breaks for oil shale refinement, make it easier to build refineries, and clear out many of the hurdles preventing drilling while still keeping it as environmentally safe as possible without the massive bureaucracy. Just beginning to tap our massive oil shale deposits in the Rockies will help us greatly. We have more oil in the shale than the rest of the world has in traditional crude. We just need to be able to use it.

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?


I don't believe he'd do it. He's 73 years old and likes living here in Tampa. I'm not sure how much I'd want a retired general to be the SecDef. They usually try to give that to a long time civilian to get a different perspective. McCain could conceivably carry over Robert Gates from Bush. I think Gates has done a good job as SecDef and think McCain might favor renominating him.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby 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.


That's throwing your vote away. You have every right to do so, but McCain is light years better than Hillary.

Six Supreme Court Justices are over 68 years old. We need to stay committed to the War on Radical Jihad. We need to turn our deficit into surplus. We need to end earmarks and thin out bureaucracy.

John McCain will help us out on those issues. If we don't keep the White House now it could take 50 years to come back from this. We cannot afford to give the liberals another chance to attempt to create their big government pipe dreams.

Say NO to socialized medicine and YES to individual liberty. Vote John McCain.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:40 pm

I'd encourage you guys to watch all of Romney's speech and all of McCain's speech from today. They are both worth the time.

Romney's:

http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=731050

Too bad Mitt didn't do speeches like this more often. Great speech.

http://msunderestimated.com/McCainCPAC.wmv

Another great speech.

Watch them both. McCain showed great humor.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby peeker643 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Didn't take long for all that Romney wind to start blowing into McCain's sails, did it?

Funny how the political machine grinds along.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22680
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:45 am

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.html

The 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.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby 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.html

The 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.


Although I am a democrat and therefore support the democratic candidates, I must say, I certainly hope that neither of the democratic candidates even think about trying to dishonor John McCain's military service. What he went through as a POW, certainly makes him stand out as a class act person period.
*
*
*
Imagination is more important than knowledge. . .Einstein
User avatar
Apex777
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Northeast OH

Unread postby rawdawgexpress » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:23 pm

Mac:

"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."


rawdawg:

So did you work on John Kerry's campaign in 2004?
People call it 'vision.' I call it running away.
-Josh Cribbs
rawdawgexpress
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Lakewood

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:37 pm

rawdawgexpress wrote:
So did you work on John Kerry's campaign in 2004?


Of course not. Seeing as I didn't want us to fade into the night, that statement would preclude me from working for John Kerry or his ilk.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

What does a vote for McCain get us?

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:07 pm

Voting for McCain will give us nothing more then a liberal that is strong on national security. The end result of reaching across the aisle for failed policy will be the Republican Party's demise. We will have all the failings of an over taxed open border welfare state, and "our" guy, no our party will take the fall.

Basing our strategery on who can beat Hillary is silly. Obama gets the dem nomination, he wins... That is my prediction.
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Unread postby schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:11 am

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.

*** Mac's quotes are from this post and under this link:

http://www.theclevelandfan.com/boards/v ... php?t=5696

Though I am sure there are more posts where he bad mouths McCain.
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby 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.


Let's clarify a few things. I still despise McCain-Feingold and do strongly believe it impinges on free political speech. It caps how much money I can decide to give to a candidate of my choice. I'd prefer complete transparency and no limitations, the candidates need to have the information for every donor easily available online within 24 hours of donation and sort it by how much has been given.

As for the socialized medicine comment, me saying that we needed to be prepared for it was a statement in regards to McCain losing the general election. I no longer believe he will lose the general but I've never believed that McCain supported socialized medicine.


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.


I changed my mind because winning is too important. After examining McCain and listening to his CPAC speech, I do believe that the Republican Party can unite behind him. McCain is not my preferential candidate. He would have been fourth on my list before people started dropping out:

1. Romney
2. Guiliani
3. Thompson
4. McCain
5. Huckabee
Not ever. Ron Paul



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'm still concerned over McCain's global warming stances, but there are other stances I agree with him on.


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.


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.

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.


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.

Though I am sure there are more posts where he bad mouths McCain.


There are.

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.

I was wrong for going after his jugular like that because I was acting out of anger. I was angry that my guy lost in my state. I was angry that I got bombarded by phone calls from McCain's camp badmouthing my guy.

I'm not angry anymore and I'm glad that I've take a step back.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby 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.


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.
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby 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.


Again Mac, there is no doubt in my mind that if Clinton or Obama came out and said they knew very little about economics you would blast them. In fact, you were just blasting McCain last week because of this but between then and now he gets a pass? Shouldn't the President of the United States now a little of economics? I can't fathom the change of heart.

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.


There is changing your mind and there is saying McCain has been a horrible politician and an even worse leader one week and then next week pimping him for the presidency. Did McCain do something miraculous where all of a sudden he became JFK in under 10 days? Or is this the same guy as it was on January 30th?

Again, you agree with other posters on how bad Hilary Clinton trashes her opponents but you fail to see what you do here.

I say this with all due respect, but what you have shown is exactly what is wrong with America right now. You have shown to care more about your party than your country. You have shown the willingness to say what ever it takes, be it true or not, to get what you want. I get the same vibe from Clinton. I get the same vibe from McCain.

I don't get it from Obama and pending his fiscal policies (which will be a big hurdle for me) he has my vote. If it wasn't for socialized medicine he would just about be a lock for me at this point.
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby rawdawgexpress » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:43 am

Macphisto (from another thread):

"Whatever. Waterboarding isn't torture. McCain is grandstanding and being contrarian because that's how he is. It's because he's such a big asshole. Look at how his mistreats his fellow Senators. "


rawdawgexpress:

LOL.

I don't mean to pile-on but... wait ...I DO mean to pile on.

I'm the first to say that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds but you are going a bit overboard.

You call him an asshole and then the very next week you are pimping him for the Presidency. Wow. Frankly, that's pretty shameless.

Its very hard to take that seriously. Not only that but you also say that waterboarding isn't torture. You are seriously saying that?
People call it 'vision.' I call it running away.
-Josh Cribbs
rawdawgexpress
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Lakewood

Unread postby peeker643 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:45 am

Peeker643 said-
Didn't take long for all that Romney wind to start blowing into McCain's sails, did it?



Schlobbin, that was pretty much the point of the above post.

I liken it to the OSU-Michigan game. Die hard OSU fan who despises UM. They play for a trip to the Rose Bowl that UM wins. So suddenly they become a die-hard UM honk because that's who's in the big game? Solid.

I agree with what you said later as well. That kind of shit is part of the problem. How can we expect a politician to have any integrity when we as voters have none?

Paralysis by Polarization.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22680
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Unread postby schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:18 pm

Schlobbin, that was pretty much the point of the above post.


Yes, but it did not give the situation the attention it deserved.

Paralysis by Polarization.


You said in 3 words what took me two paragraphs. Nice job.

Regarding the comparison to OSU/Mich I can't say that I agree. Either someone will be a suitable president in your opinion or he won't. If you want to compare it to a sports setting (which I don't feel comfortable doing) it's like saying that Derek Anderson is an amazing QB but Brady Quinn couldn't start for my intramural flag football team. Then, one week later after Anderson is hurt and is declared done for the year that same person goes on a posting spree walking about how Quinn is the next Bernie Kosar with no new evidenc or reasoning. It's intellectually dishonest and deserves to be called out.

I like Mac, I think he is the second best sports writer here behind Consig and back on C-Town Sports there was a time where it was just him and I defending our POV against the popular opinion. I just think that his political views are little out of whack. :mrgreen:
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby 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.


Reagan did not have a Republican congress. He did, at times, have a Republican Senate but he did not have a Republican House. If you've ever read our Constitution then you know that all budgetary bills must originate in the House.

Reagan wanted to balance the budget, but he felt that destroying the USSR was more important. He made deals with Democrats to give them the higher spending they wanted in order to get the military build up that he wanted. It worked and the USSR dissolved a few years after he left office.

2. Bush I and Republican Congress did not balance the budget, but we won't consider this.


Once again, not a Republican congress. A Democrat congress. That Democrat congress is the one that forced Bush to abandon his no new taxes pledge.

During the George H.W. Bush Presidency the Democrats held a 55-45 seat majority in the Senate for the first two years and a 56-44 majority for his last two. The Democrats also held the House as they had for years until 1994 when Republicans took control.

So you've proven yourself to not know history at this point. Both Reagan and Bush I had to deal with Democrats and their crazy spending ways in Congress.

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.


Bingo. Clinton had an interest in doing this and adopted it when the Republicans took control in 1994. Bill Clinton has stated in the past that he was unsure that the Democrats in Congress could ever balance the budget because of their affinity to create government programs.

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.


It wasn't a surplus. They used money from the Social Security Trust Fund to cover budget shortfalls and make it look like a surplus.

Bush took the "surplus" and gave out tax rebates. His spending went up dramatically after 9/11 when he became willing to let Republicans tack on excess spending to the bills he wanted.

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?


No, because of how things work. While the President will come up with the budget, it was Congress that whittled it down and gave us a "balanced" budget. The President DOES NOT control the purse.

I invite you to read this document so you understand how these things work:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

It was the Republican Congress that "balanced" the budget, although it was not truly balanced as I have said. Clinton signed the bill, but his initial budget proposals WOULD NOT have allowed for a "balanced" budget.

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.


I agree with you that many in leadership are not conservatives. They were repudiated in 2006 for that as the base did not show up to support them.

I call BS on you because you clearly don't know history or the US Constitution.

And, for the record, John McCain has ALWAYS been responsible when it comes to the budget. The reason he did not vote for Bush's tax cuts in the first place is because they did not include cuts in spending to go with them. McCain has NEVER taken an earmark for his state or anyone.

His problems really lie with illegal immigration (though his current stance is much improved), judges, and McCain-Feingold. The global warming issue is another one, but his is very strongly a fiscal conservative and has a clear record on that. I have never attacked him in that area because I know he hates pork and despises entitlements.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:06 pm

Mac,

I am at work until 5 but I will respond to your posts this evening when I can give it the time it deserves.

Also, thanks for the link about the constitution. I heard about this mythical document and have always wanted to learn about it but have never had the chance.
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby peeker643 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:38 pm

February 11th, 1990, Tokyo

"Man, I love this guy Tyson. Biggest, baddest, bestest mofo'n boxer ever. Never seen a guy like this before in my life..."

(Thump. Tyson hits canvas, scrambles pathetically for mouthpiece).

" Umm...huh........... Man I love this guy Douglas. Biggest, baddest, bestest mofo'n boxer. I've always been a fan of this Douglas fella..)

Response by rhetoric.

Mac, you shouldn't talk about politics. You should be in politics sir.

Plenty of people would be confused by a reponse of pretty prose crafted carefully to support only their point of view. With historical references and links to boot. Politicians count on it. Even if it completely ignores the fact that most people that turn more quickly than you did on Romney-McCain would have required cervical fusion surgery.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22680
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Unread postby schlobbin31 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:49 pm

First off, let me apologize for being backwards as far as congress goes. I was wrong there and am man enough to admit it. (Though I'll blame it on being busy at work and trying to reply really fast which is why I had it backwards :P :-P :razz: )

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.
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby skatingtripods » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:20 pm

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.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby 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.


Thanks for the defense. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I not only invested my time with Romney, I also invested my $$$ in his campaign.

It is not always wise to post emotional responses when you haven't taken the time to step back and think things through. I cannot stand by and let someone I believe will be horrible for our nation take control of the White House and get coat tails for increasing the Democrat advantage in Congress. Obama or Clinton are far, far worse than McCain will ever be. McCain doesn't continuously propose new big government programs. Hillary seems to add billions to her proposals every week.

McCain still does believe in the people of the United States and not in the government. The government is only as great as the people and the people are only great when free, bearing less burden in taxation and more personal responsibility.

Big government has greatly contributed to an erosion of personal responsibility and personal sustainability. I do not wish for it to grow in that regard and do believe and hope that McCain, especially if given a Republican Congress that he can get into line, will work to reduce government, reform entitlements, reduce waste, and leave this country in a better state than he found it.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:02 pm

People underestimated Romney his whole political career I mean my god he is a Mormon Republican who got elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the Union. He would have had a better chance at beating Obama than either Huckabee or McCain the base doesnt really care for either. All in all the last thing this country needs is another Republican businessman president. Romney paid more $$$ per delegate than any other person in history. I can honestly say since I was born (1981) there hasnt been a decent president and thats probably not going to change.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby 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.


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.

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.



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. I still don't like those things about him but I have changed my opinion on the unity aspect of things in the party. I've stressed the good things about McCain, things I would have acknowledged (and did, in fact, acknowledge) in the past. Lying? Hardly. A manipulation of the facts? Certainly.

And you did make more than a history error because you implied I was wrong in discounting Clinton's role in the "balanced" budget. There's not shame in that, but I've had to point out to plenty of people just who it is that control the purse strings of the Federal Government. It is truly the House that does so, though the Senate must rubber stamp it. It was the Republican led House that shut down the Federal government for a time because they got in a fight over the budget. They do need the President to sign it unless they can get 2/3 of both houses to override a veto, but it is important to understand the separation of powers.

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.


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 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.


No. His campaign is based on saying nothing about anything. Barack Obama is one of the least qualified candidates to ever run. He is an empty shirt.

Obama is nothing but a bunch of platitudes to get ignorant people who don't pay attention to details to vote for him.

Go to his website and look at his "plans". You will find little to no substance in any of them.

You're right, Americans are tired as politics as usual. That's why a candidate as poorly equipped as Obama can run on slogans and good feelings. Like I said, he's an empty shirt. He's already indicated that he'll let the inmates run the asylum in Washington. Great idea.

I prefer to vote for a candidate thats message isn't so bad that he has to lie about the other guy or himself.


Yeah, message is everything. Please. I'd love an alternative that's better than McCain. I'd love to buy into the false hope for change that Barack Obama is peddling, but I'm not a fool.

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.


And he probably won't because the Democratic establishment will block him.

I just hope you look hard at what qualifies Obama to be a President. What will he really do? He hasn't said much. The man has never even run a popsicle stand.

As for change, Obama has taken home of 20 earmarks to Illinois. Hillary has taken home over 200.

John McCain has taken ZERO. All three rail against earmarks but only one has a positive record on the subject.

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?
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby 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?


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. Republicans care about 2 things.

1. Money

2. 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.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby 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.


Having a problem with the Clinton's smear factor campaign while doing it yourself last week to McCain does make you a hypocrit. Call it what you want but it is what it is. You did it, you know you did it, you just think it's not ok with Hilary because you don't agree with her political view points. Spin away but it happened.

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.


You stressed that he would cause disunity? This is what you said, Mac. It's in print man.

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).


So John McCain is a liar. He is for increasing taxes. He is a worse than horrible leader. But now we are supposed to vote for him???

And you did make more than a history error because you implied I was wrong in discounting Clinton's role in the "balanced" budget.


I implied that you are holding the Dems to a different standard than your boys. You tried to turn it as me not knowing the constitution that included a bad joke that had a link to the US constitution.

You talk about how Clinton did what congress wanted because congress decides the budget. You then push most of the blame on Bush for the defecit even though we had a Republican congress. It doesn't add up. I understand the separation of power.

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.


Mac, you just admitted to over reacting when Romney lost Florida.

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.


You said this about McCain last week. I'm curious to see how you feel next week.

Is he the guy you want in office when Iran goes nuclear?


Fear tactics, I like it.

Just for the record you said last week that McCain is a horrible politician and an even worse leader.

Does that sound like the kind of guy you want in charge when Iran goes nuclear?

The American people are fed up with your fear mongering and smear tactics. If McCain tries this against Obama he will lose. Against Clinton he will win because she will try the same.

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.
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby 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.


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.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby HoodooMan » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:32 pm

Barack Obama is one of the least qualified candidates to ever run

So true.

You'd have to go all the way back to Bush II to find a comparably inept candidate.
User avatar
HoodooMan
The King
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:04 pm
Favorite Player: Big_Lu
Least Favorite Player: Foldtop Sandwich Bag

Unread postby skatingtripods » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:35 pm

HoodooMan wrote:Barack Obama is one of the least qualified candidates to ever run

So true.

You'd have to go all the way back to Bush II to find a comparably inept candidate.


He's talking about the fact that Barack has only been a part of Washington for less than an entire term. Not to mention, he's had little to no executive experience in Washington.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby 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.



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.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby 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.


Read more, post less.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/ ... index.html

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.
schlobbin31
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am

Unread postby HoodooMan » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:02 pm

He's talking about the fact that Barack has only been a part of Washington for less than an entire term. Not to mention, he's had little to no executive experience in Washington.

What he said was:

No. His campaign is based on saying nothing about anything. Barack Obama is one of the least qualified candidates to ever run. He is an empty shirt.

Obama is nothing but a bunch of platitudes to get ignorant people who don't pay attention to details to vote for him.

Go to his website and look at his "plans". You will find little to no substance in any of them.

You're right, Americans are tired as politics as usual. That's why a candidate as poorly equipped as Obama can run on slogans and good feelings. Like I said, he's an empty shirt. He's already indicated that he'll let the inmates run the asylum in Washington. Great idea.


Which I agree with. Obama is just another fucking salesman in Washington. A really, really smooth, talented salesman.

Which is all GWII ever was. An extremely talented salesman. One the Democratic party underestimated at every turn to its detriment. The guy's a spoiled rich kid in an Oxford suit, but he successfully sold himself as a Regular Joe who eats at Taco Bell and brags about not reading books. I'm convinced that even his trademark verbal slip-ups are calculated. Makes him more relatable to ignorant people (the same type of people Mac has falling for BHO's platitudes) and it makes the liberals who cringe in response and poke fun look like elitist snobs. And he's profited politically from that kind of self-martyrdom throughout his tenure--he & Rove were undoubtedly paying attention to Clinton's approval rating during the Lewinsky scandal.

Dubya's an exceptionally talented politician. Unfortunately, that skill-set has proven to have no bearing whatsoever on the ability to lead a country, which is why I fear an Obama presidency. And a Clinton presidency. Despite the fact that what they're selling is supposed to appeal to me more politically.
User avatar
HoodooMan
The King
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:04 pm
Favorite Player: Big_Lu
Least Favorite Player: Foldtop Sandwich Bag

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:31 am

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.


Yeah, diplomacy has worked well in the past with Iran. Jimmy Carter did quite well.

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.

Republicans care about 2 things.

1. Money

2. Appearing to be a Patriot (NOT Mccain he is an American Hero)


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?

Secondly, you show ignorance by trying to boil down a whole party to two points. Money is not the motivating factor for many Republicans. We'd like to see regulation and things that inhibit growth put to an end. The big money is actually with the Democrats and recent surveys have shown that.

Just like it is the oil companies that contribute the most money to orgs like Greenpeace because they help to make their product more scarce, allowing them to raise prices.

I'm ashamed that a Republican, Nixon, allowed for many of the regs that have hurt industry and caused use to be more energy dependent.

Still, get things straight. Dems love money just as much as the next guy. They like to pander to lower incomes and those that feel society has ignored them. They will give just enough to keep you hooked on them, giving them power. To think they really care about you is laughable.

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.

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.


Wow, what a cynical ass you are.

Everyone I talked to on both sides of the aisle felt that Romney did bow out with class. You won't see either Dem step aside for the good of their party because both are arrogant, self-serving politicians. It's going to stretch into July and then one of them will file suit if things don't go their way. They care as much about the will of the people as Joseph Stalin did.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:41 am

HoodooMan wrote:Barack Obama is one of the least qualified candidates to ever run

So true.

You'd have to go all the way back to Bush II to find a comparably inept candidate.


Bush II was in his first term as Senator, only three years removed from being a state senator when running?

See, I thought Bush was in his second term as Governor of Texas and had actually run businesses before running for President.

Silly me. You're right. A law lecturer that has never run so much as a popsicle stand is just as qualified if not moreso.

Hillary is more qualified than that, though she's never had any real executive experience of any kind.

McCain has as a Naval officer.

As an expert in history I can tell you this, Presidents with no executive experience tend to do poorly. There are a not really any exceptions because notable legislators (Lincoln and Kennedy come to mind) that were elected had some form of executive leadership experience from military service, both having served in combat and led men.

Obama and Hillary are literally the least qualified people to ever run when weighed against history. Neither have the military experience that less experienced and horrible Presidents (like Franklin Pierce) had.

They are a disaster waiting to happen.

The Democrats failed to jump on the best qualified candidate in their race, Bill Richardson. I'm no fan of Richardson, but he's far better than the two that are in the race now.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby 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.


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.


schlobbin, whatever cave you came from, crawl back to it. Of course Bush isn't going to openly talk about military action toward Iran. That's just lunacy. That may be what it comes to, but no one is going to say that in the media and be quoted.


Hoodoo, I only responded to what you quoted in italics in your post, not all of Mac's post. Though I wholeheartedly agree with everything Mac said.


Mac, it's a constant uphill battle around here. If the Dems win the election, and the country goes down the shitter, we'll be the ones able to say 'I told you so'
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:53 am

schlobbin31 wrote:
Read more, post less.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/ ... index.html

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.


That's nearly two years old.

Diplomacy has worked great, yes?

We've tried diplomacy for years with Iran, it has never worked. Our diplomacy with North Korea has also done little and already they are backing out of the few gains we were able to negotiate from them.

History tells us that it is foolish to negotiate with some regimes.

Do you know how many opportunities the British and French had to stop Hitler and the calamity that ensued? Do you know that those who wished to keep open diplomatic lines and placate them sound a lot like those that want to talk to Iran?

When Hitler came to power, destroying the Weimar Republic there was alarm but nothing was done.

When the Nazis supported Franco in the Spanish Civil War, something could have been done.

When Hitler retook the Rhineland, the French could have stepped in and crushed the Germans, making Hitler a footnote to history.

When the Europeans heard of the Germans putting Jews into ghettos, they could have done something.

When the Nazis took Austria, something could have been done.

When the Nazis took the Sudetenland, something could have been done.

When the Nazis took the rest of Czechoslovakia, something could have been done.

Finally when they took Poland something was done. It was too late. France fell quickly and Great Britain was isolated and would have succumbed if not for the bravery of the British, the armament and food of the US, and the will of Winston Churchill.

The same happened as we placated the Japanese in the east because people wanted "peace".

The Iranians have supplied money and equipment to terrorists around the globe. They use Syria as a puppet and their arm, Hezbollah, instigated war with Israel a year and a half ago. They have been supplying insurgents in Iraq, waging war on the Iraqi people by proxy and wagering war on us.

So, how many people does Iran have to kill before we act? If they nuke Israel can we do something? Do we have to wait for them to attack elsewhere?

Anyone that doesn't take Ahmadinejad a this word about destroying Israel doesn't pay close attention to men like him. Go to your library and check out Mein Kampf. You'll find that Hitler detailed EVERYTHING he wanted to do, including the Final Solution. Mad men let us know what they want to do ahead of time, yet we still find people that refuse to believe them.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby 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.



I do know more about Iran than you because I've taken the time to learn about it. Despite what you say there is a very large Pro Democracy movement in Iran. So large in fact we give almost $100 million dollars to such groups active in Iran. I will not argue there is large scale opression in Iran against Democracy. Opression is needed in Revolution (see the Shah).

Ahmadinejad is so over-hyped people hear him speak and piss their pants. He is NOT Hitler he doesnt have that power most Iranians regard him as a Bush like figure. There are rouge Iranian TV stations that spoof him like The Daily Show does Bush. I seem to remember eveyone in a "Hitler Frenzy" before we invaded Iraq. How many countries has Ahmadinejad invaded? Just like Hitler right?

Ohh and Tripods I dont watch CNN I watch MSNBC.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:58 am

Wow, what a cynical ass you are.


There is no need to call me names sir. Im VERY cynical because of the shit i've seen. I love to debate politics I come off as a crazy person sometimes I know. Now on to your other points.



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.



Well the truth is Iran doesnt have a Nuclear weapon. We agree on Global Warming. We know North Korea has Nuclear weapons do you advocate attacking them also? Isarael already has the plans drawn up to bomb selected targets. However its going to be very hard to pull off because Iran learned form Israel's bombing of Iraq's Nuclear plant. They have spread their most important sites out and have massive Russian SAM Sites that could cause major damage to the Israeli Air Force. Jimmy Carter was a turd in a suit.

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?


No. But it is Un-American to give no bid contracts to a company that the current VP has strong if not illegal connections with. And yes I have interest in increasing my income I welcome financial advice my portfolio looks like shit man.


Still, get things straight. Dems love money just as much as the next guy.


We agree again.....thats gotta be a record


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.


If none of them care why did you give money to Romney?
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

BINGO

Unread postby 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.


The above reason is why I am voting for Obama. I am not going to enable this leftward drift by Republicans by voting in one of the canidates leading the charge. The Republican leadeship/establishment could care less about the conservative movement.
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests