Vote!!!

[quote name='mykevermin']I think what you have is a vocal minority speaking as *the* majority. If conservatives, on the whole, didn't like him, well, the primary results would be very different than yesterday and the past few weeks.

But then you have the talk radio types, whose listeners almost wholly embrace what they say no matter how ludicrous it really is - but since they're always able to be heard, it's easy to make the false conclusion that this is what a majority of Republicans think. Which is demonstrably untrue.

I think that the McCain hatred was probably a directive from the RNC (I'm not being conspiratorial, as both national committees offer talking points for pundits - it's just that the RNC does a far better job at ensuring consistency) to stave off Super Tuesday.

Once it's clear that McCain is the candidate (he's got over 50% of the delegates now, I believe), they'll go right back to embracing him as the next great inheritor of the Reagan mantle. Which he isn't, but that's what these fools think he needs to get elected.

EDIT: Cochese, I don't know why they hate McCain, unless one becomes persona non grata by sponsoring and passing bipartisan bills in Congress. They act like he's not "conservative" on issues, when Romney is by no means the "perfect" candidate either (it's also disappointing to listen to grown adults talk about the search for the candidate who matches "conservatism" on each and every issue, as it that's ideal or probable - or mature to bitch about not being able to find). And the vitriol for Huckabee is fascinating. Ultimately, someone decided Romney was to be the golden boy, and they developed a narrative after making their decision to show why they hated McCain. It's pithy post hoc'ing, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]


It's funny, because if there ever were a 'more perfect' Conservative canidate this year, I would have thought it to be Huckabee.

I like Huckabee. He's a very personable guy. I'd never vote for him, though.

Wife voted Obama, and I voted McCain. I was going to vote Obama, but I figured (and was right) that McCain could use the help here.

I'm kinda torn, because Obama appeals to me on a personal level, even though I disagree with the mass exodus strategy for getting out of Iraq. McCain appeals to me on a leader level, but there are a couple of things I disagree with him on.
 
FactCheck ripped into Bush's claim about tax cuts being bigger than Reagan's...and discuss Reagan's '82 tax increase. National Review, a bastion of conservative drivel, also discusses Reagan signing tax increases in most of the years he was President. He fought them and tried to cut spending, but in the end had to increase taxes to pay for his and Congressional spending.

And it's true...mythic Reagan and real Reagan are not the same thing anymore.
 
Huh. Well, Reagan's "increases" may have simply been planned increases in spending/collecting that coincide with increases in inflation and the cost of living - which some call "cuts" (since they're already planned to go up, if they don't go up *as much*, it's a "cut," semantically speaking).

Ultimately, Reagan brought the country together in many ways, but while he was economically irresponsible (look at the debt growth beginning with him), the current president makes him look positively frugal. I don't agree with much about Reagan - but I don't dislike him as a person or president. Anyone who touts Reagan as a great economic president, however, is living in la-la land.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Anyone who touts Reagan as a great economic president, however, is living in la-la land.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I'd say the same thing about Clinton. He gets entirely too much (read, any) credit for the .com boom.
 
The most interesting thing about all this Super Tuesday craziness...is that nothing was decided.

Obama and Clinton are closer than ever. McCain pulled a little ahead, but Huckabee gained more traction than anyone else on the GOP side and could be vying for enough support to be able to be kingmaker at the convention.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']They've advertised it on radio, TV and the internet, for over two months. Point denied.

I'm not trying to get any set of people denied to vote. I would like to see people actually make an effort to know who is running, and why they're voting for them.[/quote]

Surprise, surprise. The ID verification created bottlenecks and huge lines and in one case the equipment broke down. As a result, many people were denied the right to vote: http://www.wjbf.com/midatlantic/jbf/news_index.apx.-content-articles-JBF-2008-02-05-0046.html

Meanwhile, I'm sure we stymied all manner of depraved voter impersonators from casting their insidious ballots! Huzzah!
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Honestly, I'd say the same thing about Clinton. He gets entirely too much (read, any) credit for the .com boom.[/quote]
You and I are in agreement here. The way old-school dems lionize Clinton and the way Republicans have sainted Reagan is laughable to me. But at least in Clinton's case, it's backfiring a little for Hillary. People are remembering all of the antagonism under his administration, all of his antics, all of ire she drew. And then they look at Obama and see all the Republicans saying (as you did above) that they could very easily see themselves voting for him in a general election simply because he is a new, unifying, inspiring voice that in many ways transcends party lines. And suddenly supporting Hillary seems very, very foolish.

Great Washington Post article on why Republicans like Obama:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html?nav=rss_opinions/outlook?nav=slate

I think in general, if you look at what's coming, Obama has every reason to be VERY optimisitic. All of Hillary's big states (Cali, N.Y., N.J.) are already on the board. And she's still neck and neck. Meanwhile, you've got Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Louisiana, Washington D.C., Wisconsin, Nebraska...all states where Obama is, at worst competitive, and more often heavily favored. And still the delegate rich states of Ohio and Pennsylvania farther down the road, also fully in play. He has more money and he's now proven he has support from demographics he wasn't expected to carry, like white males. I really like his chances.

Slate on how when you look at the actual pledged delegates (and exclude super delegates, which can change their vote at any time, and will once the front runner appears), Obama is winning:

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/06/learn-to-count.aspx
 
I am a fiscal and social conservative. I no longer back the Republican party because IMO it has strayed from the values of its base.

McCain is a RINO - but so are all of the rest of the Republican candidates. McCain is definitely the worst, and no way would I vote for him.

This will not be a good election for true fiscal and social conservatives. There is no candidate to support.
 
[quote name='Tybee']Surprise, surprise. The ID verification created bottlenecks and huge lines and in one case the equipment broke down. As a result, many people were denied the right to vote: http://www.wjbf.com/midatlantic/jbf/news_index.apx.-content-articles-JBF-2008-02-05-0046.html

Meanwhile, I'm sure we stymied all manner of depraved voter impersonators from casting their insidious ballots! Huzzah![/QUOTE]

I give at least equal blame to the people who decided three machines was enough for ten machines.

No one was denied the right to vote, they denied themselves. It's not as if people got to the precinct and were turned away because they were a certain demographic. They were impatient.

I voted early last week, and it couldn't have taken more than 5 minutes. There were no machines to check my ID (a poll worker checked it versus what I filled out), and it was easy as pie.

I distinctly remember waiting at least three hours in 2004 in North Carolina. There's no part in the Constitution where it said your voting process has to be expedient.
 
That's good lip service, but explain to me what his stances are - bills he's proposed, votes he's made, etc. - that justify him being on the outs of the party, in your opinion.

If nothing else, it shows just how little abortion rights matter to people who claim to be social conservatives, that they'll push aside a pro-lifer, call another a spoiler, and embrace the one Republican candidate who is pro-choice.
 
Tybee that Washington post article was pretty intersting and made some good points.

I have to wonder though if the real reason your stereotypical republican wants Obama to get the nomination is because they assume a black guy with a name eerily similar to "Osama" doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning? The author was a former Bush deputy.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Tybee that Washington post article was pretty intersting and made some good points.

I have to wonder though if the real reason your stereotypical republican wants Obama to get the nomination is because they assume a black guy with a name eerily similar to "Osama" doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning? The author was a former Bush deputy.[/quote]
I did consider that, but do you honestly think Osama would turn out more Republicans to vote against him than Hillary? The people that really believe the Osama/Obama muslim B.S. would never have voted for him anyway, so no big loss. It's the thoughtful, informed, moderate Republicans that he could win over (assuming McCain doesn't get them first). Most of the Dobson devotees will stay home.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No. I'm not interested in a vehement anti-federalist racist and anti-semite as president. But you're allowed to vote how you want.[/QUOTE]

Believe whatever the Mainstream Media wants to spew right? God knows how full of truth they always are. /roll eyes
Why is he an Anti-Semite? Because he has issues with Israel's Foreign Policy? I'm sorry to jump to that conclusion but whenever someone has a problem with Israel even before they open their mouth they're labeled an Anti-Semite. Never mind the Ashkenazi's have some major issues to deal with in that region. I remember one guy in a documentary talking about how he was embarrassed to speak Arabic as a kid when he was a child. Israel isn't just a religious thing, it's a culture thing, Arab Jews vs. Ashkenazi.
Myke do you think it's a coincidence the Mainstream Media have been spewing all this shit out about Paul? This is the media that has consistently tried to downplay him, block him from coverage. At least one blog has talked about banning "Paultards" when they post. They've tried to dampen him as much as possible. I will even speculate some radio and tv stations have refused to sell him air time.
Paul is anti-Free Trade, pro-privacy, non-Globalist and small government just to name a few. How are any of these things bad? McCain and the rest of these shitheads support Real ID and it's Biometrics where you will be tracked wherever you go along with RFID. Seriously all these cameras around can do face recognition. The kicker is for now the technology isn't reliable but when it's fixed we're in deep shit with the giant database that will be set up for this. They say it will prevent Terrorism. Yeah right, what terrorist is going to sign up for something so intrusive where they can be easily caughts?
Small government? What's wrong with that? No more Corporate Subsides or people subsides. I like the idea of a weak Federal government. It gives these shady agencies a lot less of tax money being spent on projects no citizen would approve to begin with.
I really can't see how you find him such a bad guy.
 
The mainstream media hasn't said squat about the guy. He's been blackballed Nader-style.

His own newsletters over the past several decades show his disdain for blacks, his paranoia of the "ZOG" conspiracy, and his adoration for the confederacy. That's more than enough to keep me from giving him my vote.

And a small, weak federal government is a bad idea when you're facing a corporate oligarchy, and don't look at it as something so naive as a balance of power between states and the fed. You want to see exploitation of Americans, give power to states and allow corporations to exploit their resources, find a cheaper alternative in another state, and pull a thousand Flint, Michigans each decade.

It's a rather peculiar position to be in to be both anti-free trade and also believe in a weak federal government.

We do need to maintain a strong national military, and abolishing the IRS and the federal tax system won't help that very much. Just because Republicans are warmongering chickenhawks, that doesn't negate the need for a strong, well-trained, well-protected military.

Your argument is also suggesting that, because I'm not a Paul supporter, that I'm in love with the idea of being monitored by the federal government, which is a fallacious argument on its face and not worth acknowledging.

Ron Paul is Art Bell and Alex Jones caught up in a Barry Goldwater fiscal philosophy. I can respect Goldwater's ideology, but I don't agree with it.

Besides, it's a closed primary, I'm a registered Democrat, so it's moot anyway. Even if I were registered Republican, I wouldn't waste my vote on Paul. And let's now fool ourselves, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for jack fuckin' shit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The mainstream media hasn't said squat about the guy. He's been blackballed Nader-style.

His own newsletters over the past several decades show his disdain for blacks, his paranoia of the "ZOG" conspiracy, and his adoration for the confederacy. That's more than enough to keep me from giving him my vote.

And a small, weak federal government is a bad idea when you're facing a corporate oligarchy, and don't look at it as something so naive as a balance of power between states and the fed. You want to see exploitation of Americans, give power to states and allow corporations to exploit their resources, find a cheaper alternative in another state, and pull a thousand Flint, Michigans each decade.

It's a rather peculiar position to be in to be both anti-free trade and also believe in a weak federal government.

We do need to maintain a strong national military, and abolishing the IRS and the federal tax system won't help that very much. Just because Republicans are warmongering chickenhawks, that doesn't negate the need for a strong, well-trained, well-protected military.

Your argument is also suggesting that, because I'm not a Paul supporter, that I'm in love with the idea of being monitored by the federal government, which is a fallacious argument on its face and not worth acknowledging.

Ron Paul is Art Bell and Alex Jones caught up in a Barry Goldwater fiscal philosophy. I can respect Goldwater's ideology, but I don't agree with it.

Besides, it's a closed primary, I'm a registered Democrat, so it's moot anyway. Even if I were registered Republican, I wouldn't waste my vote on Paul. And let's now fool ourselves, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for jack fuckin' shit.[/QUOTE]

Let's not forget the Civil War wasn't just about slavery. It was about States rights vs. Federal one's.
Art Bell is too far out. Jones might actually have justified paranoia, there's a difference.
I will just remind you every other candidate besides Paul believes in pushing the Globalist, no privacy agenda. Your public life is your private life and vice versa. These people really want to help destroy our nation by 1984ing it. The world is right on track with us there as well.
Myke you misinterpret things. You seem to think our government is different from Corporations. Right now we're falling into Fascism, both colluding with one another. Both are bad imo, big government and profit mongering Corporations. Both will fuck you severely. Thinking they give one shit about you is deluded. Look at Katrina. That's proof you better have your own money set up in case of Natural Disaster. It also makes me want most of my federal tax money back period.
What we need more then anything besides a well trained Military is almost every American taught how to fire a gun and use it responsibly. These jackasses would be a lot more hesitant to try what they may given said circumstances.
 
Honestly, the more I start to think about it, the more I think a flat tax isn't what our economy needs.

I can expound on this later if someone wishes me to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']flat tax or consumption ("fairtax") tax? Nobody's talking about the former, and a handful the latter.[/QUOTE]

Consumption.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Go ahead and spill the beans on why you've changed your opinion on it, if you get a chance to today.[/QUOTE]

I will. I just know that I won't be able to fully explain myself until the girls go down for their nap.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']
What we need more then anything besides a well trained Military is almost every American taught how to fire a gun and use it responsibly. These jackasses would be a lot more hesitant to try what they may given said circumstances.[/quote]

Thats what Israel does, though it's sort of semantic becasue its military IS its people and its people ARE its military since every single citizen without exception is required to be in the military for a time.
 
It's official. Romney's out. Not a big surprise. Wonder how long it will be before McCain gets Huckabee to drop out by offering him the VP slot?

Which means Chuck Norris for Secretary of Defense.


God help us.
 
[quote name='Tybee']It's official. Romney's out. Not a big surprise. Wonder how long it will be before McCain gets Huckabee to drop out by offering him the VP slot?

Which means Chuck Norris for Secretary of Defense.


God help us.[/QUOTE]
McCain is NOT going to give Huckabee the VP slot. Huckabee should drop out very soon, but even if he doesn't, he has absolutely zero chance in hell of getting the nomination anyway, and is no threat to McCain's sprint to the nomination. So why the crap would McCain give a crazy the VP slot when there is no reason to?
 
If y'all are cynics like me, it's a thorough, 100%, unadulterated all-pants-shitting day on conservative talk radio now that Romney's out.

They are whinin' so hardcore I can't stop laughing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If y'all are cynics like me, it's a thorough, 100%, unadulterated all-pants-shitting day on conservative talk radio now that Romney's out.

They are whinin' so hardcore I can't stop laughing.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna miss Mittney, if only for the laughs he always provided. He's so constantly full of shit when he speaks that it's like he's doing stand-up.

Example:
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/romney?MittIsOut

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:shock:

First thing he needs to do now is fire his speechwriter, and THEN kick the living shit out of him.[/quote]

I think my favorite part of Romney's speech went something like
"Pornography and celebration of pornography combined with rampant welfare have brought about the destruction of American culture that we have today":lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:shock:

First thing he needs to do now is fire his speechwriter, and THEN kick the living shit out of him.[/QUOTE]
I hear Hollywood's hiring for sitcom writers, though he better act fast before WGA finally agrees to a contract.
 
I've never understood why Huckabee was even a fuckin candidate.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE = NO MINISTERS AS PRESIDENT!!

This fuckin nation with it's bible-thumpin christians piss me the fuck off. It's why bush won.

Rant over.

McCain scares me. Why? Because he's a republican...and I don't hate him. He could win.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']McCain is NOT going to give Huckabee the VP slot. Huckabee should drop out very soon, but even if he doesn't, he has absolutely zero chance in hell of getting the nomination anyway, and is no threat to McCain's sprint to the nomination. So why the crap would McCain give a crazy the VP slot when there is no reason to?[/QUOTE]

Because McCain needs to win back some of the hard-right Republicans who he fell out of favor with. Because he and Huckabee have a mutual respect and get along, even with their different stances.

I can say with 95% certainty that McCain will make Huckabee the VP nod.

Why? You have to figure out who's left:

-Romney: McCain hates him.
-Giuliani: Too socially liberal to win any more conservative votes
-???: Who else out there is a name that can win over conservatives? Lindsay Graham?
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']McCain is NOT going to give Huckabee the VP slot. Huckabee should drop out very soon, but even if he doesn't, he has absolutely zero chance in hell of getting the nomination anyway, and is no threat to McCain's sprint to the nomination. So why the crap would McCain give a crazy the VP slot when there is no reason to?[/quote]
Because he wants to win in the south and he wants to give evangelicals some reason to vote for him. Sticking Huckles on the bill is a quick and dirty way to accomplish both, even though I have no doubt the two abhor each other, but as they say, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "politics makes strange bedfellows."

I can keep quoting cliches if you like.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Because McCain needs to win back some of the hard-right Republicans who he fell out of favor with. Because he and Huckabee have a mutual respect and get along, even with their different stances.

I can say with 95% certainty that McCain will make Huckabee the VP nod.

Why? You have to figure out who's left:

-Romney: McCain hates him.
-Giuliani: Too socially liberal to win any more conservative votes
-???: Who else out there is a name that can win over conservatives? Lindsay Graham?[/QUOTE]

Joe Liebermann.
 
myke - sure, if he wants a democrat to be the next President. I don't give anyone the benefit of knowing Liebermann's stances on issues.

Tybee - actually, McCain and Huckleberry are somewhat pals.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Because McCain needs to win back some of the hard-right Republicans who he fell out of favor with. Because he and Huckabee have a mutual respect and get along, even with their different stances.

I can say with 95% certainty that McCain will make Huckabee the VP nod.

Why? You have to figure out who's left:

-Romney: McCain hates him.
-Giuliani: Too socially liberal to win any more conservative votes
-???: Who else out there is a name that can win over conservatives? Lindsay Graham?[/QUOTE]
Because Cheney was totally running for president before he got the VP nomination. Think outside of the box.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Because Cheney was totally running for president before he got the VP nomination. Think outside of the box.[/QUOTE]

Who was McCain's father's SecDef?
 
I've been postively LMAO at the panic conservative talk show hosts seem to be in right now. I thought Limblob's head was gonna explode.
 
You also have to consider who McCain would fall out of favor with if he chose Huckabee. Probably any independent or anyone else on the fence who was thinking of crossing party lines to vote for him. These people realize that Huckabee is fucking insane, and McCain needs their support.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']You also have to consider who McCain would fall out of favor with if he chose Huckabee. Probably any independent or anyone else on the fence who was thinking of crossing party lines to vote for him. These people realize that Huckabee is fucking insane, and McCain needs their support.[/QUOTE]

McCain is more concerned about the true conservative, the ones who were voting for Romney and Huckabee in the first place (and the ones who said they'd vote for Clinton instead).

McCain can gather independents and people on the fence on his own. VP canidates are usually chosen for geographical and complementary purposes. McCain doesn't need another independent on the ticket, he needs someone to appeal to his party.

If you don't believe me, go ask any campaign strategist on any of the networks.

Also, insane? A bit immature, don't you think?
 
In my mind, McCain = liberal... not good. Unclear if he will avoid raising taxes or secure the border.

Barack Hussein Obama = lots of good sounding sound bites, but no real substance or clear ideas.

Hillary Clinton = ugh... I can't wait to pay 50% of my income in taxes to "rescue" retards who took on variable rate mortgages that they never realistically had a chance to afford... I don't want a fucking welfare state.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']
Also, insane? A bit immature, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
Wanting to change the Constitution to include more of "God's word" is what is insane.
 
[quote name='BigT']In my mind, McCain = liberal... not good. Unclear if he will avoid raising taxes or secure the border.

Barack Hussein Obama = lots of good sounding sound bites, but no real substance or clear ideas.

Hillary Clinton = ugh... I can't wait to pay 50% of my income in taxes to "rescue" retards who took on variable rate mortgages that they never realistically had a chance to afford... I don't want a fucking welfare state.[/QUOTE]

How classy to use Obama's middle name in a clear attempt to build up the "fear of would-be-muslim names" strategy.

Which policies of his do you not find clear? His focus on reducing spending on prisons and beginning a reemphasis on rehabilitation (which has a demonstrably improved effect on the "revolving door prison" concept that's come about directly as a result of policies that aimed to punish)? His focus on cutting taxes for lower, working, and middle-class Americans? His focus on removing tax loopholes and tax shelters for corporations? His healthcare plan which provides service for those who can't afford it, but it also palatable to the healthcare industry (and insurance/big pharma, to my chagrin)?

My guess is that you haven't bothered to spend half a second looking into what Obama's policies actually are, so you just paint him with the broad clock of "liberal," as your talk radio masters have told you to (lemme guess: you're a fan of Bill Cunningham?), and naturally assume his policies are undesirable. How about you tell me what policies of his you disagree with and why?

Lastly, neither you, nor anyone else in the history of the US is paying anywhere close to 50% in income taxes, so give it up, already.

Besides, after the catastrophic fuckup that was the Bush policy's revision of bankruptcy laws in order to ensure debts are paid back by individuals (which happened, I remind you, a week before it was made clear by the government that United Airlines was not required to pay out the pensions it promised and guaranteed its employees, current and retired alike), there's some recompense that is needed. It's up front "welfare," but you get your choice between a one-time cost and longer-term costs as the compounded effects of poverty and homelessness of a large portion of these individuals drive up your health care costs and the like.

If you hate taxes so much, I have a solution: go get a $7.50/hour job. You'll get all of your income taxes back in full at the start of each year. How nice!

I have another bit of advice: if you hate the idea of a welfare state, then you better mark "RETURN TO SENDER" on your $600 George Bush "go hogwild at the mall!" economic stimulus check. Or, better yet, put it in another envelope with a reimbursement for the $300 welfare check you cashed when you helped elect this dumbfuck into office in 2001.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I have another bit of advice: if you hate the idea of a welfare state, then you better mark "RETURN TO SENDER" on your $600 George Bush "go hogwild at the mall!" economic stimulus check. Or, better yet, put it in another envelope with a reimbursement for the $300 welfare check you cashed when you helped elect this dumbfuck into office in 2001.[/QUOTE]
:applause::applause::applause:

I'm fucking sick of people bitching about taxes.
 
Nice rant myke, but you do have to admit that Obama does have a schtick for heavily relying on rhetoric to the detriment of specifics.

I'm not saying it is bad or ineffective, nor injecting any normative conclusions into it. FWIW it seems to be working.
 
In his speeches, sure - but let's not act like he's alone, or that the general public has any interest in hearing policies. His policies are available for the select few that read a person's platform and plans before voting.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']:applause::applause::applause:

I'm fucking sick of people bitching about taxes.[/QUOTE]

Do you pay taxes? They are far too high. Taxpayers have every right to criticize the government for compensating for their inefficient spending by taking out 40% of what we earn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top