"Senator McCain should understand that after seven years of a President who has divided Americans and pursued a scorched earth policy full of misleading propaganda campaigns, we need a leader who understands he is the President for all Americans not just his supporters."
This is incredibly ironic, coming from Howard Dean of all people. Whose own rhetoric is among the most scorched-earth that I've heard.
wondy, bypasses the charges against a republican by blaming the democratic accuser. must be one of the days of the week tha ends with a Y. Also ironically I do believe that it's the very definition of ad hominem. Anyone want to bet that he'll turn around and attack me ("that's ironic coming from you" or "you're the worst offender of all") and avoid the actual point which is John Mccain and not Howard Dean or Ray Adler.
Quote:
And who said plainly that he hates Republicans.
fine. and Howard Dean isn't running for President. this is about John Mccain.
Quote:
And who alleged Bush knew in advance about 9-11, and let it happen.
so? that theory is held by more people than just a slight minority. I'm not saying it's true or false, but it is an opinion that is held by some very respectable people. and again, Howard Dean isn't running for President. The issue has nothing to do with Dean at all. Do you really think so little of John Mccain that you think he needs to be shielded like this, that he needs to be carefully protected by blindly blaming everying on the nearest liberal? What next are you going to just bypass the current President to blame any problems here on someone who left power over 6 years ago? Are you going to belittle the intellect of your own party by turning them into a bunch of reactionary juveniles who can not be held to task for their own actions because they can't control themselves and are simply acting out in response to some hurt feelings from the 90's?
Quote:
Seven years of Bush-style rhetoric is largely in response to seven years of lying partisan Democrat slander and cheap stunts, of which Dean is among the worst offenders.
Again, he's either a liar, or losing his faculties. Watch a video of McCain making both statements, below:
Quote:
"But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." - New Hampshire Town Hall, 06/12/08
Quote:
"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." - C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004
It's fun to watch the schizophrenia at work here. On the one hand he has to appeal to the far right as dwindling as they happen to be and on the other, he has to appeal to moderates in order to get elected. I'm waiting for when he overloads with all this opposing and contradictory data and his head starts smoking and then just explodes.
I've often thought that Ron Paul, who just ended his campaign, is McCain's Hillary Clinton. Although Ron Paul doesn't have the same visibility as Hillary.
Particularly the Youtube propaganda clips posted by Ron Paul's supporters.
Whether these are directly from the Ron Paul campaign, or (more likely) unaffiliated supporters, they attack McCain with the viciousness of Democrats. And might well be Democrats posing as Ron Paul supporters, on a ratfucking mission.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
wow, here's a shocker.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Originally Posted By: Howard Dean
"Senator McCain should understand that after seven years of a President who has divided Americans and pursued a scorched earth policy full of misleading propaganda campaigns, we need a leader who understands he is the President for all Americans not just his supporters."
This is incredibly ironic, coming from Howard Dean of all people. Whose own rhetoric is among the most scorched-earth that I've heard.
wondy, bypasses the charges against a republican by blaming the democratic accuser. must be one of the days of the week tha ends with a Y. Also ironically I do believe that it's the very definition of ad hominem. Anyone want to bet that he'll turn around and attack me ("that's ironic coming from you" or "you're the worst offender of all") and avoid the actual point which is John Mccain and not Howard Dean or Ray Adler.
Quote:
And who said plainly that he hates Republicans.
fine. and Howard Dean isn't running for President. this is about John Mccain.
Quote:
And who alleged Bush knew in advance about 9-11, and let it happen.
so? that theory is held by more people than just a slight minority. I'm not saying it's true or false, but it is an opinion that is held by some very respectable people. and again, Howard Dean isn't running for President. The issue has nothing to do with Dean at all. Do you really think so little of John Mccain that you think he needs to be shielded like this, that he needs to be carefully protected by blindly blaming everying on the nearest liberal? What next are you going to just bypass the current President to blame any problems here on someone who left power over 6 years ago? Are you going to belittle the intellect of your own party by turning them into a bunch of reactionary juveniles who can not be held to task for their own actions because they can't control themselves and are simply acting out in response to some hurt feelings from the 90's?
Quote:
Seven years of Bush-style rhetoric is largely in response to seven years of lying partisan Democrat slander and cheap stunts, of which Dean is among the worst offenders.
Do I really need to say anything further?
Your partisan hatred is so clear, you undo your own arguments.
I said it clearly enough the first time. Your remarks are unworthy of further response.
wondy, bypasses the charges against a republican by blaming the democratic accuser. must be one of the days of the week tha ends with a Y. Also ironically I do believe that it's the very definition of ad hominem. Anyone want to bet that he'll turn around and attack me ("that's ironic coming from you" or "you're the worst offender of all") and avoid the actual point which is John Mccain and not Howard Dean or Ray Adler.
Originally Posted By: wondy
Do I really need to say anything further?
Your partisan hatred is so clear, you undo your own arguments.
I said it clearly enough the first time. Your remarks are unworthy of further response.
Again, he's either a liar, or losing his faculties. Watch a video of McCain making both statements, below:
Quote:
"But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." - New Hampshire Town Hall, 06/12/08
Quote:
"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." - C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004
It's fun to watch the schizophrenia at work here. On the one hand he has to appeal to the far right as dwindling as they happen to be and on the other, he has to appeal to moderates in order to get elected. I'm waiting for when he overloads with all this opposing and contradictory data and his head starts smoking and then just explodes.
I'm waiting for when ... his head starts smoking and then just explodes.
That sounds like an even more credible threat than the one whomod thought rex made against his daughter. I hope rex doesn't believe for tit for tat and turn whomod into the secret service for this potential threat against a presidential candidate.
A key organizer of John McCain's meeting Saturday with former supporters of Hillary Clinton is best known for her role in another bitter American fight: The effort by some white descendants of Thomas Jefferson to keep his possible African-American descendants out of family gatherings....
Abeles first made the news in 2003, when she and her husband, then-Monticello Association President Nat Abeles, led the fight to keep members of the Hemings family -- descendants of Jefferson slave and, some historians believe, mistress Sally Hemmings -- out of a gathering of the Monticello Association, which is made up of lineal descendants of the third president.
The wife of a Thomas Jefferson family association official said Friday that she masqueraded as a 67-year-old black woman on an Internet chat room in a bid to keep descendants of a reputed Jefferson mistress out of this weekend's family reunion.
"It might have been somewhat unethical," said Paulie Abeles of Washington, D.C., who participated for eight months in the Yahoo! message board created for relatives of Jefferson slave Sally Hemings.
"It might have been childish, but I really think I was working in the best interest of the majority of the family members to make the reunion a calm and civilized gathering," she said.
The McCain platform. Segregation. Segregation. Keep the black out lest they turn it 'uncivilized'! sort of reminds me when Bill O'Reilley went to eat in Harlem and was SHOCKED, SHOCKED!!!! to see them eating with silverware.
When the Republicans choose their candidate on September 4th, there is a very real chance that they could throw the election into an unexpected chaos as they pull a genuine September Surprise.
I think there is every reason to believe John McCain won't be the nominee. Ok, let me say that again. McCain will not be the Republican candidate in November.
Here's how it could happen:
At some point in mid August, John McCain will announce that he has decided that he can not accept his party's nomination for president. The reason will be health-related, and that may turn out to be the truth. Anyone who's seen him on stage these days knows he looks like he's about to keel over. And anyone who's been on a presidential campaign knows the physical demands are grueling and can be a challenge for a young man.
But excuses or facts hardly matters. He won't be accepting his party's nomination.
The reasons are simple. He can't win. Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee -- the polls all show that McCain's pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November. That combined with soft stand on litmus test conservative issues make him an unpopular candidate among the base. I know some Democrats that think the Republicans are planning to let McCain lose and 'sit this one out' so that they can hang the democrats with a bad economy and a war that is a morass. But that just isn't how they play. They play to win every hand -- think about 2000 with a popular Democratic president and good economy and a solid VP running for president. Why did they put up Bush? And why did they fight so hard? Because, you don't ever throw a game. And they're not going to throw this one.
McCain won't be the nominee.
By August, they'll have done something to try and pick away at Obama's popularity. They'll emphasize race, or whatever they can to get him to appear less than perfect. Then, they'll bring out of the woodwork a surprise candidate who can shift the story fast. With just two months before the election -- the new candidate will have little time to be 'vetted' but will be shiny and new, and will get a lot of media attention as Obama's newness will have become -- by then -- tarnished or at least no longer the surprise that it has been as he unseated Hillary.
So, who will be the Republican candidate that faces Obama in the fall?
I've spoken to a number of friends who -- when presented with this set of facts respond: "but they don't have anybody else." That's simply not the case.
Joe Trippi, campaign consultant and most notably Howard Dean's campaign manager, said of McCain dropping out: "While crazy, this may be the best shot they have."
There are a whole list of Republicans who in many ways are more likely to energize the Republican base. One thing is certain -- there are candidates that will play to the core issues in ways that McCain simply can't.
Here's a list of names. Some you know, some you don't. But each of them knows their name is in play. Among them --
Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State) Colin Powell (fmr Sec. of State) Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado Congresswoman) Mitt Romney (fmr Massachusetts Governor) Mike Huckabee (fmr Governor of Arkansas) Charlie Crist (Florida Governor) Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor) Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor) Mark Sanford: (Governor of South Carolina) John Thune (Senator from South Dakota) Dick Lugar (Senator from Indiana) Chuck Hagel (Senator from Nebraska) MIchael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor)
Ok, go ahead knock them down. One by one. See if you can really remove ALL these names from a list of candidates that are more likely to give Obama a run for his money. They'll come on the scene late, with a press corps that is looking for a horse race and a new story. Obama's frontrunner status will be upset, and there will be a set of variables that need to be calculated -- and tested against a weary electorate.
Is this supposition? Sure, but one grounded with enough history and observation to take it beyond conjecture and into the realm of the possible.
So -- before the Democrats go and game out how to beat McCain, it may be worth thinking about what happens when he says he won't accept the nomination. For the Republicans, a wide open convention would be both good theater and good politics.
Oderint, dum metuant.
You are a god damned idiot, you know that? You ought to be smacked upside your dumb-fuck head, even after all these years. Shame on you!
Interesting theory about McCain dropping out but it's about as likely as Obama dropping out at this point. While Obama appears to be in the lead, most of the current polling contains the bounce he got from becoming the democratic frontrunner. It appears to have only given him a fear meager percentage points at that. And McCain may be old but he's going to put up a fight to win.
were there racist remarks made on Fox news? I rarely watch it?
you don't find that piece a bit paranoid?
That piece is ridiculous. Quite honestly Obama is no slam dunk. There are still large parts of this country that can't stand the mofo. I am no fan of either candidate but I will go for McCain since he isn't a muslim and doesn't have advisers that hate America.
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
were there racist remarks made on Fox news? I rarely watch it?
you don't find that piece a bit paranoid?
That piece is ridiculous. Quite honestly Obama is no slam dunk. There are still large parts of this country that can't stand the mofo. I am no fan of either candidate but I will go for McCain since he isn't a muslim and doesn't have advisers that hate America.
an old man who wants arguably the most powerful elected position in the world that would give him access to massive military and economic power is showing signs of senility. that is a somewhat concerning matter and might be of interest if he weren't running against a black man who may hold some religious beliefs different than my own.
when John Mccain launches nukes at the midwest because he got confused on the directions at least he'll be white and christian.
Instead of debating Barak Obama, McCain it seems can hold a debate with himself instead. Maverick McCain of 2000 VS pandering right wing Conservative McCain of 2006-2008.
Or in this case, McCain of May VS McCain of June of this year!
What, the right wing isn't going to do the 2004 "flip flop" jokes??? I'M SHOCKED!!!
Oh, and If McCain is going to attack Mrs. Obama, he probably shouldn't use his drug addict/thief wife as the messenger. It's sleazy as hell for one candidate to attack the other's wife. But it's even weirder for him to use his own scandal-ridden wife to do it. I mean, with all due respect, what moral authority does Cindy McCain have to start throwing stones at Mrs. Obama? Only one candidate's wife is a drug addict who actually stole drugs from poor children in order to feed her addiction. And that candidate is not Barack Obama. It's John McCain. People who live in glass pill boxes shouldn't cast stones.
Oh, and not kidding about Cindy McCain being a drug addict and stealing drugs from children. The non-partisan Web site, Snopes.com, had this to say about Mrs. McCain's illicit drug addiction:
Quote:
In 1989, following two back surgeries, Cindy McCain became addicted to the painkillers Vicodin and Percocet. To keep up with her daily need of 10 to 15 pills, she used other people's names for prescriptions and stole drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a mobile surgical unit she'd begun in 1988 to provide emergency medical services around the world. A 1993 DEA audit of the amount of painkillers her charity had obtained quickly uncovered her thefts. She avoided prosecution for those crimes through an agreement with the Justice Department in which she submitted to drug testing, paid a fine, performed community service in a soup kitchen, and joined Narcotics Anonymous. She also closed her medical charity
Oh, and If McCain is going to attack Mrs. Obama, he probably shouldn't use his drug addict/thief wife as the messenger. It's sleazy as hell for one candidate to attack the other's wife. But it's even weirder for him to use his own scandal-ridden wife to do it. I mean, with all due respect, what moral authority does Cindy McCain have to start throwing stones at Mrs. Obama? Only one candidate's wife is a drug addict who actually stole drugs from poor children in order to feed her addiction. And that candidate is not Barack Obama. It's John McCain. People who live in glass pill boxes shouldn't cast stones.
Isn't it hypocritical to condemn Cindy McCain for being a drug addict and yet have Sid Vicious for your avatar?
I don't know about hypocrisy, but I do think there's a pretty obvious difference between what Mrs. McCain said and your attack on her.
Mrs. McCain criticized Michelle Obama for her current viewpoint on American policy. That seems fairly relevant to the race for the White House and Mrs. Obama's potential for influencing policy as a first lady.
In contrast, you chose to launch a personal attack on Mrs. McCain for a nearly two decades-old incident, resulting from a physical addiction to painkillers which, by all accounts, resulting in her serving a fairly typical sentence for first-time offenders.
For a supposed "social worker" you sure have a surprising lack of compassion towards people with disabilities.
oh i'm sorry. i had no idea we hold our rock stars to the same standards as people running 4 office (and their spouses).
So:
Rock stars who use drugs and end up dying from them = OK Wives of Republican politicians who used drugs but clean themselves up and pay their debt to society = Worthy of condemnation.
Originally Posted By: whomod
weak.
I'm content with G-Man handling the intellectual criticisms.
[/youtube]
