|
Post by TheSpectre on Oct 14, 2008 8:33:18 GMT -5
Sen. McCain is no candidate to write home about or to rally behind. But, given the choice between the two candidates, I'm voting republican. I didn't risk my life, serving my country in the Gulf War to elect a Commander In Chief named Hussein? I do think McCain is the best choice by far. I think he's a good man for sure.
|
|
|
Post by stagger on Oct 14, 2008 9:46:44 GMT -5
Mark my words, Obama will win this election because the American people are sick and tired of the Republican mud slinging and attempts to connect Obama and Muslim/terrorist activities when there are much larger issues to be dealt with. This tactic will fail.
|
|
|
Post by TheSpectre on Oct 14, 2008 10:07:50 GMT -5
Mark my words, Obama will win this election because the American people are sick and tired of the Republican mud slinging and attempts to connect Obama and Muslim/terrorist activities when there are much larger issues to be dealt with. This tactic will fail. Obama's connection to Ayers is a legitimate issue and should concern everyone. Think about it, what if McCain had ties to Timothy McVeigh? Would anyone be concerned about that? They both bombed public buildings and used similar attitudes towards US policies as their "reasons". Obama has real connections to Ayers, that is a fact. McCain should have brought it up 6 months ago and that's why it looks like desperation now.
|
|
|
Post by stagger on Oct 14, 2008 10:35:19 GMT -5
I'm not saying that connection isn't worth looking at, but c'mon, everyone (including McCain & Palin) has a connection to someone shady. Every time you turn around, we're being given a scare tactic about Arab nations, radical Muslims, etc., and I think the country, as a whole, are tired of hearing about it. We've been hearing this song and dance for nearly 8 years! This connection is just another plate of fear we're being asked to eat and the fact that we've been fed so much it (valid info or propaganda) has made us less likely to really care about anything valid right now.
|
|
|
Post by Cody KP on Oct 15, 2008 19:18:52 GMT -5
If it were a big enough issue, both sides would be going on and on about it. McCain brought it up a few times, as did Hilary but the substance just isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Oct 16, 2008 6:26:24 GMT -5
It's just one issue among many that DO matter. The overriding issue right now is the economy, and until that settles down none of the other issues are going have the impact that they normally would in an election year.
Obama's poor judgement in who he associates with isn't going to go away and will a much bigger issue down the line. McCain can not win this election on the Wright, Ayers association deal. He has to win this on his record and that will be tough with the Republicans catching the majority of blame for the economy.
I don't trust Obama and I think he'll lead our country closer and closer to socialism, and I think while he said he wouldn't appoint judges using any form of litmus test that he will indeed appoint judges that he knows will not tamper with the liberal court decision of Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure that it would matter if McCain were president either as far as Roe v. Wade is concerned, but I feel much more comfortable in knowing that my rights are secure under a more moderate panel of judges than with either far right thinking or far left thinking and I believe that's what we'd get with McCain.
|
|
|
Post by uk4life on Oct 27, 2008 12:01:17 GMT -5
McCain said he wouldn't use a litmus test, but then immediately afterward said (paraphrasing) he wouldn't appoint anyone who agrees with Roe v Wade because he would consider that a negative in terms of their judgement. And come on, McCain has said he's proud to have G Gordon Liddy as a friend, a guy who was convicted in the Watergate scandals and sentenced to 20 years in prison, and who also advised his listeners to kill ATF agents. Everyone has past associations that are less than rosy. But do I really care? No. I could care less if McCain is friends with him or not, it doesn't affect how he's going to do the job.
As far as socialism, that's an overexaggeration. Taxes, by definition redistribute wealth. Next, we'll hear he's a communist.
And as far as appointing Supreme Court justices, can we really trust McCain to nominate someone worthy when he's the one who brought us Sarah Palin. Come on.
|
|
|
Post by uk4life on Oct 27, 2008 12:04:03 GMT -5
And as far as the whole Hussein comment from MyBlueHeaven, what should a President's name sound like? Are you really disqualifying him to be president because of his name, which he did not chose? Does he need a "American sounding name?" That's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by MyBlueHeaven on Oct 27, 2008 18:03:15 GMT -5
And as far as the whole Hussein comment from MyBlueHeaven, what should a President's name sound like? Are you really disqualifying him to be president because of his name, which he did not chose? Does he need a "American sounding name?" That's ridiculous. YES! That's the least thing that I should expect in return for putting my life in daily jeopardy. under fire, under hatred while fighting a man withn the same name, political ideals, and beginnings as the current democratic candidate.........the very least. As to G. Gordon, I am friends with him......would you like to meet him and learn what the real story was about his conviction? BTW, it's out there to read now that Hoover is dead and the Freedon Act was passed. Would you like a link or just bash him with foolish ignorance of the subject matter? Sorry, you've struck a nerve.
|
|
|
Post by stagger on Oct 27, 2008 21:56:52 GMT -5
Obama's name is a wet dream for Republicans.... Ann Coulter will only acknowledge him as B. Hussein Obama. In our current world, he couldn't have a worse name to be running for the White House with. We have been programed by Bush Inc. to be overly sensitive to anything Arab related, so naturally, a lot of people won't give him the time of day because his name is common in the phone book. However, for him to be denied anything or voted against because of his name is discrimination, pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by MyBlueHeaven on Oct 27, 2008 22:10:36 GMT -5
Yes, I would agree that a man's name should not matter. I suppose I have posted in such a manner that is discriminating. I am not opposed to Sen. Obama's middle name, but to what "changes" he intends to initiate.
I suppose that my frustration with his name would be akin to a WWII vet returning in 1946 to find a presidential nominee named Hitler...............it's a sensitivity item with some.
|
|
|
Post by TheSpectre on Oct 28, 2008 13:34:34 GMT -5
McCain said he wouldn't use a litmus test, but then immediately afterward said (paraphrasing) he wouldn't appoint anyone who agrees with Roe v Wade because he would consider that a negative in terms of their judgement. McCain said that he would appoint judges who would interpret, and not try to rewrite, the constitution. Roe v Wade was and is the worst example of the Supreme Court overreaching and legislating instead of interpreting the law. Judges who do their appointed job and interpret the law would have NEVER passed down a decision like the one in Roe v Wade.
|
|
|
Post by uk4life on Nov 1, 2008 8:17:15 GMT -5
And as far as the whole Hussein comment from MyBlueHeaven, what should a President's name sound like? Are you really disqualifying him to be president because of his name, which he did not chose? Does he need a "American sounding name?" That's ridiculous. YES! That's the least thing that I should expect in return for putting my life in daily jeopardy. under fire, under hatred while fighting a man withn the same name, political ideals, and beginnings as the current democratic candidate.........the very least. As to G. Gordon, I am friends with him......would you like to meet him and learn what the real story was about his conviction? BTW, it's out there to read now that Hoover is dead and the Freedon Act was passed. Would you like a link or just bash him with foolish ignorance of the subject matter? Sorry, you've struck a nerve. So now you're disqualifying someone for running for prez b/c they have a foreign sounding name? Even though they were born in the US. Have you read the Constitution? I'm glad those writers weren't as prejuduiced towards people with foreign backgrounds as you seem to be. And then to imply that Obama's political ideals and beliefs are similar to Saddam Hussein? Are you serious? You sound pretty ignorant there, and its the people making those statements that give all republicans a bad name. I have never met G Gordon, I do know that he had some outrageous ideas during Watergate, many ideas that never came to fruition because they were going way too far. Is it ok that he planned to bomb the Brooking Institution? How about the illegal leaking of Pentagon documents? Or breaking into a psychiatrists office? Or planning to kiddnap "leftists guerillas" at the RNC? Or that he instructed his radio listeners to shoot and kill federal agents? Need I go on? Seriously. Defend him all you want, the man can easily be considered a domestic terrorist but right wingers jump to defend him, then cry foul about Ayres. Bottom line, both are/were bad people, and neither affect the presidency in the slightest. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by uk4life on Nov 1, 2008 8:18:51 GMT -5
McCain said he wouldn't use a litmus test, but then immediately afterward said (paraphrasing) he wouldn't appoint anyone who agrees with Roe v Wade because he would consider that a negative in terms of their judgement. McCain said that he would appoint judges who would interpret, and not try to rewrite, the constitution. Roe v Wade was and is the worst example of the Supreme Court overreaching and legislating instead of interpreting the law. Judges who do their appointed job and interpret the law would have NEVER passed down a decision like the one in Roe v Wade. That's still a litmus test. You disagree with it, others agree, but that's a selection factor in his appointment... therefore litmus test.
|
|
|
Post by TheSpectre on Nov 4, 2008 9:34:42 GMT -5
McCain said that he would appoint judges who would interpret, and not try to rewrite, the constitution. Roe v Wade was and is the worst example of the Supreme Court overreaching and legislating instead of interpreting the law. Judges who do their appointed job and interpret the law would have NEVER passed down a decision like the one in Roe v Wade. That's still a litmus test. You disagree with it, others agree, but that's a selection factor in his appointment... therefore litmus test. You got me, John McCain has a litmus test for supreme court judge appointments - that they do the job they're supposed to do. Yeah, you're right.
|
|