# Conservatives please choose your candidates



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Which Republican candidate will you vote for?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I like McCain the best. My heart says Huckabee, but that is mostly a personality and humor thing. I think highly of Huckabee, but don't think he or Romney can match McCain's international experience.

Romney may or may not be the best on economics. Something about him does not ring true to me anyway.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I like McCain the best. My heart says Huckabee, but that is mostly a personality and humor thing. I think highly of Huckabee, but don't think he or Romney can match McCain's international experience.
> 
> Romney may or may not be the best on economics. Something about him does not ring true to me anyway.


I'm gonna go with Romney at the moment. A business man. I dont care about his religion, I haven't seen any mormons killing people in the news lately. They already have to swallow joe smith being their founder, no reason to pick on their beliefs any more. What's one more peaceful sect of Christianity? I don't believe he chose to be a mormon, I think he was born into it.

I dont believe McCain will be able to get anything done because the liberals dont like him because he wears a Republican jacket and the conservatives don't like him because he wears a liberal heart on everything, but war in Iraq. War's cost money and liberal tax increasing strategies only stifle the economy. Very odd, a fiscal liberal that's for war. I don't know what to make of it. It's like a leak in the boat on both ends.

What I do know is that people in the financial world are terrified that a democrat might be elected.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

*This Conservative Will NEVER Vote for McCain: War Hero? Yes. Republican? No.*

Republicans never learn. Republicans view loyalty above winning and that is why we will lose the White House and continue to allow the Democrats to control Congress in November 2008. We played this same game in 1996 with Bob Dole. Another war hero. Yes. Another senior Republican. Yes. Another guy with a bad temper and short fuse. Yes. But not the best candidate to run for President against Bill Clinton. It doesn't matter to Republicans. The Party insiders all gathered the wagons and endorsed Dole, just as they are doing now with McCain, because it was "his turn." It is no ones "turn" to be President. You do not earn the right through longevity in the Senate. McCain had his chance in 2000 and lost. Get over it. Now, because it is his "turn" we are going to have to endure 4 or even 8 years of President Hillary Clinton? No, it can't happen. The only hope now is for Obama to be the nominee for the Democrats and then, I, an ultra-conservative Republican will vote for Obama. I will not vote for McCain, as I did for Dole, because McCain is all about McCain, not the Republican Party. At least Dole was a real Republican, even though he never should have been the nominee. You don't see the Democrats acting crazy like this. No. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. That is who will be their nominee. If they followed the Republican model Joe Biden would be their nominee and Joe Biden could not have beaten any Republican. This is going to be such a hard 4 to 8 years.

Now, I do have some hope. Maybe Mitt Romney will follow the Reagan model. Put up a tough fight, all the way to the convention, where Reagan was seen as somewhat disloyal for not allowing Ford to have the nomination. But then Ford lost and Carter got in. 4 years later and history is made when the Reagan revolution begins. Maybe 4 years from now we will have the Romney revolution. Of course, I am still hoping for a miracle, a way for the Party to come to its senses and elect Romney now.

As to Huckabee? He has lost. He knows he has lost, but his hatred (bigotry) toward Romney is so great that he is staying in to help McCain defeat Romney. He knows his votes would go to Romney, never McCain. If that happened, Romney would likely win. The only answer is for Huckabee to stay in. It will not surprise me to see McCain's people funneling money to Huckabee just to insure he can stay in. Did you see that love fest between the two of them in the California debate? Yeah, they are conspiring together to make sure Romney does not win. A real conservative would not do that. A real conservative would not allow a liberal like McCain to get in because of his own personal bigotry. Huckabee is no conservative.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Illuminate...oh yes here comes the Amero dollar!*

I never thought in a million years that a relatively handsome white rich male would lose to Hilary or Obama. Edwards was the least polarizing of the trio, but he really did suck in debates.

I pray for heavy monsoon rains on election day. Those of us who have conviction will understand.

I think this will be the largest Republican landslide in history, but I'm afraid McCain will win. I'd rather see a Democrat flush us down the toilet than a liberal Republican.

If Hillary or Obama are elcted president, nothing will get done because the female in the white house or the minority in the White House party will never end.
Even the most liberal democrat would have to agree that the entire four year presidency will be about race and sex and not about what leadership our country needs.
The media controls the election not the voters. The illuminate controls the media. 
Bush is an illuminate puppet. 
How do I join the illuminate!!!!!! We do need a _good_ king. Democracy is over-rated.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Given the choice between McCain and Romney, I'm picking Romney. But, I'm not exactly excited about him.

Brian


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Pray for rain!*



vwguy said:


> Given the choice between McCain and Romney, I'm picking Romney. But, I'm not exactly excited about him.
> 
> Brian


 Brian,

I'd be weary of the mental status of any person excited about any of the candidates on either side.

Think about it like a personality test. Even the liberals I know arent excited, so imagine how underdeveloped a person must be to think woohooo! What an awesome election this is gonna be!
Intelligent people are scared, I mean really scared this aint no joke buba.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Irrational fear*



Capt Ron said:


> What I do know is that people in the financial world are terrified that a democrat might be elected.


The economy has not done particularly well under the current Republican administration. For that matter, it performed poorly under George the first. ("It's the economy.")

Based on how well the economy did under Mr. Clinton, I would think that business and financial types would welcome another eight years of Clintonesque pro-business policies.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I like McCain the best. My heart says Huckabee, but that is mostly a personality and humor thing. I think highly of Huckabee, but don't think he or Romney can match McCain's international experience.
> 
> Romney may or may not be the best on economics. Something about him does not ring true to me anyway.


What is McCain's international experience?


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Gurdon said:


> The economy has not done particularly well under the current Republican administration. For that matter, it performed poorly under George the first. ("It's the economy.")
> 
> Based on how well the economy did under Mr. Clinton, I would think that business and financial types would welcome another eight years of Clintonesque pro-business policies.
> 
> ...


Gurdon,
I despise Bush, but the facts are the same. The economy if you understand the numbers has been excellent despite the democrat controlled congress and the spending spree on war. 
Unemployee is at it's lowest in 8 years. 
We are not yet in a recession. There is an economic definition of recession.
I have had a horrible year, but it's was based on the weather. I had pleanty of clients wanting to spend lots of money.
Problem, is American have to blame somebody for their own hardships because part of the PC disease is to free yourself of individual responsibilities.
If you are a liberal, you stand no chance of winning a debate.

Liberal ideologies are not based on logic or facts, simply emotions, That's why there aren't any self-sustaining liberal talk shows on radio. The best a liberal can hope for is to learn something from engaging an educated conservative.
Another reason that even Rush failed o realize why liberal radio is a failure is because...people who listen to AM radio want to be informed and educated. being informed and educated are not principles of liberalism.
look at most liberals daily routines and examine them. How much time is actually spent on internal self improvement? Self improvement is a conservative principle because it requires takign responsibility for one's actions and much more importantly, holding other's responsible for their own actions.

Conservatives don't hate liberals, we just want you to see the light and do the right thing or at least the logical thing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

vwguy said:


> Given the choice between McCain and Romney, I'm picking Romney. But, I'm not exactly excited about him.
> 
> Brian


I think that's good. Why should anyone be excited about a Presidential candidate. The idea that one should be is a liberal idea. It's the "yeah this guy is gonna make my life better" mentality. People should be making sober choices.

Romney is the mature, responsible grown up that will try to make Washington run within the limits of reality and stay out of my life. I went to a Romney rally and the people weren't cheering and hyper-ventilating, but they were absolutely 100% committed to him on policy grounds.

The polls that ask who is your guy and are you considering changing usually favor Romney. Something like 85% of Romney voters are locked more than week out. Where most McCainiacs decided in the last three days based on an endorsement. That's the really dumb reason.

What other organization has a debt ratio of 300:1?

Romney is going to let Gen. David Petraeus run the war. McCain will micro-manage it. McCain was a POW not a Patton, McArthur. I had a neighbor that was a POW and he didn't feel entitled to be President.

McCain is a crook (Keating 5). Romney has never been involved in a scandal and he's been in high power positions for 30 years.

McCain is small and petty. Look at how he gripes about Romney's money. Well McCain is rich too. The difference is Romney made his money by working and so his wife will let him spend it because she knows he can make more if he has to do so. McCain married into his money and his wife won't let him touch HER money. McCain is a shorter, grumpier John Kerry.

I actually respect people like W that still argue for the immigration bill. I disagree, but I feel they are genuine. McCain has this "it's not amnesty, but I heard the American people and we will secure the border first, but it's not a change in my position" spiele going that is the closest thing to "I did not have sex with that woman" I have heard in a while. If McCain didn't change his mind, then he is still for open borders and amnesty. I find him totally void of any conscience at all such as this timetable nonsense charge he dropped on Saturday. The people who think W is stubborn and won't listen to anyone should watch last night's debate. McCain makes W seem like a team player.

I don't really like Huckabee alot, but I think Romney-Huckabee could consolidate the party and win. The questions on Mitt are: abortion and RKBA and Huckabee is strong on those. Huckabee is weak on his economic plan and secular conservative values while Mitt is strong on those. Both are governors and could get the job done if they had to do so.

Has McCain ever had a job? He had this stupid line about Mitt being a "Manager". CEOs are leaders. McCain also said something about "you just hire managers". Well, has McCain ever hired anybody? Recruiting & hiring is not something you just wake up and do one day and if McCain thinks it is he's even more inexperienced than his resume implies. McCain is an embarrassment.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Another example of McKeating lying.

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html

and another

https://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

A leader? Romney is a corporate raider.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> A leader? Romney is a corporate raider.


Bain Capital is the startup and takeover & turnaround he left Bain & Co to start and then returned to Bain & Co.

Bain & Co is a management consulting firm like a Mckinsey.

https://www.bain.com/bainweb/consulting_expertise/consulting_expertise_overview.asp



> After graduation, Romney remained in Massachusetts and went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.[10] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another management consulting firm based in Boston. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.[11] During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent,[12] making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.[13] He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority.[14]
> 
> In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.[12]
> 
> Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Man of mystery.*



ksinc said:


> What is McCain's international experience?


I hear he is very cozy with the North Vietnamese and they like him.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Even the liberals I know arent excited, so imagine how underdeveloped a person must be to think woohooo! What an awesome election this is gonna be!
> Intelligent people are scared, I mean really scared this aint no joke buba.


Ron - I dont know where your "liberal" friends have been for the past 12 months....but in case you havent heard, LOTS of people are very excited about Obama. He is regularly getting crowds that are 10x larger than Clinton or any of the Republicans.

Doesnt mean that he will win, or even be a good president. But excited - yes, many Democrats are excited.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

mrkleen said:


> Ron - I dont know where your "liberal" friends have been for the past 12 months....but in case you havent heard, LOTS of people are very excited about Obama. He is regularly getting crowds that are 10x larger than Clinton or any of the Republicans.
> 
> Doesnt mean that he will win, or even be a good president. But excited - yes, many Democrats are excited.


Those aren't really lots of Obama supporters, they're just fans of Opera who dont have jobs. Thats why dems do their campaigning during the day and repubs after 5pm.

Imagine if all the conservatives went on strike.............who would pay for everybody else to live? What a great idea!

Think about it. What if all the working rich who pay the majority of the federal income tax collected stopped working for taxable income. They could probably seriously last a few years without income if they budgeted. They woudl have to change their lifestyle, but they could do it. That would really show the rest of us who think we pay high taxes!

If I go missing, it's because the_ Illuminate_ got to me!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

ksinc said:


> ... I think Romney-Huckabee could consolidate the party and win. The questions on Mitt are: abortion and RKBA and Huckabee is strong on those. Huckabee is weak on his economic plan and secular conservative values while Mitt is strong on those. Both are governors and could get the job done if they had to do so.


I agree with you 100% that a Romney/Huckabee ticket would be spectacular, but I just do not see it happening, sadly. Huckabee is now running a campaign whose sole purpose is to insure that Romney loses and McCain wins. There is just no way Huckabee will ever run with Romney, as good a ticket as that might be.

I want to disagree with you that Romney is weak on abortion. I admit freely that Romney made a very poor political decision when he decided, previously, that he should be publicly pro-choice, believing he did not have the right to force his faith-based pro-life beliefs on anyone. I have seen other members of my faith make the very same mistake Romney has made and have always disagreed with it. It is one of the reasons I did not immediately support Romney's bid for the Presidency.

When I previously ran for public office some politically active members of my church strongly warned me that I was making a huge mistake by advocating such a strong Pro-Life stance. In fact, Planned Parenthood took out a full-page ad in a large local newspaper where they labeled me: "The most dangerous man to a woman's reproductive rights in the county." Pro-Choice advocates, like Planned Parenthood, are allowed to boldly cling to their principles, as they see it, but Pro-Life advocates are not? That was Romney's error. But make no mistake about it, he is definitely Pro-Life in his belief and certainly his faith.

You cannot be a member of the LDS faith without holding Pro-Life beliefs, period. Whether in baptism, holding the priesthood, or entering the temples--all members, including Romney, are asked whether or not they hold any beliefs that are contary to the doctrines of the church. One such doctrine is that abortion, as an elective procedure, is murder. If he had held a Pro-Choice belief as a matter of faith he could not have continued as a member, could not hold the priesthood, and could not enter into the church's temples, all of which he did and does.

Romney made the mistake that many others have made, that is, confusing our belief in religious freedom with standing on principle. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." This tenet of our faith is what caused Romney to publicly hold a Pro-Choice position, as he wanted to "let them worship how, where, or what they may." He now understands that being publicly Pro-Life does not contradict this principle. I have never doubted, however, that he is unequivocably Pro-Life in his personal beliefs. I also kind of like the idea that one so educated, so clearly intelligent, so successful, could also make such a mistake. I have now come to admire his admission that this was a mistake, not of political expediency, but in simple judgment. Those running for President are only human.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

I'll vote for any candidate who will promote good spelling on these fora! :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I agree Romney was always anti-abortion personally, but had a libertarian pro-choice public view. I actually have the same view. I express it as, "you have the right to go to hell if you want to." 

I just said it is a question about him. I've heard it from a lot of Hucksters that Romney was pro-choice. They seem to forget so was Ronald Reagan at first. Huckabee would make those people "feel" better. I think many times we forget that most of the moral majority types are actually big government liberals. They want the government to make people not smoke, etc. etc.!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rossini said:


> I'll vote for any candidate who will promote good spelling on these fora! :icon_smile:


Bill Gates is your man. Lack of intellisense spellcheck is one of the problems with php forum software. It's one of the reasons I have to post,edit,save,edit,save all the time. The bigger one is the frequency of it to lose the server on a long session and lose a message I've typed out. Although AAAC hasn't suffered that, I am in such a habit of it I can't stop! LOL


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Those aren't really lots of Obama supporters, they're just fans of Opera who dont have jobs.


Ok, now I'm just confused. Aren't fans of the Opera typically well-heeled individuals? And why does Obama pull from the Opera crowd?

I don't know which way it would go down Obama vs any of the Republican candidates.

I'm thinking he'll pick up every state Al Gore got, with the subtraction of NM and the possible addition of OH. Looking at the Gore states, I can't think of why he would lose any of those outside of NM. Maybe he'd lose VT I don't know. That means OH going D would put Obama over the top and OH going R would put the Republican candidate over the top. Either way, it's no landslide.

I can't figure out what makes you think this will be the largest Republican landslide in history though (which would mean being bigger than Nixon v McGovern when every state went to Nixon except for MA and the non-state of DC).


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Gurdon,
> I despise Bush, but the facts are the same. The economy if you understand the numbers has been excellent despite the democrat controlled congress and the spending spree on war.
> Unemployee is at it's lowest in 8 years.


I'm not claiming the economic sky is falling, but the numbers are what the numbers are. Not the lowest in 8 years
https://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Ok, now I'm just confused. Aren't fans of the Opera typically well-heeled individuals? And why does Obama pull from the Opera crowd?
> 
> I don't know which way it would go down Obama vs any of the Republican candidates.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing Opera=Oprah.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I'm not claiming the economic sky is falling, but the numbers are what the numbers are. Not the lowest in 8 years
> https://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000


https://www.shadowstats.com/article/54


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> https://www.shadowstats.com/article/54


I presumed Cpt Ron was using the more widely used government unemployment statistics.

I realize these things aren't the Bible truth, but do you think Cpt Ron does his own more accurate polling?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

In the OP's poll, Romney's name is misspelled. That doesn't bode well for him.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*A Republican who could win*

I do not entirely agree with McCain, but I truly hope the party has enough sense to select a candidate who MIGHT be able to beat Hillary or Obama, as opposed to a candidate who will DEFINITELY lose to them.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

ksinc said:


> They seem to forget so was Ronald Reagan at first. Huckabee would make those people "feel" better.


What is really absurd about the charge is that it is supposed to be the goal of Christians to change the hearts and minds of everyone relating to this issue. How do you do that if you criticize someone everytime they come around to your way of thinking? Not saying that is what happened here, but you get the point.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> Ok, now I'm just confused. Aren't fans of the Opera typically well-heeled individuals? And why does Obama pull from the Opera crowd?


Most of Oprah's viewers are middle to upper class stay at home mothers who are most conservative in thought but middle of the road in vote. The viers' husbands are hardcore republicans.

I woud have feared Edwards getting elected, he may still have a chance for VP.
But I believe more people will come out to vote against the Obamanation and the Hillaryland Express.

You'll see people on their death beds rolling up to the polls to vote.
I just pray that it rains.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

*The problem with this poll is...*

...that neither of the candidates listed is a conservative. ic12337:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Most of opera's viewers are middle to upper class stay at home mothers who are most conservative in thought but middle of the road in vote. The viers' husbands are hardcore republicans.
> 
> I woud have feared Edwards getting elected, he may still have a chance for VP.
> But I believe more people will come out to vote against the Obamanation and the Hillaryland Express.
> ...


Ok, I was just giving you a ribbing about "Opera," but I think you didn't get it. As ksinc was said, you're talking about "Oprah."

Can you point me to the statistical evidence of rain having a partisan impact? The studies I have seen, and the statistical analysis I once did for a college paper, have found that rain has no statistically significant partisan impact on voting (while it does impact voter turnout).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

yachtie said:


> ...that neither of the candidates listed is a conservative. ic12337:


Yachtie, I'm about as hardcore as they come. I have watched Romney suspectly for a long time. I am convinced he is conservative; economically, socially, and on national security.

One of the things I was waiting to hear was on this question, "what is more important economy or national defense?" I have been bothered by the fact that no conservative would ask that question. Ronald Reagan taught us that the economy was the key to our military strength and winning the cold war; "economics drive process".

I digress. May I ask what you don't feel is conservative about him?

I could be wrong, but I already voted for him (Florida); not that it did any good. I tried to look at him critically.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I still am behind Fred Thompson, hate me all you want, but I think he was the most conservative, and he still has a shot despite dropping out. It happened to Warren Harding in 1920 - it could happen again. I like both Romney and McCain for different reasons; however, I think McCain can beat Hillary or Obama while Romney can't.

Has McCain made bad choices in the past? Yes. Has Romney flip-floped and been willing to say whatever it takes to be elected? Yes. I hope Hillary is the nominee, because I feel she'll be easier to beat than Obama.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> What is McCain's international experience?


Well for starters he lived in Hanoi for nearly six years.......


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

The tiresome claim by "conversatives" that McCain is too liberal is fairly amusing bc most "conservatives" either cheered or stood idly by while Bush turned the GOP into a Christian-Socialist party that expanded entitlements at a rate not seen the New Deal.

When "conservatives" call McCain too liberal the time has come for those "conservatives" to finalize their divorce from reality.

Karl


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> But I believe more people will come out to vote against the Obamanation and the Hillaryland Express.


If that's that strategy the Republicans are hanging their hats on, they are in for a long year, as the facts just don't bear that out. 

In every primary that has taken place thus far, the Democrats have received a much higher turnout. That not only means that the Democratic base is energized, but it means that many Independents are voting for Clinton or Obama. 

Even in Florida, where it is still unclear whether the delegates will even be seated at the national convention, Democrats came out in much bigger numbers than Republicans.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Well for starters he lived in Hanoi for nearly six years.......


LOLOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> The tiresome claim by "conversatives" that McCain is too liberal is fairly amusing bc most "conservatives" either cheered or stood idly by while Bush turned the GOP into a Christian-Socialist party that expanded entitlements at a rate not seen the New Deal.
> 
> ...


Keep drinking that Republican Party koolaid; your unsubstantiated view notwithstanding!


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> Ok, I was just giving you a ribbing about "Opera," but I think you didn't get it. As ksinc was said, you're talking about "Oprah."
> 
> Can you point me to the statistical evidence of rain having a partisan impact? The studies I have seen, and the statistical analysis I once did for a college paper, have found that rain has no statistically significant partisan impact on voting (while it does impact voter turnout).


Thanks, for the spell check, got that fixed:teacha:

I'm suprized his ribbing wasn't more noticable, I would have jumped on like a welfare check.

See, you went to a liberal college didn't you. I have never actually heard anyone dispute the fact that less dems show up in the rain, and certainly in my area it's absolutely true. I live in what most woudl call a ghetto. Crack deals done in front of my house and shootings, helicopters over head daily, but I call it home.

You should see me at my local voting station. I'm the only white male ever there and surrounded by democrats. Supposedly the biggest liberal there is registered as a republican so that they have one official representative, but it's all a farse.

Things are truly different in my area. If you walk a 1/4 mile down the road, you will be in a private million dollar neighborhood on the bay, that's where my friends live:aportnoy:

Most people talk about poverty as if they know it because they have seen it on tv or read about it in books. I have lived in it my entire adult life as a conservative and I know how a mentality is formed, shaped, and manipulated.

90% of people are sheep, that is their purpose. 5% are wolves and 5% are shepards. This is what makes the world go round. think of the Illuminate as the Lion behind the wolves and the shepards as influencial conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan (I know you want to barf).


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

mrkleen said:


> If that's that strategy the Republicans are hanging their hats on, they are in for a long year, as the facts just don't bear that out.
> 
> In every primary that has taken place thus far, the Democrats have received a much higher turnout. That not only means that the Democratic base is energized, but it means that many Independents are voting for Clinton or Obama.
> 
> Even in Florida, where it is still unclear whether the delegates will even be seated at the national convention, Democrats came out in much bigger numbers than Republicans.


Youre confusing people wanting to be a part of something on the news. They were Brittany Spear fans not concerned voters. It was a social event not a sincere political interest. The same people will vote differently on election day. (I hope) That's my prediction.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Keep drinking that Republican Party koolaid!


I guessed you missed the point, not terribly surprising. And your question about McCain's international experience proves that indeed there is such a thing as a stupid question.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Word choice.......*



Karl89 said:


> I guessed you missed the point, not terribly surprising. And your question about McCain's international experience proves that indeed there is such a thing as a stupid question.


Let the emotions out! Don't hold back! I love the Interchange, too bad we can't talk about fashion here.:devil:

I prefer to use more pretentious euphamisms for words like "stupid", it's just as insulting, but far more civil.

If you see a drunk man and a sober man argueing, you can't tell who's who.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I guessed you missed the point, not terribly surprising. And your question about McCain's international experience proves that indeed there is such a thing as a stupid question.


No, you didn't make a point. Most conservatives were screaming at the top of their lungs while 'W' implemented so-called 'Compassionate Conservatism'.

And; you didn't come up with any international experience beyond being a POW. Being a POW is not international experience relevant to the Presidency. I can still respect McCain's sacrifice, but what does that prove? I have a neighbor that was a POW twice. I believe he was captured at the Battle of Bulge during WW2, held for a while, then rescued, then recaptured before they could get to a larger force. In fact, I never even knew he was in the military although I lived next to him for about 10 years and my Mother actually had a part-time job working for him when I was in high-school, until he volunteered to write me a reference letter when I applied to Annapolis. I almost fell over when he wrote his introduction of what experience he had in the military and why he thought I would make a good candidate. Should he be President? He has twice the international experience of McCain by your argument.

I also have a good family friend that had the job where he HALO jumped behind enemy lines, alone, at night, and rescued pilots out of temporary camps on their way to Hanoi. I believe he made close to 900 jumps. One time he carried and hid an injured pilot he stole from an NVA camp for 44 days while they hunted him until they could be helo'd out. On his resume he lists 'USN-retired 1957-1992'. He requalified at jump school a few weeks after 9/11 "just in case he was needed." If he was 17 in 1957 that would make him 61 at the time. If being in the military makes you a badass and entitled to be President, then I will follow him.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yachtie, I'm about as hardcore as they come. I have watched Romney suspectly for a long time. I am convinced he is conservative; economically, socially, and on national security.
> 
> One of the things I was waiting to hear was on this question, "what is more important economy or national defense?" I have been bothered by the fact that no conservative would ask that question. Ronald Reagan taught us that the economy was the key to our military strength and winning the cold war; "economics drive process".
> 
> ...


Socially, Romney is not bad, but he, like almost all in the field, has accepted the big government paradigm and wouldn't do much about it. Calling McCain a conservative is laughable and Romney, although better, is still another big government liberal in "conservative" clothing. I wouldn't expect any changes from our present course under Romney. We need to remember that "conservative" has been redefined by the Left to mean " slightly less socialistic than the other party"


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> See, you went to a liberal college didn't you. I have never actually heard anyone dispute the fact that less dems show up in the rain, and certainly in my area it's absolutely true. I live in what most woudl call a ghetto. Crack deals done in front of my house and shootings, helicopters over head daily, but I call it home.


Actually, the college I went to was in semi-rural North Carolina, is affiliated with a Christian church, and until the 70's did not allow women on campus, did not allow non-Christians to get tenure, and required ROTC. It wasn't until 2005 that non-Christians were to be allowed on the board (only 20% can be non-Christian and there are as of yet no non-Christian applicants). While it is more liberal than it used to be, and follows the liberal arts teaching method, it isn't exactly Berkeley.

Anyways, what you're most likely observing is that people with low civic duty scores don't turn out when it rains. The thing is, there are people with low civic duty scores on both sides, they just live in different environments.

Oh, and before that I went to the same high school as Bill Bennett's kid.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Socially, Romney is not bad, but he, like almost all in the field, has accepted the big government paradigm and wouldn't do much about it. Calling McCain a conservative is laughable and Romney, although better, is still another big government liberal in "conservative" clothing. I wouldn't expect any changes from our present course under Romney. We need to remember that "conservative" has been redefined by the Left to mean " slightly less socialistic than the other party"


Are you talking about his health insurance program in Mass.?

Fiscally I think he would be a lot better. For example, he has a plan to remove about 1/6th of the civilian jobs in the government. It was copied almost verbatim by Guiliani.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Are you really so daft that can't do a simple internet search to discover what international experience McCain has? I don't think you are so I would point you to Google or Yahoo.

Being in the Senate for 21 years and on the Armed Services and Commerce Committees tend to give one a bit of international experience. Couple that with the fact that McCain was one the leading voices on US-Vietnam reconciliation in 1994 and arguably made a better public case for the surge then the President did and I would say thats plenty of international experience. Far more than Romney flying to London to meet with bankers on the behalf of Bain.

And really, "conservatives" were screaming at the top of their lungs about the fiscal black hole Bush has put this country in? I forget, did Bush have a "conservative" challenger in the 2004 election? Nice try but perhaps we need to re-evaluate what conservative means bc George W. Bush is by no standard definition of the word, a conservative.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Here's a question I would pose to self-identified conservatives who dislike McCain - if he is the GOP nominee (as of now there is probably a 75% he will be), will you vote for him?


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Are you really so daft that can't do a simple internet search to discover what international experience McCain has? I don't think you are so I would point you to Google or Yahoo.
> 
> ...


Exactly.

I am a fiscal conservative. Social issues are state issues.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Are you really so daft that can't do a simple internet search to discover what international experience McCain has? I don't think you are so I would point you to Google or Yahoo.
> 
> ...


No, being in the Senate gives you Senate and legislative experience. They talk about a lot of problems and usually if they do something it makes it worse. Example, McCain is broadly criticized for leaving other POWs in Vietnam with his 'reconciliation'. Please name your favorite President that was a former Senator?

I think Alan Keyes ran against W, didn't he? I have never called 'W' a Conservative nor has any Conservative I know. Did McCain teach you to lie too? FWIW, I voted against 'W' in 2000 Republican Primary.

I have done a lot of research on McCain. I'm just asking posters to backup their posts. Romney has done international business in 20 countries not just with bankers and not just in London. If you want to make a point, it helps to start with accuracy.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

VS said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I am a fiscal conservative. Social issues are state issues.


So, as a fiscal Conservative you didn't support the tax cuts either?

Did you call them 'tax cuts for the rich'? John McCain did.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is unless it is Huckabee, then I'm voting a Reagen-Nixon ticket. I think its about time they both get another shot. Huckabee isn't a conservative, except socially, which reminds me too much of our current president. I want my president to lower taxes, cut spending, and go back to originalism. I assure you, I can manage my needs and wants far better than the government can (except in national defense).


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*The GOOD Roosevelt*

_No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States._

Anybody want to help me dig Teddy up? I don't see anything in the Constitution requiring the president to be alive. Couldn't be any worse than the one we have now.

Sometimes, I think that Clinton was a better Republican president than Bush.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Your lack of knowledge about the Senate is breathtaking, really. You are essentially arguing that the Senate has no role in international matters or that national security is not an international matter. Are you really so ignorant or has your distaste for McCain so clouded your judgement.

And McCain is "broadly" criticized on the POW issue? Hardly, but it takes alot of chutzpah (or something else) on your part to charactarize it as that.

And as to tax cuts, a true fiscal conservative always cuts both spending and taxes, which McCain called for.

Get over yourself. Dont vote for McCain in the general election but at least be intellectually honest about his record and what it means to be a fiscal conservative.

Karl


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

agnash said:


> Sometimes, I think that Clinton was a better Republican president than Bush.


During the latter part of his administration, you are correct, thanks to the Newt Gingrich-led "Contract with America" and the resulting Republican Congress. Clinton simply co-opted their ideas and then took credit for all of it, a common theme of his administration. He inherited the first real peace dividend following the Cold War and then gutted our intelligence capabilities leading up to 9/11. He was also fortunate to take the oath of office right as the technology boom, led by Microsoft, took off. Silicon Valley and Bill Gates created jobs. Bill Clinton went after Microsoft. When he left, was in the hangar waiting to go home, I mean, to New York, he gave that wonderful speech right smack in the middle of his successor's festivities: "We did a lot of good. A lot of good." His lip was quivering, as always, and I think I even saw a tear. Bill Clinton may have been the greatest politician to ever rise to the Presidency. He is the only person I have ever known who can fall directly into a vat of sewage, probably put there by him, and come out smelling like a bottle of Shalimar. He did absolutely nothing, but took credit for everything. Absolutely brilliant.

This is why I actually want Hillary to get elected President. Unlike Bill, who took over at the best possible time in history, she would be taking over at the worst. Let's see what happens when she wants to entitle everyone with everything while claiming to want to balance the budget, without any of the benefits her husband had. Anyone can win at blackjack when the dealer repeatedly hands you a face card and an ace! Let's see if she leaves office making the same claim: "We did a lot of good. A lot of good." You know, I am actually beginning to feel better about this whole thing now! Thanks.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Actually, the college I went to was in semi-rural North Carolina, is affiliated with a Christian church, and until the 70's did not allow women on campus, did not allow non-Christians to get tenure, and required ROTC. It wasn't until 2005 that non-Christians were to be allowed on the board (only 20% can be non-Christian and there are as of yet no non-Christian applicants). While it is more liberal than it used to be, and follows the liberal arts teaching method, it isn't exactly Berkeley.
> 
> Anyways, what you're most likely observing is that people with low civic duty scores don't turn out when it rains. The thing is, there are people with low civic duty scores on both sides, they just live in different environments.
> 
> Oh, and before that I went to the same high school as Bill Bennett's kid.


LOL. Nice one. Just goes to show the folly of jumping to conclusions.

But are you sure Bennett's kid isn't a <shudder> closet liberal?

Thanks for the best retort o' the morning.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

BertieW said:


> LOL. Nice one. Just goes to show the folly of jumping to conclusions.
> 
> But are you sure Bennett's kid isn't a <shudder> closet liberal?
> 
> Thanks for the best retort o' the morning.


Bennett (we called each other by last name at my high school) was unabashedly anti-communist (to the point of becoming angry each time posters went up for the annual Trip to China one of the teachers organized), anti-government-spending, and pro-war. He was a decent guy though.

His dad was one of the judges of a "debate" (really just a series of speeches) we did for AP History. I was very surprised to hear him say I made a good point by saying that US military spending had little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, being in the Senate gives you Senate and legislative experience. They talk about a lot of problems and usually if they do something it makes it worse. Example, McCain is broadly criticized for leaving other POWs in Vietnam with his 'reconciliation'. Please name your favorite President that was a former Senator?
> 
> I think Alan Keyes ran against W, didn't he? I have never called 'W' a Conservative nor has any Conservative I know. Did McCain teach you to lie too? FWIW, I voted against 'W' in 2000 Republican Primary.
> 
> I have done a lot of research on McCain. I'm just asking posters to backup their posts. Romney has done international business in 20 countries not just with bankers and not just in London. If you want to make a point, it helps to start with accuracy.


Can someone remind me what kind of international experience GWB had before being elected? Twice.

While that debacle may be a cautionary tale warding us away from a candidate without such experience (defined variously, as you deem reasonable), I would suggest that, in any case, McCain has more going on upstairs than the current president.

While McCain's not my first choice for president, I feel that we can only improve on the last 8 years, no matter who is in the office, so long as they are surrounded by a good team. Personally, I like the "team of rivals" approach to forming a cabinet. Perhaps somewhat modified, but let's get a bunch of smart, fairly diverse, experienced people together and solve the country's key challenges. No, not everyone is going to be delighted with every move, but that's life in the big city.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> Your lack of knowledge about the Senate is breathtaking, really. You are essentially arguing that the Senate has no role in international matters or that national security is not an international matter. Are you really so ignorant or has your distaste for McCain so clouded your judgement.
> 
> Karl


If a cow farts in Kansas it has a "role in international matters."

McCain has spoken about international matters in the US Senate. He has not, for example, been an Ambassador to the UN which is involved in International Matters; nor has he led any international efforts (or Conservative domestic efforts for that matter). Funny how inspite of my lack of knowledge you can point to no specifics international achievements. I didn't compare Romney to McCain I simply asked what was "McCain's international experience" which was being touted. I recognize Governors do act independently with foreign governments on trade, justice, and other issues.



Karl89 said:


> And McCain is "broadly" criticized on the POW issue? Hardly, but it takes alot of chutzpah (or something else) on your part to charactarize it as that.
> 
> Karl


It's a fact that McCain is criticized by POWs for this. It's their "chutzpah" not mine. I think they have earned it.

https://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/





https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=POWs+against+McCain



Karl89 said:


> And as to tax cuts, a true fiscal conservative always cuts both spending and taxes, which McCain called for.
> Karl


A 100% LIE by John McCain. He did not call for that at the time.
https://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html



Karl89 said:


> Get over yourself. Dont vote for McCain in the general election but at least be intellectually honest about his record and what it means to be a fiscal conservative.
> 
> Karl


I will let the reader decide who is an intellectually honest fiscal conservative and who is ignorant and needs to get over themselves.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Can someone remind me what kind of international experience GWB had before being elected? Twice.


None, AFAIK. I'm simply asking the person who brought it up what his point was? It's odd how the answer to a question is a(are) question(s) like: "well, what was W's or Romney's?"

They didn't run touting their international experience.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think a good t-shirt would be:



> Right Track / Wrong Track:
> Bill Clinton a lying-genius
> George W Bush an honest-idiot
> John McCain a lying-idiot


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think a good t-shirt would be:


KSINC, sounds like what we really need is not so much an electorate as a Baron von Frankenstein to sort out the good parts from the bad parts and combine them into one (admittedly poorly dressed) body.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> KSINC, sounds like what we really need is not so much an electorate as a Baron von Frankenstein to sort out the good parts from the bad parts and combine them into one (admittedly poorly dressed) body.


Well, what I would add is that is why W picked Cheney. However, you think it turned out Cheney did have international bones.

I think what I and others are most concerned about with McCain is that he will pick a Huckabee and then we will have two people with no economic or international experience.

I realize I promoted a Romney-Huckabee ticket as a possibility. I think they share the right value on national security (a strong military and growing military) and in fact, they can and do delegate that after they put a budget through. And; together they have the social and fiscal conservative bases all locked down tight.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, McCain is broadly criticized for leaving other POWs in Vietnam with his 'reconciliation'.


Although I don't post in this forum anymore, I do still read it on a daily basis and I can't let a false statement like this go unrefuted. I'm not a McCain supporter, but I do greatly admire his courage.

John McCain was offered early release after the North Vietnamese realized who is father was, and he declined to accept. He said that he would not accept a release until every POW that had been held in captivity longer than him was released. True to his word he suffered five more years of torture and solitary confinement.

McCain was released from Hanoi after the United States negotiated the release of all of the known, acknowledged POWs during the Paris Peace Accords. After the U.S. signed this agreement all 591 POW's known to be held were released during Operation Homecoming which spanned a two month period in early 1973.

It is true that some former POWs are held in low esteem by their fellow POWs. These are the ones who accepted the North Vietnamese offers of release during the earlier years of the war and basically served as photo ops for the the North Vietnamese. The POW code of honor dictated that none would accept such a release until they all were released.

The only exception to this code was the early release of a Navy Seaman. He possessed an uncanny memory and had memorized the names and social security numbers of every single POW in Hanoi. The senior POW ordered him to accept the early release so he could take this information back to Washington. As a military person he was required to obey this direct order; therefore, he remains the one POW who took an early release who is still held in high esteem by his fellow POWs.

McCain did not accept an early release. He returned home, under orders, with all of the other POWs after the United States negotiated their release.

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Although I don't post in this forum anymore, I do still read it on a daily basis and I can't let a false statement like this go unrefuted. I'm not a McCain supporter, but I do greatly admire his courage.
> 
> Cruiser


It is a true statement.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. I realize McCain did not take early release. That has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't say McCain was a traitor or a coward; nor that he didn't follow his orders. I think I said I respect McCain's sacrifice. And; I will say it again.

The topic at hand is McCain's reconciliation plan with Vietnam that Karl89 touted and that it is in fact broadly criticized by other POW/MIA advocates.

THIS IS A FACT. Read the links I posted. Those really are Vets and POWs criticizing McCain on reconciliation and 'presuming dead' those unaccounted for.

You may disagree with those that feel there were POW/MIAs left behind, but you cannot refute that he is criticized by some other POWs and Vietnam Veterans for this.

However, thanks for chiming in to refute the truth.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

You said McCain is "broadly" criticized. Please define "broadly." That you are wrong and play fast and loose with the truth is not surprising but that you would do so on an issue like this is disappointing.

Dont claim you honor McCain's sacrifice and sense of duty and then smear him by saying there is a "broad" consensus against him on the POW issue. The fact is he know what it means to be a POW and that also has access to intelligence and information about the subject that you, I or most of those in this "broad" coalition that you invent ever will.

Perhaps you should focus your energies on salvaging the Romney campaign rather than fabricating charges against McCain - something incidentally his North Vietnamese captors also did.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> You said McCain is "broadly" criticized. Please define "broadly." That you are wrong and play fast and loose with the truth is not surprising but that you would do so on an issue like this is disappointing.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry that English and the meaning of words is a struggle for you. I am happy to help you out:

"Broadly: (7) Relating to or covering the main facts or the essential points. " https://www.thefreedictionary.com/broadly

Surely, even you can see that POWs/MIAs was a main fact or essential point of reconciliation with Vietnam.

I have posted more than enough evidence of what I said and clarification of what I meant and that it is true - McCain is criticized for it. You're the one that offered it up as evidence of his international policy experience, not me. No fabrication at all and you refuse to address any of it. You also did not address my request(s).

As to your lack of ability to debate the issue at hand honestly and with facts instead of with names and without fabricating what I said as "broad consensus" or "broad coalition", well ... you can shove that, Karl. I'm frankly tired of your frequent and hollow insults, insinuations, and lies. I have debated facts; honestly and politely. "Fast and loose with the truth?" Put up or shut up! I directly showed that you were wrong or lied at least three different times and you have no answer except to accuse me of your own 'crime'. Refute my evidence if you can.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> I hear he is very cozy with the North Vietnamese and they like him.


Very disrespectful. That sort of comment does not belong in the interchange; it is not political. It is simply crass.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Very disrespectful. That sort of comment does not belong in the interchange; it is not political. It is simply crass.


I agree that comment is crass and disrespectful.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Youre confusing people wanting to be a part of something on the news. They were Brittany Spear fans not concerned voters. It was a social event not a sincere political interest. The same people will vote differently on election day. (I hope) That's my prediction.


For someone that is so sure he has his finger on the pulse of the electorate, it is amusing to see the *(I hope)* thrown in there at the end. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> As for McCain "the straight-talker," how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he's gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it's a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There's nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media's favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren't accompanied by spending cuts. That's simply not correct.


https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI4MGI=

https://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/02/01/levinhastert0201081.mp3


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*McCain tax cuts*

McCain wasn't the only one against the tax cuts, Alan Greenspan also opposed them, and both of them opposed them for the same reason: they feared that the deficit would get worse because of the cuts. Both men also had the courage to admit that the tax cuts did work, and the economy grew at a rate that kept the tax cuts from increasing the deficit more than it would have been without them. Actually, the Treasury and the CBO have both said that the tax cuts actually increased the tax revenue.

Damn shame that, you can increase the economy by cutting taxes, so the only way to cut the deficit is to cut spending. I nominate salaries for elected officials as the first cut on the block, but we really will not get anywhere until we get rid of Social Insecurity and Medicare.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> McCain wasn't the only one against the tax cuts, Alan Greenspan also opposed them, and both of them opposed them for the same reason: they feared that the deficit would get worse because of the cuts. Both men also had the courage to admit that the tax cuts did work, and the economy grew at a rate that kept the tax cuts from increasing the deficit more than it would have been without them. Actually, the Treasury and the CBO have both said that the tax cuts actually increased the tax revenue.
> 
> Damn shame that, you can increase the economy by cutting taxes, so the only way to cut the deficit is to cut spending. I nominate salaries for elected officials as the first cut on the block, but we really will not get anywhere until we get rid of Social Insecurity and Medicare.


It is apparently an urban legend that McCain opposed the tax cuts for the reason you stated. Sources say he's trying to rewrite recent history. However, if you have extemporaneous, contemporaneous musings by McCain, I would be very interested in seeing them. It's certainly possible people like Lowry, Levin, Limbaugh, and Hannity are selectively choosing their quotes. Perhaps he had multiple reasons. What is weird is that McCain's attack on Romney is 'timetable was the buzzword of the Democrats.' However, 'tax cuts for the rich' was the Democratic talking point on W's tax cuts. To take McCain's word for it is simply not possible considering his volume of dishonest statements about his amnesty bill in the primary.

I certainly agree Greenspan did for that reason. There's no disputing Greenspan's constant warnings about the debt and the education of our workforce as we face a growing globalization of the economy.

IMHO one of Romney's best stump lines is "they told us they would fix SS and Medicare, but they haven't!" No argument there either.

In 2006, someone from the FL-GOP called looking for money to support some reform (I forget what it was exactly) she replied with, "you told me that last time and I gave you the money." I think McCain has a good point about why the GOP lost in 2006. Was it really those against the war voting or Conservatives that stayed home over scandals, excessive-spending, and non-reforms we were promised. My only issue with that is, I'm less concerned with the GOP retaining power than I am Conservatives governing consistently. I get the feeling McCain is more upset about being in the minority. Where I live a lot of the Conservatives are Democrats. I've actually been considering switching my party. I think the Conservative Democrats will get more attention to their issues than Conservative Republicans if McCain is the GOP nominee. Perhaps if Obama is the nominee even more - if he is sincere. His recent contact with Paul Vocker is drawing some interest from Fiscal Conservatives as well as his rebuff of Hillary's Interest Rate Cap Policy in the debate. Time will tell.

If McCain is the nominee I will vote Dem or not vote. Unless, perhaps Bloomberg will jump in if McCain closes it out quickly. I have heard some good and some bad about Bloomberg, but I would give him a serious look. If by some sick twisted means it is McCain-Romney I told the Romney people I want my money back. I'm still hoping for a Romney push, but the situation is getting desperate.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Armed leftist*



Capt Ron said:


> Gurdon,
> I despise Bush, but the facts are the same. The economy if you understand the numbers has been excellen despite the democrat controlled congress and the spending spree on war.
> Unemployee is at it's lowest in 8 years.
> We are not yet in a recession. There is an economic definition of recession.
> ...


I believe I understand some of the numbers some of the time.
Unemployment is defined as out of work and actively seeking a job. After a given period of time the unsuccessful job seeker is considered to no longer be actively searching for a job and is removed from the tally of the thusly defined unemployed. Not disclosed by the official unemployment statistics are the facts that there are a lot of people out of work and jobs are disappearing from this country.

I read the business section of the LA Times and NY Times (in part, to find out who the crooks are). I will not quibble over definitions, but I believe the economy is in trouble.

I can't comment on talk radio of any stripe. However, I believe conservatives to be as emotion driven as individuals in any other political category. In my view conservatives are driven by superstition, fear and a desire for patriarchal control.

Liberalism originally meant believing in free market capitalism and the right of individuals to function in an un-rigged market place. The term has come to mean something like non-socialist progressive. Neither of those definitions fits my own views. The caption "armed leftist" is a good shorthand version. (I am sure most readers aren't interested in a long disquisition on my views of the ideal society.)

Conservatives claim to favor individual liberty, yet they oppose the freedom of individuals to take drugs, and they want government to regulate private behavior. They oppose, however, government regulation of corporate drug production and distribution, especially when it comes to safety and efficacy. Conservatives claim to favor individual firearms ownership, yet enact regulations that make such ownership meaningless. (For example, you cannot take shotguns or hunting rifles, let alone handguns, on Amtrak, even as checked luggage. You can't pick someone up at the airport with an otherwise lawfully transported pistol, or long gun, in your car.)

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This is a sadly interesting thought.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-cooper/mccainpowell_b_84271.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> Liberalism originally meant believing in free market capitalism and the right of individuals to function in an un-rigged market place. The term has come to mean something like non-socialist progressive. Neither of those definitions fits my own views. The caption "armed leftist" is a good shorthand version. (I am sure most readers aren't interested in a long disquisition on my views of the ideal society.)
> 
> Conservatives claim to favor individual liberty, yet they oppose the freedom of individuals to take drugs, and they want government to regulate private behavior. They oppose, however, government regulation of corporate drug production and distribution, especially when it comes to safety and efficacy. Conservatives claim to favor individual firearms ownership, yet enact regulations that make such ownership meaningless. (For example, you cannot take shotguns or hunting rifles, let alone handguns, on Amtrak, even as checked luggage. You can't pick someone up at the airport with an otherwise lawfully transported pistol, or long gun, in your car.)
> 
> ...


Amen! 'Classic Liberalism?'


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

Does anyone else think that Huckabee's continued running despite his negligible chance of contending is costing Romney the nomination versus McCain by splitting his base of support?


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*I'm really a libertarian.*

If I had to choose democracy over a benign dictatorship (my first choice), I'd be a libertarian.

I believe any discussion of politcis involving representative democracy is really one emotional fool argueing with one educated fool.

I'd prefer to debate our current representative democracy vs. Dictatorship.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CCabot said:


> Does anyone else think that Huckabee's continued running despite his negligible chance of contending is costing Romney the nomination versus McCain by splitting his base of support?


Yes, I do. However, I have heard reports of polls that said McCain would get most of Huckabee's votes. In Florida, I think McCain won the 'who was your second choice' poll with Huckabee voters too. ADD: yep it's on page two 55-32%. Romney won Thompson voters 47-23% and McCain voters 49-24% over Huckabee.

I find it hard to believe since Romney actually won among Pro-Lifers including Huckabee voters with 35%. McCain had 45% of the pro-choice vote. A lot of the exit poll data is confusing and counter-conventional wisdom. Huckabee won 'always illegal' but lost the generic 'illegal'. Romney won "mostly illegal'. That part makes sense.

However, Catholics voted for McCain and Protestants for Romney, not Huckabee in general. Those going 'less often than once a week' 40% to 6% Romney. Huckabee did win the 'more than weekly' vote 40-26%. But when it is non-denominational, weekly, occassionally, or never Romney won weekly and McCain won occasionally and never.

I was also struck by the age breakouts. Romney did the best from 25-44 years old. McCain won 18-24 and 45-older. The 18-24 is weird, but you can back into it from the 18-29 number which McCain won, but Romney won 25-29. That has to deal with the credibility on the economy, tax cuts, and SS/Medicare reform. IE the career building - working family generation likes Romney and the empty-nesters and begin preparing to retire generation likes McCain.

Somehow Romney lost on 'iraq' and 'economy' but won on 'immigration' and 'national economic conditions'.

And Romney didn't do so bad among vets he only lost 42-35% to McCain.

McCain killed him in the hispanic community and that is Mel Martinez' endorsement and pro-open borders.

https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#FLREP


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> The Clintons are nothing if not lucky, and Hillary must occasionally be enjoying a luxury-length cackle at the thought of being pitted against a 71-year old "maverick" whose record seems designed to antagonize just enough of the base into staying home on election day. In the 2000 campaign season, running in a desultory fashion for the New York Senate seat, Rudy Giuliani waged a brief half-hearted campaign just long enough to leave the Republican Party with no one to run against Hillary except a candidate who wasn't up to the job. Has he managed to do the same this time round?


https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmUwMmJhZmU1NjQ0YjUyZjIxNGFmZWViMjk1MTAyYTY=

"How the Clintons will destroy John McCain"
https://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3068/2/


----------

