[Buckaroo]

I was not aware that the Supreme Court could override a presidential veto.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And, there's a Supreme Court and Congress that both have ways to address overriding such a veto.

[vmarks]

The Supreme Court does not override a Presidential veto. However, it has ruled that legislative veto and line item veto are not permitted. My error - typing too quickly and moving on without reviewing what I've typed. Happens rarely.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're very much welcome. Any time.

Well, I'm not voting for McCain, because it rhymes with Hussein. Close enough for me to figure he shouldn't be trusted, with a name like that.

Actually, I'm glad he's floating up at the Republican front-runner. He's the only one of the batch that doesn't strike me as unhinged in some way. Romney is a preening egomaniac, who is Hillary-like in his obeisance to expediency. He'll say whatever it seems useful for him to say -- I don't trust a word that comes out of his mouth. 9iu11iani is a egomaniac with a G*d complex and an extremely scary authoritarian streak. Huckabee would have all the girls wearing bonnets and gingham dresses, and require all the boys to carry their Good Book 24/7. We could do worse than McCain, I suppose.

[vmarks]

Oh my goodness. This is the first conspiracy theory I've seen for McCain.
It makes some new accusations but mostly recycles old material used against others.

Let's go piece by piece, shall we?

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Reasons why McCain deserves it? Umm, My take?

John McCain is right now positioned as one of the top figures in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. But one thing about McCain that the mass media chooses not to report is his family connection to the organized crime-connected interests that have run the state of Arizona (through both major political parties) since at least the 1940s.

McCain is positioned as the top figure for the GOP by the Republican establishment that would rather not deal with conservatives, and by a media that has always been friendly to him for his liberal positions. Of course, they see as well as I do that having a Liberal Republican running against a Liberal Democrat means two things:
(1) the Democrat will win, and
(2) the whole discussion on issues and positions will have been shifted, they hope, leftward.

Regarding this whole 'organized crime runs Arizona politics and has for decades' bit - explain Goldwater and the Conscience of a Conservative? You can't explain it in the context of Arizona's organized crime, because the two are incongruent.

To understand McCain—in particular his devotion to the interests of Israel—it is necessary to recognize the little-known fact that the powerful Bronfman family empire, based on its Seagram’s liquor fortune and its controlling influence over the Time-Warner media conglomerate, has been the primary behind-the-scenes force dominating Arizona politics.

Ain't nothing wrong with a little liquor, now is there?
But you need to be specific. Bronfman Jr. ended his involvement with Seagram's, selling it to Vivendi (the French! You haven't got a conspiracy theory for that one?)
before becoming CEO of Warner Music Group (not Time-Warner) in 2004.

So, the connection with liquor is done with. No more.

While the Bronfman family first came to power in Montreal in the 1920s under Sam Bronfman, a foremost partner of U.S.-based organized crime chieftain Meyer Lansky whose so-called “Mafia” henchmen peddled Bronfman liquor in the United States during Prohibition, the current head of the family, Edgar Bronfman, spent many years as president of the powerful World Jewish Congress.

(a) you're acting like prohibition was a good thing.
(b) prohibition was a US constitutional amendment, not a Canadian one.
(c) The World Jewish Congress isn't that powerful. It publishes a monthly newsletter, about 7 pages long detailing attacks on Jews around the world. It is by no means complete, but it's informative.
It has some chapters around the world, but is a wholly independent body. Representatives occasionally meet with world leaders, but WJC rarely is an influence on policy directly.

You ought to sign up for the newsletter. World Jewish Congress

They have a few campaigns going on:
World Jewish Congress

Iran as a threat, support for Israel, justice for jewish refugees from Arab countries.
Nothing so wrong with that - certainly some people in this world perceive Iran as a threat. Certainly, some people wish to support Israel, and there's nothing wrong with that as a country that has spent 60 years under attack, and certainly it's worth remembering the Jewish refugees who were displaced from Arab nations, if you're into history and how it affects this modern world.

The Bronfmans, along with the Rothschilds of Europe, the Oppenheimers of South Africa, and Armand Hammer of the United States—all patrons of Israel and the global Zionist network—constituted what has been dubbed the “Billionaire Gang of Four.” But the Bronfman family has emerged as the virtual royal family of American Zionism, and their tentacles reach far and wide throughout the United States through a vast array of holdings little known to the public.

Here's where it gets icky.

You're accusing these Jews of something horrible, by words like 'gang' and 'tentacles.' I can't tell if you're doing it because they supported the notion of a homeland where Jews could live free of oppression, in security (America and Europe both proved that neither was receptive to hosting Jews in the first half of the twentieth century, and there had been problems for centuries preceding) or if you're doing it because they're Jews. In either case, it's pretty ugly.

One particularly famous Texas-based mob functionary, nightclub keeper Jack Ruby, for example, is known to have actually been a lieutenant of the Bronfman family (a point that has often been lost or suppressed in the legends surrounding Ruby’s ties to organized crime).
And it is known—although again not mentioned by most JFK assassination “researchers”— that Ruby was a key player in a Texas-based network smuggling arms (stolen from U.S. military installations) to Israel, the Bronfman empire’s favorite foreign nation.

Laughable. Seriously, the JFK conspiracy theorists who have dug up and hung the largest of stories on the smallest of details, who will turn any single unrelated fact into the turning point for the whole theory, have never mentioned this, ever? Come on. This is pushing the bounds of credibility. Their theories suppress it because the JFK conspiracy guys don't want us to know?
Laughable.

Aside from that historical digression, the fact (relevant to our review of John McCain) is that McCain’s home state of Arizona has long been under Bronfman control.

The days of doing campaign donations in paper bags with banded hundred dollar bills inside are long over, my friend. That may have been the way in the 30s, but that hasn't worked for at least 40 years.

While most Americans perceive Arizona as a paradise of cowboys, cacti and wide-open spaces and a conservative stronghold independent of the corruption and intrigue found in the big cities like New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles, Arizona ranks right up alongside the great crime capitals. That status can be traced directly to the influence of the Bronfmans.

Actually, I was going to go with "retirement community." But that's just me teasin' you.

The Bronfmans are the “godfathers” behind the political career of John McCain.

In 1976 a crusading Phoenix reporter, Don Bolles, was murdered by a car bomb after writing a series of stories exposing the organized crime connections of a wide-ranging number of well-known figures in Arizona, including one Jim Hensley. Five years later “Honest John” McCain arrived in Arizona as the new husband of Hensley’s daughter, Cindy. “From the moment McCain landed in Phoenix,” according to Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, “the Hensleys were key sponsors of his political career.”

Wait, wait. You're trying to tell me that there's something horribly wrong and corrupt with mother and father-in-law supporting son-in-law's run for office?

I don't buy it. Some people actually get along with their spouse's parents, and in a run for office get their support, sponsorship, and the rolodex containing all of mommy and daddy's friends. There is nothing wrong with this.

But the people behind the Hensley fortune are even more controversial.

McCain’s late father-in-law was the owner of the biggest Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship in Arizona—one of the largest beer distributors in the nation.

Benjamin Franklin, father of our country, once wrote, "Beer is proof that G-d loves us and wants us to be happy." I believe that I stand with Anheuser-Busch and Benjamin Franklin on this one.

But the mainstream media has had nothing to say about the origins of the Hensley fortune that financed McCain’s rise to power. The Hensley fortune is a regional offshoot of the big-time bootlegging and rackets empire of the Bronfman dynasty.

But unless they're running moonshine and evading revenuers (western north carolina, nascar was founded on running moonshine and evading IRS agents. The cars had to get faster and faster to keep beating being caught. Run moonshine on friday, race on saturday) the liquor and beer is legal and has been since the 21st amendment was ratified. Find something illegal, but what you're harping on is legitimate.

McCain’s father-in-law got his start as a top henchman for Kemper Marley, who, for 40 years until his death in 1990 at age 84, was the undisputed behind-the-scenes political boss of Arizona. But Marley was much more than a machine politician. In fact, he was also the Lansky crime syndicate’s top man in Arizona, the protege of a Lansky lieutenant, Phoenix gambler Gus Greenbaum.

In 1941 Greenbaum had set up the Transamerica Publishing and News Service, which operated a national wire for bookmakers. In 1946 Greenbaum turned over the day-to-day operations to Marley while Greenbaum focused on building up Lansky-run casinos in Las Vegas, commuting there from his home in Phoenix. Greenbaum, in fact, was so integral to the Lansky empire that he was the one who took command of Lansky’s Las Vegas interests in 1947 after Lansky ordered the execution of his own longtime friend, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, for skimming mob profits from the new Flamingo Casino.

Greenbaum and his wife were murdered in a mob “hit” in 1948, their throats cut. The murder set off a series of gangland wars in Phoenix, but Marley survived and prospered.

During this time Marley was building up a liquor distribution monopoly in Arizona. According to Marley’s longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, it was the Bronfman family that set Marley up in the liquor business. In 1948, 52 of Marley’s employees (including Jim Hensley) went to jail for federal liquor violations—but not Marley.

The story in Arizona is that Hensley took the fall for Marley and, upon his release from prison, Marley paid back Hensley’s loyalty by setting him up in the beer distribution business. That beer company today, said to be worth $200 million, is what largely financed John McCain’s political career. The support from the Bronfman-Marley-Hensley network was integral to McCain’s rise to power.

All well and good, but all the crime you could come up with was in the late 40s. McCain didn't enter the picture until 1976.
(a) That's thirty good years between the last crime you cited and the McCain boy entering the family.
(b) Let the courts convict, if there's something guilty there to convict on. McCain's father in law went freely about his business? Continued to sell beer even after McCain married the daughter? Oh well. Must not have been a crime to convict him on. Seriously, thirty years to find some dirt and prosecute? No conviction? Okay.

The attorney who handled Hensley’s legal defense, forging the deal that set in motion Hensley’s windfall (that now benefits McCain), was William Rehnquist, who later became chief justice of the United States, later to be joined on the court by one of his own former girlfriends from Arizona, Sandra Day O’Connor. The one-vote margin on the Supreme Court that handed the presidency to George W. Bush following the 2000 election debacle might be considered a product of the “Bronfman bloc.”

This is brilliant.

You're saying that Bill Rhenquist got paid with dirty money in the 40s, and then in the Supreme Court a half-century later colluded with an ex-girlfriend to do Bronfman's (remember Bronfman? This is a conspiracy about Bronfman. Nevermind that he hasn't been mentioned since the days of prohibition in the telling so far.) bidding.

I don't know about you, but getting an ex-girlfriend to do your bidding, especially 50 years later, is pretty weak.

McCain’s father-in-law had also dabbled in the dog racing business and he expanded his family fortune further by selling his dog racing track to an individual connected to the Emprise Corp., run by the Buffalo-based Jacobs family.

The Jacobs family was the leading distributor for Bronfman liquor smuggled into the United States during Prohibition and controlled the “spigot” of Bronfman liquor pouring into the casks of local gangs that were part of the Lansky syndicate. Expanding over the years, buying up horse and dog racing tracks and developing food and drink concessions at sports stadiums, the Jacobs family’s enterprises were once described as being “probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime’s money-laundering in the United States.”

This is a quote. Who is it from? What source said it?

While John McCain himself cannot be held personally responsible for the sins of his father-in-law, the fact is that this “reformer” owes his political and financial fortunes to the good graces of the biggest names in organized crime.

Wait.
(a) McCain can't be held responsible for his father-in-law's doings.

Okay, done. Nothing more to say then, is there?

But you find more to say.
(b) you claim McCain owes his fortunes to organized crime. But as far as I can tell, liquor and beer are not criminal and haven't been since the passing of the 21st amendment. Dog tracks aren't either. Nor are casinos in Vegas.

Today, the Las Vegas gambling industry is among McCain’s primary financial benefactors.

Today, the Vegas gambling industry is run by entertainment conglomerates like MGM, or newcomers like Steve Wynn, who managed to get his start in Vegas from Howard Hughes, who had no connection to organized crime, but just wanted to run an airline and went nuts in the process.

This brief overview is just the tip of the iceberg but it does say much about McCain and the political milieu that spawned him, particularly in light of McCain’s front-line position as one of Israel’s leading congressional water-carriers.

Ah, we're back to the Jews accusations again, but this time masking it under attacking Israel. Got it. Knew we'd have to come back to that at some point.

Doing Israel’s bidding is a McCain family tradition. Following Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, resulting in the murder of 34 Americans, McCain’s father, Adm. John McCain, was one of the key players inside the U.S. Navy helping cover up the deliberate nature of Israel’s savage attack. “Like father, like son” clearly means something when it comes to the McCains.

Nevermind that the USS Liberty incident has been explained countless times, the record is clear on what happened, and the time has past to use it as an accusation, you bring it up here. What's really interesting and bizarre is that you
spent the whole conspiracy theory bringing up McCain's father-in-law and his connections and only at the end make any mention of McCain's own father. The only thread tying the whole thing together (Bronfman, Lansky, Jacob, McCain's father-in-law, McCain's father and USS Liberty) is the Jewish connection.

I think that's revealing.

I guess he deserves to be in jail. I think his CFR connections alone disqualify him from even running for public office in the USA. I personally wouldn't trust him to be my mailman.

Why does he deserve to be in jail? What crime did he commit? Every attempt at talking about crime, you've listed something old, legal, and not related to McCain. What CFR connections? Why should they disqualify him, under what law?

McCain is not my candidate, but I cited reasons, McCain quotes, and McCain sponsored-law to back up my opinion. Where are your sources? Where is your information on Arizona politics from? Certainly not first hand - you're from southern California, and have lived in Japan for the last 20 years.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Well, I'm not voting for McCain, because it rhymes with Hussein. Close enough for me to figure he shouldn't be trusted, with a name like that.

Actually, I'm glad he's floating up at the Republican front-runner. He's the only one of the batch that doesn't strike me as unhinged in some way. Romney is a preening egomaniac, who is Hillary-like in his obeisance to expediency. He'll say whatever it seems useful for him to say -- I don't trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

You don't think that McCain's insistence on repeating a lie about Romney, even to Romney's face, even after Romney has said (and most major media agreed) that McCain is trying to give a lie the currency of truth by repeating it until it's believed --- you don't think this is Hillary-like?

9iu11iani is a egomaniac with a G*d complex and an extremely scary authoritarian streak. Huckabee would have all the girls wearing bonnets and gingham dresses, and require all the boys to carry their Good Book 24/7. We could do worse than McCain, I suppose.

Giuliani is out. Huckabee is also out, but he doesn't know it yet. The value for Huckabee is staying in long enough to throw his support behind Romney (giving Romney the nomination) or behind McCain (making it real difficult for Romney.) The longer Huck is in, the more he gets courted, and the national airtime isn't hurting him any either. I bet he sleeps real well at night.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Well, I'm not voting for McCain, because it rhymes with Hussein. Close enough for me to figure he shouldn't be trusted, with a name like that.

Not only that, but he has the same first name as John Wilkes Booth! OMG!

[Buckaroo]

My opinion of election results if:

McCain vs. Clinton - Clinton wins
McCain vs. Obama - Obama wins
Romney vs. Clinton - Romney wins
Romney vs. Obama - I have no idea.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You don't think that McCain's insistence on repeating a lie about Romney, even to Romney's face, even after Romney has said (and most major media agreed) that McCain is trying to give a lie the currency of truth by repeating it until it's believed --- you don't think this is Hillary-like?

I have no idea what you're talking about (ignorance, most likely) But I'd sooner rip my own head off than vote for Romney.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

My opinion of election results if:

McCain vs. Clinton - Clinton wins
McCain vs. Obama - Obama wins
Romney vs. Clinton - Romney wins
Romney vs. Obama - I have no idea.

Clinton vs. Paul - Paul wins

[OreoCookie]

Paul won't be nominated.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Clinton vs. Paul - Paul wins

Ah, but what about Clinton vs. Elvis?

[Tesselator]

Clinton vs. Elvis: YouTube - 1994 McCain vs 2008 McCain

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Ah, but what about Clinton vs. Elvis?

Fat Elvis or Skinny Elvis?

[Dakar the Fourth]

I support a Young Elvis/Old Elvis ticket.

[vmarks]

Back on topic about McCain please.

[Spliffdaddy]

McCain will lose on "super-duper Tuesday" - just barely.

Ignore the polls. they haven't been right within 5% yet.

Romney will catch a wave and he will defeat Clinton or Obama in the general election.

Mark my words. Bookmark this page.

Democrats are well known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[nonhuman]

I really hope not... I've had quite enough of Romney and his bullshit liberal policies.

[Spliffdaddy]

I hate Romney more than you. but he's a step up from McCain.

No matter how it plays out - i can't win.

edited: Newt ain't running.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I hate Romney more than you. but he's a step up from McCain.

No matter how it plays out - i can't win.

edited: Newt ain't running.

I'm not convinced that he's necessarily a step up from McCain, but that may be because I'm blinded by rage at the fact that I'm going to have to start paying fines for not having health insurance thanks to him... I don't want to see either of them in the White House, though they're both better than Hillary...

I think there's a very good chance that I'm going to end up voting Libertarian this year.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm not convinced that he's necessarily a step up from McCain, but that may be because I'm blinded by rage at the fact that I'm going to have to start paying fines for not having health insurance thanks to him... I don't want to see either of them in the White House, though they're both better than Hillary...

I think there's a very good chance that I'm going to end up voting Libertarian this year.

Hell, if McCain gets the nomination I'll vote for Hillary. At least she's ineffective and everyone knows it. I would expect 4 years of nothingness from her. And that's a good thing. edited: And I'm a right-wing conservative.

McCain can eat my dick. I won't support amnesty for illegals. And I won't let him corrupt the values of Republicans.

PS. nonhuman, I always enjoyed arguing with you. You are awesome. Even if we don't always agree.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Hell, if McCain gets the nomination I'll vote for Hillary. At least she's ineffective and everyone knows it. I would expect 4 years of nothingness from her. And that's a good thing. edited: And I'm a right-wing conservative.

McCain can eat my dick. I won't support amnesty for illegals. And I won't let him corrupt the values of Republicans.

Really, for me it depends on who has control of Congress. Hillary with a Republican Congress would be ineffectual at best. Hillary with a Democratic Congress? I shudder to think. The problem with Romney and McCain is that they've both got a history of passing liberal legislation. Either of them in White House with a Democratic Congress and who knows what might happen. And with a Republican Congress it's still impossible to say, they might rubberstamp everything from the Republican side of the aisle or they might not.

While I don't agree with Obama on a lot of his policy issues I do, for some strange reason, think he'd do a good job as president, especially with a Republican Congress.

PS. nonhuman, I always enjoyed arguing with you. You are awesome. Even if we don't always agree.

Thanks, right back at you.

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, after I just witnessed Romney having his ass handed to him - I think I'll suck it up and vote for McCain. Only because there's a small chance of him getting some non-liberal justices on the supreme court. With Hillary...not a chance. She would give us some Bader-Ginsburg clones.

I can't win this year. I can only try to minimize the damage. Whoever the president is - they will fail miserably. I'd like to blame the Democrats for the failure. But we have a few Supreme Court justices that won't live to see 2012. It's a tough decision. Do I allow the democrat president to fail while liberals are appointed to the Supreme Court? Or do I allow a Republican President to fail while conservative/moderates are appointed to the Supreme Court? Tough call. In any event, I cannot win.

[Big Mac]

There is no question in my mind that McCain is better than either Dem. I don't think his potential USSC appointments would be all that great, but they would certainly be better than what Hillary or Obama would deliver. Bill gave us two huge losers: Ginsburg and Breyer.

[Shaddim]

Yep, like I said before, I'll be holding my nose and voting for McCain.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There is no question in my mind that McCain is better than either Dem. I don't think his potential USSC appointments would be all that great, but they would certainly be better than what Hillary or Obama would deliver. Bill gave us two huge losers: Ginsburg and Breyer.

Amen.

I speak for 90% of the conservatives that said they would stay home or vote for the Democrat in the general election. We can't do it.

We will put a clothespin on our nose and pull the lever for McCain.

edited: like fully half of Democrats will pull the Clinton lever - with clothespins on their nose. We all lose this year.

edited again. Ain't it funny how presidential elections are always decided by 3% of the popular vote? Never fails.

[Chuckit]

I voted for Romney, but clearly the rest of my party disagrees with me. My prediction now:

If it's Clinton in the Democratic seat, McCain will win because he can pull some liberals to his side and most conservatives and libertarians would rather have him than Hillary Clinton.

If it's Obama (as I suspect it will be), McCain may as well deliver his concession speech tomorrow.

[Big Mac]

I voted for Romney too. I strongly disagree that an Obama nomination would ensure McCain's defeat though, but I'm a bit too tired to explain why right now.

[Buckaroo]

If McCain wins the nomination, he'll loose the election.

I and millions of Conservatives would prefer that a left wing Democrat ruin the country rather than a left wing Republican ruin the country.

I will campaign against McCain as a Moderate Republican against McCain. McCain is more Left of Hillary.

[Big Mac]

Is that you, Ms. Coulter?

[OreoCookie]

@Buckaroo
Huh? That doesn't strike me as patriotic, you'd prefer that your country goes down the drain so that your precious ideas of right and left (rather: right and `wrong') are preserved rather than act in its (and your) best interests?

[jokell82]

It disappoints me that McCain is doing so well. I am a conservative Paul supporter, and I was warming up to being able to vote for Romney in November. But I cannot vote for McCain. If Paul runs third party I'll vote for him. If Obama wins the Dem's nomination I'll probably vote for him just to keep McCain out. And if Hillary wins the Dem's nomination I will leave the Presidential ballot blank while I vote in my local elections.

I know many conservatives that feel the same way. McCain in no way represents the conservative Republicans.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Buckaroo
Huh? That doesn't strike me as patriotic, you'd prefer that your country goes down the drain so that your precious ideas of right and left (rather: right and `wrong') are preserved rather than act in its (and your) best interests?

That's not what he said. He said that if somebody's going to ruin the country, he's rather it be a left-wing Democrat than a left-wing Republican. It's assumed in the statement that there is no option that's beneficial to the country.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I voted for Romney too. I strongly disagree that an Obama nomination would ensure McCain's defeat though, but I'm a bit too tired to explain why right now.

Let me guess: It has something to do with his middle name.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's not what he said. He said that if somebody's going to ruin the country, he's rather it be a left-wing Democrat than a left-wing Republican. It's assumed in the statement that there is no option that's beneficial to the country.

I understood it a bit differently: he said that in order to perpetuate the myth that only one side of the aisle is to blame for all of the screw ups.

[Jawbone54]

The reason McCain is going in can be summed up in two words: The Huck.

[peeb]

He's the republican who is not an absolute blood-spitting lunatic.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have been giving this issue a lot of thought

The rest of your post suggests otherwise....

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. He had the foresight to recognize the need for and use of the surge;

But not the withdrawal.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

2. He is under the delusion, like Bush, that we are a country at war with unrelenting foes, and he has a lot of war experience;

Fixed that for you, it's not a plus.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

3. He has served the country with honor in the military and Congress;

This is unusual for a Republican.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

4. The Republicans need a moderate in November or else we put ourselves at greater risk of the socialist nightmare of Hillary or Hussein;

He's not a moderate, and believing it is more important to send young men and women to the middle east to wreak havoc simply to preserve corporate profits is, in my opinion, more scary than the idea of providing healthcare to everyone.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

5. Romney has time to run again in the future if he so chooses, but this is probably McCain's last stand;

Romney is a blood-spitting lunatic.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

6. The fact that McCain is today the frontrunner is amazing compared to where he was in the summer, and the fact he refused to give in then is a testament to his fortitude;

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

7. Bush's brand of conservatism really wasn't all that conservative, so there's little left to lose by giving McCain conservatism a try.

There are no real 'conservatives' left in the Republican party - it has entirely whored itself to big corporate interests and religious extremists. McCain is not as bad as most of them.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by peeb

The rest of your post suggests otherwise...

I've been trying to be magnanimous with you lately, but you just keep taking cheap shots even when we're not in a personal skirmish.

[Tesselator]

It's politics... he's supposed to take cheep shots.

But all seriousness aside, Those who control politics in the US have said and shown that they want
a race between McCain and Hitlery with Hitlery as the ultimate winner. I say we all need to drop all
that noise and put Ron Paul in office.

[Big Mac]

Okay, Tesselator, but did you look at the posts from vmarks on Paul? They definitely changed my outlook on him.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

He's the republican who is a liberal.

I think this is what you meant to write. I can understand why you'd prefer Republicans who are actually the same as you, but to paint all the others as "blood-spitting lunatics" seems a bit overly dogmatic to me.

[PaperNotes]

vmarks, your responses have been gorgeous. I'm ****ing tired of all those slight of hand attempts at anti-Semitism via criticism of economics and global affairs. Your responses have been tight. If you were a woman I would be all over you.

McCain is a hero. I'm not American but that is my opinion. He voluntarily put himself through years of torture and degradation when his capturers gave him a chance to leave because he held fast to his principles. It is McCain who pushed for the surge in Iraq which has been largely successful so far and has cut terrorist incidents massively. I wish McCain was there instead of Bush in the first place. Hilary the Hilarious Clinton wants to reverse this process and let Iraq slide back into anarchy. She's an irresponsible lying witch who voted for the war that her husband should have seen through years ago and now she wants to wreck everything that so many brave people and victims have died over.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

McCain in no way represents the conservative Republicans.

McCain represents a lot of Jeffersonian Republicanism. True original flavor Republicanism, not the religious and paranoid crap that grew out of the Cold War.

As for Ron Paul, read up on what Hitchens has to say about him. Paul has some dirty dirty racist skeletons in his closet.

[Big Mac]

Something that worries me about "President" McCain are his co-sponsoring of craptastic Kennedy legislation. If he's going to sign bills like those into law we may indeed be causing ourselves a lot of pain in the future by supporting his bid. But then I look back at Hill-dog and preacher Obama and think that almost any Republican save for Pat Buchanan types would be preferable.

Hey Notes, quick question regarding your most recent post - you're tired of antisemitism but you cite that swine Chris Hitchens as a source? I assume that's who you're referring to, but if I'm wrong please forgive my error.

[smacintush]

McCain's war record and his position on Iraq are the only things attractive about him.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But then I look back at Hill-dog and preacher Obama and think that almost any Republican save for Pat Buchanan types would be preferable.

Sad but true.

[Chongo]

The media is pushing now. Once he has secured the nomination they will turn on him.
He will be:
too old
too angry
Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They'll dub him Captain Queeg


When Bill was running Hilary off limits. The media will mercilessly savage Cindy McCain

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

McCain represents a lot of Jeffersonian Republicanism. True original flavor Republicanism, not the religious and paranoid crap that grew out of the Cold War.

I agree about the religious and somewhat about the paranoia in general. (Though McCain represents that paranoia well, not sure what you're getting at)

But even if you take these things out of the right, McCain still doesn't represent.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Hey Notes, quick question regarding your most recent post - you're tired of antisemitism but you cite that swine Chris Hitchens as a source? I assume that's who you're referring to, but if I'm wrong please forgive my error.

If you're trying to call Hitchens an anti-Semite you would be dead wrong. He's a very vocal supporter of Israel's defense against terrorism. He doesn't believe in Jehovah and he would like Kissinger taken to an international court, but that doesn't make someone an anti-Semite. If you want to call someone a closet anti-Semite you should point the finger as Hitchen's most famous puglistic opponent George Galloway who had said to Saddam and Assad of Syria "I am with you until Jerusalem". Hitchens famously cited and slated Galloway for doing so.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I agree about the religious and somewhat about the paranoia in general. (Though McCain represents that paranoia well, not sure what you're getting at)
.

Even Jefferson and the Founding Fathers in general were paranoid to some extent of religious interference in public life.