[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

To paraphrase Owlgore "the debate on Hilary's Marxist beliefs is over".

Who TF is 'Owlgore'?

[besson3c]

Isn't an owl a symbol of wisdom?

[vmarks]

Guys, back on topic (McCain and why he deserves the GOP nomination) or I'm locking this thread.

[RAILhead]

He doesn't deserve the nomination.

You may lock the thread now.

[subego]

NM.

Missed the admonition.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, you gave me a link to Wikipedia's article on Marxism. I am perfectly aware of what Marxism is, you have just singularly failed to show that Hillary is a Marxist.

No, go back and read. I linked you to a page of links and a page on Hillary and her marxist beliefs..

Oops... didn't see the Mod warning... (but I agree with railhead)


OK...

[besson3c]

I'm really starting to believe that many people on MacNN are extreme in their thinking, and do not represent the average thinking in our population as a whole at all (the Marxist Hillary thing being a good example of this).

Who here is going to vote for Mike Gravel?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

No, go back and read. I linked you to a page of links and a page on Hillary and her marxist beliefs..

I saw the link to a hoax site parodying extremist survivalists and going on about black helicopters and the UN, but nothing with any evidence of Hillary's Marxist beliefs. Come on - link to any mainstream thought, not some bottom-feeding extremist with a website in his Mom's basement.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who here is going to vote for Mike Gravel?

Yet another CFR member? Not I. Nor McCain... Keeping it on topic.
M. Gravel is a good entertainer tho. LOL Nothing like reading old
papers on Hitlery Clinton's hidden thesis - Hillary News - MSNBC but
much more entertaining than McCain. At least with Hitlery you
can trace almost everything she has done to an ideal (MARXISM!) but
with McCain and Gravel it's more like watching Bozo's Big Top rather
than identifying a Trotskyite.

Of course if one is stupid and possesses no powers of reasoning other
than what Fox tells one to believe one may miss the entire meaning
and message of an entire political career.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm really starting to believe that many people on MacNN are extreme in their thinking, and do not represent the average thinking in our population as a whole at all (the Marxist Hillary thing being a good example of this).

Most people who stop to learn about the issues will have a view that's different than average. It's the same way that Swordfish and Hackers probably seemed plausible to most people, but those who actually know about computers take a rather different view.

I figure this is also why McCain is able to get the nomination despite most people who know much about him not seeming all that enthusiastic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Again, stop slinging abuse

You just made Coke spit out of my nose.

And I wasn't even drinking Coke.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Most people who stop to learn about the issues will have a view that's different than average. It's the same way that Swordfish and Hackers probably seemed plausible to most people, but those who actually know about computers take a rather different view.

I figure this is also why McCain is able to get the nomination despite most people who know much about him not seeming all that enthusiastic.

This is a good point. I only wish that people that people who have stopped to learn about the issues could recognize the complexity of many of the things they feel strongly about, and restrain from simplifying the issue to simplistic emotionally loaded statements (like the Hillary marxist assertion) so that we can actually learn from one another and discuss the issues rationally.

I think Stephen Colbert has managed to start a movement of armies of people that think at one another what is in their guts.

[el chupacabra]

Mccain is the least conservative of the republicans... acts like last years dems actually. Why has everyone ruled out Ron paul? The most rational guy. I was talking with some republican last week and asked about Paul and they said "who's that? is that that guy that dropped out."

People are just voting for billboards. don't even know what their party stands for any more. I'd at least think the educated repubs would be for Huckabee or Romney. McCain is the same ol bullshit; and all the worst things of a liberal. His personality is kind of scary actually.

It seems like a few years ago I was liberal, and now my same views are considered ultra conservative.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Again, stop slinging abuse, and make your case.

You talking to yourself again?

You haven't made any counter argument at all.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Why has everyone ruled out Ron paul?

Perhaps because he's won fewer than 20 delegates so far as opposed to McCain's nearly 700?

Or do you mean on a philosophical level? That's been covered quite well in a number of threads, most of which tend to link to vmarks' contributions to the issue.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is a good point. I only wish that people that people who have stopped to learn about the issues could recognize the complexity of many of the things they feel strongly about, and restrain from simplifying the issue to simplistic emotionally loaded statements (like the Hillary marxist assertion) so that we can actually learn from one another and discuss the issues rationally.

I think Stephen Colbert has managed to start a movement of armies of people that think at one another what is in their guts.

I think you get his assertion completely backwards. I think he was referring to those
who study and can think for themselves would of course know both as a matter of
observation and study
HILLARY CLINTON'S BIGGEST COVER-UPS
Devvy Kidd -- The Marxist Influence
that Hillary being a Marxist is a blatantly obvious given which anyone knowing their
azz from a dead communist-in-the-ground could abstract.

It would of course also follow that those self same individuals would know that as
he put it McCain is no one to become enthusiastic about.


PS. I don't count Ron Paul out yet.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Why has everyone ruled out Ron paul? The most rational guy. I was talking with some republican last week and asked about Paul and they said "who's that? is that that guy that dropped out."

I rule out Ron Paul for the same reason I rule out all Libertarian candidates: They come across as totally batshit insane and are totally unelectable.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You talking to yourself again?

You haven't made any counter argument at all.

It's Russell's Teapot - there is not 'counter-argument', because there is no case to answer. No evidence or rationale has been given - there's nothing to argue against. Case dismissed.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I rule out Ron Paul for the same reason I rule out all Libertarian candidates: They come across as totally batshit insane and are totally unelectable.

That's not entirely true. Gary Nolan was one of the contenders for the Libertarian party in '04. I think that he came off as very reasonable and quite possibly even electable. Unfortunately Badnarik got the nomination, and he definitely comes off as totally batshit insane (I love how that particular descriptor never seems to apply to anything other than a Libertarian) and is totally unelectable. One of the candidates for the LP nomination this year is George Phillies, and so far as I can tell he seems pretty good too. I'll probably be meeting him next week, so hopefully that will help give me a better idea. But as of right now Phillies is who I want to vote for in November.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

I think you have it backwards there bub. I gave you links and backed it up. And I can
supply hundreds more. You're saying she isn't just cuz you said so and you haven't heard
anyone say that she is. Rather lame of you to project your own actions onto me.

Links are not an argument. You could use links to support possibly contentious facts used in your argument, but you can't just throw a bunch of links at somebody and go, "There, now you know how wrong you are." An argument should be something similar to "Hillary is a Marxist because she takes stances A, B and C, which are reflected in sections X, Y and Z in the Manifesto."

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's Russell's Teapot - there is not 'counter-argument', because there is no case to answer. No evidence or rationale has been given - there's nothing to argue against. Case dismissed.

I think you should reread my last message since it's changed. And I agree with
all the others here - Whom say you have no case yet propound only that which
you wish were true lacking any attempt of proof.

You can repeat yourself over and over, call people names, and be generally rude tho.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Links are not an argument. You could use links to support possibly contentious facts used in your argument, but you can't just throw a bunch of links at somebody and go, "There, now you know how wrong you are." An argument should be something similar to "Hillary is a Marxist because she takes stances A, B and C, which are reflected in sections X, Y and Z in the Manifesto."

Hmmm... ok. You're trying to make it into a real debate instead of just a discussion.

I guess I can see the fun in that. K, next time... since you already said we couldn't
talk about Hillary in a McCain thread... Or?

--
PS. My links weren't an effort to say how wrong he was so much as how actually
many others do indeed know Hillary for her Marxist ideals - which he proclaimed
was untrue.

[Chongo]

as i said before about the "Vast Left wing Media" and their love for McCain. They love him now, but just wait.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The media is pushing McCain 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 was off limits. The media will mercilessly savage Cindy McCain

They will bring up her drug addiction and that she was stealing drugs from the charity she was running to support her habit.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Who TF is 'Owlgore'?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by 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.

Done. Now what?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

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.

Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.

Mr. McCain has said that he prefers an orderly government to one that has the chaos of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

I think Mr. Jefferson might have disagreed, preferring the chaos of free speech.

"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government." -- McCain on Imus, 2006.

The thing about having a clean government -- how do you know when you have one without the free speech to talk about it? The only manner in which to keep the government clean is to enable its citizens to speak out against abuses. McCain's assault on free speech, campaign finance, and bloggers (yes, he had a bill that would fine blogs for the comments on them as unreported campaigning) shows how unqualified he is to be President.

[Chuckit]

I don't like him, but I don't think McCain was trying to say what you're reading into that quote. I think what he meant was, "This practice naturally leads to a corrupt government. People want to make this into a First Amendment issue, but I don't view it that way. In either case, if the government is corrupt, kiss your rights goodbye anyway."

I agree overall, though. I just felt compelled to talk about that quote.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The thing about having a clean government -- how do you know when you have one without the free speech to talk about it? The only manner in which to keep the government clean is to enable its citizens to speak out against abuses. McCain's assault on free speech, campaign finance, and bloggers (yes, he had a bill that would fine blogs for the comments on them as unreported campaigning) shows how unqualified he is to be President.

Hold the roof up; I agree with vmarks! Unfortunately, there are too many who think that free speech only includes their views, and who are not really secure in their beliefs; thus they seek to quell others.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

I think you should reread my last message since it's changed. And I agree with
all the others here - Whom say you have no case yet propound only that which
you wish were true lacking any attempt of proof.

You can repeat yourself over and over, call people names, and be generally rude tho.

Your grammar is so bad I literally cannot understand you. But what I think you are trying to say is that you are not going to make a case either, only jump on the bandwagon of saying that you don't need to, and that it is up to me to demonstrate that Hillary is not a Marxist. There's not much point in discussing this with you if you don't understand how logic works.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Links are not an argument. You could use links to support possibly contentious facts used in your argument, but you can't just throw a bunch of links at somebody and go, "There, now you know how wrong you are." An argument should be something similar to "Hillary is a Marxist because she takes stances A, B and C, which are reflected in sections X, Y and Z in the Manifesto."

QFTW. No case has been made - just links to mouth-breather websites that spout unfounded opinion. Come back when you have an argument to make.

[besson3c]

Breaking news story: gut feelings are not fact - news at 11.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Done. Now what?

He already admitted that he had been wrong, did you miss it? I think it was on the previous page.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't like him, but I don't think McCain was trying to say what you're reading into that quote. I think what he meant was, "This practice naturally leads to a corrupt government. People want to make this into a First Amendment issue, but I don't view it that way. In either case, if the government is corrupt, kiss your rights goodbye anyway."

I agree overall, though. I just felt compelled to talk about that quote.

I can't go on what you think he was trying to say - I can only rely on what he said.

He pretty clearly said that "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected..."

And the use of scare quotes around what is an accepted means of expressing political free speech just because he doesn't like that speech is enough to indicate to me that he cannot be my candidate.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Too often, McCain couches everything as a ridiculous either/or in attempt to silence his critics. Yeah sure., our only hoices are between his vision of a 'clean government' where he can silence whomever he wants, or a 1st Amendment with a corrupt government.

Yup, those are the only choices.

Debate over. Better do what McCain is shoving down our throats. No chance we can have a choice C: an intact 1st Amendment... AND a clean government! That's crazy talk.

He'll often demand no one call what he's proposing exactly what it is. So a free speech issue, is magically not a free speech issue. Scamnesty isn't scamnesty, it's another of McCain's "agree with me... OR... some dire consequence strawman" proposition.

Why McCain isn't a Democrat is beyond me. He sure acts like one.

[OreoCookie]

Bush has infringed on so many civil liberties, what gives you the idea that it is somehow a `liberal' idea?

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

he had a bill that would fine blogs for the comments on them as unreported campaigning

Couldn't find anything about this.

Are you sure it isn't wasn't the bill which would have fined blogs for not reporting child pornography?

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I can only rely on what he said.

And the use of scare quotes around what is an accepted means of expressing political free speech just because he doesn't like that speech is enough to indicate to me that he cannot be my candidate.

Who says your interpretation is somehow more valid that Chuckit's?

I usually put quotes around something to denote I do not mean what the word/phrase is generally accepted to mean.

Example: [unnamed user] is a "nice chap".

What I'm saying here is that [unnamed user] is in fact a huge dick.

That usage seems perfectly consistent with the interpretation that McCain does not consider this to be a First Amendment issue.

Even if you think it's a First Amendment issue, you are making a huge jump from that to McCain prefers ordered government to the chaos of free speech. The most you can get from the quote is that he prefers a clean (which does not mean ordered) government with the singular restriction on free speech in question, to a corrupt one that has that one restriction lifted.

For Pete's sake, the law was trying to close a loophole. It was too strident, but I'm trying to see where this translates into some grand plan to sack the First Amendment.

FWIW, I've always heard them called "finger-quotes".

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Interesting you should mention Benedict Arnold when talking about John (songbird) McCain!

YouTube - John McCain (AKA SongBird McCain) Trator!

McCain is a traitor and should be Jailed or shot as such IMO. (Yeah, shot!)

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He already admitted that he had been wrong, did you miss it? I think it was on the previous page.

I just get a kick out of his style. Good natured ribbing.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Bush has infringed on so many civil liberties, what gives you the idea that it is somehow a `liberal' idea?

Anyone who still belongs to a party that would have that man as president, and all the cronies he's appointed to wreck the federal government with crowbars, has totally lost my trust. McCain may deserve the nomination, but the Republican party really deserves about 8 years of wandering the wilderness to reflect on what it has done by putting Bush in power.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Interesting you should mention Benedict Arnold when talking about John (songbird) McCain!

YouTube - John McCain (AKA SongBird McCain) Trator!

McCain is a traitor and should be Jailed or shot as such IMO. (Yeah, shot!)

I head this live yesterday.

[besson3c]

Heheh... You guys are a riot!

Using a piece of audio that Tesselator himself submitted to YouTube (with "traitor" misspelled, none the less!) as evidence to support your argument, and voices that sound nothing like McCain. I didn't even bother listening to more than a few seconds, but does McCain get into how Hillary is marxist in this clip by any chance?

If there were points assigned to extremity of view point, many people here would be kicking ass and taking names!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Anyone who still belongs to a party that would have that man as president, and all the cronies he's appointed to wreck the federal government with crowbars, has totally lost my trust. McCain may deserve the nomination, but the Republican party really deserves about 8 years of wandering the wilderness to reflect on what it has done by putting Bush in power.

The Democrats helped just as much.

[besson3c]

Well, it seems pretty clear that as of now, the Republican party is pretty fractured, and in no shape to win a general election...

You have the moderate Republicans who support McCain, you have the not-so-moderate Republicans who think McCain isn't conservative enough, you have your old school Republicans that aren't happy with McCain or Bush, you have your evangelical lobby which no longer has a clear Republican candidate to latch on to (not that I ever thought that latching on to Bush made any sense whatsoever), what else?

On the Democratic side, the differences between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are pretty subtle. They seem far more unified now than they were in the past, and far more voters voted on a Democrat in open primaries than a Republican.

Basically, if you were to search the archives here and find all of the threads about how the Democrats are fractured and it is not clear what they stand for, you can now say the same thing about the Republican party as a whole. The Republican machine needs a makeover!

[peeb]

I think you're right Besson - the trouble is that I think the Democrats are united around the idea of pulling the bus out of the ditch and firing the driver, not around where they would drive the bus once they got it out.

[besson3c]

I don't agree peeb... I really don't understand why some people say that they "just don't know where Hillary and/or Obama stand". I don't know how they could make things more clear:

- Iraq war: want to get troops out as soon as possible and focus efforts elsewhere

- Economy: support the stimulus, want to address predatory lenders, don't want tax benefits for companies that outsource. Want to roll back Bush's tax cuts

- Health care: each have their own plans to make health care publicly available and universal

- Environment: various carbon caps and strategies


Really? What questions are unanswered, and of these questions, which could you find answers to via a simple Google search?

If the charge is that the candidates haven't been a good job at *articulating* their vision and making it clear, I also don't have any problem understanding either Obama or Hillary. I wonder if this accusation is just some tired recycled John Kerry argument?

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I head this live yesterday.

Yeah but not with that kewl room verb and lower pitch.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Anyone who still belongs to a party that would have that man as president, and all the cronies he's appointed to wreck the federal government with crowbars, has totally lost my trust. McCain may deserve the nomination, but the Republican party really deserves about 8 years of wandering the wilderness to reflect on what it has done by putting Bush in power.

I agree with you completely.. The only problem is that D and R have secretly merged
and there's only a few politicians not in on the merger. So they both need to wander
in the wilderness for 8... no, more like 80 years.

It doesn't leave us with anything to believe in or vote for but that's how it is when
living in a fascist state that has the majority of the people fooled into believing
there is still a working remnant of what used to be its government.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't agree peeb... I really don't understand why some people say that they "just don't know where Hillary and/or Obama stand". I don't know how they could make things more clear:

- Iraq war: want to get troops out as soon as possible and focus efforts elsewhere

- Economy: support the stimulus, want to address predatory lenders, don't want tax benefits for companies that outsource. Want to roll back Bush's tax cuts

- Health care: each have their own plans to make health care publicly available and universal

- Environment: various carbon caps and strategies


Really? What questions are unanswered, and of these questions, which could you find answers to via a simple Google search?

If the charge is that the candidates haven't been a good job at *articulating* their vision and making it clear, I also don't have any problem understanding either Obama or Hillary. I wonder if this accusation is just some tired recycled John Kerry argument?

I hear you - there are some tweaks, but there's really nothing of any scale. I mean, no one is setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq - when you get right down to it it's "a little bit less of the stuff you hate". On every level, I feel like the democrats pitch is "business as usual, but the middle class will get screwed a little bit less".

[Tesselator]

I think it's funny. There's a very large and growing group of people in the USA that believe the
stances of the politicians in question are really more like:

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know how they could make things more clear:

- Iraq war: want to get troops out as soon as possible and focus efforts elsewhere

• Stay as long as possible, create or wait for another "event" to use as an excuse for invading Iran.
  (I guess they will pop off a few mini-nukes in American cities and say Iran did it.)
• Don't address the war crimes already perpetrated.
• Don't address the issue of DU proliferation nor it's affects in theater or after brought home.
• Don't address the issue of safety of proper equipment for the troops.
• Increase the use of torture and take full advantage of the missing habeas corpus.
• Invoke the draft.

- Economy: support the stimulus, want to address predatory lenders, don't want tax benefits for companies that outsource. Want to roll back Bush's tax cuts

• Redistribute the wealth upwards and cut the middle class completely out of the USA economical landscape.
• Blow out the dollar completely and introduce the Amero.
• Use the "event" (above) to institute National ID or RFID implants and force a cashless society. Full dictatorial communism.

- Health care: each have their own plans to make health care publicly available and universal

• Hillary-care. She IS our next president - there's no question about that now. So Marxist health care.
  That's it. I dunno if it's supposed to be in her 1st term or 2nd that the cashless chipped society will be established.

- Environment: various carbon caps and strategies

• Invoke a world wide tax and call it a "carbon tax" even though carbon is actually a good thing.
• Use environmental issues to scare people needlessly.
• Jail hundreds of thousands or even millions for not paying it.

And you forgot the most important issue of all. Personal Liberty... Which they say goes like:

• Cordon off freeways and highways.
• Restrict movement.
• Confiscate all guns.
• Broaden dictatorial powers and further corrupt our courts.
• Establish a black-water like FEMA type police state.
• Round up dissidents + opposition and place them in the already existing FEMA camps.
• etc.

Anyway, I wonder which reality is more correct? Theirs or yours?