| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luxury Yacht
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
 |
|
| Quote: | "Odo" <odolaas69@netster.com> wrote in message
news:a93618a7-59e8-4ee9-b48d-77262bf032a3@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 10:41 pm, "Luxury Yacht" <Throatwarb...@mangrove.com
wrote:
9-11 was not hypothetical. Unless you have evidence that proves your
belief
that Hussein did not have WMD's was based on fact and not wishful
thinking
your whole arguument is hypothetical. And until you provide information
that you have an intelligence source that is more compelling than 7
international intelligence sources and Husseins own generals your whole
belief will unverifiable.
Prove to me Saddam was involved in 9-11 when we've been led to believe
it was Osama bin Laden.
Strawman argument. My point was that 9-11 was real and so the belief that |
Hussein had WMD's took on additional urgency. And, of course, you missed
that.
| Quote: |
Speaking of ObL, I thought W was going to capture him. So why is he
still loose? All that money wasted on Iraq and we could have spent it
looking for bin Laden.
Strawman arguement to deflect point
The economy is in the crapper, bin Laden is still at large so what's
the solution? Oh yeah: Bomb Iraq. Start a civil war over there and
people will forget about the economy or bin Laden.
Throwing more crap in the water to change the subject. Yet another strawman |
argument
| Quote: |
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why McCain lost: because of GWB and
the Rethuglican Party.
That's not what the point of the discussion was. Maybe next time you ought |
to take a few bucks and buy a clue. Tell me, how is that working out
proving
that John McCain had anything to do with the attack on the mosque in Ohio
like the Daily Kos printed and you regurgitated like a good little
brainwashed sock
puppet?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
H.B. Elkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), Odo wrote:
| Quote: | And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why McCain lost: because of GWB and
the Rethuglican Party.
|
No, Mc Cain lost because of these reasons:
1.) The cult of personality that was the Democrat nominee.
2.) McCain himself. Most of his votes probably came from people who were either
voting against Obama, or people who were voting for Sarah Palin. McCain himself
engendered no great love or support. It's hard for Republicans to support a
RINO. He was not a candidate that the base could get excited about.
3.) The timing of the economic situation (I refuse to call it a crisis because
it wasn't, and isn't). McCain was ahead when that happened, and when something
like that happens the sentiment is to go against the party in power.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2008 12:18:34 -0800, H.B. Elkins
<hbelkins@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote in misc.transport.road:
| Quote: | On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), Odo wrote:
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why McCain lost: because of GWB and
the Rethuglican Party.
No, Mc Cain lost because of these reasons:
1.) The cult of personality that was the Democrat nominee.
2.) McCain himself. Most of his votes probably came from people who were either
voting against Obama, or people who were voting for Sarah Palin. McCain himself
engendered no great love or support. It's hard for Republicans to support a
RINO. He was not a candidate that the base could get excited about.
3.) The timing of the economic situation (I refuse to call it a crisis because
it wasn't, and isn't). McCain was ahead when that happened, and when something
like that happens the sentiment is to go against the party in power.
|
It is apparent that mere facts will not affect your opinion. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Mayson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, H.B. Elkins wrote:
| Quote: | 2.) McCain himself. Most of his votes probably came from people who were either
voting against Obama, or people who were voting for Sarah Palin. McCain himself
engendered no great love or support. It's hard for Republicans to support a
RINO. He was not a candidate that the base could get excited about.
|
I caught a blurb on I think Foxnews where they said it wasn't so much
people overwhelmingly came out in favor of Obama but rather the
Republicans didn't show up on Election Day to vote. They based this on
comparing 2004 numbers with 2008.
I always had the impression McCain was just a stand-in until the GOP could
find their next great leader. It sounds like many folks weren't all that
enthused by him.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Premier Bush
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
H.B. Elkins wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), Odo wrote:
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why McCain lost: because of GWB
and the Rethuglican Party.
No, Mc Cain lost because of these reasons:
1.) The cult of personality that was the Democrat nominee.
|
There is no "cult of personality". Just another lie by the Republics.
| Quote: | 2.) McCain himself. Most of his votes probably came from people who
were either voting against Obama, or people who were voting for Sarah
Palin. McCain himself engendered no great love or support. It's hard
for Republicans to support a RINO. He was not a candidate that the
base could get excited about.
|
McCain was the Republic Party nominee and he won the Republic Party
nomination within the rules set by the Republic Party. So "Odo" is right
when he blames the Republic Party. And if you don't think that Bush was an
albatross around McCain's neck, then you're delusional.
| Quote: | 3.) The timing of the economic situation (I refuse to call it a
crisis because it wasn't, and isn't). McCain was ahead when that
happened, and when something like that happens the sentiment is to go
against the party in power.
|
Well it's not a crisis to you, but it is a crisis for the lower and middle
classes. You gotta think about the little guy sometimes. THAT is the main
reason your guy lost. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Premier Bush
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:33 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
Luxury Yacht wrote:
| Quote: | "Odo" <odolaas69@netster.com> wrote in message
news:a93618a7-59e8-4ee9-b48d-77262bf032a3@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 10:41 pm, "Luxury Yacht" <Throatwarb...@mangrove.com
wrote:
9-11 was not hypothetical. Unless you have evidence that proves your
belief
that Hussein did not have WMD's was based on fact and not wishful
thinking
your whole arguument is hypothetical. And until you provide
information that you have an intelligence source that is more
compelling than 7 international intelligence sources and Husseins
own generals your whole belief will unverifiable.
Prove to me Saddam was involved in 9-11 when we've been led to
believe it was Osama bin Laden.
Strawman argument. My point was that 9-11 was real and so the belief
that Hussein had WMD's took on additional urgency. And, of course,
you missed that.
|
Your argument is the strawman. Do you even know what a strawman argument
is? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.B. Elkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:15 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:27:00 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
| Quote: | It is apparent that mere facts will not affect your opinion.
|
Facts? What facts?
I believe the election had more to do with BHO and JSMcC than with GWB.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Premier Bush
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:15 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
John Mayson wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, H.B. Elkins wrote:
2.) McCain himself. Most of his votes probably came from people who
were either voting against Obama, or people who were voting for
Sarah Palin. McCain himself engendered no great love or support.
It's hard for Republicans to support a RINO. He was not a candidate
that the base could get excited about.
I caught a blurb on I think Foxnews where they said it wasn't so much
people overwhelmingly came out in favor of Obama but rather the
Republicans didn't show up on Election Day to vote. They based this
on comparing 2004 numbers with 2008.
I always had the impression McCain was just a stand-in until the GOP
could find their next great leader. It sounds like many folks
weren't all that enthused by him.
|
They should have nominated Mitt Romney. He would have done much better
among independents. Unfortunately, the Republic Party is chock full of
religious bigots who would never vote for Mittler because "Mormons aren't
christian." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.B. Elkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:15:59 -0600, Premier Bush wrote:
| Quote: | They should have nominated Mitt Romney. He would have done much better
among independents. Unfortunately, the Republic Party is chock full of
religious bigots who would never vote for Mittler because "Mormons aren't
christian."
|
Honestly, we really didn't have a decent candidate in the field. Mitt wasn't
socially conservative enough. Huckabee wasn't fiscally conservative enough.
Thompson wasn't interested enough. Giuliani wasn't socially conservative enough
and his "Florida or bust" strategy was awful.
I'm really hoping we get a popular, charismatic, engaging candidate in 2012. I
don't see anyone among the senators. We need to look to the governors where we
can find some good possibilities in Palin, Jindal, Crist, maybe Pawlenty. I
understand Gingrich may also take a serious look at it in a couple of years.
Whomever we nominate must excite the base, something McCain did not do.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Premier Bush
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
H.B. Elkins wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:15:59 -0600, Premier Bush wrote:
They should have nominated Mitt Romney. He would have done much
better among independents. Unfortunately, the Republic Party is
chock full of religious bigots who would never vote for Mittler
because "Mormons aren't christian."
Honestly, we really didn't have a decent candidate in the field. Mitt
wasn't socially conservative enough. Huckabee wasn't fiscally
conservative enough. Thompson wasn't interested enough. Giuliani
wasn't socially conservative enough and his "Florida or bust"
strategy was awful.
I'm really hoping we get a popular, charismatic, engaging candidate
in 2012. I don't see anyone among the senators. We need to look to
the governors where we can find some good possibilities in Palin,
Jindal, Crist, maybe Pawlenty. I understand Gingrich may also take a
serious look at it in a couple of years.
|
Palin isn't smart enough to be President. Gingrich's expiration date is
long past. Racists in the GOP won't vote for Jindal. Crist's name is too
close to being "blasphemous." Don't know much about Pawlenty, which isn't
good. The Republic Party needs a rock star right now, and they simply don't
have one.
| Quote: | Whomever we nominate must excite the base, something McCain did not
do.
|
This pandering to the GOP base is overrated and I think the Republic Party
insiders finally realized this. They nominate Palin for the VP spot, which
energized the base (it's funny that the Repubs are always talking about
their "base" when "al Qaeda" is Arabic for "the base") but turned off
independents and moderates. The GOP base is shrinking every year due to age
attrition (I wonder what the average age of the GOP base is? 70+?) and when
they finally die off, the GOP will look very different. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Otto Yamamoto
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
H.B. Elkins wrote:
| Quote: | I understand Gingrich may also take a serious look at it in a couple of
years.
|
I wouldn't hold my breath, Gingrich has been making those sort of noises for
years now.
--
Otto Yamamoto |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Otto Yamamoto
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
H.B. Elkins wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:27:00 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
It is apparent that mere facts will not affect your opinion.
Facts? What facts?
I believe the election had more to do with BHO and JSMcC than with GWB.
You can believe that if you like. Seems like the republicans will blame |
anyone/anything but WMD. Funny, he seems to have been the president for the
last 7+ years or so, and had absolutely no influence on the 'election' at
all?
--
Otto Yamamoto |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Mayson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, H.B. Elkins wrote:
| Quote: | Honestly, we really didn't have a decent candidate in the field. Mitt wasn't
socially conservative enough. Huckabee wasn't fiscally conservative enough.
Thompson wasn't interested enough. Giuliani wasn't socially conservative enough
and his "Florida or bust" strategy was awful.
|
And we had Ron Paul, but few wanted to hear his message even if it was the
most sane message out there. Sigh...
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2008 16:23:14 -0800, H.B. Elkins
<hbelkins@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote in misc.transport.road:
| Quote: | On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:15:59 -0600, Premier Bush wrote:
They should have nominated Mitt Romney. He would have done much better
among independents. Unfortunately, the Republic Party is chock full of
religious bigots who would never vote for Mittler because "Mormons aren't
christian."
Honestly, we really didn't have a decent candidate in the field. Mitt wasn't
socially conservative enough. Huckabee wasn't fiscally conservative enough.
|
Huckabee was a fiscal moderate. Republicans talk a good game about
spending, but they are lying through their teeth. Look at the trillions
in debt that Reagan and the Bushes ran up. If they had actually put
their actions where their mouths were, we might have something to talk
about. So far, all we know is that the Republicans want our
grandchildren to pay the taxes for the good times today.
| Quote: | Thompson wasn't interested enough. Giuliani wasn't socially conservative enough
and his "Florida or bust" strategy was awful.
|
If the Republicans never want to win again, all they have to do is
nominate folks who meet the litmus test of folks John McCain once
famously called "agents of intolerance".
| Quote: | I'm really hoping we get a popular, charismatic, engaging candidate in 2012. I
don't see anyone among the senators. We need to look to the governors where we
can find some good possibilities in Palin, Jindal, Crist, maybe Pawlenty. I
understand Gingrich may also take a serious look at it in a couple of years.
Whomever we nominate must excite the base, something McCain did not do.
|
Pawlenty seems at times to be mindlessly opposed to collecting enough
taxes to pay for the government he wants to run, but he isn't quite as
religiously self-righteous and hypocritical as James Dobson demands.
Jindal would be a strong choice if the Republican Party hadn't decided
to welcome bigotry to the party with the Southern Strategy. Palin had
done a very poor job in this campaign and has serious ethical issues
that may cost her re-election. Crist has the problem that the anti-gay
bigots won't vote for him. You need to have a candidate who will get
past the self-righteous posturing of the party. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: About John McCain |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:27:51 -0600, "Premier Bush" <bugo73@gmail.com>
wrote in misc.transport.road:
| Quote: | H.B. Elkins wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), Odo wrote:
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why McCain lost: because of GWB
and the Rethuglican Party.
No, Mc Cain lost because of these reasons:
1.) The cult of personality that was the Democrat nominee.
There is no "cult of personality". Just another lie by the Republics.
2.) McCain himself. Most of his votes probably came from people who
were either voting against Obama, or people who were voting for Sarah
Palin. McCain himself engendered no great love or support. It's hard
for Republicans to support a RINO. He was not a candidate that the
base could get excited about.
McCain was the Republic Party nominee and he won the Republic Party
nomination within the rules set by the Republic Party. So "Odo" is right
when he blames the Republic Party. And if you don't think that Bush was an
albatross around McCain's neck, then you're delusional.
3.) The timing of the economic situation (I refuse to call it a
crisis because it wasn't, and isn't). McCain was ahead when that
happened, and when something like that happens the sentiment is to go
against the party in power.
Well it's not a crisis to you, but it is a crisis for the lower and middle
classes. You gotta think about the little guy sometimes. THAT is the main
reason your guy lost.
|
There seem to be a fairly large group of Republicans who have absolutely
no empathy, including our current president, the man who ran as a
compassionate conservative and proved that he had no idea what
compassion was. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
