Game Fishing Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
History does have a way of repeating itself.

In my opinion the possible match up in 2008 of (D) Hillary Rodham Clinton vs. (R) John McCain is eerily similar to the the presidential race of (D) Jimmy Carter vs. (R) Gerald Ford in 1976. light:

Interestingly enough from a political standpoint John McCain is essentially the the Gerald Ford candidate for the republicans for 2008. wink:

In the upcoming election whoever the democrats nominate (Clinton, Obama or Edwards), they are all as faaaaaaar-left leaning and liberal (or more so) as Jimmy Carter was '76 and are committed to his ultra-weenie limp-wristed 'appeasement at ANY price' protection of America and his anti-business/pro-socialism policies that did so much damage to our country when Carter was president and will have the same disastrous results (or possibly MUCH worse) for our security and economy if Jimmy Carter the ll ( Hillary, Barack or Little Johny) are put in office in this consequential era. The republicans foolishly didn't nominate the candidate in '76 who was more of a REAL conservsative (Ronald W. Reagan) and who actually would have been best for the country....no instead they went with Gerald Ford because he was VERY moderate, seemingly safe and basically the party thought it was his turn.

The results of the party putting such a terrible candidate on the top of the ticket (who was basically a R.I.N.O.-Republican In Name Only) was that the REAL conservatives didn't turn out and Jimmy Carter (one the WORST Presidents in American history) was elected. Tdown:

Conservtives honor and respect his military service and McCain has been good on the war in Iraq but I wouldn't go as far as saying he's been good overall on the War on Terror.

McCain voted against the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.Tdown:

Despite what McCain is saying NOW (in a desperate attempt to get elected) just like the Democrats he doesn't really believe tax cuts across the board are and effective way to stimulate the economy and bring even more money into the Treasury (as they've clearly demonstrated they do)---and he can't be trusted to make them permanent--In fact I can see him doing the same thing Slick Willy Clinton did and after campaigning on a platform to lower taxes he'll get in office and say 'I really wanted to lower taxes like I said I would when I ran, but now that I'm in office now I actually think we need to rai$e taxes'. Bank on that because McCain has been sucking off the government teat for so long he's addicted to the sweet taste of tax payer dollar$. wink:

He also sponsored the bill that was one of the biggest infringements on free speech in our Nation's history. Tdown:

He stood with the Democrats and was part of the 'Gang of 14' who threatened to block conservative Judges being appointed to the courts who would strictly interpret the Constitution.

He also buys into the Al Gore's junk science of 'Man Made' Global Warming and wants to punish American business' and cripple our economy just to feel good even though it won't have an appreciable effect the Earth's temperature at all. Tdown:

And we all know he's a big open boarders guy who wants grant Amnesty and to give Social Security benefits to millions of illegal aliens rewarding those who knowingly broke our laws, forged documents and fraudulently falsified Social Security numbers. Tdown:

John McCain was endorsed by the New York Times for God's sake :eek: ....do I need to say any more?

It's no wonder the 'mainstream media' [LIBERALLY BIASED] has such wood for John McCain and has tried to convince R's that he's going to be the next nominee and we had better get on board. They know that even if Hillary looses they would have the next best thing in the Hillary-lite John McLame and that other than Iraq he would basically govern as a liberal. But the fact is he probably wouldn't win (and the Democrat strategists know this that why there's such a push for him) because he's the one candidate that REAL conservatives wouldn't turn out for just like they didn't turn out for Gerald Ford of '76.

So unless you actually want Jimmy Carter back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. calling the shots nuke:---Don't nominate Gerald Ford Jr. (John McCain) in '08!!! light:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,270 Posts
Hey Rory... err I mean Birch... if you actually composed that post yourself (a possibility to which I am quite dubious wink: ) Then good job! Tup:

You sounded a bit like a bush league Ann Coulter or Jonah Goldberg. :D

There may be a future for you in some extremist right-wing Kool-Aid factory somewhere. clown:

My money says that you just stuck in the emoticons though... :p

If you DO actually hate McCain that much... now that Thompson is out... who do you like? Romney? Giuliani? conf:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,957 Posts
Webo said:
If you DO actually hate McCain that much...
For crying out loud Webo... Only you could see hate in Birch's post...
And just about any post that doesn't praise the socialist fringe that dictates liberal philosophy these days. You know... the philosophy of hate that you embrace.

It seems you guys hate just about everything... Bush, big business, modern farming, common food, the environment and climate... In fact you even hate yourselves... blaming the worlds perceived problems on the population that you are a part of. :(

It makes me wonder if your mothers loved you when you were little... And if so... Did you acknowledge that love?

Get over it Webo! You use the word more often than any emotionally stable person should.
Hate is an emotion much stronger than most non-liberals are prone towards.

McCain might be a nice guy, admirable for his attitude in military matters, but politically liberal in too many things to make an acceptable President... for all but those who hate our political system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
The four letter word HATE is a huge part of Webo's vocabulary. He likes it. It is never censored no matter how inappropriately applied. I believe it is his swizzle-stick word. When he needs an oar he grabs 'hate.'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Webo said:
Hey Rory... err I mean Birch... if you actually composed that post yourself (a possibility to which I am quite dubious wink: ) Then good job! Tup:
:
Webo,

As dubious as it may be seem every word of that post was my own so thanks for back handed compliment. :D

Sir John posed a question this morning about our nomination process and how VP's can assume power without actually being elected as CiC and as I started a reply about LBJ and Ford the comparison came to me and I began venting some of my thoughts about John McLame and how detrimental he would be for the advancement of conservatism. It got kinda long so rather than hi-jacking his thread with my rant I started a new one. It took me almost a half hour to compose....but about 20 minutes of that was correcting my spelling. :D

Anyway, it's funny you mentioned Jonah Goldberg because I was planning on buying his new book this weekend. Tup:

It sounds like a real page turner: http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... 0385511841 clap:

Durka Durka :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
What's really funny is that normally the term 'liberal fascism' would be an oxymoron. However, in this country it is right on the money. No one is as rude as a liberal and no one will shout you down and trample on your free speech rights quicker than a liberal. Just attend some of the townhall discussions or audit a university visiting lecturer session if you want to see the fools in action. Nothing stimulates them like a less than far left middle of the road thinker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,957 Posts
Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

The Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism�). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Anyone in their right mind should be shocked by these parallels.atter back UV hootchie,
with an thick black gummy anise based scent that I wish I knew the name of,
but the label wore off long ago,
and I am desperately trying to find more,
because I only have a little bit left,
and it is my goto scent,
so help me if you know what store carries it,
because it is not at the big sporting good stores in Seattle, Fife, Federal Way, Auburn, or Lacey. -->;)
Guess WWF just did there first HD PPV tonight.

Are you going Bluray or HD? I am HD but might buy a Playstation 3 for the BlueRAY.stores are running 2 60 inch DLPs side by side. One with Comcast and one with Direct. They were doing this so the customers could see what provider they like. Circuit city sells both Comcast and Directv. They wont push you either way.

All you have to do is look at the blocking between channels and lack of immediate picture lock with Comcast to know somethings not right. Its called tilling and Cable is loaded with it!
Then look at the clarity on facial features. Thats the easiest to dissern better HD. dont look at colors
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
January 31, 2008, 1:15 p.m.

Rally for Romney
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.

By Mark R. Levin

I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement â€" from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.

I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.

Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.

I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit� and someone who has “laid-off� people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions� or “fortune� to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?

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.

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule â€" McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).

McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon â€" the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

â€" Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
I can only hope conservatives are paying attention to information like the above. Romney is the only candidate left that I think can be respected.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top