McCain '08

[Miss Shark]

OK let's here what you think he'll do for us Mr. C. Why do you support him?

Behind closed doors this week, George W. Bush quietly hosted a fundraiser for John McCain that raised $3.5 million from about 500 Republican donors.

No cameras were allowed into the event, and the two were only captured on film together at the airport -- even then for just 27 seconds as they got into a car to be whisked to the exclusive event.

A pattern is emerging. McCain is going to extraordinary lengths to conceal the fact that at the very foundation of his campaign -- its policy positions and now the money driving it -- is George W. Bush.

[stricken]

High five Shark!

[ragmop]

Go John Sidney!!!

"Meet the new boss . . . McSame as the old boss . . . ."

[Miss Shark]

I'm voting against Barack Hussein for a myriad of reasons.

Pretty simple, actually.

Go John Sidney!!!

That's all you've got Mr. C? Tell me how you think McCain in office will make your life better.

[lietuvaite]

as an educator, i can tell you i DON'T want four more years of No Child Left Behind, salaries tied to standardized test achievements, or extreme budget cuts

McSame is right on

[ragmop]

thoust doth protest too much, Mr. C.

All ya gotta do is look to see how Grandpa McSame votes (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15688.html) and votes (http://www.progressivemediausa.org/2008/05/27/john-mcsame/) with good ol' Georgie-Poo.

According to Congressional Quarterly, your esteemed Grandpa "Maverick" on average voted with your esteemed President nearly 91% of the time over the last 8 years. In 2007 and 2008 respectively, the good grandpa voted with the Prez 95% and 100%, respectively. The proof, so they say, is in the puddin'.

My favorite quote from the sources cited above:

“[A] better judge of a politician’s views is not how he talks, but how he votes. John McCain - when it counted and when he showed up in the Senate to do his job in 2008 — never deviated from George Bush’s position. Not once.”

[sauce.baby]

You're such a "Glass Half Full" guy, Mr. C. It's cute.

11 & 23%!! WOOHOO!!! What about the rest of the 77-89% of the time? If a doctor told you your wife had an 11% chance of living after an accident, you'd probably tell them to kiss your ass.

[ragmop]

Joe . . . please . . . 2001? Really? You have to go back 7 years to find your "evidence" that McSame is a "maverick".

Pay no attention to the Grandpa standing before you with GWB's dick in his mouth!

In 2001, Joe "the Independent" Lieberman was 1 year post being the Dem VP candidate. Yes, it is true. We once embraced good ol' Joe in our party. Now, we want to kick him out (the bastard even put out an email Thursday encouraging Connecticut voters to support McSame.) But wait! According to your logic, Joe Lieberman was a good Dem in 2001, so he is a good Dem today! (You DO see the big-ass gaping hole in your logic, right?)

My point: Much has changed in 7 years, Mr. C. This country, this war, and your freaking Grandpa McSame.

And P.S., how do you reconcile McSame's now embrace of the party leaders who conducted the nasty McCain-Fathered-A-Black-Baby-Out-Of-Wedlock push-polling in South Carolina in 2000?

[ragmop]

I posted a link from 2008, a voting record from 2005 and 06, and a link from 2001.

My point has been made.

i'll take that as the white flag of surrender . . . .

[ragmop]

Three words, Mr. C for your "Moderate" Republican:

NINETY. ONE. PERCENT.

Calling a statistic a "talking point" doesn't make it a talking point. Nice try though. There might be one or two sheeple out there who actually buy into that Orwellian double speak.

Finally, because I have to call you on it: what is actually "silly, ignorant, or . . . . intellectually dishonest" and bordering on moronic is taking McCain's voting record over the last 7.5 years, dissecting only 2 of those years, and citing them as evidence of his bipartisanship. Any fecking comment on the other 5.5 years of his conduct during a Republican 7.5 year administration? Yeah, I thought not.

Had I been as "silly, ignorant, or . . . . intellectually dishonest" as you, I would have exempted those 2 years, and cited MCCain's percentage at 93.17%. But I didn't. Because the relevant premise of the statistic is to track McCain's willingness to toe the party line during GWB's entire term. Which Mccain did--91% of the entire GWB term.

But I guess "McSame" is a bit unfair. "Mr. 91%" is statistically more accurate. My apologies.

[Miss Shark]

I haven't commented yet because you didn't answer the orginal question posed Mr. C. However, this is getting a tad redunkafied.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0507mccainvotes0507.html

Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues.

But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party's objectives.

The voting pattern seems at odds with the popular narrative that McCain's maverick tendencies make him an unreliable conservative.

"He is a conservative who votes conservative on most issues," said Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. <<<<sounds kind of like an intellectual to me?!?!? "By no means is he a liberal or even a moderate."

Poole, who compiles a widely respected analysis of all Senate votes, ranks McCain as slightly less conservative than most Republicans throughout his career and near the far edge of the right while running for president.

John Fortier, a research fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute <<<<probably not too smart in Washington, said McCain has earned the maverick label often hung on him, but it is primarily built on issues that received considerable attention, like campaign-finance reform or immigration.

"On most issues, he is broadly conservative," Fortier said. "He has a real streak of voting independently and sometimes makes a really big deal of it."

Others <<<equally as silly and ignoranttake issue with McCain's image as conservative gadfly.

A Washington Post analysis notes McCain voted with the GOP this term 88.3 percent of the time, the same as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whose conservative credentials are seldom questioned. McCain ranked ahead of 29 other Republicans, including Arizona's Jon Kyl, who holds the No. 2 spot in party leadership.

Congressional Quarterly gave McCain a 90 percent score for "party unity" voting last year and said he supported the president's position on legislation 95 percent of the time. During the Bush years, McCain's poorest totals from CQ were 67 percent party-unity voting in 2001 and 77 percent support for the Bush agenda in 2005.

Although McCain is largely in sync with the GOP, many conservatives cannot forget his defections on issues like the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts sought by Bush.

[Miss Shark]

John McCain is notorious for fighting his own party, others in his party, and is considered a 'maverick', 'Liberal Republican,' 'obstructionist,' and 'Moderate Republican' by many in the GOP. He is well known as a Repub. Senator that has crossed party lines for decades, much to the chagrin of his own party, and worked with liberal Democrats on legislation.

The paper I pulled that article from is an AZ paper that has endorsed McCain. I'm not sure what you were addressing with your comment?

[ragmop]

Here's a response to the second link you posted, the 'Progressive Media' link, and it addresses your 'talking point'...

Obama Votes Party Line 3x More Than McCain (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-votes-the-party-line-more-than-mccain)

Ahem . . . valid point if Obama was running on a "I'm a Maverick" platform. But he's not. The minute he does though, I'll be sure to call him a hypocrite. I am a bit baffled by the citation, as the issue is not: "Which candidate is more independent?"

Captain Obvious, but it bears repeating for distinction: Obama's mantra is "Change" (not "party independence")--from the politics that have dominated the past 25 years, and more particularly the last 8 years. McCain's matra is "Maverick" because he MUST distance himself from GWB and Repub policies over the past 8 years to have any chance of success.

[Miss Shark]

I agree with all of this.

:eek:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s127/RebeccaLB/buds.gif

I was referring to your comment above mine, and you LOVE it, exhausting my eye.

[ragmop]

timely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQgJl9d5KCQ

[Miss Shark]

Think this will be an issue? Abramoff is off to prison for 4 years. McCain was just bragging about his work (I know I'm a little behind TiVoing n all).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/25/mccain-withheld-controver_n_88304.html

http://www.dengre.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/8/222648/0915/57/433195

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s127/RebeccaLB/418xcjcuiil_sl500_aa240_.jpg

Gary Chafetz is a liberal Boston journalist who set out to chronicle the scandal involving conservative gun-for-hire and super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Instead he uncovered a Shakespearean tragedy of deceit, betrayal and political vendetta in which the true villains are Presidential aspirant John McCain, the Washington Post newspaper and the U.S. Department of Justice--all of whom participated in the railroading of an innocent man. Chafetz benefited from exclusive and unconditional access to the jailed Abramoff and to many never-before-released documents. The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue. The true story, as Chafetz recounts in The Perfect Villain, is even more riveting and compelling.

[Miss Shark]

OK let's here what you think he'll do for us Mr. C. Why do you support him?


Mr. Cleanface

I'm voting against Barack Hussein for a myriad of reasons.

Pretty simple, actually.

Go John Sidney!!!
Reply With Quote

This is why I will not tango with you anymore Mr. C. You've never given any personal reason for your rants, where you stand on the issues. That is not a discussion nor a debate. You are being provocative for the sake of being provocative alone. I know, shock of all shocks, I agree with rags fluffy (I feel a new nickname coming on).

[Miss Shark]

Uhhhh, no. In fact, I'll bet you $1000 it won't be.

Maybe on the DailyKos and Huffington Post it will be, but nowhere else.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/dnc-mccain-watch-scheunemann-abramoff-reed/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-13-McCain-campaign-money_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-13-McCain-campaign-money_N.htm"[/URL]

[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/politics/14mccain.html?ref=politicsy)

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-ignoring-calls-to-cancel-controversial-fundraiser-2008-08-12.html

There is plenty of stories out there. I don't think we've heard the last of them.

[Miss Shark]

Come on Mr. C don't run off and pout in the corner for a week or more again.....

[ragmop]

From his Socialist income redistribution plan on taxes to Infanticide, none. Which one would you like to discuss first?

socialist. please, educate me . . . as in, "how is his plan 'socialist'?"

[ragmop]

It just is. Forced Income/wealth redistribution = Socialist. Pretty simple. Marxism and Communism as well.


Taxation of the population for development and preservation of the public commons is anything but socialist. Ironic that when the middle class bears the brunt of the taxation load, NONE of the upper crust wealthy population run to the defense of that middle class crying "socialism" or bemoaning how unfairly the tax code redistributes what little wealth the middle class has. It is only when the upper class is asked to contribute a greater portion than others that taxation for the development and preservation of the public commons is seen as "socialist".

And as much as the present economic nightmare scares me, I thank God it occurred, for it betrays the utter fallacy of the righties deregulated free market free-for-all economic thoery. Under the righties economic leadership, we now have essentially NATIONALIZED Freddie and Fannie, Bears & Sterns and AIG.

Yep. Nationalized. For those of you playing at home, nationalization of key industries is indeed a component of socialism.

I guess that leaves you without a party or candidate to support, Mr. Cleanface.

[Miss Shark]

Sorry, I lost track of this thread and have been at a conference at Corporate the past ten days. I got a promotion! Senior Refractory Application Engineer :D



Well congrats!!

[Miss Shark]

Mr. Ed: It just is. Forced Income/wealth redistribution = Socialist. Pretty simple. Marxism and Communism as well. Along with the Nationalization of key industries...

Out of the horses mouth....

[Miss Shark]

You're very welcome! Can I call you Gramps now?

Here's an interesting break down of taxes paid by the current and future powers that be or maybe:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/149197.asp

[Miss Shark]

Fact check...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html

[Miss Shark]

I don't feel they were necessary. All this fixing I fear will just make matters worse. Have we not learned our lesson from the depression?

[Miss Shark]

A little more on taxes:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/27/taxes-congress-amt-biz-beltway-cz_jn_0527beltway.html

I wonder what the percentages would look like if they used actual income and not their AGI? I'm guessing they would look much different. Wouldn't you agree Mr C?

[ragmop]

Come on, baby, let's do the twist . . . .

"Nationalization of Key Industries is very broad and encompasses all industry. This bailout is for a few companies, a very different thing.

Income/wealth redistribution is a cornerstone of Obama's campaign. These bailouts are reactionary and necessary at this time, not policy."

I finally understand:

Components of socialism promoted by Republicans = "necessary" and a good thing.

Components of socialism promoted by Democrats = bad thing.

Well at last I know the bullshit is based on emotion and not logic.

[ragmop]

Who Pays Taxes (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

You are on the wrong side of this argument, big time.

as with any debate there must be some premises, otherwise the sands (bases) of the arguments shift.

for this to be productive we have to have an operational definition of "upper class" and "middle class."

[Miss Shark]

How many times can he squeeze the phrase 'Obama doesn't understand' into his answers?

[sway2sway]

I watched about 4 minutes of the debate, it's ugly.

[Miss Shark]

Kinda funny that Obama called McCain Jim and Tom.

[angischy]

I watched about 4 minutes of the debate, it's ugly.

It freaked me out that they would barely even look at each other.
But seriously, um, who won?
BTW, did you realize "we are winning" in Iraq? What exactly is it that we are winning again?

[Miss Shark]

It freaked me out that they would barely even look at each other.

I beg to differ. Obama was speaking directly to Jim/Tom/John at least some of the time. I don't think McCain looked at Obama once.

I'm disappointed. I don't think I heard one new thing from either of them.

[Miss Shark]

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s127/RebeccaLB/t1landdebateendap.jpg

Granted I am an Obama supporter, but that is how it looked to me. A picture says.....

[lietuvaite]

i was not impressed by either either

[angischy]

A picture says.....
I've got a picture, too! ;)
http://i38.tinypic.com/2me24bs.jpg

[stricken]

Will Palin wear her hair down tonight? It would be important to cover the earpiece she'll have to wear as to be coached through the debate.

[ragmop]

psst!: the emperor-ess has no clothes . . .

(i meant it figuratively, but i have to admit . . . . the literal meaning of that kinda turns me on. [hey that's the best Mr. C impersonation i can muster])

[lietuvaite]

what a boring debate. i may not watch the third

[Miss Shark]

I actually fell asleep liet.

[ragmop]

Stumbled across this blog today and I thought I would share. Blue-hair Bloggers . . . .

This (http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/bitch-there-i-said-it/) blog killed me. Dead on though.

[Miss Shark]

Quipage

And then there is Alaska. Have any of you been to Alaska recently? Although the largest State geographically, it has less than a million people - about 700,000. (The city I live in now is bigger. )Fewer population issues exist for lawmakers to address. And because they make so much money from the oil companies, the Alaskan government actually gives it citizens an annual dividend check (this year $3,200). Exactly what Governor wouldn’t be popular under those circumstances? No wonder they can afford to elect a governor who ony has an undergraduate degree in journalism and a few beauty pageant awards. By the way, when you got that journalism degree did they teach you that some journalists actually ask hard questions like what newpapers do you read?

Fact: Sarah Palin is stupid. Maybe not stupid by Alabama standards but stupid enough that she managed to get herself elected Governor while never bothering to educate herself on little things like the Constitution, foriegn affairs or appropriate debating practices. She is stupid enough to have accepted a VP nomination for which she is completely unqualified and stupid enough not to admit it - even though the future of our great nation could be irreversibly damaged by the decision.

You refuse to give live interviews and then whine when your taped interviews get edited. Then you have a chance to be live in front of the nation during a debate and you respond by not answering the questions (proudly not answering the questions I might add) but rather by reading the cue cards given to you by a group of white old men who sold their souls to the political system when you were in…. I don’t know - 2nd grade maybe. Your insulting to a United States Senator who is so respected that his home state has elected him to office 6 times. And while I am on the subject of the debate - shame on Gwen Ifell for not making her answer the questions. <<that was bad. Think she was worried about all that slack from her book that's coming out? Damn I miss Tim Russert.

Sarah Palin is an ignorant, ranting, whining bitch. There I said it. But lots more are thinking it.

Please take your ridiculous hair, your over lipstick-smacking mouth, your Lenscrafter look smarter glasses and your poorly fitted designer jackets back to Alaska. And when you get there, shove a piece of the pipeline up your considerable ass. I’ll be damned if we’ll put our children’s future in your hands. And the same thing goes for McCain - the ass wipe who gave her this national platform effectively pushing the woman’s movement back into the dark ages - knowing McCain that might have been his plan all along.

[Miss Shark]

Rag did that come with your new AARP membership? Had to do it being insane and all.....

[Miss Shark]

O' lordy we've gone from Joe six pack to Joe ass crack.....

[ragmop]

Rag did that come with your new AARP membership? Had to do it being insane and all.....


:D Love it. Thank you, Becks!

[sweet p]

thanks, rags, for the link to helen's blog!:D

it's very entertaining to read the responses-especially the angry republicans who are calling her senile, dried up, too old etc. it's like HELLOOOOOO....you do realize YOUR man is a senior citizen?? old, dried up, etc. i must say, after reading the hateful crap the republicans posted-i have lost any ounce of respect i had left for them.