Say Anything Blog

I swear it looks like McCain does not want the White House, almost every day he does something to piss off conservatives and drive them farther away.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

McCain is not a conservative.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

I linked this in another thread, but after your comment, “I swear it looks like McCain does not want the White House, almost every day he does something to piss off conservatives and drive them farther away.” I think it can stand repeating.  Bill Quick makes a decent case that it is, in fact, deliberate:

Take another look at that list of infamy. That’s what I called it. That’s how a lot of conservatives feel about it. But McCain doesn’t feel that it is infamous. He thinks it is laudable. Praiseworthy. He think it is a blueprint for how a successful GOP should proceed.

He thinks conservatism is a dead ideology that doesn’t recognize that the world has moved on. It has lost its relevance in a nation where the old paradigms are falling away. We are becoming a nation of Mexican and Latino immigrants, legal and illegal. That must be recognized and catered to. We can no longer afford the wild swings and gyrations of what he views as unfettered capitalism. The people at the top make - and keep - too much money. He proposes to fix that. All of the rest of his programs and policies reflect -not a conservative sensibility - but an accomodationist, populist vision: He sees the future of America as One Big Party, with all those scurrilous, hard-nosed, stubborn shell-backs on both the left and the right who prate that principles are more important than pragmatic politics effectively sealed out of the process of representative government.

And because his competition is Obama - and how badly that empty suit is currently performing - he may well win.  I *might* be able to force myself to only vote downticket because I can’t bear to vote either Obama or McCain.  But if it seems like a close election, it’s not inconceivable that I’d vote for McCain because on a lot of things I care about Obama is a LOT worse, and even though both lead to socialism, the slow road seems better.  So even McCain haters like myself were boxed in the minute he got the nomination.  Bottom line, he’s free to spit on us and he knows it.

At least McCain is not a Marxist like Barry O is, and McCain believes the threats from the Islamic dirt bags are real.

At least McCain is not a Marxist…
Kevin on July 13, 2008 at 04:04 pm

You are right Kevin. Old Mr J. McCain is not a marxist.

Bottom line, he’s free to spit on us and he knows it.

Laura, while I agree with 99 percent of what you have written here, I respectfully disagree.  Perhaps Gerald Ford and Bob Dole and even perhaps George Bush senior might have, to his private inner-most circle, sneered at Conservative Americans and spat where else are they going to go?

Conservatives are very different from Leftists.  Leftists are not purists. Any damage done to the Establishment is incremental and they can accept whatever increment is afforded them, so long as the direction is to the Left.

Conservatives are not like that.  Theirs is very much a father’s conditional, versus a mother’s unconditional, love.

We only love you and therefore will vote for you, so long as you act the part of a true Republican.  This has exceptions, but as Ford, Bush Sr. and Dole all found—Conservatives always have that third choice ---

staying home on Election Night.

...for great justice

Sure, Zig, we have that option… but I would rather my daughter’s generation have to fight creeping socialism here at home than endure constant terror attacks and lawfare from people who will ultimately expect her to submit or be beheaded as they continually gain power.  One choice risks her enslavement to bureaucrats - the other risks her enslavement to those who treat her as a subhuman, useful only for household chores and sexual release, unworthy of even equal protection under the law.

It’s true that the more leftist/multiculti we become the more likely we are to be subject to sharia so both roads are prone to end in the same place.  But one is still slower and it’s possible it can be turned around. 

The gamble is whether Obama/Jimmah Carter’s second term would be enough to turn things around and get us another Reagan.  The problem is there IS NO Reagan waiting to step up in 4 or 8 years.  (And for pity’s sake, don’t tell me Jindal - I live in La. and he’s shafting conservatives every chance he gets now that he’s Gov.) So that’s quite a gamble to take, in my view.

One choice risks her enslavement to bureaucrats - the other risks her enslavement to those who treat her as a subhuman, useful only for household chores and
sexual release, unworthy of even equal protection under the law.

A false dichotomy, unfortunately.  That is also the leftie agenda for everyone not in the ruling elite.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Not entirely a false dichotomy; those lefties will restrict her ability to practice her religion, tax her until she is economically enslaved, take away her legal right to protest, etc.  They might even jail her.  But they will not behead her, and they will not treat her differently than a man who commits the same offenses she does. So while the difference between the two is less than I would like, there is still a difference; just like there is a difference between McCain and Obama, just like there is a difference between the US and UK/Canada.

I don’t know if I can vote for McCain- to my way of thinking it’s a gamble of the result of 2, 4 or more years of Democratic rule being enough for Atlas to shrug and people to understand reality again vs. the sheeple just happily taking their handouts until the wheels come off sometime further down the road.  But can we neglect Islamism and sharia creep in the meantime?

I identify with many of the values that Teddy Roosevelt espoused. I guess that makes us mortal enemies.

But they will not behead her,Probably not, at least at first; there’s no telling what lefties with total power will do, however. and they will not treat her differently than a man who commits the same offenses she does.  I don’t understand why being treated like a slave is somehow better because someone else receives equal treatment.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

There are a lot of things to like about Teddy’s administration.  He built up the Navy.  He was a master diplomat avoiding a world war years before WWI.  He cut taxes.  He made the first federal appointment of a black woman (a postmaster somewhere in the south, I’m forgetting who and where now) and had the first black guests at the White House (Booker T. Washington).

On the flip side, he wasn’t as in favor of free markets as I’d like.  I think he took his trust-busting a bit too far, and in a lot of ways Roosevelt is to blame for the beginning of the strangle-hold unions have had on certain industries in this country in the past (a strangle-hold that is now, thankfully, lifting).

Ultimately I think Teddy’s positives outweighed his negatives in a lot of ways. 

I’m not sure the same could be said of McCain, however.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This is a terrible year as regards our future. Osama-Bama, with all out socialism and unrestricted power because of a fillbuster proof Congress; with McCain probaly better at waging the war against global Ismalic terrorism but not much else.

Laura is right that there is no Reagan on the horizon, but we do have a feckless, and mostly RINO Republican Party. WASS!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Carrick: While some good things can be said about TR personally(he was a real leader, IMO), he was no conservative, in the contemporary sense.  I don’t regard either of the Bushes to be conservatives, either.
That doesn’t mean they were all bad; just not conservatives.
I think the McCain candidacy is the result of conservatives settling for less for so long.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I identify with many of the values that Teddy Roosevelt espoused.

It’s interesting that he has many good things to say about him.  But many of his policies were either a)wrong headed or b)wrong headed because it helped lead to an all powerful federal government. 

For his time he was for radical big government, something I think was a mistake for the country.

I don’t think McCain’s going to learn from Teddy’s errors either.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I don’t understand why being treated like a slave is somehow better because someone else receives equal treatment.

Being enslaved because slavery is the order of the day, an impersonal condition applied pretty much equally, is to my way of thinking not as bad as being enslaved because of your gender is considered subhuman; it’s a far more personal attack.  Your mileage may vary… but that’s how I see it.

Being enslaved because slavery is the order of the day, an impersonal condition applied pretty much equally, is to my way of thinking not as bad as being enslaved because of your gender is considered subhuman; it’s a far more personal attack.

Seems to me that being a slave would be univerally bad regardless of the justification.

Whether I were to be enslaved because I’m white or because I happen to be of a certain ethnic background...I’m still a slave.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Being enslaved because slavery is the order of the day, an impersonalcondition applied pretty much equally, is to my way of thinking not as bad as being enslaved because of your gender is considered subhuman; it’s a far more personal attack.

It seems to me that slavery is slavery, no matter who is doing it, and to whom it is being done.  But then, I think the same way about racism and sexism, as well.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Whether I were to be enslaved because I’m white or because I happen to be of a certain ethnic background...I’m still a slave.

It seems to me that slavery is slavery, no matter who is doing it, and to whom it is being done.  But then, I think the same way about racism and sexism, as well.

Oh, I get your theory, and I’m not trying to threadjack; only to explain why (as the mother of a daughter) I’m weighing this election so carefully; because I believe no matter which way we go the consequences will be felt during her lifetime.

Would you rather be a poor man in Darfur or even Saudi Arabia right now, or a poor woman?  Even in the midst of a slave population there are degrees of suffering and indignity.  Liberals with their multiculturalism may agree that a girl’s genitals may be mutilated but not that she may be raped with impunity and that her testimony against her rapists is worthless.  So there are at least some limits because the liberals still acknowledge her as fully human and an equal - or at least as equal as all the other proles. 

When I’ve got two liberal candidates, who are generally multi-culti types who aren’t going to take strong stands against lawfare or sharia creep, but one will hand those Islamists a military victory which will encourage them to keep fighting AND make the lawfare/sharia creep types appear more moderate by comparison vs. a liberal candidate who is going to kill as many of the extremists as possible and make them see us as a strong horse vs. a weak one… it’s a factor in deciding how I’ll vote.

I just don’t think the slavery of socialism is an apples to apples comparison to the slavery of Islamism; and within the slavery of Islamism in particular, women are treated worse than men.

Or to put it another way - the liberal socialists will throw out the evidence against your rapist, excuse his crime because his culture is uncivilized, and even if you manage to get him convicted, will let him out of jail the first chance they get and then give him and all his wives welfare paid for by your tax dollars for the rest of his life.

The Islamists will whip you for committing the offense of being raped.

...in particular, women are treated worse than men.

Christians are treated even worse; what’s your point?
Is this just some more identity politics?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

No, my point is not identity politics, it’s that the outcome of this election is going to move us further in the direction of socialism no matter who wins, but one candidate is distinctly hostile to jihadists which will have a trickle-down affect on the lawfare/sharia types. 

It’s sophistry to say they’re both liberals so it doesn’t matter, and it’s a real gamble for an anti-McCainiac like me to say I’d rather risk a few years of liberal rule on the premise that Atlas might shrug and the country will enjoy another Reagan style revival - especially given that there is no up and coming Reagan to turn us around after Carter’s second (and possibly third) terms.  So when I say McCain is free to spit on conservatives and he knows it, and Zig says no prob with staying home, and you say slavery is slavery so what’s the diff… I’m just trying to point out that (to this conservative, at least) the choices aren’t so clear cut.

...but one candidate is distinctly hostile to jihadists which will have a trickle-down affect on the lawfare/sharia types.

My problem with McCain is that he can’t be trusted...by conservatives.  He talks tough about the military, but he also promises to “cross the aisle” and “hire Dems in his administration”, so the two are contradictory, IMO.  For all his faults, President Bush has stood strong against the Dem efforts to undermine our military, cut military spending, and lose the war.  I don’t trust McCain to stand up to them the way President Bush has.
May I remind you that there was no Reagan in 1994?  We essentially stopped Clinton’s tax and spend spree by turning over the House to the Republicans after 40 years of continuous Dem rule.  Don’t be so pessimistic; you can’t win by giving up.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

We essentially stopped Clinton’s tax and spend spree by turning over the House to the Republicans after 40 years of continuous Dem rule.

No, we continued and increased the tax and spend spree under GOP rule.  Earmarks galore, not to mention some *major* entitlement increases.

I think we can rely on McCain to screw conservatives over on every single issue *except* all things military and on pork and entitlements.  I still don’t know if I can make myself vote for him… I intend to assess how things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan come November and that’s pretty much going to decide my vote.  I don’t want to vote for or defend that SOB… I really don’t.  This is just a nightmare election for me - and I feel worse for my daughter, who’s been looking forward to voting since I took her into the booth with me as a little kid.  She turned 18 in May, and when Fred stepped out of the race - ironically RIGHT before he could have locked in La.’s votes and stayed competitive - she was crushed.  (So was I, but I’m more used to it.)

No, we continued and increased the tax and spend spree under GOP rule.

Wrong.  Tax rates were reduced, bringing in more revenue to the Treasury.  Even though spending was increased(Bush is not a conservative), the Dems want to increase it even more. 
I don’t like the spending of this administration, but let’s be truthful: it wasn’t “tax and spend”, it was “spend”.  Had we not won Congress in 1994, things would be a lot worse for all of us today.
I was also a Fred supporter, btw.
Vote for conservatives, don’t vote for RINOs, and don’t give up!  That’s my advice, at any rate.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I don’t think McCain has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, and I think he will lose badly enough there will be a reverse coattail effect…

That said, hell yes, Teddy was a conservative.  Even McCain is a conservative.  That isn’t his problem—he’s demonstrated that he isn’t trustworthy on the big issues, and is too willing to bend to political expediency.  MHO.

Laura:

Earmarks galore, not to mention some *major* entitlement increases.

Better check your facts on earmarks, they are way down in total amount from the Clinton days (though the total number of earmarks may have increased).  Secondly the amount we are talking about is miniscule compared to entitlement—$15 billion compared to well over $1 trillion (2% versus 65% of federal outlays).  Thirdly, unlike most of the entitlement spending, earmarks go towards useful projects like road construction, bridge repair etc. 

Food for thought.

The increases in entitlement haven’t helped anything. That is the real danger facing us, though all everybody wants to talk about is earmarks.  Easy soft target, even if removing them is overall counterproductive.

Better check your facts on earmarks, they are way down in total amount from the Clinton days

I’ll take your word for it; I’m not sufficiently exercised about it to do you know, actual research.  You’re both right, of course, about the taxes; I know better than that.  I shouldn’t try to be snarky late at night. 

I’ll concede that some pork may be for useful items, but not that they are *federal* issues, which - aside from the incumbent protecting nature of pork - is pretty much my issue.  My Senator sent out a letter bragging about how she brought home the bacon on a La. DNA database.  I wondered why my relatives up north should help pay for what is clearly a Louisiana project.  The usual BS “rest assured” letter in response.  Pork may occasionally be useful but it is deeply corrupting and evil, no matter what percentage of the budget it is.

Here’s your “conservative’s” list of accomplishments, Carrick.  McCain is not the worst thing that’ll happen to the Republic but BCRA alone - which he is entirely unrepentant about - puts him pretty high on the list.

Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion in 2006 to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994, when Democrats last controlled Congress, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The Arlington, Virginia-based PMA Group has seen its revenue triple to $15.4 million from about $5 million since 1999.

Earmarking has also been at the center of recent bribery scandals, including one that led to the imprisonment of former Representative Randy
Cunningham, a California Republican.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

That said, hell yes, Teddy was a conservative.

While the man has much to be admired for for his time he was quite liberal which to me means a very active and growing government.

Now of course those policies today wouldn’t be very controversial today.

I guess it’s the dangers of comparing people across different political and economic landscapes.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

At the end of the day, Laura is right.  We are all disenchanted with the choices we have in this year’s election, but we still have a choice.

In my view, no thoughtful American can vote for Obama or sit home and thus do the same thing.

The word trust is bandied about frequently in reference to McCain. “I don’t trust him”. “He can’t be trusted.”. etc.

The difference is, we can trust Barack Obama!

We can trust him to end the war on terror, raise taxes, name liberals to the Court and the federal bench, erode gun rights, erase our borders, promote the gay agenda, reaffirm the ‘fairness’ doctrine, use global warming to end our sovereignty, punish big oil and ban further drilling, bring back affirmative action and work hand-in-hand with Pelosi, Reid and an expanded democrat congress… a liberal dream come true!!

Get over the, “we’ll throw the bums out in 2010”, pipe-dream.  There isn’t going to be a conservative congress for a long, long time.

Give up the, “If McCain is president, conservatives will get blamed”, mantra. We’ll be blamed regardless of who is president and, besides, congress will be democrat.

In this muddled year, I take a possibly untrustworthy John McCain over a 100% dependable Barack Obama hands down!

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

pparet, the worst part of your list is with the exception of the war, we can trust McCain to do the same things.  I agree with the argument that if those things are going to happen anyway, we should at least let the Dems take the blame for it - and were it not for the war, I would not consider voting for McCain under any circumstances.

Laura:  So you really, honestly believe that McCain will erode gun rights, promote the gay agenda, name liberals to the courts, ban drilling, punish big oil, support affirmative action, reaffirm the fairness doctrine and raise our taxes?

You need to get out more, madame.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Get over the, “we’ll throw the bums out in 2010”, pipe-dream. Your defeatism is noted. There isn’t going to be a conservative congress for a long, long time. I think your crystal ball is seriously in need of repair.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

That isn’t his problem—he’s demonstrated that he isn’t trustworthy on the big issues, and is too willing to bend to political expediency. MHO.

Your comments above illustrate why McCain is not a conservative.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

No, we continued and increased the tax and spend spree under GOP rule. Earmarks galore, not to mention some *major* entitlement increases.

Wrong.  Initially, from ‘94-’01, the Republican Congress restrained the tax and spending increases desired by Clinton.  That’s a fact.  After President Bush took office, spending increased to make up for the fact that Clinton systematically gutted our national defense capabilities, plus the economic downturn at the end of the Clinton regime decreased revenues; then there was the blow dealt to our economy by the Clinton-enabled 9/11 attack.  When you accuse Republicans of “tax and spend”, you ignore the tax rate cuts that bailed us out of the three Clinton-caused economic disasters.  It is true that President Bush has increased entitlement spending, but probably by a smaller margin than a Dem President would have during the same period.  The indication of this is the constant Dem whining that we aren’t spending enough on social engineering, and Obama’s promises to spend a lot more than we are spending now on social engineering schemes.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

...punish big oil…

His “cap and trade” scheme promises to punish all of us, through govt control of the energy companies, and he has already described the oil companies as having “obscene profits”.  Of course, profits are just profits, but he apparently doesn’t know that.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

r108: defeatism and broken crystal balls are not the issue here. I don’t believe in the former and I don’t use the latter.

We will not see a conservative congress for a long, long time.  We may see a republican congress somewhere down the road in the next 8 - 10 years, but you and I both know that is not the same thing as a conservative one.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

r108:  You know as well as i do that Barack Obama wants to punish big oil with a windfall profits tax. Put away your cherry-picker.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

r108: You know as well as i do that Barack Obama wants to punish big oil with a windfall profits tax. Put away your cherry-picker.

Cap and trade and his “obscene profits” crack are not “cherry-picking”, and you know it.  You make my point that they are both bad for our economy, though.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

r108: defeatism and broken crystal balls are not the issue here. I don’t believe in the former and I don’t use the latter.

Then, how do you justify your statements?  You advocated giving up hope for a good outcome, and settling for much less than a conservative would want in a candidate.  You then predicted a certain outcome.
That’s defeatism and “crystal ballism”, isn’t it?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

pp: I thought this ground was pretty well covered, but it comes down to this: You are trying to cram McCain down the throats of people who don’t want him, and the response you are getting is to be expected.  Denial just won’t work.
Let me reiterate what I have already told you: As a consequence of your continued efforts to force your McCain stuff on me, I investigated him more than I might have, and went from thinking I might settle for him to being adamantly opposed to him.  Good work!  /sarcasm

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

r108: 

… your continued efforts to force your McCain stuff on me…

Don’t flatter yourself.  I would hardly waste my time and effort on just little ol’ you. 

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Your guys must be taking hallucinogens, including defense related spending (there is a war on dummy) or lumping in either foreign earmarks (foreign aid, most of which by definition is an earmark, isn’t what we’re talking about here).  What we’re talking about here is “pork barrel” spending, not famine relief to Africa for example. 

Pork barrel spending would be domestic, nonmilitary spending.

The best web site that I know of for that is Citizens against Government Waste.

Here are the raw data (each column is year, pork spending in billions, federal spending in billions, &#xpo;rk barrel spending)

1999 12.0 1.6 0.75%
2000 17.7 1.8 0.98%
2001 18.5 1.9 0.97%
2002 20.1 2.0 1.01%
2003 22.5 2.2 1.02%
2004 22.9 2.3 0.99%
2005 27.3 2.4 1.13%
2006 29.0 2.2 1.32%
2007 13.2 2.4 0.55%
2008 17.2 2.7 0.64%

Keep in mind that much of the “pork barrel” spending goes to worthy projects, and there is no other mechanisms for “targeting” such projects (by definition).

However, there no argument about the total federal budget, which has become glutted under Democrat control. And the fact that pork barrel spending decreased at the same time that total federal spending ballooned is a perfect example of why the argument about pork barrel spending is such a misleading one.

Yes there are problems with earmarks, yes earmarks need reform (can you say “King Murtha"), but that is a completely separate issue from total federal spending, which is bloated by entitement spending not by earmarks.

As usual, the lefties use language manipulatively, by making certain words “buzzwords” by demonizing them.  “Earmarks” is one of them, along with “speculation” and “ENRON”.  Examples abound.  Those words act on lefties like post-hypnotic suggestion works with a stage hypnotist; uttering the word causes the subject to start clucking like a chicken, for instance, with no thought process involved.  Lefties use their buzzwords in a like manner, hoping to elicit unthinking reaction, rather than clear thinking.  In fact, they want to short-circuit the thinking process, and get straight to emotional reaction.  People can be controlled through their emotions.  Hitler was very good at that.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Clever ploy, 108, but “earmarks” and “speculation” are hardly buzz-words! President Bush and Senator McCain - among many republicans in Washington - have called for an end to earmarking, and they are right!

A substantial number of the nation’s economists - along with the nation’s airline CEO’s - have pointed to oil speculation and speculators as a major contributor to the upward spiral in fuel prices, and they are right!

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

pparet: “You need to get out more, madame.”

Way to ad hom, there, guy!  Nice going!  Well played!

So you really, honestly believe that McCain will erode gun rights, promote the gay agenda, name liberals to the courts, ban drilling, punish big oil, support affirmative action, reaffirm the fairness doctrine and raise our taxes?

He didn’t hesitate to weaken the first amendment in the name of “clean government” so I have no reason to think he’d be particularly protective of the second amendment if it didn’t suit him.

Mav will certainly promote the gay agenda if he needs to suck up to his liberal buddies.  He did a careful little dance with Ellen Degeneres on that very topic not long ago and it won’t take much to push him more to the left on that.  I’m not a social con so I don’t really care, but, yes, I think he’d do it if he could flip off the social cons and steal a few more Dem votes from Obama.

He’s already complained about Scalia being a mite too openly conservative to suit him, and his Gang membership showed that he’s more interested in Senatorial privilege than conservative courts.  Ban drilling and punish big oil?  Certainly, if they’re making what he calls “obscene profits” or if he needs to ACT! to head off a global warming, err, climate change, emergency.  Support affirmative action?  Why not, if “God’s children” needed it?  Laws, shmaws!  Mav cares about outcomes!

Reaffirm the fairness doctrine?  Well, he’s already given the 1st amendment a beating, as I mentioned, and he’s not too keen on blogs and talk radio. (Go figure.) So yes, I do indeed think that’s a valid concern.  And as for raising our taxes - he wasn’t too keen on the Bush tax cuts back in the day, was he?

I’m perplexed why you think the things on your list are such ridiculous concepts, given McCain’s record.

Clever ploy, 108, but “earmarks” and “speculation” are hardly buzz-words! President Bush and Senator McCain - among many republicans in Washington - have called for an end to earmarking, and they are right! Not a “ploy”, just the truth.  As has been pointed out multiple times by multiple commenters, earmarks are an almost insignificant part of the budget shortfall, entirely dwarfed by entitlement spending.  It is just the demonization of the word for partisan political purposes that is used for emotional manipulation.  Thus the term “buzzword”.

A substantial number of the nation’s economists - along with the nation’s airline CEO’s - have pointed to oil speculation and speculators as a major
contributor to the upward spiral in fuel prices, and they are right!

That doesn’t make it true.  Your “appeal to authority” is noted.  I guess this is just like the “substantial number of scientists” who agree with the global warming hoax, then?  Consensus doesn’t make science, but it works great for politics.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

pp - I didn’t catch it the first time, but I just noticed that you left a few things out of your list condemning Obama -

We can trust him to end the war on terror, raise taxes, name liberals to the Court and the federal bench, erode gun rights, erase our borders, promote the gay agenda, reaffirm the ‘fairness’ doctrine, use global warming to end our sovereignty, punish big oil and ban further drilling, bring back affirmative action and work hand-in-hand with Pelosi, Reid and an expanded democrat congress… a liberal dream come true!!

when you applied it to McCain -

So you really, honestly believe that McCain will erode gun rights, promote the gay agenda, name liberals to the courts, ban drilling, punish big oil, support affirmative action, reaffirm the fairness doctrine and raise our taxes?

Interesting omissions.  An admission that he’s hopeless on those issues?

Not a “ploy”, just the truth.  As has been pointed out multiple times by multiple commenters, earmarks are an almost insignificant part of the budget shortfall, entirely dwarfed by entitlement spending.  It is just the demonization of the word for partisan political purposes that is used for emotional manipulation.  Thus the term “buzzword”.
robert108 on July 14, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Earmarks are anathema only when dems do it.
Congressman Murtha anyone? Were you conservative republicans doing it for partisan political purposes and emotional manipulation?

Carrick -

Keep in mind that much of the “pork barrel” spending goes to worthy projects, and there is no other mechanisms for “targeting” such projects (by definition).

Certainly there is a mechanism.  The states.

Earmarks are an insignificant part of the budget, no matter who does them.  Some of them are even beneficial.  I know this economic truth is beyond your knowledge, e fool.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Laura: My summation of pp’s position on McCain is that we should vote for him out of fear of Obama.  We should just ignore McCain’s record and his positions on the issues.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

R108 is right. The terms “earmarks” and “speculation” have been thrown around so much that its doubtful the average American has a good understanding of what either is or what they entail. Many, not all, throw those terms around just to elicit an emotional response from less-informed individuals.

Though I have to disagree with this:

Your “appeal to authority” is noted.  I guess this is just like the “substantial number of scientists” who agree with the global warming hoax, then?  Consensus doesn’t make science, but it works great for politics.

Pparets was just pointing out a view that a “substantial” (not a consensus) number of experts advance a certain argument. IMO, it strengthens an argument to include arguments that are supported by experts. Though without a list of those experts or links, the argument is meaningless.

I also want to add that I don’t think the global warming comparison is apt. The global warming hoax has definitely highlighted the importance of challenging our experts, but I don’t think the same scenario can be applied to other fields. After all, why bother having experts if you are just going to discount and/or ignore their arguments?

Clever ploy, 108, but “earmarks” and “speculation” are hardly buzz-words! President Bush and Senator McCain - among many republicans in Washington - have called for an end to earmarking, and they are right!
A substantial number of the nation’s economists - along with the nation’s airline CEO’s - have pointed to oil speculation and speculators as a major contributor to the upward spiral in fuel prices, and they are right!

Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. And speculation is hardly affecting the price. Yawn.

Laura:  So you really, honestly believe that McCain will erode gun rights, promote the gay agenda, name liberals to the courts, ban drilling, punish big oil, support affirmative action, reaffirm the fairness doctrine and raise our taxes?

I believe he’ll appoint liberals to the court, continue to fight drilling in places like ANWR, punish big oil, and will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

I have no clue where he stands on the fairness doctrine, gay rights, or affirmative action. But those aren’t big issues with me anyways.

When we look at the “socialist paradise” that is Cuba, we must remember that a sizable share of the misery those people suffer is directly attributable to Che Guevara bringing Castro into power, and giving him many of the policies that have caused so much pain. The real symbol of Che should be the raft, to remind us of all those who have died on rafts in the ocean trying to escape the Cuban nightmare and get to freedom. And had he not been killed, begging for his life like a coward, he would’ve done the same thing again and again in countries all throughout Latin and South America. His actions have inspired terrorists across a continent and caused countless deaths.

After all, why bother having experts if you are
just going to discount and/or ignore their arguments?

I think you already answered your own question:

Though without a list of those experts or links, the argument is meaningless.

Exactly.  It’s the bullshit claim of “experts say...” that I’m talking about, not real expert opinion, which can then be evaluated by the reader for its relevance and accuracy.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

As someone with knowledge of economics, I already know that speculation is not a “cause”, as it is generally a reaction to perceived market instability.  The only thing that might apply to the whining about speculation is the attempt to “corner” a market in a commodity, and as far as I know, that is not happening in the oil market.
I have already given the accurate description of the truth about earmarks, as have several others before me.

So, no number of “experts” can change the economic truth here, much less the claims of “experts say...”

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?