McCain's trend

[Drew Dowdell]

That's funny; I've learned over the years it's pointless to try and argue with 'liberals' because they all think we're bible-thumping, gun-powder snorting nutcases.

There aren't any "real" conservatives left. Well... maybe Ron Paul.

I'm very fiscally conservative, but I'm fiscally responsible first. Republicans think that tax cuts.... any tax cuts... are fiscal conservatism. They're wrong.

[ocnblu]

"Republicans think that tax cuts.... any tax cuts... are fiscal conservatism. They're wrong." - Oldsmoboi

That is an opinion, not a fact. If you're going to throw up your hands in disgust at others who post opinions in this thread, while claiming only to post "facts" yourself, please don't deviate from that.

[Croc]

You were right about something way back at the beginning of this thread. This was a terrible idea. For pages and pages I've tried to have reasonable debate with people. I've presented facts, with links, for the things the candidate I support is in favor of. I've posted links about the things McCain supports that I do not. The immaturity of the people that I have been friends with on this board for years STAGGERS me!

I'm fine with disagreeing about which political theories are better but all that comes back is "Obama is a dirty stinking muslim who wants to tax you into poverty and abort all your babies!"

You're so concerned about my credibility?!? You've yet to post any FACTS. NONE of the people who have been opposing my arguments has demonstrated even the most basic understanding of economics or tax policy. EVEN IF I'M WRONG NO ONE HERE COULD SAY WHY!

OCN you don't even understand the "horse$h!" reference because you have no idea what Horse and Sparrow theory is! Tend to your own credibility backyard, mine is rather lush with FACTS already.

:sign0200:

Agreed 100%. Ocn and gm4life: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me...but for the love of Ogg BACK YOUR $h! UP! This is the internet, Google is but a mouseclick away.

[Croc]

"Republicans think that tax cuts.... any tax cuts... are fiscal conservatism. They're wrong." - Oldsmoboi

That is an opinion, not a fact. If you're going to throw up your hands in disgust at others who post opinions in this thread, while claiming only to post "facts" yourself, please don't deviate from that.

Cool. You disagree with Oldsmoboi. That's awesome. Instead of being petty and snide, why don't you refute his position with a cogent argument.

If you want to know how that is done, read some of loki's posts. Debate with him is at least an actual debate.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Croc

[Croc]

In the spirit of forthrightness, I double-checked and Balthazar, you sir are correct. Dennis Kucinich is a member of the House of Representatives, which would be why he is not rated more liberal than Obama in the "liberal senators index." My bad.

[ocnblu]

The main problem with this subject is... we can all argue until we're blue in the face... but we will not change each other's minds. If the other guy you wish to persuade is not persuaded and shows no signs of being converted... what's the point in going on with your arguments?

"...why don't you refute your position with a cogent argument." Um, I am not going to refute my own positions. What are you talking about?

Edited September 10, 2008 by ocnblu

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Fiscal conservatism would dictate that the government should not spend money on pointless things (now what constitutes a pointless thing is another debate)

As a result, the tax rates should be as low as possible and still cover the costs.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[trinacriabob]

WTF

Look at the title of this thread....

McCain's Trend....for FUN, seriously

Let it go, now. The only thing that is certain is now that Hillary is off the campaign trail, she will have more time on her hands to browbeat her husband and kick-start her vibrator. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............................................

Edited September 10, 2008 by trinacriabob

[Camino LS6]

Everyone take a deep breath. We can do this without rancor if we try (we've done so in the past in "illicit" political threads).

Anyway, this is how I see things.

First, we would have been so much better off if McCain had beaten "W" in the 2000 primary. There is simply no way he would have handled the last eight years as ineptly as Bush has. But that's of no value now.

I've already prepared myself for both outcomes of this election and feel ok with either result as improvement from the current reality will be inevitable.

Now, I am leaning toward McCain for a few reasons. The first being that I have respected the man for years despite the fact that I don't agree with him on many issues. I have watched him handle things in the senate in a rational way and be willing to work toward agreements with all comers. Some of his core ideas thgrough the years have been extremely logical and pragmatic and have moved the entire congress to enact needed legislation (albeit watered down). I see real leadership in his record as well as the tenacity required to get results.

Second, the man's entire life has prepared him for this job. He is likely the most qualified candidate for the office post-Nixon.

Third, I hate the "pendulum swing" of switching from republican to democrat and vice-versa in an environment like we have currently. Both parties waste too much time undoing what the previous party did while in office. The extreme shift from Bush to Obama could easily leave us in a very bad state in my view. I would prefer to see someone with a steadier hand guide us gently away from the madness of the current administration. I think that the nation needs some time to lick its wounds and gather its wits after the last 8 years. I think it is time for a president willing to quietly do the work for a while instead of leading a revolution. In my view, McCain is just such a man. He has a real sense of duty and honor (as corny as that might sound). The man is like a good mechanic - he'll work on what is actually broken. I also believe that we fare better when the congress and the presidency are led by opposing parties as it forces them to work together. And don't judge him by the campaign BS that his party foists on him, nor his somewhat lacking skills as an orator - he is more about doing the job well than scoring points for his speechifying. I guess what I am saying is that McCain has a work ethic about him that I am comfortable with. Especially at this time, and for this office.

Fourth, having seen his conduct within the senate, I believe that he is not constrained by the more extreme factions of his party beyond election day. Once in office, I have seen him operate in a sensible and pragmatic fashion for years and expect no different from him as president.

Fifth, McCain indicated quite a while back that he would only serve a single term. I hope that this remains true because I don't want to see anyone in power for 8 years ever again.

If he confirms this one point, I will vote for him for that reason alone.

Still, I am undecided.

I like Obama.

I like his energy and many of his ideas.

I like the fact that he is of my generation. That fact gives us some common ground that I do not share with McCain.

However, I would rather see him take office in January of 2013.

I guess it is a matter of timing for me.

And I may yet decide that it is best to vote for the future I really want, the sort that a Libertarian would fashion.

Stay tuned.

[ocnblu]

That video clip of Hillary ignoring Bill's attempt at a kiss, then spinning and kissing Nobama was absolutely hilarious, and completely telling... she is disgusted with Bill's insane behavior throughout her failed campaign. He has gone off the deep end.

[trinacriabob]

That video clip of Hillary ignoring Bill's attempt at a kiss, then spinning and kissing Nobama was absolutely hilarious, and completely telling... she is disgusted with Bill's insane behavior throughout her failed campaign. He has gone off the deep end.

I think front row seats to Bill and Hillary's fighting would be worth a "chunk of change"....

[Croc]

The main problem with this subject is... we can all argue until we're blue in the face... but we will not change each other's minds. If the other guy you wish to persuade is not persuaded and shows no signs of being converted... what's the point in going on with your arguments?

It's about having a discussion/debate. Intelligent people can discuss issues from different viewpoints with respect and facts and not piss each other off. When you start spewing loaded arguments and generalizations without any proof whatsoever, then it devolves into a pissing match. Trust me: I have debated with hardcore Christians civilly and with facts over whether or not the Bible has been corrupted by politics and power by man, versus being a credible, written record of the teachings of Jesus. Both of us came out without any changed minds, but with a lot of new knowledge/perspective and a ton of newfound respect for the other. Any idiot can be shrill like O'Reilly or Hannity...but it takes an adult to discuss things maturely.

"...why don't you refute your position with a cogent argument." Um, I am not going to refute my own positions. What are you talking about?

I fixed my post to correct the typo...but you knew damn well what I meant. Again, petty and snide ill becomes you.

[ocnblu]

Camino, your above post is the best of this thread. I applaud you for sticking to the intent of the rules you posted at the top of this section of the forum.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Maybe a divorce is in the cards for the Clintons, that would make the News more interesting.

[Croc]

First, we would have been so much better off if McCain had beaten "W" in the 2000 primary. There is simply no way he would have handled the last eight years as ineptly as Bush has. But that's of no value now.

Agreed. I supported McCain way back in 8th grade, and IMO he is now a shadow of the candidate he presented himself to be. I want THAT McCain to be running now. I would have a hell of a lot more thinking to do between now and November in that scenario.

[trinacriabob]

in the cards

Their marriage has always been a "house of cards"......

[Croc]

Maybe a divorce is in the cards for the Clintons, that would make the News more interesting.

I don't think so. Those two are far too image-obsessed to do that, and from all perspectives, Hillary is still intent on staying in the Senate. No divorce until she's done, barring another embarrassing affair from Bill.

[Camino LS6]

Camino, your above post is the best of this thread. I applaud you for sticking to the intent of the rules you posted at the top of this section of the forum.

Thanks!

[trinacriabob]

No divorce until she's done, barring another embarrassing affair from Bill.

Bill's losing his stamina, seen falling asleep at speeches and presentations. And, who knows, that "narcolepsy" could go hand-in-hand with ED. His power was the real elixir for Lewinsky and Company. As of late, he's been a house-husband. I don't think he could get as much as he used to.

[Croc]

Bill's losing his stamina, seen falling asleep at speeches and presentations. And, who knows, that "narcolepsy" could go hand-in-hand with ED. His power was the real elixir for Lewinsky and Company. As of late, he's been a house-husband. I don't think he could get as much as he used to.

He should call up his old friend Janet Reno, then. They could get tea and scones, and reminisce about the good ol' days.

[ocnblu]

They could talk about bangin' chicks in the White House.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Agreed. I supported McCain way back in 8th grade, and IMO he is now a shadow of the candidate he presented himself to be. I want THAT McCain to be running now. I would have a hell of a lot more thinking to do between now and November in that scenario.

Whose to say once hes won presidency he wont revert back to his old ways? sure it may piss a lot of his supporters off, but i think he may do it if he truly feels its for the betterment of the country.

[trinacriabob]

They could talk about bangin' chicks in the White House.

Couldn't you almost picture Janet Reno chasing Lewinsky in her famous blue dress down some more obscure hallway in the White House with the Beverly Hills-bred intern squirming and recoiling?

Great stuff....

[Camino LS6]

Whose to say once hes won presidency he wont revert back to his old ways? sure it may piss a lot of his supporters off, but i think he may do it if he truly feels its for the betterment of the country.

Exactly the line of thinking I've been using.

[Croc]

Whose to say once hes won presidency he wont revert back to his old ways? sure it may piss a lot of his supporters off, but i think he may do it if he truly feels its for the betterment of the country.

Because his voting record and policies of the past 8 years beg to differ. McCain has not reached across the aisle like he did prior to his 2000 primary defeat. His economic policy is like reading a Neocon 101 textbook. His healthcare policy really isn't much of a policy at all. Basically, when I read what he has put out there for the policy wonks to devour this election cycle, I see a lot of rhetoric and very little in the way of meaningfully addressing the primary issues of the country. For all the experience he has in Congress, I would have expected a hell of a lot more policy. The "psychological recession" bit is what got me finally.

For all of the accusations against Obama being all style and rhetoric with no substance, his policy goals and outlines contain a hell of a lot more policy and implementation that meaningfully addresses the nation's current problems than McCain's.

[loki]

Haven't the last 8 years been tax and spend? The national debt has nearly doubled since Clinton left office, and we dont have a whole lot to show for it. When FDR was doing it, we had something to show for it, like winning WWII.

weren't the dems elected as an anti war group or something like that? the approval ratings for both bush and congress show how much things are not liked right now...from both sides.

If you want to know how that is done, read some of loki's posts. Debate with him is at least an actual debate.

i do try...usually. lol

should I run for office?

Fiscal conservatism would dictate that the government should not spend money on pointless things (now what constitutes a pointless thing is another debate)

As a result, the tax rates should be as low as possible and still cover the costs.

..welfare, useless? i'd think so. hehe

"tax rates"..you mean income taxs or all taxes combined?

a staple quote of RP's campaign is that if we had the budget of 8 years a go we wouldn't need the income tax. now with the debt that's prolly not possible, but i think we should work towards that. that would create an economic growth spurt, prolly increase "happiness" and maybe even have fewer people in the hospital from February to May. lol

olds. was that RP snippet put in there as an example or just appeasement.

and :rotflmao: not that i care.

[Croc]

Couldn't you almost picture Janet Reno chasing Lewinsky in her famous blue dress down some more obscure hallway in the White House with the Beverly Hills-bred intern squirming and recoiling?

Great stuff....

I can picture her trying to con her into being her companion at one of her famous San Francisco Values* dance parties.

*If you don't get the reference, see

on Youtube.

[Robert Hall]

Because his voting record and policies of the past 8 years beg to differ. McCain has not reached across the aisle like he did prior to his 2000 primary defeat. His economic policy is like reading a Neocon 101 textbook. His healthcare policy really isn't much of a policy at all. Basically, when I read what he has put out there for the policy wonks to devour this election cycle, I see a lot of rhetoric and very little in the way of meaningfully addressing the primary issues of the country. For all the experience he has in Congress, I would have expected a hell of a lot more policy. The "psychological recession" bit is what got me finally.

For all of the accusations against Obama being all style and rhetoric with no substance, his policy goals and outlines contain a hell of a lot more policy and implementation that meaningfully addresses the nation's current problems than McCain's.

Well put..I concur. McCain's approach has definitely changed since 2000.. I've read that and heard that also from Arizonans.

[Croc]

the approval ratings for both bush and congress show how much things are not liked right now...from both sides.

Congress can't really do any reforming when Bush has veto power and the Democrats only have a slim majority. Without a fillibuster-proof or veto-proof supermajority, Congress really can't do anything right now.

[loki]

Bush doubled the country's debt on sunday....... in a single day the debt jumped 5 trillion.

hm? i try to stay informed, but maybe i skipped over this....?

[Camino LS6]

Because his voting record and policies of the past 8 years beg to differ. McCain has not reached across the aisle like he did prior to his 2000 primary defeat. His economic policy is like reading a Neocon 101 textbook. His healthcare policy really isn't much of a policy at all. Basically, when I read what he has put out there for the policy wonks to devour this election cycle, I see a lot of rhetoric and very little in the way of meaningfully addressing the primary issues of the country. For all the experience he has in Congress, I would have expected a hell of a lot more policy. The "psychological recession" bit is what got me finally.

For all of the accusations against Obama being all style and rhetoric with no substance, his policy goals and outlines contain a hell of a lot more policy and implementation that meaningfully addresses the nation's current problems than McCain's.

McCain is a skilled politician and can operate in vastly different environments while remaining viable as a player. The presidency would allow him more latitude to " be McCain" than ever before - I doubt that he'd pass up a chance like that. As for his policies as laid out for the campaign, I think most of that exists to pacify his own party. I watched the republicans "crafting" the platform on C-span and those are some irrational folks. I'm still shocked that they didn't keep McCain off of the ticket.

Also, don't forget that McCain will have to work with a democratic congress if elected.

[Croc]

Well put..I concur. McCain's approach has definitely changed since 2000.. I've read that and heard that also from Arizonans.

Thank you. And don't even get me started on his whole bit about wanting to renegotiate the Colorado River water rights. My only read on that is that he knows he probably won't win and is just trying to guarantee re-election into the Senate. Renegotiating the water rights, or even threatening to has pissed off Colorado (even quite a few Republicans were interviewed saying "OVER MY DEAD BODY") and New Mexico. Nevada might be more favorable to McCain because of it, and California may not go QUITE as blue, but even though they'd likely benefit, there are enough enviromental people who would still oppose it out of principle. Thankfully, a lot of Californians aren't incredible self-centered and would continue to bemoan the irresponsibility of continued development in the desert and the havoc that would be wrecked on the environment further east, outside of the state.

[Croc]

McCain is a skilled politician and can operate in vastly different environments while remaining viable as a player. The presidency would allow him more latitude to " be McCain" than ever before - I doubt that he'd pass up a chance like that. As for his policies as laid out for the campaign, I think most of that exists to pacify his own party. I watched the republicans "crafting" the platform on C-span and those are some irrational folks. I'm still shocked that they didn't keep McCain off of the ticket.

Also, don't forget that McCain will have to work with a democratic congress if elected.

But here's why I don't believe THIS is the "fake politician" McCain: many Americans so strongly dislike Bush that many Republicans have changed their party affiliation to "Independent" so as not to be associated with the Republican name. Many former Independents are now affiliated as "Democrats."* Given the political climate and Bush's long-term low approval ratings, why would McCain be disingenuous and align himself with the dwindling Republican "base" (who didn't even get excited about the ticket until Palin was announced) instead of using his "real" self (as presented in 2000) to appeal to Independents and conservative Democrats? It just doesn't make political sense. Also, his lack of bipartisanship over the past 8 years convinces me that what we see is what we are going to get.

* SOURCE

Edited September 10, 2008 by Croc

[Camino LS6]

But here's why I don't believe THIS is the "fake politician" McCain: many Americans so strongly dislike Bush that many Republicans have changed their party affiliation to "Independent" so as not to be associated with the Republican name. Many former Independents are now affiliated as "Democrats." Given the political climate and Bush's long-term low approval ratings, why would McCain be disingenuous and align himself with the dwindling Republican "base" (who didn't even get excited about the ticket until Palin was announced) instead of using his "real" self (as presented in 2000) to appeal to Independents and conservative Democrats? It just doesn't make political sense. Also, his lack of bipartisanship over the past 8 years convinces me that what we see is what we are going to get.

The short answer is that he needed to get nominated.

[loki]

Congress can't really do any reforming when Bush has veto power and the Democrats only have a slim majority. Without a fillibuster-proof or veto-proof supermajority, Congress really can't do anything right now.

yes, but i'd be surprised if they win any new seats this year in senate/house...

well they sure have proposed/passed tons of non legal bills...like holiday and national ____ month. doesn't this show they can't compromise with republicans to get anything meaningful done... if they proposed truely "centrist" bills, i'd think more than a few would get passed, somehow.

more and more d's bills are "feel good" bills. r's bills are a mismash of current and "classic" thought for the party.

[Croc]

yes, but i'd be surprised if they win any new seats this year in senate/house...

well they sure have proposed/passed tons of non legal bills...like holiday and national ____ month. doesn't this show they can't compromise with republicans to get anything meaningful done... if they proposed truely "centrist" bills, i'd think more than a few would get passed, somehow.

more and more d's bills are "feel good" bills. r's bills are a mismash of current and "classic" thought for the party.

If you follow Congress, it's more like the Republicans won't compromise with the Democrats. Look at where all the political noise (fillibusters, protests, etc) has come from--hint, it isn't the D's.

As for things like holidays and national __ month, those almost always pass because they satisfy a constituency and there's no downside to approving them. Every post office renamed for a local community activist has to go through a Congressional bill.

By the way, local polls indicate the D's will pick up several seats and may even reach the magic number of 60 in the Senate. The RNC has not been posting great numbers for its campaigning congressional candidates. I get my House and Senate data from Daily Kos, and before some of you scream "liberal blog!" I want you all to know that Markos posts EVERY major poll, not just the ones favorable to D's. How do I know? Because he says so, and because many of the bad-for-the-D polls are followed by links to help those "Orange-to-Blue" candidates get more fundraising to improve their numbers.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Croc

[Croc]

The short answer is that he needed to get nominated.

But he's had it all lock, stock and key for months now. What political liability is there for "being himself" like in 2000, now?

[Camino LS6]

The next congress will be forced to act no matter who sits behind the desk in the oval office.

[gm4life]

That's funny; I've learned over the years it's pointless to try and argue with 'liberals' because they all think we're bible-thumping, gun-powder snorting nutcases.

So true.

[Camino LS6]

But he's had it all lock, stock and key for months now. What political liability is there for "being himself" like in 2000, now?

He still needs them in November, and they don't really like him. You aren't likely to see "the full McCain" until and unless he gets elected. The GOP is so screwed-up that he will have to tap dance through the entire campaign.

I, for one, would enjoy seeing the extreme right squirm and complain when he makes the first compromise legislatively with the dems.

In fact, I'll laugh out loud.

[Robert Hall]

Thank you. And don't even get me started on his whole bit about wanting to renegotiate the Colorado River water rights. My only read on that is that he knows he probably won't win and is just trying to guarantee re-election into the Senate. Renegotiating the water rights, or even threatening to has pissed off Colorado (even quite a few Republicans were interviewed saying "OVER MY DEAD BODY") and New Mexico. Nevada might be more favorable to McCain because of it, and California may not go QUITE as blue, but even though they'd likely benefit, there are enough enviromental people who would still oppose it out of principle. Thankfully, a lot of Californians aren't incredible self-centered and would continue to bemoan the irresponsibility of continued development in the desert and the havoc that would be wrecked on the environment further east, outside of the state.

Yes, that's a hot button issue... I know a lot of people in Colorado that aren't happy about Arizona's allocation of water (I have a friend in Denver who always gives me a hard time about 'stealing his water'). I'm still amazed at the growth of the Phoenix metro and Las Vegas... without a/c, irrigation, and Colorado River water, there's no way you could have such large populations in such a harsh climate.

[Croc]

So true.

It's easy to think that when you only respond with statements like these or unsupported emotional tirades without any real engagement with the discussion. If you believe you are informed, you believe in something, and you are on the internet, it really is not hard or time-consuming at all to respond with a real, meaningful, logical, fact-based response. Many of the political issues are issues not because of differences in black-and-white facts, but in different ideologies, values, and interpretations of many different facts.

If you want to vote for McCain, I really can't argue with you if your reasoning is that you are a single-issue voter and have looked at the tax plans that show you paying a lot more in taxes because you are in the highest income bracket. There's nothing to argue there; you're looking at your money and voting with it, and you don't really give a $h! about anything else.

But if you want to vote for McCain based on the reasoning that "liberals hate America and want to tax the hell out of everybody and spend like there's no tomorrow," then not only is your argument laughable, but it is quite easily disproven as it is a hasty generalization that can easily be disproven by multiple examples of facts.

See the difference?

[Oracle of Delphi]

I have a question. Since McCain is so old, what would happen if he died before before the election? Who would be the nominee and would they have to redo their convention, or does Dan Quale with a Ponytail automatically get the nod from the party. This question has been bugging me for a few days now.

[gm4life]

Camino your post was great and I am so very happy you still have an open mind. Also as far as the Barack Obama vs. John McCain thing one thing we keep forgetting is who has the better looking wife? :AH-HA_wink:

[Croc]

He still needs them in November, and they don't really like him. You aren't likely to see "the full McCain" until and unless he gets elected. The GOP is so screwed-up that he will have to tap dance through the entire campaign.

I, for one, would enjoy seeing the extreme right squirm and complain when he makes the first compromise legislatively with the dems.

In fact, I'll laugh out loud.

If that's what happens. I still disagree with your line of reasoning because if McCain is really a moderate and were campaigning as such, the far right may not be happy with him, but they'd vote for him out of a "lesser of two evils" point of view. They certainly wouldn't vote for Obama instead. The only other alternative is they wouldn't vote at all, and that isn't very likely. Also, if McCain were more moderate with his campaign, he'd most certainly be courting the Independent and conservative Democrat voters, who would more than outnumber any non-voting, disaffected rightwingers.

Yes, that's a hot button issue... I know a lot of people in Colorado that aren't happy about Arizona's allocation of water (I have a friend in Denver who always gives me a hard time about 'stealing his water'). I'm still amazed at the growth of the Phoenix metro and Las Vegas... without a/c, irrigation, and Colorado River water, there's no way you could have such large populations in such a harsh climate.

And it's really all so the citizens of Scottsdale can have their lush gardens and olympic-sized swimming pools in their private golf course gated communities.

Camino your post was great and I am so very happy you still have an open mind. Also as far as the Barack Obama vs. John McCain thing one thing we keep forgetting is who has the better looking wife? :AH-HA_wink:

IMO that goes to Michelle. Cindy looks like a Stepford Barbie, and I find that extremely unattractive.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Croc

[Camino LS6]

I have a question. Since McCain is so old, what would happen if he died before before the election? Who would be the nominee and would they have to redo their convention, or does Dan Quale with a Ponytail automatically get the nod from the party. This question has been bugging me for a few days now.

The point would be moot - Obama would win.

But, I suspect that Palin would step in as a sacrificial lamb.

[gm4life]

It's easy to think that when you only respond with statements like these or unsupported emotional tirades without any real engagement with the discussion. If you believe you are informed, you believe in something, and you are on the internet, it really is not hard or time-consuming at all to respond with a real, meaningful, logical, fact-based response. Many of the political issues are issues not because of differences in black-and-white facts, but in different ideologies, values, and interpretations of many different facts.

If you want to vote for McCain, I really can't argue with you if your reasoning is that you are a single-issue voter and have looked at the tax plans that show you paying a lot more in taxes because you are in the highest income bracket. There's nothing to argue there; you're looking at your money and voting with it, and you don't really give a $h! about anything else.

But if you want to vote for McCain based on the reasoning that "liberals hate America and want to tax the hell out of everybody and spend like there's no tomorrow," then not only is your argument laughable, but it is quite easily disproven as it is a hasty generalization that can easily be disproven by multiple examples of facts.

See the difference?

I understand what your saying. I am just too lazy to get the prove my facts. I am sure I could if I wanted to not be lazy. But if I here something most likely on NBC or FOX I use it as a point for discussion and a fact.

[Camino LS6]

If that's what happens. I still disagree with your line of reasoning because if McCain is really a moderate and were campaigning as such, the far right may not be happy with him, but they'd vote for him out of a "lesser of two evils" point of view. They certainly wouldn't vote for Obama instead. The only other alternative is they wouldn't vote at all, and that isn't very likely. Also, if McCain were more moderate with his campaign, he'd most certainly be courting the Independent and conservative Democrat voters, who would more than outnumber any non-voting, disaffected rightwingers.

And it's really all so the citizens of Scottsdale can have their lush gardens and olympic-sized swimming pools in their private golf course gated communities.

IMO that goes to Michelle. Cindy looks like a Stepford Barbie, and I find that extremely unattractive.

Perhaps.

But just like the voters, the candidates also roll the dice and take their chances.

I do think you underestimate how much the far right dislikes him. If he went moderate during the campaign I think they'd stay home on election day.

[Croc]

Perhaps.

But just like the voters, the candidates also roll the dice and take their chances.

I do think you underestimate how much the far right dislikes him. If he went moderate during the campaign I think they'd stay home on election day.

Oh, no I know how much they dislike him...but they still dislike Obama more. Lesser of two evils.

[Robert Hall]

And it's really all so the citizens of Scottsdale can have their lush gardens and olympic-sized swimming pools in their private golf course gated

communities.

Yes... I'm renting my sister's house in Phoenix currently (she's working in Ohio). Nice lush green lawn, lots of flowering plants, palm trees, no cactus, huge pool (with diving board, 20+ ft long). Standing out in the yard, you would never know you are in a desert..the neighborhood looks like LA..

Arizona is a strange place... I'm not sure how much longer I'll be here..starting a contract next week for 6 months...come 2009, I may move back to Denver or maybe to a blue state.

IMO that goes to Michelle. Cindy looks like a Stepford Barbie, and I find that extremely unattractive.

Agreed...Cindy comes off as kind of creepy...

Edited September 10, 2008 by moltar