McCain / Romney

[KaskadskyjKozak]

looks like that will be the ticket

 

and if so... a big sigh of relief that Huckabee will not get tapped for VP

[olyclimber]

What, not McCain/Hillary?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I'd take McCain/Obama

[olyclimber]

I don't know that you can say Romney will be on the ticket just yet...he is just endorsing him officially...but heck he already did that when he ended his campaign...didn't you listen to that speech?

[olyclimber]

i.e. the terrorists will win if i continue my campaign.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't know that you can say Romney will be on the ticket just yet...he is just endorsing him officially...but heck he already did that when he ended his campaign...didn't you listen to that speech?

 

call it wishful thinking then... anyone but huckabee

[rob]

don't you heart huckabee?

[olyclimber]

Huckabee is a strong contender in my book if he can invoke God and win the Republican nomination even with out having the necessary delegates (as he is already mathmatically eliminated). If he is able to do that and he makes good on making Colbert his veep, he'll get my vote.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

don't you heart huckabee?

 

we don't need any more Bush's and Clinton's in the white house,

and we don't need any more bohunks from Hope, Arkansas either...

 

[chucK]

McCain nominee = let the weaseling begin.

"Congress banned any military use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2006, which was co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), now the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.

 

But McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal.

 

"Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation" of laws and treaties, McCain said."

 

Watch the straight talkin' transform to weasel wordin' before your very eyes ....

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

McCain nominee = let the weaseling begin.

 

 

they all do that to get into office... and yes it's annoying as fuck. I was very disappointed in Lieberman in 2000. I think McCain will be true to himself and his character as president ... if he gets elected.

 

 

[TrogdortheBurninator]

g2TSvADlAeM

[tvashtarkatena]

Beautiful. Thanks.

[Doug]

Hey, that Stewart guy, he's a liberal, right?

[prole]

 

Won't Fuckabee have to be chosen to bring back all the evangelicals flocking to Obama?

 

"Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me," (Obama) said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. "I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth."

Article here.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

how's the communist party primary going, prole?

[olyclimber]

LOL! Just noticed a McCain advert in the upper right Google ads! w00t! All this political talk obviously is telling Teh Googles something.

[prole]

how's the communist party primary going, prole?

 

No idea, I'm not a Communist. I can only imaging they're pouring red paint on the globe in a very sinister manner, letting black people rape white women, poisoning the water supply, and patting each other on the back for their complete takeover of American academia, the media, the ACLU, PETA, and the Democratic Party.

[Crux]

True to his own character, it seems, McCain would be a military hawk just as much or more than Bush. In the 2000 nominations, the neoliberals (paradoxically aka neocons) favored McCain because Bush seemed unlikely to execute the aggressive neoliberal plan for direct American military dominance of the Middle East in general, and over Iran and Iraq specifically. Traditional liberals, and real conservatives for that matter, viewed such an imperial policy as bad statesmanship in the short run, and a pathway to social and economic disaster over the long term.

 

To win the 2000 election, Bush apparently was just sucking up to get votes when he preached a different doctrine at one campaign stump or the other, saying he'd be totally against "nation building" and all that shit, but once in office he assembled a staff of neoliberals who had the expressly stated hope, at the very least, that a "Peril Harbor event" might shock America to an extent needed to make it compliant with neoliberal plans to launch military invasions into the Middle East. The rest is history, all various theories regarding the extent of negligence or contributory complacency by the Bush administration that allowed 9/11 to occur not withstanding.

 

Now, while waterboarding (and torture in general) is an important issue, what's done is done and all the current news on this topic are more of the same views we've already heard. I think voters have already made their minds up on this issue, as determined by various preconceptions. As such, the vote on waterboarding serves as an example of a non-starter when it comes to the current political debate. Nobody is changing their mind on this. After all, very few people feel directly affected or put at risk by policies that allow torture, and so we go about our personal business with the understanding that such activity is limited in scope and severity and therefore not of great concern.

 

But this deal about occupying other countries, at great expense in terms of American wealth and blood, this is getting on our nerves. Also of growing concern to many of us is the apparently severe decline America now suffers in terms of its esteem in the eyes of the world. Continued loss of alliances cannot help our position, and many of us are convinced that continued military action according to the neoliberal doctrine will only make our position worse. We are moving in a direction of warfare, untenable as it is, and not just with weak, undefended countries like Iraq. We are moving into a position where that stance taken by powers such as Russia and China is more one of lock-and-load, rather than one of detente and cooperation. It's no secret. These countries now deliberately expose their capabilities, from time to time, as if to say "Don't cross the fucking line, we can hit harder than you expect." Russian bombers suddenly appear well inside "impenetrable" air defenses that surround American carrier battle groups. Ditto for Chinese submarines, which China has demonstrated can surface undetected next to a carrier right in the middle of fucking war-game exercise when it was supposed to impossible. We could get pissed off and blow the bomber out the sky, or the sub out of the ocean, but it won't change the proof now voluntarily handed over that those countries can readily penetrate and destroy our most formidable conventional offensive capabilities at will. So much for the illusion that nobody can fuck with the long arm of American military power. Anybody want to shit your pants and call it righteous contempt? Go right ahead, but things won't be smelling any better for the effort.

 

So the question now is, what do we want to do to be part of the world of human beings? It's a good question and we are good people to be asking it. On the question about McCain, you already know my answer. Regarding Clinton, I can say I've never voted for a Clinton and hope I don't ever feel I have to. And Obama? Well, I've heard this: Where Clinton (or McCain for that matter) is a politician, Obama is a statesman.

 

I think it would be fine day for America to have a statesman as president again.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Let's split the difference and vote in McCain/Obama as independents. McCain can be a one-termer and Obama can take over in 2012.

[JosephH]

I would have guessed McCain / Lieberman if he were operating under the same dellusion of 'uniting' the parties as Obama.

[prole]

But this deal about occupying other countries, at great expense in terms of American wealth and blood, this is getting on our nerves. Also of growing concern to many of us is the apparently severe decline America now suffers in terms of its esteem in the eyes of the world. Continued loss of alliances cannot help our position, and many of us are convinced that continued military action according to the neoliberal doctrine will only make our position worse. We are moving in a direction of warfare, untenable as it is, and not just with weak, undefended countries like Iraq. We are moving into a position where that stance taken by powers such as Russia and China is more one of lock-and-load, rather than one of detente and cooperation. It's no secret. These countries now deliberately expose their capabilities, from time to time, as if to say "Don't cross the fucking line, we can hit harder than you expect." Russian bombers suddenly appear well inside "impenetrable" air defenses that surround American carrier battle groups. Ditto for Chinese submarines, which China has demonstrated can surface undetected next to a carrier right in the middle of fucking war-game exercise when it was supposed to impossible. We could get pissed off and blow the bomber out the sky, or the sub out of the ocean, but it won't change the proof now voluntarily handed over that those countries can readily penetrate and destroy our most formidable conventional offensive capabilities at will. So much for the illusion that nobody can fuck with the long arm of American military power. Anybody want to shit your pants and call it righteous contempt? Go right ahead, but things won't be smelling any better for the effort.

 

Don't worry, our "defense" is just as bloated as ever. It's the opportunity costs that are killing us.

[kevbone]

McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years. This OK with you? Iraq is a debacle. A joke. A lie. An occupation. Call it what you want…….it costs us 20 billion a month to what? Shoot Islamic terrorists? Bullshit……..

 

McCain will be no better than the current criminal in the White House.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Hillary will stay in too - and you've already professed your support for "the bitch".

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Nah. Hillary has stated that she'll withdraw within a year. There's very little difference between her and Obama's stated position here.

Edited February 14, 2008 by tvashtarkatena