Some "Straight" Talk from McCain

[ljb]

Here is some interesting examples of republican John McCain's "and now my friends you are going to hear some straight talk".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-a5T0HsJpw

[Tom]

I don't think "staight" means what he thinks it means! :lol:

[lamboguy]

that is why they are politions.

people running for public office have to try to appeal to as many people as possible. that is how they get elected. so far we will all admit tht this is the greatest system known to man even with its flaws.

its nice to love republicans and hate democrats or vice versa. but look at this realistic, it really doesn't matter who THE PEOPLE vote for, or the reasons they vote for the person. all that seems to matter is what the bankers and financial instiutions want.

[WeirdWilly]

I don't think "staight" means what he thinks it means! :lol:

Perhaps you are right after all!

Regardless of who the Republicans would have nominated, the current demographics and trends indicate that a Democrat is destined to go to to the White House for the next 8 years. Let's face it, Conservatism is NOT fashionable, and people like Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson really don't have the charisma of a Ronald Reagan. Oh, I forgot...elections are not popularity contests! :lol:

Perhaps this country needs to be utterly destroyed, thousands dead from terrorism. Nobody would EVER claim it was a false flag, that we did it to ourselves. Millions destitute - people will take care of themselves and not look for Uncle Sugar to rescue them. Our military in chaos - America's youth will stand up and stand out. Then, a strong leader, not caught up in the B.S. of electoral politics can step forward and seize control of the devestation. He will bring peace and prosperity while crushing the distractors.

Be careful of what you wish for!

[Tom]

Been down this road before.
After 9-11, we had the perfect opportunity, and Bush stepped up to the plate. Unfortunately, he fouled out. We could have accomplished so much, especially when we took both houses in 2004. But the repubs chose medioctity and personal gains over victory and justice.

No matter what you think about Iraq, bottom line is our response it was to sacrifice more lives, flush billions of money down the drain, and not do much of anything. Al Qeda is stronger than ever, just re-located. Bin Laden still has a multi-tape contract, and now, instead of just Afghanistan beind used as a training ground for terrorist, we have Iraq and Paksitan, and may lose Afghanistan to boot before it is over. I do not understand how you can do the right thing the wrong way at every step of the way.

The "surge' was called for in 2004 at Fallujah. Bin LAden shold have been purseued no matter where he went. I bought in to a "no safe haven" and "you are either with us or against us" type of war on terror. I was sold a bill of good and a pack of lies. We have failed to fight the good fight. I may lose my "rightie-ID card" but I believe that as soon as SH was captured, and "daddy Bush" avenged, Little Bush lost interest.

So I am not rushing to get behind anything the republicans have to offer. I will not support them ever again. The sooner the base deserts them the sooner we form a real conservative party and get back to business. Our party has been outsources to closet libs.

We need to back real conservative house and senate candidates and fight
liberalism every day - none of this reaching across the aisle BS....when have THEY ever reached across to us?

The real war on terror will be fought in the senate.

[JustRalph]

The real war on terror will be fought in the senate.


great post Tom!

Very cool quote too............. :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

We need to back real conservative house and senate candidates and fight
liberalism every day - none of this reaching across the aisle BS....when have THEY ever reached across to us?

The real war on terror will be fought in the senate.
What a bunch of crap. This polarization is, in part, one of the biggest problems in the U.S. today.

[ljb]

Been down this road before.
After 9-11, we had the perfect opportunity, and Bush stepped up to the plate. Unfortunately, he fouled out. We could have accomplished so much, especially when we took both houses in 2004. But the repubs chose medioctity and personal gains over victory and justice.
Actually the repubs were doing what they wanted to do, continue their imperialistic ways .

No matter what you think about Iraq, bottom line is our response it was to sacrifice more lives, flush billions of money down the drain, and not do much of anything. Al Qeda is stronger than ever, just re-located. Bin Laden still has a multi-tape contract, and now, instead of just Afghanistan beind used as a training ground for terrorist, we have Iraq and Paksitan, and may lose Afghanistan to boot before it is over. I do not understand how you can do the right thing the wrong way at every step of the way.
until recently they had the support of many here in their foolish ways.
The "surge' was called for in 2004 at Fallujah. Bin LAden shold have been purseued no matter where he went. I bought in to a "no safe haven" and "you are either with us or against us" type of war on terror. I was sold a bill of good and a pack of lies. We have failed to fight the good fight. I may lose my "rightie-ID card" but I believe that as soon as SH was captured, and "daddy Bush" avenged, Little Bush lost interest.
Good of you to admit the error of your ways.

So I am not rushing to get behind anything the republicans have to offer. I will not support them ever again. The sooner the base deserts them the sooner we form a real conservative party and get back to business. Our party has been outsources to closet libs.

Actually the neocons have lost their grip on the republic party. This is a good thing Tom.

We need to back real conservative house and senate candidates and fight
liberalism every day - none of this reaching across the aisle BS....when have THEY ever reached across to us?

I have posted in another thread, the neocons have peaked, the pendulum is now swinging left. Get used to it Tom, happy days are here again.
The real war on terror will be fought in the senate.
Perhaps.

[46zilzal]

From DAY ONE the government was supposed to, and was set up to be, a cooperative organization that acted upon the consensus of it's citizens. Even the founding partners recognized this in the way representation was set up in the legislative branches with one house equal and the other represented by population.

Cooperation, not divisiveness is the key to progress. The clowns in government forgot that a long time ago.

I can recall hearing our Senator, Alan Cranston, coming on the tube talking about a bill that he personally opposed. He stated his reasons, then paused and announced that "you, my constituents, disagree with MY position. As your representative in Washington, I will then vote for your collective point of view for that is why I am here, to represent your voice." No wonder the guy was re-elected 6 times, the last several unopposed. He got it: he followed the representation of the thousands of people who put him there and NOT to some dogmatic point of view of a national political party.

That dogmatic adherence to a point of view independent of the electorate is destroying representative government.

[ljb]

Or to put it another way, the lobbyists on K-street have stolen the peoples government.

[Tom]

From DAY ONE the government was supposed to, and was set up to be, a cooperative organization that acted upon the consensus of it's citizens. Even the founding partners recognized this in the way representation was set up in the legislative branches with one house equal and the other represented by population. I think this is closer to BS than what you said about my post. Governemtn has NEVER been about cooperation. WE even had a duel at one time.

Cooperation, not divisiveness is the key to progress. The clowns in government forgot that a long time ago. Not true.

I can recall hearing our Senator, Alan Cranston, coming on the tube talking about a bill that he personally opposed. He stated his reasons, then paused and announced that "you, my constituents, disagree with MY position. As your representative in Washington, I will then vote for your collective point of view for that is why I am here, to represent your voice." No wonder the guy was re-elected 6 times, the last several unopposed. He got it: he followed the representation of the thousands of people who put him there and NOT to some dogmatic point of view of a national political party. If over 70% of Americans are opposed to amnesty, why does congress keep trying to slip it through?

That dogmatic adherence to a point of view independent of the electorate is destroying representative government.

Here's the deal, dude, a republican representative of mine can not reach across the asile ans still represent my interests. Once again, your post has missed the topic of the thread.