View Full Version : Conundrum...

09-05-2008, 02:26 AM
of sorts....
If the Republican party has been so good for the country these past
7 years....why is Yahoo reporting that McSame is
"Distancing himself from GOP"
" If you didn’t know that John McCain was a Republican, you might think he was running against the Republicans."

"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us,” McCain told the Republican National Convention Thursday night. “We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption.”
John McCain is a maverick who has now done what mavericks almost never do: win. And now he must lead a party while maintaining his independence from it."

John promoting himself as a Maverick....hmmm
With just a little reworking, this could be his campaign song:
McMaverick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrsDT02OcE)

Or maybe for a more visual image:
one man for truth, justice, and the American way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxIuIxqo2So&feature=related)

09-05-2008, 03:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If the Republican party has been so good for the country these past
7 years.... </div></div>

Who said that one? I don't think even LWW went that far. I personally don't think it has been good at all. I just happen to think it also could have been much worse even, though....***pause*** I know right!


09-05-2008, 03:17 AM
by the way, why is it always you and me... and a slew of anonymous viewers hanging out on here at this hour?


Gayle in MD
09-05-2008, 07:52 AM
A crock. If he's a maverick, why did he vote for every single Bush measure? Why did he say on Meet The Press just this last April, that he supported every single position of Bush's. He helped Bush put this country in a trick bag, and now he thinks he can pull of aura of Maverick?

He's laying his entire campaign on standing up against Bush, distincing himself from the crooks and the incompetents, but he was right there agreeing with everything Bush did from the start, hugging him and kissing him all the way. Now he's trying to say he was a Maverick for pushing for a surge, but Democratics were doing that from the start of this illegal occupation, back when it was appropriate and could have made a difference, saying they weren't taking in enough boots on the ground, while he originally supported the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush lean army BS. He never called for Rumsfeld to resign. He never took a single strong position against this administration that wasn't obvious to the whole country, as a must change issue. He knew he would need some favors for his future campaign for president, from what he asummed would be a successful administration, and he was wrong. He enabled the slaughter to go on, and still enables it to this day. There is no way that they can calim that going into Iraq was correct. Hence, nothing we ever do there can be seen as a success. It was a colossal foreing policy disaster, always will be.

Now he's saying, we're were all crooks, we're were all corrupt, Ev'e been a liar and a egomaniac in the past, but I'm a leader! A maverick! And I supported defeating evil through this never ending mess Bush has made in the Middle East! Only none of our most respected National Security experts agrees with him. McCain is ill. he has no business running for president.

He's been licking Bush's boots for eight years. Behind the scenes, the party is thrilled that neither Bush or Cheney showed up for this Romper Room campaign.

McCain's the biggest hypocrite in Washington D.C. His positions have proven to be on the wrong side of every issue. He's flipped on everything. Calling him a Maverick is like Calling Hitler a missionary.


09-05-2008, 08:21 AM
Gayle I heard John McCain spent all his Money on Hanna. It was the only way to Keep Bush/Cheney out of Minneapolis/St.Paul. I know they think it was money well spent.

I saw Robin Williams on David Letterman doing a Take on GWB doing a Speaking Tour at Least someone besides me thinks it won't work. ####

Gayle in MD
09-05-2008, 08:28 AM


09-05-2008, 01:10 PM
Sack, it doesn't matter what lww said, or didn't say Especially him), just as it doesn't matter what you or I say. We're only a small group of malcontents, offering our less then cognizant comments on the national scene.
But if you believe the party's minister of misinformation, O'Reilly...the republicans have saved us from a takeover by Saddam, secured our borders, restored our economy,have our teens practicing abstinence, and are totally prepared to meet any national disaster, like a hurricane, flooding, etc...well maybe not exactly...but imagine how much worse the Democrats would have done.
If McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush league politics....then maybe it's time for that party to step down for the next four years, and try to reorganize, and restore the party's integrity....good for the party, and very good for the country

Gayle in MD
09-05-2008, 01:35 PM
It must really ease the minds of those who voted for him to try to promote that excuse, however, it also denies the reality, which is that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was a far better president, all in all.

If Bush had listened to him, al Qaed would never have been successful on 9/11. and Clinton surely didn't borrow this country into dangerous debt levels.

For all the criticisms the right lodge incessantly at Clinton, you guys still cannot get off your **** and admit that Bush, and the Republicans, have been the worst thing that ever happened to this country, as a direct result of Republican majority, and a Republican in the White House.

But then, you guys even bash Roosevelt, some of you, because you've all been so brain washed to hate anything that any president does FOR THE PEOPLE, and dismiss it as just socialism, even when they are drownig in the streets, and when your boy George doesn't even fly over for days, thqat's OK, the people wer dumb and too lazy to get out of town.

Statements like yours, Sack, are an example of gross denial. It doesn't make me dislike yyou, but you should atleast admit that that was a statement that was surely not realistic.

Bush was the worst ever, and so was his majority. Only the dumbest of the dumb would go right back out there and vote for this bunch of scum, AGAIN!

09-05-2008, 01:52 PM
I'm not promoting any excuses. And I actually do think Clinton was a fine president. I certinaly don't think his face belongs on a mountain... but I think he did a good job. But let's face it, Gore or Kerry would have not been Bill Clinton, either. I also think Bush has done a horrible job. It just happens to be MY OPINION that the alternatives still may have been worse. Maybe for much different reasons, granted, but I don't think we'd be coming up roses right now either under the alternatives. I never claimed my statement to be realistic... it's an opinion and it doesn't have to be necessarily realistic, and I certinaly wasn't stating it as fact. As they say, opinions are like a certain expletive-- everybody has one and they all stink.

But to say my statement was a denial of some sort, I don't think holds water. After all, I didn't deny anything, I in fact said "I personally don't think it has been good at all" (under bush). But my opinion is still just that, my opinion. Just as you are welcome to yours, and we can all choose how we feel about others opinions freely. But please remember in responding, the difference in giving ones opinion vs. attempting to prove a point via facts and data.


Gayle in MD
09-05-2008, 02:13 PM
No offense intended, just pointing out that the odds of either Kerry, or Gore being worse than Bush are very, very slim, given the mess we're in, and all the lost lives and treasure, for nothing.

Gore was right out there from the start on this Iraq mess, and he was right, which anyone who would try and say Iraq was a correct decision, is absolutely in denial.

Kerry surely wouldn't have gone in there, and for one thing, neither of them would have made up information to invade in the first place.

Gore would have been all for getting away from oil, not trying to invade another country for it. And had he won, Kerry would never have even been in the picture. Leiberman would have been deep sixed after Gore won, and relegated to a three days of importance, VP. Gore would have had his mind focused on alQaeda, and 9/11 most likely wouldn't ever have happened. In fact, one of our National Security experts, Richard Clarke, I believe, stated in an interview that Gore intended to increase the size of the Alex unit, and impliment new technology for infiltrating their communications. he was hell bent on getting bin Laden, and Amereica would be a far better place to live right now had Bush not been able to steal that Florida vote.

Bush, being the worst in history, saying that either of the two alternatives could have been worse, surely is denial, Sack. It is denial, no doubt. No one on the horizon could have been as bad, except John McCain, and If he should happen to pull this thing off somehow, I will come out of retirement, and get into politics myself to bring him down, after all, I've got plenty of foreign policy experience, I must have, I live close to the Pentagon and the CIA, the Capital and the White House, the Senate and the Treasury Department. According to Carley Fiorina, and the Republicans I'm by far qualified to run this country!