McCain shows his 'foreign expertise' in Jordan

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't want a shakeup that involves less autonomy, larger government, a weaker stance on terror, and Tribe-like SCOTUS justices. Sorry.

Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

Do I hint sarcasm? I agree completely though, Bush is the complete opposite of what a conservative should be.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Do I hint sarcasm?

Who, me?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

Do tell, what the hell does the next President have to do with Bush? Are you conceding the point that Obama will give us all of those things? If so, fine, and then we can get into whether my voting for GWB is hypocritical or not.

So I guess you'd be ok if the liberal half of SCOTUS had attempted to give the election to Gore? By the way, guess who represented Gore in his first trip to the Court? Lawrence Tribe.

[DaemonSeid]

Opinion
McCain: A History of Being Wrong About Al Qaeda, Iraq and Iran


Adam Blickstein Thu Mar 20, 2:58 PM ET

John McCain on several occasions recently has asserted that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together, including last month in Houston, Texas. The facts are much more complicated. McCain's assertions directly contradict General Petraeus who stated just yesterday that Al Qaeda weapons and suicide bombers actually come primarily through Syria.

McCain made the same mistake in 2002, before the Iraq War, when he claimed that Iraq would be part of a "weapons assembly line for al-Qaeda's network." In reality the 9/11 Commission and a recent Pentagon report found no operational relationship.

McCain, too often mistaken for a purported national security expert, conflates and confuses various regional players -- the same kind of dangerous oversimplification that pushed us into war five years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...4_200803201358



I'm still wondering how people figure that this is the best possibly experienced nominee if there is and has been, in this writer's opinion, constant confusion about who is the enemy?

I will really cringe if he ever lets slip... "Well they all look alike..."

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Do tell, what the hell does the next President have to do with Bush? Are you conceding the point that Obama will give us all of those things? If so, fine, and then we can get into whether my voting for GWB is hypocritical or not.

So I guess you'd be ok if the liberal half of SCOTUS had attempted to give the election to Gore? By the way, guess who represented Gore in his first trip to the Court? Lawrence Tribe.

Sorry, missed this retort.

My post was in response to your post in which you disagreed with my notion of D.C. being in desperate need of a shake-up. Your post implied that a shake-up (that by my intimation would need a party change) would result in a loss of autonomy, a growth in the size of government, an inability to defeat terrorism and a tribe-like supreme court, which I chose not to comment on. So my response was a suggestion back to you that keeping the GOP in place would not necessarily prevent those things from happening, just like electing the GOP 4 and 8 years ago didn't prevent those things from happening.

And my comment about the SCOTUS was just that I haven't gotten over that they gave Bush the presidency to begin with. I didn't try to pick a fight over them, that's just my personal feelings about it. And the SCOTUS wouldn't have had to "give" the presidency to Gore, the majority of American voters had already done that.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Sorry, missed this retort.

My post was in response to your post in which you disagreed with my notion of D.C. being in desperate need of a shake-up. Your post implied that a shake-up (that by my intimation would need a party change) would result in a loss of autonomy, a growth in the size of government, an inability to defeat terrorism and a tribe-like supreme court, which I chose not to comment on. So my response was a suggestion back to you that keeping the GOP in place would not necessarily prevent those things from happening, just like electing the GOP 4 and 8 years ago didn't prevent those things from happening.

And my comment about the SCOTUS was just that I haven't gotten over that they gave Bush the presidency to begin with. I didn't try to pick a fight over them, that's just my personal feelings about it. And the SCOTUS wouldn't have had to "give" the presidency to Gore, the majority of American voters had already done that.

Your response had to do with Bush, who will not be running again in 2008.

Bush won in 2000. It is time to let it go. I'd much prefer the election to be decided by SCOTUS than the notably biased FL Supreme Court. There is even significant evidence that Bush would have won had the recount not been stopped.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Your response had to do with Bush, who will not be running again in 2008.

Bush won in 2000. It is time to let it go. I'd much prefer the election to be decided by SCOTUS than the notably biased FL Supreme Court. There is even significant evidence that Bush would have won had the recount not been stopped.

He did?

Bush won like I used a cheat to beat Super Mario Brothers, won.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

He did?

Bush won like I used a cheat to beat Super Mario Brothers, won.

Coming from an unabashed liberal, I can't tell you how much legitimacy this holds for me.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Coming from an unabashed liberal, I can't tell you how much legitimacy this holds for me.

I have this image of you pouting and stomping your feet when you say that too.....hehehehe.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Your response had to do with Bush, who will not be running again in 2008.

I was making a sarcastic comment tinged with irony that was clearly lost on you.

Bush won in 2000. It is time to let it go. I'd much prefer the election to be decided by SCOTUS than the notably biased FL Supreme Court. There is even significant evidence that Bush would have won had the recount not been stopped.

I didn't say anything about the electoral college in my other post, but in my defense, I didn't know you were missing your sarcastic bone back then, so I'll just avoid it from now on.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Be realistic. I'm a Republican. We don't pout. Leave the pouting and protesting to you guys. I'll be busy killing polluting and exploiting the poor out of anger.

Don't forget to fit shooting guns, protesting in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, chasing illegals across the border, cutting taxes for the wealthy and ruining our relationships with foreign powers into your schedule, too...

BTW, I've always noticed HUGE differences in people who first and foremost say "I'm a Republican" versus "I'm a conservative." Pay attention, you'll see what I'm talking about. Well, you may not, you know, the semantics thing, but others probably will.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I was making a sarcastic comment tinged with irony that was clearly lost on you.

I didn't say anything about the electoral college in my other post, but in my defense, I didn't know you were missing your sarcastic bone back then, so I'll just avoid it from now on.

Don't forget to fit shooting guns, protesting in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, chasing illegals across the border, cutting taxes for the wealthy and ruining our relationships with foreign powers into your schedule, too...

BTW, I've always noticed HUGE differences in people who first and foremost say "I'm a Republican" versus "I'm a conservative." Pay attention, you'll see what I'm talking about. Well, you may not, you know, the semantics thing, but others probably will.

It wasn't lost on me. You weren't able or willing to argue the point about Obama, so you brought up Bush as a fallback. Attempted sarcasm or not, it simply wasn't relevant.

Thanks for the additions, shooting guns is certainly a good one. For your side I'll tack on crying, indie films, berating religion, cowering to terrorists, eco-terrorism and resenting the military.

I say I'm a conservative, and I'm a Republican. I could care less what other people say. I don't believe in everything every Republican proposes, but I've got no problem labeling myself for convenience.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

It wasn't lost on me. You weren't able or willing to argue the point about Obama, so you brought up Bush as a fallback. Attempted sarcasm or not, it simply wasn't relevant.

What "point about Obama?" The conversation I came in on was about McCain. I never referenced Obama in this conversation until this post. And if you've read any of my posts on any other threads, I've consistently said that I'm not on the Obama train (although now that Richardson's endorsed him and I'm guessing might be his VP, I might feel better about him). I thought we were talking about much broader things -- I made the comment that DC (as a whole, I didn't say just 1600 PA Ave) needs a shake-up, you switched into commando-grab-the-guns-and-the-kids-momma-and-let's-head-fer-the-hills-the-reds-are-comin' mode and listed off the litany of evils that will most certainly come out of a switch to the non-GOP party. You also never mentioned Obama in that particular exchange. So my sarcasm was a response to that little back-and-forth we were having, I thought in a macro-kind of sense.

For your side I'll tack on crying

guilty, "Rudy" gets me every time

indie films

like "Passion of the Christ"? No, I don't like those. I like comedies and Die Hard-type movies

berating religion

my deeply Catholic family would kill me

cowering to terrorists

have family members serving front-line as we speak, so shut up

eco-terrorism

I did just have 3 trees cut out of my front yard, so I bet the foliage around here does see me as quite the threat

and resenting the military.

see my answer before last and again, shut up

I don't believe in everything every Republican proposes, but I've got no problem labeling myself for convenience.

I somehow doubt this. I was raised nestled deep in the feathers of the right wing and I've known many a true-blue party-machine guy in my day, you e-strike me as being of the same ilk. If that's an incorrect perception, I apologize, but I do have some preconceived notions about guys that bluster like you from my experience that I will unfortunately probably never get rid of at this point. But either way, it's not that serious here and I'll stop trying to have enjoyably sarcastic conversation with you from here on out.