Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: HOW THE CLINTONS WILL DESTROY JOHN MCCAIN
Political Topics And Discussion > All Things Political > 2008 US Presidential Campaign
John L
The very thought of John McCain running on the S&G Party(Stupid & Gutless Party) Ticket is enough to make me want to puke. And I'm not even an S&G anymore. What sort of bind those S&Gs wish to place themselves is their business. In fact, I would vote for the Beast before voting for this Pocket Dictator. And that is saying a Whole Lot.

Anyway, Dr Jack Wheeler has this little article to back up another chink in the "Stupitidy" of the S&Gs Armour. Besides, if I wanted a Jackass in office, I would vote for the Real Deal, not some Jackass Lite.

How anyone could possibly choose to vote for this Monumental Turkey is totally beyond me. He is Dangerous! At least with "the Beast" she is a known evil, and can be reigned in. McCain....................?


QUOTE
HOW THE CLINTONS WILL DESTROY JOHN MCCAIN
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 31 January 2008

The number of fellow Senators who think John McCain is psychologically unstable is large. Some will admit it publicly, like Thad Cochran who says, "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine."

Others relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum, or Jim Inhofe. "The man is unhinged," one Senator told me. "He is frighteningly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief."

That John McCain is clinically nuts is scary enough. What worries a small group of GOP Senators and Congressmen even more is a deep and dark skeletal secret in McCain's glorified past to which they are privy, and which the Clintons will use to blackmail him.

They have been having discussions with a Russian whom we'll call "T" for Translator. T's father was the Soviet military intelligence officer who ran the "Hanoi Hilton" prison holding captured Americans during the Vietnam War. One of those prisoners was John McCain.

The GRU -- Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije or Main Intelligence Directorate of the Soviet (now Russian) Armed Forces - operated the entire North Vietnamese prison system holding American prisoners of war. GRU officers, all of whom were Russians, oversaw the interrogation of every American POW.

The interrogations themselves were conducted by Vietnamese who spoke some English. After each interrogation session, which could often include torturing the prisoners at the direction of the GRU officers, the Vietnamese interrogator would write a report of the session - in Vietnamese.

These reports had to be translated into Russian. T, a bright teenager living in the GRU compound in Hanoi, had become fluent in Vietnamese, and ended up translating many of the reports and interrogators' notes.

John McCain, flying his A-4 Skyhawk, was shot down over Hanoi on October 26, 1967. Badly injured from the ejection, he was beaten and abused by his captors. In July, 1968, his father, US Navy Admiral J. S. McCain, was made CINCPAC, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, commander of all US military forces in the Vietnam theatre. Upon learning this, the Vietnamese offered - according to McCain - to release him.

McCain claims he refused, because he demanded all American POWs captured before him be released as well. He thus remained a prisoner when he could have gone home, and was subjected to constant brutal beatings and torture for years: that is the source of the "war-hero" saga making McCain a greater war-hero than any other American POW.

Yet the offer of release would had to have been approved by the GRU overseers of the North Vietnamese - and T does not recall any such offer being made. T admits, however, that this took place before McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by the POWs. T had only direct knowledge of what happened at Hoa Loa, and not the other prisons, where T's father was in charge.

McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March of 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators' notes and reports regarding John McCain.

According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.

The notes and reports written in Vietnamese were sent to Moscow, where T was a now a college student, for T's translation into Russian, then placed into GRU archives. That's where they stayed until 1991. Late that year, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the CIA and the GRU made a deal for a document swap.

All of what it involved, T doesn't know. What T's father, by now retired but still with substantial contacts within the GRU, did learn (and thus T learned) was that the swap included all of T's translations.

In other words, the CIA has in its possession the notes and reports of John McCain's interrogators at the Hanoi Hilton, in both the original Vietnamese and translated Russian, showing collaboration with his Communist captors.

Allegations of this nature have been made over the years, many by Vietnam veterans. There is an even an organization, Vietnam Veterans Against McCain. But they are based on suspicions and circumstantial claims. There has never been any hard direct evidence.

What T says the CIA has is such evidence. Its release would destroy McCain. The threat of its release could force McCain to take a fall, blow the election and lose on purpose. And just who do you suppose would know what the CIA has and work with them to release it?

Someone who has been a CIA asset since he was recruited by London station chief Cord Meyer while a student at Oxford in 1968?

(Back in the 90s years after he retired, if Cord drank a little too much Scotch, he would laugh derisively at those conspiratorialists who accused Bill Clinton of being connected with the KGB.

"They all darkly point to Bill's participation in anti-war peace conferences in Stockholm and Oslo, and his trip to Leningrad, Moscow, and Prague while he was at Oxford. ‘Who could have paid for this?', they ask. ‘It had to be the KGB!' they claim." Cord would shake his head. "What rot - we paid for it. We recruited Bill the first week he was at Oxford. Bill's been an asset of The Three Bad Words ever since." Cord passed on in 2001.)

The small group of Senators and Congressmen who have been briefed by T have been unable to confirm with the CIA any details of its document swap with the GRU beyond an admission that such a swap "may have happened." They are very nervous about pursuing the matter any further.

The Clintons are not nervous. They are utterly ruthless, and have buddies at Langley all too happy to help them.

It has been noted many times here in To The Point that while most folks think the CIA is a right-wing outfit, it is not. The CIA has been dominated by left-wing hyper-liberals for years.

The CIA is a left-wing, liberal outfit, and its main job for some time now is not attacking America's enemies but conservatives in general and George W. Bush in particular. The story is best told by friend, Ken Timmerman in his new book Shadow Warriors.

When the time is right, the Clintons will see to the leaking of the GRU archives on McCain to the media. Bet on it, just as you can bet they'll follow it up with media disclosures of the lady lobbyists in Washington having adulterous affairs with McCain. (There are at least three of them; I know the name of one but I'm not going to put it in writing.)

Maybe McCain will try to fight back by confirming Hillary's well-known bisexuality and her lesbian affair with her beautiful assistant, Huma Abedin. Google "Hillary" and "Huma Abedin" and you'll get almost 6,000 hits. Turns out Huma is a Moslem who grew up in Saudi Arabia and is strongly suspected of working for Saudi intelligence.

Or maybe he'll capitulate to Clinton blackmail. You never can tell what a psychologically unstable guy will do.

And that last point is why - be prepared for this, folks - I would not in any circumstances vote for John McCain, not if either Hillary or Obama were the alternative. Evil is safer than crazy. Leftie amateur inexperience is safer than crazy. So I agree with Ann Coulter who says:

"I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility."

How in the world can the Republican Party get saddled with a nutcase whack-job who knows nothing about economics, is so anti-capitalist he uses "profit" as a term of derision, has never run a business or had any job outside of government, will raise taxes, is so stupid that he believes "stopping global warming" is worth destroying the American economy, won't drill ANWR, won't appoint strict constructionist justices, won't protect marriage, will give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, is beloved by the New York Times, and lives in a delusionary world of vanity and rage?

Rush is right. A McCain presidency will be the destruction of the Republican Party. It needs to be rebuilt, not wiped out with the field clear for the fascists of the left to consolidate power and eliminate freedom.

And maybe the only way to rebuild it is in dedicated impassioned opposition to a Clinton White House. That should be the subject of Ann Coulter's next book. I've already got the title for her. Her last book was If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.

Ann needs to now write this book: If Republicans Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.

[A Yogi Berra note. There still is a chance for Romney, the last remaining hope. If he can win enough delegates on Super Tuesday next week, combined with Huckabee winning Georgia and other southern states, it may still be possible for McCain to end up with only a plurality of delegates, not a majority, at the end of primary season. An open convention is still possible, during which Republicans could come to their senses. It's not over until it's over.
Nomad
I will not vote for this scumbag. Did not vote for him last senate run and wouldn't elect him dog catcher. Good post John.......... McPain is nuts. Best case scenario this go round is Sambo on the dem ticket. I'd vote for him over McPain. Both are died in the wool liberals and will fk up this nation. I would rather have another Carter to fk things up on the dem side instead of a republican. If The C*** is the dem nominee I stay home, no way in hell I could ever vote for a Clinton.

But the fat lady is still in the wings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Tuesday is shaping up to be very interesting............................

006.gif 006.gif 006.gif
ustrader
QUOTE

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams

“Democrats are the only reason to vote for Republicans” Will Rogers

The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office” Will Rogers


There are four (4) processes in winning, the contest and its challenges, from which comes preparation, planning and execution for both. While there is but one process in losing, skipping the processes of winning.

Either and both have consequences, intended and unintended, in their effect. but the effortless latter is far more bitter in the end.

It seems that some have forsaken the former and sucumb to the latter without much effort and less vision as to the entireity of the consequences.

IMHO, when defeat is inevitable, the advantage lies in the fight, for lose is predictable and ordained, while snatching victory from certain defeat, when all is supposedly lost, is what men are made of -Trader

That is All!!
John L
Here is Jack Wheeler's rebuttal to the doubters. Doubting McCain
Thaiquila
Yes, McCain is a total SCUMBAG! You guys have lost this already. Why bother even running?

He recently lied saying the democrats were for universal health care (true) while the fascists were for "families" deciding health care. He isn't a straight talker. He is a liar. Families don't provide health care: hospitals do, doctors do, nurses do. If that is all you got, fascists, I smell a LANDSLIDE!
ustrader
QUOTE (ustrader @ Feb 4 2008, 02:39 PM) *
There are four (4) processes in winning, the contest and its challenges, from which comes preparation, planning and execution for both. While there is but one process in losing, skipping the processes of winning.

Either and both have consequences, intended and unintended, in their effect. but the effortless latter is far more bitter in the end.

It seems that some have forsaken the former and sucumb to the latter without much effort and less vision as to the entireity of the consequences.


IMHO, when defeat is inevitable, the advantage lies in the fight, for lose is predictable and ordained, while snatching victory from certain defeat, when all is supposedly lost, is what men are made of -Trader

That is All!!


The End is here! unsure.gif ohmy.gif

CONGRESS a majority of ONE (Overwhelmed Nearsighted Excuse-mongers)


Republicans face an 'epidemic' of U.S. House dropouts
With 25 GOP retirements or resignations from the U.S. House already announced, the Republican Party has a political problem.


WASHINGTON --

In the last week of January, five members of Congress joined the hottest demographic group on Capitol Hill: Republicans who are heading for the exits.

Reps. Tom Davis of Virginia, Kenny Hulshof of Missouri, Ron Lewis of Kentucky, Dave Weldon of Florida and James Walsh of New York are among 25 Republican members of the House of Representatives who have announced their resignation or retirement. The party is closing in quickly on its record of 27 House retirements, set in 1952.

Hulshof is running for governor; the others are retiring.

''It's become an epidemic,'' said David Johnson, a Republican consultant and strategist based in Atlanta.
While some members, such as Hulshof, are leaving to pursue new political opportunities, most observers say that the mass departures are the result of the loss of Republican control in the 2006 elections, lackluster fundraising and low morale.

So far, only five House Democrats have announced that they are leaving, either to retire or to run for Senate seats.

Prospects look equally bright for Democrats in the Senate, where five Republican veterans -- John Warner of Virginia, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho and Wayne Allard of Colorado -- are ready to hang it up.

A GRIM OUTLOOK

It adds up to a tough year for Republicans, who at a minimum will face a big loss of seniority and experience when the 111th Congress convenes next January. Analysts predict that the party will be hard-pressed to keep Democrats from expanding their 232-199 House majority.

''It means that whatever little chance there was -- and it always was a little chance -- that they could take back the House is pretty much gone. . . . Open seats are always easier to win,'' said Robert Smith, a professor of political science at San Francisco State University. He said that many retiring Republicans had discovered that after running the House for more than a decade, ``it's not as satisfying to go to the other side.''

Much of the Democratic excitement is focused on the party's ability to attract big-time cash.

Outgunning Republicans in the money chase for the first time in at least two decades, Democrats raised a record $67.5 million for House races last year and finished the year with more than $35 million in cash.

MORE DEPARTURES

Johnson, who worked on former Kansas Republican Sen. Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign and has overseen numerous congressional races, said that four more House Republicans could step aside this year. That would break the party's record.

''I would say there's a good possibility, depending on how the polls continue to look,'' Johnson said. ``The Republican brand right now is damaged. Voters are not blaming the Democratic Congress, even though the polls show that Congress is held in such low esteem. Voters are blaming Republicans more than they're blaming the Democrats who are in power. . . . All of a sudden, we're playing defense.''

Only 33 percent of Americans gave Congress a positive job rating in an ABC-Washington Post poll conducted last week. However, an earlier poll by the same organizations found that 54 percent of respondents still want Democrats to control Congress next year, compared with 40 percent who want Republicans back in charge. The findings were nearly identical to those of a USA Today-Gallup poll in December.

Republicans acknowledge that they face an uphill fight this year, but their leaders are trying to put the best face on their situation.

Julie Shutley, the deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, predicted that the party will be in a good position to replace all 25 of its departing members with Republicans. ''We feel like we have a very good Republican bench of candidates in the districts that are going to be open seats,'' she said.

Some analysts regard the exodus of Republicans as normal, the result of natural rhythms that occur in a two-party system, particularly after a watershed election such as 2006, when Democrats won control of both houses of Congress. Under this theory, the party that wins control will often consolidate its power in elections two years later.

Democrats, of course, are hoping for a November sweep: winning the White House and strengthening their majorities on Capitol Hill. Or at least winning 60 Senate seats so they have a veto-proof majority if a Republican wins the White House. They hope that increased turnout and energy in the presidential race will aid their congressional candidates.

The Republicans' money problems are compounded by an unpopular war in Iraq, an economy that is quickly turning downward, and President Bush's low approval ratings, Smith said.

`LIFE IN THE MINORITY'

Johnson said that Republicans ''haven't adapted to life in the minority'' and that the party lacks a cohesive strategy to rebound. He gave credit to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who offers a different public image from that of Newt Gingrich, the former Georgia congressman who led the House after Republicans won in 1994. That's the last time the parties traded control.

''Part of the Republican problem right now that I see as a strategist is our communications effort,'' Johnson said. ``We don't have any good communicators. We don't seem to stay on message. We come across as grumpy old men. I hate to say it, but that's part of the problem. We're not telegenic on TV. We're going against Nancy Pelosi, who could be damaged but -- I have to take my hat off to her -- she's done an excellent job with the media. Nothing seems to stick on her like everything stuck on Newt Gingrich.'

The Beat Goes on!!

Can any Republican win in 2008? Or Why Obama Is a Risky Pick for Democrats

Bottom Line: The party with no need to nominate a risky candidate is going to do so. The party who sensibly could have taken a chance did not. As a result, the Republican Party has a chance to win when they should not have such a chance.

Is political prognostication that complicated?

President Bush is unpopular with non-Republicans. The Republican base is unhappy with the Republican Party. It is hard for even a popular president leading a fervent base to hand off control of the White House after two terms. There is a natural desire for change in the American public.

These are all obvious truths.

Any Democrat running for President starts out as the heavy favorite this year. However, despite appearances, the primaries for the Democrats have been very bad for the Democrat’s chances for victory. It may not be obvious now, but if the Republican nominee is willing to “go negative” he can still win.
If the Democrat nominee were any of the Virginia Democrats now in office (or just out of office), the Democrats would be in a no-lose situation. Numerous Southern Democrats, not named Clinton, would be winning in an Ipod versus Zune election.

The Democrats should be about to win in a landslide where no Republican nominee could stop them.

Instead, because the Clinton machine had to run, they attracted a field including Hillary that meant Republicans still have a chance.

Weirdly, the primaries, because of the Clinton machine, did not attract no-lose candidates. It attracted also-rans like Biden and Dodd and one very young up and comer. The field was so weak after Clinton that oratorical skills and charisma have made what is essentially a newbie to politics the favorite for the nomination.

The only hope for the Republicans this entire cycle has been the Democrats and the Democrats have delivered. Obama is a great person with huge up side, but he is also terrifically risky as a candidate.
Why is the Democrat Party taking this risk?

Many of us wanted a Republican candidate in this situation with a big up side, but also big down side. What does that mean? A fresh presidential candidate has the risk of alienating even some of the base and losing in an electoral land slide. The bottom for Republicans is Bob Dole minus fervent Evangelical support.
The upside this year is probably a George H.W. Bush (1988) big, but not landslide, win.

Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney were both candidates who were new and had interesting strengths that could have expanded on the base vote. I thought this was particularly true of Romney which is why I supported him. On the other hand, they both carried significant risk.

John McCain has run before is well liked by the mainstream media and is pro-life. He is unlikely to lose in a landslide based on his own miscues and merits. He also has limited upside as an “old guy” (not his age, I mean he is a known factor). He can win, but it will always be electorally close.

At worst he is Bob Dole, at best he is George H.W. Bush in 2004 with a some shuffling of states (New Hampshire for Ohio? Wisconsin for Virginia?)

The Republican Party is nominating a candidate with little up side, but also with little down side.
The Democrats are taking bigger risks. Their nominating pool produced the two highest risk candidates.

Both candidates are very liberal and this is not a very liberal nation. (Imagine the Republicans choosing between Pat Toomey and Tom Coburn.) Their ideas have not been tested, because there is great ideological conformity in their party and the media has not pressed their views.

Both candidates have high potential downsides, but oddly the most attractive candidate (with the biggest upside) has the biggest potential downside. Knowing they should win, Democrats may feel the ability to roll the dice and get a liberal “rock star.”

That might be right . . . with the Republicans being the Democrats in 1980. This might be a rare moment where an attractive ideologue can win.

(Obama is Reagan, the winsome true believer running at just the right time. One problem for the Democrats is that McCain is not the sitting president. McCain is not Carter. If Reagan had run against a Democrat senator who was NOT Carter or the hapless Ted Kennedy, say a Scoop Jackson type, he may not have won and would almost certainly not have won a landslide that gave him a mandate.)

Clinton is the most likely Democrat to lose, but will not get crushed.

Clinton cannot win a landslide, but probably cannot lose one . . . she is a known quantity. She has high negatives, but these negatives cannot be driven up any higher than they are. Thus Clinton could, at worst, lose a close race, but probably cannot be defeated with fewer votes than John Kerry in this cycle.

If she wins, then it will be close and no disaster for Republicans.

Obama, on the other hand, is an awesome force at the moment. However, he is totally untested in a truly hostile environment. Given Democrat primaries, the Clinton machine is struggling to attack him effectively. To attack Obama risks alienating his voters and fans. It will be much easier for Republicans (without, God help us, playing the race card) to attack the most liberal senator in the nation.

Obama is very liberal. He has very liberal advisers. This is a big risk for Democrats.

Obama has said and defended views on Iran that are ripe for devastating attacks. He has said that the views on family shared by Billy Graham, the Pope, and the Ecumenical Patriarch are immoral. Politically and culturally, he is a very liberal Democrat running as a moderate.

In that sense, he is not Reagan. He has never had to defend his views on policy in a hostile situation with a reasonable person who disagrees.

Reagan ran as a conservative with a long track record he defended winsomely. Obama is winsome.
Obama will win a huge number of voters in a Democrat primary, but the groups he polls well with do not add up to an electoral majority. . . whatever the bubble of those living in academia or “chattering class” environments think. He excites “independents,” but these are independents who are really Democrat leaners.
He has increased the primary vote for Democrats, but I see no indication in national polls that he is doing more than exciting the Democrat base. Where is the indication (see Real Clear politics polls) that he is expanding that base?

What if there were a Republican candidate who jazzed the base enough to cause them to flock to the polls and united the party? That might be George W. Bush in 2000, but that did not mean electoral joy in November. Bush united all the voters who loved him, but did not expand beyond that base.
Obama needs to do more than give all the people most likely to vote Democrat (including a few token Republicans) joy and there is almost no national poll that shows him coming close to doing so.

He needs to expand beyond Democrats and Democrat leaners to win the general. Bringing mostly Democrat leaners to the polls in primaries is nothing in the general. Winning California by a zillion votes gives you the same number of electors as winning it by one . . . and there is no evidence in any case that Obama would win even Pennsylvania (which must be his) by a zillion votes.

He must become a rock star to more people. . . it is revealing that with Obama-mania at its height, the Obama press will get no better, Rasmussen has him under fifty-percent against McCain.

I think Obama is great, but I am not going to vote for him on policy grounds. Can Obama persuade lean-Republican independents and the tiny number of real independents? Maybe, but maybe not.

McCain is attractive to both groups. We know Clinton cannot, but we just don’t know about Obama. In fact, we don’t know much of anything about Obama that he has not told us. What if he does not wear well? What if he does not wear well with the voters actually in play?

This is not just “hopeful Republican” thinking, it is the danger of nominating an almost total unknown with a very out of the mainstream voting record, who attends a very odd church, and who has not been tested by a really hostile and sustained attack over time.

On the other hand, Obama has great rhetorical skills, is very smart, and has huge potential.
Obama could win a Reagan 1980 landslide . . . I think he might. Clinton cannot. No Clinton has gotten half the vote. Why would Hill do better than Bill? On the other hand, he has a big downside. He could become Dukakis.

What happens when he is swift-boated? He will be . . . and McCain will not do it, but does not have to do so. Outside conservative groups will and unlike Bill Clinton they will not stop because mainstream groups tell them to do so.

John McCain will condemn them and mean it. They will not stop, because they will like John McCain just a fraction more than they like a liberal Democrat.

John McCain has never shown the desire to do what it takes to win, but he has never been “the guy” in the general.

Democrats are about to roll the dice and go for a big win . . . and they could lose in a situation where losing is hard.

Surrender Now, the, Army is defeated and the war is lost!!!

Republican Circular Firing Squad


Fellow member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Kyle Smith at the New York Post, is as befuddled as I am when it comes to Republicans threatening to sit out 2008 over dissatisfaction with McCain — and he expresses such in his usual laugh-out-loud style:

This isn’t how it’s supposed to work for Republicans (or, as our esteemed neighbors from the left have dubbed us, “Rethuglicans,” which, come to think of it, would look kind of cool on the back of a leather jacket at a street rumble). Normally when primary season rolls around, we gather in our spotless futuristic aeries in undisclosed locations to hash out a candidacy. We adjust our Monopoly-man monocles, light a few cigars with $100 bills and amuse ourselves by emptying our ashtrays onto the guttersnipes we cheated on the way up. When we’re done, we’ve got our man and we stick with him. Then we go back to our day jobs trying to figure out ways to increase hunger and fight hope.

This time, though, a candidate won the primaries playing to the center but now has to swerve back and woo his base like a guy who left the house without his pants. Still, politics is compromise, and kinda conservative is the best Republicans can do at the moment. The liberal base didn’t like John Kerry at first, but they not only came around to his side but managed a massive fundraising and turnout operation, all based on Bush hatred. Hillary could be an equally powerful motivator for the right, and if Obama is the nominee he would be the most extreme liberal to head a major ticket since George McGovern. ….

Conservatives are one Justice away from completing the tantalizing half-century project to get the Supreme Court to stop using the Constitution as an Etch-a-Sketch for their ideas about right and wrong. McCain represents the best chance conservatism has this year. Let’s disband our circular firing squad.

Also, check out the kerfuffle in the comments with Kurt Anderson at the New York Post. I’m not sure if Kyle knows this but tweaking off The New York Post qualifies him for a free Rethuglican leather jacket. One more
and he gets the Rethuglican flight suit, modeled after the one Bush wore at the Mission Accomplished speech.

That is All!!
Bushisacoward
I’m so happy we’ve won the presidential elections, all I wont is a neo liberal in the white house that now looks like certainty McCain a liberal, Clinton and Obarma seem more right wing then him. This is great……
ustrader
QUOTE (Bushisacoward @ Feb 13 2008, 10:49 PM) *
I’m so happy we’ve won the presidential elections, all I wont is a neo liberal in the white house that now looks like certainty McCain a liberal, Clinton and Obarma seem more right wing then him. This is great……


Bush is a coward, I ponder, given your inclusion of ubber-Nanny State liberals Clinton and Obama in your long refused lust for Liberal fantasy’s gratification, if you, in fact and context, even grasp what a Neoliberal, much less, how non-monolithic liberalism is literally?

Unquestionably, in a small part, McCain may possess some minor yet proven traits of what is termed neoliberal-ism, but Obama and Hillary, Nay Mr. BBB, (Bush Blame Basher), nary a drop of substance of neoliberal-ism’s genetic imprint among either of these Uber-Nanny State liberals of varying monolithic liberalism.

America in general by all measures of its core ideologies is a Liberal nation. Whereby Liberal is defined, in consensus, as a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Despite the hyperbolic of many here and of certain mindset that assume to differentiate as to what is “MORE” liberal and LESS liberal, America’s societal, economic and political posture wholly embraces in the vast 98% percentile of its people and institutions,, even in difference of Political party rhetoric and pretentious dogma, a liberal consciousness. Thus even a so called, American Conservative is in fact a classic liberal in comparison to what is NOT a true liberal. The differentiator is mere in the inane argument as to “whose is bigger.”

American Liberalism is as inclusive in extremes as it is adaptive and evolving. For example even our foundering fathers, those now thought disciples of liberalism, were a bred of liberals, not as obvious in their real lives, as they were elegant in their liberal voices for liberty and equality and we the people would suggest. As they, like all liberals since, sought exceptions to equality as they operated on parallel venues of liberalism in worlds of exclusions, for the powerful, for the influential, the famous, the distinguished, the honored and, in particular the under classed and in that era, the enslaved. Whom most of their entirety were participants or benefactors to one or the other of equalities exclusions such as being slave owners among ever other excepted equality category.

Another changing American liberalism is evident prior to great depression as most of governance, society and capitalistic intuitions operated on the Liberal principles of laissez-faire capitalism, social Liberalism," and "the profit motive, with little effort and effect to invade natures natural inequalities with indoctrinated governmental interventionism." Afterwards, American liberalism, troubled by the political instability and restrictions on liberty that they believed were caused by the growing relative inequality of wealth. Shifted away from the former Laissez-faire liberalism, towards a more centralize governance liberalism that sought to continue the proven efficiencies of capitalism. But now, with governances more intrusive in its restrains on the economic engines of American industry with an new adjunctive adaptation for a far stronger emphasis on protecting the people in what turned out to be a trail and era game of entitlements and employment projects, objected to stimulate economic growth.

What they did not do was raise taxes in a time of economic stress and instability.

So let us distinguish Neoliberalism, which is a doctrine that refers to principally economic liberalism. More in tune with the Pre-depression era than the post depression era of American liberalism evolution.

In many respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical-influenced economic theories, right-wing libertarian political philosophies, and political rhetoric that portrayed government control over the economy as inefficient, corrupt or otherwise undesirable. Thus less government and involvement is far better than more.

(Not very Billhary or Obama is it really.)

Neoliberalism denotes more appropriately a shift in social-scientific and political sentiments that support a reform of largely centralized postwar economic institutions in favor of decentralized ones.

Neoliberal arguments Policy Implications encompass, broadly speaking, a transfer of control of the economy from the public to private sector.

(Something afar from the mindset of Billhary and Obama-nation-ism, wouldn’t you say.)

The definitive statement of policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's "Washington Consensus", a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the IMF and World Bank). Williamson's list included ten points:

Fiscal policy discipline;

Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based, not selective demographic discrimate subsidy provisions forbraodly dispersed key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure.

(All together afar from the Entitlement State of egalitarian bate and switch advocacy, either Obama-Nation-ism, Or Billhary dominate Uber-Nanny state-ism prefer.)

investment;
Tax reform – broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;

(Not the fabled urban fallacy of Robin hood-ism of Obama and Billhary, that takes from the best and most effective to give to the least effective with no measurable controls available to quantify its raising the least effective to an equal or far greater extent than it disenfranchises and lowers the higher effectual among a society. Proven ineffective and in the end failures and agents of counter-productivity by every form of socialism’s egalitarianism yet tried.)

Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;

(Again something afar from the Uber-Government interventionism infesting further into the lives of Americans, as advocated either by the Uber-Nanny State of Billhary-ism and or Obama –nation-ism of fantasy Change-ism. That thus far empty Star struck mantra of Indescribable Change as the answer, The ONLY answer, given at least)

Competitive exchange rates;

(Oops, for these one needs draconian efforts to the end of a continual Balanced Budget objective combined in equal enthusiastic draconian efforts toward balanced trade without deficits. How so NOT so Billhary-istic and Obama-Nation, is that? Perhaps a tad of McCain-ism purported in his alleged agenda, at least in his Rhetoric, but will it be his Democratic majority’s agenda, as it sure is not in their Rhetoric or evident in their agenda now on to two years of ineffectual majority rule.)

Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;

(See above for required effectiveness to be achievable)

Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;

(Oops how so NOT Doom-o-cratic has that proven to be at least in two years of agenda and Rhetoric? Encouraging Foreign investment from whom, well all our enemies we are current subsidizing in Trade in balances and for our lustful dependence for oil, how un Billhary and Obama-Nation is that?)

Privatization of state enterprises;

( Oops Smaller less intrusive and invasive Government, how not so Billhary and Obama nation-ism is that? Little McCain can do either with a larger doom-ocratic majority)

Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,

(What no more over regulation of the nation and its people, how non-Doom-o-cratic is that? McCain, well what is going to do when he is merely swimming against the outgoing tide.)

Legal security for property rights.

( self explanatory really)[i]

“Uber", which means of great amount

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ubber

Thus, Mr BBB, I wonder is this your vision of the coming neoliberalism, or is it entirely something different? For One would be hard pressed to see in any of candidates you mentions this measure with the except of a slight hardly noticeable color tenting of McCain in the regard.

I would not be so presumptive to assume that I, as a true independent, would not be inclined in my preferences to vote for either an Obama or a McCain, or even a women, when one finally runs for president. wink.gif

I will be waiting to hear a vision yet unspoken except in the usuaul empty spin and platitues of Political expedience speak! unsure.gif

That is All!!
Bushisacoward
Well we can play semantics all day, I think we all know what kind of liberal I’m eluding to ….

Democrats are thought to be more liberal, as the term is currently defined. “Political” liberals tend to favor greater federal power to remedy perceived social inequities; “cultural” liberals tend to support a woman’s right to choose when to give birth, as well as feminism, homosexual rights, and similar freedoms of personal choice and behavior. I’m sure you have your own interpretation and that’s fine.



I’d prefer a socialist, so I’m going for Mcain. I’m just enjoying watching the conservatives being frozen out, their time has passed.

I’m now going to have some toast with a LIBERAL spread on butter…..I’m not very Conservative with butter. You *^&%^%& idiot
SoloNav
QUOTE (Bushisacoward @ Feb 28 2008, 05:17 AM) *
Well we can play semantics all day, I think we all know what kind of liberal I’m eluding to ….

Democrats are thought to be more liberal, as the term is currently defined. “Political” liberals tend to favor greater federal power to remedy perceived social inequities; “cultural” liberals tend to support a woman’s right to choose when to give birth, as well as feminism, homosexual rights, and similar freedoms of personal choice and behavior. I’m sure you have your own interpretation and that’s fine.
I’d prefer a socialist, so I’m going for Mcain. I’m just enjoying watching the conservatives being frozen out, their time has passed.

I’m now going to have some toast with a LIBERAL spread on butter…..I’m not very Conservative with butter. You *^&%^%& idiot
You're funny. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
ustrader
[quote]I’d prefer a socialist, so I’m going for Mcain.[McCain] I’m just enjoying watching the conservatives being frozen out, their time has passed.

I’m now going to have some toast with a LIBERAL spread on butter…..I’m not very Conservative with butter. [SIZE=4]You *^&%^%& idiot]/size][/quote]

Let me applaud your atypical response in lockstep mind speak of socialism’s greatest merits and accomplishment, that core principal of liberal fascism, intolerant name calling, it’s egalitarian mantra of “we know best” oppression and over invasive interventionism, and its greats accomplishment of all, its failure at all levels, in ever variant yet tried.

I understand as a socialist proponent, to you the only true explanation for failure and or inequality, is conspiratorial oppressiveness.

I am aware of its core mantra of guilt displacement made in the expectations of egalitarianism’s utopian goal of mediocrity. That is why I engaged your knowledge or lack thereof of liberalism and Neo-liberalism.

I too, am looking forward to the Liberal spread of zealotry that has long existed, hidden from accountability in success and or failure between the thin wheat toasting of unproven hubris that burnt hinterland of mutilated fiber, meted in the dark gloom of blame and excuse.

[Quote]Well we can play semantics all day, I think we all know what kind of liberal I’m eluding to ….

Democrats are thought to be more liberal, as the term is currentl

[quote]I’d prefer a socialist, so I’m going for Mcain.[McCain] I’m just enjoying watching the conservatives being frozen out, their time has passed.

I’m now going to have some toast with a LIBERAL spread on butter…..I’m not very Conservative with butter. [SIZE=4]You *^&%^%& idiot]/size][/quote]

Let me applaud your atypical response in lockstep mind speak of socialism’s greatest merits and accomplishment, that core principal of liberal fascism, intolerant name calling, it’s egalitarian mantra of “we know best” oppression and over invasive interventionism, and its greats accomplishment of all, its failure at all levels, in ever variant yet tried.

I understand as a socialist proponent, to you the only true explanation for failure and or inequality, is conspiratorial oppressiveness.

I am aware of its core mantra of guilt displacement made in the expectations of egalitarianism’s utopian goal of mediocrity. That is why I engaged your knowledge or lack thereof of liberalism and Neo-liberalism.

I too, am looking forward to the Liberal spread of zealotry that has long existed, hidden from accountability in success and or failure between the thin wheat toasting of unproven hubris that burnt hinterland of mutilated fiber, meted in the dark gloom of blame and excuse.

[quote]Well we can play semantics all day, I think we all know what kind of liberal I’m eluding to ….

Democrats are thought to be more liberal, as the term is currently defined. “Political” liberals tend to favor greater federal power to remedy perceived social inequities; “cultural” liberals tend to support a woman’s right to choose when to give birth, as well as feminism, homosexual rights, and similar freedoms of personal choice and behavior. I’m sure you have your own interpretation and that’s fine.[/quote]

Consensual academically defined definitions about neo-liberalism are NOT semantics they are far from that as you obviously did not know. Your selective choice of what is defined as liberal, made in a fallacy of America’s two dimensional monolithic view that the entire spectrum of what is the breath between the extreme left and the extreme right of Political ideologies. A view made in an unawareness of the often compartmentalized combinations of some parts liberal and conservative ideologies that most people have, thus as a mix raced child, not really and truly either, but a new differentiated thing all together.

If you knew anything about American Political History as limited by your nexus of Liberals and Democrats, you would Know, that in terms of Bullets or Butter spending and involvement in America’s wars, your so called “Liberal Democratic Socialism,” in addition to being the greatest spenders for bullets over butter, has been the majority deciders in times of war, many more times than those you imply are the anti-liberal bred of war mongers you say you are not a part of.

Liberal ideologies often under pinned in the silent control of non-ideological totalitarianism have killed far more people than obviously your limitations comprehend. Four of liberalism greatest totalitarian ideologies were the most war mongering of all as proven by the efforts of Nazism, Communism, Stalinism and Maoism, all, at their core true blue liberal ideologies, merely competing in once liberalist’s ideals, preverted and turned into totalitarian redoubts were well over 100 million people died as a consequences of liberalism innate weakness to regularly fall under the spell of leader worshiping totalitarian deceit.

It is obvious you do not know the answer to the question I posed, given your preferences to avoid specifics in a fright of being found out, thus requiring the need to use name calling to cover up your inadequacies.

But have no fear, fear mongering and name calling are among the most liberal principles used in our excuse reliant nanny culture in entitled equality for self-created failures.

Libertarians are the only true liberals in America’s Political Ideological culture for the last 75 or more years. Even they are in such minority as to be insignificant at that. Democrats in any transformation over the last 75 years or more, by far more than not, are but liberals but acting as much as not, as closet conservatives.

Democrats are at best right of Libertarians in the true political spectrum and closer to conservatives especially in context of history and war anyway.

I doubt they will be any different this time, they will sell liberal warranties but renege to that special relationship of all politicians as the last year of Democratic legislative rule and this election process has proven,” to thy self, be most and foremost, true!”

P.S. Mc Cain “Maverick-ism” is neither a measure of his being a two dimensional and monolithic liberal, nor their opposite, a conservative, in principals nor ideology, it is merely a reflection of his preferences for the independence of being non- conventional and rebellious in doing things his way, leaving his way, not his ideology, as a core measure of his successes and or failures.

No better proof of that is the fact that he is a man who is equally hated by the far left liberals and far right conservatives, thus, can hardly be recognizable as either, now can he?

That is all!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.