Dude, you couldn’t pass a Logic 101 quiz with that junk you’re spewing. On every single criticism of McCain, you implicitly favor the more extreme position held by Marxist nitwit Obambi and the congressional black caucus racists, leftists and retards.

Either you’re an idiot, or you haven’t fully thought the process through. Let me help: when you go into the booth in November, there will only be two people who can be elected to the Presidency. Two. You have to pick one of them.

Jaibones

Oh my god, all the arguments, logical thinking, rational thought, or evidence in the world couldn’t have persuaded me.

But your name calling, calling me stupid, and basically telling me to follow your thinking (without showing me even what you’re thinking) and “fall in line” have persuaded me.

Much as McCain thinks, I really am easily persuaded by being treated like a f***ing moron and called names incessantly without being given an ounce of respect.

Thank you, that’s what I really want out of life, and finally someone will treat me like the trash I truly am.

Or, you know, maybe not.

So, Obama is worse than McCain on every issue I have problems with? Interesting. So when exactly did Obama spend 6 years of his life attempting to dismantle one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights?

I have McCain Feingold, his lawsuit in 2005 to try to regulate the internet, his Amicus brief last year, and a couple other less important data points along the way.

I’m sure you have equally impressive data showing how Obama has willfully and deliberately attempted to remove freedoms from the citizenry of the United States. But allow me to do youthe honor of showing it to all of us.

But, before asking evidence from you, I should show mine.

From his 2005 lawsuit, and what it represents. From news.com and the WSJ opinion page:

http://www.news.com/The-coming-crackdown-on-blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458

And the FEC appointees saving us from losing the First Amendment online (President appointed positions):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701474.html

Now surely you can easily top that, showing Obama taking concrete legislative or legal action to forcibly remove Constitutionally protected freedoms from Citizenry.

And I’m nice enough to play “straight man” and give you this chance to really shine. So please, show how Obama is worse, instead of making this claim with no evidence while engaging in name-calling.

I will tell you what a non-vote is it is an act of a coward. A senator or reprsentive who places a non vote is in fact a political hack and coward.

According to main moonbat Arianna Huffington,

Original Post: At a dinner party in Los Angeles not long after the 2000 election, I was talking to a man and his wife, both prominent Republicans. The conversation soon turned to the new president. “I ….

Why are we to believe a man that sees absolutely no difference in “qualification” between Ginsberg and Roberts.

highhopes on May 6, 2008 at 10:52 AM

He’s making the traditional, and correct, distinction between competence and philosophy. Harriet Miers was incompetent; Ruth Ginzberg is highly competent, but of a questionable philosophy. For years, gentlemanly respect for the institutions of the law led Senators to approve competent jurists regardless of philosophy; this civility was abruptly ruptured by the Democrats when they chose to defame the character of first Robert Bork, then Clarence Thomas, demonstrating their greater devotion to killing infants than to defending the Constitution.

McCain is competent, too.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Uh…wrong. A vote is an action with a reaction, and a non-vote is an action with a reaction. It’s just simply arithmatic. Try it.

Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 9:58 AM

You obviously don’t even read your own posts.

And there’s where YOUR logic fails. We don’t have to pick either of them.

fossten on May 7, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Uh…wrong. A vote is an action with a reaction, and a non-vote is an action with a reaction. It’s just simply arithmatic. Try it.

What I do know is that John McCain has a long history of being more interested in pleasing Democrats than dealing with the concerns of the GOP.

Sorry if I am not gushing in my support of the man. He is Quisling, Benedict Arnold, and Judas all rolled up into a bitter anti-GOP package.

highhopes on May 6, 2008 at 10:45 PM

All good examples of McCain failures and solid reasons to support a more conservative candidate in the primary. Now you need to elevate your brain and out-of-control emotions past the third grade, and into the reality of the general election.

See above. Two men enter, one man sits in the Oval Office. And you prefer the one whose position on every single issue that you cite is worse than McCain’s. Grow up.

Dude, you couldn’t pass a Logic 101 quiz with that junk you’re spewing. On every single criticism of McCain, you implicitly favor the more extreme position held by Marxist nitwit Obambi and the congressional black caucus racists, leftists and retards.

Either you’re an idiot, or you haven’t fully thought the process through. Let me help: when you go into the booth in November, there will only be two people who can be elected to the Presidency. Two. You have to pick one of them.

Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM

And there’s where YOUR logic fails. We don’t have to pick either of them.

McCain is a liberall in many ways, but still the best least worst of the current choices.

Webutante on May 6, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Fixed it for you.

gekkobear on May 7, 2008 at 12:39 AM

Dude, you couldn’t pass a Logic 101 quiz with that junk you’re spewing. On every single criticism of McCain, you implicitly favor the more extreme position held by Marxist nitwit Obambi and the congressional black caucus racists, leftists and retards.

Either you’re an idiot, or you haven’t fully thought the process through. Let me help: when you go into the booth in November, there will only be two people who can be elected to the Presidency. Two. You have to pick one of them.

OK, all you brainiacs, here’s what we’ll do…

We’ll sit out the election, and by default, elect a president who will trash the economy, throw Iraqis under the bus, throw Israel under the bus, and completely undermine the United States’ standing in the world, because of our love of dictators. – franksalterego

Ok, instead lets elect a candidate that wants CO2 cap & trade (trashing the economy).

Close Gitmo and give terrorist access to the intel evidence against them (damaging the GWOT).

“Completely undermine the United States’ standing in the world” … Like Bush did? Seriously, if we have a Republican the Media will attack him regardless of what he does.

But, as a side benefit, today we’re also offering CFR restrictions to internet communications (once he stacks the FEC Commission so his 2005 lawsuit will pass), and Amnesty for illegal immigrants (more damage to the economy I suspect). How can you refuse such a bargain of liberal policies and ideals?

Sorry, you’re going to have to try better scaremongering, McCain already qualifies in all of those categories. He might not win outright, but he’s certainly going to have a good showing in every area you’ve listed.

I know who I don’t trust appointing jurists to the federal bench.

Would it be the guy who read and swore to defend and uphold:

“Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech”

… and is very proud of his law abridging freedom of speech?

Oh, its the other guys, and you trust this guy?

Interesting viewpoint. So when they deliberately take action in violation of the Constitution, it’s ok; but when they vote for/against one SCOTUS nominee, that’s the clincher?

I will have to say that’s an interesting view. Not the same as mine though. Somehow I think 6 years of action damaging the First Amendment isn’t something I can give McCain a pass on while only pointing out flaws in the other candidates.

To each their own I guess.

Romney would be a good pick for VP, especially as McCain will very likely be a single term President. Four years from now, Romney will still be 7 years younger than McCain is today. He’s the better man, and will make a better President.

Doug on May 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM

I agree but the only way that will happen is if there is a groundswell of rejection of McCain by the rank-and-file who McCain thinks will submissively agree to his nomination as President. All the focus is on the Dem rifts but, IMO, the next story will be the fact that McCain has secured the nomination numerically but with very little support by the rank-and-file base. The longer cranky old bastard takes in dealing with the fact that most Republicans HATE him the longer it will take for him to launch an effective campaign.

My money is on President Obama, Carter Administration gaffes, and a big GOP win in 2012. All because McCain and his supporters are too intent on revenge of the social conservatives and those who elected GWB to launch a real campaign that includes the GOP constituency. Instead of appealing to conservatives they are banking on whichever side loses in the Obama/Clinton fights to fill out all the people they’ve told to piss off. True Republicans don’t roll that way.

Typhoon

It was a perfect speech. No ultra-faithful conservative could have done a better job defining the proper role of a judge. And choosing judges is one of the most important roles of a President.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of Republicans who are sore losers, who wouldn’t even vote for McCain if the Gipper rose from the dead & endorsed him.

There are other opinions on this issue.

Jaibones on May 6, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Propoganda doesn’t appeal to me.

I don’t know what the outcome of the “nuclear option” would really have been and neither do you or the propogandists you cite. What I do know is that John McCain has a long history of being more interested in pleasing Democrats than dealing with the concerns of the GOP. McCain joined with Russ “Impeach Bush” Feingold to silence First Amendment Freedoms. McCain joined with Teddy Kennedy to propose wholesale no-questions-asked amnesty of all illegals. He went out of his way to thwart the current President’s initiatives out of pure spite that he lost in 2000. McCain was bargaining with John Kerry in 2004 to the extent that he was offered both the VP slot and the SECDEF slot. McCain was insane in his hatred of Donald Rumsfeld and just recently sent jobs to Europe because of his spat with the Air Force over tanker contracts.

Sorry if I am not gushing in my support of the man. He is Quisling, Benedict Arnold, and Judas all rolled up into a bitter anti-GOP package.

I have finally had a breakthrough. I’ve been struggling with this election because the candidates are three unqualified liberals. Given this, the next four years will be a disaster no matter which one of these losers gets in office. Given that, I’m going to vote for Obama.

Kasper Hauser on May 6, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Kasper,
Instead of voting for Obama, just find a career military member and kick them in the groin. It would be much kinder and less permanent.

RBMN on May 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Actually, shoot them in the knee. That way they will get medical retirement instead of being tried for “war crimes” because some Talib chose to launch his attack on a Marine convoy from inside an orphanage.

Nothing is, Esthier. What you hear is the desperate wails of wishful thinking coming from the clowns listening to the band on the deck of the Titanic.

Misha I on May 6, 2008 at 11:07 AM

What you hear are sober voices who realize the importance of this election. If the Dems are in total power, this nation will turn sharply socialist. We will end up fighting terrorists in our own yards. Abortion on demand will continue unabated, and “partial-birth-abortion” could very well return. Taxes and regulation will stifle ecomonic growth. Nannyism will run rampant. Homosexual marriage will become a fact of life. For decades we will have a Supreme Court which will stifle any attempt to return our country back to sanity–no matter how conservative the next several Presidents are. The “border” will become non-existent. Illegal aliens will certainly be given free reign with more rights than hard-working Americans. Not to vote for McCain is more than naive; it is dangerously foolish.

So you’re pissed-off at McCain. I’m not that fond of some of his actions myself. But that’s no reason to piss our Country down the drain. With McCain we will at least have some control over our future.

McCain may not be a staunch conservative, but he is all Republican

Then it’s time for a new party.

BTW “Maxx”, I was here back when Michelle was still here trying to get her webcamera to work right. So bite my crank, Twerp.

LtE126 on May 6, 2008 at 2:29 PM

Yep, you’ve been here awhile, I see that now and you don’t post a lot, just as you say. But calling all commenters, trolls, is not the best way to ingratiate yourself. Maybe you should read this book.

There is no doubt that mistrust exist among conservatives when it comes to McCain appointing judges. This is one of the most important factors to folks like us, concerned with judicial activism and ACLU sympathetic judges creating laws from the bench….

At least I used a capital “T” in Twerp…enough respect for you guys? Get lost.

LtE126 on May 6, 2008 at 2:51 PM

If the stick is that deeply inside you, it might help to seek medical attention.

Eyeroll…

… we already know what we are getting with his administration and it isn’t one iota better than the most socialist liberal Democrat agenda. You just are in too much denial to see the truth!

highhopes on May 6, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Oh, heavens. You can’t possibly believe that. If so, I urge you to carefully and honestly review the positions of the candidates. You couldn’t be more wrong if you were trying to be.