I’ll state this simply.

I am a conservative who will not give support to an amnesty shill, CFR supporter, global warming policy baser, anti-Gitmo, anti-tax-cut candidate regardless of party, because that candidate is, by those positions, a liberal.

cretin_man, you are a scared child believing Obama is the antichrist because you’re a gullible nitwit, and you believe that McCain will deliver us from doomsday. You’re the same as an Obama supporter in that you attack anyone who criticizes your candidate, regardless of the fact that the criticisms are true. You call them liars even when they provide proof of the claims, even in the candidate’s own words. You’re a shill, which people have pointed out over and over, and you’re one of the most arrogant, self-centered, narcissistic people on this board, evidenced by the delusions of grandeur you have that make you believe anyone who dislikes McCain is somehow conspiring against you for the purpose of God knows what.

FOAD. Google it.

Wow. Unbelievable. at 5:45 PM you asked me “Are you going to claim the election was stolen?” And now you are feigning outrage that I turned your lame question that you first posed – directed to me – back around to you. And you think you are calling me out?

You are living in a fantasy land.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Answer a question yourself, you coward. Answer the f***ing question, and I’ll answer any question you want. That’s called tit for tat, and only cowardly little punks like you play back and forth. Answer the question. You claim the damage that will be done by Obama will take decades to overcome, so will you leave?

You are living in a fantasy land.

I’d love to hear you explain why you considered I would threaten to leave.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 7:19 PM

I’m sick of your crap. You posed the question, explain why. You’re reminding me of a scientologist by always turning things around on the person calling you out.

without defaulting to your typical strawman argument of anyone who dares to support the republican primary winner.

Are you going to promise to leave the country if McCain wins?

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 6:16 PM

No. I’d love to hear you explain why you considered I would, without defaulting to your typical doubting of conservative credentials of anyone who doesn’t pledge their soul to Captain Amnesty.

arguing versus Obama? Yeah. What a ridiculous thing to do .. those silly people. Obama is going to be fine. And all these things that people keep bringing up about Obama? ridiculous. It’s going to be fine. Fine I tell you.

I think we all need to take our daily dose of Tryphorgetin.

It’s not just for Hillary supporters anymore.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Straw man, I see. Hypocrite.

My emphasis was not on the arguing against Obama. My emphasis was on who was doing it:

Ron Paul nuts dreaming of police state dystopias

Arguing against Obama because of his policy positions, his lying, and his connections are one thing. Saying he needs to be defeated because America will collapse after a quarter millennium because of a couple of years under a democrat is the kind of thing Alex Jones would be spewing. As I said, irrational

doomsday scenarios

…are the thing of the left. When did conservatives start buying into “victory or annihilation”? Are you going to threaten to leave the country if Obama wins? Are you going to claim the election was stolen? Jeezus. Hillary was at the reins for eight years, and eight years of Bush made it seem like it never happened. There is a gigantic perspective deficiency for some here.

I think we all need to take our daily dose of Tryphorgetin.

It’s not just for Hillary supporters anymore.

I also wouldn’t underestimate how dangerous Democrats are when they sit in the White House. They know how to use that power ruthlessly, and they have that gigantic media cheering section… Bush’s economy post-9/11 has been called “The Greatest Story Never Told” for a good reason. Everything bad that happens through the middle of Obama’s first term will be squarely pinned on the GOP, and as for the alternative media, remember that one of Obama’s top priorities will be the Fairness Doctrine. There’s nothing the Dems want more than getting their media monopoly back, and a couple of years of Obama plus a Democrat Congress can make that happen. I feel that we’re too close to one of socialism’s doomsday scenarios, most likely nationalized health care but possibly nationalized energy, to take any chances walking on the tightrope.

I’m trying not to sound condescending here, but DOOMSDAY scenario? That sounds more like a Kerry supporter in 2004 having a nervous breakdown post-election day. Again, it is one man, who will have a congress that will likely be retaken by the Republicans due to the fact that it is currently the lowest rated Congress in history. The situations would be a Republican congress fighting Obama, or a Democrat congress leading McCain by the nose.

And, as some continue to ignore, It was less than 10 years ago that we finished two terms of a Democrat in the White House. How, suddenly, did the idea of a Democrat being back in there turn from a 50/50 chance that we work with to doomsday scenario with effects that will last DECADES?

Not necessarily referring to you, but it seems almost like some of the Ron Paul nuts dreaming of police state dystopias have started arguing versus Obama. Sure, he won’t be a picnic, but neither was Clinton. It’s not the end of the nation if he manages to get the White House, even though at this point I’m pretty confident that with or without the votes of the people who don’t like him, McCain is probably going to take it. The last reason to support a candidate is because of some perceived nightmare scenario of the opponent turning the nation into the next Soviet Union. It’s utterly irrational, and conservatives aren’t supposed to be subject to that kind of frivolous fantasizing. We leave that to all the lib nutroots who promised us that a second Bush term GUARANTEED A DRAFT.

I also wouldn’t underestimate how dangerous Democrats are when they sit in the White House.
Doctor Zero on August 2, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Aw, come on. It can’t be that bad. After all, we can undo just about anything that Bambi can do. It might take a few decades, but that’s not that big a deal. Come on.

Secondly, if McCain wins, the odds are no better. He puts through strict constitution readers, and the Dems fight him tooth and nail. However, unlike Obama, he will be more likely to “work with Democrats” and come up with “compromises”, which will more likely mean liberal-leaners. No gain there. So, either way, the SCOTUS will be at risk.

I agree that McCain’s SCOTUS picks will likely be mediocre, and Obama’s will be horrible, especially since Obama’s fecklessness and naivete will make him very easy for the hard left to manipulate. A couple of Obama Supreme Court justices could make precedents that will breed more bad decisions for a generation or two, and it will likely be decades before those justices could be replaced. SCOTUS isn’t my top reason for doing Whatever It McTakes to Stop Obama right now, but it’s definitely on the list, as long as we have the kind of imperial judiciary we live under today.

Also remember that, while this is going to be pure political game playing, IF republicans gain Congress, after they’ve put up with 8 years of impeachment threats, don’t you think they’re going to be holding the Messiah under a magnifying glass to nail him at the first chance?

I’d feel better about that idea if the kind of guts we saw from the GOP yesterday were the rule, rather than the exception. An Obama victory will be taken by the MSM, and the arbiters of pop culture, as a complete validation of the Obama cult of personality. A GOP Congress that wants to stand up to BO had better get used to seeing endless cartoons of itself wearing white sheets and carrying a burning cross. It’s hard enough to oppose the emotional sales tactics of socialism as it is, with an electorate composed of nearly 60% tax consumers. The guy who leads that feisty GOP resistance is going to become known as the heartless bastard who doesn’t want poor kids to get free health care, and only opposes the glories of Obama’s trillion dollar giveaway plans because he’s a kloset kleagle out to stick it to our dashing and heroic minority president. Not even the Gingrich Congress had the cohesion and morale to hold together under that kind of sustained assault.

You’ve got a 9% congressional approval rating. Frankly, regardless of who gets the White House, a congressional shift is damn near foregone. That’s a much bigger issue than one seat on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Getting either house of Congress back would be huge, but that’s more of a longshot than McCain winning the presidency at this point. I also wouldn’t underestimate how dangerous Democrats are when they sit in the White House. They know how to use that power ruthlessly, and they have that gigantic media cheering section… Bush’s economy post-9/11 has been called “The Greatest Story Never Told” for a good reason. Everything bad that happens through the middle of Obama’s first term will be squarely pinned on the GOP, and as for the alternative media, remember that one of Obama’s top priorities will be the Fairness Doctrine. There’s nothing the Dems want more than getting their media monopoly back, and a couple of years of Obama plus a Democrat Congress can make that happen. I feel that we’re too close to one of socialism’s doomsday scenarios, most likely nationalized health care but possibly nationalized energy, to take any chances walking on the tightrope.

Some of the predictions of disaster under President Obama are a little overheated, but I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest that the cumulative effects of untrammeled liberalism might be worse under BO than LBJ. For one thing, the War on Terror is a very different beast, economically and culturally, than the Cold War was. The world of the 60s and 70s had certain global political aspects that held Americans together, while the 2000s is an era in which a sizable portion of the American left either denies the enemy exists at all, or feels comfortable siding with them openly, something relatively rare among public figures and rank-and-file Democrats even in the turbulent late 60s.

This I will agree with. However, I don’t think it’s accurate to dismiss the anti-American sentiment that was being brewed under all of the revolutionary movements at home. Let’s not forget that that while we in the last 10 years have experienced 9/11, many bombings on our soil against public buildings were perpetrated by such as the SDS and similar organizations.

Add into the mix the complete inexperience of Obama, something that definitely could not be said about LBJ. Johnson was an SOB, a socialist, and many other things, but if I might indulge in a cheap shot, he knew how many states America had, and he could answer questions about his policies without dissolving into helpless stammering.

Completely agree about Obama’s being a worthless, cretinous dipstick, if I may be outright insulting about the little worm. However, to be fair, was there a media like we have today watching each and every one of LBJ’s speeches? I’m sure he said more than a few things that would have stunned people if he was under the microscope of YouTube and the blogosphere.

As for the rest, I can only agree to disagree. Your assumption belies the presence of a republican-led Congress which, as you implied, seems more and more likely after the protest yesterday.

I know many argue about justices. Well, our choices there are kind of meaningless. First off, if Obama wins, he puts liberals up. Likely we’ll have GOP regain control, and they’ll be fought to the teeth. I might also add that the oldest and most likely judges to die or retire are liberals, so if they’re replaced with liberals, conservatives still have 5 over 4.

Secondly, if McCain wins, the odds are no better. He puts through strict constitution readers, and the Dems fight him tooth and nail. However, unlike Obama, he will be more likely to “work with Democrats” and come up with “compromises”, which will more likely mean liberal-leaners. No gain there. So, either way, the SCOTUS will be at risk.

Also remember that, while this is going to be pure political game playing, IF republicans gain Congress, after they’ve put up with 8 years of impeachment threats, don’t you think they’re going to be holding the Messiah under a magnifying glass to nail him at the first chance? Personally, I think he’ll make a major mistake within the first couple of years he’s in office, and if the GOP has as much guts as it did yesterday, they’ll nail the prick to the wall. The problem with Bush-hating Dems, and I mean the REAL haters, is that they bring scurrilous claims that are little based on the law, and more on emotionally charged accusations. The GOP will be looking for clear-cut charges, and I am confident that it won’t take much to get them.

You’ve got a 9% congressional approval rating. Frankly, regardless of who gets the White House, a congressional shift is damn near foregone. That’s a much bigger issue than one seat on Pennsylvania Avenue.

because, wise_man dumb_ass, it IS fun to insult you..

And it survived 5 years of LBJ…and four years of Carter…and 8 years of Clinton…how exactly?

Oh yeah. All those times were building towards 2008. NOW if the Dems win, it’s the end of Western civilization.

Do you realize how much you sound like Al Gore talking about the environment? Jesus tap dancing christ!

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 11:42 PM

Some of the predictions of disaster under President Obama are a little overheated, but I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest that the cumulative effects of untrammeled liberalism might be worse under BO than LBJ. For one thing, the War on Terror is a very different beast, economically and culturally, than the Cold War was. The world of the 60s and 70s had certain global political aspects that held Americans together, while the 2000s is an era in which a sizable portion of the American left either denies the enemy exists at all, or feels comfortable siding with them openly, something relatively rare among public figures and rank-and-file Democrats even in the turbulent late 60s.

Add into the mix the complete inexperience of Obama, something that definitely could not be said about LBJ. Johnson was an SOB, a socialist, and many other things, but if I might indulge in a cheap shot, he knew how many states America had, and he could answer questions about his policies without dissolving into helpless stammering.

Above all, I believe the accumulated effects of socialism have led us very close to a systemic crash. Today’s gas price crisis may prove to have been a fortunate and unexpected early warning, if they help keep Obama out of office (and after watching the “blackout Congress” the last couple of days, I begin to wonder if a Democrat-controlled Congress is truly a foregone conclusion.) We’ve known for decades that Medicare is headed for disaster, with an even greater crash of Social Security right behind it, and we’re within 3 or 4 election cycles of that crash beginning. Obama could bring it faster, and make it much worse… and I’m not at all confident it would result in liberalism becoming decisively discredited. The ratio of taxpayers to tax consumers has become hopelessly lopsided, and the uneducated blind rage of the consumers will be a frightening phenomenon, when their government-provided goodies are taken away from them.

I wouldn’t be sanguine about our ability to “reverse anything Bambi does,” either. Reversing state-run health care would take decades, and a mountain of corpses. I would prefer to spare my countrymen that suffering, so I will hold my nose and vote McCain. Maybe I can do it without holding my nose too hard, if he picks the right veep.

Your continued reluctance to say what you intend…

philwynk on August 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM

I don’t know who you are, but I haven’t seen you ask a single question of me. Maybe you should actually ask something before you accuse me of being “reluctant” to say something.

I don’t have proof, and wise_man didn’t claim he had proof; but you’re marked, sir, and we don’t trust you.

B’bye.

philwynk on August 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Who the hell are you, and who are you to call me a liar? You either show some proof, or don’t you ever dare to address me like that again.

And it survived 5 years of LBJ…and four years of Carter…and 8 years of Clinton…how exactly?

The institutions of the nation were stronger in the minds of the electorate during LBJ’s tenure, and his presidency was crippled by an unpopular war. Still, as a result of LBJ’s incompetence, the nation spent $6 trillion on a fruitless “War on Poverty” that produced worse poverty than it solved.

Under Carter, the nation fell into a deep economic malaise, and suffered defeat at the hands of international enemies; we recovered quickly when a sensible conservative took the helm.

We survived 8 years of Clinton because Clinton’s incompetence and obvious criminality drove the electorate to throw the Democrats out of Congress and replace them with conservative Republicans for the first time in 44 years. From that moment forward, Clinton was hobbled by the need to win cooperation of some sort from a majority Republican Congress, with the result that the nation got the most liberal version of every Conservative proposal (which is what finally rescued us from LBJ’s hideous “War on Poverty,”) rather than getting liberal proposals.

The situation is very, very different today. We have an electorate that’s disillusioned with the Republicans in Congress, a wave of young voters who, for the first time in US history, have no foundation whatsoever in American history, nor understanding of the foundations of American liberty. And, we have a neo-Marxist presidential candidate pretending to be a centrist (but barely telling us what he intends to do.) Give that man a Democratic Congress, and he’ll cede our national sovereignty to the UN faster than you can say “Karl Marx.” And then, once he’s done that (and probably wrecked the US economy, which could not possibly sustain today the sort of damage that Johnson heaped on it back in 1964), he’ll probably ascend to Secretary-General of the UN, where he can rule the whole world.

This is not, by far, an impossible scenario.

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

You lose. Good day, sir.

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM

On the contrary, MadisonConservative. Your continued reluctance to say what you intend, suggests very strongly — doesn’t prove, but suggests — that you don’t want to say. And the fact that you strongly oppose McCain, but don’t want to say what you do believe, suggests — doesn’t prove, but suggests — that you’re actually a plant from the Obama campaign.

I don’t have proof, and wise_man didn’t claim he had proof; but you’re marked, sir, and we don’t trust you.

B’bye.