Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Fred Thompson Endorses McCain

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Fred Thompson Endorses McCain

James Joyner | Saturday, February 9, 2008

Fred Thompson has become the latest former 2008 Republican presidential candidate to endorse John McCain.

Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to “close ranks” behind the presumed nominee.

“This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain,” Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

Posted by: fossten

Ah, yes. The old "we must compromise to preserve the party" line.

I refuse to obey.

I have lost faith in the Republican Party, which has abandoned me. The only one in the party I respect is my Senator, Mitch McConnell, who writes me a physical letter everytime I send him an email fax, which is often.

Posted by: Calabrio

How do you affect positive change after a Democrat idealist like Obama stacks the Supreme Court with six ultra-liberal judges, and all of the the lower courts as well, over the next 4 to 8 years.

Try to argue any 2nd amendment issue before the court when you're looking before panels consisting of even more radical judges than Ruth Bader Ginsberg at every level.

You can't.
And they'll sit there for another half century.

Politics is NOT all or nothing. You can't make the perfect the enemy of the good. If one candidate is wrong 20% of the time and the other is radically wrong 80% of the time, you don't skip the election because you'd rather vote for a guy who's right 90% of the time. That kind of thinking makes NO sense and it is destructive.

Posted by: MonsterMark

You're wasting your breath. The Paulies are convinced their convictions are the greater good.

Posted by: fossten

He's wasting his breath because I can't read what he says.

Funny. I never mentioned Ron Paul in this thread. Any attempt to do so would be considered trolling, no?

I am not alone in stating that McCain will destroy the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh agrees with me here. I feel much more secure in his knowledge than in yours.

Posted by: Machspeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

He's wasting his breath because I can't read what he says.

Funny. I never mentioned Ron Paul in this thread. Any attempt to do so would be considered trolling, no?

I am not alone in stating that McCain will destroy the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh agrees with me here. I feel much more secure in his knowledge than in yours.

fossten, Calabrio is exactly right. For you to stand back and do nothing is to say that you don't mind one bit that our courts are stuffed with liberal judges. You're a Christian, realize that you'll have to live with that. I'm a relative newbie, but I've been reading here for awhile. From what I've read from you, I can deduce that you are an intelligent individual, however, your feelings on this issue are foolish. I don't like the current situation any more then you do, but I will cast my vote accordingly. Regards.............

Posted by: fossten

It's precisely because I am a Christian that I refuse to vote for a man who supports taxpayer funding of embryo stem cell research and does not favor reversing Roe v. Wade. My vote is my own personal choice, and I am accountable to God for it. I am not, however, accountable to God for how well I supported the Republican party, which these days seems to be more and more anti-Christian, INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY McCain, who has shown outspoken enmity toward Christians.

Sorry, not convinced. You can accuse me of anything you want all day long, but in the end, I refuse to obey those who seek to use my vote to accomplish their own personal, selfish goals.

And if you're going to call someone foolish, you'd best be prepared to back up your statement instead of just trolling. I've not heard you say anything that gives you enough credibility to get away with blithely calling me foolish. So far I've heard no convincing argument that shows me that I'm foolish. The foolish people are the ones voting for McCain out of some irrational fear and belief that he is the only one who could beat Hillary.

And if you think McCain is going to nominate a constructionist justice for the SCOTUS, then YOU'RE the fool.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And if you think McCain is going to nominate a constructionist justice for the SCOTUS, then YOU'RE the fool.

Which candidate can be swayed with the conservative opinion, Den or Rep? At least with McCain, we stand half a chance of getting our voices heard. I said 1/2 a chance. Better than no chance at all.

The fact that you wish to make yourself completely irrelevant to the procedings over the next 4-8 years makes you foolish, imho.

You'd rather commit suicide than to live to fight another day.

Posted by: Machspeed

Quote:

And if you're going to call someone foolish, you'd best be prepared to back up your statement instead of just trolling. I've not heard you say anything that gives you enough credibility to get away with blithely calling me foolish. So far I've heard no convincing argument that shows me that I'm foolish. The foolish people are the ones voting for McCain out of some irrational fear and belief that he is the only one who could beat Hillary.

It is your vote, your decision....do with it what you will. However, I'll leave you with this quote, as it, in the end, is your will to do NOTHING!

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Evangelical leader Bauer endorses McCain

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Republican John McCain challenged the notion he is struggling to rally conservative critics as he picked up the endorsement Monday of evangelical leader Gary Bauer.
"We're doing fine. We're doing fine," McCain told reporters in Annapolis, dismissing the notion that losses in two states on Saturday had hurt his campaign.
McCain lost in Kansas and Louisiana on Saturday to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, although he won narrowly in Washington state. The Arizona senator is all but assured his party nod after rolling up huge numbers of delegates, 719, to the national convention. Huckabee has 234.
"We have close to 800 delegates. Last time I checked, Governor Huckabee had very few, so I think I'm happy with the situation I'm in," McCain said. "I'm quite pleased, recognizing that we have a lot of work to do."
He also won the endorsement Monday of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother.
The endorsement from Bauer, a leading conservative voice, came at a critical time as McCain shifts to campaigning as the Republican nominee-in-waiting. McCain's emphasis since last week, when chief rival Mitt Romney exited the race, has been on reaching out to conservative critics in an effort to unite the party.
In an interview, Bauer noted McCain's strength with independent-minded voters but added, "he's also going to need every last one of the conservative activists."
"My endorsement, at least in part, was done because I hope I can facilitate the reconciliation there and help unite conservatives going into what is going to be an extraordinarily important election," Bauer said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Bauer was the latest of several conservatives to sign on, but McCain still faces outspoken opposition from some foes, including talk radio host Rush Limbaugh who had threatened to boycott a race in which McCain is the nominee. Some on the party's right flank distrust McCain's sometimes moderate positions and his willingness to work with Democrats in Congress.
Bauer said McCain would go a long way toward reconciling with his critics by emphasizing his opposition to abortion and his support — not at the federal level, but at the state level in Arizona — for a ban on gay marriage.
"For any pro-life voter, the difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be huge on the life issue," Bauer said.
Bauer, former head of the Family Research Council and founder of the Campaign for Working Families, unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. He is a well-known abortion opponent who said in a statement that McCain "has dedicated his life to defending human rights around the world, including the rights of the unborn."
While he is well-known, Bauer lacks the following of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who declared on Super Tuesday he would never vote for McCain and later endorsed Huckabee.
Huckabee, too, is known for opposing abortion rights.
In fact, he and McCain were tied among conservatives in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Monday.
The poll showed McCain with support from 38 percent of self-described conservatives nationally, compared with 35 percent for Huckabee. Fourteen percent of conservatives were still undecided or didn't back any candidate.
In Annapolis, McCain chuckled at a question about why people persist in voting for Huckabee despite McCain's lock on the nomination.
"Because they like him," McCain said. "I never expected a unanimous vote, although I would certainly like to have that. But I think we'll continue to win primaries across the country, including tomorrow.
"I hope that we'll do well here. I have great confidence that we will, both here and in Virginia and in the District of Columbia," McCain said.
Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., vote on their choice for party nominee on Tuesday. McCain was campaigning later Monday in Richmond, Va.
McCain acknowledged he has had trouble performing well in states that hold caucuses instead of primary elections. He said the kind of organization needed to win caucuses would have taken money he hasn't had. He noted some of the big states voting next — Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania — are holding primary elections, not caucuses.
"We'll continue to work hard, particularly now that we've got enough funds to organize," McCain said.
McCain said it is Huckabee's right to challenge the results in Washington state. Huckabee advisers are protesting that the state GOP called the race too quickly for McCain.
"I think it's pretty clear that we won," McCain said at the news conference. "He obviously has the right to challenge if he chooses to. But I honestly don't know enough about the details, except I know that state parties decide elections when they have sufficient evidence as to who has won and who has lost. That's not unusual in any way."
___

Posted by: 04SCTLS

And so the one's who want influence are starting to fall in line.

Posted by: Calabrio

To quote McCain at CPAC:

Quote:

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

But explain this logic to me- because I'm so religious, I will not support a man who supported the federal funding of stem cell research, in doing so, assuring that radical pro-abortion, planned parenthood, abortion-on-demand politicians will win the Presidency and stack the courts.

Calling judgment like that foolish is completely justified.

You write the list of issues and compare the candidates.
To argue that there is "no difference" is not only foolish, it's stupid and destructive.

Voting for McCain isn't "because he has an (R) next to his name." It's because he'll be the best candidate when running against Obama or Clinton.

The primaries are concluding. The candidate I supported lost. The public has shifted left. The Republicans abandoned the principles that brought them to power. And the public is expressing, in both primaries, that they are tired of the partisan divisions that exist right now. This is one reason why McCain pulled out ahead, Obama as well.

It's not about (R) or (D), it's about which candidate who will have moved through the process is BEST. Not perfect, but the best choice.

Politics is never perfect and rarely pretty. It can't be said enough, you can't make the perfect the enemy of the good. And the greater good argument is PURELY political, because it's based on profoundly HURTING the country in an effort to get partisan support in the next election. That's dangerous, destructive, and anti-American.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Ronald Reagan signed a very liberal abortion bill in 1967 when he was governor of California under the advice that it was the lesser of 2 evils and never did anything about it when he was president.
Hypocracy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue--indeed...

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Ronald Reagan signed a very liberal abortion bill in 1967 when he was governor of California under the advice that it was the lesser of 2 evils and never did anything about it when he was president.
Hypocracy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue--indeed...

What was the other evil? How is there hypocracy in that example if the reason Reagan signed this bill was because it was a trade off?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Reagan and his staff calculated that if he vetoed the bill, his veto would be overridden by the state legislature. Therefore, he decided to do what he could to make the bill less harmful, arguing for the insertion of certain language that eliminated its worst features and allowed for abortion only in rare cases — such as rape or incest, or where pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother.
The Therapeutic Abortion Act became law. And as would happen with nearly every abortion law in the years ahead, the mental-health provision was abused by patient and doctor alike. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon notes that even the bill’s Democratic sponsor confessed to being surprised that physicians so liberally interpreted the law.

If Reagan felt so bad about this he didn't do much about reversing it when he became president.
He talked the talk but didn't walk the walk.
Maybe he had one eye on the voters most of whom consider this a MYOB issue, hence the hypocracy vice virtue analogy.

Posted by: Calabrio

Reagan was elected President. That doesn't give him the power or the authority to mess with state laws of California.

But you've touched on a good point.

Using your example, Reagan could have stood on principle and vetoed any abortion bill that came before him on principle. Ultimately, this tact would have resulted in a MORE destructive, more anti-life bill. By recognizing the political reality, he opted for the course of action that would lessen the damage. By signing the lesser of two evils, he protected more life than he would have by simply vetoing the measure.

Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue is certainly a clever quote but you're using it completely wrong. This is not an example of that.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

If neither Reagan or Bush didn't do anything about overturning Roe v Wade it will never be overturned having been the status quo for 35 years.
I believe even the Supreme Court has said it's been in effect for too long to be overturned.
Isn't it hypocritical for Republican candidates to say they will do something about it then when elected hardly do anything except pass it off to the states.
It's a dead horse and they should stop beating it already
unless of course they get political advantage from it with single issue voters, which I find very cynical.
Making abortion illegal will not make it go away, only make things worse.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

If neither Reagan or Bush didn't do anything about overturning Roe v Wade it will never be overturned having been the status quo for 35 years.

The President doesn't have the ability to do anything about that, short of nominating Supreme Court justices who genuinely understand the constitution. Reagan and Bush both attempted to do this, with varying degrees of success.

Scalia is an incredibly brilliant mind, and a Reagan appointee.
Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter.... not so much.

Quote:

I believe even the Supreme Court has said it's been in effect for too long to be overturned.

I can't say that no justice has ever said this, but I can tell you that this opinion is not universally held. Courts are reluctant to go back and over turn previous decisions, but since Roe is such a bold example of BAD LAW, it's definitely due for a review.

Quote:

Isn't it hypocritical for Republican candidates to say they will do something about it then when elected hardly do anything except pass it off to the states.

I get the impression that you don't have much understanding of how government works.

Abortion, if not deemed unconstitutional, SHOULD be a state issue.

There is nothing "hypocritical" about this. A Republican candidate has very little power on the matter, another reason why it's always so silly that abortion is so important in the Presidential race. But those Presidents you've mentioned have sought to LIMIT the number of abortions.

Quote:

It's a dead horse and they should stop beating it already
unless of course they get political advantage from it with single issue voters, which I find very cynical.
Making abortion illegal will not make it go away, only make things worse.

Over turning Roe vs Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it returns the issue back to the state level to be decided by the citizens, not unelected justices.

It means that abortion would cease to be the polarizing, national wedge issue, where you're dealing with an all or nothing proposition. Overturning Roe means that people would have to debate, discuss, and come to a consensus on the issue. Some states would likely change little. Other states might increase the restrictions... but that's how federalism works.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Reagan and his staff calculated that if he vetoed the bill, his veto would be overridden by the state legislature. Therefore, he decided to do what he could to make the bill less harmful, arguing for the insertion of certain language that eliminated its worst features and allowed for abortion only in rare cases — such as rape or incest, or where pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother.
The Therapeutic Abortion Act became law. And as would happen with nearly every abortion law in the years ahead, the mental-health provision was abused by patient and doctor alike. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon notes that even the bill’s Democratic sponsor confessed to being surprised that physicians so liberally interpreted the law.

If Reagan felt so bad about this he didn't do much about reversing it when he became president.
He talked the talk but didn't walk the walk.
Maybe he had one eye on the voters most of whom consider this a MYOB issue, hence the hypocracy vice virtue analogy.

there is no hypocracy there, and certianly not the kind you can fault someone for.

Most anyone who is against abortion still admits that it needs to be a viable option for those very reasons given. Did Reagan ever say otherwise?

Many conservatives reason (including mine) for not supporting abortion is mainly procedural. Roe v. Wade is bad law (and has already been replaced by another precident from a newer court case). I have no huge moral objection to abortion, but that "right" isn't in the constitution. There is a set procedure to make that a right, but through the courts is not it.

Can you prove that Reagan's position was anything more then this?

Even ignoring all that, there is still no hypocracy. Picking your political battles, and choosing the lesser evil hardly make one hypocritical.

That is a big stretch.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Many conservatives reason (including mine) for not supporting abortion is mainly procedural. Roe v. Wade is bad law (and has already been replaced by another precident from a newer court case). I have no huge moral objection to abortion, but that "right" isn't in the constitution. There is a set procedure to make that a right, but through the courts is not it.

Well people are an imperfect lot.
For someone who agues so hard for true conservative values you surprise me.
A second rate ruling that has kept both sides in a cold war stalemate you find objectionable not on moral but procedural grounds. I can understand people who find abortion objectionable for religious reasons
but you are more ticked off by a badly decided working law than the actual procedure many christian conservatives equate with murder.
That's like saying I don't have a big problem killing unborn babies as long as the pedigree of the law that allows it has been reached in a manner that meets my standard of juresrprudence.
Somehow I think your objections here trivialize and entirely miss the point of most pro life people's motivations.
The majority of the country doesn't want to revisit this and it is better to let this imperfect stalemate stand than reopen the whole thing again for a more perfect solution which will never be there.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machspeed

Oh, I'm not doing nothing. I'm just not wasting my time voting for someone who's useless. You have failed to convince me that McCain is a good use of my vote. In fact, none of you have really tried to do so. I think deep down you know I'm right about McCain, and you don't want to defend him because you know I'd shred your arguments in about a half second.

I'm taking care of my family and I'm getting prepared for as many eventualities as I can. I don't owe you anything, and I don't owe the Republican Party anything, and I certainly don't owe a damn thing to name-calling aholes who think they can somehow influence me by calling me and my preferred candidate "kooks, wackos, paranoid, nutbags," and about two dozen other names. I mean, really, have none of you read Dale Carnegie? Sheesh.

If anything, those of you who have done so have only steeled my resolve by your pettiness and petulance. You really think by calling me 'foolish' you're suddenly going to start influencing me? As many of you are so fond of saying, that's not reality. Reality is discussing issues in a reasoned, passionate, and non-insulting way. That's something that only Shagdrum has managed to do consistently, with moderators ironically being the worst offenders. I guess this is a nice way of saying, if you can't discuss this with me without attacking me personally, go pound sand.

You people urging me to vote for McCain need to examine your motivations. You may find that you are more concerned with winning the election than you are that the Republican Party is saved. Rush has all but said the eulogy on this party already. You think electing McCain will save it? Pssh.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

A second rate ruling that has kept both sides in a cold war stalemate you find objectionable not on moral but procedural grounds. I can understand people who find abortion objectionable for religious reasons
but you are more ticked off by a badly decided working law than the actual procedure many christian conservatives equate with murder.

I don't like the idea of it just being another option for birth control, but it is a neccessary evil in certian circumstances (rape, incest, danger to the mother's life). But I am not to fond of the government trying to say either way. However, if they are gonna make a law (not an amendment) on this, there is only one constitutionally justified position; to protect life. There is no right to choose in the constitution. The rule of law is also very important. To twist the constitution in an effort to make up rights it to throw the foundation of our laws and our nation out the window.

Quote:

That's like saying I don't have a big problem killing unborn babies as long as the pedigree of the law that allows it has been reached in a manner that meets my standard of juresrprudence.

I am not saying I don't have a problem with it, I do. But it is an evil that is sometimes medically neccessary.

Quote:

Somehow I think your objections here trivialize and entirely miss the point of most pro life people's motivations.

I am not trying to trivalize anything. I respect their point of view and agree with their position (in certian areas) for reasons that are not precisely the same.

I can guarantee that most any pro-lifer would agree with my objections. It is a valid objection that should not be trivialized, (which you seem to be trying to do). My objection in this issue is part of a broader problem of judicial activism.

Quote:

The majority of the country doesn't want to revisit this and it is better to let this imperfect stalemate stand than reopen the whole thing again for a more perfect solution which will never be there.

I would say that if this country voted on it in the form of an amendment, there would be less strife about this. I don't see how I am trivializing anything, however, it seems you are trying to do so to my objection.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I don't like the idea of it just being another option for birth control, but it is a neccessary evil in certian circumstances (rape, incest, danger to the mother's life).

These are LIBERAL talking points. I'm very surprised at you. There is no justification for killing an unborn baby, rape or not. In the case of danger to the mother's life the doctor will try to save both lives. And by the way, please cite any and all examples where this has actually been a necessity.

Necessary evil is an oxymoron. You're smarter than this. I urge you to read up on conservative points of view concerning abortion before you fall for this stuff.

You are playing directly into Planned Parenthood's hands by swallowing this load of horse crap.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You have failed to convince me that McCain is a good use of my vote.

While it is your vote and you don't have to justify it to any of us, I am curious;
Why have you set the burden of proof for the vote in a general election at "a good use of my vote" and not at "a better use of my vote then not voting"?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Probably semantics. Don't dig for elixir that isn't there. (See, I used it again!

)

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

There is no justification for killing an unborn baby, rape or not. In the case of danger to the mother's life the doctor will try to save both lives. And by the way, please cite any and all examples where this has actually been a necessity.

I can't give you an example, you got me there. It is purely hypothetical. However, when you personally have to choose between two lives, it seems logical that you choose the life you know instead of the life you don't.

Quote:

Necessary evil is an oxymoron.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a "neccessary evil"?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Probably semantics. Don't dig for elixir that isn't there. (See, I used it again!

)

Nice..
I take it you read a lot of fantasy?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Going to war can be construed as a nessesary evil in that innocent people and children will die for the good of the many.

Posted by: Machspeed

Quote:

The point being made here, by me, is that if every conservative felt as you did, the liberals would own this country. Thank God, we're not all holding our votes because our guy didn't win....sheez! Let's all fall in line with fossten and just not vote cause our guy didn't get the nomination. Does that make sense to you?

Besides all this, what do you really know about Ron Paul??? Do you know this man personally? Do you know, with all uncertainty, that he is who he makes himself out to be? Yeah, I agree with a lot that he says, but honestly, we don't really know these people we vote for and yet you are all over this board with this guy as if he were your very personal friend. I come from one of the most conservative states in this country and I supported Tom Coburn for his second senate run....he was our family doctor and I campaigned for him, as I believed him to be a man of integrity. I would risk saying that I know this man better then you know Ron Paul and yet I am still scratching my head trying to figure out why he endorsed McCain. Perhaps it is because he knows something that I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, you don't know half of what you think you know about Ron Paul or McCain.

Now, I apologize if my initial comment came off as insulting, it was poorly worded and not meant to be that way. In fact, I think some of what I said just prior to that was complimentary and supports my initial intent. But you know, you're not exactly coming across as Mr. nice guy here either.

Peace Man........

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Actually, you're wrong on all counts.
Most of the country would like to revisit this issue and arrive at a political solution- not have an all or nothing decision forced down upon them by an activist court in the 1970s.

To imply that the aftermath of Roe Vs. Wade is a "more perfect solution" than anything is to demonstrate you don't understand what Roe v. Wade actually states. In doing so, they set up a situation that is imperfect and unsatisfactory in EVERY way.

But by removing the entire discussion from the political process, you have turned a very emotional issue into a wedge issue. If Roe didn't exist, abortion would likely still be legal in most states- but regulated. Heavily restricted.

And that's what most people want. They differ on the extend of the restriction, but most people don't want unlimited, abortion on demand for 13 year old girls. But, that's what we end up with because of Roe, and the activists who will fight ANY and ALL restrictions that would be placed.

I would recommend you go and read the decision. It is such a stunning example of bad law, based on bad precedence, that you'll be shocked.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machspeed

Hey, I voted for Bush twice. I voted for Bush 41 and I voted for Dole. None of them are/were anywhere in the same ballpark as McCain.

And as for knowing someone well enough, I do know how to read people. I can usually tell by body language if someone is lying or angry or nervous. I have training in this area. I have seen McCain on CSPAN doing hearings, and I can tell you that the man has serious mental and emotional problems. No way we should nominate a psycho like that to be our next President. No way I'll vote for him.

As far as being nice, I'm not insulting anybody here. I'm the one being pushed to do something my conscience won't let me. This decision wasn't reached lightly, but I will admit that part of the motivation from the decision has been the so-called conservatives on this site and their nasty, condescending, vicious attacks on me simply because I dare support someone they don't like. If you want to talk about insults, go back and read some of the vicissitudes I've had to endure in this forum, most notably those made by the moderators. And here I am, still defending myself from insults and name-calling.

I'll say this again: If you people wanted to influence me, you should have read and practiced Dale Carnegie's technique. But see, you guys know how this works - nobody really changes people's minds here on this forum. So knowing that you won't change my mind anyway, all you are doing by attacking me is venting your frustration. This is stupid and unconscionable.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And as for knowing someone well enough, I do know how to read people. I can usually tell by body language if someone is lying or angry or nervous. I have training in this area.

I am curious, what kind of training?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I am curious, what kind of training?

It's sales related.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

It's sales related.

Dale Carniege?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Dale Carniege?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

This decision wasn't reached lightly, but I will admit that part of the motivation from the decision has been the so-called conservatives on this site and their nasty, condescending, vicious attacks on me simply because I dare support someone they don't like. If you want to talk about insults, go back and read some of the vicissitudes I've had to endure in this forum, most notably those made by the moderators.

Quit using titles to play the blame game. No moderator here has used 'their power' to squelch your freedom of speech.

Just come right out and say that Calabrio and MonsterMark were brutal in their assessments of your candidate choice.

If you're going to go down, go down fighting, not whining about mod status. It has had nothing to do with the conversations going on here. Scapegoat-ism is all it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is:

I'm voting for Obama!

I'm sick of the slow death. Let's get it over with.

The Mexican population is due to explode, doubling in the next 15 years.

That is alot of mouths to feed. This Country is doomed to failure.

Obama will win.
He will pull out the troops.
Iraq will go into a frenzy.

Iran will attack Israel after Israel bombs an Iranian nuke plant.

Terrorists strike here in the U.S., attacking shopping malls left and right. Lots of suicide bombers.

The big money in the Country starts to look for safe harbor elsewhere in the world. Our monetary system collapses.

Obama institutes big nanny to 'defend' us by instituting a national i.d. card.

Marginal tax rates are increased to 40% and SS and Medicare are increased to 17% across the board to 'fix' SS.

3 Supreme Courts justices retire and are replaced by young ultra-liberals.

The Senate and Congress reach super majority status after redistricting.

Guantanimo is closed.

Troops are redeployed from the Persian Gulf.

We join the war in Sudan.

Nigeria and Venezuela cut off our oil supplies.

Iran sinks tankers in the Straight of Hormuz.

Washington submits to terrorist demands to save an American city.

Britain submits to Sharia law as the Muslims gain a further foothold.

China and Russia team up and start making demands on the world. China claims Taiwan. We do nothing.

Obama uses the petroleum reserve to lower prices and we lose our safety net.

Gas rationing cripples commerce. United States plunges into the deepest recession ever seen.

Will a conservative messiah come to the rescue?

Will it be too late?