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

McCain or Obama?

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

Posted by: MonsterMark

Who will you vote for? Please read this article before participating in the private poll.

For all you Democrat racists out there, this article is written by a 'black' guy so it should have more credibility with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Thomas Sowell

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober— if not grim— assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world— Iran— is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb— and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand— however outrageous those demands might be— or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s— and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear— or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure— at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

Posted by: nightriddah

either way, the future looks grim

Posted by: ford nut

I will have to vote for the old bastard not much to choose from.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

What about La Raza?

Posted by: Joeychgo

Fair choice you gave us there Bryan - Nice and unbiased

Tenatively, Im looking toward McCain. But there are 5 months to go yet. 2 things scare me about McCain. I dont know who his VP is yet; (which is important since the old guy might croak any day) and I dont like the idea of stuffing the SCTUS with more neocons.

Almost 8 years of GW - Im looking for McCain to not be a replica GW. SO far, he has been dissappointing me in that department.

Good news though bryan, my presidential vote is irrelevant anyway. Being in Chicago, I'm pretty sure Obama will carry Illinois no matter what I do.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Fair choice you gave us there Bryan - Nice and unbiased.

It is the truth. Obama will give you words. McCain will give you action. Call me crazy, but I really don't want to see 10 million Americans die under Obama's watch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Are Roberts and Alito 'neocons'? Do you really think Dem controlled House and Senate will let anybody even have a hearing unless they are like Souter?

In this day and age, we NEED the SCOTUS to review law, not make it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Almost 8 years of GW - Im looking for McCain to not be a replica GW. SO far, he has been dissappointing me in that department.

You're crazy. McCain is a Dem in a RINO suit. How can you not be happy with that? You're right in that he is like Bush because he is far too liberal.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Your crazy. McCain is a Dem in a RINO suit. How can you not be happy with that. You're right in that he is like Bush because he is far too liberal.

This argument always makes me laugh. What is it about Bush and McCain that is so "liberal"? Let me guess: immigration. Anything else?

Posted by: Joeychgo

I know I have no clue. I never saw either as 'liberal'

I dont even want liberal - how about moderate? Fiscally conservative and socially responsible.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

It is the truth. Obama will give you words. McCain will give you action. Call me crazy, but I really don't want to see 10 million Americans die under Obama's watch.

If you're going to arbitrarily makes claims that Obama will be responsible for American deaths, either directly (since he's supposedly an evil Muslim in disguise) or indirectly (since he's an appeaser), why stop at just 10 million? There are 300+ million people here, surely Obama could kill at least 10%.

I will hold you to your word of "respect the presidency", when Obama is elected and Clinton is his VP. We'll have some good times in '09.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

This argument always makes me laugh. What is it about Bush and McCain that is so "liberal"? Let me guess: immigration. Anything else?

Isn't that enough Tommy?

Poor Bush, not long ago these people were his staunch supporters; Bush was doing a "great job", despite all the liberal media lies.

Posted by: Marcus

From the liberal Washington Times:

Barr chiseling into McCain voter base
Libertarian candidate could nab votes in dissatisfied red states
Stephen Dinan
Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Bob Barr's Libertarian presidential campaign is poised to play a serious role in this year's elections, with early polls showing him taking away enough votes from Sen. John McCain to give Democrats a chance to win states that should be safely Republican.

Polls in Georgia and North Carolina over the last two weeks show Mr. Barr winning 8 percent and 6 percent respectively of the presidential vote, and in both cases helping keep likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama within striking distance of Mr. McCain in those states — which, taken together, account for more electoral votes than Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio.

"Barr does throw a monkeywrench in Republican plans in states people otherwise take for granted as Republican states," said Matt Towery, a former political adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and CEO of InsiderAdvantage, an Atlanta-based polling and political analysis firm that conducted the Georgia poll.

Mr. Towery said North Carolina and Georgia are exactly the places that Mr. Barr could put in play: both have high African-American populations that Mr. Obama can tap to boost his turnout numbers, and have conservative-leaning voters whose dissatisfaction with President Bush could lead them to a third-party candidate.

The Georgia poll, taken just before Mr. Barr secured the Libertarian nomination, gave Mr. McCain 45 percent support, Mr. Obama 35 percent and Mr. Barr 8 percent. In North Carolina a Public Policy Polling survey released Monday found Mr. McCain at 43 percent, Mr. Obama at 40 percent and Mr. Barr at 6 percent. The poll's authors said Mr. Barr's support appeared to come particularly from independents who previously had broken for Mr. McCain.

"It's a long way until the election but the early indication is that Bob Barr's presence on the ballot could be a good sign for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee," said Dean Debnam, president of the poll. "He's likely to siphon off more voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for McCain than he is from Clinton or Obama."

Mr. Barr is a former Republican congressman from Georgia who switched to the Libertarian Party in 2006. He collected his new party's presidential nomination on the sixth ballot on May 25.

Posted by: ford nut

I would vote for him if he had even a slim chance of winning.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/
Thats the problem a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.
I might just say screw it and vote Libertarian anyway.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

I might just say screw it and vote Libertarian anyway.

That's what I'm doing.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

I might just say screw it and vote Libertarian anyway.

If Obama wins, don't ever come on this board to piss and moan. It will be deleted immediately.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

That's what I'm doing.

If Obama wins, don't ever come on this board to piss and moan. It will be deleted immediately.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I will hold you to your word of "respect the presidency", when Obama is elected and Clinton is his VP. We'll have some good times in '09.

I'm going to crap on Obama every day the two-face is in office.
It will be my life's work to point out every little detail of his miserable existence.

NObama '08

Posted by: MonsterMark

SAFE

Posted by: MonsterMark

Barnes: Why Obama's Afraid of Town-Hall Debates

Barack Obama was thrown off guard by John McCain's proposal for them to appear together at 10 town hall meetings this summer before the party conventions. Or maybe his initial response was merely disingenuous.

Obama has insisted for months now that the campaign should be civil and friendly and geared to ending polarization and promoting bipartisanship. Seizing on this, McCain said in his letter to Obama that they should fly on the same plane to at least the first town hall meeting and then have nine more across the country--just the two of them gabbing with the grass roots.

So why wouldn't Senator Bring-Us-Together jump enthusiastically at the opportunity? Several reasons, all political. Obama figures he's going to win because of the strong Democratic tide and doesn't want to offer opportunities for Republicans to lay a glove on him. Also, he's not particularly good at town hall gatherings--spontaneity is not his thing--but McCain is at his best at such sessions. And Obama would rather give set speeches, at which he's terrific, than take questions that might force him to deal with things (Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, etc.) he'd rather not talk about.

Responding to McCain's proposal, Obama told ABC News that he'd "definitely" do "some" town hall debates. But campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama would prefer "less structured" events like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Surely Plouffe and Obama know better. Those famous 1858 debates were highly structured: one candidate spoke for an hour, the other for 90 minutes, then a 30-minute rebuttal by the first. No questions, no interaction, no surprises, no moments of unrehearsed candor--only set speeches.

What's actually less structured? Town hall meetings. They are the least structured of all campaign events, especially if the questioners aren't handpicked and their questions aren't scripted and given to the candidates in advance. To Obama, that's a recipe for trouble--unless, of course, the whole thing is structured to limit the question topics and thus avoid surprises or awkward moments.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...raid_of_to.asp

Posted by: nightriddah

:d

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

This argument always makes me laugh. What is it about Bush and McCain that is so "liberal"? Let me guess: immigration. Anything else?

It's called amnesty for illegal aliens, Tommy. Spending. Increasing the size of government. Cap and trade. McCain-Feingold. McCain-Lieberman. McCain-Kennedy. Global warming taxation. Bashing of big business.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

SAFE

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

We'll see how you feel after the first 'dirty bomb' is lit in New York.

Iran now has enough material to make several dirty bombs. They don't even need the nukes to make the West bow down and start praying to Allah.

12 months and counting.

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

From the liberal Washington Times:

Barr chiseling into McCain voter base
Libertarian candidate could nab votes in dissatisfied red states
Stephen Dinan
Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Bob Barr's Libertarian presidential campaign is poised to play a serious role in this year's elections, with early polls showing him taking away enough votes from Sen. John McCain to give Democrats a chance to win states that should be safely Republican.

Polls in Georgia and North Carolina over the last two weeks show Mr. Barr winning 8 percent and 6 percent respectively of the presidential vote, and in both cases helping keep likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama within striking distance of Mr. McCain in those states — which, taken together, account for more electoral votes than Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio.

"Barr does throw a monkeywrench in Republican plans in states people otherwise take for granted as Republican states," said Matt Towery, a former political adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and CEO of InsiderAdvantage, an Atlanta-based polling and political analysis firm that conducted the Georgia poll.

Mr. Towery said North Carolina and Georgia are exactly the places that Mr. Barr could put in play: both have high African-American populations that Mr. Obama can tap to boost his turnout numbers, and have conservative-leaning voters whose dissatisfaction with President Bush could lead them to a third-party candidate.

The Georgia poll, taken just before Mr. Barr secured the Libertarian nomination, gave Mr. McCain 45 percent support, Mr. Obama 35 percent and Mr. Barr 8 percent. In North Carolina a Public Policy Polling survey released Monday found Mr. McCain at 43 percent, Mr. Obama at 40 percent and Mr. Barr at 6 percent. The poll's authors said Mr. Barr's support appeared to come particularly from independents who previously had broken for Mr. McCain.

"It's a long way until the election but the early indication is that Bob Barr's presence on the ballot could be a good sign for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee," said Dean Debnam, president of the poll. "He's likely to siphon off more voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for McCain than he is from Clinton or Obama."

Mr. Barr is a former Republican congressman from Georgia who switched to the Libertarian Party in 2006. He collected his new party's presidential nomination on the sixth ballot on May 25.

Didn't people learn the first time when they vote for Perot!?

Posted by: turborich

I will be voting for Insane McCain. I would NEVER vote for a guy who belongs to a radical racist church. I would also NEVER vote for someone who has ties to that Islam crap!

What the hell is wrong with people today???

Posted by: ketyokeinnor

Quote:

Originally Posted by turborich

I will be voting for Insane McCain. I would NEVER vote for a guy who belongs to a radical racist church. I would also NEVER vote for someone who has ties to that Islam crap!

What the hell is wrong with people today???

Neither would a lot of people that's why the media is building him up as the Black candidate, not the Arab one. Try to find a story on the end of the primary that doesn't call him the first black, or African American presidential candidate. Its been posted here that he is 50% White(from his mother) 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African(from his father). He's 1/16th black but the media would have you believe he's at least half. It's a case of what you(the people) don't know won't hurt him.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Then maybe GW should have gone into IRAN instead of IRAQ.

You always skip over that one.

How about this. Instead of spending a trillion dollars on Iraq, we spent that money on a very public quest to develop and implement a fuel system that didnt involve importing oil... Maybe today, the arabs wouldnt be getting rich off us because gas would be much lower cost since demand would be anticipated to be reduced dramatically..

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

How about this. Instead of spending a trillion dollars on Iraq, we spent that money on a very public quest to develop and implement a fuel system that didnt involve importing oil...

OK, how bout this.

The US government won't tax any company that provides alternative energy for the next 20 years.

Let the private sector solve the problem. Not the government.

How much do you think 9/11 cost us?

A trillion will seem like pocket change after the next attack.

We have our foothold in Iraq. The people and equipment are in place. We will be dealing with Iran very soon.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I'm going to crap on Obama every day the two-face is in office.
It will be my life's work to point out every little detail of his miserable existence.

NObama '08

No problem, if a policy of his is stupid, please do, but I expect you to do it in a respecful manner, as you've said in the past when anyone pointed a finger at your old flame GW Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I'm still waiting for the WMDs to be found in Iraq.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

That's not a terrible idea, the alt energy thing.

So after Iran has been "dealt with", who's next?

Posted by: TKEx510xTKE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

We get not even 20% of our oil from OPEC which is the entire middle east. So explain to me how they are getting rich off of us?

Posted by: Gambini

Obama the secret Muslim

Posted by: nightriddah

Let me begin this by saying I'd never vote for Obama in a million years, but it kills me how people call him racist and how he belongs to a racist church(which may to be true) but I wonder, how many of our former (and maybe even current) Presidents were racists themselves?????????

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightriddah

Let me begin this by saying I'd never vote for Obama in a million years, but it kills me how people call him racist and how he belongs to a racist church(which may to be true) but I wonder, how many of our former (and maybe even current) Presidents were racists themselves?????????

You may have a point, but former Presidents didn't go around race baiting and playing the victim card all the time either. Obama is showing himself to be a first class hypocrite by whining and b!tching all the time about how he's being mistreated b/c he's black (and he's really not), and at the same time he hates whitey.

Posted by: nightriddah

True indeed. If he's black, then so is Michael Jackson!

TurboTax Software:Credit Cards:Car Insurance:Mortgage Calculator:Debt