McCain - what is so impressive about him?

[Schweddy]

I keep hearing rumors all over the place that McCain will run in 08. So far, there is a very strong backing for this.

What is so impressive about him from both sides of the isle?

 

[Pacridge]

Personally I like McCain. I think he's honest, hard working and has and eye for real reforms that help the country. So he probably doesn't stand a chance.

 

[heyjoeo]

I like him too. He knows what he's doing. He's a REAL republican. Not one of these "neo" republicans like Bush. Plus, any person man enough to survive as a POW in those conditions is a real man.

 

[Pacridge]

I like him too. He knows what he's doing. He's a REAL republican. Not one of these "neo" republicans like Bush. Plus, any person man enough to survive as a POW in those conditions is a real man.

Exactly. When I found out what the Bush camp did to McCain during the 2000 primaries it was the end of the road for me with Bush. To paint a guy who was a POW for his country out to be a traitor, that was the last straw. Course I didn't find this out until after the election. I think the only reason McCain went out on the road for Bush during this last election was to build political "capital" so he could run in 2008. I think McCain sees Bush for who he really is and if it weren't for the need he wouldn't have anything to do with the man.

 

[heyjoeo]

That and the Republican party pressured him to campaign for Bush. Bastards....

 

[mixedmedia]

Yes, he ought to run and run as a Democrat....yuk, yuk, yuk

But seriously, what do you think of Barak Obama? I like him very much. I was impressed by his speech at the convention. I think we ought to keep our eye on this one. He could be our populist in the grass...so to speak.

 

[heyjoeo]

Obama is the man. He'll run in 1-3 terms depending.

 

[Pacridge]

Obama is the man. He'll run in 1-3 terms depending.

I think Obama is very impressive. But I'll lay you 20-1 odds that way before he ever gets in a position where he could possibly make a run at the White House the "Right" will begin to systematically dismantle him. By the time their through 60-70% of the country will honestly believe he's a nut job. Wanna bet?

 

[heyjoeo]

Of course, the republican party in the past 5 years after Clinton have ran campaigns of dirt-throwing and rumor-mongering. I have NO IDEA how people associate morals with this party.

 

[Pacridge]

Of course, the republican party in the past 5 years after Clinton have ran campaigns of dirt-throwing and rumor-mongering. I have NO IDEA how people associate morals with this party.

It use to be said that the moral majority was neither, alas now they're simply not moral.

 

[Schweddy]

Of course, the republican party in the past 5 years after Clinton have ran campaigns of dirt-throwing and rumor-mongering. I have NO IDEA how people associate morals with this party.

Interesting, because I keep thinking just the opposite. The dems allowed President Clinton to lie in front of a grand jury and get away with it. What is so remarkable is the man and MANY Americans think the reason he was impeeched is because of "the act" with Monica. Most Republicans could care less what he actually did with her.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Here we go again with the idea that either one side or the other has a monopoly on morality. We point at the dirty laundry of others to prevent people from looking at our own.

 

[mixedmedia]

It use to be said that the moral majority was neither, alas now they're simply not moral.

Yeah, remember the good ole days when guys like Falwell, Robertson and Ralph Reed were "out-there" bible-thumpers and it was acceptable to think they were irrelevant but still good for a few laughs while you were waiting for the 11:00 pm re-runs of Soap to come on? I miss those days.

 

[CSA_TX]

the issue I have with McCain has to do with bills he has sponsered.
1) the capaign finance reform bill that is now law. This law unfortinately subverts the constitution in freedom of speech. Political disent and discussion is regulated before an election. I have an issue with that. I was also very dissapointed in Bush for signing the bill into law and had me looking into other candidates this past election.
2) the gun show loophole bill. There is no gun show loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show you still have to go through the same procedure as buying a gun at a gun store. If you buy a gun from an individual it is a private purchase.

So I am not a fan of McCain.

 

[Pacridge]

Interesting, because I keep thinking just the opposite. The dems allowed President Clinton to lie in front of a grand jury and get away with it. What is so remarkable is the man and MANY Americans think the reason he was impeeched is because of "the act" with Monica. Most Republicans could care less what he actually did with her.

If the GOP "could care less what he actually did with her," as you put it, then why in the world did they drag him to grand jury over it in the first place? I'm not sure I can follow that logic.

And what did that investigation cost the tax payer? The GOP spent millions basically proving the President was blown. Personally I'd like the guy with his finger that close to the "button" to be getting all the oral sex he wants. That's why I blame Hillary.

 

[mixedmedia]

Personally I'd like the guy with his finger that close to the "button" to be getting all the oral sex he wants. That's why I blame Hillary.

Man, Pacridge, that is mean and nasty. But it's funny so I love it. Moral relativism at work, folks, if it makes me laugh it can't be all that bad.

Just curious, what do you dislike about Bill and Hillary so much? You said you once thought they might even be capable of murder. I am intrigued (to put it mildly) as to why you feel/felt that way.

 

[Schweddy]

If the GOP "could care less what he actually did with her," as you put it, then why in the world did they drag him to grand jury over it in the first place? I'm not sure I can follow that logic.

How quickly you liberals forget.
He (President Clinton) was being investigated for sexual harasment against Paula Jones. During that invesitgation, Monica was found out. They had the evidence (more than the dress) that his lifestyle was that of a person that might indeed commit harasment. When they asked him about Monica - he denied it under oath.

I as well could care less how often he is polished, but if the president is under oath - he needs to tell the truth. Period.

 

[Hoot]

Clinton never should've been brought before a Grand Jury.

This all goes back to members of our US Supreme Court who allowed a civil court case ( Paula Jones vs Clinton) to proceed against a sitting President.

No duly elected President should be forced to face the prospect of a civil trial while he is serving his country! Period!

We have something called the "1960 Soldier and Sailor's Civil Relief Act," that allows even a grunt private in the military the right to delay all civil trials against him until after his term of service.

Why?

Because we want that soldier concentrating on doing his duty, yet the USSC and the fanatical lust for power republicans denied this basic right to our Commander in Chief of the entire military!

All Clinton asked for was a delay in the Paula Jones trial until after his term of service, yet the republicans denied this right to the most important job in our nation, and arguably, the most important job in the world! Screaming in their idiocy.."No one's above the law!"

If not for the Paula Jones case, we never would've found out about Monica.

Any stain on the White House was placed there by the republican party and their hatred of Clinton.

I am not condoning Clinton's behavior, but the last time I checked, sex between two consenting adults was not yet a crime in this nation. The Grand Jury never should've been involved.

Think about this....let's say I live next to Bush, down in Texas...and I believe he built a fence on my property.
Should I have the right to sue Bush in civil court taking his mind off his duties, making him give sworn depositions and months of testimony and appearences in court while he is serving as President?
How about I sue him in civil court the day after 9/11?
That ok with you Republicans?

I was so outraged by this, that I swore I would never vote for another republican for the rest of my life.

Someone please explain to me how this was good for the nation to pursue, so relentlessly, a duly elected President?

So, I don't want to hear any whining about Bush getting a hard time.

He ain't seen nothing yet.

Hoot

 

[CSA_TX]

Isn't that called perjury in which the average citizen can be charged with a felony for. As I have stated before the major problem I had with Clinton is his perjury as well as his speech to the American people in which he said " i have never had sexual relations with that woman".

He also ruined a good cigar which should be a crime also.

 

[Pacridge]

the issue I have with McCain has to do with bills he has sponsered.
1) the capaign finance reform bill that is now law. This law unfortinately subverts the constitution in freedom of speech. Political disent and discussion is regulated before an election. I have an issue with that. I was also very dissapointed in Bush for signing the bill into law and had me looking into other candidates this past election.
2) the gun show loophole bill. There is no gun show loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show you still have to go through the same procedure as buying a gun at a gun store. If you buy a gun from an individual it is a private purchase.

So I am not a fan of McCain.

How exactly are you defining "Gun Show Loophole?" I know here in Oregon up until 2000 you were able to go to a gun show and purchase any firearm you wanted without any background check. To me that is the "loophole." Here in Oregon the voters closed it in the 2000 general election. According to the Americans for Gun Saftey that "loophole" Still exists in 32 states.

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp

Now I haven't gone and checked the state laws for all 32 states, but if even one state allows gun purchases to occur without a background check, then I'd say there's a loophole. I feel owning a gun is a right given to us by the constitution. But with that right comes responsiblity. Especially now that we have so many people in this world hell bent on doing us harm. What do you think would happen is Al Qaeda sent 10 or 20 guys over here and had them buy rifles at gun shows or from private owners, then had them spread out around the country and basically do what the DC sniper did, just start shooting individuals at random. All hell would break loose. Even the economy would take a major hit. Retail sales would take a hugh hit because people would be affraid to even leave their homes. Sorry, I don't think it's too much to ask that we take some care with who can and who can't purchase weapons.

And let's say something like this does happen. And don't kid yourself- if they can fly planes into our buildings they can come up with something this simple. What do you think the nation's attitude will be towards gun ownership and sales then? I think the reaction of the masses would end up being an over reaction and we could eaily end up being in a situation like our friends "Down Under." Personally since gun sales are part of my business I don't want that. But I'm not at all opposed to making sure we at least try to put some safe gaurds on gun sales.

 

[Pacridge]

the issue I have with McCain has to do with bills he has sponsered.
1) the capaign finance reform bill that is now law. This law unfortinately subverts the constitution in freedom of speech. Political disent and discussion is regulated before an election. I have an issue with that. I was also very dissapointed in Bush for signing the bill into law and had me looking into other candidates this past election.
2) the gun show loophole bill. There is no gun show loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show you still have to go through the same procedure as buying a gun at a gun store. If you buy a gun from an individual it is a private purchase.

So I am not a fan of McCain.

How exactly are you defining "Gun Show Loophole?" I know here in Oregon up until 2000 you were able to go to a gun show and purchase any firearm you wanted without any background check. To me that is the "loophole." Here in Oregon the voters closed it in the 2000 general election. According to the Americans for Gun Saftey that "loophole" Still exists in 32 states.

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp

Now I haven't gone and checked the state laws for all 32 states, but if even one state allows gun purchases to occur without a background check, then I'd say there's a loophole. I feel owning a gun is a right given to us by the constitution. But with that right comes responsiblity. Especially now that we have so many people in this world hell bent on doing us harm. What do you think would happen is Al Qaeda sent 10 or 20 guys over here and had them buy rifles at gun shows or from private owners, then had them spread out around the country and basically do what the DC sniper did, just start shooting individuals at random. All hell would break loose. Even the economy would take a major hit. Retail sales would take a hugh hit because people would be affraid to even leave their homes. Sorry, I don't think it's too much to ask that we take some care with who can and who can't purchase weapons.

And let's say something like this does happen. And don't kid yourself- if they can fly planes into our buildings they can come up with something this simple. What do you think the nation's attitude will be towards gun ownership and sales then? I think the reaction of the masses would end up being an over reaction and we could easily end up being in a situation like our friends "Down Under." Personally since gun sales are part of my business I don't want that. But I'm not at all opposed to making sure we at least try to put some safe gaurds on gun sales.

 

[Hoot]

>Isn't that called perjury in which the average citizen can be charged with a felony for. As I have stated before the major problem I had with Clinton is his perjury as well as his speech to the American people in which he said " i have never had sexual relations with that woman". <

There are different types of perjury.

There's perjury in which you're attempting to hurt someone..such as, "I saw him kill," when you know this isn't true, and there's self-defense perjury, in which a witness can simply say, "Not guilty," when he knows, deep inside that he is guilty of the crime of which he is accused.

I defy you to show me any court case in which someone is prosecuted for self-defense perjury.
It never happens. This kind of perjury happens everyday in every court in the nation and is never prosecuted.

One more point, when Clinton was first questioned, he was asked if he had "sexual relations" with Monica.

Clinton asked for the panel's definition of "sexual relations," and the panel basically described it as the "'ol in-out."

Based on the panel's own defintion, Clinton told the truth, since it was never proven that the relationship went as far as intercourse. ( it's not Clinton's fault if he was smarter than anyone on the panel..LOL)

Again, I'm not supporting Clinton in his lie, but the fact remains, he was placed between a rock and a hard place...he either admits sexual indiscretions, or lies, to protect his wife, daughter, and yes, even himself from embarrassment that never should've come to this point based on the reasons stated in my previous post.

Hey, the republicans had to get him on something, didn't they? You should all feel proud.

Hoot

 

[mixedmedia]

but if the president is under oath - he needs to tell the truth. Period.

Hmmm...interesting. As long as they're not under oath its okay to lie?
We can ignore the difference between Bill Clinton's lying about his messy affairs and George Bush lying to promote a war that has caused the deaths of (at the very disputed least) 20,000 people?
I guess George Bush is just one oath away from the media lynching he deserves, right? Yeah, right.

 

[Schweddy]

I am not condoning Clinton's behavior, but the last time I checked, sex between two consenting adults was not yet a crime in this nation.

Might wanna recheck those facts.

Here is a site I just found, there are probably better - can't find my old bookmark.
[font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]§ 22-201. Adultery Definition and penalty.

Whoever commits adultery in the District shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding 180 days, or both; and when the act is committed between a married person and a person who is unmarried both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery

[/font][/font][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]The miilitary penalties are MUCH harsher. He was the commander in chief. Generals have lost years of service over this very issue.

I don't care who you are, if you are harassing or even raping women - could careless if you are the President of the United States. You should be tried, this is not France where the prime minister never has to answer for anything done during or before term.

Yes, there was some political ball playing, but that is not unusual for Washington either.
[/font][/font]

 

[Schweddy]

Hmmm...interesting. As long as they're not under oath its okay to lie?
We can ignore the difference between Bill Clinton's lying about his messy affairs and George Bush lying to promote a war that has caused the deaths of (at the very disputed least) 20,000 people?
I guess George Bush is just one oath away from the media lynching he deserves, right? Yeah, right.

There is a big difference.

President Clinton KNEW what he was saying was a lie - regardless of the definition of "IS". President Bush BELIEVED what he was saying was the truth - therefore what he said was not a lie. Everything that was told to him said that there were WMD's.