What is ?really? going on with the Republicans

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Wow... talk about high and mighty. thanks for "gracing" me by your response.

Anyhow, I stand by my comment. Anyone that thinks GWB in office for 8 years was good for the country, I feel is stupid. Surely you must have a reason for thinking that - please, enlighten me as to how. Grace me with just one more response /rolls eyes

Given that you asked I will respond this last time....

1. I never specified GWB, rather I just said a repblican regime

2. I really never said was better for the country but rather said was better for "me"...I am not one of those ritcheous individuals that quotes Star Trek 2 and lives by it, I care about my wallet and the well being of my family.

Under Clinton I paid more for taxes and made less money, under Bush 2 I paid less in taxes and there were far more job opportunities for me at higher pay rates,

Plus from a social standpoint I am more in line with the republicans and for the most part totally disagree with progressives/liberal democrats (though as with everything there are exceptions)...I don't care about UHC as I have always worked for companies that provide this, and I know many who aren't here in MA but make enough to be mandated to buy it only to feel punished by this law as they can barely afford to make it as it is, with the coverage cost they are forced into a lower standard of living, one would hope they don't use us as the model when it goes nation wide.

Given that Robin Hood rode into office on his bright white horse this past November I am most certain that the next four years at least will mean a return to Clinton syle fees and taxes to help prop up those who contribute nothing or very little to society and at the expense of those such as myself who make just enough to get themselves into trouble, but not enough to be considered financially secure.

So in short, my primary concern is "me me me me" and thus the reason why I would usually take any Republican admin over a democratic/progressive one....and as an example of where I have made exceptions, I voted for Clinton's buddy Deval Patrick in the race for the governor last time around here in MA...biggest mistake I could have made as he is an absolute disaster and joke.

OK, I guess that clarifies it... It was good for you. - OK

You aside, my whole point has been that 8 years of GWB as president has been a disaster in all aspects - Right or wrong, like it or not, GWB and his disasterous presidency lost the reps the house, the senate, and the oval office. Even die hard repuplicans have to admit that. Most republicans will even admit that GWB was a disaster.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: bozack
So in short, my primary concern is "me me me me" and thus the reason why I would usually take any Republican admin over a democratic/progressive one....and as an example of where I have made exceptions, I voted for Clinton's buddy Deval Patrick in the race for the governor last time around here in MA...biggest mistake I could have made as he is an absolute disaster and joke.

"GOP: Party of the Utterly Selfish?" Hey, that might actually catch on!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Wow... talk about high and mighty. thanks for "gracing" me by your response.

Anyhow, I stand by my comment. Anyone that thinks GWB in office for 8 years was good for the country, I feel is stupid. Surely you must have a reason for thinking that - please, enlighten me as to how. Grace me with just one more response /rolls eyes

Given that you asked I will respond this last time....

1. I never specified GWB, rather I just said a repblican regime

2. I really never said was better for the country but rather said was better for "me"...I am not one of those ritcheous individuals that quotes Star Trek 2 and lives by it, I care about my wallet and the well being of my family.

Under Clinton I paid more for taxes and made less money, under Bush 2 I paid less in taxes and there were far more job opportunities for me at higher pay rates,

Plus from a social standpoint I am more in line with the republicans and for the most part totally disagree with progressives/liberal democrats (though as with everything there are exceptions)...I don't care about UHC as I have always worked for companies that provide this, and I know many who aren't here in MA but make enough to be mandated to buy it only to feel punished by this law as they can barely afford to make it as it is, with the coverage cost they are forced into a lower standard of living, one would hope they don't use us as the model when it goes nation wide.

Given that Robin Hood rode into office on his bright white horse this past November I am most certain that the next four years at least will mean a return to Clinton syle fees and taxes to help prop up those who contribute nothing or very little to society and at the expense of those such as myself who make just enough to get themselves into trouble, but not enough to be considered financially secure.

So in short, my primary concern is "me me me me" and thus the reason why I would usually take any Republican admin over a democratic/progressive one....and as an example of where I have made exceptions, I voted for Clinton's buddy Deval Patrick in the race for the governor last time around here in MA...biggest mistake I could have made as he is an absolute disaster and joke.

OK, I guess that clarifies it... It was good for you. - OK

You aside, my whole point has been that 8 years of GWB as president has been a disaster in all aspects - Right or wrong, like it or not, GWB and his disasterous presidency lost the reps the house, the senate, and the oval office. Even die hard repuplicans have to admit that. Most republicans will even admit that GWB was a disaster.

Clinton's Presidency did the same things for the Democrats.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: bozack
Everyone who contributes to this board regularly is highly partisan, I have yet to find/see a vocal moderate persona expressed on here.

Well i would probably be considered a liberal by you but I hope that I think for myself. I find that its really only the republicans that feel they need to walk in lock step with each other. i know some republicans do think for themselves (loki) and i can respect any fiscal conservative but social conservative neocon wackos get nothing sorry.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: senseamp
California is glorious success of Republican obstructionism, something they are eager to take nationwide.

No shit. Thank goodness there's no 2/3 vote requirement in the US Congress, or we'd never get jack shit done. Multiple GOP senators who voted for TARP under Bush, suddenly didn't support the same GD thing under Obama. They're like a dead body under the front wheel of progress. They'll spend $500B propping up the banks (allegedly), but suddenly are afraid to spend once Obama's at the helm.

Except it's was supposed to be an entirely different thing and it still took much arm twisting to actually get the tarp passed. So don't even try to claim they are similar - they aren't even close. One was suppsed to be a specific(targeted) bill to free up credit. This one is just a massive spending bill that BHO, Pelosireid, and the apologists are trying blast through claiming "stimulus".

How many times have we had stimulus packages in the past 8 years? At least twice that I can recall. All those US$Billions sent out to taxpayers. How much did that cost? $300Billion? More? Face it Cad, the GOP was all for spending when it suited them (or the Bush Administration), but suddenly now they're fiscally responsible? Puh-lease.

I responded to your nonsense about the TARP. Now you are trying (as usual for libs) to move the goal posts. What you stated was BS and I called you on it. If you want to change your original statement, then fine - I'd agree with you that the GOP has done a horrible fiscal job the last 6+ years and it pretty much cost them this election since many of us fiscal Conservatives just couldn't stomach a lever pull for McCain (someone you libs were infatuated with until he ran for Pres)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I know exactly what you said which is exactly how you re-explained it. Thus, since YOU don't hold the same opinion you claim he is "stupid" and irrelevant. Now I've gone through this thread and none of the posts I read by bozack had "8 years of GWB as pres. was good for the country" - seems those were YOUR words.

So again, it looks like you are nothing but another elitist lib who likes dissent only when you agree with it and it's only "patriotic" when you agree with it. Just more evidence you libs have gotten yourself drunk on power in record time. It took the R's quite a few years to get drunk on power after their '94 take over - hopefully we can have another '94 style take over and have it last longer due to the critters learning their lesson. Seems the libs didn't learn from the R failure after the take over and look to be going full speed towards failure.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension - this is exactly what was said.

Originally posted by: Bozack

"The one good thing about Clinton is that he pushed the nation so far away from "progressive" politics that we got eight years of a republican in charge"

What what republican in charge for 8 years after Clinton do you think was meant by that statement? And more importantly, if you disagree with me and you think that GWB in office for 8 years was good for the country, then please, enlighten me as to how.

lol, talk about needing to work on reading comprehension. He stated no such thing - and in another response stated I was correct.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I responded to your nonsense about the TARP. Now you are trying (as usual for libs) to move the goal posts. What you stated was BS and I called you on it. If you want to change your original statement, then fine - I'd agree with you that the GOP has done a horrible fiscal job the last 6+ years and it pretty much cost them this election since many of us fiscal Conservatives just couldn't stomach a lever pull for McCain (someone you libs were infatuated with until he ran for Pres)

Shocking. Liberals like moderate conservative politicians until they repudiate nearly all of their moderate positions to pander to the ultra right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I responded to your nonsense about the TARP. Now you are trying (as usual for libs) to move the goal posts. What you stated was BS and I called you on it. If you want to change your original statement, then fine - I'd agree with you that the GOP has done a horrible fiscal job the last 6+ years and it pretty much cost them this election since many of us fiscal Conservatives just couldn't stomach a lever pull for McCain (someone you libs were infatuated with until he ran for Pres)

Shocking. Liberals like moderate conservative politicians until they repudiate nearly all of their moderate positions to pander to the ultra right.

:laugh: More like libs don't like non-leftist libs who run against libs. McCain didn't suddenly change like you people tried to claim. McCain has been squishy for a while and you libs liked him until he tried to run against you and the media had to change the narrative re. McCain.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I responded to your nonsense about the TARP. Now you are trying (as usual for libs) to move the goal posts. What you stated was BS and I called you on it. If you want to change your original statement, then fine - I'd agree with you that the GOP has done a horrible fiscal job the last 6+ years and it pretty much cost them this election since many of us fiscal Conservatives just couldn't stomach a lever pull for McCain (someone you libs were infatuated with until he ran for Pres)

Shocking. Liberals like moderate conservative politicians until they repudiate nearly all of their moderate positions to pander to the ultra right.

:laugh: More like libs don't like non-leftist libs who run against libs. McCain didn't suddenly change like you people tried to claim. McCain has been squishy for a while and you libs liked him until he tried to run against you and the media had to change the narrative re. McCain.

Yeah that must be it. I'm sure it had nothing to do with McCain shifting to the ultra right simply on:

Abortion (used to be pro life but against the repeal of Roe v. Wade, now for it)
Taxes (used to be against the Bush tax cuts, now for them),
The environment (used to be against offshore drilling/ANWR drilling, now for it)
Cuba (used to be for common sense normalization, now completely opposed.)
Indefinite detention at Guantanamo (used to be for habeas corpus for detainees, then declared the USSC ruling that detainees got habeas corpus rights as 'one of the worst decisions in the history of this country')
Immigration (said he was for comprehensive immigration reform, then during the campaign said he wouldn't vote for his own bill)
Gay marriage (used to be against a constitutional ban, now supports it)

I could go on... and on... and on.

Gee, it couldn't have been him suddenly tacking to the right in order to appeal to the Republican base in a presidential primary, nahhhhh... it had to be the media out to get him. What a strange, paranoid world you must live in.

(now everyone, lets prepare for CAD to fight to the death as opposed to admitting he was wrong. That is, unless his computer accidentally autocorrected his post to 'wrong'.)

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

(now everyone, lets prepare for CAD to fight to the death as opposed to admitting he was wrong. That is, unless his computer accidentally autocorrected his post to 'wrong'.)

LOL , been there seen that. Wont ever happen.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I know exactly what you said which is exactly how you re-explained it. Thus, since YOU don't hold the same opinion you claim he is "stupid" and irrelevant. Now I've gone through this thread and none of the posts I read by bozack had "8 years of GWB as pres. was good for the country" - seems those were YOUR words.

So again, it looks like you are nothing but another elitist lib who likes dissent only when you agree with it and it's only "patriotic" when you agree with it. Just more evidence you libs have gotten yourself drunk on power in record time. It took the R's quite a few years to get drunk on power after their '94 take over - hopefully we can have another '94 style take over and have it last longer due to the critters learning their lesson. Seems the libs didn't learn from the R failure after the take over and look to be going full speed towards failure.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension - this is exactly what was said.

Originally posted by: Bozack

"The one good thing about Clinton is that he pushed the nation so far away from "progressive" politics that we got eight years of a republican in charge"

What what republican in charge for 8 years after Clinton do you think was meant by that statement? And more importantly, if you disagree with me and you think that GWB in office for 8 years was good for the country, then please, enlighten me as to how.

lol, talk about needing to work on reading comprehension. He stated no such thing - and in another response stated I was correct.

I am not going to argue about that with you any longer. I cut/pasted exactly what he said. Your only problem with it, is that it angers you that your prez screwed us up so badly.

As far as the rest of your points, you really just sound like and angry, bitter, sore loser. Its not the left that is drunk on power, you is you that stinks of defeat, and you are obviously upset about it. I will give you that, its gotta suck to be a republican these days =)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I responded to your nonsense about the TARP. Now you are trying (as usual for libs) to move the goal posts. What you stated was BS and I called you on it. If you want to change your original statement, then fine - I'd agree with you that the GOP has done a horrible fiscal job the last 6+ years and it pretty much cost them this election since many of us fiscal Conservatives just couldn't stomach a lever pull for McCain (someone you libs were infatuated with until he ran for Pres)

Shocking. Liberals like moderate conservative politicians until they repudiate nearly all of their moderate positions to pander to the ultra right.

:laugh: More like libs don't like non-leftist libs who run against libs. McCain didn't suddenly change like you people tried to claim. McCain has been squishy for a while and you libs liked him until he tried to run against you and the media had to change the narrative re. McCain.

Yeah that must be it. I'm sure it had nothing to do with McCain shifting to the ultra right simply on:

Abortion (used to be pro life but against the repeal of Roe v. Wade, now for it)
Taxes (used to be against the Bush tax cuts, now for them),
The environment (used to be against offshore drilling/ANWR drilling, now for it)
Cuba (used to be for common sense normalization, now completely opposed.)
Indefinite detention at Guantanamo (used to be for habeas corpus for detainees, then declared the USSC ruling that detainees got habeas corpus rights as 'one of the worst decisions in the history of this country')
Immigration (said he was for comprehensive immigration reform, then during the campaign said he wouldn't vote for his own bill)
Gay marriage (used to be against a constitutional ban, now supports it)

I could go on... and on... and on.

Gee, it couldn't have been him suddenly tacking to the right in order to appeal to the Republican base in a presidential primary, nahhhhh... it had to be the media out to get him. What a strange, paranoid world you must live in.

(now everyone, lets prepare for CAD to fight to the death as opposed to admitting he was wrong. That is, unless his computer accidentally autocorrected his post to 'wrong'.)

Wow so coming up with a few things he's changed over time on suddenly doesn't make him a "moderate"? Also, any time a person runs for President they tack towards the base if they weren't fully aligned with it. McCain tried on a few things but most of us(but obviously not you libs if you think pandering is "repudiating") saw it for what it was - pandering - and not his true positions. And have you noticed that lately the press has gone back to the "maverick" crap? Yeah I guess he really did "repudiate nearly all" of his "moderate positions" :roll: You libs are a joke, you can't even admit what is right in front of you, but hey, nothing really surprises me any more due to all the trolling by you people...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I know exactly what you said which is exactly how you re-explained it. Thus, since YOU don't hold the same opinion you claim he is "stupid" and irrelevant. Now I've gone through this thread and none of the posts I read by bozack had "8 years of GWB as pres. was good for the country" - seems those were YOUR words.

So again, it looks like you are nothing but another elitist lib who likes dissent only when you agree with it and it's only "patriotic" when you agree with it. Just more evidence you libs have gotten yourself drunk on power in record time. It took the R's quite a few years to get drunk on power after their '94 take over - hopefully we can have another '94 style take over and have it last longer due to the critters learning their lesson. Seems the libs didn't learn from the R failure after the take over and look to be going full speed towards failure.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension - this is exactly what was said.

Originally posted by: Bozack

"The one good thing about Clinton is that he pushed the nation so far away from "progressive" politics that we got eight years of a republican in charge"

What what republican in charge for 8 years after Clinton do you think was meant by that statement? And more importantly, if you disagree with me and you think that GWB in office for 8 years was good for the country, then please, enlighten me as to how.

lol, talk about needing to work on reading comprehension. He stated no such thing - and in another response stated I was correct.

I am not going to argue about that with you any longer. I cut/pasted exactly what he said. Your only problem with it, is that it angers you that your prez screwed us up so badly.

As far as the rest of your points, you really just sound like and angry, bitter, sore loser. Its not the left that is drunk on power, you is you that stinks of defeat, and you are obviously upset about it. I will give you that, its gotta suck to be a republican these days =)

Again, he said no such thing. YOU twisted his words and ASSumed - which seems to be a typical thing for you. Why not try reading what he read instead of putting words in his mouth and then arguing against it? Hell, he stated I was correct - sorry you aren't able to accept the truth.

:laugh: Here we go again with yet another lib trying to claim that I am "bitter" or a "sore loser" Have you not been paying attention to all the leftists trying to claim that? I didn't "lose" - my guy didn't have a chance in the general election(not McCain). But hey, if it makes it easier for you to play a blind partisan fool if you think I'm "bitter" then go right ahead, it's not like the truth or logic has stopped you so far with your flailings.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I know exactly what you said which is exactly how you re-explained it. Thus, since YOU don't hold the same opinion you claim he is "stupid" and irrelevant. Now I've gone through this thread and none of the posts I read by bozack had "8 years of GWB as pres. was good for the country" - seems those were YOUR words.

So again, it looks like you are nothing but another elitist lib who likes dissent only when you agree with it and it's only "patriotic" when you agree with it. Just more evidence you libs have gotten yourself drunk on power in record time. It took the R's quite a few years to get drunk on power after their '94 take over - hopefully we can have another '94 style take over and have it last longer due to the critters learning their lesson. Seems the libs didn't learn from the R failure after the take over and look to be going full speed towards failure.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension - this is exactly what was said.

Originally posted by: Bozack

"The one good thing about Clinton is that he pushed the nation so far away from "progressive" politics that we got eight years of a republican in charge"

What what republican in charge for 8 years after Clinton do you think was meant by that statement? And more importantly, if you disagree with me and you think that GWB in office for 8 years was good for the country, then please, enlighten me as to how.

lol, talk about needing to work on reading comprehension. He stated no such thing - and in another response stated I was correct.

I am not going to argue about that with you any longer. I cut/pasted exactly what he said. Your only problem with it, is that it angers you that your prez screwed us up so badly.

As far as the rest of your points, you really just sound like and angry, bitter, sore loser. Its not the left that is drunk on power, you is you that stinks of defeat, and you are obviously upset about it. I will give you that, its gotta suck to be a republican these days =)

Again, he said no such thing. YOU twisted his words and ASSumed - which seems to be a typical thing for you. Why not try reading what he read instead of putting words in his mouth and then arguing against it? Hell, he stated I was correct - sorry you aren't able to accept the truth.

:laugh: Here we go again with yet another lib trying to claim that I am "bitter" or a "sore loser" Have you not been paying attention to all the leftists trying to claim that? I didn't "lose" - my guy didn't have a chance in the general election(not McCain). But hey, if it makes it easier for you to play a blind partisan fool if you think I'm "bitter" then go right ahead, it's not like the truth or logic has stopped you so far with your flailings.

No, I honestly hadn't noticed anyone else calling you bitter although it doesn't surprise me now that you point out that many others say it as well... Maybe alot of others are noticing something that you yourself should at least think about.

Either you are really bitter about the reps losing house, senate and oval office (not specifically "your guy" but rather the party in general, and the conservative cause losing so mich ground), or you are just really bad at getting your point across without sounding like a whiney douchebag... Seriously. go back and read your posts, as if you don't know who the author is, and have no political predjudices. Seriously, try it, and try some self awareness while your at it... For example

Here we go again with yet another lib

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yeah that must be it. I'm sure it had nothing to do with McCain shifting to the ultra right simply on:

Abortion (used to be pro life but against the repeal of Roe v. Wade, now for it)
Taxes (used to be against the Bush tax cuts, now for them),
The environment (used to be against offshore drilling/ANWR drilling, now for it)
Cuba (used to be for common sense normalization, now completely opposed.)
Indefinite detention at Guantanamo (used to be for habeas corpus for detainees, then declared the USSC ruling that detainees got habeas corpus rights as 'one of the worst decisions in the history of this country')
Immigration (said he was for comprehensive immigration reform, then during the campaign said he wouldn't vote for his own bill)
Gay marriage (used to be against a constitutional ban, now supports it)

I could go on... and on... and on.

Gee, it couldn't have been him suddenly tacking to the right in order to appeal to the Republican base in a presidential primary, nahhhhh... it had to be the media out to get him. What a strange, paranoid world you must live in.

(now everyone, lets prepare for CAD to fight to the death as opposed to admitting he was wrong. That is, unless his computer accidentally autocorrected his post to 'wrong'.)

Wow so coming up with a few things he's changed over time on suddenly doesn't make him a "moderate"? Also, any time a person runs for President they tack towards the base if they weren't fully aligned with it. McCain tried on a few things but most of us(but obviously not you libs if you think pandering is "repudiating") saw it for what it was - pandering - and not his true positions. And have you noticed that lately the press has gone back to the "maverick" crap? Yeah I guess he really did "repudiate nearly all" of his "moderate positions" :roll: You libs are a joke, you can't even admit what is right in front of you, but hey, nothing really surprises me any more due to all the trolling by you people...

"A few things"?! I just rattled off nearly every wedge issue present in the campaign. It also wasn't over very much time either, pretty much all of those occurred between 2004-2008. I'm glad to see if someone is a 'moderate' or not no longer has to do with his repeatedly stated positions, it has to do with what CAD thinks their positions are.

Do you feel any pangs of irony when you look at the list of things that McCain has gone from moderate to ultraconservative on, and then state that liberals can't even admit what is right in front of them? I'm guessing no.

I'm not interested in another patented CAD fight to the death/autocorrect, so I won't be responding to you anymore. I think what's been written so far speaks well enough for itself anyway.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: bozack
Everyone who contributes to this board regularly is highly partisan, I have yet to find/see a vocal moderate persona expressed on here.

Well i would probably be considered a liberal by you but I hope that I think for myself. I find that its really only the republicans that feel they need to walk in lock step with each other. i know some republicans do think for themselves (loki) and i can respect any fiscal conservative but social conservative neocon wackos get nothing sorry.

Surely you jest. This forum is utter Democrat groupthink. There isn't an individual thought from the lot of you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yeah that must be it. I'm sure it had nothing to do with McCain shifting to the ultra right simply on:

Abortion (used to be pro life but against the repeal of Roe v. Wade, now for it)
Taxes (used to be against the Bush tax cuts, now for them),
The environment (used to be against offshore drilling/ANWR drilling, now for it)
Cuba (used to be for common sense normalization, now completely opposed.)
Indefinite detention at Guantanamo (used to be for habeas corpus for detainees, then declared the USSC ruling that detainees got habeas corpus rights as 'one of the worst decisions in the history of this country')
Immigration (said he was for comprehensive immigration reform, then during the campaign said he wouldn't vote for his own bill)
Gay marriage (used to be against a constitutional ban, now supports it)

I could go on... and on... and on.

Gee, it couldn't have been him suddenly tacking to the right in order to appeal to the Republican base in a presidential primary, nahhhhh... it had to be the media out to get him. What a strange, paranoid world you must live in.

(now everyone, lets prepare for CAD to fight to the death as opposed to admitting he was wrong. That is, unless his computer accidentally autocorrected his post to 'wrong'.)

Wow so coming up with a few things he's changed over time on suddenly doesn't make him a "moderate"? Also, any time a person runs for President they tack towards the base if they weren't fully aligned with it. McCain tried on a few things but most of us(but obviously not you libs if you think pandering is "repudiating") saw it for what it was - pandering - and not his true positions. And have you noticed that lately the press has gone back to the "maverick" crap? Yeah I guess he really did "repudiate nearly all" of his "moderate positions" :roll: You libs are a joke, you can't even admit what is right in front of you, but hey, nothing really surprises me any more due to all the trolling by you people...

"A few things"?! I just rattled off nearly every wedge issue present in the campaign. It also wasn't over very much time either, pretty much all of those occurred between 2004-2008. I'm glad to see if someone is a 'moderate' or not no longer has to do with his repeatedly stated positions, it has to do with what CAD thinks their positions are.

Do you feel any pangs of irony when you look at the list of things that McCain has gone from moderate to ultraconservative on, and then state that liberals can't even admit what is right in front of them? I'm guessing no.

I'm not interested in another patented CAD fight to the death/autocorrect, so I won't be responding to you anymore. I think what's been written so far speaks well enough for itself anyway.

That's fine if you don't want to respond but it doesn't change anything I posted. Just because YOU and other libs think repudiate=pander doesn't make it so. The guy knew he wasn't inline with the base and for the campaign he TRIED to move doesn't mean he repudiated anything. Also, it was long before he moved when many (here and the press) changed their tune about him, but don't let the facts get in the way of your feelings. I don't like the guy, haven't for quite some time so it's not like I'm defending him at all - it's just that it's the same old same old with you people and the press. Love and praise some "moderate" until he's against your side(in this case - the messiah BHO).

Also your list is flawed:
Abortion - facts
Taxcuts - Yes, he flipped - but that was in 2006. Clearly not just a move during the campaign.
ANWR/offshore - FACTS
Cuba - Still is for normalization - Just not with the Castros - which seems to be consistent. There is little change if any on this so I don't see how you can make such claims
Gitmo- you obviously don't understand the issue. He still wants to close Gitmo but that doesn't mean one has to support "habeas corpus rights" for terrorists captured on foreign battlefields.
Immigration - yep you finally hit the dart board. He definately moved towards the base's position during the campaign. We shall see if he changes back to amnesty like he supported before.
Gay marriage - Seems you don't know what you are talking about here. From what I remember and can find in a quick search is that he still does not support a Federal Constitutional ban(he and Palin were at odds on this) but he does support states doing so - which if you had half a clue is why he doesn't support a Federal ban(see 2004 statements) - state's rights. If you have proof of him supporting a Federal Amendment, I'd sure like to see it.

So you were saying what about "moderate to ultraconservative" again? :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That's fine if you don't want to respond but it doesn't change anything I posted. Just because YOU and other libs think repudiate=pander doesn't make it so. The guy knew he wasn't inline with the base and for the campaign he TRIED to move doesn't mean he repudiated anything. Also, it was long before he moved when many (here and the press) changed their tune about him, but don't let the facts get in the way of your feelings. I don't like the guy, haven't for quite some time so it's not like I'm defending him at all - it's just that it's the same old same old with you people and the press. Love and praise some "moderate" until he's against your side(in this case - the messiah BHO).

Also your list is flawed:
Abortion - facts
Taxcuts - Yes, he flipped - but that was in 2006. Clearly not just a move during the campaign.
ANWR/offshore - FACTS
Cuba - Still is for normalization - Just not with the Castros - which seems to be consistent. There is little change if any on this so I don't see how you can make such claims
Gitmo- you obviously don't understand the issue. He still wants to close Gitmo but that doesn't mean one has to support "habeas corpus rights" for terrorists captured on foreign battlefields.
Immigration - yep you finally hit the dart board. He definately moved towards the base's position during the campaign. We shall see if he changes back to amnesty like he supported before.
Gay marriage - Seems you don't know what you are talking about here. From what I remember and can find in a quick search is that he still does not support a Federal Constitutional ban(he and Palin were at odds on this) but he does support states doing so - which if you had half a clue is why he doesn't support a Federal ban(see 2004 statements) - state's rights. If you have proof of him supporting a Federal Amendment, I'd sure like to see it.

So you were saying what about "moderate to ultraconservative" again? :laugh:

Sigh, I didn't want to respond, but since your post was full of distortions I'll do a few corrections and then be on my way.

You're right about abortion, I'll give you that. Of course what's funny about that is that now you're arguing that he's simply always held the ultraconservative position on that as opposed to moving towards it recently. I'm not sure how that helps your argument, but hey!

As for ANWR/Offshore drilling he has supported some offshore drilling in the past, but was always against drilling in ANWR, until he had to tack to the right again. Interesting how you ignored that part.

Gitmo - You're simply off in space on this one. 2003 interview with John McCain on Gitmo. he states and I quote:

They may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I'm concerned,'' said the senator, an Arizona Republican, ''but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.

Yet, when the USSC grants them habeas corpus rights, explicitly the right not to be detained indefinitely, McCain says it's one of the 'worst decisions in the history of our country'. Rightward ho!

On Cuba, and I quote:

Well, first of all, I'm not in favor of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro. In fact, I would favor a road map towards normalization of relations such as we presented to the Vietnamese and led to a normalization of relations between our two countries.

The roadmap to normalization with Vietnam had absolutely nothing to do with a change in the government there. When McCain decided to run for president again, off to the right with him on Cuba! (this is not unique to McCain, as all presidential candidates suck up to the anti-Castro lobby in Florida. It is still a switch from a reasonable, moderate position, to an extremely right wing one however.)

As for gay marriage, it is correct that he does not support a federal Constitutional ban on gay marriage due to federalism issues, however he went from being neutral on Prop 8 in California to supporting it. Once again, a move to the right.

So lets check the corrected scorecard.
1.) Abortion: He was just always on the ultra right, but yes... no change.
2.) Taxes: A move to the ultra right.
3.) ANWR/Offshore: On offshore drilling he was always on the hard right, he flipped from moderate to the ultra right on ANWR.
4.) Cuba: Went from moderate to ultra right. (in fairness, most if not all presidential candidates do this. It's still a move to the right though.)
5.) Gitmo: a clear move to the extreme right on detention rights.
6.) Immigration: a clear move to the extreme right.
7.) Gay marriage: a moderate move to the right on California, unchanged federally.

So yeah. I stand by what I said. He moved way to the right and you know it, so just stop already. Every single one of these shifts happened since McCain's admirable 2000 presidential campaign, and it should be very very clear to anyone looking at this rationally why liberal minded people would view McCain more favorably as a moderate in the past, and would not have in 2008.

Now we're done, I'll stick to my promise this time. I don't want to reward bad behavior.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

"GOP: Party of the Utterly Selfish?" Hey, that might actually catch on!

LOL, what I think is funny is that your suggesting somehow we are alone in this regard...apparently in seeing all of the tax evasion on the part of Obama's picks that this is pretty prevalent in the dem ranks as well...like it or not we are all a bit wild west in our nature and always looking out for ourselves.

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Well i would probably be considered a liberal by you but I hope that I think for myself. I find that its really only the republicans that feel they need to walk in lock step with each other. i know some republicans do think for themselves (loki) and i can respect any fiscal conservative but social conservative neocon wackos get nothing sorry.

I would say that even those who you percieve as being in "lockstep" also feel they think for themselves...it is all about perception and the "eye of the beholder" to use cheesy lines...I don't know you or your posts well enough to consider you liberal or whatever, but everyone here has an "agenda" of sorts, everyone has a party they align with better which is why we have coke and pepsi.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That's fine if you don't want to respond but it doesn't change anything I posted. Just because YOU and other libs think repudiate=pander doesn't make it so. The guy knew he wasn't inline with the base and for the campaign he TRIED to move doesn't mean he repudiated anything. Also, it was long before he moved when many (here and the press) changed their tune about him, but don't let the facts get in the way of your feelings. I don't like the guy, haven't for quite some time so it's not like I'm defending him at all - it's just that it's the same old same old with you people and the press. Love and praise some "moderate" until he's against your side(in this case - the messiah BHO).

Also your list is flawed:
Abortion - facts
Taxcuts - Yes, he flipped - but that was in 2006. Clearly not just a move during the campaign.
ANWR/offshore - FACTS
Cuba - Still is for normalization - Just not with the Castros - which seems to be consistent. There is little change if any on this so I don't see how you can make such claims
Gitmo- you obviously don't understand the issue. He still wants to close Gitmo but that doesn't mean one has to support "habeas corpus rights" for terrorists captured on foreign battlefields.
Immigration - yep you finally hit the dart board. He definately moved towards the base's position during the campaign. We shall see if he changes back to amnesty like he supported before.
Gay marriage - Seems you don't know what you are talking about here. From what I remember and can find in a quick search is that he still does not support a Federal Constitutional ban(he and Palin were at odds on this) but he does support states doing so - which if you had half a clue is why he doesn't support a Federal ban(see 2004 statements) - state's rights. If you have proof of him supporting a Federal Amendment, I'd sure like to see it.

So you were saying what about "moderate to ultraconservative" again? :laugh:

Sigh, I didn't want to respond, but since your post was full of distortions I'll do a few corrections and then be on my way.

You're right about abortion, I'll give you that. Of course what's funny about that is that now you're arguing that he's simply always held the ultraconservative position on that as opposed to moving towards it recently. I'm not sure how that helps your argument, but hey!

As for ANWR/Offshore drilling he has supported some offshore drilling in the past, but was always against drilling in ANWR, until he had to tack to the right again. Interesting how you ignored that part.

Gitmo - You're simply off in space on this one. 2003 interview with John McCain on Gitmo. he states and I quote:

They may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I'm concerned,'' said the senator, an Arizona Republican, ''but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.

Yet, when the USSC grants them habeas corpus rights, explicitly the right not to be detained indefinitely, McCain says it's one of the 'worst decisions in the history of our country'. Rightward ho!

On Cuba, and I quote:

Well, first of all, I'm not in favor of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro. In fact, I would favor a road map towards normalization of relations such as we presented to the Vietnamese and led to a normalization of relations between our two countries.

The roadmap to normalization with Vietnam had absolutely nothing to do with a change in the government there. When McCain decided to run for president again, off to the right with him on Cuba! (this is not unique to McCain, as all presidential candidates suck up to the anti-Castro lobby in Florida. It is still a switch from a reasonable, moderate position, to an extremely right wing one however.)

As for gay marriage, it is correct that he does not support a federal Constitutional ban on gay marriage due to federalism issues, however he went from being neutral on Prop 8 in California to supporting it. Once again, a move to the right.

So lets check the corrected scorecard.
1.) Abortion: He was just always on the ultra right, but yes... no change.
2.) Taxes: A move to the ultra right.
3.) ANWR/Offshore: On offshore drilling he was always on the hard right, he flipped from moderate to the ultra right on ANWR.
4.) Cuba: Went from moderate to ultra right. (in fairness, most if not all presidential candidates do this. It's still a move to the right though.)
5.) Gitmo: a clear move to the extreme right on detention rights.
6.) Immigration: a clear move to the extreme right.
7.) Gay marriage: a moderate move to the right on California, unchanged federally.

So yeah. I stand by what I said. He moved way to the right and you know it, so just stop already. Every single one of these shifts happened since McCain's admirable 2000 presidential campaign, and it should be very very clear to anyone looking at this rationally why liberal minded people would view McCain more favorably as a moderate in the past, and would not have in 2008.

Now we're done, I'll stick to my promise this time. I don't want to reward bad behavior.

ANWR - check the link. It addresses both offshore and ANWR. Try reading.

Gitmo - still doesn't work because he says as you point out that they have rights, etc but that doesn't mean he must support the court's decision. Just because you don't agree with his opinion doesn't mean he's changed it, especially to an "ultra" right wing one.

Cuba - yes, and? As I noted, he would like to but that doesn't mean he must support lifting the embargo during a Castro rule. Again, your opinion doesn't mean he changed, especially to an "ultra" right wing one.

Gay marriage - :roll: move goal posts much? Also, "nuetral"? or just no comment? Proof he stated he was "neutral"? Also, moving from "neutral" to supporting the state's right to amend their constitution over this does not mean "ultra" right wing.

So yeah, you are still stuck with 1 on your list and my point stands. Just because YOU want to claim these things "repudiate" his past "moderate" positions doesn't mean it's so. He moved on a few things(as all pres candidates do) but it doesn't refute my statement and I've shown where you've been woefully ignorant on the FACTS surrounding your rather short list.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

-cut-

There there, CAD, there there. From now on I'll just assume whenever you descend into pedantry that it means you're admitting you were wrong. You are the guy who, instead of admitting he typed the wrong thing into his computer tried to concoct a story about how his laptop betrayed him and exchanged 'moot' for 'mute' after all. If you can't admit to misunderstanding a simple phrase, how can I expect you to admit to something larger?

You're seriously trying to argue that when someone comes out against indefinite detention, and then later blasts a court decision granting detainees habeas corpus (the legal means by which to deal with indefinite detention), that they haven't changed position. You're arguing like a crazy person.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: senseamp
California is glorious success of Republican obstructionism, something they are eager to take nationwide.

No shit. Thank goodness there's no 2/3 vote requirement in the US Congress, or we'd never get jack shit done. Multiple GOP senators who voted for TARP under Bush, suddenly didn't support the same GD thing under Obama. They're like a dead body under the front wheel of progress. They'll spend $500B propping up the banks (allegedly), but suddenly are afraid to spend once Obama's at the helm.

Except it's was supposed to be an entirely different thing and it still took much arm twisting to actually get the tarp passed. So don't even try to claim they are similar - they aren't even close. One was suppsed to be a specific(targeted) bill to free up credit. This one is just a massive spending bill that BHO, Pelosireid, and the apologists are trying blast through claiming "stimulus".

How many times have we had stimulus packages in the past 8 years? At least twice that I can recall. All those US$Billions sent out to taxpayers. How much did that cost? $300Billion? More? Face it Cad, the GOP was all for spending when it suited them (or the Bush Administration), but suddenly now they're fiscally responsible? Puh-lease.

I responded to your nonsense about the TARP. Now you are trying (as usual for libs) to move the goal posts. What you stated was BS and I called you on it. If you want to change your original statement, then fine - I'd agree with you that the GOP has done a horrible fiscal job the last 6+ years and it pretty much cost them this election since many of us fiscal Conservatives just couldn't stomach a lever pull for McCain (someone you libs were infatuated with until he ran for Pres)

And how well has TARP freed up credit? Not very well, I'd say. As usual, you're missing my larger point, which is that the GOP Congress Critters are quite content to spend and spend pre-Obama, but now they're complaining about the $100Billion difference between their bill and the dems bill. Or maybe this week it's the 40%/60% tax cut/spending ratio. In other words, they want to keep spending, so long as it's on their terms and not the dems. It's partisan nonsense.

And for the record, I've never been infatuated with McCain.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: senseamp
California is glorious success of Republican obstructionism, something they are eager to take nationwide.

No shit. Thank goodness there's no 2/3 vote requirement in the US Congress, or we'd never get jack shit done. Multiple GOP senators who voted for TARP under Bush, suddenly didn't support the same GD thing under Obama. They're like a dead body under the front wheel of progress. They'll spend $500B propping up the banks (allegedly), but suddenly are afraid to spend once Obama's at the helm.

Except it's was supposed to be an entirely different thing and it still took much arm twisting to actually get the tarp passed. So don't even try to claim they are similar - they aren't even close. One was suppsed to be a specific(targeted) bill to free up credit. This one is just a massive spending bill that BHO, Pelosireid, and the apologists are trying blast through claiming "stimulus".

How many times have we had stimulus packages in the past 8 years? At least twice that I can recall. All those US$Billions sent out to taxpayers. How much did that cost? $300Billion? More? Face it Cad, the GOP was all for spending when it suited them (or the Bush Administration), but suddenly now they're fiscally responsible? Puh-lease.

I responded to your nonsense about the TARP. Now you are trying (as usual for libs) to move the goal posts. What you stated was BS and I called you on it. If you want to change your original statement, then fine - I'd agree with you that the GOP has done a horrible fiscal job the last 6+ years and it pretty much cost them this election since many of us fiscal Conservatives just couldn't stomach a lever pull for McCain (someone you libs were infatuated with until he ran for Pres)

And how well has TARP freed up credit? Not very well, I'd say. As usual, you're missing my larger point, which is that the GOP Congress Critters are quite content to spend and spend pre-Obama, but now they're complaining about the $100Billion difference between their bill and the dems bill. Or maybe this week it's the 40%/60% tax cut/spending ratio. In other words, they want to keep spending, so long as it's on their terms and not the dems. It's partisan nonsense.

And for the record, I've never been infatuated with McCain.

Except it wasn't an R congress for TARP. If your point would have been pre'06 spending I would have agreed as I've been quite pissed and vocal about the spending. But again, your post was about TARP, to which I responded.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

-cut-

There there, CAD, there there. From now on I'll just assume whenever you descend into pedantry that it means you're admitting you were wrong. You are the guy who, instead of admitting he typed the wrong thing into his computer tried to concoct a story about how his laptop betrayed him and exchanged 'moot' for 'mute' after all. If you can't admit to misunderstanding a simple phrase, how can I expect you to admit to something larger?

You're seriously trying to argue that when someone comes out against indefinite detention, and then later blasts a court decision granting detainees habeas corpus (the legal means by which to deal with indefinite detention), that they haven't changed position. You're arguing like a crazy person.

there there... we already knew you couldn't intelligently respond to defend your BS after me posting the facts(with links) to show just how wrong you were. I do see you are still sticking to 1 argument which still doesn't hold water if you look at your initial claim and the totality of the situation. One can hold a position like McCain did and still blast the ruling due them not being contradictory...something you don't seem to understand.

I thought you promised not to respond... oh well, we all know you can't resist the temptation to troll on and on... good luck with that...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

there there... we already knew you couldn't intelligently respond to defend your BS after me posting the facts(with links) to show just how wrong you were. I do see you are still sticking to 1 argument which still doesn't hold water if you look at your initial claim and the totality of the situation. One can hold a position like McCain did and still blast the ruling due them not being contradictory...something you don't seem to understand.

I thought you promised not to respond... oh well, we all know you can't resist the temptation to troll on and on... good luck with that...

Oh, I'm sorry. To clear that up what I meant was that I wasn't going to respond to your ridiculous pedantry and made up distinctions anymore in this thread. As with that other one I told you that you only got one response in, I'm just going to move on to making fun of you. I don't even write my responses to your bullshit posts for you, as I know your pride would never let you concede a point. I write them for the enjoyment I get out of trashing you and riling you up, and so that someone else reading a thread here wouldn't think that we're all that dumb.

It's not like it's possible to rationally engage with your 'I made up something that he might think, and since your quotation doesn't specifically disprove that I haven't lost' school of argument anyway. That's why I told you that I consider your descent into pedantry as close to an admission of defeat as anyone is likely to get out of you. Like I said, you can't even admit you didn't know a turn of phrase... an incredibly minor thing. How could you ever hope to admit you were wrong about something more substantial?