Edwards Sucks ! archived

Yeah, Edwards is a piece of sh.....

Wait, whats that you say? McCain cheated on his first wife?

Oh, that's right, but its O.K. because McCain was a p.o.w. Anything he does is o.k. because he was a p.o.w.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah, Edwards is a piece of S&%t.

And so too are ex-POW'S....

Right, Jersey jack!!!!!

Do we really know John McCain?

The cons say that McCain's affair is forgivable because he was tortured.

Straw, only one ex pow is running for president and courting the religious right on the basis of his high moral standards.

Wait, is that the same John McCain who features wind generators in his campaign ads yet has refused 8 times to vote for extending the credits that make those very wind turbines feasible? Is that the same John McCain who angles for moderate women voters yet refuses to take a stand against the Bush Administration trying to make most forms of birth control equivalent to abortion (and therefore less available through government programs)? By golly, there he goes again!

Mfpark,

Take heart, a few weeks ago at a family event, even my very conservative brother-in-law and former McCain supporter was calling him a "phony." He told me that though he disagrees with Obama on many issues, he feels that he is a "good man", and that is what we need again. And the rest of my conservative family sat there nodding in agreement. Somehow, they are putting this together (but I must cynically add that I'm sure it has at least something to do with $4.00/gallon gas.) Maybe there is some hope.

When are you liberals going to get this through your fat heads??? Conservatives have never been big McCain supporters, Not now, not then, not ever. That's why seeing the GOP, at least swing to a moderate like McCain gives the nation hope.

Now, Too bad the dumbocrats can't do the same by moving away from the dopey radical left.

Boring

Cons, when they see the other side winning the argument, they fling names like mudpies. And stomp their tiny feet.

Yeah, the same John McCain who the Democrats would have welcomed with flowers and fruit baskets if he joined their party in 2004.

Posted By: sbenoisYeah, the same John McCain who the Democrats would have welcomed with flowers and fruit baskets if he joined their party in 2004.

Speak for yourself, sir.

Posted By: sbenoisYeah, the same John McCain who the Democrats would have welcomed with flowers and fruit baskets if he joined their party in 2004.

As someone has said (I can't remember who) - even John McCain from 2004 wouldn't be voting for the John McCain of 2008. :peace:

[Edited to add] I found the following in my clip file - a quote frm 2004 from Tina Brown (of all people) relating a discussion with Jann Wenner, commenting on John Kerry as the candidate, and the talk of adding John McCain to the ticket -

When I called to congratulate Wenner, he had waxed on about the need to defeat Bush. "This election is simple," he said. "Whose values do you want? Bruce Springsteen's or Wayne Newton's?"

The trouble is, though, that John Kerry ain't Bruce Springsteen. Democrats know this, but they are so fixated on ousting Bush that they don't want to talk about that awkward fact, even to each other. It's why they suddenly get so excited when they hear a rumor about a possible John Kerry-John McCain ticket. They think that Kerry plus McCain equals Bruce.

I just liked that last line. :wink:

Posted By: strawberryConservatives have never been big McCain supporters

Which is why they made him their nominee.

Sbenois: John McCain has sold his maverick soul (if he ever really was a maverick, which I doubt) to the radical right. Why do you think John Hagee embraced him? Why did McCain make a pilgrimage to sit at the feet of Jerry Falwell? Why is Mitt Romney suddenly raising tons of money for him?

McCain the maverick floated Tom Ridge as a Veep candidate, and the anti-choice right is up in arms. Let's see how much of a maverick McCain really is--or how beholden he is to the radical right. I will bet you a matzoh charlotte dinner that McCain's Veep choice will be ardently anti-choice.

I love the left's boogeyman references to "the religious right."

Like the secular left isn't dogmatic in their own views?

But the sad thing is they don't see it.

-SLK

...

Posted By: scrotisloknowsLike the secular left isn't dogmatic in their own views?

Well, I see it. But I think we should do our best to approach moral issues in a utilitarian way and not use dogma to guide them, particularly if the dogma comes from a religion that not everyone shares and especially especially if that religion doesn't share dogma with other religions. In other words, the public discourse on morality should back up its views with religion by saying, "it says so here, so we should follow that."

The question is not who is more dogmatic. The question is should we use dogma in our discourse. I say absolutely not.

Posted By: scrotisloknowsI love the left's boogeyman references to "the religious right."

The reference is to an actual, organized, self-described movement which John McCain is specifically courting.

His statements disqualify him for any office. The nation was NOT founded on Christian principles.

The founders worked extremely hard to eliminate religion from government. The fact that many of the founders were Protestants and Catholics is not proof that the constitution was formed using religion as a basis. In fact the only references to religion in the constitution are exclusionary.

Surely there is an orientation program in the government that explains the constitution. I think McCain should sit down and do some research.

That video upsets and concerns me greatly. I realize that, being a politician, he may be saying that stuff to pander, but I don't think that excuses him at all. This is not a Christian nation. It is a nation where most people are Christian. The distinction is as important to get right as anything is.

hoops and I crossposted, obviously.

hoops, I think it's too late for him to do research. But I would favor such an orientation program for anyone about to take public office. Refreshers would be a good idea, too.

As a spiritual person, I always want to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who says she or he is inspired by their spiritual values.

As a Jewish spiritual person, I am always deeply suspicious of people who say that this is a "Christian" country founded on "Christian" principles (yes, he said "Judeo-Christian at one point, then almost choked on the Judeo part later on). In my experience, these people have no interest in respecting the beliefs of others, including Christians who read the New Testament differently than they do.

And forget any Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sihk, atheists, polytheists, or agnostics that may see this video--clearly they have no place in America once they immigrate here unless they accept the fact that it is a Christian nation.

.

Posted By: hoopsHis statements disqualify him for any office. The nation was NOT founded on Christian principles.

The founders worked extremely hard to eliminate religion from government. The fact that many of the founders were Protestants and Catholics is not proof that the constitution was formed using religion as a basis. In fact the only references to religion in the constitution are exclusionary.

Surely there is an orientation program in the government that explains the constitution. I think McCain should sit down and do some research.

finding a nation and running a nation are two different concepts.

Of course this country was founded judeo-christian principles, but that doesn't exclude the muslim or atheist (see below).

Hoops, you need some orientation training yourself, read the following over and over until you understand it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

-SLK

SLK - lol. A course in English as a First Language might be quite beneficial to you.

why hoops, you don't want to find a nation? :bigsmile:

I got your nation right here!