Getting To Know Mccain

[kenrockthefirst]

[img]http://www.uclick.com/feature/08/06/05/bs080605.gif[/img]

[CatherineM]

I find it interesting that he drew McCain as very overweight with tiny hands, and Obama as having huge ears.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1559847' date='Jun 5 2008, 02:13 PM']I find it interesting that he drew McCain as very overweight with tiny hands, and Obama as having huge ears.[/quote]
Well, Obama [i]does[/i] kind of have big ears.

[CatherineM]

I guess I haven't cared to look at him enough to notice.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1559854' date='Jun 5 2008, 02:19 PM']I guess I haven't cared to look at him enough to notice.[/quote]
Enjoy.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Barack_Obama.jpg/220px-Barack_Obama.jpg[/img]

[Holly3278]

I will be voting for John McCain this year. I will be voting for him because he's the only partially pro-life candidate that there is.

[CatherineM]

I imagine I will too. Some of it depends on who ends up on my ballot. I'm not sure if any 3rd or 4th party candidates are going to be on the Florida ballot.

[Lounge Daddy]

McCain Pro-Choice?

[quote name='Pontifex' post='1539534' date='May 23 2008, 11:27 PM']For those that say McCain is pro-choice, I would like for you to substantiate that here with a vaild source. Take the time to read and know the facts for yourselves. In the very first post I made, there is a link that gives McCain's voting record on the life issues.[/quote]


While McCain can point to his voting record in congress to support his claim to being pro-life, it is a weak argument for him and this is why: Votes do not reflect a congressman's convictions; legislation does.

It is important to note that votes on the floor are the result of political deal making. And what favors did McCain exchange his votes for? It is likely safe to speculate that it was in exchange for support of the liberal legislation that he authored. But speculation aside, we know that Rick Santorum complained more than once that McCain was never comfortable having to vote on pro-life legislation, and regularly prevented such legislation from ever appearing on the floor for a vote (see link below).

It is the legislation that a congressman writes that is the real indicator of a candidate's personal conviction. That, and the endorsements that he accepts. As the Right to Life Committee complained, "McCain did not initiate pro-life amendments or otherwise take an activist role" (see link below).

Not only did McCain never author nor initiate pro-life legislation, he had authored legislation that cost pro-life groups time and money aggressively fighting in court. It's important to keep in mind that if McCain is able to appoint judges, he is not going to want to appoint judges that agree with how he voted on some other congressman's legislation. McCain will appoint judges that agree with the legislation that he himself authored.

* In February of 2000 the National Right to Life Committee stated the McCain was incompatible with the pro-life movement. They went so far as to state that John McCain "has posed a threat to future advances by the pro-life movement." [[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20060926070641/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html"]link[/url]]

Since that time...

* McCain was endorsed by Republicans for Choice in the 2000 election before the primaries, and again during the current election's primaries in February of this year. McCain accepted the endorsement every time. [[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020605.html"]link[/url]]

* McCain [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkcVXIhssCI"]was almost[/url] the running mate to pro-choice Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 campaign. [[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/opinion/polls/main619786.shtml"]link[/url]] [[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473/"]link[/url]]

* He authored legislation that banns Pro-Life groups from supporting candidates for office. This has cost RTL groups a lot of money fighting McCain's anti-free speech legislation in court. [[url="http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=44718"]link[/url]]

* Senator Rick Santorum had complained more than once that no one has fought harder to prevent pro-life legislation from reaching the floor. Santorum's warning about McCain go way beyond pro-life issues, with Santorum stating that a McCain presidency would be "very dangerous." [[url="http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26460"]link[/url]] [[url="http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Santorum:_McCain_Presiden/2008/01/14/64277.html"]link[/url]]

* His campaigns have been bankrolled by pro-choice, wildly socialist, and primarily Democrat funders--including George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry since 2001. Yes, Heinz Kerry--John Kerry's wife. In other words if you follow the money, no matter which one wins the election this time, the socialist and pro-choice financial backers still win. [[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177"]link[/url]]


John Kerry claimed to be a Catholic candidate; but his actions, his statements, and his affiliations said otherwise. Likewise John McCain claims to be a pro-life candidate; but his actions, his endorsements, and legislative record--the one record that really counts for a congressman--says otherwise. McCain isn't just a liar, he's a really bad liar.

Is the pro-life issue the deal breaker for you? [url="http://web.archive.org/web/20060926070641/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html"]According to the Right to Life Committee[/url], during a radio interview John McCain "referred disparagingly to 'otherwise intelligent people who say that that's the only issue that will determine their vote.'" That is what McCain is counting on when he panders for your vote and mine; he is betting that we will be "otherwise intelligent people..." or did he mean to call us "sheeple?"

[kenrockthefirst]

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"]Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps[/url]
[i]WASHINGTON — A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, [b]a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team[/b].[/i]
[emphasis added]

Can you say "McSame?"

[i]Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.

In an interview about his views on the limits of executive power with The Boston Globe six months ago, Mr. McCain strongly suggested that if he became the next commander in chief, he would consider himself obligated to obey a statute restricting what he did in national security matters.

Mr. McCain was asked whether he believed that the president had constitutional power to conduct surveillance on American soil for national security purposes without a warrant, regardless of federal statutes.

He replied: “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

Following up, the interviewer asked whether Mr. McCain was saying a statute trumped a president’s powers as commander in chief when it came to a surveillance law. “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law,” Mr. McCain replied.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that while the language used by Mr. McCain in his answers six months ago was imprecise, the recent statement by Mr. Holtz-Eakin “seems to contradict precisely what he said earlier.”[/i]

In other words, before he was for eavesdropping he was against it. Can you say "flip-flop?" So much for "straight talk."

This is fun. Let's keep "getting to know McCain."

[catholicinsd]

I'm not a Catholic, however I do know you are susposed to be apolitical.

[Paladin D]

I would prefer to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but I really don't want to see Obama win the White House. If voting McCain helps lessen that chance, then so be it.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1561900' date='Jun 7 2008, 12:07 AM']I would prefer to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but I really don't want to see Obama win the White House. If voting McCain helps lessen that chance, then so be it.[/quote]
And what's the difference if Obama wins or McCain wins?

Both are funded by Democrats.
* Teresa Kerry and George Soros are among McCain's known financial backers.

Both are socialists who will keep the big-federal government status quo.
* Neither campaign on shrinking the rapidly expanding size of the federal government. Both propose to expand the federal government's powers.

Both are pro-choice.
* See my post [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=80015&view=findpost&p=1560837"]#83[/url] above.
* At least Obama is honest enough to come out and say he is pro-choice during an election.

Both talk about national security in one form or another--neither will actually secure our borders.
* Our first line of defense shouldn't be the Middle East, should it? It's hard to argue that we are trying to "stop them over there before they comer over here" when anyone can just walk across the border.

Both candidates want to use the full power of the federal government to "fix" the economy.
* Actually, McCain has said a lot of things about the economy; including stating that he knows a great deal about the economy, and stating that he is not very knowledgeable about the economy.

I would say that this is a very good election to vote for a third party candidate. Both the major candidates are largely the same in 2008.

Btw, I recall reading a statement made by a soviet communist before congress in 1963. He listed 45 goals that the socialists would like to see accomplished in the U.S., such as "Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc." (#32 on the list).

He testified among primary the goals is: "Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States" (#15 on [url="http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm"]the list entered into the congressional record[/url]). That would would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

Edited June 7, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[dairygirl4u2c]

lounge has been shown over and over again that mccain is prolife, at least substantiallly more than obama. he's just using this to not have to deal with the prospect taht he's wrong for voting for a third party adn in effect voting for obama.

of hte 125 abortion issues presented to mccain, he voted 122 or so prolife. i think it was lounge who pointed out that there's still three that he didn't vote for. to most people, indicative of what he thinks about mccain... blinded to how much prolife he really is as no one in their right mind could say that he's not prolife after hearing that.
maybe you define prolife as all or nothing, but at any rate, it's closer to the real deal than obama.

all he quoted above is that he's willing to negotiate, and he's not militant. that isn't perfect, but it's still prolife much more than obama. think,,,, 122 out of 125. another person could be 0 for 125.

roberts etc said they wanted to take on roe bit by bit instead of all at once. that sounds like something mccain would want. restrcit abortion right now. it's the realistic approach. maybe you'd rather have a ideal candidate but it's not going to be realistic even if you got him. here's the chance, arguably, to get something that realistic, with a 98% prolife record.

Edited June 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, i've shown how i think it's arguably a wasted vote to vote soley on abortion. a prolife person could say what mccain said and still be prolife substantially, arguably at least. people here tend to put on ear muffs when they hear the reasoning. but if anyone is willing to listen, i have a lot of info to back up the statemetn.

[CatherineM]

In four years, if we really want a truly pro-life candidate, we need to raise huge sums of money, and find a decent candidate and support them across the board.