by the way...Romney’s quitting speech was the most dishonorable, dishonest thing of the whole campaign so far.. He’s “stepping aside so we don’t surrender to terror?” Yuck Fou, Mittens. You stepped aside because you lost, badly, and everyone saw you for what you were...a flip flopper to end all flip floppers. If you though you had a chance, you would have stayed in.
Oh, and by the way, Mitt, now that your military age sons are no longer working to get you elected, can we assume that they will make a bee line to the nearest Army recruiting station?
Was this ever relevant?
We would have never known there were no WMDs unless we had invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam.
Too bad we don’t have the same safe knowledge about Iran.
If a Dhimmicrat gets into the White House, first they’ll pull out our troops, then they’ll stage “talks” with our Islamist enemies.
The IslamoFascist killers will slaughter all the American “collaborators” over there and then, they’ll come back over here.
9/11 will look like a tea party after what they’ll stage next time.
I don’t want to take that chance, thanks.
Vote GOP in November.
Vote for McCain.
Jen, you’ve done quite an about face on McCain...but it’s hard to take anything you say seriously after your bold predictions about Giuliani and Sleepy Fred.
jvf - not feeling very charitable today, are we?
Jen is simply dealing with reality ... a skill that a lot more self-claimed “conservatives” seem to be having trouble exercising when they wail and scream loudly that they prefer Obambi or Her Thighness (ACU Lifetime Ratings of 8 and 9, respectively) over McCain (ACU Lifetime Rating of 83).
by the way...Romney’s quitting speech was the most dishonorable, dishonest thing of the whole campaign so far.. He’s “stepping aside so we don’t surrender to terror?” Yuck Fou, Mittens. You stepped aside because you lost, badly, and everyone saw you for what you were...a flip flopper to end all flip floppers. If you though you had a chance, you would have stayed in.
Oh, and by the way, Mitt, now that your military age sons are no longer working to get you elected, can we assume that they will make a bee line to the nearest Army recruiting station?
jvf - my low opinion of Mitt Romney is not unlike yours, but what he did was both honorable and self serving. It is not necessarily dishonorable to do that which is also in your best interests (i.e., preservation of one’s future political viability, and one’s bank account).
It is better for all of us Republicans and conservatives today, however, to focus not on who’s been right and who’s been wrong, and on past statements and actions by the candidates on the campaign trail. It is far better today for us to focus on what is right, and what it is going to take to win this election and further humiliate the cringing, tax-raising, abortion-loving SurrenderCrats.
Oh, and by the way, Mitt, now that your military age sons are no longer working to get you elected, can we assume that they will make a bee line to the nearest Army recruiting station?
Maybe nobody told you, but this isn’t Rome of the Caesars, and pop can’t enlist the boys. No matter how much he wants to. I suspect if we permitted moms to sign the boys up for a labor battalion, we’d get a large chunk of the urban black vote forever...so you may be onto something.
Oh, and by the way, Mitt, now that your military age sons are no longer working to get you elected, can we assume that they will make a bee line to the nearest Army recruiting station?
Maybe nobody told you, but this isn’t Rome of the Caesars, and pop can’t enlist the boys. No matter how much he wants to. I suspect if we permitted moms to sign the boys up for a labor battalion, we’d get a large chunk of the urban black vote forever...so you may be onto something.
<chuckle>
Ya Think?
I can just see grandmother (they aren’t raised by the moms and dads - generally speaking of course) taking Tyrone by the ear down to the nearest recruiter.
“Trade that cheesy, cheap 9mm for a REAL gun, son!”
Wow. So much for drawing together to defeat the dhims in November!!
Please don’t assume that those of us who did (and continue to) support Mitt Romney will be drawn to McCain when you try to hide your bigotry to criticize Mitt (and other candidates’ supporters).
Didn’t work before and it sure won’t work now.
If you truly cared about conservative principles and defeating the dhims AND supporting our troops in harm’s way—you’d be trying to build bridges, not walls.
Wow. So much for drawing together to defeat the dhims in November!!
Please don’t assume that those of us who did (and continue to) support Mitt Romney will be drawn to McCain when you try to hide your bigotry to criticize Mitt (and other candidates’ supporters).
Didn’t work before and it sure won’t work now.
If you truly cared about conservative principles and defeating the dhims AND supporting our troops in harm’s way—you’d be trying to build bridges, not walls.
Beware the maverick voter.
That’s EXACTLY what Commander McCain DID the other day at CPAC.
He’s not stupid - hard-headed (which is fine by me - usually) maybe, but not stupid when it comes to military and foreign affairs ... THE most important issues in MY book.
All this talk about his lack of knowledge re: “the economy” is a diversion. While McCain provided the ammo, just how much does ANY candidate know about the vast and ever-changing world of “economics”? The ONE man who DID, Steve Forbes, was ridiculed and pretty much ignored. Clueless and ancient Alan Greenspan farts and people line up for a whiff.
All a smart candidate needs to do is point out the vagaries of the economy on a macro AND micro level - just to show that’s he’s been reading and listening.
I am not desperate, I am not dishonest,I dont think America will self-destruct in four years, I am not gullible, I am not afraid. Why should I settle for John McCain?
Did anyone catch McCain’s brief comment about Supreme Court Justices--that he would appoint justices who “take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives”?
It appears that the Man Who Would Be President does not understand the roles of the three branches of American government. Enforcement of the laws is the job of the executive branch (president, agencies, DOJ, etc.). The Court’s job is to ensure that the laws passed by Congress do not violate the people’s constitutional rights, and occasionally to interpret laws when Congress has, either intentionally or unintentionally, written ambiguous laws. . .
Thankfully I did not listen to his whole speech! Sigh! Almost a quarter of of a century in the senate and he hasn’t understood the separation of duties of the three branches of government. Would Jack Kemp, Rudy Guiliani, and his advisors start a tutorial to keep him informed asap?
While McCain provided the ammo, just how much does ANY candidate know about the vast and ever-changing world of “economics”? The ONE man who DID, Steve Forbes, was ridiculed and pretty much ignored.
Steve Forbes has been signed on as McCain’s economic advisor, and possible Sec of the Treasury.
Thankfully I did not listen to his whole speech! Sigh! Almost a quarter of of a century in the senate and he hasn’t understood the separation of duties of the three branches of government. Would Jack Kemp, Rudy Guiliani, and his advisors start a tutorial to keep him informed asap?
Given that the Democrats believe that it is the job of the courts to make the laws, and change the constitution to fit the current needs of the Democrats, I think some slack during a speech is the least that you can offer.
You have been reduced to making personal attacks, in place of actual argument or facts.
Busted.
OldeDog, I believe that you have to bring to your reading an extraordinary bias to conclude that my remark above either initiated or escalated any personal attack on another poster as compared to the little shot that I quoted and was responding, too.
Let me see, you said,
“Yes if ~everyone~ would just go along to get along, like you dtruitt, what a happy world it would be.<sarcasm>
Well, if you consider that a fact filled argument, far be it from me to contradict you.
(Not that any of it—very mild bickering—rose to the level of needing a third party joining in with a censorious comment, IMO.
Again, let me get this picture. You post a (mild) sarcastic attack on some one, in a public forum, and you believe you should be the one who decides who can answer you? Are you the forum cops?
You could precede your posts with a note that the following is not to be answered by anyone but a particular individual, but why do that in public? Or, possibly you may have heard and utilized this new found invention, email? I hear many people suggest it for personal notes.
You have been reduced to making personal attacks, in place of actual argument or facts.
Busted.
OldeDog, I believe that you have to bring to your reading an extraordinary bias to conclude that my remark above either initiated or escalated any personal attack on another poster as compared to the little shot that I quoted and was responding, too.
Let me see, you said,
“Yes if ~everyone~ would just go along to get along, like you dtruitt, what a happy world it would be.<sarcasm>
Well, if you consider that a fact filled argument, far be it from me to contradict you.
(Not that any of it—very mild bickering—rose to the level of needing a third party joining in with a censorious comment, IMO.
Again, let me get this picture. You post a (mild) sarcastic attack on some one, in a public forum, and you believe you should be the one who decides who can answer you? Are you the forum cops?
You could precede your posts with a note that the following is not to be answered by anyone but a particular individual, but why do that in public? Or, possibly you may have heard and utilized this new found invention, email? I hear many people suggest it for personal notes.
.
Pardon me, but as long as you’ve decided to mediate here, let me inform you of the proper sequence of events.
Post #1 -
TitanTrader - 08 February 2008 03:14 PM
Charles Calthrop Posted:
Hey, whatsamattah wid you, Trader?
I am now a man without a party, which to be honest, is somewhat liberating.
Post #2 -
Charles Calthrop - 08 February 2008 03:59 PM
TitanTrader - 08 February 2008 03:14 PM
I am now a man without a party, which to be honest, is somewhat liberating.
I am so totally with you, Trader.
I, too, am breathing the sweet, clean air of independence.
I declare myself entirely free of any allegiance to the GOP.
In fact, I may actively work against it. It is my natural home,but as I watch these party hacks line up behind McCain, I see that most of them are hopelessly compromised, if not actually corrupt.
Forrests can be tangled, overgrown, and unhealthy. After a fire sweeps through, the scene looks like utter devastation. But within two weeks, healthy new green shoots are pushing up through the ashes.
The GOP establishment needs to be burned down—destroyed, if you will, to save it. (It may be Viet Nam logic, but it works for me.)
Kindly take note that a certain dtruitt’s name is absent and that no disparagements were directed at him, until he saw fit to fling the first one:
dtruitt - 09 February 2008 11:23 AM
Ahh, yes! It’s so liberating to be ... irrelevant, and without influence!
The sine qua non of irrelevancy is extremism.
Titan and Charles Calthrop can celebrate together!
Which generated the post from Charles Calthrop with which you have such tut-tuts.
Perhaps you should redirect your attention to the initial transgressor as “busted”.
