9 reasons to vote for John McCain

[hellod9]

IF....


1. You want more troops in Iraq.
2. You believe we should have permanent military bases in Iraq -- for "100 years" or more.
3. You want the U.S. to spend more money on the war on drugs.
4. You want abortions to be banned in the US.
5. You want people to be jailed longer for drug crimes.
6. You support the USA PATRIOT act.
7. You believe corporations should pay less in taxes.
8. You support the "without warrant" surveillance of Americans making phone calls to other countries.
9. You believe liberty comes from God!!!



...then you know you should support John McCain!

 

[nageov3t]

:laugh:

if you believe that, you're as bad as the people who think Obama is a muslim who's going to have the weather underground blow up the lincoln bedroom.

 

[OrByte]

Whoever is the next President will get to choose some Supreme Court Justices.

I fear Roe V Wade is in its last days...if McCain is elected.

HEY I just played a FEAR CARD!!!



ProfJohn must be wearing off on me.

 

[jpeyton]

What's scary is that people exist in this country that actually agree with points 1-9.

 

[MustISO]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's scary is that people exist in this country that actually agree with points 1-9.

:thumbsup:

And they seem to be running the country.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's scary is that people exist in this country that actually agree with points 1-9.

well, I mean...

1. You want more troops in Iraq.
2. You believe we should have permanent military bases in Iraq -- for "100 years" or more.

sure, why not... any presidential candidate who says they don't see a sustained military presence in the region for a long period of time (whether in Iraq or on the border in Kuwait) is lying to you.

3. You want the U.S. to spend more money on the war on drugs.
5. You want people to be jailed longer for drug crimes.

drugs are bad.

4. You want abortions to be banned in the US.

abortion is murder.

6. You support the USA PATRIOT act.
8. You support the "without warrant" surveillance of Americans making phone calls to other countries.

if you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide.

7. You believe corporations should pay less in taxes.

corporations keep me employed.

9. You believe liberty comes from God!!!

everything comes from God.

(not that I agree with any of it, I just don't think "these people" are the irrational mouth-breathers people portray them as)

 

[JS80]

Ideologically i'm 9 for 9. #4 is impossible and out of president's control. I'd be willing to give up #3 and #5 and pay less taxes.

 

[piasabird]

Dont worry the Constitution is a living document.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's scary is that people exist in this country that actually agree with points 1-9.

well, I mean...

1. You want more troops in Iraq.
2. You believe we should have permanent military bases in Iraq -- for "100 years" or more.

sure, why not... any presidential candidate who says they don't see a sustained military presence in the region for a long period of time (whether in Iraq or on the border in Kuwait) is lying to you.

3. You want the U.S. to spend more money on the war on drugs.
5. You want people to be jailed longer for drug crimes.

drugs are bad.

4. You want abortions to be banned in the US.

abortion is murder.

6. You support the USA PATRIOT act.
8. You support the "without warrant" surveillance of Americans making phone calls to other countries.

if you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide.

7. You believe corporations should pay less in taxes.

corporations keep me employed.

9. You believe liberty comes from God!!!

everything comes from God.

(not that I agree with any of it, I just don't think "these people" are the irrational mouth-breathers people portray them as)

1, 2 -- I agree that we have to have a short term presence because we (read: Bush admin) have made such a clusterfvck of the region but why does it have to be long term? Why not try...what's that word....oh yeah, diplomacy?

3, 5 -- Drugs are not bad. Drugs have many valid uses, hence the pharms raping the country over prescription drug prices. Some recreational drugs should be banned but some others should be legalized. The fact that someone with pot can spend life in prison (three strike laws) when someone that commits murder (first offense) can be paroled is the very definition of insanity.

4. Abortion is murder. Murder of whom exactly? If you truly are under the fanatical belief that clumps of cells are to be treated as individuals, then stop showering. After all, when you show and use soap, you are destroying cells on your skin. And don't try the those cells can't develop into a person line of illogical reasoning...if stem cell research were funded fully, they very well could.

6, 8 - I'm sure that you have already sent in your application to have cameras and mics installed in every room of your house. After all, if you aren't guilty, why do you need your constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy?

7. Corporations also keep you and your future generations in debt via the tax monies that they avoid paying, get breaks on, require to regulate them and prosecute them for violation and for their artificial inflation of prices. But they are still good! :thumbsup:

9. Prove that there is a god that gives me anything let along everything.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Whoever is the next President will get to choose some Supreme Court Justices.

I fear Roe V Wade is in its last days...if McCain is elected.

HEY I just played a FEAR CARD!!!



ProfJohn must be wearing off on me.

ummm when was the last time I played the 'fear card' ??

Recently it has been the libs who have been running around trying to scare everyone into not voting for McCain aka McSame....

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Whoever is the next President will get to choose some Supreme Court Justices.

I fear Roe V Wade is in its last days...if McCain is elected.

HEY I just played a FEAR CARD!!!



ProfJohn must be wearing off on me.

Good. Roe V Wade sucks, both as a decision and for the divisive effect it has across the country. It should be a state by state decision and if Roe goes bye bye, some states will ban abortion, others will not. I'll be living where it's legal, thank you very much. Let the people in conservative states who prefer less government interference in their lives deal with the government controlling their bodies. The state governments on the coasts will allow their citizens to make their own choices over their bodies.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's really only one reason to vote for McSame, and I just said it...

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's scary is that people exist in this country that actually agree with points 1-9.

well, I mean...

1. You want more troops in Iraq.
2. You believe we should have permanent military bases in Iraq -- for "100 years" or more.

sure, why not... any presidential candidate who says they don't see a sustained military presence in the region for a long period of time (whether in Iraq or on the border in Kuwait) is lying to you.

3. You want the U.S. to spend more money on the war on drugs.
5. You want people to be jailed longer for drug crimes.

drugs are bad.

4. You want abortions to be banned in the US.

abortion is murder.

6. You support the USA PATRIOT act.
8. You support the "without warrant" surveillance of Americans making phone calls to other countries.

if you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide.

7. You believe corporations should pay less in taxes.

corporations keep me employed.

9. You believe liberty comes from God!!!

everything comes from God.

(not that I agree with any of it, I just don't think "these people" are the irrational mouth-breathers people portray them as)

9. Prove that there is a god that gives me anything let along everything.

RightIsWrong, I would submit that we don't really need to prove God, rather you should elaborate why you disagree with the statement. After all, the idea is pretty settled and is part of the very foundation of the United States. I would like to see how you parse "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and still put forth your position with a straight face.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: OrByte
Whoever is the next President will get to choose some Supreme Court Justices.

I fear Roe V Wade is in its last days...if McCain is elected.

HEY I just played a FEAR CARD!!!



ProfJohn must be wearing off on me.

Good. Roe V Wade sucks, both as a decision and for the divisive effect it has across the country. It should be a state by state decision and if Roe goes bye bye, some states will ban abortion, others will not. I'll be living where it's legal, thank you very much. Let the people in conservative states who prefer less government interference in their lives deal with the government controlling their bodies. The state governments on the coasts will allow their citizens to make their own choices over their bodies.

While I was also okay at first glance with abortion being a state issue, I'm not anymore. Sure I'd live where it was legal, but there are already cases like in South Dakota where they have chased out all the abortion clinics, and poor people are having to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to get care.

I would love Roe v. Wade to be overturned as it would further decimate the Republican party (a fair number of people vote on abortion alone), but I'm not willing to do it at the cost to people unfortunate enough to live in a hee-haw state.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: OrByte
Whoever is the next President will get to choose some Supreme Court Justices.

I fear Roe V Wade is in its last days...if McCain is elected.

HEY I just played a FEAR CARD!!!



ProfJohn must be wearing off on me.

Good. Roe V Wade sucks, both as a decision and for the divisive effect it has across the country. It should be a state by state decision and if Roe goes bye bye, some states will ban abortion, others will not. I'll be living where it's legal, thank you very much. Let the people in conservative states who prefer less government interference in their lives deal with the government controlling their bodies. The state governments on the coasts will allow their citizens to make their own choices over their bodies.

After South Dakota voted against banning abortion IN A LANDSLIDE in 2006, I doubt even a single state would ban it should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

The whole issue is a waste of time for the single-issue sheep. Basically, anyone who would vote for McCain because they support ANY of the 9 issues above is utterly clueless about what is really going on in this country, and (sadly) they probably don't want to know either, and just like the idea of continuing to inflict needless harm on other people, including (especially) their own countrymen.

 

[glenn1]

Still waiting on folks who agree with point 9 to elaborate on what they believe the source of liberty to be, if not God.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Still waiting on folks who agree with point 9 to elaborate on what they believe the source of liberty to be, if not God.

we are the sources of liberty we've been waiting for.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80
Ideologically i'm 9 for 9. #4 is impossible and out of president's control. I'd be willing to give up #3 and #5 and pay less taxes.

4 is absolutely- in the president's control as he nominates supreme court justices... the first and largest hurdle for anyone wanting to ban abortion.

As far as you being 9 for 9... of course you are.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: glenn1
Still waiting on folks who agree with point 9 to elaborate on what they believe the source of liberty to be, if not God.

we are the sources of liberty we've been waiting for.

Congratulations, you've reduced liberty to a tautological statement.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: glenn1

9. Prove that there is a god that gives me anything let along everything.

RightIsWrong, I would submit that we don't really need to prove God, rather you should elaborate why you disagree with the statement. After all, the idea is pretty settled and is part of the very foundation of the United States. I would like to see how you parse "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and still put forth your position with a straight face.

I disagree with the statement based on sound reasoning and research and study of the founding fathers and not just snippets of the past. Also, we have been of this world for tens of thousands of years and there has been exactly zero sightings of any god. There have also been thousands of shifting and ever changing iterations of said god(s) with still no consensus of a single or multiple god(s) to satisfy or convince everyone.

I can parse the statement from the DoI as a simple example of ignorance of things beyond the available information and methodology to definitively state one way or the other. I would also argue that our "creator" could have been nothing more than coincidence and mother nature.

I would also argue that it is in no way settled let along "pretty settled" and would even refer you to my signature for evidence from the principal author of the document as a rebuttal to that fallacy.

I will submit and ask you in return to parse the statement from the introduction to the same document you are sourcing:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[/a]

And tell me with a straight face that they in any way intended it to mean that god of any religion let along the god that is primarily worshiped by Christians who repeatedly make the false claim that we are a nation founded on their principles.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Still waiting on folks who agree with point 9 to elaborate on what they believe the source of liberty to be, if not God.

Do you mean agree or disagree with point 9? I'll assume disagree.

God in this context is a generic term. You could interchange it with words like Nature, Creator (like in the DoI), or whatever. The point is that inherent rights don't have a source. They just are. A priori.

The US Army has a saying about discipline. It goes, "The Army can't actually make you do anything, it can just make you wish you had."

All inherent rights exist that way. The government can't take away my right to speak freely (without killing me), no matter how hard it might try to do so. Every other inherent right is exactly the same way. They exist until taken away by force. But contrast against the so-called positive rights, and they're not that way. They don't exist until given.

If you need God as a source for that which just is, so be it. But, like all of science, it's not necessary to provide any source for something which is a priori.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

1, 2 -- I agree that we have to have a short term presence because we (read: Bush admin) have made such a clusterfvck of the region but why does it have to be long term? Why not try...what's that word....oh yeah, diplomacy?

why does a military presence in the region preclude diplomacy?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Good. Roe V Wade sucks, both as a decision and for the divisive effect it has across the country. It should be a state by state decision and if Roe goes bye bye, some states will ban abortion, others will not. I'll be living where it's legal, thank you very much. Let the people in conservative states who prefer less government interference in their lives deal with the government controlling their bodies. The state governments on the coasts will allow their citizens to make their own choices over their bodies.

While I was also okay at first glance with abortion being a state issue, I'm not anymore. Sure I'd live where it was legal, but there are already cases like in South Dakota where they have chased out all the abortion clinics, and poor people are having to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to get care.

I would love Roe v. Wade to be overturned as it would further decimate the Republican party (a fair number of people vote on abortion alone), but I'm not willing to do it at the cost to people unfortunate enough to live in a hee-haw state.

Fair point. But there are poor people in every state who cannot relocate. Some states will eventually legalize marijuana and euthanasia. The states that do not will have people in jail for violating those laws who couldn't afford to where such activities were legal. I wouldn't push for a federal mandate on those issues simply because some states choose not to legalize those things within their borders denies the impoverished those choices. Abortion may be considered a much different issue than those I mentioned, but maybe one of the only ways to force legalization of abortion where outlawed would be through demonstrating what happens in a state that makes it illegal. A few high profile and totally unnecessary deaths caused by the ban might have an effect. Otherwise, there's really only so much you can do for people in those states.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1
Still waiting on folks who agree with point 9 to elaborate on what they believe the source of liberty to be, if not God.

Do you mean agree or disagree with point 9? I'll assume disagree.

God in this context is a generic term. You could interchange it with words like Nature, Creator (like in the DoI), or whatever. The point is that inherent rights don't have a source. They just are. A priori.

The US Army has a saying about discipline. It goes, "The Army can't actually make you do anything, it can just make you wish you had."

All inherent rights exist that way. The government can't take away my right to speak freely (without killing me), no matter how hard it might try to do so. Every other inherent right is exactly the same way. They exist until taken away by force. But contrast against the so-called positive rights, and they're not that way. They don't exist until given.

If you need God as a source for that which just is, so be it. But, like all of science, it's not necessary to provide any source for something which is a priori.

So...

Religious Person : I have a right to speak freely because God gave it to us.

Non-Religious Person : I have a right to speak freely because it just is.

Am I getting your drift?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

1, 2 -- I agree that we have to have a short term presence because we (read: Bush admin) have made such a clusterfvck of the region but why does it have to be long term? Why not try...what's that word....oh yeah, diplomacy?

why does a military presence in the region preclude diplomacy?

At this point in time, it is necessary to help with the stabilization until a democratically chosen (even if theological) government is firmly in place and is recognized by the people of Iraq. Once that occurs (since the puppet government there now really isn't), we can then remove military presence and establish a diplomatic presence instead. I can understand and see a need for an embassy in Iraq. I cannot understand the need for the largest military installation outside of our own country there as a prelude for democracy within the region.