|
|
|
|
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 10:18:13 AM | | I don't think McCain is ill-intentioned, just a representative of Faux-Conservatism that has proven to be a failure both domestically and globally. I like McCain, I just don't see the logic in completing the mission of failure in economic collapse, annihilation of liberty, and unconditional support for oppression overseas in the name of corporate profit. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 11:55:19 AM | | I dunno, itech. If that group is on the up and up why does no one talk about it? Why haven't I heard of this before? And why did they move their headquarters? What happened to the straight talk express with full disclosure I wonder. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:00:56 PM | I didn't catch the specific mention of a group... sorry. But there are definitely the true power players behind the scenes pulling the strings. What we are seeing and hearing is not the Senator John McCain from Arizona nor the past presidential candidate. He's morphed to align with the same policies that have been in power for the past 8 years. No wonder he can't keep his story straight. His platforms and policies now are not entirely beliefs he's held before.
It's much like I don't think Bush himself is inherently evil. He went from not wanting anything to do with the Presidency, to candidacy, to overwhelming nominee without anything significant to set him apart in the course of a year. He's a puppet and manipulated by some group that are the real leaders/power in our nation. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:12:06 PM | Of the past four republican presidents or candidates, only GB41 had half a brain. Reagan was a moron, Dubya a complete moron, and McSame looks to be the same. The more light is shined upon him, the more obvious it becomes that the republicans elect puppets. . . So who IS in control? Is it the Military Industrial Complex? Is it big oil? Is it the economic power brokers? Is it the Skulls?
I don't know, but I am tired of morons being elected. For the love of God, was that hodge podge of candidates the best of the republican party? Where are the Goldwaters, the Ikes, the Stockdales of their party? Are they all dead? | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:17:36 PM | SimmahDahnNah
It is so nice to see you with a post. I remember when you were just one step behind me trying to figure out who you would vote for. We were both Edwards girls. Nice seeing you on the forum. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 2:09:54 PM | I didn't find anything all that surprising in that article... it lays out a set of opinions about the 'manifest destiny' of the U.S. that I've seen argued about for years.
To my mind it's an inhumane outlook... has nothing to do with liberty or fraternity... but lots to do with greed and fear. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 2:12:48 PM |
I didn't catch the specific mention of a group
You have to read the article in the link...the part in italics was just the summary of it.
it lays out a set of opinions about the 'manifest destiny' of the U.S. that I've seen argued about for years.
I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly I'm glad I made it 39 years without knowing about it. It stinks.
Hi Faith!
 | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/15/2008 2:18:05 PM |
Where are the Goldwaters, the Ikes, the Stockdales of their party? Are they all dead?
Seems that the ones that are alive get their national security philosophy from "24." Good show, but not good for one's sense of reality. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/16/2008 7:02:05 AM | | Well he's neck to neck with Obama. Watch Obama get in and get shot or something . . . . Let's dig Goldwater up or something. I'm suffering with guilt because years ago I voted for Ralph. | |
|
| |
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:31:58 PM | No. MCCAIN WON'T DISARM AMERICA. Obama will.
No. McCain will not run away from the responsibility of making America safe.
Obama will.
No McCain will not leave America unprotected and open to nuclear attack by producing no modern weapons. Obama will.
No McCain will not give in to our enemies who would be pleased to see America helpless. Obama will.
McCain will not negotiate with the Terrorist criminals of this earth. Obama will.
To no avail or advantage for America.
America is responsible and wary of using Nuclear weapons,but know the neccessity of them to thwart our enemies who will not lay down their weapons. It has been tried and has failed. Russia in spite of an arms agreement has been producing nuclear weapons and they are aimed at America.
Obama would succeed in creating an America open for attack upon its own soil. McCain will succeed in preventing that.
Mr Elliot D Cohen who was the author of the article that was copied and pasted by simmah, uses the liberal lie that Republicans are fear mongers. Fear is when one leaves themselves open to attack. Security is when one builds an alarm system and provides a strength in weaponry and resolve.Obama like the hippies of the 60's wants you to think that putting flowers in the gunbarrels of your enemy will stop them from shooting you. That is a grave error in judgement and an irresponsibility that is a danger to the lives of Americans. Fear??? Yes be afraid of your enemies. They are not enemies for nothing. They hate our ways. They hate us. They will shoot maim and behead you and enjoy every second of doing it.
If this happens, I promise you. There will be no economy to worry about any longer.
There are black churches out there that hate Obama and for good reason. Here is a video of a sermon of one of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&NR=1 | |
|
| |
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:42:36 PM | and for good reason.
If that opinion is based upon the video supplied, that is highly disturbing.
Edit: ^^^ At this stage of the US's development, Carter himself would be a welcome leadership change. But let's establish some fairness rules here:
If Obama=Carter, then you must also accept that McCain=Bush.
Now, let the legacies compete on their own merits. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:51:31 PM | When I hear Obama talk about removing troops from Iraq... vs. McCain's dismissal of the importance of troops staying there... I don't really believe McCain's insistance that this is giving up/capitulating/appeasing... cowardice of any sort.
I DON'T think Obama has any intention of pulling troops out willy-nilly without any consideration of the circumstances on the ground.
I think it's a bigger issue...
Obama is speaking against the idea of permanent bases... this idea that the U.S. has a destiny... a duty to its citizens... to create a large permanent presence in foreign lands where we have economic interests (oil). In the speeches I've heard, Obama speaks much more to an internalized concern about the U.S.... not quite isolationism but definitely several steps back from the expansive motivations of the Neocons.
McCain seems to be stepping into this inheritance of Neocon ideology that the U.S. HAS to move out and... basically colonize the world with it's ideologies or else face the possibility of some other dominant ideology emerging to bring us back into some other 'cold war' or worse... some new version of Communism/Fascism that will stand in direct opposition to U.S. 'values'. Right now it's 'Islamic Fundamentalism' but I'm sure there are plenty of others in line behind it.
Maybe the Neocon worldview is more valid... maybe not. To me it feels cynical... bleak. It doesn't value the different viewpoints of other cultures... it's about keeping ourselves as the dominant power lest someone else take that position.
Become evil lest evil be done to you.
I don't think that is the future I want to support. I don't think that is the country I want the U.S. to become... though we've started down that path already. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:58:56 PM | If that opinion is based upon the video supplied, that is highly disturbing.
lol, of course my opinion isn't based upon that video. I just thought it was fun to watch and it expresses the opinions of another pastor.
My opinions were based upon a speech that Obama made that is also on utube in reference to what he would do if elected. It also gives another view of simmahs post about mccain.
Carter would be welcomed by no one that I know, liberal or conservative. To see the statement that Carter would be a welcome change, is a little overboard.
Some of Obamas statements about negotiating with terrorists ,smell of Carter foreign policy though. A bad smell at that.
I will accept that mcCain follows conservative policies as does those of Bush. But McCain being another Bush?? No way Jose. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/16/2008 3:54:29 PM | America is going through its own evolution.
In my heart I do believe McCain means well. He is from my parents generation. There are times my mother says things and I just sit there acting like I am invisible. But, I do respect what she has to say because I did not live through what she has lived through.
My children tell me the same thing. They are not as militant as I am, and often understand the extreme conservative or liberal views because they have lived in a very different society then mine (purposely choose integrated environments, do not like living in an extreme either way).
Despite what we may think our society is getting better.
My grandparents would have never perceived of the chance to attend a majority white university. They lost their minds when we moved into a white neighborhood.
My parents would have lost their minds if I had married outside of our race, but encouraged me to attend the University of Texas, University of Houston etc. and raised us in a very conservative white neighborhood in Austin, Texas. Now, my parents would not care if their grandchildren married outside of the race. Because I do not care who my children marry.
Now, I am a grandmother. I can only imagine the world my grandsons will inherit. Racism will cease a little more, homosexuality will be accepted as the way a person is born and God will be the judge. Mixed couples will probably be the norm and everyone will look like Mariah Carey, Halle Berry and Alicia Keys. My little brown skin will probably become a dying complexion in America.
Obama will be the MLK of the 2000's for making such a mark in history.
So, no McCain's intentions are not off beat. He is from another generation. You could tell when he made the joke comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter. My parents probably got a good laugh. I personally like President Carter. As a kid he was the cool president traveling around the world helping people in need with an alcoholic brother. To my children he is the man that has become an ambassador.
A vote for McCain is a vote for what we have known. A vote for Obama is scary because it is a vote for change (evolution). Honestly, who can say which is right or wrong.
Remember I am not a democrat I am an independent.   I think I finally spelled independent correct. Yeah Faith! | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/16/2008 5:58:34 PM | http://vodpod.com/watch/780650-barack-obamas-top-supporter-tony-rezko
see the above video and tell me if this is the kind of evolution, people want for their grandchildren. I know I do not want this kind of conduct by politicians for my grandchildren and neither should anyone else. | |
|
| |
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:23:32 AM | After you finish the celebration, for those of you that have small children, take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pO1dIKgfPw&feature=related
This is the man you support? | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:31:52 AM |
No. MCCAIN WON'T DISARM AMERICA. Obama will.
No. McCain will not run away from the responsibility of making America safe.
Obama will.
No McCain will not leave America unprotected and open to nuclear attack by producing no modern weapons. Obama will.
No McCain will not give in to our enemies who would be pleased to see America helpless. Obama will.
McCain will not negotiate with the Terrorist criminals of this earth. Obama will.
Did you read the article in the original post? This is a thread about John McCain and his ties, not Obama. There are plenty of Obama threads to trash him in and supply your videos. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/17/2008 4:25:24 AM | Conspiracy theories bore me. Really, they do.
I find this crap humorous to be honest, but just so we righties aren't accused of skirting the issue, I'll shoot this circus down, just for fun. Buckle up.
The foundation for this little sideshow was based on the Defense Planning Guidance. So I'll address that.
~The PNAC, (Project for the New American Century) no longer even in exists, so why are we all still here?
~ The Defense Planning Guidance was drafted by Wolfowitz, Libby and Khalilzad, men who are not McCain, by the way, under Cheney. (who also is not McCain, by the way, just so you know. (go get some crayons and paper this will get..dirty)
~ The goal for the, never implemented, DPG was to:
a)create a strategy of defense to prevent any country that would have the power to control a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
translation: Defend our nation from being held by the b*lls by another country for gas. (IMO)
Suspected regions were Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
b)Establish and protect a new order that would assure potential competitors that they need not even attempt to pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
translation: Make sure said folks knew we (US) are "the man" and knew not jack with us, or else we would give em' a smack down, nuclear style. (IMO)
c) Finally, we needed to maintain the arms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
translation: Stay on top of our weapon game, while not getting fat watching Springer, letting our guns and stuff get rusty. (IMO)
That it. The good the bad and the very, very ugly. Especially Cheney. 
McCain, although loosely affiliated with some of the main players, was inactive in any of it and never once named among the naughty boys in DC.
(His support is possible, but unprovable)
And what ever writer that wrote the "summary" that was written in the opening post should consider increasing their dosage of Seroquel to perhaps 500 ml, as their Schizophrenia seems to be getting out of hand. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/17/2008 8:16:58 AM | From another thread,
Historians See Little Chance for McCain
By David Paul Kuhn,
Politico.com
Posted: 2008-06-15 20:02:08
Filed Under: Elections News, John McCain
(June 15) - One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.
Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.
“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.
“McCain shouldn’t win it,” said presidential historian Joan Hoff, a professor at Montana State University and former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. She compared McCain’s prospects to those of Hubert Humphrey, whose 1968 loss to Richard Nixon resulted in large part from the unpopularity of sitting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson.
“It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II,” added Alan Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product, whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the previously out-of-power party. “It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won,” Abramowitz said.
What’s more, Republicans have held the presidency for all but 12 years since the South became solidly Republican in the realignment of 1968 — which is among the longest runs with one party dominating in American history. “These things go in cycles,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. “The public gets tired of one approach to politics. There is always a measure of optimism in this country, so they turn to the other party.”
But the biggest obstacle in McCain’s path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had since at least the advent of modern polling. Only Harry Truman and Nixon — both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home — have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men’s parties lost the presidency in the following election.
Though the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says the Democrats’ 2006 midterm wins resemble the midterm congressional gains of the out-party in 1966 and 1974, which both preceded a retaking of the White House two years later.
One of the few bright spots historians noted is that the public generally does not view McCain as a traditional Republican. And, as Republicans frequently point out, McCain is not an incumbent.
“Open-seat elections are somewhat different, so the referendum aspect is somewhat muted,” said James Campbell, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in campaigns and elections.
“McCain would be in much better shape if Bush’s approval rating were at 45 to 50 percent,” Campbell continued. “But the history is that in-party candidates are not penalized or rewarded to the same degree as incumbents.”
Campbell still casts McCain as the underdog. But he said McCain might have more appeal to moderates than Obama if the electorate decides McCain is “center right” while Obama is “far left.” Democrats have been repeatedly undone when their nominee was viewed as too liberal, and even as polls show a rise in the number of self-identified Democrats, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of self-identified liberals.
Campbell also notes that McCain may benefit from the Democratic divisions that were on display in the primary, as Republicans did in 1968, when Democratic divisions over the war in Vietnam dogged Humphrey and helped hand Nixon victory.
Still, many historians remain extremely skeptical about McCain’s prospects. “I can’t think of an upset where the underdog faced quite the odds that McCain faces in this election,” said Sidney Milkis, a professor of presidential politics at the University of Virginia. Even "Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.” | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/17/2008 1:15:23 PM | [Did you read the article in the original post? This is a thread about John McCain and his ties, not Obama. There are plenty of Obama threads to trash him in and supply your videos. ]
In every sentence I spoke of McCain and in answer to the article. My intention was to show that McCains ideas are not bad ones if compared to the alternative. As for bashing Obama, that isn't so, because every answer there is what Obama himself has said he will do. It was merely a comparison.
In regards to this forum being only for mentioning mccain, I believe there are more people, like Presidents etc, that have been mentioned. Reagan for instance. If I am held to this, then everyone should be, that has done other comparisons. | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/17/2008 2:49:34 PM | Sorry, you're not gonna win this pissing contest. Not with your shortsighted opinions.
~The PNAC, (Project for the New American Century) no longer even in exists, so why are we all still here?
Because the RAD still exists. It’s the new and improved PNAC.
~ The Defense Planning Guidance was drafted by Wolfowitz, Libby and Khalilzad, men who are not McCain, by the way, under Cheney. (who also is not McCain, by the way, just so you know. (go get some crayons and paper this will get..dirty)
No, McCain is not those men, but did you read the part about his ties to the group, or were you too busy looking for cornflower blue in your little crayola box?
From the actual article....McCain's ties to this group:
John McCain’s connection to PNAC can be traced back to before its formation in 1997. In fact, he was president of the New Citizenship Project, founded by Kristol in 1994. This organization was parent to PNAC, and served as its chief fundraising organ.
McCain also worked cooperatively with PNAC and Wolfowitz in attempting to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. In 1998, he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act—drafted by PNAC—which decreed “regime change” in Iraq to be U.S. policy, and which appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid to the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC was a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants whose purpose was to instigate a national uprising against Hussein. It was led by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi informant whose subsequent faulty intelligence—claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida—was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public. In 2004, in response to accusations that he deliberately misled U.S. intelligence agencies, Chalabi glibly stated, “We are heroes in error.”
McCain also was co-chair (with Sen. Joseph Lieberman) of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established by PNAC in late 2002, this committee continued to finance Chalabi’s INC with millions of taxpayer dollars, until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it was discontinued. In 2004, McCain became a signatory of PNAC, ironically signing on to a PNAC letter condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy for its return to the “rhetoric of militarism and empire.”
McCain has accordingly been a foot soldier for PNAC from its inception, and, although this organization is no longer in existence, its ideology and its signatories (many of whom now serve as advisers to the McCain presidential campaign) are still very much active.
You go right ahead and tell us how YOU interpret it, but you’re way off base here.
The real goals:
Fighting and winning multiple, simultaneous major wars
Among its core missions was the rebuilding of America’s defenses sufficient to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.” And it explicitly advocated sending troops into Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power. According to RAD, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
The RAD report also admonished, “Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.” Therefore, it had both Iraq and Iran in its sight as zones of multiple, simultaneous major wars for purposes of advancing “longstanding American interests in the region”—in particular, its oil.
Designing and deploying global missile defense systems
Along these lines, McCain has maintained that a ballistic missile defense system was “indispensable”—even if this meant reneging on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 at the expense of angering the Russians. Unfortunately, while RAD acknowledged the “limited” efficacy of such a weapons system (presumably because it cannot realistically provide a bulletproof shield, especially against large-scale missile attacks), neither it nor McCain addressed the problem that deployment of such a system could be destabilizing: It could encourage escalation, instead of de-escalation, of ballistic missile arsenals by nations that fear becoming sitting ducks, and might even provoke a pre-emptive strike. Further, there is still the question of whether the creation of such costly, national defense shields is even technologically feasible.
The use of genocidal biological warfare for political expediency
Not only did RAD advocate the design and deployment of defensive weaponry, it also stressed the updating of conventional offensive weapons including cruise missiles along with stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. But it went further in its offensive posture by envisioning and supporting the use of genotype-specific biological warfare. According to RAD, “… advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” In this chilling statement, a double standard is evident. In the hands of al-Qaida, such genocidal weapons would belong to “the realm of terror,” but in those of the U.S., they would be “politically useful tools.”
Rejection of the United Nations
PNAC’s double standard is also inherent in its rejection of the idea of a cooperative, neutral effort among the nations of the world to address world problems, including the problem of Iraq. “Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality,” states the RAD report. “The preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat.” Accordingly, a McCain administration founded on a PNAC platform of self-interested exercise of force would oppose giving the United Nations any central role in setting and implementing foreign affairs policy.
Control of space and cyberspace
PNAC’s quest for global domination transcends any literal meaning of the geopolitical, and extends also to the control, rather than the sharing, of outer space. It also has serious implications for cyber freedom. Thus the RAD report states, “Much as control of the high seas—and the protection of international commerce—defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new ‘international commons’ be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the ‘infosphere’ will find it difficult to exert global political leadership. ... Access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new ‘global commons.’ ”
There is a difference between protecting the Internet from a cyber attack and controlling it. The former is defensive while the latter is offensive. But RAD also advocated going on the offensive. It stated that “an offensive capability could offer America’s military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.”
The FBI has also begun to develop and integrate such personal data with a biometric database that includes digital iris prints and facial images. Combine this with other computerized databases including credit card information, banking records and health files, and the result is an incredible ability to exercise power and control over anyone deemed by a political leader to be an “adversary”—including journalists, political opponents and others who might not see eye to eye with the administration.
There’s the REAL good, bad, and ugly. And McCain was NOT “inactive in any of it”.
And this would be good for our country....how again? | |
|
| The Truth About John McCain's Intentions For America
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:55:17 PM | let me get this right, this is from an article by a mc cain hater as to what he MIGHT do?
because the opening for this thread could have described many of our presidents and it was the imagination of some writer, is that correct? | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
