John McCain gets it!!!

[atomicTIGER]

After 27 years he now gets it! It took 27 years to realized what lousy job he did along with his buddies in Warshington! Maybe he's a little slow to take 27 years to get it.:smile:

 

[B_starinvestor]

WTF are you talking about?

 

[dreamer20]

Viagra?:smile:

 

[deleted213967]

Hehe!

Coming from you, I thought that McCain "got some" with Palin...

He still didn't spent enough time on the economy IMO and should have given a shorter speech too.

I wonder why he still tries to persuade voters he can be Commander-in-Chief. Few people doubt his good soldier's credentials and those who do will never change their mind anyway.

Oddly, his economic advisors' team is pretty top notch. He should capitalize on it.

 

[Trinity]

After 27 years he now gets it! It took 27 years to realized what lousy job he did along with his buddies in Warshington! Maybe he's a little slow to take 27 years to get it.:smile:

I'm sorry, were you and Barack Obama referring to Joe Biden? Or perhaps Ted Kennedy? They've been there just as long, done little different and voted for the war. If Obama is condemning McCain, he's condemning his VP and his major endorser. The current Democratic controlled congress could have done alot...Newt Gingrich actually stole a page out of the President handbook and enacted his own first 100 days...The Pelosi led Congress could have passed legislation and sent it to Bush. Energy bills, Health Care, Free Trade, Social Security...Then Dems would be able to say...we did something but its the Republicans...its Bush. They Didn't. So, this argument Obama attempts to make about of McCain's 27 years in Washington is a joke. Obama is talking about his own VP Nominee and many others who support him in his own Party. And himself...while he's only been there a hot second...he's done little to change anything and he voted almost exactly the same on the war as Hillary Clinton when he got to the Senate.

 

[Industrialsize]

I'm sorry, were you and Barack Obama referring to Joe Biden? Or perhaps Ted Kennedy? They've been there just as long, done little different and voted for the war. If Obama is condemning McCain, he's condemning his VP and his major endorser. The current Democratic controlled congress could have done alot...Newt Gingrich actually stole a page out of the President handbook and enacted his own first 100 days...The Pelosi led Congress could have passed legislation and sent it to Bush. Energy bills, Health Care, Free Trade, Social Security...Then Dems would be able to say...we did something but its the Republicans...its Bush. They Didn't. So, this argument Obama attempts to make about of McCain's 27 years in Washington is a joke. Obama is talking about his own VP Nominee and many others who support him in his own Party. And himself...while he's only been there a hot second...he's done little to change anything and he voted almost exactly the same on the war as Hillary Clinton when he got to the Senate.

I'm still trying to understand how you, the most ardent supporter of Senator Clinton and ALL that she stands for, are now in support of MCCain/Palin, who represent the antithesis of all that Hillary Clinton has spent her 35 years of experience working for......

 

[fiascosauce]

lol trinity, didn't hillary agree to exclude florida and michigan in 2007, and stuck to that view until she needed the votes?

why exactly should the michigan votes have been counted any differently, seeing as how obama followed the rules and took his name off the ballot, while hillary didn't?

if hillary could really bring change to washington, why was mark penn planning on using the same tactics as karl rove, by attacking obama via portrayals of him being un-American?

why did hillary stay in the primary race for weeks and even months after she had no chance of winning the pledged delegate count? the only way for her to pull it out at that point was to go against the popular vote... is that really so noble?

she lost, fair and square. and we all know joe biden is no john mccain. did joe biden vote with pres. bush 95% of the time? did joe biden turn his back on his stances on campaign finance reform, torture, "swiftboating", 527s?

let me help you out: no, he did not. john mccain did. i liked mccain in 2000... i liked him in 2004. now he's just another establishment republican, not conservative on anything but social issues.

sarah palin, by the way, let her daughter make a choice... a choice that she would take away from the rest of the nation if she had the power. which she very well might.

it's people like you, trinity, that keep putting the repubs in power.

 

[deleted213967]

After 27 years he now gets it! It took 27 years to realized what lousy job he did along with his buddies in Warshington! Maybe he's a little slow to take 27 years to get it.:smile:

Atomic Tiger!

The terrorists are trying to hijack your thread!

Have you considered the "Nuclear Option"?

 

[cockoloco]

Atomic Tiger!

The terrorists are trying to hijack your thread!

Have you considered the "Nuclear Option"?

ABORT ABORT ABORT

This thread will self-destruct in 3...

 

[atomicTIGER]

Atomic Tiger!

The terrorists are trying to hijack your thread!

Have you considered the "Nuclear Option"?

Your right! Me and President Obama are not looking for a fight. But we are not afraid of one either:smile: And me and President Obama won't go to the gates of hell to find Bin Laden we'll just go to the cave where he lives to kill him once and for all!:smile:

 

[Shelby]

I'm still trying to understand how you, the most ardent supporter of Senator Clinton and ALL that she stands for, are now in support of MCCain/Palin, who represent the antithesis of all that Hillary Clinton has spent her 35 years of experience working for......

Duh-uh.

It's a woman thing. Emotion always trumps reason. Obviously you've never been married.

 

[Industrialsize]

Duh-uh.

It's a woman thing. Emotion always trumps reason. Obviously you've never been married.

I AM married......my husband's name is Chuck!

 

[Trinity]

lol trinity, didn't hillary agree to exclude florida and michigan in 2007, and stuck to that view until she needed the votes?

No. This has been discussed and continued

why exactly should the michigan votes have been counted any differently, seeing as how obama followed the rules and took his name off the ballot, while hillary didn't?

You are confused and mistaken. Read very carefully: There was no rule, there was no agreement, and no reason to remove his name from any ballot. Obama took his name off the ballot only because he wanted to. And because there was no cause to remove his name, by DNC rules he should have been awarded no votes and no delegates.

if hillary could really bring change to washington, why was mark penn planning on using the same tactics as karl rove, by attacking obama via portrayals of him being un-American?

If those leaked reports are true...then it must also be true what was also leaked and reported...the report also ridiculed Hillary for choosing not to win at all costs and use those tactics. It be therefore be true that Hillary Clinton refused to do anything like that so she is the true agent of change.

why did hillary stay in the primary race for weeks and even months after she had no chance of winning the pledged delegate count? the only way for her to pull it out at that point was to go against the popular vote... is that really so noble?

Hillary Clinton had every chance of winning up until the Superdelegates pledged for her opponent to reach the magic number that secures the nomination. There is no such thing as winning the pledged delegate count if a candidate has not reached the magic number. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she was the choice of the people. The DNC leadership invalidated our democractic and Democratic principles with the farce of an RBC meeting held regarding MI and FL.

she lost, fair and square. and we all know joe biden is no john mccain. did joe biden vote with pres. bush 95% of the time? did joe biden turn his back on his stances on campaign finance reform, torture, "swiftboating", 527s?

There was very little fair in the Primary. But Joe Biden is apart of the Washington Establishment. Obama turned his back on public financing which is campaign finance reform and 527's...so...

Sorry but the negative argument that McCain is 27 years of Washington establishment is a weak argument and is not going to wash when Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy have been there with him...and the current Democratically controlled congress leaves on vacation refusing to do anything about American Energy needs...just one example of the most unproductive congress in history with a lower approval rating than the President.

sarah palin, by the way, let her daughter make a choice... a choice that she would take away from the rest of the nation if she had the power. which she very well might.

If Sarah Palin becomes President and If she appoints conservative judges who are inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade and If the Democratically controlled congress approves the appointments...then that might happen.

it's people like you, trinity, that keep putting the repubs in power.

No, it is the Democratic Party and their choice to turn away from Demcratic principles and select the weakest presidential candidate that may mean a Democratic loss.

 

[Shelby]

I AM married......my husband's name is Chuck!

I meant to a woman. lol

 

[transformer_99]

Part of me wants to say McCain wouldn't have been anything like Bush, the other part of me thinks the better that McCain might've been wouldn't be any noticeably different.

As far as politics, I'm jaded in that regard, they're all full of crap and are going to tell us what we all want to hear as the sales pitch. And I've noticed this change today, even more so than it was a 8-16 years (obviously, thru Clinton and Bush).

During each, what economic prosperity that occurred didn't happen fast enough and that's what I see with the next transition. If it stays crappy over the next 4 years, it'll be like Daddy Bush at the end of 2 Reagan admins/terms. That in my opinion can never happen ever again 12 years of the single party running the cycle. This nation can afford that cycle period.

So should Obama get in , it'ss going to be 2-3 years before anything prosperous starts to happen for him. That says to me, he must be a 2 term/admin President too and what if the next level of prosperity never happens ?

I don't care which we get to be honest, the results have to be better for everyone across the board though to be better off during and at the end of the next one.

 

[deleted15807]

I don't care which we get to be honest, the results have to be better for everyone across the board though to be better off during and at the end of the next one.

Don't count on it. The same people that are in the current Republican Administration will be clamoring for jobs should McCain win. And most likely they will get them. There are hundreds of agency heads that are appointed by the president and guess what? They're all partisan. For a current day Republican they believe all government is bad and yet they've been tasked with running government and the results well the last 8 years prove what you get when you do that.

 

[deleted213967]

If it stays crappy over the next 4 years, it'll be like Daddy Bush at the end of 2 Reagan admins/terms...

Indeed there is a risk that the next administration (not to mention Congress) will start as economic conditions get even worse before they get better.

Timing of the recovery will be crucial for the next President because the "blame-it-on-the-incumbent" window closes very rapidly for famously impatient Americans.