John McCain: USA PATRIOT (ACTor)

[faceking]

Yes, McCain is personally opposed to the idea and is against a federal mandate but he is not opposed to states rights on this issue.

2008 presidential campaign issues - USATODAY.com

John McCain on gay civil rights
On same-sex marriage and civil unions

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which set a federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and said states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed by another state. He is, however, opposed to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. McCain has said a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws.

In November 2006, McCain said on ABC's This Week that he favors allowing gay men and lesbians to "enter into contracts’’ but stopped short of endorsing civil unions. He supports legal benefits for same-sex partners."

We all gotta look at history here and note major change does not happen overnight like with women’s and children’s rights for instance. Look at how long it took US to get the Neanderthal Christians to agree to those! Oh that’s right, they didn’t agree as it was forced on them by the courts and McCain has no history of going against the courts on issues like these that I know of.

On top of that, sometimes lesser issues like gay rights which are coming in due time whether the Neanderthal Christians like them or not gotta be overlooked while we deal with electing a leader that can handle more important domestic & international issues. To even think Skippy, opps, I mean Obama is as remotely capable in this area of needed experience & wisdom as John McCain is ludicrous imo.

McCain will be the most liberal Republican president ever... the modern day Republican is the socially liberal, fiscally conservative (sans Bush) breed... which should frighten the left.

 

[faceking]

Your country happens to be one of the most populous countries in the world, and the most populous "first world" country - of course you put more money into international shit than many other countries - of course it isn't always more per capita, but that's another little factoid, especially when it comes to foreign aid, it appears many Americans enjoy ignoring.

Try again, Biggy.

What you are not including... is all the welfare that this country provides to non-citizens living in the US. There's more than food donations and aid... most countries in the world do not have an open door like the US, much less an open candy dish of welfare.

Sorry, but I count that amongst foreign aid, since they are not residents, nor legal residents of this country.

Not to mention, which I'm sure you despise, the upkeep of our military when some small country gets overrun.... who foots the bulk of the bill?

Also, most of the "foreign aid" figures do not include debt relief.

Curious where private contributions tie in too, since a good number of billionaires reside in the US. Unlike many of the socialist countries that outperform us, we leave some of the wealth with the wealthiest ...resulting in ungodly-sized foundations (e.g. the Bill/Melinda Gates Foundation which gave $500M to fight global AID in one swoop, much less myriad of support to other organizations complementing that cause, plus another $250M+ into a vaccine alone). The United States created tax law to allow for such philanthropic endeavors to exist. Microsoft would of never taken off in Norway, France, or Russia, or wherever.

I can play the numbers game too.

FWIW, the UN needs to be moved out of the US, and the US should leave that corrupt organization, or have a seat in the back along with Andorra or Vanuatu.

 

[faceking]

Um Hazel God... tend thy thread... it's off topic.

 

[Qua]

the modern day Republican is the socially liberal, fiscally conservative (sans Bush) breed... which should frighten the left.

Yes, particularly when much of the younger generation seems to be trending libertarian. As Dems count younger voters among their more ardent supporters it would be alarming, though given the lower turnout not devestating, for them to lose any significant portion of that demographic. Of course, this won't be a shift that's noticed this election cycle, or next for that matter. It seems to be a trend still in its infancy, but if the Republicans know what's good for them they'll stick down that path as the more conservative older generations become more marginalized and the younger generations continue to become more socially liberal but don't cede economic points. I myself would love a viable political party with a wing along those lines, but one does not (yet) exist in the strength required to carry elections. And it seems that if such a wing were to appear it would do so from the Republicans rather than the Democrats.

 

[faceking]

Yes, particularly when much of the younger generation seems to be trending libertarian. As Dems count younger voters among their more ardent supporters it would be alarming, though given the lower turnout not devestating, for them to lose any significant portion of that demographic. Of course, this won't be a shift that's noticed this election cycle, or next for that matter. It seems to be a trend still in its infancy, but if the Republicans know what's good for them they'll stick down that path as the more conservative older generations become more marginalized and the younger generations continue to become more socially liberal but don't cede economic points. I myself would love a viable political party with a wing along those lines, but one does not (yet) exist in the strength required to carry elections. And it seems that if such a wing were to appear it would do so from the Republicans rather than the Democrats.

yeah, but the mainstream media and ignorance (look at this board for proof) paints the modern libertarian as racists, anti-poor, greedy and so forth. when in fact, the left has done little to really do much for the LCD of their constituency, yet a bunch of empty un-actionable rhetoric locks in the vote, each every time.

on the fiscal side, (or one of them, in my opinion)... the government is never efficient, better to leave that to private industry with government oversight. Where do you start...

the DMV
... social security
the RIDICULOUS notion of national healthcare.

Give me my 3% and let me invest the money myself. Much less when you die at 64... name me the benefactor of your social security after DECADES and DECADES of contributions? Exactly... if you privatize retirement, then legally require 3% is in cash-like products... at least you know you have a better chance of getting the money back, much less you can pass decades of contributions on.

US Postal Service... last I checked FedEx and UPS are very successful and very global corporations.


...blathering... time to go surf.

 

[HazelGod]

somebody needed too start somewhere and history will look very favorably on George Bush for being the one that did.

Let’s make this easy, ever notice how the vast majority of civilized, democratically elected secular governments get along famously with the United States?...sometimes we just gotta tell everybody to go fuck themselves and do what’s right for the planet since we are the leaders of said planet.

:rofl:

You're quite the card, biggie!

All I see is specious supposition coming from you now...nothing at all in defense of your assertion that there is [no] other country that is even remotely close in the amount of effort in th[e] area of diplomacy.

Yes, all those other civilized nations lined right on up in support of the invasion, despite the votes in the UN. The citizens of the UK and Australia both really thanked their political leaders for supporting the Bush administration's wars...thanked them right the hell out of office.

Being the first to "do something," especially as rash as militarily invading and occupying a sovereign nation and deposing its government, killing thousands of its citizens in the process, doesn't cast a favorable light on any president now or through the lens of history. The utter havoc wrought in the region, in our nation, and in the world's financial markets isn't going to do his legacy any favors, either.

As for your bit about doing what's right for the planet? That's just laughable on its face.

 

[faceking]

:rofl:

You're quite the card, biggie!

All I see is specious supposition coming from you now...nothing at all in defense of your assertion that there is [no] other country that is even remotely close in the amount of effort in th[e] area of diplomacy.

Yes, all those other civilized nations lined right on up in support of the invasion, despite the votes in the UN. The citizens of the UK and Australia both really thanked their political leaders for supporting the Bush administration's wars...thanked them right the hell out of office.

Being the first to "do something," especially as rash as militarily invading and occupying a sovereign nation and deposing its government, killing thousands of its citizens in the process, doesn't cast a favorable light on any president now or through the lens of history. The utter havoc wrought in the region, in our nation, and in the world's financial markets isn't going to do his legacy any favors, either.

As for your bit about doing what's right for the planet? That's just laughable on its face.

Eh... dude did have, or elude to having WMDs, and besides we needed a presence in the middle east... and it has detracted a lot of terrorism into that region. Why not Iraq, they deserved it at the time.

Like South Korea, Germany, and Japan... we'll be there for decades and decades... that's a good thing.

oke:

Hee hee.

Seriously, has anyone notice the absence of media coverage on how well Iraq is going the last 6 to 9 months, especially compared to a few years prior. Will anyone have the fucking balls and report that on the major networks? Much less reminding the public who the aggressor has been for 90% of this initiative...

P.S. the UN is about as legitimate as the Bush administration.

 

[1BiGG1]

:rofl:

You're quite the card, biggie!

All I see is specious supposition coming from you now...nothing at all in defense of your assertion that there is [no] other country that is even remotely close in the amount of effort in th[e] area of diplomacy.

Yes, all those other civilized nations lined right on up in support of the invasion, despite the votes in the UN. The citizens of the UK and Australia both really thanked their political leaders for supporting the Bush administration's wars...thanked them right the hell out of office.

Being the first to "do something," especially as rash as militarily invading and occupying a sovereign nation and deposing its government, killing thousands of its citizens in the process, doesn't cast a favorable light on any president now or through the lens of history. The utter havoc wrought in the region, in our nation, and in the world's financial markets isn't going to do his legacy any favors, either.

As for your bit about doing what's right for the planet? That's just laughable on its face.

OK, Lets see if I can put this in a way you can better understand = Wal-Mart is the world's largest public corporation by revenue with ’07 sales of 378.80 BILLION dollars. Family Dollar is another retailer with 6.40 BILLION in revenue. Do you think it takes as much to run Family Dollar as it does to run Wal-Mart? Of course not so why you would think the same is not true for the far-and-away world leader being the United States is beyond me. :smile:

And don’t even go there alleging we did something “rash” in attacking Iraq! You do know Saddam spent a decade+ fucking US on his surrender agreement before we attacked don’t you?

 

[faceking]

OK, Lets see if I can put this in a way you can better understand = Wal-Mart is the world's largest public corporation by revenue with ’07 sales of 378.80 BILLION dollars. Family Dollar is another retailer with 6.40 BILLION in revenue. Do you think it takes as much to run Family Dollar as it does to run Wal-Mart?

Actually the operating margin for Wal-Mart is around 5 3/4% while Family Dollar comes in at 5 1/4%... in actually it's about the same run rate to run a Family Dollar as a Wal-Mart so when you technically say...

[I keeeeed]

Nevermind... Bush is the devil, Obama is Jesus... the LPSG masses understand that better.

 

[faceking]

Actually the operating margin for Wal-Mart is around 5 3/4% while Family Dollar comes in at 5 1/4%... in actually it's about the same run rate to run a Family Dollar as a Wal-Mart so when you technically say...

[I keeeeed]

Nevermind... Bush is the devil, Obama is Jesus... the LPSG masses understand that better.

Oh, I forgot... McCain is the extension of George Bush. End of story.

 

[1BiGG1]

McCain will be the most liberal Republican president ever... the modern day Republican is the socially liberal, fiscally conservative (sans Bush) breed... which should frighten the left.

I agree the left doesn’t like the right moving to the middle and on this note it’s interesting that yet again this time around the left is preaching hard-core leftism to get elected but they will be forced to remain in the middle if they do see office. The naivety of the Obama followers amaze me buying into his illusions, must be the bulk of them are too young to remember Clinton and that worthless piece of shit Jimmy Carter.

 

[faceking]

I agree the left doesn’t like the right moving to the middle and on this note it’s interesting that yet again this time around the left is preaching hard-core leftism to get elected but they will be forced to remain in the middle if they do see office. The naivety of the Obama followers amaze me buying into his illusions, must be the bulk of them are too young to remember Clinton and that worthless piece of shit Jimmy Carter.

If you stack up the actual issues, Carter was worse than Bush... foreign policy and economy for one/two.

Personally I don't think Clinton was too bad, he could of given away all the wealth the internet boom created, and his government bloat wasn't all that awful, if not tolerable. Especially after his wife's national health care idea got squashed.

 

[1BiGG1]

Actually the operating margin for Wal-Mart is around 5 3/4% while Family Dollar comes in at 5 1/4%... in actually it's about the same run rate to run a Family Dollar as a Wal-Mart so when you technically say...

[I keeeeed]

Nevermind... Bush is the devil, Obama is Jesus... the LPSG masses understand that better.

My point was Family Dollar has around 24,000 full-time and 18,000 part-time employees with stores in several states where Wal-Mart has over 2.1 MILLION employees with stores all over the world. The logistics difference in running these two companies is like comparing Ferrari and GM!



And I truly disagree on Skippy, opps, I mean Obama being the alleged Jesus as I don’t believe the alleged Jesus ever existed. At least Skippy is real and not made-up and yes, he is a naïve dope selling snake oil to those even more naïve and dopier but he is real!

Now George the Great on the other hand is cool with me and I will say again, history will look kindly toward him for his accomplishments. :smile:

 

[HazelGod]

OK, Lets see if I can put this in a way you can better understand = Wal-Mart is the world's largest public corporation by revenue with ’07 sales of 378.80 BILLION dollars. Family Dollar is another retailer with 6.40 BILLION in revenue.

My point was Family Dollar has around 24,000 full-time and 18,000 part-time employees with stores in several states where Wal-Mart has over 2.1 MILLION employees with stores all over the world. The logistics difference in running these two companies is like comparing Ferrari and GM!

I don't think I'm alone when I say What the fuck are you on about?

Are you completely incapable of remaining on point? A point that you originally asserted? You began with a cockamamie contention about the supremacy of the Bush administration's diplomatic prowess, then veered off into exhortations of "fuck everyone else," and now you're citing competitive sales figures for big-box retailers?

WHAT THE FUCK?

This goes so far beyond red herrings it's not even funny. Is it really so difficult for you to simply admit that you were just talking out your ass and have no substantiation for the drivel you were spouting?

 

[tripod]

... and it has detracted a lot of terrorism into that region.

You must have meant attracted a lot of terrorism into that region.

on the fiscal side, (or one of them, in my opinion)... the government is never efficient, better to leave that to private industry with government oversight. Where do you start...

the DMV
... social security
the RIDICULOUS notion of national healthcare.

Give me my 3% and let me invest the money myself. Much less when you die at 64... name me the benefactor of your social security after DECADES and DECADES of contributions? Exactly... if you privatize retirement, then legally require 3% is in cash-like products... at least you know you have a better chance of getting the money back, much less you can pass decades of contributions on.

US Postal Service... last I checked FedEx and UPS are very successful and very global corporations.


...blathering... time to go surf.

Not blathering at all, it was a good post, I liked the details you provided. I don't agree with you on your opinions and assumptions, but your view is a highly rational one, I do believe.

FedEx and UPS are awesome, but the US Postal service is no slouch and is very convenient.

With the way the market has been going recently... you would have lost a lot of your social security if it was privatized... why would you wanna do that? If the stock market crashes... then everybody has no social security... that is NOT a good and safe plan.

Just understand that the private sector is geared to make the highest profit possible with little or no concept of fairness or ethics. The ethics and fairness in our system or capitalism (if there is any) were written up by our legislators and owe their entire existence to our government, which is the people.

I would rather the people run things than have CEO's make the decisions.

Power to the people brother. :smile:

 

[1BiGG1]

I don't think I'm alone when I say What the fuck are you on about?

Are you completely incapable of remaining on point? A point that you originally asserted? You began with a cockamamie contention about the supremacy of the Bush administration's diplomatic prowess, then veered off into exhortations of "fuck everyone else," and now you're citing competitive sales figures for big-box retailers?

WHAT THE FUCK?

This goes so far beyond red herrings it's not even funny. Is it really so difficult for you to simply admit that you were just talking out your ass and have no substantiation for the drivel you were spouting?

Dude, for allegedly being 99% straight you sure are a drama-queen! Anybody ever tell you that before? If not you can rest-assured they say it behind your back! :biggrin1:

That aside, even though I have listed examples those with basic reasoning capability can easily comprehend and even went so far as too post an example below your typical eight grade comprehension level, if you still wanna believe the decades-long economic leader and the greatest military power ever known is second to anybody in the diplomacy arena go ahead, it makes for high drama and it appears that’s all you are here for anyway.

 

[1BiGG1]

If you stack up the actual issues, Carter was worse than Bush... foreign policy and economy for one/two.

Personally I don't think Clinton was too bad, he could of given away all the wealth the internet boom created, and his government bloat wasn't all that awful, if not tolerable. Especially after his wife's national health care idea got squashed.

I’m a fan of George Bush and agree with what he has done economically and militarily. Jimmy Carter, well lets just say I will reserve comment on him because this websites server doesn’t have enough capacity to even begin listing his shortcomings!

Bill Clinton? Certainly no Jimmy Carter but then really, all he needed to do was sit back and ride out Ronald Reagan’s economic marvel without fucking it up and I will give him that.

 

[HazelGod]

(Nonsensical bloviations omitted)

I'll take that as a "no" to my question. Thanks for playing.

 

[b.c.]

And I truly disagree on Skippy, opps, I mean Obama being the alleged Jesus as I don’t believe the alleged Jesus ever existed....

You don't believe Jesus ever existed? Not even (perhaps) as an ordinary man?

Well, that, and the fact that you consider Clinton and Carter "worthless pieces of shit" while lauding the likes of Reagan and Bush explains much.

 

[b.c.]

Yes, McCain is personally opposed to the idea and is against a federal mandate but he is not opposed to states rights on this issue.

2008 presidential campaign issues - USATODAY.com

John McCain on gay civil rights
On same-sex marriage and civil unions

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which set a federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and said states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed by another state. He is, however, opposed to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. McCain has said a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws.

In November 2006, McCain said on ABC's This Week that he favors allowing gay men and lesbians to "enter into contracts’’ but stopped short of endorsing civil unions. He supports legal benefits for same-sex partners."

We all gotta look at history here and note major change does not happen overnight like with women’s and children’s rights for instance. Look at how long it took US to get the Neanderthal Christians to agree to those! Oh that’s right, they didn’t agree as it was forced on them by the courts and McCain has no history of going against the courts on issues like these that I know of.

On top of that, sometimes lesser issues like gay rights which are coming in due time whether the Neanderthal Christians like them or not gotta be overlooked while we deal with electing a leader that can handle more important domestic & international issues. To even think Skippy, opps, I mean Obama is as remotely capable in this area of needed experience & wisdom as John McCain is ludicrous imo.

I'm not so sure all of your fellow gays and lesbians would agree that "gay rights" is a "lesser issue". Nor would I.

All I know is what I've read in his official statement from his website. And it says he intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who will not overturn state decisions on what (or who) constitutes a legal marriage.

He goes on to say that the family is the foundation of "Western civilization" and "civil society" (only western??) and clearly states that (in his opinion) a marriage is comprised of a man and a woman and of "the vital and unique role" they play in raising children. (No kudos to all you single and same sex parents out there, I guess.)