McCain Wants Amnesty - proof:

[KG4JYD]

McCain Admits He Wants Amnesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIOSJn4eih0

McCain Blames Conservatives for Failure of His Amnesty Bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQYXAs-Tgg

McCain Says "We Are Not Going To Build Fences And Barriers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU

Crowd Boos McCain On Illegal Immigration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-nVJGsTdKU

Clintons and McCain Agree on Amnesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZVmHEji1dc

McCain and Ted Kennedy and Obama Agree on Amnesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNZjDNrUqEw

McCain Would Sign McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill Into Law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLWRW4GoGHY

McCain Uses "F-word" Against Fellow Senator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2NrGqkI3Bs

[ac4r]

He should have been kicked out of the party long ago.

[KG4JYD]

He should have been kicked out of the party long ago.Sadly many in the party agree with him. The only candidate that doesn't is Ron Paul.

[w5srg]

[QUOTE=KG4JYD;1119483]McCain Admits He Wants Amnesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIOSJn4eih0

McCain Blames Conservatives for Failure of His Amnesty Bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQYXAs-Tgg

McCain Says "We Are Not Going To Build Fences And Barriers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU

McCain is a pure FDA grade A nut case!
He should be in a nut house not the white house.

[KG4JYD]

He should be in a nut house not the white house.He has no chance of getting into the White House. But of the GOP nominates him the Democrats will be in the White House.

[N3RQ]

He can be beat Hillary Clinton. Hillary has the highest negative rating of any of the candidates.

[KG4JYD]

He can be beat Hillary Clinton. Hillary has the highest negative rating of any of the candidates.But you fail to realize that on the war issue the majority of Americans will side with Hillary, AND, many conservatives will sit out because McCain isn't a conservative.

[W3MIV]

But you fail to realize ...

I notice that you repeat that phrase again and again. With a few exceptions that I could count on one hand (and not need all the fingers), everyone else on these threads seems always to "fail to realize" what you find obvious. You see so clearly that which everyone else seems not to see.

Does that not tell you something, Matt? It should.

More to the point, it tells the rest of us what you fail to realize.

:rolleyes:

[W1GUH]

After reading through this thread I like McCain more than ever. Maybe things are looking up. If it's really a three way race....McCain-Clinton-Obama...that's something that I can live with. Maybe the system is actually working and the electorate has finally removed its head from....well, from "there." It's going to be so freakin good to once again have someone in the oval office that is actually qualified.

[w4glm]

Does anyone except me truly believe that the Commander-in-Chief of

our country and our Military, should have Military experience, be it he or she

?????

.....Mac

[N2RJ]

But you fail to realize that on the war issue the majority of Americans will side with Hillary, AND, many conservatives will sit out because McCain isn't a conservative.

Also, talk radio is railing against McCain, including Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

Personally I think ALL of the candidates will eventually want some form of amnesty - whether it be a re-incarnation of the DREAM act, an amnesty based on payment of a fine, a "get behind the legals and no criminals allowed" amnesty, a "guest worker program" amnesty or an outright blanket "all is forgiven" amnesty.

The push from the hispanic/latino community as well as businesses who hire illegals is huge. Illegal aliens are also a big voting bloc, whether one wants to admit it or not. There's little that is being done to stop non-citizens from voting. Essentially we rely on the honor system.

So I predict it will happen within 3-5 years or so.

Probably faster if one of the dems become prez.

While I'm on the subject - what the hell is it with allowing people to vote online in the primary? I'm totally turned off on the democratic party on this.

[W3MIV]

...what the hell is it with allowing people to vote online in the primary? I'm totally turned off on the democratic party on this.

It is another bad idea from the "activist" core of today's Democratic Party elite. It is nothing short of a shell game designed to maximize numbers in their column with minimal real responsibility for either the accuracy or the propriety of such a system. It is a way of increasing "constituency" without an real or appropriate control over just who is doing the voting.

Question it, and you will be hooted down as an "elitist," a "neo-con," an "aristocrat" or some other such defamation calculated to instantly divert the onus of any explanation away from the promoters of these schemes onto the questioners.

Desperation approves many ideas that a cool assay would reject. But cool assays are not in the cards for this election.

[W3MIV]

On a related note, it is amusing to see the contortions now being used by the "knuckle-scraping wing" of the far right "conservatives" being directed at McCain.

What is a "true conservative?" The briefest look at the real record of Ronald Reagan would reveal that it was RR who signed the largest amnesty bill on record, and it was RR who increased payroll, gasoline and other taxes, and it was RR who -- in addition to demanding that "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" -- essayed a call for global nuclear disarmament. Were any of those the policies of a "true conservative?"

For the first time in a long time (decades), the Democratic Party is reasonably cohesive, and, but for the smear tactics emerging in the form of the Billary campaign, actually has a good chance of capturing the White House with a young and energetic, if untested, candidate. That should scare the knuckle-scrapers out of their ideological purity mode. If it doesn't, they will give up any hope of changing their luck.

Nobody ever promised any political party permanence. Ask any Whig.

[w5klb]

After reading through this thread I like McCain more than ever. Maybe things are looking up. If it's really a three way race....McCain-Clinton-Obama...that's something that I can live with. Maybe the system is actually working and the electorate has finally removed its head from....well, from "there." It's going to be so freakin good to once again have someone in the oval office that is actually qualified.


As a great mathematician once said, "It figures."

Anyone who is endorsed by The New York Times is someone I would never vote for. Like the Libertarian Loon Ron Paul, McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) so I can clearly see why so many liberals and their propaganda news outlets love him.

Since Fred Thomson has dropped out the race, conservatives like myself are left with one and only one choice: Mitt Romney.

[N2RJ]

On a related note, it is amusing to see the contortions now being used by the "knuckle-scraping wing" of the far right "conservatives" being directed at McCain.

What is a "true conservative?" The briefest look at the real record of Ronald Reagan would reveal that it was RR who signed the largest amnesty bill on record, and it was RR who increased payroll, gasoline and other taxes, and it was RR who -- in addition to demanding that "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" -- essayed a call for global nuclear disarmament. Were any of those the policies of a "true conservative?"

For the first time in a long time (decades), the Democratic Party is reasonably cohesive, and, but for the smear tactics emerging in the form of the Billary campaign, actually has a good chance of capturing the White House with a young and energetic, if untested, candidate. That should scare the knuckle-scrapers out of their ideological purity mode. If it doesn't, they will give up any hope of changing their luck.

Nobody ever promised any political party permanence. Ask any Whig.

What is helping them is a really horrible job done by George W. Bush.

[W1GUH]

conservatives like myself

I really, really, have to admire people who, after the AWFUL job the conservative FM in the white house has done, are still willing to call themselves conservatives. My hat is off to you.

[w5klb]

I really, really, have to admire people who, after the AWFUL job the conservative FM in the white house has done, are still willing to call themselves conservatives. My hat is off to you.

It beats the heck out being a spineless, gutless, and clueless socialist, (a.k.a. Dimwitcrat), but "to each his own" as they say. ;)

[N3RQ]

But you fail to realize that on the war issue the majority of Americans will side with Hillary, AND, many conservatives will sit out because McCain isn't a conservative.

You are dreaming if you think that conservatives will sit out a McCain versus Clinton election. John Paul Stevens is 87 years old.

[W3MIV]

You are dreaming if you think that conservatives will sit out a McCain versus Clinton election. John Paul Stevens is 87 years old.

Unfortunately, there is no lack of people who will let their egos govern their common sense, and these misguided mavens exist on either side of the aisle. Ideological "purity" knows neither left nor right, and there will be many who carry everything into the voting booth except their brains and others who will sit home and whine about the result they might have changed had they not been so "pure" and righteous.

[KG4JYD]

After reading through this thread I like McCain more than ever. Maybe things are looking up.Yes - the when the liberal hippys like a Republican that should be a warning sign :rolleyes:

[KG4JYD]

Personally I think ALL of the candidates will eventually want some form of amnesty Except for Ron Paul.

[KG4JYD]

Anyone who is endorsed by The New York Times is someone I would never vote for. Like the Libertarian Loon Ron Paul, McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) so I can clearly see why so many liberals and their propaganda news outlets love him.

Since Fred Thomson has dropped out the race, conservatives like myself are left with one and only one choice: Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul is a traditional Republican. He hasn't changed his positions, the party has changed theirs.

And Mitt Romney is not a conservative, he has flipped flopped on abortion, raised taxes in his state, and will say whatever it takes to get elected.

Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race. Many talk show hosts have said that.

[KG4JYD]

I really, really, have to admire people who, after the AWFUL job the conservative FM in the white house has done, are still willing to call themselves conservatives. I don't know what "FM" means in this context, but GW is NOT a conservative. GW is a Rockefeller Republican with a Texas accent.

The only conservative in the race currently is Ron Paul.

[N2RJ]

Except for Ron Paul.

Well I am talking about people who can actually get elected.

[N3RQ]

I don't know what "FM" means in this context, but GW is NOT a conservative. GW is a Rockefeller Republican with a Texas accent.

The only conservative in the race currently is Ron Paul.

G.W. is not a Rockefeller Republican. Rockefeller Republicans were socially-moderate fiscal conservatives. G.W. is a supply-sider!

[kc2orw]

G.W. is not a Rockefeller Republican. Rockefeller Republicans were socially-moderate fiscal conservatives. G.W. is a supply-sider!
Yes indeed I do recall the Rockefeller years in the State of New York got a lot done even if it wasn't all perfect.

[N3RQ]

Since Fred Thomson has dropped out the race, conservatives like myself are left with one and only one choice: Mitt Romney.

You are not a traditional Republican conservative. The political views that you espouse paint you as a social conservative (a.k.a. the wing of the GOP that was formed by former southern social conservative Democrats).

[W7WV]

Yes I do too, but in a world of all volunteer military as we have been for so many years now that seems all but impossible.

[N2RJ]

Yes I do too, but in a world of all volunteer military as we have been for so many years now that seems all but impossible.

I'm lost. What are you replying to again?

[kc2orw]

I'm lost. What are you replying to again?
Sounds a bit Pro Draft would be my guess ah how handy it was to have forced temporary slavery. How can we maintain the empire without it. :D

[N3RQ]

I'm lost. What are you replying to again?

I believe that 'WV's posting was in response to:

Does anyone except me truly believe that the Commander-in-Chief of

our country and our Military, should have Military experience, be it he or she

?????

.....Mac

[W1GUH]

About the Commander-In-Chief having military experience....

Just found a page that says pretty much what I was going to, but much better.


As he and other scholars point out, the two presidents generally regarded as the country's greatest wartime leaders, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had no experience in uniform before becoming president, although Lincoln was a member of the Illinois state militia for three weeks in 1832. Grant is generally regarded as among the worst presidents.

Some modern candidates have felt the need to pump up their military records. Robert Caro, President Lyndon Johnson's biographer, tells the story of how then-Rep. Johnson served a few months in the Navy as an observer and was personally awarded the Silver Star by Gen. Douglas MacArthur for flying on a single South Pacific bombing mission that came under Japanese assault.

Here's the link:

Military experience doesn't guarantee a good president (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/25/MNGTI8DG0R17.DTL)

There's no historical correlation between military service and the "goodness" of a President.

[N3RQ]

Sounds a bit Pro Draft would be my guess ah how handy it was to have forced temporary slavery. How can we maintain the empire without it. :D

I believe that poster was alluding to the fact that the all-volunteer military has resulted in a situation where only the sons and daughters of the working class serve. Conscription resulted in a wider swath of our society being exposed to the military experience. If we look at the average infantryman, he is more likely to be from a southern working class family than an upper class southern or northern family. As politicians tend to be from the upper classes of our society, they are now able avoid military service without incurring the reputation of being a “draft dodger.”

[N3RQ]

There's no historical correlation between military service and the "goodness" of a President.

However, I do believe that veterans are more likely to make better choices with respect to troop utilization. Experience is always the best teacher.

[W1GUH]

Maybe so...but the President is way more than Commander-In-Chief. The President is the Head of State, and that encompasses so much more than "utilization of troops." An effective Head of State, even tho' he may have limited, or no, experience in the military will pick qualified advisors who have had that experience to advise him/her on military matters. He/She will also have talanted diplomats with foriegn service backgrounds to advise him/her in the areas of their expertise, and so on down the line. That's what the cabinet's there for.

But there's something worrying in what I said there. That is how it should be, in theory. But it sounds pretty niave, considering that it doesn't appear as if that is, actually, how the government works anymore. You've posed a question that, on the surface, sounds simple. But when examined critically, grows into a huge question about how the U.S. Governnemt works these days. :confused:

[W3MIV]

But there's something worrying in what I said there. That is how it should be, in theory. But it sounds pretty niave, considering that it doesn't appear as if that is, actually, how the government works anymore. You've posed a question that, on the surface, sounds simple. But when examined critically, grows into a huge question about how the U.S. Governnemt works these days.

The US government is not the start-up outfit that Matt fantasizes (and, even then, grossly misunderstands) in his Paulista propaganda. Though Harry Truman's buck still stops in the Oval Office, it has taken a long and cursive course along the way. No president can hold all the reins in his hands; that is among George Bush's errors, as it was among those of Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson. Mostly that is the result of a lack of trust for his supporting cast -- in Johnson's case, a well-deserved mistrust. Delegation is crucial to success, but that, too, can go too far (as was shown by Reagan in Iran Contra and Nixon in Watergate).

The chief magistracy of the US is no place for the talented novice unless he or she has had a few edges taken off by life's grittier side in important contests with significant stakes. Obama, for example, is a talented and intelligent man of great promise. But untested by adversity, and it is adversity that offers the tests that deepen character. Of all the candidates, McCain has passed muster on many of these "character-building" issues -- his refusal to leave the Hanoi Hilton before others who had been there longer is revealing.

If this contest comes down to McCain versus Clinton, I will face no dilemma at all in voting for McCain. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, and that is my hope, I shall face a difficult decision. I don't particularly "like" John McCain (although I don't dislike him and have no reason to deprecate him as many here have been doing -- the fact that he follows no firmly predictable "ideological" agenda approved by others is, in my view, a plus). I am only mildly worried about Obama's lack of experience, for no one really has "experience" at being president unless he has been there before. In terms of what is being offered, I definitely DON'T want to go there again with Billary.

I am fascinated by the so-called "conservatives" and self-professed "neocons" who clasp Romney to their breasts as a soul-mate. I have come to abhor Romney -- he has shown himself to be the worst sort of political prostitute, and he makes Rudy Giuliani look like an altar boy.

Unless and until he shows me a real reason to dump him, I shall be happy to stand with Mr Obama. Failing his selection, however, I could live with McCain.

[kc2orw]

Decisions, decisions, decisions
Personal Perspective
Clinton vs McCain = tossup
Clinton vs Romney = tossup
Obama vs Anyone = Obama
Clintons vs Paul = Clintons

[W1GUH]

The chief magistracy of the US is no place for the talented novice unless he or she has had a few edges taken off by life's grittier side in important contests with significant stakes. Obama, for example, is a talented and intelligent man of great promise. But untested by adversity, and it is adversity that offers the tests that deepen character. Of all the candidates, McCain has passed muster on many of these "character-building" issues -- his refusal to leave the Hanoi Hilton before others who had been there longer is revealing.

If this contest comes down to McCain versus Clinton, I will face no dilemma at all in voting for McCain. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, and that is my hope, I shall face a difficult decision. I don't particularly "like" John McCain (although I don't dislike him and have no reason to deprecate him as many here have been doing -- the fact that he follows no firmly predictable "ideological" agenda approved by others is, in my view, a plus). I am only mildly worried about Obama's lack of experience, for no one really has "experience" at being president unless he has been there before. In terms of what is being offered, I definitely DON'T want to go there again with Billary.

Your words motivate me to pay a lot more attention to Obama. I'm more than "mildly" worried about his lack of experience, but your words, and the words of others, not to mention his fund-raising ability seem to indicate that he makes up for it handsomely. Thanks for the input.

[N2RJ]

Yes I do too, but in a world of all volunteer military as we have been for so many years now that seems all but impossible.

I honestly think that the Commader in Chief should be separate from the Presidency, and that the CiC should be someone with military experience, and advised by the President.

And I personally am opposed to a draft or mandatory military service. WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and even Afghanistan were honorable wars. Iraq is just a mess. I don't believe in needlessly throwing lives behind it, especially people who are opposed to it.

I assume you've served. If so, thank you for your service.

Were you forced to serve though?

And if so, would you have volunteered if you hadn't been forced to serve? And why?

[W3MIV]

I honestly think that the Commader in Chief should be separate from the Presidency, and that the CiC should be someone with military experience, and advised by the President.

That would elminate civil control over the military, which is the sole reason that it was written into the Constitution from the start. Being CinC has little or nothing to do with military experience; the worst presidents in that regard were often ones who had military experience. You can always "hire" expertise -- and, as Harry Truman so capably proved, you can always fire it when it grows too big for its britches.

Read a little more deeply into the origin of the US Constitution and the arguments surrounding both its creation and its ratification. You will be rewarded greatly, because I believe you have the intellect to appreciate some of the very fine nuances that are all too often overlooked by some of our more ebullient Paulistas.

;)

[W1GUH]

...Viet Nam, Desert Storm and even Afghanistan were honorable wars. Iraq is just a mess. I don't believe in needlessly throwing lives behind it, especially people who are opposed to it.


Vietnam was not an honorable war. It was a dirty, immoral excersize of Lyndon Johnson's ego. LBJ ignored all counsel that it was a stupid thing to do, his hubris just couldn't grasp that he couldn't conrol everything.

[KG4JYD]

McCain will probably send us back into Vietnam to finish the job :rolleyes:

[w4aut]

Vietnam was the biggest cluster fuk we ever got into....I was there, got scars and nightmare's to prove it...But, we should have kicked thier little butts back to the stoneage...we could have..but ole LBJ was too worried about what the Russians and China might do...guess he did not want another Korea stalemate type of conflict....he was wrong..If Barry had won he would have dropped a low yield nuke on thier heads and a lot of American lives would have been saved..That what he said he was going to do during his bid for the White House...Well, guess what ..remember the little girl DAISY commercial!!!!....My son-in-law is and Army Apachee Pilot...three tours in Iraq, Just got home last month and his unit is schedule to deploy back there in Nov 08....What another fuken mess...America has lost it's stomach for war..War is the most horrible, inhumane, disgusting thing that you could ever imagine....I hate it...but what I hate even more is the allternative..it's even worse..THERE IS NO NICE HUMANE WAY TO WAGE WAR!!!!!! Bomb the heck out of you target, go in and kill everyone who want surrender..Thats what they failed to do in Iraq..Atack that country but did't want to make them or the world mad about it...what a joke.....

[KG4JYD]

What another fuken mess...And we don't learn from our mistakes? Korea was a disaster. Vietnam was worse. Iraq is not as bad but a big waste of money and 4000 lives. And now McCain wants to go into Iran?!?!


Why don't we learn from history and stay out of all of these places? Especially since NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM ever posed a direct threat to the US homeland.

Ron Paul would put sensible foreign policy back into the Oval Office.