US News
Food and energy are Bush's focus at G8
Jul 2, 2008, 15:36 GMT
Washington - Rising food and energy prices will be a top priority for the United States at the Group of Eight summit in Japan next week, US President George W Bush said Wednesday.
Bush said he will press the countries to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, improve global health care, and will urge other leaders to explore ways they can assist in the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. The summit will also address global warming, he said.
Bush departs Saturday for the July 7-9 summit of the world's leading industrialized democracies in Toyoka, Japan. Those countries include Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States.
'We need people who not only make promises, but write checks for the sake of human rights and human dignity, and for the sake of peace,' Bush said.
The president said he will also seek progress on the long running Doha trade talks designed to knock down trade barriers for under- developed nations to export products to the United States and European Union.
'We will work to tear down barriers to trade and investment around the world,' Bush said.
Oil prices have reached record highs, causing a worldwide energy crunch and demands that petroleum-producing countries increase production. Bush said he will explore ways to lessen dependence on oil and develop new technologies for energy.
'I'll be reminding people that we can have better energy security and we can be better stewards of the environment without sacrificing economic growth,' Bush said.
Bush has announced the United States will provide 1 billion dollars in food aid to alleviate high prices that have caused shortages in poorer countries.
'We've got to work to confront higher food prices,' he said.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Here ya go, Bubba! My answers are in square brackets.
Quoting what Mister Prager refers to as his 'bottom line':
''The gulf between John McCain and conservatives is minuscule compared to the gulf between John McCain and Barack Obama. This is true regarding virtually every issue of significance to America. The America that a President Barack Obama would shape, with the help of a Democratic Congress and a liberal Supreme Court, would be very dissimilar from the America shaped by a President John McCain. ''
[Aside from abortion, the gulf Mister Prager alludes to is of about the same magnitude. It is monstrous, dwarfing the Grand Canyon by several orders of magnitude for both candidates, not just between conservatives and Senator Obama. Mister Prager blythely assumes that a President McCain will be able to 'shape' America even though it is likely that he will one, be saddled with a Democrat dominated legislature and, two, he is in any way inclined to defy Democrats and their truly dangerous proposals. We have no evidence before us to suggest either position is in anyway congruent with reality.]
Again quoting Mister Prager:
''Conservatives who will not vote for McCain are well-intentioned utopians. ''
[Here Mister Prager arrogates to himself the right to insert thoughts into the minds of others. He has no such right and he is perfectly incapable of doing my thinking for me. I do not and long ago gave up any hope in seeing a Utopia. I am willing to put up with a United States run by Conservatives. Those are two very, very different things. ]
[Continued]
Quoting Mister Prager's assessments of Democrat Presidents:
''And America cannot afford to have its first leftist president ever. It can afford liberal presidents -- such as Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter (who governed as a liberal but became a leftist after leaving the White House), or John F. Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson, or Harry Truman -- i.e., all the Democrats who have been president since World War II. But the Democratic Party has moved well to the left of liberalism. And Barack Obama is at the left of that left-wing party.''
[[Bill Clinton was a cunning and very crafty leftist. Jimmy Carter was very much a leftist, but unlike Bill Clinton, he was about as subtle as the flat side of a four-pound ax. John F. Kennedy was what you might refer to as a liberal whose legacy was rescued by his untimely death. Lyndon Baines Johnson was an extreme leftist, only he was never fully aware of it. You needn't take my word for this, just have a look at what he did. Harry Truman was a leftist. He was the first President to make a serious attempt to establish universal health care in the United States. FDR was, in all probability, a closet communist.
In other words, we have had and have survived several leftist Presidents. Unless we do something soon, we will have more and more of them. Why? Because our education system is now owned and run by leftists. Many of the leftists in our school system, especially in our institutions of higher learning, are also nihilistic fanatics. Let us here be honest with ourselves. It is a far simpler matter to impeach and remove a Supreme Court justice than it is to remove a tenured professor like William Ayers. Time is NOT on the side of Liberty in this struggle. The fact Mister Prager seems to think the likes of Jimmy Carter was ever merely a 'liberal' speaks volumes about Mister Prager's judgment. ]]
[Continued]
Mister Prager then spends an inordinate amount of time and space damning the devil. I will address his complaints about the devil later. Let us skip to the case he makes FOR John McCain.:
''He will not raise taxes, the last thing we should be doing in a weakened economy.''
[And we are supposed to take Senator McCain's word on this? Why? Remember what happened to the Senior Bush? Does Mister Prager really believe that a President McCain will be able to avoid such an exigency given that he will almost certainly be working with a Democrat dominated legislature? Worse, Senator McCain is doing NOTHING to help his case because he is doing NOTHING to help conservative candidates for the legislature. Should Senator McCain be elected, he will have a built in excuse for going back on his word about taxation.]
''He will reduce government spending, and thereby prevent the state from controlling even more of American life.''
[[Maybe, but I doubt it. He will be contending with a Democrat dominated legislature and he is a soft touch on some very expensive notions that the Democrats have, Cap and Trade, for instance. Mister Prager was very careful to leave this extraordinary piece of stupidity out of his discussion. I don't blame him because it is a very sound argument AGAINST John McCain.]]
''He will ensure that America wins in Iraq. That will make one of the biggest and richest Arab states the freest of the Arab states. And it will hand Islamic terrorists the biggest defeat they have ever suffered. It will teach potential enemies not to attack America (whether Iraq did so directly is irrelevant to the point). And it will reassure America's allies around the world, many of whom, as in Iraq, risk their lives for America and liberty, that America will never abandon them. ''
[[How long must we stay in Iraq before we can declare a full victory? Senator McCain says, quite rightly I think, that this will take a great deal of time. Personally I think it will take at least fifty years and it may well take longer. A President McCain is unlikely to remain in the White House for more than four years and he cannot hold the office of President for more than eight years. Senator McCain is no position to guarantee us a victory in Iraq, nor would any of the next five Presidents. Mister Prager is here making a false claim.
In truth, we are now in the process of establishing peace in Iraq so that it might have a chance. Yes, Virginia, we really are trying to give peace a chance. The extent and duration of those efforts are now being defined by President Bush and the government of Iraq. The agreement President Bush will be bringing home is going to be political nitroglycerin. The next President and Legislature will have to handle it with extreme care if they do not want to be blown up with Iraq. Party will NOT matter either way when it comes to these external threats. The next President, no matter who he is, will be obliged to carry on with mission in Iraq as defined President Bush, General Petraeus and the Iraqi government.]]
[Continued]
''He will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and to federal benches, thereby depriving the left of its most powerful weapon in reshaping America in its image.''
What assurance do we have that Senator McCain can recognize such candidates? We are, after all, talking about the man who engineered McCain-Feingold. Additionally, what makes us think that any such candidates he might find , assuming he can actually recognize the justices he promises to appoint, will be approved by a Democrat dominated Senate? What about the all important adjuncts to the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts? How likely is it that he will try and successfully fill the absences in that part of our justice system? This looks a lot more like wishful thinking than it does a reasonable argument to me. I do not see how a President McCain could make good on this promise. I have no reason to believe that McCain cold recognize such jurists and I have no reason to believe that a Democrat dominated legislature would seat such jurists. ]]
''He may attract enough Hispanic votes (while securing the borders) to prevent that critical constituency from identifying with the Democratic Party, something that would ensure left-wing victories for decades to come. ''
[[Bullshit! No, HORSESHIT! This isn't in the cards at all. He might avoid offending Hispanics, but he is NEVER going to make Republicans out of them. Only a prolonged stay and growing prosperity among Hispanics can accomplish such an end. How does he propose to do this when the policies he has thus far supported guarantees that they will remain part of an underground economy and firmly ensconces them in a third class semi-citizen status?
The only way to accomplish this end is to first cut off the influx of illegal immigrants across our southern border and then to grant the illegal immigrants already here amnesty and an incentive to become full fledged citizens of the United States. Yes, that's right, I disagree with the position now held by most Republicans. AMNESTY is a necessary part of the solution.]]
''He will develop nuclear power, environmentalist (read leftist) opposition to which has been morally indefensible. We would all love to have a solar powered or wind powered country. However, on planet earth at this time, nuclear power may be the cleanest source of energy we have. That is why France, not heretofore known as politically conservative, relies on nuclear power for nearly 80 percent of its electricity. ''
[[What lies at the bottom of this argument is the acceptance of false claims made by the misanthropes in the environmentalist movement. Any and all of this is an argument AGAINST John McCain, not an argument FOR John McCain. Our energy needs are a national security issue and are in no way related to global warming or anthropogenic climate change.]]
''However noble their intentions, conservatives who do not vote for John McCain will be morally complicit in what happens to America during an Obama presidency. ''
[[More damning of the devil, in this case an attempt at intimidation. It does not work because I can make a case that John McCain would do more damage as a Republican than Obama can as a Marxist member of the Democrat Party.]]
Finally,Jul 2nd, 2008 - 18:14:57
GWB is behaving a bit more like a man voted ''Most likely to sack seed'' rather than the idiot he's been portraying for the last eight years.
Energy - Bush told everyone that we needed our own developed oil reserves for 7 years. Tell us, how idiotic does that sound now?
AIDS - In an utterly bewildering move, Bush, with nothing to gain in the bigoted political environment he lives in, pushed forward on an AIDS iniative 4 years go. Funny, it never seems to come up in the libnazi drive-by media...
Food - Bush has pushed Free Trade for developing nations for his whole term, and been stymied by liberals both at home and abroad for the whole time.
Now who are the idiots out there?
''Energy - Bush told everyone that we needed our own developed oil reserves for 7 years. Tell us, how idiotic does that sound now?''
That's right, he has been telling us that for seven years, since he started that damn war neither you nor he has fought in but seem to enjoy very much. Oh I almost forgot, he gave up golf in honor of the fallen troops; what a guy.
''AIDS - In an utterly bewildering move, Bush, with nothing to gain in the bigoted political environment he lives in, pushed forward on an AIDS iniative 4 years go. Funny, it never seems to come up in the libnazi drive-by media...''
Not a bigoted political environment he lives in. It's Bush's way or the highway. Why on earth do you think he has record numbers of his cabinet jumping ship on him, and the remaining members fly below the radar You make Bush look like the victim when in reality he's the perpetrator.
''Food - Bush has pushed Free Trade for developing nations for his whole term, and been stymied by liberals both at home and abroad for the whole time.''
You mean ''outsourcing'' don't you??
''Now who are the idiots out there''
Still Bush
once aging our sp4 makes an ass out of himself.
jumps right in to defend his fart smeller opp's smart fellow i mean..
“. It is monstrous, dwarfing the Grand Canyon by several orders of magnitude for both candidates,”
How would you know?
“Mister Prager blythely[sic] assumes that a President McCain will be able to 'shape' America”
And you blithely assume that he wont. Prrager cites evidence, you cite McCain derangement syndrome, which you clearly are in the grip of.
“he will one, be saddled with a Democrat dominated legislature”
As is Bush. Better to turn it all over to Obama?
“two, he is in any way inclined to defy Democrats and their truly dangerous proposals.”
President McCain will have much less incentive to reach across the aisle then Senator McCain. Indeed, he will have some scores to settle.
“Here Mister Prager arrogates to himself the right to insert thoughts into the minds of others.”
No, he probably never met an idiot who believes that you gain influence by losing elections.
“He has no such right and he is perfectly incapable of doing my thinking for me.”
He was just giving “you” the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, he was referring to conservatives.
“You needn't take my word for this,”
Nope. Honestly, the irrational emotionalism that has skewed your views on this has made your word suspect.
“In other words, we have had and have survived several leftist Presidents.”
To call Truman a leftist is ridicules. Bill Clinton was a liberal, but not a leftist. Not one, and I mean none of them can come close to the socialist intent of Obama.
“Why? Because our education system is now owned and run by leftists.”
So instead of rewarding them, take on the education system.
“Many of the leftists in our school system, especially in our institutions of higher learning, are also nihilistic fanatics.”
Indeed, and you will be putting them in charge. Never a good idea to put nihilistic fanatics in charge of the future of the country, or a nuclear arsenal for that matter.
“The fact Mister Prager seems to think the likes of Jimmy Carter was ever merely a 'liberal' speaks volumes about Mister Prager's judgment.”
Again, he has proven to be more rational here then you have.
“Mister Prager then spends an inordinate amount of time and space damning the devil.”
The devil deserves to be damned. The devil is acting like a spoiled child who is throwing a tantrum.
“And we are supposed to take Senator McCain's word on this?”
No, we are supposed to take your shrill, unfair and irrational assessment of the man as gospel.
“Does Mister Prager really believe that a President McCain will be able to avoid such an exigency given that he will almost certainly be working with a Democrat dominated legislature?”
He will still have a veto.
“Maybe, but I doubt it.”
Of course you do. We can only go on what they both have promised to do.
“He will be contending with a Democrat dominated legislature and he is a soft touch on some very expensive notions that the Democrats have, Cap and Trade, for instance.”
Well then, “conservatives” will have to get off their rear ends and demand accountability from the congress. Something they should have been doing all along.
“I don't blame him because it is a very sound argument AGAINST John McCain.”
What, that we are not going to have some kind of conservative nanny state where all of noharnesses priorities are addressed without noharness lifting a finger? A conservative nanny state is an oxymoron. Then again, you are not a consirvative.
“. Personally I think it will take at least fifty years and it may well take longer.”
Well, again, you are pulling things out of thin air.
“Senator McCain is no position to guarantee us a victory in Iraq,”
He won’t surrender to the islamist terrorists who have vowed our destruction, and who you seem fine emboldening because you live in the middle of nowhere. Do you have any children in major cities? Grandchildren? Loved ones? That is who you are risking with your stupid “strategy”.
“. Party will NOT matter either way when it comes to these external threats.”
It ABSOLUTELY WILL. That is where you are DEAD WRONG. We are still fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq and it WILL TAKE TIME. The average insurgency burns itself out in 8 to 12 years and we were slow to even call this what it was. One more presidential term and we have a good chance of actually seeing the end of this thing and achieving our mission in a way that it will be an undeniable victory. That is the objective: an undeniable victory that will humiliate the islamists and we are just not there yet.
“. The next President, no matter who he is, will be obliged to carry on with mission in Iraq as defined President Bush,”
BULL, the next president will either be obliged to finish this thing on our terms as McCain has pledged to do or “”immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.””
That is the choice. Despite your desperate, wholly unconvincing mental gymnastics to claim otherwise that is the choice. You rationalize as much as tonny for Chrissakes.
“What assurance do we have that Senator McCain can recognize such candidates”
I have posted his assurances here at least 4 times:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) this morning decried 'the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power' and pledged to nominate only judges to the federal bench who will strictly interpret the Constitution.
McCain said Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito 'would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me,'
Now I know that signifies absolutely nothing to you but the rest of us humans can only go on what someone has said that they are going to do in order to determine what they are going to do. Regardless, Obama voted against Roberts and Alito and has promised to appoint judges on the following criteria:
We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom… “We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom....you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be,” Obama said, adding that justices should understand what it’s like to be gay, poor or black as well.
“The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
“This looks a lot more like wishful thinking than it does a reasonable argument to me.”
At this point you are long gone from “reasonable” and I mean that. You are simply ignoring the obvious for your personal resentment of the man. If you are going to vote against McCain because you personally hate him that is your business, just don’t think that you are doing it for conservative principals…if you ever did.
“Yes, that's right, I disagree with the position now held by most Republicans. AMNESTY is a necessary part of the solution.”
Well, I disagree with you but you further undercut the idea that you are acting on conservative principles or even consistently at this point.
“What lies at the bottom of this argument is the acceptance of false claims made by the misanthropes in the environmentalist movement.”
No, what lies at the bottom of that claim is that we have maintained the largest amount of nuclear reactors in the world without any serious accidents. USS Scorpion was hit by a… heh… well… USS Scorpion is at the bottom of the Ocean along with USS Thresher and their reactors held. It is only common sense to develop our military nuclear reactor technology for civilian use. (Which is why the democrats are against it no doubt)
“Any and all of this is an argument AGAINST John McCain, not an argument FOR John McCain.”
Well you were whining that he wasn’t advocating enough for nuclear a couple of months ago. When your arguments drop away you become more shrill in your criticism.
“More damning of the devil, in this case an attempt at intimidation.”
No one is trying to “intimidate” you. Just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies and, honestly, lousy intentions in your “strategy”. Never mind that it wont ever, ever work. Never mind that it was a PR idea out of DC. Never mind that your defense of it has become a house of cards at this point: It is dishonorable to work for disaster in order to say “I told you so”. In this case you wont even have that luxury.
“It does not work because I can make a case that John McCain would do more damage as a Republican than Obama can as a Marxist member of the Democrat Party”
Not one that makes any sense. Not one that doesn’t rely on you calling everything that McCain has said a lie. Not one that isn’t built on pure irrational, menopausal lady hysteria. If you can without relying on Crystal ball reasoning and mind reading you have yet to do it.
Tell you what, I am going out and celebrating Independence Day while we are still not ruled by the UN. Why don’t you take some time and examine what your motivations are for all this.
'....And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor....'
Signed almost 232 years ago. Take minute to remember 'honor'. What you advocate tells me that you have completely forgotten it.
Bush has finally realized there are other important issues rather than his insane war.........
Back to you, Bubba. Part I
RE:''How would you know?''
Because Senators Obama and McCain are standing side by side on the far side of the canyon from me, Bubba.
RE:'And you blithely assume that he wont. Prager cites evidence, you cite McCain derangement syndrome, which you clearly are in the grip of. '
How will he stop the Democrats on his own, Bubba? Are we to expect the remaining Republicans to run the risk of opposing their own President whenever he decides to 'reach across the aisle'? Why should we? Can you give any reason to believe that such a thing might happen? A McCain Administration will do little more than preside over an American shaped by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The only thing we will be doing by electing him is placing a Republican stamp of approval on things like Cap and Trade.
RE:''As is Bush. Better to turn it all over to Obama?''
And John McCain has sided with the Democrats when it hurt his own President the worst. Also, the probabilities we have in front of us suggest that he will be serving as President when the Senate will likely have a veto proof majority. He has shown himself to be inclined to side with the Democrats and he will be in a very poor bargaining position. What are we to expect him to do?
''President McCain will have much less incentive to reach across the aisle then Senator McCain. Indeed, he will have some scores to settle.''
Scores to settle with whom? The remaining Republicans?
RE:''To call Truman a leftist is ridicules. Bill Clinton was a liberal, but not a leftist. Not one, and I mean none of them can come close to the socialist intent of Obama.''
Harry Truman was saddled with a 'do nothing Republican Congress' and it was a good thing, too. Congress forced him to accept the Taft-Hartley Act by overriding his veto. He fought with Congress tooth and nail over the removal of price controls and he worked with all his might to socialize medicine in the United States. Beyond that, you can read his autobiography and find out just how far to the left he really was. Bill Clinton backed his wife's attempts to nationalize health care. FDR was somewhere to the left of Obama. Every Democrat on Prager's list except JFK was an out and out leftist and JFK was only just slightly better.
RE:'So instead of rewarding them, take on the education system.'
And John McCain is going to do this while working with a Democrat Congress? What kind of help is he going to be?
RE:''Indeed, and you will be putting them in charge. Never a good idea to put nihilistic fanatics in charge of the future of the country, or a nuclear arsenal for that matter. ''
They will, no doubt, try to dispose of our nuclear arms. They will not be able to, but the attempt will discredit the leftists. They will try to do a great many other things as well. Everything they do or attempt to do will do what? Fail. They will be exposed for what they are and discredited. Right now most of them remain hidden and unrecognized where they can keep right on doing damage and teaching the teachers who teach our children.
RE;''Again, he has proven to be more rational here then you have.''
And electing a faux Republican is somehow rational answer? I don't think so.
Between the hot air and the fertilizer, surely there's a hog farm somewhere that could run for days on his effluents.
Part II;
Re:'No, we are supposed to take your shrill, unfair and irrational assessment of the man as gospel.'
John McCain is not the man we need at the helm. He will do more damage than Obama will because he craves the approval of his Democrat buddies and will do what they want on most domestic issues to gain their approval. Al Qaeda cannot destroy this country, but a 'Republican' can. Barack Obama cannot destroy this country. The opposition to his idiocy will be too strong, but a John McCain can play the role of a Judas Goat and he already is. Senator McCain believes that all lives are a struggle against selfishness. This makes him think that many if not most Democrat positions are morally superior to those of his own party. He rally does believe that self-sacrifice and charity are moral primaries.
RE:'He will still have a veto.'
A veto he can sustain? Not likely.
RE:'Of course you do. We can only go on what they both have promised to do.'
True, and then there is also the fact that Senator McCain voted AGAINST the current tax structure while whining like a leftist about them. He doesn't really like the Bush Tax cuts and would get rid of them if he thought he could. How are we to expect him to react in the face of Democrat pressure? He's going to give in to them, isn't he?
RE:'Well then, “conservatives” will have to get off their rear ends and demand accountability from the congress.'
No, what they should do is to get up off their asses and throw John McCain out at the convention. Some of them in Arizona have already thrown out one of the Yeah-but Goopers and replaced him with a No-because Republican.
RE:'What, that we are not going to have some kind of conservative nanny state where all of noharnesses priorities are addressed without noharness lifting a finger? A conservative nanny state is an oxymoron. Then again, you are not a conservative.'
It is John McCain who is working to establish a Nanny State with a 'conservative' facade and it is you who are proposing to assist him in perpetrating that fraud.
RE:'Well, again, you are pulling things out of thin air.'
Not really. I am going by historical precedent, which, it would seem, are the same precedents John McCain is taking into consideration. He said we might have to stay there for a hundred years, remember? I don't think we will be there for a hundred years and I don't believe that John McCain believes that we will be there for a hundred years. What both John McCain and I both believe is that this is going to take way more than a decade and he has no chance of remaining in the White House that long.
RE:'He won’t surrender to the islamist terrorists who have vowed our destruction, and who you seem fine emboldening because you live in the middle of nowhere. Do you have any children in major cities? Grandchildren? Loved ones? That is who you are risking with your stupid “strategy”. '
Along with my own ass and all its fittings. I do understand that, Bubba. It doesn't really matter where I live owing to the nature of my work. I am obliged to drive a good deal anyway. Yes, my children and grandchildren live in a major metropolitan area. I often work in or around the periphery of major metropolitan areas, usually in the near vicinity of the docks and shipping centers. That is part and parcel with the business I'm in. Like I said, the risk we face now is exactly the same risk we faced when we were up against the Soviet Union. It isn't anything new and I am not going to let a bunch of religious fanatics frighten me.
RE:'It ABSOLUTELY WILL. That is where you are DEAD WRONG. We are still fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq and it WILL TAKE TIME. The average insurgency burns itself out in 8 to 12 years and we were slow to even call this what it was. One more presidential term and we have a good chance of actually seeing the end of this thing and achieving our mission in a way that it will be an undeniable victory. That is the objective: an undeniable victory that will humiliate the islamists and we are just not there yet.'
And, as I pointed out, the future course of our actions in Iraq will be entirely dependent upon the agreement President Bush brings home from Baghdad. He may well bring home something that obliges us to pull out of Iraq within a year. We are not going to know for certain what we will be doing until this new Status of Forces Agreement is reached. Whatever that agreement turns out to be, it will be what the next President will live with no matter who wins the election. What other choice will he have? None. Are you going to suggest that John McCain would stay in Iraq in defiance of an agreement we made with the Iraqi government? On what grounds? Do you think that Barack Obama would abandon Iraq despite such an agreement and despite the advice of the officers on the ground? If he did, he would be kissing his reelection chances goodbye.
Because Senators Obama and McCain are standing side by side on the far side of the canyon from me, Bubba.'
Nice imagery, however the distance required for that would put you somewhere in the Oort cloud. Again, you are not allowing yourself to examine this reasonably or you are wedded to some ideas that are truly not something I want anywhere near a government of the USA.
“Are we to expect the remaining Republicans to run the risk of opposing their own President whenever he decides to 'reach across the aisle'?”
Once again, he won’t be anywhere where there is an aisle. President is a different branch of government (executive) then the Senate (legislative). As commander and Chief he will not be writing laws. He will only have veto power. Additionally, he will have little or no incentive to reach anywhere, indeed, he will have scores to settle.
“A McCain Administration will do little more than preside over an American shaped by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.”
He can veto what comes to him. Obama will sign whatever the hell they send him. (I know, that is a selling point to you but some of us still want to avert disaster.)
“The only thing we will be doing by electing him is placing a Republican stamp of approval on things like Cap and Trade.”
Get off your rear and demand that congress stop their nonsense then. Organize and get involved. McCain might pay lip service to cap and trade, and yes, I believe that it is lip service but I cannot begin verify that to your satisfaction) but Obama is full blown Kyoto.
“And John McCain has sided with the Democrats when it hurt his own President the worst.”
Where? On the War? That is simply not true.
“Also, the probabilities we have in front of us suggest that he will be serving as President when the Senate will likely have a veto proof majority.”
Well, then they will get the blame when they over ride his veto.
“He has shown himself to be inclined to side with the Democrats and he will be in a very poor bargaining position”
He will have nothing to lose by vetoing their legislation.
“Scores to settle with whom? The remaining Republicans?”
I suspect his opinion of Harry Reid is even lower then yours.
“Every Democrat on Prager's list except JFK was an out and out leftist and JFK was only just slightly better.”
I disagree. (LBJ comes closest) However, none of them come close to Obama.(A selling point to you I recognize… StilI firmly believe the country cannot withstand it.)
“And John McCain is going to do this while working with a Democrat Congress?”
Working with? Executive and legislative. Separate but supposedly equal. They may have a veto proof majority, they may not. If they do not get a veto proof majority things can probably be saved. I predict this is the high-water mark for the democrats. If they can be stopped here they can be rolled back. It will be a close run thing but it just may work.
“They will, no doubt, try to dispose of our nuclear arms.”
I think you overestimate the purity of their objectives. Obama is talking about pitting a 'civilian national security force' that is 'just as strong' as the US military on the streets of the USA.
www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1414656.php
What will that do to your little “retake America” plan? What are “Bubba and Lucy Lou” going to do against a full on socialist police state? Ever see what a minigun can do?
“Everything they do or attempt to do will do what? Fail.”
You do not know that nor how long it will take for it to become obvious to the general public if it is true. There are so many who will not accept the truth regardless of what they are shown. (look who I am telling that to.)
“Right now most of them remain hidden and unrecognized where they can keep right on doing damage and teaching the teachers who teach our children.”
So your plan will reform the education system? I don’t think so. McCain has been 100% on the teachers union by the way.
“And electing a faux Republican is somehow rational answer?”
There is nothing Faux about him. He is the duly nominated Republican nominee and has been a Republican for 50 years. He has an 82% lifetime approval rating from The American Conservative Union. (The darling of the nutty right, Fred Thompson had an 86% but he went off to Hollywood to be Wilfred Brimley’s understudy)
But do go on to part 2.
“
John McCain is not the man we need at the helm.”
I disagree. Regardless, there is a choice between McCain and Obama. Obama is DEFINITELY not what we need at the helm.
“He will do more damage than Obama will because he craves the approval of his Democrat buddies and will do what they want on most domestic issues to gain their approval.”
Crystal ball and window in to his head again. He craves their approval… So he won’t be a good president because he is an insecure teenage girl. No. This is an unfair assessment of the man and again, you are not taking in to account that he will not have the incentives toward compromise that he did as a Senator.
“Al Qaeda cannot destroy this country, but a 'Republican' can.”
Al Qaeda would if they could and will attack again if they can, McCain will, obviously, do whatever is humanly possible to prevent the country from being destroyed.
“Barack Obama cannot destroy this country.”
Sure he can.
“The opposition to his idiocy will be too strong,”
He will be the duly elected president of the USA. Further he will have a sympathetic congress for at least 2 years, probably 4. Opposition to his idiocy? The opposition is currently weighed down by a bunch of spoiled brats who are completely willing to sit at home because the primaries didn’t go their way. The opposition is saddled with a bunch of lazy hypocrites who want their OWN version of a nanny-state with 100% lockstep agreement without lifting a finger. This opposition you speak of seethes and whines about “shamnisty” and “RINO’S” and vows to write in Ronald Reagan if they are not allowed to teach children that the earth was created in 6 days. Some of this “opposition” quite frankly makes me sick by their selfishness, stupidity and immaturity.
THERE IS A WAR ON. AMERICANS ARE BEING KILLED. And this “opposition” whines that they didn’t get exactly who they wanted to get during the primary. This “opposition” is turning out to be just the obverse of the same coin as the people who they supposedly oppose. That is not entirely directed at you by the way. But the tactics that you want to employ have absolutely no daylight between them and the tactics that Harry Reid has used. Again, American Fathers, Mothers, Daughters and Sons have been killed fighting these wars that you seem OK with capitulation on so you can get your way. You really ought to be ashamed of that.
“Senator McCain believes that all lives are a struggle against selfishness”
Put down the Ayn Rand. She alienated everyone too.
“This makes him think that many if not most Democrat positions are morally superior to those of his own party.”
No it does not at all. You sell the Republicans short.
“A veto he can sustain? Not likely.”
Hopefully, but if not the congress will own it and you will be able to lay blame there.
“True, and then there is also the fact that Senator McCain voted AGAINST the current tax structure”
The one that has left a 100 trillion debt? He is also against the current spending structure, ‘wanna defend that as well?
“He doesn't really like the Bush Tax cuts and would get rid of them if he thought he could”
He has promised to maintain them. Obama will be taking 80% of the top 2 tax brackets.
“He's going to give in to them, isn't he?”
Ask it again and again. I can only go by what he has said he is going to do.
“No, what they should do is to get up off their asses and throw John McCain out at the convention.”
Have at it. So much for democracy.
“It is John McCain who is working to establish a Nanny State with a 'conservative' façade”
No he is not.
“it is you who are proposing to assist him in perpetrating that fraud.”
Said the obama voter.
“Not really. I am going by historical precedent,”
No. You are only seeing half the picture.
“What both John McCain and I both believe is that this is going to take way more than a decade and he has no chance of remaining in the White House that long.”
Again, counterinsurgencies take about 8-12 years to suppress. We are doing well on this one at the moment and do not think it would outlast the first term of the next president. The reason we have been in Germany and Japan for 60 years is not to suppress an insurgency but to assert our influence over the geographic area and contain rivals. Those are separate things from suppressing an insurgency.
“I do understand that, Bubba.”
No. You do not. Not until you have seen a few dozen shoes with feet still in them would you begin to understand what is at steak. You have lived a fat, happy life down there and created your own little universe where you are always correct. Well you don’t know squat about this little detail mister. I have seen some pretty horrible things in my life but nothing compares to seeing aircraft full of human beings flown in to buildings full of human beings. It is more then an abstraction to some of us you idiot. It is a REAL thing that HAS happened and COULD happen again. YOU are emboldening the people who did that and inviting more of the same. It is selfish and cowardly.
“. Like I said, the risk we face now is exactly the same risk we faced when we were up against the Soviet Union.”
No. Mutual assured destruction works against people who do not see death as martyrdom. The people we are fighting now routinely blow themselves to hell to demonstrate that little fact.
“And, as I pointed out, the future course of our actions in Iraq will be entirely dependent upon the agreement President Bush brings home from Baghdad.”
No they wont. They will be entirely dependent on who the next commander and chief is. Bush isn’t bringing home a treaty. Congress has to ratify a treaty. Nothing short off that will be binding.
“Whatever that agreement turns out to be, it will be what the next President will live with no matter who wins the election.”
Wrong. Not a treaty. Congress ratifies treaties.
“Are you going to suggest that John McCain would stay in Iraq in defiance of an agreement we made with the Iraqi government?”
If it was becoming a basket case, What I am suggesting is that Obama will pull out regardless of whatever piece of paper Bush gets or, as it is looking, wont get.
“Do you think that Barack Obama would abandon Iraq despite such an agreement and despite the advice of the officers on the ground?”
Yes.
“If he did, he would be kissing his reelection chances goodbye.”
What if it worked? He will have 'gotten us out of a war that the republicans lied to get us in to.' The Democrats will have Washington until there is nothing left.
the could have impeached this idiot president .
but noooooooo now it's to late and the country is falling apart..oh well .
lay off sp4 . he is a true bushy lover and would die for him.
Like bush, sp4 wouldn't die for anything or anybody.
page: 1
Finally,Jul 2nd, 2008 - 18:14:57
GWB is behaving a bit more like a man voted ''Most likely to sack seed'' rather than the idiot he's been portraying for the last eight years.
Report this comment