Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: I’m beginning to think McCain will be less dangerous to my freedom than Obama
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 8, 2008
Author: Me
Post Date: 2008-05-08 07:57:19 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 3732
Comments: 195

As a realist I know either McCain or Obama will be the next president, and although I won’t be voting, I’m coming to the conclusion that McCain will be less of a train wreck to my personal freedom than Obama.

Obama, like McCain, offers endless war, so their foreign policy is a draw. In fact I give points to McCain for his honest 100 year comment. Obama’s nutty obsession to hunt down al Qaeda, a creation of the US government, was all I needed to know about his foreign policy. His speech to AIPAC was the cap stone.

On the domestic front, both are awful, but Obama is much worse on guns. His dalliance with Black Theology is equally bad news. One look at the over animated Jeremiah Wright should be enough to convince white America that an influence like him will bring us additional layers of affirmative action, political correctness and slavery reparations. And did I mention Michelle Obama? She reeks of nasty and racism. The only plus Obama would bring is a potential white backlash, which is long over due.

There's lots more, but this is a starting point.

Let the discussion begin.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)

I agree. I think I'll vote for McCain cuz at least he'll appoint conservative justices to the SC.

Tagline space for rent.

Critter  posted on  2008-05-08   8:03:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Critter (#1)

I think I'll vote for McCain cuz at least he'll appoint conservative justices to the SC.

LOL !!

At least it wou't be Cornel West :)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:05:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Critter (#1)

I agree. I think I'll vote for McCain cuz at least he'll appoint conservative justices to the SC.

Tagline space for rent.

You may use my tagline until someone rents yours. There is no charge.

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

wbales  posted on  2008-05-08   8:07:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: wbales (#3)

Thanks man!

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Critter  posted on  2008-05-08   8:10:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Jethro Tull (#2)

How did you like my best freeper imitation?

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Critter  posted on  2008-05-08   8:10:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Critter, Jethro Tull, Christine (#1) (Edited)

I agree. I think I'll vote for McCain cuz at least he'll appoint conservative justices to the SC.

Hmmm, see?

Bushbotism re-raises its ugly head and NO ONE should ever JOKE about it. Using Bushbotism in 'HUMOR' is like writing a Hitler family sitcom.

(Critter, this is addressed to Christine, you and JT are only cc'd)

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   8:11:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: wbales, Jethro Tull (#3)

I didn't use < s > < /s > tags cuz I wanted to fool the Ophiles into thinking I am as gullible as they are.

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Critter  posted on  2008-05-08   8:12:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Jethro Tull, Christine, wbales (#6) (Edited)

See? It worked. hehehe

(see post 7)

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Critter  posted on  2008-05-08   8:13:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Jethro Tull (#0)

On the domestic front, both are awful, but Obama is much worse

When has McCain called for restoring habeas corpus?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-08   8:13:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: aristeides (#9)

When has McCain called for restoring habeas corpus?

I don't believe Obama will restore jack. He's a politician, therefore he lies. It's what they do.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:15:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#6) (Edited)

Nice edit job. It used to say:

Hmmm, see?

Bushbotism re-raises its ugly head.

(Critter, this is addressed to Christine, you and JT are only cc'd)

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Critter  posted on  2008-05-08   8:16:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Jethro Tull, a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)

No surprise that somebody who uses the Bushite "war on terror" language would take this position.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-08   8:16:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Critter (#7)

Oh, sure.

I bet that, if you find the courage to submit yourself to a thorough checkup, Bushbotulism will be detected.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   8:16:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Critter (#5)

How did you like my best freeper imitation?

Hilarious!

I remember them ignoring the fact that the current Court has 7 Rs on it and they're still driving us to the Left.

Like the Os here, reality and fact doesn't get in the way of emotion.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:18:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Jethro Tull (#14)

Like the Os here, reality and fact doesn't get in the way of emotion.

or intention.

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Critter  posted on  2008-05-08   8:23:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Jethro Tull (#14)

How did you like my best freeper imitation?

Hilarious!

Didn't you really mean to write... Hillaryous? Sorry... she's on her way out for the moment. Something is telling me that she's going to dedicate the rest of her life to grooming Chelsea - the 30 year-old teenager - for political life. How would a Chelsea C vs. Barbie Bush (with Jena as the VP) for what's left of the US prez in... 2020?

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   8:23:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: aristeides (#12)

Obama loves the war on terror. He just wants to move it to a different battlefield.

Obama: War on terror being fought 'on the wrong battlefield"

OELWEIN (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., argued Saturday that the U.S. is fighting on the wrong battlefield and that President Bush's failed policies had left the nation facing a greater threat from terrorism.

Obama said Bush has talked tough on terrorism but made choices that let Osama bin Laden and his top deputies remain free. Obama said the military should begin reducing the number of troops in Iraq and turn its attention to al-Qaida strongholds.

"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," said Obama. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

Obama continued to talk tough on terrorism later in the day, as he packed about 300 people into a school gymnasium in Manchester, even with a popular county fair running just across the street.

"When I am president of the United States I will make this pledge: Nobody will work harder to go after those terrorists who will do the American people harm," Obama said. "But that requires a commander in chief who understands our troops need to be on the right battlefield, not the wrong battlefield."

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:24:40 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Arator (#16)

Didn't you really mean to write... Hillaryous? Sorry... she's on her way out for the moment. Something is telling me that she's going to dedicate the rest of her life to grooming Chelsea - the 30 year-old teenager - for political life. How would a Chelsea C vs. Barbie Bush (with Jena as the VP) for what's left of the US prez in... 2020?

Yes, this was my argument to Arator and those who think Obama will kill of the Clintons.

Look for this Bush ---->

and Chelsea to sometime soon dedicate their lives to "public service."

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:30:06 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Jethro Tull (#17)

that requires a commander in chief who understands our troops need to be on the right battlefield, not the wrong battlefield."

And? Are you saying that our troops should be sent to the wrong battlefield and Obama, if elected, would upset that brilliant Bush strategy?

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   8:31:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Jethro Tull (#17)

Obama, Bush and the rest of the war party should extend thier "do unto them before they do unto you" attack philosophy down to the American street level.

Therefore, say a street gang or, even, on the average school yard playground if someone percieves or thinks that someone else is out to "get" them be it based on real or imagined fears (or based on outright lies and fabrications), the first person should not hesitate to do great bodily harm to the second.

It's the new American way to conflict resolution--the War Party way.

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

wbales  posted on  2008-05-08   8:33:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#19)

Our troops should be brought home and sent to our Southern border.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:33:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Jethro Tull (#0)

There's lots more, but this is a starting point.

It's not a starting point for me. This thread is beyond disgusting.

angle  posted on  2008-05-08   8:33:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: wbales (#20)

It's the new American way to conflict resolution--the War Party way.

I like this.

We can start by preempting the Crips, Bloods and MS-13. Then, we can move on to the Illegal Invaders and welfare mooches.

It's all about MY wallet and I can't AFFORD more SOCIALISM.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:36:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: angle (#22)

Sorry....

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:36:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Jethro Tull (#24)

Tell me what's your point. This is entertainment for you? Are you then a McCain supporter? Why post a thread of this nature? Is this productive? Talk about driving the wedge in deeper...this furthers a rift that will never be healed.

Just for my edification without rhetoric or bluster please tell me, what's your intent?

angle  posted on  2008-05-08   8:41:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: angle (#25)

My intent is to use my 1st Amendment right to express my thoughts. Nothing more.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:46:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Jethro Tull (#26)

But, admit it, you ARE upset to see Hillary defeated by a darkie. Did you know that she's wearing blue contacts, to make her eyes look blue?

It's almost as bad as Loudobbs bleaching the remains of his hairs. No wonder Loudobbs turned into a Hillarist.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   8:48:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Jethro Tull (#26)

I'm not disputing your rights. I'm questioning your intentions. So then, you are affirming your support for McCain?

angle  posted on  2008-05-08   8:48:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#27)

No. If he weren't a a socialist I'd be less troubled. If he were a libertarian, who put forward a RP-like platform, I'd support him.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:50:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: angle (#28)

Support? I'm not voting. What I said is that the selection is out of my hands and IMO, McCain will be less destructive to my personal freedom than Obama would be.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   8:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Jethro Tull (#30) (Edited)

Now, you're again circling around the Ping's dilemma of personal comfort vs. the price others may be paying for it.

Remember Mad Albright's (allegedly the daughter of Hollowcast survivors or at least related to some), completely untroubled by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids, stating that it was 'worth it'? Then, the Bots' bragging that the benefits of sending 150,000 Americans to kill 1,000,000 Iraqis and have 4,000 of them die in the process and maybe 50,000 crippled was that there were no significant terroristic disturbances on the homeland? That and the one trillion borrowed from commies and Arabs were found to be a worthy 'sacrifice'?

So, McCain is likely to continue the good works of Clinton/Reno/Clark/Mad Albbright/Olmert/Bush/Netanyahu. Does this trouble you at all? Or maybe it troubles you but it troubless you less?

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   9:00:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Jethro Tull (#0) (Edited)

I’m coming to the conclusion that McCain will be less of a train wreck to my personal freedom than Obama.

So, you're not just a purist non-voter? You're actually an active promoter of rapacious corporate criminality, freedom-extinguishing police-state thuggery and mass murder for fun and profit?

JT, you've gone over the bend, my friend. Have you had too many years of beating darkies down for the man in NYC to overcome your apparent auto-gag- reflex towards the prospect of a black president? I can't figure out any other reason why you could possibly support the continuation of the current criminal/fascist regime.

As for your "analysis", it's fantastical.

1) Obama has promised to get our troops out of Iraq within his first 16 months in office. This sets him apart from the McCain/Hillary Bush/Clinton duopoly. He has taken heat from the warmongering media over this, but he has not backed away. Score 1 for Obama.

2) Under Obama, the war is less likely to expand. Unlike the McCain/Hillary Bush/Clinton duopoly, Obama has emphasized talking with rather than obliterating Iran. Score 1 for Obama (and humanity).

3) Obama has decried the police state fascism of the McCain/Hillary Bush/Clinton duopoly. Under Obama, Gitmo (and the black site torture centers) are more likely to be closed, and fundamental rights restored. Score 1 for Obama.

These three reasons alone are enough to make Obama far superior to the fascist freakshow that is the McCain/Hillary Bush/Clinton duopoly. But you want more of the same? I guess fascist tyranny is OK for you just so long as the darkies are kept down (along with everyone else) in the process.

Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.

Arator  posted on  2008-05-08   9:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Arator, Jethro Tull, peppa, cynicom, christine (#32)

...you're not just a purist non-voter?

You're actually an active promoter of rapacious corporate criminality, freedom-extinguishing police-state thuggery, and mass murder for fun and profit?

Looks that way.

angle  posted on  2008-05-08   9:08:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: angle (#33) (Edited)

I think he only wants to have an interesting debate on the merits of the 'lesser evil' theory.

1 - Some say that 'the three' are 'equally evil' and don't bother to go any further.
2 - Some would support one (usually Obama) because he is 'the lesser evil'.
3 - Others - and Ron Paul and me are some of the 'others' - state that Obama is marginally or significantly better than the other 2 and that he is not 'less evil' but 'better' than the other 2.

Those who belong to #2 should find this discussion interesting.

It is also worth noting that the #1 crowd refuse to admit even the existence of #3, claiming that #3 are in fact #2, which is consistent with their inability to see any difference between 'the three'.

To conclude: this is a good debate for the #2's but, I suspect, this is also an attempt to reinforce the false dogma that #2 = #3.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   9:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#34)

To conclude: this is a good debate for the #2's but, I suspect, this is also an attempt to reinforce the false dogma that #2 = #3.

Your analysis is spot on.

Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.

Arator  posted on  2008-05-08   9:20:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Arator (#32)

1) Obama has promised to get our troops out of Iraq within his first 16 months in office. This sets him apart from the McCain/Hillary Bush/Clinton duopoly. He has taken heat from the warmongering media over this, but he has not backed away. Score 1 for Obama.

2) Under Obama, the war is less likely to expand. Unlike the McCain/Hillary Bush/Clinton duopoly, Obama has emphasized talking with rather than obliterating Iran. Score 1 for Obama (and humanity).

3) Obama has decried the police state fascism of the McCain/Hillary Bush/Clinton duopoly. Under Obama, Gitmo (and the black site torture centers) are more likely to be closed, and fundamental rights restored. Score 1 for Obama.

Arator, personal attack aside, your points above are based on promises and hope offered by a politician. You know better, but his race alone is the reason, IMO, that you have looked past his 9-11 beliefs, his promise of an expanded WOT against al CIAda, and his love of large central government (read socialism)

Shelby Steele might assuage your guilt, but then again, some of us are lost to the System.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   9:22:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#34)

I think 3 does equal 2 inasmuch as the choice is made for us and this is merely a dog and pony show to distract the people from the reality that their "choice" is long over.

The promotion of McCain and the discussion is illuminating in that actions are revealing. JT's decision to post this thread reveals his mind. I was unaware of his true position up until now. Frankly, I feel somewhat taken aback and foolish.

angle  posted on  2008-05-08   9:26:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: angle (#37)

I would take it more like one of those 'Rush' challenges. I remember that, in the 20th century when I was tuning into his show from time to time, Rush would say something like: "I decided to become a Clinton supporter and join the Demo party" and then take listeners phone calls.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   9:28:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Arator, All (#31)

Sure McCain bothers me. But Obama is no different. As I've shown in this thread, all he offers is a new battlefield. How many men, and at what cost will Obama's foreign policy folly cost us?

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-08   9:29:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Jethro Tull (#39)

The guy said that he WOULD use force to advance OUR national interest. He also stated that he would hunt down and strike at those who were responsible for the killing of Americans on 9/11. Is this surprising?

As for Obama promising to 'invade' Pakistan... of course he never said that. He was discussing the kind of strikes are currently launched against targets in Paki and Somalia. I always suggested that the 'war on terror' would have been a lot more effective if 'we' sent out 1000 or 10,000 armed drones in the air rather than 200,000 GI's on the ground. Those things flying at 50,000 ft. would not recruit Al Queda new members like GI's patrolling the streets of Fallujah do.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-08   9:34:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 195) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest