GOP Insiders Worry About McCain's Chances

[MonsterMark]

It's too soon to tell. Alot of things can sway this - such as VP choices and Debates.

Obama is unelectable as I proffered more than 3 months ago.

You haven't seen what I have seen as far as what is going to hit Obama. The Swift Boat thing was childs play.

The fact that he is not 20 points ahead of McCain right now should tell you this contest is over.

 

[MonsterMark]

You're accusing me of being fiscally liberal in fact which I'm not.

I've accused you of being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Another guy with the name of Barry (used to be on this board...do a search) comes to mind.

 

[shagdrum]

And if I'm going to compare it to another election, I wouldn't looked at the leftist history of Canada, I'd just go back a few decades in American history.

Nixon v. McGovern. 1972.
Only McCain is more popular than Nixon. And McGovern was more reasonable than Obama.... and that's not a statement to take lightly.

McCain always struck me as a Nixon. Each has a big personal flaw (Nixon=paranoia, McCain=temper). Both were also rather moderate on domestic policy, but strong on foreign policy.

I can't say much about the whole Obama=McGovern thing because I am not very familiar with McGovern because he was a losing presidential candidate, not a president (I was born in 1980). Obama strikes me as having shades of Carter.

 

[fossten]

Republicans are the "selfish" ones, espousing rugged individualism and an ironic darwinian survival of the fittest attitude.

The Democrats have more intellectually interesting and colorful people whom many of the simple folk hold in contempt.

This is utterly, disgustingly flabbergasting. You cannot be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.

You do not understand the concept that those who produce because of the incentive of personal gain actually help the country by producing ancillary jobs and wealth for those around them. Every single major technological gain in the history of this country has come from the desire to make a buck.

You are accusing people who earn a living by the sweat of their brow of being selfish because they want to keep more of their own money, while at the same time you support liberal Democrats who, under the guise of government, seek to confiscate from those producers that which they themselves did not earn, for the purpose of redistribution to those who refuse to provide for themselves? And then they have the nerve to attack and smear producers as evil, while at the same time demanding that they continue to produce so that these looters can continue their thieving behavior.

How dare you. You've got a lot of nerve. Either that or you're a fool who's been suckered. You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, or anybody else for that matter, and for you to throw out accusations like that shows what a simpleton you really are. Since I'm not an advocate of violence, I will tell you to go straight to hell.

I encourage you to read Atlas Shrugged. You really need to educate yourself. This is not about greed, or guilt, or about feeling like you care. This is about legalized theft. Rugged individualism built this country, and redistribution of wealth is destroying it. Get a clue.

 

[shagdrum]

The Democrats have more intellectually interesting and colorful people whom many of the simple folk hold in contempt.

The Democrats have people who are clever and give the appearance of brilliance, but are often fools who find clever ways to justify their own agenda. The "intellectuals" on the left are usually stronger on style then substance. Most of their "brilliance" is based in how they present their case, not the substance of it. That is why most liberal intellectuals are exceedingly intellectually arrogant, have excessively huge egos and talk down to others. Their arguments are often times fallacious, disingenuous or just plain dishonest. They think they know better then the average joe what is best for him. That type of thinking got us socialism, Nazism, fascism, the banning of cigarettes, prohibition, the ethanol crisis, the global warming sham, the welfare state (and the war on poverty failure) and the modern progressive movement, among other things.

The difference is that conservative intellectuals are much more humble then their liberal counterparts, and don't presume to know what is right for everyone. This thinking is the basis for a very limited government that stays out of your way, consistent with what the founding fathers created.

I would put up Thomas Sowell, David Limbaugh, Dinesh D'Souza, William F. Buckley, Antonin Scalia and a number of other conservatives against any liberal "intellectual".

The reason many of us "simple folk" hold liberal intellectuals in contempt is because of their excessive arrogance and ego that far exceeds their intellectual abilities and leads to foolishness that they force on us. Unless you are all knowing (like God) you are no where near even capable of having the level of knowledge neccessary to decide what is best for most people (and the country as a whole) at a national level (or even a state level).

 

[04SCTLS]

This is utterly, disgustingly flabbergasting. You cannot be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.

You do not understand the concept that those who produce because of the incentive of personal gain actually help the country by producing ancillary jobs and wealth for those around them. Every single major technological gain in the history of this country has come from the desire to make a buck.

You are accusing people who earn a living by the sweat of their brow of being selfish because they want to keep more of their own money, while at the same time you support liberal Democrats who, under the guise of government, seek to confiscate from those producers that which they themselves did not earn, for the purpose of redistribution to those who refuse to provide for themselves? And then they have the nerve to attack and smear producers as evil, while at the same time demanding that they continue to produce so that these looters can continue their thieving behavior.

How dare you. You've got a lot of nerve. Either that or you're a fool who's been suckered. You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, or anybody else for that matter, and for you to throw out accusations like that shows what a simpleton you really are. Since I'm not an advocate of violence, I will tell you to go straight to hell.

I encourage you to read Atlas Shrugged. You really need to educate yourself. This is not about greed, or guilt, or about feeling like you care. This is about legalized theft. Rugged individualism built this country, and redistribution of wealth is destroying it. Get a clue.

I'm not attacking you personally here fossten , just responding to MonsterMark's jab .
Ironically I am one of those producers who came here and created goods and jobs.
Selfish is not nessesarily a perjorative term and it is only my opinion here which seems to have offended you which was not my intent.

 

[fossten]

I'm not attacking you personally here fossten , just responding to MonsterMark's jab .
Ironically I am one of those producers who came here and created goods and jobs.
Selfish is not nessesarily a perjorative term and it is only my opinion here which seems to have offended you which was not my intent.

Bullcrap. You meant it as a pejorative, plain and simple. "Ironically Darwinian?" Please. How could that not be pejorative? And now you're backpedaling. Do yourself a favor and read the book I recommended. Get yourself an attitude adjustment. You've clearly been brainwashed into thinking that producers should feel guilty about taking a profit. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Jayce 1971]

I think that they should be worried.

Looking back at the accomplishments of Bush Sr, and then Bush Jr., it makes me wonder why he was ever nominated. (must have had something to do with Al Gore Rhthyms or something). I find myself unable to support McCain (the obvious candidate for the Republican party...more of the same). I voted for Paul in the primaries, but I can't throw my vote away on the right candidate again. I guess I'm gonna have to supoort Obama. Like it or not, it's a one party ticket anyway, and it's getting too tough to discern the "lesser of two evils." I'd rather see anyone get the nod than McCain...(except Billary, that is).

 

[04SCTLS]

Bullcrap. You meant it as a pejorative, plain and simple. "Ironically Darwinian?" Please. How could that not be pejorative? And now you're backpedaling. Do yourself a favor and read the book I recommended. Get yourself an attitude adjustment. You've clearly been brainwashed into thinking that producers should feel guilty about taking a profit. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I refered to the "simple people" I wasn't veiledly attacking you or Shagdrum.
You guys are certainly not simple people but well read and nuanced intellectuals.
One could say that Obama is playing to simple people defined as those who look at him shallowly and emotionally and not substinatively.
Both parties play to people of different levels of sophistication from plain folks (the "bubba" vote) to those of greater complexity.

 

[MonsterMark]

I'd rather see anyone get the nod than McCain.

Good luck with that.

NObama '08!

 

[fossten]

When I refered to the "simple people" I wasn't veiledly attacking you or Shagdrum.
You guys are certainly not simple people but well read and nuanced intellectuals.
One could say that Obama is playing to simple people defined as those who look at him shallowly and emotionally and not substinatively.
Both parties play to people of different levels of sophistication from plain folks (the "bubba" vote) to those of greater complexity.

Forget the parties for a second. You were attacking a conservative principle, rugged individualism.

Again, I urge you to read the book I recommended. It will open your eyes.

 

[shagdrum]

When I refered to the "simple people" I wasn't veiledly attacking you or Shagdrum.
You guys are certainly not simple people but well read and nuanced intellectuals.

I wasn't takin it as an attack. When I think intellectual, I think elitist who arrogantly assumes he is smarter then everyone else, and often times looks to prove it; needs to keep their ego propped up. Usually more style then substance. You see that a lot on the left; arguments based mostly on style that are as much on self-aggrandizement as proving their point.

My intelligence (or lack thereof) is obvious for all to see in reading what I type or talking to me, and doesn't need to be proven. Most reasonable people have that attitude, IMO. What is important is the debate, not boosting ones ego.

One could say that Obama is playing to simple people defined as those who look at him shallowly and emotionally and not substantively.
Both parties play to people of different levels of sophistication from plain folks (the "bubba" vote) to those of greater complexity.

Oh, there is no doubt that Obama is playing to emotional and shallow people (young people). That is his base. I personally don't know anyone over the age of 40 who would even consider voting for Obama.

It is also true that liberalism tends to appeal to idealism, hence the young vote for Obama. Statistically, the extremely poor and uneducated and the extremely wealthy tend to vote democrat. The poor tend to be very idealistic and the extremely wealthy are insulated from reality by their money, so they can afford to be idealistic too.