John McCain, President of the United States

[Jenny_Jackson]

Yep, I'm afraid it's true. VP will be Karl Rove. Sec State will be little Donnie Rumsfeld. The

Sec of washroom attendants will be Condi Rice... It goes on...

Why? Ralph Nader jumped in this morning to ensure the Republicans win in November



I'm glad I'm leaving this bloody country before it becomes unsalvagable.

 

[3113]

Why? Ralph Nader jumped in this morning to ensure the Republicans win in November

I don't think Ralph has many supporters or credibility left to upset the apple cart this time, especially as I suspect most of his former supporters are firmly in the Obama camp.

I'm glad I'm leaving this bloody country before it becomes unsalvagable.

Where ya going?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Where ya going?

Going back to Belfast. At least people don't talk funny and drive on the wrong side of the road there

 

[jomar]

I miss Pat Paulsen.

 

[DesertPirate]

I miss Pat Paulsen.

That's what we need, an intelligent candidate!

 

[jomar]

That's what we need, an intelligent candidate!

Indeed.

 

[sr71plt]

Surely you don't think McCain would pick those sorts of people from the Bush administration for his cabinet. That's a (more than a) little far fetched. The sky isn't falling.

I do think Ralph is a little full of himself if he's declared for the job again. But then he always was a bit too full of himself.

 

[3113]

That's what we need, an intelligent candidate!

Pat Paulson For President 2008

Is it painfully sad or just ironic that everything he says is till spot on accurate forty years later?

 

[DesertPirate]

Pat Paulson For President 2008

Is it painfully sad or just ironic that everything he says is till spot on accurate forty years later?

Shows how many new ideas our delightfully moronic politicians have enacted doesn't it?

Put them all together and you have a larger "Thundering Herd of Dumbass"!

Actually Jenny it will be:
Romney VP
Colin Powell Sec Def
Does it really matter? Sec State


Jenny, you have been over here so long, you might forget which side of the road to drive on

 

[Darkniciad]

As if the Republican party isn't fractured and falling apart?

I'd say the sniping between Clinton and ( to a lesser extent ) Obama will have a lot more to do with any votes the eventual nominee loses in the general election than Nader.

In the end, I think we're looking at a pathetic turnout and a very close race. The nomination process on both sides is sucking the life out of both parties.

Frankly, I think that's a good thing. Both parties need some bloodletting. It's all a matter of whether the jackasses learn anything from it or not.

I also don't see a McCain Presidency much resembling the Bush Presidency. He's always been right leaning, not right wing. He certainly has better inroads to goad the perpetual do-nothing versions of Congress into some comprimises and get some things done.

Of course, McCain is and always has been my first choice, so I'm biased.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

There was an interesting comment on "Meet the Press" this morning. Doris Goodwin said something like, "The polls on both sides are out of hand. They keep calling the same people over and over. It's come to the point where people are changing their phone numbers or hiding the phones in drawers so they won't have to answer."

I think that is most likely an honest evaluation of the worth of polls in this election.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I go Pogo!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I also don't see a McCain Presidency much resembling the Bush Presidency. He's always been right leaning, not right wing. He certainly has better inroads to goad the perpetual do-nothing versions of Congress into some comprimises and get some things done.

Of course, McCain is and always has been my first choice, so I'm biased.

Dark,
The problem I have with McCain is his remark about keeping troups on the ground for "10 to 100 years." I have to ask, "What's in it for us?"

A country goes to war because they have something to gain - resources, land etc. If we had simploy allowed the limited civil war to take place in 2003, we would be out of Iraq and still have their oil. At this point there is noting left for us.

Now that we have trained and armed the Iraqis, it would no longer be a "limited" civil war, but an all out ethnic slaughter. No wonder the world hates the U.S.

 

[rgraham666]

The original reason for the war was to send a message to the world. "Don't fuck with us. We'll go where we want, when we want, to do what we want. We're too powerful to care abut the rules."

Unfortunately the message became, "There's no need to fuck with us. We're quite capable of doing ourselves in without any help from you."

 

[Darkniciad]

Dark,
The problem I have with McCain is his remark about keeping troups on the ground for "10 to 100 years." I have to ask, "What's in it for us?"

A country goes to war because they have something to gain - resources, land etc. If we had simploy allowed the limited civil war to take place in 2003, we would be out of Iraq and still have their oil. At this point there is noting left for us.

Now that we have trained and armed the Iraqis, it would no longer be a "limited" civil war, but an all out ethnic slaughter. No wonder the world hates the U.S.

I'm not going to get into the war. I don't have enough functioning brain cells to deal with that right now. I don't believe he's talking about huge deployments, however. He's talking about bases, akin to those we have scattered all over the world. Those soldiers will probably just have more active duty than most other bases.

Otherwise, McCain actually gives far more reasons to piss off the far right than anybody on the left ( as evidenced by the venom the talking heads on the radio spit at him, while left of center papers like the NYT endorse (( and then print unsupported crap about )) him )

The only thing that even gives him a chance to win the election is the apathy that the sniping between the Obama and Clinton camps is going to cause - most likely for some time to come, considering the near even split of delegates at the time being.

I should probably just shaddap, though. I'm just looking for distraction at the moment, really. I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not really looking to argue.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I doubt the Karl Rove part, and don't think McCain will win--not at all.

I think it'll be Obama, and I think it'll be done with an Edwards ticket.

 

[trysail]

Clintons' Tax Returns Would Cast a Wider Light Senate Disclosure Form
Reveals Only So Much; Lucrative Speeches
By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER and JAMES BANDLER
The Wall Street Journal
February 23, 2008; Page A5

 

[sr71plt]

Another thread bites the dust. Not only is this an egregious copyright violation, but it also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Another thread bites the dust. Not only is this an egregious copyright violation, but it also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

How is it an "egregious copyright violation"?

 

[Darkniciad]

How is it an "egregious copyright violation"?

Reprinting the article in its entirety without written permission. While also a copyright violation, the accepted method is short excerpts coupled with a link to the original source.

 

[sr71plt]

Not only is it a slap in the face to writers on a writing site, but it's explicitly against forum rule #3.

And before someone says news articles aren't copyrighted--they sure as hell are. Those AP articles you see rerun in newspapers and on legitimate Internet sites were paid for on subscription.

 

[trysail]

Not only is it a slap in the face to writers on a writing site, but it's explicitly against forum rule #3.

And before someone says news articles aren't copyrighted--they sure as hell are. Those AP articles you see rerun in newspapers and on legitimate Internet sites were paid for on subscription.

'tain't so. The article was splattered all over Yahoo under the banner "WSJ.com: Today's Free Features"- if you prefer a link, here 'tis:
http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...0oCvWcIHOLc0DOHEKg_20090222.html?mod=rss_free

 

[Darkniciad]

'tain't so. The article was splattered all over Yahoo under the banner "WSJ.com: Today's Free Features"- if you prefer a link, here 'tis:
http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...0oCvWcIHOLc0DOHEKg_20090222.html?mod=rss_free

"Free" is not equal to "Without Copyright"

Every story on Lit is free, and we still have copyright.

Just because it's on the free part of the site doesn't give you license to do with it as you please.

REMINDER: This service is for personal, non-commercial use only. For commercial reprints, Web links, e-mailings and other permission types, please visit our copyright and reprint center

Emphasis mine, from the same story link.

 

[trysail]

Source, author, credit and copyright were all provided. God knows, this is personal, non-commercial use.

 

[Darkniciad]

Source, author, credit and copyright were all provided. God knows, this is personal, non-commercial use.

Regardless of what you think, it is still a violation of copyright law, and in direct violation of the forum rules. When you reprint it in a public forum, it is no longer personal use.

Not to mention having exactly jack shit to do with the subject of the thread.