If McCain Dies Pre-Election?

Mitt should get back in. He never should have quit.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Mitt should get back in. He never should have quit.[/quote]

LMAO!

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Mitt should get back in. He never should have quit.

LMAO![/quote]

Most electable candidate on the right.

And the fact that he was a Mormom doesn’t change it. He was the strongest player on a weak lineup, by far.

Obama is a basically a retarded monkey who spouts socialist nonsense. He needs someone like Romney to stand him down and shut him up in a debate. Romney would do it. Paul couldn’t. McCain won’t. Ergo, we’re screwed.

The right would forget his religion and vote for the guy over ridiculous Obama. Give me a break. We could have had this shit.

Hopefully, Mitt will hop on McCain’s ticket in time to save the election

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2024295/posts

A Republican loss is all but guaranteed at this point. Mitt would be the nail in the coffin.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Mitt should get back in. He never should have quit.

LMAO!

Most electable candidate on the right.

And the fact that he was a Mormom doesn’t change it. He was the strongest player on a weak lineup, by far.

Obama is a basically a retarded monkey who spouts socialist nonsense. He needs someone like Romney to stand him down and shut him up in a debate. Romney would do it. Paul couldn’t. McCain won’t. Ergo, we’re screwed.

The right would forget his religion and vote for the guy over ridiculous Obama. Give me a break. We could have had this shit.[/quote]

Jesus man, you are low class. And you are wrong, Obama’s debate skills are completely unmatched in both parties as far as I can tell. The only one who comes close is Ron P, and he can’t keep his cool.

Romey’s biggest asset is his haircut. I’m sorry but the man’s a caricature. The debate when he said he’d have to “check with his lawyers” before going to war without congress’ approval proved he hasn’t got a clue.

I didn’t hear the last democratic debates, but Clinton is no slouch. Her rhetoric just isn’t what people want to hear right now. She’s almost as bellicose as McCain and people are having a knee-jerk reaction to this administration’s foreign policy. Obama’s more peaceful rhetoric is one of the reasons I like him.

Re. him being a socialist… Obama will have no choice but to raise taxes after this administration and with the economy in the state it’s in the poor can’t afford the hit. So the upper middle class and rich are getting screwed no matter who gets elected.

  1. There are no ‘legalities’ involved in invading a sovereign nation without congress’ approval because it’s illegal. The man’s a hack. Nice haircut though…

  2. It’s Bush and the Republicans fault our taxes are going up, it’s the result of the war debt.

  3. Shrinking the government is not going to happen under any president, even Ron Paul. Despite what they say, politicians aren’t in the business of shrinking government. They either cut funding for social programs and spend money on war etc… or the inverse.

I’m sorry but his response, in any context, is idiotic. RP was exactly right.

Yes eliminating DOE would be great. Obama will do the next best thing and abolish NCLB. I don’t want higher taxes, but cutting social programs to fund this war would be unethical.

Again, I will be handing over more money no matter what, and that is Bush’s legacy. After Clinton I have no reason to believe that a Dem will take anywhere near as much of my money as a Republican.

Oh and I don’t consider the DOE a social program, but I do see Obama shrinking the DOE because NOBODY is pleased with what they have done. After all they haven’t done anything lately, unless you’re counting it’s service in the name of Republican PR purposes. Are you seeing the irony here?

Edit: I am referring to no child left behind, BTW.

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Oh and I don’t consider the DOE a social program, but I do see Obama shrinking the DOE because NOBODY is pleased with what they have done. After all they haven’t done anything lately, unless you’re counting it’s service in the name of Republican PR purposes. Are you seeing the irony here?[/quote]

The problem with NCLB is Bush let guys like Kennedy have massive input.

The problem with NCLB is NCLB. Kennedy is misguided though.

Edit: Oddly enough, I don’t know a single person that supports NCLB. Now they are gravitating towards a performance based pay scale for teachers which will prove to be an even greater disaster than NCLB. Call your congressmen!

If this is allowed, inner-city schools will get worse as good teachers are drawn to schools with children who are brought up with an expectation to achieve high grades.

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
The problem with NCLB is NCLB. Kennedy is misguided though.

Edit: Oddly enough, I don’t know a single person that supports NCLB. Now they are gravitating towards a performance based pay scale for teacher which will prove to be an even greater disaster than NCLB. Call your congressmen!

If this is allowed, inner-city schools will get worse as good teachers are drawn to schools with children who are brought up with an expectation to achieve high grades.[/quote]

A decent school voucher program with enough decent oversight to make sure insane schools don’t get public money will cure a lot of ills in education right now.

The problem in inner city schools is expectation. Kids and parents with low expectations will not succeed in any system We should not tailor the system for them.

[quote]jimbo99 wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Paul won’t get more than 5% of the vote regardless. The Republicans went out of their way to ignore him, and he didn’t help out much by making himself out to be the “Anti-War Republican”. Republicans still support the war for the most part. Apparently they also support the whole big-government neocon platform to a tee. I’d say that Ron Paul doesn’t qualify as a Republican any more. And neither do I. The party has convinced itself that it doesn’t need the votes of real conservatives any longer, and I for one hope they don’t get them.

Actually Ron Paul has every right to call himself a Republican. The traditional republican party promoted smaller federal government and liberty. The current Republican party has moved away from its traditional roots and this new party’s supporters have no right to be called Republican.[/quote]

Exactly! Nowadays so called Republicans are a fraud!

Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Democrats steal your labor and your dignity singing the praises of equality while decrying the unfairness of “social injustice”; Republicans steal your labor and your children for “national security” holding their hands over their hearts crying “patriotic” verse.

The question is not about Democrat verses Republican. It is about statism verses nonstatism; aggression verses nonaggression; individualism verses collectivism.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The question is not about Democrat verses Republican. It is about statism verses nonstatism; …[/quote]

I wasn’t aware that was on the ballot.