This was on the news a couple weeks ago I believe. McCain said at a rally that he never considered himself a maverick. Which is odd considering that he ran in 2008 on the entire premise that he is (or was) in fact, a maverick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmLVtU6fTPs I couldn't help being completely astonished when he uttered the infamous: "I've never considered myself a maverick." Maybe the age is starting to catch up and his brains are slowly clogging up with cholesterol. Did he think no one would notice? I thought that he was a maverick because of his ability to reach across the aisle and stick to his guns no matter what. Are we supposed to assume that it's not the case anymore? I'm actually disappointed. If I lived in the states I would have voted for him. He came across as a sensible conservative, not all caught up in rhetoric.
McCain is a Maverick and I was against him in the primaries. His is not far off from others like ...damn it the name escapes me. He is a narcissist that is driven and controlled by the attention he gets from stupid so called "bi-partisan" ideas like McCain-Feingold. At stupid idea that sold the Republican party down the river for some short lived adulation by the MSM.
McCain was too close-to-center to be a serious contender for any political office. What the Republican party needs right now is a young Ronald Reagan. Plain and simple.
I read somewhere that the Founding Fathers despised political parties. It said that the Founding Fathers' abhorrence of political parties was in response to the partisan politics that characterized England's House Of Commons. The Commons was supposed to serve as a check on the power of the monarch, but successive kings had been able to use their vast wealth, power, and control of public offices to create a party of royalists. Thus, it had been reduced to members fighting among themselves instead of working together to advance the common good. This was what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid in the United States: warring factions that would pursue selfish interests at the expense of the nation. In his farewell address as president, George Washington referred to political parties as "the worst enemy" of democratic governments, "potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will ...subvert the power of the people." Alexander Hamilton equated political parties with "ambition, avarice, and personal animosity." And Thomas Jefferson could hardly agree more: "If I could go to Heaven but with a party," he wrote, "I would not got there at all." So I ask, what is wrong with being moderate and serving the will of the people rather than being a slave to petty political disputes?
There is a natural tendency to assume the left and right are at polar opposites. This is false the far right is only slightly right of center. It ls the left that is on the fringe the right on the other hand is moderate. I call the left the "split the baby party for this reason they commonly choose to harm the country for their own gain. Take Obama's response to the BP oil spill for instance. He dragged his feet on purpos.
How can far right be slightly right of center? Didn't you say it was far? There are extremes to everything. Believing that only the left is capable of extremism is pure naivety. Can you prove that anyone dragged their feet on purpose? By the way, the whole "split the baby" reference you keep making, is actually taken from the bible. To this day I still scratch my head as to how exactly that fits in politics. Let me refresh the story: King Solomon was a wise king that ruled in the Kingdom of Judah after king David died. One day, two women came before Solomon to resolve a quarrel about which was the true mother of a baby. One mother had her baby die in the night after rolling over it in her sleep and crushing it; each claims the surviving child as her own. When Solomon suggests dividing the living child in two with a sword (split the baby), the true mother is revealed to him because she is willing to give up her child to the lying woman, as heartbreaking a decision as it is. Solomon then declares the woman who shows compassion to be the true mother, and gives the baby back to her. This story has no relevance whatsoever to politics. If anything, the decision of cutting the baby in half was Solomon's, who is considered to be the wisest king to ever live. Hardly an insult to be called such. It's just another right-wing media slang term that somehow was picked up by the gullible far-right. It means nothing, it only sounds bad because cutting babies is bad. It's like my favorite one: "Blame America first crowd", man this one was good. Conservatives don't use that one anymore though, why you ask? Simply because conservatives are now the ones blaming the president for everything. The insult was meant to silence Bush's dissenters, you know, saying that criticizing the president wasn't patriotic and everything. But now, ironically, conservatives are the "Blame America first crowd". My proof? You blamed the BP oil spill on Obama. Now that, my friend, is irony.
I know where the reference comes from and it fits perfectly. If the baby were to be the constituents, state, or country. The left would be the lying illegitimate mother and the right would be the true mother. The left will not slow down, not hesitate one bit at the idea under cover of a left wing media to destroy the country for their gain. Take the economy in 2006 when they Democrats took over they destroyed it. Now we have a Democrat recession that they have capitalized on and used the media to call it a Bush recession.
The right is not slightly off center. If that were the case they wouldn't be called "The Right". The just as much fanatics. Think about how Bush had conversations with "God" and how he bowed to the religious right. He argued against queers getting married. who the fuck does that anymore except fanatics?
Why should queers get married. Marriage is a religious act. They are perfectly free to have a "Partner" so whats the deal? Honestly. Its like me saying I have a right to be a cardinal for the Catholic Church.
Because fags should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. Plus.... it would be SOOOOO funny watching the divorces. You know how the mom always gets custody of the kids? Imagine two men trying to convinve a judge they are the woman in the marriage. would they both show up in dresses? Both claim to be the bottom? Hilarious.
I saw a documentary about the origin of hatred towards gays from a biblical perspective and one of the participants had a pretty wise thought. It went something like: "Why do people always ask me which is the woman and which is the man? Don't they know that the reason we are gay, is that we find women gross?" I laughed when I heard that. It was a pretty good comeback. Personally I couldn't care less about gays. I'm not religious and I don't have any reason to wish ill upon them. Whatever floats their boats.
