Veepstakes, McCain edition

[loco4dis]

Oh brother. Are we really going to stoop down to that level?

Look, don't use a provocative term like "Christian Jihad" over and over, and then act all shocked when people are provoked to respond. There is no Christian Jihad. There are just Christian people who have certain beliefs they'd like to see established as policy in the U.S. (criminalizing partial-birth abortion, for example, and yes, even establishing marriage as legally between a man and a woman). BUT — and it's a big BUT — they are seeking to do it through legitimate political and legal processes. They may succeed; they may fail. But it hasn't a thing to do with Jihad. Actually, I think they call it democracy.

 

[richiebaseball]

Is the Cone of Silence that thing they put on dogs after the have surgery so they won't lick their wounds?

Makes a great movable basketball goal too.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

And the louder you scream it, the more desperate it sounds. And personally, no, nothing that comes from you clears anything up. This is NOT an attack but you come across as a pompous, arrogant person who has placed himself upon a pedestal that you think no one else can attain. It must very lonely where you perceive the top to be. If just once you could come on here and act like a normal person and stop trying to impress someone with your verbose vocabulary people may not argue with you some much. But the fact remains, you impress no one...to the point that many completely overlook your posts.

Just sayin'... the "ignore" list is a fabulous feature here at the DIS... just sayin'.
I personally have a teeny tiny ignore list but it helps me thru some threads.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

Just sayin'... the "ignore" list is a fabulous feature here at the DIS... just sayin'.
I personally have a teeny tiny ignore list but it helps me thru some threads.

You know what, you are right. I need to walk away, I know I do, but I don't. One of my many flaws. People just reach a breaking point and tonight, that was mine. Thanks Zip for some prospective here.

 

[rentayenta]

Actually that is what scares me the most about an Obama presidency. It will be all about him. Just like Carter. Except he isn't as innocent or as honest.

And that's what I like the most about an Obama presidency.

 

["Got Disney"]

For this Dem/Hillary supporter if he did pick Lieberman than he would most likely have my vote. But I think it will be Romney

 

[rie'smom]

thank you, she is sexy but I sure wouldnt want her mad at me, yes? shes got that "ill kill you" look in her eyes

Pop, who's the superwoman?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Based on Sen McCain's ad asserting that Sen Clinton should be the Dem VP (why he is getting into that ), he has to pick Rev. Huckabee - #2 in delegates.
Sorry Bicker . . . but this might be interesting http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_10/hill_bookshelf/26871-1.html

 

[Planogirl]

Look, don't use a provocative term like "Christian Jihad" over and over, and then act all shocked when people are provoked to respond. There is no Christian Jihad. There are just Christian people who have certain beliefs they'd like to see established as policy in the U.S. (criminalizing partial-birth abortion, for example, and yes, even establishing marriage as legally between a man and a woman). BUT — and it's a big BUT — they are seeking to do it through legitimate political and legal processes. They may succeed; they may fail. But it hasn't a thing to do with Jihad. Actually, I think they call it democracy.

Actually the rights of the individual are protected too but the question is where to draw the line.

It looks like people are having problems with the word "jihad". I don't know if anyone has looked it up so I did:

ji·had
–noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.

I can see why some might believe that the second definition is taking place. There are many who would impose their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on others without hesitation. I don't believe in that either. I think that the term "jihad" is a little strong in this case though.

 

[bicker]

And the louder you scream it, the more desperate it sounds.

The plea for freedom should sound desperate.

And personally, no, nothing that comes from you clears anything up.

Anyone who is happy with the way the powers-that-be seek to use their political power to shape the laws of this nation back to fostering their own personal religious values probably would have difficulty seeing what I'm saying. And that is not an attack.

But I'll ignore your personal attack on me.

If just once you could come on here and act like a normal person and stop trying to impress someone with your verbose vocabulary people may not argue with you some much.

That is not how it actually works. Rather, what I've found is that when I am imprecise in my language, people try to distract from what I'm saying by arguing about how imprecise my language is. The common thread? People don't like to read cogent arguments that foster a perspective contrary to their own. So they attack them, because they want things to go their way. And the only defensible attack on my position is "we're the majority, so suck it up" and people have learned not to say that, so they instead try to distract from the point.

Did you really nominate yourself to speak for everyone else? Wow... maybe you should read your own personal attacks back to yourself.

 

[bicker]

Actually that is what scares me the most about an Obama presidency. It will be all about him.

I don't think there really is much of a difference between Obama and McCain in that regard.

 

[bicker]

Look, don't use a provocative term like "Christian Jihad" over and over, and then act all shocked when people are provoked to respond.

The word is inflammatory, yes. However, your reply shows how little some people appreciate the insidiously nefarious nature of what I'm talking about -- again, probably because they like what is happening -- they like having values they buy into imposed on the rest of us. I'll work on finding another word that communicates the message just as well. After all, if there is one thing I've gotten good at after 25 years online, is stating my perspective in different ways to get the point across.

There is no Christian Jihad. There are just Christian people who have certain beliefs they'd like to see established as policy in the U.S.

Indeed, they want everyone to live in accordance with their values, instead of respecting their neighbor's and allowing each person to live in accordance with a consensus set of values. That's tyranny of the majority, not "the land of the free".

 

[bicker]

Sorry Bicker . . . but this might be interesting http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_10/hill_bookshelf/26871-1.html

It is; thanks for the reference. The reviewer claims to get it. That's one, at least, that sees the potential danger. Of course, in our current circumstances, the (ahem) ambassadors have to work much more surreptitiously.

 

[bicker]

Actually the rights of the individual are protected too but the question is where to draw the line.

Indeed, and morally, in a professed multi-cultural society that asserts freedom on religion, I believe the religious values of any significant minority need to be respected. That means that they should absolutely be allowed to live in accordance with their own values, unencumbered by laws shaped to reflect the values of some other religions.

It looks like people are having problems with the word "jihad". I don't know if anyone has looked it up so I did:

What a great idea.

I can see why some might believe that the second definition is taking place. There are many who would impose their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on others without hesitation.

Precisely. And if we're not very conscious of this, and fail to work against it vigorously, every year, the gains of the last fifty years are in danger.

I think that the term "jihad" is a little strong in this case though.

I'll work on it.

 

[Pop Daddy]

Pop, who's the superwoman?

it was Cindy McCain, but I took it out, no one knew who it was

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

"I think I'll start a thread discussing the VP options for McCain, see who everyone thinks it should and will be ...nice, friendly little discussion .... "

That was my thought yesterday morning. After I get home from work and decide to take a night away from being online, DW tells me the thread has gone severely off-track.

Since I started the thread, for now I'm going to defer any reports and potential infractions to other mods and WMs. Besides, I haven't read the entire thread yet and just want to take some time and comment on the original topic while the cinnamon rolls are cooking.

I think McCain needs a VP who can do two things. First, they have to provide confidence in the public that he or she would be ready to become President should something happen to McCain. That's always a concern but maybe moreso due to McCain's age. Second, they have to appeal to the modern day conservative* base of the party without turning off the moderates and independents who are undecided and could go either way.

Romney could fit the bill. Highly successful in business doesn't always translate into political success (see Perot) but a GOP Governor of a liberal state has to have some crossover appeal. Same with Pawlenty, who does have a bit more executive experience than Romney.

Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal? Maybe a bit too young (especially Jindal) and would contrast too heavily against McCain's age. Also they haven't been in office too long and would make any "Obama is inexperienced" arguments moot. Another 5-10 years and then we'll hear more about them.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a possibility but does she want it? Same with Crist,

There's one I keep coming back to -- Rep. Eric Cantor of VA. He's in the same age range as Palin but has more experience in Congress (and in government federal and state level combined) than does Obama. He walks the talk of fiscal responsibility with $0 in earmarks for his district in the last two years. Also, while I've tried to avoid using his religion as an argument for his selection, he would appeal to the social conservatives without coming across as a "Christian jihadist" that could potentially turn off moderates and independents.

Powell doesn't want elected office. Rice and Portman have ties too strong to the Bush Administration. The base would riot over Lieberman, Ridge, or Guiliani, and Huckabee would turn off moderates.

Okay, the rolls are done. I'll be back later.

* - Okay I did catch some of Bicker's "I'm a real conservative" comments in earlier pages. Aside to Bicker - I wouldn't necessary think of you as a conservative according to today's definition in political terms but more of a libertarian. Just an observation.

 

[bicker]

There's one I keep coming back to -- Rep. Eric Cantor of VA.

Me too.

He's in the same age range as Palin but has more experience in Congress (and in government federal and state level combined) than does Obama. He walks the talk of fiscal responsibility with $0 in earmarks for his district in the last two years. Also, while I've tried to avoid using his religion as an argument for his selection, he would appeal to the social conservatives without coming across as a "Christian jihadist" that could potentially turn off moderates and independents.

Absolutely. I couldn't say anything against him in that regard.

 

[Bobbles]

...
There's one I keep coming back to -- Rep. Eric Cantor of VA. He's in the same age range as Palin but has more experience in Congress (and in government federal and state level combined) than does Obama. He walks the talk of fiscal responsibility with $0 in earmarks for his district in the last two years. Also, while I've tried to avoid using his religion as an argument for his selection, he would appeal to the social conservatives without coming across as a "Christian jihadist" that could potentially turn off moderates and independents.
...

That's very interesting. I wonder how he will do in the next election in VA with 0 $ in earmarks. If his electorate can appreciate that, then I will have to move there!

 

[CPT Tripss]

it was Cindy McCain, but I took it out, no one knew who it was

Guess she isn't in the VP sweeps . . . try a picture of the wife he dumped and see if anyone gets her.

 

[tinatark]

A dream ticket - McCain and Condi Rice - but I don't see that happening. Don't see McCain/Powell either. Either of those tickets would be sure winners (although I hesitiate saying that, as I remember Hillary Clinton being touted as a sure winner).

I think it will be McCain/Romney... the #1 and 2 primary vote-getters.