Thread: John McCain Last Viable GOP Candidate

Chris Christie seems to be able to talk with both parties. Maybe a more moderate guy that will bend on some social issues and look across the isle for a little bipartisanship is the ticket???

I lost all respect for him as a politician when he picked Palin. As one Vet to another I have much love and respect for the man.

Originally Posted by LAM

I lost all respect for him as a politician when he picked Palin. As one Vet to another I have much love and respect for the man.

Dido

Originally Posted by dieseljimmy

Chris Christie seems to be able to talk with both parties. Maybe a more moderate guy that will bend on some social issues and look across the isle for a little bipartisanship is the ticket???

I live in Jersey now, Christie is killing the middle class, but he sounds like one of us no doubt DJ. Im Union so Im bias.

Originally Posted by hagan

Im Union so Im bias.

there's plenty of reasons why labor unions were formed during the Industrial Revolution and every single one of those reasons is still a concern today. they didn't go away simply because the year and date changed on the calendar.

those that say the opposite have never tried to live in the metro area on poverty wages. are unions perfect? certainly not no bureaucracy is. is there a country in the world that pays it's workers a decent wage with out them, not in world history. the country's in the OECD with the most labor problems have the lowest union participation rates with the US being 3rd from the bottom.

Originally Posted by LAM

there's plenty of reasons why labor unions were formed during the Industrial Revolution and every single one of those reasons is still a concern today. they didn't go away simply because the year and date changed on the calendar.

those that say the opposite have never tried to live in the metro area on poverty wages. are unions perfect? certainly not no bureaucracy is. is there a country in the world that pays it's workers a decent wage with out them, not in world history. the country's in the OECD with the most labor problems have the lowest union participation rates with the US being 3rd from the bottom.

Lam youre preachin to the quire . Child labor laws etc.. Im a history teacher. Economics is a little beyond me I know a little, but what you know is a littlle beyond me and I investigate, you would be wise to bring it down where even I could understand a little more if you know what I mean. I like a lesson and you seem to no a-lot more than most.

John McCain lost when he won the nomination after George Bush's 8 year term. the country had W. fatigue and would have voted for a monkey instead of the next republican. Think about it. Obama came in and said he would stop all of Bush's policies that everyone hated. then he got in office and continued doing them because he realized even though it was unpopular it was the right course of action. (im talking about gitmo, patriot act, iraq, afghanistan and such) McCain didn't have that luxury. he was the republican nominee and knew even if it was unpopular it was still the course of action he had to follow.

Seriously, think about it. When has a less than 1 term senator with no experience at shit won a parties nomination over someone like Clinton, then gone on to beat McCain whose credentials are as long as my arm?

Originally Posted by hagan

Lam youre preachin to the quire . Child labor laws etc.. Im a history teacher. Economics is a little beyond me I know a little, but what you know is a littlle beyond me and I investigate, you would be wise to bring it down where even I could understand a little more if you know what I mean. I like a lesson and you seem to no a-lot more than most.

Oh dear God. Please tell me you don't teach our youth? I hate to be a grammar nazi, but shit dude. You graduated college, and teach? this post is offensive to the English language it is so bad.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

John McCain lost when he won the nomination after George Bush's 8 year term. the country had W. fatigue and would have voted for a monkey instead of the next republican. Think about it. Obama came in and said he would stop all of Bush's policies that everyone hated. then he got in office and continued doing them because he realized even though it was unpopular it was the right course of action. (im talking about gitmo, patriot act, iraq, afghanistan and such) McCain didn't have that luxury. he was the republican nominee and knew even if it was unpopular it was still the course of action he had to follow.

Seriously, think about it. When has a less than 1 term senator with no experience at shit won a parties nomination over someone like Clinton, then gone on to beat McCain whose credentials are as long as my arm?

No doubt, but, he also had to deal with the Tea party and "the Christians" this is fact the party went to far right. Even Jed Bush says this

Originally Posted by bio-chem

Oh dear God. Please tell me you don't teach our youth? I hate to be a grammar nazi, but shit dude. You graduated college, and teach? this post is offensive to the English language it is so bad.

Im not checking my grammer on here I do it all day this is for fun. Blooms Taxonomy spelling is the lowest form of Knowledge. The smartest people I know cant spell for shit. That being said yeah I no.

Originally Posted by hagan

No doubt, but, he also had to deal with the Tea party and "the Christians" this is fact the party went to far right. Even Jed Bush says this

the strength of the Christian right died after the 2004 elections, even though people didn't realize it till now. in 04 Karl Rove did a masterful job getting them to win Bush his second term. that play won't ever happen again, but I can see why McCain would have been counseled to try it in 08 as it worked so well in 04. hopefully by now republican inside men know that is like the wishbone offense. you can't run it anymore and have it work to win.

Originally Posted by hagan

Im not checking my grammer on here I do it all day this is for fun. Blooms Taxonomy spelling is the lowest form of Knowledge. The smartest people I know cant spell for shit. That being said yeah I no.

well take this for what it's worth. when people read posts like that above, even if it has the right message you won't be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

the strength of the Christian right died after the 2004 elections, even though people didn't realize it till now. in 04 Karl Rove did a masterful job getting them to win Bush his second term. that play won't ever happen again, but I can see why McCain would have been counseled to try it in 08 as it worked so well in 04. hopefully by now republican inside men know that is like the wishbone offense. you can't run it anymore and have it work to win.

Listen you forgot to Capitalize after the period but ill forgive you. I know its politics, but I think people are tired of being preached to. No Offence but Karl is a dick. no

Originally Posted by hagan

John McCain was the hope of the GOP and someone who wasand is still respected. He lost because the Tea Party and the Right wing"Christians" would not support him I almost voted for McCain becauseI respected him, and was in awe of his strength and contributions to hismilitary service and his power to reach between the two parties. This is what,if you are a Republican, you need to come back, period. I am a Democrat becauseI believe Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, said the danger inherent witha free market is greed, which has to be regulated.You can lead a horse to water, but you can?t make him drink. Republicans arenot about freedom, but like Hitler, telling you what to do, how to do it, andwhen. This is ass backwards, the people who say this, My God. Bring on the negged, Have a Ball

Hagan, with all due respect.

I do not know what you mean.

Was McCain viable? Sure. But he lost in 2008 by 7 million votes. He catered to the Xtian right by picking Palin. 2008 was not his time. Year 2000 may have been his time but GWB got him in the South Carolina primary by push-polling.

Was Romney viable? Sure. But he lost. And in many ways, I think he lost on his policy positions.

Listen I don?t really care if some of you change you?rethinking, no use. However, before you make a smart ass remark, or think you?re knowledgeable,the smartest person I have ever studied asked questions, not give their dumbbbb,smart ass remarks, although they are entertaining.

Originally Posted by hagan

Listen I don?t really care if some of you change you?rethinking, no use. However, before you make a smart ass remark, or think you?re knowledgeable,the smartest person I have ever studied asked questions, not give their dumbbbb,smart ass remarks, although they are entertaining.

Hagan,

If you're referring to me, I think you've misunderstood my post.

I was not intending to be a 'smart ass.'

I'm just having a discussion.

Originally Posted by hagan

Lam youre preachin to the quire . Child labor laws etc.. Im a history teacher. Economics is a little beyond me I know a little, but what you know is a littlle beyond me and I investigate, you would be wise to bring it down where even I could understand a little more if you know what I mean. I like a lesson and you seem to no a-lot more than most.

I was just making a point about the history of why labor unions and that it's not really even a topic that's debatable. and those that say they are no longer needed in present day are essentially claiming the problems that caused the need for labor unions originally no longer exist and that couldn't be further from reality.

I'm definitely pro-union but have never been in one, but many of my friends have on both coasts. I've heard 100x more complaints on the Internet and tv about unions, dues, etc. out of non-union members and not a world about any of those topics from those actually in a union.

but as was stated politics is funny. it's also obvious when people are expressing opinions that are not even their own because when questioned, they have no details or formal knowledge at all about the topic. I wish people used tv for what it was originally intended for as entertainment and never as a credible source of "information".

Originally Posted by LAM

I was just making a point about the history of why labor unions and that it's not really even a topic that's debatable. and those that say they are no longer needed in present day are essentially claiming the problems that caused the need for labor unions originally no longer exist and that couldn't be further from reality.

I'm definitely pro-union but have never been in one, but many of my friends have on both coasts. I've heard 100x more complaints on the Internet and tv about unions, dues, etc. out of non-union members and not a world about any of those topics from those actually in a union.

but as was stated politics is funny. it's also obvious when people are expressing opinions that are not even their own because when questioned, they have no details or formal knowledge at all about the topic. I wish people used tv for what it was originally intended for as entertainment and never as a credible source of "information".

I agree with you Did I say it wrong.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Hagan,

If you're referring to me, I think you've misunderstood my post.

I was not intending to be a 'smart ass.'

I'm just having a discussion.

No Absolutely not I welcome discussion. Thats what makes us understand things.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Hagan, with all due respect.

I do not know what you mean.

Was McCain viable? Sure. But he lost in 2008 by 7 million votes. He catered to the Xtian right by picking Palin. 2008 was not his time. Year 2000 may have been his time but GWB got him in the South Carolina primary by push-polling.

Was Romney viable? Sure. But he lost. And in many ways, I think he lost on his policy positions.

I hear you, but I think he changed what he really believed to get nominated by the changing GOP. I think McCain is a man of or I thought he was a man of unwaivering principles. Did not no what to think afterwards. Always ask I dont know whats wrong with that!!! Any one who is all knowing does not no shit I learn all the time. You no what I mean?

Originally Posted by LAM

there's plenty of reasons why labor unions were formed during the Industrial Revolution and every single one of those reasons is still a concern today. they didn't go away simply because the year and date changed on the calendar.

those that say the opposite have never tried to live in the metro area on poverty wages. are unions perfect? certainly not no bureaucracy is. is there a country in the world that pays it's workers a decent wage with out them, not in world history. the country's in the OECD with the most labor problems have the lowest union participation rates with the US being 3rd from the bottom.

And no unions are not perfect you know that as well as I do. I pooored concrete when I was youner to pay the bills. Got my Ass kicked but I got where I am today because of them they are neccessary!!!

Everything I do or say is because I had some help. I wish and I want the same for everybody I can. Thats what makes me Happy and keeps me going. Some people get off on keeping people down I dont understand that.

Originally Posted by hagan

they are neccessary!!!

Yeah, if you're not valuable enough as an individual to find an employer who will pay you more. If your skills are commonplace you need to hold your employer hostage.

Originally Posted by troubador

Yeah, if you're not valuable enough as an individual to find an employer who will pay you more. If your skills are commonplace you need to hold your employer hostage.

I like that Quote I may use it, if you dont mind. We should all hope that we do not settle and we find what is pias. The only problem is it is different for everyone.

Originally Posted by hagan

We should all hope that we do not settle and we find what is pias. The only problem is it is different for everyone.

Pias?

Originally Posted by troubador

Yeah, if you're not valuable enough as an individual to find an employer who will pay you more. If your skills are commonplace you need to hold your employer hostage.

so then how exactly do you explain 75% of the US workforce getting paid between $15k-$30K in 1990's dollars.

and why does every single economist outside of the Heritage Foundation say you are wrong.

and why does data from the OECD collected over the past 30 years from over 100 country's clearly show that country's with low labor unionization rates suffer from greater numbers of workers with low pay? the US with the 3rd lowest rate of labor unions has the highest percentage of low paid workers at 25% of the labor force out of all the wealthy industrialized country's in the OECD.

and why has US business owners off shored 6x the amount of jobs than they have in the EU 15 combined?

and why did 50% of the job losses in the OECD alone in 2008 occur in the US?

and why does the OECD data show the US workers are the least protected in the OECD?

your belief system in regards to labor unions does not jive with reality and what all of the empirical data has shown or what global wage history tells us.

Originally Posted by LAM

so then how exactly do you explain 75% of the US workforce getting paid between $15k-$30K in 1990's dollars.

and why does every single economist outside of the Heritage Foundation say you are wrong.

and why does data from the OECD collected over the past 30 years from over 100 country's clearly show that country's with low labor unionization rates suffer from greater numbers of workers with low pay? the US with the 3rd lowest rate of labor unions has the highest percentage of low paid workers at 25% of the labor force out of all the wealthy industrialized country's in the OECD.

and why has US business owners off shored 6x the amount of jobs than they have in the EU 15 combined?

and why did 50% of the job losses in the OECD alone in 2008 occur in the US?

and why does the OECD data show the US workers are the least protected in the OECD?

your belief system in regards to labor unions does not jive with reality and what all of the empirical data has shown or what global wage history tells us.

I'm not sure where we disagree. My post clearly points out that expendable workers artificially inflate their value by unionizing.

Originally Posted by troubador

I'm not sure where we disagree. My post clearly points out that expendable workers artificially inflate their value by unionizing.

Don't worry about it. Once LAM starts he isn't going to stop just because someone agrees with him. He needs to feel that he has an open forum to expound his views.