Conquer Club

McCain is a old crazy fart of a man. He doesn't look healthy and he has got some serious mental issues from Vietnam. Do not, I repeat, do not vote for McCain!

Click on the appropriate comments to watch small clips of McCain:



Here John McCain says he is all for a Hundred Year war in Iraq! Is this not the worst thing America could possibly get involved with right now? This country is going bankrupt! A mouse could fart in the Middle East right now and we would keep depreciating away our economy. Sure the United States keeps borrowing, but WE have to pay that back in interest. This guy sucks ass on the economy! Do Not Vote McCain!

Here McCain thinks it's funny to sing a little song about Bombing Iran. HaHa, real funny Johnny Boy! I don't quite see the humor in going into another war and killing more Americans and Muslims. This guy has definitely flipped his lid over the years. I am sorry he had to go through Vietnam, but I think Hanoi is still inside his head...sorry, don't trust this guys' decisions. Again, Do Not Vote McCain!

Here a young kid asks McCain about his age and if it will be affecting his decisions in office (a quite valid question as far as I am concerned). McCain answers the kid by pointing out his own mother's longevity. Then after he gets done trying to convince us about how young he still is, he tells the kid,"Thanks for the question, you little jerk." And then he makes the CRAZY statement towards him,"You're Drafted..." Can you guys say LOONY TOONS! For a third time, Do Not Vote McCain!

Here is a vid with McCain being a hypocrit. Telling us that Iraq was going to be easy, then turning around and saying that he knew all the time it would be tough. Next is about the Confederate Flag issue, hehe...real smooth there Crazy John! Then he goes on to call Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerence, only then to back step and say that he didn't really believe that. Is the room spinning yet? Now again, on Hardball McCain says that he thinks Gay marriage is Okay, and then turns around in the space of eleven minutes and says Gay marriage shouldn't be legal. WTF! Make up your freakin' mind already old fart! Do I have to repeat myself, people? Okay, I will repeat myself...Do Not Vote McCain!

Here on Meet the Press McCain is confronted with a quote about fighting wars over seas. If you listen to the quote, you would think Ron Paul made this statement...but nope, guess who did? I will let you listen to this yourself and then you can hear what kind of old diggity dog Crazy John is. Oh, and by the way...Do Not Vote McCain

I voted yes in the sense that I might vote for him. He's the only candidate that even vaguely approaches bridging the left wing/right wing gap so he at least gets some consideration.

He's a little nuts, yeah. I won't vote for him since he's been assaulted by many a lobbyist in his years.

he was once tortured by north koreans, im surprised that makes him want to stick with war.

You can find sh*t on every candidate, "he said this then, then later he said this, now he says this" blah blah blah can't we at least wait for the annoying campaign ads really kick in before we spam the forum with this?

Obama hasnt been around long enough to have that said to him.

unriggable wrote:Obama hasnt been around long enough to have that said to him.

Well, not exactly true you know...

He's far from perfect but much better than obama or hillary. obama and hillory BOTH said they would sign this treaty thing saying americans would get taxed and then it's go to UN 'to give to poor people around world' yea sure. thats crazy!

muy_thaiguy wrote:

unriggable wrote:Obama hasnt been around long enough to have that said to him.

Well, not exactly true you know...

Yeah, Obama has been around long enough for people to call him Osama and to try and correlate a connection to terrorists by referring to his middle name Hussein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDcSC7SoJRw

If it came down to Hilary vs. McCain, who would you vote for?

unriggable wrote:Obama hasnt been around long enough to have that said to him.

Nor has he been around long enough to have any experience to qualify him for the most powerful position in the world.
Can anyone site an Obama accomplishment?

its really lame to talk non sence when you havent heard the debate , might as well go sell your vote since you already made up your mind .
or go vote for (D) a dictator

Iz Man wrote:

unriggable wrote:Obama hasnt been around long enough to have that said to him.

Nor has he been around long enough to have any experience to qualify him for the most powerful position in the world.
Can anyone site an Obama accomplishment?

hes on his way to winning a candidcy in an election that was premised as a stepping stone in the eventual clinton white house?

DaGip wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

unriggable wrote:Obama hasnt been around long enough to have that said to him.

Well, not exactly true you know...

Yeah, Obama has been around long enough for people to call him Osama and to try and correlate a connection to terrorists by referring to his middle name Hussein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDcSC7SoJRw

I don't go for these things, but earlier today I visited Y!Answers and well, I'll let you decide whether or not a politician has been around long enough not to have dirt dug up on them.

static_ice wrote:If it came down to Hilary vs. McCain, who would you vote for?

Defiantly McCain, Hillary would be the worst choice for America. She just feels the political winds and pleases the crowd wherever she is that day.
She only has a handful of years of real experience (since if her husband won't be president, why should she count his time in office). She is also far too polarizing, McCain has a hope of bridging party divisions. She also relies on her husband way too much, he's the only reason she even was able to get elected to congress. Also, if she can be brought to tears by one MSNBC commentator, she is far too weak to stand up to the stress and criticism that a president faces everyday. I urge you, next time you see images of a Clinton rally, look at the number of middle-aged white women and compare it to the rest of the crowd.

So, other than "withdrawing from Iraq whilst stabilizing it" (hmm...and how dya want to that, genius?), providing universal healthcare and raising taxes on the wealthy as the US takes the lead a global recession, and let's not forget the classic mercantilist mscle flexing "renege on free trade agreements in order to foster competitivity" (whatever that means), what does this Obama clown propose? Oh yeah, a solution to the Middle East conflict which every president since Truman has failed to find because he's black. Super.

He does great Oven Chips though.

Napoleon Ier wrote:So, other than "withdrawing from Iraq whilst stabilizing it" (hmm...and how dya want to that, genius?), providing universal healthcare and raising taxes on the wealthy as the US takes the lead a global recession, and let's not forget the classic mercantilist mscle flexing "renege on free trade agreements in order to foster competitivity" (whatever that means), what does this Obama clown propose? Oh yeah, a solution to the Middle East conflict which every president since Truman has failed to find because he's black. Super.

to me it seems kind of odd to hear anyone who touts virtues of neoliberal economics chide anything that is mercantilist in nature. Kind of like making fun of your younger brother....yeah maybe theres some dumb things he does, but your still in the same family as the kid.

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:So, other than "withdrawing from Iraq whilst stabilizing it" (hmm...and how dya want to that, genius?), providing universal healthcare and raising taxes on the wealthy as the US takes the lead a global recession, and let's not forget the classic mercantilist mscle flexing "renege on free trade agreements in order to foster competitivity" (whatever that means), what does this Obama clown propose? Oh yeah, a solution to the Middle East conflict which every president since Truman has failed to find because he's black. Super.

to me it seems kind of odd to hear anyone who touts virtues of neoliberal economics chide anything that is mercantilist in nature. Kind of like making fun of your younger brother....yeah maybe theres some dumb things he does, but your still in the same family as the kid.

Mercantilism and liberal international trade policy are diametrically opposed ideals. I need not point out that your argument is disanalogous and does not address the real question of Obama's lunatic and dangerous views concerning trade and international relations.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:So, other than "withdrawing from Iraq whilst stabilizing it" (hmm...and how dya want to that, genius?), providing universal healthcare and raising taxes on the wealthy as the US takes the lead a global recession, and let's not forget the classic mercantilist mscle flexing "renege on free trade agreements in order to foster competitivity" (whatever that means), what does this Obama clown propose? Oh yeah, a solution to the Middle East conflict which every president since Truman has failed to find because he's black. Super.

to me it seems kind of odd to hear anyone who touts virtues of neoliberal economics chide anything that is mercantilist in nature. Kind of like making fun of your younger brother....yeah maybe theres some dumb things he does, but your still in the same family as the kid.

Mercantilism and liberal international trade policy are diametrically opposed ideals. I need not point out that your argument is disanalogous and does not address the real question of Obama's lunatic and dangerous views concerning trade and international relations.

yes if you look very simplisticly at them from the perspectives of units of analysis then of course they are. But we try to get to the heart of things from time to time and there is certainly more in common with them then diametrically opposed ideas.

I could tease out some of the ironies of someone in your position knocking mercantilism further, but it doesnt really seem that necessary (given the way you are likely to respond)

As far as obama having lunatic and dangerous views concerning trade and international relations...those are probably words that are designed to dramatize in order to make a point so ill leave them be.

Things like national interest in the present global economic system is too complicated and confusing a concept to be a strict ideologue like you seem to think is the answer. This isnt that surprising since you tend to gravitate toward stable ideology, but it certainly does not make it right. I dont think every single one of obamas stances is the one i would choose, but to categorically say such a thing is rather over shooting the mark i would assume.

I could tease out some of the ironies of someone in your position knocking mercantilism further, but it doesnt really seem that necessary (given the way you are likely to respond)

You haven't insulted me, and I never do that unprovoked. So go on. You should find that from an economic perspective, in terms of the policies and the theory they rest on, mercantilism and free market capitalism have vastly different world outlooks.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

I could tease out some of the ironies of someone in your position knocking mercantilism further, but it doesnt really seem that necessary (given the way you are likely to respond)

You haven't insulted me, and I never do that unprovoked. So go on. You should find that from an economic perspective, in terms of the policies and the theory they rest on, mercantilism and free market capitalism have vastly different world outlooks.

i dont personally think they have to be that different, though it may be a bit of my own thought on it.

Take your mercantilist thinking, state level economic system, where you attempt to control the market through agreements in order to seize market control of a certain commodity (or in this case commodities if we expanded it) in order to win something of zero sum game as far as the accumulation of wealth is concerned.

As opposed to a more free market capitalism (from a states perspective), you attempt to position yourself at a competitive advantage to other states through a number of regulatory measures (perhaps not in an ideal theorectical sense, but certainly so in a practical sense) in order to accumulate more capital than your opponents. Though certainly not a zero sum game, it is a game played ad infinimum in a similar aspect to mercantilism.

Now i suppose depending on how youd like to set up your levels of analysis and how theorectical vs practical your going to take your stances, there are going to be very noticable differents in action. However these differences do not belie a difference in essential elements of thought behind both system.

These things include a strict notion of competition where if your unit of analysis is winning your opponents are losing. A desire to create measures which create oppertunities for competitive advantage over your opponents and a desire to avoid getting into agreements where you cede that advantage. A necesity to avoid spending domestically as neither one of these things contributes to a continued accumulation of capital or commodity. Desires to limit the amount of bargining power your labor has, as it will inevitably create a competitive disadvantage which your opponents will be able to capitalize on.

Are there differences in how people manifest these lines of thought, certainly there are. Do they reflect great differences in paradigmic thought? not as much as it would seem on a simple analysis.

Also though this is a bit of a shot, i find it rather odd that a frenchman (or at least one who aspires to maintain the culture) would take potshots at mercantilism...a system which france found some success under, as opposed to the curernt neoliberal capitalism, which france is comparatively not finding as much success under as opposed to other nations.

David Ricardo, Theory of Comparative Advantage, 1817. I am too knackered to post anymore tonight, I'll see about this issue later.

Napoleon Ier wrote:David Ricardo, Theory of Comparative Advantage, 1817. I am too knackered to post anymore tonight, I'll see about this issue later.

ill wait to hear you further about ricardo, but at the moment ill preface your eventual comment by claiming that there would be a number of points of contention among his premises, and that in order for them to be applicable to the discussion we would be having youll need to do a bit more work in fleshing out how this holds up in a globalized economic system.

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:David Ricardo, Theory of Comparative Advantage, 1817. I am too knackered to post anymore tonight, I'll see about this issue later.

ill wait to hear you further about ricardo, but at the moment ill preface your eventual comment by claiming that there would be a number of points of contention among his premises, and that in order for them to be applicable to the discussion we would be having youll need to do a bit more work in fleshing out how this holds up in a globalized economic system.

Naturally...naturally...