# McCain scolds GOP for whacking Obama



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Soon I am going to suspect the North Vietnamese were successful in screwing up McCain's brain. What a backstabbing piece of work. We didn't have a good choice in the last presidential election. It was sort of like dumb and dumber. Now McCain runs interference for Obama?



> McCain scolds GOP for whacking Obama
> By MIKE ALLEN | 12/14/08 10:05 AM EST
> 
> 'The information will come out. It always does, it seems to me,' McCain said.
> ...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

McCain is right on the money.

There are bigger fish to fry besides this, we all know that. What would Obama have to gain from selling his former office? The guy is already going to be filthy rich why would he tie his own noose?

I am positive that if any of Obama's people were involved in this it is being dealt with internally, just like McCain's handlers in the republican national commitee should have done during the campaign.

We need real leaders and real leadership right now not sissy games of he said she said non sense. Hang Blagowhatever along with all his cronies and do it before you eat your xmas dinner and move on to trying get this country back on top.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

TK33 said:


> McCain is right on the money.
> 
> There are bigger fish to fry besides this, we all know that. What would Obama have to gain from selling his former office? The guy is already going to be filthy rich why would he tie his own noose?
> 
> ...


Waa waa wa, wa wa waa waa.

Turn the tables. If this were Bush (or another republican) the media and liberals (err, excuse me, democrats) would be wanting to burn him at the stake.

Im starting to FIRMLY believe McCain didnt want the presidency to begin with. Dont blame him, but still.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Spot on Bareback, if it was Bush, it would be on CNN like the OJ Simpson car chase.

McCain is just trying to get on the news again, with his old maverick the moderate title.

As for what would he have to gain, and I don't know if he had anything to do with it or not, but it's the age old story, money, greed and power. Not that anyone is politics is squeeky clean, but, he is sure sidestepping and changing stories pretty fast these days, and I am sure he has a lot of political debts to pay off to his buddies.

All of these senators that have money in the freezer and are accepting bribes in the past couple of years that have been caught should tell you enough.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There are bigger fish to fry besides this


Like outlawing firearms, making us subservient to the United Nations to the tune of 835 billion? Anything, that will keep him busy so he can't accomplish what he wants to is helpful. 
The reason Detroit is failing is because the unions are bleeding the industry to death. I heard the other day that they get paid 95% of their salary if they are laid off. Most perhaps hope they get laid off. Another statistic I'm not sure is right is that half of the car makers expense is retired and laid of workers. The biggest problem was Barney Franks. Obama owes the unions and will be working to further bleed the industry.

Anything that will keep Obama busy so he can't concentrate on our firearms is better than OK with me.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Now you see one more time why I was so disgusted to see him run, I cannot stand him. If the Dems weren't running a commie against him I would of voted Dem this time. MAde me sick to vote for him and sicker to vote for our republican RINO senator Saxby Chambliss.

You are better off not paying attention to politics, ignorance is bliss and theres alot of bliss in this country today.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> ignorance is bliss and theres alot of bliss in this country today.


 :rollin:

Obama in office proves that. Oh, and McCain getting the republican nomination is more proof. If president Kennedy were alive today liberals would want him to say, ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. Looking back 40 years it's evident that we have not improved. We have been going down hill, and Obama will bring us to a steeper angle of decent.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> > ignorance is bliss and theres alot of bliss in this country today.
> 
> 
> :rollin:
> ...


ignorance is assuming.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> ignorance is assuming.


I agree. However, I am not assuming. I am basing my opinion on 60 years of experience. We are a much more selfish nation than we were 40 years ago. Many liberals want the country to take care of them. They want to be ensured a comfortable life by the government. Many liberals today are not self reliant, they want assurances, and they want the government to do it. Socialism is a lack of self reliance. Many liberals have moved further left. So have republicans. Both parties have moved further left in response to people with less self reliance.

Why do you think politicians make so many promises on what they can deliver? Why do you think liberals support socialized health care. Why do you think more liberals than conservatives support gun control. It depends on whether your willing to defend yourself or rely on the police entirely. There are stark differences between liberal and conservative. Not democrat and republican, but liberal and conservative.

Do you want socialized health care, or are you willing to take care of your own needs? Do you have a savings account, or are you relying on social security? etc etc.

Many liberals will tell you they are liberal because they care about people. From another thread:


> Although leftists rail against greed, if you scratch the surface of such a person, you will find the most avaricious, covetous creature imaginable. They want to redistribute wealth not because they care about the poor and downtrodden, for if that were their concern they would give more to charity than traditionalists, when in reality they give far less.


 I seen that data, and it was based on records of individual congressional tax records. Liberals will tell you they want taxes higher on the rich so they can give more to the poor. Which is more selfish, wanting to keep what you earn, or wanting to take from those who earn and give it to those who have not earned?


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

> Soon I am going to suspect the North Vietnamese were successful in screwing up McCain's brain. What a backstabbing piece of work. We didn't have a good choice in the last presidential election. It was sort of like dumb and dumber. Now McCain runs interference for Obama?


Backstabbing piece of work? Am I the only one here that remembers how the few liberals that still post on this site took so much heat for not liking what Joe Liberman did? He's just being bi-partisan right? Waiting for the spin.....


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

willythekid said:


> > Soon I am going to suspect the North Vietnamese were successful in screwing up McCain's brain. What a backstabbing piece of work. We didn't have a good choice in the last presidential election. It was sort of like dumb and dumber. Now McCain runs interference for Obama?
> 
> 
> Backstabbing piece of work? Am I the only one here that remembers how the few liberals that still post on this site took so much heat for not liking what Joe Liberman did? He's just being bi-partisan right? Waiting for the spin.....


A-hem.. don't hold your breath expecting a fair response Willy...

Its no wonder few of us ever bother to post here anymore.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

willythekid said:


> > Soon I am going to suspect the North Vietnamese were successful in screwing up McCain's brain. What a backstabbing piece of work. We didn't have a good choice in the last presidential election. It was sort of like dumb and dumber. Now McCain runs interference for Obama?
> 
> 
> Backstabbing piece of work? Am I the only one here that remembers how the few liberals that still post on this site took so much heat for not liking what Joe Liberman did? He's just being bi-partisan right? Waiting for the spin.....


Well if your liberal I can understand why you don't like what Lieberman did. I am conservative and I don't like things like the McCain - Feingold bill. Now as a conservative I like what Lieberman did. As a liberal you might like McCain - Feingold. Lieberman sold out to a liberal republican you didn't like it I did. McCain sold out to Feingold and liberals you perhaps like that, I didn't. No spin there. Now McCain is runing interference for Obama. Maybe neither Lieberman nor McCain can be trusted.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

R y a n said:


> willythekid said:
> 
> 
> > > Soon I am going to suspect the North Vietnamese were successful in screwing up McCain's brain. What a backstabbing piece of work. We didn't have a good choice in the last presidential election. It was sort of like dumb and dumber. Now McCain runs interference for Obama?
> ...


Come on Ryan if your going to post at least have something constructive not just whine. 
:fiddle:

I'll bite though Ryan. What's fair? We don't call you on it when you post bs? We post equal amounts of bs so you don't look bad? I don't get it, what's fair or unfair. We don't debate to win? I don't understand.
Not fair because your outnumbered? If we could poll Outdoor life readers, if we could poll any outdoor magazine subscribers, if we could poll any outdoor website what do you think the conservative / liberal ratio would be? If you don't know I'll tell you. As a liberal you will be outnumbered three to one in all the above. That isn't fair or unfair that's simply a fact of life. If you were to poll firearms publications like Guns and Ammo you would be outnumbered nine to one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This quote:


> Although leftists rail against greed, if you scratch the surface of such a person, you will find the most avaricious, covetous creature imaginable. They want to redistribute wealth not because they care about the poor and downtrodden, for if that were their concern they would give more to charity than traditionalists, when in reality they give far less.


 and others above are not to degrade liberals, but to take away the excuse some use for being liberal. I often hear about how greedy conservatives are, and I often hear people say they are liberal because they care. Neither are correct, and for those liberals who have an open mind think about the points above.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Waa waa wa, wa wa waa waa.
> 
> Turn the tables. If this were Bush (or another republican) the media and liberals (err, excuse me, democrats) would be wanting to burn him at the stake


If he were any sort of leader at all he would have thrown his shoes back at the bastards :sniper:

The reason why we are in this "liberal" mess is because there has been nothing from the repubs of any substance. Anyone with any economic knowledge knows that the gov't will eventually be forced to bail the big 3 out but they can get nothing done but sit there and point fingers at each other, so we sit and wait until things get really bad and the bailout will be more. Any time someone tries to meet in the middle they get burned at the stake.

As for the big three:

Who signed the deal with the UAW? The unions are a problem no doubt, but they are no more to blame than these overpaid snot nosed execs. It takes a lot of workers to equal the salary of one of these incompetent pricks. They need to renegotiate the current contracts but they have no moral right and probably no legal right to touch the pensions of the workers who performed under the old contract. They made these execs and stock holders rich and they are entitled to their compensation. It is not the retirees fault that the execs ran their companies into the ground and lined their pockets on the way down.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33, I can't argue with that. I'm right with you about throwing the shoe back. Well, just about. I think bush should have put the shoe on and buried it right up to the laces.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

TK33 said:


> > Waa waa wa, wa wa waa waa.
> >
> > Turn the tables. If this were Bush (or another republican) the media and liberals (err, excuse me, democrats) would be wanting to burn him at the stake
> 
> ...


I think if hed have thrown his shoes back at the guy the liberal media would call it a hate crime.

Come on, what if someone threw a shoe at ole Barack? Jesse and Al would be marching down the streets!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Come on, what if someone threw a shoe at ole Barack? Jesse and Al would be marching down the streets!


  Marching in the streets my behind, they would be threatening to launch a nuke.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I think if hed have thrown his shoes back at the guy the liberal media would call it a hate crime.


Wait until the media needs ratings and they start teeing off on Obama, it will happen :beer:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

TK33 said:


> > I think if hed have thrown his shoes back at the guy the liberal media would call it a hate crime.
> 
> 
> Wait until the media needs ratings and they start teeing off on Obama, it will happen :beer:


I think and hope your right. The media (and American public) are pretty fickle. Love ya one day, hate ya the next.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> TK33 said:
> 
> 
> > > I think if hed have thrown his shoes back at the guy the liberal media would call it a hate crime.
> ...


Well, the conservatives of late are fickle. The liberals are pretty consistent haters. Ever since Florida they hate Bush. It doesn't make any difference what he does, even spend like a liberal, treat the border like a liberal etc. they still consistently hate him. Through all reason it has been hate, hate, hate. Now he is leaving so they need a new target for their consistent hate and along comes Palin.


----------

