Why is every GOP/REP politician and their uncle endorsing McCain right now??

I got into an argument with a "friend" last night who called me up after the debates--he knows who I'm for and why.

First off, he said "They need to ask him (Paul) more questions." Well, duh!
Then, he said that Paul came off as weak (he actually said something much worse, which I will not repeat here.)

He then went on to explain to me why Bush, if he's 'successful' in Iraq is brilliant! I let him talk and he explains to me how Americans want cheap oil and he understands that, and yeah, so maybe he BS'd about WMD's and Saddam and all that, but he did it to get us what Americans want: cheap oil. And he said that Bush hasn't had the resources to do what he needed to do to make it 'successful' and he still could in the next 10 months, thereby shoring up his legacy as a great president.

He went on to say that McCain is the natural successor to Bush and he'll continue Bush's strategies if necessary.

I was completely and utterly pissed off. I didn't yell at him, though I wanted to. I asked him if his kid's life or his own life was worth a couple bucks less for fuel and he said "yeah, and I'll tell you why" !!!!??? I didn't let him respond and said "NO IT'S NOT WORTH IT." For one thing, 4,000 + Americans killed, 30k injured--what's the cost there? Over 1 million Iraqis killed, many of them innocent--what's the cost there? We're "rebuilding" Iraq--what's the cost? What's the cost in image in the world for invading another country? And we don't have the money for it! We're 9 trillion dollars in debt! Even though I'm quite environmentally conscious, I'd far rather we were drilling in Alaska to get oil than killing people in Iraq! At least we could try to go about it in some responsible fashion, you can't take over another country and steal their natural resources in any sane manner.

He buys into the "crazy Iraqi's want to kill us, so why not kill them first" BS. I asked him, if Canada was a stronger military force than us and decided they needed our gold and made up some BS about us wanting to come up there and kill all their mounties, so they invaded us. What do you think every last one of us 2nd Amendment gun-toting folks would do? We'd fight back! Guess what the Iraqis are doing-trying to fight off their invaders and occupiers. How does that make them any different from us?

Also, the only other leader in the modern world who invaded other countries was Hitler (my friend is a jew, I'm only a part-jew, so that makes it more contentious to bring up, but it's true nonetheless.) And that is supposed to be honorable? In what context is this a good thing? Now we have the patriot act, the world hates us and Bush has destroyed the Republican party and made it almost a shoo-in for Hillary to get the presidency (he hates Hillary.) And guess who's a friend of Hillary's? John MFing McCain! He's terrible on the 2nd amendment and immigration. . .. etc. etc.

I was quite torqued, still am at people being buffoons. This guy is a pro 2nd amendment guy, anti-regulations, etc. But all he seems to care about is cheap oil. Sorry about the long-winded rant, but I had a remarkably similar conversation with another friend a few weeks ago, except he's the opposite: far left wing. It's frustrating. I'd rather talk to strangers.

Speaking of which, I have canvassing to do.
 
wfd40 said:
ok, but why not Romney? Up until FL, its not like it was set in stone who was going to win.. and yet, all of the big papers went with McCain..

Romney, imo, could at least hold up against the verbal prowess of either clinton or obama (lol, who am I kidding, its gonna be clinton)... McCain wouldn't last a minute?

This all just seems very strange to me.. McCain was the establishments pick going in and now is, once again, the establishments pick. Go figure
Click to expand...

Yep. He's always been the establishment's pick. This whole primary season has been a charade to give us the illusion of having a choice, but the fix has been in the whole time. What a shock- all the big papers, primarily a liberal media, endorse McCain- a democrat is republican clothing. If McCain gets the nomination, the democrats win no matter which party wins the election. (Not that he has a chance in heck against a Dem. in the general election, which is probably also not a coincidence.)
 
amy31416 said:
I got into an argument with a "friend" last night who called me up after the debates--he knows who I'm for and why.

First off, he said "They need to ask him (Paul) more questions." Well, duh!
Then, he said that Paul came off as weak (he actually said something much worse, which I will not repeat here.)

He then went on to explain to me why Bush, if he's 'successful' in Iraq is brilliant! I let him talk and he explains to me how Americans want cheap oil and he understands that, and yeah, so maybe he BS'd about WMD's and Saddam and all that, but he did it to get us what Americans want: cheap oil. And he said that Bush hasn't had the resources to do what he needed to do to make it 'successful' and he still could in the next 10 months, thereby shoring up his legacy as a great president.

He went on to say that McCain is the natural successor to Bush and he'll continue Bush's strategies if necessary.

I was completely and utterly pissed off. I didn't yell at him, though I wanted to. I asked him if his kid's life or his own life was worth a couple bucks less for fuel and he said "yeah, and I'll tell you why" !!!!??? I didn't let him respond and said "NO IT'S NOT WORTH IT." For one thing, 4,000 + Americans killed, 30k injured--what's the cost there? Over 1 million Iraqis killed, many of them innocent--what's the cost there? We're "rebuilding" Iraq--what's the cost? What's the cost in image in the world for invading another country? And we don't have the money for it! We're 9 trillion dollars in debt! Even though I'm quite environmentally conscious, I'd far rather we were drilling in Alaska to get oil than killing people in Iraq! At least we could try to go about it in some responsible fashion, you can't take over another country and steal their natural resources in any sane manner.

He buys into the "crazy Iraqi's want to kill us, so why not kill them first" BS. I asked him, if Canada was a stronger military force than us and decided they needed our gold and made up some BS about us wanting to come up there and kill all their mounties, so they invaded us. What do you think every last one of us 2nd Amendment gun-toting folks would do? We'd fight back! Guess what the Iraqis are doing-trying to fight off their invaders and occupiers. How does that make them any different from us?

Also, the only other leader in the modern world who invaded other countries was Hitler (my friend is a jew, I'm only a part-jew, so that makes it more contentious to bring up, but it's true nonetheless.) And that is supposed to be honorable? In what context is this a good thing? Now we have the patriot act, the world hates us and Bush has destroyed the Republican party and made it almost a shoo-in for Hillary to get the presidency (he hates Hillary.) And guess who's a friend of Hillary's? John MFing McCain! He's terrible on the 2nd amendment and immigration. . .. etc. etc.

I was quite torqued, still am at people being buffoons. This guy is a pro 2nd amendment guy, anti-regulations, etc. But all he seems to care about is cheap oil. Sorry about the long-winded rant, but I had a remarkably similar conversation with another friend a few weeks ago, except he's the opposite: far left wing. It's frustrating. I'd rather talk to strangers.

Speaking of which, I have canvassing to do.
Click to expand...

I've had similar conversations with people who think it is absolutely right to use the military to make sure we keep the oil coming.

It's not the utter lack of morality that I find so appaling, it's the sheer stupidity they must have if they think oil is ever going to be any cheaper by our invading and occupying middle easter countries than if we were to simply buy if via the free-market.
 
amy31416 said:
I got into an argument with a "friend" last night who called me up after the debates--he knows who I'm for and why.

He then went on to explain to me why Bush, if he's 'successful' in Iraq is brilliant! I let him talk and he explains to me how Americans want cheap oil and he understands that, and yeah, so maybe he BS'd about WMD's and Saddam and all that, but he did it to get us what Americans want: cheap oil.
Click to expand...
"I have seen the enemy and he is us"
-Pogo
 
Yeah, I get told "why not finish the job and 'secure' their unstable government since they'll kill us once our backs are turned."

Can anyone please explain how that makes sense?
I try to argue with "it's not our business, it's causing the inflation" and yet, they don't care.

Is there any point to arguing this?
 
amy31416 said:
I got into an argument with a "friend" last night who called me up after the debates--he knows who I'm for and why.

I let him talk and he explains to me how Americans want cheap oil and he understands that.....
Click to expand...

Ahhhh yes, the cheap oil theory.

Let's get something straight with people who rally behind this. A barrel of oil was in the high $20's at the begining of the Iraq invasion. It is now in the $90's.

Is this a backfiring of the plan? Hardly. It is the plan. And it will be complete when we get Iran to blow up there own refineries just like Sadaam did and the price of oil gets to be $200 a barrel and beyond.

Cheap oil means less profit for Exxon, Shell, BP etc etc. Now what sense does it make for them to have a product that can only get $20 a barrel instead of $100 or more?

The intention is to squeeze the supply....not increase it! It does not cost them any more to produce the same barrel of oil. What they want is to get the most for their investment. Every thing above the break even point is pure profit.

This country is so gullible. Tell your friend to go back to sleep.

....and don't lose any sleep over his ignorance. Move on to talking to someone who "Gets it!" You'll feel better and actually have a shot at getting another vote for Ron Paul!
 
tonyr1988 said:
Don't worry about it - historically, endorsements don't significantly help or hurt a candidate.

Tough to believe, but true.
Click to expand...

QFT

Rudy had plenty of high profile endorsements and look how much good it did him.

I suggest we use the news of endorsements for McCain (or whoever) on a local level. For example, one of Missouri's Senators endorsed Rudy a while back. For that reason alone I will be actively working against his re-election.

Instead of just getting mad, make it news you can use. ;)
 
We got cheap oil? Where? I don't see it.

Oil was $27 a barrel at the start. Now it's $90.

Your friend isn't very bright.
 
RollOn2day said:
Ahhhh yes, the cheap oil theory.

Let's get something straight with people who rally behind this. A barrel of oil was in the high $20's at the begining of the Iraq invasion. It is now in the $90's.

Is this a backfiring of the plan? Hardly. It is the plan. And it will be complete when we get Iran to blow up there own refineries just like Sadaam did and the price of oil gets to be $200 a barrel and beyond.

Cheap oil means less profit for Exxon, Shell, BP etc etc. Now what sense does it make for them to have a product that can only get $20 a barrel instead of $100 or more?

The intention is to squeeze the supply....not increase it! It does not cost them any more to produce the same barrel of oil. What they want is to get the most for their investment. Every thing above the break even point is pure profit.

This country is so gullible. Tell your friend to go back to sleep.

....and don't lose any sleep over his ignorance. Move on to talking to someone who "Gets it!" You'll feel better and actually have a shot at getting another vote for Ron Paul!
Click to expand...

DING! We have a winner!
 
Why would Mr "Look Under the Hood" Ross Perot throw his endorsement to Romney which I heard he did a week or so ago ?
 
WilliamC said:
I've had similar conversations with people who think it is absolutely right to use the military to make sure we keep the oil coming.

It's not the utter lack of morality that I find so appaling, it's the sheer stupidity they must have if they think oil is ever going to be any cheaper by our invading and occupying middle easter countries than if we were to simply buy if via the free-market.
Click to expand...

I agree. The free-market would be much cheaper considering that there's not long-term effects and there isn't the problem with how others view us. Though I do have to say that I also find the utter lack of morality quite appalling.

I've made mention, several times, that we should bite the bullet and drill in Alaska until we have something in place so we don't need so much petroleum-based products. Isn't it better to have a controlled drill in Alaska over thousands and thousands of innocent dead people?
 
Last edited:
RollOn2day said:
Ahhhh yes, the cheap oil theory.

Let's get something straight with people who rally behind this. A barrel of oil was in the high $20's at the begining of the Iraq invasion. It is now in the $90's.

Is this a backfiring of the plan? Hardly. It is the plan. And it will be complete when we get Iran to blow up there own refineries just like Sadaam did and the price of oil gets to be $200 a barrel and beyond.

Cheap oil means less profit for Exxon, Shell, BP etc etc. Now what sense does it make for them to have a product that can only get $20 a barrel instead of $100 or more?

The intention is to squeeze the supply....not increase it! It does not cost them any more to produce the same barrel of oil. What they want is to get the most for their investment. Every thing above the break even point is pure profit.

This country is so gullible. Tell your friend to go back to sleep.

....and don't lose any sleep over his ignorance. Move on to talking to someone who "Gets it!" You'll feel better and actually have a shot at getting another vote for Ron Paul!
Click to expand...

price per share price per share price per share
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The GOP Is AWOL on the Fiscal Front Yet Again
Replies
0
Views
1K
PAF
PAF
Swordsmyth
EXPOSED: The real creator of Bitcoin is likely the NSA as One World Currency
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
jmdrake
jmdrake
Danke
Are You Prepared?
Replies
10
Views
837
DamianTV
DamianTV
presence
Why Republicans keep missing the giant Benghazi scandal right before their eyes
Replies
16
Views
2K
loveshiscountry
L
Occam's Banana
2016 Is Right Around the Corner ...
Replies
0
Views
469
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top