McCain can't answer simple question

He is. Another reason I support Hillary. Unfortunately, she has to pretend to support Obama for the sake of her hopeful run in 2012. Personally, I'd rather she vocally exclamated that she knows Obama is a racist piece of fucking shit, that she knows McCain is the better candidate, run on an independent ticket to ensure McCain's victory, and then work towards forming a moderate party so she can run in 2012 without the help of extremely liberal fucks like Obama and the rest of the Democratic whack jobs.

The differences between Hillary's positions and Obama's were minimal.

The difference between Hillary and McCain's positions is night and day.

So I can only assume two things:

A. You are not really a Hillary supporter, you are just trying to pull Hilllary supporters to McCain or

B. You are a racist.
 
The differences between Hillary's positions and Obama's were minimal.

The difference between Hillary and McCain's positions is night and day.

So I can only assume two things:

A. You are not really a Hillary supporter, you are just trying to pull Hilllary supporters to McCain or

B. You are a racist.

The difference between Obama and Hillary's positions were minimal. With his new flip-flop policy, they are becoming major.

Call me racist if you must. There are dozens of black people I would support for President, but not Obama. He has too many ties to too many black liberation theologists (aka: racist bigots).

Furthermore, I have been a supporter of McCain for years. I said four years ago that I would support his run for Presidency, but I never thought Hillary would actually run. No, actually, I never thought Obama would have the audacity to run, after he admitted he was not ready to be President in 2008. But, that's just another one of his flip-flops. I'm sure we'll see plenty more, the campaign is far from over.

The problem with Obama is he was never given a chance to define himself as a national politician before this campaign. No one knew where he stood, and he would never take a definitive stance on anything (except saying the vote for the war on Iraq was bad, which I condone him for). The more time he spends in the public eye, the more he proves himself as "more of the same," something his campaign was trying to defeat.
 
McCain was involved in the Keating 5 scandal. That was in the 80's. They had to bail out the savings and loan industry because of this deregulations scandal.
There was no deregulation scandal, it was a Democrat party scandal!

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly.

McCain was the lone Republican of the five Senators investigated, and he was included in the investigation at least partly because of his party affiliation. All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected. Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Bitter, much?

After watching the causes feminists decide to take on and how they inevitably try to pit their causes against some health issue for men, their stance here is quite typical and no surprise they would equate a woman's DESIRE to avoid pregnancy so she can have carefree sex - with the loss of normal function in a man due to disease. Feminist organizations have an anti-male, anti-male health issue, and anti-male concerns agenda they have no problem insisting should be sacrificed to some female issue -even if it means trivializing a serious male-related issue.

I am a woman. But I am no man-hater pretending I have been victimized my entire life due to the very existence of men and I do have a strong sense of fair play and what is actually meant by EQUALITY. Feminists aren't interested in equality no matter what words they may mouth -their actions prove it.

Lung cancer is the leading cancer for both men and women. The second most common cancer in women is breast cancer and the second most common cancer in men is prostate cancer. Slightly more men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year than the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer each year. The numbers who die of prostate cancer every year are roughly similar to the numbers who die of breast cancer. More women do eventually die of breast cancer in the long run -but then they also live longer than men so they are around longer for that to happen. A man with prostate cancer will often end up dying of a heart attack before his prostate cancer can kill him. (Almost 1% of those who die of breast cancer are actually men who can and do develop breast cancer too.)

The typical layperson -whether male or female -will GROSSLY underestimate a man's lifetime risk of prostate cancer, the number diagnosed each year and the number of those who succumb to the disease every year. And that same person will overestimate a woman's risk of breast cancer while overestimating the numbers diagnosed with breast cancer and the numbers who succumb to the disease.

Healthwise, these two cancers SHOULD be seen as posing virtually identical lifetime risks to the particular gender at risk of getting that kind of gender-related cancer -because they do. Would you know that from any of the public health messages you hear? For every mention of prostate cancer -you will hear at least 20 messages regarding breast cancer. And when you look at funding for research for these two cancers -there is a STARK difference too.

The National Cancer Institute directs $1.8 billion toward breast cancer research every year and $376 million to prostate cancer research projects -breast cancer research receives nearly 5 times as much money over prostate cancer. At one time it was roughly equal though.

So why do you think there is such a sharp difference of both public awareness and research dollars allocated for each -when prostate cancer actually affects men in nearly identical numbers as breast cancer affects women? Breast cancer research doesn't just receive the lion's share of research dollars -prostate cancer research is actually receiving little more than crumbs in comparison.

The answer is feminists who deliberately targeted this issue -who insisted then and still insist that breast cancer is a far more important health issue than is prostate cancer, and therefore deserving of far more research dollars than goes for prostate cancer research. No little pink ribbons given out to men who survive the first five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, no massive and nonstop onslaught of public health commercials featuring men who have so far survived their prostate cancer diagnosis - and certainly you don't see any "Walkathons" or similar events to raise money for prostate cancer research as well as raise public awareness that men face the identical risk of prostate cancer as women do breast cancer - much less the average of 4 fund-raising events that place in any given month somewhere in this country for breast cancer research.

Feminist organizations have already targeted their next "issue" -research dollars going towards WOMEN'S development of heart disease and heart attack, specific treatment for WOMEN who develop this disease. And they want it done at the expense of research dollars going towards general research for heart disease. That's right -they want it funneled off from that research and insist this is a serious and significant women's health issue that has been ignored by the male dominated medical community and medical researchers. Which is utter bs.

If you think maybe it really is a woman's health issue just ignored by the male dominated medical community -remember this. A woman will suffer an average of three heart attacks before actually dying of a heart attack. But by the age when the average woman has her very first heart attack, the average man who develops heart disease has already been dead for 7 years. Men are much less likely to survive their first heart attack at all, they develop heart disease earlier than women and they die at a much younger age of it than do women. Researchers already know why women do not develop heart disease until a later age then men and already know the reasons both genders do eventually develop it are actually the same. Treatment is not gender specific because the disease itself and reasons for developing it are not gender specific.

So where do you REALLY think the bulk of research dollars should go regarding heart disease here when that research has and will continue to provide great benefit to both genders anyway?

I think those hardcore feminists need a reality adjustment myself and perhaps show a bit more gratitude to that male-dominated medical world than they do. In the 18th century, prior to when medical research (and yes, it was and is male dominated) really started making important strides -a woman's life expectancy was nearly 10 years less than it was for men. Today the average woman can expect to live longer than the average man by about 6 years. My question to the feminists: If that male-dominated medical research you frequently rant against has somehow favored men over women for decades and decades now -then why did that research result in not just equalizing the life expectancy rates for men and women, but resulted in a much longer life expectancy rate for women over that of men?

If I am "bitter" about anything -perhaps it is because my father-in-law died of prostate cancer 2 years ago. Long before my husband should have been deprived of his dad and long before our kids should have been deprived of their wonderful grandfather. Did he die sooner than he would have otherwise if research dollars for prostate cancer had been distributed in equitable fashion with those going to breast cancer research? The fact they weren't and haven't been for a long time now certainly didn't help him one bit, did it?
 
Last edited:
The difference between Obama and Hillary's positions were minimal. With his new flip-flop policy, they are becoming major.

Call me racist if you must. There are dozens of black people I would support for President, but not Obama. He has too many ties to too many black liberation theologists (aka: racist bigots).

Furthermore, I have been a supporter of McCain for years. I said four years ago that I would support his run for Presidency, but I never thought Hillary would actually run. No, actually, I never thought Obama would have the audacity to run, after he admitted he was not ready to be President in 2008. But, that's just another one of his flip-flops. I'm sure we'll see plenty more, the campaign is far from over.

The problem with Obama is he was never given a chance to define himself as a national politician before this campaign. No one knew where he stood, and he would never take a definitive stance on anything (except saying the vote for the war on Iraq was bad, which I condone him for). The more time he spends in the public eye, the more he proves himself as "more of the same," something his campaign was trying to defeat.

1. Every black person probably knows someone who hates whitey, justifiably so, especially if they are older people.
2. McCain is the king flip flopper. I too liked him in 2000. If you liked him in 2000, why would you like him now when he is bizarro McCain?
3. Obama is moving towards the center so he can get independents. Sorta what McCain did in 2000. It didn't work for McCain because GW did the same thing to McCain that "they" are doing to Obama, and it is working on you. You like Negative campaigning? I hate it. Go to fightthesmear.com and see they are lying about Obama, or exxagerating.
4. Bill Clinton had zero Federal experience. He was Gov of Arkansas for God sakes and he was great. You didn't know where he stood either. Turned out he stood right in the middle. Obama will too.
5. Who are the black people you would vote for?
6. You supported McCain and Hillary even though they are night and day from each other's policies?
7. You don't mind McCain's ties to Lobbyists and white liberation theologists (aka: racist bigots)?
 
Fraz, I only got through your first paragraph where you talked about carefree sex only being important to guarantee for men.

That's big of you.
 
Sorry, I just couldn't help it. I just saw a commercial on TV, and your post went right along with it....and it fit the topoc.:D
 
Fraz, I only got through your first paragraph where you talked about carefree sex only being important to guarantee for men.

That's big of you.
You should have read "her" entire post.
You are not making any sense, unless you think all women should yank out their uterus.
 
1. Every black person probably knows someone who hates whitey, justifiably so, especially if they are older people.

Let me be blunt. Obama doesn't know racist bigots, he is one. Is that clear enough?

2. McCain is the king flip flopper. I too liked him in 2000. If you liked him in 2000, why would you like him now when he is bizarro McCain?

I see nothing changed about McCain from 2000, 2004, or today.

3. Obama is moving towards the center so he can get independents. Sorta what McCain did in 2000. It didn't work for McCain because GW did the same thing to McCain that "they" are doing to Obama, and it is working on you. You like Negative campaigning? I hate it. Go to fightthesmear.com and see they are lying about Obama, or exxagerating.

Obama is moving towards the center, which is completely against what he supposedly stands for. Every politician moves to the center, but Obama is supposed to be the candidate of change. McCain and Clinton don't have to move towards the center, they are already there.

4. Bill Clinton had zero Federal experience. He was Gov of Arkansas for God sakes and he was great. You didn't know where he stood either. Turned out he stood right in the middle. Obama will too.

Clinton served as governor of Arkansas for 11 years. He always worked for the McGovern camp before he became an Arkansas politician. He also surrounded himself with great mentors like J. William Fulbright, not people like Jeremiah Wright. Clinton turned Arkansas upside down during his time here. He reformed education, provided thousands of dollars in scholarships, improved roads across the entire state, pushed for beautification projects, fought poverty on the neighborhood level, provided jobs, and greatly improved the state's economy. He had nearly twenty years in the public eye before running for President. Anyone who didn't know what he stood for wasn't paying attention. I could look back on Clinton's life before running for President and tell you exactly where he stood, exactly what he had done for his state and its communities. I can't tell you what Barack has done in Illinois, because he hasn't even been there for one full term.

5. Who are the black people you would vote for?

Colin Powell, easily. Rice, if she would break from the Bush administration and admit she was just a puppet and prove she is smarter than that. And countless others.

6. You supported McCain and Hillary even though they are night and day from each other's policies?

They are not that different. McCain is a moderate leaning conservative. Clinton is a moderate leaning liberal. Obama is a liberal pretending to care about conservatives.

7. You don't mind McCain's ties to Lobbyists and white liberation theologists (aka: racist bigots)?

This is a two-fold question. For the first part, all politicians have ties to lobbyists, even Obama. Second, exactly which racist churches did McCain attend for 20 years? What racist fuck did he call his mentor and his "father figure?"
 
McCain was involved in the Keating 5 scandal. That was in the 80's. They had to bail out the savings and loan industry because of this deregulations scandal.
There was no deregulation scandal, it was a Democrat party scandal!

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly.

McCain was the lone Republican of the five Senators investigated, and he was included in the investigation at least partly because of his party affiliation. All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected. Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I noticed that someone altered wikipedia to say that.

And keep in mind that when Mark Foley first got into politics, he was involved in some kind of homo/pedophile sex scandal and the gop swept that one under the rug too. And Dennis Hastert knew Foley was flirting with underage pages back in 2005 and the 06 election was more important than the safety of underage pages working for them. They let a predator pray on kids for yrs.

Not to mention the gop hasn't learned thei lession regarding deregulations, because it caused the housing crash, another bank collapse & the oil prices to double.

and you want to vote them back into office. nice
 
Why doesn't the media ask Obomber this question?
Oh nevermind, Obama thinks children are a punishment!
 
Let me be blunt. Obama doesn't know racist bigots, he is one. Is that clear enough?



I see nothing changed about McCain from 2000, 2004, or today.



Obama is moving towards the center, which is completely against what he supposedly stands for. Every politician moves to the center, but Obama is supposed to be the candidate of change. McCain and Clinton don't have to move towards the center, they are already there.



Clinton served as governor of Arkansas for 11 years. He always worked for the McGovern camp before he became an Arkansas politician. He also surrounded himself with great mentors like J. William Fulbright, not people like Jeremiah Wright. Clinton turned Arkansas upside down during his time here. He reformed education, provided thousands of dollars in scholarships, improved roads across the entire state, pushed for beautification projects, fought poverty on the neighborhood level, provided jobs, and greatly improved the state's economy. He had nearly twenty years in the public eye before running for President. Anyone who didn't know what he stood for wasn't paying attention. I could look back on Clinton's life before running for President and tell you exactly where he stood, exactly what he had done for his state and its communities. I can't tell you what Barack has done in Illinois, because he hasn't even been there for one full term.



Colin Powell, easily. Rice, if she would break from the Bush administration and admit she was just a puppet and prove she is smarter than that. And countless others.



They are not that different. McCain is a moderate leaning conservative. Clinton is a moderate leaning liberal. Obama is a liberal pretending to care about conservatives.



This is a two-fold question. For the first part, all politicians have ties to lobbyists, even Obama. Second, exactly which racist churches did McCain attend for 20 years? What racist fuck did he call his mentor and his "father figure?"

I forgot and broke my own rule about chatting with people who aren't being intellectually honest with me.

You are 100 wrong, but that's your right.

You make me so glad Hillary lost.
 
Yes, I noticed that someone altered wikipedia to say that.

And keep in mind that when Mark Foley first got into politics, he was involved in some kind of homo/pedophile sex scandal and the gop swept that one under the rug too. And Dennis Hastert knew Foley was flirting with underage pages back in 2005 and the 06 election was more important than the safety of underage pages working for them. They let a predator pray on kids for yrs.

Not to mention the gop hasn't learned thei lession regarding deregulations, because it caused the housing crash, another bank collapse & the oil prices to double.

and you want to vote them back into office. nice
Since you changed the subject, I guess you know that you are exposed for hating men when someone compares birth control to Viagra, a treatment for a male disease.

Foley had sex with a child? Please provide that evidence.
Hastert swept something under the rug? Please provide that evidence.
 
Not having a rock hard erection when you're an old man is not a disease, folks.

It's a fact of life unless you take drugs to artifically make and keep yourself turgid.
 
Since you changed the subject, I guess you know that you are exposed for hating men when someone compares birth control to Viagra, a treatment for a male disease.

Foley had sex with a child? Please provide that evidence.
Hastert swept something under the rug? Please provide that evidence.

You don't remember those sexual emails Foley sent to that little boy?
And why do you think Hastert disappeared?


man are you gullable.

Prove these 2 things didn't happen.

I forgot again. I don't discuss anything with ppl like you. Later.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top