Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

Topic: More republican hypocracy
madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 02/21/08 03:06 PM Edited by madisonman on Thu 02/21/08 03:07 PM
so Mr Mcain is in full damage control with his relationship to a female lobyist who he allegedly has shown favoritism to her clients in the right wing media. Big suprise

PATSFAN Joined Mon 12/10/07 Posts: 42782	Thu 02/21/08 03:07 PM
Wow a short post!!

PJTocci Joined Fri 01/11/08 Posts: 200	Thu 02/21/08 03:07 PM
Can't you do better than that?

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 02/21/08 03:09 PM
: Can't you do better than that? what can be said about it except I am wondering how many posts it will take untill some republican mentions Clinton

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 02/21/08 03:10 PM
: Can't you do better than that? what can be said about it except I am wondering how many posts it will take untill some republican mentions Clinton Clinton.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Thu 02/21/08 03:11 PM
so Mr Mcain is in full damage control with his relationship to a female lobyist who he allegedly has shown favoritism to her clients in the right wing media. Big suprise McCain is a RINO. He's a Democrat who calls himself a republican so that he stands out from other democrats.

lilith401 Joined Wed 10/31/07 Posts: 19593	Thu 02/21/08 03:12 PM
Why does it matter??

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 02/21/08 03:14 PM
Why does it matter?? It could be the differance between a 50 state democratic landslide and a 49 state democratic landslide

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Thu 02/21/08 03:15 PM
I'm for whichever candidate supports education the most, so that I never have to read the word hypocracy again.

lilith401 Joined Wed 10/31/07 Posts: 19593	Thu 02/21/08 03:16 PM
Why does it matter?? It could be the differance between a 50 state democratic landslide and a 49 state democratic landslide Says who?

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 02/21/08 03:17 PM
Ill vote for whoever ends the war, balances the budget and kills of NAFTA

iRon Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 2786	Thu 02/21/08 03:25 PM
Ok guys I am form AZ and have watched McCain’s political career over the years and he is noting more than a typical politician. He has been way week on immigration and head strong on making war. While he can come across as a man of principal his voting record says different and now his personal action say different as well. If you want more war and NO attention paid to the issues that truly mean something to this country like the economy, immigration and medical care He is your man.. Just my .02

Turtlepoet78 Joined Sat 11/24/07 Posts: 1423	Thu 02/21/08 03:28 PM
Mccains stance on immigration is one of the things I like about him, though I think pathway to citisenship should be more leniant;^]

iRon Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 2786	Thu 02/21/08 03:35 PM
Mccains stance on immigration is one of the things I like about him, though I think pathway to citisenship should be more leniant;^] Do you like the one of the past or the one of resent???????

Turtlepoet78 Joined Sat 11/24/07 Posts: 1423	Thu 02/21/08 03:37 PM
Mccains stance on immigration is one of the things I like about him, though I think pathway to citisenship should be more leniant;^] Do you like the one of the past or the one of resent??????? I like the idea of granting them citisenship, only I want it without back taxes, fines or touchbacks. I want to reward those who did whatever it took to feed their families with what they really want, citisenship;^]

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 02/21/08 03:58 PM
After mcain loses the election he could make millions endorseing Viagra

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 02/21/08 05:31 PM
Ill vote for whoever ends the war, balances the budget and kills of NAFTA sounds like a write in for ron paul

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 02/21/08 05:38 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 02/21/08 05:39 PM
NY Times backs Mccain in the Republican primary knowing that they have been working on this story for over six months. Mccain seals the Republican ticket and suddenly the NY Times releases a story, one which provides NO evidence and is full of innuendos to smear Mccain. This is a very weak smear. We even have Bill Bennet, big Democrat who was a lawyer for Clinton, coming to the aid of Mccain in this horrible smear campaign. Like many, including liberals, and others have said today, this smear piece will bring Republicans and especially conservatives to rally around Mccain. Any sensible person should see the weak attack this was, I was just watching Olbermann and even that fool of a man was holding back big time. Chris Matthews did the same as well today, even though you could surely tell he wished he had something really good to use. The New Republic and Washington Post are doing the same, TNR have a good piece about the inner turmoil this story caused at the NY Times. Some heads are going to roll, unless those anonymous sources decide to step up with real proof. John Weaver, tossed as the head of Mccain's campaign, what you would think would be a disgruntled ex-employee, has comments that go directly against the innuendos or what is implied by the NY Time article. Weaver said he talked to Iseman to back off and stop showing up because she was a lobbist throwing around the fact she knew Mccain and bragging about the pull she had. The piece is extremely weak, and unless they have something else to this it is going to be another Judy Wilson or Jayson Blair affair. NY Times sales are already in the tank and they have been laying off staff after staff and its continuing to go downhill there. Let the fall of the Grey Lady continue.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 02/21/08 05:44 PM
NY Times backs Mccain in the Republican primary knowing that they have been working on this story for over six months. Mccain seals the Republican ticket and suddenly the NY Times releases a story, one which provides NO evidence and is full of innuendos to smear Mccain. This is a very weak smear. We even have Bill Bennet, big Democrat who was a lawyer for Clinton, coming to the aid of Mccain in this horrible smear campaign. Like many, including liberals, and others have said today, this smear piece will bring Republicans and especially conservatives to rally around Mccain. Any sensible person should see the weak attack this was, I was just watching Olbermann and even that fool of a man was holding back big time. Chris Matthews did the same as well today, even though you could surely tell he wished he had something really good to use. The New Republic and Washington Post are doing the same, TNR have a good piece about the inner turmoil this story caused at the NY Times. Some heads are going to roll, unless those anonymous sources decide to step up with real proof. John Weaver, tossed as the head of Mccain's campaign, what you would think would be a disgruntled ex-employee, has comments that go directly against the innuendos or what is implied by the NY Time article. Weaver said he talked to Iseman to back off and stop showing up because she was a lobbist throwing around the fact she knew Mccain and bragging about the pull she had. The piece is extremely weak, and unless they have something else to this it is going to be another Judy Wilson or Jayson Blair affair. NY Times sales are already in the tank and they have been laying off staff after staff and its continuing to go downhill there. Let the fall of the Grey Lady continue. well everyone says it was not a big deal when they bring it up about clinton (proven fact) so i would guess unless they are all hypocrites it is even less a big deal if not proven things that make you go hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm (but thats another thread)

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 02/21/08 05:47 PM
NY Times backs Mccain in the Republican primary knowing that they have been working on this story for over six months. Mccain seals the Republican ticket and suddenly the NY Times releases a story, one which provides NO evidence and is full of innuendos to smear Mccain. This is a very weak smear. We even have Bill Bennet, big Democrat who was a lawyer for Clinton, coming to the aid of Mccain in this horrible smear campaign. Like many, including liberals, and others have said today, this smear piece will bring Republicans and especially conservatives to rally around Mccain. Any sensible person should see the weak attack this was, I was just watching Olbermann and even that fool of a man was holding back big time. Chris Matthews did the same as well today, even though you could surely tell he wished he had something really good to use. The New Republic and Washington Post are doing the same, TNR have a good piece about the inner turmoil this story caused at the NY Times. Some heads are going to roll, unless those anonymous sources decide to step up with real proof. John Weaver, tossed as the head of Mccain's campaign, what you would think would be a disgruntled ex-employee, has comments that go directly against the innuendos or what is implied by the NY Time article. Weaver said he talked to Iseman to back off and stop showing up because she was a lobbist throwing around the fact she knew Mccain and bragging about the pull she had. The piece is extremely weak, and unless they have something else to this it is going to be another Judy Wilson or Jayson Blair affair. NY Times sales are already in the tank and they have been laying off staff after staff and its continuing to go downhill there. Let the fall of the Grey Lady continue. well everyone says it was not a big deal when they bring it up about clinton (proven fact) so i would guess unless they are all hypocrites it is even less a big deal if not proven things that make you go hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm (but thats another thread) Huh? The thing is, there were facts and concrete evidence behind those stories around Clinton or people on the record who weren't simply anonymous sources. You really can't see the difference?