Let’s start with how McCain feels about Christians. In 2000 McCain attacked religious leaders, see
The New York Times, Published: February 29, 2000, by calling them "agents of intolerance" and later confirmed he said what he meant and meant what he said by saying , "I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted, it was carefully thought out." See msnbc Meet the Press. And now, looking to be president, he tries to con Christians who may not have heard his true feelings about them.

It is also important to note McCain was pro-choice before he was against murdering the unborn McCain parroted the pro-choice crowd’s nonsense about the overturning of Roe v. Wade would lead to illegal abortions. See: McCain on abortion, POLITICAL WRAP, August 27, 1999, PBS. But now he is pro-life and would support a South Dakota ban on abortions. See: MEDIAMATTERS, Fri, Nov 17, 2006 7:34pm ET! This article documents the two faced clown McCain really is just like Hillary, ready to say and do anything to get elected!

And true to the leftist doctrine to silence and manipulate political free speech, especially talk radio, and do so under the guise of “campaign-finance reform“ McCain takes great pride in his being part of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which shreds one of our most formidable prohibitions placed upon Congress contained in our federal Bill of Rights ___ that “Congress shall make no law …. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

This issue alone proves McCain is a dangerous domestic enemy of our Constitutionally limited system of government and a traitor to the oath of office he took to support and defend “this Constitution”, which does not provide for McCain to make the rules up as he goes along, especially when it involves freedom of speech and of the press. It is obvious to see that McCain supports the kind of controlled press which was practiced in Vietnam. Is this where he learned of its political advantages and benefits?

And, let us not forget that McCain almost violently defended granting amnesty to 12-20 million foreign nationals who have invaded our borders! But then again, those who understand Newspeak language “comprehensive immigration reform”, and the issue of unrestricted immigration into the united States, also know that McCain’s open border thing is part of our NAFTA/CAFTA Global Governance Crowd’s agenda.

Cheap labor, especially if it is far below existing fair market value rates, and comparable to slave labor, allows international corporate giants based upon America soil, who have no allegiance to the United States or any nation, to increase their bottom line while gaining a competitive advantage over domestic businesses who do not utilize slave labor, and thereby crushing them and leaving 10‘s of thousands of Americans unemployed.

And this two faced squid wants to be president of the United States? I suspect if our founding fathers were alive today they would have tarred and feathered McCain long ago and exposed him for the wannabe tyrant he would like to be.

JWK

Overturning Roe v Wade WOULD lead to illegal abortions. Why would you think otherwise? Women had them before Roe v Wade made it legal, and it would simply go back to that status. Finding less doctors willing to do them, there might be less, however. But it's not an unreasonable statement by McCain or anyone else. I personally think Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and has absolutely nothing to do with "privacy" which they pulled from the Constitution to write the flawed bill.

On immigration----it's also not unreasonable to believe that allowing the illegals to work towards becomming citizens and fulfilling all the other requirements of the Bush proposal would have helped to solve the problem facing us. Yes, they are here illegally. Yes, they have helped our economy tremendously. And NO.....we are NOT going to round them up and send them home. So, the Bush proposal, which McCain, agreed with was certainly a viable solution. I've not heard any others.

I've not agreed with McCain on everything. In fact, I despised his part in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill which Bush signed into law. I think all it did was to make it harder---if not impossible----for the average Joe Blow to particiate in the election process; while making it much easier for the likes of George Soros to do so. It's like one of those unintended consequences. The thought behind it might have been a good one----but it was full of loopholes for the ultra-rich and those who immediately sought to get around it. And all the while, leaving the average citizen OUT in the cold.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

I agree to an extent with McCain on this: many religious leaders are intolerant about any viewpoint but their own. As well, he was referring to religious leaders, not all Christians, which you have conveniently spun from McCain's statements.

Almost every presidential candidate for 08 has contradictions, except for Ron Paul. I disagree with Ron Paul's take on abortion itself, but I do agree the federal government should put abortion legislation in the state hands. As for McCain, I don't really pay attention to him.

So how does this violate "freedom of speech"? And why does it matter- there are so many loopholes anyway for campaign finance it's ridiculous, especially when the people who are supposed to abide by the rules MAKE the rules.

I hate to break this to you: almost every candidate benefits from the controlled press, which attempts to create political superiority. Except for Ron Paul, of course, who is ignored by the press for various reasons that aren't difficult to figure out when one takes off their partisan glasses.

Rudy "9-11" Ghouliani's proposed policy (which is vague at best) essentially says the same thing.

It's much more complex than this. But essentially, yes.

Tyrrany is best served on a warm dish, nicely presented, but full of poison. I see almost every other candidate serving this dish.

It’s an irrelevant point! And, it’s not nice to suggest something I think when in fact I never expressed such a thought.

The only relevant point is, Roe v Wade subjugated a power reserved by the people of each state. And, it is interesting to note that McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage and did so on the ground that it would violate powers reserved by the states. But when it comes to abortion, he squawks about an irrelevant issue rather than supporting the limited powers granted to the federal government by our Constitution.


What is unreasonable is his “comprehensive” nonsense, which proposed to allowed 12-20 million foreign nationals to remain here while countless foreigners have been working though legal channels to get here and become citizens of the united States. McCain’s line jumping crap geared to those who have invaded our borders from Mexico is not reasonable as you suggest. Why are you sucking up to this two faced clown?

JWK

Conveniently spun? The truth is, the link I posted to the New York Times article explains the details. McCain’s comments were not presidential or called for.

So how does this violate "freedom of speech"? Do you know what is intended by “Congress shall make no law …. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”? It has to do with people being left free from Congress's meddling in how people support the candidate of their choice.

I hate to break this to you. Your comment is very stale news. The very beginning of newspapers in America were geared to promoting partisan politics. Did you have a point to make aside from repeatedly dropping your candidates name?

JWK

Wasn't it that McCain guy that was one of only two GOPs that votes against the tax cuts that revived are country when it was slipping into the Clinton recession?

He wouln't do something like that, would he?



McCain Would Vote Against Tax Cuts Again

JWK

His tax cut vote is one of the biggest problems I have with McCain. That and his stupid Campaign Finance Reform. Might have been a bit of "revengeful payback" to Bush after their bitter battle during the previous campaign. And if that was the case, I don't care for those who will use their personal attacks ahead of doing what's best for the country. That sounds too much like the Democrats.

McCain's definitely been on the wrong side of several issues. The ONLY thing I respect him for is his stance on national security. On that point, he's totally supported Bush. AND he was right about the need for putting more troops in there. But having said ALL that, he'd STILL be better than ANY Democrat running.

I'm pulling for Romney at this point. But I will vote for ANY Republican over ANY of the Democrats.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

I agree, but, don't believe there is a Republican Party any more. The Democrat Party has been seeding the Republican Party with its members for years. There is only a few remaining Republicans in a party taken over by big government socialist democrats, and they keep themselves in power by playing good cop bad cop ___ a bread a circus game to con the Republican voters.


JWK

Well, that happens on both sides of the political spectrum. For instance, during the last election of 2006, the only way the Dems took back the Majority was by running "conservative" Democrats in certain places. This from the liberal DailyKos:

"Pushing Back on Bush Dog Democrats: Step One
by Matt Stoller
Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:56:32 AM PST
cross-posted on OpenLeft, where we will be running the campaign.

I'm hearing more and more frequently a sense of rage with the Democratic leadership in Congress. From failing to stop the war to expanding Bush's wiretapping authority, the swing vote of conservative Democrats in the House are forming an effective conservative majority that is enabling Bush to govern as he wishes. The polls show that this is a very bad political move for Democrats."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/22/94647/5187

So, the Blue dog Democrats are what it took for them to take back the Majority....but now they don't like the way they are governing, which means they may very well lose it again.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."