Why I am forced to vote for McCain

[Observer]

third party candidates historically never gain enough supoort to ever win an election...I pretty much had to vote for McCain...he's the lesser of the evils.

*yawn* Ground, you didn't have to vote for McCain, you chose to do so. The vote in the toilet argument is one of the oldest that the neo-cons use to get people to swallow their pathetic offerings every four years. If you continue to believe it and vote the way they want you to, nothing will ever change.

I wouldn't quite say that voting for someone you don't like is throwing away a vote... but it is pretty close. According to my figures, even if ballots are counted correctly, the chances that your 1 vote will make a difference in our electoral system is 1 in 6,168,000,000.

In other words, it would seem to be the best bet to (a) vote for someone you support; and (b) buy a few lottery tickets. Maybe you'll hit the jackpot and can actually have funds to have an effect on the next election. Assuming this isn't America's final election.

 

[Thrashen]

Man, some of the political opinions on this site are shocking when considering the base of the posters here.

If any of you dont like both candidates, then simply DO NOT vote. You have that right.

McCain isnt anything special or conservative, but I'll vote for him.

I'm sure McCain could care less about his race, let alone love it the way I do. The way I feel, our blood, our flesh, our minds, and our hearts are the gifts our ancestors survived to give to us. Their children were their immortality, and those are the only politics that I care about.

The Zionist-Washington politics will never change, unless they are destroyed and overthrown.Edited by: Thrashen

 

[Menelik]

McCain isnt anything special or conservative, but I'll vote for him....

The Zionist-Washington politics will never change, unless they are destroyed and overthrown.

You do realize the contradiction in your post don't you?

 

[White Shogun]

McCain isnt anything special or conservative, but I'll vote for him....

The Zionist-Washington politics will never change, unless they are destroyed and overthrown.

You do realize the contradiction in your post don't you?

There is no contradiction. Reading the entire post and not just the selection quoted, as I read it, Thrashen is essentially voting for McCain because he is white. Am I wrong, Thrashen?

 

[celticdb15]

Well obama won so all those votes for barr dont really do anything. Get ready for race being brought up every day for the next 4 years.

 

[Bart]

I'm sure McCain could care less about his race, let alone love it the way I do. The way I feel, our blood, our flesh, our minds, and our hearts are the gifts our ancestors survived to give to us. Their children were their immortality, and those are the only politics that I care about.

The Zionist-Washington politics will never change, unless they are destroyed and overthrown.

That sounds about right.

 

[screamingeagle]

While I am at it, how is he going to get enough black for his civilian security force? He will have to import them from Africa...uh oh....

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Will someone explain to me how McCain's father was an "accessory" to murder?

And I too don't like the fact that McCain left his first wife when she was wheel chair bound, that is very wrong. McCain was after all a POW though who had gone through an incredible ammount and maybe he felt entitled.

I don't agree with Embryonic Stem Cell research, because even if it helps sick people it still takes a life. I personally am Pro-life unless the woman's life is endangered period. Although I don't personally agree, the Rape Incest exception is at least reasonable though as long as people tell the truth in that circumstance and it's done early.

I can also understand people's anger of McCain's previous AA support on a handful of bills, but it is nowhere near the level of Obamas. And McCain has shifted right on this issue.

But I just don't get how all you guys really think we can deport every illegal (all 15 million or what not). The ammount of resources and time to do this would be incredible. Secure the boarder! And then let the ones here pay fines and begin a process to naturalization if they have a clean criminal record and can speak their oath in English.

Plus it just wouldn't work to deport them all anyway b/c most of them have families and sometimes kids that were born here!Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Kaptain]

"But I just don't get how all you guys really think we can deport every illegal. The ammount of resources and time to do this would be incredible. Secure the boarder! And then let the ones here pay fines and begin a process to naturalization if they have a clean criminal record. Plus it just wouldn't work to deport them all anyway b/c most of them have families and sometimes kids that were born here!"

How have other countries today and throughout history control immigration? They did, so why do you think we can't? End birthright citizenship (it wasn't intended for illegals), end all entitlements for illegals including public education, severely punish employers of illegals (you know, like how they would punish you if you cheated on taxes), line the border with an armed national guard, and deport every stinking last one of them. That's how - other countries do it - common sense.

The resources and time we put into keeping these criminally inclined people far outways the costs of deporting them.

 

[Kaptain]

Will someone explain to me how McCain's father was an "accessory" to murder?

And I too don't like the fact that McCain left his first wife when she was wheel chair bound, that is very wrong. McCain was after all a POW though who had gone through an incredible ammount and maybe he felt entitled.

USS Liberty.

McCain being a POW is an excuse to cheat on his wife for several years with several different women? A lot of POW's would despise being held to such low standards. Other than being a POW he lived a rather privileged life being an Admiral's son unlike most other POW's. Most POW's and veterans returned and were model citizens.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Of course I don't agree with divorcing your spouse in most circumstances, that's why I had a puzzled sign at the end. I was just listing what McCain's thinking might have been, however faulty or immoral. There may have been something else between McCain and his ex-wife as well, but we may never know.

I had no idea that McCain cheated on her, I just thought he left her for another woman he found more "preferable".

I follow my Religon avidly and I would never leave my girl for any reason (once we get married this coming summer) other than what the Catholic church would find acceptable. She feels the same way.

 

[Thrashen]

"There is no contradiction. Reading the entire post and not just the selection quoted, as I read it, Thrashen is essentially voting for McCain because he is white. Am I wrong, Thrashen?"


Yeah. You see, I have a little something called "loyalty," a quality severly lacking in 99% of whites. McCain means nothing to me politically speaking. However, because he is lucky enough to be a member of my people, I'll defend him and care for him.

I love my people, even if they don't love me back. I guess that's just how "contradictory" I am.

 

[DWFan]

Will someone explain to me how McCain's father was an "accessory" to murder?

I provided a link in that very same message. The Israeli pilots murdered over thirty Americans, and McCain's dad covered it up. He is, literally, an accessory to murder. If you have a cognitive problem with understanding it, sue me for slandering him.

 

[Ground Fighter]

I haven't been keeping track but as far as I know I am the only one that has switched his position from Third Party to McCain. Who else has changed their mind? I myself was persuaded by some of the posters here to support McCain, so I guess it's a wash.

I went into this election with my decision to vote for McCain from the get-go. The way I look at it, voting for a third party candidate is like throwing a vote in the toilet. Reason being, is that third party candidates historically never gain enough supoort to ever win an election. Ross Perot came the closest to being elected when he ran against Bush and Clinton some years back. And he only earned 20% of the overall votes.I pretty much had to vote for McCain...he's the lesser of the evils.

*yawn* Ground, you didn't have to vote for McCain, you chose to do so. The vote in the toilet argument is one of the oldest that the neo-cons use to get people to swallow their pathetic offerings every four years. If you continue to believe it and vote the way they want you to, nothing will ever change.

Point made.

Next election, I'll do what I should have done last Tuesday:

Talk a lot of sh*t about how everyone needs to vote for who they realy want in office,and then just sit home on election day.

I can't win, so why bother?Edited by: Ground Fighter

 

[Bart]

I had no idea that McCain cheated on her, I just thought he left her for another woman he found more "preferable".

Well, that little rat cheated on her and screwed us over too. I read his speech congratulating BO. I have news for you Johnnythe traitor boy. Thatbozo YOU helped gain the White House is notmy president. If not for the illegal aliens, congressional sellouts, ACORN scams, and your taking a dive, he would have lost. Treacherous rodents! One day buddy, when the ship of state is righted, you will go down in history asanother Benedict Arnold.

 

[johnnyboy]

"But I just don't get how all you guys really think we can deport every illegal. The ammount of resources and time to do this would be incredible. Secure the boarder! And then let the ones here pay fines and begin a process to naturalization if they have a clean criminal record. Plus it just wouldn't work to deport them all anyway b/c most of them have families and sometimes kids that were born here!"

How have other countries today and throughout history control immigration? They did, so why do you think we can't? End birthright citizenship (it wasn't intended for illegals), end all entitlements for illegals including public education, severely punish employers of illegals (you know, like how they would punish you if you cheated on taxes), line the border with an armed national guard, and deport every stinking last one of them. That's how - other countries do it - common sense.

The resources and time we put into keeping these criminally inclined people far outways the costs of deporting them.

as a country, we are not going to deport every illegal already here. you would need armed force for that, and if you think the average american is going to be cool with watching armed national guards herd illegals into deportation camps, you are way off. the only opton is securing the border now and stop all future illegal immigration.

 

[screamingeagle]

To Johnnyboy: Americans never complained when Ike deported all the illegal mexicans in the 1950s. This was called Operation Wetback- they had a sense of humor in those days.
Why would people object? There would be less crime, higher wages, less traffic, lower taxes, and that is just the beginning. The key is to deport them and securing the border at the same time.
Impossible? Now. I was calculated that if we used all the school buses in the US, it would take us only 14 weeks to deport the illegals. Deporting illegal is just a logistical problem.
What is impossible is suppying Berlin by air for a year. We did that in 1948. Don't underestimate americans. Hoo-Ha

 

[Kaptain]

"But I just don't get how all you guys really think we can deport every illegal. The ammount of resources and time to do this would be incredible. Secure the boarder! And then let the ones here pay fines and begin a process to naturalization if they have a clean criminal record. Plus it just wouldn't work to deport them all anyway b/c most of them have families and sometimes kids that were born here!"

How have other countries today and throughout history control immigration? They did, so why do you think we can't? End birthright citizenship (it wasn't intended for illegals), end all entitlements for illegals including public education, severely punish employers of illegals (you know, like how they would punish you if you cheated on taxes), line the border with an armed national guard, and deport every stinking last one of them. That's how - other countries do it - common sense.

The resources and time we put into keeping these criminally inclined people far outways the costs of deporting them.

as a country, we are not going to deport every illegal already here. you would need armed force for that, and if you think the average american is going to be cool with watching armed national guards herd illegals into deportation camps, you are way off. the only opton is securing the border now and stop all future illegal immigration.

Really dude, we can't? Have we even come close to trying? So the mightest nation in the history of the world can't deport illegals? I guess that means you are for Amnesty and that explains how you voted. Who is the "average American" in your view anyway?

Let's see who is being more realistic. We'll try your approach: The borders are secured, however every illegal now knows that if he can somehow (by boat, Semi's, holes in security etc.) get here he will be rewarded with American citizenship or at the very least be allowed to stay and enjoy everything American taxpayers do. The surge of illegals will continue as a result and eventually the border guards will wonder what purpose they are serving. The idea of a secure border will eventually be dumped with the words "see I told you so" coming from LaRaza and Ted Kennedy. We gave it a shot and it just didn't work, besides America is a nation of immigrants a wonderful melting pot etc. Nice plan.

My plan: Most Americans will applaud deportations, while a small minority of Americans will vigorously oppose it(say about the number of illegals and relatives of illegals). We'll enforce the law and deport them anyway - over a period of time of course - it's called deportation by attrition. They will have no incentive to return. No citizenship, no entitlements, no jobs - no returning. Their countrymen will have no incentive to try to get in either. Border security will become a rather easy task. Any civil unrest from the initial deportations will be met with necessary force (easily achieved). We've already seen deportations in meat-packing raids and nothing more than a few protests happened. I think we can handle it. I'm cool with this plan. Edited by: Kaptain Poop

 

[Bart]

My plan: Most Americans will applaud deportations, while a small minority of Americans will vigorously oppose it(say about the number of illegals and relatives of illegals). We'll enforce the law and deport them anyway - over a period of time of course - it's called deportation by attrition. They will have no incentive to return. No citizenship, no entitlements, no jobs - no returning. Their countrymen will have no incentive to try to get in either. Border security will become a rather easy task. Any civil unrest from the initial deportations will be met with necessary force (easily achieved). We've already seen deportations in meat-packing raids and nothing more than a few protests happened. I think we can handle it. I'm cool with this plan.

You're right Kaptain. Of course we can deport them. The problem isn' that it's not doable. The major obstacle is overcoming the oppositionagainst it.

 

[waterbed]

the maximum you can do is close the borders and good security around it and maybe put the illegals out.of course not the mexicans with US passport and with children who are born US

 

[Solomon Kane]

No question that sustained deportation is doable. Ike did it, as others have said. Even today, Chertoff (who has been a wimp before on this issue) is stepping up the pressure, and it is having an impact.


Also, once an illegal immigrant sees others being rounded up, he often will go home on his own initiative (since he does not want to go on record as an illegal immigrant).


who would oppose sustained deportation? the illegal immigrant? Will he organize a massive rally? Hey, that's another opportunity for enforcement of the law. Send out thousands of deputized national guardsmen to enquire of these protesters what their status is. That will disperse the crowd very quickly.


Who else will organize opposition to enforcing the law? A bunch of white sentimentalists who have ceased thinking on this issue? Truth is, most people see that there is ajustice in theenforcing of our laws, so even if they grumble or feel a wrong-headed sense of pity on this issue, they're not going to do anything about it.


General Joseph Swing deported over a million illegal immigrants inabout what--8 months? Fines were levied on the offending employers, andMexican immigration dried up as well.


there were no massive social protests...just the clean stern enforcement of the law

 

[Solomon Kane]

I agree with your plan KP.

 

[Bart]

Our judges are the biggest obstacles. More banning of words.


[url]http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/nov/judge-ban-use-ill egal-and-aliens[/url]


Judge Bans Use Of "Illegal" and "Aliens"


Thu, 11/06/2008
<DIV =content>


Arizona's Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association's demands of banning the terms "illegal" and "aliens" in all of the state's courtrooms.


Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizona's Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.


In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados' president says attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of contemptibility, creates the appearance of anti-immigrant prejudice and tarnishes the image of courts as a place where disputes may be fairly resolved.


It further points out that no human being is illegal and that a national Hispanic journalism association has roundly criticized the reference for dehumanizing a segment of the population. The letter goes on to criticize the state's High Court for using the term "illegals" in at least two opinions and the term "illegal aliens" in dozens of others.


It concludes with a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms relating to illegal immigration. Among those the group wants banned are; immigration crisis, immigration epidemic, open borders advocates, anchor babies and invaders. Among the acceptable terms are foreign nationals, unauthorized workers and human rights advocates. Click here to see the entire list as well as Chief Justice McGregor's promise to enforce the requests.

 

[johnnyboy]

"But I just don't get how all you guys really think we can deport every illegal. The ammount of resources and time to do this would be incredible. Secure the boarder! And then let the ones here pay fines and begin a process to naturalization if they have a clean criminal record. Plus it just wouldn't work to deport them all anyway b/c most of them have families and sometimes kids that were born here!"

How have other countries today and throughout history control immigration? They did, so why do you think we can't? End birthright citizenship (it wasn't intended for illegals), end all entitlements for illegals including public education, severely punish employers of illegals (you know, like how they would punish you if you cheated on taxes), line the border with an armed national guard, and deport every stinking last one of them. That's how - other countries do it - common sense.

The resources and time we put into keeping these criminally inclined people far outways the costs of deporting them.

as a country, we are not going to deport every illegal already here. you would need armed force for that, and if you think the average american is going to be cool with watching armed national guards herd illegals into deportation camps, you are way off. the only opton is securing the border now and stop all future illegal immigration.

Really dude, we can't? Have we even come close to trying? So the mightest nation in the history of the world can't deport illegals? I guess that means you are for Amnesty and that explains how you voted. Who is the "average American" in your view anyway?

Let's see who is being more realistic. We'll try your approach: The borders are secured, however every illegal now knows that if he can somehow (by boat, Semi's, holes in security etc.) get here he will be rewarded with American citizenship or at the very least be allowed to stay and enjoy everything American taxpayers do. The surge of illegals will continue as a result and eventually the border guards will wonder what purpose they are serving. The idea of a secure border will eventually be dumped with the words "see I told you so" coming from LaRaza and Ted Kennedy. We gave it a shot and it just didn't work, besides America is a nation of immigrants a wonderful melting pot etc. Nice plan.

My plan: Most Americans will applaud deportations, while a small minority of Americans will vigorously oppose it(say about the number of illegals and relatives of illegals). We'll enforce the law and deport them anyway - over a period of time of course - it's called deportation by attrition. They will have no incentive to return. No citizenship, no entitlements, no jobs - no returning. Their countrymen will have no incentive to try to get in either. Border security will become a rather easy task. Any civil unrest from the initial deportations will be met with necessary force (easily achieved). We've already seen deportations in meat-packing raids and nothing more than a few protests happened. I think we can handle it. I'm cool with this plan.

you misunderstand me, the logistics are a breeze, what i'm talking about is the tolerance of most americans. as soon as images of INS raids deporting women holding babies hit CNN, the deportation would stop and people would protest the whole process as a Gestapo-like crime against humanity.

now americans will probably tolerate a commitment to secure the border. i could see americans buying into that if it was presented to them with an emphasis on counterring the terrorist threat, or stemming the flow of possible criminals into the country, or helping win the war against drugs. that's something americans could tolerate. armed guardsmen...not so much. too Kent State ish.

its neat to talk about possible scenarios for mass deportations, but i think its important to be cogniscent of the fact that most americans will not tolerate the idea of armed national guardsmen (many of which are of latino descent) lining up school buses to deport all illegals, including the old ones, the babies, the women, the frail ones, etc etc. thats just not going to happen. before you type anything keep in mind that you live in a country that elected a black man, with a kenyan dad, and a muslim name. so, lets maybe try to stick within the parameters of 'reality' while formulating plans for dealing with illegals.

dude, way to bring up McCain again. i don't know how to dumb this down anymore than i already have but here goes....you harp on McCain more than any guy here. i voted for the guy bc in a two man race, if one guy is white and the other is black...i'm always gonna go with the white guy. 99.99999999999% of the time anytime. thats it. thats the only reason i voted for him. i get that you like Obama better than McCain, apparently most americans share your point of view. and i am cool with that man. i think you went 3rd party right? thats great, kudos to you. ive already stated how i feel about it so, unlike you, i'm not trying to harp on it forever. let it go man. especially if you're gonna comedown on guys who even mention McCain. write this down so you wont have to harp on it anymore.

 

[White Shogun]

For the record, the United States no longer has an agency dedicated solely to the enforcement of immigration laws. INS was disbanded and merged with other agencies with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The new agency tasked with enforcement of immigration laws, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or "ICE", is also responsible for the enforcement of a multitude of other laws including but not limited to drug enforcement, child pornography, commercial fraud (think fake Hanes underwear,)arms smuggling, etc. The United States does not have an agency with the singular responsibility of enforcing immigration laws anymore.

What's more, our President-elect had this to say about that agency:

The system isn't working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids - when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel.

There is ZERO chance that our country is going to round up illegal aliens en masse and deport them. You can forget about it. There will be no wall or fence. I would expect that you will not see any more raids on meat packing plants anymore, either.

I suggest that everyone begin taking Spanish language classes. Edited by: White Shogun