libsmsher:
wow, you are just impossibly dense, aren't you?
ABORTION
did i say anything about what "most people" support? mccain claimed one thing when it was politically expedient, and something else when it became politically expedient.
TAXES:
(then)
In May 2001, Mr. McCain was one of only two Republicans — the other was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — to vote against President Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut. On the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”
Two years later, Mr. McCain was one of three Republicans to vote against additional Bush tax cuts — he and Mr. Chafee were joined by Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine — because, he said then, the costs of the Iraq war were not yet known. Specifically, he said he was open to the idea of tax cuts in the future, “but not until Congress and the administration have a better understanding of the costs of war and peace.”
Later, he said he also opposed the 2003 tax cut because it, too, disproportionately benefited the rich. “I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do,” Mr. McCain told Stephen Moore, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, in an interview published on Nov. 26, 2005. - article from new york times (yeah of course you think the nyt is a lib rag, doesn't matter because quotes are all documented elsewhere)
--------------------------------------
(now)
"John McCain Will Maintain The Current Income And Investment Tax Rates"
- johnmccain.com
EVANGELICALS
i'm aware of how long jerry falwell has been dead. it doesn't mean that john mccain couldn't change his opinion for political reasons prior to falwell's passing. i'm also aware of mccain's denouncing hagee and parsely, just as i am aware of how their bigoted remarks have been all over youtube since well before they endorsed mccain. so why did mccain seek and accept their endorsements? couldn't be anything political! no way!
TORTURE
jesus h christ, you know as well as i do that mccain voted against the waterboarding ban, you little whiny troll baby.
"His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding - a simulated drowning technique that McCain also opposes - yet McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions. " -cbsnews
so he opposes torture, but won't vote against it? YEAH THERE'S NO ULTERIOR POLITICAL MOTIVES HERE. CARRY ON CITIZEN.
IRAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFL-Mz4rto&feature=related
quotes on video! guh-huh! like to see you claim that this isn't proof, as i'm sure you will.
and about the wmd's... over five years of having thousands of soldiers on the ground searching for something that would justify this war in the eyes of the public, and they've found nothing. if there was anything there, we would know, period, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.
it's like those claims that there's some secret video of michelle obama floating around, that will sink obama's candidacy (tangent, i know): if it existed, it would have come out. that's how things work.
TRANSPARENCY
"U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans." -senate.gov
see how ridiculous you are? this is why i'm not bothering to answer half of what you say, because you're a blatant troll retard who thinks you're god's freaking chosen internet messenger, doing some great service by "smashing libs." obama ran for senate on the issue of transparency, he acted on it immediately, and it's easy enough to find out about it with a simple google search, but you'd rather sit in your corner raving about "obamoonies" and whatever other crap you come up with.
despite the fact that i've never seen you post a SINGLE fact, you just TROLL these threads saying "proof? proof? proof? cult! cult! cult!"
ANWR
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html
"In the mean oil resource case, ANWR oil production peaks at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027"
us oil consumption:
20,687,000 barrels/day
gee that's around FIVE PERCENT isn't it? some, oh, TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW? that nothing at all like what i said.
i could go on, but if you have intelligence above that of jell-o, you should see a pattern emerging here-- facts, which you do not use, generally support me. i've wasted more than enough time presenting them to a blithering idiot whose mind isn't going to change no matter how right i prove myself to be.
