Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fireworks: Man At McCain Town Hall Tells Him "I'd Have You Arrested For Treason"
Real Clear Politics ^ | September 7, 2013

Posted on 09/07/2013 5:21:25 AM PDT by maggief

Edited on 09/07/2013 7:47:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last
To: McGruff

McCain is suffering Senile Dementia - cognitive impairment


51 posted on 09/07/2013 7:25:47 AM PDT by ICCtheWay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: edpc

.....yes, I largely agree with your points but your comments would be more credible for most of us if you would have given this man just a little credit for over-coming his nervousness and having the cahonies to stand up very publicly and speak to power like he did !!! Most likely keyboard warriors like you and me could not have done what he did. At least he tried and I thank him for it and I hope in doing so he inspired countless others across this country to do the same thing!


52 posted on 09/07/2013 7:25:52 AM PDT by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

IMO, McCain’s Elitist attitude shows what pond scum he is like the rest of DC including the Speaker and Eunuch McConnell.


53 posted on 09/07/2013 7:29:55 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo
these Senators get in, like McCain, paid for by big banks and big unions and the big donors, and they're free to screw around anyway they want...its like 6 yrs of no responsibility to the voters and the citizens....

we've been had.......

54 posted on 09/07/2013 7:36:38 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cen-Tejas

Right on! McCain is a creepy, powerful man who can pull the weight of government down on this man’s head. Bless him for standing up and being counted. I doubt I’d have the guts.


55 posted on 09/07/2013 7:42:39 AM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Manchurian McCain’s chickens coming to roost....


56 posted on 09/07/2013 7:45:15 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry

Actually John McCain was bought and paid for 30 years ago. Once the Senate Ethics Committee gave him a pass on the Charles Keating bribery charges, he has been been free to peddle his influence to the highest bidder. The sad part is the voters of Arizona have been blinded by his years as a POW and given him a pass on his graft and corruption. Just speculation on my part, but what else would explain his voting against the interest of the State of Arizona and the United States for 30 years?


57 posted on 09/07/2013 7:52:21 AM PDT by Tupelo (There are no Republicans or Democrats in Washington. Just Millionaires protecting their turf.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Reminds me of a movie I saw. The character said” Do you know who I am? Do you know who your fu@#ing with? I’m a United States Senator!


58 posted on 09/07/2013 7:55:59 AM PDT by DeWalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: maggief

All right, dude!!!!!!!


59 posted on 09/07/2013 7:57:27 AM PDT by Thorliveshere (I wish I lived in Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joethedrummer

yes we are far into totaltarianism..

but, if you do not vote for the pub, you are giving the dems the election..

this is the most important election in history, you must vote for the pub..

and so on and so forth with the rhetoric...

dump the pubs, vote third party, suck up the temporary bullcrap, and FIRE the pub party..


60 posted on 09/07/2013 8:00:51 AM PDT by joe fonebone (a socialist is just a juvenile communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Yes, McCain can’t respond to those charges because it is beneath him to do so.

In my heart, I want to see the pompous ass struck down with lightning, but I know that I will have to take it to my God, repent of my hatred of the man, and trust Him to deal with him, and all of the evil-doers, just as He promises to do (Romans 12:17-19).


61 posted on 09/07/2013 8:04:12 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

McCain does have a savage temper, and it will be interesting to see if he regards this man as just “one of the little people whose opinions don’t matter”, or somebody that he, McCain, will have to have destroyed.


62 posted on 09/07/2013 8:07:04 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (The best War on Terror News is at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

What an arrogant turd.


63 posted on 09/07/2013 8:10:52 AM PDT by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stboz

John Fonda?


64 posted on 09/07/2013 8:15:52 AM PDT by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: maggief
From gateway pundit

McCain – A Treasonous Enemy Within

Last Friday, a man in Prescott, AZ said what all of us have been thinking and saying —John McCain has morphed into a treasonous lapdog for Barack Obama and is licking the fascist boots of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who comprise the barbaric Rebels in the Syrian conflict.


65 posted on 09/07/2013 8:18:30 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp
Free trader and communist don’t go together.

Yes, they do.

From W. Cleon Skousen's famous list of Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963:

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

There you go.

66 posted on 09/07/2013 8:27:53 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: maggief
There was too much crammed into what he wanted to say and it clouded the message.

Its too bad he was so nervous in reading a prepared statement. If he had spoken from his heart it wouldn't have allowed McCain to be so smug and condescending.

67 posted on 09/07/2013 8:40:54 AM PDT by Baynative (Lord, keep your arm around my shoulder and your hand over my mouth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Why? Those booing were exercising their “1st amendment right.” I don’t agree with them, but they have the right (and it doesn’t come from the 1st amendment - so your comment is doubly wrong).


68 posted on 09/07/2013 8:47:36 AM PDT by Henry Hnyellar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: maggief

I’d settle for just putting him in a home.


69 posted on 09/07/2013 9:21:19 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
While the comments made are being focused towards McCain, they really do apply to the majority of our elected officials throughout the entire nation. Our so called "leaders" have turned their backs on the American people and the founding beliefs of this country. These elected officials work for us, we do not work for them. It is quite clear by McCains comment that a response to the accusation is beneath him, that these politicians really do believe that we the people are here to serve them. It is not beneath an elected official to answer concerns and accusations by those that they serve, it is their job and it is their duty.

McCain was also very smug about telling this man he can run for office. Sure, he could run but in this day and age unless you have a lot of financial resources and political connections you will get destroyed by the opposing party and your own party as well unless you play along. That is a huge problem with our political system now. There are many people that would run for office that have a genuine desire to make things better and do the right thing for the people but they just don't have the money and influence to get past the gatekeepers.

Throw them all out and start from scratch! Out of touch, corrupt, self serving, and in many cases treasonous they are.
70 posted on 09/07/2013 9:28:30 AM PDT by Render
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeWalt

Shooter - Great Movie - Mark Wahlberg


71 posted on 09/07/2013 9:37:50 AM PDT by Chance Hart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Since McCain got the last word in, and a sheeple is not allowed in those meetings to get back up and say anything, I don’t think he had any control over McCain’s response. Even though he was nervous (wouldn’t we all be?), I thought what he said was right on, every bit of it, and bravely stated, and McCain just showed his cowardness and lowness as a person.


72 posted on 09/07/2013 9:55:34 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Marx liked free trade because he thought it was destructive. So basically the Commies often like it, but for misguided reasons. I consider Marx’s view that it is destructive to permit free trade as an endorsement of free trade to sane people.


73 posted on 09/07/2013 10:49:28 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman

I’m sure McCain went ballistic as soon as he was out sight of the camera. Those guys are all alike. You better not challenge them or they’ll get even.


74 posted on 09/07/2013 11:04:32 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: impimp
I consider Marx’s view that it is destructive to permit free trade as an endorsement of free trade to sane people.

IOW, you are dishonest. Thank you. You are neither sane nor well informed.

So basically the Commies often like it, but for misguided reasons.

"Free Trade" is subsidized trade, because it negates the sovereignty of a nation to manage the externalities of trade, whether damage to military infrastructure, pathogens, or introductions of exotic pests, all of which are massive costs and risks that fall upon non-participants in the transaction.

Examples? We have lost the chestnut tree, the American elm, and are now losing the economic value of numerous hardwoods. In Florida, Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) threatens destrution of the entire citrus industry. Goodness knows how much American farmers must pay for herbicides and pesticides to deal with exotic plants and pests, while thistles and cheat grass run rampant in America's National Parks.

Representation in sovereign nations is in part dedicated to managing such intangibles because the risks attendant to contaminated purchases are often difficult to quantify. You would negate that ability.

75 posted on 09/07/2013 11:39:05 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: maggief

McPain’s start of his response was very telling. Guy tells the truth and McPain hides behind his “feelings”. Too bad we had the SRM pick this @$$hole as our candidate in 2008. I voted for Gov Palin, not this jerk. He needs to be in an assisted living institution by now.


76 posted on 09/07/2013 12:23:22 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. It IS a right to shoot tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Yet you would negate the freedom to private property, one of the freedoms that America was built upon. The commies were/are by no means unanimous when it comes to free trade as the commies have spent many years debating the subject.

But perhaps I did misspeak. Yes, sometimes commie and free trade go hand in hand. But capitalist and freedom-loving go hand in hand with free trade.

But I know the type (not to accuse you of being one) - the free trade hating “conservative”. If left to their own devices they would have trade barriers for county to county not mention country to country.


77 posted on 09/07/2013 1:37:14 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: impimp
Yet you would negate the freedom to private property, one of the freedoms that America was built upon.

Poppycock. I didn't specify HOW nations would manage such risks; you simply presumed the heavy hand of regulation. Congress could just as easily specify conduct of markets in offsets, mitigation, and validation can do that job just fine. In fact, I own a patent in such a business method.

You "free" traders are a bunch of lightweight ideologues, oversimplifying "comparative advantage" in an economy to the point of suicide. It was one of von Mises' biggest flaws. Without completely harmonized legislation, comparative advantage cannot function; it is a negation of representative government.

But perhaps I did misspeak. Yes, sometimes commie and free trade go hand in hand.

That's because true communist ideologues do not believe in nations. That effectively precludes representative government.

But capitalist and freedom-loving go hand in hand with free trade.

No, they don't. Treating corporations as equivalent to natural persons negates natural law competition among states in corporate governance, giving a structural advantage to replacing labor with capital, as abetted by fractional reserve banking. It was a crooked deal snuck into the 14th Amendment by Bingham and Conkling.

As I said, "lightweights."

But I know the type (not to accuse you of being one) - the free trade hating “conservative”. If left to their own devices they would have trade barriers for county to county not mention country to country.

I suspect so. The local jurisdiction would suffer in some respects and prosper in others. You would preclude them that freedom to discover their accountability for foolish protectionism. OTOH, they might just survive a natural disaster or other non-uniform event because they chose to pay higher prices in order to retain critical local industrial infrastructure (for example). You would preclude them that option.

The mistake you make is to presume "all other things being equal" in a non-uniform world. It is the unfortunate requirement to oversimplify reality in order to construct a model by which to describe it. It looks optimal in the purely economic sense, and can even perform that way in the short run, but there are also hazards that go unaccounted by the necessity of simplifying the model.

The power of hormones and catalysts in chemical reactions or biological systems as elements that are otherwise negated for purposes of the model is a good example of such oversimplification. That is why natural law competition among jurisdictions is a better system for managing uncertainties in an unpredictable world.

The smaller is the jurisdiction the smaller is the mistake. In a uniform world full of uncertainties, mistakes can grow to the point of global catastrophe. Hence, allowing for local sovereignty is a way of confining such mistakes which might even promote by competition the principles you prefer. This was the underlying argument for Federalism in the first place.

78 posted on 09/07/2013 2:17:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Although you have created the illusion that you are a sophisticated protectionist, as opposed to the regular kind of protectionist, you are all equally misguided. You all are essentially statists. You believe the individual is subservient to the state. Protectionism denies freedom when it is an act of the state. Free trade is the absence of the government from the trade relations between free people.


79 posted on 09/07/2013 3:48:46 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: maggief

More power to him. If more people confronted McCain everywhere he went, we could hopefully look forward to his retiring to some Arizona country club and never hearing from him or of him again.


80 posted on 09/07/2013 4:24:36 PM PDT by OldNewYork (Biden '13. Impeach now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp
Although you have created the illusion that you are a sophisticated protectionist, as opposed to the regular kind of protectionist, you are all equally misguided.

Nonsense. I make the case that local governments have the obligation to represent their citizens with the citizens to deal with the consequences. Governments therefore need the latitude to do so, otherwise known as "sovereignty." There is nothing about direct collective control of private property in that regard, but there is implicit the power to structure markets pursuant to the rule of law. The more limited is the scope of government the more likely it is that they as individuals will be forced by natural law competition to make concessions to what you regard as "free trade." You just don't like that so you want irresponsibility uniformly mandated worldwide, effectively negating representation worldwide.

You all are essentially statists. You believe the individual is subservient to the state.

Accordingly, you are a corporate collectivist and a globalist, who have done more to damage the rights of individual natural persons to manage property than anyone. Why? Because the power to control the state is the power to control property. This is why the tax-exempt "charitable" foundations of major stockholders are the principal SPONSORS of regulatory government. Hence, you are the statist, as is evidenced by non-representative global governance in the WTO and other illegal "trade agreements" (which should be treaties). You deny the right to free association, except for stockholders hiding behind a legal fiction as "persons" in order to limit their accountability. It's a race to the bottom.

Protectionism denies freedom when it is an act of the state. Free trade is the absence of the government from the trade relations between free people.

Your definition of "protectionism" is subjective. I believe that a nation that intends to defend itself needs an industrial infrastructure. Apparently you do not.

Free trade is the absence of the government from the trade relations between free people.

Ideological mouthing without comprehension. It is an ENFORCED "absence" of individual responsibility, which is the flip side of subsidy. It is an ENFORCED "interdependency," which is in reality little more than DEPENDENCY. I prefer "independence," for without it there is no freedom.

81 posted on 09/07/2013 4:42:20 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

He left out the hanged part....


82 posted on 09/07/2013 6:24:45 PM PDT by S.O.S121.500 (Case back hoe for sale or trade for diesel wood chipper....Enforce the Bill of Rights. It's the Law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
I’d settle for just putting him in a home.

Say what you will about Bob Dole as a presidential candidate, at least he took the admirable action of resigning his Senate seat when he ran. Too bad McLame couldn't have followed Dole's example, or Kerry for that matter. But it's all about maintaining power for these clowns.

83 posted on 09/07/2013 9:36:01 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Bookmark


84 posted on 09/07/2013 9:40:13 PM PDT by Pajamajan (Pray for our nation. Thank the Lord for everything you have. Don't wait. Do it today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

If you want them to be treaties subject to senate ratification instead of trade agreements then I am OK with that.

Ideally there would be a constitutional amendment (never going to happen) limiting (not eliminating - think North Korea and Iran) the power of the federal government to impose protectionist tariffs on any foreign entity. You would call this unilateral surrender. I call it “consumer surplus” which benefits the American consumer. If foreign entities subsidize the goods we buy then so be it.


85 posted on 09/08/2013 6:32:45 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: maggief

86 posted on 09/08/2013 4:24:27 PM PDT by Perseverando (It's ALL about PEOPLE CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson