Skip to comments.Fireworks: Man At McCain Town Hall Tells Him "I'd Have You Arrested For Treason"
Posted on 09/07/2013 5:21:25 AM PDT by maggiefEdited on 09/07/2013 7:47:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
McCain is suffering Senile Dementia - cognitive impairment
.....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!
IMO, McCain’s Elitist attitude shows what pond scum he is like the rest of DC including the Speaker and Eunuch McConnell.
we've been had.......
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.
Manchurian McCain’s chickens coming to roost....
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?
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!
All right, dude!!!!!!!
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..
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).
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.
What an arrogant turd.
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.
Yes, they do.
From W. Cleon Skousen's famous list of Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963:
There you go.
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.
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).
I’d settle for just putting him in a home.
Shooter - Great Movie - Mark Wahlberg
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He left out the hanged part....
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.
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.