or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Swiftboating of John McCain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Swiftboating of John McCain - Page 4

post #121 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Nonsense. I apologize for having a life and posting here once a day during that life. Here is what got in the way of replying to you yesterday....

1. Swimming for several hours.
2. BBQ'ing a ton of chicken breasts so children and adults could enjoy a ton of Mexican food.
3. Some damn good guacamole.
4. A few beers and Soco's.

It is a daily agenda I hope to repeat several more times. If you get ignored today, I suggest you adopt it as well.

Believe me, it's exactly what I need. After another wonderful circle jerk in this forum.

I don't drink though, so it'll be something else instead...
post #122 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I love you libs.

You're demanding, in your characteristic style, that I "respond" in a way that you want. I've already responded, and pointed it out to you where I did. The issue is not the substance of what Clark said... the issue is twofold... I'll indulge you one last time so you'll get it:

1. You guys made a big deal about adding military service as a campaign talking point. The neo-cons crossed the line with SBVT, and we heard that questioning someone's fitness to lead vis-a-vis their military record is a big no-no. Until now.

2. The reason that Clark is saying all of this... he's doing Obama's bidding. Obama knows he has a problem with both the experience and the military issues. Clark and his ilk are going after a strength that McCain has on Obama, in an attempt to minimize it for political reasons. Got it?

I know you do. You just really are dying for me to hand you something you'd like to hear. No dice, Flounder. Go for the strawman, if you please.

But the difference is so stark. For Kerry, they falsely claimed that he lied about his entire combat experience in Vietnam, that he had falsified all of his experiences and his medals.

For McCain, a media personality was basically demanding that Clark admit that McCain was the more qualified presidential candidate because he was in the military. Clark said that McCain was a hero of his, deserved honor and respect for his service, but said that his Vietnam experience wouldn't necessarily make him a better president, which is undeniably true.
post #123 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

You guys just don't get it.

YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN'S MILITARY EXPERIENCE. IT IS OFF LIMITS. AND IF YOU DO, HIS CAMPAIGN WILL WHINE.

A LOT.

I'm hoping they bring up McCain's experience a lot more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Regardless, the choice isn't between one candidate who pledged to get troops out of Iraq before the end of his first term and another candidate who did not make such a pledge. The choice is between one candidate who plans to stay in Iraq indefinitely and another who plans to remove all combat brigades within 16 months. If you're within the majority of the American public on this question, Obama's plan aligns best with what you want.

The difference here is platitudes versus results. Obama plans to have them out in 16 months, but will not pledge to do so within 4+ years. That is a large disparity and someone as intelligent as yourself should be asking why such a disparity exists.

The disparity exists because Obama, like McCain knows you cannot just drop the ball there and walk out. Obama is more willing to exploit it for political gain by making empty promises. You know the same empty promises Democrats made two years ago and then did absolutely nothing about.

Obama's "plan" endorses an idealized state and gives it a timeline which is nebulous at best, but makes good politics. McCain endorses the same final state, but simply won't believe we can control and demand events outside of our control conform to a timeline.

Quote:
Bringing troops home isn't a Utopian goal.

It is when you claim they have to come home without having finished the job they started or without considering the consequences of their leaving and just marching them off.

Quote:
And I think if you're going to demand poll questions that assume ending the war is a bad thing, you should balance those questions with poll questions that assume ending the war is a good thing. Whether the public wants to bring troops home is an entirely neutral question.

Ending war is automatically a good thing. Bringing home the troops is not neutral, it is the preferred state. Peace is preferred, not neutral. Your point is ridiculous. We do not go to war or commit troops as a neutral action. We do so because of a bad action and consideration of what will happen in the areas that caused us to commit the troops is entirely appropriate. Peace is preferred but we committed the troops (justified or not, fooled or not) due to acts of terrorism. Thus considering the effects on terrorism when considering whether to bring them home or not is appropriate. Ignoring it is utopian.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #124 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

we heard that questioning someone's fitness to lead vis-a-vis their military record is a big no-no. Until now.

And which parts of McCain's military record are liberals holding up as evidence against his fitness to lead?

NO PART.

No one's saying McCain is not fit to lead because of any part of his military background. They are saying that a military background, particularly getting shot down, isn't a qualification (or a disqualification for that matter) to be President. Why you can't understand this is as addabox said, lethal stupidity.
post #125 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

So the substance of what Clark said isn't the issue.

Praise the Lord. A breakthrough.

Quote:
Yet what ou apparently regard as the iusse ASSUMES what the substance of what Clark said is to go after McCain's military service.

Damn, We'd come so far. "The issues" are enumerated above.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #126 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

And which parts of McCain's military record are liberals holding up as evidence against his fitness to lead?

NO PART.

No one's saying McCain is not fit to lead because of any part of his military background.

*cough* "it wasn't a wartime squadron"

Now, one last time.. Clark has a point re: getting shot down as a qualification to be POTUS. That's no issue at all. The part where it gets silly is in the "he never ordered bombs to fall" and "executive experience" critiques... which uh, would screw Obama were he held to the same standard. This is political with Clark. Done for political reasons. Is his critique outrageous for "attacking someone's military record" - who cares? What is outrageously funny is the double standard... it's now apparently OK to speak of these military service issues.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #127 of 192
Thread Starter 
Jubelum, Clark wasn't saying there was anything wrong with McCain's service, he was just refusing to buy into the premise that it made him more qualified to be president.
post #128 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Damn, We'd come so far. "The issues" are enumerated above.

Issues that rely on an invalid assertion.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #129 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Jubelum, Clark wasn't saying there was anything wrong with McCain's service, he was just refusing to buy into the premise that it made him more qualified to be president.

This is like... jeez, I don't know what it is like.

There's nothing wrong with the service, the first comment, or the fact that it does not make you magically qualified. We've been over that. Clark's statement is only interesting for the enumerated reasons above.

For Wes, the "wartime squadrons" thing is where he went into the weeds, and opened himself up to be critiqued. That distinction is a bit petty... he's overplaying his hand for the political benefit of BHO.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #130 of 192
OK, so we've gone from "Kerry's swiftboating and Clark's remarks are the same, how do like it when the shoe is on the other foot", or something, to "not really that big a deal, perhaps politically intemperate", which is better.

But how in the world do we get "this is a no-win for Obama, since he has no military experience at all"?

The point is that military experience is not de facto cred for the presidoency, not that McCain had insufficient or the wrong kind of experience.

And, Jube: you're still claiming that Kerry's swiftboating was considered vile because "military service is sacred", which is why it is hypocritical to regard the McCain camp's protestations as ridiculous. This bit of sophistry hinges on an obvious lie, why in the world would you go there?

Again: Kerry's swiftboating was vile because it was bullshit. The end. Questioning the oft repeated McCain formulation that his combat experience makes him King Hell Daddy Warrior? Not bullshit. Not a lie. No one has made any factual assertions about McCain's combat experience whatsoever.

And, anyway, whatever happened to the beloved right-wing principle of "fair game"? You know, if you mention anything in your campaign, or if anyone helps you with your campaign, it's perfectly fair to trash that thing or someone by the sleaziest techniques known to man?

McCain has made his military service a centerpiece of his political persona. I would think, by Republican standards, the Dems would practically be required to at least mention it.

Really, this amounts to the following:

McCain: "I am a mighty warrior. Prison camp tested me. Terror. Better elect the mighty warrior commander-in-chief, lest yea despair."

Dems: "I dunno. Mighty warrior, sure, but not necessarily a slam dunk on the best candidate thing."

McCain and liberal media: Eeeeeek! Eeeeeeek! Sacrilege! Horror! Is there no decency? What kind of monster is this so called "man", Obama? Eeeeeeek! Eeeeeeeeeeeek!"

Nick: Oh, I see what you're doing there, mimicking a little trope from mine from a while back. I had kind of forgotten, so I was just puzzled. Really clever.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #131 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Jubelum, Clark wasn't saying there was anything wrong with McCain's service, he was just refusing to buy into the premise that it made him more qualified to be president.

The problem for Obama is that OF COURSE it makes McCain more qualified wrt military service. McCain can't be labeled as a "Chicken Hawk" or slammed as not knowing what he's asking young men and women to do. Of course he know what he's asking them to do because he did it. He paid about as much as he could without actually being killed. Obama hasn't.

That's why democrats need to STFU about military service. The more it's in the headlines the more it helps McCain. That's why trump' and Jeb' are happy to have it on the 24 hour news cycle. That's why Obama needs to get his people to STFU. He aint going to win this one by having having people rip McCain down by proxy.
post #132 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

The problem for Obama is that OF COURSE it makes McCain more qualified wrt military service. McCain can't be labeled as a "Chicken Hawk" or slammed as not knowing what he's asking young men and women to do. Of course he know what he's asking them to do because he did it. He paid about as much as he could without actually being killed. Obama hasn't.

Here's where you guys are being slippery: "more qualified wrt military service." That's not the issue. The issue is whether it makes him more qualified to be president. And John McCain himself has said military service does not make a person more qualified to be president.

Quote:
That's why democrats need to STFU about military service. The more it's in the headlines the more it helps McCain. That's why trump' and Jeb' are happy to have it on the 24 hour news cycle. That's why Obama needs to get his people to STFU. He aint going to win this one by having having people rip McCain down by proxy.

This is what I don't get: I don't consider myself to be a campaign arm of the Democrats like you guys apparently see yourselves as campaign arms of Republicans. I don't know and don't care whether it's a good or bad campaign issue. I'm just trying to point out the truth that Clark did not attack McCain's service.
post #133 of 192
McCain shakes up his campaign to avoid "errors":

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...eup/index.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #134 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Here's where you guys are being slippery: "more qualified wrt military service." That's not the issue. The issue is whether it makes him more qualified to be president. And John McCain himself has said military service does not make a person more qualified to be president.

Yea but how do people vote? THAT'S the issue! Are they going to vote for the war hero or the guy that wont wear the flag pin? McCain can play it cool because he has it in the bag wrt to military service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

This is what I don't get: I don't consider myself to be a campaign arm of the Democrats like you guys apparently see yourselves as campaign arms of Republicans. I don't know and don't care whether it's a good or bad campaign issue. I'm just trying to point out the truth that Clark did not attack McCain's service.

You're confused. Just because I point out a McCain strength and an Obama weakness does not mean I support McCain over Obama. I support Obama which I've stated several times. I'm not dumb enough to think that crowing about McInsane or McSame or McCancer helps get Obama elected. Too many here a completely blind to the problems Obama is going to have wrapping this up.
post #135 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

But the difference is so stark. For Kerry, they falsely claimed that he lied about his entire combat experience in Vietnam, that he had falsified all of his experiences and his medals.

Uh..no. That was not claimed. They took issue with why he got certain medals. They took issue with one he claimed in particular, one that did not exist (Silver Star with Combat V). They claimed, accurately, that he exaggerated his combat experience. They took issue with his conduct after the war. They didn't falsify anything. In fact, I'm not aware of a single claim they made that was factually inaccurate. Are you?

Quote:

For McCain, a media personality was basically demanding that Clark admit that McCain was the more qualified presidential candidate because he was in the military. Clark said that McCain was a hero of his, deserved honor and respect for his service, but said that his Vietnam experience wouldn't necessarily make him a better president, which is undeniably true.

I don't think it's undeniably true at all. But that's not a fair characterization anyway. Clark is not some independent commentator with military experience. He's an Obama lackey with two purposes. 1) To shore up Obama's total lack of military credentials and 2) To knock McCain down a few pegs on his military record. If you think he just happened to offer his independent and unbiased opinion, you're kidding yourself.

Also, his comments were not as respectful to McCain as you make them out to be:

Quote:
He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasnt held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded that wasnt a wartime squadron, Clark said.

I dont think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

But let's look at another angle: Clark's past statements. From the 2004 Democratic Convention:

Quote:
CLARK: War. War. Ive been there. So has John Kerry. Ive heard the thump of enemy mortars. Ive seen the tracers fly. Bled on the battlefield. Recovered in hospitals. Received and obeyed orders. Sent men and women into battle. Awarded medals, comforted families, attended funerals....

...John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.

CLARK: Hes seen the flash of the tracers. Hes lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And hes proved his moral courage too.

John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too.

(APPLAUSE)

John Kerrys combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. And John Edwards with his leadership and extraordinary intelligence, hes going to be a great member of that command team.

(APPLAUSE)

John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares.

I'll stop there. Clark's a hack. He was a hack in 2004 and he's a hack now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #136 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Yea but how do people vote? THAT'S the issue! Are they going to vote for the war hero or the guy that wont wear the flag pin? McCain can play it cool because he has it in the bag wrt to military service.

Well, strictly speaking, the question would be "are you going to vote for the war hero that won't were a flag pin or the other guy who won't wear a flag pin?"

And, based on the polling I linked to earlier, the answer seems to be, at least at this point, "the other guy who won't wear a flag pin."

Quote:
You're confused. Just because I point out a McCain strength and an Obama weakness does not mean I support McCain over Obama. I support Obama which I've stated several times. I'm not dumb enough to think that crowing about McInsane or McSame or McCancer helps get Obama elected. Too many here a completely blind to the problems Obama is going to have wrapping this up.

The crowing is just sport. What gets Obama elected is George Bush, the war, the economy, McCain's mediocre organization vs. Obama's turbocharged one and the fact the McCain is pretty much out of sync with most Americans on most of the issues they care about-- according to the current polling.

What loses Obama the election is managing to paint him as a simultaneously feckless and scary Negro who is simultaneously a monocle wearing elitist and gang banging home boy. Not, you'll note, screaming "Eeeek! A liberal!" over and over again, because that shit is broke.

People claiming they want this to be about "issues" but can't get a word in edgewise because fascist liberals keep hollering "racism" are completely full of shit. The idea that the Republican party would never resort to covert or overt racism out of principle, if they think it will win the election, is a bitter joke.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #137 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well, strictly speaking, the question would be "are you going to vote for the war hero that won't were a flag pin or the other guy who won't wear a flag pin?"

And, based on the polling I linked to earlier, the answer seems to be, at least at this point, "the other guy who won't wear a flag pin."

The crowing is just sport. What gets Obama elected is George Bush, the war, the economy, McCain's mediocre organization vs. Obama's turbocharged one and the fact the McCain is pretty much out of sync with most Americans on most of the issues they care about-- according to the current polling.

Not true. People want drilling. Obama doesn't support it. People want nuclear power. Obama "won't rule it out", McCain wants dozens of new plants. People want lower gas prices, Obama thinks the price is a good thing...it's just that it happened to quickly. Obama favors meeting with Iran's leaders without pre-conditions, McCain doesn't. McCain wants to stimulate the economy by making the tax cuts permanent, doubling the dependent exemption, etc. Obama wants to give poor folks checks for $300 and raise taxes on "the rich", which of course includes everyone making over about $35,000 a year.

Quote:


What loses Obama the election is managing to paint him as a simultaneously feckless and scary Negro who is simultaneously a monocle wearing elitist and gang banging home boy. Not, you'll note, screaming "Eeeek! A liberal!" over and over again, because that shit is broke.

Ahhh. The race card.

Quote:

People claiming they want this to be about "issues" but can't get a word in edgewise because fascist liberals keep hollering "racism" are completely full of shit. The idea that the Republican party would never resort to covert or overt racism out of principle, if they think it will win the election, is a bitter joke.

No, I think that's exactly what's happening. You just did it yourself. Obama is absolutely radical in terms of policy. But we can't talk about it. We can't discuss who he is, because that's The Politics of the Past. We can't take issue with his associations, because pointing our racist rantings is itself racist.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not true. People want a drilling. Obama doesn't support it. But I want a drilling. In the backside. Because it really fells good. And McSame is just the man to give us all a really good drilling. In the backside.

w00t!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #139 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not true. People want drilling. Obama doesn't support it. People want nuclear power. Obama "won't rule it out", McCain wants dozens of new plants. People want lower gas prices, Obama thinks the price is a good thing...it's just that it happened to quickly. Obama favors meeting with Iran's leaders without pre-conditions, McCain doesn't. McCain wants to stimulate the economy by making the tax cuts permanent, doubling the dependent exemption, etc. Obama wants to give poor folks checks for $300 and raise taxes on "the rich", which of course includes everyone making over about $35,000 a year.

Also, McCain wants to grant each American immortality by unleashing an army of nanobots. Obama remains suspiciously uncommitted.

OTOH, Obama wants to get us out of Iraq, get us moving towards universal health care, skew tax policy back towards favoring the middle class (that $35,000 thing is a straight up lie, I know you don't care), instigate an energy policy beyond "more of the same, but harder", and try some international policy that doesn't involve blowing shit up-- all of which Americans care about a great deal. Which is probably why Obama is leading in the national polls.

Quote:
Ahhh. The race card.
No, I think that's exactly what's happening. You just did it yourself. Obama is absolutely radical in terms of policy. But we can't talk about it. We can't discuss who he is, because that's The Politics of the Past. We can't take issue with his associations, because pointing our racist rantings is itself racist.

I see. So, then, I guess it would follow that if a tree jumps cauliflower jaundice, the aftermath yodels on a sparkling buggy?

Good point.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #140 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm hoping they bring up McCain's experience a lot more.

Me, too. Maybe they could dig up some of the propaganda videos he made. Or maybe they could talk about how his command didn't see battle. Personally, I'm tired of these Vietnam POW harpies.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #141 of 192
Apparently McCain has found it necessary to launch his own "truth squad", to combat such pernicious slurs as "having served in the military doesn't necessarily qualify you to be president."

I wonder how that works?

CLAIM: SERVING IN THE MILITARY DOESN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFY YOU TO BE PRESIDENT.

THE TRUTH: DOES SO!

I just saw a headline at one of the news sites, something like "Obama camp: McCain attacks not 'swiftboating'."

I need to go into a coma now. Revive me when the collective IQ goes back up over 80.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #142 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I wonder how that works?

CLAIM: SERVING IN THE MILITARY DOESN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFY YOU TO BE PRESIDENT.

THE TRUTH: DOES SO!

Oh, that was a good adda. I needed that.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #143 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In fact, I'm not aware of a single claim they made that was factually inaccurate. Are you?

There's a lot you don't seem to be aware of, must be a memory thing.
We'll try again, okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_B...of_allegations
Quote:
The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.

More recently, an early member of the group, Steve Hayes, stated that he came to believe that the group was twisting Kerry's record, and broke with the group and voted for Kerry. Hayes told the New York Times:

"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' Mr. Hayes said this month. It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."

If you actually did some research you would find that most if not all of their claims were crap.
But then, you don't want to know the truth, much easier to make things up,
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama wants to give poor folks checks for $300 and raise taxes on "the rich", which of course includes everyone making over about $35,000 a year.

Back it up or admit you made it up.
post #144 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The crowing is just sport. What gets Obama elected is George Bush, the war, the economy, McCain's mediocre organization vs. Obama's turbocharged one and the fact the McCain is pretty much out of sync with most Americans on most of the issues they care about-- according to the current polling.

So the majority supports doing nothing (again) about our energy needs. They support the notion that a nice speech and throwing someone under the bus will fix the Middle East. They support big new spending from a broke government.

Quote:
What loses Obama the election is managing to paint him as a simultaneously feckless and scary Negro who is simultaneously a monocle wearing elitist and gang banging home boy. Not, you'll note, screaming "Eeeek! A liberal!" over and over again, because that shit is broke.

People claiming they want this to be about "issues" but can't get a word in edgewise because fascist liberals keep hollering "racism" are completely full of shit. The idea that the Republican party would never resort to covert or overt racism out of principle, if they think it will win the election, is a bitter joke.

The only person I see screaming racism over and over and pointing out several dozen times the color of Obama's skin are folks like yourself. Dude we all get it. Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist and you are going to scream it and cry wolf about it from the tops of your lungs until it is believed to be true or you are hoarse.

BTW if there is an -ism that is going to be practiced in the general election it will certainly be ageism. I'm sure the dozens of times you've have already screamed about dementia and McCain being too old are just coincidence. You do think it will win you the election, it isn't a true issue and you will beat that drum until your palms bleed.

You're a hypocrite extraordinaire.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #145 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Me, too. Maybe they could dig up some of the propaganda videos he made. Or maybe they could talk about how his command didn't see battle. Personally, I'm tired of these Vietnam POW harpies.

I would like to see them as well. I think showing that the communists who tortured POW's in the Vietnam war are aiding and abetting the Democratic party would do wonders for the McCain election prospects. Perhaps we could have the media show the current and former leaders handing them off to John Kerry who would "conveniently" have a film crew along to capture the moment of him getting the videos. Then he ruggedly dash into a helicopter and personally fly them back to America to save the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Apparently McCain has found it necessary to launch his own "truth squad", to combat such pernicious slurs as "having served in the military doesn't necessarily qualify you to be president."

I wonder how that works?

CLAIM: SERVING IN THE MILITARY DOESN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFY YOU TO BE PRESIDENT.

THE TRUTH: DOES SO!

I just saw a headline at one of the news sites, something like "Obama camp: McCain attacks not 'swiftboating'."

I need to go into a coma now. Revive me when the collective IQ goes back up over 80.

I'm still waiting for Clark to explain how if commanding troops during peacetime means that you are "untried and untested" since you aren't ordering bombs to be dropped or bullets to be shot then what are you if you never commanded or served at all?

Doesn't raising the bar on McCain make Obama look even worse in this regard.

/liberal talking head
He' a POW, a captain, a leader of an entire squadron but he is still untried and untested because he didn't have to make those decisions during a war.

/person with a brain
Yeah, but if that makes you untried and untested then what the hell does being a community service organizer do to make you tried and tested?

/liebral talking head
Will you shut the f*ck up you racist Republican slime machine douchebag! Racism, racism, racism... they hate Obama. They're going to put him in a pimp suit and say he is going to slap your wife and prostitute out your daughters.

/person with a brain
Holy f*cking shit.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #146 of 192
You guys are so lame.

If we listed 100 qualifications for being an effective President of the United States, having combat experience shouldn't even be on the top 50. That's Clark's one and only point, and it's a good one.

The President, whether it's Obama or McCain, has Generals who are much more qualified to make military decisions than they are. In fact, having McCain think he has the expertise to call the military shots scares the shit out of me. He is a warrior who wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb" the enemy, when other options might be much more effective in reaching our military goals. I trust the generals. Not the old man with a limp and a vendetta.
post #147 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I would like to see them as well. I think showing that the communists who tortured POW's in the Vietnam war are aiding and abetting the Democratic party would do wonders for the McCain election prospects. Perhaps we could have the media show the current and former leaders handing them off to John Kerry who would "conveniently" have a film crew along to capture the moment of him getting the videos. Then he ruggedly dash into a helicopter and personally fly them back to America to save the country.

That would totally kick ass in 2004.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #148 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So the majority supports doing nothing (again) about our energy needs. They support the notion that a nice speech and throwing someone under the bus will fix the Middle East. They support big new spending from a broke government.

Yes, that's Obama's policy, alight. Especially the "throwing under the bus" part, which is the opening phrase of each and every one of his proposals. In fact, I understand his stump speech now begins with "Hi, I'm Barack Obama, and I'd like to throw you under the bus."

But it appears you think the American people are really stupid. Why do you hate the American people, Mr. Elitist?

Quote:
The only person I see screaming racism over and over and pointing out several dozen times the color of Obama's skin are folks like yourself. Dude we all get it. Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist and you are going to scream it and cry wolf about it from the tops of your lungs until it is believed to be true or you are hoarse.

Yep, noting specific instances of racist images and language so far and assuming they'll be used some more if the Republicans feel they are effective really does equal claiming anyone who votes for Obama is a racist.

So now is there something in the conservative mind-set that makes these kind of straw men extra appealing? Because it seems like lately all the pissing and moaning from that quarter are pretty much nothing but.

Quote:
BTW if there is an -ism that is going to be practiced in the general election it will certainly be ageism. I'm sure the dozens of times you've have already screamed about dementia and McCain being too old are just coincidence. You do think it will win you the election, it isn't a true issue and you will beat that drum until your palms bleed.

You're a hypocrite extraordinaire.

So you don't actually read my posts, you just see "Addabox" and kinda convulse? Having never said a word about McCain's age (except perhaps in a burlesque of Rovian stylings that you apparently are convinced reveal my true and dreadful hatred), the idea that I am "screaming" "dozens of times" and "beating that drum" which is all extra hypocritical amounts to you getting hopping mad about something you made up. LIterally, just made up out of whole cloth. About stuff that, to tell you the truth, hadn't much crossed my mind.

Standard operating procedure, but kinda funny.

I particularly like the Turmpish whimsy of the idea that, in the presidential race featuring the first black guy in the nation's history, the "real" source of virulence is going to be ...... age.

Which makes sense, given America's dark history of using old people as chattel.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #149 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Yes, that's Obama's policy, alight. Especially the "throwing under the bus" part, which is the opening phrase of each and every one of his proposals. In fact, I understand his stump speech now begins with "Hi, I'm Barack Obama, and I'd like to throw you under the bus."

But it appears you think the American people are really stupid. Why do you hate the American people, Mr. Elitist?

His proposals do throw us under the bus, but of course his speechifying involves loads of pastel blue signs, backdrops featuring half sunrises and HOPE and CHANGE.

Quote:
Yep, noting specific instances of racist images and language so far and assuming they'll be used some more if the Republicans feel they are effective really does equal claiming anyone who votes for Obama is a racist.

So now is there something in the conservative mind-set that makes these kind of straw men extra appealing? Because it seems like lately all the pissing and moaning from that quarter are pretty much nothing but.

Could you note them again because it appears you keep blaming Republicans for Hillary Clinton running for president.

What doesn't sit well with Republican mindset is being called a preemptive racist. It sits about as well as a man at a "Take Back the Night" rally being called a potential rapist.

Let me tell you Addabox, you are a potential rapist. So we are going to watch your moves carefully during this fall season. Men have raped in the past and will likely rape in the future. Thus we know you will probably rape if we don't watch you carefully enough. Now is there something in your mindset that cannot comprehend why you shouldn't just tolerate this instead of pissing and moaning that you aren't a rapist? I mean we added potential. Sure it is an assumption, but based off the history of men, it isn't a stretch in my mind.

Quote:
So you don't actually read my posts, you just see "Addabox" and kinda convulse? Having never said a word about McCain's age (except perhaps in a burlesque of Rovian stylings that you apparently are convinced reveal my true and dreadful hatred), the idea that I am "screaming" "dozens of times" and "beating that drum" which is all extra hypocritical amounts to you getting hopping mad about something you made up. LIterally just, made up out of whole cloth. About stuff that, to tell you the truth, hadn't much crossed my mind.

Standard operating procedure, but kinda funny.

I particularly like the Turmpish whimsy of the idea that, in the presidential race featuring the first black guy in the nation's history, the "real" source of virulence is going to be ...... age.

Which makes sense, given America's dark history of using old people as chattel.

Sorry did you just keep beating the drum of calling McCain an oppressive white man, and just forgot to add old?

I feel so bad about the claimed insensitivity there. Next time you call someone an oppressive, racist white man, I'll make sure to note that you could be talking about a young or old man even when discussing McCain. You are right that I do skip over major sections of your posts though. I mean who wants to read rants, caricatures and strawmen posing as arguments. I see the beginnings of them. I skip right over them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #150 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

His proposals do throw us under the bus, but of course his speechifying involves loads of pastel blue signs, backdrops featuring half sunrises and HOPE™ and CHANGE™.



Could you note them again because it appears you keep blaming Republicans for Hillary Clinton running for president.

What doesn't sit well with Republican mindset is being called a preemptive racist. It sits about as well as a man at a "Take Back the Night" rally being called a potential rapist.

Let me tell you Addabox, you are a potential rapist. So we are going to watch your moves carefully during this fall season. Men have raped in the past and will likely rape in the future. Thus we know you will probably rape if we don't watch you carefully enough. Now is there something in your mindset that cannot comprehend why you shouldn't just tolerate this instead of pissing and moaning that you aren't a rapist? I mean we added potential. Sure it is an assumption, but based off the history of men, it isn't a stretch in my mind.



Sorry did you just keep beating the drum of calling McCain an oppressive white man, and just forgot to add old?

I feel so bad about the claimed insensitivity there. Next time you call someone an oppressive, racist white man, I'll make sure to note that you could be talking about a young or old man even when discussing McCain. You are right that I do skip over major sections of your posts though. I mean who wants to read rants, caricatures and strawmen posing as arguments. I see the beginnings of them. I skip right over them.


Quote:
speechifying

This must be a part of one of those " Complete thoughts ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #151 of 192
I just want to make sure I've got this straight.

In 2004 Karl Rove and the GOP went on an unprecedented character assassination campaign to fully and completely discredit John Kerry's military service. By unprecedented I mean that savage lies, gross exaggerations, and mockery were all carefully and thoughtfully orchestrated for one express purpose...destroy John Kerry.

Democrats cried foul from the rooftops. At which point Republicans laughed, mocked and giggled at Democrats for being WATB. Even though every point the SBVT had been countered, the campaign continued, DAILY, and without end until election day.

So what have I learned?

I've learned that because Democrats felt that the GOP had gone WAY OVER THE TOP in attacking John Kerry so fiercely and punishingly, they have somehow pre-empted themselves from talking about a Republican's service. EVER. Republicans say, "He asked for it. He egged it on."

Do I have that right?

John McCain is not wearing his military service and his being POW on his sleeve? As long as McCain doesn't say "reporting for duty" then it's kosher?

Because I find it really fucking ironic that Republicans are in a twitter over Clark's silly answer to question posed to him when they USED THE NUCLEAR OPTION in 2004. And then they have the unmitigated gall to call Democrats hypocrites! Are you fucking kidding me!!!!!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #152 of 192
From what I can gather, Obama sucks because he doesn't feel the hunched-over, stomach-wrenching internal conflict that some apparently do to turn every election into a bitter revenge-fest over Take Back the Night rallies and perceived unfair charges of racism. And from the looks of things, Obama sucks because he's not sufficiently aggressive enough in needling liberals for these past sins and slights. Not that McCain is all that motivated or even interested in hitching a ride on the white-male "bitter train," but he's the candidate of white men.
post #153 of 192
I just want to know when John McCain lost his economic expertise before he found it.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #154 of 192
As I posted in another thread: Where are the threads about how good McCain is?

If this is one of them, there is only one good thing about him: his military record. If that's all he's got, then he will not make a good president.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #155 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This must be a part of one of those " Complete thoughts ".

Naw that is some word fun for all of us to enjoy so the tone doesn't become too shrill.

Oh wait... Northgate is here so forget what I said about the conversation trying not to become too shrill. He clearly will wander off the deep end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I just want to make sure I've got this straight.

Just to be clear, even though you are employing that in a rhetorical sense, you don't have it straight.

Quote:
In 2004 Karl Rove and the GOP went on an unprecedented character assassination campaign to fully and completely discredit John Kerry's military service. By unprecedented I mean that savage lies, gross exaggerations, and mockery were all carefully and thoughtfully orchestrated for one express purpose...destroy John Kerry.

Perhaps that is the way you saw it but clearly those casting the votes did not. You can claim a thousand times that Kerry wasn't reporting for duty, carrying around a book called 'Tour of Duty' and made no claims about his military experience. You can call a guy unwilling to this day to release his military records which he claims would prove the critics wrong to be the one who had his character assassinated. Savage lies, gross exaggerations and mockery all carefully and thoughtfully orchestrated for one purpose describes perfectly the Winter Soldier Investigation which is why those who worked against Kerry at that time and continue to do so today are credible why he is not.

Quote:
Democrats cried foul from the rooftops. At which point Republicans laughed, mocked and giggled at Democrats for being WATB. Even though every point the SBVT had been countered, the campaign continued, DAILY, and without end until election day.

Countered doesn't mean credibly refuted. They didn't stop at election day either. The people who had claims made against them by Kerry will probably fight to refute them until he is six feet under ground. Democrats cry foul so often that no one pays attention. They have no power when they are in the minority. They have no power when they are in the majority. They are the smartest people in the room yet are fooled by the lies of idiot monkey-boy Bush and his devil child sidekick Rove who eats kittens for lunch and the lies some more. They are never responsible for their positions or votes. They never change positions but are just outmaneuvered by TeH Eval Republicans™.

Quote:
So what have I learned?

Nothing.

Quote:
I've learned that because Democrats felt that the GOP had gone WAY OVER THE TOP in attacking John Kerry so fiercely and punishingly, they have somehow pre-empted from talking about a Republican's service. EVER. Republicans say, "He asked for it. He egged it on."

Do I have that right?

Actually what you don't get is your surrogates in the media are slapping you because even they cannot believe how stupid you happen to be in pursuing this. Raising the bar on military service just makes non-service to be a community service organizer look that much less impressive.

A political narrative whereby Obama is compared to McCain at similar stages of their lives is not what the campaign should want.

Mr Obama, at this particular time of his life Sen. McCain was a POW having his arms repeatedly broken and eventually causing permanent disability, to fight the rising communist threat throughout the world. What were you doing at the comparable stage in your life...

Obama... um... I was organizing a tenant's right organization.

What you don't have right is when a comparison makes you look bad, you don't keep bringing it up and making it the centerpiece of discussion. You get it the hell out of there and your surrogates are willing to slap you in the face to make sure it gets done.

Quote:
John McCain is not wearing his military service and his being POW on his sleeve? As long as McCain doesn't say "reporting for duty" then it's kosher?

No you let him say reporting for duty and then if there are two hundred men who happened to have treated his wounds, signed his medal forms, and had him under his command who want his ass on a platter you run with it. However if you don't have that, you don't keep bringing up a positive for him.

Quote:
Because I find it really fucking ironic that Republicans are in a twitter over Clark's silly answer to question posed to him when they USED THE NUCLEAR OPTION in 2004. And then they have the unmitigated gall to call Democrats hypocrites! Are you fucking kidding me!!!!!

Nobody is f*cking kidding you. Look I've stated in several threads that I hope the Democrats keep running with this. I hope they think they have hit a homerun and start running the bases. It won't go anywhere because at the core it is a lie.

John Kerry earned three purple hearts. Technically you are right. When you look and see not a single day of service lost to injury, not a single deep wound and take off eight months early from your tour date, even if you are technically right people understand the motivations and actions outside of those rules. You can argue the rules all day. You can argue 2004 all over again. People didn't agree and still don't.

You can argue that being shot down, being a POW, being a hero, being unwilling to be released from being a POW early in front of others, being permanently disabled, serving an additional eight years where you became a captain and commanded a flight squadron during peacetime really...technically isn't executive experience. Technically you might be right but most people won't see it that way. In the meantime you invite unflattering return comparisons and have nothing in the same area to even argue or compare.

Ol'Bob on CBS has it right. Act astonished and hope you shut up and get a clue.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #156 of 192
I don't know what's more troubling. That you're trying to spin this or that you don't believe you are spinning it?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #157 of 192
.....

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #158 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

His proposals do throw us under the bus, but of course his speechifying involves loads of pastel blue signs, backdrops featuring half sunrises and HOPE™ and CHANGE™.

You may be onto something. McCain should stress how his campaign's iconography, sloganeering, color scheme and production design were harvested from the good earth of the heartland, whereas Obama's is all contrived and shit.

Quote:
Could you note them again because it appears you keep blaming Republicans for Hillary Clinton running for president.

Never defended Clinton's campaign; the other guy's bullshit doesn't inoculate you from being called on your own. Is the idea that anything brought up by the Clinton campaign is forever free of ugly racial overtones, when used by Republicans, because "they did it first?" If so, isn't the point of that to allow ugly racial overtones to be freely deployed without penalty, according to some contrived political calculus, rather than to just avoid going there?

Why play these games?

Quote:
What doesn't sit well with Republican mindset is being called a preemptive racist. It sits about as well as a man at a "Take Back the Night" rally being called a potential rapist.

Let me tell you Addabox, you are a potential rapist. So we are going to watch your moves carefully during this fall season. Men have raped in the past and will likely rape in the future. Thus we know you will probably rape if we don't watch you carefully enough. Now is there something in your mindset that cannot comprehend why you shouldn't just tolerate this instead of pissing and moaning that you aren't a rapist? I mean we added potential. Sure it is an assumption, but based off the history of men, it isn't a stretch in my mind.

Yeah. I'm getting a little tired of talking to the voices in your head, but: I asked about the propensity of straw men arguments, lately, from the right, and you respond with some kind of über straw thing tentacle beast. Uh, tóuche?

Quote:
Sorry did you just keep beating the drum of calling McCain an oppressive white man, and just forgot to add old?

I'm sorry, is there another addabox posting here and we're getting our wires crossed?

Quote:
I feel so bad about the claimed insensitivity there. Next time you call someone an oppressive, racist white man, I'll make sure to note that you could be talking about a young or old man even when discussing McCain. You are right that I do skip over major sections of your posts though. I mean who wants to read rants, caricatures and strawmen posing as arguments. I see the beginnings of them. I skip right over them.

OK, this one gets a gold star. You've managed to wind up excoriating me for "rants, caricatures and straw men" in a post based entirely on making up positions for me that you can berate, angrily.

Again, as I've said many, many times: my beef is with the Republican Party, and its willingness to use coded and overt racial messages to win elections. There is nothing outlandish about that claim, Republican strategists are on record discussing the efficacy of doing just that.

If it's your position that the party would never resort to racial animosity to peal off votes from Obama, you should just say that, rather than do battle with this fictional Addabox that is forever railing against oppressive white men and calling all the people that don't vote for Obama racist and branding the Republican electorate uniformly racist, and, apparently, given your tone, constantly going "Nyah, nyah, nyah, Nick is a big fat racist."

That's that other Addabox in under your bed that reads your diary, or something.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #159 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Naw that is some word fun for all of us to enjoy so the tone doesn't become too shrill.

Oh wait... Northgate is here so forget what I said about the conversation trying not to become too shrill. He clearly will wander off the deep end.



Just to be clear, even though you are employing that in a rhetorical sense, you don't have it straight.



Perhaps that is the way you saw it but clearly those casting the votes did not. You can claim a thousand times that Kerry wasn't reporting for duty, carrying around a book called 'Tour of Duty' and made no claims about his military experience. You can call a guy unwilling to this day to release his military records which he claims would prove the critics wrong to be the one who had his character assassinated. Savage lies, gross exaggerations and mockery all carefully and thoughtfully orchestrated for one purpose describes perfectly the Winter Soldier Investigation which is why those who worked against Kerry at that time and continue to do so today are credible why he is not.



Countered doesn't mean credibly refuted. They didn't stop at election day either. The people who had claims made against them by Kerry will probably fight to refute them until he is six feet under ground. Democrats cry foul so often that no one pays attention. They have no power when they are in the minority. They have no power when they are in the majority. They are the smartest people in the room yet are fooled by the lies of idiot monkey-boy Bush and his devil child sidekick Rove who eats kittens for lunch and the lies some more. They are never responsible for their positions or votes. They never change positions but are just outmaneuvered by TeH Eval Republicans™.



Nothing.



Actually what you don't get is your surrogates in the media are slapping you because even they cannot believe how stupid you happen to be in pursuing this. Raising the bar on military service just makes non-service to be a community service organizer look that much less impressive.

A political narrative whereby Obama is compared to McCain at similar stages of their lives is not what the campaign should want.

Mr Obama, at this particular time of his life Sen. McCain was a POW having his arms repeatedly broken and eventually causing permanent disability, to fight the rising communist threat throughout the world. What were you doing at the comparable stage in your life...

Obama... um... I was organizing a tenant's right organization.

What you don't have right is when a comparison makes you look bad, you don't keep bringing it up and making it the centerpiece of discussion. You get it the hell out of there and your surrogates are willing to slap you in the face to make sure it gets done.



No you let him say reporting for duty and then if there are two hundred men who happened to have treated his wounds, signed his medal forms, and had him under his command who want his ass on a platter you run with it. However if you don't have that, you don't keep bringing up a positive for him.



Nobody is f*cking kidding you. Look I've stated in several threads that I hope the Democrats keep running with this. I hope they think they have hit a homerun and start running the bases. It won't go anywhere because at the core it is a lie.

John Kerry earned three purple hearts. Technically you are right. When you look and see not a single day of service lost to injury, not a single deep wound and take off eight months early from your tour date, even if you are technically right people understand the motivations and actions outside of those rules. You can argue the rules all day. You can argue 2004 all over again. People didn't agree and still don't.

You can argue that being shot down, being a POW, being a hero, being unwilling to be released from being a POW early in front of others, being permanently disabled, serving an additional eight years where you became a captain and commanded a flight squadron during peacetime really...technically isn't executive experience. Technically you might be right but most people won't see it that way. In the meantime you invite unflattering return comparisons and have nothing in the same area to even argue or compare.

Ol'Bob on CBS has it right. Act astonished and hope you shut up and get a clue.

Man! You do go on and on about the same thing. What you say could be summed up in a much shorter statement.

And isn't this :
Quote:
You can argue that being shot down, being a POW, being a hero, being unwilling to be released from being a POW early in front of others, being permanently disabled, serving an additional eight years where you became a captain and commanded a flight squadron during peacetime really...technically isn't executive experience.

a run on sentence? Well probably not since it's still one train ( pun intended ) of thought. However putting a comma after 'captain " and before " and " might help as you're ending a list. But it's still too long.

It makes it difficult to read and understand!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #160 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You guys are so lame.

If we listed 100 qualifications for being an effective President of the United States, having combat experience shouldn't even be on the top 50. That's Clark's one and only point, and it's a good one.

The President, whether it's Obama or McCain, has Generals who are much more qualified to make military decisions than they are. In fact, having McCain think he has the expertise to call the military shots scares the shit out of me. He is a warrior who wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb" the enemy, when other options might be much more effective in reaching our military goals. I trust the generals. Not the old man with a limp and a vendetta.

No response to this, Trumpy? I'd rather have a President who lets his generals make the big military decisions. There is a real risk that McCain is going to be a cowboy and "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb" whoever he wants because he "knows how soldiers feel". We definitely should not want that to happen.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Swiftboating of John McCain