|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 12:40:44 AM
|
|
|
tracydolls
Posts: 1804
Joined: 3/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Anyone that thinks Liberals care about civil rights are kidding themselves...
Say that again brother john,
I live in a liberal state, trust me they could care less.
Bill and Hillary hurt alot of black people because they THOUGHT they cared.
(ebonics)BO fina fool alot of people too, we gonna be like what? 
_____________________________
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 9:35:45 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tracydolls
I live in a liberal state, trust me they could care less.
. . . couldn't care less, not "could" . . .
And there is no such thing as a "liberal state," btw. Liberalism is an ideology adhered to by certain people. There are blue or red states, demographically speaking, but that is not the same thing.
Getting back to John McCain (remember the OP?), here is a guy who truly doesn't care. He didn't care about remaining faithful to his country during the war, his wife after the war, or the Native residents of the state of Arizona when he became its senator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 10:01:55 AM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 825
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
How can you possibly say he didn't remain faithful to his country during the war? He was a U.S. Navy pilot who was shot down, became a prisoner of war, refused his release unless his fellow prisoners were released also................ Unlike the "War Hero" John Kerry, McCain didn't go before congress and trash his country.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Getting back to John McCain (remember the OP?), here is a guy who truly doesn't care. He didn't care about remaining faithful to his country during the war, his wife after the war, or the Native residents of the state of Arizona when he became its senator.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 10:34:16 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1810
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
I think I didn't make myself very clear. Try again. If the plans for the overthrow was begun during the Eisenhower administration (and the Shah's government was so incompetent, inept, corrupt) why did it take so long to be overthrown? It's not as if Iran was equal in power to China or the USSR.
-Dave
What about Chile under Pinochet? That lasted a good two decades after the democratically-elected president was shot to death in his office.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 11:18:34 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1640
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
I think I didn't make myself very clear. Try again. If the plans for the overthrow was begun during the Eisenhower administration (and the Shah's government was so incompetent, inept, corrupt) why did it take so long to be overthrown? It's not as if Iran was equal in power to China or the USSR.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
And it took nearly twenty years for the overthrow? That's kinda hard to believe. We had Kennedy/Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Nixon/Ford and a few Carter years in between.
China's been communist since 1949 and their government hasn't been overthrown yet. The Iranian democracy was incompetent, inept and corrupt. Just like the democracy of South Vietnam after the Geneva conference.
Davemiller7, you're missing the point.
If I interpret blessedinnyc correctly, and I'm sure he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, the point re: Iran was that while the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran took place under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, the fruits were reaped later on.
An overthrow is not easy. It took time before the angry stood up in France (1789); it took time before the early Americans rose against British rule; it took time before the Chinese got their act together and ended what they still term the "century of humiliation" at the hands of western countries exploiting China; it took time before South Americans took to the streets and voiced to their army generals that they wanted democracy.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution, for which many erroneously blame President Jimmy Carter, was due to more than one single issue; but, one of the issues was the pent-up anger and resentment aimed at the United States for our country's support of the Shah's corrupt and extremely brutal and repressive dictatorship.
Blowback is what I call it. The actions of one presidential administration generate consequences, but they may not appear immediately. And, I worry that the negative consequences of George W. Bush's disastrous and foolhardy war of aggression against Iraq will yield results that will be problematic for us in the future... many years after Bush is gone from the White House.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 11:34:23 AM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1308
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
It's all George Washington's fault. Wait, it's Adam's fault. No, it's Eve's fault. It's blowback.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 11:40:35 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1640
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
It's all George Washington's fault. Wait, it's Adam's fault. No, it's Eve's fault. It's blowback.
This made me chuckle... in great part thanks to how vacuous your post is.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 1:54:34 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 825
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
You're right, I did misinterpret what was being said. I thought it was about taking 20 years to topple the Shah's regime. I stand corrected. Thanx.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: RichLP
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
I think I didn't make myself very clear. Try again. If the plans for the overthrow was begun during the Eisenhower administration (and the Shah's government was so incompetent, inept, corrupt) why did it take so long to be overthrown? It's not as if Iran was equal in power to China or the USSR.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
And it took nearly twenty years for the overthrow? That's kinda hard to believe. We had Kennedy/Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Nixon/Ford and a few Carter years in between.
China's been communist since 1949 and their government hasn't been overthrown yet. The Iranian democracy was incompetent, inept and corrupt. Just like the democracy of South Vietnam after the Geneva conference.
Davemiller7, you're missing the point.
If I interpret blessedinnyc correctly, and I'm sure he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, the point re: Iran was that while the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran took place under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, the fruits were reaped later on.
An overthrow is not easy. It took time before the angry stood up in France (1789); it took time before the early Americans rose against British rule; it took time before the Chinese got their act together and ended what they still term the "century of humiliation" at the hands of western countries exploiting China; it took time before South Americans took to the streets and voiced to their army generals that they wanted democracy.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution, for which many erroneously blame President Jimmy Carter, was due to more than one single issue; but, one of the issues was the pent-up anger and resentment aimed at the United States for our country's support of the Shah's corrupt and extremely brutal and repressive dictatorship.
Blowback is what I call it. The actions of one presidential administration generate consequences, but they may not appear immediately. And, I worry that the negative consequences of George W. Bush's disastrous and foolhardy war of aggression against Iraq will yield results that will be problematic for us in the future... many years after Bush is gone from the White House.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 5:09:40 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
How can you possibly say he didn't remain faithful to his country during the war?
Because it's true:
quote:
He was a U.S. Navy pilot who was shot down, became a prisoner of war, refused his release unless his fellow prisoners were released
Now, the real version:
"Once in a cell, he was beaten and interrogated daily. Still being refused medical treatment and in severe pain, McCain agreed to talk in exchange for medical treatment . . .
McCain has said that he was regularly visited by senior communist Vietnamese officials. One visitor was famous NVA Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap.
Eventually, McCain signed a letter claiming to be a war criminal and apologizing for the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He also did many radio and television interviews, some with foreign correspondents which is a severe violation of the military code of conduct."
quote:
also................ Unlike the "War Hero" John Kerry, McCain didn't go before congress and trash his country.
No, instead he spearheaded an investigation against two POW/MIA advocacy groups thus trashing his fellow POWs in Vietnam:
"In 1992, John McCain was serving on the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. Vietnamese officials began to complain that American POW/MIA activists (mostly family members of the missing men) were causing too many problems and posed a threat to lifting the U.S. trade embargo on Vietnam. Incredibly, Senator and former POW McCain then went on a campaign against the POW/MIA activists and accused them of fraud."
And he advocated for the enemy:
"Despite John McCain's years of painful torture at the hands of the NVA, he has been Hanoi's strongest advocate in the U.S. Senate. For years, he pushed for the normalization of relations with communist Vietnam, even though that country has never fully cooperated on the issue of American POW's."
Newsflash: John Kerry is not running this time around, dave.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/5/2008 5:16:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/5/2008 5:50:58 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1207
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
How can you possibly say he didn't remain faithful to his country during the war?
Because it's true:
quote:
He was a U.S. Navy pilot who was shot down, became a prisoner of war, refused his release unless his fellow prisoners were released
Now, the real version:
"Once in a cell, he was beaten and interrogated daily. Still being refused medical treatment and in severe pain, McCain agreed to talk in exchange for medical treatment . . .
McCain has said that he was regularly visited by senior communist Vietnamese officials. One visitor was famous NVA Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap.
Eventually, McCain signed a letter claiming to be a war criminal and apologizing for the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He also did many radio and television interviews, some with foreign correspondents which is a severe violation of the military code of conduct."
quote:
also................ Unlike the "War Hero" John Kerry, McCain didn't go before congress and trash his country.
No, instead he spearheaded an investigation against two POW/MIA advocacy groups thus trashing his fellow POWs in Vietnam:
"In 1992, John McCain was serving on the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. Vietnamese officials began to complain that American POW/MIA activists (mostly family members of the missing men) were causing too many problems and posed a threat to lifting the U.S. trade embargo on Vietnam. Incredibly, Senator and former POW McCain then went on a campaign against the POW/MIA activists and accused them of fraud."
And he advocated for the enemy:
"Despite John McCain's years of painful torture at the hands of the NVA, he has been Hanoi's strongest advocate in the U.S. Senate. For years, he pushed for the normalization of relations with communist Vietnam, even though that country has never fully cooperated on the issue of American POW's."
Newsflash: John Kerry is not running this time around, dave.
Bush and Rove went after McCain in 2000, trying to smear his military record with these same allegations. Bush appeared on stage at a rally with a "swiftboat" type veterans group composed of former vietnam POWs who targeted McCain's military record, arguing that he betrayed his fellow POW's in Vietnam.
I personally think these sorts of attacks were dirty when Bush/Rove did it to McCain in 2000 and again when they did in 2004 to Kerry, so I hope that democrats won't resort to these sorts of bellow the belt attacks this time around.
I also don't see how McCain can so easily suck up to Bush/Rove after what they did to him in 2000 primaries. I guess he thinks he needs to play to the core of the party to win, but I think that's going to be a terrible strategy for him as he's lost most of his former appeal to moderates/dems in the process.
If the "maverick" McCain circa 2000 would be running right now, he'd win in a landslide. But the McCain we have today seems to be a relic of his former self. He's been so beaten down by trying to fight the rules in Washington that it seems he's just given in. He's lost his former charm, which has given us the tired, grumpy, old man reading from a teleprompter that we see so often today.
_____________________________
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/6/2008 9:49:13 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
Bush appeared on stage at a rally with a "swiftboat" type veterans group composed of former vietnam POWs who targeted McCain's military record, arguing that he betrayed his fellow POW's in Vietnam.
The difference being, unlike the Kerry smear campaign, these allegations have not been found to be confabulated.
quote:
I hope that democrats won't resort to these sorts of bellow the belt attacks this time around.
Well, the Republicans did not officially endorse the lies about John Kerry in 2004, yet they somehow got major attention anyway. The same thing could happen here.
Except, as I already said, these aren't lies.
quote:
I also don't see how McCain can so easily suck up to Bush/Rove after what they did to him in 2000 primaries.
Everyone sucked up to Bush right after 9-11, except for a small handful of congressmen with some integrity. McCain was not among the ones with integrity.
quote:
If the "maverick" McCain circa 2000 would be running right now, he'd win in a landslide.
McCain still bucks the party line when it comes to his ideas on cutting federal gas taxes, income tax reform, and immigration.
quote:
He's lost his former charm, which has given us the tired, grumpy, old man reading from a teleprompter that we see so often today.
Not even grumpy-- I could at least relate to that.
Instead we have another Bob Dole: an old school, white, starched-collar Republican with no pizazz at all: Dole's non-charisma mixed with Reagan's senility.
Except in this case the old boy has a plastic-surgury Barbie on his arm making him look even older than he appears on his own. So I guess that makes him a Trump-Hefner hybrid as well as a Dole-Reagan hyrid.
Yuck!~
And there's what he's done to Arizon'a Dineh and Hopi Indians, but obviously no one here is interested in that . .
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/6/2008 9:55:56 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/6/2008 9:53:53 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6346
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, the Republicans did not officially endorse the lies about John Kerry in 2004
There were lies told on Kerry? News to me. All the stories I heard were backed up with reliable sources.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/6/2008 4:10:40 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
There were lies told on Kerry? News to me. All the stories I heard were backed up with reliable sources.
Were you one to follow links, you would learn the truth here, here, and here. Oh, and here . . .
But, alas, this is not your wont.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/7/2008 9:50:25 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/10/2008 9:30:55 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
I'm sorry, but has he been elevated to official sainthood and I missed it?
What does sainthood have to do with it?
quote:
That's rich, a link to a Kerry Supporters site - like that's a group of Boy Scouts.
Boys scouts are supposed to be trustworthy and honest, are they not?
But seriously, is your entire litmus test for truth based on: anti-Kerry = true; everything else = false? Now, that's sound reasoning . . .
quote:
Nothing like letting the UK libs set us straight and pick our president for us.
The British press did not make this up. McCain did dump his first wife (a former model, incidentally) who waited for him faithfully to return from Vietnam, only to get the boot once McCain became adulterously involved with his current mate-- an heiress to a fortune.
So first he married for arm-candy, then he married for money and arm-candy. Here is a non-British source.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/10/2008 9:37:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/10/2008 9:48:47 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6346
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
....But seriously, is your entire litmus test for truth based on: anti-Kerry = true; everything else = false? Now, that's sound reasoning . . .
The point is that if a site is obviously PRO-Kerry, they're going to slant everything to make him appear saintly.
Surely you aren't naive enough to think a PRO-Kerry or PRO-any candidate site is going to 'fess up and show us their person/political messiah has faults. Neither am I.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/10/2008 10:15:10 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
The point is that if a site is obviously PRO-Kerry, they're going to slant everything to make him appear saintly.
Is it "pro-Kerry" to point out that the Swiftboat allegations were false?
quote:
Surely you aren't naive enough to think a PRO-Kerry or PRO-any candidate site is going to 'fess up and show us their person/political messiah has faults.
We're not talking about Kerry's personal faults; we're talking about lies against his service record.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/10/2008 10:17:44 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Btw, Jimbo: do you still think that the British press made up the whole story about John McCain's former marriage and the adultery that started his current one?
This is very relevant. You righties think that adultery was more than enough reason to impeach Clinton. Well, here is another guy wanting into the White House with a proven record of adultery.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/10/2008 10:24:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/10/2008 10:43:37 AM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 609
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is very relevant. You righties think that adultery was more than enough reason to impeach Clinton. Well, here is another guy wanting into the White House with a proven record of adultery.
McCain was Not the President at that time; what happened or didn't happen in his marriage is nobodies business but his and his Ex-wifes. That is unless of course you happen to be a back-biting, stick your nose where it don't belong, busybody liberal lefty. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/10/2008 10:51:44 AM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 825
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
The reason for impeachment was PERJURY, not adultery. Get your facts straight.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Btw, Jimbo: do you still think that the British press made up the whole story about John McCain's former marriage and the adultery that started his current one?
This is very relevant. You righties think that adultery was more than enough reason to impeach Clinton. Well, here is another guy wanting into the White House with a proven record of adultery.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/10/2008 10:57:34 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6346
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
....You righties think that adultery was more than enough reason to impeach Clinton...
No double standard. If McCain commits adultery and perjury in the White House with an employee, paid or unpaid, then he too deserves to be impeached. The double-standard is that lefties want to oust Republicans with any moral flaw while excusing everything, up to and including extreme scandals like Chappaquiddick.
You did excuse Chappaquiddick, correct?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/11/2008 10:57:38 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
McCain was Not the President at that time
Oh, so cheating on your wife is more acceptable as long as you are not the president?
Do you actually believe this?
quote:
what happened or didn't happen in his marriage is nobodies business but his and his Ex-wifes.
Wrong. Once a candidate begins a campaign, everything about their life and character comes under suspect scrutiny. Every candidate knows this before they even toss their hat in the ring, or they should know it at least.
John McCain is, by matter of confirmed record, a man who gave information to the enemy in Vietnam, cheated on his wife after he got home, left his wife to be with his rich mistress, and as senator of Arizona has pushed legislation to remove Navajo and Hopi Indians off of their own land in order to take their coal.
Does a man of this character deserve to be entrusted with the Presidency of the United States of America?
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
The reason for impeachment was PERJURY, not adultery. Get your facts straight.
At ease, my snarky friend. I said, "righties think that adultery was more than enough reason to impeach Clinton." I didn't say that was the reason for his impeachment.
My point is that-- regardless of his actual charges-- if you think that Clinton's adulterous behavior was worthy of impeachment, then how can you in good conscience endorse a man who did something just as bad if not worse?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/11/2008 11:03:18 AM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1161
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: The Land Of The Burnt Thigh
Status: online
|
quote:
My point is that-- regardless of his actual charges-- if you think that Clinton's adulterous behavior was worthy of impeachment, then how can you in good conscience endorse a man who did something just as bad if not worse?
Because he's the least likely Marxist of the current choices?
_____________________________
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''
|
|
|
|
|
RE: John McCain - 6/11/2008 11:05:20 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6346
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
John McCain is, by matter of confirmed record, a man who gave information to the enemy in Vietnam...
I consider that to be the lowest blow an armchair critic like yourself can make against any POW. Unless you spent time there, if you ever served on active duty at all, you have no grounds to criticize him on that account. I doubt you have every undergone any deprivation that comes close to what John McCain experienced in just a week in prison. I put your jab on this point on the same level as someone justifying wife-abuse.
[Edited to correct spelling.]
< Message edited by JimboFletch -- 6/11/2008 11:12:05 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
