The McCain Thread

[Marx]

That reminds me:

"What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?"

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

I mean, seriously? And people wonder why he is compared to Bush.

I agree Souv. Comparisons aren't all that hard to draw between the two.

 

[Cosmic]

Huffpost on Charlie Black

It wasn't just a stupid thing to say. It was a really horrible thing to say. It's not the sort of thing you can just apologize for. He knew what he was saying. It just shows that he's a truly evil and wicked person.

 

[StorminNorman]

My father knows Charlie Black, he has worked closely with Charlie Black, my father is friends with Charlie Black.

Charlie Black should of known better, it was stupid to say something like that in an instance where it would be reported.

To call him evil or wicked or even saying he was incorrect is stupid, however.

 

[StorminNorman]

My father knows Charlie Black, he has worked closely with Charlie Black, my father is friends with Charlie Black.

Charlie Black should of known better, it was stupid to say something like that in an instance where it would be reported.

To call him evil or wicked or even saying he was incorrect is stupid, however.

 

[jaguarr]

My father knows Charlie Black, he has worked closely with Charlie Black, my father is friends with Charlie Black.

Charlie Black should of known better, it was stupid to say something like that in an instance where it would be reported.

To call him evil or wicked or even saying he was incorrect is stupid, however.

Charlie Black is now a liability.

jag

 

[The Senator]

No, it is true: The Republicans would benefit from a terrorist attack, because most Americans are so incredibly misled that the only people who are capable of defending this country from a terrorist attacks are Republicans. If an attack occurred on American soil, voters would stick their tails between their legs and vote for the Republican Party, because they've been the ones associated with keeping this nation "safe" since 9/11 (nevermind the fact that Republicans controlled the government at the time). And, of course, they'll be willing to overlook the disaster in Iraq, the unraveling situation in Afghanistan, the miles of corruption and eight years of domestic policy distractions to elect McCain president and continue many of the failed Bush policies.

(And the ironic thing is, McCain and the Republicans would benefit even though an attack occurred under a Republican administration)

 

[Matt]

It was a ridiculously stupid thing to say...but...come on, its true. An attack on American soil would put the fear back into people, and they would run to the man who says "I'm gonna fight the terrorists!" as opposed to the man who says "I'm gonna sit down and try and talk things out." Are we so overly sensitive that someone cannot say the truth anymore? He isn't saying, "HEY TERRORISTS! COME ATTACK US SO MCCAIN CAN WIN!" He is saying a simple truth, a terrorist attack would change the political atmosphere, and yes, the change would favor McCain.

 

[Marx]

No, it is true: The Republicans would benefit from a terrorist attack, because most Americans are so incredibly misled that the only people who are capable of defending this country from a terrorist attacks are Republicans. If an attack occurred on American soil, voters would stick their tails between their legs and vote for the Republican Party, because they've been the ones associated with keeping this nation "safe" since 9/11 (nevermind the fact that Republicans controlled the government at the time). And, of course, they'll be willing to overlook the disaster in Iraq, the unraveling situation in Afghanistan, the miles of corruption and eight years of domestic policy distractions to elect McCain president and continue many of the failed Bush policies.

(And the ironic thing is, McCain and the Republicans would benefit even though an attack occurred under a Republican administration)

It was a ridiculously stupid thing to say...but...come on, its true. An attack on American soil would put the fear back into people, and they would run to the man who says "I'm gonna fight the terrorists!" as opposed to the man who says "I'm gonna sit down and try and talk things out." Are we so overly sensitive that someone cannot say the truth anymore? He isn't saying, "HEY TERRORISTS! COME ATTACK US SO MCCAIN CAN WIN!" He is saying a simple truth, a terrorist attack would change the political atmosphere, and yes, the change would favor McCain.

I'm still waiting for Bin Laden to reappear before the elections in November.

 

[jaguarr]

Mmm....initial reaction to another terrorist attack might be to swing people to McCain, but I think it would really depend on how Obama and the Dem's addressed it. If they demonstrated the drive and determination to find out who was behind it and hunt them down...smartly and without all the excess BS that came with the 9/11-related military actions (invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or catching the terrorists that were behind it, no matter how much spin the Republicans put behind it)...pointing out along the way that they'll go after the actual people who did the dirty deed, not things that are unrelated to it...and do everything in their power to catch and punish or eliminate the perpetrators...no mercy, no quarter...that might balance things right the f**k back out again with the voter base, to be honest. Especially if say...a certain General Clark was brought in as the potential Secretary of Defense if Obama got elected. Don't underestimate the ability of Obama's campaign team to spin whatever the Republicans throw at them and turn it right back around and use it against them. They've been exhibiting their black belt in political jiu-jitsu for quite some time, now, after all.

jag

 

[StorminNorman]

Charlie Black is now a liability.

jag

Absolutely.

 

[DorkyFresh]

the way i see it...another attack would just confirm that the Republicans AREN'T doing their jobs.

 

[souvlaki]

It was a ridiculously stupid thing to say...but...come on, its true. An attack on American soil would put the fear back into people, and they would run to the man who says "I'm gonna fight the terrorists!" as opposed to the man who says "I'm gonna sit down and try and talk things out." Are we so overly sensitive that someone cannot say the truth anymore? He isn't saying, "HEY TERRORISTS! COME ATTACK US SO MCCAIN CAN WIN!" He is saying a simple truth, a terrorist attack would change the political atmosphere, and yes, the change would favor McCain.

Or people would realize that we've had two major terrorist attacks during a Republican presidency and decide that they obviously are not doing as good of a job combating terrorism as they'd like us to believe. Really, it works both ways. This is where Obama's argument about Iraq always made more sense to me. He wants to reduce our troop numbers in Iraq so we can instead put the focus on Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda... where our focus should have been the whole time. Republicans like to talk like they are the better party to take on terrorism, but they haven't done a very convincing job of this since 2003. Sadly, most people wont see it this way though. I still have no clue how the Republicans have suddenly become the stronger party when it comes to combating terrorism.

 

[Cosmic]

Did anyone say it was untrue (aside from John McCain)? I'm saying that it is yes, evil, to consider terrorist attacks as political fodder. There's something deeply, morally, wrong with you, if you're considering how you can use slaughter of innocents to your best political advantage.

 

[lazur]

the way i see it...another attack would just confirm that the Republicans AREN'T doing their jobs.

That's kind of funny. If we have another terrorist attack, it's completely the fault of the Republicans. But if we don't have another terrorist attack, the Republicans get NO CREDIT AT ALL.

Do you always 'want your cake and eat it too'?

And for those calling for McCain's Top Advisor's head for saying what he said about another terrorist attack before the election, just keep in mind that HILLARY CLINTON said the SAME THING back in August, 2007. Funny how no one cares, though, since she's a Democrat and all.

 

[lazur]

That's kind of funny. If we have another terrorist attack, it's completely the fault of the Republicans. But if we don't have another terrorist attack, the Republicans get NO CREDIT AT ALL.

Do you always 'want your cake and eat it too'?

And for those calling for McCain's Top Advisor's head for saying what he said about another terrorist attack before the election, just keep in mind that HILLARY CLINTON said the SAME THING back in August, 2007. Funny how no one cares, though, since she's a Democrat and all.

And here's the story:

The following article from the New York Post highlights Hillary Clinton’s contrasting statements from the past in regard to using terrorism for political gain and her current concerns and the ramifications of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the next presidential election:



HILL: TERROR WOULD BE GOP BOOST
By GEOFF EARLE

August 24, 2007 — WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year’s election, warning that it could boost the GOP’s efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,” Clinton told supporters in Concord.

“So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,” she added.

The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP’s negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.

 

[souvlaki]

And for those calling for McCain's Top Advisor's head for saying what he said about another terrorist attack before the election, just keep in mind that HILLARY CLINTON said the SAME THING back in August, 2007. Funny how no one cares, though, since she's a Democrat and all.

Um... I'm pretty sure Clinton has had her fair share of complaints about fear mongering, especially around these parts. You obviously haven't been posting on this board often enough if you missed out on the endless debates about Clinton saying anything to win. This board wasn't around last August, and I dont remember the comments off hand, but if she did say something similar I can assure you quite a few people here would have attacked her for the comment just as they've attacked McCain's aide.

 

[The Senator]

That's kind of funny. If we have another terrorist attack, it's completely the fault of the Republicans. But if we don't have another terrorist attack, the Republicans get NO CREDIT AT ALL.

Do you always 'want your cake and eat it too'?

And for those calling for McCain's Top Advisor's head for saying what he said about another terrorist attack before the election, just keep in mind that HILLARY CLINTON said the SAME THING back in August, 2007. Funny how no one cares, though, since she's a Democrat and all.

For me, the extent of the remarks matter more than which party the person who said them belongs to.

Of course, the person we're talking about is Charlie Black, because Charlie Black is the one in the news. We're not playing "let's find everyone who said similar remarks and give them a scolding!"

And most of us aren't even scolding the remarks. Most of us believe these remarks are true, that the Republicans will benefit from such an attack because many Americans will believe anything they hear in a time of crisis: Duct tape over your windows will save you from a biological attack; a color-coded alert system will save you from a terrorist attack; and Republicans are better on national security issues, so you better vote for McCain because the Republicans will be able to prevent future attacks!

Most voters who will vote solely on that reason won't even take the time to think about the fact that such an attack occurred under a Republican president, who has trampled on our constitutional rights to prevent such an attack from occurring, which should indicate that party has absolutely nothing to do with keeping this nation safe. I mean, this is a nation which approved of the job the president was doing by over 90% after 9/11, when all he did was tour ground zero and give a few inspirational words of advice. Tell me they won't do the same if another attack occurred.

Oh well.

 

[DorkyFresh]

That's kind of funny. If we have another terrorist attack, it's completely the fault of the Republicans. But if we don't have another terrorist attack, the Republicans get NO CREDIT AT ALL.

i believe we were never REALLY in danger of terrorist attacks...and even if we were, none the size of 9/11. it's very clear our government had a hand in the attacks, even if they supposedly didn't plan any of it. they, at the very least, knew that it was going to happen and stepped aside so that it did. i find it funny that Bush happened to be in the only place where they could use children as an excuse for their lack of action.

they knew 9/11 would happen and they did nothing to prevent it and possibly even encouraged it. if that doesn't spell "FAIL" then i don't know what does. don't give me this B.S. about how Republicans have been fighting so hard to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil. they have done more damage to our country and made it harder for Americans to prosper than the 'turrrrrrorists' ever could.

Do you always 'want your cake and eat it too'?

wtf???



anyway, as for Hilary Clinton saying something similar, she should have kept her mouth shut as well. to an extent, i agree with them both in saying that another attack would be an advantage to the Republicans (maybe), but no one in the political arena should be talking about who would benefit from another attack regardless of which party would recieve the benefits.

 

[souvlaki]

Yeah, after reading that, that was a lame comment to make as well. "If a terrorist attack happens next year, I'm the only Democratic candidate capable of handling it, and taking on the Republicans on this issue. So you better vote for me just in case." It's not the first time Clinton used fear to incite people to vote for her. That was pretty much the basis of her campaign for a while.

 

[Marx]

McCain advisor 'sorry' for terror comment
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/mccain.terrorism/index.html

 

[Marx]

McCain's 'EBAY Model' for jobs confounds many economists
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080624/pl_bloomberg/ajxbcbplynwy



Yes ladies and gentlemen of the Hype, McCain is serious. It was just the other day that he announced his grand plan for a 300 million dollar spectacular for the invention of the next automobile battery. Now, he is proclaiming that "1.3 million people living off of EBAY is evidence that the company is a model for job and economic growth!"



The problem with that is, people selling items on EBAY doesn't grow the economy! And giving away $300 million to whoever creates the next great car battery isn't a wise decision either. (We only have trillions of dollars in debt, what's a couple hundred million more! )

I'm telling you guys, more and more I am convinced that John McCain really has lost his mind!

 

[The Senator]

McCain's 'EBAY Model' for jobs confounds many economists
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080624/pl_bloomberg/ajxbcbplynwy



Yes ladies and gentlemen of the Hype, McCain is serious. It was just the other day that he announced his grand plan for a 300 million dollar spectacular for the invention of the next automobile battery. Now, he is proclaiming that "1.3 million people living off of EBAY is evidence that the company is a model for job and economic growth!"



The problem with that is, people selling items on EBAY doesn't grow the economy! And giving away $300 million to whoever creates the next great car battery isn't a wise decision either. (We only have trillions of dollars in debt, what's a couple hundred million more! )

I'm telling you guys, more and more I am convinced that John McCain really has lost his mind!

John McCain really has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to economics.

1a) He calls for the elimination of the gas tax and calls it "immediate relief" from the pain at the pumps. But that's not immediate relief-- it's a distraction. Most economists agree that suspending the gas tax will only save consumers $30-60, which is less than it costs to fill up most consumers' tanks one time. Which ultimately means that consumers won't save anything if the gas tax is lifted.

1b) And that doesn't even get into the fact that the gas tax pays for federal road, highway and infrastructure repairs. So by suspending the gas tax, the funds which go to repair our nation's deteriorating highways will disappear. But alas, this isn't as important as point 1, which is that lifting the gas tax will have an insignificant impact on consumers' wallets.

2) He discusses coming up with some sort of new-fangled car battery which will be more energy efficient. But he forgets the fact that the battery isn't the problem; it's the fuel. It's the fact that we're paying $4.30 a gallon for oil, which oil companies buy from other nations which sell it at outrageous prices, only to sell it to us for outrageous prices. But I'm straying off point: We have alternative energies! We have hydrogen, we have natural gas, we now even have prototypes which run on water! Many states have hydrogen and natural gas fueling stations; instead of giving someone $300 million for coming up with an amazing new car battery, he should be using that money to make natural gas and hydrogen available nationwide. He should be offering incentives for oil companies to get into these businesses. He's just buying time, and trying to appeal to the common man by saying "If you do this, you win lots of money!"

(Even though Bucktooth B. Redneck won't be able to build such a battery considering he never went to college and knows nothing about automobiles)

3) I still have yet to see how he plans to fix the mortgage crisis and how he plans to ease unemployment-- I mean, if we have $300 million to hand out to someone because they know how to build a car battery, why can't we put that much towards fixing these two crises? Why can't we put that money towards eliminating our debt we have to nations such as China and India, which now own our asses because the "fiscal conservative" elected to the Presidency eight years ago has helped spur one of, if not the largest deficit in our nation's history?

It's insane.

 

[Marx]

It's not right Jman. This man is an idiot when it comes to economics! He has admitted to knowing nothing about the issue...so he comes up with these crack-pot ideas and tries to pass them off as legitimate solutions! It honesty does make me sick.

And you're right, I have yet to hear anything of substance regarding the housing situation. But given his "solutions" on what he has already attempted to tackle, I'm quite afraid of what else he may try to suggest!

I think his "EBAY Model" was an attempt to help unemployment.

 

[Matt]

Does anyone else find it unsettling that we have to choose between a man with no plan and a man with a dumb ass plan?

 

[lazur]

Does anyone else find it unsettling that we have to choose between a man with no plan and a man with a dumb ass plan?

To use the phrase coined for the movie 'Alien Versus Predator' ...

No matter who wins, we lose.

And yes, it's very unsettling ...