The McCain Thread

[Marx]

Thank you for posting that Supe!

 

[lazur]

And people actuality think this guy would be a better president than Bush.

Umm, he would be. You call Bush the worst president in history, and yet you claim McCain won't be any better? That's sort of a contradiction, don't you think?

Just admit already that ANY republican president would be considered by you to be 'the worst president in history' and be done with it.

I'm amazed (well actually I'm not) that whiners like you aren't for ONE SECOND able to step out of your party affiliation and look at the facts on the ground when it concerns the two candidates. But I also will not get into another pointless debate with someone who is so hellbent on arguing purely on the side of partisan politics.

I like Obama for various reasons. I also like McCain for various reasons. However, the turning point in my mind is the question of 'character,' of which McCain has TONS. The man served in Vietnam and STAYED BEHIND when he could have left years ealier because he refused to be set free ahead of anyone else. THAT is character. The man served FLAWLESSLY for 26 years in Congress without a single scandal or other situation which would have compromised his integrity and character. He has disagreed with Bush on MANY issues, INCLUDING the strategy in Iraq, back before Obama even knew what the inside of Congress looked like.

We all want a better President. But none of us should allow PARTY politics to interfere with good common sense. McCain is NOT Bush, and the rhetoric that claims it'll be 'just another four years of Bush' is generated by ignorant LIBERALS who have done, and who care to do, no research on McCain and what his positions have been for the last 26 years. It's not like there isn't a TON of history to look at here, and yet you and people of your ilk seem to be more interested in DEMOCRATS winning than in the BEST, MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE winning.

It's a crying shame, but one I'm not at ALL surprised to see happening. Ignorance is, after all, the easiest mode of thought under which to govern one's self ...

 

[Kelly]

I'm amazed (well actually I'm not) that whiners like you

people of your ilk

I'm sorry Lazur, but you are one of "the most" biased people on SHH, you truly have no room to talk here. How about just chilling and letting him have his opinion, just as you have yours?

 

[lazur]

I'm sorry Lazur, but you are one of "the most" biased people on SHH, you truly have no room to talk here. How about just chilling and letting him have his opinion, just as you have yours?

Most biased? How so? What, because I call into question someone's characterization of McCain, I'm biased?

You know too little about me to make any statement whatsoever on whether or not I'm biased. I'm a registered INDEPENDENT, friend, and I voted for Clinton BOTH times ...

Now please explain to me how I'm biased ... and thanks in advance.

(And this IS a discussion board, after all, you know, where we discuss things like this? The poster Superman has a history of rhetoric that is completely unfounded, and he's constantly finding new ways to whine about 'republicans' in general. It's tiring, and it's tiring because he's one of the FEW people on this board who completely abandons 'common sense' for 'party affiliation.' I mean, if it's a democrat, it must be 'the awesome' - if it's a republican, it must be 'the suck.')

 

[souvlaki]

So the supposedly more knowledgeable candidate on foreign policy refers to a country that hasn't existed in over 15 years (Czechoslovakia) not once, but twice today. Good job, McCain.

 

[Yurka]

Umm, he would be. You call Bush the worst president in history, and yet you claim McCain won't be any better? That's sort of a contradiction, don't you think?

Just admit already that ANY republican president would be considered by you to be 'the worst president in history' and be done with it.

I'm amazed (well actually I'm not) that whiners like you aren't for ONE SECOND able to step out of your party affiliation and look at the facts on the ground when it concerns the two candidates. But I also will not get into another pointless debate with someone who is so hellbent on arguing purely on the side of partisan politics.

I like Obama for various reasons. I also like McCain for various reasons. However, the turning point in my mind is the question of 'character,' of which McCain has TONS. The man served in Vietnam and STAYED BEHIND when he could have left years ealier because he refused to be set free ahead of anyone else. THAT is character. The man served FLAWLESSLY for 26 years in Congress without a single scandal or other situation which would have compromised his integrity and character. He has disagreed with Bush on MANY issues, INCLUDING the strategy in Iraq, back before Obama even knew what the inside of Congress looked like.

We all want a better President. But none of us should allow PARTY politics to interfere with good common sense. McCain is NOT Bush, and the rhetoric that claims it'll be 'just another four years of Bush' is generated by ignorant LIBERALS who have done, and who care to do, no research on McCain and what his positions have been for the last 26 years. It's not like there isn't a TON of history to look at here, and yet you and people of your ilk seem to be more interested in DEMOCRATS winning than in the BEST, MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE winning.

It's a crying shame, but one I'm not at ALL surprised to see happening. Ignorance is, after all, the easiest mode of thought under which to govern one's self ...

Well put and I agree.

 

[Marx]

So the supposedly more knowledgeable candidate on foreign policy refers to a country that hasn't existed in over 15 years (Czechoslovakia) not once, but twice today. Good job, McCain.

That's ok. In Bush's speech today, he admitted that he's 62 and has a hard time remembering things too.

 

[rdh007]

However, the turning point in my mind is the question of 'character,' of which McCain has TONS. The man served in Vietnam and STAYED BEHIND when he could have left years ealier because he refused to be set free ahead of anyone else. THAT is character. The man served FLAWLESSLY for 26 years in Congress without a single scandal or other situation which would have compromised his integrity and character.

McCain and his taste for young blondes is something understandable.

As a member of the Keating Five

Also, McCain's original choice for first lady can be seen here:

McCain did a great job of getting the crap kicked out of himself and crashing airplanes in Vietnam. I don't want to take that away from him and he deserves every honor he gets for that. However, his time after leaving Hanoi hasn't been without scandal.

Lastly, but most importantly, he seems to be having trouble understanding his own voting:

 

[Superman]

Umm, he would be. You call Bush the worst president in history, and yet you claim McCain won't be any better? That's sort of a contradiction, don't you think?

Just admit already that ANY republican president would be considered by you to be 'the worst president in history' and be done with it.

I'm amazed (well actually I'm not) that whiners like you aren't for ONE SECOND able to step out of your party affiliation and look at the facts on the ground when it concerns the two candidates. But I also will not get into another pointless debate with someone who is so hellbent on arguing purely on the side of partisan politics.

I like Obama for various reasons. I also like McCain for various reasons. However, the turning point in my mind is the question of 'character,' of which McCain has TONS. The man served in Vietnam and STAYED BEHIND when he could have left years ealier because he refused to be set free ahead of anyone else. THAT is character. The man served FLAWLESSLY for 26 years in Congress without a single scandal or other situation which would have compromised his integrity and character. He has disagreed with Bush on MANY issues, INCLUDING the strategy in Iraq, back before Obama even knew what the inside of Congress looked like.

We all want a better President. But none of us should allow PARTY politics to interfere with good common sense. McCain is NOT Bush, and the rhetoric that claims it'll be 'just another four years of Bush' is generated by ignorant LIBERALS who have done, and who care to do, no research on McCain and what his positions have been for the last 26 years. It's not like there isn't a TON of history to look at here, and yet you and people of your ilk seem to be more interested in DEMOCRATS winning than in the BEST, MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE winning.

It's a crying shame, but one I'm not at ALL surprised to see happening. Ignorance is, after all, the easiest mode of thought under which to govern one's self ...

I'm sorry Lazur, but you are one of "the most" biased people on SHH, you truly have no room to talk here. How about just chilling and letting him have his opinion, just as you have yours?

Thanks for trying Kel but it's a waste of time, He won't listen. I'm not even going to fool with him anymore.

Lazur, Whatever you say. You're right. Happy now?

 

[Superman]

So the supposedly more knowledgeable candidate on foreign policy refers to a country that hasn't existed in over 15 years (Czechoslovakia) not once, but twice today. Good job, McCain.

Sad ain't it?

Once again I say...

And people actuality think this guy would be a better president than Bush.

 

[Marx]

Romney laughs off VP questions
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/16/romney-laughs-off-questions-of-vp-potential/

 

[lazur]

McCain and his taste for young blondes is something understandable.

It's complete speculation. There's no evidence whatsoever that they were both more than just friends. If fact, when questioned about it, that's what they both said.

Do you have a video somewhere that shows something different? No? Then you're grasping at straws.

As a member of the Keating Five

Since you quoted Wikipedia, perhaps you also should have quoted THIS part of the Wikipedia description:

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly.

Also, McCain's original choice for first lady can be seen here:

I'm not following what the picture means. Is that his former wife or something?

McCain did a great job of getting the crap kicked out of himself and crashing airplanes in Vietnam. I don't want to take that away from him and he deserves every honor he gets for that. However, his time after leaving Hanoi hasn't been without scandal.

Yeah, that's all it was, just getting the crap kicked out of himself and crashing 'airplanes' into Vietnam. That's great. You sound SOOOO sincere and convincing in your praise for his military service and sacrifice. FIVE AND A HALF YEARS as a PoW is just a simple thing, after all.

Lastly, but most importantly, he seems to be having trouble understanding his own voting:

The guy has been in Congress for TWENTY SIX YEARS. He is not going to remember every vote and how he voted.

Besides, birth control is only like $10 a month...

 

[StorminNorman]

Romney laughs off VP questions
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/16/romney-laughs-off-questions-of-vp-potential/

Romney will be the VP and perhaps President within two years should Obama continue to fumble.

 

[lazur]

Thanks for trying Kel but it's a waste of time, He won't listen. I'm not even going to fool with him anymore.

Lazur, Whatever you say. You're right. Happy now?

Actually, I do listen. You're simply devoid of any real facts. I've already proven RDH and his ridiculous retort wrong on the 'facts' of John McCain.

You're a hard left voter IRRESPECTIVE of qualifications, integrity and character. Just admit it and move on...

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm sorry Lazur, but you are one of "the most" biased people on SHH, you truly have no room to talk here. How about just chilling and letting him have his opinion, just as you have yours?

Actually while Lazur has a very strong opinion - which everyone here does - he is not the Republican lackey you (and I apologize if I am wrong) seem to be painting him as.

He has been very critical of Bush and has frequently admitted disgust with many major Republicans.

 

[rdh007]

It's complete speculation. There's no evidence whatsoever that they were both more than just friends. If fact, when questioned about it, that's what they both said.
- Do you have a video somewhere that shows something different? No? Then you're grasping at straws.
- Since you quoted Wikipedia, perhaps you also should have quoted THIS part of the Wikipedia description:
- I'm not following what the picture means. Is that his former wife or something?
- Yeah, that's all it was, just getting the crap kicked out of himself and crashing 'airplanes' into Vietnam. That's great. You sound SOOOO sincere and convincing in your praise for his military service and sacrifice. FIVE AND A HALF YEARS as a PoW is just a simple thing, after all.
- The guy has been in Congress for TWENTY SIX YEARS. He is not going to remember every vote and how he voted.

Besides, birth control is only like $10 a month...

My point was that you said he'd served without scandal and that's simply not true. He is a member of the Keating Five and that was a scandal at best and a ripoff of the American people at worst. He left his wife after she became unattractive for a much younger, much richer woman and suddenly he had the money to run office properly. A little like John Kerry, another American hero whose service to this great nation I'm certain you also respect and admire. You can argue that the wife stuff is off limits because of it's personal nature, and I'd agree, but that's not the political reality we're living in after Ken Starr. The fact is, he's had personal and professional scandal.

As for his military service, I only wish he'd shown the same backbone he had then in the last six or so years. I didn't expect him to disagree with everything Bush said or did, but I expected him to stand up to him once in a while, not letting old guys get Viagra for "free" would be a start. When I voted for McCain in the open Republican primary in 2000, it was because he was a) an infinitely better choice for president than Bush (and he still is, btw), b) I felt like he was his own man and c)I would have had to actually make a decision on who to vote for between he and Gore. The way his family was treated by Rove and Co. in South Carolina was scurrilous, and he's done nothing but embrace these people. I feel let down by McCain more than Bush over the last six/seven years because I expected more out of him.

 

[lazur]

My point was that you said he'd served without scandal and that's simply not true. He is a member of the Keating Five and that was a scandal at best and a ripoff of the American people at worst. He left his wife after she became unattractive for a much younger, much richer woman and suddenly he had the money to run office properly. A little like John Kerry, another American hero whose service to this great nation I'm certain you also respect and admire. You can argue that the wife stuff is off limits because of it's personal nature, and I'd agree, but that's not the political reality we're living in after Ken Starr. The fact is, he's had personal and professional scandal.

I completely disagree. A 'scandal' occurs when someone is found to have questionable involvement in activity that could be potentially illegal.

John McCain was cleared. This means NO SCANDAL.

As for who he marries and divorces, that is his own business and it certainly doesn't equate to 'scandal.'

With respect to Kerry's versus McCain's service, there is no comparison. You know that.

As for his military service, I only wish he'd shown the same backbone he had then in the last six or so years. I didn't expect him to disagree with everything Bush said or did, but I expected him to stand up to him once in a while, not letting old guys get Viagra for "free" would be a start. When I voted for McCain in the open Republican primary in 2000, it was because he was a) an infinitely better choice for president than Bush (and he still is, btw), b) I felt like he was his own man and c)I would have had to actually make a decision on who to vote for between he and Gore. The way his family was treated by Rove and Co. in South Carolina was scurrilous, and he's done nothing but embrace these people. I feel let down by McCain more than Bush over the last six/seven years because I expected more out of him.

McCain has plenty of backbone. There have been many, many times that he has stood up to and disagreed with his own party. It's also one of the reasons other republican politicians (and voters) have issues with him. What you call a lack of 'backbone' I call a lack of arrogance. MOST Americans want a President who will UNITE our country, and since McCain has to work with these people on a daily basis, of COURSE for the interests of the American people and 'getting stuff done' he's going to 'embrace' anyone required for that purpose.

Again, you're grasping at straws. Maybe what you should really be looking at is the man's character and integrity, and less at the nitpickings of the media who will unfairly scrutinize ANY republican. If the worst you can come up with is that he left his wife, maybe you're being a bit unreasonable.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

why doesn't he UNITE the people by working across aisles as well, not only amongst his own party, otherwise it seems that he would be keeping the same divisions alive.

 

[rdh007]

I completely disagree. A 'scandal' occurs when someone is found to have questionable involvement in activity that could be potentially illegal.

John McCain was cleared. This means NO SCANDAL.

As for who he marries and divorces, that is his own business and it certainly doesn't equate to 'scandal.'

I guess it all depends on definitions. Like the word "is".

With respect to Kerry's versus McCain's service, there is no comparison. You know that.

I disagree whole-heartedly. Those two along with countless others served their country honorably and equally and deserve every accolade. I haven't checked the archives, but I'm certain you supported Kerry based on his impeccable service in Vietnam.

McCain has plenty of backbone. There have been many, many times that he has stood up to and disagreed with his own party. It's also one of the reasons other republican politicians (and voters) have issues with him. What you call a lack of 'backbone' I call a lack of arrogance. MOST Americans want a President who will UNITE our country, and since McCain has to work with these people on a daily basis, of COURSE for the interests of the American people and 'getting stuff done' he's going to 'embrace' anyone required for that purpose.

Most of those times he stood up against his party were before 2002, which is when I admired him. Since then, he lost his backbone and I can no longer find him fit for command.

Again, you're grasping at straws. Maybe what you should really be looking at is the man's character and integrity, and less at the nitpickings of the media who will unfairly scrutinize ANY republican. If the worst you can come up with is that he left his wife, maybe you're being a bit unreasonable.

I'd agree to lay off his personal choices if the point of your (and many others') support for him didn't involve words like "character" and "integrity". Again, if he had either of these he'd have stood up to Bush on torture above all. Instead, he put his own personal political gain above what's right and wrong.

I find this constant whining about the media to be un-becoming of the right. It's a great strategy, though. To remind everyone that everything they see is tilted against the right and so they should remember that. Great stuff politically, but really in the end it's just whining. Maybe the facts and issues simply don't support the right. Even if the votes (admittedly more important) do.

Having said all that and possibly more before November, I'm glad you guys nominated him rather than everyone besides Romney. Whilst Romney didn't represent my beliefs in any way; he and McCain were probably two of my favorites for the right to nominate. (Romney because I believe he's not crazy and I think he'd be a reasonable guy--though I could be wrong)

 

[lazur]

I guess it all depends on definitions. Like the word "is".

Is this even worthy of a response?

You're comparing apples to oranges. McCain was never a part of a scandal, and it seems to piss you off that I've proven that to you. Just accept that he has a SPARKLY CLEAN record and move on. You aren't doing yourself any favors at all by trying to make a senator with the MOST honorable record there is look scandalous when no such scandals exist.

I disagree whole-heartedly. Those two along with countless others served their country honorably and equally and deserve every accolade. I haven't checked the archives, but I'm certain you supported Kerry based on his impeccable service in Vietnam.

John Kerry's record of service was brought into question by those he served with personally. No such thing has occured with McCain. Also, while Kerry's experience in Vietnam was limited to a few combat situations, it was NO WHERE NEAR being a PoW for over FIVE YEARS. The two served honorably, but in terms of 'sacrifice and honor' it is McCain who went FAR above and beyond the call of duty. McCain also did not destroy his medals.

Also, I never supported Kerry.

Most of those times he stood up against his party were before 2002, which is when I admired him. Since then, he lost his backbone and I can no longer find him fit for command.

You must not be doing too much research then. McCain has remained unpopular with his own party for quite a long time.

But while we're on the subject, how can you find Obama 'fit for command' when the man doesn't even know from hour to hour in a day what position he's taking?

Seriously, do some research on McCain and what his views have been AFTER 2002. You will find that you're wrong.

I'd agree to lay off his personal choices if the point of your (and many others') support for him didn't involve words like "character" and "integrity". Again, if he had either of these he'd have stood up to Bush on torture above all. Instead, he put his own personal political gain above what's right and wrong.

Heh, but I don't disagree on torture. If waterboarding some mass murderer means saving hundreds of lives, then waterboard the mother******. Since McCain HIMSELF understands the nature of torture, I find him to be MUCH MORE capable of coming to a decision about torture than you, me or even the current President.

I find this constant whining about the media to be un-becoming of the right. It's a great strategy, though. To remind everyone that everything they see is tilted against the right and so they should remember that. Great stuff politically, but really in the end it's just whining. Maybe the facts and issues simply don't support the right. Even if the votes (admittedly more important) do.

Sort of the way Obama was whining about his wife being 'off limits' to the media even though she was out on the campaign trail for him?

Having said all that and possibly more before November, I'm glad you guys nominated him rather than everyone besides Romney. Whilst Romney didn't represent my beliefs in any way; he and McCain were probably two of my favorites for the right to nominate. (Romney because I believe he's not crazy and I think he'd be a reasonable guy--though I could be wrong)

And I'm disappointed that the democrats would nominate a candidate with virtually zero experience, but who's 'charismatic.' I could care less what his skin color is, but Obama is simply NOT QUALIFIED to be the President of the United States. Period.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I could care less what his skin color is, but Obama is simply NOT QUALIFIED to be the President of the United States. Period.

McCain constantly proves that he's even less qualified...

[YT]daO8e4y-RHU[/YT]

so.....basically, McCain is JUST NOW saying/realizing what Obama has been saying/realizing for a year. how the hell am i supposed to trust McCain's huge data bank of military/political knowledge when he just showed that he's a year behind a military/political noob?

 

[Superman]

Actually, I do listen. You're simply devoid of any real facts. I've already proven RDH and his ridiculous retort wrong on the 'facts' of John McCain.

You're a hard left voter IRRESPECTIVE of qualifications, integrity and character. Just admit it and move on...

Whatever you say. You're right. Happy now?

 

[Marx]

McCain surrogate makes controversial Muslim comment
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/18/mccain-surrogate-makes-controversial-muslim-comment/

 

[Kelly]

My god these surrogates need to shut the hell up. On both sides. Damn........

 

[Marx]

My god these surrogates need to shut the hell up. On both sides. Damn........

I agree. It is getting ridiculous on BOTH sides!