The Case Against John McCain

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal -- that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.

At this point it looks like Mike Huckabee might be his VP, putting him in prime position to run for president in four years (assuming McCain will stick to his guns and only run one term, like he has said).

I like McCain well enough and I could have been persuaded to vote for him. However, if Huckabee does indeed get the nod, then my vote will be made against that ticket.

Huckabee is a good guy, but his brand of conservatism, with its blatant and instrumental utilization of narrowly understood religious idioms, and the resultant judgments he often makes in their name, does not sit well.

That's funny, I wasn't aware that ANY of that qualified one to lead the entire armed forces. It's sort of like suggesting that a pawn is as qualified as a king on a chessboard.

There's a big difference between doing what you're told, and being the one telling people what to do.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's funny, I wasn't aware that ANY of that qualified one to lead the entire armed forces. It's sort of like suggesting that a pawn is as qualified as a king on a chessboard.

There's a big difference between doing what you're told, and being the one telling people what to do.

Cycloptichorn

Going to the Naval Acadamy, being in active duty, being a commander of soldiers and a liaison to Govt does not, IN YOUR OPINION, qualify one to be a Commander of US Armed Forces?

Would being a State Rep be one of the qualifications one would need to be the CIC?

Like to stay, willing to stay, whatever. He wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. No argument about that.

There was no context to that statement whatsoever which matters in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Like to stay, willing to stay, whatever. He wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. No argument about that.

There was no context to that statement whatsoever which matters in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. The word formulation here is significant to the interpretation of the meaning of the statement and the one you chose to use, "like to stay" is not the fact - it is a mischaracterization of what he really did say.

Worse, when confronted with the obvious challenge on that point, you further contradict the facts, and yourself, by asserting (1) "whatever" in effect it doesnt matter and (2) then go on to repeat the lie by asserting "He wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. No argument about that." when , in fact, there is a real argument about that, and he specifically did NOT say he wants to stay in Iraq for a long time.

The truth is this -- in the real context of the statement he noted that we have been in Korea for more than 50 years, but that owing to the relatively small committment of our forces there, the burden to us has not been great; and that most would agree that the world has benefitted greatly from that committment in providing stablity in a region that, without it, would pose a great danger to us all (and previous Democrat Administrations have agreed with all that). He went on to say that it was not the duration of the committment but the size and extent of it, and the benefits gained by it, that really determined this issue - and that he expected these factors would dominate the Iraqi issue as well.

THAT is the truth that you have gone to such great lengths to evade and distort.

"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/136308

Questions For McCain

You say 'some greedy people' on Wall Street 'perhaps need to be punished.' So, government should treat greed as a crime?
George F. Will
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:17 PM ET May 10, 2008

Peripatetic John McCain, the human pinball, continues to carom around the country as his rivals gnaw on each other. Although action, not reflection, is his forte, perhaps he should go to earth somewhere, while the Democrats continue the destruction, and answer some questions, such as:

• You say you are not "ready to go to war with Iran," but you also say the "one thing worse" than "exercising the military option" is "a nuclear-armed Iran." Because strenuous diplomacy has not dented Iran's nuclear ambitions, is not a vote for you a vote for war with Iran?

• You say that although Russia has blocked "everything we have tried to do" through the United Nations, you are confident that a "league of democracies" that "control so much of the world's economy" can modify the behavior of Iran, which has "a lousy economy." Does that mean war can be avoided only if France, Germany, Japan and China, which have important commercial relations with Iran, impose severe sanctions, and they break Iran's nuclear ambitions?

• Your goal in Iraq is "success," which you define as "the establishment of a generally peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state." Would a "generally" peaceful, stable, prosperous but authoritarian state be unacceptable? Or a mildly prosperous and "generally" stable state but one with simmering violence?-which describes a number of nations today, including Iraq? Does the task of making your four adjectives descriptive of Iraq require and therefore justify more years of military involvement in the suppression of groups that are manifestations of sectarianism, criminality and warlordism? What other nations should we police?

• In 1999, during U.S. intervention in the Balkans, you advocated mobilizing infantry and armored divisions to show Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic that there was "no self-imposed limit to our determination to liberate Kosovo from his tyranny." You described your policy as "rogue-state rollback" against those who threaten "our strategic interests and political values." How did Serbia threaten America's strategic interests? Are America's political values threatened by any state that does not practice them? If so, how long is your list of nations eligible for "rogue-state rollback"?

• You vow to nominate judges who "take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives." Their sole responsibility? Do you oppose judicial review that invalidates laws that pure-hearted representatives of the saintly people have enacted that happen to violate the Constitution? Does your dogmatic deference to popular sovereignty put you at odds with the first Republican president, who nobly insisted that there are some things the majority should not be permitted to do?-hence his opposition to allowing popular sovereignty to determine the status of slavery in the territories? Do you also reject Justice Antonin Scalia's belief that the Constitution's purpose is "to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away"? Does this explain your enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold's restrictions on political speech, and your dismissive reference to, "quote, First Amendment rights"? Would you nominate judges who, because they think those are more than "quote … rights," doubt McCain-Feingold's constitutionality?

• You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because "then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world." But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth?-hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?

• You propose a "cap and trade" system to limit the carbon dioxide that many companies can emit. Is not your idea an energy- rationing proposal akin to Bill Clinton's BTU tax?

• You say "some greedy people" on Wall Street "perhaps need to be punished." So, government should treat greed as a crime?-as punishable? What other departures from virtue deserve punishment? How do you distinguish between greed and the socially useful pursuit of personal gain? Your top 20 contributors include this dozen: Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers, Bank of New York Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Group, Bridgewater Associates, Blackstone Group and Bear Stearns. Are any contributions from these financial institutions so tainted by greed that you are returning them?

• Having raised $95 million in February and March, Barack Obama is reconsidering whether to rely on taxpayer funding in the general election, which would limit him to spending only $84.1 million. You denounce Obama for this, but your adviser Charles Black says, "We could sit down in July or August and say, 'Hey, we're raising a lot of money and maybe we should forgo [taxpayer financing].' We don't have enough data." Really, how does your position differ from Obama's?

• More than 90 percent of taxpayers refuse to use the $3 checkoff on their tax forms to fund campaigns?-even though doing so would not increase their tax bill. Given such annual landslide "votes" against taxpayer funding, why is relying on it more virtuous than Obama's expected reliance on voluntary contributions from dedicated individuals?

Just wondering.

Okay, here's my case:

He's old.

Period.

And Republican.

Period.

The Case Against John McCain

Quote:

The Case Against John McCain

Okay, here's my case:

He's not black.

Period.

He's not female.

Period.





Hi Mame :wink:

Quote:

The Case Against John McCain

Okay, here's my case:

He's not black.

Period.

He's not female.

Period.





Hi Mame :wink:

H2O_MAN wrote:

Quote:

The Case Against John McCain

Okay, here's my case:

He's not black.

Period.

He's not female.

Period.





Hi Mame :wink:

Hello WaterBoy nice to see you.
How's your Fleck 5600?

So then you would have no problem with Condoleeza Rice becoming President?

She is both black AND female, so she meets your criteria.