Cycloptichorn wrote:One would think that all those who are so eager to tar and feather Obama - to insinuate various things about his morality or lack thereof - would show the same willingness to examine McCain's oath-breaking, and ask themselves: is this one who can be trusted to run the country? Why would he keep promises to the American people, when he cannot do so to his own wife?
Do you bunch not think that this is indicative of moral failings on his part?
Cycloptichorn
Who is it you are accusing in such a self-serving fashion here??? Neither Occm Bill nor I have made any personal attacks on the sainted Obama.
It is true the real Obamaniacs tend to see anything less than ecstatic praise as a slander, however, by usual standards there have been no personal attacks on Obama by anyone here.
georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:One would think that all those who are so eager to tar and feather Obama - to insinuate various things about his morality or lack thereof - would show the same willingness to examine McCain's oath-breaking, and ask themselves: is this one who can be trusted to run the country? Why would he keep promises to the American people, when he cannot do so to his own wife?
Do you bunch not think that this is indicative of moral failings on his part?
Cycloptichorn
Who is it you are accusing in such a self-serving fashion here??? Neither Occm Bill nor I have made any personal attacks on the sainted Obama.
It is true the real Obamaniacs tend to see anything less than ecstatic praise as a slander, however, by usual standards there have been no personal attacks on Obama by anyone here.
Do you pretend that this is the only thread on A2K?
I think that several have said that Obama's past choices and associations raise 'legitimate questions' about his ability to serve as president. I merely wonder if those same folks think that McCain's record of oath-breaking also raises legitimate questions.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Do you pretend that this is the only thread on A2K?
I think that several have said that Obama's past choices and associations raise 'legitimate questions' about his ability to serve as president. I merely wonder if those same folks think that McCain's record of oath-breaking also raises legitimate questions.
Cycloptichorn
Interesting way to make my point. Raising questions about, whether long associations with people, who loudly and repeatedly voice opinions on hot social and political issues that are diametrically opposed to the views that Obama has repeatedly expressed in his political rhetoric, indicate some kind of contradiction between what he says and he may really believe, are merely a rational reaction to these stunning political contradictions. This is the normal stuff of "issues" politics. It has nothing whatever to do with personal attacks or character assasination. The contradictions were stark and the questions natural and obvious. Obama himself acknowledged their legitamacy and eventually disassociated himself from the figures involved.
Evidently you are one of those who equates faint praise of your hero or legitamate questions spurred by his rhetoric and the contradictory words of his long-term associates and self-described mentors, with personal attacks of the kind BBB is spewing out.
It's a personal attack, to note that McCain cheated on his wife and dumped her for a rich, 19-year old heiress?
I completely disagree that the Wright situation was 'issues' politics. Not at all. For it did not focus on any real issue whatsoever, but Obama's 'personal judgment.' This issue is also a question of McCain's 'personal judgment.' Yet you don't see it that way.
You ought to be more honest, George; if Obama had engaged in such behavior, the right wing would never - ever - stop talking about it.
Cycloptichorn
I'm being entirely honest, and you have no basis at all on which to suggest otherwise. You should retract that statement.
When key elements of a politicians political rhetoric are loudly and repeatedly contradicted in the most aggressive and stark terms by long term associates, some who were styled as long-term mentors by the politician himnself, questions naturally and legitamately arise concerning his real intent. Again, Obama himself acknowledged the legitamacy of the questions, addressed the contradictions involved, and eventually disassociated himself from the individuals involved and the organization they represented.
Fair enough; but you see nothing at all worth discussing about McCain's past actions, which frankly are not honorable?
This is what kills me about McCain and his supporters on the right. They like to pretend that the actions he took whilst under capture in Vietnam are indicative of his leadership ability and love of country. And when I say 'they,' I mean 'you,' for you have made arguments which are quite similar to this. What about his actions afterwards? Are they not indicative of his character as well? Cheating on one's wife is a serious matter and does not reflect well upon Sen. McCain whatsoever. Why is it appropriate to pump him up based upon his successes, but inappropriate to question his failings?
The right-wing was quite full of denunciations of Clinton's behavior in a similar situation, and many of those attacks revolved around Bill's lack of faithfulness (as well as his penchant for lying about it). Why does McCain get a pass?
Obama's relationship with various peoples is no more troubling then McCain's relationship with various peoples, namely, his current wife; who knew fully well that she was making a cuckold of Carol McCain, and simply didn't care. This is the first lady that we want?
To be fair, I believe that McCain deserves to lose based solely on his inability to correctly grasp several issues; his personal problems aren't the biggest knock against him. But the hypocrisy in this case is pretty telling. You should be willing to examine McCain's personal past, if you are willing to examine Obama's personal past.
Cycloptichorn
High Seas wrote:Thank you, Cycl, then you see that the item you mentioned was wholly peripheral. However to get back to this thread I find the title here appalling, not to say repulsive, and unrelated to documented facts.
What documented facts might those be, HS?
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yeah, sure. Interestingly, that scumbag McCain himself refused to participate in the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry. He had too much class for that.
"class", hmmmmmmm. That's a possibility, I suppose. What's really interesting is that McCain has no desire whatsoever to review things that went on at that time. He is well known, [well, not so well-known because he's always been given a free pass by the press], to have been terribly abusive to families of POWs seeking information.
Given his propensity to lie, there's every reason to be suspicious about why he doesn't want any discussion of those times. Perhaps his carefully crafted Vietnam experience would fall to pieces if it ever was exposed to the light of day.
His medals:
Quote:In an attempt to find out exactly what the man did to earn these many hero awards, I asked his Senate office three times to provide copies of the narratives for each medal. I'm still waiting.
I next went to the Pentagon. Within a week, I received a recap of his medals and many of the narratives that give the details of what he did.
None of the awards, less the DFC, were for heroism over the battlefield where he spent no more than 20 hours. Two Naval officers described the awards as "boilerplate" and "part of an SOP medal package given to repatriated (Vietnamera) POWs."
The torture:
Quote:Accounts by McCain and other writers tell of the horror he endured: relentlessly beatings, torture, broken limbs. All inflicted during savage interrogations. Yet no other POW was a witness to these accounts.
A former POW says "No man witnessed another man during interrogationsĀ
We relied on each other to tell the truth when a man was returned to his cell."
The U.S. Navy says two eyewitnesses are required for any award of heroism. But for the valor awards McCain received, there are no eyewitnesses, less himself and his captors. And they're not talking.
georgeob1 wrote:Let him who is without sin....
Geogeob admit it you know McCain don't you. Were you one of the "bad bunch"?
Let the play begin
I've known him for a long time. He's a good guy, straighforward and without pretense. Most of the little saps here criticizing him couldn't themselves handle a tenth of the things he's dealt with in his life. However it isn't possible to explain that to them in a way they could comprehend, and most aren't worth the effort.
georgeob1 wrote:I've known him for a long time. He's a good guy, straighforward and without pretense.
Boy, you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker, G.
I meant to get back to this, but had infinitely more important things on my mind.
This is really obscene (not including JTT's idiocy, which is predictably beyond the pale). John McCain was married 2 years before he was shot down and held as a POW for 5 and a half years before returning to a wife he could hardly recognize... and you people want to judge him for not living up to till death do us part? Not one of you knows what the McCain's decided mutually and it isn't any of your damn business. Even if your most heinous assumptions are accurate; you're still setting the bar absurdly high. After serving 5 years a martyr, you're going to call him a scumbag for not spending the rest of his life martyred in an unhappy marriage? People get divorced for a whole lot less. The hyper-partisan idiocy required to stand in judgment of ANY broken marriage, let alone this one, is obscene. Tragedy strikes people... and that doesn't mean someone has to be a scumbag.
The man served his country, above and beyond the call of duty, honorably for 2 decades, 5 of which as a POW refusing the offered special treatment until every man who came before him went home...and has been happily married for 28 years. Get a f@cking grip.
That this nonsense is coming from many of the same group that insisted we should turn the blind eye when one of their own made a mockery of the Oval Office getting hummer, then disobeyed the Supreme Court and lied to a Grand Jury about it is simply stunning.
How many of you have been divorced? How many of you know the meaning of the word hypocrisy? UnbelievableĀ
Here's a clue: McCain wants to stay in Iraq, keep Bush's Tax cuts and opposes National Health Care and Abortion.
That's it and it's game, set, match. You win. If it gets tight, call him McSame a few times and then point out at 73 his VP (who WILL be from the Right of McCain will be President.) You don't have to slime him with this obscenity. Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves.
JTT wrote: Why isn't this news?
Because it is despicable slander, that can only be found in places that cater to gullible hyper partisan idiots. Read a reputable source and see the truth. Or don't. You are too far gone to bother with.
For a very through (and lengthy!) review of the McCain/collaborator story read
this story.
I agree with Occom bill 100% on his last post.
His private life is private and this questioning of a man or woman's service record or medals for political purposes is disgraceful no matter which side does it. There is plenty to go with on McCain without sinking to those levels and O.Bill listed them correctly and to the point.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Here's a clue: McCain wants to stay in Iraq, keep Bush's Tax cuts and opposes National Health Care and Abortion.
That's it and it's game, set, match. You win. If it gets tight, call him McSame a few times and then point out at 73 his VP (who WILL be from the Right of McCain will be President.) You don't have to slime him with this obscenity. Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves.
Until further notice, I'll appoint Occom Bill my official speaker in this thread and refrain from posting myself.
