John McCain has always been a phony & a scumbag; want proof?

Thomas

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What would constitute adequate proof, to you?

The congressional record, testimony under oath, conflicting statements by McCain himself, court procedures .... There are probably many other kinds of evidence I would accept.

Very clever, Thomas. You switched from "proof" to "evidence" as your standard of truth. If my thread title had contined the word "evidence" instead of "proof, would you be arguing with me?

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Thomas

Thomas wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Oh, come on, Thomas. Be realistic. How often are phony scumbag polititians put under that kind of scrutiny if their party wants to protect them, especially if they are the majority party?

I don't know, and it's irrelevant to whether something is solid evidence or not.

Thomas, now you are getting silly. We are talking about a presidential election, not a criminal trial. Be reasonable and don't debate just for the sake of debating.

0 Replies

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

Quote:

1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal

Clever indeed.

0 Replies

But you have delivered neither evidence nor proof, BBB. Instead you have merely tortured us with an endless string of polemics all written by partisan opponents of McCain. Your thread is deceptively titled in the extreme, and your attempt above to nit pic Thomas' valid criticism only makes your foolish deception look worse.

0 Replies

BBB
What is ironic about my use of the word "proof" was because was a short word and would fit into the title box; evidence wouldn't because it was too long.

All this debate because my word fit the title box. Rolling Eyes

BBB

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How many things does this shift into the category of 'completely unknowable?'

A lot. But who says political partisans are owed a standard of evidence that suits their desire to demonize their opponents? They aren't. And if you don't like it, well that's just tough.

That said, there's enough relevant things that aren't shifted into the category of "completely unknowable". McCain's corrupt behavior "Keating Five" affair of 1988 is a matter of public record. So is his view that the president can illegally wiretap citizens without a court order. So is his opportunistic flip-flopping on "agents of intolerance" on the religious right, and on the Bush tax cuts. So is his feeble record in standing up to Bush on torture. I could continue this list for quite a few paragraphs, but I think I have made my point.

There's a lot of dirty laundry in the well-documented parts of McCain's record. Enough to build a solid case against his candidacy. So why resort to hearsay and speculation?

0 Replies

George

georgeob1 wrote:

But you have delivered neither evidence nor proof, BBB. Instead you have merely tortured us with an endless string of polemics all written by partisan opponents of McCain. Your thread is deceptively titled in the extreme, and your attempt above to nit pic Thomas' valid criticism only makes your foolish deception look worse.

I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it and note that you don't respect my opinions. I'm not known as a flame thrower on A2K but I have strong opinions about John McCain for the good of my country.

BBB

0 Replies

Aw, now you're playing the hurt feelings card. Boo-hoo.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

What is ironic about my use of the word "proof" was because was a short word and would fit into the title box; evidence wouldn't because it was too long.

All this debate because my word fit the title box.

BBB

your "evidence" is no better than your "proof"

Great - you've got opinions. Post 'em. Back 'em up - but not with pages of cuts and pastes of opinion pieces - they're not helping you.

0 Replies

Thomas

Thomas wrote:

Aw, now you're playing the hurt feelings card. Boo-hoo.

Quite the contrary. It just makes me pissed off.

But I will give you a "boo hoo" opinion just to make you feel superior. I have a short attention span for debates and don't like these endless debates other A2Kers indulge in on other threads because it gets so boring for other A2Kers who might be interested in the subject. So maybe it's time to stop boring them and get back to McCain's character and fitness to be president. If you don't like my posts, then post your own evidence that disputes what I post.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

What is ironic about my use of the word "proof" was because was a short word and would fit into the title box; evidence wouldn't because it was too long.

All this debate because my word fit the title box.

BBB

Alternatively, you could have struck out "a phony and" to make room for the word "evidence". After all, "scumbag" implies "phony", so cutting out the duplicate would have given you the extra benefit of making your title punchier.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

Thomas wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
What is ironic about my use of the word "proof" was because was a short word and would fit into the title box; evidence wouldn't because it was too long.

All this debate because my word fit the title box.

BBB

Alternatively, you could have struck out "a phony and" to make room for the word "evidence". After all, "scumbag" implies "phony", so cutting out the duplicate would have given you the extra benefit of making your title punchier.

Thanks for the good advice. I will remember it. Maybe it will help me overcome my lack of scholarship.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Thomas

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

If you don't like my posts, then post your own evidence that disputes what I post.

BBB

You haven't posted anything to dispute.

(I mean, I keep coming back to this thread hoping there will finally be something, but nada.)

0 Replies

Re: Thomas

ehBeth wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
If you don't like my posts, then post your own evidence that disputes what I post.
BBB

You haven't posted anything to dispute.
(I mean, I keep coming back to this thread hoping there will finally be something, but nada.)

Ok, here's someting to dispute:

John McCain is a lying, phony, manipulative, corrupt, scumbag and is not fit to be president of the U.S.

Have at it!

BBB Laughing

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Thanks for the good advice. I will remember it. Maybe it will help me overcome my lack of scholarship.

BBB

It hardly takes a scholar to notice that few people ever use the phrase, "as authentic as a scumbag". It hardly take a scholar to conclude that "a phony and a scumbag" is redundant, and that you can therefore strike "a phony and" with no loss of information.

But whatever. I think I made my point, so I'll stop dwelling on it now. Let's talk again after you've posted solid evidence. (Being a realist, I have ceased to expect proof from you.)

0 Replies

Re: Thomas

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

John McCain is a lying, phony, manipulative, corrupt, scumbag and is not fit to be president of the U.S.

Not much of an argument here. He's not the straight talker he markets himself as. I don't buy that the Keating Five scandal was the end of his venues into corruption -- though admittedly I have no good evidence that it wasn't. I don't know he's unfit to be president; but I strongly believe that Obama is the lesser evil, based on the two candidates' political programs, and the changes in those programs over time.

0 Replies

Time is something Obama hasn't had. "His programs" have existed, only in his highly generalized rhetoric, and only for a couple of years. Your conparison here is a bit foolish.

I don't think that McCain is entirely above the taint of political corruption, any more than I do Obama's emergence from the Chicago political machine. McCain's is generally regarded as a good deal less than the general political or Senatorial average, and equivalently, Obama has had far less time to accumulate these political barnacles (however, even in a relatively short career to date, he is not entirely free of them). Basically I don't see any basis for distinction here.

0 Replies

Quote:

McCain's is generally regarded as a good deal less than the general political or Senatorial average

By who, exactly? The Keating scandal alone elevates him high above many politicians.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
McCain's is generally regarded as a good deal less than the general political or Senatorial average

By who, exactly?

Given that we're in a BBB opinions thread, one person should be more than enough to qualify as "generally" Cool

(3rd or 4th edit to remove weird edit mark typos)

0 Replies

Here's my takeaway from the thread at this point:

- 50 years ago, McCain was a sub-par student whose connections allowed him to get a coveted Navy position.
- Almost 50 years ago, McCain was a womanizer. He married a beauty queen, adopted her children and went off to war.
- McCain was shot down, held prisoner and tortured.
- His wife was in a car accident and severely injured.
- When he returned, both he and his wife were in bad shape medically. They'd spent very little of their married time together.
- After his recuperation (~30 years ago) he started womanizing again.
- He ditched his first wife (28 years ago) for a younger, more wealthy woman with good political connections. He seems to have made a decent effort to take care of the first wife financially. (Editorial comment: The laws at the time were heavily biased in favor of the husband, so this is not a given.)
- He ends his Navy career when it becomes obvious that he will not make flag rank. (27 years ago) His Navy career had ups and downs, but it's certainly respectable.

While some of the above crosses into scumbag territory, it is ancient history (much like McCain). You have over two decades of political and personal history to look at without bringing up stuff that is older than some voters out there. If all of this affects your opinion of him, fine, but it looks like par for the political course. Kennedy did the war hero, cheating husband thing with family connections to get a leg up. Let's not talk Clinton for fear that Gunga will show up. Bush Jr. got favorable treatment by the military and used the family's connections.

Don't get me wrong, McCain will never get my vote, but I've got a lot more current and germane material to base that decision on than what's been posted here.

0 Replies

John McCain has always been a phony & a scumbag; want proof?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know