McCain Supporters: Where do you differ from your candidate?

Got so excited there, young jedhi, did you that you forgot the "T" in your moniker?

You're a pearl.

Post your qualms.

T
Keep a closer eye on my moniker, I like to throw in a last word into it.
O

Where do you disagree with McCain.

T
K
Obviously you need to pay more attention.

You got so excited you missed the post where I listed my disagreements.

An Excitable Boy you are.

Excitable Boy

Thanks for posting. The first post didn't show up at the same time, just the "silly post."

T
K
O

McCain was not my first choice during the primaries, but at this point, accept that he was the best opponent the Republicans could put forth against Obama.

My misgivings were primarily based on his pushback on social conservative issues in the past. While his stated position on issues like abortion are firmly in sync with my own, I am concerned that his judicial nominations might be more like George HW Bush or Ford, then Reagan or Bush II.

I am also less concerned about gun rights than McCain. McCain is pretty much against any restrictions except trigger locks and instant criminal background checks. I don't have any problem with any restrictions on gun purchase or ownership except an outright ban. And I really don't have a problem with banning assault weapons, unlike McCain.

Regarding McCain's position on guns, slkshock7, you absolutely have to be kidding. Add this to list of things I don't care for in McCain. In this respect, though, he is still the lesser of evils.

One difference I'm seeing between McCain and his supporters is that he wants McCain to be president.

The silence in this thread is deafening.
K
O

Feral cats don't meow - as creatures of similar individual purpose, dignity, and independence, McCain supporters don't tend to feel the need to make a production out of everything.

No production hanno.

This thread is about how a McCain supporter may believe different than McCain. How would that be a production? I think that is round table at it's most simple.

T
K
O

Stop being petulant about people not coming to play on your thread.

The topic, obviously, doesn't resonate with a lot of people.

You can't insult your way to greater participation.

...and Republican's won't be able to insult Obama out of winning the white house.

T
K
O

What an idiotic retort: "So' your Old Man!"

If you can't come up with something clever, it's OK to post nothing.

Sorry my retort was over your head. I'll try and water-down the wit to a concentration you can handle in the future.

Say what you like Finn, the lack of participation in this thread versus the other thread is a large tell that liberals on A2K, bring their honesty to the forum.

Especially funny considering all the claims about how Obama supporters are fanatics; putting him on a pedestal.

T
K
O

Over my head?

You are such a pearl Young Jedi.

Don't change.

Except you might want to do away with the silly affectation of TKO. Not now of course, but in the middle of some night.

I think okie said in another thread how he won't vote for Barr because he just doesn't want Obama to win. Can't have a super liberal. I'm sure if I were to take some time I'd find elsewhere a post by either a post by okie or foxfyre about how Obama is just using right wing ideas.

Tea
Kay
Oh

Like I said, purpose, dignity, and independence. Opinions are like ass-holes, everyone's got one and some feel the need to get dicked in theirs. It's like these cars with the 'ground effects' kits and wings and **** - someone gets on it with a 350 engine, the fluid in your inner-ear will tell you there's an object of some importance in the vicinity, regardless of whether it's under the hood of a beige station wagon or what - it's universal, the cosmic reality of a hairy piece of equipment dimensionally apart from the 'sound system' or what have you. I mean, I've seen kids in a daycare-playground flock to the fence to look at an unaltered mid-year Buick on the other side, because the damn thing was fundamentally correct in the manner of being a car and in their deprived minivan upbringings it was novel to them as such. Same thing with McCain, he is what he is, he's fundamentally an American hero of excellent political vision - t'ain't nothin'-but-nothin'-but right. Barack is more like a 4-cylinder sedan, there's nothing really going on there, so the next logical step, is to make big fancy **** out of it.

The campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has already gotten tedious. In a campaign appearance the other day, he said in his characteristically sanctimonious way, "I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

We ought to be jaded enough by politics to know that when a candidate says he'd rather lose the campaign than do X, Y, or Z, he's being anything but courageous. Nothing is more calculated to help one win the White House than to say he'd "rather be right than president." The last guy to say it and apparently mean it was Henry Clay in 1839.

The media focus on McCain's remark has been on its harshness towards his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, who is more or less promising to remove most troops from Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. Candidates for the presidency don't usually accuse each other of wanting to lose wars. That's because candidates are usually careful to sound like they favor winning. In the American political creed, there is nothing worse than opposing the starting of a war (at least one started by a president who is of your own political party), opposing "victory with honor" once it's started, or supporting an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops. Doing any of these things will most likely get your patriotism questioned. McCain's faux pas was his bluntness.

The Obama supporters' reaction, of course, was high dudgeon. Talk-show host Rachel Maddow said McCain was calling Obama a traitor. He does not want to lose the war, she said.

This is politics, and these are political statements. That means they are not intended actually to be scrutinized. They are only for political effect, that is, designed to advance the speaker's own political interests

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0807d.asp

I'm also reacting to how McCain likes to talk about his Navy career, and how that "must" provide him with the necessary "experience" to become president vs Obama's lack of military service.

By McCain's reasoning, anybody who has served in the military (and a prisoner of war) has the necessary experience to become Commander In Chief.

How laughable! It's also an insult to the intelligence of all those who have served in the military; how has McCain's military service prepared him to become Commander In Chief? Does that mean all the officers of higher rank than McCain are also prepared to become Commander In Chief? Details, please!

What "experience" has prepared McCain to make better judgements about our country as president? He always talks about Obama's inexperience, and making bad judgements. Details, please!

In recent months, McCain has shown he doesn't know his geography or who the Sunnis and Shia are. He's flip-flopped on Iraq more than a few times. How much confidence does that engender in the American people?