dyslexia wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Thomas wrote:nappyheadedhohoho wrote:Is it a big deal when Obama says he'll invade Pakistan?
Yes, and as Dys noted, I'm on record saying so somewhere in the Obama thread. Call me a hippie if you want, but I like a president whose White House makes love, not war.
And there's a reason hippies should not be in the White House, or in charge of the security interests of the US.
And i suppose there's a reason the person in the Whitehouse is there because the people chose him/her to be there whether he/she is a hippie is not actually relevant. The people chose Nixon just as they chose Carter.
While all of that may be true, I stand by my prior statement.
nimh wrote:mysteryman wrote:So when Obama says invade Pakistan, thats OK with you.
But when McCain says bomb Iran, thats not ok with you.
Whats the difference in the two statements?
Both are running for President, both are advocating war with another country.
Umm, fact check.
Obama did not advocate "war with Pakistan".
What Obama argued was that, if as President he had credible information about Al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan, he would send special troops to get to them - even without permission of the Pakistani President.
This, of course, is exactly what the US has done
right this week.
Did you not agree with the US special mission this week that went after Al-Qaeda into Pakistani territory, without prior approval of Musharraf? Or did you?
If you did, what's your problem with Obama proposing the same thing?
I don't know about MM, but Obama's attempt at foreign policy machismo is just about the only thing he's said that I do find sensible.
Of course I agree with okie that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Obama would ever make good on his butch promise.
The subject of McCain, the New York Times is a junk newspaper, but frankly I have to tell everybody here, this was totally predictable. They endorse McCain, then as soon as they scuttle the guy they wanted out of the race, they begin to publish the dirt. The sad part is that I don't have alot of confidence in McCain, and I found his denial somewhat weak and disingenuous. Look, an affair with a woman in Washington is not surprising, and I don't honestly know, I hope McCain is being honest, but don't be surprised if other shoes begin to drop, fellow Repbulicans. And I never believed McCain was the straight talker he claimed to be. I don't wish any ill will toward the man, but usually if you live by the sword, you risk dying by the sword, and in this case, he claimed to be so innocent in terms of lobbyists, and he is supposedly known for great honesty. If he is proven otherwise by another shoe to drop, he is sunk.
It irked me when he insinuated that Romney and others lied about his views on issues, and accused him of attacking his character, well, it wasn't about character, John, it was about issues, and now you will see who will attack your character, John, it is your friends in the media that you thought loved you so much. Naive man, pretty naive. This was bound to happen.
Some fellow conservatives may not like my speaking out, but sorry, honest opinions are what we do here.
To be clear, I hope he is telling the truth, I will go with that for now, but as I explained, I don't have alot of confidence in it.
okie, Interesting opinion on McCain; he was once a possible for me, but no longer.
Admit it ci, you only liked McCain because he bashed his own party, and because the media fawned over him for the same reason, and you fell for it too. I never bought the popular thinking and knew it was a sham all along. I always believed John had to be naive, and now he will find out, sadly to say.
Politics requires you have core beliefs, you cannot play to both sides, and when you get to this point, John will find out there is no reaching across the aisle to get elected. He needs some friends somewhere, and if he alienated his true friends, and if the friends he thought he had were never friends in the first place except for their own purpose of using him just to discard him later, then he has no friends and therefore nobody left to vote for him. I don't see how Republicans could have been this dumb, but they were.
You're entitled to your wrong opinions, just like the leftists, okie.
:wink:
okie, Why do the likes of you, including mm, try to put words into our posts that were never suggsted or intended? You guys are a bore. If you need clarity, just ask, for cry'n out loud.
Ticomaya wrote:You're entitled to your wrong opinions, just like the leftists, okie.
:wink:
Dang, I am being very hard on the man, I can't help it. Bear with me, Ticomaya, and others. I feel better for saying it, but I sure hope he is telling the truth. I will vote for him probably, unless this gets worse. I expressed the desire to go easy on him, give him the benefit of the doubt, but this kind of stuff is disturbing. My apologies.
What disturbs me about McCain isn't what disturbs you.
So you don't care if he potentially lies or may be naive, or the other things I mentioned? What disturbs you about him, ci, that he should do what instead of what he is doing? He is doing the same thing he has always done, so if you liked him before, you should still like him.
okie wrote:The subject of McCain, the New York Times is a junk newspaper, but frankly I have to tell everybody here, this was totally predictable. They endorse McCain, then as soon as they scuttle the guy they wanted out of the race, they begin to publish the dirt. The sad part is that I don't have alot of confidence in McCain, and I found his denial somewhat weak and disingenuous. Look, an affair with a woman in Washington is not surprising, and I don't honestly know, I hope McCain is being honest, but don't be surprised if other shoes begin to drop, fellow Repbulicans. And I never believed McCain was the straight talker he claimed to be. I don't wish any ill will toward the man, but usually if you live by the sword, you risk dying by the sword, and in this case, he claimed to be so innocent in terms of lobbyists, and he is supposedly known for great honesty. If he is proven otherwise by another shoe to drop, he is sunk.
It irked me when he insinuated that Romney and others lied about his views on issues, and accused him of attacking his character, well, it wasn't about character, John, it was about issues, and now you will see who will attack your character, John, it is your friends in the media that you thought loved you so much. Naive man, pretty naive. This was bound to happen.
Some fellow conservatives may not like my speaking out, but sorry, honest opinions are what we do here.
To be clear, I hope he is telling the truth, I will go with that for now, but as I explained, I don't have alot of confidence in it.
The same things that bug you about McCain bug me, but all things considered, he is still heads and shoulders above any liberal Democrat if it is conservative policy that you're after.
As for this New York Times 'scandal', what else do you expect from the Times? It is a leftwing hack rag and has been for some time. It endorsed Hillary who is also treated favorably by the New Republic. So.....you have the New Republic about to publish a story on the New York Times sitting on the McCain story for half a year and the New York Times claiming that it didn't want to get scooped on its own story, so it runs it.
Hillary is the only one to benefit from the story--the polls show Obama edging out McCain by a few percentage points, but the same polls show McCain beating Hillary which makes her even less attractive as the preferred candidate. This has her fingerprints all over it.
I agree with you on pretty much all of that, Foxfyre, but what if information surfaces that pretty much indicates McCain is lying when he denies all of this? I would say he is pretty much history, even if he ends up being the nominee, which looks like a lock. After all, one of his advertised top points is honesty, character, etc. and now people are going around defending him, including his wife, and this does not bode well for him if the other shoe drops. His former staffer has said he met the woman somewhere for the purposes of advising her to stay away from McCain. The woman denies it. Hmmmm, I tend to think the staffer may be telling the truth, and why would the woman deny it unless there is more to hide, and her and McCain agreed to deny, deny, deny. I am only speculating, but I have never felt that McCain is squeaky clean, as he has claimed to be something too good to be true. At least I have felt that way for a guy that likes to hang around the likes of Ted Kennedy and all the other old good ole boys in the Senate that have made a living off of you scratch my back, I scratch yours mentality for so long they must think they own the place.
I guess I am still somewhat disappointed that our party does not see the need for some new blood, somebody that could go to Washington to fix it, instead of somebody that has been around forever, that has paid their dues, so to speak. But that is what the party tends to do, Bob Dole being a good example, and we see how far he got. I guess here we go back to the country club Republicans again, not exactly country club, but it is a similar mindset.
The fact is, and this has been reported now from several sources, is that he did meet with the woman and denied every request she made of him in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. And that was not reported by the New York Times or any other source now attempting to smear McCain. And THAT's what's dishonest, not him.
I hope so, Foxfyre. I guess I count myself as an observer of all of this, not yet a supporter or a defender. I hope he comes through all of this and tends to be vindicated or at least not convicted by further mud that could potentially stick.
To clarify, when I mentioned the meeting with the woman, it was the staffer that claimed he, the staffer, met with the woman to warn her to stay away from McCain. And apparently she denied that meeting, which makes me think the former staffer or the woman is lying.
okie wrote:I hope so, Foxfyre. I guess I count myself as an observer of all of this, not yet a supporter or a defender. I hope he comes through all of this and tends to be vindicated or at least not convicted by further mud that could potentially stick.
Keating 5/JUST MUD SLINGING?
okie wrote:I hope so, Foxfyre. I guess I count myself as an observer of all of this, not yet a supporter or a defender. I hope he comes through all of this and tends to be vindicated or at least not convicted by further mud that could potentially stick.
To clarify, when I mentioned the meeting with the woman, it was the staffer that claimed he, the staffer, met with the woman to warn her to stay away from McCain. And apparently she denied that meeting, which makes me think the former staffer or the woman is lying.
The way the pundits are spinning it--or at least they were yesterday which is a lifetime in this strange campaign--is that this woman was a kind of McCain groupee claiming all kinds of clout and privilege when it came to her access to John McCain which simply was not true. The staffer went to her to tell her to stop it.
I think the staffer has the upper hand on the truth meter on this one, especially when the NYT conveniently omitted the quite important fact that the woman got nothing she was asking from McCain.
Newsweek catches John McCain in a straight-up lie.
Quote:Just hours after the Times' story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff--and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement emailed to reporters.
But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the September 25, 2002 deposition obtained by Newsweek. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
Cycloptichorn
It's almost too funny to contemplate facts; the GOP destroyed McCain during the previous election, and now they're attacking everybody for any negative reports against him.
Waterboarding interrogation saves lives without costing lives.
Cutting-off-heads interrogation costs lives without saving lives.
ican, You are an hopeless ignoramous; waterboarding is torture under international laws.
