RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events McCain in 08?

but man, what a speech!

so while g-man and bsams jerk off over every tiny detail of Obama, I notice no one mentions any actual Mccain stories.
Like how when asked how many houses he owns he didn't know. At a time when regular people are losing their homes and Obama is being called "elitist" this republican has so many homes he can't remember how many. The answer is something like 7, not counting the guest houses on those properties.

Or how about mentioning that he constantly uses his POW years as an answer to every question. Back in 2000 Mccain was asked to meet with a family who lost someone in the same squad Mccain was in, Mccain took the meeting in private not wanting to capitalize on his POW time. Now it's his main point.
Here's a good Olbermann editorial:

Wow. Ray really HAS joined the insurgency.

That's a little like signing up for the Japanese army after Nagasaki.

g-man, i will never find the label "liberal" to be insulting.
and so far the only "bad" thing about the insurgency seems to be that they're liberal. and though i found their raid tactics to be incredibly juvenile and impotent (a sign i'm not connected to them, raiding is my greatest superpower) i have found the posters to be sincere people with sincere beliefs.
you and rex seem incapable of actually responding to what i have to say so you resort to childish name calling (i expect nothing less from a cunt who voted twice for a retard).

but please don't ever think i'll find being called a liberal insulting. i'm proud to be liberal.


now that we've talked about the important campaign issue of ray adler, do you have any thoughts on Mccain and the stories about him in the news (the houses, veteran issues, his using his POW time as campaign leverage). you seem content to just attack obama and repeat the same tired phrases over and over again, while i'm both discussing obama and mccain. seriously, look at this thread. a quick scroll of the past few weeks is basically either an obama attack or a poll about mccain winning some poll. if he's so great, defend him. or is your conservative pride limited to attacking liberal posters and obama but offering nothing positive about your guy?

Here's the thing, Ray: since I'm not a liberal, I don't find myself consumed with class envy and hatred against someone who has more money than I do.

McCain is a successful man who married a very wealthy woman. Good for him.

As for not knowing how many properties his family owns, I think the fact he spends more time thinking about how to better his country than cataloging his wife's possessions is an admirable thing.

In regard to the the idea he's "hiding" behind his POW status, this is just another canard that the left likes to use because they realize they can't attack the man as a "chickenhawk" or for being as inexperienced as their candidate.

McCain's military record is part of his experience and part of who he is. Of course he is going to talk about it, just as he talks about dozens of other aspects of his long career of public service. Furthermore, unlike Kerry, he didn't spend the first twenty or thirty years of his career trying to disavow his service or his fellow veterans before running for president.

Do think McCain is perfect? Obviously not. I've criticized him on many issues over the years where I disagree with his positions.

But I'm not going to attack him for his success either.

I was just thinking yesterday that its been a while since someone posted a youtube of the liberal version of o'reilly.

your side is the one that uses class warfare. all politicians who get to the point to run for president are essentially wealthy. however republicans pretend like their average joes and they paint the democrats as elitist for not covering up their education and lifestyle. the housing issue came up because people, regular people, are losing their homes and mccain is saying the economy is stable. it's stable for him and he's out of touch. like when george bush sr. didn't know about supermarket scanners.


and he doesn't know how many homes he has? either that's old age and poor memory or a sign of someone who is, what's the word, "elite."


it shouldn't be that hard to keep track of how many HOUSES you own. HOUSES are big fucking things. we're not talking about him not knowing how much his family spent on groceries last year.


he brings it up at every chance to deflect issues. Jay Leno jokingly brought up the house issue. as an obvious joke and comical way and Mccain responded that he spent 5 years in a POW "house" with no kitchen or bathroom. Nothing to do with the question, just him using his past as leverage. Like rudy using 9/11 so he didn't actually have to know facts about terrorism and the middle east.

the shame is that mccain used to have more class than this. in 2000 he didn't use his POW status for politics. i guess after being raped by Karl Rove for having a black baby mccain just wants to be president and will sell out any principle to get there.


while it's certainly an experience beyond anything i have ever endured and is a sign of strength that he survived, how does being a POW count as experience? technically being captured means he fucked up as a soldier. and being tortured doesn't give you knowledge of international affairs. i'm not trying to belittle his experience, i do think his surviving that and then devoting himself to politics is a mark of honor, but it has to be put in the proper context. survivng a gunshot wound does not qualify you to be an ER doctor. he should stick to his political career if he wants to sell his experience, otherwise he sounds like he's going for pity.


John Kerry came back from the war, heavily decorated and highly honored, and worked to end the war. he worked to end the war because vietnam was a mistake, it was not a place we should've been. many veterans felt screwed over, it was a bad place that scarred their lives and kerry worked to end it, for the sake of his fellow soldiers. i'm not sure what, if any, effect he had. but he fought the good fight.
then 30 years later a bunch of republicans fabricated lies about his service and denegrated his service in order to elect a man who at best got a cushy job in the national guard using his daddy's connections and at worst didn't even bother to show up.


like wondy who says he criticizes both sides, you say "i disagree" to the republicans and "this man is a traitor" to the democrats.


i think his success became an issue when he tries to act like a regular joe sixpack while painting Obama as an elitist.
fact is, as i said above, anyone running for president is elite. you don't get there making $30,000 a year. I'm just sick of your side pretending that your candidates are down to earth regular folks. i don't like the mentality that a president should be elected based on whether or not you'd want to have a beer with them. the president should be smart, the president should be cultured. because the president's job requires quick thinking, knowledge of the facts, and being our ambassador to the world. when you put up a millionaire who acts like one of the guys you get people like bush. people who can barely get their sentences out, people who get bored with long reports and want the "jist" of it instead, people who grope foreign leaders and generally make America look really foolish.
But the point is not Bush. the point is that Mccain opened the door to his houses being an issue by pretending to be regular, talking to people who are losing their one and only home and pretending to understand when he doesn't even know how many homes he has.

what's your point? you're more than welcome to post an o'reilly clip or any clip you want to. i think posting a youtube clip is great. written editorials most likely aren't read, while a video conveys the whole point with the context of tone of voice.

if you don't understand how to post the tags, ask rob for help.

Posting a YouTube clip is often less effective.

If someone posts a written editorial, it can be quickly skimmed to determine whether it's worthwhile read the whole thing. It can also be read without the sound on and doesn't take time to load (not everyone has cable or DSL, for example).

And, to be honest, just as you probably wouldn't bother to click on a video from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I'm not going to bother to sit there and listen to Olbermann bloviate.

When I do post a clip, I try to explain why I posted it and what it's about, so the reader can determine if he or she wants to click on it.

You insurgents and insurgent wannabes typically just throw up a lengthy clip of Olbermann and expect us to sit there and try and figure out why we should pay attention to his latest bit of lib-porn.

As for your other points, I've never seriously called Obama a "traitor." I've criticized him for his close associations people who could legitimately be called traitors, such as Ayers, and his extremely dangerous and naive foreign policy views. And, if people consider Obama "elitist," it's because of his own comments about people being "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion." McCain and Obama may both be very successful men, but only the latter gets caught insulting people not as lucky as they are. That's why he gets tagged as an elitist.

Finally, you need to let go of the Bush obsession. McCain isn't Bush and the left's attempts to claim otherwise look desperate and foolish.

Or you could just form your own opinion and post that.

But some people are too retarded to do that so they have to spam links in a sad attempt to prove a point they're not even sure about in the first place.

Which, in your case, always ends up as "everyone's a tard and I fuck socks."

aw, someone a little upset? Did that one hurt a little bit? Is poor little g-man crying?

Yes, rex, I weep for America's embattled hosiery.

to you because you're an old man who doesn't understand technology. I bet right now you have the CD tray out and your drink resting there and you don't understand how to use the "tiny shiny records" that you keep seeing.


who doesn't have DSL at this point? the price of DSL is pretty cheap and some cities (like SF) offer free wifi in some areas (or you can just piggyback on someone's connection. who uses dial-up these days? that argument is like bitching Blockbuster only carries DVDs and exludes the VCR people.
with a video clip you can tell the tone right off the bat and determine whether or not you want to watch it. And with anyone posting a video editorial, they're posting it because they believe it has merit and that is often as much of a basis for judgment as skimming. And if you're in a situation where you can't play the sound, then that's your problem. Either don't post at work or skip that post and don't chime in on it. But I really do believe that hearing and seeing the person is more important than just reading the words. You need the full experience of the communication.


fair enough, but you can still post your videos if you think they convey a point. Those two are bad examples though. Those two are so far beyond any respectability that I would never watch them. However if you posted a fox news story i would watch it, an o'reilly clip. I may not like them but those I will sit through to hear the opposing ideas. I actually watch them on my own alongside the olbermann clips because i like hearing both sides even when i am firmly siding with one.


I typed out a bunch on Mccain and then said "here's a good editorial by olbermann." what confused you about that? where was the mystery? if you really did make it through law school then i'm sure your keen legal mind sussed out that Olbermann in the video would be talking about Mccain.



i spent about 2 years here avoiding this forum, i clearly established myself on the other forums as my own person. but the second i started to post here and it was clear i held liberal beliefs you and bsams and others accused me of being whomod's alt. now because a group of liberal posters called the insurgency posted here, you accuse all liberal posters of being insurgents. it's tired, it's lame, it's what rex does. you want to pull "ray-facts" or "get me a soda" or something specific to me to insult me then go for it, but this is just past the point of being funny, or annoying, to just being worthy.
I don't say you and wondy are the same person. i have specific insults for him and specific insults for you. why? because i care about my insulting jokes. you and bsams seem to be butt buddies lately, take a page from him and only put out the good jokes.


"traitor" is a specific term with a specific meaning. did Ayers work with a foreign agent or power? did he compromise classified intelligence or sell secrets? was his aim to overthrow the government in the name of some outside force taking over? that is what a traitor does.
he was an anarchist i guess, he was a dissident, but not a "traitor."
you have pretty much accused Obama of being a terrorist, a "secret muslim," you use his middle name (which comes from the word for Handsome in Arabic and is pretty common) to insinuate he was somehow evil. While at the same time blasting his association with a christian preacher. Which is it? If he's a secret muslim then going to wright's church wouldn't really mean much.


Bush is the current President. These men are running for his job. Bush is the one who started this war, he is the one who managed all the tasks and policies that one of these men will oversee. So in the campaign Bush is probably the most important issue. Whether you like Bush and agree with him or not matters to how you will rank the candidates and make your choice.
And Bush ran in 2000 based on how bad he thought Clinton was, and how he would be different. Gore ran in 2000 based on how good Clinton was and how he would continue the good work.
Clinton ran in 1992 based on how bad Bush sr was, and how he would be different.
Bush ran in 1988 based on how good Reagan was and how he would carry on, while I imagine (but was only 6 so don't recall) that Dukakis ran on how bad the Reagan years were.
The current President's job performance matters. Ultimtately it boils down to do you want someone who opposes Bush and would take a different route, or do you want someone who will follow Bush's lead (in his own way, but still on the general route).

and some people just bitch and contribute nothing else except for bitching.
but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. what's your opinion?
not bitching about liberals or the insurgents or whatnot. what is your opinion the on the issues. between me and g-man there's a lot of stuff here to agree or disagree with, but all you seem to do is complain.
please post your opinions.

that was a good one.

Ray hates reading.

My point was not that Ayers was legally a traitor, only that my comments towards him are the closest I've come to calling anyone related to Obama a traitor, contrary to your claim.

To clarify: Barack Hussein Obama's friend William Ayers is a former domestic terrorist, not a traitor.

you're such a wimp. you never actually go toe to toe and stand your ground, you instead avoid every point i make and make some lame joke.
i guess i broke you.

so he's friends with the guy who did something 40 years ago. i've never seen obama support those actions or agree with them. for all you know they talk about movies and that's the basis of their friendship. haven't you ever had a liberal friend who you avoided certain issues when you talked? i had a hardcore catholic conservative friend. we got along great except we avoided politics and religion because we knew it'd be an argument. the few times we did get into it he expressed that he felt i was immoral for being pro-choice. but he was my friend because in all other issues in life we were friends.
I can show you a picture of Mccain hugging a man who lied to the American people and started a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of lives, thousands of which were his own troops.
I can give you quotes of Mccain calling a man who outed a covert CIA agent, an act which the man's own father said years earlier was treason and warranted execution.

This is the Mccain thread, why aren't we talking about Mccain? Why can you post at length about Obama's friendships with people but then cry foul when I mention Mccain's friendships?
This is the Mccain thread. Please don't turn it into a cheap sequel to the Obama thread. All that says is that Mccain is nothing but the guy running against Obama with an R next to his name. You make arguments for why Obama is bad, but you don't say why Mccain is good.

Also, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein. By G-Man's logic, that means Rumsfeld is bosom chums with Saddam and is partly responsible for the WMDs that Hussein was stockpiling.

Ray, which point should I stand my ground on?

You wrote a lot about about why you think posting YouTube videos is an effective persuasion tool. I wrote why I disagree. You responded with more reasons why you disagree with my disagreement.

It's matter of personal preference, obviously, and not particularly on topic.

I also conceded your point that Ayers is not, per se, a traitor and clarified the meaning of my earlier comment, while "standing my ground" that his association with Ayers reflects badly on Obama.

Beyond that, all I see is more of you Bush obsession, which I've already noted is not a particularly effective, or accurate, strategy against a candidate who's never been afraid to criticize the current president (sometimes even, in my opinion, unfairly).

Finally, I would note that I wrote several paragraphs earlier, directly on point about McCain and you started in on YouTube, Obama, Bush, etc., again.

Snarf's argument, such as it is, is based upon a faulty premise.

As I and others have noted before:

• 1. Shaking hands with someone while on a diplomatic mission is clearly not the same thing as a longstanding personal friendship (in fact, under Snarf's logic, Roosevelt and Churchill were best pals with Joe Stalin and Bill Clinton was bosom buddies with Yassir Arafat and Kim Jong Il);
  2. Rumsfeld mission to Saddam was an attempt to advance US interests at a time when it appeared that he could be an ally against Iran, whereas Ayers' acts were most decidedly carried out against American targets.

Mccain. you post anti-obama, anti-me, but not too much about why mccain should be president.


which is talked about at length on the Obama thread.


Bush is the President of the United States. Currently.
As I said the race for president is all about who is the president currently. Presidential policies on the war Bush started, the economy which has turned during his term, the price of gas are all relevant to the campaign for who will take his place in January. He, like any incumbent (lame duck or not), is the main issue of the race.
just because you can't defend him, doesn't mean he's off limits. And again, George W Bush ran in 2000 on the basis that Clinton was a bad President. Did you at the time say he had blind hatred for Clinton, or did you agree and vote for him?

True or false: Did he or did he not shake hands with a man later identified as an enemy of America? Answer the question, councillor!

To be fair, neither one of you seems to be too interested in telling someone like myself - someone who isn't enamored with either candidate - why I should vote for your candidate. So why don't you both do that. I'm a social liberal, economic conservative, mostly moderate person. I admit to being politically apathetic but I do make it a point to vote. Why should I vote for your guy?

Ayers was against the American government, which he believed to be corrupt and in need of revolution. That idea is an old one, going back to the very origins of this country. He believed it was the right thing to do at the time.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush sr sold weapons to Iran, gave mustard gas to Saddam, helped train bin Laden. Because at the time they believed these were the right actions to take. Iran is now a big bad scary evil enemy, Saddam used some of that gas to kill his own people, and bin Laden used that training for al queda.

If you condemn Obama for being friends with Ayers for his actions, which killed no one (as far as I've read), or for his friendship with Wright who gave a few "offensive" speeches, then you must condemn Bush for appointing people and even just being the son of men who are indirectly responsible for the deaths of many thousands. And you must condemn Mccain for supporting a man who started a war with no plan, based on a lie, that has led to the tarnishing of America's reputation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
That's your logic. And if you don't. If you are really sitting there and saying that "god damn America" is a worse guilt by association offense than 9/11, then wow. Just wow.

As I said Bush is a main issue. Mccain will continue Bush's wars and as has been pointed out his plan for the war will require a draft, the manpower isn't there without one. Mccain is also the oldest man to ever run, if you look at him the age is clearly showing. And as I said about his use of his POW time in this election as political leverage shows that he is now willing to do anything to get elected. I'm also troubled by the canned nature of his speeches. There also seems to be a lot of pent up anger in the man. He called Vietnam an enemy in a recent speech, sure he was talking about the war but he sounded like he still had unresolved anger towards the country which isn't good for a president. Also he used "gook" in 2000, which is also troubling. He's joked about starting a war with Iran, which is also troubling.
But that's why I don't think he's right for the job. Mccain is just more of the same with some slight adjustments. Mccain has war on the brain in my opinion. He's just a cynical old man.

I like Obama personally. He seems like a decent person, like he actually believes in what he is saying. And he's talking about hope and a better tomorrow, he's talking about bringing the troops out of Iraq. He uses common sense and doesn't talk down to people. He was ridiculed for saying we could save millions of barrels of oil if people checked their tire pressure and got regular tune-ups. The ridicule stopped when it turned out many experts and even the department of transportation had also given the same advice. I like the fact that he didn't just say "i'm gonna drill here or bomb there for oil" but he gave practical advice that can easily be done. That to me is a president. A leader who leads, not some gung ho soldier looking for combat. I feel that even if Obama fails miserably he deserves the chance because he's trying to make things better because he believes they can be better. I feel he would repair our image in the world. Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness, it's the ultimate support for the troops because it shows willingness to not be macho and just send men to their deaths. And America has a great bargaining position in the world, we don't need to use the military like Bush did with Iraq and Mccain would most likely do with Iran. And when you consider Biden's experience in the senate, and his detailed knowledge of the middle east and it's people and his comprehensive plans and ideas for Iraq, it'd be such a breath of fresh air after so much "they hate us for our freedom" mentality.
Obama would present an intellectual America to the world, something which we need after 8 years of Bush.
And yes, he's black. Which would help to mend a lot of the racial divide in the country and would show the world that we're not just a nation run by rich white guys. It just seems to me that in all ways we can choose to try and improve the world and make America a respected power again or we can choose to fight the world and create more enemies.

Asked and answered counselor.

He shook hands with a man later identified as such but, unlike Obama, did not ally himself with such a man after the identification was made.

Objection overuled, counselor, for being argumentative. Move on with your questioning.

Because, if you're a moderate, his record shows that, overall, McCain is the more moderate candidate.

Furthermore, McCain has decades of experience in both the military and civilian government, and is highly regarded on both sides of the political aisle as a statesman and leader who governs based upon competence and personal honor.

has Obama "allied" himself with Ayers (implying endorsment of views and actions) or is he merely friends with a college proffessor who did all these acts when Obama was a little kid?

never mind all that. black dukakis will save us all!

Mccain may not be a neocon but he is in line with the policies of Bush.
So Joe Mama needs to ask himself if he wants 4-8 more years of this chaos.


Mccain is old, too old at this point. There comes a point when wisdom gives way to the natural wear and tear on the body.
Biden has more experience than Mccain, is a tad bit younger, and will provide a good balance to Obama's lack of longterm politics. Which I think is what we need. Obama has idealism that will be tempered and guided by Biden's experience. So he gets the benefit of that experience without the flaw of cynicism and willingness to compromise and play "politics" that comes with years in Washington.

all hail black dukakis!

what do you ever add? i notice you basically serve as another rex. whatever you may think of me at least I'm taking the time to convey my views and beliefs. You're just sitting there griping about liberals and making this all about me.
Please take a moment to type up your thoughts. As I said about youtube videos, I like to see all the sides even when I disagree.
In other words put up or shut up.

I post my opinion on things when I want to. Its just more fun to make you halo82.

seriously snarf, if you ever want to get some pussy you'll have to quit acting like one...