View Full Version : mccain lol
what a hypocrite:
McCain '08 vs. McCain '94: He's for Troop Withdrawal, As Long As Bill Clinton Is President [VIDEO] (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/76070/)
I am fairly certain if John McCain is the GOP presidential nominee he will try to position himself as the personification of consistency. But this unearthed footage of McCain railing against the notion of troops remaining in Haiti and Somalia after official missions were finished during the Clinton administration reveals the depths of his hypocrisy. Whoever faces McCain in the general election will have to contend with the fact that the Chris Matthews of the world adore him but there's ample evidence of his poor judgment, uncontrollable temper and deep dishonesty. The clip to your right contains examples of all three.
McCain Collected $100,000 From Abramoff's Firm (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/12/mccain-received-100000-_n_86245.html):
On the stump, Sen. John McCain has touted his work tackling the excesses of the lobbying industry to bolster his reputation as a "maverick" reformer.
"Ask Jack Abramoff if I'm an insider in Washington," McCain often contends. "You'd probably have to go during visiting hours in the prison, and he'll tell you and his lobbyist cronies of the change I made there."
But how much change did McCain actually effect? And is he all that removed from Washington's special interests?
A review of campaign finance filings shows that the Arizona Republican has accepted more than $100,000 in donations from employees of Greenberg Traurig, the very firm where Abramoff once reigned.
Those donations include several thousand dollars from registered lobbyists who represent, or have represented, businesses such as NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch's media empire; Spi Spirits, a Cyprus based company that has fought with the Russian government for the rights to the Stolichnaya vodka brand name; El Paso Corp, a major energy company; General Motors; and the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a group of businesses and trade associations "concerned" about the shortage of lesser skilled and unskilled labor.
McCain Votes Against Torture Ban (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/):
Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, containing a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that establishes one interrogation standard, requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and banning waterboarding.
Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45.
Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding:
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.
The New York Times Times notes that “the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it ‘would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.’”
After Bush vetoes the bill, McCain will again be confronted with a vote to either stand with President Bush or stand against torture. He indicated with his vote today where he will come down on that issue.
John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.
john.he.is (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjbknhX383A)
Mock inspirational video.
more bad news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html) for grandpa.
the straight-talk express is so far off the tracks.
The Top Ten Craziest Things John McCain Has Said While You Weren't Watching
By Cliff Schecter, AlterNet. Posted March 29, 2008.
Much of McCain's madness has been lost in the fog of the ongoing battle for the Democratic nomination -- so here's a recap of what you've missed.
10. Responding to a student who criticized his remark about our staying in Iraq for 100 years, McCain quipped (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NATION/244843635/1002), "No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties."
I guess Ron Paul isn't American. Or Dennis Kucinich. Or many others who have questioned the mindset behind keeping our troops abroad forever, which is what an empire does, not a republic. Although, perhaps more people don't argue "against our military presence" in the other spots he named, because, you know, those wars weren't based on 100 percent fabricated evidence and didn't make us less safe after they were done. Just a thought.
9. John McCain is "very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."
Just FYI, John Hagge makes Jeremiah Wright seem like Richard Simmons (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393). Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "Antichrist," and a "false cult system." And let's not even get into what he has said about Jews.
8. "In the shorter term," said McCain, "if you somehow told American businesses and families, 'Look, you're not going to experience a tax increase in 2010,' I think that's a pretty good short-term measure."
This is McCain's statement in support of making permanent the tax cuts he voted against (http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/03/03/mccain_s_economic_plan/index.html) in 2001 and 2003. Back then they were only a giveaway to the rich and "budget-busters." Now that we are much further along in borrowing our economy from the Chinese, and the rich have become even richer, they are a way to stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of working Americans.
7. "This is a Catholic Voter Alert. Governor George Bush has campaigned against Senator John McCain by seeking the support of Southern fundamentalists who have expressed anti-Catholic views. Several weeks ago, Governor Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Bob Jones has made strong anti-Catholic statements, including calling the Pope the anti-Christ, the Catholic Church a satanic cult! John McCain, a pro-life senator, has strongly criticized this anti-Catholic bigotry, while Governor Bush has stayed silent while seeking the support of Bob Jones University. Because of this, one Catholic pro-life congressman has switched his support from Bush to McCain, and many Michigan Catholics support John McCain for president."
This was a John McCain for president campaign robo-call (http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/02/22/bigot/index.html) in 2000. Today, as we pointed out, he hangs with the Rev. Hagee who thinks Catholicism is a "cult" and the "Antichrist." How romantic.
6. "Everybody says that they're against the special interests. I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to."
Here are some examples (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/21/mccain-special-interest-money/) of Sen. McCain's epic battle with special-interest money: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.
McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contributions from Ion Media Networks -- formerly Paxson Communication -- receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006.
5. McCain listened intently (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailmccain14mar14,1,6668862.story)l, pausing a second before delivering what could be a defining answer. "The other one will do just fine."
For what important reason was Sen. McCain interrupting an explanation to the press of his positions on Iraq and national security to take a cell phone from an aide? Why his wife needed to buy them a new barbecue grill.
4. During a Nov. 28, 2007, Republican debate Sen. McCain angrily denounced torture and offered unmitigated support of the Army field manual's restrictions, saying they "are working, and working effectively."
So naturally and quite logically, he voted against applying these same standards to the CIA (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-mccain_14edi.ART.State.Edition1.4685013.html). Apparently these rules won't work effectively for spooks, just the men and women on the front lines.
3. McCain, while speaking at a town hall meeting (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/mccain_i_worry_that_al_qaeda_w.php) in a suburb of Philadelphia, was asked if he had concerns that anti-American insurgents in Iraq might commit increased acts of violence in September or October with a plan in mind to tip the November election to the Democrats. "Yes, I worry about it," McCain said.
How did he figure out what the insurgents -- which his policies in Iraq have helped create -- are up to? When they attacked us on 9/11, and the warning signs were all ignored by President Bush and his then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, he was punished with winning a second term. So, of course, militants, who follow john McCain's campaign like Republicans do the signs of the Rapture, are closely planning their events because they know the exact opposite will be the result this time.
2. Let's go back to the videotape: "I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to."
Not only have we proven this (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/21/mccain-special-interest-money/) false, but perhaps many can't give money because they all work on his campaign. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, lobbyist. Top advisor, Charlie Black, lobbyist. The operative currently running his Senate office, Mark Buse, former lobbyist. And so it goes. Here is what one observer had to say (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4440418&page=1). "It's an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, he's presenting himself as the crusader against special interests and yet, on the other hand, he's surrounded himself with senior advisers that are lobbyists," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, non-profit research group focused on money in politics.
1. And finally, McCain's craziest, coolest, most unstoppable McCain Moment: The senator said, while in Jordan (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html), that it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, admiringly gazing at McCain until that moment, stepped up and whispered something in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then blurted out: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
Phew. Glad trusty Joe Lieberman was there to explain to the man of "experience," a man who wants to lead the free world, that Sunnis (Al Qaeda) and Shia (Iran) not only don't work together but are in direct conflict. We have only been at war there for five years, so I wouldn't expect Sen. McCain to concern himself with such trivial matters.
link (http://www.alternet.org/election08/80622/?page=1)
DroppinScience
04-17-2008, 11:40 PM
I think you're spending too much time attacking McCain. Why can't you be more like that upstanding netizen RobMoney and just stick to irrational, pointless Obama-bashing?
What, you think the BBMB is a place for legitimate criticism of candidates??
another mccain flip-flop, he's pandering to neoconservative war mongers and the gop nub job base:
McCain Strongly Rejected Long-Term Iraq Presence: "Bring Them All Home"
April 28, 2008 09:16 PM
When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it.
Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.
In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan -- something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign -- the senator offered nothing short of a categorical "no."
"I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."
Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"
McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
The January 2005 comments (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895182/), which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to McCain's current rhetoric.
They also run squarely against his image as having a steadfast, unwavering idea for U.S. policy in Iraq -- and provide further evidence to those, including some prominent GOP foreign policy figures (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?pagewanted=print) in the "realist" camp, who believe McCain is increasingly adopting policies shared by neoconservatives.
video of mccain's flip-flop on msnbc (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=179f30c3-a22e-4556-883a-272533e88d03)
link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/mccain-strongly-rejected_n_99082.html)
john mccain: less jobs, more wars
fellow conservatives joe scarborough and pat buchanan ridicule mccain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndmOt1cm34), and discuss what a mccain presidency would mean: more wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee4XoVSMsJo&feature=related).
mccain: expel russia from the G-8
McCain Camp Is Neocon Redux: It's Official
Posted April 28, 2008 | 04:42 PM (EST)
Speaking Monday at a fascinating on-the-record session on U.S.-Russia relations at the Nixon Center, former Reagan administration official Robert McFarlane declared that McCain's first year as president would be "neocon redux." McFarlane, who was Reagan's national security advisor and who supports McCain's candidacy, emphasized that he wasn't speaking as a member of McCain's team, but as a practical realist and private citizen. His remarks were uttered in a calm tone, and all the more blistering for it. McFarlane pointed out that Ronald Reagan was dealing with a declining Soviet Union and from a position of strength, while McCain would be dealing with a resurgent Russia, one that it would be foolish to heedlessly antagonize. According to McFarlane, "the youngsters" would run foreign policy the first year and then likely be "fired" by the second after they mess up.
My ears perked up when I heard this assessment because it confirms what I've been hearing elsewhere: while Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, and other realist elders are consulted by McCain, his heart is with the younger neocons, the "beavers," in the words of one McCain supporter, who draft the speeches and get the grunt work done. As Fareed Zakaria points out in the Washington Post today, the result is disastrous recommendations such as threatening to expel Russia from the G-8. In the aftermath of the Iraq debacle, the U.S. needs allies, not enemies. But the neocons don't see it that way.
The gap -- and it is fundamental -- in the GOP today is generational. The elderly realists haven't groomed anyone to replace them. The neocons have. Hence neocon redux. When someone of McFarlane's stature offers the assessment that the neocons are in charge, then it's pretty much official. The longer the election campaign goes on, the clearer it becomes that the neocons aren't back. They never went away.
link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/mccain-camp-is-neocon-red_b_99046.html)
Exclusive Video: McCain Was For Talking To Hamas Before He Was Against It...
Huffington Post | May 15, 2008 10:58 PM
Two years ago, in an interview with James Rubin for Sky News, Sen. John McCain expressed a willingness to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas --the very group that McCain has been relentlessly using to smear Sen. Barack Obama over the last several weeks.
Rubin has written an op-ed in Friday's Washington Post about his exchange with McCain, and The Huffington Post has obtained exclusive video. Here's the key excerpt:
RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
link includes mccain video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html)
1. And finally, McCain's craziest, coolest, most unstoppable McCain Moment: The senator said, while in Jordan (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html), that it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, admiringly gazing at McCain until that moment, stepped up and whispered something in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then blurted out: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
Phew. Glad trusty Joe Lieberman was there to explain to the man of "experience," a man who wants to lead the free world, that Sunnis (Al Qaeda) and Shia (Iran) not only don't work together but are in direct conflict. We have only been at war there for five years, so I wouldn't expect Sen. McCain to concern himself with such trivial matters[/I].
link (http://www.alternet.org/election08/80622/?page=1)
A year from now, after McMuggins wins the election thanks to Hilhairy Clitsting doing most of his doity woik for him, we are going to say to ourselves "that George W, he sure said some clever things".
If McCain gets in, we are all completely fukd. Surely even the most right wing numbskull must realise this?
mccain: get to work (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxeHeIVZsTw)
McCain has missed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/mccain-ill-come-back-to-s_n_116876.html) 63.3% of votes in the 100th Congress, including such 15 separate environmental votes (as cited by the League of Conservation Voters).
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/08/boehner_golfing_during_gop_rev.html) that as the GOP chastised Democrats for going on vacation House Minority Leader John Boehner managed to fit in a round of golf in Ohio and McCain was on the cusp of hitting the "four-month anniversary of the last time [he] actually cast a vote in the Senate."
For the record, Barack Obama has missed 282 votes (44.8%) during the current Congress, according to the Washington Post (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/). Though he is not, like McCain, lambasting Congress for its inaction.
Here are a few of the most notable issues that, unlike off shore drilling, couldn't persuade the Senator McCain into legislative action:
Medicare Reimbursement Cuts, 7/9/08 (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/07/kennedy_returns_for_medicare_v.html)
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 7/9/08 (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/mccain_sits_out_fisa_vote_1.html)
The New GI Bill, 6/28/08 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-laporte/senate-passes-21st-centur_b_109519.html)
A $44 Billion Stimulus Package (McCain was in D.C. at the time) 2/7/08
(http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/07/mccain-stimulus-2/)
Equal Pay Legislation, 2/23/08 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/mccain-opposes-equal-pay-_n_98342.html)
All 15 Key Environmental Votes, according to the League of Conservation Voters (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/mccain-47022108)
regarding mccain skipping the senate vote on the gi bill:
There were only two Senators who were not present for the vote. One, Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, is battling for his life against brain cancer after undergoing surgery to remove a malignant glioma. The other, Sen. John McCain, actually had the gall NOT to show up for the vote. He claims to support the 21st Century GI Bill, but never endorsed the bill in the Senate; even going as far as introducing a competing GI Bill that would have left the average veteran with $20,000 in student loans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-laporte/gis-guide-to-the-new-gi-b_b_103825.html). It is certainly not the kind of behavior one would expect of a candidate for the United State Presidency, especially one who is a veteran himself.
RobMoney$
08-06-2008, 09:16 PM
There were only two Senators who were not present for the vote. One, Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, is battling for his life against brain cancer after undergoing surgery to remove a malignant glioma. The other, Sen. John McCain, actually had the gall NOT to show up for the vote.
Yeah, there's this thing called a campaign for President of the United States that I think both McCain & Obama may both be a little bit preoccupied with and just might be guilty of missing some Senate meetings.
The nerve!
Where do you get your info, LeftWing.com?
it was the vote for the new gi bill. a very crucial, important bill. a bill that supports the troops. both hillary and obama (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00162#position) showed up and voted in favour of the gi bill. but mccain opted out, and didn't vote to support the troops, because he was "too busy".
i get my information from the us senate: legislation and records home page.
RobMoney$
08-06-2008, 09:38 PM
it was the vote for the new gi bill. a very crucial, important bill. a bill that supports the troops. both hillary and obama (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00162#position) showed up and voted in favour of the gi bill. but mccain opted out, and didn't vote to support the troops, because he was "too busy".
OH MY! Were the troops were able to get the necessary funds they needed without McCain's attendance?
Maybe it was McCain's way of trying to singlehandedly end the war, by not attending the vote and somehow preventing funding which would force the troops to have to come home.
I'll bet you did'nt think of that. The man is a fucking visionary I tell you.
well, it's quite obvious that you don't understand what the gi bill is. the new gi bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBYWOEYDdY), originally introduced by senator jim webb, isn't legislation regarding funding for the iraq war. the gi bill (http://www.gibill2008.org/about.html) ensures that veterans receive the benefits they deserve, so after their service, they will have no financial concerns or worries about seeking a higher education. that is supporting the troops.
if you actually bothered to check out the links provided for you once in a while, you'd learn something, as opposed to talking out of your ass.
RobMoney$
08-07-2008, 04:44 AM
I'd need a couple of hours to check out every link you share.
1. I don't have time to do that.
2. I suspect those links you provide are biased so I usually dismiss them as lefty propoganda.
So was the Bill passed?
DroppinScience
08-07-2008, 10:21 AM
I'd need a couple of hours to check out every link you share.
1. I don't have time to do that.
2. I suspect those links you provide are biased so I usually dismiss them as lefty propoganda.
So was the Bill passed?
Good to know you have no interest in dealing with facts. If you suspect links (without even giving them a cursory reading or watching the videos, mind you) like the Washington Post or the U.S. Senate page to be biased "lefty" propaganda, I'd love to know what you deem to be reliable.
RobMoney$
08-07-2008, 04:01 PM
The fact is that today according to Gallup, Obama leads McCain by 3%, 46 to 43.
That is a fact.
Now I ask you, does it really mean anything? No, because we all know polls are hardly ever an accurate projection of who will vote or how they'll vote.
Now if I was supporting Obama I could promote this "fact" showing my candidates' advantage in these recent polls, and I wou7ld be 100% accurate, but would it have any substantial meaning? No.
So sometimes FACTS don't always tell the whole story. Most times they're presented in a biased way to favor whatever side is presenting them.
DroppinScience
08-07-2008, 04:17 PM
The fact is that today according to Gallup, Obama leads McCain by 3%, 46 to 43.
That is a fact.
Now I ask you, does it really mean anything? No, because we all know polls are hardly ever an accurate projection of who will vote or how they'll vote.
Now if I was supporting Obama I could promote this "fact" showing my candidates' advantage in these recent polls, and I wou7ld be 100% accurate, but would it have any substantial meaning? No.
So sometimes FACTS don't always tell the whole story. Most times they're presented in a biased way to favor whatever side is presenting them.
True, but those are poll numbers, and even if polls are reliable they only reflect the feelings of people in that particular week, especially when they fluctuate for something like an election campaign.
However, sazi's sources have nothing to do with poll numbers. His sources include government websites such as U.S. Senate Legislation or reputed newspapers like the Washington Post, who are reporting on the documented RECORD of the two candidates. Once again I sincerely ask someone who doesn't even bother to read them how they're so sure that these are biased and lefty propaganda talking points. Aside from something like Ariana Huffington's blog (who, despite once being a conservative, is certainly to the left of your politics), you'd have a point in calling it biased. Aside from that, you're just making up excuses for the fact that you don't like to read and just go off making rebuttals without knowing what's actually being discussed (i.e. the GI Bill had nothing to do with Iraq War funding).
And I'd also like to know what sources you find reliable.
RobMoney$
08-07-2008, 05:19 PM
Let me ask you a question.
Would it really matter how many "facts" I presented you with to prove McCain is a better choice than Obama?
I'd like to think that you wouldn't allow something someone posted on an internet MB to influence your opinion on what you value in a candidate and who you ultimately would endorse.
So I'm not interested in any link someone posts, be it pro-Obama or pro-McCain. It wouldn't carry any weight in my decision making. I think we've all digested enough information on both McCain & Obama to make an informed decision on who to support at this point.
RobMoney$
08-07-2008, 05:35 PM
Here's a fact for you, Obama said:
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother."...referring to Rev. Wright.
...and then he disowned him.
This is a fact.
Does it influence your opinion of Obama?
Aside from something like Ariana Huffington's blog
actually you're wrong there. the huffington post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/) is a news site, but includes opinionated blogs. the huff picks up news reports from the associated press, reuters, the washington post, the new york times, the l.a. times, the bbc, the guardian, etc. etc. on every page, the blogs are off on the left hand side, with the straight news items in the centre or middle of each page. it's a pretty awesome site, very comprehensive. all they need is a sports section.
Let me ask you a question.
Would it really matter how many "facts" I presented you with to prove McCain is a better choice than Obama?
I'd like to think that you wouldn't allow something someone posted on an internet MB to influence your opinion on what you value in a candidate and who you ultimately would endorse.
i'm very open to facts, articles, reports given to me by friends, or obtained from an internet message board. it doesn't matter. as long as it's credible, and not coming from say, fox news or the drudge report, i'll take it into consideration for sure. the more people share, the more informed they will utlimately be.
So I'm not interested in any link someone posts, be it pro-Obama or pro-McCain. It wouldn't carry any weight in my decision making. I think we've all digested enough information on both McCain & Obama to make an informed decision on who to support at this point.
that's too bad you feel that way. i think that you could learn a great deal from others, just like i've learned so much from other people's links and what not.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.