Does anybody here even care about McCain?

[RobMoney$]

Maybe it's because the GOP didn't get a candidate who they could rave about in threads. Instead, having to resort to tearing the other guy down.

Make this 12 years in a row that Republicans haven't put forward an acceptable candidate.
At least the Democrats broke their streak this year.

[saz]

the more we scrutinize the hypocrite warmongering mccain, the better.

[RobMoney$]

Point taken, but were not really influencing anyone by doing so.

Just wanted to see if anyone here actually supported McCain.

[yeahwho]

I liked bobs poll (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=87088) better, this one is complicated.

[funk63]

i care about him the way i care about all humans. in that we are all inexplicably connected to the worlds life force and equal value should be place on each part of the greater whole which is mankind.

[RobMoney$]

Get a haircut Hippie.

[DroppinScience]

I care about him NOT getting the presidency, and I'd much prefer threads attacking his policies than this forum littered with nonsense about Obama's flag pin lapels.

[Whatitis]

I care that McCain gets a fair shake to distance himself from the Bush administration but that is not going to happen, Obama is not going to let that happen because that is his ticket in, CHANGE. Bush and McCain aren't as close as many want people to believe. Bush has fucked this country up and the Republicans will pay for this for years, deservedly so. But that's not to say that McCain wouldn't be a good president, he will never get that chance. He's labled with that bad word, Republican.

For the record, I am a registered Republican, very disenchanted by what this administration has done, knew it was a colossal mistake the second I saw the tanks running across the Iraq desert on CNN, but have not decided who to go with yet for the presidency. I'm not woo'd by either candidate yet. I want to see some debating between the two first.

[yeahwho]

I care that McCain gets a fair shake to distance himself from the Bush administration but that is not going to happen, Obama is not going to let that happen because that is his ticket in, CHANGE. Bush and McCain aren't as close as many want people to believe. Bush has fucked this country up and the Republicans will pay for this for years, deservedly so. But that's not to say that McCain wouldn't be a good president, he will never get that chance. He's labled with that bad word, Republican.

For the record, I am a registered Republican, very disenchanted by what this administration has done, knew it was a colossal mistake the second I saw the tanks running across the Iraq desert on CNN, but have not decided who to go with yet for the presidency. I'm not woo'd by either candidate yet. I want to see some debating between the two first.

Thank You, good post. Public discourse and debate are very healthy.

[saz]

I care that McCain gets a fair shake to distance himself from the Bush administration but that is not going to happen, Obama is not going to let that happen because that is his ticket in, CHANGE. Bush and McCain aren't as close as many want people to believe. Bush has fucked this country up and the Republicans will pay for this for years, deservedly so. But that's not to say that McCain wouldn't be a good president, he will never get that chance. He's labled with that bad word, Republican.

For the record, I am a registered Republican, very disenchanted by what this administration has done, knew it was a colossal mistake the second I saw the tanks running across the Iraq desert on CNN, but have not decided who to go with yet for the presidency. I'm not woo'd by either candidate yet. I want to see some debating between the two first.

uh, mcbush is mcsame (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85476): a colossal flip-flopping, warmongering moron who has adopted neo-conservative policies while kissing the religious right's ass.

[Whatitis]

uh, mcbush is mcsame (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85476): a colossal flip-flopping, warmongering moron who has adopted neo-conservative policies while kissing the religious right's ass.

Mcbush, Mcsame, nice generalizations that sound so elementary. And thanks for the link but I did see that thread. Your copy and pasting of a couple hard left bias websites prove nothing to me and is also the reason I don't pay attention to Rush and can't stand Anne Coulter, I could have said Skele-Coulter but I wouldn't want to dumb myself down. You prove exaclty what my point was in my original post.

[yeahwho]

Mcbush, Mcsame, nice generalizations that sound so elementary. And thanks for the link but I did see that thread. Your copy and pasting of a couple hard left bias websites prove nothing to me and is also the reason I don't pay attention to Rush and can't stand Anne Coulter, I could have said Skele-Coulter but I wouldn't want to dumb myself down. You prove exaclty what my point was in my original post.
hang in there Whatitis, the wholesale discount of John McCain is a tactic that only empowers those who discount him (at their own peril), it is a mistake to belittle the man. I have respect for John McCain on a personal level, he is one hell of a patriot and that will carry him much further than many may think. On the surface he is a much stronger candidate than George Bush was in 2000. That alone garners respect. The next 5 months is not going to be a "run through the daisy's" for either candidate.

[saz]

Mcbush, Mcsame, nice generalizations that sound so elementary. And thanks for the link but I did see that thread. Your copy and pasting of a couple hard left bias websites prove nothing to me and is also the reason I don't pay attention to Rush and can't stand Anne Coulter, I could have said Skele-Coulter but I wouldn't want to dumb myself down. You prove exaclty what my point was in my original post.


generalizations? i don't think so. "mcbush" and "mcsame" are used very commonly now, because the john mccain of 2000, who had the courage and guts to speak out against governor bush, the republican establishment, and the religious right nut jobs, has become one of them.

people have serious concerns about john mccain because over the course of the last eight years, he has changed dramatically.


first of all, mccain is on camera (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/76070/) railing against the notion of troops remaining in haiti and somalia, but meanwhile he wants american troops to remain in iraq for 100 years. i guess then according to mccain, troops should immediately come home when a democrat is in office, but when it's a republican, they need to remain overseas for a century. FLIP FLOP.

second, yes, just because information regarding john mccain is on a web site that you would not view nor read, ie "hard left bias website" lol, doesn't mean it's not true. john mccain, mr. campaign finance reform, is in fact a colossal hypocrite (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?id=N00006424&cycle=2008), who takes loads of lobbyist cash, including $100,000 from disgraced jack abramoff's firm. and by the way, open secrets documents both republicans and democrats who take big corporate, lobbyist cash.

third, john mccain, who has campaigned throughout his entire political career against torture, because as a pow he himself was tortured, voted against (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00022) the banning of water boarding. the united states senate's website is hardly a "hard left bias website". FLIP FLOP.

fourth, yes, john mccain had an affair with a lobbyist. a lobbyist he may have even given preferrential treatment to. this was reported by the entire corporate mainstream centrist media: the new york times, time magazine, newsweek, the washington post etc.

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports:

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's 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 e-mailed 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 Sept. 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."

link (http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505/output/print)

another john mccain FLIP FLOP.

fifth, john mccain did indeed say the following: "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,"

link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/29/mccain-obama-spar-over-iraq-war-policy/)

seems that john mccain has alzheimers, or is completely ignorning people like ron paul, ralph nader and dennis kucinich, who want american military presence in foreign nations to end.

sixth, john mccain was indeed very proud to have the support of both john hagee and ron parsley, two nutjob evangelical morons. this has been documented (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvjqzc0ZGtI), it's a video, and not from some "hard left bias site" or whatever. john mccain seemed to have no qualms about sucking up to homophobic, racist biggots: hagee being the asshat who called the catholic church "the great whore", blamed hurricane katrina on a gay pride parade, and said hitler was doing god's work. meanwhile parsley called for the united states to wage a war against people of all middle-eastern descent, not just islamic extremists. in 2000, john mccain was correctly calling these idiots "agents of intolerance. yet again, another colossal john mccain FLIP FLOP.

seventh, john mccain correctly voted against bush's tax cuts for the super rich (tax cuts during wartime = outright stupidity), but then he changed his mind and decided he was for them (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120451614688707083.html?mod=blog), because he was now running for the republican nomination for president and had to kiss republican establishment ass. yeah, a real "maverick". yet again, can someone say....FLIP FLOP. oh and yes, that link was to the wall street journal, which is clearly not a "hard left bias site".

eighth, john mccain's campaign in 2000 in south carolina did indeed rail against then governor bush for courting bob jones university, especially considering the school's ties to anti-catholic remarks. but then in 2008, mccain went and courted the anti-catholic john hagee. FLIP FLOP.

ninth, mccain did indeed say he does "worry" (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/mccain_i_worry_that_al_qaeda_w.php) about an extremist group staging an attack in iraq to tilt the presidential election against him. so he's essentially saying that extremist or militia groups in iraq want the democrats to win. LOL!

tenth, mccain did indeed make the stupidest gaffe of his career, and one of the worst gaffe's in recent memory, when he claimed 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.". then of course, joe lieberman immediately corrected mccain, that iran is a shiate muslim country, and al-qaeda is a sunni muslim terrorist organization, and that iran would never lift a finger for al-qaeda. after lieberman corrected mccain, he said "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.". the washington post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html) picked up this gaffe, and eventually so did cnn. the washington post and cnn are clearly not "hard left bias sites". john mccain = clueless dumbass.

eleventh, in 2005 john mccain rejected a long-term american military presence in iraq and said the troops should come home. this was from an interview on hardball with chris matthews (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895182/). now, mccain thinks the troops should remain in iraq for 100 years. FLIP FLOP.

twelfth, fellow conservatives pat buchanan and joe scarborough openly ridiculed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndmOt1cm34) john mccain for his assurances on the campaign trail that a mccain presidency would mean "less jobs, more wars". and this wasn't a rare, one time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee4XoVSMsJo&feature=related) occurence for buchanan and scarborough.

thirteenth, on march 26 in los angeles, john mccain gave a speech on foreign policy in which he argued that russia be expelled from the g-8. newsweek (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/04/mccains_radical_foreign_policy.html) picked up the story. newsweek is not a "hard left bias site". so anyways, despite the nightmare quagmire of iraq, mccain wants to continue the neo-con dream of a new cold war with russia, by expelling them from the g-8. even former reagan administration official robert mcfarlane said that mccain's first year as president would be "neocon redux."

fourteenth, john mccain openly said on video that the united states would have to negotiate with hamas in order to secure a lasting peace. the video of mccain saying this is right here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html).

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.".

but now, all of a sudden, mccain is against negotiating with hamas. yep, you know what that means: another john mccain FLIP FLOP.


hopefully now, all of these clearly documented, outrageous FLIP-FLOPs by john mccain, ditto his embracing of the radical religious right and dangerous warmongering neo-conservative polices, will mean something to you and not be so elementary.

[Echewta]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

McCain rolled over and played dead while Mr. Honor and Integrity Back To The White House smeared him. Come on.

[Whatitis]

I'm not going to debate you Sazi or anyone else. I have my opinion, you have yours. I don't see McCain running the white house as the same as Bush. Your generalization in your first post is a hardcore leftist view. I get turned off by hardcore, left or right. I can understand why you believe that way because of how this nation has been run the last few years. But I believe that a more moderate view is a more sober view. I am officially done in this thread. Enjoy.

[yeahwho]

I'm not going to vote John McCain, but I'm sort of surprised that anybody would underestimate his ability or validity to lead the United States of America. This guy has a personality that reporters love, he'll talk to them until all the answers they want are out there, of course it ends up with him inevitably saying the wrong thing... which reporters love!

Here is a photo of him a week ago on Memorial Day (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/McCain2008MemorialDay.jpg), yes that is a Purple Heart, so for the non flag pin wearing Barack Obama many people are going to scratch their heads and say, "What the Fuck's up with this Harvard lawyer and his patriotism problem"? It's not a perfect world out there and millions of people think way different than this board, John McCain has already started the volley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MajaP6H_BLk&eurl=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=John%20McCain&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) with Obama. If I were Obama I would try and meet him halfway, only because you should never let your opponent make the ground rules for your campaign.

John McCain was actually very civil during the Bush 2000 attack (Bush denies any of the attack) and did not dignify it. What he learned from that has earned him the Republican presidential nomination in the year 2008.

He is a likable guy, no matter how nutty he is, millions upon millions of people really like John McCain.

[saz]

I'm not going to debate you Sazi or anyone else. I have my opinion, you have yours. I don't see McCain running the white house as the same as Bush. Your generalization in your first post is a hardcore leftist view. I get turned off by hardcore, left or right. I can understand why you believe that way because of how this nation has been run the last few years. But I believe that a more moderate view is a more sober view. I am officially done in this thread. Enjoy.

i'm sorry you feel that way, but it's not a generalization. mccain has become a blatant flip-flopper by embracing dangerous neo-conservative policies, and biggoted christian evangelical televangelists he previously condemned. examining mccain's candidacy, his statements, his platform and rhetoric is not a "generalization" nor it is taking on a "hardcore leftist view". pat buchanan and joe scarborough do not have "hardcore leftist views".

[Burnout18]

i'm sorry you feel that way, but it's not a generalization. mccain has become a blatant flip-flopper by embracing dangerous neo-conservative policies, and biggoted christian evangelical televangelists he previously condemned. examining mccain's candidacy, his statements, his platform and rhetoric is not a "generalization" nor it is taking on a "hardcore leftist view". pat buchanan and joe scarborough do not have "hardcore leftist views".

I think that McCain realized he needs to at least appear conservative to become a republican president. So he did what politicians do, he courted the base of his party.... now that he has the nomination, lets see how far right he stays.....

btw im pretty sure all hardcore conservatives dont like him... not that they will vote for obama, but maybe they just dont vote for him....

[D_Raay]

I'm not going to debate you Sazi or anyone else. I have my opinion, you have yours. I don't see McCain running the white house as the same as Bush. Your generalization in your first post is a hardcore leftist view. I get turned off by hardcore, left or right. I can understand why you believe that way because of how this nation has been run the last few years. But I believe that a more moderate view is a more sober view. I am officially done in this thread. Enjoy.

Personally, I agree with whatitis. I think alot of things will be said about both that are merely silly presumptions on their collective ability to actually lead the country. It's become quite a task to sift through the spin and get to the real center of any candidate that is running for president.

[ToucanSpam]

Compared to some of the other characters the Republicans put forward, McCain is extremely boring. He's no Mike Huckabee that's for true.

Anyways I voted for more McCain threads because I'm a little tired of seeing weekly threads for Obama and 35-40 posts completely sucking him off. Someone play devil's advocate and make a thread about why we should vote for McCain.

[saz]

Personally, I agree with whatitis. I think alot of things will be said about both that are merely silly presumptions on their collective ability to actually lead the country. It's become quite a task to sift through the spin and get to the real center of any candidate that is running for president.

john mccain: "there's going to be other wars" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns)

[D_Raay]

john mccain: "there's going to be other wars" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns)

Not really the point I was making... I wouldn't ever vote for the guy. That being said I think it's a little premature to say what kind of leader he would make. Especially with the balance of power likely to shift further toward the democratic side. If he did win his hands would be tied as far the neo-con agenda goes. What he would do then would be interesting. Would he reach out or further divide us?

[saz]

If he did win his hands would be tied as far the neo-con agenda goes.

yeah, because the democrats have really stood up to bush and haven't been dragging their feet on cutting the funding for the iraq occupation. :rolleyes:

and it's not premature to say what kind of leader he would make, as mccain has already been saying what kind of leader he's going to be, and what he's going to do if elected.

[RobMoney$]

John McCain (http://johnmccain.com/)

Ok, just take a look at the man's website. Just look at the tabs: Decision Center, General Election, Obama & Iraq, and Golf Gear.

Golf Gear?

WTF

[funk63]

John McCain (http://johnmccain.com/)

Ok, just take a look at the man's website. Just look at the tabs: Decision Center, General Election, Obama & Iraq, and Golf Gear.

Golf Gear?

WTF

lol golfing sucks. now, a john mccain doo rag is something id wear

[Bob]

Compared to some of the other characters the Republicans put forward, McCain is extremely boring. He's no Mike Huckabee that's for true.

Anyways I voted for more McCain threads because I'm a little tired of seeing weekly threads for Obama and 35-40 posts completely sucking him off. Someone play devil's advocate and make a thread about why we should vote for McCain.

"we"? you're canadian

[saz]

the elderly like golf.

POP-UP DOUBLE-TALK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNSPKd3ZGVg)

[RobMoney$]

and he's really going with the "A Leader You Can Believe In" thing?
I've seen HS Class President campaigns run with more creativity.

[RobMoney$]

lol golfing sucks. now, a john mccain thong is something id wear


Well here (http://www.therightthings.com/cgi-bin/cpshop.cgi/presidentmccain2008/rightthings.136579599) you go sir
Remember, "Size Up for a looser fit!

[funk63]

hey asshole i didnt say that ill kill you

[RobMoney$]

hey asshole i didnt say that ill kill you

Your lack of punctuation is already killing me.

[funk63]

i typed that with my head what do u expect

[D_Raay]

yeah, because the democrats have really stood up to bush and haven't been dragging their feet on cutting the funding for the iraq occupation. :rolleyes:

and it's not premature to say what kind of leader he would make, as mccain has already been saying what kind of leader he's going to be, and what he's going to do if elected.

Yes and they had NO majority then. Matter of fact they don't really have one NOW, but they will come January.

[D_Raay]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/world/middleeast/06intel.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

The report was released Thursday after years of partisan squabbling, and it represented the close of five years of investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence into the use, abuse and faulty assessments of intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Four years after Kansas Senator Pat Roberts triumphantly cleared the Bush administration of misusing pre-war Iraq intelligence, the Phase 2 report of the Senate Intelligence Committee he once chaired today reached a much different conclusion. After Roberts successfully stonewalled past the 2004 and 2006 elections the studies examining White House statements on the Iraqi threat and the role of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, his successor Jay Rockefeller today concluded:

“The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”

While Democratic and Republican committee members battle it out over the implications of the Phase 2 report, Pat Roberts’ role in obstructing the investigation of the Bush administration’s uses - and misuses - of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq is beyond dispute. Read on…

The world knew the Bush administration was lying all along, but it’s good to finally have a definitive record. Senator Pat “Memory Pills” Roberts did his level best to run interference for George Bush and unfortunately for him, he hitched his wagon to a falling star. Roberts was considered vulnerable in his home state of Kansas before the release of this report, and in a year of change and the demise of the GOP, this isn’t going to help. This doesn’t bode well for Senator John McCain either. He’s staked his whole candidacy on the failed Iraq debacle and he, along with the rest of the Republican candidates, will find it difficult to separate themselves from the disaster they helped to create.

[QueenAdrock]

I want more McCain threads. The best way to defeat your enemy is to know everything about them.

[RobMoney$]

Your vote is disallowed.
You and Brett Lambert only get 1 vote.

[Schmeltz]

I personally find it amazing that McCain has allowed the Democrats to dominate the media for the last few months, while he has apparently sat back and done absolutely nothing. He hasn't even declared a VP! He was presented with a golden opportunity to centralize and focus his campaign, to begin building a fundraising machine while his opponents squabbled, to formulate and present a unified vision of electable conservatism distanced from the (horrific and bungling) ineptitude of the current adminstration. But instead he has slipped under the radar and allowed Barack Obama to make headlines day after day for something like five straight months. If Obama can continue to pull in money and attention in the manner he's displayed throughout the year so far, then McCain is definitely at a disadvantage.

But I guess we'll see. Maybe he's just been biding his time... though in an age of instant media that kind of seems like a bad idea.

[ToucanSpam]

"we"? you're canadian

LOLz whoopsie.


I care more about the 2008 Presidential election than the Canadian federal elections. In Canada, there's just no one to vote for. If you say Dion or Leyton I'm going to drown you in maple syrup.:D

[AceFace]

this is my view. the McCain of today is not the McCain of 8 or so years ago. I actually voted for McCain in the VA primary the first time Bush was voted in (can't remember the year). i thought he was full of integrity and passion and i agreed with a lot of his policies. call me naive, but i liked him. that was the first and only time i've voted repub.

since then he's either showed his true colors or become a complete GOP lapdog all for the sake of gaining the presidency. it's sad to me, that he could compromise himself so easily.

to me if feels as if he's been "groomed" to be the next GOP president for 8 years and he's really changed. i remember when he conceded to bush and then backed him... my heart sunk.

[saz]

Yes and they had NO majority then. Matter of fact they don't really have one NOW, but they will come January.

all it would take to cut off funding for the iraq war is a 41 senate vote fillibuster. but they can't even do that.

[yeahwho]

to me if feels as if he's been "groomed" to be the next GOP president for 8 years and he's really changed.

"groomed" is an excellent description, it paints the neo-con agenda as it is, predatory with figureheads up front to spout ignorance.