Monday, August 25, 2008
Froth-Free Criticism, Book 2
As for Obama saying that, even knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted against the surge, that, too, has been demagogued a bit. I mean, think about it. All that that shows is how Obama is able to discern multiple causality. He probably sees that, while, yes, additional troops may in fact have suppressed some of the violence, all of those other factors that I've mentioned ad-nauseum in other posts (our deals with the Sunnis, the results of ethnic-cleansing, etc.) have probably played a role, as well. And since the level of political reconciliation needed for that society to maintain stability HASN'T happened, what would have been the reason TO vote for the surge? That's the way I see it, anyway.................................................P.S. And, no, folks, I don't expect Mr. Obama to be as blunt or as impolitic as I've been here - AT ALL! I'm just saying that he needs to communicate better, period. I mean, think about it. Not a lot of other swing voters are necessarily going to be as generous/patient as I've been. They're going to want to hear it from HIS mouth - and, yes, preferably before the election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Will, add to this the fact Nuri al Maliki is arresting some of the leadership of the Sunni awaking councils, and the Kurdish designs on Kirkuk and Mosul, which if followed to their logical ends, will erupt that region of Iraq into violence we had previously seen in Anbar province and Baghdad 2006-07, the surge might just be seen as what it really was;
A very hard won six month long fight by the troops to gain a political talking point, which can not be sustained because the Iraqis failed to do a damned thing they were supposed to under the surge.
The drop in violence is not sustainable if the three sides of Iraq refuse to accommodate each other, and given the hard edged tactics each is using in different areas the surge has NOT begun to address that.
The US troops can NOT force the Sunnis Shiites or Kurds to compromise or get along which has always been the Achilles heal of the whole surge idea.
The idea US troops can go to a foreign country destroy the social fabric bomb to the stone age the infrastructure, them force different sects of people who have fought against each other for centuries to get along is almost clinically insane, but that is the meme the right wants us all to believe.
The drop in violence was because the Iraqi factions thought in late 2007 things might be better for each of them if they changed tactics, however it appears now that some factions are trying to use non diplomatic means to gain an advantage, and when that happened in early 2006, the violence erupted, and I think history in this case will repeat itself.
I'm a big partition guy (through negotiations, of course, not mandated by us). On this idea, Biden and I are on the same page. Bush? Should have listened to Powell, not Pearle (Scoop Jackson Jr.).
Will the main problem with partitioning, is none of the Iraqi sects agree on where the cuts are going to be made (on the ground not on each other) .......
So any suggestion of partitioning is just another way the Iraqis can say Civil War part deuce .....
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire post WW1, the Iraqis have never resolved their sectarian differences with out such a struggle, and there is NO reason to think they are willing to do so at this time.
It's too late to partition now.
The Iraqis want the country back so the blood bath can begin and they can determine what it will be.
That will mean a Shia nation that will have some sort of relationship with Iran.
My concern is that the next President of the United States (McCain or Obama) will try and keep us there too ling and draw us into the inevitable conflagration.
We made the mess, but there is no way we can fix it, the longer we hold the cork on the bottle the more it shakes, the worse it's going to be. But it won't stop shaking until we get us, the cork, out.
What has been done cannot be undone.
By the way folks "supposed veteran" is a form of slander.
1138 some people who never served do not understand the reasons some of us did.
They have the same caviler attitude about a veteran they have about sending kids off to war based on a lie.
If they genuinely wanted to honor ALL veterans they wouldn't denigrate one veterans service for nothing more then partisan political gain.
No names need be mentioned.
It's going to end up a partition, regardless. If they want to do it via bloodshed, that's up to them. I don't denigrate anybody's service. If somebody is going to doubt my credentials, they have to prepared for commensurate skepticism.
"friend" what you do is entirely different.
Claiming 6 educational degrees and military service are not the same thing at all and please, please don't forget and I'll bring this up one more time - you began this by calling me a disabled veteran.
commensurate
Spin another LIE will.
People lie about everything. You accused me of lying about my 4 (four, not six) degrees. How do I know that you're not lying? I don't. Question for Clifffff, were you a homophobe before you went into the army (allegedly went into the army) or did the army drill it into you? Kind of curious.
Will I'm not going to go dig the conversation out but you said 6, and it's beside the point, it was well after your initial insult.
YOU initiate disrespect of your visitors and this is what you generate.
You see Will the Air Force is 50 years old we don't have the legacy issues of nepotism and tradition that the McCains have taken advantage of in the Navy and that is why I considered it an insult when you insist on keeping a false posting up placing McCain in the Air Force. It sullies the heritage and honor of my branch of the service, we don't operate like the Navy.
But then you topped it off by calling me a disabled veteran - and yet to back away from it and have the nerve to whine about me peeing on your degrees?
Give me a break BRO.
You started the disrespect around here.
Question for Clifffff, were you a homophobe before you went into the army (allegedly went into the army) or did the army drill it into you? Kind of curious.
neither
Just because YOU claim something son, don't mean it is true.
But keep spinnin' the lies you spread.
People lie about everything.
Especially REPUBLICANS ......
You accused me of lying about my 4 (four, not six) degrees.
Lets see;
a degree for potty training,
a degree for dressing yourself,
a degree for feeding yourself;
what was the fourth again?
"Fuck you. P.S. As for being "educated", I have 4 college degrees. How many do you have?"
I stand corrected you said 4.
Now let me inform you that many poorly educated people have college degrees and that is why I wasked you to give me the schools and the degrees. You see I've told you I was in the Air Force so the conclusion can be rightly drawn that I do know something about the military and the Air Force. I not only served, I grew up as an Air Force brat.
I'm not impressed by degrees Will - I won't out of hand demean them since you provide no information concerning them - but they can't mean anything to me if you don't tell me what they are.
And I'm sorry but in reference to contributions, a college degree is not a contribution to society - it's what you do and what you do doesn't always involve ANY degree, or even the degree(s) you earned.
My work in the Air Force was directly tied to NRO imagery and I didn't enlist until I was almost 21 years old. I did not enlist directly after high school but continued and completed my education before enlisting, at my expense without help.
I chose not to take the path of the Military Academy because I had decided I wanted to do direct work and not be an administrator. I also knew that growing up exposed to the military I did not want to spend my entire life in it, I wanted part of the reward my father had earned for us and still wanted to make my contribution to the nation.
So, you demean what you want, and get your buddy Voltron to join you.
My conscience is clear, yours, you'll have to live with.
EVERYONE does not lie and if you live in that mindset it's no wonder you view the world as a stinking piece of shit.
oops let me get back to education.
If your only education came from school, then you are probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered.
School is not a place where people become educated, it is a place where people are taught.
My education began at the family dinner table and was added to as I progressed through life College was only a piece of it, not the culmination.
Republicans and Democrats, Clif, they both lie. It's all crap, all the time in American politics. The last politician I trusted was Paul Tsongas....and he's dead.
I have a B.A. in Psychology, an M.S. in Special Education, a 6th year (maybe that's the 6 that you remember) in Educational Foundations, and an Associates in Therapeutic Recreation (state universities). I hardly ever bring this up but, when called an idiot, what is one to do? Look, if you think I'm stupid, then, fine, I'm stupid. You think that way, then act that way. Most people who know me and work with me don't think that. At work, I was actually promoted to a job that I never even applied for, a job that they created especially for me. As for using the dis, disability, as a weapon, I addressed that in a previous post. I'm not going to use (to ridicule a person's intellect/emotional stability) it any more. Who started the disrespect? I believe that when I said that I was thinking, THINKING, about voting for Barr as a protest, you referred to me as an "unthinking person". And when I accidently said that McCain was a member of the Air Force, you accused me of "smearing" the Navy. Excuse me for having an opinion/making a mistake, I guess.
As for Cliffolaus's homophobia, "don't ask, don't tell", is what I'm thinking.
Sorry will, no homophobia, just a hatered of right wing hypocrisy.
But please continue to combine both untruths in one post;
I never posted as nicholas,
and I am not homophobic.
You complain at 1138 then do exactly what you complain to him about, which sort of makes his point in spades.
Then why, over at Voltron's, did you accuse me of having deleted you....when I didn't? I only deleted Nicholas. That does kind of incriminate you, no? As for the homophobia, I can point to numerous vulgar comments by you, Clif; me and Voltron, yada yada.
And what about your lies, Clif, calling me a right-winger, etc.. I haven't voted for a Republican for President since 1988 (Bush 1 over Dukakis). Voted for figging Nader in 2000 (obviously THAT was a mistake), for Christ!! It's like, what, because I have some concerns about Obama (who I'll probably end up voting for, btw), vilification needs to follow? Got to learn to be more respectful of the swing-voters, Clif. I mean, you do want to HELP Obama, right?
Then why, over at Voltron's, did you accuse me of having deleted you....when I didn't?
You deleted ONE post of mine one night when you were mass deleting many posts by nicholas and others.
Maybe by accident I don't know but I know one of my replies disappeared after you deleted a lot of posts.
As for being a right winger, when YOU crapped on Lydia's blog with YOUR very first post there ever, you acted EXACTLY just like a right winger,
if it walks like a duck .......
If YOU don't wanna be though of, as you are by MANY people on the tubes like other places you crapped all over try being much better when YOU accuse others of what you're clearly guilty of.
Remember YOU were pushing for the juveniles at Voltron's to go crap on peoples blog, and NOW cry like a child YOU got what you asked some to do to others.
I don't give a rats ass who you voted for years ago,
You defend a very right wing section of this country and it's history the FACTS be damned. You may not think you do, but you have consistently done exactly that.
Jimmy carter was right and Reagan wrong, however Reagan fooled a lot of people who didn't want to do what was needed, thus we are in the crappy position on energy and fiscal issues we are in as a result of Reagan's pandering to win, instead of making sure he didn't pass the problems to future generations, like he and those around him did.
I even bet you were fooled and voted for the fraud I never did.
1980 I voted for John Anderson, and 1984 I was so disgusted I actually refused to vote for either of them, the only time since 1976 I didn't vote.
Yes you attacked O'Rielly, but he is the extreme example of media bias, the cable cabal is all guilty.
Faux noise is just much worse in they way the blatantly spin everything thru the GOPer kool aid, but many at CNN and even MSNBC are just as guilty.
You refuse to admit the course this country took in the second half of the twentieth century was set by the Dulles Brothers rather deceitfully, and in violation of what the Eisenhower Admin claimed they were doing.
In many ways the Dulles Brothers under cut what Eisenhower claimed he wanted.
I fight for the truth before I worry about some light weights feelings since I'm not connected to ANY campaign.
When the TRUTH is pointed out YOU for some reason go to GREAT lengths to try to change it to fit YOUR narrow minded world view.
Yes you try to claim it is conventional wisdom, however that conventional wisdom has gotten all of us in the pickle we are in now with $4 a gallon gas the best we can hope for, (especially if Gustav follows the track many think it is on) a 9+trillion dollar debt with it only getting worse, because of right wing lies and spin.
As for YOUR concerns about Obama, read the truth instead of Voltron style hit jobs. I did back in February, when I was deciding on who to vote for in the primaries.
Also I read a lot about McCain and realized he is much more dishonest this year then he has been in the past, and given his history that is saying a bit.
Got to learn to be more respectful
If you stopped there and made amends for YOUR intolerance I would think YOU would be doing much better, try Utah Savage, Tomcat, Existential Cowboy and yes Lydia Cornell who YOU attacked for somebody else's writing and have YET to apologize.
Try cleaning your own sins before crying like a baby about somebody else, YOU came into Lydias and shit all over it and NOW cry about blowback?
Like 1138 correctally said;
YOU initiate disrespect of your visitors and this is what you generate.
Exactly how you entered Lydia's in your hair brained mission to defend a dishonest politico who has changed his stance and image to try to get elected, more then any other politician in the decade except for Mitt Romney maybe.
McCain 2008 is a fraud, he has almost done a 180 on everything he claimed in 2000, and he lies about it.
He has adopted the very tactics he decried, and saddled up with people he claimed were out of bounds back then just to win.
Like many republican politicos he decries what he is most guilty of, newt did it when attacking the Clenis.
The house leadership did it in 1994 by running against a corrupt system with plans for a more corrupt system.
The LIES and criminality of Bush ET Al are astounding but McCain NOW slides right in the RNC dirty tricks machine like he always was one of the boys.
And YOU wanna defend him?
after eight years of bush incompetence, we don't need another self centered egotistical light weight who used his family's connections to get ahead, which is what mccain did till vietnam.
yes he did stay when he could have come home early and i give him a lot of credit for that, BUT when he came home the self centeredness and short cuts began again.
They way he dumped his wife which sickened both Nancy Reagan and Ross Perot, to the way he used Barry Goldwater, till Goldwater ended up almost hating McCain. He showed who he really is.
The Keating five showed a side he tries to keep as secret as his fathers cover up of the Liberty attack by Israel, how he dumped blame on others like Dennis DeConcini , even though he was much more connected with Charles Keating them the rest, McCain, Cindy's family and Keating were good friends and business associates.
McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln
Wanna bet NOBODY in the corporate owned MSM remembers that one before November?
Like when he allowed a midshipman at Annapolis to take the blame for a TV he used to watch "Maverick." he passed the blame then and in the Keating Five. Sorry I see another Bush style person who except for his time in the POW camp too the easy way out and passed the blame, and I don't want another person like either of them in the White House.
I think McCain KNOWS the only part of his life where he acted really honorably is his time in the POW camp and that is why he keep returning to it.
The Rick Warren interview seems to confirm he uses his POW time far too much.
To me the only thing worth defending is his POW time BUT not the way he uses it, and given his true history he isn't presidential material .... it's just the two people the GOP thought they had in the wings Rudie, Frist and George Allen crashed and burned and Mitt turned out to be the true flip flopper from mass, so in 2008 the GOP got stuck with McCain. He was the best they had to offer and that isn't saying much.
You screeched and howled about people ripping McCain a new one, except for his actual time in the Hanoi Hilton .... HE deserves it,
Most people on the tubes are just angry because the corporate owed MSM refuses to tell the whole truth about McCain while spreading every dishonest rumor about Obama.
Sorry but YOU ran into that buzz saw with your don Quixote routine ...... then sided with Voltron and his slimy side kick crusty, cause Voltron saw another internet crusader he could use.
Admit it you have the rights to see his hidden blog.
The Lydia Cornell post that I hammered was a disgusting attack on McCain and his patriotism. It accused him of treason. How does a pricipled person react to that? I don't know anything about a hidden blog. I have no problems with Utah Savage. We disagree politically. As for me trying to sick Rusty on Tom (you, Mike, whoever), that was a joke. I mean, I know you don't have a sense of humor and are extremely paranoid but that's what it was. I don't know how many more times I have to say this but I have a lot of problems with McCain, too (you should really read all of my posts) and I'm not voting for him. At the same time, I have reservations about Obama. I can have those, right? It's a free country, last time I checked. Hey, remember when Bush said that, "you're either with us or against us"? That's the feeling I get with you guys. How ironic is that, huh?
I hear a lot about the Keating 5. Bob Bennett (the liberal Bennett) says that McCain and John Glenn, while they did use bad judgement, should not have had to go before the committee, that their transgressions were far less egrgious than the other 3. Just as a counter, I'm saying.
Here is what was written AT THE TIME about the Keating Five scandal by a Phoenix paper;
You're John McCain, a fallen hero who wanted to become president so desperately that you sold yourself to Charlie Keating, the wealthy con man who bears such an incredible resemblance to The Joker.
He poured $112,000 into your political campaigns. He became your friend. He threw fund raisers in your honor. He even made a sweet shopping-center investment deal for your wife, Cindy. Your father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was cut in on the deal, too.
Nothing was too good for you. Why not? Keating saw you as a prime investment that would pay off in the future.
So he flew you and your family around the country in his private jets. Time after time, he put you up for serene, private vacations at his vast, palatial spa in the Bahamas. All of this was so grand. You were protected from what Thomas Hardy refers to as "the madding crowd." It was almost as though you were already staying at a presidential retreat.
Like the old song, that now seems "Long ago and far away."
Since Keating's collapse, you find yourself doing obscene things to save yourself from the Senate Ethics Committee's investigation. As a matter of course, you engage in backbiting behavior that will turn you into an outcast in the Senate if you do survive.
They say that if you put five lobsters into a pot and give them a chance to escape, none will be able to do so before you light the fire. Each time a lobster tries to climb over the top, his fellow lobsters will pull him back down. It is the way of lobsters and threatened United States senators.
And, of course, that's the way it is with the Keating Five. You are all battling to save your own hides. So you, McCain, leak to reporters about who did Keating's bidding in pressuring federal regulators to change the rules for Lincoln Savings and Loan.
When the reporters fail to print your tips quickly enough--as in the case of your tip on Michigan Senator Donald Riegle--you call them back and remind them how important it is to get that information in the newspapers.
The story of "the Keating Five" has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate. The outcome will be decided, not in a courtroom, but probably on national television.
Those who survive will be the sociopaths who can tell a lie with the most sincere, straight face. You are especially adept at this.
Last Friday night, on The John McLaughlin Show, which features well-known Washington journalists, the subject of the Keating Five was discussed. Panelist Jack Germond suggested that three of the Keating Five were probably already through in politics.
So you spend your days desperately trying to make sure you will be one of the survivors. You keep volunteering to go on radio and television stations to protest your innocence. Last week you made ABC's Nightline.
Not long before that you somehow managed to get James Kilpatrick, the national columnist, to write a favorable paragraph about you. Last Sunday morning, you made it to national television again; this time on ABC's This Week With David Brinkley. You smiled at the panel with your usual studied insouciance. Sitting next to you was Senator John Glenn of Ohio.
Brinkley, Sam Donaldson, and George Will were the interrogators.
It was a sobering scene. There you sat with Glenn, both sweating before the cameras, waiting to answer questions: two badly tarnished American icons.
No one forgets that Glenn was the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth. You won't let anyone forget that you were a prisoner of war. But you have played that tune too long. By now your constant reminders about your war record make you seem like a modern version of Arthur Miller's tragic failure Willy Loman.
Clearly, both you and Glenn sold your fame for Charles Keating's money.
It was a Faustian bargain. It was also a bad joke on the rest of us and a disaster for many old people who lost their life's savings to Keating.
The money was never really Keating's to give. But he never would have got his hands on it if you and the rest of the Keating Five didn't halt the government takeover for two long years while Keating's people continued their looting.
And now, the tab for the Savings and Loan heist must be paid from taxpayer pockets.
On Sunday, Senators Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, and Riegle refused offers to appear on the Brinkley show. What must we make of that?
You, the closest of them to Keating and the deepest in his debt, have chosen the path of the hard sell. You may even make it out of the pot, but to many, your protestations of innocence taste like gall.
You are determined to bluff your way. You will stick to your story that you were acting to help a constituent and intended to do nothing improper. The very fact you attended the meeting makes you guilty, just as every man who entered the Brinks vault went to prison.
You insist that an accounting firm Keating hired told you Lincoln was sound. Alan Greenspan, who Keating also hired, wrote a report saying it was sound. Why shouldn't you believe the people Keating hired? You were, after all, fellow employees.
Perhaps you might silence your own conscience about all this someday.
Just keep telling everyone that it was your wife's money invested in that shopping center with Keating and that you knew nothing about it.
Keep saying that cynical newspaper people don't understand that every move you make has always been for the enrichment of Arizona . . . the education of our Native Americans on the reservations . . . for the love of the elderly in Sun City and Green Valley.
Keep telling them that it wasn't that you were bought off but that Charlie Keating got special help only because he was one of the biggest employers in the state.
Just keep sitting there and staring into the camera and denying that Keating bought you for money and jet plane trips and vacations.
So what if he gave you $112,000? Just keep smiling at the cameras and saying you did nothing wrong.
Maybe the voters will understand you took those tiring trips to Charlie's place in the Bahamas in their behalf. Certainly, they can understand you wanted to take your family along. A senator deserves to travel on private jets, removed from the awful crush of public transportation.
You sought out a master criminal like Keating and became his friend. Now you've discarded him. It shouldn't be surprising that you are now in the process of selling out your senatorial accomplices.
You're John McCain, clearly the guiltiest, most culpable and reprehensible of the Keating Five. But you know the power of television and you realize this is the only way you can possibly save your political career.
Remember the line I highlighted?
Written in 1989 .... McCain knows he has a get out of trouble card with his cries of I was POW so it don't count.
He learned it way back then and has used it quite well this turn.
Which is one reason I no longer see that as OFF LIMITS, he has gone to that well EVERY time he gets in trouble.
The Lydia Cornell post that I hammered was a disgusting attack on McCain and his patriotism.
The post you ATTACKED was NOT written by Lydia Cornell.
But at least YOU admit you did not do what you howl people should do NOW.
be reasonable.
BTW since you have been told MANY time she didn't write that post where is YOUR public apology to HER for your many malicious attacks on her?
It seems that .....
hypocrite thy name be;
will "take no prisoners" hart
It was a post that was written on HER blog and she didn't condemn/disavow it.
And "will" don't say YOU didn't know larry wrote the piece, because before you started attacking individual bloggers, I TRIED being reasonable,
clif said...
Will, larry made the comments, and he had nothing to do with any sit-com in the 1980's but Lydia did.
Hell you're just as bad as you accuse "larry" of being.
You "attack" Lydia for "larry's" post.
9:00 PM
you can check it all outhere
Including this set of cross posts;
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
That ad-hoc rationalization of yours, Lydia; Republicans are hypocritical on moral-values, it might have had more oomph to it had the object of your vitriole been, say, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Bill Bennett, or any of those moronic TV preachers. John McCain (again, who I am not voting for because I strongly disagree with his Iraq policy), for the vast bulk of his congressional career, has not been divisive (hell, he has more friends on the Democratic side of the aisle) or judgemental. Why don't you guys just admit it over there, you're a bunch of shrill partisans whose capacity to make reasoned discourse is marginal, at best. Admit it, just like Fox should admit that they're not what they claim to be.
Clif said;
That ad-hoc rationalization of yours, Lydia; Republicans are hypocritical on moral-values, it might have had more oomph to it had the object of your vitriole been, say, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Bill Bennett, or any of those moronic TV preachers.
You have missed the last two plus years of this blog, all of them have been brought to task for their transgressions against the US constitution and US people in the name of greed and repugnant party policies.
John McCain (again, who I am not voting for because I strongly disagree with his Iraq policy),
BTW just who the hell you trying to convince with this claim, you seem to go around the tubes attacking those who tell the truth about that senile old foole, but claim YOU don't want him for president.
for the vast bulk of his congressional career, has not been divisive (hell, he has more friends on the Democratic side of the aisle) or judgemental.
bullshit, pure unadulterated bullshit.
McCain has been at least as divisive as any of the other repugnants but just a little sneakier about it.
He played the race card in opposing the national MLK holiday in 1982.
That is VERY divisive, even HE realizes how bad that was and is trying to flip flop on his 1982 position.
He has run on very divisive issues in the past JUST top flip flop on all of them because he knows how bat shit crazy the repugnant party he belongs to is;
McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list
Just to follow-up briefly on Michael’s guest-post from yesterday, Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) new-found opposition to Roe v. Wade is rather remarkable, even for him.
In 1999, McCain was in New Hampshire, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a moderate. He proclaimed himself a pro-life candidate, but told reporters that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Yesterday, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?
MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.
The old McCain didn’t want an amendment and didn’t want Roe overturned. The new McCain completely disagrees with the old McCain.
It’s worth noting that politicians’ opinions on abortion can, and often do, “evolve” over time. Dick Gephardt and Al Gore, for example, both opposed abortion rights before eventually becoming pro-choice. With this in mind, McCain’s unexpected shift may simply reflect yet another pol whose thinking has changed over time.
Or, far more likely, McCain is once again abandoning any pretense of consistency and integrity, and is now willing to say literally anything to win.
Let’s return, once again, to McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
[BTW a flag which was used by TRAITORS to the United states and US constitution, which st johnny the delusional ONCE took an oath to defend, but considering his oath to his first wife to remain faithful, we all can see just how much stock the senile old foole puts in the oaths he takes]
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
It’s not exactly a newsflash that McCain is veering ridiculously to the right in a rather shameless attempt to reinvent himself, but Dems should take advantage of the situation and help establish the narrative now. Despite his rather embarrassing record of late, we still have major media figures telling the public that “no one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything.”
[including the very uninformed Will blah blah blah Hart]
Now is the time to begin characterizing McCain — accurately — as a man with no principle beliefs. Dems should not only criticize McCain’s constantly evolving opinions on nearly everything, they should openly mock him for it now, so that the storyline becomes second nature (like the GOP did with “serial exaggerator” Al Gore).
The nation is seeing McCain 2.0, and we like the old one better.
BTW that article is from way back in 2006, and St Johnny has piled up a whole bunch of new flip flops and stupid comments since then.
Like these;
McCain Flip Flops on "Recession" - 03/10/08
McCain Flip Flops On 100 Years in Iraq Remark
McCain flip flops on Social Security
Why don't you guys just admit it over there, you're a bunch of shrill partisans whose capacity to make reasoned discourse is marginal, at best.
The pot trying to call the kettle black here methinks .........
Admit it, just like Fox should admit that they're not what they claim to be.
Neither are you son.
McCain has a long history of anger and inter personnel problems, which even repugnants like Thad Cochran of Mississippi have commented on, which is one of the primary indicators for those who do not closely know somebody is a sign of PTSD ... but continue trolling the tubes defending st Johnny on this issue.
He can't control his temper when confronted and there are quite a few publicly recorded instances of it.
McCain's Temper May Become an Issue
Vanity Fair Tiptoes Around McCain's Explosive Temper
Townhall.com::McCain Admits Temper Problem::By Amanda Carpenter
And this one;
John McCain's top ten temper explosions
1) Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). “Presidential hopeful John McCain - who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper - erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday. In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed, ‘F— you!’ at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation. ‘This is chickens—stuff,’ McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday. ‘You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.’” (Charles Hurt, “Raising McCain,” New York Post, 5/19/07)
2) In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. George W. Bush To Bill Clinton. SEN. MCCAIN: “I guess it was bound to happen. Governor Bush’s campaign is getting desperate, with a negative ad about me. The fact is, I’ll use the surplus money to fix Social Security, cut your taxes and pay down the debt. Governor Bush uses all of the surplus for tax cuts, with not one new penny for Social Security or the debt. His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We’re all pretty tired of that. As president, I’ll be conservative and always tell you the truth. No matter what.” (McCain 2000, Campaign Ad, 2/9/00; www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoXkCprdL4)
3) Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) An “A**hole”, Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, “I Didn’t Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger.” “Why can’t McCain win the votes of his own colleagues? To explain, a Republican senator tells this story: at a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
4) Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’ (Grassley and McCain had no comment.)” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
5) In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A “Scuffle” With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor. “In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, ‘Is the senator about through?’ McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his ‘courtesy’ (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn’t part friends.” (Harry Jaffe, “Senator Hothead,” The Washingtonian, 2/97)
6) Sen. McCain Accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Of The “Most Egregious Incident” Of Corruption He Had Seen In The Senate. “It escalated when McCain reiterated the charges Oct. 10 in a cross-examination, calling McConnell’s actions the ‘most egregious incident’ demonstrating the appearance of corruption he has ever seen in his Senate career.” (Amy Keller, “Attacks Escalate In Depositions,” Roll Call, 10/21/02)
7) Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign. MCCAIN: “Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore. … The political tactics of division and slander are not our values… They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country. Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks, Virginia Beach, VA, 2/28/00)
8) Sen. McCain Attacked Vice President Cheney. MCCAIN: “The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.” (Roger Simon, “McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy,” The Politico, 1/24/07)
9) Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer. “It was election night 1986, and John McCain had just been elected to the U.S. Senate for the first time. Even so, he was not in a good mood. McCain was yelling at the top of his lungs and poking the chest of a young Republican volunteer who had set up a lectern that was too tall for the 5-foot-9 politician to be seen to advantage, according to a witness to the outburst. ‘Here this poor guy is thinking he has done a good job, and he gets a new butt ripped because McCain didn’t look good on television,’ Jon Hinz told a reporter Thursday. At the time, Hinz was executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. … Hinz said McCain’s treatment of the young campaign worker in 1986 troubled him for years. ‘There were an awful lot of people in the room,’ Hinz recalled. ‘You’d have to stick cotton in your ears not to hear it. He (McCain) was screaming at him, and he was red in the face. It wasn’t right, and I was very upset at him.’” (Kris Mayes and Charles Kelly, “Stories Surface On Senator’s Demeanor,” The Arizona Republic, 11/5/99)
10) Sen. McCain “Publicly Abused” Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). “[McCain] noted his propensity for passion but insisted that he doesn’t ‘insult anybody or fly off the handle or anything like that.’ This is, quite simply, hogwash. McCain often insults people and flies off the handle…. There have been the many times McCain has called reporters ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ when they have had the audacity to ask him unpleasant, but pertinent, questions. McCain once… publicly abused Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama.” (Editorial, “There’s Something About McCain,” The Austin American-Statesman, 1/24/07)
BTW, I was able to link to BOTH right wing and MSM articles to show just how bad poor johnny's temper tantrums are.
Great comment from the College Conservative Movement website;
It is not McCain's language that worries me the most. It is his inability to control his temper. At age 71 and he's never learned to school his temper. It appears my 4 year old has done better. We need someone as president that is able to control they temper and make sound judgments and them act not someone that acts out of anger and then has to deal with the results. Mccain seems to think that he is wiser than everyone. His anger worries me. All we need is his finger on the nuke button when our friends from Israel tell him he is going bald!
And I haven't even really gotten to the core of why I disagree with the senile old foole being sitting in the Oval office,
His ability to be truthful;
He just isn't and hasn't been for most of his adult life.
He cheated on his first wife with his second. That shows a great deal of dishonesty.
He shirked his culpability in the Keating Five scandal, he tried to pass off his responsibility to Dennis DeConcini.
DeConcini depicts McCain as having back stabbed him and the other three senators during the investigation by leaking misleading and damaging information to the media.
He also asserts that McCain gained leniency from the committee because of a close relationship with the lawyer heading the investigation.
McCain had attended the Naval academy, which drills HONOR and Truthfulness into you, I know because I went to ROTC which does the very same thing, all Officer Candidates schools do, and sign of dishonesty and your gone.
Well St Johnny seems not to have learned that lesson very well.
He couldn't tell the truth to his supposedly closest family member, and cheating by a military officer is grounds for dismissal from the service and loss of security clearance, which shows just how the military thinks of his dishonesty.
He couldn't tell the whole truth about his involvement in the Keating Five (see above)
and;
DeConcini, who took $85K from Keating and pals, realizes his involvement was a boo-boo, but lamely claims he was just trying to help one of the Zona's then-largest employers. The D-man bore the brunt of the criticism back then, mainly 'cause McCain was busy playing Richard III, stepping all over DeConcini and others so he'd come out smellin' like Ann Coulter's eau de cologne.
That's pretty effin' ironic considering McCain made out like a bandito, scoring a whopping $112K from Keating's efforts. Indeed, McCain and the slimy S&L-er were thick as thieves. While serving in the House from 1983 to 1986, McCain flew with Keating to the latter's private retreat in the Bahamas aboard Keating corporate aircraft. And the senator's trophy wife, Cindy McCain, along with her pops, invested $359K in a Phoenix shopping mall developed by an offshoot of Keating's American Continental Corporation.
McCain, DeConcini dryly notes, "on a number of occasions failed to report these things." Still, DeConcini caught more hell, and alleges this was because Republican bulldog Robert Bennett, who was leading the Senate's ethics investigation, steered it away from McCain, the scandal's sole Republican.
Lets see since the lying senile old foole wasn't elected to the senate until Nov 1986, and took trips and played footsie under the table with Keating long before 1987 this means his slimy attempts to blame the other senators and claim he was just a baby as far as his senatorial career so he was soo innocent, is just plain repugnant hogwash, but normal for this serial liar.
BTW HIS is how St Johnny treats the people he supposedly works for;
McCain throws out Arizona constituent
February 11, 2008 (note the date)
The question asked of Senator John McCain at a town hall meeting in Arizona…
“Whether or not there were any statistics related to the volume of crimes that were being committed by these illegals and also by the citizen offspring of these illegals, the ones that come across the border and have their baby and okay now they’ve got a US citizen maybe so… “
When asked about illegal immigration at a town hall meeting in Prescott, Arizona, Senator McCain “refused to dignify the question with an answer.”
When pressed for an answer by another attendee, Senator McCain attempted to have her thrown out of the hall.
I disagree with McCain's run because he can't tell the truth, has anger management issues at 72, can't be trusted to keep his word or positions straight, he seems to change as much as Romney ever did, but used dishonest statements and MSM man love media whores(like tweety matthews) to hide how slimy he really is.
And internet trolls who pretend to be against him defending him all the time in a hell of a lot of places on the tubes.
(With your ridiculous untrue handle your very easy to google son)
Your claims everywhere NOT gonna vote fur him remind me of a shakesphere quote,
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Just as your NO progressive ...
Otherwise you would have NEVER called the Vietnamese which suffered so much at the hands of US foreign policy starting during Eisenhowers Administration,
BASTARDS.
To quote;
As for theories here, did the French leaving Vietnam cause those frigging bastards to "get along much easier? Come on.
Well you just PROVED you do not know your history very well;
In 1956 Eisenhower PREVENTED elections from occurring all over Vietnam in an effort to reunify the country, and meet the requirements of the Geneva accords of 1954, because;
get this;
Ho Chi Minh would have gotten 90%+ of the vote
Do ya thunk 90% of the people agreeing on a candidate is as you so eloquently put it;
frigging bastards to "get along
I wouldn't call them bastards, but would think 90% of a vote is getting along very well;
Only John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles interference in Vietnam prevented that and started the US into the fiasco which we all call the Vietnam war;
If ya don't believe me son.
READ the Pentagons own history of that foreign policy fiasco, which THEY wrote as it went along;
It is known as the Pentagon Papers, and it very clearly shows Vietnam would have recovered as a society and country quite well from French colonial rule EXCEPT for the US government of Eisenhower through actions of the Dulles brothers blocking it from happening.
BTW, you can start protesting how much a progressive you REALLY REALLY are now boy. ( I for one will NEVER believe it).
I think your just another slimy repugnant troll but with a new tactic to deceive people.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
It was a post that was written on HER blog and she didn't condemn/disavow it.
funny son you think different when it is right wingers who slander people eh?
Clifffff, stop leaving books. Yes, I do pop off from time to time. But I try to keep my rantings strictly directed at paranoid lunatics whose expelling of hyperbole, idiocy, selective perception/outrage, and cherry-picked-based "analysis" is as prevalent as the CO2 they emit. Clifffff, you're so enmashed in that lunacy over there that you truly have no idea how vile and ridiculous it looks to the average citizen. You say you're trying to help Barack Obama? I hate to tell you but you're not. Hell, if Obama himself saw the hate-filled lunacy that you guys are dealing in, HE WOULD BE REVULSED and would condemn it. In fact, the only member of the Congress/Senate that might get a rise out of it would be the Vermont Independent/Socialist, Bernie Sanders. The rest of the 534 members would be disgusted. P.S. I'm not a progressive or a right-winger, jack-ass. I go issue by issue. You might want to try and do the same.
Getting TESTY again widdle will?
So, this is what this is, huh, Clifffff, payback/retribution (for me having caused a dust-up over at the love-nest)? Seriously, though, I need to know, is it "progressive" retribution or is is it simply the old-fashioned mean-spirited, getting-back-at-your-enemy kind? Me, I'm thinking it's kind of the latter.
"Who started the disrespect? I believe that when I said that I was thinking, THINKING, about voting for Barr as a protest, you referred to me as an "unthinking person". And when I accidently said that McCain was a member of the Air Force, you accused me of "smearing" the Navy."
Disrespect.
Disabled Veteran charges go beyond "unthinking person" by magnitudes of degree, in fact not even in the same universe of objects.
When you said that McCain was Air Force I said you insulted my branch of the service - not ME.
You still don't get it, you obviously never will I can only conclude that you have no affiliations outside of yourself, no loyalty beyond Will "take no prisoners" hart. Not even to one of those schools that gave you those way way impressive degrees.
Yep you guessed it, not impressed and I'm sure you're used to that.
The first was a waste of time.
The second one impresses more than the rest because it has valuable application but it shows even more the disgusting and despicable nature of your use of the word disabled towards myself and others.
I'm ashamed to know you. It's like calling people cripple, gimp, retard.
There's a study that shows Bill O’Reilly calls “a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.”
You're no so contra after all.
You claim you were thinking I counter you were unthinking.
Actually if I call you an idiot I can be forgiven, I lack the training to really know if you are, or if you're just simulating one. ;)
I did a mea-culpa on the "froth-free criticism" 1 post (in the comments). I said I wasn't going to use it (the disability dis) anymore. As for apologizing to you, I don't like you so I won't. It was a crude joke pertaining to your intellectual limitations and paranoia. Yes, my life goes well beyond me, ass-hole. I work with dementia residents whose behavior is very challenging. I'll bet I've taken a lot more punches in my career, working with these challenging populations (inner-city kids, included), in the trenches, than you did from 20-30,000 feet.
Still testy because I pointed out YOU were posting about your FAILED dates which I see you stopped doing eh will?
Sucks to be so shallow and so transparent like you are son.
And again I said you insulted the Air Force, not the Navy
"It was a crude joke pertaining to your intellectual limitations and paranoia."
No and hiding behing jokes doesn't get at it in the least.
The insult wasn't to me.
The insult was to veterans and you should be apologizing to me as the veteran that you through the derogatory comment at in that manner.
Your statement that it was a "crude joke" shows again how unfit you are. Such things are not crude jokes the are mental attacks on the psyches of the infirm and disabled, they are the same thing as physical abuse and someone claiming your educational background should know this.
You don't like ME, you won't appologize for using an equivalent of the N word at me a veteran because in your bigoted mind it's just a "crude joke". BUT you've publicly admitted you have the training, education, and position to know and do better.
Will there's something very very wrong with you.
You do understand this could follow you outside the blog right?
The folks that take the time to respond to your rants are not the only ones that read the stuff we write. You've put enough out there, and sure based on the way you interact here your mouth is as big elsewhere that interested partys in your non digital world look in on this shit fest of yours and take note from time to time for evaluation purposes - if they don't they can, if they can you can be they will.
If they haven't well it's all archived by at least three commercial entities for them at a nominal fee.
This isn't free range Will and when you threw out that disable veteran "joke" attack at me with what you claim for responsibility and background you were shitting on a lot more than someone you thought you didn't like.
The apology wouldn't be just to me and it wouldn't be just for me, but as the representative you directed it at, yes you would need to direct it at me.
Remember that word idiot?
You just qualified for it.
"I'll bet I've taken a lot more punches in my career, working with these challenging populations (inner-city kids, included), in the trenches, than you did from 20-30,000 feet."
sniff sniff
You just put it all out there Will.
thank you
You hate what you did.
You don't see me curse or use derogatory comments towards the folks I worked with.
You've got some serious anger issues with the military for the recognition they are getting now that you feel you will never get (and I get some of that because the country still doesn't recognize us cold warriors), I empathize but I won't join in attacking.
You also seem to have some serious problems with those you are charged with helping, the infirmities have become an enemy instead of a feature, another aspect of the individual- that or in part it's just core fear inside yourself.
Core fear, the bully hides it with bluster and attack and the coward feeds and nurses it like a garden.
Will I suggest you find your problem, and I suggest you stop doing it in public.
The results of trying to work it out by attacking others cannot lead to anything good.
By the way Will if you can't separate the Navy and Air Force as separate entities in your head, and it doesn't make turtles tails difference to you which is which or that there is a real important distinction then... never say Air Force or Navy, say Military.
You won't look like you're talking about something you know nothing about (which you are) and you won't be walking on the toes of the Navy and the Air Force.
You see there's this funny thing about facts, if you put them next to nonsense they tend to get contaminated, then if REALLY stupid people come along and read it, they tend to pass on your contamination.
John McCain wasn't in the Air Force, he was only in the Navy because his fathers connections got him in. These are facts.
George W. bush was never in the Air Force he was in the Texas Air National Guard.
Being an Air Force guy these "pesky details" of actual fact are kind of important to me, they reflect my service and choices in life. You a judged by the company you keep.
I don't mean it as put down of the Navy, or the Texas ANG - but JSM and GWB belong to the organizations that accepted and kept them an that's how the tallies should be kept, you don't put Pete Rose in the Colorado Rockies and expect to have a member of the Rockies not complain to you.
If you insulted him with derogatory comments for it, you would pay hell.
And you know what, nobody put a member of the Rockies in jail for not showing up for work, blows up the bar he's in just because he's an American.
I'm not going to cry for your inner city work, I'm going to tell you good for you and good for them - but it's no excuse for you to shit on other people. I've not lorded my military service over you, said that it makes me better or was more valuable - but YOU seem to have a complex.
Will your work does not equate to military service, that's just facts.
It's different. The difference is I can and did do both, I worked with the totally deaf ages 3 to 15, you want some injuries, try it.
But putting on the uniform of your country in a foreign land where you are bombed and kidnapped is something you can only guess at.
It's different and it's not at 20 or 30,000 feet.
Will you show an obtuseness of life that makes me wonder if you've always been a city dweller, and if you've always been in the same general place.
You don't like me? Joe, you don't even know me.
You don't know anyone and you're doing your damnedest to drive everyone far far away.
First of all, Clifffff, you're nothing but a bald-faced liar. I NEVER, EVER, deleted a single thing you ever wrote on my blog. And I never "mass deleted", either, ass-hole. I only deleted the sexually-innappropriate crap that Nicholas and Moo Moo (was that you, too?) posted (maybe one was anonymous). In fact, I was extra careful about NOT deleting you and Mike. I wanted to show you that I'm not like Lydia, who deletes anything that's even remotely inconvenient. And of course you're Nicholas, Clifffff. Who in the hell else is depraved enough to do something like that? Plus, it has your motif written all over it; the lingo (son, failed dates, etc.), the fact that you have a record of creating personnas (Tom, the other guy with the Dulles brothers fixation), the paranoia, hyperbole, etc.. Come on, just admit, for Christ. I won't be pissed. I promise. Hell, we might even have a laugh over it.
1138, this blogging stuff can get rough. I've learned how to play rough. When people accuse me of shit (of using the racism gun, for example), I tend to cut it loose. I already said in a previous thread that I feel bad about using disability as a dis. It isn't funny and it's unfair to people who suffer from actual disabilities. It wasn't a knock on vets (at least that's not how I intended it). It had nothing to do with vets, actually. I was inferring that you (as a human-being, I's saying) were a lunatic and that's how it came out. Oh, what the hell, I apologize.
I never said that what I did "equated" to military service. My point was that we all bring unique/valuable (I love what I do, pal) experiences to the table. I sometimes think that veterans only feel that they have to say that, well, they're veterans and that the rest of us need to shut up. What about Obama? He was never in the military. Is your opinion going to trump his, too?
And you're always saying that you don't respect this about me, or that about me (I'm an idiot for even CONSIDERING not voting for Obama). This, I'm saying, but THEN you want absolute, metaphysical respect from me. And how about THIS about me? I'm defending a guy (this McCain fellow, who I've also criticized many times on the issues and on the campaign he's run) who I have absolutely no intention of voting for. Doesn't that say something positive about me, that I might have a principle or two? A veteran, no less!!!!!!
Getting REAL testy son?
Yes son the anonymous post WAS me.
I forgot to sign in when I posted that one.
So you DID delete one of my posts.
Thank you for FINALLY admitting it son.
Son I cant admit to something which is NOT true, I'm not a republican ...
I have NEVER posted as nicholas, EVER.
Don't believe it because you have some delusional fix instead of a grip on reality or what ever, BUT I never posted as nicholas son.
And I deleted it because it was sexually inappropriate, just like Nicholas's were
Clifffff, you referring to anybody as delusional is precious. Truly. I suppose you weren't Tom, either.
Never said that stoopid
BTW widdle boy hows them failed dates you no longer post about a goin'?
a) I never told you to shut up because I had a military background
b) I never told you to shut up
c) I never pulled a racism gun, the call on how you took that was your "Bro", I notice you didn't use it in the past, and you don't use it any more.
d)I never said you were an idiot for not considering voting for Obama.
I don't tell people how to vote, Barr is the unthinking persons choice though and that's a play on the old "thinking persons" line not some insult.
e)I don't respect you, well I know you started it and honestly I'm not very concerned.
Courtesy seems to be the basic element of human interaction you've abandoned. If anyone could get that out of you they would be making major inroads.
f)Is my opinion going to trump Obama's?
When he calls a Navy person an Air Force person or throws around derogatory terms about veterans yes it is, I've earned the right to trump him through knowledge and experience. That with being RIGHT.
Actually being right give a person trump rights Will.
You and you alone decide to attack me as a veteran, based on my veterans status using a term that is particular to veterans.
It wasn't a mistake and since learning who and what you are and do, you can't pretend it was.
The apology is accepted on my behalf, but the equivocation shows to me at least that you still harbor anti veteran feelings and opinions that make it a deliberate slur.
It's like the guy in Texas who's blog I was reading and he refered to Obama as;
"Hillary Clinton came within a whisker of winning the Democratic Nomination, and just like the victory of the black who vanquished her, that was historic."
I know what I see when I see it that guy is being racist.
You were being anti veteran.
Post a Comment