View Full Version : Obama Makes Fun of War Hero
steve4102
09-13-2008, 00:58
Obama has an ad out blasting McCain because John can't use a computer. What Obama fails to realize is it's John's war injuries (suffered as a POW) that keeps him from doing so.
McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. So really- make fun of a war hero (no denying that) for things he can't do because the enemy tortured him. Pitiful, just pitiful. Go Obama, Go!
I've seen the ad & heard others make the same claim, but I just assumed McCain had said he didn't know how to use a computer because at this stage in his life he didn't see the need to spend the time learning computer software in great detail, so he just classified his limited knowledge of computer use as not knowing how to use one; particularly when others could easily handle any computer communications for him, while he devoted his time to other aspects of politics.
However, if he is unable to use a computer because of physical injuries he suffered, someone needs to get this information out there, so everyone will know the reason & to show the public the kind of underhanded trickery to which Obama and his followers are willing to stoop.
steve4102
09-13-2008, 05:28
Long article from 2000, scroll down towards the bottom. I think 6 paragraphs from the end.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml
the quoteMcCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.
DaveyDug
09-13-2008, 09:03
What Obama fails to realize is it's John's war injuries (suffered as a POW) that keeps him from doing so.
It must be his war injuries that keep him from comprehending the Constitution and his oath to uphold it, too.
COBRADOC
09-13-2008, 09:32
It must be his war injuries that keep him from comprehending the Constitution and his oath to uphold it, too.
And.........? We need more information than just a hollow attack. What are you referring too??
BlenderWizard
09-13-2008, 09:40
It must be his war injuries that keep him from comprehending the Constitution and his oath to uphold it, too.
Kinda like me saying "Obama is Satan." All well and good, but I've got nothing to back it up.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think you'd be EXTREMELY hard pressed to find a politician in this country that is not guilty of unconstitutional activities.
DaveyDug
09-13-2008, 10:17
And.........? We need more information than just a hollow attack. What are you referring too??
Oh, I'm sorry... I thought it was extremely obvious.:confused:
All you need to do is take a look at Senator McCain's voting record over his illustrious career, and then compare it with the authority that's been granted him by the people through the Constitution.
Then, take note of the glaring discrepancies, and decide whether or not someone who shows blatant disregard for the supreme law of the land deserves your vote for President.
DaveyDug
09-13-2008, 10:22
Now, don't get me wrong, I think you'd be EXTREMELY hard pressed to find a politician in this country that is not guilty of unconstitutional activities.
Sadly, you're right (although I do know a few good ones).
But... that doesn't mean I have to show support for, or (God forbid) actually vote for someone who actively engages in criminal activity with no shame, hesitation or even a weak attempt to hide it.
There are still people out there who take their oath seriously. I'll vote for one of them, even if it means writing someone in.
Edited to add:
Kinda like me saying "Obama is Satan." All well and good, but I've got nothing to back it up.
Somehow, I doubt if I made that statement anyone would be asking me to back it up. Food for thought.
COBRADOC
09-13-2008, 10:43
Oh, I'm sorry... I thought it was extremely obvious.:confused:
All you need to do is take a look at Senator McCain's voting record over his illustrious career, and then compare it with the authority that's been granted him by the people through the Constitution.
Then, take note of the glaring discrepancies, and decide whether or not someone who shows blatant disregard for the supreme law of the land deserves your vote for President.
Again, may I respectfully request that you be more specific. You have made a convoluted statement, depending on the statement itself to be proof of its truth. As my late father would have said, "That dog won't hunt."
DaveyDug
09-13-2008, 11:48
Very well. Off the top of my head...
McCain has spent a good portion of his career supporting and pushing for more gun control laws. He had pushed for mandatory gun locks, and has repeatedly tried to ban the private sale of firearms without a background check. Gun control is not only disgusting, it's ILLEGAL!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/49274_helen05.shtml
McCain vehemently supports our ILLEGAL war in Iraq. (Do I really need to post a link to support this?)
How about McCain-Feingold? Anyone ever hear of the first amendment?
http://www.gunowners.org/mcwill.htm
Here's a video link where McCain himself admits to having no respect for the first amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gewntRfT-zY
And, getting back a little closer to the original intent of this thread, here's an article for those who are concerned with Obama insulting an "honorable man" :lol:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=15531
I could keep going with this but I won't, as there's no point.
The facts I've submitted here (after only a few minutes' worth of research) are proof positive that McCain is a criminal who will do or say anything to garner votes.
If there's anyone out there who has knowledge of McCain's history and still wants him as President, there's nothing else I could say that would make a difference.
Happy voting, everyone. And sorry about the thread hijack.
Very well. Off the top of my head...
McCain has spent a good portion of his career supporting and pushing for more gun control laws. He had pushed for mandatory gun locks, and has repeatedly tried to ban the private sale of firearms without a background check. Gun control is not only disgusting, it's ILLEGAL!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/49274_helen05.shtml
McCain vehemently supports our ILLEGAL war in Iraq. (Do I really need to post a link to support this?)
How about McCain-Feingold? Anyone ever hear of the first amendment?
http://www.gunowners.org/mcwill.htm
Here's a video link where McCain himself admits to having no respect for the first amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gewntRfT-zY
And, getting back a little closer to the original intent of this thread, here's an article for those who are concerned with Obama insulting an "honorable man" :lol:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=15531
I could keep going with this but I won't, as there's no point.
The facts I've submitted here (after only a few minutes' worth of research) are proof positive that McCain is a criminal who will do or say anything to garner votes.
If there's anyone out there who has knowledge of McCain's history and still wants him as President, there's nothing else I could say that would make a difference.
Happy voting, everyone. And sorry about the thread hijack.
1. Right
2.THIS"illegal war" makes about as much sense as "time limits" on war.
3. Right
4. Maybe
5. Pot calling the kettle black? Do you know either of these men better than the rest of us?
Obama has an ad out blasting McCain because John can't use a computer. What Obama fails to realize is it's John's war injuries (suffered as a POW) that keeps him from doing so.
McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. So really- make fun of a war hero (no denying that) for things he can't do because the enemy tortured him. Pitiful, just pitiful. Go Obama, Go!
If this turns out to be true, Obama will pay a heavy price for this. He will lose many votes.
This may turn out to be one of the biggest outrages in U.S. political history. :angry:
DaveyDug
09-13-2008, 13:17
:D
1. Right
2.THIS"illegal war" makes about as much sense as "time limits" on war.
3. Right
4. Maybe
5. Pot calling the kettle black? Do you know either of these men better than the rest of us?
2. You're right. Placing time limits on a war is pointless and ridiculous.
5. I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you somehow getting the notion that I think Obama's any better than McCain? If you're getting that from my posts, please show me where my writing skills broke down. :D
COBRADOC
09-13-2008, 13:47
Dave, you are confusing the Constitution with the law. They are two different documents. In theory, the Constitution sets the basic standard around which our government is formed, the congress makes law and against which the courts evaluate those laws.
Gun control is not only disgusting, it's ILLEGAL!.
Congress has made laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and their uses and the courts have upheld those laws. Consequently, those restrictions may not be Constitutional, but they are the law, thus, not illegal.
McCain vehemently supports our ILLEGAL war in Iraq. (Do I really need to post a link to support this?)
The war - illogical, unnecessary, ill conceiver, poorly executed? Yes to all. But illegal? Not hardly - here again the ball bounces back to Congress - they authorized it, they continue to pay for it.
How about McCain-Feingold? Anyone ever hear of the first amendment?
I agree. In my view McCain-Fingold is unconstitutional. But congress made the law and the courts have upheld it as law. So until we change congress and make them repeal the law, it will remain the law, constitution or no constitution.
,,,,,,,,, concerned with Obama insulting an "honorable man" ?
Let's face it, Obama is a politician and he is desperate. And as such he will do anything, say anything, to regain or attempt to regain the lead, even if it means insulting an "honorable man". Trouble is, people like Obama wouldn't recognize "honor" if it hit them square in the face. Not only has Obama never been in a position where he was ever called upon to demonstrate "honor", from what we are learning about his "I almost joined", he shirked that duty too.
Has McCain never made a mistake? No. Has Obama never made a mistake? No. (He has avoided lots of opportunities to make a decision or take a stand, but often chooses to do neither - but that's another discussion.)
We are being asked to choose between two infallable men, warts and all, to be the next President of the United States. Let us choose wisely.
:D
2. You're right. Placing time limits on a war is pointless and ridiculous.
5. I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you somehow getting the notion that I think Obama's any better than McCain? If you're getting that from my posts, please show me where my writing skills broke down. :D
I think your writing skills are just fine.
I do,however, believe that you think BHO is the better choice.
Just call it a hunch.;)
I don't agree with everything McCain says anymore than I agree with everything that Bush has said. But given the choices,gimme McCain anyday.
If I'm wrong in my opinion,so be it.<_<
mnottfam
09-13-2008, 16:17
Problem with the idea of voting for Mr. Obama for "ideological reasons" over Mr. McCain and his radically illegal history of the "McCain/Feingold" BS, and I've said this before--
This IS a single-issue election, and it's over the 2A--You lose the 2A, you lose the rest as well. Without the 2A, you have no way of defending your other Amended rights from an over-zealous govt.
Problem with the idea of voting for Mr. Obama for "ideological reasons" over Mr. McCain and his radically illegal history of the "McCain/Feingold" BS, and I've said this before--
This IS a single-issue election, and it's over the 2A--You lose the 2A, you lose the rest as well. Without the 2A, you have no way of defending your other Amended rights from an over-zealous govt.
The biggest single threat to our second amendment rights is if the entire bill of rights can be ignored with impunity. Electing another Republican as president would indicate public acceptance of the Bush administration's proven record of ignoring the bill of rights as they see fit. Electing a Republican president this year would mean a majority of voters will not reject an administration that routinely deceives us. And do not say that McCain is different. He has completely changed. He approves ads that are false, and he says such things as that Palin made a profit selling that plane on ebay, when in fact the plane did not sell on ebay, and when it did finally sell, they did not make a profit.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_sell_the_alaska_governors.html
Their campaign has taken a course of repeating untruths and distortions day after day, long after they have been refuted by the facts, and they tell lie after lie about Obama, and tell new ones faster than the old ones can be countered. That is their strategy, to bombard the public with so much BS that no one can dig out from under it. They don't care that it doesn't stick because they keep throwing more.
McCain has made the decision that the truth matters less than winning, and that is very dangerous.
mnottfam
09-13-2008, 16:47
...nity. Electing another Republican as president would indicate public acceptance of the Bush administration's proven record of ignoring the bill of rights as they see fit. Electing a Republican president this year would mean a majority of voters will not reject an administration that routinely deceives us. And do no...
Funny, but I could SWEAR that Mr. Bush is NOT on the ticket this time around. Now where did I hear that? Hhmmmm.<_<
Funny, but I could SWEAR that Mr. Bush is NOT on the ticket this time around. Now where did I hear that? Hhmmmm.<_<
EXACTLY!!!!
Same party, same agenda, same exact people as before. Who do you think is running the McCain/Palin campaign?
This claim that a McCain administration would fundamentally differ from Bush's is without merit. Someone try to explain how it could even possibly be so, let's see it.
64%
That's the percentage McCain votes with his party on items of substance. How do you think he earned the label of RINO?
Academic exercise: generic candidate with Bush's policies without his name attached and generic candidate with Obama's proposed policies without his name attached. Whose would likely win?
My guess is Bush's would win hands down. So in the spirit of challenging people to disprove a negative, try to prove otherwise. :o
Same party, same agenda, same exact people as before. Who do you think is running the McCain/Palin campaign?
This claim that a McCain administration would fundamentally differ from Bush's is without merit. Someone try to explain how it could even possibly be so, let's see it.
Same party ..Hopefully
Same agenda..Not
Same exact people... Kidding,right?
Who's running the McCain/Palin campaign? Let me guess.
1.Bush administration
2.Chaney/Halaburton
3.Rush Limbaugh
4.GOD!
:lol:
64%
That's the percentage McCain votes with his party on items of substance. How do you think he earned the label of RINO?
Academic exercise: generic candidate with Bush's policies without his name attached and generic candidate with Obama's proposed policies without his name attached. Whose would likely win?
My guess is Bush's would win hands down. So in the spirit of challenging people to disprove a negative, try to prove otherwise. :o
First, where do you come up with 64% "of substance"? Of overall votes, it's 90% with Bush, so we need to see how you justify the discrepancy in figures. There may be some difference between "with party" and "with Bush." Again, a source please.
Second, McCain has obviously changed over the past year. Do I really need to elaborate again, after having posted some of the details already today?
Same party ..Hopefully
Same agenda..Not
Same exact people... Kidding,right?
Who's running the McCain/Palin campaign? Let me guess.
1.Bush administration
2.Chaney/Halaburton
3.Rush Limbaugh
4.GOD!
:lol:
The "joke" will be on all of us. Watch and see.
First, where do you come up with 64% "of substance"? Of overall votes, it's 90% with Bush, so we need to see how you justify the discrepancy in figures. There may be some difference between "with party" and "with Bush." Again, a source please.
Second, McCain has obviously changed over the past year. Do I really need to elaborate again, after having posted some of the details already today?
RE: http://perfectunion.com/vb/showpost.php?p=481628&postcount=70
The "Bush's third term" mantra really doesn't fly. I'm sure the libs eat it up, but any informed, TRUE independent/moderate will just brush it off. McCain has been quite the thorn in W's side for quite some time. The media loved to point out what a maverick McCain was every time time he went against the party. They just don't want to talk about it as much now because that doesn't help their guy.
Article written by a former Clintonista
RE: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/demss_big_blunder_and_mccains.html
McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senators. (When Obama's people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.
The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:
• McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.
• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).
McCain votes against his party
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/against-party/
The correct way of describing it is he votes in support of the president or with his party. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET A VOTE.
What does it say about a candidate whose entire strategy is, "Vote for me, I'm not like the outgoing president?"
BTW, the is overall vote, not just the substance items.
McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).
The McCain campaign points out that Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time.
Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.
RE: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html
Bush is violating the constitution according to the Dems. Dang he's running for a third term! That scoundrel! Impeach the Porky Pig impersonator! McCain is no Bush and Obama is no Jesus, Moses, or even a JFK.
No one can really honestly say that every year under Bush has been as bad as the Dems. tell us. I know that the last two years have been tough, but eight bad years is an exageration.
I 'm not very happy with McCain over the McCain-Feingold anti 1st Amendment law, but just as the judges appointed by Bush declared parts of it unconstitutional, so will the judges that McCain will appoint if he is elected POTUS.
We're never going to have a candidate that we agree with 100% . Even if two candidates vote alike, it doesn't mean that they will place the same emphasis on the same issues or govern in the same manner. It's sophomoric to believe that McCain will govern like Bush or that a McCain victory will be a third Bush term.
• McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
Campaign finance reform is rendered meaningless when a candidate sells out to lobbyists for special interests by relying on them to run his campaign:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html
"For years, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has railed against lobbyists and the influence of "special interests" in Washington, touting on his campaign Web site his fight against "the 'revolving door' by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided."
But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried.
... [more] ..."
And:
"McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation."
http://www.nysun.com/national/campaign-finance-effort-resumes-without-mccain/36949/
• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
And has apparently yielded on that principle in order to win the White House:
"I don't believe John McCain is comfortable with the current CIA program," said Tom Malinowski, the advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, who has worked closely with McCain and his staff on these issues. "I think McCain just reached a point where he didn't want any more confrontations with the White House. He wanted to win the White House."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729891,00.html
• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
McCain is increasingly yielding to the Bush administration's anti-environment policies:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/147709.asp
"In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention Thursday night, presidential candidate John McCain mentioned climate change and global warming exactly zero times. He never even uttered the "E" word (that being "environment").
It used to be that McCain's bipartisan work combating global warming was a point of pride for the GOP senator. That was before he selected VP candidate Sarah Palin, who doubts that global warming is largely human caused and is passionate about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
...
Back in April, we did a story comparing McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on their environmental positions. Already green groups were raising concerns over McCain's commitment to environmental protections, though he was given credit for his acknowledgment that global warming was real, a big deal, and in need of attention. He's got a climate change plan on his website, but it's unclear what kind of priority it'll receive. "
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
Now he promises to extend them. Just one more out of so many pieces of evidence that show McCain has yielded to the Bush brand of Republicanism.
• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
But McCain failed to question Bush's motives for invading Iraq in the first place, and has opposed Barack Obama's plan of prioritizing our military efforts on Al Qaeda, where they rightfully ought to be, a plan Bush has belatedly begun to implement.
• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.
Yes, once again, McCain yields to pressure, selling out his principles in order to gain the White House he so desperately covets:
" August 11, 2008
The campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is declining to embrace McCain’s own 1998 tobacco bill, legislation that would have raised taxes to the tune of $516 billion over 25 years. "
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_19/news/27363-1.html
• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
"John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.
Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.
It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.
Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.
“McCain did not show up on any votes,” said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain’s campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines — the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.
Barack Obama did not vote on July 30 either — which is equally inexcusable in my book — but he did vote on three previous occasions in favor of the solar and wind credits. ..."
Thomas Friedman, August 12, 2008
• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
You're joking, right?
"May 19, 2008—Sen. John McCain says he opposes the $307 billion farm bill because it would dole out wasteful subsidies, but his chief economic adviser Phil Gramm also wants to stop its proposed regulation of energy futures trading, a market that was famously abused when Enron Corp. manipulated California’s electricity prices in 2001.
Clearing the way for that California price gouging, Gramm, as a powerful Texas senator in 2000, slipped an Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempted from regulation energy trading on electronic platforms.
Then, over the next year, Enron – with Gramm’s wife Wendy serving on its board of directors – worked to create false electricity shortages in California, bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 billion.
Gramm left the Senate in 2002 but now has emerged as what Fortune magazine calls “McCain’s econ brain,” not only filling the Arizona senator’s acknowledged void on economic expertise (“I don’t know as much about the economy as I should”) but recognized as one of McCain’s closest friends in politics. The two men talk daily."
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051908Leopold.shtml
• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).
More talk than action, it turns out.
http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain cites three absurd-sounding examples of pork-barrel spending in a recent ad: a "bridge to nowhere," a study of the DNA of bears and a Woodstock museum.
McCain is known for fighting against earmarks, the other term lawmakers use for funding of pet projects back home. But he appears to have chosen these three because they're easy to mock, not because he had significant involvement in removing them from the budget.
* He never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.
* While he tried to cut money for several other projects in the same bill, he never proposed cutting the bear study and voted for the final bill containing it.
* He wasn't present for the most important votes on the Woodstock museum, including one on an amendment he co-sponsored to kill the earmark and divert some of the funds.
Analysis
John McCain’s ad, “Outrageous,” which began running November 12, touts the Arizona senator's long-standing fight against pork-barrel spending. The ad includes three examples of projects that McCain deems unnecessary and claims that “one man” has “the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending.”
It is indisputable that McCain has been a vocal opponent of earmarks, and indeed of all government spending that he considers wasteful (he has said that Congress spends money “like a drunken sailor”). He has been recognized for his efforts both by the media and by taxpayer advocacy groups.
But the three examples of spending highlighted in the ad – a “bridge to nowhere,” a study of bear DNA and a museum dedicated to Woodstock – seem chosen more for their impact than for any direct involvement McCain had in attacking them. In fact, he voted in favor of the bill that included the bear study funding; he was absent for key votes on the Woodstock museum (including one on an amendment he co-sponsored); and he never specifically tried to eliminate the bridge earmark and missed some crucial votes on that one, as well."
Same party, same agenda, same exact people as before. Who do you think is running the McCain/Palin campaign?
This claim that a McCain administration would fundamentally differ from Bush's is without merit. Someone try to explain how it could even possibly be so, let's see it.
Your assumption is without merit. And asking for proof of a negative or something that hasn't occurred yet is easy to do and impossible to answer.
McCain has been at odds with the Republican platform in a very public way, particularly over the last 8 years, on a number of topics. I'm not going to spread out his voting record for you, go read it yourself. RINO indeed. I don't expect the ATF to be any more reasonable with JM in there than it was with Clintoon.
Please see post above yours.
I've been very specific in numerous posts, including that one, about the many ways in which McCain has gravitated towards the Bush agenda since he began running for president this time.
I suspect many McCain supporters would be surprised at how much McCain has capitulated if they delved into it. A McCain administration will serve moneyed special interests at the expense of everyone else. McCain's surrounding himself with lobbyists is exhibit A.
planeoldguy
09-13-2008, 21:56
64%
That's the percentage McCain votes with his party on items of substance. How do you think he earned the label of RINO?
Academic exercise: generic candidate with Bush's policies without his name attached and generic candidate with Obama's proposed policies without his name attached. Whose would likely win?
My guess is Bush's would win hands down. So in the spirit of challenging people to disprove a negative, try to prove otherwise. :o
They can't, and I find it pathetic that they keep trying.
They can't,
Nonsense.
http://perfectunion.com/vb/showpost.php?p=484098&postcount=29
and I find it pathetic that they keep trying.
In a way it may be, if no one is willing to face up to evidence and facts. But I have more faith in the electorate than that.
In a way it may be, if no one is willing to face up to evidence and facts. But I have more faith in the electorate than that.
Most of the electorate don't remember what a politician did 3 months ago much less a year or four.
Too much BS confusing them maybe.
I have enough faith in the electorate to expect many will vote based on the last few things they see in the media, unless they make up their minds earlier and stick to that decision. Some will do a little digging to winnow out the clever lies and half-truths, distortions and falsehoods as best they can. But not all.
Not exactly a crapshoot, but close enough to put me on edge election night.
COBRADOC
09-14-2008, 09:30
I've read every posting here, and it is really interesting as to how much information is available about McCain's voting record, but absolutely NOTHING, NADA, NIET, ZERO, about Mr. Obama's voting record.
Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't it interest any of you at all? Doesn't a little light come on anywhere that says, "Where does this guy stand on (fill in the blank)?
The topic in this thread isn't Obama's voting record. I think there have been threads about that.
I notice that, now that I've refuted each claim made about McCain's alleged "maverick" status, we've got thread drift.
And as far as the original post, I've never heard McCain say the reason he can't use a computer is due to injuries. It's really up to him to state that. Even so, I think it was an ineffective ad, since someone in McCain's position really doesn't need to use a computer. I wouldn't begin to hold McCain's choice not to use a computer up as a campaign point, whatever his reason, because it's just not important. Now, how much he knows about the new economy, to use a common shorthand, that's a valid question to raise, but not whether he himself uses a computer.
COBRADOC
09-14-2008, 13:55
The topic in this thread isn't Obama's voting record. I think there have been threads about that.
I notice that, now that I've refuted each claim made about McCain's alleged "maverick" status, we've got thread drift..
That's true, the original thread concerned Obama's taking a swipe at McCain because he can't use a computer. Of course, as usual Obama failed to think his comments through before sticking his foot in his mouth again. But some how the thread evolved into McCain's voting record. That was okay till someone decided to question Obama's voting record suddenly suddenly that became off limits for discussion.
By the way, don't brake your arm patting yourself on the back. All you have done is repeadely quote yourself, and that refutes nothing.
All you have done is repeadely quote yourself, and that refutes nothing.
You say so, but that doesn't undo the fact that, in response to the one post in this thread that provided any evidence for McCain's alleged maverick status, I countered each and every claim. And no one has yet responded to that.
You can say all the things you want, but I've provided concrete examples of numerous ways in which McCain has drifted towards the same policies as the Bush administration's during the course of his campaign. This is not difficult to understand, COBRADOC, he has capitulated to the dittohead and Dobson contingents because he needs their votes to win. This also explains his choice of Palin for VP, a dangerously underqualified selection for a 72 year old that could easily become unable to perform the duties of POTUS: unless the media completely fails in their jobs, this will become increasingly obvious to the voting public as the weeks go by.
This also explains his choice of Palin for VP, a dangerously underqualified selection for a 72 year old that could easily become unable to perform the duties of POTUS: unless the media completely fails in their jobs, this will become increasingly obvious to the voting public as the weeks go by.I'll concede she is underqualified if you'll concede the same about Obama. I'll also concede the media is likely to completely fail in their jobs (I infer you think it's to challenge candidates on positions as well as dig up dirt) if you'll concede they've already failed to do so with Obama.
BTW, quoting commentary and asserting opinion as fact doesn't necessarily make it a qualified refutation.
The times McCain voted with does not change the votes he voted against. IMO your refutations consist of an example that you apply with a shotgun pattern, as if one exception to principle, or a percentage, negates all. The other votes are still on record and still count.
More than a few of your examples are either someone's interpretations of McCain's actions or your interpretations. "Explain to me how that can be anything else" is setting things up as black and white, something the Liberals constantly accuse Conservatives of doing constantly as if it is an evil thing.
Looking at a voting record after the fact, without reading the hours of transcript which actually can leave out a lot of behind the scenes actions, is tantamount to assuming you committed murder because you shot someone in your house, not taking into account the perp forced his way in trying to kill you. It helps to have been there. Legislation is not always voted on based just on the primary intent. There are additions called Poison Pills that get good bills killed all the time. This should always be applied equally on both sides of the aisle. Obama apparently has a fairly limited voting record, which makes things lopsided. That could be considered a McCain advantage difficult for Obama to overcome. A condidate saying something on the stump is one thing, a long official record on an issue is another.
But then Obama has cast himself as an outside-the-beltway agent of change. Sort of like Palin, don't you think? Maybe Palin should be running for President, with an experienced mentor to back her up....
garza1290
09-14-2008, 15:00
Freesw define what "dangerously underqualified" means and then explain how Mr. Obama is more qualified than Governer Palin who in case you may have forgotten is not running for POTUS. I must point out again that I am not a Republican nor am I a Democrat just so that you know that I am not blindly casting my vote based on my political associations. I cast my vote based on the person whom I feel would best represent me and what I believe. So far Mr Obama looks down on me because I am a man seeking a relationship with God and who cares about my 2nd Amendment right. I didn't like Obama's "bitter" quote at all and I found that a little too elitist. I wonder what his true feelings are regarding this issue despite the fact that he tried to clarify what he said later when he found out that that comment didn't go very well with the masses. I am finding him to be less and less sincere. I'm having a hard time believing this man is looking out for my best intrests.
I am no real big fan of McCain and his views on immigration and amnesty by the way. What I find attractive in McCain is his straightforwardness. When asked at what point does a human being get his human rights, McCain replied: "At the moment of conception".
Mr. Obama was asked a similar question: "At what point does a baby get human rights?" (Sorry but I don't feel like typing his answer so I will copy and past it below):
[Obama's response:] (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-saddleback17-2008aug17,0,3145888.story?page=2) I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He added that he supports the landmark decision Roe vs. Wade but said the issue has "moral and ethical content" and stressed his commitment to reducing the number of abortions."
[I]
This is not straightforward answer to a simple question and that reponse clearly proved to me that he is not willing to stand up for himself and his personal beliefs. If he was straight forward and claimed different to McCains answer I wouldn't have agreed with it but I would have respect him for being straightforward and being a man who is not afraid to stand up for himself and what he believes in. Clearly he is trying to play the crowd and that really makes me wonder if I can trust him at the helm.
Call me a simple simon but honesty, sencerity, and straightforwardness are very important to me regardless of you who you are and where you come from. These traits may seem petty to some but they are a big deal to me and my vote will be determined, simply, by the candidate who earns my trust.
Also, please define "Bush Agenda". That's been bandied about much of late and I'm confused. And please explain how "coming around" to Bush's point of view is the only reason, as opposed to, say, changing your mind in light of changing information and events. Just because someone with a lousy approval rating has an opinion on something doesn't make it incorrect. Besides, some say GWB has had an original thought in his head anyway. :)
This is not straightforward answer to a simple question and that reponse clearly proved to me that he is not willing to stand up for himself and his personal beliefs. If he was straight forward and claimed different to McCains answer I wouldn't have agreed with it but I would have respect him for being straightforward and being a man who is not afraid to stand up for himself and what he believes in. Clearly he is trying to play the crowd and that really makes me wonder if I can trust him at the helm.
Obama gave a lawyer answer.
Is giving a "lawyer answer" inappropriate for a constitutional law question?
Knowledge of constitutional law is one of Obama's qualifications.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng
Another is that Obama has been planning and studying for the presidency at least since the extremely positive response he received to his speech at the Democratic convention of 2004. Palin too appears to have had national political ambitions for awhile, but is there any real doubt that her pick was a surprise? Someone that actually intended to go for a national executive branch position would have a better answer to foreign policy questions than "I can see Russia from Alaska."
No, I totally disagree that Obama is underqualified in the same way Palin is. He's not as qualified as I'd like him to be, but he's qualified far, far more than Palin is. I believe Sarah Palin is a dangerous woman, but not for the reasons Republicans are accusing Democrats of. What makes Sarah Palin dangerous is that she does not realize how completely unprepared she truly is for the job of POTUS. Again, I say that we already saw how badly a presidency "from the gut" and without knowledge can go. If we learned anything from the Bush the Lesser years it should have been that.
garza1290
09-14-2008, 15:31
I agree, I think the American public deserves a simple and honest answer to a simple question. I'm not a political dynamo but that was a pathetic cop-out.
So far Mr Obama looks down on me because I am a man seeking a relationship with God and who cares about my 2nd Amendment right. I didn't like Obama's "bitter" quote at all and I found that a little too elitist. I wonder what his true feelings are regarding this issue despite the fact that he tried to clarify what he said later when he found out that that comment didn't go very well with the masses. I am finding him to be less and less sincere. I'm having a hard time believing this man is looking out for my best intrests.
I hear you on this. But please consider which campaign is, once again, doing everything they can to widen the gaps between Americans rather than unite us behind what we actually do have in common. The McCain campaign is now staffed primarily by the same operatives that slimed him in 2000 - Bush operatives. McCain began his campaign by promising to work with anyone from either side of the aisle that sincerely wanted to solve problems - a laudable goal indeed. Yet, the truth is, that like Bush before him, McCain has transformed from a "uniter not a divider" to the worst sort of cultural warrior. McCain approves these lying ads and that makes him a hypocrite. One of the primary accusations Republicans made against Bill Clinton was that he was dishonest. Who's dishonest now? Who purports to be a "straight talker" from the party of "moral values" yet has thrown all pretense of accuracy in claims overboard? McCain and Palin just don't care whether what they say is true or false any more. The man who once said he'd rather lose an election than lose a war, because of the dire consequnces that would have for the US, is now willing to do anything, say anything to win, even if it splits the country even further than it's ever been since the civil war. If the Republican win this election - that would make it three in a row - by sleaze and underhanded tactics, what will that say to the rest of the world about democracy in America?
Anyone that considers Obama far, far more qualified for office, with the limited national service he's had, IMO is beyond convincing otherwise. I don't consider BO's experience in the senate, all 143 days of it, any more valuable than Palin's roughly 24 months of governing the largest state in the Union. (The small population is of no consequence: the scale of things needing government attention in Alaska are on par with the square miles involved.) I suggest a return to the current entertainment offerings elsewhere...
that was a pathetic cop-out.
I disagree. It was not put very well, but the substance of it was as it should be - the POTUS does not make these decisions. It's for pastors, doctors, and yes, most of all, women themselves, to decide. And, it may also involve the SCOTUS. And also the states.
It is right for a presidential candidate to speak forcefully on this issue, but it is also right for a presidential candidate to admit he does not have all the answers on the issue of abortion. Those that are so sure one way or the other are suspect, in my view. I oppose abortion but that does not mean that I think it is the government's role to dictate to a woman that she bring a pregnancy to term. There are better ways to reduce the number of abortion than an outright ban, which will lead to illegal abortions followed by trips to the emergency room. The solution is education, the availability of contraceptives, and most of all, religious formation. So I happen to agree with Obama for the most part, even though I believe abortion to be a grave evil.
selfplex
09-14-2008, 16:06
Is giving a "lawyer answer" inappropriate for a constitutional law question?
Knowledge of constitutional law is one of Obama's qualifications.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng
Another is that Obama has been planning and studying for the presidency at least since the extremely positive response he received to his speech at the Democratic convention of 2004. Palin too appears to have had national political ambitions for awhile, but is there any real doubt that her pick was a surprise? Someone that actually intended to go for a national executive branch position would have a better answer to foreign policy questions than "I can see Russia from Alaska."
No, I totally disagree that Obama is underqualified in the same way Palin is. He's not as qualified as I'd like him to be, but he's qualified far, far more than Palin is. I believe Sarah Palin is a dangerous woman, but not for the reasons Republicans are accusing Democrats of. What makes Sarah Palin dangerous is that she does not realize how completely unprepared she truly is for the job of POTUS. Again, I say that we already saw how badly a presidency "from the gut" and without knowledge can go. If we learned anything from the Bush the Lesser years it should have been that.
Hahahaha! I have rarely witnessed such an astoundingly twisted bit of illogic. So...Governor Palin, who is a Chief Executive with a longer and more distinguished career than the junior senator is "dangerous" because she "does not realize how completely unprepared she truly is for the job of POTUS." Exquisite logic. Barack Obama has never run anything. At all. Ever. Zero executive experience. Zero. He served 143 working days in the U.S. Senate before running for the presidency. He is a lawyer and politician. He was a "lecturer", and that's all he is. He lectures. With a teleprompter.
On Bush: The U.S. economy has grown steadily for the past eight years, though growth has slown in the past year due to a failure of the housing market. We've had zero successful terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. The U.S. is still the most productive, prosperous, and powerful nation on earth. We have the cleanest environment of any large country-- far better than say, Russia, India, or China. The U.S. provides more aid to the needy than all other countries combined, and even Obama concedes that under Bush, American aid to Africa has been unprecedented and hugely successful, greatly reducing hunger and disease on that continent.
Why not just confess. You have a crush on the man-child Obama. Barack Hussein Obama kicked off his political career at the home of Bill Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist. For twenty years he sat in a church which espouses racial hatred and anti-American propaganda. He is the favorite candidate of dictators, terrorists, and mindless leftists.
garza1290
09-14-2008, 16:15
And Obama's short stint as a senator makes him more qualified? Tell me has he ever commanded troops? Has he ever had to make executive decision regarding the deployment of this country's citizen soldiers? Palin commands Alaska's National Guard, which, aside from it's normal role as the states militia which also deploys overseas, it also mans part of the the United States missile defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion works on interceptor missiles designed to shoot down intercontinental missiles. She commands these troops which help protect us from enemy nukes.
I think she has a little more experience in that aspect cause as far as I know Obama has never been in command of any troops at any time ever.
Community Organizer does not count. Were talking soldiers here, our men and women in uniform.
Perhaps he would have if he had joined the militay when he was younger as he claims in his interview with George Stephanopoulos. Which I here he never mentioned in either of his memoirs....hmmmm.
Obama supporters also claim that Palin will not be effective in her role as
VP or President cause she has a ton of kids, a husband, a down syndrome infant, and etc......
Tell me how will Barrack be an effective President when he spends his time writting books while in office? How many years has been senator? How many books has he written in that time? I know it takes months and months to write one book sometimes years but two. Come on! you claim that McCain will follow Bush's pattern if he's elected. Who's pattern will Obama follow? His own? The man spends all his time time writting memoirs when he should be devoted to his country while on the tax payers dime.
I hate to sound like I'm anti Obama but it continues to amaze me at how some folks are so blind to Obamas lack of experience and want to pursue and press the "experience" issue with the VP candidate. Is Palin that threatening to Obama and his party? I think she so cause they seem to be focusing on her insted of McCain and she's not even running for POTUS.
LOL, please do your own research on Palin's alleged "foreign policy" or "commander of the Alaska National Guard" experience.
garza1290
09-14-2008, 16:22
I disagree. It was not put very well, but the substance of it was as it should be - the POTUS does not make these decisions. It's for pastors, doctors, and yes, most of all, women themselves, to decide. And, it may also involve the SCOTUS. And also the states.
It is right for a presidential candidate to speak forcefully on this issue, but it is also right for a presidential candidate to admit he does not have all the answers on the issue of abortion. Those that are so sure one way or the other are suspect, in my view. I oppose abortion but that does not mean that I think it is the government's role to dictate to a woman that she bring a pregnancy to term. There are better ways to reduce the number of abortion than an outright ban, which will lead to illegal abortions followed by trips to the emergency room. The solution is education, the availability of contraceptives, and most of all, religious formation. So I happen to agree with Obama for the most part, even though I believe abortion to be a grave evil.
My point was a simple answer would have been easier to digest. I would have respected the man if he said something like, "I know, I don't have specific or rock solid stance on that issue." A little honesty and straightforwardness is all I ask. It goes a long way.
The post to which to respond didn't mention foreign policy, but what research to you need to confirm that as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin is in the commander of the Alaska National Guard? It's a simple fact. Alaska's National Guard is unique in that the missile defense battalion mentioned above is the only full-time active-duty Guard unit.
You can go on gushing about how you love Obama and hate Bush, but simple facts are simple facts. "LOL"? what are you? 12 years old?
Even a 12 year should be able to do his own research, so right back atcha.
"When John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, the campaign immediately began touting her experience--both foreign and domestic--as "commander-in-chief" of the Alaska National Guard. But the reality of the situation--that Palin actually had little to do with the National Guard quickly became apparent. In fact, the idea was undercut severely by comments made by the actual commander of the Alaska National Guard--its Adjutant General, Major General Craig Campbell. When that happened, it eventually turned into somewhat of a national joke, culminating in the humiliation of McCain/Palin campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds on CNN when he tried to promote Palin's "foreign policy" experience during the Republican National Convention.
..."
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1869
COBRADOC
09-14-2008, 16:45
Other than Obama's 175 or so days in the U.S. Senate, just what experience does he have?
To answer this you first have to have a good understnading of Chicago politics. Chicago operates on a one party system - all Democrats. There is the formal orgainzation and then the political machine organization. It is the latter that actually runs Chicago. At the top of both is Mayor Daley. But Chicago is run by the political machine and it operates on pateranage. The city is broken down into sections, sections into wards and wards into communities. Each level has a "boss" and few if any of these bosses are nice or honest men. To be on the inside and hold one of these positions you have to sell your soul to the organization (kind of like in the Mofia). Each of these bosses has a title - of course they don't call them "bosses" but that is what they are. Barrack Husane Obama worked his way into the inner circle and for recognition of his services he was given a position as a "Community Organizer" - in other words, he was a community boss in the Daily political machine.
In Chicago, you cross the "Community Organizer" and for some reason your water gets cut off and it takes two weeks and an "appeasment" to get it cut back on. You want the street light in front of your house repaired, you discuss it with your "Community Organizer" over dinner (you pick up the tab), and the light gets repaired. You want the pot holes repaired on your street, you take it to your "Community Organizer" who takes to his ward boss who takes care of it, of course the entire street might have to make a donation to some "special charity", but the pot holes get repaired.
Well, that's Chicago politics - and that" what Obama did for a living. The organizations also controlles who goes to the state house to represent that part of the state and to Washington to do the same. That my friends in Barrack Husane Obama, the Democratic candidate for the President of the United States. Putting it bluntly, Obama is a Chicago political thug, plane and simple.
So now we have unattributed accusations about the ways of Chicago community organizers.
Had Obama conducted himself that way, we'd know about it. Maybe Obama was one of the "good" community organizers, have you considered that? A maverick from early in life?
Anyway, it would be interesting to know where you got that "information."
LOL, please do your own research on Palin's alleged "foreign policy" or "commander of the Alaska National Guard" experience.
She may not have had any stars on her shoulders, but a governor has ultimate responsibility for the Guard unless it has been federalized to national service. I'm sure she takes cues from the military commanders, as do all governors, and has hopefully learned from that also.
Foreign policy? Not so much, but Obama's experience has largely been that of a vocal spectator IMO. He would need many advisers as well.
In my mind, neither has any advantage over the other on those points.
LOL? Can I presume this is a nervous reaction covering for increasing unease on your part? We can't actually be getting through to you, can we? Nah....
Funny how it falls to a Palin vs Obama comparison instead of McCain vs Obama. On foreign policy, there is no comparison when McCain is included. Too many years in the Senate. This is just based on "experience", not whether you agree with his positions. I disagree with McCain on a regular basis, and find both Presidential choices below what we really need, but there you go...beats a military coup.
I could make one long post, but that is often tedious. With regards to seeing Russia from Alaska, I think the point was Alaska has always been the first place that would be overrun after Europe should hostilities commence. As such, I believe she takes foreign policy seriously. Maybe you don't, but that's up to you.
It's amazing how someone who labels Republicans as corrupt can fail to recognize the corruption of the Democratic political machine in Chicago.
If you want to talk about Palin's lack of experience, then be honest enough to see Obama's lack of experience. Experienced enough or not, I believe that Palin will not sell us out by entering into international agreements that undermine our constitutional and natural rights. It's not necessarily about how much experience a candidate has, but about having the right experience. John Kerry had lots of experience, but that experience isn't worth a rats behind if it is used to try to disarm us or to apologize before the United Nations or raise the white flag in Iraq.
Back to the original topic, Obama really stepped in it when he picked on McCain's inexperience with computers without any background on it. He should have anticipated the potential for the misstep, as well as the potential for backlash from those not on the 'net or that have never had any reason to go to the historically considerable expense of a computer.
He took a risk using it and has to live with the results.
BLA BLA BLA There polititians, they lie, the tell half truths, there are all corrupt to some degree. We don't vote for who is the best anymore. We vote for the least worst.
garza1290
09-14-2008, 18:48
Hey Migyver, didn't I meet you once at Broadway Hardware In McAllen?
I do not see how the double standard could be more obvious.
Sarah Palin is utterly unfit to be POTUS. Imagine the howls of derision if the Democrats tried to make excuses like the ludicrous explanations (see link below) the Palin apologists attempt to foist off, and you will understand why so many people find McCain's selection so appalling. Even if McCain remains healthy and able to serve throughout his term, his selection of Palin for his VP still speaks to an astonishing lapse of judgement on his part.
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1869
COBRADOC
09-14-2008, 21:41
Making Obama the President of the United States makes about as much sense as the top NFL football team suddenly making their water boy the new head coach.
Making Obama the President of the United States makes about as much sense as the top NFL football team suddenly making their water boy the new head coach.
I'm sure that choice of words was unconscious, and therefor unintentional, but nevertheless, there it is.
COBRADOC
09-14-2008, 22:49
So now we have unattributed accusations about the ways of Chicago community organizers.
Had Obama conducted himself that way, we'd know about it. Maybe Obama was one of the "good" community organizers, have you considered that? A maverick from early in life?
Anyway, it would be interesting to know where you got that "information."
Where did I get my information? How about two family members who live and work in Chicago? And oh yes, one of them is a "section coordinator" - he's one of the guys that the ward bosses work for. He also approves any contracts that takes place wholely in his section - you know, things like major street repairs, garbage collection contracts - the real money stuff. You want a contract to do work in Chicago, send me your proposal and I'll pass it on. You want his name? Sorry, that will cost you.
By the way, he knows Obama. I can't use the words here that he uses to describe him because if I did I would be kicked off the forum forever because there aren't nice PC words.
Yeah, sure, second-hand attribution, but no specifics, and "it'll cost me" if I actually have the nerve to ask for them.
Anonymous people on message boards say all kinds of unattributed nasty things about McCain too. And I don't believe any of it for a second.
I'm sure that choice of words was unconscious, and therefor unintentional, but nevertheless, there it is.
Okay, change it to a baseball team and make it the bat-boy they make coach. Or the groundsman, or the locker-room attendant, or the stats keeper, or whomever.
Political Correctness will be the death of English as a language. Cripes almighty! :angry:
Political Correctness will be the death of English as a language. Cripes almighty! :angry:
I guess you've missed the pattern
http://perfectunion.com/vb/showthread.php?t=64589
or chosen to ignore it. <_<
Plus it's a senseless analogy to begin with, never mind the revealing "choice" of words.
Well, until next weekend ...
Bat-boy is an official slot in a baseball team, regardless who is filling the slot. I'm weary of people struggling under their white-guilt tripping all over themselves trying not to offend overly-sensitive people they perceive are everywhere. Our local team had a black kid shagging bats, the title stood. Nobody got upset. No drift intended.
I'm weary of people struggling under their white-guilt
Oh you are, huh. Just how did you get so "weary" of it?
Oh you are, huh.Yes, I am. Wouldn't fib to ya. And most of them strike me as being on the left side of the aisle. IMO as long as it continues, being able to take everyone as an individual will take just that much longer. It's one thing to watch your language in regards to swearing, but trying to keep track of every double or triple meaning in the vocabulary that might offend someone takes a lot out of interacting with someone else. Why can't we just use words as they were originally intended and as the user meant it instead of looking for hate under every hat? Just how did you get so "weary" of it? I've been listening to people apologizing for themselves and taking others to task for any perceived potential offense, intended or not, for many years. Are you only in your twenties or what? Has political correctness always been there, so it seems normal to you?
It's one thing to watch your language in regards to swearing, but trying to keep track of every double or triple meaning in the vocabulary that might offend someone takes a lot out of interacting with someone else.
Does that apply to well-worn aphorisms about pigs and lipstick?
There's that double standard again.
Are you only in your twenties or what? Has political correctness always been there, so it seems normal to you?
You stated you were "weary" of "people struggling under their white guilt."
I wonder who is more weary of the effects of racism, you or those that have been on the receiving end of it all these years. Are you white? If so, isn't it presumptuous to claim to be "weary" of it all?
If this sounds confrontational, so be it. It's disgusting to watch otherwise sensible folks comparing someone like Barack Obama to a "water boy" or "bat boy." I have to wonder what is wrong with peoples' heads when they think like that. I wonder why so many Americans haven't made it past those old attitudes. How difficult can it be, really.
Does that apply to well-worn aphorisms about pigs and lipstick?
Actually, it does. It was a long-known rural expression and I found no significant problem with it. I didn't take it that he was calling Palin a pig. I did find the timing unfortunate.
You stated you were "weary" of "people struggling under their white guilt."
I wonder who is more weary of the effects of racism, you or those that have been on the receiving end of it all these years. Are you white? If so, isn't it presumptuous to claim to be "weary" of it all?
If this sounds like I'm being confrontational, I am. It's disgusting to watch otherwise sensible folks comparing someone like Barack Obama to a "water boy" or "bat boy." I have to wonder what is wrong with peoples' heads when they think like that. I wonder why we as Americans haven't made more progress.
Indeed, I am white. I was also appalled when I learned growing up how they had been throughout history and even then.
I said I was weary of white guilt many people handicap themselves with. I haven't, and nobody I know, kept slaves, brought slaves here, had relatives that did, or anything of the kind. Being aware of racism and desiring to correct it needs to be encouraged, but taking any personal responsibility over the original disgusting practice is not logical or productive toward improving the situation many minorities find themselves in.
I did not get that Obama was being compared to a bat boy, only that the jump in "pay grade" he desires by being elected president was tantamount to that of a low-paid support staffer being appointed to arguably one of the most important positions in the baseball club. Not the best choice of words, but entirely legitimate and no racist slang injected to indicate otherwise.
Personally, I prefer to look for what is best in people first, and lower it when there is some indication that the original assessment/assumption is wrong. It's less stressful for me, and others get the respect they expect from people that don't know them.
COBRADOC
09-15-2008, 09:57
Yeah, sure, second-hand attribution, but no specifics, and "it'll cost me" if I actually have the nerve to ask for them.
Anonymous people on message boards say all kinds of unattributed nasty things about McCain too. And I don't believe any of it for a second.
So I must assume that all of your contributions to this discussion are based on first-hand, "I was there," observations? Give me a break.
I'm sure that choice of words (boy) was unconscious, and therefor unintentional, but nevertheless, there it is.
I played organized sports when I was young at every leven in school, in college and later on in the military, I coached my children when they were young, and now I enjoy watching my grandchildren play. And all this time the people that took care of the water, the bats the balls, etc. have been called "___ boy", as in water boy, bat boy, ball boy, etc. And you know what, many of them today are girls, of all races and shades, but they are still called "boys".
Tailgunner
09-15-2008, 10:08
One thing all these discussions have done, is to make me do something I've never done since I started voting in 1972, and that is you've caused me to vote straight ticket (and it won't be for the "D" ticket either) this election.
The rabid Ohbumites have finely pushed me over the edge, to where I don't care if the "D-person" running for the local schoolboard is 10 times as qualified as the R-guy, I'm still going to be voting R.
BigOleSwingin`
09-15-2008, 15:16
One thing all these discussions have done, is to make me do something I've never done since I started voting in 1972, and that is you've caused me to vote straight ticket (and it won't be for the "D" ticket either) this election.
The rabid Ohbumites have finely pushed me over the edge, to where I don't care if the "D-person" running for the local schoolboard is 10 times as qualified as the R-guy, I'm still going to be voting R.
http://sweb.uky.edu/~btsmit2/koolaid.jpg
Look what you went and did now, Freesw...
Back on topic. McCain has been considered one of the Senate's leading authorities on telecom and the Internet.
In 2000, Forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html) called him the "Senate's savviest technologist." That same year, Slate's Jacob Weisberg (http://www.slate.com/id/74812/) gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates that year, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."
Weisberg, now an Obama supporter, disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer."
If the Obama campaign did not intend to mock a disabled veteran, what does it say about his supposedly "cybersavvy" campaign that they don't know how to conduct a five-minute Google search to find out these things?
BTW, according to the archives in his presidential library, Clinton sent exactly two e-mails (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3435379.stm) while in office.
So using the same logic would it be fair to say Obama is even less qualified to be commander in chief because, unlike McCain, Obama has never fired a gun, flown a plane or led men during wartime?
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.