ITT: You Explain to Me Why McCain is Bad/Evil/Not a good choice. - Page 3

GoldenEagle · 09-19-2008, 06:07 AM

Just a thought, how many people or at least supports have looked into the reason why fellow Vietnam Veterans call John McCain, "Songbird"?

Anyway I am no longer a registered voter, and have no ill will, disdain, and/or, preference for either or any of the candidates.

shibshib · 09-19-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

Just a thought, how many people or at least supports have looked into the reason why fellow Vietnam Veterans call John McCain, "Songbird"?

Anyway I am no longer a registered voter, and have no ill will, disdain, and/or, preference for either or any of the candidates.

Well, it could be because they assume he gave over a bunch of information to the enemy while being tortured...

Or it could be because he *did* give over some information (regarding the location of his squadron or whatever) which he admitted to doing in his book.

So yeah... either way would justify the name. And no, its not some sort of myth... he did sing.

I'm not saying I wouldn't either under pressure/torture... I'm just saying he's far from being some hero that got tortured but never gave in. He's just a man.

Marvin420 · 09-19-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shibshib

I'm not saying I wouldn't either under pressure/torture

By reading a great deal of your posts I KNOW you would. All they would have to do is pull your hair.
You seem to dismiss his service to his country as something minor. He put his life on theline for his country. The NVA could have killed him and not even reported him as a POW.

Mod note: We are a community and we must respect each other period. If you can't be nice and choose your words wisely then don't comment at all. Infraction given for trolling.

shibshib · 09-19-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin420

By reading a great deal of your posts I KNOW you would. All they would have to do is pull your hair.
You seem to dismiss his service to his country as something minor. He put his life on theline for his country. The NVA could have killed him and not even reported him as a POW.

Personally, I think the nails on the chalkboard would do me in first.

But seriously, when am I dismissing his service? I admit that he served, and I respect him for that... But him becoming a pow doesn't mean he gets some sort of catch-all protection against criticism.

IMHO, when you send a bottom-of-the-class pilot with a history of crashing planes into a warzone, you should maybe expect he might not be coming back.

There are POWs who got caught because they were heroic, and then there are POWs who get caught because they are not smart. Hell, there are some that surrender shamefully and get caught.

So excuse me if I don't come to your same blind-respect conclusion that just because he was a pow, I am not allowed to speak ill of him.

What if I was a pow? Would you instantly start showing me more respect and stop posting such fallacious replies?

Marvin420 · 09-19-2008, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shibshib

What if I was a pow? Would you instantly start showing me more respect and stop posting such fallacious replies?

Yes of course unless you fell into the catagory of shamelessly surrendering. But if you were French it would be totally understandable.

shibshib · 09-19-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin420

Yes of course unless you fell into the catagory of shamelessly surrendering. But if you were French it would be totally understandable.

I'll be honest... if that's what it takes to get you to stop posting so much bs, then I might have to consider becoming a POW.

Sure there would be torture involved, but it would have to less painful than the series of face-palm posts you enjoy making. Seriously, there is almost a permanent red-hand-print on my forehead. At least you're admitting to it now, though.

Any former POW's on the forums that wouldn't mind posting for me?

Trocisp · 09-19-2008, 07:25 PM

Obama's Fannie Mae 'Connection' - Fact Checker

Relevant due to the blatantly misleading 'video releases' by the McCain Camp.

shibshib · 09-23-2008, 07:39 PM

This falls under McCain's judgement and anger issues. I bolded the last part because I think it is a fair statement comparing Obama and McCain:

George F. Will - McCain Loses His Head

Quote:

McCain Loses His Head
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; A21

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."
Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.
In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)
By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."
The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?
On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

Obama may indeed be inexperienced, but I'd rather have room for improvement than McCain's complete idiocy.

Freedom_User · 09-24-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

REPUBLICANS vs. DEMOCRATS ON THE ECONOMY....Did you know that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republicans? Sure you did. I pointed this out two years ago, back when my readership numbered in the dozens, and more recently Michael Kinsley ran the numbers in the LA Times and came to the same conclusion.
The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Skeptics offer two arguments: first, that presidents don't control the economy; second, that there are too few data points to draw any firm conclusions. Neither argument is convincing. It's true that presidents don't control the economy, but they do influence it — as everyone tacitly acknowledges by fighting like crazed banshees over every facet of fiscal policy ever offered up by a president.
The second argument doesn't hold water either. The dataset that delivers these results now covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That's a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data.
But it turns out there's more to this. Via Brendan Nyhan, I recently read a paper by Princeton's Larry Bartels that adds some fascinating details to this picture.
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class.

The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.
But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected? The most common hypothesis — spelled out in detail in last year's What's The Matter With Kansas? — is that cultural issues often override economic considerations. But Bartels proposes a surprising alternative explanation illustrated in the two charts below.

The top chart shows income growth during non-election years, and it displays the usual characteristics: under Democrats, income growth is strong overall and the poor do a bit better than the well off. Under Republicans, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the already prosperous.
But now look at the bottom chart. It shows economic performance during election years and it's a mirror image of the top chart: Republicans produce better overall performance, and they produce especially stupendous performance for the well off. Democrats not only produce poor overall performance, they produce disastrous performance for the well off, who actually have negative income growth.
In other words, voters aren't necessarily ignoring economic issues in favor of cultural issues. Rather, Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that's all that voters remember. They really are voting their pocketbooks.
Bartels doesn't essay an explanation for this. Do Republican presidents deliberately try to time economic growth spurts — and are Democratic presidents too lame to do the same? Is it just luck? Or is the difference somehow inherent in the different ways that Democrats and Republicans approach the economy (with Democrats typically focusing on employment and Republicans on inflation)? At this point, your guess is as good as anyone's.
Bottom line: if you're well off, vote for Republicans. But if you make less than $150,000 a year, Republicans are your friends only one year in four. Caveat emptor.

No matter which way you slice it, no matter how many Republican candidates read and promised from there speeches on the economy. History has proven time and time again that the Republicans haven't done didly squat for the middle class. Don't take my word for it, google.

Why is it that the Republicans do better on election year? My theory could be... The rich decided to give the candidates a break while they count there money and let them look out for the little guys for a bit. But hey guys, 1 out of 4 years is OKAY, right guys? Guys...? Guys? Damn... My internet just shut off. Come on Bush, it's Election year, get your shit together!!!!

This should seriously be a ringer for the people who still have there heads in the sand. The man wears $1k shoes. The man has 13 luxury cars. And if you put him on the spot, he doesn't know how many houses he has. To put icing on the cake, the man married into a fortune, and has multiple high end corporate lobbyists running his campaign.

**troublemaker_42** · 09-24-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shibshib

Obama may indeed be inexperienced, but I'd rather have room for improvement than McCain's complete idiocy.

Neither one is deserving of the job, a fact I become painfully more aware of with each passing day. Its not as if one candidate gains favor with me and the other loses it. My opinions of both men get worse and worse (Obama just started out lower overall, for me personally) with each passing day, and I often find myself asking if the country isn't going to get exactly what it deserves if either are elected. I love my country, but I highly question the ability of people to elect their own leaders if out of over three hundred million people, we've narrowed it down to these two.

Its hard to be sympathetic to the plight our country is in when out of all those people, we've got these two to pick from. An inexperienced liberal democrat, or a war-torn, angry old Republican....both tell people exactly what they want to hear, yet I ponder either's ability to actually come through on ANY of it. Taking me back 3 years or so, I thought this country would be destined to elect a GREAT leader, that after Bush, we'd demand excellence. We'd demand something differernt, we'd elect a leader with the ability to not only make promises, but who would die trying to to keep them if need be. I had a hope, a passion for my country that suprised even me. Anymore, I'm completely disillusioned, my own hopes and dreams for our country shot down, pushed to the back burner, and, as in most other elections, stuck with a couple of clowns I wouldn't trust to run my company (hypothetically) let alone my entire country. Now, those hopes and dreams are left to simmer for another 5 years at least. I'm not holding my breath for a candidtate I could support 100% though. At this point, I don't belive such a candidate exists.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Advertising Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Hot Products:

Orange Krush - Legal Bud

Black Magic Solid Smokes

Vapir One Vaporizer

09-19-2008, 07:25 PM	#27
Trocisp Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,214 Grams: 49,800.58 Thanks: 783 Thanked 1,451 Times in 889 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Obama's Fannie Mae 'Connection' - Fact Checker Relevant due to the blatantly misleading 'video releases' by the McCain Camp.