Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: akupetsky on September 09, 2008, 07:50:35 pm
...I can't think of the word. How do you describe someone who is:
RECKLESS in his foreign policy,
RECKLESS in choosing a Vice President, and
RECKLESS with the truth?
I don't know. He doesn't fit the definition of "maverick" because he goes along with the George W. Bush group (except maybe on one issue).
Maybe he means that he is the same type of "Maverick" as Tom Cruise played in "Top Gun" (ie., a reckless hot shot that doesn't consider the consequences of his actions even if it hurts other people).
Yikes!
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: USRufnex on September 09, 2008, 08:08:40 pm
Actually, these days, McCain is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry could aspire to be....
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_3q8VCkKxlWI/R_Lqs1RPuyI/AAAAAAAAAEA/qgQEce3i3RY/s200/McCain+Flip)
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Cubs on September 09, 2008, 09:10:34 pm
well considering mccain is not reckless at any of those things you stated ... i guess he is a maverick
his foreign policy is the reason we are winning the war
his vice president is an extremely intelligent conservative woman
he speaks the truth even when it goes against what his party supports
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: FOTD on September 09, 2008, 09:24:12 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
well considering mccain is not reckless at any of those things you stated ... i guess he is a maverick
his foreign policy is the reason we are winning the war
his vice president is an extremely intelligent conservative woman
he speaks the truth even when it goes against what his party supports
The politics of distraction...and distraction from the truth. What does McFlintstone support this week? How does McBush, "Mission Acomplished," define winning the war? What vetting process did McMysoginis go through? Cubs blew another one tonight....4-3 Cards. That's truth.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 09, 2008, 09:52:55 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
well considering mccain is not reckless at any of those things you stated ... i guess he is a maverick
his foreign policy is the reason we are winning the war
his vice president is an extremely intelligent conservative woman
he speaks the truth even when it goes against what his party supports
He also lauds himself as 'voting with the President ninety percent of the time'. And while Palin may be intelligent, intelligence isn't experience. Or have you forgotten the recent republican talking points on that matter regarding Obama?..oh, just BEFORE he picked Palin as his running mate.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: akupetsky on September 09, 2008, 10:12:43 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
well considering mccain is not reckless at any of those things you stated ... i guess he is a maverick
his foreign policy is the reason we are winning the war
his vice president is an extremely intelligent conservative woman
he speaks the truth even when it goes against what his party supports
His foreign policy is the reason we are in the war. His foreign policy would have broken relations with Russia before they invaded Georgia, leaving us with no leverage. His foreign policy will not bring peace to the Middle East. I don't disagree with you on his VP pick (although I haven't seen enough interviews to know about her intelligence). But she is not ready to step in as President, and everyone acknowledges the pick was politically smart (to win an election) but not necessarily the best for the nation. He speaks the truth only some of the time, and often for show. And I'm not saying he lies on purpose; just that he is reckless with his facts. (Where did he get that Pallin earned a profit on the Alaska airplane? Where did he get that Pallin rejected the Bridge to Nowhere?)
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2008, 07:21:08 am
Doncha' just love it Cubs? I mean, how "cut and run" turned into "winning the war". When GB follows Obama's advice its "sound foreign policy". When GB notes that Iraqi officials want us to leave, which Obama had pointed out earlier, its "their ready to stand on their own".
All GB and MC can point to as success is the surge which only is a success if the criteria for success is modified to mean "less violence" and all other reasons for that decline in violence are ignored. No provable causation, but just say it enough and it becomes truthy.
Reality, what a concept man.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 07:42:45 am
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Doncha' just love it Cubs? I mean, how "cut and run" turned into "winning the war". When GB follows Obama's advice its "sound foreign policy". When GB notes that Iraqi officials want us to leave, which Obama had pointed out earlier, its "their ready to stand on their own".
All GB and MC can point to as success is the surge which only is a success if the criteria for success is modified to mean "less violence" and all other reasons for that decline in violence are ignored. No provable causation, but just say it enough and it becomes truthy.
Reality, what a concept man.
Reality check. 15 of the 18 "surge" benchmarks set have been accomplished. The violence is not just "less" it is at its lowest level since the spring of '04. They just handed the ANBAR province back to the Iraqi forces, the worst of the worst as far as violence. This is after they have already handed back numerous other provinces. Why do you purposefully ignore the facts?
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 07:47:50 am
quote:
RECKLESS in his foreign policy,
Proof please? quote:
RECKLESS in choosing a Vice President, and
Proof please? quote:
RECKLESS with the truth?
Same as above.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 10, 2008, 07:54:17 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
RECKLESS in his foreign policy,
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS in choosing a Vice President, and
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS with the truth?
Same as above.
Can't argue, so now you're asking for proof? That's rich!
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 07:58:39 am
It's called asking for specifics you idiot. Unlike you, bumper sticker vomit doesn't work with me. Specific examples usually make for better discussion than talking points. But for someone who employs exactly ZERO logic in discussions I can see how you got confused.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2008, 08:25:42 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Doncha' just love it Cubs? I mean, how "cut and run" turned into "winning the war". When GB follows Obama's advice its "sound foreign policy". When GB notes that Iraqi officials want us to leave, which Obama had pointed out earlier, its "their ready to stand on their own".
All GB and MC can point to as success is the surge which only is a success if the criteria for success is modified to mean "less violence" and all other reasons for that decline in violence are ignored. No provable causation, but just say it enough and it becomes truthy.
Reality, what a concept man.
Reality check.
15 of the 18 "surge" benchmarks set have been accomplished. The violence is not just "less" it is at its lowest level since the spring of '04. They just handed the ANBAR province back to the Iraqi forces, the worst of the worst as far as violence. This is after they have already handed back numerous other provinces.
Why do you purposefully ignore the facts?
Because of where the "facts" come from and who decides the criteria for success and who decides when they've been met. All three of those came from the Bush administration. You trust them. I don't. The violence is subsiding because the insurgents no longer need to fight. They know we're leaving and they're waiting. Like MC predicted, they would rather fight the local government than us. Meanwhile, the real fight is in Afghanistan, where there are real terrorists, not insurgents. Obama and others pointed this out long ago. Now GB decides we need to move troops to Afghanistan. Smart move, but as usual, too little and maybe too late. Coupla' edits. 15 of 18 criteria met by their determination could still spell disaster. In an APGAR score for newborns you can score 8 out of a possible 10 and have a baby who's not breathing. McCain flipped on this one. He called it "cut and run" and suggested we needed to increase troops in Iraq and never set a timetable. We're leaving and declaring victory even though that's a ridiculous assessment, we're setting time "frames" and we're decreasing troop presence. Three flips in one. Pretty good flip/flopping wouldn't you say?
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Breadburner on September 10, 2008, 08:27:20 am
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Doncha' just love it Cubs? I mean, how "cut and run" turned into "winning the war". When GB follows Obama's advice its "sound foreign policy". When GB notes that Iraqi officials want us to leave, which Obama had pointed out earlier, its "their ready to stand on their own".
All GB and MC can point to as success is the surge which only is a success if the criteria for success is modified to mean "less violence" and all other reasons for that decline in violence are ignored. No provable causation, but just say it enough and it becomes truthy.
Reality, what a concept man.
Reality check.
15 of the 18 "surge" benchmarks set have been accomplished. The violence is not just "less" it is at its lowest level since the spring of '04. They just handed the ANBAR province back to the Iraqi forces, the worst of the worst as far as violence. This is after they have already handed back numerous other provinces.
Why do you purposefully ignore the facts?
Because of where the "facts" come from and who decides the criteria for success and who decides when they've been met.
All three of those came from the Bush administration. You trust them. I don't.
The violence is subsiding because the insurgents no longer need to fight. They know we're leaving and they're waiting. Like MC predicted, they would rather fight the local government than us. Meanwhile, the real fight is in Afghanistan, where there are real terrorists, not insurgents. Obama and others pointed this out long ago. Now GB decides we need to move troops to Afghanistan. Smart move, but as usual, too little and maybe too late.
You have kool-aid on the brain....
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 10, 2008, 08:32:23 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It's called asking for specifics you idiot. Unlike you, bumper sticker vomit doesn't work with me. Specific examples usually make for better discussion than talking points. But for someone who employs exactly ZERO logic in discussions I can see how you got confused.
No, but then you'll cite them as being 'libtard blogs' or the like, regardless of where they come from. I know how you guys act. Calling people names and calling my mom 'easy' get respect from no one. Not that you ever had it from me, though. You're about the same level as FB for me.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2008, 08:37:23 am
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Doncha' just love it Cubs? I mean, how "cut and run" turned into "winning the war". When GB follows Obama's advice its "sound foreign policy". When GB notes that Iraqi officials want us to leave, which Obama had pointed out earlier, its "their ready to stand on their own".
All GB and MC can point to as success is the surge which only is a success if the criteria for success is modified to mean "less violence" and all other reasons for that decline in violence are ignored. No provable causation, but just say it enough and it becomes truthy.
Reality, what a concept man.
Reality check.
15 of the 18 "surge" benchmarks set have been accomplished. The violence is not just "less" it is at its lowest level since the spring of '04. They just handed the ANBAR province back to the Iraqi forces, the worst of the worst as far as violence. This is after they have already handed back numerous other provinces.
Why do you purposefully ignore the facts?
Because of where the "facts" come from and who decides the criteria for success and who decides when they've been met.
All three of those came from the Bush administration. You trust them. I don't.
The violence is subsiding because the insurgents no longer need to fight. They know we're leaving and they're waiting. Like MC predicted, they would rather fight the local government than us. Meanwhile, the real fight is in Afghanistan, where there are real terrorists, not insurgents. Obama and others pointed this out long ago. Now GB decides we need to move troops to Afghanistan. Smart move, but as usual, too little and maybe too late.
You have kool-aid on the brain....
More intelligent, specific, talking points from the one liner king of cake-eaters country. Why would you even care what I have on my brain any more than what French President Sarcozy has on his? Afterall, I'm Un-American.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 08:37:41 am
quote:
Because of where the "facts" come from and who decides the criteria for success and who decides when they've been met.
All three of those came from the Bush administration. You trust them. I don't.
Fine then. What benchmarks would define success in Iraq for you? Incredibly low violence, Sadr has given up, oil revenues distribution has been established, they had free elections, they have a majority of provinces under Iraqi control, and a whole host of civil improvements. Is it their lack of a meaningful "carbon policy" like Pelosi said on meet the press? quote:
The violence is subsiding because the insurgents no longer need to fight. They know we're leaving and they're waiting. Like MC predicted, they would rather fight the local government than us. Meanwhile, the real fight is in Afghanistan, where there are real terrorists, not insurgents. Obama and others pointed this out long ago. Now GB decides we need to move troops to Afghanistan. Smart move, but as usual, too little and maybe too late.
How exactly did Obama "prove" anything? Afghanistan is under the control of NATO. So you're calling for MORE unilateral action? You guys are schizto.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2008, 08:53:04 am
IP, I don't think we can achieve success in Iraq so I guess its a moot point. Republicans have a fantasy that we have to win like some sort of pride thing. That's dumb. There was never any success to be had. A war like this has "failure" stamped all over it unless you're one of the contractors or suppliers for it.
But by the standards that GB's party sets for success, mission accomplished would not have been leaving because a spindly government demanded we leave. It wouldn't be because the violence is less than two years ago or small enough to be engulfed by an election campaign.
The ouster of the madman of the Middle East who was tolerable to surrounding countries who knew quite well how to handle him was arguably the only success because that was specifically defined as such beforehand.
The real issue is not how we cut and run and how we label it. The issue is that we had no business going there and we need to get out.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 10, 2008, 08:55:55 am
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
You're about the same level as FB for me.
Now that is an insult.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Conan71 on September 10, 2008, 08:57:53 am
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
IP, I don't think we can achieve success in Iraq so I guess its a moot point. Republicans have a fantasy that we have to win like some sort of pride thing. That's dumb. There was never any success to be had. A war like this has "failure" stamped all over it unless you're one of the contractors or suppliers for it.
Well, I can't say any more for certain than you can, but just a guess: families who were directly subject to the atrocities of Saddam Hussein and the millions who lived in fear of him might argue this point with you. Just a guess...
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Breadburner on September 10, 2008, 09:10:06 am
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Doncha' just love it Cubs? I mean, how "cut and run" turned into "winning the war". When GB follows Obama's advice its "sound foreign policy". When GB notes that Iraqi officials want us to leave, which Obama had pointed out earlier, its "their ready to stand on their own".
All GB and MC can point to as success is the surge which only is a success if the criteria for success is modified to mean "less violence" and all other reasons for that decline in violence are ignored. No provable causation, but just say it enough and it becomes truthy.
Reality, what a concept man.
Reality check.
15 of the 18 "surge" benchmarks set have been accomplished. The violence is not just "less" it is at its lowest level since the spring of '04. They just handed the ANBAR province back to the Iraqi forces, the worst of the worst as far as violence. This is after they have already handed back numerous other provinces.
Why do you purposefully ignore the facts?
Because of where the "facts" come from and who decides the criteria for success and who decides when they've been met.
All three of those came from the Bush administration. You trust them. I don't.
The violence is subsiding because the insurgents no longer need to fight. They know we're leaving and they're waiting. Like MC predicted, they would rather fight the local government than us. Meanwhile, the real fight is in Afghanistan, where there are real terrorists, not insurgents. Obama and others pointed this out long ago. Now GB decides we need to move troops to Afghanistan. Smart move, but as usual, too little and maybe too late.
You have kool-aid on the brain....
More intelligent, specific, talking points from the one liner king of cake-eaters country. Why would you even care what I have on my brain any more than what French President Sarcozy has on his? Afterall, I'm Un-American.
I like pie....
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: FOTD on September 10, 2008, 09:33:10 am
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
well considering mccain is not reckless at any of those things you stated ... i guess he is a maverick
his foreign policy is the reason we are winning the war
his vice president is an extremely intelligent conservative woman
he speaks the truth even when it goes against what his party supports
The politics of distraction...and distraction from the truth. What does McFlintstone support this week? How does McBush, "Mission Acomplished," define winning the war? What vetting process did McMysoginis go through?
Cubs blew another one tonight....4-3 Cards.
That's truth.
So, none of you Dumbf*ckistanians, IPLAW etc., can answer my questions?
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 09:38:39 am
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It's called asking for specifics you idiot. Unlike you, bumper sticker vomit doesn't work with me. Specific examples usually make for better discussion than talking points. But for someone who employs exactly ZERO logic in discussions I can see how you got confused.
No, but then you'll cite them as being 'libtard blogs' or the like, regardless of where they come from.
I know how you guys act. Calling people names and calling my mom 'easy' get respect from no one.
Not that you ever had it from me, though. You're about the same level as FB for me.
I don't really give a damn what you think about me. You've proven consistently that you can't string together enough words to create a coherent thought. For contrast, look to the discussions I have with waterboy. We disagree often, but at least he has the faculties to generate a substantive discussion instead of barfing out retarded statements like "koolaid drinker" and the like.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: we vs us on September 10, 2008, 09:50:55 am
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
IP, I don't think we can achieve success in Iraq so I guess its a moot point. Republicans have a fantasy that we have to win like some sort of pride thing. That's dumb. There was never any success to be had. A war like this has "failure" stamped all over it unless you're one of the contractors or suppliers for it.
Well, I can't say any more for certain than you can, but just a guess: families who were directly subject to the atrocities of Saddam Hussein and the millions who lived in fear of him might argue this point with you.
Just a guess...
I would be really interested to know the level of goodwill that the last five years of war has generated amongst the Iraqis. Nothing says "the American Way" more than imposing liberty on a country that wasn't particularly asking for it.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: FOTD on September 10, 2008, 10:09:31 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It's called asking for specifics you idiot. Unlike you, bumper sticker vomit doesn't work with me. Specific examples usually make for better discussion than talking points. But for someone who employs exactly ZERO logic in discussions I can see how you got confused.
No, but then you'll cite them as being 'libtard blogs' or the like, regardless of where they come from.
I know how you guys act. Calling people names and calling my mom 'easy' get respect from no one.
Not that you ever had it from me, though. You're about the same level as FB for me.
I don't really give a damn what you think about me. You've proven consistently that you can't string together enough words to create a coherent thought.
For contrast, look to the discussions I have with waterboy. We disagree often, but at least he has the faculties to generate a substantive discussion instead of barfing out retarded statements like "koolaid drinker" and the like.
cackle, cackle....
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 10:14:16 am
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
IP, I don't think we can achieve success in Iraq so I guess its a moot point. Republicans have a fantasy that we have to win like some sort of pride thing. That's dumb. There was never any success to be had. A war like this has "failure" stamped all over it unless you're one of the contractors or suppliers for it.
Well, I can't say any more for certain than you can, but just a guess: families who were directly subject to the atrocities of Saddam Hussein and the millions who lived in fear of him might argue this point with you.
Just a guess...
I would be really interested to know the level of goodwill that the last five years of war has generated amongst the Iraqis.
Nothing says "the American Way" more than imposing liberty on a country that wasn't particularly asking for it.
Yeah, I bet the Iraqi's are just pissed that his torture chambers aren't in action any more. Thanks for the laughs![}:)]
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 10, 2008, 10:14:42 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It's called asking for specifics you idiot. Unlike you, bumper sticker vomit doesn't work with me. Specific examples usually make for better discussion than talking points. But for someone who employs exactly ZERO logic in discussions I can see how you got confused.
No, but then you'll cite them as being 'libtard blogs' or the like, regardless of where they come from.
I know how you guys act. Calling people names and calling my mom 'easy' get respect from no one.
Not that you ever had it from me, though. You're about the same level as FB for me.
I don't really give a damn what you think about me. You've proven consistently that you can't string together enough words to create a coherent thought.
For contrast, look to the discussions I have with waterboy. We disagree often, but at least he has the faculties to generate a substantive discussion instead of barfing out retarded statements like "koolaid drinker" and the like.
Yep, how intelligent you look when you throw out insults about my mother. Make sure you cross the street at the crosswalk, child. [:O]
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 10:17:37 am
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It's called asking for specifics you idiot. Unlike you, bumper sticker vomit doesn't work with me. Specific examples usually make for better discussion than talking points. But for someone who employs exactly ZERO logic in discussions I can see how you got confused.
No, but then you'll cite them as being 'libtard blogs' or the like, regardless of where they come from.
I know how you guys act. Calling people names and calling my mom 'easy' get respect from no one.
Not that you ever had it from me, though. You're about the same level as FB for me.
I don't really give a damn what you think about me. You've proven consistently that you can't string together enough words to create a coherent thought.
For contrast, look to the discussions I have with waterboy. We disagree often, but at least he has the faculties to generate a substantive discussion instead of barfing out retarded statements like "koolaid drinker" and the like.
Yep, how intelligent you look when you throw out insults about my mother.
Make sure you cross the street at the crosswalk, child.
[:O]
Tell her to stop digging through my garbage and I'll agree to knock it off. [:O]
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 10, 2008, 10:20:37 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It's called asking for specifics you idiot. Unlike you, bumper sticker vomit doesn't work with me. Specific examples usually make for better discussion than talking points. But for someone who employs exactly ZERO logic in discussions I can see how you got confused.
No, but then you'll cite them as being 'libtard blogs' or the like, regardless of where they come from.
I know how you guys act. Calling people names and calling my mom 'easy' get respect from no one.
Not that you ever had it from me, though. You're about the same level as FB for me.
I don't really give a damn what you think about me. You've proven consistently that you can't string together enough words to create a coherent thought.
For contrast, look to the discussions I have with waterboy. We disagree often, but at least he has the faculties to generate a substantive discussion instead of barfing out retarded statements like "koolaid drinker" and the like.
Yep, how intelligent you look when you throw out insults about my mother.
Make sure you cross the street at the crosswalk, child.
[:O]
Tell her to stop digging through my garbage and I'll agree to knock it off.
[:O]
[}:)] Thanks for making my point so easily.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 10:27:19 am
Any time...at least that what she said.
[:O]
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 10, 2008, 10:30:55 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Any time...at least that what she said.
[:O]
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/League_of_Cantankerous_Misanthropes/InternetToughGuy.jpg)
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 11:01:43 am
You need some new schtick. That's about the 5th time I've seen you use that picture.
Was it harder to get that picture out of the frame or back in before you put it back on the wall?
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2008, 11:26:55 am
C'mon guys. Knock it off. Even though you make me laugh, its a guilty laugh.
BTW, I saw someone's mom at QT yesterday. She must have been around 80yrs old. She was bumming change and cigarettes from the laborers buying cigarettes and beer! They were so embarrassed to give her the kiss off. I mean afterall, she's just an old woman down on her luck and hungry. Who could refuse her? After a few minutes when the crowd slowed down, she walked around to the back to a waiting car with some young guy at the wheel.
Now that's a thinking man's pan handler! Get that guy a job in marketing.[;)]
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 10, 2008, 11:32:25 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You need some new schtick. That's about the 5th time I've seen you use that picture.
Was it harder to get that picture out of the frame or back in before you put it back on the wall?
Neither. Quit using my mother as a tool for your immaturity and I'll quit this. Now that I know you're a lawyer that kind of surprises me. don't agree with me, that's fine. But when you start breaking out mother jokes, you really show your class. You'll NEVER see me wheel that out. I'd expect that from FB moreso than you.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 12:11:59 pm
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
C'mon guys. Knock it off. Even though you make me laugh, its a guilty laugh.
BTW, I saw someone's mom at QT yesterday. She must have been around 80yrs old. She was bumming change and cigarettes from the laborers buying cigarettes and beer! They were so embarrassed to give her the kiss off. I mean afterall, she's just an old woman down on her luck and hungry. Who could refuse her? After a few minutes when the crowd slowed down, she walked around to the back to a waiting car with some young guy at the wheel.
Now that's a thinking man's pan handler! Get that guy a job in marketing.[;)]
[:P]
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: iplaw on September 10, 2008, 12:34:18 pm
quote:
Quit using my mother as a tool for your immaturity and I'll quit this.
Must...resist...the urge......
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Breadburner on September 10, 2008, 02:46:35 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You need some new schtick. That's about the 5th time I've seen you use that picture.
Was it harder to get that picture out of the frame or back in before you put it back on the wall?
Neither.
Quit using my mother as a tool for your immaturity and I'll quit this. Now that I know you're a lawyer that kind of surprises me.
don't agree with me, that's fine. But when you start breaking out mother jokes, you really show your class. You'll NEVER see me wheel that out. I'd expect that from FB moreso than you.
(http://kitfwi.com:1337/files/pwned_babies.jpg)
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: akupetsky on September 10, 2008, 10:50:25 pm
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
RECKLESS in his foreign policy,
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS in choosing a Vice President, and
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS with the truth?
Same as above.
I've already given proof in my last two posts. If McCain were president, we'd be at war with Russia because he would already have exhausted all diplomatic measures before the invasion of Georgia. We would be blindly supporting the right wing nuts in Israel that will never trade land for peace. We don't need a "shoot from the hip" "maverick" in the White House; we need a leader that can build bipartisan consensus and make government more transparent to its owners (us). Americans are middle-of-the-roaders and, if they have access and the attention of their leaders, they will demand smart policies that help all of us.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Conan71 on September 11, 2008, 10:04:45 am
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
RECKLESS in his foreign policy,
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS in choosing a Vice President, and
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS with the truth?
Same as above.
I've already given proof in my last two posts. If McCain were president, we'd be at war with Russia because he would already have exhausted all diplomatic measures before the invasion of Georgia. We would be blindly supporting the right wing nuts in Israel that will never trade land for peace. We don't need a "shoot from the hip" "maverick" in the White House; we need a leader that can build bipartisan consensus and make government more transparent to its owners (us). Americans are middle-of-the-roaders and, if they have access and the attention of their leaders, they will demand smart policies that help all of us.
No, that's your opinion, not fact. Judging from Obama's list of pet earmarks posted elsewhere, I'm not seeing much in the way of transparency. With his starkly liberal agenda, how was he planning on building bi-partisan consensus. Feel free to correct me and guide me in the right direction on this. Bi-partisanship and transparency seem to be illogical conclusions.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: akupetsky on September 11, 2008, 10:23:39 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
RECKLESS in his foreign policy,
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS in choosing a Vice President, and
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS with the truth?
Same as above.
I've already given proof in my last two posts. If McCain were president, we'd be at war with Russia because he would already have exhausted all diplomatic measures before the invasion of Georgia. We would be blindly supporting the right wing nuts in Israel that will never trade land for peace. We don't need a "shoot from the hip" "maverick" in the White House; we need a leader that can build bipartisan consensus and make government more transparent to its owners (us). Americans are middle-of-the-roaders and, if they have access and the attention of their leaders, they will demand smart policies that help all of us.
No, that's your opinion, not fact. Judging from Obama's list of pet earmarks posted elsewhere, I'm not seeing much in the way of transparency. With his starkly liberal agenda, how was he planning on building bi-partisan consensus. Feel free to correct me and guide me in the right direction on this. Bi-partisanship and transparency seem to be illogical conclusions.
You seem to imply that requesting earmarks somehow is not transparent. I agree that it is not the optimal way to allocate federal government funds, but it isn't necessarily non-transparent, is it? In your looooong post listing Obama's earmarks, you forgot to mention that it was Obama himself who announced the requested earmarks up front: "Obama Announces FY08 Federal Funding Requests Thursday, June 21, 2007 Printable Format Discloses earmarks to improve government transparency WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today announced that he had requested federal funding for the following projects, in the amounts designated by his constituents and several national organizations, as part of this year's annual appropriations process:" Moreover, from Senator Obama's Senate website: "Senator Obama worked closely with Senator Coburn, to draft and ultimately pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. President Bush signed this measure into law in September of 2006. "This important bill will bring badly needed transparency to Federal spending by creating a user-friendly website to search all government contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans, thereby opening up Federal financial transactions to public scrutiny. This measure was cosponsored by more than 40 Senators and received the support of more than 100 outside groups from all parts of the political spectrum. It was also endorsed by dozens of editorial boards across the country from the Wall Street Journal, to the Chicago Sun-Times and The Oklahoman. "The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act Hidden, last-minute earmarks hide pork and add to wasteful federal spending. Senator Obama sponsored the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act. The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists. Several of these provisions were included in the ethics and lobbying reform bill that passed the Senate in January 2007." So, yes, I think Obama would bring greater transparency to the White House and the government in general. I'm not sure what you mean about "starkly liberal agenda", although I have to say that I've heard this complaint before. Universal health care is not "liberal" it's just common sense economics that interests as diverse as drug manufacturers, doctors, insurance companies and health care advocates can agree on. Tax cuts for 95% of the population (including small businesses) is not "liberal"; it's good tax policy. Not spending gobs of money on unnecessary wars is actually very conservative.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Conan71 on September 11, 2008, 10:42:35 pm
Earmarks, by nature, are not overly transparent funding requests. Funding for dung beetle sexual proclivities getting stuck into a highway bill is one example.
Putting 2mm in college research funding into a military spending bill is yet another example.
The point with earmarks is that they are stuffed deep into bills so they avoid mass scruitiny.
There is only one reason I can think of earmarks get shoved into sausage legislation: if it had to stand on it's own merits it would get shot down. Now, couple that earmark with 65 others from other Senators (so they can get bidness done) and the gauntlet has been thrown down. People wind up voting for everyone else's earmarks so theirs will be voted for.
Earmarks are one of the least transparent tools Senators use, Putz.
I don't see any pattern in Obama's past record which has succesfully convince me he would run the WH per his promises.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: FOTD on September 11, 2008, 11:45:04 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Earmarks, by nature, are not overly transparent funding requests. Funding for dung beetle sexual proclivities getting stuck into a highway bill is one example.
Putting 2mm in college research funding into a military spending bill is yet another example.
The point with earmarks is that they are stuffed deep into bills so they avoid mass scruitiny.
There is only one reason I can think of earmarks get shoved into sausage legislation: if it had to stand on it's own merits it would get shot down. Now, couple that earmark with 65 others from other Senators (so they can get bidness done) and the gauntlet has been thrown down. People wind up voting for everyone else's earmarks so theirs will be voted for.
Earmarks are one of the least transparent tools Senators use, Putz.
I don't see any pattern in Obama's past record which has succesfully convince me he would run the WH per his promises.
Conan. Take a chance that Obama will run our government better than McBush. Your earmark points ar spot on. Don't be so scared to take the risk on a better alternative to McBush who has been party to these very type of shenanigans you mention .
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: akupetsky on September 12, 2008, 03:28:26 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Earmarks, by nature, are not overly transparent funding requests. Funding for dung beetle sexual proclivities getting stuck into a highway bill is one example.
Putting 2mm in college research funding into a military spending bill is yet another example.
The point with earmarks is that they are stuffed deep into bills so they avoid mass scruitiny.
There is only one reason I can think of earmarks get shoved into sausage legislation: if it had to stand on it's own merits it would get shot down. Now, couple that earmark with 65 others from other Senators (so they can get bidness done) and the gauntlet has been thrown down. People wind up voting for everyone else's earmarks so theirs will be voted for.
Earmarks are one of the least transparent tools Senators use, Putz.
I don't see any pattern in Obama's past record which has succesfully convince me he would run the WH per his promises.
Because of Obama's legislation, you are able to point out all of his earmarks and shame him and others into not doing it in the future. That's a pretty good first step.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: pmcalk on September 14, 2008, 09:45:31 am
The greatest evidence that McCain is reckless, not a maverick, is his choice of Sarah Palin. You can defend all of the lies and exagerations, the abuse of power claims, the book banning claims, etc....but I dare anyone out there to say with a straight face that, among all of the republicans out there, she was the best choice to fill the second highest position in the land. McCain made a political choice--he made clear that it was more important to win than to put his country first. quote:
In the military culture that shaped John McCain, there is no more important responsibility than the promotion boards that select the right officers for top positions of command. It's a sacred trust in McCain's world, because people's lives are at stake.
McCain wrote in his memoir of the officer's responsibility for those who serve under him: "He does not risk their lives and welfare for his sake, but only to answer the shared duty they are called to answer."
McCain made the most important command decision of his life when he chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee. Two weeks later, it is still puzzling that he selected a person who, for all her admirable qualities, is not prepared by experience or interest to be commander in chief. No promotion board in history would have made such a decision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202594.html
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: guido911 on September 14, 2008, 11:35:48 am
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You need some new schtick. That's about the 5th time I've seen you use that picture.
That's about right. He used that photo against me a few weeks back. I think Hoss is in love with that guy.
Title: McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...
Post by: Hoss on September 14, 2008, 12:10:37 pm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You need some new schtick. That's about the 5th time I've seen you use that picture.
That's about right. He used that photo against me a few weeks back. I think Hoss is in love with that guy.
Yet another nugget of substance from Gweedork...
|