McCain is Not a Maverick, He's a...

[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?

[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.[]

[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.

[iplaw]

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.[]

[]

[iplaw]

quote:Quit using my mother as a tool for your immaturity and I'll quit this.

Must...resist...the urge......

[Breadburner]

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.

[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.

[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.

[akupetsky]

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 â€" 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.  

[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.

[FOTD]

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 .

[akupetsky]

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.

[pmcalk]

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

[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.

[Hoss]

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...