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

[akupetsky]

...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!

[USRufnex]

Actually, these days, McCain is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry could aspire to be....

[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

[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.

[Hoss]

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.

[akupetsky]

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?)

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Hoss]

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!

[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.

[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.

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?

[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....

[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.

[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.