Another attack from the left on McCains service

Socrtease said:
I have an idea. If there is no "there" there then open up your entire military file Senator McCain. Show us everything, warts and all. My guess is, if it was a glowing file, we all would have seen it already. The guy can put all this to rest by signing the release and opening his military record up to all of us.
Click to expand...

Turnabout is fair play!
 
Socrtease said:
I imagine that is part of it. But I also imagine that he is trying to hide that at some point he was a typical arrogant Naval Aviator who probably has a rash of reprimands on his record. But if that is it, that can be explained away as being young and dumb and full of piss and vinegar. But by NOT showing it to us, he is creating the image that he is trying to hide something.
Click to expand...

I think he would like to avoid saying, "When I was young and dumb, I was young and dumb." It might have worked for GWB, but there are too many comparisons already.
 
Superfreak said:
I already stated on the other threads on that topic that Clark was 100% correct in what he said you twit. I also said that when taken out of context it does look bad. So what would make you think that was what I was referring too?

The attacks from the left I was referring to are on this board when certain individuals have attempted to act as though McCain was a collaborator with the enemy etc.....

The "attack" in the article I was referring to, was Beer trying to claim that because McCain was just a POW being tortured that he couldn't really understand as much as those that kept fighting and/or were exposed to the turmoil in the US. That somehow his being a POW was a limit on his ability to lead.
Click to expand...


See Crakwao, I told you he would claim it was something different than what Clark said.
 
Jarod said:
See Crakwao, I told you he would claim it was something different than what Clark said.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear to me that he's acknowledging that what Clark wasn't offensive and he agreed with it. What more would you like him to say?
 
Jarod said:
See Crakwao, I told you he would claim it was something different than what Clark said.
Click to expand...
Because it was different than what Clark said.

Being a POW is not a limiter to his ability to lead. It certainly doesn't mean he couldn't understand turmoil.

Had Clark said that crashing a plane made him unqualified, it would be the same. But Clark didn't say that. Clark said that it doesn't make him any more qualified to lead because he crashed a plane. That is a truth. Saying that because he crashed it he is unqualified would have been an attack.
 
cawacko said:
Seems pretty clear to me that he's acknowledging that what Clark wasn't offensive and he agreed with it. What more would you like him to say?
Click to expand...

Sure, now that everyone went on record saying Clark was not attacking. But look at the title of this thread and think to yourself...

Was that his origional intent?

You already jumped on me, for appearing to not make that assumption earlier.
 
Damocles said:
Because it was different than what Clark said.

Being a POW is not a limiter to his ability to lead. It certainly doesn't mean he couldn't understand turmoil.

Had Clark said that crashing a plane made him unqualified, it would be the same. But Clark didn't say that. Clark said that it doesn't make him any more qualified to lead because he crashed a plane. That is a truth. Saying that because he crashed it he is unqualified would have been an attack.
Click to expand...

You missed that first part of the conversation, thats not what I was talking about.

THe title of this thread was clearly claiming that what Clark said was an attack on McCain's military record.
 
Jarod said:
You missed that first part of the conversation, thats not what I was talking about.

THe title of this thread was clearly claiming that what Clark said was an attack on McCain's military record.
Click to expand...
But it was what you were talking about when you said (paraphrasing), "See? I told you Cawacko that he would try and say it was different than what Clark said." I could tell that because that statement was right after that remark.

And the title of this thread was not saying that.
 
Jarod said:
Sure, now that everyone went on record saying Clark was not attacking. But look at the title of this thread and think to yourself...

Was that his origional intent?

You already jumped on me, for appearing to not make that assumption earlier.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11429.html

There have been other 'attacks' on McCain's record by people on the left other than Wes Clark. His reference was not just to Clark.
 
Damocles said:
But it was what you were talking about when you said (paraphrasing), "See? I told you Cawacko that he would try and say it was different than what Clark said." I could tell that because that statement was right after that remark.

And the title of this thread was not saying that.
Click to expand...

Check out what Cawacko and I were discussing last night, and what I told him SuperCandy would claim.

I was not saying that SuperCandy would claim that what Clark said was different thatn what this other yahoo said. I was saying that SuperCandy would claim that the "attack on McCains service" Candy was refering to in the title of this thread was something different than Clarks "Attack"!
 
cawacko said:
Dude, you just wrote a new thread about Wes Clark attacking McCain and are responding to a thread about Debeers. Why are you asking who the other attack is when you know the answer?
Click to expand...

You thought differently last night???!
 
Jarod said:
Check out what Cawacko and I were discussing last night, and what I told him SuperCandy would claim.

I was not saying that SuperCandy would claim that what Clark said was different thatn what this other yahoo said. I was saying that SuperCandy would claim that the "attack on McCains service" Candy was refering to in the title of this thread was something different than Clarks "Attack"!
Click to expand...
It is dishonest to pretend that the only perceived attack that has been made on McCain's service came from Clark and then project that meaning onto a title that doesn't mention Clark at all.

I expect better from you especially Jarod. What has been up with you of late? You seem to have turned into a slobbering hack rather than the reasonable person I've known in the past.
 
Jarod said:
Sure, now that everyone went on record saying Clark was not attacking. But look at the title of this thread and think to yourself...

Was that his origional intent?

You already jumped on me, for appearing to not make that assumption earlier.
Click to expand...

Given that on the very first thread regarding Clarks comments I stated that I thought Clark was 100% accurate in his comments and that they were simply being taken out of context....

Then no Alice... that was not my original intent
 
Jarod said:
You missed that first part of the conversation, thats not what I was talking about.

THe title of this thread was clearly claiming that what Clark said was an attack on McCain's military record.
Click to expand...

Title of the thread "Another attack from the left on McCains service"

Tell us Alice... WHERE IN THE HELL do you get that it had anything to do with Clark???
 
Damocles said:
It is dishonest to pretend that the only perceived attack that has been made on McCain's service came from Clark and then project that meaning onto a title that doesn't mention Clark at all.

I expect better from you especially Jarod. What has been up with you of late? You seem to have turned into a slobbering hack rather than the reasonable person I've known in the past.
Click to expand...

I feel the same about you lately.

But, it was clear what attacks Candy was talking about. Clear to everyone. He can claim differently, and you can try to defend him, it was clear. No way to prove it now that he is backtracking so say what you want. I cant agrue it, but I know what I belive, and suspect what you belive is not what you are argueing.
 
cawacko said:
Dude, you just wrote a new thread about Wes Clark attacking McCain and are responding to a thread about Debeers. Why are you asking who the other attack is when you know the answer?
Click to expand...

Ask Cawacko what he thought?
 
Jarod said:
I feel the same about you lately.

But, it was clear what attacks Candy was talking about. Clear to everyone. He can claim differently, and you can try to defend him, it was clear. No way to prove it now that he is backtracking so say what you want. I cant agrue it, but I know what I belive, and suspect what you belive is not what you are argueing.
Click to expand...
You are being deliberately disingenuous.

In all conversations about Clark, SF has been consistent that Clark's statement was not an attack and actually was accurate. Pretending that the past conversations do not exist, and that somehow he clearly meant now what he made clear he doesn't believe in all those other conversations is directly dishonest. It is a good example of the hackery that I see from you of late.

I'd like to know about an example of mine. I think it would be difficult. I am not voting for the candidate from my party, I am not supporting him, I have expressed why.

We'll start from there. How is that hackery?
 
Jarod said:
I feel the same about you lately.

But, it was clear what attacks Candy was talking about. Clear to everyone. He can claim differently, and you can try to defend him, it was clear. No way to prove it now that he is backtracking so say what you want. I cant agrue it, but I know what I belive, and suspect what you belive is not what you are argueing.
Click to expand...

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=12343&highlight=Clark

Any time you want to apologize precious, I'll accept it.

Again, as stated on the other thread with your faux outrage.... just because YOU read into the title what YOU wanted it to "mean" doesn't mean that is MY position.

I CLEARLY stated an attack from the LEFT.

Also moron... it is not BACKTRACKING to tell you that your PERCEPTION of my position was 100% incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top