Another attack from the left on McCains service

[Cancel 2016.2]

That is clearly, flat out, not what he said.

We all know how things that are "clear" to you turn out. It translates to your being 100% wrong.

As it is indeed what he said....

"Because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war," said Beers, a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam.

Note to Precious.... the above quote is talking about his time as a POW.

"So I think," Beers continued, "to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world."


Note two to Precious... he then follows up the first by saying " (once again referring to McCains times as a POW) "his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited"

Now tell me again precious how he did not say it.

 

[Jarod]

Again, its not what he said.

 

[Jarod]

We all know how things that are "clear" to you turn out. It translates to your being 100% wrong.

As it is indeed what he said....

"Because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war," said Beers, a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam.

Note to Precious.... the above quote is talking about his time as a POW.

"So I think," Beers continued, "to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world."


Note two to Precious... he then follows up the first by saying " (once again referring to McCains times as a POW) "his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited"

Now tell me again precious how he did not say it.

How does that get translated to...

"McCains time as a POW sadly limits his national security abilities"

Experience is different than abilities.
You left out "to some extent"

The meaning is changed signifigantly, and it is not an attack on his service. At best it is a weak comment on his qualifications.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How does that get translated to...

"McCains time as a POW sadly limits his national security abilities"

Experience is different than abilities.
You left out "to some extent"

The meaning is changed signifigantly, and it is not an attack on his service. At best it is a weak comment on his qualifications.

Damn you are retarded precious.

The first paragraph talks about McCains time as a POW. The second paragraph talks about that time as a POW sadly limiting his national security abilities.

Are you really this fucking dense?

I feel sorry for your clients.

 

[LadyT]

Damn you are retarded precious.

The first paragraph talks about McCains time as a POW. The second paragraph talks about that time as a POW sadly limiting his national security abilities.

Are you really this fucking dense?

I feel sorry for your clients.

I feel sorry for your clients.

This has been explained to you over and over again Dixie. He clearly and explicitely gave the context in which he was talking about yet you want to ignore that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I feel sorry for your clients.

This has been explained to you over and over again Dixie. He clearly and explicitely gave the context in which he was talking about yet you want to ignore that.

I have clearly stated why that context is so bogus. Yet none of you has refuted any portion of that. Why? Because you cannot.

Its ok.... I know that with the little circle jerk working against me you all can simply pat yourselves on the back and proclaim victory. That is fine. Any open minded individual that reads the thread can see that Beers is flat out wrong.

Now, back to your circle jerk...

 

[Bonestorm]

I have clearly stated why that context is so bogus. Yet none of you has refuted any portion of that. Why? Because you cannot.

Its ok.... I know that with the little circle jerk working against me you all can simply pat yourselves on the back and proclaim victory. That is fine. Any open minded individual that reads the thread can see that Beers is flat out wrong.

Now, back to your circle jerk...

Hilarious.

I almost feel sorry for the little guy. Almost.

 

[LadyT]

I have clearly stated why that context is so bogus. Yet none of you has refuted any portion of that. Why? Because you cannot.
Its ok.... I know that with the little circle jerk working against me you all can simply pat yourselves on the back and proclaim victory. That is fine. Any open minded individual that reads the thread can see that Beers is flat out wrong.

Now, back to your circle jerk...

LOL. Wow.

you're treading 1/3 territory now

 

[cawacko]

Here you go Dungheap, this is what I was referencing ealier and lo and behold the Chronicle pulls through for me.

'Campaigns quickly answer each perceived slight'

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/07/02/MNUP11I49M.DTL

 

[LadyT]

From cawacko's article.....great quote with a slight adjustment:

"That phrase of outrage has become the mantra for both Republicans and Democrats like Superdouche who have made indignation the most over-utilized ammunition in the campaign arsenals."

 

[Bonestorm]

Did you actually read that piece Cawacko? Because it offered less evidence of Obama's outrage or offense at perceived attacks or slights than you did previously.

Below is the totality of the article's treatment of the Obama's campaign's outrage or offense:

Team Obama recently played the same game: "How dare you" question his patriotism and "How dare you" attack his wife, Michelle Obama?

That's it. Not much there to deal with. And although I see quotes in the original article, I see no evidence of who is being quoted, where or when. The Chronicle piece is actually worse than what you offered.

Not going to cut it, homes.

 

[cawacko]

Did you actually read that piece Cawacko? Because it offered less evidence of Obama's outrage or offense at perceived attacks or slights than you did previously.

Below is the totality of the article's treatment of the Obama's campaign's outrage or offense:



That's it. Not much there to deal with. And although I see quotes in the original article, I see no evidence of who is being quoted, where or when. The Chronicle piece is actually worse than what you offered.

Not going to cut it, homes.

While I'm in Tahoe wasted this weekend I'll find you some of Obama's whiny quotes. Of course 'whiny' is often a relative or partisan thing. But you are I are watching the same race from two totally different prisms if you think Obama and his camp have not whined at all in this compain about things their opponents have said.

 

[Bonestorm]

While I'm in Tahoe wasted this weekend I'll find you some of Obama's whiny quotes. Of course 'whiny' is often a relative or partisan thing. But you are I are watching the same race from two totally different prisms if you think Obama and his camp have not whined at all in this compain about things their opponents have said.

I really don't see Obama stuck on outrage over every little thing that is said about him and I think we can all agree that the things that have been floating around about Obama are (1) far more pernicious and (2) flat out lies (for Christ's sake the campaign felt compelled to distribute a copy of his birth certificate to rebut the rumor that he was not an American) as compared to the stuff McCain has been going ape over.

But hey, maybe I am blinded by my partisanship, which is why I asked you to provide some examples of Obama immediately jumping to outrage mode. You haven't done so. I remain skeptical that my partisanship is coloring my observation and I think you biases towards McCain are coloring yours.

 

[cawacko]

I really don't see Obama stuck on outrage over every little thing that is said about him and I think we can all agree that the things that have been floating around about Obama are (1) far more pernicious and (2) flat out lies (for Christ's sake the campaign felt compelled to distribute a copy of his birth certificate to rebut the rumor that he was not an American) as compared to the stuff McCain has been going ape over.

But hey, maybe I am blinded by my partisanship, which is why I asked you to provide some examples of Obama immediately jumping to outrage mode. You haven't done so. I remain skeptical that my partisanship is coloring my observation and I think you biases towards McCain are coloring yours.

I'm at work and leaving now for the airport. I will find time and get you those examples.

I see the McCain camp whining to is the difference. I'm not trying to deny it. I see it the same way I see Obama's. That is the difference.

 

[Damocles]

Easy precious, I was on the phone. Don't get your tighty whiteys in such a bunch.

As I stated before, which you were clearly incapable of reading. (Which really isn't a shock) To suggest that McCains experience in Vietnam as a POW somehow limits/reduces his ability to be President is an attack on his service. He said that because McCain was in isolation as a POW that he didn't go through all the challenges the other Vets did. That by itself is an attack precious.

He demeans the POWs experiences when he states that they didn't have the "challenges" of other Vets who were free or of those who were here at home to see the "turmoil".

It's all that extra exercise they got using the awesome power of electric muscle toning... I mean, all that free food and fun...

 

[uscitizen]

Well if Chinese based torture methods were good enough for Gitmo....