I asked for evidence of the warmongering, you and yours have provided none. When it got to the point of 'Cypress said it too!' I realized you had none. I was open to being convinced.
Education
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
You were provided with plenty, you just dont' want to see. You want to be "convinced" to vote for McCain...while still maintaining your alleged anti war stance. You are a lot like McCain himself that way. In bed with lobbyists while crusading against them.
On another note...when you google Superfreak you find pictures of him holding exploded keyboards. Apparently he is known for running through them!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
But if they all chant it together like good little parrots the magic jackass fairy will make all their dreams come true.
Lorax: Just to be clear....The jackass reference was of course used because it is the Dem symbol. It is not meant that there really is a jackass fairy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You were provided with plenty, you just dont' want to see. You want to be "convinced" to vote for McCain...while still maintaining your alleged anti war stance. You are a lot like McCain himself that way. In bed with lobbyists while crusading against them.
On another note...when you google Superfreak you find pictures of him holding exploded keyboards. Apparently he is known for running through them!
Thorn
Member
Sorry, I didn't mean to comment and run, but am under some serious time constraints for a while.
I'll partially comment on an earlier post by Epicurius as well, in which he felt it wasn't right to hold all students to the same standard.
There has to be a basic set of skills taught, to give students a solid grounding in those skills that will be useful to them no matter what they do. Facility with and correct use of the English language is essential for communication; that includes a decent basic vocabulary. Spelling is important because so many words sound alike but have widely different meanings (i.e. homonyms). Basic arithmetic skills also are essential; among skills I stress the importance of understanding those exercises, not simply being able to parrot out rules by rote. Basic science understanding, and history and geography, as well as what we used to call "social studies", are also important in helping kids become well rounded individuals. New learning tools certainly have made both teaching and learning both more accessible and more challenging. The sheer bulk of information available is daunting at best, and it's important to somehow teach students critical thinking, how not to accept everything they read as truth.
To me it is also essential, though we see this too rarely right now, that students have some instruction and understanding of logic and reason.
None of these subjects has to be dry; on the contrary learning can be a lot of fun if it's approached correctly.
From these elemental studies (did I forget something?) students then can begin to understand what choices may be available to them and choose to develop one or several of those skills further.
An earlier poster (same one I think) also made a point about more able students being essentially warehoused with those less gifted. I've learned also that many students who should be in Special Ed classes (discontinued in many areas!) also are included in mainstream classes. This isn't fair to them or to anybody else. Also more able students in some areas are held back to the class norm, which often isn't too high.
Another thread or post can deal with the difficulties that teachers face just in the classroom, as well as administratively, with parents, with the system, etc.
I am a research scientist currently working in a medical school. Recently our curriculum has shifted from the former grueling memorization of information to a problem solving approach; far more reasonable in a world where medical information is more readily accessible given a basic understanding of anatomy, physiology, etc., and knowing what questions to ask.
No, I was presented with Talking Points that were discredited, it was sad.You were provided with plenty, you just dont' want to see. You want to be "convinced" to vote for McCain...while still maintaining your alleged anti war stance. You are a lot like McCain himself that way. In bed with lobbyists while crusading against them.
On another note...when you google Superfreak you find pictures of him holding exploded keyboards. Apparently he is known for running through them!
As I said, I could find you links of Bush talking up escalating with Iraq before he was elected even. If all you can find is the two examples you call "evidence" then you proved nothing and are truly in imagination land. Your "evidence" is weak and contrary to what you think it "proves".
They are working to convince themselves. If they actually look at it honestly they know what I say about it is right. Especially considering that I still lean toward the Libertarian, if their guy is Obama. (Yes, this means if it is HillBilly I'll be voting McCain.)
He even criticized Clinton for not using ground troops in a war unpopular for most Repubs.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...se+of+ground+troops"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Support preemptive war
Q: Do you believe in the Bush doctrine? In 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack, that we can attack if this country feels threatened. And on that basis we went into Iraq. Do you agree with the doctrine, or would you change it?
A: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the US. There hasn't been. Now, maybe that's all by accident. But if there had been, I think it's very clear where the responsibility would have been placed. We created the Department of Homeland Security, and America is safer. I'd like to give the president some credit for that. Now, I strongly disagreed with the strategy employed by Secretary Rumsfeld. And I'm the only one at the time that said we've got to employ a new strategy and outlined what it was, which is the Petraeus strategy. But we are succeeding now in Iraq.
Here he criticizes Romney for suggesting that the President should consult anyone before delcaring war.
Q: [to McCain]:You didn't think much of the answer of Gov. Romney in the last debate, when he said that he would ask his lawyers whether he needed congressional authorization to use military force against Iran. Why not?
MCCAIN: Because I don't think that's the time to call in the lawyers, when we're in a national security crisis. Those are the last people I'd call in. I'd call in my wisdom, my knowledge, my background, my experience, and my ability to lead this nation.
We all know about Bomb Iran and more and more wars. It's ridiculous to pretend this guy is not a warmonger. If he is not then NO ONE ever has been.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Homeland_Security.htm
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...se+of+ground+troops"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Support preemptive war
Q: Do you believe in the Bush doctrine? In 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack, that we can attack if this country feels threatened. And on that basis we went into Iraq. Do you agree with the doctrine, or would you change it?
A: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the US. There hasn't been. Now, maybe that's all by accident. But if there had been, I think it's very clear where the responsibility would have been placed. We created the Department of Homeland Security, and America is safer. I'd like to give the president some credit for that. Now, I strongly disagreed with the strategy employed by Secretary Rumsfeld. And I'm the only one at the time that said we've got to employ a new strategy and outlined what it was, which is the Petraeus strategy. But we are succeeding now in Iraq.
Here he criticizes Romney for suggesting that the President should consult anyone before delcaring war.
Q: [to McCain]:You didn't think much of the answer of Gov. Romney in the last debate, when he said that he would ask his lawyers whether he needed congressional authorization to use military force against Iran. Why not?
MCCAIN: Because I don't think that's the time to call in the lawyers, when we're in a national security crisis. Those are the last people I'd call in. I'd call in my wisdom, my knowledge, my background, my experience, and my ability to lead this nation.
We all know about Bomb Iran and more and more wars. It's ridiculous to pretend this guy is not a warmonger. If he is not then NO ONE ever has been.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Homeland_Security.htm
Now this is what I was talking about. Something like this. Not "Pat Buchanan says it too!"
Not, "Cypress Says it too!" Neither of those are evidence.
Now to read the meat of this one.
BTW - He criticized Romney for having to consult with Lawyers before taking action. He knew the President has authority during emergencies to do what is necessary, and also said he would "absolutely consult Congress." I wouldn't be consulting the WH attorneys at that moment either.
Battleborne
Terminator
What a crock....!
Bolding your own submission above clears this up...John was referring to not calling in the 'Lawyers' to advise him on war matters...he did not say he would not consult congress...what a cheery picked argument...which in fact falls apart at the seams!
Bolding your own submission above clears this up...John was referring to not calling in the 'Lawyers' to advise him on war matters...he did not say he would not consult congress...what a cheery picked argument...which in fact falls apart at the seams!
No, you are right, he said he would "absolutely consult Congress". (From Cypress' quote).Bolding your own submission above clears this up...John was referring to not calling in the 'Lawyers' to advise him on war matters...he did not say he would not consult congress...what a cheery picked argument...which in fact falls apart at the seams!
The site rocks, but it is clearly pointing you where it wants to lead you. There is a ton of information on there.
However, the supporting of preemptive strikes, I don't like it. Shoot, I can remember speech after speech from Reagan speaking of how America never strikes first.
Battleborne
Terminator
I know..............
I also use that site ...I have even linked to it posting in the past...ya never told me it rocked....
I also use that site ...I have even linked to it posting in the past...ya never told me it rocked....
Battleborne
Terminator
I don't think you left anything out that the site gave you, however that site left out some of the answer he gave. Just as Cypress' link left out that beginning portion in his story on that other thread. I believe I remember that interview now.
So far the best evidence I have of McCain being a war monger is his support of Preemptive strikes, from your link. I don't like preemptive strikes. I don't support that policy and will gladly give a piece of my "security" to ensure that America continues to not strike first.
No, he did not. Paul said that...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="absolutely+consult+Congress"
And McCain said he would "consult" (meaning he sees no need for a declaration by congress) congress if there was plenty of time.
The problem with the Declaration clause is they left it wide open without direct requirements of what would be a Declaration. That is how this inane War Powers Act continues to be used and how we wind up in most of these messes. We made it too easy to go, and too easy to attempt to weasel out of a vote to go.
Not picking on you....kay?
You stated I cherry picked. I did nothing of the kind. I provided the full quote on the matter from the source. You did nothing but bold (cherry pick) what you thought was relevant but it does not change what he said, and that was that there was no need to consult congress much less ask for a declaration of war, but he would if he had time.
Battleborne
Terminator
I can't believe you just said this...............!
Suppose intelligence showed Iran was preparing to launch a Nuke missle at Israel...should we not preemtive strike the launch pad?... or just wait until Israel has been hit...then it would pass muster and be justified?
Suppose intelligence showed Iran was preparing to launch a Nuke missle at Israel...should we not preemtive strike the launch pad?... or just wait until Israel has been hit...then it would pass muster and be justified?