Grandpa McCain gets a girlfriend

I'm just messing with you brother .. McCain will be EASY though.

WAR
Age
WAR
Lobbyist influence allegations
WAR
Lack of enthusiastic support from the right-wingers
WAR
Flip-flopping on torture
WAR
Propensity to say really dumb shit
WAR

EASY

"http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html"

See... I can come up with "alleged" influence for Obama too. :)

I agree with you that going against Obama means less enthusiasm from the right. It also means McCain will have to fight for the independents more so than he would against Hillary. Which is why I think Obama would win.

You mentioned another area they differ... what was it again... started with a W... it'll come to me in a moment.... :cool:
 
"http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html"

See... I can come up with "alleged" influence for Obama too. :)

I agree with you that going against Obama means less enthusiasm from the right. It also means McCain will have to fight for the independents more so than he would against Hillary. Which is why I think Obama would win.

You mentioned another area they differ... what was it again... started with a W... it'll come to me in a moment.... :cool:

:)
 
The content of the letter was partially drafted by Paxson's lobbyist and the woman with whom he is alleged to have an inappropriate relationship.

The fact that McCain wasn't so fucking stupid to actually request the FCC to take a specific action only means that, while he did something stupid, he didn't do something that was completely brain-dead.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E1D6143BF935A35752C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=

The letter is above. Again, just trying to help you out.
 
LMAO...

Did the letter request the FCC to act in favor of the company or not?

Yes, his asking for an expedited decision was wrong in my opinion... and he was rebuked by the FCC for doing so.

If this is all you can come up with against McCain with regards to lobbyist influence then your position is as weak as those who think McCain is a war monger, yet can only come up with the "bomb Iran" song as evidence of such.


You're out of your mind if you think that the clear implication from that letter is anything other than McCain favoring the proposal. I mean, if he were indifferent he wouldn't write the letter at all. And if he didn't say he opposed it . . . well, what other conclusion is there.
 
You're out of your mind if you think that the clear implication from that letter is anything other than McCain favoring the proposal. I mean, if he were indifferent he wouldn't write the letter at all. And if he didn't say he opposed it . . . well, what other conclusion is there.

You obviously did not read the letter. He requested that after two years, the FCC actually VOTE to resolve the issue one way or another.

But yes, I understand... you can read into his comments whatever you want and that makes it true.

Like I said, tell Obama to make lobbyist influence a major issue with McCain.

If this is the worst you can come up with on McCain, maybe Obama won't win.
 
You obviously did not read the letter. He requested that after two years, the FCC actually VOTE to resolve the issue one way or another.

But yes, I understand... you can read into his comments whatever you want and that makes it true.

Like I said, tell Obama to make lobbyist influence a major issue with McCain.

If this is the worst you can come up with on McCain, maybe Obama won't win.


Nevermind, I agree with you now. Let's take McCain and every other politician at their word that they aren't favoring a particular action when they write two letters to the FCC on behalf of a lobbyist for a company that flies the politician around the country for campaign purposes, donates money to the campaign and is a supporter of the candidate and wherein the lobbyist actually provides information for inclusion in the letters and wherein the staff of the politician intervene in what they consider an inappropriate relationship with the lobbyist.

That makes a lot of sense. I'm in agreement.

But what do you make of this:

After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell “Bud” Paxson, finally ruined his company.

Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.

McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters – but not the great bulk of television stations – off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation” at a hearing on September 8, 2004.

Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson – and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.


I suppose as long as John McCain says that Paxson had nothing to do with his change of heart that we have to accept that. After all, he is a politician and politicians always speak the truth, particularly when their careers are on the line.
 
Normally I wouldn’t believe it, but it’s John McCain so I do.

He’s just the kind of guy who tells it like it is. A…what would you call it? A straight-shooter?

So even though what DH posted looks kinda bad, it’s John McCain, so I think he’s being straight with us. McCain’s close friend, Tim Russert, is right. Ease off of him. This election should be about issues. Like, who can keep me safer, John McCain who was a POW for five years and is married to someone who isn't afraid to say she was always proud of America? Or someone else? Let's stick to what's important.

Thanks everyone.
 
its all circumstantial.. just like hillarys cattle investment, and whitewater, and... continue on down the skeleton list.
 
its all circumstantial.. just like hillarys cattle investment, and whitewater, and... continue on down the skeleton list.

And chap brings up another good point.

This story is more about Hillary than it's about McCain. Let's not forget that in this rush to railroad a straight shooter like McCain, ok?

Thanks everyone.
 
its all about squashing any potential for hillary to get into the headlines and steal any of obamas thunder.
 
its all about squashing any potential for hillary to get into the headlines and steal any of obamas thunder.

It’s even worse than that. I read what McCain said about the story at his press conference. In typical, forthright fashion, he said that this story is a distraction and it keeps him from focusing on the big issues.

I just feel badly that this Hillary-planted story about McCain doing favors for lobbyists and having lobbyists working on his current campaign for no salary, is going to keep him from talking about his real campaign issues – like keeping lobbyists out of campaigns for one!

I wish that we would all ease off of this story about McCain having lobbyists working on his campaign for free and being too cozy with him, so McCain can back to running on a campaign of getting lobbyists out of politics.

Thanks everyone.
 
It’s even worse than that. I read what McCain said about the story at his press conference. In typical, forthright fashion, he said that this story is a distraction and it keeps him from focusing on the big issues.

I just feel badly that this Hillary-planted story about McCain doing favors for lobbyists and having lobbyists working on his current campaign for no salary, is going to keep him from talking about his real campaign issues – like keeping lobbyists out of campaigns for one!

I wish that we would all ease off of this story about McCain having lobbyists working on his campaign for free and being too cozy with him, so McCain can back to running on a campaign of getting lobbyists out of politics.

Thanks everyone.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

yeah, Obama too.... yeah .... faux outrage for all!!!

Thanks everyone!
 
Originally Posted by Cypress ......

I also never called "the troops" murderers.

...............

This is the cost of war. One that war supporters are too willing to insist other pay, while at the same time, denying that they pay it. It’s one that our militaristic society is oblivious to.

What I said about McCain is that anyone who votes for him is supporting the continued murders of people in Iraq, that would include our soliders who die there.

I believe all of the above. I feel no shame over these beliefs.

ps - I've never spit on anyone or anything. I don't spit. It's gross man.

You don't have to justify anything Darla. I know you've invested more of yourself to end the slaughter, the death, the murder of iraqis and americans than virtually anyone I know.

I understand that anyone who votes, supports, or makes excuse for Mr. Bomb Iran; there's gonna be more wars; we could be in Iraq for 100 years, is enabling warmongering, slaughter, and murder.
 
You don't have to justify anything Darla. I know you've invested more of yourself to end the slaughter, the death, the murder of iraqis and americans than virtually anyone I know.

I understand that anyone who votes, supports, or makes excuse for Mr. Bomb Iran; there's gonna be more wars; te could be in Iraq for 100 years, is enabling warmongering, slaugher, and murder.

:kiss2:
 
What a drag it would be if the best I could muster on this board was some variation of "Republicans do it too!", for the 7,405th time.
 
What a drag it would be if the best I could muster on this board was some variation of "Republicans do it too!", for the 7,405th time.

You feeling a bit depressed today? Ya seem a bit pissy.

It isn't their fault that all they can post is some old story that is a non-issue. They are desperate. Let them have their perceived moment.


and yes, I understand you were likely addressing that to me.
 
You feeling a bit depressed today? Ya seem a bit pissy.

It isn't their fault that all they can post is some old story that is a non-issue. They are desperate. Let them have their perceived moment.


and yes, I understand you were likely addressing that to me.


If you know it was directed at you, then you accept this as your m.o. That's a good 1st step.

It's a ridiculous response, and yet it's one that you rely on time & time again. That's why I said you were an idiot on the other thread. First, it starts with "oh, now look at the Dems, who for years told us it shouldn't matter if it's about sex, making a big deal about sex," as though that is some sort of definitive 'gotcha.' In point of fact, it's retarded. As someone pointed out, the righties put sexual liaisons & affairs on the table for permanent scrutiny with the over-the-top persecution of the '90's. No one gets a free pass, anymore - especially not one of their own.

Beyond that, it's insanely stupid to think that people are making a big deal about this because of sex. We're talking about sex WITH A LOBBYIST. That last part is of particular importance, considering McCain's very public stands on ethics & finance.

Why not just try to argue the merits of a particular argument or story, instead of ALWAYS coming back to "look at the Dems! Look at the Dems! They do it too....lots!"

Because you're a complete f'in idiot, that's why.
 
Back
Top