'When John McCain was my captive'

uscitizen said:
LOL, the closet doors are swinging wide open this morning :clink:
Click to expand...

i like john mccain. Im not going to vote for him over obama but i would have for sure over hillary. I liked john kerry as well. I didnt think he was right for the job but i didnt attack him over his service record either.
 
Chapdog said:
i like john mccain. Im not going to vote for him over obama but i would have for sure over hillary. I liked john kerry as well. I didnt think he was right for the job but i didnt attack him over his service record either.
Click to expand...
Not only did I not attack him. I said things much like this:

It is not only the right thing to do, but it is your responsibility to protest the war if you are against it. I think that often the word "Right" and "Responsibility" are interchangeable.

I don't know who I'm voting for at this time in this election. I know I won't be voting for Mr. Religious Conservative that the LP is putting forward... *sigh*
 
Socrtease said:
Damo you are 100% right. I don't know what John McCain said or didn't say while stuck in that shithold POW camp. What I do know from first hand experience is that anything said while being tortured you aren't responsible for. I went through an SAS SERE school while stationed in Germany. They put us through enhanced interrogation techniques. I know that if someone wants you to talk you will talk. Using this sort of information, regardless of who created it, is shitty. If your kid was in a combat theater and was captured and tortured and gave statements, you DAMN sure wouldn't want people criticizing or belittling them because of it. I will not judge McCain's service because I didn't go through what he went through.
Click to expand...

You've obviously missed the point .. which IS NOT what McCain did or did not do while a POW, the point is what lies have been told about it. If he recieved special treatment (yes, he admits he did), and he gave the Vietnamese information above and beyond what he has commited by oath to give (yes, he admits he did), and if knowledge of his treatment and what he told the VC is anyway connected to his standing against release of data about other POW's and other highly favorable positions he's taken FOR the Vietnamese government AGAINST the wishes of fellow American POW's, citizens, and politicians.

That sir is a legitimate question to be considered of someone who is running for president.
 
blackascoal said:
You and your fellow Bush voter keep saying that "Obama doesn't need this" and suggesting it take him down a notch .. but Obama isn't using it .. concerned Americans are.

AND .. McCain opened the door to this with his LIE that he was about to be promoted to Admiral but turned it down so he could serve in politics. It was a BLATANT LIE about his military record and he opened the door to find out what other lies lurked in his background.

Serious questions about someone's past only becomes dirty politics when it's leveled at republicans.
Click to expand...
What he opened up was a look into the alleged promotion and nothing more. The left in this country APPLAUDED and romanticized the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Jane Fonda sat on an anti aircraft gun that shot down and killed americans. The Vietnam war was a bullshit war, we had no business there and we were lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin. But the left in this country applauded Vietnamese sympathizers and NOW the left wants to use this questionable bullshit about the life of a man that was beaten and broken while a prisoner of war. FUCK SAKES they offered to let him go when they thought it would benefit them and he refused. He could have gone home but didn't go because he was not the first one in so he would not be the first one out. If nothing else THAT ALONE makes him a damned honorable man. If people who served with him want to criticize him that is their perogative but as for me, I will not judge a man in this way unless I walked the path with him.
 
And I reiterate that I am voting for Obama again just like I did in the primary. But I will not engage or encourage the character assassination of a man that went through more shit in a couple of years than most of us will EVER. I have been guilty of telling some off color jokes about McCain from time to time, but fucksakes the man can't lift his arm above shoulder level. If that is preferential treatment then just give me the ordinary treatment.
 
Damocles said:
Even with the Winner takes all system, two primaries are not a win.

It was those two coupled with his loss in SC, the momentum had shifted and largely because he was working defense rather than controlling the message.

Seriously, I'm talking strategic politics here. One of the main reasons for Obama's success is his control of the message and the fast-response team working the defense to offense message. It's been very effective for him.

The main reason for McCain's first loss was his team's ineffective slow response and inability to work with projections and understand what the other side may attack. Because of that he was unable to control how things came out, and it worked against him every time.
Click to expand...


Pure revisionism.

The bottom line on McCain in 2000 was that he, running as the maverick against and appealing to independents, lost two of the largest and most liberal states (along with a host of others) on Super Tuesday, March 7, 2000. He dropped out on March 9, 2000.

As reported by CNN at the time:

March 9, 2000

SEDONA, Arizona -- Arizona Sen. John McCain will announce Thursday morning that he is ending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, at least temporarily, CNN has learned.

As McCain huddled with top advisers at his Arizona vacation home Wednesday evening, a senior official said the senator realized that it would be "virtually impossible" for him to win the Republican nomination after his showing in the Super Tuesday primaries. This adviser said McCain would announce he is leaving the race, but another campaign aide told CNN it was possible that McCain would "suspend" campaign operations and not formally withdraw until Texas Gov. George W. Bush has secured the 1,034 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
Click to expand...
 
Socrtease said:
And I reiterate that I am voting for Obama again just like I did in the primary. But I will not engage or encourage the character assassination of a man that went through more shit in a couple of years than most of us will EVER. I have been guilty of telling some off color jokes about McCain from time to time, but fucksakes the man can't lift his arm above shoulder level. If that is preferential treatment then just give me the ordinary treatment.
Click to expand...

Neither will I. I think Obama should say a few words about this crap as in John McCain is a real American hero... but Im the better man for the job and here is why.
 
Dungheap said:
Pure revisionism.

The bottom line on McCain in 2000 was that he, running as the maverick against and appealing to independents, lost two of the largest and most liberal states (along with a host of others) on Super Tuesday, March 7, 2000. He dropped out on March 9, 2000.

As reported by CNN at the time:
Click to expand...
One of the few successes they had at controlling information. It was a failed campaign, yes. But it failed for the reasons I outlined. It was WHY they lost. You keep saying, "but they lost!"

Duh, we all know they did. And I am telling you WHY it happened. The McCain campaign was terrible at controlling the information. The Obama McCain has been masterful at it. The Bush campaign used it against him.
 
Chapdog said:
Neither will I. I think Obama should say a few words about this crap as in John McCain is a real American hero... but Im the better man for the job and here is why.
Click to expand...
He will, just like Bush did about Kerry.

The difference is in the demonstrable level of control Obama has over the 527s. If they decide to run with it regardless it will hurt Obama after his recent display with said control.
 
Socrtease said:
What he opened up was a look into the alleged promotion and nothing more. The left in this country APPLAUDED and romanticized the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Jane Fonda sat on an anti aircraft gun that shot down and killed americans. The Vietnam war was a bullshit war, we had no business there and we were lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin. But the left in this country applauded Vietnamese sympathizers and NOW the left wants to use this questionable bullshit about the life of a man that was beaten and broken while a prisoner of war. FUCK SAKES they offered to let him go when they thought it would benefit them and he refused. He could have gone home but didn't go because he was not the first one in so he would not be the first one out. If nothing else THAT ALONE makes him a damned honorable man. If people who served with him want to criticize him that is their perogative but as for me, I will not judge a man in this way unless I walked the path with him.
Click to expand...

I had to take a moment to ask myself if this was satire.

PLEASE explain to me what in the hell "the left" has to do with this when it was THE RIGHT who first began talking about it .. and it isn't the left who make up those who have been asking these questions for many years.

Go here and watch this video and tell me what in the hell the left has to do with this.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/0...used-mccain-of-collaborating-with-vietnamese/

And by the way .. what "the left" did during Vietnam was END THE GODDAMN WAR AND SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN A WAR THAT HAD ALREADY CLAIMED THE LIVES OF ALMOST 60,000 DEAD US SOLDIERS AND 153,000 WOUNDED

That's what the left did during the Vietnam War and they did it even though a democrat president was responsible for its escalation.

THat's what the goddamn left did during the fucking Vietnam war.
 
Socrtease said:
And I reiterate that I am voting for Obama again just like I did in the primary. But I will not engage or encourage the character assassination of a man that went through more shit in a couple of years than most of us will EVER. I have been guilty of telling some off color jokes about McCain from time to time, but fucksakes the man can't lift his arm above shoulder level. If that is preferential treatment then just give me the ordinary treatment.
Click to expand...

You can use whatever measures you choose to use in selecting who you support, but that doesn't have shit to do with I may choose to use, nor do I see any logic in what you're talking about.

His arm is fucked up because he should have never been a pilot in the first place. He crashed a plane on his way to an Army/Navy game. Should we make him president because of it?

The questions being asked aren't about the "shit" he went through .. that's just the shit your illogic is hiding behind.

Obviously you haven't watched the video.
 
Damocles said:
He will, just like Bush did about Kerry.

The difference is in the demonstrable level of control Obama has over the 527s. If they decide to run with it regardless it will hurt Obama after his recent display with said control.
Click to expand...


That's fucking hilarious.

A gold star for you, sir. Your hackitude is unparalleled.
 
Dungheap said:
That's fucking hilarious.

A gold star for you, sir. Your hackitude is unparalleled.
Click to expand...
Seriously sad.

It doesn't matter who they are or what side they are on, if they showed a demonstrable control before, but are suddenly ineffective later it will hurt them.

This isn't about who, it is about the control of information in politics and how it effects campaigns.

Either you don't know what the word "hack" means or you are applying a fallacy as the definition does not apply here.
 
And you don't get that I don't care WHO started it. If you have questions about his claim that he was on his way to Adm. then those are valid. If you have questions about his treatment of Vietnam when this country wanted access to their sweatshop labor then those are valid. But when you start in on him being a "collaborator" or getting preferential treatment beyond the medical attention that the Vietnamese should have given him in the first fucking place, then in my opinion you have gone over the line. I didn't serve in Vietnam and I wasn't a POW anywhere. I don't know what I would do if I was tortured. I don't know what I might being will to say or willing to admit to. My bet is just about anything if they would just stop torturing me. But afterward, I would hope people might understand my motivations. This is a shitty tactic to use BAC. It was shitty when they did it to Kerry and it was shitty when Rove started to address it in 2000 when he was working for Bush against McCain. I know that I am one of the most vocal advocates for the use of negative campaigning. But I do believe that this argument has sounded out the bottom for me. I am just not willing to assassinate the character of a man who went to Vietnam when he came from an economic background where 19 out of 20 of his peers did not.
 
Socrtease said:
And you don't get that I don't care WHO started it. If you have questions about his claim that he was on his way to Adm. then those are valid. If you have questions about his treatment of Vietnam when this country wanted access to their sweatshop labor then those are valid. But when you start in on him being a "collaborator" or getting preferential treatment beyond the medical attention that the Vietnamese should have given him in the first fucking place, then in my opinion you have gone over the line. I didn't serve in Vietnam and I wasn't a POW anywhere. I don't know what I would do if I was tortured. I don't know what I might being will to say or willing to admit to. My bet is just about anything if they would just stop torturing me. But afterward, I would hope people might understand my motivations. This is a shitty tactic to use BAC. It was shitty when they did it to Kerry and it was shitty when Rove started to address it in 2000 when he was working for Bush against McCain. I know that I am one of the most vocal advocates for the use of negative campaigning. But I do believe that this argument has sounded out the bottom for me. I am just not willing to assassinate the character of a man who went to Vietnam when he came from an economic background where 19 out of 20 of his peers did not.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough and I accept that .. FOR YOU.

Where I draw the line is when you attack those, like me, who have legitimate questions of McCain and his war record ... which after all is his main calling card.

You may call asking legitimate question a "shitty tactic" but I believe your queesy hands-off approach to be indicative of why the right has dominated American politics for all these years with a gameplan that isn't even clever. Whether you supported the Iraq war or not, they were able to pull that bullshit off because no one was asking the hard questions.

I fully accept that you don't want to ask questions that may be messy, but I do and I have the evidence .. that you have not, did not, or could possibly refute.

Obviously you didn't watch the video.
 
Damocles said:
Seriously sad.

It doesn't matter who they are or what side they are on, if they showed a demonstrable control before, but are suddenly ineffective later it will hurt them.

This isn't about who, it is about the control of information in politics and how it effects campaigns.

Either you don't know what the word "hack" means or you are applying a fallacy as the definition does not apply here.
Click to expand...

He meant a politcal hack .. and it does indeed apply.

Neither Obama nor McCain can contorl the 527's and if Obama doesn't take a stand against FISA there will be proof of that when the 527's on the left attack him.

Your contortion of Obama will be blamed but McCain won't soley relys on your own perception.
 
I am going to try to nail this square for you. Lets say in the next week, god forbid your daughter gets captured by the other side. Then lets say she somehow gets though it but only after being tortured to the point that she makes comments that are beneficial to the enemy, whoever the fuck they might be, and harmful to the american cause, because she was tortured. If someone, anyone told you that she was a collaborator you would go the fuck off, and rightfully so. This is no different. When you start to talk about what people did while their life and liberty was at the pleasure of their captors, all preconcieved notions of what is right and what is wrong go out the door. Men and women all have breaking points and they should never be held against them.
 
Socrtease said:
I am going to try to nail this square for you. Lets say in the next week, god forbid your daughter gets captured by the other side. Then lets say she somehow gets though it but only after being tortured to the point that she makes comments that are beneficial to the enemy, whoever the fuck they might be, and harmful to the american cause, because she was tortured. If someone, anyone told you that she was a collaborator you would go the fuck off, and rightfully so. This is no different. When you start to talk about what people did while their life and liberty was at the pleasure of their captors, all preconcieved notions of what is right and what is wrong go out the door. Men and women all have breaking points and they should never be held against them.
Click to expand...

Good analogy.

If my daughter gave up more information than she was sworn by oath to give up .. even though it may save her life and I would want her to save her life .. I would accept and acknowledge that if that information were public, she could never be the president .. in fact, I would tell her she could never be a Senator.

But again you're missing the point my brother and you still haven't watched the video.

Talk to me after you've watched the video.
 
Damocles said:
Seriously sad.

It doesn't matter who they are or what side they are on, if they showed a demonstrable control before, but are suddenly ineffective later it will hurt them.

This isn't about who, it is about the control of information in politics and how it effects campaigns.

Either you don't know what the word "hack" means or you are applying a fallacy as the definition does not apply here.
Click to expand...


You're saying that Obama is responsible for what 527s say even though he has no actual control over them and was only able to cut out their influence by appealing to his donors and was successful in doing so.

That's horseshit, particularly coming from the guy who poo-pooed the idea that McCain had any control over the North Carolina G.O.P.

As I said, you're a hack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top