[quote]Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain criticized the Obama administration's decision to try to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that preven..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

McCain is an ass...again!

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, December 2, 2010 07:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1170
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, November 29, 2010 12:21 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain criticized the Obama administration's decision to try to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gay service members from serving openly in the military, saying Sunday that "the system is working."

"The military is at its highest point in recruitment, in retention, in professionalism, in capability," McCain said on CNN's "State of the Union." "So to somehow allege that this policy has been damaging the military is simply false."

Instead, McCain called the attempt at repeal "a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for president of the United States."

His comments come as two top American defense officials are scheduled to head to Capitol Hill this week to discuss a new Pentagon report gauging the effects of repealing the policy.

McCain, who serves as the ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee was critical of the report.

"I want to know the effect on battle effectiveness and morale, not on how best to implement the change in policy," McCain told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. "I don't think that's a lot to ask when we have our young men and women out there serving and fighting and tragically some of them dying."

The study will be released Tuesday ahead of the congressional hearings where the committee will hear testimony from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen and the men who led the Pentagon review, Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson and U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/28/mccain-says-dont-ask-d
ont-tell-is-working/?hpt=Sbin


Let's see...in 2006, on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” McCain said:
Quote:

I’m going to defer to our military commanders...at the end of the day, I’m going to rely on the commanders who will be impacted by a change in the law," and "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to [sic]."


Mullen to McCain, 2/2010:
Quote:

It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.

It does, again, go to a fundamental principle with me, which is, everybody counts. And part of the struggle back to the institutional integrity aspect of this and putting individuals in a position that every single day, they wonder whether today is going to be the day, and devaluing them in that regard just is inconsistent with us as an institution. I have served with homosexuals since 1968. Sen. McCain spoke to that in his statement. Everybody in the military has. And we understand that. So it is a number of things which cumulatively, for me personally, get me to this position.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/02/mullen-dadt-2/

Gates wrote to McCain in October:
Quote:

I instructed the working group to obtain the input of Servicemembers so that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I, as well as the Service Chiefs, can more fully understand how a change in the DADT policy may impact unit cohesion, military readiness and effectiveness, recruiting and retention and family readiness. [...]

The Chairman and I fully support the approach and the efforts of the working group, as do the Service Chiefs. We are confident that the working group’s report will provide us with the information we need to appropriately advise the President, and, if requested to do so, to provide our fully informed views to Congress as it considers legislative action.

Copy of full letter at http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SecDef-Ga
tes-Oct-25th-response-on-DADT.pdf


Didn't he say he wanted to hear from them?

For their remarks, McCain chastised them both:
Quote:

“And so your statement is one that is clearly biased, without the view of Congress being taken into consideration,” McCain said. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/02/mccain-dadt/

And said
Quote:

So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/04/mccain-bennett-dadt/

Uhh, how much "other leadership" did he want?

Gen. John Shalikashvili, who implemented DADT while serving as Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman under President Clinton, said
Quote:

Recently, Army Secretary John McHugh said that “The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues [with]…predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out.” His conclusion echoes substantial scholarly and official military research which finds that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would not jeopardize readiness.

Studies have shown that three-quarters of service members say they are personally comfortable around gays and lesbians. Two-thirds say they already know or suspect gay people in their units. This raises important questions about the assertion that openly gay service would impair the military. In fact, it shows that gays and lesbians in the military have already been accepted by the average soldier.

In 2008, a bi-partisan panel of retired General and Flag officers carefully reviewed this matter for a year and concluded that repeal would not pose a risk to the military's high standards of morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment, or retention. Interestingly, an increasing number of active-duty officers who have reviewed “don’t ask, don’t tell” indicate that the policy, not the presence of gays, is detrimental to the armed forces’ need for skilled personnel who are able to serve without compromising their integrity and, by extension, that of the armed forces as a whole.

As a nation built on the principle of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military. It is time to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Shalikashvili_Time_to_repe
al_military_gay_ban.html


Now we have a report, to be released in December:
Quote:

The document totals about 370 pages and is divided into two sections. The first section explores whether repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would harm unit readiness or morale. It cites the findings of a survey sent over the summer to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, a separate questionnaire sent to about 150,000 military spouses, the responses submitted to an anonymous online dropbox seeking comments, and responses from focus-group participants.

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The majority — the number one answer, first answer was ‘I don’t care.’ Most common, number one. Number two was, ‘I would deal directly with the person involved.’ A key thing this study kept coming back to is that it’s very important about the chain of command. What commanders say. How far commanders act. What tone they set. The marines were the most negative out of the services. They had the most people who were — with negative responses. And the marine corps leadership has taken a stance and has been very vocally against this issue. And the study found that most soldiers and sailors and all different service members follow a chain of command. So if the chain of command accepts this as the law, the data is that so will the soldiers.

The study, described as the ‘core’ of the Pentagon’s review, is particularly significant since moderate Republicans have pledged to listen to the troops before voting to repeal the policy.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/28/engel-dadt/

McCain? “And this study was directed at how to implement the repeal, not whether the repeal should take place or not.” That’s a lie, see above—the SECOND part of the study was about implementation. He says he wants a study
Quote:

not how to implement a repeal, but the effects on morale and battle effectiveness. That’s what I want. And once we get this study, we need to have hearings, and we need to examine it, and we need to look at whether it’s the kind of study that we wanted. It isn’t, in my view, because I wanted a study to determine the effects of the repeal on battle effectiveness and morale. What this study is, is designed to do is, is to find out how the repeal could be implemented. Those are two very different aspects of this issue.
http://www.truth-out.org/mccain-moves-the-goal-posts-again-on-dadt6513
5


In other words, McCain is telling the Pentagon: Keep working until you produce the outcome I’m looking for.” Which obviously, no study will do.

Even the Marines, with the highest percentage of servicemen who said getting rid of DADT might be a bad thing (40%), stands by the study. Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James Amos disagrees with McCain on the study. In September, during Amos’ confirmation hearings, McCain tried to get Amos to cast doubt on the study during Amos’ confirmation heraings. Didn’t work. Amos:
Quote:

If you step away from the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell there are lots of things that go on today in the American military that the average Marine out there might not agree with. But the one thing we have in the Marine Corp is we got discipline and we got leadership and those are the two things that are I think the one thing that’s going to carry they day for us should the law get changed. But there has never been a gag order, and I don’t anticipate one being put on the Marines. …I don’t see that that would be an issue….

Amos also countered Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) argument that the Pentagon’s study won’t tell military leaders if repeal would undermine military effectiveness, insisting that “If this policy is changed. The last thing you’re going to see your Marine Corps do is try to step in and push it aside. That will simply not be the case,” Amos said. “There will be issues, we’re going to work through them.”

http://www.truth-out.org/mccain-moves-the-goal-posts-again-on-dadt6513
5


Didn’t McCain call himself a “Maverick” (I know he denies it now), meaning he didn’t always vote the party line? So we’ve heard from military leaders, those IN the military, just as McCain asked. What’s his excuse NOW? “I want to know the effect on battle effectiveness and morale, not on how best to implement the change in policy.” How exactly does he figure to find out the effect on battle effectiveness? Morale’s already been covered with most servicemen saying they don’t give a damn, and many, many cases of servicemen who’ve been kicked out whose fellow said it had, if anything, a NEGATIVE effect on morale for them to be kicked out.

So what do we do? Put a mixed bunch in Afghanistan to test how their battle effectiveness is? Won’t that be fun? And if it shows no difference, or (gawd forbid) INCREASED effectiveness, what’s McCain’s argument gonna be THEN!?

I say again: McCain is an ass. I once respected the man...that was a long time ago, and now he’s just another Republican talking-points parrot, as far as I’m concerned.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:45 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


Agree completely.

He actually WAS a maverick for a good long time...but I think everything changed for him after he was so ruthlessly crushed by the Karl Rove/Dubya primary machine in the 2000 election.

The South Carolina robocalls were particularly distasteful.

I think the man's soul was crushed (along with his politcal viability) so he just fell in line with whatever Georgie and the GOP machine wanted him to be so that he would be next in line for the nomination after Dubya.

Thinking back, by the 02 elections he was pretty much a shell of his former classy and dignified self

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree...I used to respect him, too, until he started getting so weird; the nasty stuff during this last election and his unwillingness to speak up against it (except once, I believe), but rather being willing to utilize it instead, was the last straw for me.

I put it down to it being his last chance to run for President, myself. I thought he figured the only way he could get elected was to tow the party line (ergo: Palin, among other things) so he just gave up his maverick beliefs and sold out. Maybe that was the result of, as you say, his spirit having been crushed. From that day onward, he had nothing to say to me and I only cringed when I saw him.

Now, I've completely lost respect for him, especially with this last little game. It's like he's an empty head now who just parrots the right wing in every way. The John McCain I once admired is long dead.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:52 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


Yup, pretty much right on the money.

I heard recently that he compared Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan.

He must have meant the Alzheimers addled Reagan at the end....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:17 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay, it's officially "out" today. So what will McCain's new gambit be?
Quote:

A Pentagon study on gays in the military has determined that overturning the law known as "don't ask, don't tell" might cause some disruption at first but would not create any widespread or long-lasting problems.

The study was expected to provide some much-needed ammunition to congressional Democrats struggling to overturn the law. But despite supporters' hopes to force a vote during the lame-duck legislative session, it remains unclear whether the findings would be enough to sway skeptical Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen were expected to discuss the report later Tuesday, with the study's co-chairs, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham.

Much more at http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/11/30/pentagon-study-di
smisses-risk-openly-gay-troops
/

And yes, he did compare Palin to Reagan, which is phenomenal, to me!
Quote:

McCain compared his former running mate, Sarah Palin, to former President Ronald Reagan, noting that some viewed Reagan as divisive too. "I think that anybody who has the visibility that Sarah has is obviously going to have some divisiveness," McCain said. "I remember that a guy named Ronald Reagan used to be viewed by some as divisive. ... I think she had a positive impact on the last election, and I'm proud of her."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/mccain-compares-sarah-pali
n-to.html


Tho' other reports are headlined "sorta, kinda...", and that's true in that he only compared her on one point:
Quote:

Technically He's Not Wrong, point out Aaron Blake and Felicia Sonmez at The Washington Post. Reagan was certainly "divisive," the authors write: "There was a segment of the population, about one-third, that was dead-set against him... even after he was shot in 1981 and the economy improved in 1986." And there's a similar faction of hard-core Palin opponents. Blake and Sonmez note that "where Reagan differs from Palin, though, is the so-called 'Reagan Democrats.' Even in his darkest days, about 20 percent of Democrats supported the former president. Palin hasn't gotten anywhere close to that; there are basically no Palin Democrats. And given the passions she evokes, it's hard to see how such a group would form."

But He's Wrong in Every Other Way Doug Mataconis of Outside the Beltway can't believe his ears. "Ronald Reagan was a man of strongly held ideas. Sarah Palin repeats sound bites she writes on her hand. Ronald Reagan served the state of California for two full terms. Sarah Palin quit the job she was elected to in order to pursue a more lucrative career as 'author' and Fox News talking head. I grew up on the Reagan Presidency, Ronald Reagan remains a political hero of mine. Senator, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan."

McCain's Just Trying to Cover Himself "John McCain's political legacy is tied to Sarah Palin," writes Jason Easley at Politicususa. "If she were to get elected president, it would validate his 2008 choice to put her on the ticket, and remove what looks to be a permanent stain from his legacy. McCain is desperately hoping that he isn't remembered for unleashing a mentally ill, crack pot, Alaska hillbilly onto the national political scene." Easley adds that "Ronald Reagan whether one loves or loathes him, was qualified to be president. Sarah Palin is not ... Those who believe that Sarah Palin is the next Ronald Reagan are completely delusional."

He Didn't REALLY Compare Palin to Reagan While most headlines about this story have played up the sound bite, Elise Viebeck at The Hill goes a different route, pointing out that McCain "stopped short" and "retreated a bit" from drawing a full equivalence between the two politicians. Viebeck is right: When Crowley asks McCain, "Do you see her as a parallel [to Reagan]?" his response is a feint: "I think she's doing a great job. I think she has motivated our base, I think she had a positive impact on the last election, and I'm proud of her."

Anyway, the Idea Doesn't Hold Much Water Steve Kornacki at Salon rolls out a detailed post explaining all the ways in which the political landscape has changed between 1980 and now. Kornacki says that Palin is "not the clear front-runner that Reagan was... Her name never appeared on a single primary ballot; whether all -- or most -- of her admirers are willing to vote for her for president remains to be seen." He also notes that unlike when Reagan was campaigning for president, "there is plainly room for a non-Palin candidate -- even if it's a candidate who's not currently registering in the polls -- to claim the party base's loyalty for '12."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20101129/cm_atlantic/johnmccainkindas
ortacomparespalintoreagan5959_1


Squirm, slide, wriggle...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Overall opposition throughout the military was about 30 percent -- roughly the same as it is in America as a whole, according to recent findings from CNN/Opinion Research Corp. and the Pew Forum.

.....

The Pentagon believes that the study is "the largest, most comprehensive review of a personnel policy matter which the Department of Defense has ever undertaken," a defense official close to the process said.

More than nine out of 10 troops said their unit's ability to work with someone they thought was gay or lesbian was very good, good, or neither good nor bad.

The authors of the report say gay and lesbian troops would continue to be discreet about their personal lives, even with a repeal, based on observations of workplaces in civilian society.

.....

Troops would not be asked to change their beliefs, and their the views should not be downplayed, the authors said in their remarks to Congress, even as they pointed out that troops already work and fight alongside people with other faiths and beliefs.

The authors outlined a number of recommendations for effectively handling the repeal, including leaders making clear what is expected of troops in the field.

....

The authors will also recommend that those previously removed from the military under "don't ask, don't tell" be allowed to reapply under the same criteria as anyone else seeking to rejoin the military.

Even with a repeal, not all benefits will be available to gay service members and their partners because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The recommendations are based on surveys, focus groups and face-to-face meetings at bases around the world and even a carefully controlled effort to communicate anonymously with homosexuals serving in the military.

The Pentagon sent surveys to 400,000 troops and got about 115,000 responses. It sent separate questionnaires to 150,000 military spouses and got 44,000 back.

The Defense Department also set up a website for service members who wanted to comment. That effort elicited 72,000 responses.

And the Pentagon held meetings at 51 U.S. military bases around the world where 24,000 more troops discussed the issue.

Officials preparing the report also went to the service academies to hear from staff, faculty and students.

Key senators fired the warning shots for what could be a bitter debate in the chamber as the week began.

"The system is working," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday. "The military is at its highest point in recruitment, in retention, in professionalism, in capability. So to somehow allege that this policy has been damaging the military is simply false."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, shot back on "Fox News Sunday," saying that "gay members of the military have served for decades, and there hasn't been a problem with our military being the finest in the world. ... We should move forward to make sure that any person who stands up and says, 'I'm willing to die for our country' can do so with honor."

On Thursday, the committee heard from Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Friday, it will hear from the top brass of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

.....

Outside the military, Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of repealing the Clinton-era law.

A Pew survey released Monday indicated that a majority of Americans say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces.

According to the poll, 58 percent of the public approves of allowing homosexuals to serve openly, with 27 percent saying they are opposed.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted earlier in November indicated that more than seven in 10 Americans said that people who are openly gay or lesbian should be allowed to serve in the military, with 23 percent opposed.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/30/military.gay.policy/index.html?
hpt=T1


What an ass; and what idiots our politicians, and in this case Republican legislators, can be. They've BEEN SERVING throughout our history; it hasn't BEEN "Don't Ask Don't Tell", it's been witchhunts, yet they want to keep it up! Hard to believe...or it would be if one weren't familiar with how our country works.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:44 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Yeah, 'ole flyboy McCain is really becoming tedious in his old age. He should never have been re-elected Senator, but once again the Republican primary challenger was totally lame and un-electable. And no Dem is going to win in Arizona, so we're all stuck with call sign Maverick for six more years. I guess spending all those years being brutalized in Hanoi turned him into something different than most....like a man that is very mentally fractured and disorganized. He believes in what? I've been a Republican for decades, and I still don't know what the man stands for. To me he's a flip-floppin' old douche whose done nothing but hurt Conservative causes, and almost destroyed the Republican Party in 2008.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:59 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


The reason he is such a disappointment to me at least, is that itclearly wasn't his POW time that ruined him. For much of his career, he was a decent, thoughtful politician, who pushed ethical issues like campaign finance reform.

I remeber thinking in the run up to the 2000 election, that if a republican was going to win, I'd hoped it would be Mccain, as I thought at the time he would be a good president.

Something changed drastically for him when he lost that primary. I remeber he was practically reclusive in a political sense after that, with many reports coming out about how betrayed by the GOP (namely Bush) he felt. Eventually he showed back up on the scene, parroting everything the administration said, no matter how absurd, which was such a change from his career before that point, when he always SEEMED at least to stnd up for what he believed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:13 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Blue, you got it; exactly how it was for me. And it wasn't his POW time for me, either, 'cuz that was years ago and, as you said, he was someone I respected right up to 2000.

JS, I never noted it before and I'm making a note of it from here on. I consider you an intelligent person, and most of the time fairly civil, so next time I complain we haven't got any halfway decent Republicans to converse with here, I will remember that we have at least one self-identified Republican for whom that's not true. I look forward to your posts from here on as representing the only right-wing voice I can even slightly respect.

It's also good to hear you speak up against McCain. That will stick in my mind; not only a decent Republican voice, but one willing to denounce idiocy when he sees it; that's worth it's weight in gold! Obviously, from this day forward if I ever mention RWA, I in NO way mean you!

The nail in the coffin for me was waterboarding. I couldn't believe he approved of that. It blew my mind that he said he'd listed any names he could come up with (what was it, baseball team or something) when HE was tortured, making it obvious that torture didn't get good information. That nobody seemed to make an issue of that and it was totally ignored was a real mindblower. Given that, for him to consistently back torture just blew my mind, and made it abundantly clear that any respect I'd ever had for him was LONG dead.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 2:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Blue, you got it; exactly how it was for me. And it wasn't his POW time for me, either, 'cuz that was years ago and, as you said, he was someone I respected right up to 2000.

JS, I never noted it before and I'm making a note of it from here on. I consider you an intelligent person, and most of the time fairly civil, so next time I complain we haven't got any halfway decent Republicans to converse with here, I will remember that we have at least one self-identified Republican for whom that's not true. I look forward to your posts from here on as representing the only right-wing voice I can even slightly respect.

It's also good to hear you speak up against McCain. That will stick in my mind; not only a decent Republican voice, but one willing to denounce idiocy when he sees it; that's worth it's weight in gold! Obviously, from this day forward if I ever mention RWA, I in NO way mean you!

The nail in the coffin for me was waterboarding. I couldn't believe he approved of that. It blew my mind that he said he'd listed any names he could come up with (what was it, baseball team or something) when HE was tortured, making it obvious that torture didn't get good information. That nobody seemed to make an issue of that and it was totally ignored was a real mindblower. Given that, for him to consistently back torture just blew my mind, and made it abundantly clear that any respect I'd ever had for him was LONG dead.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





I've been very consistent when it comes to McCain. I was shocked and appalled when he got the nomination to run for President, and I was quite critical of his pathetic campaigning skills. As to torture, I believe he actually was a voice against the practice....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/mccain-whacks-cheney-tort_n_2
72179.html


That may not have been a consistent position for McCain, but what ever was? At least he eventually came around and challenged Bush & Cheney on the despicable practice.

Nice of you to say that I'm "fairly" civil, and very flattering of you to say you consider me to be intelligent. I've noticed that the vulgarity aimed at you by some has diminished substantially, perhaps as a result of my posts that have defended your legitimacy, and my admonishments to those that just post with hatred and trollish vileness for sport. Or maybe they simply ran out of new nastiness to spew. RWED is a tough place for sure, and lately I have a hard time deciding whether to join in these threads as much as I used to. Often I just don't see the point.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 7:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
RWED is a tough place for sure, and lately I have a hard time deciding whether to join in these threads as much as I used to. Often I just don't see the point.


I do - adding signal to the noise is always a good thing, we might not agree, but folk willing to DISCUSS instead of flame are always a net benefit.

I got to see McCain try to make a speech about the glories of nuclear power to a staunch anti-nuke crowd around here, and wondered WTF his campaign manager was thinking, seriously wince-worthy, just being there, you could practically feel the chill.

And yeah, that whole running back to the people who jammed a knife in your spine and licking their boots is one reason I despise Howard Dean, and it didn't help my already low opinion of McCain when he did it either - when the party turns on you as a candidate, they should man up and have the balls to run Indy even if it's pointless, set a precedent, you know ?

Cause if they'll sell out that quick before reaching office - how the hell can we ever trust them if they do manage to obtain one ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 11:08 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
RWED is a tough place for sure, and lately I have a hard time deciding whether to join in these threads as much as I used to. Often I just don't see the point.


I do - adding signal to the noise is always a good thing, we might not agree, but folk willing to DISCUSS instead of flame are always a net benefit.

I got to see McCain try to make a speech about the glories of nuclear power to a staunch anti-nuke crowd around here, and wondered WTF his campaign manager was thinking, seriously wince-worthy, just being there, you could practically feel the chill.

And yeah, that whole running back to the people who jammed a knife in your spine and licking their boots is one reason I despise Howard Dean, and it didn't help my already low opinion of McCain when he did it either - when the party turns on you as a candidate, they should man up and have the balls to run Indy even if it's pointless, set a precedent, you know ?

Cause if they'll sell out that quick before reaching office - how the hell can we ever trust them if they do manage to obtain one ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.


You make some very good points. Thanks.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


JS, I only wrote "fairly" civil because I seem to remember you nailing into me a few times, that's all. I probably noticed your remarks about McCain, what struck me was that you mentioned you're Republican...which few do, tho' they are obviously hard right-wingers (ditto the left). I don't recall much of anyone I respect saying that outright (I may well have missed someone, NO offense intended). Given I'm always looking for a valid voice from the self-identified right, it struck me.

I don't think those you mentioned will ever "run out" of vitriol, but thank you. Mostly I just ignore them, scroll past the posts of one or two because I KNOW reading would be a waste of time. Just the way it is, but again, thank you. Anyone who can make ANY dent in helping this place be less virulent is appreciated.

As to running Indy, Frem, I don't think much of any politician would be willing to do so in a Presidential campaign. Primary, yes, you got a chance maybe, but right now at least, only people like Ross Perot (nuts), Ron Paul (nuts but with a movement) or Stephen Colbert (for a joke) would run Indy in a Presidential election. You need those big bucks, and I can't imagine too many willing to run and go through all that crap when they know the outcome. EXCEPT maybe Ron Paul!




Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:23 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Niki, all is good. Any time you want an honest answer from me just ask. You likely won't like or agree with it, but if you want a straight answer I'm your guy.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 19, 2024 10:01 - 2274 posts
BREAKING NEWS: Taylor Swift has a lot of ex-boyfriends
Fri, April 19, 2024 09:18 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, April 19, 2024 08:45 - 6266 posts
This is what baseball bats are for, not to mention you're the one in a car...
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:38 - 1 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:20 - 742 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:38 - 148 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, April 18, 2024 16:51 - 3530 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, April 18, 2024 10:21 - 834 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL