John McCain has officially jumped the shark.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic but dude…Creationism? Either you’re a total numbskull (which I don’t believe), or you simply lack any sense of embarrassment or shame. Either way, it’s almost impossible for me to take you seriously anymore.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
For what reason? I know of no Muslim organizations that are actively promoting the corruption of science education in the U.S. If there was a particular Muslim group that was actively campaigning to have vaccinations removed from the requirements for admission to elementarty schools (as one rather small but loud group of Muslims interpret their beliefs) and he went to speak to encourage them to carry on their work, then he would deserve scorn. If he went to speak to a group of Muslims, who included persons who opposed vaccinations, promoted Sharia Law for their own community, and insisted that the women in their community wore burqas, but who were not disobeying the laws in those regards and were not actively campaigning to change U.S. Separation of Church and State and he did not champion the elimination of school admission regulations to curry their favor, then I see no problem.

The Creationist group to whom he will speak is not a religious group with a whole array of activities and values; it is a special interests group founded explicitly to get Creationism (in disguise) inserted into public school science education courses.

Why bring up Muslinms in that context?
[/QUOTE]

My question was particularly addressed to Diogenes. He left me with the impression that pandering to a religious advocacy group no longer makes McCain worthy of being considered for the presidency.

Why bring up Muslims? Just another religious advocacy group that gets way more consideration from the left than the right. In both cases, YEC and Islam, and you can add my own Christianity to this, their beliefs are irrational. I don’t think Diogenes would disagree.

In both cases, the two groups would love to change American society. Both have affected the way of life in isolated American communities where their numbers are affective yet neither is a serious political force for the nation.

However, both Muslims and the YECs are Americans and given the two party system, no presidential candidate that engages either group should be dismissed on that basis. My suggestion of Obama speaking to Muslims obviously doesn’t mean he suscribes to their beliefs but it would suggest that he is amenable to listening to their concerns. Same goes for McCain.

@Revenant Threshold

If I remember Flying Dutchman’s past posts correctly, he doesn’t have a very high opinion of Islam in general. I think he’s projecting his own opinion onto all of us - Islam is bad, thus we all think Islam is bad, thus in our minds speaking to a group of Muslims is as bad as speaking to a group of YEC.

Its true, I don’t have a high opinion of Islam. Just look around the world today. However, I wouldn’t dismiss any presidential candidate who listens to their concerns and allow them to participate politically.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
… but dude…Creationism? Either you’re a total numbskull (which I don’t believe), or you simply lack any sense of embarrassment or shame. Either way, it’s almost impossible for me to take you seriously anymore.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
For what reason? I know of no Muslim organizations that are actively promoting the corruption of science education in the U.S. If there was a particular Muslim group that was actively campaigning to have vaccinations removed from the requirements for admission to elementarty schools (as one rather small but loud group of Muslims interpret their beliefs) and he went to speak to encourage them to carry on their work, then he would deserve scorn. If he went to speak to a group of Muslims, who included persons who opposed vaccinations, promoted Sharia Law for their own community, and insisted that the women in their community wore burqas, but who were not disobeying the laws in those regards and were not actively campaigning to change U.S. Separation of Church and State and he did not champion the elimination of school admission regulations to curry their favor, then I see no problem.

The Creationist group to whom he will speak is not a religious group with a whole array of activities and values; it is a special interests group founded explicitly to get Creationism (in disguise) inserted into public school science education courses.

Why bring up Muslinms in that context?
[/QUOTE]

My question was particularly addressed to Diogenes. He left me with the impression that pandering to a religious advocacy group no longer makes McCain worthy of being considered for the presidency.

Why bring up Muslims? Just another religious advocacy group that gets way more consideration from the left than the right. In both cases, YEC and Islam, and you can add my own Christianity to this, their beliefs are irrational. I don’t think Diogenes would disagree.

In both cases, the two groups would love to change American society. Both have affected the way of life in isolated American communities where their numbers are affective yet neither is a serious political force for the nation.

However, both Muslims and the YECs are Americans and given the two party system, no presidential candidate that engages either group should be dismissed on that basis. My suggestion of Obama speaking to Muslims obviously doesn’t mean he suscribes to their beliefs but it would suggest that he is amenable to listening to their concerns. Same goes for McCain.

@Revenant Threshold

If I remember Flying Dutchman’s past posts correctly, he doesn’t have a very high opinion of Islam in general. I think he’s projecting his own opinion onto all of us - Islam is bad, thus we all think Islam is bad, thus in our minds speaking to a group of Muslims is as bad as speaking to a group of YEC.

Its true, I don’t have a high opinion of Islam. Just look around the world today. However, I wouldn’t dismiss any presidential candidate who listens to their concerns and allow them to participate politically.

[elucidator]

Hey, when you’re right, you’re right! Hadn’t been for Muslims, I wouldn’t have failed Algebra 1. There wouldn’t have been an Algebra 1 to fail!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

First, my OP was really more of a lament about McCain’s loss of dignity and credibility than an expression of any real fear of the ID movement. I was dissappointed about an alleged “maverick,” someone who I once saw as a Republican I would vote for (I even said on this board during the last Presidential election that I would have voted for McCain over Kerry), turning out to be exactly like all the others after all.

Secondly, Islam is not a “religious advocacy group.” Islam is a religion. The Discovery Institute is not just “Christians.” It’s not even just Fundamentalist Christians. It’s a special interest group with a specific political goal to create a wormhole in SOCAS. Pols talk to Christian groups all the time, even right wing fundy groups, and I don’t complain about it. it’s part of the process. It’s expected. It doesn’t mean anything. Even Clinton did it. McCain’s decision goes further than that, though. Unless he denounces ID during his speech (which i doubt he’ll do), he’ll will be implicitly (or possibly explicitly) endorsing a movement to teach religion as science in public schools. It’s all the more disappointing to me because it’s a guy who I thought was independent minded enough that he might be able to distance the GOP leadership from some of the more theocratic elements of the religious right.

I’m not aware of any American Islamic groups which are currently agitating for similar erosions in SOCAS but if any pol were to speak to an analogous Muslim group – let’s say Hillary were to be the keynote speaker for a Muslim special interest group who wanted to ban alcohol, for instance, or institute a Call to Prayer in public schools – you can bet that I would be even MORE disappointed and vocal about it.

[scotandrsn]

[QUOTE=Do Not Taunt]
Which would be a funny time to drop out, since he isn’t up for re-election until 2010.
[/QUOTE]

I was tired and couldn’t count that day. :smack:

[RTFirefly]

Looks like some Arizonans are circulating a recall petition on McCain.

The recall group faces long odds. It must collect 381,696 valid petition signatures by June 13 to force a statewide vote. That is 25 percent of all votes cast in the 2004 Senate election. Although McCain is a federal officeholder not bound by the Arizona Constitution’s recall provisions, he has signed a voluntary pledge on file with the Secretary of State’s Office agreeing to resign immediately if defeated in a recall election.

[Liberal]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Looks like some Arizonans are circulating a recall petition on McCain.
[/QUOTE]

Organizers oppose McCain’s continued support of the unpopular Iraq war and consider him complicit in what they perceive as the erosion of American civil liberties associated with the war on terror.(Emphasis mine)

A-fucking-men. God bless Arizona!

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Organizers oppose McCain’s continued support of the unpopular Iraq war and consider him complicit in what they perceive as the erosion of American civil liberties associated with the war on terror.(Emphasis mine)

A-fucking-men. God bless Arizona!
[/QUOTE]
I can imagine how that impresses you, libertarian that you are, but may I remind you that McCain, on his own volition sacrificed every ounce of his own American civil liberties with much physical pain and mental anguish for 5 extra years of captivity to uphold his end in defending the US constitution, ** the American civil liberties therein**, and the integrity of the US military charged with defending the civil liberties of all Americans.

Most of us only get to do the talk. McCain has done the walk for American civil liberties and it was’t in the park.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

McCain also volunteered to fuck off if he lost a recall election, as long as we’re talking about volunteering.

And what did Vietnam have to do with upholding the US Constitution?

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I can imagine how that impresses you, libertarian that you are, but may I remind you that McCain, on his own volition sacrificed every ounce of his own American civil liberties with much physical pain and mental anguish for 5 extra years of captivity to uphold his end in defending the US constitution, ** the American civil liberties therein**, and the integrity of the US military charged with defending the civil liberties of all Americans.

Most of us only get to do the talk. McCain has done the walk for American civil liberties and it was’t in the park.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand your claim that McCain endured for 5 extra years on his own volition. Leaving that aside, though, McCain deserves respect for having served and endured as a prisoner.

However, I don’t think that should carry over into his actions as a senator. Those actions should be judged on their own.

[Squink]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
McCain has done the walk for American civil liberties and it was’t in the park.
[/QUOTE]
That history doesn’t excuse him for walking away today.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I can imagine how that impresses you, libertarian that you are, but may I remind you that McCain, on his own volition sacrificed every ounce of his own American civil liberties with much physical pain and mental anguish for 5 extra years of captivity to uphold his end in defending the US constitution, ** the American civil liberties therein**, and the integrity of the US military charged with defending the civil liberties of all Americans.
[/QUOTE]

Point taken, but please remember that, in fact, nobody involved in that war was defending our Constitution or our civil liberties. Or our country, for that matter.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I don’t understand your claim that McCain endured for 5 extra years on his own volition.
[/quote]

It is very rare for a prisoner of war to be offered his freedom solely because his dad was a bigwig in the US military. McCain refused to take that walk six months into his captivity so it was his decision to remain in captivity ands suffer torture. That takes huge cajones.
In response to those who question my claim that US soldiers defend the US constitution when at war, it just seems to me that fighting for the US is fighting for the US constitution. The constitution is what defines America.

As I seem to recall with the Vietnam situation, the country was concerned with the rampant spread of communism with countries falling like dominoes threatening the future of the US.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
It is very rare for a prisoner of war to be offered his freedom solely because his dad was a bigwig in the US military. McCain refused to take that walk six months into his captivity so it was his decision to remain in captivity ands suffer torture. That takes huge cajones.
[/quote]

Agreed, but so what? What does that have to do with what he does now? Is that supposed to make him immune from criticism for the rest of his life? Does his POW status prove that pandering to IDists isn’t sad and lamentable?

In response to those who question my claim that US soldiers defend the US constitution when at war, it just seems to me that fighting for the US is fighting for the US constitution. The constitution is what defines America.

What did Vietnam have to do with defending the US?

As I seem to recall with the Vietnam situation, the country was concerned with the rampant spread of communism with countries falling like dominoes threatening the future of the US.

The domino theory was a joke and a fraud.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
In response to those who question my claim that US soldiers defend the US constitution when at war, it just seems to me that fighting for the US is fighting for the US constitution. The constitution is what defines America.
[/quote]

1. The soldiers in the Vietnam War were not fighting for America. (Not that that is a distinction any soldier can or should make.)

2. The Constitution is not what defines America. We are an ordinary nation-state like France or the UK, not an ideological idea-state like the Soviet Union.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
As I seem to recall with the Vietnam situation, the country was concerned with the rampant spread of communism with countries falling like dominoes threatening the future of the US.
[/QUOTE]

That is a lie, and a damned lie too, and I cannot believe anyone would seriously repeat it at this point in time, after we have had so many chances to learn better.

[tagos]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]

In response to those who question my claim that US soldiers defend the US constitution when at war, it just seems to me that fighting for the US is fighting for the US constitution.
[/QUOTE]

Tautology. The soldiers should be fighting for the America defined by the Constitution but that depends on those giving the orders and how those orders are interpreted and implemented.

I offer this examplary and prescient article from 1995, reprinted from the Marine Corps Gazette.

Fourth Generation Warfare: What Does It Mean to Every Marine?

There is much, much more that needs to be said about how to defeat a fourth generation enemy than I am going to write about here. But in a few words I can present the essentials very clearly.

First, we must expect the unexpected in terms of new kinds of enemies and new kinds of forces that assume the function of soldiers and nondescript war makers. We, cannot afford to dismiss any adversary as contemptible, no matter how primitive and unconventional he may app ear. Instead, we must discover his strengths and how to avoid them; his weaknesses, and how to attack them. We must be willing to realize that our real enemy is as likely to appear within our own borders as without. If our laws and self image of our role as military professionals do not allow for this, we need to change them.

Second, we must come to grips with the fact that our traditional form of warfare, i.e., high tech with overwhelming firepower delivered from a distant standoff, no longer solves problems. We must be expert infantrymen. For those who have not yet grasped it, in Vietnam, where our enemy’s behavior was moving toward that of the fourth generation soldier, the major flaw in the U.S. military was that it neglected the art of the foot soldier. Events since Vietnam have reinforced this point. Many of us missed this point when we were in Vietnam because we were foot soldiers. We sometimes believed we were the center of attention though our top level seniors considered us a sideshow. But anyone who listened carefully to a single Pentagon briefing would have seen that the Military Assistance Command, our joint Chiefs, the Defense Department, and the President were depending not on the infantry but on bombs, artillery shells, and the high technology of the era this in what was clearly an infantry war. Fourth generation warfare will also be infantry warfare, war up close, in and among the people, and the infantrymen who can fight it cannot come from the low end of the intelligence curve. Ironically, in this age of technology, it is in the direction of the foot soldier that modern war demands we now move.

Third, the Corps must be a bastion of Americans who really do support and defend the Constitution of the United States. To many of our politicians and judges, pressing issues outweigh the parameters the Constitution sets down. The Corps must become a repository of those rare Americans who read the document, know it, and believe in it. This must be so, partly because we swore we would, but mostly because it is the source of the freedom for which we fight.

What then is fundamental to our Constitutional concept,
so fundamental that every Marine must understand it?

First, that the laws of the land govern human conduct. We have a new concept grown up since the 1960s called “civil disobedience.” It is all right to believe in it, but it is against the law to practice it. Offenders must expect to be prosecuted. It is an issue Marines need to grasp.

Notwithstanding, Marines also need to know that our Constitution is not about power. It is about checks on power and protection from power’s abuses. Why? Because we are an independent people who fundamentally resent being told what to do. The Constitution exists to protect the American people. So does the Marine Corps. Marines should understand, therefore, that the quickest way to undermine our Constitution is to abuse power. If government authority oversteps its bounds, Americans lose respect for that authority, as they rightly should. This is interestingly antithetical to the maxim of tyrants, who believe too much freedom leads to chaos. In the case of America, it is restriction on freedom that leads to chaos.

Shame the White House spends all its time reading the murderous masturbatory fantasies of the PNAC and not wise words such as these.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Agreed, but so what? What does that have to do with what he does now?
[/quote]

Good question. Positions on issues is important, but how often have we seen positions change once a politician is in office. Evidence of a strong reliable character is the most important requirement IMHO for the presidency especially when dealing with new upcoming crises. For example, Bush’s avoidance during Vietnam is ample evidence of weak character and should have served as a warning.

Is that supposed to make him immune from criticism for the rest of his life? Does his POW status prove that pandering to IDists isn’t sad and lamentable?

Absolutely not. It would just take a hell of a lot more than talking to the Discovery Institute. I disagree with your take on this whole issue. Everything I’ve read about McCain and evolution is that he clearly believes in evolution and wouldn’t support ID in a science class. He’ll talk about it though, and won’t dismiss these IDers.

What did Vietnam have to do with defending the US?

The domino theory was a joke and a fraud.

Well in the beginning of American involvement under Kennedy and Johnson that is what most everyone who supported it was worried about. Was there a different reason to warrant the loss of over 50, 000 American lives ?

[tagos]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Well in the beginning of American involvement under Kennedy and Johnson that is what most everyone who supported it was worried about. Was there a different reason to warrant the loss of over 50, 000 American lives ?
[/QUOTE]

To stop a socialist government emerging from free elections. eisenhower’s memoir were quite upfront about that. Preventing the emergence of alternative models of development in the Third World was why so many proxy wars were fought there and so many dictatorships instigated and supported, particularly in South americ.

This was rhetorically dressed up as the domino theory even though the Sino-Soviet split and the break between the Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia showed communism wasn’t monolithic.

The end result was to conflate national liberation in former colonies with the mythical ‘spread of communism’. And by invariably siding with fascist strongmen against democratic forces the West drove national liberation movements into the arms of the USSR and China. It created the conditions for people like Pol Pot to emerge and for the more ruthless organised communist wings to take over.

Invariably people like Ho Chi Minh were nationalists first and Marxists second. State socialism doesn’t work and the sensible thing would have been to embrace them, like in fact we belatedly do now, integrate them into the world economy. Smother the bastards with our superior ‘soft power’.

And if they wanted to be hard-ass communists then we should have let them ruin their countries and then moved in to pick up the pieces. There was absolutely no strategic danger. Vietnam was not going to invade the US and trying to take sides in a civil war on the asian mainland was always going to be an act of extreme hubris with carnage consequences for the vietnamese.

The domino theory was the Cold War’s equivalent to our PNAC follies. That misguided and in people like Dulles, malevolent leaders believed their own rhetoric in no way justifies or excuses anything.

[Marley23]

[QUOTE=tagos]
To stop a socialist government emerging from free elections.
[/quote]

The domino theory was the Cold War’s equivalent to our PNAC follies.

On that note, isn’t it weird that we’re now upset about the possibility of a hardline Islamic government emerging from free elections in Iraq?

[Weirddave]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Agreed, but so what? What does that have to do with what he does now?
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Good question. Positions on issues is important, but how often have we seen positions change once a politician is in office. Evidence of a strong reliable character is the most important requirement IMHO for the presidency especially when dealing with new upcoming crises. For example, Bush’s avoidance during Vietnam is ample evidence of weak character and should have served as a warning.

[/QUOTE]

[/quote]

Well, the fact that McCain’s son is getting ready to deploy to Iraq and he still supports the surge, I’d have to give him props for having the courage of his convictions. That right these shows more than a bit of character IMO.