[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
McCain is a whore. If he had stuck to his principles I could consider voting for him…John McCain stands firmly for only one thing- his own ambition.
[/QUOTE]
Wait, don’t you support HRC?
head asplodes
[QUOTE=Marley23]
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?
[/QUOTE]
And isn’t it weird that to the PNAC and their Bush glove puppet this as inevitable as night following day outcome has come as a surprise.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, so now warmongering parents whose kids go to Iraq rate praise, while warmongering parents whose kids don’t go to Iraq have no control over their legally adult offspring, and thus get a pass?
[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]
Ah yes. Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten that.
However, as has been said by others, it’s irrelevant to his current actions as a US Senator and Presidential candidate.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Wait, don’t you support HRC?
head asplodes
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not! She is dead last in my preference of the announced or possible Democratic candidates. I’m for John Edwards, then Bill Richardson, then Barack Obama.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
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.
[/QUOTE]
That’s funny. I think it shows just the opposite. He’s willing to place more priority on his ambition to be President than on the life of his son.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Absolutely not! She is dead last in my preference of the announced or possible Democratic candidates. I’m for John Edwards, then Bill Richardson, then Barack Obama.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh, OK, my mistake, although IMO Edwards exhibits the exact same symptoms with the way his personal life is at odds with his message, but I suppose one would be hard pressed to find a candidate at this level that doesn’t to some degree or another.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s funny. I think it shows just the opposite. He’s willing to place more priority on his ambition to be President than on the life of his son.
[/QUOTE]
How so? He’s been supporting this course of action since before his son was at risk, now that he is McCain hasn’t changed his tune just because it now has a potential to negatively impact him personaly.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
How so? He’s been supporting this course of action since before his son was at risk, now that he is McCain hasn’t changed his tune just because it now has a potential to negatively impact him personaly.
[/QUOTE]
The way see it, he’s not willing stop lying and publicly advocating for a war he knows is bullshit even when his own son’s life is at risk.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The way see it, he’s not willing stop lying and publicly advocating for a war he knows is bullshit even when his own son’s life is at risk.
[/QUOTE]
Suppose he really believes that increasing troops will improve the situation? He simply might not agree with your assesment of the situation. AFAICT, you’re branding him an opportunist simply because you two don’t agree.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Suppose he really believes that increasing troops will improve the situation?
[/quote]
I don’t believe he really believes that. It goes against all prevailing expert military advice and opinion.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t believe he really believes that. It goes against all prevailing expert military advice and opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Trouble is that he’s been saying it for so long that he can’t change his mind or he’ll be called a waffler. Really it’s a no win situation for him.
[QUOTE=brownie55]
Trouble is that he’s been saying it for so long that he can’t change his mind or he’ll be called a waffler. Really it’s a no win situation for him.
[/QUOTE]
When you’re in a no-win political situation, you should do the right thing instead of the selfish thing. I won’t presume to know what McCain thinks is the right thing, though.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Ahh, OK, my mistake, although IMO Edwards exhibits the exact same symptoms with the way his personal life is at odds with his message, but I suppose one would be hard pressed to find a candidate at this level that doesn’t to some degree or another.
[/QUOTE]
But Ted Kennedy certainly has been a consistent advocate of the poor, yet nobody holds his wealth against him. To help the poor and powerless, you can’t be poor and powerless yourself.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Suppose he really believes that increasing troops will improve the situation?
[/QUOTE]
To paraphrase Stan from South Park: Then he’s a STUPID douche.
People certainly hold Ted Kennedy’s wealth against him, with the same justification* as in John Edwards’ case.
*-i.e., none.
It’s all about Priorities with McCain.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Well, you have to notice that these are the Intelligent Design people, they are officially not creationists, but even in the latest case law the judge found that there is very little difference. So, not as dumb as creationists, but not by much really.
[/QUOTE]
Okay - this prompted me to go and read up on ID and creationism again, and I really don’t buy the distinction. How can you possibly say that ID isn’t creationism? You can say that it’s a subset of creationism, you can say that not all creationists are IDers, and you can say that there’s a fundamental (no pun intended) difference between ID and specific branches of creationism–but I fail to see how any intelligent analysis could lead anyone to believe that ID isn’t creationism.
And while I, too, am distressed that McCain is lending credibility to the Discovery Institute by giving a keynote speech for them, I’m not ready to castigate him until he does it and I hear what he said.
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Okay - this prompted me to go and read up on ID and creationism again, and I really don’t buy the distinction. How can you possibly say that ID isn’t creationism? You can say that it’s a subset of creationism, you can say that not all creationists are IDers, and you can say that there’s a fundamental (no pun intended) difference between ID and specific branches of creationism–but I fail to see how any intelligent analysis could lead anyone to believe that ID isn’t creationism.
[/quote]
I will save your post for later to tell those folks that oppose the use of smilies to bug off. 
Sorry, I unintentionally whooshed you. In past debates IDers did go to pains to differentiate between them and creationists, I was only pointing that up so one should not to be surprised if someone pops up claiming so. Overall, I don’t swallow their claims that they are different critters. They do attempt to differentiate, they don’t fool the informed, but unfortunately they do manage to fool many.
But, creationists are indeed attempting to take us back to the dark ages, giving them a coup like this one only will help their cause. ( lets face it, I can see McCain not remarking at all on the ideas supported by the sponsor, but I also see that there is no way he would come to criticize them now)
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Wait, don’t you support HRC?
head asplodes
[/QUOTE]
Really, Weirddave, what made you think a Doper with the handle BobLibDem would support HRC? She’s no liberal, she’s a false-flag DLC DINO just like Bill; maybe four or five degrees to Bill’s left, but no more than that.