[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The point is his temper . I thought you could figure it out.
This article is about some military people and the famous McCain temper.
[/QUOTE]
Eh. Clinton was famous for his temper, too. He seemed to have been a pretty good president.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
My father, who recently retired from a career in the State Department said that the same kind of attitude obtained in the DoS. Guys who had been in State forever and knew what they were talking about routinely had their opinions ignored in favor of the neocon agenda. Powell made some efforts to talk sense into the administration (though not nearly enough and he folded too easily. The scuttlebutt in State was that he never really forgave them for hanging him out to dry with that UN presentation), but then Rice was given the job, thus ensuring that the White House would not be subjected to any opinion but its own.
[/QUOTE]
The oddest thing about the admin is how easily everyone folded for them. Even long careered famous people known for being badasses. IE Powell and McCain
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No doubt. I think it might actually say something that he wasn’t able to control an outburts like that in public. I haven’t really bought in to the uncontrollable temper meme against McCain, but that thing with his wife is definitely something that you would expect him to be able to keep a lid on in public.
[/QUOTE]
And we’re accepting, uncritically, this story at face value?
[QUOTE=mswas]
She tousled his hair and he called her a trollop and a cunt? That’s a pretty standard MO for someone that hits their wife.
If he can’t handle his wife playfully telling him that his is losing his hair, what else can’t he abide?
[/QUOTE]
Let’s recall that this is an anonymously sourced story.
If true it makes him sound like a douche. But there’s no real proof that it is true.
edit- or what Bricker said
[QUOTE=stolichnaya]
Let’s recall that this is an anonymously sourced story.
If true it makes him sound like a douche. But there’s no real proof that it is true.
edit- or what Bricker said
[/QUOTE]
Fair 'nuff.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
And we’re accepting, uncritically, this story at face value?
[/QUOTE]
Has he ever denied it?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, frankly the assertion you made is unprovable, so offering me one video, even if it’s his first generally election campaign ad, isn’t going to do it. …If you want to play this ping-pong gaime, we can go back and forth for months.
[/QUOTE]
If you believe that this question is unprovable (hence, unfalsifiable) then your call for proof is little more than gamesmanship, no?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If you believe that this question is unprovable (hence, unfalsifiable) then your call for proof is little more than gamesmanship, no?
[/QUOTE]
OR…SOP.
[QUOTE=mswas]
The oddest thing about the admin is how easily everyone folded for them. Even long careered famous people known for being badasses. IE Powell and McCain
[/QUOTE]
Ruthlessness: he would stop at nothing. Completely power mad. You see someone like that, you quietly get out of the way, let the person get on with it, hope they don’t realize you’re over on the side, whistling.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If you believe that this question is unprovable (hence, unfalsifiable) then your call for proof is little more than gamesmanship, no?
[/QUOTE]
What’s unprovable is the original assertion-- that he has a military mindset. It would be possible, though difficult, the prove the assertion that you made afterwards for which I said I’d was open to proof. If you’d like to prove that, we’d have to look at a shitload of material, not one commercial.
By thunder, you can split a hair like Lincoln split a rail! By any chance, were you educated by Jesuits?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Has he ever denied it?
[/QUOTE]
I have a sinking feeling you really think that’s a good argument.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
I have a sinking feeling you really think that’s a good argument.
[/QUOTE]
I figured it had to be parody.
Chuckle-worthy, certainly.
Getting back to the OP, in general, calling someone a “chickenhawk” is not helpful. Unless of course, said person:
For that person, chickenhawk is too mild an insult. “Douchebag” seems to be a better fit.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
I have a sinking feeling you really think that’s a good argument.
[/QUOTE]
I was just being dry.
So let me get this straight. You raised this issue to 1) label your political opponents as hypocrites, and 2) to suggest that anti-McCain themes will be based on similar hypocritical snipes.
First of all, my perception is that the “chickenhawk” label was applied not just to members of the Bush Administration and others who have strongly promoted military actions in recent years, but especially against hawks who’ve characterized their opponents as soft on terrorism/disloyal/traitorous etc.
So I have a few questions for Mr. Moto.
Do you see any justification ever for criticizing hawks (whether or not they are outspoken about an alleged lack of patriotism by their opponents) for having avoided military service and who do not have family members serving in the military?
What hypocritical attacks do you see taking place against McCain, or are there unfair/hypocritical themes you anticipate occurring?
Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, do you anticipate attacks on his patriotism, and do you think those would be honest attacks or reflect political opportunism?
If you’re going to trash other posters for alleged hypocrisy and for having plans for further hypocritical nastiness against McCain, you need to flesh out your charges with evidence.
Thanks.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
If you want to play this ping-pong gaime, we can go back and forth for months.
[/QUOTE]
I’m afraid that’s exactly what we’re in for, and not just in this forum.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
When predicting the future, I don’t see anyone as a “teller of truth”.
Pat Buchanan* is not an unbiased observer, and I don’t know what it means to be “hawkish” on China. I’ll ask again: Is McCain going to start a war with China? Is he going to take any military action against China? I highly doubt that.
*and calling him “right wing” in the sense that McCain is “right wing” is nonsense. They aren’t in the same wing.
[/QUOTE]
I never said Pat Buchanan is an unbiased observer. He makes his living as a biased observer. I said he’s a right-wing source. When you said it’s nonsense to call Buchanan “right wing”, I got a little dizzy from the spin. Buchanan and McCain are Republicans. I doubt that either man has voted for a half-dozen liberal candidates since they were old enough to vote. You say they aren’t in the same wing, but I have a problem visualizing the US as a Fokker tri-plane, with multiple wings on each side.
When John McCain was in the military, being “hawkish” on China was pretty clear. China was supplying arms to one side of a war, so we spent a huge amount of blood and treasure to fight on the other side. Today, the first hawkish action that comes to mind would be sending arms to Taiwan, and ceasing to obediently refer to it as legally a part of China. I’m not hawkish myself, so this doesn’t come easily for me.
You keep asking me if McCain is going to start a war with China, as though I were his confidant. I’m not. I never expressed any opinion on the subject. McCain himself is keeping his plans to himself, except for some hints that slipped out during campaign stops. Those hints are meaningless, of course. :rolleyes: McCain didn’t mean what he said, of course.
[QUOTE=AskNott]
Buchanan and McCain are Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, Buchanan left the Pubs in 1999 to join (and try to take over) the Reform Party; and after the RP broke up, he formed his faction into the new America First Party.
[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
Getting back to the OP, in general, calling someone a “chickenhawk” is not helpful. Unless of course, said person:
For that person, chickenhawk is too mild an insult. “Douchebag” seems to be a better fit.
[/QUOTE]
Well whoever you’re talking about, he’s not fit to be President!
Anyway I don’t know why Mr. Moto is defending McCain.
It came out when McCain was fighting Bush Senior in 1999 that McCain:
These statements came from Republicans, so they must be true. :rolleyes: