McCain forgets how many houses he owns - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

mudwhistle · #46 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

If you want to take a look at all of McCain's humble abodes:

YouTube - McCain's Mansions

Typical class warfare.

McCain isn't John Edwards and he doesn't claim he represents the poor.

Oreo · #47 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

Are you a McCain supporter because he lies continually and has flip flopped on every major issue he once held a strong position on. Bush tax cuts during time of war, his own immigration bill, off shore drilling (after he read some polls), interventionist war (he opposed Somalia), the religious right in the Republican party, the confederate flag on state houses, Martin Luther King Jr.s birthday as a federal holiday (opposed it numerous times, now supports) the state of the economy: in January everything was good, miraculously by June (again post-poll numbers) he claims economy is in a "shambles." He's a "maverick" who has supported 90% of Bush's agenda. Can you tell me what John McCain stands for because I surely cannot. Oh and could you do so WITHOUT referencing Obama? That'd be great.

I would not refer to Obama being steady-eddie on issues. As a matter of fact, his promises to get us out of Iraq, has flip-flopped so much, it makes John Kerry look like an amature flip-flopper.

Obama refers to himself as a uniter, but brings up "if they bring a knife--we'll bring guns". Yep, that sounds like a real uniter to me, ha.ha.

Obama is in trouble. McCain's poll numbers are catching up & the Zogby shows McCain ahead now. So what does the Obama campaign do? Bring up how many homes McCain owns, completely forgetting about Obama's connection (another associate, Tony Rezco) that was recently convicted of screwing the Chicago tax-payers out of millions over real estate deals.

Clearly the Obama campaign is falling apart.

AJG · #48 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

He's a fake.

Every candidate the Dems come up with anymore are fakes. I can't remember the last real genuine Democrat to run for President.

This is because they live in a fake world that makes no sense.

They lie to us and they constantly lie to themselves.

I'm a realist.

You're biased.

Just curious, why isn't this in the Just for fun section? Fun fact, but it's a non-issue.

TheLastBoyScout · #49 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Typical class warfare.

McCain isn't John Edwards and he doesn't claim he represents the poor.

And instead of $500 haircuts like Edwards, Mccain has $500 shoes.

But Edwards and McCain do have one thing in common.... they both cheated on their wives.

mudwhistle · #50 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurningFlame

Where has Obama ever said that he hates America?

I'll wait for the proof.

The last time I can remember was last week when a kid asked him why he was running for President and he said because he felt in so many words that America was screwed up and he wanted to unscrew it.

Lately he's been just whining about how bad everyone talks about him. That seems to be his main concern.

jviehe · #51 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

If your an average joe and also someone who decides the presidency based on whether the candidate "understands your issues" than this should trouble you about John McCain. Period.

Now regarding Rezko. First, is there ever a moment when Republicans can defend their own without talking about Obama? If this was reversed wouldn't Republicans be screaming "elitist." These kinds of charges about elitism are straight from the Republican playbook, and if you'll remember they worked against John Kerry in 2004. Why is it such a bitter pill when it is used on a GOP candidate. The truth is that both Obama and McCain are wealthy (though McCain much more so). The larger truth then is, once we eliminate that they are both wealthy who's policies reflect an investment in the rich rather than the middle class. I hope that this kind of thing will eventually become a wash in the mind of voters and we'll HAVE to talk about the issues. When that happens, McCain loses.

WHats ironic is that the whole topic itself is a crticism of McCain to deflect criticism against Obama.

McCain criticizes Obama for being an elitist
Obama says, so are you

You are quite wrong that its a bitter pill to be called rich if you are a republican. Its a badge of honor. I wish everyone could be as rich as republicans. What a better world it would be. Unfortunately, Obama wants everyone to be as poor as democrats. And this is why his class warfare holds no water.

jviehe · #52 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaGerman

Well, I suppose someone who cannot even memorize how many houses he owns, will not be able to memorize other facts, too.
Like, that there is no Jugoslavia in europe anymore. The names of important state leaders. Facts about post-vietnam military strategy.
Intelligence reports. All things a president needs to know to make responsible and good decisions.

McCain is just too old to be president. The US cannot afford another puppet-president who's strings are drawn by neocon hardliners.

DaGerman

McCain has decades more life experience to fit into his brain. No wonder he forgets things. Its easy for Obama who just had to remember what day some community event he organized was on.

mudwhistle · #53 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

And instead of $500 haircuts like Edwards, Mccain has $500 shoes.

But Edwards and McCain do have one thing in common.... they both cheated on their wives.

So this is really just who is more fucked up.

That's pretty sad.

I love the way you guys say what a man does in private doesn't matter unless he's a Republican. Remember Billy getting his knob polished in the Oval Office?

Obama is totally fucked up, you can at least admit that, but instead you want to bring up as much dirty laundry on the other guy as you can.

OK, let's talk about Obama's Cocaine habit.

Or how about his serial Polygamist father.

Also let's talk about his terrorist ties.

mudwhistle · #54 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

You're biased.

Just curious, why isn't this in the Just for fun section? Fun fact, but it's a non-issue.

Maybe because the Administrator is a lib.

CorpMediaSux · #55 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Oreo
Obama refers to himself as a uniter, but brings up "if they bring a knife--we'll bring guns". Yep, that sounds like a real uniter to me, ha.ha.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. There's nothing about "unity" that also implies passivity and an unwillingness to be aggresive and fight back. For example an effective defense in football is "united" in their goal to smash the face in of their opponent. When he talks about being a great uniter he means that he is able to appeal to people from multiple perspectives because (he believes) there are some universal things American's agree about, but that other silly issues (like flag pins) keep us divided so that the conversation can not even begin. NOTHING about that is anti-aggression or anti-running a strong campaign.

Quote:

I would not refer to Obama being steady-eddie on issues. As a matter of fact, his promises to get us out of Iraq, has flip-flopped so much, it makes John Kerry look like an amature flip-flopper.

No candidate is ever without reversals, but the sheer number of McCain's flip flops are ASTOUNDING and they dawrf Obama's. You are also absolutely wrong on the Iraq "flip flop", and I've demonstrated as much numerous times, but here we go again.

Quote:

• At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H. on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Time Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

• At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."

• At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

• On "Meet the Press" on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal -- one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years."

Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to anti-war audiences and "about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security.

The Plouffe statement, however, stands out. Plouffe said the 16-month time frame was a "rock solid commitment." But it's the only statement we found that supports the idea of withdrawal with no allowances made for circumstances on the ground.

After the McCain campaign attacked Obama as a flip-flopper, the candidate responded with another press conference the same day.

"I intend to end this war," Obama said. "My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in, and I will give them a new mission. And that is to end this war. Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama's position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign's statement that Obama has reversed position to be False.

Source

AJG · #56 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

So this is really just who is more fucked up.

That's pretty sad.

Obama is totally fucked up, you can at least admit that, but instead you want to bring up as much dirty laundry on the other guy as you can.

OK, let's talk about Obama's Cocaine habit.

Or how about his serial Polygamist father.

Also let's talk about his terrorist ties.

I love the way you guys say what a man does in private doesn't matter unless he's a Republican. Remember Billy getting his knob polished in the Oval Office?

Can you really say you are any better? You've been very negative towards Obama and you never really have defended him (as far as I know), but you go on defending McCain. Biased. NObamabot. Obamabots and NObamabots FTL.

mudwhistle · #57 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

Can you really say you are any better? You've been very negative towards Obama and you never really have defended him (as far as I know), but you go on defending McCain. Biased. NObamabot. Obamabots and NObamabots FTL.

I defended Obama when Hillary was attacking him in the early days of the primary campaign.

That was before I found out about what he really was.

Kind of hard for me to defend him now.

AjaxPress · #58 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

A realist would know that over a long campaign you will say some things that people can use against you or forget things. This isn't a Geography lesson. It is a test in leadership.

A realist is able to recognize evil when they see it.

A realist can see the world for what it is not what you hope it will be.

Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for nearly 15 years and there has never been an Iraq/Pakistan border. How do you forget these sort of things?

Yep, McCain should have been able to recognize Hagee for what he was.

A realist can do both.

AJG · #59 (**permalink**) 08-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

I defended Obama when Hillary was attacking him in the early days of the primary campaign.

That was before I found out about what he really was.

Kind of hard for me to defend him now.

Still doesn't explain why you're biased

.