If you're interested, here's a real good article on the issue.Ok, then I must have been misinformed. He's just overruled then, eh? Thanks for the update.
Zod said:If you're looking for a reason to paint McCain as someone who is willing to sell his principles for a ticket to the Whitehouse, look no further than religion.
Zod said:By the way, speaking of people I have a growing distaste for, did anyone see Hillary's speech on Martin Luther King Day? It had to be the most disingenuous thing I've ever witnessed in my life.
I agree that all candidates pander. It's an unfortunate part of campaigning. But there's a difference between pandering and buddying up to someone you recently referred to as an "agent of intolerance" (especially in my eyes). Much of my respect for McCain came from his unwillingness to validate people like Falwell and Robertson. His newfound willingness to due their bidding in exchange for votes, coupled with his eagerness to fall in line with our failed Iraq policies (at every turn), leave him in a position where he's barely distinguishable from any other right wing hawk.The Falwell hardcore zombies unfortunately make up a large portion of the conservative voting base. Without those votes, he can't win. It's pandering - I'm not proud of him for it, but that's what it is, and the other candidates are not above it either.
His newfound willingness to due their bidding in exchange for votes
Zod said:coupled with his eagerness to fall in line with our failed Iraq policies (at every turn), leave him in a position where he's barely distinguishable from any other right wing hawk.
I love the term "surge". Another perfect example of this administration's tireless spin machine. When you send more troops into battle, it's an escalation.He championed the surge that took the inept administration over 4 years to implement, a surge that has been very effective (yes I know your only definition of effective was to never have gone in the first place).
While I get your point, I trust Jerry Springer would handle this conflict better than Bush has.I certainly trust him to handle the conflict far more than Bush ever could.
Was him singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" also taken out of context?The 100 years comment has been continually taken out of context...
Kind of a straw man argument. I called him a "hawk", which he is.I respectfully disagree with you that McCain is some type of war mongering fascist Neo Con villain that is merely G.W. getting a 3rd term.
I love the term "surge". Another perfect example of this administration's tireless spin machine. When you send more troops into battle, it's an escalation.
Zod said:While I get your point, I trust Jerry Springer would handle this conflict better than Bush has.
Zod said:Was him singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" also taken out of context?
Zod said:Kind of a straw man argument. I called him a "hawk", which he is.
Zod said:P.S. - I call no discussing politics in Sweden.
To be honest, I find it somewhat bizarre that conservatives even feel like this is a winning point for them. It only illustrates what a complete clusterfuck this war has been. We "temporarily" escalated the war, and the violence has "temporarily" been reduced. That's not exactly a brilliant strategic move. More cops on the street means less crime. We've seen this time and time again in the streets of our own country. And this might be a smart move if a few months of decreased death totals would impact the long term outcome. But this strategy is only meant buy the current administration time until they can dump this into the lap of the next administration.An escalation that has led to an undeniable downturn in the number of deaths across the board.
The joke isn't annoying, it's irresponsible. And hopefully it's a clip we see over and over and over again in the months leading up to the general election. Anyone with McCain's "years of experience", who thinks dropping bombs on people (some of which will be completely innocent) is funny, in any context, shouldn't be president.An annoying joke that was followed by his actual thoughts on the question posed to him.
When I disagree with people, I try to avoid intentionally inflammatory language, as it serves no real purpose.Given the context of your posting history on the subject, I find it surprising that you would differentiate the terms "hawk" and "war monger" as it relates to McCain's Iraq positions.
Aside from the fact that I believe the term is inflammatory, I think being a "hawk" and being a "warmonger" are much different. I'm not trying to compare McCain to Attila the Hun.If you are differentiating and feel that "hawk" is a less harsh term to use than "war monger", than the clarification is definitely appreciated.
I think it's that "I (Heart) W." t-shirt you wear that incites me so.Keep in mind, I never, ever bring it up unless someone else brings it up to me first, or if there is a blanket discussion taking place around me and the discussion becomes impossible to avoid.