Prime Example of McCain Failing. Hard.

yeahwow.

Excellent example that no one should ever change their minds about anything. Ever.

"I have no idea where you got that quote from"

Primary wrote:

Excellent example that no one should ever change their minds about anything. Ever.

If it had've been Obama you woulda said "FLIP FLOPPER!!"


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fAyK-enrF1g
I'm less concerned with his inability to remember what he said about something the day before than his inclination toward flying off the handle. Thats not a quality I look for in someone who will have the nucular codes.

If you spent 5 years in a POW camp, I'd think you too would have some anger issues.

The dude can't even fly a plane when he was in the navy, how can you trust him to steer a country in the right direction?

Please, don't play the POW card for him, its all but meaningless in a presidential contest. They don't hold "Presidenting for Dummies" courses in Vietnamese POW camps so I don't think his time spent in one enhances his presidential ability.

Galt wrote:

Please, don't play the POW card for him, its all but meaningless in a presidential contest. They don't hold "Presidenting for Dummies" courses in Vietnamese POW camps so I don't think his time spent in one enhances his presidential ability.

This was funny.

Galt wrote:

The dude can't even fly a plane when he was in the navy, how can you trust him to steer a country in the right direction?

Please, don't play the POW card for him, its all but meaningless in a presidential contest. They don't hold "Presidenting for Dummies" courses in Vietnamese POW camps so I don't think his time spent in one enhances his presidential ability.

What's sad is it was this kind of comment that got Wesley Clark ostracized by the Obama team. Yes, we all know it's true, but you can't actually say it out loud unless you're a pundit.

Galt wrote:

the nucular codes.

You use that spelling on purpose? Because that's how our president and the lovely Gov. Palin both say it.

Petrus wrote:

Galt wrote:

the nucular codes.

You use that spelling on purpose? Because that's how our president and the lovely Gov. Palin both say it.

Yes. Obvious joke is obvious.

Its pretty funny that you talk shit about a man that fought for our country, and then was POW for years. Its nice to see you care about our military and the people that serve in it.

Just because you disagree with a fact doesn't mean that when someone says it that they are talking shit. To say that being a POW is not President training isn't a slight against his service or anyone else's. If military service was so important to being president why didn't Kerry beat Bush in 04? Like I said, unless they gave leadership seminars while he was in prison then its not relevant. Its not an attack on military service, its just facts.

Galt, you probably know by now that I am not a strong supporter of either side, but can you really tell me that McCains military history plays no part in his presidential abilities?

Holyhoof wrote:

Its pretty funny that you talk shit about a man that fought for our country, and then was POW for years. Its nice to see you care about our military and the people that serve in it.

Uh, Kerry lost to Bush, a guy who paid his way out of the draft. Dole and Bush 41 lost to Clinton, a draft-dodger. I take it you are saying that you always support the "war guy?"

You're replaying an old line that somehow implies that you can't say anything bad about a soldier who served his or her country. Nobody, and by nobody I mean not a single person on Obama's staff, has said a single derogatory thing about McCain's military service. Everyone said he served his country with great honor and suffered terribly as a POW. But Clark's assertion, which I agree with, is that such service does not automatically qualify you for the Presidency. How conservatives can somehow twist this comment into an attack on McCain's record boggles my mind. You CAN like someone while simultaneously disagreeing with them.

To go a bit extreme, it's like Timothy McVeigh. He was a veteran who served his country honorably... and then he bombed a building in protest. Does it make it wrong to criticize him? You can say, in the same sentence, that the guy did a good job at one point in his life and a terrible job at another point.

McCain is no different. He was a fantastic soldier. But he has absolutely no business taking the White House. His judgment, his temperament, and his history of lobbyist influence lead me to believe that he is not the better candidate.

And another thing... just because McCain was a soldier doesn't necessarily mean he would be a good Commander-in-Chief. There's a reason not every foot soldier ends up General of the Armies. It takes a certain set of skills to actually lead a massive set of battalions. Furthermore, not every General is automatically a good candidate for President.

And I support our military. Just ask Thop.

Honed wrote:

Galt, you probably know by now that I am not a strong supporter of either side, but can you really tell me that McCains military history plays no part in his presidential abilities?

You're conflating points here. The POW issue was invoked, the simple fact that he was a POW does not enhance his ability to govern a country. Also if military history was training for president then aren't there people with similar services who would be better to lead? To me the "he was a sub-mediocre pilot in the navy and was a POW" argument is more of a "look at what he's been through for the country, lets cut him a break" rather than "his previous military accomplishments would lead one to believe that he is capable of leading this entire country." Thats because the second one isn't true.

I take my hat off to people who choose to serve and there is nothing bad I can say about that choice but I don't bend just to be P.C. to say that by simple virtue of fact that he was in the military makes him cut out to run this country, because it doesn't.

I like this thread.

Galt wrote:

Honed wrote:

Galt, you probably know by now that I am not a strong supporter of either side, but can you really tell me that McCains military history plays no part in his presidential abilities?

You're conflating points here. The POW issue was invoked, the simple fact that he was a POW does not enhance his ability to govern a country. Also if military history was training for president then aren't there people with similar services who would be better to lead? To me the "he was a sub-mediocre pilot in the navy and was a POW" argument is more of a "look at what he's been through for the country, lets cut him a break" rather than "his previous military accomplishments would lead one to believe that he is capable of leading this entire country." Thats because the second one isn't true.

I take my hat off to people who choose to serve and there is nothing bad I can say about that choice but I don't bend just to be P.C. to say that by simple virtue of fact that he was in the military makes him cut out to run this country, because it doesn't.

Actually no, both the fact that he is a military veteran AND the fact that he was a POW were asserted. Go back and check the statement that you guys quoted.

Wouldn't there be people better equipped to lead our nation? Yes! But how does that possibly tie into what I said? My point is that a strong military background is a great attribute for the President of the United States, not that it is the only one.

The points I was referring to:

1. Military background is good for a President to have.

2. John McCain's military background makes him good for President.

#1 being true does not validate #2. I'm arguing against #2, not #1.

Galt wrote:

The points I was referring to:

1. Military background is good for a President to have.

2. John McCain's military background makes him good for President.

#1 being true does not validate #2. I'm arguing against #2, not #1.

Sooooo your answer to my original question would be "no, no Honed you gorgeous Tauren, I cannot!".

No, it wouldn't. When you ask if I think it plays a part in it Presidential abilities, the answer is no I don't. Proving allegiance to one's country through service shows a strong commitment to the country, I can't knock that, but it does not give them pro tips on how to run the country.

This

VVVV

hahahaha that's pretty funny

and totally valid to boot!

Yeah, if you want to talk about real fail, lets talk about how Obama was a member of Rev. Wrights church for TWENTY years, and how Obama pretty much kicked off his campaign IN THE LIVING ROOM OF A DOMESTIC TERRORIST. Of course, here comes that arguements that Ayers isn't a terrorist.

McCain was a part of keating 5, cheated on his crippled wife and crashed millions of dollars worth of naval air craft.

Who gives a fuck?