John McCain, an honorable man.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LoneLictor**

I may disagree with some of John McCain's political stances, but he is a pretty cool dude.

**Mannahnin**

Ahtman wrote:Did anyone else see the HBO movie about the 2004 election? It essentially was the story of how a well respected, well liked, honorable man was injured by bringing Palin onto the campaign. Not only did it hurt his campaign, it also tainted him by association, which was a bit foreshadowed. It wasn't a great film by any stretch, but it wasn't terrible either. It is worth it for Julianne Moore's portrayal of Sarah Palin if nothing.

It was pretty good.

**mattyrm**

John is a top man, and I would buy him a pint.

Palin... unngghhh... I hate the woman.

I should thank her though, I hate creationists for the harm they do to children and science as a whole, and she did more harm to their idiotic crusade than I could have done in twenty years of complaining about them.

So I should love her and yet.. I cant bring myself to embrace her, maybe its because her house is full of dead bears?

**A Town Called Malus**

I always respected McCain, despite being an Obama supporter at the time (not so much now, I thought he was going to be the Bobby Kennedy the US never got so he's been a bit of a disappointment all things considered. Still better than Romney though).

I can remember reading about some of the Republicans making a big fuss over Obama banning waterboarding in Guantanemo, claiming it wasn't torture but an "interrogation technique". Then there was McCain, someone who had actually experienced it and many other types of "interrogation techniques" during his time as a POW in Vietnam flat out saying "No, it's torture." ( Link to an article about it here. Probably won't be surprised to hear that the Bachmann woman was one of those saying that waterboarding was ok.)

Good man.

**MrDwhitey**

On that, Malus:

Bachmann

"Yes I would, because waterboarding does not kill anyone," Bachmann said. "Is it uncomfortable? Yes, it's uncomfortable, but I am more concerned that we would prevent aircraft from going into the Twin Towers, taking them down, and taking out 3,000 innocent American lives, than I am about the comfort level of a terrorist, and what that means for them," referring to the 9/11 attacks.

**Jihadin**

Maty..you hug her for showing you her collection of hunting weapons and the chance to go fire all of them at the range or hunting

**MeanGreenStompa**

Palin legalized hunting wolves from helicopters for sport. Because American hunters are now so fat and lazy they can't even walk to the place they are going to kill something they won't eat.

I would happily strangle her with my bare hands. Slowly.

**A Town Called Malus**

I would hug her if she let me hunt the most dangerous prey of all...Man.

Preferably her but I'd also settle for Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh

**Jihadin**

would hug her if she let me hunt the most dangerous prey of all...Man.

Seriously not a good hunt because the other man is hunting you

**mattyrm**

Even though I don't hunt, I can see the appeal. I don't even have an issue with people hunting to be fair, that seems a bit childish. If you want to shoot gak that's down to you. Even if there is no skill involved and you use a machine gun, whatever butters your muffin. I don't presume to tell people how to spend their free time.

I just can't respect people that overtly and obviously have absolute gak for brains!

**Ouze**

I have no problem with hunting food you will eat, or hunting things you won't eat if there's a reason to do so (such as killing wolves for legitimate conservation reasons). I'm not too big on people like my wife's ex, who just likes killing stuff.

Where I live I desperately wish they'd increase the bag limit on deer, I work at night and there is part of my drive in I consider "the red zone" because there is almost always from a few, to a herd, of deer congregating in the street.

**Albatross**

I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure. He was never going to beat Obama, no-one could have. Obama swept to power on a wave of emotion - he was a viable candidate for first black president, and the country needed something to feel good about after a difficult decade. Putting up a good candidate against him was a total waste of time, politically. It should have been Romney then and McCain now. McCain could beat Obama now, but back then he was swimming against the tide of history. It's a shame really.

**Monster Rain**

Albatross wrote:I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure.

It's just part of the reason, though.

His whole career was based on being the "maverick" who follows his conscience even when it puts him at odds with his party. Then in 2008 he went really, really far to the right during the primary and it cost him a lot of votes. Though you're probably right. Dubya kind of ruined things for Republicans for that election.

**VermGho5t**

When I first read this I thought someone had named their child after a Dragonlance character. Then I continued on.

How is it that people like Bachmann were elected to public office?

**Melissia**

Demagoguery.

**mattyrm**

America has too many people that vote based on nothing the candidates say or do.

Basically they vote for the one that they think likes Jesus the most.

**Bromsy**

mattyrm wrote:America has too many people that vote based on nothing the candidates say or do.

Basically they vote for the one that they think likes Jesus the most.

Or they will simply vote party line, because she may be crazy, but at least she's no stinking democrat.

**mattyrm**

Bromsy wrote:
mattyrm wrote:America has too many people that vote based on nothing the candidates say or do.

Basically they vote for the one that they think likes Jesus the most.

Or they will simply vote party line, because she may be crazy, but at least she's no stinking democrat.

Yeah its pretty dumb alright. I would happily swing between both parties demending on the person. Surely that is how its meant to work?

Case in point, vote for McCain over Obama, but wil gleefully vote for Obama instead of mormon vampire.

**streamdragon**

d-usa wrote:
Melissia wrote:
He went on to shoot down the accusations, explaining that one member of Abedin's family alleged to be part the conspiracy, her father, had actually passed away two decades ago.
Ah, never let the truth get in the way of partisanship, eh Republican party?

To be honest, if McCain had stuck with being himself during his presidential campaign and not tried to be Bush the Third, I'd have voted for him instead of Obama. I rather liked him before that campaign.

My two candidates in 2008 were McCain on the Republican side, and Obama on the Democratic side. I like McCain a lot, but it seems that his campaign took over when he won the nomination and the political machine changed his message and maybe himself. I did not recognize the McCain I liked during the primaries once his nomination was sealed.

And then, when he gave his concession speech, it was almost as if the McCain that disappeared during the election suddenly showed up again. He looked physically in pain when he said Obama's name and everybody started to boo.

I remember hearing about the McCain rally where an old woman stood up and called Obama a muslim, and McCain corrected her. When he did the entire crowd booed him. I think that was when McCain basically said "feth all of you" and started sinking his own campaign.

John McCain is a good and an honorable man. His own party abuses the crap out of him, like Santorum and his "[McCain] doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works" bullcrap. I really feel like his campaign against Obama did a good job of demonstrating what the political process has become; it isn't about who a candidate is, or what the candidate stands for anymore. Especially for my Republican party, it has simply become about pandering to a load group of fanatical voters who wouldn't vote for a democrat if you put a gun to their head. Hopeful nominees have to pontificate to a certain group for the nomination, but to get the actual Presidency the candidate has to somehow do an almost 180 degree turn to focus on the moderates. But it doesn't matter, because by then the damage is done. They've been forced to spew a bunch of vitriolic garbage to appeal to the far right (the afore mentioned "gun to their head" voters), which is then used against them in the actual presidential campaign.

I keep hoping we'll be able to go back to republicans actually being the progressive group (see: Teddy Roosevelt) , but as long as they're forced to pander to a bunch of schmucks like Tea Partiers or hard line NeoCons that simply won't happen.

**sebster**

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I'd vote for McCain over Obama, like.

McCain is a good, honourable man, which is exactly why he's compelled to, and why it's so good when he stands up against the bigotry that's so unfortunately common among the leaders of his party.

But let's not let a few years of history lead us into forgetting why McCain lost that election. In the midst of the GFC, McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points. The guys policy interests begin and end with foreign policy, and there they basically narrow down to 'countries we need to be dropping bombs on'.

He's a good guy with a truly incredible personal story, but as a legislator and leader he's got serious shortcomings.

**broodstar**

sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

**Ahtman**

broodstar wrote:
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

**youbedead**

Ahtman wrote:
broodstar wrote:
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Yeah this is either sarcasm, one of the most brilliant trolls i've seen or the most ridiculous thing i have ever read on this forum... I can't tell which

**reds8n**

broodstar wrote:

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

Smear first made by Walid Shoebat last year
This one is being widely reported; from Politico:
They were long afraid to do it, but now conservatives have their knives out for Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Senators in her own party, congressional candidates, a lawmaker in her state’s delegation and leaders of the House Republican Conference are all lambasting the Minnesota Republican for saying the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
..The Republican backlash against Bachmann started with Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) statement on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying she had made “sinister accusations.”
Rep. Jeff Flake, a conservative Arizona lawmaker running for Senate, tweeted “Kudos to @SenJohnMcCain for his statement on Senate floor yesterday defending Clinton aide. Well said.”
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) added: “Rep. Bachmann’s accusations about Sec. Clinton aide Huma Abedin are out-of-line. This kind of rhetoric has no place in our public discourse.”
John Boehner, meanwhile, stated that
“I don’t know Huma, but from everything I do know of her, she has a sterling character,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “And I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”
McCain’s full speech can be read here. Bachmann’s accusation was made in a letter to Ambassador Harold W. Geisel, Deputy Inspector General at the Department of State, and co-signed by Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland.
I noted the conspiracy-theory about Huma Abedin in June last year; the subject appears to have been raised first by Walid Shoebat, in the wake of a failed conspiracy theory (suggested by Eleana Benador, who has handled PR for Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Frank Gaffney) that Abedin’s husband Anthony Weiner may have secretly converted to Islam.
Shoebat suggested that Abedin’s family background put her in the same position as Eva Braun:
Imagine during World War II, the U.S. government accepted Eva Braun, Hitler’s mistress or one of Hitler’s henchmen daughters to work with our State Department and even be with the Secretary of State 24/7?
RightWingWatch notes that the subject was raised again earlier this month by Frank Gaffney and Gen William “Jerry” Boykin. Boykin, egged on by Gaffney, explained that:
Secondly, Huma [Abedin] is not the only person who has penetrated our government and if you go back to the explanatory memorandum that is in our book, Sharia: The Threat, which was discovered in Annandale, Virginia in the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of their strategies was to penetrate our government and they have done so. If my mother or father was a known member of the Muslim Brotherhood it is highly unlikely that I would ever be able to get a security clearance so you have to ask yourself, why is this individual able to do that when no one else can possibly do that. So there is a willful blindness to what is happening. I believe in some aspects of this situation there is support for the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government, that sounds extremist but it is just a fact, it’s a reality.
In 2010, Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy produced a report entitled Shariah: The Threat to America (discussed here), to which Boykin also contributed; Boykin publicised the report in a letter to supporters which emphasised the dangers of Muslims being employed by the Obama administration:
The Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security recently swore in two devout Muslims in senior posts…. Was it not “Devout Muslim men” that flew planes into U.S. buildings 9 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 14 at Fort Hood?
…It’s not just about ONE mosque being built near the 9-11 catastrophe, it is about Sharia Law not stopping until they overtake each and every government on this earth…
The letter was written in Boykin’s capacity as “Grand Chancellor” of a chivalric order called “The Knights of Malta: The Ecumenical Order”; Boykin co-signed it with Nicholas Papanicolaou, the order’s “Grand Master” (the two men inducted Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff into the order last autumn).
Think Progress, following Adam Serwer at Mother Jones, notes that Bachmann has links to Gaffney – as does McCain himself. Serwer observed:
McCain inexplicably also defends Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, as a “friend” despite the center’s role in providing “empirical” support for the absurd conspiracy theory that American Muslims are secretly trying to impose Taliban-style Islamic law on the United States. It’s Gaffney’s scurrilous reasoning masquerading as policy expertise that lead to Bachmann’s smearing of Abedin in the first place.
Gaffney’s conspiracy-mongering is extravagant: just recently he shared a stage with phony “ex-terrorist” Kamal Saleem while Saleem explained that whenever Obama appears to pledge allegiance to the flag, he in fact holds his hand in a special way which shows that in reality he is praying to Allah. One conspiracy Gaffney was forced to back down from was his claim that the DOD’s Missile Defense Agency’s logo represented the “morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo…” and was an act “of submission to Shariah by President Obama”. Alas, it turned out that the logo dated from 2007.
Boykin, meanwhile, has featured on his blog a number of times: while he remains most famous with the general public for the controversy over his comments reported in 2003 on how the War on Terror is a religious war, he is also a high-profile figure in the Christian Right, associated in particular with the neo-Pentecostal evangelist Rick Joyner.

http://barthsnotes.com/2012/07/21/smear-against-huma-abedin-endorsed-by-michele-bachmann-repudiated-by-high-profile-republicans/

**Albatross**

sebster wrote:
Albatross wrote:Yeah, I'd vote for McCain over Obama, like.

McCain is a good, honourable man, which is exactly why he's compelled to, and why it's so good when he stands up against the bigotry that's so unfortunately common among the leaders of his party.

But let's not let a few years of history lead us into forgetting why McCain lost that election. In the midst of the GFC, McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points. The guys policy interests begin and end with foreign policy, and there they basically narrow down to 'countries we need to be dropping bombs on'.

He's a good guy with a truly incredible personal story, but as a legislator and leader he's got serious shortcomings.

I don't disagree, but I would counter that the same could be said about Obama, and that McCain sticks to his principles more readily. Now, as an amoral jerk-off, I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.

He's a good orator, but a fairly crappy politician in that he seems to alienate a hell of a lot of people, and there's only so long you can blame prejudice.

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Palin legalized hunting wolves from helicopters for sport. Because American hunters are now so fat and lazy they can't even walk to the place they are going to kill something they won't eat.

I would happily strangle her with my bare hands. Slowly.

Good luck with that. She'd likely beat yer ass six ways to Sunday.

**purplefood**

…It’s not just about ONE mosque being built near the 9-11 catastrophe, it is about Sharia Law not stopping until they overtake each and every government on this earth…

Does any find this slightly egotistical?
Just because they have a problem with some countries in the West doesn't automatically mean they're out for world domination...
That said he's clearly of his nut so go figure...

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
would hug her if she let me hunt the most dangerous prey of all...Man.

Seriously not a good hunt because the other man is hunting you

See thats all bs. Wrong target.

Pizza. The ultimate game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure. He was never going to beat Obama, no-one could have. Obama swept to power on a wave of emotion - he was a viable candidate for first black president, and the country needed something to feel good about after a difficult decade. Putting up a good candidate against him was a total waste of time, politically. It should have been Romney then and McCain now. McCain could beat Obama now, but back then he was swimming against the tide of history. It's a shame really.

This.

**Mannahnin**

Hindsight's pretty useful, 'eh?

**broodstar**

Ahtman wrote:
broodstar wrote:
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.