DC Tom Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 At the risk of stating the obvious, Clinton supporters DIDN'T make it an issue. Wingnuts did. At the risk of stating the equally obvious: qualifying a Republican candidate as unfit due to marital infidelity whilst excusing it in a Democratic president is hypocrisy. Look, I don't really care either way. I've said multiple times that I think the uproar over Clinton's idiocy (to the point of impeachment???) was utterly ridiculous. I'm just saying it's disingenious to the point of stupid to decry the behavior in one candidate that you (the general "you", not you specifically) excuse or even defend in another.
The Senator Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 So you're more comfortable with a fossil of a man who is constantly getting malignant growths scraped off his face while and his protégé, the Ex-Beauty Queen runner-up who went through 5 colleges in 6 years in her pursuit of the ever elusive Bachelor's of Journalism degree? Are you kidding? If Iran decides to launch you better hope it's between 6am and 5pm or else Old Man McCain is going to be sawing logs like there's no tomorrow! You're such a silly boy! "Old Man" McCain? Get a look at the wife Jack McCain has? Asleep by 5 pm? Doubt it. Maybe some other limp-dick like, oh I dunno - YOU - but doe's the term 'tailhook scandal' mean anything at all to you? Ring a bell, maybe? Ever hung out with any of those guys? If not, you need to get your head out of your ass with those types of comments. They're hard-asses, and hard-partiers. They're used to life or death decisions, to putting their lives on the line, for each other and for their country. "Old Man" McCain, war injuries and all, would still kick Obama's ass all over the room if it came down to it. I'd like to see Obama stand up to one millionth of the pressure - and the torture - that John McCain has endured. He couldn't. He'd be crying like a little school girl. Squealin' like a stuck pig. Obama couldn't even make up his mind whether to vote yes or no 127 times in the Illinois senate - he voted 'present'. Either he didn't know enough about the issues, or didn't have the spine to take a stand one way or another. Come to think of it, that's kinda like being asleep at decision time, no?
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 I'd like to see Obama stand up to one millionth of the pressure - and the torture - that John McCain has endured. He couldn't. He'd be crying like a little school girl. Squealin' like a stuck pig. I'm surprised JK hasn't yet twigged to the "Do you want a president with PTSD?" argument. No, wait...no I'm not. He's not bright enough to figure that out himself.
The Senator Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 At the risk of stating the obvious, Clinton supporters DIDN'T make it an issue. Wingnuts did. Why'd you call PastaJoe Biden 'Wingnuts'? (He's the one who brought up the 'infidelity thing', no?)
JK2000 Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 "Old Man" McCain, war injuries and all, would still kick Obama's ass all over the room if it came down to it. You really believe that an incontinent 74 year old who can't lift his arms over his shoulders and struggles to shuffle around on stage could really kick Obama's ass? The only way that could happen is if McCain's diaper sprung a leak during the fight and Obama slipped in a puddle of his sh--! Tailhook? McCain hasn't got a hard-on since Reagan was in the White House so I have no clue why you'd bring up Tailhook.
The Senator Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 You have to go back 40 years for an example? Uh, yeah...I kinda did have to do that...ya see, there just haven't been that many democrats in the Oval Office the past 40 years.
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 You really believe that an incontinent 74 year old who can't lift his arms over his shoulders and struggles to shuffle around on stage could really kick Obama's ass? The only way that could happen is if McCain's diaper sprung a leak during the fight and Obama slipped in a puddle of his sh--! Tailhook? McCain hasn't got a hard-on since Reagan was in the White House so I have no clue why you'd bring up Tailhook. "My Presidential Candidate can beat up your Presidential Candidate!" You guys are completely ridiculous.
outsidethebox Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 "My Presidential Candidate can beat up your Presidential Candidate!" You guys are completely ridiculous. Who is your candidate? Ron Paul? figures.
The Senator Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 "My Presidential Candidate can beat up your Presidential Candidate!" You guys are completely ridiculous. Yeah, you're right. (But McCain probably could kick 'bama's ass ) The more noble discussion is that guys like John MCain and his buddies, along with those that went before and those that came after, risked and - in many cases - gave their lives so that those like JK are able to speak freely and cast their vote for whomever they would chose as their next leader - even a wimpy, novice, unproven, untested, opportunistic 7-year state senator who couldn't decide which way to vote on the simplest local issues. Maybe universal suffrage isn't such a great idea after all.
JK2000 Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Yeah, you're right. (But McCain probably could kick 'bama's ass ) The more noble discussion is that guys like John MCain and his buddies, along with those that went before and those that came after, risked and - in many cases - gave their lives so that those like JK are able to speak freely and cast their vote for whomever they would chose as their next leader - even a wimpy, novice, unproven, untested, opportunistic 7-year state senator who couldn't decide which way to vote on the simplest local issues. Maybe universal suffrage isn't such a great idea after all. What's with you and "John McCain and his buddies"? I sense that you have a fetish for men in uniform.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 I'm surprised JK hasn't yet twigged to the "Do you want a president with PTSD?" argument. No, wait...no I'm not. He's not bright enough to figure that out himself. I usually bring that one up. Hmm, but I hear from Veterans for America says McCain wants to cut funding for PTSD support. Not sure if it is true, but at this age of McCain's life, he probably doesn't want to deal with it much more. Got to be quite the Albatross, but unlike Reagan, if he says we begin Bombing in 5 minutes, I think we should duck and cover. In that position it is easier to kiss our Palins goodbye.
The Senator Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 What's with you and "John McCain and his buddies"? I sense that you have a fetish for men in uniform. Yeah, that's it. You interested at all, cumsponge?
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Who is your candidate? Ron Paul? figures. Haven't decided yet. I think both the main party candidates are basically pandering dolts, and none of the third-party candidates appeal to me. Ron Paul? I'd sooner vote for Bigfoot.
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 I usually bring that one up. Hmm, but I hear from Veterans for America says McCain wants to cut funding for PTSD support. Not sure if it is true, but at this age of McCain's life, he probably doesn't want to deal with it much more. Got to be quite the Albatross, but unlike Reagan, if he says we begin Bombing in 5 minutes, I think we should duck and cover. In that position it is easier to kiss our Palins goodbye. Has McCain ever been diagnosed with PTSD, seriously? I confess, I have no idea how it progresses after 40 years...even if he's been diagnosed, I'm not even sure it would be an issue. And while I agree with the "we begin bombing in 5 minutes" observation, I'd always just kind-of assumed his rumored temper was due to his being a right bastard. As for cutting funding for support...by all means, do it, if it's a budget line item at all separate from the VA budget or DoD budgets - or even if it is, and Congress is saying "You must spend this on this illness over the coming year". Congress (or the White House...but ultimately Congress votes on it) determining what money gets spent on what diseases is ridiculous.
EC-Bills Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 not enough evangelicals to save them this time Last time I checked, the actions of the chairman of the fed reserve have more of an impact on the ecomomy as opposed to the particular economic philosophy the presidental incumbent may or may not have. But to play devil's advocate and go along with your ignorant partisan view, what the hell have the democrats been doing for close to the last 2 years? Weren't they claiming they would solve the energy crisis, improve the economy, etc. be getting control of the house and senate?
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Last time I checked, the actions of the chairman of the fed reserve have more of an impact on the ecomomy as opposed to the particular economic philosophy the presidental incumbent may or may not have. But to play devil's advocate and go along with your ignorant partisan view, what the hell have the democrats been doing for close to the last 2 years? Weren't they claiming they would solve the energy crisis, improve the economy, etc. be getting control of the house and senate? Deficit spending by the government doesn't help things. And again...how much has the Democratic congress done to contain THAT? Oh yeah, that brilliant $250B gift to taxpayers...financed by more deficit spending.
Taro T Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Haven't decided yet. I think both the main party candidates are basically pandering dolts, and none of the third-party candidates appeal to me. Ron Paul? I'd sooner vote for Bigfoot. Considering my vote is a throw away anyhow as I live in NY and the chance of anyone beating Obama here is roughly equivalent to the odds of the '07 Bills winning the Super Bowl; I'm seriously considering going for a write in candidate. When one candidate will get 60+% of the vote, you gain some leeway in your own choice.
Booster4324 Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Deficit spending by the government doesn't help things. And again...how much has the Democratic congress done to contain THAT? Oh yeah, that brilliant $250B gift to taxpayers...financed by more deficit spending. What? You mean it isn't all play money?
Booster4324 Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Considering my vote is a throw away anyhow as I live in NY and the chance of anyone beating Obama here is roughly equivalent to the odds of the '07 Bills winning the Super Bowl; I'm seriously considering going for a write in candidate. When one candidate will get 60+% of the vote, you gain some leeway in your own choice. I live in MS. Not much chance for Obama here. If it was close, I might have to make a decision. I do not thankfully. So, I will vote my displeasure with the candidates.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 At the risk of stating the equally obvious: qualifying a Republican candidate as unfit due to marital infidelity whilst excusing it in a Democratic president is hypocrisy. Look, I don't really care either way. I've said multiple times that I think the uproar over Clinton's idiocy (to the point of impeachment???) was utterly ridiculous. I'm just saying it's disingenious to the point of stupid to decry the behavior in one candidate that you (the general "you", not you specifically) excuse or even defend in another. Clinton WAS qualified as unfit by The House... Where is the hypocrisy for applying the same standard to McCain\Palin? Now if people would go on record as saying Clinton was fit, I would agree that McCain\Palin is fit. It is all about the standard that was set during the late 1990's. They are either both fit or both unfit. Again the standard WAS set with Clinton being unfit. Which standard now applies? Claiming McCain\Palin is fit while asserting Clinton to be unfit is equally hypocritical.
Recommended Posts