|
|
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 tati do like how you spent 8 paragraphs and 3 posts to explain it away without once mentioning that it was an inappropriate comment. and you weasel out of calling mccain a hero by using such terms as 'very brave and admirable,' and 'dedication to this country is beyond criticism.' you point to his admiral dad making a difference for him, and it certainly did - he was a privileged child too. nonetheless, when his admiral dad could have gotten him released, mccain refused to go unless his fellows were also released - and therefore endured punishment, torture and years more of confinement. that counts as a hero in my book, even if you are too mealy-mouthed to say it. "I like people who weren't captured." WTF? |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 13:07 |
So was McCain labeling as "crazies" a large segment of Americans who don't agree with him. But he has a history of doing this. And it's interesting how the "crazies" and "wackadoodles" only exist on one side of the aisle in McCain's eyes. Rather than stand by his remark, McCain pathetically lied about his reason for saying it, claiming "crazies" was a "term of endearment" and "term of affection." "On today's Morning Joe, John McCain refused to apologize to the thousands of Arizonans attending a Trump rally that McCain called "crazies." According to McCain, "crazies" is a "term of endearment" and a "term of affection." Source: newsbusters.org |
|||||||||
|
isaiah does that excuse trump? i would not vote for mccain. i do not like his politics, and am dubious about his ethics. there are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike mccain and criticize him without resorting to this mutually degrading discourse. the right answer was, "yes, john mccain is a war hero and i thank him for his service. now let's talk about being president..." is mccain running again? why are you comparing trump to mccain? |
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 14:22 |
@zorroloco Totally agree <<<does that excuse trump?>>> Not at all. Only was designed to show that Trump's comment, while stupid, was not unprovoked. <<<i would not vote for mccain.>>> Neither would I. <<<i do not like his politics, and am dubious about his ethics.>>> Same here. I agree he was/is a war hero, but I don't think his experiences in Vietnam give him a lifetime pass. As I said earlier, if Trump wanted to slam McCain, he could have and should have found something else to go after him on (say a caustic remark about the Keating Five or his record on veterans' affairs) instead of attacking something McCain did that was admirable. <<<there are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike mccain and criticize him without resorting to this mutually degrading discourse. the right answer was, "yes, john mccain is a war hero and i thank him for his service. now let's talk about being president...">>> Totally agree <<<is mccain running again? why are you comparing trump to mccain?>>> I was only pointing out that Trump's remark was not unprovoked and that McCain's comment, which provoked Trump's comment, was a view he had expressed in the past. I also found noxious McCain's attempt to lie his way out of his remark. |
|||||||||
|
isaiah |
|||||||||
|
Trump's Service While McCain's dedication to this country is beyond criticism, it wasn't to Trump, who managed to criticize McCain for getting captured. Seemed like a low blow to me, but what do I know? I was never tortured by Viet Cong. Donald Trump's service was not to the US, but to himself. |
|||||||||
|
anomalocaris 20-Jul-15, 16:08 |
When I heard |
|||||||||
|
tat3225 20-Jul-15, 17:17 |
Zorro Yeah, except that's not what actually happened. McCain states that he refused to go home because the military code of conduct explicitly says that you can't accept release. You cannot accept parole or amnesty as a pow, and you have to make every effort to escape. The President ordered the north Vietnamese to send McCain back after he had been a pow for over a year. Instead of sending him back, the north Vietnamese asked him if he wanted to go home. McCain says that he had no idea what was behind this question thus said no. He didn't want to be sent home looking like a traitor and did not want to inadvertently sign anything in the process that ended up being a confession. He received special treatment from the beginning he says, because of his father. For example he would have died from injuries sustained in his ejection, had he not received medical attention solely because he was the son of the admiral in charge of all the pacific forces. But according to his account of his time there, he was treated terribly overall like everybody else. There were over 300 POWs at his camp. And his written accounts emphasize this. It's not that I haven't used the word "hero" because I think he isn't a "hero", it's that the word doesn't seem to apply. As an aside, McCain's injuries were consistent with a failure to follow proper ejection procedure. |
|||||||||
|
Trump vs. McCain Well worth repeating this whole point. Although John McCain's father was an admiral, and possibly pulled strings to get his son a shitty appointment as a combat pilot where he got shot down over Vietnam, McCain still had to bust his ass to qualify for those wings. They were not simply handed to him by virtue of his parent. Donald Trump, on the other hand, didn't have to do jack to obtain that $200,000 he started playing with and lost, more than once. People were convinced (by virtue of his family) to lend him more, again and again, until he finally rolled his lucky seven. No one else would have qualified for that kind of financing with that disastrous of a track record. No one else who wasn't also the spoiled rotten scion of wealthy parents. I'm not a huge fan of John McCain, I liked him better when he was getting Manchurianed by Bush's Rove team (a version of Swift-boating). Despite drifting hard to starboard, he would still be a better candidate (despite his age) than any of the current crop of GOP dandies. He was a lot better than Mitt Romney, even, who I must remind everyone couldn't beat a black Muslim half-breed without a valid birth certificate named Barrack HUSSEIN OBAMA even AFTER 9/11. LOL! It seems to me that if I was a tea bagger, I would be wondering how MY candidate lost by such wide margins to the ANTICHRIST in this here Xtian nation. I'd be popping Imitrex, Maxalt, Zomig, and Relpax like they were Skittles. Or at least Excedrin. But I wouldn't carry them in a Skittles bag while wearing a hoodie, lest I get shot by some other itchy trigger fingered tea bagger. No sense tempting fate. Yeah, we all need a billionaire president like we need a hole-in-the-head. George Soros doesn't qualify. Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, not even Bill Gates would do. Buffett at least might make some decent effort on behalf of America's middle class. Trump? He is a worse candidate than G. W. ever hoped to be. Why does he have such appeal to the tea party? They are going from bad (Bush) to indifferent (McCain--at least a marginal improvement) to worse (Romney) to disastrous (Trump). Is Trump getting a lot of positive Fox press? My wife doesn't let me watch that garbage. How is it Trump is #1, and George Pataki (the only GOP candidate not certifiably guano-psycho) can't get the time of day? |
|||||||||
|
Crazy Whackadoodles But I do have to say one thing loud and clear. John McCain is absolutely right. Anyone who supports Donald Trump's candidacy for the GOP nomination is a crazy whackadoodle. I'd go with guano-psycho, which I'm still trying to make happen, even though it has no fewer syllables than "bat-shit crazy." It does, however, have fewer words. Doesn't that make it more succinct? |
|||||||||
|
McCain's Candidacy Can someone explain why Donald saw fit to attack McCain? Did McCain start this fight? I remember one time an old codger shook his fist at me and yelled, "you kids get off my lawn!" And I beaned him in the noggin with my sling shot. Cut the old war vet off at the legs. Damn, I should run for president. I'm every bit as good and the Donald. I need to git me one of them "hell toupee" hair pieces first. |
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 18:46 |
@L_S Worth noting, unless I'm mistaken, is that the Republican base stayed home rather than vote for Romney because he was too establishment. If the Republican base were really racist, they would have walked over hot coals to vote against Obama. But they didn't trust Romney and so stayed home and chewed tobacco instead. Bush, McCain and Romney were choices of establishment Republicans. Well, Bush to a lesser extent because he sold himself well as a conservative. But the GOP base was not fired up at all by McCain or Romney. Which is why, if Jeb Bush is the nominee, the base will stay home again and the GOP will lose. |
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 18:49 |
@L_S In a way, McCain started the war of words by saying people who were in Arizona (McCain's state) and supporting Trump were "crazies." McCain later said "crazies" was a "term of endearment" and "term of affection." So I'm sure the "crazies" feel much better now. |
|||||||||
|
lord_shiva 20-Jul-15, 18:58 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 20-Jul-15, 20:02.
|
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 If your comment was meant to insult Republicans by calling them homosexual, that is a little politically incorrect isn't it? |
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 19:52 |
@schizoidman Wasn't my quote. It was in <<< >>> to indicate I was referencing a quote from someone else. (Like I did above in this post.) But "teabaggers" is the pejorative used for the conservative base of the Republican Party, so when another poster used it, I naturally assumed he was referencing the GOP's conservative base. |
|||||||||
|
tat3225 20-Jul-15, 20:02 |
Hmm. Have you see his flight record? |
|||||||||
|
tat3225 20-Jul-15, 20:03 |
|
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 Is teabagger also a pejorative term for homosexuals? Why would a homosexual sex act be chosen to name conservative Republicans? I do not see the connection? Maybe LordShiva knows, since he was the one who originally used the term. |
|||||||||
|
tat3225 20-Jul-15, 20:29 |
|
|||||||||
|
tat3225 20-Jul-15, 20:32 |
|
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 20:41 |
@schizoidman The way I remember hearing it, "teabagging" was a term used by gays to describe a particular form of gay sex and was not thought of as derogatory, only descriptive. Members of the Tea Party, when it was first formed, initially called themselves "teabaggers" - unaware of its definition among gays - and were laughed at by gays for using the word. Since the GOP base is believed among the media and Democrats (perhaps I repeat myself) to be largely fundamentalist Christians, the use of "teabagger" to describe them is intended as an insult since it connotes a form of sex that is considered sinful by God. The irony is, I think the Tea Party formed on basically one principle - fiscal responsibility and getting a handle on the federal deficit, and eventually, federal debt. I think the Tea Party initially stayed away from social issues to broaden its appeal. I don't know if that's still the case or if their concerns now include social issues. |
|||||||||
|
Tea Party <<<Members of the Tea Party, when it was first formed, initially called themselves "teabaggers" - unaware of its definition among gays - and were laughed at by gays for using the word. >>> I find the above quote hard to believe. Do you have a source for this statement? It seems more likely that someone in the press came up with the term, not the people in one of the Tea Party groups. |
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 21:15 |
@schizoidman I'm basing that on something I heard or read quite a while ago so don't have a source, other than my memory which is not always what it should be. Actually...did a quick Google search and came up with a bunch of hits. Here's one, with link below: "I’ve read a lot of comments in the past few months about whether or not the Tea Party once called themselves “teabaggers.” Actually, they did. They did call themselves teabaggers. The problematic connotation of the word was enough for Tea Party leaders to try to scrub the internet and the minds of conservatives as to hide the comical mistake. There was an article very eloquently written in the National Review Online by Jay Nordlinger titled, Rise of an Epithet. In it contains some of that proof of early Tea Party leaping before looking–things they have been desperate to change ever since." aattp.org I realize the source is an anti-Tea Party site but the guy references an article about the origin of the word that appeared in National Review, which is a conservative publication. Unfortunately, that link didn't work. |
|||||||||
|
isaiah11 20-Jul-15, 21:20 |
@schizoidman You're assuming, I think, that people in the Tea Party knew that the name already was in use among gays. I doubt whoever in the Tea Party came up with that name realized it was a word already in use among gays to connote a form of gay sex. I had no idea what the word meant until I watched Anderson Cooper on CNN laughing hysterically about it. And even then, I had to go to the Internet to know exactly why he was laughing about it. |
|||||||||
|
Isaiah is Right The "gay" sex act refers to dangling tea bags over one's eyes. It is something women sometimes do to relieve swelling, or gay men, for that matter. There is another part of male anatomy that can substitute for a tea bag--I will leave that to the imagination. So tea bagging is not strictly a gay sex act, heterosexual couples can do it to, whereas lesbian couples pretty much cannot without the use of anatomically accurate devices. I believe they prefer other positions, for the most part. |
|||||||||
|
I <3 Teabagging |
|||||||||
|
teapartyman You need to back-up a couple decades if you want to argue that point --- there might have been some truth to your statement back then. |
|||||||||
|
Koch Brothers The Kochs have an interesting agenda with regard to the obliteration of programs designed to aid and assist the poor and middle class. David Koch also funds NOVA, a wonderful program aired on PBS, so he is not completely sold over to Satan. |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
