Quote:
Originally Posted by Snownuts
mccain has said twofold.
1. hes been for the surge from the very beginning, in early 2007 this caused his national poll numbers to be in the low single digits....he maintained that this was the right way to go if america had any hope of "making lemonade out of lemons". (insert other metaphor if this doesnt suit you). he now is the champion of a VINDICATED position as evidenced by the democrats no longer speaking of withdrawing all troops by such and such a date- John Edwards called them both on it- THEY BOTH (HIL AND OB) SAID THEY WOULD KEEP TROOPS THEIR TO PROTECT OUR ASSETS (our assets arent going to gone in 5 years, ergo by their own logic, neither will all the troops...) McCain agreed with the surge to the deteriment of his poll numbers (populariy) for nearly a year before people began to conclude that his forsight may well have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat..... how is that not speaking your mind when u know whats right even if it costs u politically?
2. he was against many of the far -right wing things, (immigration reform, campaign finance lack of reform, etc) this is at a time when the gop controlled both houses and hawkish neo conservatives ran the show- Mccain took a line AGAINST those people, and again, took political flack for it....and if he doesnt win now, it will be because he took so much flack from the hard right wing that they shot themselves in the foot.....
3. Mccain is the oldest candidate, he obviously is the only one to have been in combat, the only one (of any president in history) to have been a PRISONER OF WAR for 7 YEARS.....the only one with any claim that this win is for something other than his/her big fucking ego...
..... so there is some substance for ya terry (hopefully ootfs alt will respond to substance as well but i doubt it).... do u really think mccain has said what is politically convenient in the past? I think hes the most selfless candidate by objective measures (1-3 above) of any candidate and id challenge someone to show me otherwise with as much substance as ive shown here...
|
Hey bud. McCain being FOR THE SURGE ALL ALONG IS A REASON HE SHOULDN'T BE PRESIDENT. I respect that he held out as a POW for 7 years. However, if this meant anything then the military would by and large be supporting him. They are not supporting him. In fact, Ron Paul has the most military backing financially.
Just being against "some right-wing" is anything substantive. He's not against the RIGHT things, which are actually hurting your country in a big way. (IRAQ, BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING, THE WAR ON DRUGS, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)
There. Responded with substance. Again, you disregard the facts that Iraq has caused more violence. You, my good man are the one who rarely responds with substance.
Furthermore, you can't use the terms "sunk cost" and "ad hominem" without contradicting yourself. This necessitates a peek at the old dictionary. Apparently, this makes you uncomfortable as someone who doesn't like captilization of proper nouns or apostrophes in general.
Furthermore, if you would look up the words "syntax" and "tone" as I suggested, you may be able to differentiate myself and some others.
Again, you've said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. AGAIN YOU HAVE JUST IGNORED INDISPUTABLE FACTS AND REAL DEFINITIONS OF WORDS IN ORDER TO KEEP THINKING YOU ARE RIGHT.
However, you keep posting. I told you man. I'm just as persistent as you, the only difference is I think things out. I know it's scary to take a look at oneself.