It's amusing when you try to channel 101, Jeffe.

How would you rate my performance?

Are you critical of what McCain did when he got back? You know, dumping his crippled wife for a new, younger, rich trophy wife?

She's hot and she puts out?

I am critical only in the sense of my admiration. I'd love to buy McCain a beer for dumping that mangled heffer for a hot babe who smokes a lot of pole!

So drawing a comparison between two candidates running for the same office is a deflection?

Jeff, what has happened to you?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Nothing at all.

Let's review:

1. Murphy points out certain Obama transgressions

2. Obmaites respond with legitimate McCain deflections - as you pointed out

3. Obamaites then go on to accuse Obama detractors as hypocrites while simultaneously failing to address the initial charge - Obama transgressions.

It's the leap from 2 to 3 that I am challenging.

Murph may have just closed this thread.

He didn't sneer.

He called her "sweetie" cos he didn't know her name.

The lady in question wasn't offended in the least.

Not entirely true.

She admitted that she wasn't offended by the 'sweetie' comment - much ado about nothing as far as I am concerned.

She was a bit offended that he brushed off her question and never got around to answering it.

The 'sweetie' thing was a faux pas IMO. I don't believe he meant it to be demeaning in any way. While some might take offense to it - try that with a man-hating, rabid feminist - I don't believe he meant it to be offensive.

TFD,

In order for it to be a true Dutch oven you would've had to pull the blanket over somebody else's head.

Yours was a Dutch Oven in the on-deck circle.

Monte,

When it came to Kerry's servie and the swifties attack on it, my stance from day 1 was this:

He volunteered.

He risked life and limb through real combat.

He was wounded 3 times.

He was decorated.

He was honorably discharged.

'Nuff said.

I never once waivered on that.

Gotta run.

Monte,

Bottom line is this - McCain was a POW for over 5 years. To think that he lived a life of luxury during that time is stupid. To question whether or not he was tortured during that time when countless other POW's claimed torture is stupid.

Sometimes common sense trumps partisanship and insipid games of 'gotcha'.

Again, if the Dem's want to attack McCain's service, more power to them.

Monte,

According to MP, it's McCain's soldiers who we are to believe ONLY if they speak negatively of him. If they corroborate his story, then they are clearly lying. As for the Swifties...since they were attacking the presumptive Dem, they had to be pieces of shit, according to MP's logic.

Both books are the source for everything I said in that paragraph

But...but...they are all liars. They have to be. McCain is the only obstacle to the presidency of the Messiah, therefore he must be a 100% piece of shit, about everything.

Sincerely,

Dethspud and Manypaths

He's been called the SongBird for longer than I have been alive. Don't throw his fucking snakes on me. Take it up with him, and the people who knew him for what he was.

For some strange reason I suspect that you didn't take the swiftvets characterizations of Kerry at face value. Do you believe that Kerry was the POS soldier that the swifties portrayed him as? I don't.

Take your faux outrage and your double standards and shove them up your ass, douche.

You have no way to prove this beyond McCain's word.

Except for those soldiers who personally witnessed his physical condition and believed he wouldn't survive a week.

Except for the fact that the VC tortured not only McCain, but countless other POW's. Are you going to call each and every soldier who claims they were tortured a liar - as you are with McCain?

Regardless, this is a losing strategy for the Dems so by all means, continue.

MP,

I hope you enjoy your ale. I am currently drinking Bell's Oberon - "A summer wheat ale with the color and scent of a summer afternoon."

PS - your condescension makes you look stupid in light of the pounding you are taking by Righto.

And (as he admits) he still knows nothing about economics?!?

Good point. However, that puts him on even footing with Obama on that issue.

Spud actually disagrees with the idea of hate crimes per se as it does a disservice to other victims of crimes and is unneccessarily divisive.

If a gay man gets dragged behind a truck until he is dead purely because he's gay then it is a heinous crime and it deserves maximum punishment.

But no moreso than if it had happened to anyone else for any other reason.

If a black man is hung from a tree purely because he is black then again we have a heinous crime that deserves maximum punishment.

Anyone who takes a life not in self defencse deserves life behind bars.

The entire idea of "Hate Crime" while based on some noble ideals actually just ends up creating more divisions in society when put into practise.

Damn!

Sometimes you really do nail it, Spud.

Good show.

MP,

Instead of simply repeating your talking points, why don't you address what Righto has put out - point-by-point.

I am willing to buy into your version of McCain's service, but you are going to have to do better than simply spouting off talking points without going into a little more depth.

5 lost aircraft?

2 were lost due to engine problems - are you going to blame that on McCain?

1 was lost due to a missile from another plane going off on the flight deck - McCain nearly died as a result and his plane was destroyed in the explosion - are you going to blame that on McCain?

Ah!

I knew it was only a matter of time before Righto would show up.

Good show.

MP,

What you just posted makes no sense.

Can you clarify what the f*** you are talking about?

You kids only have smears to attack Obama with cos yer political arguments are shit.

Posted by dethspud

Actually, our political arguments are spot-on.

You just have a boner for Obama and will dismiss out-of-hand any criticism of him, no matter how salient.

You can be very challenging to debate with. However, when it comes to Obama you curl up into a shell and the gist of your posts is tatamount to:

"Nuh uh!!"

So no bitching JeffJ.

I am not bitching, Larry.

Quite the contrary.

This is a losing strategy for the Dems.

I hope you guys smear McCain's service until you're all blue in the face.

I hope Spud becomes the official McCain-hating 527 coordinator for the Dems and smears up a storm.

I am loving this!

Keep it up, kids.

I was referring to certain hypocritical posters here on the DR, not radio talk show hosts, Einstein.

Hypocritical?

It's the Obama supporters who answer every criticism of the Messiah with a McCain deflection.

That's right - they're not even going to vote for him. Oh yeah, they flip-flopped on that, didn't they?

Given the alternative?

Nice deflection, BTW.

The point was that right-wing talk-radio is and always has been very critical of McCain.

And still Murphy, et al don't have any problem with McCain changing practically every position he's ever held in order to attract the right wing of his party.

Talk about being honest.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

You miss the point. None of us are trying to suggest that McCain is anything other than who he is. It's the Obamamites who have assigned Messiah status to Obama. It's Obama who is selling himself as different - change, hope, unity and all of that shit. Yet, every day Obama proves himself to be more and more like any other politician. His being 'different' is being increasingly stripped away. Every day. Pretty soon he'll be perceived as who he is - just another typical Democratic nominee who will be forced to try and win the vote for reasons other than superficial ones.

From the article:

As an example, observe the nascent smear campaign against John McCain’s military service. This past weekend, retired general and declared Barack Obama backer Wesley Clark went on CBS’s Face the Nation, where he proceeded to dismiss the import of McCain’s military background in the current race. “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president,” Clark sniffed. The real issue, according to Clark, was that McCain was “untested and untried.”

McCain’s campaign was quick to condemn Clark’s comments. Secretly, though, it must have been pleased. With his surrogates blasting away at McCain’s war record, Obama was left exposed on several flanks. If McCain, with his 22-year career in the Navy and his 26-years in Congress, is “untested and untried,” what then is one to make of Obama, whose single term in the senate is most notable for its pious adherence to liberal orthodoxy? Meanwhile, to discount McCain’s distinguished military career – his honors include the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross – as nothing more than “getting into a fighter plane and getting shut down” is to traffic in precisely the kind of sleazy politics that Obama, once upon a time, professed to reject. Of all the fights one could pick with McCain, the battle over his war service surely is the most ill-advised. Recognizing the fact, Obama later rejected Clark’s statement through a spokesman.

This needs a reprint:

If McCain, with his 22-year career in the Navy and his 26-years in Congress, is “untested and untried,” what then is one to make of Obama, whose single term in the senate is most notable for its pious adherence to liberal orthodoxy

I didn't think the Dems would be stupid enough to go after McCain's service, or his lack of experience.

I guess I should never underestimate the Dems.

Obama Defends His Patriotism

Good luck with that.

He stopped wearing a flag pin because he saw others wearing it and simultaneously acting in an unpatriotic manner. I guess if he flew a flag at his house (I know - just stay with me) and his neighbor flew a flag and also acted like an asshole, I guess Obama would just rip down his own flag and urinate on it (Yes - more plausible). In short, he allows the actions of others dictate whether or not he wants to wear a flag pin. That's some real leadership for you.

That's alright though. He and his syncophants will start playing the victim card over these questions, and the ever-willing press will serve as his echo chamber.

Later all - for real this time

My implication is that if John McCain thought the Swiftboaters were wrong and dishonorable, as he stated in 2004, then he shouldn't be trotting them out now to bolster his resume.

He thought they were wrong to target Kerry's service. He felt that evertyhing that happened afterward was fair game.

Also, he's not trotting all of them out. He's trotting 1 of them out - a cell mate who can corroberate his story amidst libelous attacks.

I guess this guy's personal observations are irrelevant since he's corroborating the story of a Republican nomineee?

You know what?

This is the gift that keeps on giving.

Go ahead, Dems. Swift the shit out of McCain. Mock his service as much as possible. Demean his service as much as possible. It's a losing strategy and I encourage it to the nth degree.

Please, continue...

In an umbrage-taking conference call Monday afternoon, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee unveiled his "truth squad," which featured one of McCain's cellmates (Bud Day)during his time as a POW who also was featured in two infamous ads from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacking 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry."

Rogue...

So, your implication is that if Bud Day was wrong to tarnish Kerry then he must be wrong 100% of the time about everything?

Fact is, he was McCain's cell mate. As the lies against McCain's imprisonment come out, a primary source is the best weapon against that.

I guess McCain should say, "Fuck you. I don't care what you witnessed regarding Kerry's service. Talking about him in a negative way is reprehensible. Thus, your first-hand observations of what happened to me are now irrelevant. You didn't see what you saw. The fact that you corroborate my version of what happened to me makes you a liar!"

Larry,

It ain't funny at all.

Anyhow, nothing I've said makes any attempt at erasing any facts.

If you can prove my historical context wrong, be my guest.

Actually, I phrased that horribly.....

So, you bought 100% into every smear lobbied at the swiftvets yet you deride Murphy for doing the same to Clark?

Now I call bullshit.

Fuck off. That's total horseshit.

Really?

So, you defended the Swiftvets and their accusations?

I call bullshit.

It's the first time in US History that Torture was sanctioned by the Administration. No matter how hard You try JeffJ You can't erase that fact.

I am not trying to erase that fact.

Yes, an attempt at setting guidelines was made and said guidelines are clearly outside of what is sanctioned in accordance with Geneva. Nevertheless, it's always been done, but in the past it was done with a nod and a wink in lieu of a defined mandate.

You're a liar, pure and simple.

And you are naive.

Are you trying to suggest that politicians are above this type of thing?

If this were 2004 and this comment was directed at Kerry, you'd be spouting the exact same shit that Murph is spouting now.

Larry,

You are correct.

That said, I don't like watching 2 women make out, or dyke out, either. For me, it's all hetero all of the way.

PS - I recognize that I am in the minority when it comes to men watching 2 or more women get it on together.

Obama always praises McCain's service to his country and never "goes after" him as regards his military record.

That's true. Just as Bush praised and defended Kerry's service all-the-while having his surrogates trash Kerry's service.

This is the same thing, although on a much smaller scale. So far.

Bet,

I cede your point regarding the inaccuracy of the quote.

Are you willing to finally push that aside and address the broader point?

Blue,

The vast majority of people in America and the world believes that people have been tortured in American prisons these last seven years or so.

In Afghanistan, a supposed 'ally' came to the US with valuable information. He was treated as an 'enemy' and was subjected to a beating so brutal that he plead to be shot in order to no longer endure the pain. He died of his injuries 2 days later. The CIA interrogator, who was a violent thug his entire life, is on trial for this. Unfortunately a lack of an autopsy will make his prosecution more difficult.

Regardless, this shit has gone on for over a millenium. You are right to condemn this and to the extent that the Bush admin is responsible they should be held accountable. Nevertheless, don't sit there and pretend that this is unprecedented and has never occurred before within the US.

Shall I make up some quotes and attribute tham to Jeff or Murphy and then argue that it's in the spirit of what they actually said?

Accuracy is important, I'll give you that.

Nevertheless, Murph backed off (indirectly) the '5 times' comment and asked point-blank that if removing the '5 times' comment made the comment any less derogatory. Yet, you still continue to harp on the '5 times' comment after it's no longer important to the topic at hand.

At what point do you move on from that and actually address her point?

Later all.

Boyd--is this something that is less derogatory than adding "5 times" in the statement?

No, it isn't.

Nevertheless, Boyd has a tendency toward parsing semantics and asking a lot of meaningless questions in lieu of making declarative statements and actually engaging in to-and-fro discourse.

Larry,

I am not necessarily opposed to that.

We have more of a global military presence than is really necessary.

Spud,

Wot do torture allegations have to do with political correctness?

I don't agree with you often, but that is a very fair question.

KGB,

Wake up and realize that we better start bailing FAST or we're fucked. I fought and sold my god-be-damned soul for this country, and I'm not letting it get completely screwed by a bunch of chickenshit pseudo-patriotic idealogues who are currently manning the wheel...

What do you suggest?

Bet,

You raise some fair points.

I don't pretend that US intentions regarding 'Nam were 100% noble; not even close.

Nevertheless, until the end of the Cold War, our government, regardless of who occupied the White House, treated the thread of Communist expansionism as a grave threat.

Fact is, 'Nam was less dubious than some of our adventures in Latin America (post-Ike).

A lot of the foreign policy woes of the US can be attributed to the CIA. A truly effective intelligence agency requires a degree of secrecy and non-Democratic authority that is simply not a good fit for our degree of government transparency. Couple that with a culture of CYA at all costs and it's no wonder that time and time again presidents have made bad decisions based upon terrible intel.

Anyhow, it's easy for all of us to be armchair quarterbacks.

Null,

Just as long as you don't try to sic Rob on my headlines, you and I won't have problems!

;-)

Null,

Good catch regarding Cambodia vs. 'Nam.

Regarding 'Nam....

Although the carnage wasn't as severe as predicted, a couple of hundred thousand S. Vietnamese 'lost' during the 're-education' period plus the "boat people" who fled and then subjected to brutal piracy is nothing to sneeze at.

Turnleft,

The US is the most powerful and prosperous county in recorded history.

Despite her faults, that fact remains true - and it obviously pisses you off greatly, which makes me happy.

And McCain's experience is wholly better than Obamas --who has none-nil-zilch-nada-nin-zero!

So Murph....are you suggesting that Obama lacks experience?

;-)

It had nothing to do with communism

Actually, it had much to do with Communism.

Other than that, I agree with the remainder of your post.

Do you think we should have nuked them?

What??

Why would I feel good about that, dumbass? My side wanted to bring the troops home.......Nobody here is denigrating those who served in Vietnam, so stop lying.

Your side denigrated the shit out of those who were serving at that time.

Minutia notwithstanding, 'Nam was a proxy war against Communist expansionism.

Granted, the CIA grossly overstated Soviet strength. Nevertheless, Communism was (and still is) a human tragedy. Over 100 million murdered in the name of the workers' paradise.

We can denigrate US foreign policy all day long; particularly in regards to the countless failures of the CIA to provide accurate intelligence - and we'd speak a fair amount of truth in doing so. Nevertheless, the US was right to oppose Communism - oppose it with every tool within her arsenal.

The U.S. has a long history of covert actions.

Unfortunately, rarely have positive long-term results been generated. Usually, they've been a bust with adverse, long-term effects.

Nutcase,

I hate to break it to you, but Bush won both of his elections.