John McCain: USA PATRIOT (ACTor)

[HazelGod]

If we want to be on topic ... McCainis about 9,000% more patriotic than Barack Obama (and his wife, combined).

That's an interesting contention, given the positions McCain espouses (linked in my OP) and Obama's background as a professor of Constitutional Law. Were you planning to substantiate that in any way?

 

[Qua]

Doesn't have to apply to a specific person. Obviously you were referring to a thing anyways. I have NO ONE on my ignore list. And there are plenty that exasperate me. But no one deserves to be ignored based on their political or intellectual views. Mostly just venting my frustration with the most hypocritical aspect of the modern diversity crusade, which your post seemed to embody. It seems to seek a diversity where all think essentially the same. Or at least come to the same conclusions about how society should function. And that is pretty scary, if you ask me.

It's kinda tough being a political conservative on this board (not speaking of my libertarian self. I'll be voting for no major candidate, as all three repulse me). Since it's obvious to most that republicans are evil, scumbags, impotent, and above all just plain wrong a few expletives would seem the only way for a lonely conservative to should loudly and brashly enough to be heard over the "consensus."

I'm not about calling women cunts, but that seems somewhat irrelevent in HazelGod's contemplating your advice for his own situation, no?

EDIT: and Faceking, you win the Grand Prize of nothing in particular. That is indeed Holdsworth. Making one of the strangest expressions I've ever seen on a human face. 2:09 in this video...priceless

YouTube - Allan Holdsworth - Tokyo Live 1984 [masterpiece solo]

^and both posts were directed towards the ignore suggestor, to avoid any audience confusion.

EDIT 2: I'm done mucking up your thread HazelGod. I know I'm a persistant offender of those who loathe off-topic rants.

 

[faceking]

Doesn't have to apply to a specific person. Obviously you were referring to a thing anyways. I have NO ONE on my ignore list. And there are plenty that exasperate me. But no one deserves to be ignored based on their political or intellectual views. Mostly just venting my frustration with the most hypocritical aspect of the modern diversity crusade, which your post seemed to embody. It seems to seek a diversity where all think essentially the same. Or at least come to the same conclusions about how society should function. And that is pretty scary, if you ask me.

It's kinda tough being a political conservative on this board (not speaking of my libertarian self. I'll be voting for no major candidate, as all three repulse me). Since it's obvious to most that republicans are evil, scumbags, impotent, and above all just plain wrong a few expletives would seem the only way for a lonely conservative to should loudly and brashly enough to be heard over the "consensus."

I'm not about calling women cunts, but that seems somewhat irrelevent in HazelGod's contemplating your advice for his own situation, no?

kudos.

 

[Qua]

You sir are not even a sharp tool.Now go have another drink,you will feel better.Caio.:biggrin1:

Pulling the snob routine myself, I'll let my Ivy credentials speak for themselves. Not much of a drinker, but if you pull out some greenery we'll have a party. Ciao, y'all :biggrin1:


And in my lone contribution to the actual topic, I'll agree Hazel, that McCain is not as different from Bush as he'd like the general public to think. His voting record over Bush's tenure has been...I believe the number I heard today on some political talk show was... 95% in line with Bush's policy. However, on that note I will point out that Obama, unifier and seeker of outreach he claims to be, has never once voted counter the Dem party line.

 

[b.c.]

My sense of McCain (in spite of his own posturing) is something similar to yours, HazelGod, with regard to the Iraq issue. I think McCain's policy is going to closely mirror that of Bush's.

In fact, earlier on, his own position as stated on his official website was that of support for Iraq by sending even more troops to occupy the country. Someone must have told him that actually saying so was not a good idea, because the language has been changed.

I'm also in agreement with Zoe's analysis on foreign policy, specifically, the need for a willingness at least to engage in dialogue.



(Nikes? Purple shrouds? Funny, they didn't send me mine...damn!)

 

[1BiGG1]

This country has been “engaging in dialog” for decades now and I highly doubt there is another country that is even remotely close in the amount of effort in this area. I am not saying we should stop of course, I am saying those like Skippy, opps, I mean Obama only fool the naïve when they spout off about their alleged grand new nothing-but-talking-point-plans for foreign policy when the wiser people know-well we already do that endlessly but sometimes you just gotta kick the shit out of those whose attention you are failing to get with a bunch of cheap talk.

A case in point, Bill Clinton sat there and let Saddam break nearly every mandate the UN threw at him. Skippy is another Bill Clinton and sorry folks, there are just times when enough is enough like this time. Remember how many Americans were killed, maimed or injured prior to Saddam’s surrender? George Bush does!

 

[b.c.]

I don't get the "skippy" reference. Maybe you can clue us in. And what Americans (other than those killed maimed and injured in Iraq) are you referring to?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

This country has been “engaging in dialog” for decades now and I highly doubt there is another country that is even remotely close in the amount of effort in this area.

Horse shit! Back that up.

 

[1BiGG1]

I don't get the "skippy" reference. Maybe you can clue us in. And what Americans (other than those killed maimed and injured in Iraq) are you referring to?

“Skippy” being the naive little boy yet obviously wise enough to get those even more naive to buy into his simplicity. The world just isn’t that easy where a lack of dialog is always the answer and the Middle East with centuries of religious Neanderthals running around in power is a good example.

Japan; let’s just imagine if Japan had broken their surrender treaties with the US. The public would have been outraged and demanded we kick the shit out of them again until they changed their attitude and abided by their agreement. George held Saddam to the same standard and anything short of that is a bad idea.

Things are much different now, enemies don’t need a gigantic modern army like Japan had, they only need money and cheap technology which both are readily available. Today’s wackos need too know we are coming looking for them no matter where they are and no matter what the worthless talking-point UN says, and George made sure they do. The last thing this country or the world needs is Skippy running things as I think everybody knows he has smaller balls than Bill Clinton.

 

[1BiGG1]

Horse shit! Back that up.

OK,

Who is it that now and always has paid the largest share of total United Nations budget? The United States

Who outside of the United Nations spends more money on foreign aid and building stable economies than the United States? Nobody!

Who has in the past and still does protect freedom around the world more than anybody else? The United States and don’t think for a moment all this has been done without US being #1 in negotiating effort or skills.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

OK,

Who is it that now and always has paid the largest share of total United Nations budget? The United States

Who outside of the United Nations spends more money on foreign aid and building stable economies than the United States? Nobody!

Who has in the past and still does protect freedom around the world more than anybody else? The United States and don’t think for a moment all this has been done without US being #1 in negotiating effort or skills.

That is, at best, supposition. It is, at worst, still complete horse shit - plucked from thin air. (Good trick!)

I'm still waiting for hard and fast evidence that the US have more open dialogue going on with places like Iran, that they had more dialogue and diplomatic channels open with Iraq than anyone else before the war.

And no - the UN is NOT the USA - I know many people and organisations in the US would like to think that it is, but it isn't - I don't give a fuck where the budget comes from. Your country happens to be one of the most populous countries in the world, and the most populous "first world" country - of course you put more money into international shit than many other countries - of course it isn't always more per capita, but that's another little factoid, especially when it comes to foreign aid, it appears many Americans enjoy ignoring.

Try again, Biggy.

 

[HazelGod]

George held Saddam to the same standard and anything short of that is a bad idea.

Yes, and we've all seen the benefits of that, now haven't we? A quick engagement that cost us little to nothing in money and men; followed by Iraq immediately adopting a peaceable, self-sustaining democratic government; nothing but sunshine and rainbows for its citizens, and general goodwill amongst their neighbors. Of course, all this happiness and joy and regional stability have eliminated all volatility in the crude oil market...and all the world's nations fawned over the USA in effusive gratitude, marveling at our insightful brilliance in knowing just what was best for everyone else.

Anything else would have been a very bad idea indeed...John McCain has the right idea in continuing these brilliant policies.

Who is it that now and always has paid the largest share of total United Nations budget? The United States

Who outside of the United Nations spends more money on foreign aid and building stable economies than the United States? Nobody!

Who has in the past and still does protect freedom around the world more than anybody else? The United States and don’t think for a moment all this has been done without US being #1 in negotiating effort or skills.

Complete non sequitur. Providing the primary financial and military support to the UN does not translate to holding the leadership position in negotiation effort or skill. I hope that wasn't your ace in the hole.

 

[B_becominghorse]

wow you even threw in the race card in my choosing to ignore a man that calls woman "cunt.Or that calls people on here that disagree with him "fucking morons".You sir are not even a sharp tool.Now go have another drink,you will feel better.Caio.:biggrin1:

You were right, he is merely insufferable. Primarily he could not resist pulling out his Ivy League credentials, needing them to bless his tedious posts, which were bursting with a small variety of superiority. By the way, I now understand your position of being a Democrat but still voting Mccain. I imagine that is going to happen to me as well, as the Obama freaks on this board are populous enough to be a good cross-section of the dreamy and substanceless type of person he has largely, though not wholly, inspired. Even in victory (of the primary), they are furious in their own religious--and usually racist--zeal. This will change if Hillary gets the VP post, but I doubt she is going to, even with the meeting yesterday at Feinstein's. I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances if he is going to put a JFK daughter on his VP Advice Committee, when she should be planning new drapes and table settings for this weekend's parties in Southampton--unless she gets off her bullshit Camelot high horse and realizes that Hillary is The Man.

 

[b.c.]

“Skippy” being the naive little boy yet obviously wise enough to get those even more naive to buy into his simplicity. The world just isn’t that easy where a lack of dialog is always the answer and the Middle East with centuries of religious Neanderthals running around in power is a good example.

Japan; let’s just imagine if Japan had broken their surrender treaties with the US. The public would have been outraged and demanded we kick the shit out of them again until they changed their attitude and abided by their agreement. George held Saddam to the same standard and anything short of that is a bad idea.

Things are much different now, enemies don’t need a gigantic modern army like Japan had, they only need money and cheap technology which both are readily available. Today’s wackos need too know we are coming looking for them no matter where they are and no matter what the worthless talking-point UN says, and George made sure they do. The last thing this country or the world needs is Skippy running things as I think everybody knows he has smaller balls than Bill Clinton.

And they have the audacity to call Obama "arrogant"?? lol

I gather then that your idea of diplomatic policy is one in which other nations sit down, shut up, and when the U.S. says "Jump," ask "How high?" Right.

BTW, I notice from your profile your sexual orientation. I wonder what "Dopey" has in mind with regard to the rights of all people to choose who they want to wed as their significant other. Maybe you should look it up on his website. To save you some time, however, I pasted here a part of his message to you:

Protecting Marriage

As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President

 

[Qua]

Ha, knew I shouldn't have brought my school into it. Mostly I just wanted to nip the "sharp tool" idiocy in the bud. I definitely resisted it; I usually dislike it as it really only makes people haughtier and more dismissing than they were before. It's really only good for dryly humorously matching snobbery with übersnobbery--do note that I qualified it as such right then and there.

It means very little other than that I scored highly on some arbitrary test and did well in high school. Any intelligent person will admit that neither really indicate intelligence, merely the ability to succeed in a single system, one which has only so much bearing on life success and overarching intelligence or wisdom.


It's kind of ironic given the aloof petty sniping on all of our parts that we (you, JasonDawg and myself) seem to agree on the candidate issue. I'd perhaps take Obama checked by Hillary over McCain, but McCain over an Obama left largely to his own devices. And it's primarily because of the self-righteous grievance-driven Obamaniacs. The positive spin of "change" seems to be based on a huge foundation of viscious negativity, above and beyond grievances towards Bush. It's more about expressing directionless, disparate and sometimes contradictory dissatisfactions and masking them as progress toward an impossible resolution. Really, as I mentioned before, this may be one campaign in which I ultimately refuse to support any candidate.

 

[B_becominghorse]

I shouldn't have brought my school into it. Mostly I just wanted to nip the "sHa, knew harp tool" idiocy in the bud. I definitely resisted it; I usually dislike it as it really only makes people haughtier and more dismissing than they were before. It's really only good for dryly humorously matching snobbery with übersnobbery--do note that I qualified it as such right then and there.

That's very cool, I like it. Especially hope you will engage me in efforts to see who can be the uber-snob most subtly and understatedly...already I cannot prove my superiority here, given my dearth of umlaut access...

 

[Qua]

Alt+0252. Definitely the only character I can recall by memory. Very üseful if you're an über-überabüser such as myself.

 

[1BiGG1]

That is, at best, supposition. It is, at worst, still complete horse shit - plucked from thin air. (Good trick!)

I'm still waiting for hard and fast evidence that the US have more open dialogue going on with places like Iran, that they had more dialogue and diplomatic channels open with Iraq than anyone else before the war.

And no - the UN is NOT the USA - I know many people and organisations in the US would like to think that it is, but it isn't - I don't give a fuck where the budget comes from. Your country happens to be one of the most populous countries in the world, and the most populous "first world" country - of course you put more money into international shit than many other countries - of course it isn't always more per capita, but that's another little factoid, especially when it comes to foreign aid, it appears many Americans enjoy ignoring.

Try again, Biggy.

Anybody with basic reasoning skills can see the values of the examples I already listed and it’s not difficult to see every one of those involves great amounts of diplomacy. Just because we do not let third world countries and wacky dictators run all over US like many others do does not mean we are weak in diplomacy.

You mentioned Iraq as an example of our lacking in diplomacy! WTF are you talking about? Over ten years after the war Saddam was still screwing the world breaking every facet of his surrender agreement and we didn’t try the diplomacy angle! 10+ years of diplomacy before attacking again wasn't enough? You are joking here I hope!

 

[1BiGG1]

Yes, and we've all seen the benefits of that, now haven't we? A quick engagement that cost us little to nothing in money and men; followed by Iraq immediately adopting a peaceable, self-sustaining democratic government; nothing but sunshine and rainbows for its citizens, and general goodwill amongst their neighbors. Of course, all this happiness and joy and regional stability have eliminated all volatility in the crude oil market...and all the world's nations fawned over the USA in effusive gratitude, marveling at our insightful brilliance in knowing just what was best for everyone else.

Anything else would have been a very bad idea indeed...John McCain has the right idea in continuing these brilliant policies.

Geeeze dude, you do know the problems we are dealing with in the Middle East are like a few thousand years old so one can expect overnight change ain’t gonna happen I hope. I also hope you know that somebody needed too start somewhere and history will look very favorably on George Bush for being the one that did.

Complete non sequitur. Providing the primary financial and military support to the UN does not translate to holding the leadership position in negotiation effort or skill. I hope that wasn't your ace in the hole.

Let’s make this easy, ever notice how the vast majority of civilized, democratically elected secular governments get along famously with the United States? Ever notice that the times we do have problems with them they are usually dirty like when we had a problem with France over Iraq only to find out the reason for that problem was the French were dirty in the oil for food scam? Ever notice the immense amounts of money coming out of the Middle East and going too countries like France and Russia? It’s no wonder they will not help US stabilize the region so sometimes we just gotta tell everybody to go fuck themselves and do what’s right for the planet since we are the leaders of said planet.

 

[1BiGG1]

And they have the audacity to call Obama "arrogant"?? lol

I gather then that your idea of diplomatic policy is one in which other nations sit down, shut up, and when the U.S. says "Jump," ask "How high?" Right.

BTW, I notice from your profile your sexual orientation. I wonder what "Dopey" has in mind with regard to the rights of all people to choose who they want to wed as their significant other. Maybe you should look it up on his website.....

Yes, McCain is personally opposed to the idea and is against a federal mandate but he is not opposed to states rights on this issue.

2008 presidential campaign issues - USATODAY.com

John McCain on gay civil rights
On same-sex marriage and civil unions

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which set a federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and said states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed by another state. He is, however, opposed to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. McCain has said a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws.

In November 2006, McCain said on ABC's This Week that he favors allowing gay men and lesbians to "enter into contracts’’ but stopped short of endorsing civil unions. He supports legal benefits for same-sex partners."

We all gotta look at history here and note major change does not happen overnight like with women’s and children’s rights for instance. Look at how long it took US to get the Neanderthal Christians to agree to those! Oh that’s right, they didn’t agree as it was forced on them by the courts and McCain has no history of going against the courts on issues like these that I know of.

On top of that, sometimes lesser issues like gay rights which are coming in due time whether the Neanderthal Christians like them or not gotta be overlooked while we deal with electing a leader that can handle more important domestic & international issues. To even think Skippy, opps, I mean Obama is as remotely capable in this area of needed experience & wisdom as John McCain is ludicrous imo.