Why John McCain is not suited to be president

[Guest Twizzler]

John McCain is a war hero and a long-time member of Congress. He has sponsored important legislation and sometimees stood for principle, until last year when he decided to compromise his principles to win the Republican nomination. Like Senator Obama, he deserves our respect. However, he should be our president, and here are a few reasons why.

1. He does not have the self-confidence required of a president. Look at him and listen to him when he speaks.

2. Unfortunately, his years in a prisoner of war have taken their toll. Heroism is something to be honored, but it doesn't qualify him for the White House. In this case, it leaves him unsuited to the job.

3. He has a horrible temper and is known not to get along with his colleagues.

4. He does not understand the public demands of the presidency. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is not funny.

5. He does not have the energy and vigor Obama has. If he won, he would be 72 years old when he took office.

6. He does not understand where the country is right now or what it wants. He cannot bring about the kind of changes we need because he doesn't believe in them. He doesn't even see them. Therefore, he cannot lead us.

7. He is on the wrong side of the war, which we need to end.

8. He is on the wrong side of the Bush tax cuts.

9. He has made it clear that if elected he will pander to the radical right to stay in office.

10. He is on the wrong side of health care.

In other words, he is on the wrong side of the most important issues we face. We need a president who understands the critical importance of restoring a balanced economy and re-invigorating the middle class. McCain does not understand that.

[Guest 2smart4u]

John McCain is a war hero and a long-time member of Congress. He has sponsored important legislation and sometimes stood for principle, until last year when he decided to compromise his principles to win the Republican nomination. Like Senator Obama, he deserves our respect. However, he should be our president, and here are a few reasons why.

1. He does not have the self-confidence required of a president. Look at him and listen to him when he speaks.

2. Unfortunately, his years in a prisoner of war have taken their toll. Heroism is something to be honored, but it doesn't qualify him for the White House. In this case, it leaves him unsuited to the job.

3. He has a horrible temper and is known not to get along with his colleagues.

4. He does not understand the public demands of the presidency. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is not funny.

5. He does not have the energy and vigor Obama has. If he won, he would be 72 years old when he took office.

6. He does not understand where the country is right now or what it wants. He cannot bring about the kind of changes we need because he doesn't believe in them. He doesn't even see them. Therefore, he cannot lead us.

7. He is on the wrong side of the war, which we need to end.

8. He is on the wrong side of the Bush tax cuts.

9. He has made it clear that if elected he will pander to the radical right to stay in office.

10. He is on the wrong side of health care.

In other words, he is on the wrong side of the most important issues we face. We need a president who understands the critical importance of restoring a balanced economy and re-invigorating the middle class. McCain does not understand that.

This post merely exposes twizzys drug abuse.

[Guest Guest]

This post merely exposes twizzys drug abuse.

And also that Twizzy is Dizzy.

[Guest Guest]

This post merely exposes twizzys drug abuse.

You keep this garbage up. It's exactly this that will keep people from wanting to be on the same side as you.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You keep this garbage up. It's exactly this that will keep people from wanting to be on the same side as you.

I'm on the side of Truth, Justice and The American Way. And we don't allow leftist Kool-Aid

swigging nut jobs on our side.

[The Young Punk]

John McCain is a war hero and a long-time member of Congress. He has sponsored important legislation and sometimees stood for principle, until last year when he decided to compromise his principles to win the Republican nomination. Like Senator Obama, he deserves our respect. However, he should be our president, and here are a few reasons why.

1. He does not have the self-confidence required of a president. Look at him and listen to him when he speaks.

2. Unfortunately, his years in a prisoner of war have taken their toll. Heroism is something to be honored, but it doesn't qualify him for the White House. In this case, it leaves him unsuited to the job.

3. He has a horrible temper and is known not to get along with his colleagues.

4. He does not understand the public demands of the presidency. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is not funny.

5. He does not have the energy and vigor Obama has. If he won, he would be 72 years old when he took office.

6. He does not understand where the country is right now or what it wants. He cannot bring about the kind of changes we need because he doesn't believe in them. He doesn't even see them. Therefore, he cannot lead us.

7. He is on the wrong side of the war, which we need to end.

8. He is on the wrong side of the Bush tax cuts.

9. He has made it clear that if elected he will pander to the radical right to stay in office.

10. He is on the wrong side of health care.

In other words, he is on the wrong side of the most important issues we face. We need a president who understands the critical importance of restoring a balanced economy and re-invigorating the middle class. McCain does not understand that.

I think McCain is the only one suited for the job of President of this great country. Obama not only lacks the experience but how can one run for President and have their patriotism questioned at the same time? The president must be dedicated to this country, McCain has shown that by not only being a war hero but by spending his life serving this country. Also Obama showed quite clearly that he is ignorant in the tool called the military. This is an excerpt from a recent news article on msnbc.com:

"But last week, during his debate with Clinton, Obama tried speaking about substance when he mentioned the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he displayed an astounding ignorance of the military instrument. He said that an anonymous U.S. Army captain told him that his infantry platoon was split and sent to different areas of operations; that they were lacking vehicles; and that they had insufficient ammunition to fight.

Although problems do occur in combat situations to be sure, none of what Obama related makes any sense and is, according to people with whom I spoke, untrue. Units the size of platoons are not sent to separate theaters, ammunition has been plentiful, and an investigation indicates that the unit in question was missing only one of its Humvees, all to no peril of the unit.

Obama used the anecdote to demonstrate that the current president was not supporting the troops and to suggest that he would if elected. Given Obama’s ignorance of how ground combat operations are actually conducted, one expects that he’ll be no better at it than President Bush. Indeed, as bad as Bush’s Iraq strategy was for its first four years, Obama’s plan for rapid withdrawal is equally flawed and perhaps impossible to execute.

Politicians rely heavily, on almost every subject, on advisors to get them educated and keep them current. And nobody really expects Obama or Clinton or even McCain, who was a Navy aviator, to know anything about ground combat. But one does expect the candidate to employ advisors who know what they are talking about and to prevent their candidate from embarrassment.

While Obama has attracted money, notoriety and delegates, he has yet to attract military advisers who know what they are doing. If he doesn’t, and he becomes president, the United States won’t fare any better than it has for the past eight years. "

Also McCain is tough on foreign policy and in this world of terror and animosity we need to stand strong. This is not the time to let a limp-wrist who probably couldn't tell you the difference between a guerilla fighter and a terrorist. If we are ever to gain credibility in the world we must not become pushovers to rouge nations like Iran and North Korea or to countries like Russia and China. In Iran he wants to talk, with a nation that has openly said they will not negotiate and have torn up condemnations and laughed at UN sanctions. Obama who is so anti-war promises to increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Out of whose ass, may I ask, is he pulling these men out of?

On Nuclear material he promises to secure all loose material in four years, how is that possible? Are we going to find them hidden at the end of the rainbow? No, no we wont. He wants to make the world "nuclear free", but only speaks of the US and Russia, what about China, France and the UK who have Nuclear Weapons?

[The Young Punk]

I would also be a little turned away if my candidate was called "Hope for the entire world" by the leader of a black islamic racist group, wouldn't you?

[Guest Guest]

I would also be a little turned away if my candidate was called "Hope for the entire world" by the leader of a black islamic racist group, wouldn't you?

Punkie, this is a response to both your posts.

If a man can't become president just because someone questions his patriotism, all the radical right has to do is question every Democratic candidate's patriotism - which is essentially what they have been doing. You're obviously not thinking this through. You're just stacking the deck in favor of the guy for whom you've already made up your mind. Was anything more needed for you than the mere label "Republican"?

Experience is useful only if it leads the president to make good choices. So how do you explain the fact that Obama knew what a disaster a war in Iraq was going to be, and warned against it? Why doesn't that score a lot of points for you?

If you'll study your history, you'll see that many of our presidents didn't have much "experience." Several, including Clinton, Reagan and this Bush, had only been governors. Lincoln was a one-term former congressman who had lost more elections than he had won. So when you make the "experience" argument, why should I think that you're doing anything more than justifying what you've already made up your mind to believe? And that's only through your second sentence.

Then you quote at length from an msnbc news commentator, Jack Jacobs. Jacobs is entitled to his opinions, but they are hardly the final word on anything. If in fact the army captain witnessed the events firsthand, then his is the more reliable account. This wouldn't be the first time one person looked at a story and saw something no one else saw. But what do you do, Punkie? You read something critical of Obama, and because you've already made up your mind that you don't support him, you decide that Obama is "clearly . . . ignorant."

We have had ignorant presidents. In fact, we have one now. Barack Obama rose from nothing to become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Punkie, do you realize what an accomplishment that is? Think about it. The man you're calling ignorant has one of the most brilliant minds not only in the country, but in the world.

We need look no further for an example of ignorance than your "analysis" in the paragraph following the Jacobs quote. You argue for a strong military, then you pull out of your ass the completely unsupported conclusion that increasing US ground forces is somehow not a good idea. Why not? Increasing the number of ground forces is "tough," isn't it? Do you know what McCain's position is on this issue? What if McCain supports it? From what you write, I'd be willing to bet my house that you would support it. You don't tell us why this isn't a good idea, and again what's obvious is that you're not thinking. You're just reacting.

Of course, you don't mention McCain's statement that under his plan we may be in Iraq for 100 years. Why not? Don't you think that's relevant? Don't you think the American people have the right to say "No, we're not doing that." Don't you think that's an unreasonable demand to make on the American people? What is to be accomplished if we must be there for 100 years? Why doesn't that alone disqualify John McCain from the presidency? There's nothing of substance in your writing and apparently your thinking. All you've done is say if it looks tough, then it's good, unless Obama does it. You can't even maintain a consistent standard within a single paragraph.

Don't you think it's wise to bring nuclear materials under control? You criticize, again without basis in fact, but what's your alternative? You don't present one.

Finally, your single comment in post # 7 only displays your complete lack of objectivity. Farrakhan's comment does not turn a reasonable person away from Obama one bit. Barack Obama did not ask for Farrakhan's support, and has rejected it. He cannot stop Farrakhan from supporting him. You're trying to cast blame on Obama not even by association, but by involuntary association. That is completely unfair and illogical. That's an obvious point. Don't you think you should admit it?

Adults here welcome a young person's participation and involvement in the political process. However, all that will be a waste if you do not use the lessons and methods of reason that you were taught in school. If you hope to make a contribution in politics or any other field, you cannot start with your mind already made up, and just fit everything into pre-determined conclusions.

[Guest Guest]

Obama who is so anti-war promises to increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Out of whose ass, may I ask, is he pulling these men out of?

In other words, you got a piece of information that didn't fit with your prejudices, so you decided to ignore it.

Young Punk, if the next president decides we really need to get "tough" with the world, he's not going to pull soldiers out of his ass. He just might draft yours.

If this so-called war was really necessary to our national security, that is exactly what would have happened already. Everyone who was being honest about it knew that our voluntary force wasn't big enough to maintain peace. Forget about whether that would transform Iraq into a democracy. Bush, Cheney, et. al., talked tough, but when it came time to put up, they meowed like pussycats. This war was totally unnecessary, and their own behavior proves it.

Be careful what you wish for, son. If your guy wins, you just might get it. Please excuse me if I don't come to see you off. Don't forget to write your folks.

[Guest Patriot]

In other words, you got a piece of information that didn't fit with your prejudices, so you decided to ignore it.

Young Punk, if the next president decides we really need to get "tough" with the world, he's not going to pull soldiers out of his ass. He just might draft yours.

If this so-called war was really necessary to our national security, that is exactly what would have happened already. Everyone who was being honest about it knew that our voluntary force wasn't big enough to maintain peace. Forget about whether that would transform Iraq into a democracy. Bush, Cheney, et. al., talked tough, but when it came time to put up, they meowed like pussycats. This war was totally unnecessary, and their own behavior proves it.

Be careful what you wish for, son. If your guy wins, you just might get it. Please excuse me if I don't come to see you off. Don't forget to write your folks.

"Please excuse me if I don't come to see you off". Yes, he'll be hiding under his bed while our

troops protect his sorry ass.

[The Young Punk]

Punkie, this is a response to both your posts.

If a man can't become president just because someone questions his patriotism, all the radical right has to do is question every Democratic candidate's patriotism - which is essentially what they have been doing. You're obviously not thinking this through. You're just stacking the deck in favor of the guy for whom you've already made up your mind. Was anything more needed for you than the mere label "Republican"?

Experience is useful only if it leads the president to make good choices. So how do you explain the fact that Obama knew what a disaster a war in Iraq was going to be, and warned against it? Why doesn't that score a lot of points for you?

If you'll study your history, you'll see that many of our presidents didn't have much "experience." Several, including Clinton, Reagan and this Bush, had only been governors. Lincoln was a one-term former congressman who had lost more elections than he had won. So when you make the "experience" argument, why should I think that you're doing anything more than justifying what you've already made up your mind to believe? And that's only through your second sentence.

Then you quote at length from an msnbc news commentator, Jack Jacobs. Jacobs is entitled to his opinions, but they are hardly the final word on anything. If in fact the army captain witnessed the events firsthand, then his is the more reliable account. This wouldn't be the first time one person looked at a story and saw something no one else saw. But what do you do, Punkie? You read something critical of Obama, and because you've already made up your mind that you don't support him, you decide that Obama is "clearly . . . ignorant."

We have had ignorant presidents. In fact, we have one now. Barack Obama rose from nothing to become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Punkie, do you realize what an accomplishment that is? Think about it. The man you're calling ignorant has one of the most brilliant minds not only in the country, but in the world.

We need look no further for an example of ignorance than your "analysis" in the paragraph following the Jacobs quote. You argue for a strong military, then you pull out of your ass the completely unsupported conclusion that increasing US ground forces is somehow not a good idea. Why not? Increasing the number of ground forces is "tough," isn't it? Do you know what McCain's position is on this issue? What if McCain supports it? From what you write, I'd be willing to bet my house that you would support it. You don't tell us why this isn't a good idea, and again what's obvious is that you're not thinking. You're just reacting.

Of course, you don't mention McCain's statement that under his plan we may be in Iraq for 100 years. Why not? Don't you think that's relevant? Don't you think the American people have the right to say "No, we're not doing that." Don't you think that's an unreasonable demand to make on the American people? What is to be accomplished if we must be there for 100 years? Why doesn't that alone disqualify John McCain from the presidency? There's nothing of substance in your writing and apparently your thinking. All you've done is say if it looks tough, then it's good, unless Obama does it. You can't even maintain a consistent standard within a single paragraph.

Don't you think it's wise to bring nuclear materials under control? You criticize, again without basis in fact, but what's your alternative? You don't present one.

Finally, your single comment in post # 7 only displays your complete lack of objectivity. Farrakhan's comment does not turn a reasonable person away from Obama one bit. Barack Obama did not ask for Farrakhan's support, and has rejected it. He cannot stop Farrakhan from supporting him. You're trying to cast blame on Obama not even by association, but by involuntary association. That is completely unfair and illogical. That's an obvious point. Don't you think you should admit it?

Adults here welcome a young person's participation and involvement in the political process. However, all that will be a waste if you do not use the lessons and methods of reason that you were taught in school. If you hope to make a contribution in politics or any other field, you cannot start with your mind already made up, and just fit everything into pre-determined conclusions.

Allow me to respond to your post piece by piece and thank you for actually addressing all the points I made. First it isn't just a matter of the Republicans questioning his patriotism, if it were just that then I would hold as nothing more than political mudslinging. But when the news brings it up like that I feel it is more substantial. The fact that Obama was against the war from the start doesn't score points with me for I have and continue to support the war. From my point of view I find it to be a neccessary evil and wish I could serve with them. As for experience, yes history does show that more governors are elected to the office of President then Congressmen, but from Obamas voting record I was not impressed. I feel that if he can fine tune his agenda into something feasable he might stand a better chance, he can't hit middle ground til he's learned to compromise with the opposing party. Now do not misunderstand me, I am not questioning Obama's intelligence as a whole. I believe that all the candidates running are highly intelligent regardless of their view points, I was reffering specifically to his ignorance on the military, which is a big part of this country and the Presidential campaign. The main foreign focus of this campaign is Iraq, and he does not seem to have accurate information or even able to get an advisor who possesses acurate information. Even if McCain made the statement about the troops I would criticize it without more information, as on Obama's website it did not say how he plans to do it. I admit I was reacting to what I read, hence the length of the post, but I am not close-minded on the situation either. I agree that we need more troops, but I can do nothing but criticize it until I understand or am at least told how it is to happen. I happen to agree with the concept of finishing the job that we had started, and of course the American people reserve their right to say "no" but that is what the election comes down to. McCain, on the military, is very smart. He was saying from the beginning that we needed more troops, even before the troop surge. And he proved right. I do believe nuclear material needs to be controlled, but once again Obama does not propose how he would accomplish such a feat. As for Farrakhan, Obama accepted an award from him a year ago (I believe). I apologize if I sound close minded, for I am really open to others opinions on this topic. As I said before I made a reactionary post and I do have my mind made up on my candidate, but I did do my research though it doesn't always show

[The Young Punk]

In other words, you got a piece of information that didn't fit with your prejudices, so you decided to ignore it.

Young Punk, if the next president decides we really need to get "tough" with the world, he's not going to pull soldiers out of his ass. He just might draft yours.

If this so-called war was really necessary to our national security, that is exactly what would have happened already. Everyone who was being honest about it knew that our voluntary force wasn't big enough to maintain peace. Forget about whether that would transform Iraq into a democracy. Bush, Cheney, et. al., talked tough, but when it came time to put up, they meowed like pussycats. This war was totally unnecessary, and their own behavior proves it.

Be careful what you wish for, son. If your guy wins, you just might get it. Please excuse me if I don't come to see you off. Don't forget to write your folks.

I would love to serve my country, but I am restricted from doing so due to horrible eyesight, and that im recovering from a recent spinal problem. I believe in the war and why we are fighting

[Guest *Autonomous*]

John McCain is a war hero and a long-time member of Congress. He has sponsored important legislation and sometimees stood for principle, until last year when he decided to compromise his principles to win the Republican nomination. Like Senator Obama, he deserves our respect. However, he should be our president, and here are a few reasons why.

1. He does not have the self-confidence required of a president. Look at him and listen to him when he speaks.

2. Unfortunately, his years in a prisoner of war have taken their toll. Heroism is something to be honored, but it doesn't qualify him for the White House. In this case, it leaves him unsuited to the job.

3. He has a horrible temper and is known not to get along with his colleagues.

4. He does not understand the public demands of the presidency. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is not funny.

5. He does not have the energy and vigor Obama has. If he won, he would be 72 years old when he took office.

6. He does not understand where the country is right now or what it wants. He cannot bring about the kind of changes we need because he doesn't believe in them. He doesn't even see them. Therefore, he cannot lead us.

7. He is on the wrong side of the war, which we need to end.

8. He is on the wrong side of the Bush tax cuts.

9. He has made it clear that if elected he will pander to the radical right to stay in office.

10. He is on the wrong side of health care.

In other words, he is on the wrong side of the most important issues we face. We need a president who understands the critical importance of restoring a balanced economy and re-invigorating the middle class. McCain does not understand that.

Hmmmm...

1. He's not a great speaker, but I'd hardly say he lacks self-confidence. It takes a lot of that to stand against nearly your entire party, which he has done on several noteable occasions. Besides, he's a better speaker than Bush. Of course, I've seen 8-year-olds that are better public speakers than Bush, so that isn't saying much.

2. Why? This statement means little without some serious support.

3. So?

4. It's a little bit funny. If we had credible, solid evidence that Iran was developing a nuke, I'd be all for bombing them. Iran is one of the countries that we really do need to watch.

5. My wife's grandfather is that old and still bales hay. If he has the energy and stamina to be on the campaign trail, he can be president.

6. He understands where we are. He's currently playing a balancing act. He's trying to increase his support among conservatives without moving too far away from the (perceived) moderate stances that make him attractive to Independents. This takes quite a bit of savvy.

7. As I've said in another thread, neither party is on the right side when it comes to Iraq. We have a moral obligation to try to leave it better than we found it-I like to call it the "you broke it, you bought it" principle.

8. He voted against them, but now wants to make them permanent. I'll agree with you there.

9. I don't know that he'll seek a second term. He'll certainly pander to the radical right to get into office, so I sorta agree with you. Whether that makes him unsuited to office depends upon whether you think the Right are wrong or whether you think they simply have different priorities. I prefer the second option myself, though people like 2Dim and Patty make it difficult.

10. Depends. There is a lot of disagreement in this country on what should be done about our healthcare system.

As far as your final point goes-I agree, but neither party has a monopoly on good economic plans. The Republican answer to every economic problem is tax cuts, whereas the Democrat answer is more welfare. If a candidate would run on a realistic plan to balance the budget, pay down the national debt, and restructure welfare rather than simply cut funding, I would most likely back that candidate. Unfortunately, none of them are.

[Guest Guest]

Allow me to respond to your post piece by piece and thank you for actually addressing all the points I made. First it isn't just a matter of the Republicans questioning his patriotism, if it were just that then I would hold as nothing more than political mudslinging. But when the news brings it up like that I feel it is more substantial. The fact that Obama was against the war from the start doesn't score points with me for I have and continue to support the war. From my point of view I find it to be a neccessary evil and wish I could serve with them. As for experience, yes history does show that more governors are elected to the office of President then Congressmen, but from Obamas voting record I was not impressed. I feel that if he can fine tune his agenda into something feasable he might stand a better chance, he can't hit middle ground til he's learned to compromise with the opposing party. Now do not misunderstand me, I am not questioning Obama's intelligence as a whole. I believe that all the candidates running are highly intelligent regardless of their view points, I was reffering specifically to his ignorance on the military, which is a big part of this country and the Presidential campaign. The main foreign focus of this campaign is Iraq, and he does not seem to have accurate information or even able to get an advisor who possesses acurate information. Even if McCain made the statement about the troops I would criticize it without more information, as on Obama's website it did not say how he plans to do it. I admit I was reacting to what I read, hence the length of the post, but I am not close-minded on the situation either. I agree that we need more troops, but I can do nothing but criticize it until I understand or am at least told how it is to happen. I happen to agree with the concept of finishing the job that we had started, and of course the American people reserve their right to say "no" but that is what the election comes down to. McCain, on the military, is very smart. He was saying from the beginning that we needed more troops, even before the troop surge. And he proved right. I do believe nuclear material needs to be controlled, but once again Obama does not propose how he would accomplish such a feat. As for Farrakhan, Obama accepted an award from him a year ago (I believe). I apologize if I sound close minded, for I am really open to others opinions on this topic. As I said before I made a reactionary post and I do have my mind made up on my candidate, but I did do my research though it doesn't always show

No, what you can do if you don't understand is not criticize until you do. It's interesting how willing you are to criticize one candidate on the basis of nothing, but not the other.

Why do you think the Iraq war was justified?

[Guest a proud american]

I think McCain is the only one suited for the job of President of this great country. Obama not only lacks the experience but how can one run for President and have their patriotism questioned at the same time? The president must be dedicated to this country, McCain has shown that by not only being a war hero but by spending his life serving this country. Also Obama showed quite clearly that he is ignorant in the tool called the military. This is an excerpt from a recent news article on msnbc.com:

"But last week, during his debate with Clinton, Obama tried speaking about substance when he mentioned the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he displayed an astounding ignorance of the military instrument. He said that an anonymous U.S. Army captain told him that his infantry platoon was split and sent to different areas of operations; that they were lacking vehicles; and that they had insufficient ammunition to fight.

Although problems do occur in combat situations to be sure, none of what Obama related makes any sense and is, according to people with whom I spoke, untrue. Units the size of platoons are not sent to separate theaters, ammunition has been plentiful, and an investigation indicates that the unit in question was missing only one of its Humvees, all to no peril of the unit.

Obama used the anecdote to demonstrate that the current president was not supporting the troops and to suggest that he would if elected. Given Obama’s ignorance of how ground combat operations are actually conducted, one expects that he’ll be no better at it than President Bush. Indeed, as bad as Bush’s Iraq strategy was for its first four years, Obama’s plan for rapid withdrawal is equally flawed and perhaps impossible to execute.

Politicians rely heavily, on almost every subject, on advisors to get them educated and keep them current. And nobody really expects Obama or Clinton or even McCain, who was a Navy aviator, to know anything about ground combat. But one does expect the candidate to employ advisors who know what they are talking about and to prevent their candidate from embarrassment.

While Obama has attracted money, notoriety and delegates, he has yet to attract military advisers who know what they are doing. If he doesn’t, and he becomes president, the United States won’t fare any better than it has for the past eight years. "

Also McCain is tough on foreign policy and in this world of terror and animosity we need to stand strong. This is not the time to let a limp-wrist who probably couldn't tell you the difference between a guerilla fighter and a terrorist. If we are ever to gain credibility in the world we must not become pushovers to rouge nations like Iran and North Korea or to countries like Russia and China. In Iran he wants to talk, with a nation that has openly said they will not negotiate and have torn up condemnations and laughed at UN sanctions. Obama who is so anti-war promises to increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Out of whose ass, may I ask, is he pulling these men out of?

On Nuclear material he promises to secure all loose material in four years, how is that possible? Are we going to find them hidden at the end of the rainbow? No, no we wont. He wants to make the world "nuclear free", but only speaks of the US and Russia, what about China, France and the UK who have Nuclear Weapons?

Actually, Obama's comment about what happened in Afghanistan was substantiated by General George Casey. It was at the begining of the Iraq war that it occurred and continued through 2004.

[Bryan]

Actually, Obama's comment about what happened in Afghanistan was substantiated by General George Casey. It was at the begining of the Iraq war that it occurred and continued through 2004.

TYP cited ABC news. Are we to take your word regarding Casey or can you helpfully back it up (I hear Ask.com is wonderful)?

[Guest a proud american]

TYP cited ABC news. Are we to take your word regarding Casey or can you helpfully back it up (I hear Ask.com is wonderful)?

General Casey made those remarks while testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 26, 2008. If you want his actual testimony go to WWW.Thomas.Gov and pull up the committee. And yes.com is a wondereful search engine. You should use it sometime.

[Bryan]

General Casey made those remarks while testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 26, 2008. If you want his actual testimony go to WWW.Thomas.Gov and pull up the committee.

It doesn't look like the prepared statements have been published yet. How do we know you're not making it up if you refuse to refer us directly to your source?

And yes.com is a wondereful search engine. You should use it sometime.

Yes.com?

http://www.yes.com

I'm not impressed.

Again, I don't think anything more than snippets of Casey's speech have made it to the Web. You probably got your information from a story like this one and proceeded to spin it into vindication for Obama ("Obama's comment about what happened in Afghanistan was substantiated by General George Casey"):

WASHINGTON -- Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons. But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

http://www.sacbee.com/838/story/740571.html

From there it gets worse for Obama. Of course, you may not trust the Sacramento Bee blog in the first place.

[Guest a proud american]

It doesn't look like the prepared statements have been published yet. How do we know you're not making it up if you refuse to refer us directly to your source?

Yes.com?

http://www.yes.com

I'm not impressed.

Again, I don't think anything more than snippets of Casey's speech have made it to the Web. You probably got your information from a story like this one and proceeded to spin it into vindication for Obama ("Obama's comment about what happened in Afghanistan was substantiated by General George Casey"):

WASHINGTON -- Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons. But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

http://www.sacbee.com/838/story/740571.html

From there it gets worse for Obama. Of course, you may not trust the Sacramento Bee blog in the first place.

Here is what General Casey stated" I have no reason to doubt that what it is the Captain said. This was 2003 and 2004. Almost four and one half years ago. We acknowledge and all worked together to correct the deficiencies that we saw in that period, not only in Afghanistan but in Iraq. It was a period we worked our way through". And if you remember, I said that this occurred in 03 and 04. And I wasn't trying to spin anything. I made a statement and you asked me to give you a citation. That's what I did.

[Guest *Kramer*]

This was pretty interesting and after reading it, you will probably say "you know that is so true".

PROUD TO BE WHITE?

Very interesting reading!

Perhaps we should get rid of the term 'racist'

all together and just live our lives...

Michael Richards better known as Kramer

from tv's Seinfeld. This was his defence speech in court

after making racial comments in his comedy act.

He makes s ome very interesting points. Proud To Be

White. Someone finally said it. How many are actually

paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans,

Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.

You Call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey', 'White

Trash', 'White Shit', 'Whitey,' 'Caveman' ... and that's

OK.

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger,

Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ...You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you,

so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin

Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET.

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we'd be

racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

If we had White History Month , we'd be racists. If we had any

organization for only whites to 'advance' ;OUR lives we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber

of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

Wonder who pays for that? A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any colour can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white

students scholarships you know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US. Yet if there were 'White colleges' THAT would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your & nbsp;race and rights. If we marched

for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud. But you call me a racist. Why is it that only whites can be racists?

[Bryan]

Here is what General Casey stated" I have no reason to doubt that what it is the Captain said. This was 2003 and 2004. Almost four and one half years ago. We acknowledge and all worked together to correct the deficiencies that we saw in that period, not only in Afghanistan but in Iraq. It was a period we worked our way through". And if you remember, I said that this occurred in 03 and 04. And I wasn't trying to spin anything. I made a statement and you asked me to give you a citation. That's what I did.

You're still spinning, even if you find it effortless.

apa:

"Actually, Obama's comment about what happened in Afghanistan was substantiated by General George Casey."

SacBee:

"But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job."

What Obama said (via the New York Times blog):

"I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. (Applause.)

Now, that has consequences. That has significant consequences because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan, where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.

I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees.

They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead. And I think that on every critical issue that we've seen in foreign policy over the last several years -- going into Iraq originally, I didn't just oppose it for the sake of opposing it. I said this is going to distract us from Afghanistan; this is going to fan the flames of anti- American sentiment; this is going to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and overstretch our military, and I was right."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/polit...l?pagewanted=19

Associated Press Fact Check Blog:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUW0ApB...Ge8jDAD8V001L81

Obama was spinning, and so are you.

[Guest Guest]

3. He has a horrible temper and is known not to get along with his colleagues.

He just proved it again by losing his cool with a reporter.

He's being scrutinized. No doubt he is doing everything he can to control himself - and still, he can't. This latest incident with the reporter removes any doubt that he is constitutionally incapable of the self-control of his own emotions needed in a president. A man with a temper like that cannot be trusted to take the 3 a.m. phone call.

This is a fatal character flaw that absolutely disqualifies John McCain from the presidency.

[Guest Guest]

He just proved it again by losing his cool with a reporter.

He's being scrutinized. No doubt he is doing everything he can to control himself - and still, he can't. This latest incident with the reporter removes any doubt that he is constitutionally incapable of the self-control of his own emotions needed in a president. A man with a temper like that cannot be trusted to take the 3 a.m. phone call.

This is a fatal character flaw that absolutely disqualifies John McCain from the presidency.

Here's an article about it to back you up:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/16389251.html

With people finding out that what Clinton accused Obama of doing in Canada concerning NAFTA was in fact what HER campaign did (now we know where they got the idea for the lie...), and that her Ohio county chair was the one who spread the "Obama = Muslim extremist" e-mails, plus all of the crazy flip-flopping and behavior like the above for McCain, Obama's got a golden chance to blaze a trail. All he needs now is to take advantage of the opportunity.

We know the supers aren't going to overturn the will of the people. That would be political suicide for them. So it comes down to pledged delegates. After Ohio and Texas, I popped on down to Slate's Delegate Calculator and found out that Clinton would need an AVERAGE of 62% of the votes in every remaining primary to be in the lead (by a measly five) in pledged delegates at the end. And now look at Wyoming--coincidentally, Obama nails down 61% of the vote there! If she gets 62% in all the rest, she'll be leading by ONE pledged delegate. Of course, that's obviously not going to happen.

Obama seems to be the one with the cleanest hands by far, and you can tell by the fact that Clinton and the Republicans have to invent mud to sling.

[Guest Guest]

Here's an article about it to back you up:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/16389251.html

With people finding out that what Clinton accused Obama of doing in Canada concerning NAFTA was in fact what HER campaign did (now we know where they got the idea for the lie...), and that her Ohio county chair was the one who spread the "Obama = Muslim extremist" e-mails, plus all of the crazy flip-flopping and behavior like the above for McCain, Obama's got a golden chance to blaze a trail. All he needs now is to take advantage of the opportunity.

We know the supers aren't going to overturn the will of the people. That would be political suicide for them. So it comes down to pledged delegates. After Ohio and Texas, I popped on down to Slate's Delegate Calculator and found out that Clinton would need an AVERAGE of 62% of the votes in every remaining primary to be in the lead (by a measly five) in pledged delegates at the end. And now look at Wyoming--coincidentally, Obama nails down 61% of the vote there! If she gets 62% in all the rest, she'll be leading by ONE pledged delegate. Of course, that's obviously not going to happen.

Obama seems to be the one with the cleanest hands by far, and you can tell by the fact that Clinton and the Republicans have to invent mud to sling.

No one ever said changing the world would be easy. Go get, 'em, Barack Obama, our hopes and dreams are riding on you.

[Bryan]

He just proved it again by losing his cool with a reporter.

He's being scrutinized. No doubt he is doing everything he can to control himself - and still, he can't. This latest incident with the reporter removes any doubt that he is constitutionally incapable of the self-control of his own emotions needed in a president. A man with a temper like that cannot be trusted to take the 3 a.m. phone call.

This is a fatal character flaw that absolutely disqualifies John McCain from the presidency.

Didn't seem to disqualify FDR. Or do you disagree?

Early in 1944 Roosevelt had asked Congress for $10 billion in additional tax revenues to combat wartime inflation and hold down the national debt. When Congress passed a bill providing less than one billion, the famous Roosevelt temper flared, and he sent the bill back with a stinging veto message on February 22. This was the first time a revenue measure had been killed by a President, which by itself would have been a shock, but Roosevelt’s words were more shocking still. “The bill,” he wrote, “is replete with provisions that not only afford indefensible special privileges to favored groups, but set dangerous precedents.” It is, he added, “a tax relief bill providing relief not for the needy but for the greedy.”

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/m...1974_2_12.shtml

Plenty more to choose from, BTW. Roosevelt's temper wasn't famous just because he was president.