Bruzilla, you sound like one of those crazy BDS people with their AWOL accusations.
I have no idea why McCain wasn't selected for higher command. It could be any number of things that do not necessarily preclude him from being President.
Smirking Chimp fires first salvo.
- Thread starter Lenny
- Start date
Bruzilla, you sound like one of those crazy BDS people with their AWOL accusations.
I have no idea why McCain wasn't selected for higher command. It could be any number of things that do not necessarily preclude him from being President.
And come 2012, when Rice runs, someone is going to do this to Condi and you and all the other hypoctites will be all up in arms about it.
Bru, you keep mentioning 2012. Do you think McCain will only serve one term?
Toxick
Splat
Most of the people who responded to this thread did not indicate that they thought it was humorous to compare Michelle Obama to a chimp. In fact, the majority merely commented that turnabout is fair play and too bad.
Pete
Repete
I figured you would still be stuck in the mud over 30 year old speculation you purport as all so important when no ones else cares.
It is a sad day when a sterling conservative such as yourself stoops to wild ass conjecture of 30 year old meaningless issues and mud slinging. You have stooped to the tactics of democrats, trying to attack a mans character and reputation just because you don't like him.
Questioning a mans heroism, medals, service, sacrifice and character and now even his injuries at the hands of his captors for political gain. You sound just like Hillary and Terry Mcauliffe maybe even worse. You should stick to concrete issues like voting records and policy stances and stop being Hillary.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Bru,
1. There was a huge RIF at the time in question. Very few people were being advanced.
2. Keeping a POW, being easy on him in a physical, and giving him a non-standard command path may have something to do with the Pentagon brass and their respect for him?
3. Exceptions are made for injured people if they can still function. There's a movie you should watch based on real life events called "Men of Honor." Since Carl Brashear was allowed to return to dive status, does that mean his amputation didn't really happen?
4. Isn't "Senate Liason" kind of an important job? Doesn't the Senate have a little bit to do with military funding? Wouldn't you want someone there who could handle the job? Is that really stashing?
5. Why weren't you "selected for higher command?" Why couldn't you make it past E-5 in 10 years? I made E-5 in 2 1/2 years, so it confuses me that someone with your massive intelligence and competence wouldn't have been at least a chief in 10 years. Is McCain's failure to advance such a big deal to you because it reminds you of your own failure?
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
hsnap:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Vrai, you sound just like one of those Clintonites who heard all about the rapes, all about the affairs, all about the bad conduct, but cried "BUT YOU HAVE NO PROOF!" If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.
As for this failure to be selected for higher command, you could be right. It could be for reasons that would have no negative impact on his being president. But if that is so, why is McCain refusing to release the sections of his service record that pertain to his performance as an officer? Why is he refusing to release the sections of his medical records that deal with his mental fitness? Every officer in the Navy gets fitness reports, and those are a big part of determining fitness for promotion, command, etc., and he refuses to let those out. He released all the good stuff... the commendations, write-ups for medals, etc., but held back his fitness reports. I have to believe that if those reflected well on him they would have been released as well. When John Kerry refused to release his service records, you were quick to jump on the reason being there's negative information he doesn't want folks to see. Yet with McCain you're all "BUT THERE'S NO PROOF!" and willing to make excuses for him. Hmmm...
Kerry's stories smelled like old garbage not because of the stimulus of them (which Kerry refused to release) but for the outcomes. How did a guy who did everything he could to avoid combat get bounced from a nice safe command and into a severe combat job? How does a guy get purple hearts with no injuries? How does a guy get medals for bravery under fire when the after-action reports are contradictory and inconclusive? You were right there on top of discussing all these issues for Kerry. There was no proof there either as Kerry kept it locked up, but that didn't stop you from seeing how his claims of being a model sailor didn't add up. Now here's McCain, son and grandson of an Admiral, former POW and a celebrity POW at that, who gets stashed and denied higher command. That's like Henry Ford Jr. getting told there's no future for him at Ford Motor Company and getting canned "for no reason". There are allegations from those he served with at VA-174 that McCain was fooling around with enlisted women, misusing aircraft for personal business to make trips to and from Arizona and Florida, abusing his authority, etc. All of these are just allegations, but they are all things that would get a guy's shot at promotion lowered to nill. They are also all things that would be documented in his fitness reports, which is probably why we'll never see them.
Yet when Barack Obama presents himself as a duck, you find a way to paint him as a swan.
Okey dokey.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Ummm... when Obama presents himself as a duck, say such as when he acts like a Liberal, talks like a Liberal, and supports Liberal causes, I call him a Liberal. But when others try to paint him as a duck.. say a racist..., such as trying to make views of Rev. Wright those of Obama (which there's zero evidence of), of that Obama should never have listened to 20 years of racist sermons (which there is zero evidence of) , I have to say that maybe he's not a racist.
You see... I look for trends of behavior and results in the abscence of stimuli. Folks like you are desperate to believe Obama is a racist, so you accept without question any allegation. If someone says Obama has been sitting in on 20 years of racist sermons, it makes no difference that all of these sermons were videotaped and not a single videotape but the initial three have ever shown any racist comments. The fact that the Clintons dug like mad for some trace of racist comments or additional sermons and found nothing, the Republicans found nothing, FNC found nothing... all of that means nothing to you. You want to believe that Obama is a racist, and has been cheering Wright on for 20 years as he preached hate, and so you believe regardless of the evidence. And as I have said, I would be glad to call Obama a racist if someone would just show me one supportable claim that he is one. I don't need to see him dressed up like a blank panther, or video up on stage with Wright saying "death to whitey!" Just show me where some white guy he was with in the Illinois Senate says Obama once made racist remarks, or where he wrote a paper in college that was racist, or anything that shows he's a racist.
Compare that to my view of McCain. It would be super if I had thousands of hours of videotape. or even some paper records, to review, but McCain refuses to release a shred of this information. So all I can look at is what the outcomes of his career have been, what has been written about him that he has said was right, and use my military experience to draw some rational conclusions. Let's look at the POW question again. There are a lot of guys who say McCain collaborated with the his captors and wasn't tortured... okay, that's just talk. McCain and his supporters claim he was tortured so bad by his captors that he couldn't raise his hands above his head, which is total BS given he was cleared for flight after being a POW and looked pretty heathy and well fed when he got released... unlike most of his fellow POWs. When he gets to the Congress he acts as an advocate for the Vietnemese by agressively denying that any POWs are still being held and is the leader of the effort to restore diplomatic relations with Vietnam... very unusual positions for someone who was brutally tortured by a regime to take. So once again, another aspect of McCain's life where there's no smoking gun but an open gun case and an empty box of bullets.
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, the evidence is at least 6 years, even though Wright says himself it's more than that, that he's been teaching it for 26 years (6 before Barry chose him as his pastor). Are those 6 years enough to convince you? Does it have to be 20? Does it have to be more than once, to understand he agreed (and financially supported) this?
So, three aren't enough? 26 years of teaching Black Liberation Theology (per Wright himself) isn't enough to demonstrate that the man chosen as spiritual mentor and financially supported for years, etc., etc., isn't racist? Or, was he behind the scenes telling Wright not to be so racist? Was he actively trying to demonstrate unity by declaring himself bi-racial, or did he pick a side and openly, knowingly, consciously choose to reject the side that raised him? OPEN YOUR EYES
They found enough to go on, they didn't need more (unlike you and Barry, several instances were more than enough to sicken the rest of us)
No, you deny regardless of the evidence
Re-read above, and declare away
Read Dreams of My Father. Heck, just read the introduction, page XV:
When people who don't know me well, black or white, discover my background (and it is usually a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the split second adjustments they have to make, the searching of my eyes for some telltale sign. They no longer know who I am.
He decided at 13 (I'll give him the BOD of the one year) to be a racist against whites. In his own words.
You could also use the long time of voting records, like people use Barry's short list of voting records. That would give an actual "yeah, he says this, but what does he actually DO when tested" point of view
And makes so much sense given his injuries. What did he do, get those windsurfing?
Takes a lot of character, moral strength, I agree. Good point for McCain
For what? having moral and personal strength of conviction? I agree.
Sonsie
The mighty Al-Sonsie!
You got that right. Almost all his closest living relatives are foreign nationals living overseas since his drunken bigamist father had like 7 more kids there. Like his lovely brother Abongo:
He has gone out of his way to support in Kenya Raila Odinga, head of the Luo tribe, who promised to introduce sharia law if elected. Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaign to speak by phone with Odinga. As the Investor’s Business Daily has reported, his half-brother Abongo ‘Roy’ Obama is a Luo activist in Kenya and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must ‘liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture’ and urges Barack to embrace his African Muslim heritage.
His associates like Rezko all have questionable ties:
But what has received far less attention is Rezko’s connections with the Nation of Islam. Reszko, born in Syria, was a business associate of Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad, serving as a vice president and general manager of JHM’s firm Crucial Inc. And finally, Rezko was bailed from jail by Ali Baghdadi, the ‘Middle East adviser’ to the Nation of Islam.
That is a lot of ties to a foriegn county and hostile nutty religious figures including his whitey hatin' church A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA. If he wasn't a politician there is no way this guy could get a clearance not even counting admitted drug use. Where do his loyalties lie? With all of his brothers and sisters in a foriegn country that he shows a lot of interest in? Can this guy be trusted to look after America's interests first? If he was just some guy looking for a clearance for a job in the intel community they would laugh him out of DC.
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
B
Bruzilla
Guest
First, you say the evidence shows six years, but what the evidence shows is three times... once in 2001, and twice in 2007. If someone gets a speeding ticket in 2001, and another in 2007, does that mean they were speeding for six years? I know... you're thinking "Heck yea... he just didn't get caught!", but suppose you had a radar gun on you everytime you drove during those six years? Every one of Wright's sermons was videotaped... every one... and yet no one can find a single one aside from those three that have him making any hateful statements.
As for the 20 years thing, all I've been asking is that if people are going to claim "Obama has been listening to hate speech for 20 years!" don't you think there should be some evidence of that? The truth, which seems to be a concept getting more and more alien to some folks, is that Wright was Obama's minister for 20 years, and anything else is just an assumption without basis in fact. It's like the Dems who claim "Cheney was connected to Halliburton, so he's giving them all these contracts" absent the fact that the VP can't award contracts even if he wanted to.
That's more than enough to show that Wright is a racist, but the charge is Obama has been sitting in the church listening to racist sermins for 20 years. You listed lots of things Wright did... how about listing some things that Obama did? He was a community organizer... can you find one mention of him rallying blacks against whites? How about teaching BLT, or calling for it, or supporting it, in any forum? I can't help but imagine that if he had, the Clintons would have found out about it and mentioned it durign the campaign. By all accounts, Obama joined Wright's church as a matter of political expediency, not because Obama supports BLT, so if he were converted, don't you think there would be some kind of a mention of that somewhere over the past 20 years?
Interesting outlook. Reminds me of the Dems who said that Cheney had been affiliated with Halliburton and that was enough to go on... or Bush haters when they said that since Bush had connections to Saudi Arabia he must have been in on 9/11... or how Condi Rice must be sleeping with Bush because why else would she get promoted... or Bush worked in the oil buisness so all he wants to do is steal oil from poor countries... and on and on and on. There's no difference here. They found all they needed to go on too, which doesn't make them one bit more right than you. This is why I'm a bit more skeptical when I hear charges being made. It's become very easy for someone to rattle off an allegation and sucker some folks into swallowing it without question because it's made against someone they're already looking to dislike or distrust. You guys love to chalk this up to being in the tank, or "loving" someone, or just wanting to be blind to the facts... I call it having integrity.
If you want to say that Obama's minister (and marrier, or karma king, or spiritual compass, or whatever) is a racist, I agree with that. You want to say that Obama spent 20 years at a church where the minister believed in BLT, I agree with that. You want to say Obama's minister (and marrier, or karma king, or spiritual compass, or whatever) gave a hateful sermon in 2001 and two more in 2007, I agree with that. You want to make the unsubstantiated jump that Obama has been sitting in church listening to racist sermons for 20 years, then I'll call you on it just as fast as when someone claims Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen. You want to claim that Obama supported the BLT nonsense even though he's never endorsed it in any forum that anyone can fond, I'll call you on it just as fast as I do the folks yelling "blood for oil!"
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
As I've written time, and time, again... my greatest worry is that if McCain wins we'll be stuck with a RINO president who we'll have to support for re-election. we'll have to do it even though folks like Rice, Pawlenty, and others would likely be running if Obama were elected in 2008. So we're going to get stuck with a difficult choice if McCain wins: support him for another four years, or seriously fracturing the Republican Party to try to get a real conservative in. Neither option is good for the party.
Based on McCain's performance in the past, if he's elected he's going to be a moderate Democrat on the issues. I think he'll gladly trade Republican support for Independent and moderate Democrat votes, so you'll see a Republican party working against their own President, which is a recipie for disaster. I think it already is a disaster that Republicans who have been denouncing McCain and his pandering to liberals, his selfishness, his willingness to betray his colleagues, for years suddenly saying "well, he's better than Obama so let's vote for him" as if being better than Obama equates to being a good president. It's like what Larry said with his which is better - getting shot in the head or in the chest? analogy.
I was planning to vote for Obama as I would rather have the moderate Dems in Congress at odds with an extremely liberal president for four years rather than risking eight years of the King of RINOs, but now that Barr is running I'll be voting for him. That changes the formula to "which is better - getting shot in the head, in the chest, or not getting shot at all?"
B
Bruzilla
Guest
And you think that the "turnabout is fair play and too bad" outlook is somehow better than the "humorous to compare Michelle Obama to a chimp" outlook? Like I said, my parents taught be that trying to justify your own bad behavior by pointing to others is wrong when I was about five years old... I guess you didn't have very good parents.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Let's look at your contention for a minute. You contend that no one should care about what happened 30 years ago. Were you not one who thought the horrid misconduct of John Kerry during the Vietnam War was worthy of note? Aren't you one who seems to feel that what Obama was doing 20 years ago matters? I didn't read anything about Larry's emphasis that Barr graduated from a high school in Tehran over 30 years ago. It seems to me that the determining factor is not the age of the allegation, but who it is made against, that matters.
Also, I see this as more than just an allegation about something that happened 30 years ago. Take Bush for example. He was Mr. Funtime Frat Party Boy in college. Okay, I get that. He drank, he smoked weed, he snorted coke, whatever. Not model behavior but he's in college with zero responsibilities. What has he done since then? He's cleaned up his act IRT to the partying thing, he's run businesses, he's been a successful governor, he's been president, he's been a model husband and father, so I don't really care about what he did as a college kid as it seems to be just some aberant behavior that doesn't seem to have effected his current performance.
As to McCain, there's a distinct pattern of behavior that spans his whole life. He has admitted what he did to his pal in high school, he has admitted that his resentment for authority led to his problems in school and at the USNA, he has admitted violating the COC as a POW, the Navy found him unfit for higher command, he repeatedly broke Congressional rules on accepting gifts, he broke the law with the Keating-5 affair, he was disloyal to the Religious Right, he's been repeatedly disloyal to Republicans since 2000. Yes, the events I'm pinging on are 30 years old, but they are a clear part of a pattern of behavior that continues to this day. Why is this important? Well, when you're considering voting for a guy who's claiming he's going to be loyal to Republicans, but who has a marked record of disployal behavior, maybe you ought to think about that. When you're considering voting for a guy who says he'll follow the will of Republicans, but he has a marked record of resenting being told what to do, maybe you might want to think about that.
Vote Barr!
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not defending "they did it first". That game never ends, although the really vicious stuff I've seen in my lifetime has mostly been perpetrated by Democrats. I have always found it ironic that Republicans bear the "mean-spirited" label given them.
What I don't object to is the VERY SAME joke being applied back. People are STILL calling Bush a chimp, and will continue to do so after this.
Perhaps it's because, on the face of it, I don't find this all that offensive. Certainly not as much as the "Curious George" thing done of Obama last month. I've heard some of the same Hillary jokes for 16 years, and they keep getting recirculated - the one where Hillary tells God "you're sitting in my chair" I've heard since the '92 campaign. I'm not above telling those jokes - I've heard it TWICE from the same die-hard Hillary supporter.
What surprises me elsewhere on this thread however, is that you object to the overuse of gross ridicule - suggesting you refuse to sink to the level of past Democrat behavior - but have no qualms nurturing endless speculation on McCain's character which is exactly the same kind of endless speculation Republicans did, on Clinton.
I know. I did it too. And a lot of it was proven to be relevant. TONS of it - for example, the "Clinton Body Count" - was shown to be an embarassment. True, I do think Clinton got away with stuff - he never seemed to be the kind of target who was willing to confront rumors and innuendo with candor and a total willingness to share the truth. True, I think the reason why Kerry never released his service record was that they did in fact, prove the Swiftboater's case. I didn't touch on that much in 2004 because why bother to dredge up 30 year old information if you want to make the case the man is a fraud, a blowhard, disingenuous and totally lacking in character to be President? That, he managed to prove and continues to prove daily.
My Dad doesn't like McCain, but he's got another reason. He went to school with him. Learning he was in - what is it, the 100 club? - and that he graduated near the bottom of his class doesn't come close to surprising him. My dad said the one thing he remembered about him is that he was a jerk and that he couldn't stand him. He still plans to vote for him.