Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 206
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    It doesn't "stick" because I disagree with the premise that he is blatantly dishonest.
    Fair enough; we'll just agree to disagree then.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I don't think its a stretch at all. And if it were Obama, you'd be screaming bloody murder about this. When a senator with heavy lobbyist ties to the telecom industry supports bills favoring said industry, and then, when running for President with 23 telecom lobbyist on his staff, the senator ends up with outrageous favoritism (thousands or dollars worth of mobile cell towers) loaned to him, then I think it smacks of good ole' boy politics at the very least.
    Umm, no I wouldn't. I can back up ALL of my concerns with Obama--hence the reason I have said nothing about him and ACORN. At some point, you're going to have to admit that I am conservative, but not always sticking to the de facto conservative perceptions and/or complaints.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    And given McShames Bush-like claims that he'll restore dignity to the office and "you'll know their names" I think he is a friggin' hypocrite as well.
    Well, I kind of assumed that politician really was another word for hypocrite--at this point what matters to what degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    BTW - How did McShame handle the John Hagee situation?
    And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.

    Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not.

    Source

    Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.

    Source


    Hmm, sounds to me like he took full responsibility (although it is possible he was aware of some of Hagee's views) for the endorsement along with stating the obvious--that he doesn't necessarily share the same views. The endorsement was for him, not for Hagee.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    How did he handle the Gordon Liddy situation?
    I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt, he went to prison ... I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy.

    Source

    And again took responsibility.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  2.    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.

    Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not.

    Source
    McCain pursued John Hagee's endorsement and knew what he represented. Just as you don't believe Obama, I don't believe that McCain didn't know how controversial Hagee was. Yet, in the midst of his transparent attempts to make good with the religious right, he disregarded Hagee's history and pursued his endorsement anyway. This was not simply poor judgment - it was quite calculated....until it blew up in his face.

    Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.
    See above. He knew full well what Hagee represented. He decided to get all "mavericky" and go for the endorsement anyway. Then when it all blew up in his face, he acted as though he were surprised Hagee could say such things. You can pretend that poor McShame took responsibility if you'd like but the facts is he gambled...and lost.

    Hmm, sounds to me like he took full responsibility (although it is possible he was aware of some of Hagee's views) for the endorsement along with stating the obvious--that he doesn't necessarily share the same views. The endorsement was for him, not for Hagee.
    You're darn right (said in my best Palin voice) that he knew Hagee's views. Which means he did NOT take responsibility at all. He acted as though he were surprised to hear Hagee's views - and that is disingenuous. McShame should take responsibility for seeking Hagee's endorsement and then I'll accept the notion that he accepted "personal responsibility".

    I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt, he went to prison ... I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy.

    Source

    And again took responsibility.
    Isn't this from Letterman? I saw that Dave asked him about Liddy...glad someone in the media had the balls to ask him.

    That said, I don't know why his acknowledgment that Liddy is a convicted felon is in any way accepting responsibility. I can see that he unabashedly claims that he is not embarrassed of knowing Liddy, but I see nothing and have heard nothing about McShame condemning Liddy's actions in the past. I see nothing that tells me that McShame refutes the radical plans that Liddy held that he should kidnap and kill political enemies. I see nothing about McCain's friendship with Liddy - in fact he merely says he is not "embarrassed" to know Liddy.
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    McCain pursued John Hagee's endorsement and knew what he represented. Just as you don't believe Obama, I don't believe that McCain didn't know how controversial Hagee was. Yet, in the midst of his transparent attempts to make good with the religious right, he disregarded Hagee's history and pursued his endorsement anyway. This was not simply poor judgment - it was quite calculated....until it blew up in his face.
    That is one theory; however, one I don't find much validity with. I say that as if McCain really did know Hagee's views, then it stands to reason that he would be aware of how that would reflect once the endorsement was received. Your assessment simply doesn't make sense.

    McCain was capable of calculating a way to get the endorsement from Hagee--which means acquiring the evangelical voting block--but was unable to foresee the volatile nature of his decision? Come on.

    Now you might be tempted to suggest that he knew all three:
    • Hagee's views
    • Response from evangelicals after acquiring endorsement
    • Backlash over Hagee's comment
    At this point, it would then be an issue of McCain simply not caring about the backlash as a means to an end--getting the evangelical vote at any cost. Still, I disagree and here's why:
    1. He would have to account for backlash from those who he was seeking to get; thus, after rejecting Hagee's endorsement, some Christians would likely be lost.
    2. Evangelicals--not those who identify as Christian, but many of them as well--typically already vote Republican and as such, a risk like this would be unnecessary. That is, if we are talking about calculating and all.
    As I see it, there are two reasons to go ahead and accept the endorsement:
    1. You really don't know enough about Hagee to make such a decision.
    2. You do know, but underestimate the results.
    I see point number two as rather unlikely, simply because despite his inability to debate, I don't think he's made it this far without an elementary understanding of politics--not to mention the fact that he has campaign managers who are there for just this reason.

    Of course you are more than welcome to correct my assertions, but I see it as pretty damn solid.

    McShame should take responsibility for seeking Hagee's endorsement and then I'll accept the notion that he accepted "personal responsibility".
    Tell you what, you present a better analysis of politics than I just laid out and I'll seriously reconsider my perspective. Until then, I personally am not convinced that you have that good a grasp on politics or certain elements thereof.

    That said, I don't know why his acknowledgment that Liddy is a convicted felon is in any way accepting responsibility. I can see that he unabashedly claims that he is not embarrassed of knowing Liddy, but I see nothing and have heard nothing about McShame condemning Liddy's actions in the past. I see nothing that tells me that McShame refutes the radical plans that Liddy held that he should kidnap and kill political enemies. I see nothing about McCain's friendship with Liddy - in fact he merely says he is not "embarrassed" to know Liddy.
    That's right, and that means a lot whether you want to admit it or not. Face it, I never took issue with Obama merely knowing or associating with radical people--be they religious or formerly of a domestic terrorist organization. I took issue with him acting as if he barely knew the people when we have every reason to believe that he did know them (in the case of Ayers know of him more so than on a personal level).

    I didn't need either candidate to disassociate themselves from various people. I am holding the same standard for both McCain as I am Obama; you however, are not.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  4.    #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    That is one theory; however, one I don't find much validity with. I say that as if McCain really did know Hagee's views, then it stands to reason that he would be aware of how that would reflect once the endorsement was received. Your assessment simply doesn't make sense.

    McCain was capable of calculating a way to get the endorsement from Hagee--which means acquiring the evangelical voting block--but was unable to foresee the volatile nature of his decision? Come on.

    Now you might be tempted to suggest that he knew all three:
    • Hagee's views
    • Response from evangelicals after acquiring endorsement
    • Backlash over Hagee's comment
    At this point, it would then be an issue of McCain simply not caring about the backlash as a means to an end--getting the evangelical vote at any cost. Still, I disagree and here's why:
    1. He would have to account for backlash from those who he was seeking to get; thus, after rejecting Hagee's endorsement, some Christians would likely be lost.
    2. Evangelicals--not those who identify as Christian, but many of them as well--typically already vote Republican and as such, a risk like this would be unnecessary. That is, if we are talking about calculating and all.
    As I see it, there are two reasons to go ahead and accept the endorsement:
    1. You really don't know enough about Hagee to make such a decision.
    2. You do know, but underestimate the results.
    I see point number two as rather unlikely, simply because despite his inability to debate, I don't think he's made it this far without an elementary understanding of politics--not to mention the fact that he has campaign managers who are there for just this reason.
    Where were they when he picked Sarah Palin?

    Of course you are more than welcome to correct my assertions, but I see it as pretty damn solid.
    Correct them? Like a term paper? Or are we having a conversation and you're offering your opinion? Why are your assertions "solid"? Are they solid because you can back them or solid because you seem to think your opinions are of more value than mine?


    Tell you what, you present a better analysis of politics than I just laid out and I'll seriously reconsider my perspective. Until then, I personally am not convinced that you have that good a grasp on politics or certain elements thereof.
    Thank you for yet another insult. You've offered a feeble argument supported merely by your arrogant claims of having more political prowess. I think your assertions, claims, and superiority complex have all told me all that I need to know.

    That's right, and that means a lot whether you want to admit it or not. Face it, I never took issue with Obama merely knowing or associating with radical people--be they religious or formerly of a domestic terrorist organization. I took issue with him acting as if he barely knew the people when we have every reason to believe that he did know them (in the case of Ayers know of him more so than on a personal level).
    I don't think you have a firm handle on what Obama knew, when he knew it, and when he disclosed it. Your "issue" seems to be derived largely from right-wing fiction.
  5.    #105  
    Just watched Letterman shred McShame. It was embarrassing.

    But most noteworthy was McShame's answer to Dave's questions about Liddy:

    Dave - "...did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?".

    McShame -"...uh...I've met him...you know...I never uh".

    Dave stopped him cold before he could complete his LIE and asked, "...did you attend a fund raiser at his house?"

    McShame - "...at Gordon Liddy's?" while he acted as though his senility kicked in and he could not recall.

    Dave - "I object your honor!" laughing...."we'll be right back here with Senator McCain"

    music to cut to commercial and McShame suddenly starts to remember...

    McShame - "I know Gordon Liddy and his son..." over the music as they cut to commercial.

    commercial break.

    Dave - "how 'bout that Tina Fey?"

    McShame - "I know Gordon Liddy, he paid his debt, he went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in anyway embarrased to know Gordon Liddy...and his son, who is also a good friend and supporter of mine".

    *******************

    Soooo...as it turns out, context is very helpful in properly interpreting communication. My interpretation, and anyone with half a brain, is that McShame attempted to LIE about his relationship with Liddy and when Letterman nailed him McShame suddenly felt the need to admit there was more than a "I met the guy".

    Personal responsibility my a$$.
  6. #106  
    can't say much cause I'm tied up for awhile -- but depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible for a licensed craftsman to have a non-licensed underling work for him, under that licensed person's direct supervision.

    In most places I believe that the understudy could then later take the plumbing, electrician etc. qualification test -- to attain a legitimate license. (In effect, they are employed as an apprentice.)

    In any case, there are so many busted leaking pipes in Joe’s personal story, that if McShame had any brains he’d run as far as his old bones would carry him away from this guy ...
    Last edited by ronbo2000; 10/19/2008 at 09:27 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    You've offered a feeble argument supported merely by your arrogant claims of having more political prowess. I think your assertions, claims, and superiority complex have all told me all that I need to know.
    As I figured. Have a swell evening/morning.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  8. #108  
    Do you believe Letterman would do the same with Obama? Would Letterman seriously bring up Obama's association with those in Obama's past and current relationships?
  9.    #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    As I figured. Have a swell evening/morning.
    I'm grinning ear to ear doing just that while I watch your boy taking "personal responsibility" for his relationship with an unrepentant convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy. Your theories just went from mildly plausible to laughable - literally in a NY second. Thank you David Letterman!
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post

    Just watched Letterman shred McShame. It was embarrassing...
    I've just now DVRed back Letterman -- haven't seen him in years -- not much of a fan usually.

    But I actually left my Xbox live gaming to watch part of it with full attention (or at least as much full attention as I'm capable of...)

    You're so right -- Wow !! -- an amazing interrogation compared to the usual "journalistic" flackery that he's usually subjected to ...

    Letterman was relentless -- unstoppable in pushing "was she the most qualified, is she ready to be President now ??? what if I woke you in the middle of the night -- would you have any regrets ???? " (about Palin).

    Can't imagine that the Hanoi Hilton was much worse for him -- though personally I recommend checking out Paris Hilton.

    An entire HOUR of this -- I almost felt compassion and pity toward the guy.

    Watching that old hypocrite being flayed alive, I'm reminded that laugher, sarcasm, and and irony are like scalpels -- and far more lethal than an ax.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    can't say much cause I'm tied up for awhile -- but depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible for a licensed craftsman to have a non-licensed underling work for him, under that licensed person's direct supervision.

    In most places I believe that the understudy could then later take the plumbing, electrician etc. qualification test -- to attain a legitimate license. (In effect, they are employed as an apprentice.)

    In any case, there are so many busted leaking pipes in Joe’s personal story, that if McShame had any brains he’d run as far as his old bones would carry him away from this guy ...
    as far as Toledo Ohio is concerned, an apprentice plumber must be licensed:


    "...Wurzelbacher still would need to be a licensed apprentice or journeyman to work in Toledo, and he's not, said David Golis, manager and residential building official for the Toledo Division of Building Inspection.

    State and local records show Wurzelbacher has no license, although his employer does. Golis said there are no records of inspectors citing Wurzelbacher for unlicensed work in Toledo..."
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm grinning ear to ear doing just that while I watch your boy taking "personal responsibility" for his relationship with an unrepentant convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy. Your theories just went from mildly plausible to laughable - literally in a NY second. Thank you David Letterman!


    Gee, not really sure I would call McCain my, “boy.” Seems like he’s more a means to an end (as I’ve stated previously). That end? Keeping a socialist out of office (not that such end looks very promising).

    Considering you’ve offered nothing regarding my assertions, they started at quite plausible and to this day, remain there.


    I admit to having a certain amount of arrogance, narcissistic and obnoxious personality traits; however, those traits in no way support (or were used as support) for my assertions about McCain or Obama. Maybe instead of crying about how insulted you are, you might take the time to review and compare our arguments:

    I laid out a 292 word summary of why I find the Hagee-McCain relationship a non-issue. Additionally, I offered a number of citations for both the Hagee connection and the Liddy connection regarding McCain and owning up to these associations.

    You offered . . . David Letterman as your argument.



    Maybe, just maybe if you offered some sort of point—possibly delineated beyond, “Well, I watched David Letterman and that proves you’re wrong” as your argument, we might get somewhere.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13.    #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    I admit to having a certain amount of arrogance, narcissistic and obnoxious personality traits; however, those traits in no way support (or were used as support) for my assertions about McCain or Obama.


    No, they were used to insult me as a way of propping up your opinion. The operative word here being "opinion" - you've offered no facts that change my opinion. You seem to think that because its your opinion, it should be considered fact.

    Maybe instead of crying about how insulted you are, you might take the time to review and compare our arguments:

    I laid out a 292 word summary of why I find the Hagee-McCain relationship a non-issue.
    Mein Kampf was 720 pages long - I don't think it changed the fact that the book was fundamentally flawed.

    Additionally, I offered a number of citations for both the Hagee connection and the Liddy connection regarding McCain and owning up to these associations.

    You offered . . . David Letterman as your argument.


    Another distortion, nicely done. I offered John McCain LYING on David Letterman and getting caught doing so. McShame claims that Obama has said that Ayers was "just some guy in my neighborhood" and then proceed to go on national TV and claim that he, "...uh...I met him...uh" and be caught completely flat-footed when Letterman pointed out that he attended a fund raiser at Liddy's house.

    I also don't accept McShame's position that Liddy served his time. Liddy is as unrepentant, if not more, than Ayers. Liddy has recently - when compared to Ayers crimes - offered advice on how to kill an ATF agent, "...aim for the head". This is not a nice man. This is a terrorist, and McShame knows full well this behavior continues YET still went on his radio show and STILL claims him to be his friend.

    You can claim McShame is accepting responsibility - its your opinion and you're entitled to it. But my opinion is that McShame's relationship with the Liddys are so extensive that he had no choice but to fess up....sort of. He clearly demonstrated last night that he'd rather not do so until Dave caught him dead to rights trying to spin his way out of his relationship with Liddy.

    Maybe, just maybe if you offered some sort of point—possibly delineated beyond, “Well, I watched David Letterman and that proves you’re wrong” as your argument, we might get somewhere.
    Ahh...we're back to your comfort zone - trying to intimidate me with your "superior intellect".

    Now to make my point more clear for you since you insist I have none:

    John McCain is at least as bad, if not worse, than Obama in the way he has explained "associations" in his past and in the present. Obama has rejected Ayers past. McCain has not rejected Liddy's instructions on how to kill ATF agents or the fact that Liddy is unrepentent for his Watergate crimes.
  14.    #114  
  15. #115  
    Wow. Looks like "Joe the Plumber" got a Palin style vetting (none) by McCain:

    NEW YORK – John McCain hung his final presidential debate performance on an Ohio plumber who campaign aides never vetted.

    A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber’s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14652.html
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    The operative word here being "opinion" - you've offered no facts that change my opinion. You seem to think that because its your opinion, it should be considered fact.
    All you need to do, is offer an opposing perspective regarding Hagee and McCain—so far it appears you are unwilling to do so.

    Mein Kampf was 720 pages long - I don't think it changed the fact that the book was fundamentally flawed.
    The point wasn’t so much the length as it was to recount the effort I put into explaining my position—something you haven’t done. Contrary to your assertions, nothing in 292 words reflected any perception of exceptional intelligence on my part or the lack thereof on yours. Furthermore, I willing stated I would reconsider my views on Hagee should you present a better analysis, but you didn’t. Furthermore, the assumption that you lack wisdom concerning political matters had absolutely nothing to do with any intellectual superiority on my part. Note the quote from myself in bold:

    Tell you what, you present a better analysis of politics than I just laid out and I'll seriously reconsider my perspective. Until then, I personally am not convinced that you have that good a grasp on politics or certain elements thereof.

    Until when? Until you offer a better analysis—which not only have you not, you haven’t offered ANY. All you managed to do was whine about superiority complexes, term papers and insults. I gave you the opportunity and you wasted it; instead, choosing to quote my whole bit on Hagee and ask: “Well what about Palin?”

    What about her? You haven’t answered the challenge on Hagee yet.

    Another distortion, nicely done. I offered John McCain LYING on David Letterman and getting caught doing so.
    You offered nothing. Furthermore, previously when you cited the transcript and most recently with a link to the transcript, it conveniently leaves out the last bit regarding Liddy. Don’t worry though, I’ve no problem finishing the job:

    Letterman: But you understand that the same case could be made of your relationship with him as being made with William Ayers.

    McCain: Everything about any relationship that I’ve had I will make completely open and give a complete accounting of. Senator Obama said that he was a guy who lived in the neighborhood. OK, it was more than that.
    Source


    John McCain is at least as bad, if not worse, than Obama in the way he has explained "associations" in his past and in the present. Obama has rejected Ayers past. McCain has not rejected Liddy's instructions on how to kill ATF agents or the fact that Liddy is unrepentent for his Watergate crimes.
    And here is your big problem, why you simply aren’t getting it. I didn’t ask either one of them to explain their associations, or even reject their associations and their actions. As such, I don’t have to answer why one did or did not reject someone, or why one association remains unrepentant—it was never relevant to me in the first place.

    Besides, if he were a real threat due to his "associations" I'm sure we'd know about it and he would not be a Senator let alone running for President.

    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  17.    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Besides, if he were a real threat due to his "associations" I'm sure we'd know about it and he would not be a Senator let alone running for President.
    Well that will have to be the only thing we can agree on.

    The rest of it is just noise. And that my friend is the main point.
  18.    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Has it ever not been among top voter concerns?
    Well there are "presentation skills" that I think he is referring to like the ones that got Bush elected - you know the "I'd rather have him over for a BBQ" presentation skills. Bush sounds like a red neck and red necks love him for his unsophisticated speaking capabilities. Then there are the 49% of us in the US - and the rest of the world - that thinks that he sounds like a moron. read: his presentation skills are very poor.

    Then there are "presentation skills" of Obama's nature. The type that world leaders respect and that inspires people and gives them hope that the guy actually has a clue. The very ones that the right-wing claim aren't nearly as valuable as the backyard BBQ type apparently...because we've all seen how well that whole BBQ thing turned out.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Disgusting.
    Definitely. I think that's the point.
    And what is more frustrating is that there is no rationalizing with these whack jobs - they really think that god is on their side in using such slanderous character attacks, racism, and lies to achieve "gods will".
    No, what's more frustrating is that **** like this fills the internet every day and people believe it's real because it either fits into what they think is funny or what they think is outrageous. Not doubting that there are people in this world that think this, because there are (I'm sure the Wikipedia article documenting the existence of Bobby Lee May is already posted), but really now. Have we become that gullible and entrenched in our own worldviews that we will believe anything posted through the tubes?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #120  
    Yeah, I actually had deleted my post, because I realized that someone else had made the same point.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G

Posting Permissions