http://www.plime.com/plime-com/en-ushttp://www.plime.com/plime-com/http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/

comments (13)   related   share   edit history (0)

< 1 >

http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q14« DerAlt : That seems highly unlikely since there's a serious IQ issue.That's it? That's all you've got?

I mean, I appreciate you think that I have a high IQ... but I don't think that Democrats have any less of an IQ. That's kind of rude, on your part, to make such a generalization... although I appreciate you thinking so highly of me.

Although, it is hardly an answer to my question.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q13« ImNotBlue : And what makes me a Republican?

That I don't hate Bush?

That I don't hate McCain?

That's it?

I don't hate Clinton or Obama either... maybe I'm a Democrat too.That seems highly unlikely since there's a serious IQ issue.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q12« DerAlt : You don't seem to understand you're a Republican.

As a Republican you have superior knowledge, understanding, ethics, passion, compassion, wisdom and a seeming endless supply of personal confusion.

You've triumphantly posted the same McCain statement I referred to...duh.

These retorts really don't deserve any future replies, at least not by me.And what makes me a Republican?

That I don't hate Bush?

That I don't hate McCain?

That's it?

I don't hate Clinton or Obama either... maybe I'm a Democrat too.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q11« ImNotBlue : And when have I dismissed the "entire Democratic party?" I don't recall doing that... so I'm forced to think that perhaps you had a stroke, and imagined it.

Let me know, I can make some soup if that will help your recovery.

OR, perhaps he didn't know enough about the issue. Says McCain:

QUOTE:
"I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it."

So maybe he wanted to re-read the stuff before making a decision. Gee... that's a shame. It would have been much better if he just blurted out whatever came to his mind first.

Well, that's your opinion about McCain... and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

However, much of comments are obviously created backwards. You've already got your conclusion... it's just how you're going to spin the story to fit it. In this case, McCain MUST be trying to change his story to appease members of his party… because “He wanted to firm up his opinion” isn’t sexy, and doesn’t really work as a smear.

Part of the problem in doing this, is that you have to frequently change your story. Earlier you talked about how many Republicans don’t like McCain. Why wouldn’t they like McCain… well, it’s because he doesn’t always vote their way. So then you’ll claim he can’t “unite the party” or that “the party is in disarray.” Never mind that these two notions contradict you current thesis (if he doesn’t vote the way the Republicans want him to, and already don’t like him, why is he worried about supporting this?), but it all works as “negatives” against McCain. I get it… we all get it.

Well, since this piece is over a year old, perhaps there’s an answer out there somewhere. Do a little research, and let me know.

Do note that “intelligent stance” is your opinion. Sometimes we have trouble with “opinion versus fact.” But do continue…

You see, I try to be pretty calm and civil here, mostly because this site isn’t a real hardcore political debate site.

But I run into problems when you insist on LYING, and thusly positioning yourself as partisan hack, with no ethics, credibility, or enough moral fiber to keep our debate opinionated, but truthful… especially because we’ve talked about this a number of times.

Once again, I will provide the actual quote, and perhaps this time you will be shamed into honesty:

QUOTE:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

What makes this particularly frustrating, is that both Democratic contenders have said essentially the same thing… they want to move troops to other areas, to keep an eye on the Middle East. Much like we’ve done in every other country (Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.) we will have a presence there even after combat has ceased.

Now, if you insist on being dishonest, and smearing someone (don’t really care who) with a provable and definite lie, I will be forced to stop dealing with. It’s an ethical standard that I hope you can begin to rise to. Differing opinions are great, and I enjoy debating someone who feels passionately, but someone who is willing to lie right to my face, and hope they can slip a cheap shot by me, does not deserve my time.You don't seem to understand you're a Republican.

As a Republican you have superior knowledge, understanding, ethics, passion, compassion, wisdom and a seeming endless supply of personal confusion.

You've triumphantly posted the same McCain statement I referred to...duh.

These retorts really don't deserve any future replies, at least not by me.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q10« DerAlt : Surely you jest.

And Rush is not a conservative. Heh, this from the guy that seems to believe Bush is not responsible for anything during his administration. A realist, Gah.

Your dismissal of the entire Democratic party as nothing but extreme leftists is so typical of people with no real issue. It's just as valid as saying thet the Republicans have been totally taken over by the NeoCons. Just silly.And when have I dismissed the "entire Democratic party?" I don't recall doing that... so I'm forced to think that perhaps you had a stroke, and imagined it.

Let me know, I can make some soup if that will help your recovery.

Actually I had a good deal of respect for McCain some years back before he flip flopped on many issues. I then thought I might vote for him if he ever ran. The condom story is a year old but it's a good illustration of McCains dilemma. Got to please all the financial sources and it's not easy for him. How can any intelligent person be stumped by a question with such an obvious answer. There's no time limit on honesty....straight talk eh?

OR, perhaps he didn't know enough about the issue. Says McCain:

QUOTE:
"I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it."

So maybe he wanted to re-read the stuff before making a decision. Gee... that's a shame. It would have been much better if he just blurted out whatever came to his mind first.

Using your logic, I am not attacking McCain, I'm being realistic. He's changed his mind on issues that are important to me. Worse, he changed his stance not from conviction but to satisfy the more extreme/fundamentalist group in his party.

Well, that's your opinion about McCain... and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

However, much of comments are obviously created backwards. You've already got your conclusion... it's just how you're going to spin the story to fit it. In this case, McCain MUST be trying to change his story to appease members of his party… because “He wanted to firm up his opinion” isn’t sexy, and doesn’t really work as a smear.

Part of the problem in doing this, is that you have to frequently change your story. Earlier you talked about how many Republicans don’t like McCain. Why wouldn’t they like McCain… well, it’s because he doesn’t always vote their way. So then you’ll claim he can’t “unite the party” or that “the party is in disarray.” Never mind that these two notions contradict you current thesis (if he doesn’t vote the way the Republicans want him to, and already don’t like him, why is he worried about supporting this?), but it all works as “negatives” against McCain. I get it… we all get it.

What does he really believe? A flip-flopper does not make good presidential material or so that was the complaint against Kerry.

Well, since this piece is over a year old, perhaps there’s an answer out there somewhere. Do a little research, and let me know.

Even more important, the Democratic candidates both take the most intelligent stance on one of the very few issues that an elected president can actually do...get the hell out of Iraq.

Do note that “intelligent stance” is your opinion. Sometimes we have trouble with “opinion versus fact.” But do continue…

McCain is still spouting the Bush line of staying until the "job" is done. I'll assume, since I never get an answer, that no one actually knows what the "job" is but we'll stay there "100 years" if necessary. That's another quality one doesn't need in our next president, a continuation of stupidity and an unawareness of our historical mistakes.

You see, I try to be pretty calm and civil here, mostly because this site isn’t a real hardcore political debate site.

But I run into problems when you insist on LYING, and thusly positioning yourself as partisan hack, with no ethics, credibility, or enough moral fiber to keep our debate opinionated, but truthful… especially because we’ve talked about this a number of times.

Once again, I will provide the actual quote, and perhaps this time you will be shamed into honesty:

QUOTE:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

What makes this particularly frustrating, is that both Democratic contenders have said essentially the same thing… they want to move troops to other areas, to keep an eye on the Middle East. Much like we’ve done in every other country (Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.) we will have a presence there even after combat has ceased.

Now, if you insist on being dishonest, and smearing someone (don’t really care who) with a provable and definite lie, I will be forced to stop dealing with. It’s an ethical standard that I hope you can begin to rise to. Differing opinions are great, and I enjoy debating someone who feels passionately, but someone who is willing to lie right to my face, and hope they can slip a cheap shot by me, does not deserve my time.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q9« [b]ImNotBlue
Ugh... not talking from a "Republican" perspective... just a realist. Don't know where, or why, you came up with that... but whatever.Surely you jest.

And Rush is not a conservative. Heh, this from the guy that seems to believe Bush is not responsible for anything during his administration. A realist, Gah.

Your dismissal of the entire Democratic party as nothing but extreme leftists is so typical of people with no real issue. It's just as valid as saying thet the Republicans have been totally taken over by the NeoCons. Just silly.

You too. Do you have to attempt to attack McCain at every opportunity? Can't we take a break now and then?

Actually I had a good deal of respect for McCain some years back before he flip flopped on many issues. I then thought I might vote for him if he ever ran. The condom story is a year old but it's a good illustration of McCains dilemma. Got to please all the financial sources and it's not easy for him. How can any intelligent person be stumped by a question with such an obvious answer. There's no time limit on honesty....straight talk eh?

Using your logic, I am not attacking McCain, I'm being realistic. He's changed his mind on issues that are important to me. Worse, he changed his stance not from conviction but to satisfy the more extreme/fundamentalist group in his party.
What does he really believe? A flip-flopper does not make good presidential material or so that was the complaint against Kerry.

Even more important, the Democratic candidates both take the most intelligent stance on one of the very few issues that an elected president can actually do...get the hell out of Iraq.

McCain is still spouting the Bush line of staying until the "job" is done. I'll assume, since I never get an answer, that no one actually knows what the "job" is but we'll stay there "100 years" if necessary. That's another quality one doesn't need in our next president, a continuation of stupidity and an unawareness of our historical mistakes.

Hey, I don't have anything against you personally, we don't have to agree and we most likely never will. Now that's realistic. ;)]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q8« DerAlt : Lieberman is a joke to the Democrats that voted him into office. He doesn't have to be careful of what he says, he just changed parties. Which many Republicans wish McCain would do.Well, he wasn't a joke in 2000 when he was running for VP. And he wasn't a joke after that. He only became a "joke" when his views didn't 100% match the liberal left. Mind you, he's still very liberal on many of his positions... he just didn't agree with the "pull out right now" crowd. But because he failed to carry the pre-approved line, he was dumped.

However, the people in Conn. still voted for him, even after changing parties, and he's once again back in the Senate, and Ned Lamont is... well, on a milk carton hoping someone finds him. So who's joking whom?

I don't know the Kos from a hole in the wall. I just googled McCain, Condoms and came up with 243,000 choices.

You don't know the Kos? I like Plime too... but you gotta explore the rest of the internet too. Not knowing the Kos, is like not knowing MoveOn. How can you even say that?

How about the same story from the Washington Post?

Not good enough for you well google it and pick your own.

Much better. At least that source has some credibility.

You're slipping, I would have thought you'd have checked the story before complaining about the source.

Well, I did check it out... at least I read the Kos stuff. But as I said, I don't trust the Kos for much... I've seen them lie too many times. And I'm not going to search around for articles to support your thesis... your job to do the research, not mine.

However, I must admit I had read it a little more thoroughly... because then I would have noticed that this story is from March 16, 2007. Which makes me wonder why you've brought it up now... over a year later. At this time, it seems irrelevant.

Of course that would happen. Does that surprise you?

No, I expect it... that's what I think I suggested. But when you're talking about a candidate walking a tightrope, the Democratic candidate has a make-or-break issue in front of them. If they faultier from the "home now" line, they'll be dumped, no matter what else they say. Liebermann is evidence of that.

Support for the candidates result from what their stated programs will be. Nothing mysterious about that. It should also be obvious, since quite a few Republicans do not like McCain, he's got to be careful about who he pisses off...much more so than either of the Democrats. Getting out of Iraq "right now" has never meant more than "as soon as possible" with an Obama target date of within a year.[quote]

And mark my words, if "within a year" becomes "over a year," the love affair will be over.

[quote]The Rush and Coulter groups both hate McCain how many of their followers will be in lock step as in the past? You don't think that's a McCain concern?

Certainly a concern... but less than you'd think. Rush and Coulter will unite over the idea that whomever they're running against is worse... similar to the "anybody but Bush" campaigns of '04. And they may not like everything that McCain does... but many Republican's don't like everything Bush had done either. That's the name of the game, nothing new really.

While the Democrats may not be totally happy with their two choices, they're not totally unhappy that they both have become celebrities.[quote]

Yes, you're probably right about that.

[quote]You're speaking from a Republican point of view and you're complaining about smear groups? Any day now and we'll hear from the Swift Boaters again.

Ugh... not talking from a "Republican" perspective... just a realist. Don't know where, or why, you came up with that... but whatever.

Come on, you can do better than this. ;)

You too. Do you have to attempt to attack McCain at every opportunity? Can't we take a break now and then?]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q7« ImNotBlue:You... really? I would have never guess that! ;)No one can say you're not astute.

Like Joe Liebermann.

Lieberman is a joke to the Democrats that voted him into office. He doesn't have to be careful of what he says, he just changed parties. Which many Republicans wish McCain would do.

Come on... you're gonna quote the Kos? I wouldn't trust the Kos to tell me the weather outside! They are a staunch advocacy and smear group. You can't take their version of the truth, without considerable confirmation from other legitimate sources.

I don't know the Kos from a hole in the wall. I just googled McCain, Condoms and came up with 243,000 choices. How about the same story from the Washington Post?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/campaign-trail/2007/03/mccain_is_stumped_on_the_stump.html

Not good enough for you well google it and pick your own.

You're slipping, I would have thought you'd have checked the story before complaining about the source.

As for a narrower path... come on. You see what happens if the Democratic nominee says something about staying in Iraq, or not leaving right now... you'll see how long they stay in favor.

Of course that would happen. Does that surprise you?

Support for the candidates result from what their stated programs will be. Nothing mysterious about that. It should also be obvious, since quite a few Repulicans do not like McCain, he's got to be careful about who he pisses off...much more so than either of the Democrats. Getting out of Iraq "right now" has never meant more than "as soon as possible" with an Obama target date of within a year.

The Rush and Coulter groups both hate McCain how many of their followers will be in lock step as in the past? You don't think that's a McCain concern?


While the Democrats may not be totally happy with their two choices, they're not totally unhappy that they both have become celebrities.

You're speaking from a Republican point of view and you're complaining about smear groups? Any day now and we'll hear from the Swift Boaters again.

Come on, you can do better than this. ;)]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q6« DerAlt : I can't imagine this could work well for Mr McCain.You... really? I would have never guess that! ;)

He really needs to choose his topics carefully to keep all the factions happy controlled.

Like Joe Liebermann.

In a recent interview a reporter asked him if the US should include supplying condoms in their fight against African AIDS.

He was in a bad place and eventually had to say "I'm stumped," to get off the subject.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/29/144017/386/356/486789

Heh, they've all got their bad places but John definitely has a narrower path to tread.

Come on... you're gonna quote the Kos? I wouldn't trust the Kos to tell me the weather outside! They are a staunch advocacy and smear group. You can't take their version of the truth, without considerable confirmation from other legitimate sources.

As for a narrower path... come on. You see what happens if the Democratic nominee says something about staying in Iraq, or not leaving right now... you'll see how long they stay in favor.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q5happy controlled.

In a recent interview a reporter asked him if the US should include supplying condoms in their fight against African AIDS.

He was in a bad place and eventually had to say "I'm stumped," to get off the subject.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/29/144017/386/356/486789

Heh, they've all got their bad places but John definitly has a narrower path to tread.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q4Positives... you get to compare and contrast both candidacies at every public gathering.

Negatives... potential collusion between the two candidates to limit any damage to their image - the result being a bunch of "milk toast" public engagements with little or no substance.

I don't see it happening but it would be an interesting format to try out.]]>http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q3http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/61361/1/rss0_91.rss#q2