All About McCain - Page 3

innerSpaceman · 08-06-2008, 12:06 PM

Granted, McCain isn't in the news as much. And yes, of course, there was an existing Obama thread. That's precisely why I opened this McCain thread ... and because he's not in the news as much, I won't fault you for not posting as much bile about McCain.

I'm not sure I'd pick lettuce for $50/hour. Well, maybe for a few months.

Alex · 08-06-2008, 12:17 PM

Well, I certainly wouldn't pick lettuce for $50/hour but I'm sure many Americans would.

I don't actually strongly dislike McCain politically. A significant part of my personal dislike of him has to do with a fear of hearing for 4 or 8 years "my friends" 23 times a day and in every single skit comedy show (which, by the way, is another advantage of Obama; he'll open new employment opportunities for black sketch comedians who have skills beyond rap impersonation).

But my huge disagreements with McCain tend to be in those places where he has been most partisan. I am, for example, stoutly against McCain-Feingold (as I am against any limitation on political contributions by individual humans to any campaign or cause they wish).

And while I won't vote for him, if somehow he gets elected anyway, I won't be super upset by it. At least not with what I currently know of him.

But since I don't like him personally (and have alternative that I do like personally if not so much politically) and do consider his age to be a concern, I'm not going to vote for him.

innerSpaceman · 08-06-2008, 02:46 PM

No, that was scaeagles' reason. Invading and occupying every country that violates a cease-fire. Please ask scaeagles where his country, scaeaglesistan, is going to get the money for that kind of thing.

innerSpaceman · 08-06-2008, 04:27 PM

I really haven't kept up on it. How did they violate the cease fire daily when we monitored the north and south no-fly zones on a constant basis?

Was it the food-for-oil program scandal? And, if so, wouldn't it have been better to go after our purported allies or bigger fish who aided and abetted?

Ghoulish Delight · 08-06-2008, 04:35 PM

Sorry, if you're going to play legal technicality as justification, you still lose. The cease fire they were accused of violating was an agreement with the UN. The terms of that cease fire certainly gave the UN the option of acting on the violation. However, the very body that signed the cease fire and made the rules did not decide that those violations warranted action. Any action by the US due to that cease fire remains illegal.

If someone is convicted of murder with special circumstances in a state with the death penalty, but the jury recommends against the death penalty and the judge agrees, that does not give a police officer the right to kill the defendant on the grounds that he has been convicted of something that might carry the penalty of death. If the decision was no death penalty, then no death penalty.

scaeagles · 08-06-2008, 04:40 PM

Not going to go through the same arguments that we've been through 100 times. Not going to change you, not going to change me. ISM, just answer your questions, they fired on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone regularly and were also guilty of using helicopters ain the no fly zone against groups of Kurds.

(And actually, GD, the cease fire was declared by GHWBush after Iraq agreed to the 12 conditions from the UN. The UN made the conditions, the US declared the cease fire. The UN did not declare the cease fire, they only brokered it. Sorry....had to do it even though I said I wasn't going to).

JWBear · 08-06-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Not going to go through the same arguments that we've been through 100 times. Not going to change you, not going to change me. ISM, just answer your questions, they fired on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone regularly and were also guilty of using helicopters ain the no fly zone against groups of Kurds.

(And actually, GD, the cease fire was declared by GHWBush after Iraq agreed to the 12 conditions from the UN. The UN made the conditions, the US declared the cease fire. The UN did not declare the cease fire, they only brokered it. Sorry....had to do it even though I said I wasn't going to).

Sooo.... What you are saying is that all the previous reasons the Bush Administration used to justify the invasion were false? If violating the cease fire was the real justification, why didn't they say so from the beginning? Why did they lie to us about WMD, 9/11, et al?

scaeagles · 08-06-2008, 09:33 PM

I'm saying the intelligence was wrong, which I have said before. I do not believe it was intentionally falsified, so I don't subscribe to the lied aspect.

I aso didn't claim the violation of the cease fire was the real justification. I'm saying that this fact made it not illegal to invade.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-06-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I aso didn't claim the violation of the cease fire was the real justification. I'm saying that this fact made it not illegal to invade.

And your response to the fact that it WAS illegal to invade because the body that made the rules under which your purporting the US had legal authority specifically did not grant that authority? See the death-penalty analogy.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-07-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And your response to the fact that it WAS illegal to invade because the body that made the rules under which your purporting the US had legal authority specifically did not grant that authority? See the death-penalty analogy.

*tap tap tap* I this thing on?

08-06-2008, 12:06 PM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Granted, McCain isn't in the news as much. And yes, of course, there was an existing Obama thread. That's precisely why I opened this McCain thread ... and because he's not in the news as much, I won't fault you for not posting as much bile about McCain. I'm not sure I'd pick lettuce for $50/hour. Well, maybe for a few months.
	Submit to Quotes

08-06-2008, 12:17 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, I certainly wouldn't pick lettuce for $50/hour but I'm sure many Americans would. I don't actually strongly dislike McCain politically. A significant part of my personal dislike of him has to do with a fear of hearing for 4 or 8 years "my friends" 23 times a day and in every single skit comedy show (which, by the way, is another advantage of Obama; he'll open new employment opportunities for black sketch comedians who have skills beyond rap impersonation). But my huge disagreements with McCain tend to be in those places where he has been most partisan. I am, for example, stoutly against McCain-Feingold (as I am against any limitation on political contributions by individual humans to any campaign or cause they wish). And while I won't vote for him, if somehow he gets elected anyway, I won't be super upset by it. At least not with what I currently know of him. But since I don't like him personally (and have alternative that I do like personally if not so much politically) and do consider his age to be a concern, I'm not going to vote for him.
	Submit to Quotes

08-06-2008, 02:46 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	No, that was scaeagles' reason. Invading and occupying every country that violates a cease-fire. Please ask scaeagles where his country, scaeaglesistan, is going to get the money for that kind of thing.
	Submit to Quotes

08-06-2008, 04:27 PM	#4
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I really haven't kept up on it. How did they violate the cease fire daily when we monitored the north and south no-fly zones on a constant basis? Was it the food-for-oil program scandal? And, if so, wouldn't it have been better to go after our purported allies or bigger fish who aided and abetted?
	Submit to Quotes

08-06-2008, 04:35 PM	#5
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Sorry, if you're going to play legal technicality as justification, you still lose. The cease fire they were accused of violating was an agreement with the UN. The terms of that cease fire certainly gave the UN the option of acting on the violation. However, the very body that signed the cease fire and made the rules did not decide that those violations warranted action. Any action by the US due to that cease fire remains illegal. If someone is convicted of murder with special circumstances in a state with the death penalty, but the jury recommends against the death penalty and the judge agrees, that does not give a police officer the right to kill the defendant on the grounds that he has been convicted of something that might carry the penalty of death. If the decision was no death penalty, then no death penalty. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

08-06-2008, 04:40 PM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Not going to go through the same arguments that we've been through 100 times. Not going to change you, not going to change me. ISM, just answer your questions, they fired on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone regularly and were also guilty of using helicopters ain the no fly zone against groups of Kurds. (And actually, GD, the cease fire was declared by GHWBush after Iraq agreed to the 12 conditions from the UN. The UN made the conditions, the US declared the cease fire. The UN did not declare the cease fire, they only brokered it. Sorry....had to do it even though I said I wasn't going to). Last edited by scaeagles : 08-06-2008 at 04:46 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

08-06-2008, 09:33 PM	#8
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I'm saying the intelligence was wrong, which I have said before. I do not believe it was intentionally falsified, so I don't subscribe to the lied aspect. I aso didn't claim the violation of the cease fire was the real justification. I'm saying that this fact made it not illegal to invade.
	Submit to Quotes