The original infactuation with this guy was he was supposed to be a "change" and "different" from the other politicians.  He wasn't corrupted nor compromised and he spoke his true heart, etc...etc..

Do you still buy it?  Even if you still believe he will be the greatest PUSA ever and make everything wonderful, do you still believe he is anything other than just another politician?

Never underestimate the "Hope" factor. B.O.'s voters have driven over the cliff, are in mid air and still steering. That's hope in action.

At least Obama's reversals have been mostly on secondary, ancillary issues. The ONLY unwavering stand McCain can boast of is that he'll say anything and pander to anyone to get elected.

Other than the offshore drilling, what else? The tax cuts? What else?

Regarding the offshore drilling, look at this way. I won't brew my own beer, if I can buy good beer at what I consider a reasonable price. It takes too much time, and I value my time more than the money it costs me to buy beer. If beer goes up to a certain point, I'll brew it. (I won't quit drinking beer.)So McCain says offshore drilling isn't good when gas is at $2 a gallon, at $4 it is. That is a rational response.

On the Bush tax cuts, McC admitted he was wrong. The economy has had 7 yrs of growth, so maybe the tax cuts were a good idea?

Now being rational and admitting a mistake are two tough concepts for the Dims, I know. But try get your mind around it.

I will not waste my time in debate with a person or group that uses argument ad hominem, epithets, or outright slander as a principal tool of debate.

 Initially your response was rational and insightful. However; in your last line you chose to label your adversarial party "Dims".

 I do not vote along party lines because BOTH party platforms have some glaring faults and hypocrisies that serve only to weaken the democracy and ideals given to us by our founding forefathers.

 I am obligated to a day trip starting within the hour. I will address your question(s) either later tonight or tomorrow morning.

 Thank you for your understanding and patience.

   RRO

"he'll say ANYTHING and PANDER to anyone to get elected."

Is that what you mean by slander, Mr.Selfrighteous?

Or is only when someone else does it?

If I were to engage in name calling the first name that would come to mind is, "fucking hypocrite."

Because the FACTS have CHANGED.

Oil doubles/triples in price. Hmm, drilling in “forbidden” areas is now a better idea

The majority of the people let him know in no uncertain terms that comprehensive immigration reform was not acceptable. So a politician agrees to carry out the will of the people. Go figure.

McCain was against Bush’s original tax cuts. Now he says he’ll keep them. Gosh, do you think the economy is in a different state now?  What makes sense to you? One Federal fiscal policy for all eternity.

I think everyone already knows who McCain is and what he stands for.  Try making any statement even close to that about Obama. Actually, based on his voting record we DO know who he is, but that record won’t ever be discussed by the MSM.

So, you want someone who refuses to change their strategies and tactics as the facts on the ground change. HMMM, SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT BUSH.

The question “I’d” like to ask McCain is whether or not he’d vote for McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform again.


-- Modified on 6/28/2008 11:54:36 AM

You're awfully rude, considering R's response was not. You have insulted him, but failed to point out that the GOP called Kerry, Gore, and Clinton (Pres.) a panderer for years, but you didn't care about that slander (and instead contributed more slander here). What are you so angry about? Your posts seem like you are screaming.

First of all, it is the Republican Party that makes a big deal about flip-floppers, not the Dems (well, before this year). Second, it is the GOPsters who insist that they KNOW what is right and what is wrong, so there should not be any flip flopping.

McCain's flip-flops seem particularly well timed for an election year. But notice that everyone knew oil was running out, even when it was $2/gal (all the insiders knew, especially the GOP insiders who invested gobs of money with my oil trader friend even while they went on Fox News and said oil is high because it's in a bubble). And, since the right-wing insists that oil is just in a bubble (while they insisted that real estate was fundamentally higher priced), why has McCain flip-flopped.

Saying the economy had 7 years of growth is pure fallacy. The Bush Boom has been the single worst recovery we have ever had. The rich have gotten all of the growth, and paid lower taxes for it, while the tax burden (the percentage of total taxes paid) on the poor and middle has risen.

You did not address McCain's flip-flops on seeking the endorsement of Jerry Falwell and other "agents of intolerance". Did they become more tolerant? (Answer: no).

falwell

welcome to the reject bin of TER.

We are all rude to each other here, it's no big deal once you get used to it. Just don't go running around like RUaBaby2 and crying about things, okay?

Have fun and again, welcome.

BK

-- Modified on 6/28/2008 2:51:20 PM

So are you saying there have been other half blacks nominated by a major party?  I am not aware of any.  That's pretty different and a change.  I don't know what more you can expect outta politics.  Otherwise it would not be politics.

but some of your points are rather silly.

Are we electing a principled politician, or someone who goes by polls? Isn't that what Clinton was vilified for? If facts have changed, then fine, adjust to them. But setting policy on the basis of polling is ridiculous. Then we might as well go to popular referenda as in Switzerland. As a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, I want to know before I vote what I am voting for. If someone reverses themselves because of polling numbers, what makes you think anything said now won't be reversed when the fickle popular mood changes? Movies get edited on the basis of audience approval; national policy should not work that way.

McCain was right initially to be against the Bush tax plan. Bush initially proposed this during the campaign when there was a large federal surplus. Before anything got passed, the surplus went poof, and the economy slowed, and still he argued that the exact same tax plan was the right one for the new economic conditions. It should have been clear he just wanted to implement a cut, and could rationalize it regardless of the economic conditions. If you look at the economic indicators today, they are not that different from 2001 when McCain objected to the plan. The reasons why the economy is where it is are different from then, but the overall conditions are quite similar.

It would be nice if he would reject McCain-Feingold if asked about it: not because anything has changed but because maybe he finally learned that that too was a bad idea. Given that his name is on it, there is no way that is gonna happen.

He accused me of slander, when my post was quite reasonable. He couldn't back up his post, which was why he resorted to the charge that I engaged in ad hominem attacks, and so on.  

Here's my theory, and it applies to him and you: It always sounds like shouting to a liberal when you confront one with facts and challenge their lightweight BS. A liberal often will accuse you of any number of things, mean spiritedness, racism, sexism, etc, when you challenge one to come up with something demonstrably true rather than just empty and hysterical rhetoric.

I'm not shouting when I use caps. I'm emphasizing and don't know how to use the italics on this board. I capped the two words to show him exactly which of his words were slanderous. Capisce?

I think it is possible that McCain thought the tax cuts were a bad idea after 9/11, when it was clear the defense budget had to increase. But after 7 yrs of economic growth, why shouldn't he say, OK, I was wrong.

I'm with you on polling. Take a stand, damn it, but isn't it ironic that Bush gets his ass kicked for sticking with the war in Iraq despite all the polls? And yet in the media and on the left all you hear is outrage that the polls show people are unhappy with the war and Bush is stubborn about it. In ten years, people will be saying Bush was right and they'll be glad he stuck with his principles, as they now say about Reagan and the Evil Empire.

The mainstream media was not blasting Clinton for going with the polls -- that was the Right who objected. So ripping on Bush for not following the polls is still consistent for the Left. Dumb, but consistent.

But since the Right blasted Clinton for that, it was hypocritical of RWU to defend McCain for the same thing.

I forgot that the "Bush Bomm", such as it was, was based on a real estate bubble. The spending on construction and the money people extracted from their homes by refinancing propped up the economy mightily. And even with all that, this "7 years of growth" you point to is all that we got?

The average person is making less, adjusted for inflation, now than they did when Bush was in office. This was not a growth economy except for the filthy rich or Republican partisans.

Don't see any facts in your post, just vitriol:

>Never underestimate the "Hope" factor. B.O.'s
>voters have driven over the cliff, are in mid
>air and still steering. That's hope in action.

No facts here, just an accusation that BO's voters have gone off the deep end. You sound angry that they are supporting him - as if they don't have the right to support who they want.

>Other than the offshore drilling, what else? The
>tax cuts? What else?
>
>Regarding the offshore drilling, look at this
>way. I won't brew my own beer, if I can buy good
>beer at what I consider a reasonable price. It
>takes too much time, and I value my time more
>than the money it costs me to buy beer. If beer
>goes up to a certain point, I'll brew it. (I
>won't quit drinking beer.)So McCain says
>offshore drilling isn't good when gas is at $2 a
>gallon, at $4 it is. That is a rational response.

This is opinion, not fact. And the only non-angry thing in all of your posts.

This also may have been what they call a straw man argument (I'm no expert on argument styles) as there are a number of things McCain has flip-flopped on which you didn't point out (for instance, his coddling "agents of intolerance").

>On the Bush tax cuts, McC admitted he was wrong.
>The economy has had 7 yrs of growth, so maybe
>the tax cuts were a good idea?
>
7 years of very sub-par growth, which benefitted only the richest (the average family today is worse off when adjusting for inflation than they were when Bush took office). This 7 years of growth were the worst economic recovery in the history of capitalism.

>Now being rational and admitting a mistake are
>two tough concepts for the Dims, I know. But try
>get your mind around it.

No facts here, just an accusation, another ad hominem, and insult.

>"he'll say ANYTHING and PANDER to anyone to get
>elected."
>
>Is that what you mean by slander,
>Mr.Selfrighteous?
>
>Or is only when someone else does it?
>
>If I were to engage in name calling the first
>name that would come to mind is, "fucking
>hypocrite."

Still, no facts. an accusation of pander, and two (or three) ad hominem insults.

You sound angery because all you do is hurl insults. Come up with facts (e.g., how are most families doing today compared to Bush's inaugural), I'd love to hear them. I'm not a Dem (nor Republican). I like to hear the facts from both sides. But you have to admit that since the Clinton Hating Mania of the 90s, the GOP has gone off the anger deep end. Their only arguments are Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly type shouting (I call it verbal bullying) and inflamatory comments which cannot be easily responded to, hypocrisy (inanother post I told you about the oil trades some very big GOP players are making), and even half-truths bordering on lies.

And that's just what you sound like, an angry white boy. Not sure why your angry. The GOP poster boy had his chance for 8 years and screwed up royally. Worst president every (now you'll get angrier). Don't be mad at Obama, look at who you voted for.

No doubt some of McCain's recent shift to the right is for expediency, but not the major moves.
Sometimes politicians get it wrong and sometimes the majority of the people get it right.

Clinton stuck his wetted finger in the air every morning.

I do agree with you that the left expects and wants their guys to follow the polls rather than do what is right.

ridiculous, but interesting

you defended him changing his mind on immigration - not because he felt he was wrong in his original reasoning and "learned" somehow that immigration reform was problematic, but just that a bunch of polls claim voters oppose it and so he flipped. Its the reason why he changed that is the problem, not that or how he changed. And given how the Right constantly dumped on Clinton for exactly that, its hypocritical to now defend McCain for the same action.

Same on tax cuts. Economic indicators are similar today as in 2001 when he opposed the tax change. So unless it really is a case of for some reason he "learned" something new in the interim, its more likely a case of pandering to a new set of voters. Its hard to claim such cuts are good in today's economy if they weren't in a similar economy in 2001. Harry's defense that McCain was worried about defense getting gutted post 9/11 is also silly. If McCain thought Bush would try to do that, then on that basis of that believe alone he hasn't the intelligence to run for POTUS.

And the like on McCain-Feingold. The hope would be that he has learned that such a bill is actually harmful and based on THAT, he would say it was a bad idea. Not because a lot of ignorant poll respondents might say so today.

Strawman argument is when you try to explain a criticism of your own position in the weakest way possible so that it can easily be dismissed. Harry didn't do this, at least not in what you copy and pasted from him, but you did.

So from your copy and paste of Harry, those are not strawman arguments. And while they are opinions (rants?) rather than facts, you seem to be engaging in the same sort of hyberbole yourself.

"Come up with facts (e.g., how are most families doing today compared to Bush's inaugural), I'd love to hear them. I'm not a Dem (nor Republican). I like to hear the facts from both sides. But you have to admit that since the Clinton Hating Mania of the 90s, the GOP has gone off the anger deep end. Their only arguments are Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly type shouting (I call it verbal bullying) and inflamatory comments which cannot be easily responded to, hypocrisy (inanother post I told you about the oil trades some very big GOP players are making), and even half-truths bordering on lies."

Here you are not using any facts, but rather your own opinion/rant and also setting up a strawman yourself by saying the only arguments by GOP are shouting, inflammatory, and almost lying, so they can just be dismissed out of hand.

Welcome to arguing on the P&R board!

You never even mentioned immigration in your first response. Now you bring it up?

each paragraph in my first post was a response to each thing you brought up, in order. So while I did not mention immigration by name in the first paragraph, that's because the issue at hand there was irrelevant. Your defense of his change on immigration was entirely because of poll results telling him to change his view. Somehow that was okay to do when it was horrible that Clinton would do that (and on issues other than immigration). My reply was about that in general; it mattered not whether the issue was immigration, capital punishment, or farm subsidies.

Either its acceptable to base policy on what poll respondents want, or its not. It shouldn't be acceptable when one party does it but not the other. Personally, I think its stupid for either party to do it.

in Chief.  Here's what W said during the debates in 2000:

“I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s gotta be.  One way for us to be viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying ‘we do it this way, so should you.’

I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building.

If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. Of we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us.  Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power and that’s why the United States needs to be humble.

The force needs to be strong enough for the mission to be accomplished and the exit strategy needs to be well defined.



And these were some of W's greatest hits from his first term:


Weapons of Mass Destruction

Announcing the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Mr. Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Mr. Bush told Polish television. “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: “I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.”


Nation Building and the War in Iraq

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."


Iraq and the Sept. 11 Attacks

In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, “you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”

In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that “there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were “equally bad.”

The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.


The Sept. 11 Commission

President Bush initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. In May 2002, he said, “Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee.”

Bowing to pressure from victims' families, Mr. Bush reversed his position. The following September, he backed an independent investigation.


Free Trade

During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.

Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.


Homeland Security Department

President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.

Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.


Same-Sex Marriage

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.

Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.

Citing recent decisions by “activist judges” in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.


Winning the War on Terror

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush said of the war on terror in August. In an interview on NBC's "Today" show, he said, “I think you can create conditions so that . . . those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Before the month closed, Mr. Bush reversed himself at the American Legion national convention in Nashville. He said: "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win." He later added, “we are winning, and we will win."


Campaign Finance Reform

President Bush was initially against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. He opposed any soft-money limits on individuals to national parties.

But Mr. Bush later signed McCain-Feingold into law. The law, named for Senate sponsors John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., barred both national parties from collecting soft money from individuals.

During the 2000 race, Mr. Bush showed support for the so-called 527 groups’ right to air advertising.

In March 2000, he told CBS News' "Face the Nation," "There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about.”

In late August of this year, in an effort to distance himself from controversial anti-Kerry ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Mr. Bush reversed his position, announcing he would join McCain in legal action to stop these "shadowy" organizations.

Though it would close the Swift Boat group's funding, court action would also silence well-funded liberal 527 organizations like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.


Gas Prices

Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.

A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.

-- Modified on 6/28/2008 10:58:09 PM

How do you know I'm white?

The Below introduction and accompanying link gives 10 sizable flip flops in a short time frame that McCain is guilty of. A cursory GOOGLE search actually yielded many more; but I felt these ten vindicated my position adequately.

 “In his eternal quest for the Republican presidential nomination, the supposed maverick John McCain has repeatedly reversed long-held positions and compromised purportedly core principles. From the Bush tax cuts, the religious right and immigration reform to overturning Roe v. Wade, proclaiming Samuel Alito a model Supreme Court Justice and bashing France (just to name a few), McCain changed sides as changing political conditions dictated.
But over the past two weeks, McCain’s rapid fire, acrobatic flip-flops have produced whiplash, at least for voters. 10 times since the beginning of June, McCain has retreated from, upended or just forgotten positions he once claimed as his own. On Social Security, balancing the budget, defense spending, domestic surveillance and a host of other issues so far this month, McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” did a U-turn on the road to the White House."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/

  Harry; I'm confident you can compile a list of questionable Obama policy reversals also; but as with every election cycle we the voter are left with a choice of "The lesser of two evils". I personally believe in this cycle Obama has shown himself the "lesser".


-- Modified on 6/29/2008 6:33:10 AM

The "white boy" argument was probably uncalled for. It was a line from a song that was in my head (by Foreigner). Also, the Republican party does seem to be very angry and white males, so it fit. I don't know your exact race, obviously, but you sound like a typical republican.  I am, by the way, white (not boy, though).

My facts about the economy and oil and stuff come from reading economists and experts on the subjects. I do not have the sources directly in front of me, but rarely do I say anything which I haven't read heard from someone very well respected. At least my opinions are based on fact, even if I can't produce the sources.

Harry says "never underestimate the hope factor", "admitting a mistake is anathema to Dims" (even though Bush says his only mistake was trading Sammy Sosa), "he'll say anything to pander", calling people "Mr. Righteousness", and then says his facts just seem angry to me. Maybe I didn't use good sourcing in my arguments, but I also didn't say you just don't want to hear my "facts".

Some facts (not source referenced) supporting my opinions:

half-truths (bordering on lying): we were told Iraq attacked us on 9/11, had an extensive nuclear program, etc.,etc. when they clearly should have known better (reporters at Knight-Ridder figured it out really easily).

most famillies today are worse off than when Bush was inaugurated: numerous economic sources, some of them conservative, too numerous for me to even remember. I typically read Barron's each week, which is very conservative, and where much of my economic opinions come from.

GOP arguments are shouting and inflammatory: well, that's all I've seen here. You've picked my argument apart, but still haven't supplied any facts. That's all I see on cable news, or right-wing media, and more than usual even on Sunday morning talk shows. Do you really consider Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity rationale? I hear anger, non-stop. (I'm still waiting my subscription to the Paris Business Review that Bill O'Reilly uses as his source). Sean Hannity spends most of his show shouting down guests (radio show, too). These are THE Republican mouthpieces. If the GOP is so fact-based, why do they have to humiliate anyone who contradicts them (like, say, Valerie Plame's husband)? It just has a bad smell. Sorry, I have no supporting "facts", but they GOPsters sure seem inflammatory to me.

My favorite factless argument (made more relevant by recent court ruling): Guns don't kill people, people do. (the corallary: if guns were illegal only criminals would have guns - which actually sounds like it might be logical). This is all I ever hear from the GOP. If they use rational arguments, they aren't getting them through to me. Just about everything they say lately seems to be easily disproven. So I say they are not using facts.

Am I making a strawman argument? Maybe. But it's so easy to find supporting info (Monica Crowley just mocked Jimmy Carter's conservation efforts, and in the same paragraph said we need to be more efficient and find alternative fuel sources - and she's not usually a bomb thrower -  while I was typing this). Maybe I'm an idiot, but I can see plain as day the GOP's inflammatory comments.

but I beg to differ with you. The Dems, on this board especially are the ones that seem to be the angriest. I am BTW, not white. I have no idea why I felt that was relevant, but it seemed appropriate to the thread.

The correct line is "angry white boy", anyway. I am sorry I said that. It was wrong.

See? It's okay when you lefties do it, huh? You can project all you want, who cares?

Have you had an original thought recently?

Poor obsessive feller.

Read the last post before the DELETED one.

Pay close attention now, maybe you'll learn something.

And, read this one too while you're at it.

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=65103&boardID=39&page=1

-- Modified on 6/29/2008 9:59:20 AM

hopelessly bigoted contemporaries and actually show some humanity.

get past your stereotypical thinking....

i think you'll find you get treated differeently than the typical race/class baiting bigots we have ehere from the left...

if it was Foreigner, i'm pretty sure it was "Dirty White Boy" from appx 1977-79.