During John McCain's speech he said..

spyguy wrote:

right, and everyone else is just stupid and lazy. you rule

You forgot apathetic.

No not everyone else, just those that would vote for a politician simply based on the fact that he seems like someone they would have a beer with. Mock and dismiss what I say all you want but even the campaign manager of one of the presidential candidates even reinforced my point. He stated that this election would be decided by personality not issues. That right there is enough to tell me that my assumption of the electorate is pretty dead on.

spyguy wrote:

absolutely I do. but hell, 2003 was a long time ago, false information was being tossed around as fact.. bush had the support of 99% of congress?

I believe mccain supported the war more after the fact then before it. which is ok with me.

Not true.

The Iraq War Resolution of October 2002 passed 296-133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. A majority? Of course, but that's not 99 percent. It wasn't just left-wing nuts condemning the war at its' start; there were many reasoned, legitimate opinions against it. John McCain (and Clinton and Edwards), by his own admission did not read or analyze the National Intelligence Estimate that detailed the possibility of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

spyguy wrote:

you make it sound like we are electing a King.

OK?

spyguy wrote:

accountable how? meaning you wont vote for obama?




really? LOL then is Palin's lack of experience a non-issue?

Of course I'm voting for Obama. He's maybe the only candidate on the ticket who did not support the war, and was right in doing so. Hm, not sending troops into harm's way when they don't need to be; I think that's the bare minimum of qualifications someone should have when they're in the Oval Office.

According to Republicans (including you, since I think we've debated this before), Palin's experience is a non-issue since it's "No. 1 on the ticket that counts, not No. 2". Your argument, not mine. It doesn't matter then, whether Biden supported the war or not. I think it does, but what is my alternative? McCain?

And another thing; why is it impossible for people here to defend their candidate of choice? I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but come on; I questioned McCain's vote on the war, and I feel it makes him unqualified to be President. Don't come back at me with Biden. Defend McCain, and let's keep the argument what it was about. When I question McCain, and you come back at me with Biden, it makes it sound like you have no defense for McCain's actions.

digster wrote:

Of course I'm voting for Obama. He's maybe the only candidate on the ticket who did not support the war, and was right in doing so. Hm, not sending troops into harm's way when they don't need to be; I think that's the bare minimum of qualifications someone should have when they're in the Oval Office.

According to Republicans (including you, since I think we've debated this before), Palin's experience is a non-issue since it's "No. 1 on the ticket that counts, not No. 2". Your argument, not mine. It doesn't matter then, whether Biden supported the war or not. I think it does, but what is my alternative? McCain?

And another thing; why is it impossible for people here to defend their candidate of choice? I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but come on; I questioned McCain's vote on the war, and I feel it makes him unqualified to be President. Don't come back at me with Biden. Defend McCain, and let's keep the argument what it was about. When I question McCain, and you come back at me with Biden, it makes it sound like you have no defense for McCain's actions.

How do you defend Obama's position on this?

The Bridge to Nowhere wouldn't have existed if Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate hadn't voted to reject the diverting of funding for the Bridge to Nowhere to repair Interstate 10 in New Orleans after it was heavily damaged by Katrina. But I guess Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate thought that the Bridge in Alaska was more important than the site of a natural disaster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00262

I also like how in Obama's podcast 4 months after voting to keep the Bridge, he discusses his ethics reform bill that he speaks about often and mentions:

"We've also suggested that we end a practice called earmarks, which John McCain and I agree on. There's a process in which essentially individual Senators can, without letting other Senators know, inject their own pork projects into the budget, without any scrutiny or really any public knowledge. That's how you end up getting the two hundred something billion dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska."

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060209-lobbying_and_et/

Well, if he was so against the Bridge a few months later, why did he vote to keep the funding initially?

Solat13 wrote:

How do you defend Obama's position on this?

The Bridge to Nowhere wouldn't have existed if Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate hadn't voted to reject the diverting of funding for the Bridge to Nowhere to repair Interstate 10 in New Orleans after it was heavily damaged by Katrina. But I guess Obama and Biden and the rest of the Senate thought that the Bridge in Alaska was more important than the site of a natural disaster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00262

I also like how in Obama's podcast 4 months after voting to keep the Bridge, he discusses his ethics reform bill that he speaks about often and mentions:

"We've also suggested that we end a practice called earmarks, which John McCain and I agree on. There's a process in which essentially individual Senators can, without letting other Senators know, inject their own pork projects into the budget, without any scrutiny or really any public knowledge. That's how you end up getting the two hundred something billion dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska."

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060209-lobbying_and_et/

Well, if he was so against the Bridge a few months later, why did he vote to keep the funding initially?

I'll be happy to review what you gave me there, but what does that have to do with McCain's vote on Iraq?

EDIT: Do you know where in the amendment the stuff regarding the Bridge to Nowhere is? I've been looking through the amendment, but so far all I'm seeing is stuff related to reform of Amtrak. I'm sure they stuck it in here, but I'd like to read it before responding.

spyguy wrote:

dont u see the point he was trying to make? you wont vote for mccain because he voted to go to Iraq but totally excuse the fact that biden did.

How am I excusing that Biden did? This is from an earlier post of mine, regarding someone who brought up Biden.

"Good point. It's not just McCain...many of the Democratic nominees were for the war as well. And they should be held accountable as well."

I'm not avoiding that fact; the fact does remain, however that Senator Obama was the only one on the ticket on either side that accurately predicted what was going to happen in Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy fiascos in American history. You're saying I should refuse to vote for candidate who had that clarity of mind, who was able to see beyond the patriotic fervor and war fever in the air to see the truth and consequences about what we were about to embark upon? You're saying I should not vote for him, because his VP candidate and the Presidential candidate on the opposing side shared the same gross incompetence? Maybe in some other election, I'll vote third party, but I'm not willing to sit through another four year rerun of the past eight. And McCain, in every vote he's made, has given me to reason to believe that he would not have conducted that war in the exact same way Bush did.

This is why the criticism of Obama about 'the surge' is pretty ludicrous. If Obama had been in office there wouldn't have been a need for the surge in the first place. There wouldn't have been a needless war.

vduboise wrote:

Yes, both candidates have been negative, but in respect to the DNC and the RNC, the RNC was way more negative and snidely

see i don't see that. i think the DNC is doing it more on teh side where the RNC is coming straight out with it. i don't like it for both parties.

I think McCain is sincere. I believe he hates war, but sees it as a necessary evil (and it is many times). I just don't think the continued occupation of Iraq is a necessary evil.