 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Alice Date: 06 Oct 08 - 12:34 AM This is a 10 page article, but it is well worth the time reading it. It gives a more detailed picture of who John McCain is than most images that have been projected. Make-Believe Maverick A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty ----snip McCain spent his formative years among the Washington elite. His father — himself deep in the throes of a daddy complex — had secured a political post as the Navy's chief liaison to the Senate, a job his son would later hold, and the McCain home on Southeast 1st Street was a high-powered pit stop in the Washington cocktail circuit. Growing up, McCain attended Episcopal High School, an all-white, all-boys boarding school across the Potomac in Virginia, where tuition today tops $40,000 a year. There, McCain behaved with all the petulance his privilege allowed, earning the nicknames "Punk" and "McNasty." Even his friends seemed to dislike him, with one recalling him as "a mean little fucker." McCain was not only a lousy student, he had his father's taste for drink and a darkly misogynistic streak. The summer after his sophomore year, cruising with a friend near Arlington, McCain tried to pick up a pair of young women. When they laughed at him, he cursed them so vilely that he was hauled into court on a profanity charge. -----snip Make-Believe Maverick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 08 - 01:08 AM Thank you, Alice. I will read this tomorrow and the one they have on Palin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: DougR Date: 06 Oct 08 - 01:32 AM Rolling Stone? Alice, please. You are supposing, of course, that Rolling Stone would present an objective picture of John McCain, right? Or maybe you really don't care. Any article that is critical of McCain suits you just fine I suppose. I can well imagine what they must have written about Palin. What do you REALLY know about Obama? Have any knowledge of his record at Columbia University? Harvard? What his activities as a "Community Organizer" really entailed? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Arkie Date: 06 Oct 08 - 10:31 AM One might consider the Rolling Stone article biased, one-sided, or even negative depending upon your position on McCain. But the most important and most relevant question is whether the contents are true. I have seen many one-sided, biased, and negative articles about Obama that had no element of truth. There has been no administration in my memory before the present one that has such a disregard for truth. And the sickening aspect of the situation that it is not only the power brokers of this administration, but the grass roots followers, the real people, who have bought into the conspiracy of deception. There is also an extreme double standard. Say nothing negative about my candidate while spewing vile with little truth about the other. The present Republican party is a disgrace because it is driven by greed, power, and deception. I can only hope that those Republicans who value truth and honesty and embody the true values of the party and conservatism will somehow regain control of time honored political party. I am not sure what McCain's definition of maverick may be, but he has supported the legislation and deregulation that is leading to economic collapse, he has supported big oil and helped to stonewall efforts to develop alternative energy, and he supported and continues to support a war of aggression which had no legitimate foundation and campaigns with the same type of deception so prevalent in his party today. For the Americans who are proud of the Bush/Cheney legacy of economic collapse, unfounded war of aggression, and dependency on petroleum, McCain is your man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 06 Oct 08 - 10:52 AM And then there were those Kennedy's. Come on .... this article is just plain biased crap. BiLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Donuel Date: 06 Oct 08 - 11:12 AM Yeah 6, and there was Ghengis Kahn but they don't even mention him. And what about Hitler and Stalin? In comparison McCain has been a Saint! But no, all the biased ROlling Stone does is unfairly quote people who knew McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 06 Oct 08 - 11:37 AM Donuel you can always find 'dirt' and negative opinions on someone from anyone. This is the type of crap that just gets amplified during an election .... but lately it's getting down to Nation Enquirer standards in basically all the press, blogs, forums or whatever. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Arkie Date: 06 Oct 08 - 12:19 PM biLL, do you label any negative material as crap or only negative material directed at the Republican candidates. Pointing out inaccuracies in the information would carry more weight than putting a label on the material. Those placing such labels on articles without pointing out the false claims actually place a label upon themselves saying they prefer to suppress the truth if it does not support their point of view. Also misdirecting the subject to the Kennedys does not respond to the criticism. One is certainly welcome to an opinion of the Kennedys, but that is not relevant to now. I make no claim that Democrats are always right, always perfect, and always honest. However, in the choices the USA has in this election the Democrats seem to me to represent the best interest of the common folk. The Republicans seem to me to represent the best interest of the giant special interest groups. At least they are the groups or individuals who have benefited the most so far from the administration policies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 06 Oct 08 - 12:23 PM "You are supposing, of course, that Rolling Stone would present an objective picture of John McCain, right?" Come on Doug. You can deny all the facts, but it does not make your vision true. Rolling Stone probably has more ethics than most daily papers. If you can find evidence that the facts they present are not true, please share it. Otherwise, please keep your swift-boat smokescreen defense to yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: PoppaGator Date: 06 Oct 08 - 02:03 PM To my mind, the most shameful bit of John McCain's recent record as a senator, and the most shocking example of his hypocrisy, is his consistent opposition to funding for veterans benefits and for maintenance of veterans medical facilities. When, at the first debate, McCain responded to a question by saying that current economic woes might prevent him from persuing his goals "except of course for helping our veterans," I was surprised and disappointed that Obama didn't call him on it. McCain has already demonstrated time and again that he has no interest in spending an extra penny on anyone who has already served his purpose as cannon fodder, only on sending more personnel into the meat grinder. If you don't believe me, ask the Disabled American Veterans ~ check out their ratings of senators and congressmen. McCain is very near the bottom of their list of federal legislators they can count upon as their allies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 08 - 02:08 PM There are plenty of vets who agree with you, Poppa: Vets for Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Oct 08 - 02:31 PM Arkie is talking a lot of sense.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Donuel Date: 06 Oct 08 - 03:10 PM Gator, Why didn't Obama jump on McCain for his supposed love for veterans during the debate? Maybe Barack can speak more truth next time now that he has established a foundation of hoonest civility in the debates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Rapparee Date: 06 Oct 08 - 03:12 PM Why do you want to roll stones onto John McCain? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Donuel Date: 06 Oct 08 - 03:13 PM See Rotting Spreadsheet is the anagram of The Greatest Depression |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 06 Oct 08 - 03:19 PM HuH ?!?!?! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Bobert Date: 06 Oct 08 - 03:32 PM Actually, John McCain does qulaify as a "meverick" having baring gotten thru the Naval Acadmey, wrecked millions of dollars worth of government property, dissed women (incluuding his wife) and is running for president??? Not excatly presidential material... If that ain't maverick then what the heck is... I guess the real question is: Does the US need yet another "meverick"??? Personally, I'm about all mavericked out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: DougR Date: 06 Oct 08 - 04:19 PM Ron: So you accept at face value words printed in a liberal publication about a conservative. Not surprised. Ark: Present proof that John McCain voted against legislation that would have required closer regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and I'll buy you a ice cream cone. In fact, McCain introduced legislation, I believe in 2004 or '05 that would have required more regulation and that legislation was blocked by the Democrats who are in power. That is a fact. Not surprised you didn't know, though, because the mainstream press has worked so hard to spin the facts to blame McCain and the Republicans. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 06 Oct 08 - 04:23 PM "Ron: So you accept at face value words printed in a liberal publication about a conservative. Not surprised." Not at all. I look at the evidence and backup they present. I guess I am not surprised that you disregard evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: CarolC Date: 06 Oct 08 - 04:28 PM It's not surprising that McCain would try to hide and run away from his record as a deregulator in Congress. Hell of a mess he and his buddies (Gramm, et al) have gotten us into. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Oct 08 - 05:07 PM Maybe if McCain's backers had clean hands when it comes to mudslinging they'd be in a better position to object. But with both sides hard at it, and no prospect of a ceasefire the relevant question becomes, how far do the accusations stand up to scrutiny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Arkie Date: 06 Oct 08 - 10:37 PM The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act co-sponsored by McCain does appear to place some regulation on Fannie and Freddie but as with many congressional song and dances things can get a bit fuzzy. If McCain did truly attempt to provide some regulation that is indeed commendable. However, when we get to the fuzzy part the regulation would come from an independent agency not the federal government. That too is not necessarily a bad thing but if Freddy and Fannie cronies make up the agency that provides the regulation the whole thing is just for show. Since McCain has somewhere between 15 and 20 former Freddie or Fannie lobbyists and/or staffers on his campaign staff one does wonder about his intent. Also, the Reform Act was proposed in 2005 before Democrats had a small majority in congress and when committee heads were Republicans. The act was killed in a Republican controlled committee. However, I do not doubt that we have Democrats who also need to be replaced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 08 - 10:59 PM It is facetious of any GOP lover to say the Dems have been in power since the last election. There is a tie in the Senate with one independent. That is NOT a majority. For more on how John McCain helped to create the mess we are in, please see the Keating Economics thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: GUEST,heric Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:02 AM Speaking of the GOP -- Does anyone know if Duke Cunningham's wife won her legal claim to keep her 50% fair share of the $2.4 million in homes, yachts, Rolls Royces and armoires? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: GUEST,heric Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:18 AM Oh my goodness - even the GOP appointees to the CIA are enmeshed in massive government fraud: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/30/ex-cia-official-pleads-to-fraud/ (This guy was No. 3 - handpicked by Bush's appointed Director Goss - who also resigned. I don't know why . . . ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: katlaughing Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:23 AM Dusty Foggo? No one in Hollywood could come up with a name like that! Ya ever get the feeling the whole shrub admin should just pass Go and go to Jail?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: GUEST,heric Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:29 AM How can anyone support the GOP when they have treated you with utter, pure contempt? ("Because my Daddy did.") "And, yeah, well, Obama wants to teach kindergartners sex ed - so it's a wash." Uh-huh. They're all bad. Even score. I'd better stop. My blood pressure is rising. DougR are you incapable of seeing the long term damage this country has suffered? Decades' worth. If the Democrats put up Pee Wee Herman the GOP would still deserve to lose all, on their own demerits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Oct 08 - 07:31 PM The problem is, it all comes back to the worst of two evils, and Obama seems to be more evil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: meself Date: 07 Oct 08 - 07:36 PM Evil? What's so evil about him? Please explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Amos Date: 07 Oct 08 - 08:10 PM Rig has no solid grounds for his remarks, meself. It's just his uterine lining flaring up again. He's been waving his arms with un-specified generalized negative nabobbery for months on this subject. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: CarolC Date: 07 Oct 08 - 08:32 PM Hey! No need to smear all women just because some man is acting up! (Although that does seem to be a common response.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: CarolC Date: 07 Oct 08 - 08:35 PM "When Mrs. Whipple breaks wind, we beat the dog." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Amos Date: 07 Oct 08 - 09:50 PM Sorry, Carol; I was not responsible for the etymology of "hysteria", which is what I actually meant to be attributing to Rig's remarks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: CarolC Date: 07 Oct 08 - 10:02 PM Like I said, "When Mrs. Whipple breaks wind, we beat the dog". T'was ever thus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: dick greenhaus Date: 08 Oct 08 - 12:10 AM DougR- Can you refresh us with your views of the economy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Greg F. Date: 08 Oct 08 - 09:12 AM Douggie has been in denial for years; its pointless trying to have an intelligent discussion with him. In his delusional world, the BuShites are somehow not responsible for the fact that the U.S is in the crapper. He keeps prating on about "conservatives"- without realizing that the BuShites are anything but. There are a few conservatives left in the Repub. party- e.g. those who argued against the $700 bil Wall Street bailout- but Bush, Palin, McCain, Rove, Kristol et.al. they ain't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Alice Date: 08 Oct 08 - 01:07 PM Video statements by Republicans and others who describe McCain's angry temper and how this makes him too unstable to trust with power over "the button". Most disturbing information at the 3:20 mark on this video: "I then saw Jeanette Jenkins, the niece of a missing man. She stepped forward but before she could say anything, McCain back-handed her. She hit the wall and it was so loud that it resonated in the hallway." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAyK-enrF1g John McCain's Rage is a National Security Concern |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Oct 08 - 10:15 PM "Rolling Stone on John McCain" How did a rolling stone come to be on John McCain anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: TIA Date: 08 Oct 08 - 11:27 PM Someone is really confused. Did DougR above imply that the Democrats had sufficient power to block anything in 2004 and 2005? Horsepucky say I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:11 AM This is of course a big problem with US politics - with so many refusing to vote or otherwise participate, the fanatical diehards who refuse to accept that 'their side' could do anything wrong, or that the other side could do anything right, the fanatical diehards with their knickers in a knot dominate and derail the whole process all the time, which means that the 'real corruption' ie those who wish to manipulate the system for personal gain, have very few 'swinging voters' to Thus the US population get the (non-)politicians they deserve... and the sort of a mess of a country that they thus accept. If you look at the % of voters who refuse to participate, even register to vote, Australia's compulsory voting (well, actually, legally speaking, it's just compulsory attendance at a polling booth!) means that the system is held in check better, especially with the US 'first past the post' system compared with the Aussie (optional in cases) preferential voting system. This week we had a Qld Labour State Member (unicameral system in Qld!) change to the Green Party (a minor party with growing influence). Independents are considered pointless in the USA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:01 AM Foolestroupe - I'd be interested in knowing if the compulsory voting in Australia does anything to encourage people to look into issues, and inform themselves as to what is really going on. In America--and I know other people feel this way too--we have large numbers of people who have no idea what's happening in the world, and could care less. It's even scarier to think of these people actually casting ballots, then if they just by-passed the election all together. By the way, I'm registered Green in the US, and my party nominated a woman this year who devotes all of her energy to causes that have little to do with the Green agenda at all. I don't find that very encouraging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Greg F. Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:58 AM McCain linked to Pro-Nazi group in Iran-Contra affair By PETE YOST, AP "Barack Obama has his William Ayers connection. Now John McCain may have an Iran-Contra connection. In the 1980s, McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption. The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:33 AM "... what his activities as a Community Organizer really entailed." Evidently Doug does know, but doesn't want to reveal the answer. Could it be he actually just doesn't want to reveal his source, since it might prove less than objective? Much better to make a nebulous smear and run. Perhaps he's been taking lessons in smearing from the CEO of Smears R Us. Or perhaps he could teach the course. It is certainly interesting that though he objects to the facts as presented in the Rolling Stone article--an article with copious quotes from McCain acquaintances-- he has none of his own to present. Does tend to undercut his argument just a bit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:58 PM But it does seem that for Doug, facts are extraneous. All that counts for him, it seems, is a gut feeling. Very handy--relieves him of the burden of thinking. It's too bad thinking is such a struggle for him. But he's in good company with quite a few Bush supporters--not to mention their hero himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Peace Date: 11 Oct 08 - 12:46 AM "Rolling Stone on John McCain" Make it a BIG stone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Oct 08 - 09:23 AM Maybe it will just keep on rolling, and McCain will escape with only the loss of partial use of his arms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Oct 08 - 12:29 PM And that last post means precisely what? Let us know when you start speaking English. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Oct 08 - 01:09 AM Why start now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Ebbie Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:04 PM Rig, no one is taking anything away from McCain's experience in the Hanoi Hilton and I think that we all commiserate with him on the loss of his mobility. That has nothing- nada. nichts. niets, ôßðïôá, niente, rien - to do with any qualifications to be President of the United States. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:16 PM I think it does. I think it really does. Look at the history of McCain as a prisoner of war, and compare it to Obama who always takes the path of least resistance, every time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: michaelr Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:45 PM Look at his eyes. They are black holes. The man was tortured. Few souls recover from that. It's no wonder he has deep-seated rage in him. This disqualifies him from the presidency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Ebbie Date: 12 Oct 08 - 05:19 PM Just how do you know that about Obama, Rig? Since I doubt that you know him personally, you must be reading a very low-grade type of literature, "literature" of the type that figures among those people whom you - and I - least admire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Amos Date: 12 Oct 08 - 07:13 PM That is pure bull, Rig--the path of least resistance surely does not include running for President in times like these. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:06 PM It does when MoveOn.org is bankrolling your campaign, and all you have to do is show up to kind of move things along, from time to time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:09 PM I suppose it's a little late in the thread to suggest that we look at the candidates' platforms/policies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: heric Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:21 PM Obama wants to do whatever the Democratic party wants to do. But they have no idea because of the financial crash. Probably a trickle up fiscal stimulus to the best they can, with lots of inflation. McCain dooesn't have any idea what he wants to do, and even did he did it wouldn't matter because of the Democratic super-majority in Congress, and neither he nor they know what do do about the crash - and his own advisors certainly don't. Lots of inflation. They both want to hit Osama in Pakistan with an air-to-surface missile. I think that sums it up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:40 PM "I suppose it's a little late in the thread to suggest that we look at the candidates' platforms/policies?" Not only a little late in the thread, but late in the decade. Both parties have platforms that both candidates want to separate themselves from, and both candidates policies change from minute to minute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:56 PM Well, do I have the solutions for youse guys. I keep getting spam in my e-mails where I can be built like a horse after a few eeeks, have the part that's built stiff as iron all the time for between $1.49 and $2.29 a day AND know what the time is on a $17,500 Rolex that they will let me have for the value of only 100 viagra pills. Sheeeit. It's don't get no better'n that. Anybody want my spam? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Oct 08 - 10:12 PM I suspect we all get the same spam. It's tedious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:52 AM The man was tortured.Few souls recover from that. It's no wonder he has deep-seated rage in him. Kinda like the folks that the Grand Old U.S. of A subjected to "rendition" and to incarceration at Guantanamo & elsewhere? Boy that "War On Terror" must be workin'a treat to keep us all safe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: michaelr Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:55 PM Quite so, Greg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: PoppaGator Date: 14 Oct 08 - 01:28 PM "The man was tortured. Few souls recover from that. It's no wonder he has deep-seated rage in him. This disqualifies him from the presidency." That's a bit harsh. While I do not believe that McCain's unfortunate experience automatically makes him an expert on international affairs, neither do I think he's automatically wrong just because of some pop-psych theory that no one who has undegone torture is any longer capable of rational thought. My main misgiving about McCain, and his vulnerability to the influence of his past experience, is that, in some sense, he's still trying to "win" the conflict in Vietnam, this time in Iraq. While there is certainly room for serious debate about how to remove ourselves from Iraq responsibly, with the least possible further damage to our national honor and international standing, it is flat-out delusional to speak of "winning" that mess. We can't even identify who we might be trying to "beat." Al-Quida? They weren't there at all when we invaded, and while they have certainly been able to move in and recruit new members in the wake of our misguided adventure, their leadership and their greatest strength is elsewhere. With the benefit of hindsight, we should all realize by now that there was never any possibility of winning another country's civil war in one corner of southern Asia a generation ago, and we should be able to apply that lesson today in a newer context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Arkie Date: 15 Oct 08 - 10:47 AM McCain touts his judgment and experience. His judgment on supporting an Iraqi invasion was costly, risky, and wrong. There were adequate arguments against a ground war in Iraq that were ignored. His judgment in widespread deregulation has proved to be a disaster and opened the door for greedy and unethical management. Not every financial advisor or executive bought into the doomed derivative system because they could see beyond the quick dollar. His judgment in opposing incentives for the development of alternative energy has also been costly and put the country at risk. One could also question his judgment in selecting Sarah Palin. She has a certain charm that does appeal to one element in our society that McCain needs and she may even be smarter than she appears, but her leadership qualities seem to be lacking. She is best suited for her role as hate monger which apparently is critical to the Republican campaign but she does not inspire any sense of confidence in government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Oct 08 - 08:25 PM Arkie has it dead on. While Riginslimer-- (tip of the hat to Ebbie)- lives up to his name--"all he has to do is show up.."--total drivel, from our most reliable source. If drivel were an energy source, he could power the globe. And as usual, precisely nothing to back up his claim. It's painfully obvious he is careful to switch off his brain before sitting down at the computer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rolling Stone on John McCain From: Amos Date: 15 Oct 08 - 08:29 PM Now, Ron...Rig's observations are firmly grounded in opinion. A |
