![]() |
|
|
|||||||
| Political Conversation and Debate This forum is not a temporary one. It will exist up to, and after the presidential elections. Some people want to talk or even argue politics, other's don't. Let's see if we can apply some reason and understanding to the debate. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||||||||
|
I am almost positive that he means B.
But even then I do not agree. The First Amendment includes even assholes and ingrates being given a right to speak on all topics, no matter how unsavory or unpopular. I see his point. I think I'd feel the exact same way he does if I had served with him under those conditions. But then, I'd be wrong, even if the reason I thought that made perfect sense given the circumstances. We have a civil government, and the military is subservient to it, no matter how frustrating it may seem to those who have served for an ungrateful country. The citizens control that civil government through the ballot box, and service in the military does not modify - either lessen or greaten - the rights of citizens to speak out about any aspect of a candidate's life or qualifications. It really is that simple. |
| Sponsored Links |
|
|||||||||
|
Let me sum up.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As you have pointed out, examining his service record is very different from those other actions. As far as I can tell, that's all anybody here is even interested in doing. |
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, the questioners could very likely be wrong headed ingrate assholes. Doesn't matter. I think that you can find some comfort in the fact that very few people will like the persons doing the questioning of a vet's record if there is nothing there, and most, like you, will find it offensive to question an honorably discharged vet in the first place. In fact, it looks like a PR disaster in the making. My single endlessly repeated, mind-numbing point is that military service, although honored, creates no special class or rights as it relates to the right of anybody to speak about that service. But what will happen is that the court of public opinion will bring a harsh sentence on the person who attacks that vet's record if it is nothing more than an attack. Freedom of Speech is not Freedom From Stupid, Ungrateful speech. With the right you take the bad, and the bad includes the possibility that nut-jobs get to march through town wearing Nazi uniforms, even if my dad fought Nazis and my uncle was paralyzed by shrapnel from SS artillery. Or the bad may be having to listen to guys in white hoods say that someone's race is inferior. Hell of a thing, Free Speech. To work as good as it does, you have to take the bad. Like training for Freedom, if you will. When you train, it might make you ill as you train or run to your maximum limit. But throwing up and feeling bad is temporary, and the benefit of being trained fit and healthy is a far more valuable thing than the temporary unpleasantness. Enjoying your Free Speech Right - that you fought for - is far more satisfying than any temporary pain in hearing some guy criticizing a vet. That is where YOUR right of free speech comes in and you join your buddies is saying the same things you have said (with the exception of saying that they have no right to say what they said because the were not a vet). I'll likely be on a bar stool here agreeing with you. Hell, we are close to agreeing. ![]() |
|
|||||||||
|
Especially when we are considering him to be the face of our nation and our top public servant. To not examine his service and the other facets of his career would be irresponsible.
|
|
|||||||||
|
Is it just me, or is McCain running as a democrat? All of his ads that I've seen call for health insurance for all americans, environmantally progressive policies, creating jobs, and easing the tax burden on average citizens. What a bleeding-heart crackpot! Where is the touting of trickle down economics? Where are the major issues like gay marraige and stem cell research? What happened to the Republican Party that I used to know and love?
|
|
|||||||||
|
If you believe we are not to question the service of a honorably discharged serviceman and his/her commitment to country, then do you also believe we should not question a minister/priest and his/her commitment to God who has not been defrocked?
I'm not necessarily directing this question at brutus2002, but it seems the same crowd who say you cannot question McCain's service had no problem assailing Obama's pastor based on a few choice quotes, who (last I checked) is still in good standing with a mainline denomination. On another tangent, I think it is quite different to examine one's service record to see what we can learn and to trash that record (as what happened to John Kerry). For example, here is an article that looks into his War College thesis: McCain's homework - Los Angeles Times With the considerable amount of information available on his military service, including his own book, I think it is fair to ask what we haven't seen to at least look at the full picture. One of the latest arguments of the McCain camp is that he will always put country over self interest. They cite his refusal to take early release because it would provide propaganda for the North Vietnamese. However, they ignore his confession to war crimes that did provide propaganda: Quote:
Now, I do not fault him for his "confession." I'd bet almost anyone would have done the same under those circumstances. However, I find it disingenuous for his campaign to imply that Obama lacks his level of patriotism because he did not have to go through such an experience. Again, I don't want to disparage McCain's service and I don't think this should. I simply don't think he can use his service to somehow "prove" he is some ultra patriotic figure who will defend his country at any cost, when we know that he did have a breaking point (as most all of us do). Last edited by CookyPuss; 06-28-2008 at 11:14 AM. |
|
|||||||||
|
They [censored]ed up their own brand.
|
|
|||||||||
|
True. Although, in my lifetime, it's all I've seen from them. What they should have done was rake Nixon over the coals and expose how deep the corruption ran. If they had done that, half of the cast of characters in the Reagan/Bush empire would be exiled from D.C. forever. People say that the Ford pardon was for the purpose of allowing the country to heal. In reality, it just left the door open for years of corruption in the federal government.
|
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
edit: or acid |
|
|||||||||
|
If I'm not mistaken John McCain and Hillary Clinton have voted almost identical over the last several years. I think the reason the republicans keep him around is because he is a guaranteed seat in the senate. If he was weaker in political power they would have washed their hands of him a long time ago. Some of his platforms are definately in line with the democrats.
|
|
|||||||||
|
I had a lot more respect for McCain before W got in office. I've just seen him do an about face too many times. It was painfully obvious that he was told to step in line. There was a hillarious TV Funhouse Fun With Real Audio on SNL with McCain giving a pro-W speech, it's not on youtube, I'll post if I can find it.
|
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Project Vote Smart - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - Voting Record Project Vote Smart - Senator John Sidney McCain III - Voting Record I have no clue why so many right-wingers see McCain as being something other than conservative, because he is pretty much down-the-line conservative. The fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care for him probably has something to do with it. That, and the fact McCain doesn't trot out a Bible every time he has a news conference. |
![]() |
| Tags |
| 2008 election, arizona, brave baby boomer, candidate, john mccain, mccain, navy, president, presidential candidate, presidential election, republican, senator |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|