# the "POW" card



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Maureen Dowd is trying to rip McCain a new one by talking about an issue that has mostly been thrown around only in the liberal blogosphere. This is the tendency for McCain and his campaign to refer to his time as a POW in response to any perceived attack or even question.

For instance:

1) In response to Biden's joke that McCain doesn't know which of the 7 dining tables he will sit at to discuss the family finances:

"I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair, and I know what it's like to be blessed by the opportunities of this great nation."

2) When asked why he chose a song by Abba as one of his favorites:

""I've got to say that a lot of my taste in music stopped about the time I impacted a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane and never caught up again."

3) In response to comments by a clergyman that criticized McCain's offering of his wife as a contestant for the raunchy "Miss Buffalo Chips" pageant.

"[McCain's character] has been tested and forged in ways few can fathom."

4) After the "cone of silence" controversy:

"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

5) Another response to the "7 houses" story

"This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years - in prison"


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

John Kerry was constantaly bringing up Vietnam in the last election. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

This reminds me of the time the Reagan-Bush campaign ran the WWII film footage of George Bush being rescued after his dive bomber was shot down, a combat action for which Bush received the Distinguished Flying Cross. Bush's opponent, Geraldine Ferraro, complained bitterly that as a woman she did not have the same opportunity as a man to get shot down in the Pacific; therefore, the use of the footage was sexist. 

Cruiser


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

AlanC said:


> ...If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.


Indeed, especially as both get cooked in their own juices. 

--A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> This reminds me of the time the Reagan-Bush campaign ran the WWII film footage of George Bush being rescued after his dive bomber was shot down, a combat action for which Bush received the Distinguished Flying Cross. Bush's opponent, Geraldine Ferraro, complained bitterly that as a woman she did not have the same opportunity as a man to get shot down in the Pacific; therefore, the use of the footage was sexist.
> 
> Cruiser


William F. Buckley commented at the time that he personally knew of many folks that would oblige Ms. Ferraro by not only buying her an airplane to fly but also volunteer to shoot it down in grand style. He did say, though, that there was little possibility of a commendation. (For the pilot.)

Cordially,
A. Quay


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> This reminds me of the time the Reagan-Bush campaign ran the WWII film footage of George Bush being rescued after his dive bomber was shot down, a combat action for which Bush received the Distinguished Flying Cross. Bush's opponent, Geraldine Ferraro, complained bitterly that as a woman she did not have the same opportunity as a man to get shot down in the Pacific; therefore, the use of the footage was sexist.
> 
> Cruiser


If Ferraro were a black, former pilot who had been shot down in battle, she'd be a shoo-in for Pres of the US!


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Quay said:


> William F. Buckley commented at the time that he personally knew of many folks that would oblige Ms. Ferraro by not only buying her an airplane to fly but also volunteer to shoot it down in grand style. He did say, though, that there was little possibility of a commendation. (For the pilot.)
> 
> Cordially,
> A. Quay


I do miss Mr Buckley!

Brian


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Like most of America, I haven't been paying attention to McCain, but...*

If this becomes as shameless, transparent, and comical as Rudy Giuliani's ubiquitous 9/11 references, it will make him a laughing stock too.

That said, classic case of attacking your enemy on his strengths, not his weaknesses. Besides the POW story, the main strength of McCain is :icon_scratch:


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If this becomes as shameless, transparent, and comical as Rudy Giuliani's ubiquitous 9/11 references, it will make him a laughing stock too.
> 
> That said, classic case of attacking your enemy on his strengths, not his weaknesses. Besides the POW story, the main strength of McCain is :icon_scratch:


Noun. Verb. POW.

I'm sure Biden will be rolling it out sometime soon.

Check this one out - in response to the question "Why are you more qualified to manage the economy than Mitt Romney?" - asked during a primary debate.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Besides the POW story, the main strength of McCain is :icon_scratch:


All too true, but that still makes him one up on Obama. I'm afraid it's a race to the bottom between those two.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If this becomes as shameless, transparent, and comical as Rudy Giuliani's ubiquitous 9/11 references, it will make him a laughing stock too.


I don't care if he brings it up in every sentence, what public figure will be the first to stand up and laugh at John McCains courage, and sense of duty and honor?

As Dizzy Dean said, "If you done it, it ain't braggin."

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Of course, Wes Clark was right when he said that none of that qualifies McBush to be president. That's not attacking his war record, it's a simple observation of fact.

And now maybe you can tell me, what does five years in a POW camp have to do with trading in the wife who waited at home for you on a younger model, being so rich you can't remember how many houses you own, or offering up your wife for a topless (and bottomless) contest in front of a bunch of drunken bikers?


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I don't care if he brings it up in every sentence, what public figure will be the first to stand up and laugh at John McCains courage, and sense of duty and honor?
> 
> As Dizzy Dean said, "If you done it, it ain't braggin."
> 
> Cruiser


https://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

Phung Van Chung, 70, who was a Communist Party official at the time, claims McCain was quickly singled out for softer treatment, adding: ?I found out he was the son of an American admiral, so the top people wanted to keep him as a live witness so they could use him for negotiations.?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

AlanC said:


> All too true, but that still makes him one up on Obama. I'm afraid it's a race to the bottom between those two.


 Well, it is better than no election at all...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

"Softer" is a relative term. Even if this is true, I doubt that any of us have suffered the privation and suffering McCain went through during this period.

I also agree that his refusal of an early release was a heroic act.

Still, so what? It doesn't qualify him to be president, and neither does anything else he has done. Time for the MSM to stop swallowing the idea that yelling POW! means they aren't allowed to ask any questions about his qualifications.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

SkySov said:


> Phung Van Chung, 70, who was a Communist Party official at the time, claims McCain was quickly singled out for softer treatment, adding: ?I found out he was the son of an American admiral, so the top people wanted to keep him as a live witness so they could use him for negotiations.?


If you can't believe a former Vietnamese Communist Party official about what was going on at the Hanoi Hilton during the war, who can you believe, right?!

That's some good info, right there.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

It doesn't seem to me that the Dems would really want to bring up the issue of not being qualified to be President.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

AlanC said:


> It doesn't seem to me that the Dems would really want to bring up the issue of not being qualified to be President.


BUWAHAHAHA!


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

AlanC said:


> It doesn't seem to me that the Dems would really want to bring up the issue of not being qualified to be President.


Both candidates are qualified. The question is whether they are knowledgeable enough, have exhibited sound judgment, and can actually lead. McCain is clearly not intelligent enough to discuss the economic problems this country is going through. He does have the foreign policy knowledge, but quite honestly he has been on the wrong end of just about every major foreign policy crisis in the last 8 years.

He was wrong on wanting to go into Iraq in the weeks after 9/11. 
He was wrong in taking a soft approach towards Musharraf and the Pakistanis. 
He was wrong in not wanting to conduct negotiations with the Iranians. 
He was wrong in taking the uber hawkish stance in Russia v. Georgia. 
He is wrong in surrounding himself with advisors who were of the same neo-con school of US foreign policy that have led us to our current position.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Of course, Wes Clark was right when he said that none of that qualifies McBush to be president. That's not attacking his war record, it's a simple observation of fact.
> 
> And now maybe you can tell me, what does five years in a POW camp have to do with trading in the wife who waited at home for you on a younger model, being so rich you can't remember how many houses you own, or offering up your wife for a topless (and bottomless) contest in front of a bunch of drunken bikers?


Is anyone going to address this grim point?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Is anyone going to address this grim point?


I doubt it. Ducking the issues is standard for conservatives around here.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^ Sad to say that, as the campaign goes on, I find myself less and less impressed with both candidates. Although, Im sticking with John McCain at this point...at least he's consistent. Occassionally boorish but, consistent!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Of course, Wes Clark was right when he said that none of that qualifies McBush to be president. That's not attacking his war record, it's a simple observation of fact.
> 
> And now maybe you can tell me, what does five years in a POW camp have to do with trading in the wife who waited at home for you on a younger model, being so rich you can't remember how many houses you own, or offering up your wife for a topless (and bottomless) contest in front of a bunch of drunken bikers?


Ok, since you and Leather Man are very concerned about these critical and "grim" issues, here's my answer.

If Clark wants to claim that McCain's military record and service during war is in no way any qualification for being President, he is entitled to that opinion, as far as I'm concerned. No doubt, however, if it was Obama who had served in the US military, fought in war, was shot down, captured and tortured, Wesley and the Democrats would be singing a far, far different tune. In fact, if either Obama or Biden had even served at all in the military, you can bet that would highlighted by their campaigns.

As to the other points,

Frankly, I don't much care if McCain (or his campaign staff) brushes aside these "grim issues" with references to his service:

1. He admitted that the failure of his first marriage was nobody's fault but his. He has admitted publicly that it is his greatest moral failing. His current marriage to Cindy is going on 29 years. What else is there to say?

2. I don't care how rich he is. It's irrelevant if he owns 4 or 8 or 25 houses, or if he knows the exact number. That's only important to the media, the leftists, or those who whine about someone more successful than they. I will leave that to them to howl about.

3. Now the real burning grim issue - McCain "offering up" his wife. Of course, that's not exactly what he did, but I know you would like to spin it in the most lascivious way possible. Still, it was a certainly an ill-advised and poor attempt at humor to mention Cindy at all, partly because of people like you. Beyond that, this "issue" is just too ludicrous to address in a serious manner.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It's not surprising that you're avoiding the point. The point is that a pattern has developed that whenever someone says something critical of McCain, the response from McCain's backers and toadies is to yell, "POW! POW!" until the critics back down. If you think that's a legitimate way to conduct a discussion of political issues, fine.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

^And the Obama folks would never bring up race in order to silence questions or critics.

I have no dog in this fight as I won't be voting for either one of them.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The country's two largest financial institutions are essentially bankrupt, our infallible central bank is bailing out the financial industry and printing dollars so fast we may catch up with Zimbabwe soon, the local police have been co-opted by the federal government under the auspices of the Department of Fatherland Security and given extensive martial-law training, and we're one step away from a direct military engagement with Russia, but by all means, let's have our news media dominated by the pressing issue of whether John "Bomb Iran" McCain really meant to nominate his wife for a topless biker contest.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Phinn said:


> The country's two largest financial institutions are essentially bankrupt, our infallible central bank is bailing out the financial industry and printing dollars so fast we may catch up with Zimbabwe soon, the local police have been co-opted by the federal government under the auspices of the Department of Fatherland Security and given extensive martial-law training, and we're one step away from a direct military engagement with Russia, but by all means, let's have our news media dominated by the pressing issue of whether John "Bomb Iran" McCain really meant to nominate his wife for a topless biker contest.


You know, Phinn, you really should consider joining us here in New England! The more I read of your opinions, the more convinced I become that you are a closeted member Northeastern-Liberal-Egghead-Establishment.
:devil:

Buzz


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

AlanC said:


> ^And the Obama folks would never bring up race in order to silence questions or critics.
> 
> I have no dog in this fight as I won't be voting for either one of them.


The liberal publications like New Republic have already made claims that if Obama looses it is due to racism.

As for McCain not knowing how many houses he has. First of all, they're all mostly his wife's. They maintain separate finances and file taxes separately. Some of those houses are investments. Crazy, I know, to invest in a limited resource like property.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> It's not surprising that you're avoiding the point. The point is that a pattern has developed that whenever someone says something critical of McCain, the response from McCain's backers and toadies is to yell, "POW! POW!" until the critics back down. If you think that's a legitimate way to conduct a discussion of political issues, fine.


All I did was answer your specific "issues" raised. And, as I said, I have no problem whatsoever, with him brushing those off in such a manner. They are meaningless.

I guess, if you have better "issues", you should have raised them instead of the fluff you used to try and make your point.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Talking about houses and stripper wives is dumb. I had hoped liberals were better than that. When they bring up this trivial topics it makes them no better than conservatives. Talk about how McCain is short sighted and wants to drill for oil because he will be dead before the environmental affects happen. He doesn't care about making the world a better place for us. He just wants to be President and have some fun fighting wars and exploding stuff. Someone needs to get this guy an xbox.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

SkySov said:


> Talking about houses and stripper wives is dumb. I had hoped liberals were better than that. When they bring up this trivial topics it makes them no better than conservatives. Talk about how McCain is short sighted and wants to drill for oil because he will be dead before the environmental affects happen. He doesn't care about making the world a better place for us. He just wants to be President and have some fun fighting wars and exploding stuff. Someone needs to get this guy an xbox.


That is the most asinine statement I've heard in quite some time. Go back to reading New Republic, Salon and the New York Times.

First of all, name the last major oil spill.

If you're so against oil and other natural resources, I suppose you're against nuclear too. Explain to me how, without nuclear power, we will suddenly have almost all our power coming from renewable resources (which nuclear is) in the next 5 years like Mr. Obama claims will happen. It isn't feasible. Perhaps you liberals should stop your pie in the sky dreaming and face the economic realities of the world.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

I don't understand why conservatives are so negative. Maybe it's a genetic thing or something. I don't know I don't consider myself a real smart person. I just hear a lot of the conservatives on TV whine a lot and seem to have negative attitudes and hateful personalities. Maybe Obama won't fix any energy problems. But what's wrong with trying? I don't think oil spills are the only thing that hurts the environment. Climate change and all that jazz. Though I guess if you wake up every morning thinking today's the day the Jesus comes back then you really don't have to think about saving the planet for future generations. Death and Taxes. You're going to die and life is going to go on without you. Do the right thing and at least try to save the planet.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

AlanC said:


> It doesn't seem to me that the Dems would really want to bring up the issue of not being qualified to be President.


And what are those qualifications again?


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

SkySov said:


> I don't understand why conservatives are so negative. Maybe it's a genetic thing or something. I don't know I don't consider myself a real smart person. I just hear a lot of the conservatives on TV whine a lot and seem to have negative attitudes and hateful personalities. Maybe Obama won't fix any energy problems. But what's wrong with trying? I don't think oil spills are the only thing that hurts the environment. Climate change and all that jazz. Though I guess if you wake up every morning thinking today's the day the Jesus comes back then you really don't have to think about saving the planet for future generations. Death and Taxes. You're going to die and life is going to go on without you. Do the right thing and at least try to save the planet.


SkySoviet,
You're calling conservatives negative? Its conservatives who see the good in America, lefties who seem to conjure up negatives where it doesnt even exist sometime. Or at least if its real, its not something that can be fixed by legislation or more taxes.

As for the McCain/POW thing, its seems a pretty good response to character assasinations by his opponents. I dont think anybody is claiming it a qualification, but it is a useful retort, as well as no doubt a character building experience, to Obamdi and his minions. You guys nominate a guy who has never had a real job, almost no paper trail, and barely registered on Google 9 months ago, and want to talk about resumes and qualifications.

Full disclosure: I'll probably be voting for Bob Barr

And PS: Maureen Dowd, while sometimes clever, is often factually challenged, not to mention a tiresome cougar


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

I hate America! I want to see this crap country destroyed through taxing the super rich so it's possible for the vulgar citizens to get an education and afford life saving medicines. That's the master plan. Don't tell them I told you the truth.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

SkySov said:


> I don't understand why conservatives are so negative. Maybe it's a genetic thing or something. I don't know I don't consider myself a real smart person. I just hear a lot of the conservatives on TV whine a lot and seem to have negative attitudes and hateful personalities. Maybe Obama won't fix any energy problems. But what's wrong with trying? I don't think oil spills are the only thing that hurts the environment. Climate change and all that jazz. Though I guess if you wake up every morning thinking today's the day the Jesus comes back then you really don't have to think about saving the planet for future generations. Death and Taxes. You're going to die and life is going to go on without you. Do the right thing and at least try to save the planet.





SkySov said:


> I hate America! I want to see this crap country destroyed through taxing the super rich so it's possible for the vulgar citizens to get an education and afford life saving medicines. That's the master plan. Don't tell them I told you the truth.


First of all, scientists from around the world especially in the eastern hemisphere believe we're entering a period of global cooling, so I wouldn't count on global warming just yet.

I don't believe that Jesus is going to come down any day in the near future, and that is a bigoted generalization and a straw man argument at that.

Also, Obama's plan doesn't invlove taxing the super rich. It involves taxing everyone. It is foolish to believe otherwise. 90% of all capital gains filings come from people making less than $100,000 a year. I guess those people are super rich because Obama wants to raise their capital gains tax despite economic proof that the higher the tax the less revenue the government will make. Or what about this "windfall profits tax." That is the biggest crock. The government makes more money from taxes on gasoline than the oil companies do. Not including reinvestment for exploration and drilling, the oil company's profits are around 1%. Go ahead and raise the taxes on oil companies and gas will just go up. The consumer will pay the price.

Obama isn't going to try and save the world or even the country with his energy policy. It won't work. It is stupid and naive to claim "it is worth a try" when economists are in agreement that it won't. It will fail miserably. His carbon emissions cap would put our per capita emissions lower than the colonial days.

Maybe we've been watching different news, but all I see is undying praise of the messiah who is going to save us all!

If Barack Obama cares about the poor, why is it that the most he has ever donated to charity is 6% of his income? Why is it his brother lives in poverty in Africa living on 3 cents a day while he lives in a multimillion dollar home that a felon helped him buy? Obama could send his brother a dollar a month and double his standard of living.

But I guess now is the "first time in [our lives]" we can be proud of America.

Don't worry, if Obama doesn't win it is racism that did him in.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

What hemisphere is Kyoto in? I was kidding around but you sound serious. And if you are going to be serious then it's sad you aren't objective. It's easy agreeing with the right. Keeping it simple for the stupid perhaps. Surely a more lazy way of debating. Again I'm not going to pretend to know stuff like you. But really? Gas Prices? How can gas prices be justification for being Republican when they raise $3 a gallon during their administration? Oil profits 1%? I call BS. Link please. I don't like being that kind of douche bag but I'm going to have to ask for link on that one. Some proof. Hell I'll even take Fox News. I doubt even they would make such a preposterous claim. I don't know about Obama's brother. Maybe he likes Africa? Some people like Mississippi too believe it or not. To each their own.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Not including reinvestment for exploration and drilling, the oil company's profits are around 1%.


Bah. I felt bad asking for proof I don't like doing that. So I did some searching myself. And you're wrong. Sorry. 10% profit margin. Actually it was probably just a typo. You left the 0 out.

https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=xom

ExxonMobile is the Michael Phelps of business!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/top-corporate-quarterly-earnings-of-all-time/


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

You're right. It is so easy agreeing with economics.

Even if profit is 10%, if that is "windfall profits" why not add extra taxes to apple? They had a 33% profit. The markup on an iPhone when they came out was 150-200%.

Heck, let's just raise taxes on businesses even more! We can quickly beat out those Japanese for the coveted highest corporate tax in the world spot.

Also, who said I'm a Republican? And who said my reason for voting Republican, if in fact I do, is over gas prices?

There you go with the straw men again.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Not even consistently wrong like the real Bush.*



eagle2250 said:


> ...at least [McCain]'s consistent. Occassionally boorish but, consistent!


Not really. He's great at schmoozing the media so they don't raise his incessant flip-flops and self-contradictions.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

McCain on Leno. POW card dealt once again.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> McCain on Leno. POW card dealt once again.


noun-verb-pow................seems to be true

how many pows returned from vietnam?


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Probably only the ones that cooperated with the enemy?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

SkySov said:


> Probably only the ones that cooperated with the enemy?


Eeeuuuugh!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

SkySov said:


> Probably only the ones that cooperated with the enemy?


So did you stand in line to spit on the soldiers?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Probably only the ones that cooperated with the enemy?


That's very disrespectful. My pediatrician when I was a kid was a former WWII POW in Germany. He was partially blind in one eye, and he had difficulty walking from abuse he suffered from the Nazis. They had even pulled some of his teeth out.

I agree that time spent as a POW does not qualify someone to be President, however, there is no need to disrespect those that served their country.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

It may be unfortunate, but I'll never understand people's blind, unconditional, respect for _anyone_ who served in the military. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction, some survival instinct, to defend against being labeled a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo. As a liberal, I treat people as individuals instead of grouping everyone together to make assumptions about them just to make it simple. I would say most of the people in the military are good people who deserve respect. Especially if you go back through history. But there are bad people who are in the military and that's unfortunate too whether it's believed or not. My college is close to an Army base, and I'm not going to make a real long post to tell a story because it probably won't even be believed. Military good. Peace loving hippies bad. That's the simple way and makes life easier and more comfortable. As for McCain, yes it stinks he was locked up for 5 years. But qualifications for President aside, being a POW does not even make one a good person. He scares me. But that's my own personal troubles. Maybe Obama will suck, but I will bet everything I have and will have that he won't start WWIII.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

SkySov said:


> It may be unfortunate, but I'll never understand people's blind, unconditional, respect for _anyone_ who served in the military.


I don't think this is the case at all. After all, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated combat veteran and I saw very little respect for him. It's more of an institutional respect than an unconditional respect for the individual person. When an individual gives reason to think less highly of him, I think people do without regard to whether he is a military veteran or not.

The difference between the serviceman or veteran and everyone else is that they begin with a certain amount of respect that is theirs to maintain or lose based on their ongoing behavior. It certainly is not unconditional as has been demonstrated by many.

And then we have veterans like John McCain. Veterans who's service rose above and beyond ordinary veterans. A few among us clearly rise above the crowd. That isn't saying that the rest of us couldn't do the same thing if called upon, but we don't know. We do know about those select few who have done it.

If a man stands up in the face of enemy machine gun fire and moves forward to save a fallen comrade while everyone else seeks cover or when a man refuses to walk away from horrible torture and abuse for no reason other than to support his fellow POWs, sensible thinking folks among us don't look down on the ones who sought the safety of cover or the ones who walked away from the torture and abuse; but instead we tend to look up to those who did what others did not do. And they did it for the benefit of others, not themselves. That deserves a certain measure of respect.



> Maybe Obama will suck, but I will bet everything I have and will have that he won't start WWIII.


Pacifism does not guarantee peace. In fact, it usually guarantees just the opposite. Substitute Chamberlain for Obama in your sentence and then go read your history books. How many millions died because men who wanted peace at any price failed to stand up to Hitler in the 1930's before he became as powerful as he ultimately became?

Hitler laid out his vision of the world in his book. Instead of taking him at his word on that, the world negotiated with him and made concessions in an effort to appease him. The end result was WWII. Why should we have been surprised? He told us what he was going to do.

The Islamic extremists have also made their vision of the world very clear. The leaders of Iran, for example, haven't minced their words. If we fail to take them at their word like we failed to take Hitler at his word, I fear the end result will be the same. In fact, I suspect that it will be even more a sure thing than it was with the Nazis because now we are talking religious ideology and that is usually not negotiable.

Cruiser


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Skysov, I agree that there is a lot of nasty negativity from the conservative talking heads on TV and it does little to help us as a nation.

I hear every bit as much spin, slanting, negativity and occasional dishonesty from the folks on the left. Both sides suffer in a "The ends justify the means" philosophy and tossing aside any pretense of civility, honesty or decency as they seek to impose their goals on the rest of us.

As far as you treating every one as an individual, perhaps you might want to do that with conservatives. 

The behavior on both extremes of our political landscape is destructive and will eventually weaken and ruin our country. The sad thing is that instead of trying to come together to improve things, both the left and the right seem to hope things will get worse so they can try to "win" by blaming the problems on the other side.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

SkySov said:


> It may be unfortunate, but I'll never understand people's blind, unconditional, respect for _anyone_ who served in the military. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction, some survival instinct, to defend against being labeled a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo. As a liberal, I treat people as individuals instead of grouping everyone together to make assumptions about them just to make it simple. I would say most of the people in the military are good people who deserve respect. Especially if you go back through history. But there are bad people who are in the military and that's unfortunate too whether it's believed or not. My college is close to an Army base, and I'm not going to make a real long post to tell a story because it probably won't even be believed. Military good. Peace loving hippies bad. That's the simple way and makes life easier and more comfortable. As for McCain, yes it stinks he was locked up for 5 years. But qualifications for President aside, being a POW does not even make one a good person. He scares me. But that's my own personal troubles. Maybe Obama will suck, but I will bet everything I have and will have that he won't start WWIII.


Sock puppet! You are a sock puppet. But for whom?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Pacifism does not guarantee peace. In fact, it usually guarantees just the opposite. Substitute Chamberlain for Obama in your sentence and then go read your history books. How many millions died because men who wanted peace at any price failed to stand up to Hitler in the 1930's before he became as powerful as he ultimately became?
> 
> Hitler laid out his vision of the world in his book. Instead of taking him at his word on that, the world negotiated with him and made concessions in an effort to appease him. The end result was WWII. Why should we have been surprised? He told us what he was going to do.
> 
> ...


1. Who said Obama was or is a pacifist? Nobody I know, unless anyone who opposes any proposed military adventure is a pacifist.

2. You're right, worldwide Islamic extremists, like those who carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001, pose a threat to the United States. We were exactly right to go to Afghanistan to try to wipe them out.

Unfortunately for this argument, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with them, and invading Iraq has made the United States less able to defend ourselves against these Islamic extremists. If people like Obama, and the millions of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq had been listened to, our country and our culture would be safer today, our military and our economy would be stronger, and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East would be stabler. It is not the opponents of the war who are hurting our interests, but those who started it, and who continue to support it to this day.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree that Saddam was an evil thug, but we probably would have been better off not to dilute our power by invading Iraq.

However, now we HAVE invaded it and we can't reverse what we did. We probably need to do what is necessary to try to make sure that Al Qaeda does not overpower the new government.

Iraq is definitely a Bush Blunder, but now we really need to try to make the best of a bad situation. It does appear that the recent "surge" has helped things.

To just withdraw now without making the best of the situation could make things worse. For better or worse, Iraq has been invaded. We should now make the situation as good as possible before we leave. 

(Unfortunately, few if any on either side of the political spectrum really "know" what the best thing to do is. I suspect that both the left and right are saying whatever they think will make "their side win" as opposed to doing any real analysis of what is truly needed.)


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jack,

As you know, VP candidate Joe Biden voted to authorize the Iraq war. 

He shares in the responsibility for getting us into Iraq and the resulting situation.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Forsberg: you're right, we're there and we need to do something. I don't think there is any way we can leave and guarantee the security of whatever government we leave there. It's nice, though, that both the government of Iraq and now the Bush administration have essentially agreed with Obama's plan for withdrawal.

What I thought was a crucial difference between Obama and Clinton, and definitely between Obama and McCain, is that Obama had the judgment to take the right position on Iraq before we went in. It's not just a question of what we do next in Iraq, but also of what we do in the next crisis. McCain has already shown himself to have the instincts of a hothead when it comes to Georgia, he was wrong in Iraq, and I don't think he can be trusted to deal with the next crisis.

Relayer: you're right. Biden was wrong on Iraq. He has admitted it, though, and opposed the war since then. This is probably the main reason that many of us didn't support Clinton: if you can't get a clear answer out of her on what she did wrong, and why she won't make the same mistake again, how can we trust that she won't make the same mistake again?

Of course, my initial preference was Edwards. I'm sure glad we didn't get what we wished for there.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> What I thought was a crucial difference between Obama and Clinton, and definitely between Obama and McCain, is that Obama had the judgment to take the right position on Iraq before we went in. It's not just a question of what we do next in Iraq, but also of what we do in the next crisis.


No doubt this concerns you with regards to the VP choice, as well, given Biden's vote for the war. Hindsight regrets are nice, but the time to get a vote right is when you cast the vote, not a few years later.

Obama's VP choice also surprises me when considering similar concerns from Obama himself,

"who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong. This is not just a matter of debating the past. It's about who has the best judgment to make the critical decisions of the future."

Yet he picks Biden for his VP, who, according to Obama got the momentous decision wrong, and whose future decision-making ability must now be considered questionable.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 1. Who said Obama was or is a pacifist? Nobody I know, unless anyone who opposes any proposed military adventure is a pacifist.


So confronting Hitler in the 30's would have been a "military adventure." Then I'm for more military adventures because that would have saved millions of lives in the long run.

I'm not specifically saying that Obama is a pacifist, but I am saying that his plans to try to negotiate with folks who have already clearly stated their intentions and their vision for the world will do nothing but give them more time to prepare for THEIR "military adventure". Hitler is the best historical lesson we have here.

With regard to Iraq, we can debate Iraq til the cows come home but that isn't the key issue the next President will have to address. Iran and Russia will be.

Russia is already entering into agreements with and supplying Iran with technology. I think this alliance will turn out to be the single biggest threat to world peace, and world war, in this century. Russia we can negotiate with because those guys want to live too and they don't have all those virgins waiting for them in heaven. Iran is a different story and I don't think I want to entrust my security to Sen. Obama when it comes to those guys.

Cruiser


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Forsberg: you're right, we're there and we need to do something. I don't think there is any way we can leave and guarantee the security of whatever government we leave there. It's nice, though, that both the government of Iraq and now the Bush administration have essentially agreed with Obama's plan for withdrawal.
> 
> What I thought was a crucial difference between Obama and Clinton, and definitely between Obama and McCain, is that Obama had the judgment to take the right position on Iraq before we went in. It's not just a question of what we do next in Iraq, but also of what we do in the next crisis. McCain has already shown himself to have the instincts of a hothead when it comes to Georgia, he was wrong in Iraq, and I don't think he can be trusted to deal with the next crisis.
> 
> ...


<<...Obama had the judgment to take the right position on Iraq before we went in.>>

He also had the safety of being in the Illinois House, not the US Senate at the time so we dont really know how he would have actually voted.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 1. Who said Obama was or is a pacifist? Nobody I know, unless anyone who opposes any proposed military adventure is a pacifist.


Its not that he's a pacifist; he's confused! Even pacifists have well founded and grounded ideals upon which they base their decisions. Decisions of war and peace are completely foreign to any previous life experience Obama has had. How else would you explain relative passivity against Iran and wanting to go into Pakistan militarily to get OBL.

He's never had to think things like this through so he really doesn't have anything substantial upon which to fall back on. He's got a mean jump shot though!


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

I'll probably vote Mcain but he does love the "pow card".


----------



## mczewd (Jul 21, 2008)

I agree with Obama: the last thing we need is to be tied to the failed policies of the past! Oh, wait a minute . . . Marx and Lenin are failed policies of the past. Never mind.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> So confronting Hitler in the 30's would have been a "military adventure."....


:devil::devil::devil:

Congratulations to Cruiser, this thread's winner of the Bringing Up the Hitler Bogeyman Award.  The BUHBA will be awarded to anyone who inserts that most despised Austrian into a thread not about the second world war. (Extra point for bringing it up in a thread originally concerning Vietnam but a deduction for non sequitur insertion.)

The prize committee is currently on vacation but the BUHBA itself, an upside down marzipan black eagle shoved into a block of lard and mounted on a board of solid genuine immitation oak veneer, will be sent to the winner COD.

With best wishes from the committee,
A.Q.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The ever-popular Hitler bogeyman accusation is itself a type of false argument. Hitler is often brought up as an example to test the validity of someone's sweeping assertion, and there is nothing wrong in doing so if, in fact, the assertion is truly tested by the example. In this case, I suspect that is exactly what Cruiser was doing as a consequence of misinterpreting, presumably, Jack's statement, which was unintentionally ambiguous in that it could be read as referring to one who would oppose all military engagements. In contrast, I interpreted Jack to mean that the term "pacifist" should not be applied to person just because he refuses to favor each and every proposed military engagement. But the statement could be construed in the manner that Cruiser did, in which case his reference to Hitler would be perfectly sound. No one's at fault here. Jack's assertion was grammatically correct and certainly said what he intended to say, but it could also be read in the way Cruiser read it, in which case his Hitler reference would be sensible, even if widely considered objectionable for reasons I fail to understand.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*Godwin's Law*

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others invented later. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception"). For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever 
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
* However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.* A 2005 _Reason _magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

It would seem that even with a grinning green face, three devils, marzipan, lard and cheap veneer staring at them, those that chose to will gladly overlook the obviously farcical in order to insert their own pedantic views. 

And rightly so. The world is a much better place since it daily demonstrates an inconceivable diversity of persons that makes life always surprising and often astonishing.

Wishing all an early start to a pleasant holiday weekend,
A.Q.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Hitler. (Do I get a silver medal. I seldom win anything - - -)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Quay said:


> It would seem that even with a grinning green face, three devils, marzipan, lard and cheap veneer staring at them, those that chose to will gladly overlook the obviously farcical in order to insert their own pedantic views.
> 
> And rightly so. The world is a much better place since it daily demonstrates an inconceivable diversity of persons that makes life always surprising and often astonishing.
> 
> ...


No views stated, just putting the definition out there for those that do not know the "rules" of Godwin's Law.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Hitler. (Do I get a silver medal. I seldom win anything - - -)


Dear Sir Forsberg,

You win the Silver Cup of Brevity, farthest of cousin to the BUHBA. It is finely wrought and is said to have once been owned by Talleyrand. And in view of your selection you may asked it filled as much as you like with any beverage you choose.

May your holiday weekend be full of good cheer,
A.Q.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Quay said:


> Congratulations to Cruiser, this thread's winner of the Bringing Up the Hitler Bogeyman Award.
> 
> With best wishes from the committee


I'd like to thank the committee, my family, and all of the others who have stood by me as I could not have done this alone. I accept this award with humble gratitude while at the same time never forgetting what George Santayana said in _Reason in Common Sense,_

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."

Cruiser


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> It would seem that even with a grinning green face, three devils, marzipan, lard and cheap veneer staring at them, those that chose to will gladly overlook the obviously farcical in order to insert their own pedantic views.
> 
> And rightly so. The world is a much better place since it daily demonstrates an inconceivable diversity of persons that makes life always surprising and often astonishing.
> 
> ...


I apologize if I was pedantic. I honestly was just trying to be helpful. You are correct that I probably did not direct enough attention to the emoticons (is that the right word?) -- probably a disability associated with my age. In any case I did sense that you probably misunderstood Cruiser precisely because you properly understood Jack, but any more explanation may risk pedantry so I'll sign off.
 (see of that works).

And Laxplayer, thanks for your explanation. I actually found it quite informative.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I'd like to thank the committee, my family, and all of the others who have stood by me as I could not have done this alone. I accept this award with humble gratitude while at the same time never forgetting what George Santayana said in _Reason in Common Sense,_
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."
> 
> Cruiser


Thank you for your gracious acceptance. :icon_smile: My first professor of history had that aphorism on a framed print that took it to new levels as the quote was translated into 15 languages so no one who entered his office would fail to note it. I appreciate your quoting it correctly, too, as I'm sure you know it's been corrupted so many times especially in the service of advertising.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Bleh. Pacifism = Hitler I don't get. I don't know. Ya war is alright sometimes. But I don't like that idea of starting wars to not start a war. I forget what that's called preliminary attack or something. But McCain has that look like he is someone that will do that. For fun or because he honestly thinks it's best. It may sound bad but I think if our country is going to attack another country it should be attacked first. That way we have history on our side saying we're "the good guys." I rather take the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack than live in a country that goes around invading nations and blowing up families because a terrorist might live in the area. If that makes any sense. Oh, and I think it's kind of lazy to say anyone who doesn't support war and _all_ soldiers (i.e. McCain) spits on them all too btw. Even lazier than bringing up Hitler when disputing a credit charge.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> I apologize if I was pedantic. I honestly was just trying to be helpful....


Kind sir, no apologies necessary on my account. One's honest reactions are always appreciated although perhaps not as well as intended. Such are the constrictions, trials and troubles of these little virtual boxes where even at the best of times what seems clear to some may be opaque to others. No great matter unless it all gets taken too seriously -- and even then it does not last.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------

