McCain on war in 1993

[Daniel Adams]

What an idiotic thread. McCain had explained time and time again why Iraq is different from Somalia (and Viet Nam by the way). As McCain's spokesman Matt David explained, "It's intellectually dishonest to compare the situations in Haiti and Somalia to the current situation in Iraq. Number one, we live in a post 9/11 world. Number two, we're dealing with the volatility of the Middle East. And number three and most importantly, Haitians and Somalians do not want to follow us home and attack us on American soil."

[Person Man]

What an idiotic thread. McCain had explained time and time again why Iraq is different from Somalia (and Viet Nam by the way). As McCain's spokesman Matt David explained, "It's intellectually dishonest to compare the situations in Haiti and Somalia to the current situation in Iraq. Number one, we live in a post 9/11 world. Number two, we're dealing with the volatility of the Middle East. And number three and most importantly, Haitians and Somalians do not want to follow us home and attack us on American soil."

and all 3 assertions are doodo.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I hope some of you morons realize that opposing a war in Somalia and supporting a war in Iraq is not "flip-flopping". This is a really dumb thread.

Well, when you have to hate him for SOMETHING...

[Person Man]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

[Beet]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's quite simple - McCain positions himself as a moderate in the lead up to 2000 - loses, then swtiches to the conservative in 2008.

[classical liberal]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

By the ACU's Conservative Ratings, McCain was tied for 45th in 2005 and alone at 46th in 2006 for most conservative.  His average Conservatism Score for those two years was 72.5%, well below his career average of 82.3%.

[Gustaf]

I see that Bgwah offers a post as thoughtful and reflective as most of his material.

As others have also pointed out opposing one war in 1993 and favouring another in 2008 is really not an example of withdrawal. I realize that if you have a short attention-span it may seem like inconsistent if someone says "I want withdrawal" and then says "I do not want withdrawal" but it isn't in reality, if you are, for instance, talking about different subjects. You could just as well call Clinton inconsistent because she thinks it is ok to abort babies but not to abort the Iraq mission!

Of course, if you're against a war you're gonna say that we should withdraw immediately. That isn't really part of an argument for or against. This is one of the weakest attacks on a politician I've ever seen, honestly. And Boris noted some of the key differences between Somalia and Iraq. The situations are very, very different meaning that one could favour one and oppose the other without being inconsistent. I will note that even if they were alike the fact that FIFTEEN years has passed still wouldn't make it an inconsistency.

So, you're taking a statement saying "I'm against A" and then another statement saying "I'm in favour of B", made 15 years later and making it into a contradiction. It's analogous to me saying I like apples and 15 years later saying I like bananas. It wouldn't even be inconsistent if I was talking about apples on both times and it really, really isn't if the subjects are different.

[bgwah]

I see that Bgwah offers a post as thoughtful and reflective as most of his material.

I am very sorry, Gustaf. Your post that I was responding to was intelligent and insightful, and you treated those with whom you were having a conversation with civility and respect. I should have acted more maturely and treated you like you kindly treated the other people in this thread. An insulting one liner was uncalled for on my part. You obviously did not say anything that warranted such a response and I hope you accept my sincerest apology!

[Gustaf]

I see that Bgwah offers a post as thoughtful and reflective as most of his material.

I am very sorry, Gustaf. Your post that I was responding to was intelligent and insightful, and you treated those with whom you were having a conversation with civility and respect. I should have acted more maturely and treated you like you kindly treated the other people in this thread. An insulting one liner was uncalled for on my part. You obviously did not say anything that warranted such a response and I hope you accept my sincerest apology!

I didn't really think that a stupid low-blow warranted much of my time, especially as I was in a hurry. I will note though that I did give the basic reason for my opinion. You responded to that with a simple insult. Despite the brick wall of non-thinking that I was encountering I at least offered a an argument and you didn't. I believe I've said it in the past, but I will repeat it: I used to be nice and civil to EVERYONE but once the forum got cluttered with trolls I gave up on it. I try my best to be civil to those who deserve it by acting in a respectful and civil manner themselves. Those who don't forfeit their right to respect as far as I'm concerned. I try not to do this if people are simply genuinely misinformed or ignorant but in this case the attack was quite malignant and did not call for that concern.

Finally, despite calling me a "retard" you have STILL not argued your opinon at all. Just as an aside.

[Person Man]

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

You'd be 100% correct if (1) the Senate delegation did not change since, and (2) each Senate exclusively discusses the same legislation each session.  Those interest groups ratings may be fun to take a look at every now and then, but they're not a serious, reliable tool year over year.

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

See, the problem with that is that it's not really an "arguement."  It's hyberbole.

And I'm pretty sure you can't "flip-flop" a "relationship."

[Gustaf]

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

20 minutes<15 years

So, you've seen him trying to make up with one of the strongest forces within his party in order to have a chance at the nomination. Welcome to politics. McCain stands out as more principled and steadfast in his beliefs than most contemporary politicians.

[Person Man]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

You'd be 100% correct if (1) the Senate delegation did not change since, and (2) each Senate exclusively discusses the same legislation each session.  Those interest groups ratings may be fun to take a look at every now and then, but they're not a serious, reliable tool year over year.

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

See, the problem with that is that it's not really an "arguement."  It's hyberbole.

And I'm pretty sure you can't "flip-flop" a "relationship."

Of course you can. American politics just are not the violitale.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

You'd be 100% correct if (1) the Senate delegation did not change since, and (2) each Senate exclusively discusses the same legislation each session.  Those interest groups ratings may be fun to take a look at every now and then, but they're not a serious, reliable tool year over year.

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

See, the problem with that is that it's not really an "arguement."  It's hyberbole.

And I'm pretty sure you can't "flip-flop" a "relationship."

Of course you can. American politics just are not the violitale.

I disagree.  They calerly are the violitale.

[Person Man]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

You'd be 100% correct if (1) the Senate delegation did not change since, and (2) each Senate exclusively discusses the same legislation each session.  Those interest groups ratings may be fun to take a look at every now and then, but they're not a serious, reliable tool year over year.

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

See, the problem with that is that it's not really an "arguement."  It's hyberbole.

And I'm pretty sure you can't "flip-flop" a "relationship."

Of course you can. American politics just are not the violitale.

I disagree.  They calerly are the violitale.

Maybe. but you don't totally go from one side of your party to another in just a couple of years.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

You'd be 100% correct if (1) the Senate delegation did not change since, and (2) each Senate exclusively discusses the same legislation each session.  Those interest groups ratings may be fun to take a look at every now and then, but they're not a serious, reliable tool year over year.

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

See, the problem with that is that it's not really an "arguement."  It's hyberbole.

And I'm pretty sure you can't "flip-flop" a "relationship."

Of course you can. American politics just are not the violitale.

I disagree.  They calerly are the violitale.

Maybe. but you don't totally go from one side of your party to another in just a couple of years.

Except that he didn't.  McCain was never a moderate.  And he's not an arch-conservative now.

He's a mainstream-ish, common sense, 1980s Republican throwback to the time where his party actually gived a crap about deficits and good tax policy.

[Person Man]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

You'd be 100% correct if (1) the Senate delegation did not change since, and (2) each Senate exclusively discusses the same legislation each session.  Those interest groups ratings may be fun to take a look at every now and then, but they're not a serious, reliable tool year over year.

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

See, the problem with that is that it's not really an "arguement."  It's hyberbole.

And I'm pretty sure you can't "flip-flop" a "relationship."

Of course you can. American politics just are not the violitale.

I disagree.  They calerly are the violitale.

Maybe. but you don't totally go from one side of your party to another in just a couple of years.

Except that he didn't.  McCain was never a moderate.  And he's not an arch-conservative now.

He's a mainstream-ish, common sense, 1980s Republican throwback to the time where his party actually gived a crap about deficits and good tax policy.

Yeah, but you can't ever pin him down.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

He flip flops on EVERYTHING, though.

And when you can't hate him for SOMETHING, hate him through hyperbole!

Well he seems to have flip flopped on something because he went from being the 6th most moderate Republican Senator in the 107th Congress to the 4th, 2nd, and 6th most conservative Senator in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses.

You'd be 100% correct if (1) the Senate delegation did not change since, and (2) each Senate exclusively discusses the same legislation each session.  Those interest groups ratings may be fun to take a look at every now and then, but they're not a serious, reliable tool year over year.

Can we get back to the argument at hand. The point is that we have seen him flipflop on everything from what his war plan was on Iraq to his relationship with the religious right. If he can change his mind in 20 minutes yet retain his voting record, he really does lack principle.

See, the problem with that is that it's not really an "arguement."  It's hyberbole.

And I'm pretty sure you can't "flip-flop" a "relationship."

Of course you can. American politics just are not the violitale.

I disagree.  They calerly are the violitale.

Maybe. but you don't totally go from one side of your party to another in just a couple of years.

Except that he didn't.  McCain was never a moderate.  And he's not an arch-conservative now.

He's a mainstream-ish, common sense, 1980s Republican throwback to the time where his party actually gived a crap about deficits and good tax policy.

Yeah, but you can't ever pin him down.

He pins himself down regularly with every vote he casts in the U.S. Senate.

[bgwah]

I see that Bgwah offers a post as thoughtful and reflective as most of his material.

I am very sorry, Gustaf. Your post that I was responding to was intelligent and insightful, and you treated those with whom you were having a conversation with civility and respect. I should have acted more maturely and treated you like you kindly treated the other people in this thread. An insulting one liner was uncalled for on my part. You obviously did not say anything that warranted such a response and I hope you accept my sincerest apology!

I didn't really think that a stupid low-blow warranted much of my time, especially as I was in a hurry. I will note though that I did give the basic reason for my opinion. You responded to that with a simple insult. Despite the brick wall of non-thinking that I was encountering I at least offered a an argument and you didn't. I believe I've said it in the past, but I will repeat it: I used to be nice and civil to EVERYONE but once the forum got cluttered with trolls I gave up on it. I try my best to be civil to those who deserve it by acting in a respectful and civil manner themselves. Those who don't forfeit their right to respect as far as I'm concerned. I try not to do this if people are simply genuinely misinformed or ignorant but in this case the attack was quite malignant and did not call for that concern.

Finally, despite calling me a "retard" you have STILL not argued your opinon at all. Just as an aside.

What opinion? I did not make any statement about the content of this thread, I simply poked fun at you for bursting in on page one and calling a bunch of people morons with your little one liner. You criticize me for "insulting" you when you did the exact same thing to others in this thread. Jfern, for example, merely posted an opinion with an interesting link as proof, yet apparently he "deserved" your vicious attack? Well, sorry Gus, but in my opinion I gave you the amount of respect you deserved: none.

You're a moderator. Start acting like one. Surely you realize that this makes you a model forumer, and if you go around attacking people by calling them morons, or call Winfield "insane" because he is very fond of Mitt Romney, then you are only continuing the cycle of trolling and hate and are no better than those you preach against and in fact are only making things worse. But maybe this is too complicated for you to understand?

[Gustaf]

I see that Bgwah offers a post as thoughtful and reflective as most of his material.

I am very sorry, Gustaf. Your post that I was responding to was intelligent and insightful, and you treated those with whom you were having a conversation with civility and respect. I should have acted more maturely and treated you like you kindly treated the other people in this thread. An insulting one liner was uncalled for on my part. You obviously did not say anything that warranted such a response and I hope you accept my sincerest apology!

I didn't really think that a stupid low-blow warranted much of my time, especially as I was in a hurry. I will note though that I did give the basic reason for my opinion. You responded to that with a simple insult. Despite the brick wall of non-thinking that I was encountering I at least offered a an argument and you didn't. I believe I've said it in the past, but I will repeat it: I used to be nice and civil to EVERYONE but once the forum got cluttered with trolls I gave up on it. I try my best to be civil to those who deserve it by acting in a respectful and civil manner themselves. Those who don't forfeit their right to respect as far as I'm concerned. I try not to do this if people are simply genuinely misinformed or ignorant but in this case the attack was quite malignant and did not call for that concern.

Finally, despite calling me a "retard" you have STILL not argued your opinon at all. Just as an aside.

What opinion? I did not make any statement about the content of this thread, I simply poked fun at you for bursting in on page one and calling a bunch of people morons with your little one liner. You criticize me for "insulting" you when you did the exact same thing to others in this thread. Jfern, for example, merely posted an opinion with an interesting link as proof, yet apparently he "deserved" your vicious attack? Well, sorry Gus, but in my opinion I gave you the amount of respect you deserved: none.

You're a moderator. Start acting like one. Surely you realize that this makes you a model forumer, and if you go around attacking people by calling them morons, or call Winfield "insane" because he is very fond of Mitt Romney, then you are only continuing the cycle of trolling and hate and are no better than those you preach against and in fact are only making things worse. But maybe this is too complicated for you to understand?

We're hijacking the thread, but it wasn't worth much to begin with, so I hope people won't mind too much.

1. Calling someone a retard is not "poking fun" in my book. But we may well differ there.

2. Calling someone a "damn hypocrite" for having a different opinion on a different issue 15 years back deserves no intellectual respect. Deep down I think Jfern knows this too, but he's an activist who is always trying to get people on his side even if it means intellectual dishonesty. I don't particularly respect that. A bunch of other people were going along with this and I was a little annoyed that no one would point out the pretty obvious faultiness of their reasoning.

3. I see you're pretending to stand on moral high ground once again, with your sudden concern for the atmosphere of the forum. I never asked to be moderator and if people think me unfit I won't grieve much at losing the position. I'm pretty much redundant at it anyway, since I don't have the time for it and others have shouldered my burden. In fact, the last big moderator job I can recall doing was driving away the little "cult" you created and invaded the forum with. Given that other moderators treat our more trollish posters with just as much open contempt I can't say that I feel particularly hit by your accusations though.

As I said, I used to be nice to people who didn't deserve it but on an internet forum it isn't really worth it, since some of you simply won't change. You, for instance, have gone to great lengths in attempts to put down and be mean to other posters, whether it is photo shopping pictures, writing pornographic short stories or digging up 1000 comments from the last 3 years of a poster. I think those things contribute a lot more to bad feelings than calling a moronic statement moronic. Especially since they had no link to actual political issues discussed but were merely personal attacks with no clear purpose. At this point I see no reason to be nice to those posters who never cease to detract from the quality of the forum. Specifically, I see no reason to be nicer to THEM than they are to other people.

[bgwah]

I didn't
We're hijacking the thread, but it wasn't worth much to begin with, so I hope people won't mind too much.

1. Calling someone a retard is not "poking fun" in my book. But we may well differ there.

2. Calling someone a "damn hypocrite" for having a different opinion on a different issue 15 years back deserves no intellectual respect. Deep down I think Jfern knows this too, but he's an activist who is always trying to get people on his side even if it means intellectual dishonesty. I don't particularly respect that. A bunch of other people were going along with this and I was a little annoyed that no one would point out the pretty obvious faultiness of their reasoning.

I'm sure John McCain the forumer was very upset by jfern's post. Ah, and I must have missed the part where faulty reasoning warranted your vicious attack.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then perhaps you should quit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a game and I confined that to one or two threads. No need to be such a crybaby over it. And Sam Spade is the only other moderator I can think of to act at all like you (and he is much worse).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were nice to everyone? I must have missed that. If you don't think I've changed at all, then you're even dumber than I thought you were. As for the story, Bono created a thread that was a joke at the expense of other forumers. I responded with a joke post that many people found amusing. I immediately apologized when I realized Bono was, ahem, not amused. I had never suspected that he was perhaps a closeted homosexual, and had I known how insecure he was about his sexuality I would not have made that post. My behavior towards that other person is no different than yours--I felt they "deserved" every bit of it...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...The only difference? I usually don't care. Standing on the moral high ground and sudden concern? You're the one pretending to stand on a moral high ground with your "THEY DESERVED IT!" and "I TRIED" selfish crap. It's annoying and it shows your faulty reasoning, and if you feel it's okay to respond to such behavior with a one line insult, then expect the same trash tossed back at you. Sorry Gustaf, but at the end of the day you're little more than another troll.

[Gustaf]

I didn't
We're hijacking the thread, but it wasn't worth much to begin with, so I hope people won't mind too much.

1. Calling someone a retard is not "poking fun" in my book. But we may well differ there.

2. Calling someone a "damn hypocrite" for having a different opinion on a different issue 15 years back deserves no intellectual respect. Deep down I think Jfern knows this too, but he's an activist who is always trying to get people on his side even if it means intellectual dishonesty. I don't particularly respect that. A bunch of other people were going along with this and I was a little annoyed that no one would point out the pretty obvious faultiness of their reasoning.

I'm sure John McCain the forumer was very upset by jfern's post. Ah, and I must have missed the part where faulty reasoning warranted your vicious attack.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then perhaps you should quit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a game and I confined that to one or two threads. No need to be such a crybaby over it. And Sam Spade is the only other moderator I can think of to act at all like you (and he is much worse).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were nice to everyone? I must have missed that. If you don't think I've changed at all, then you're even dumber than I thought you were. As for the story, Bono created a thread that was a joke at the expense of other forumers. I responded with a joke post that many people found amusing. I immediately apologized when I realized Bono was, ahem, not amused. I had never suspected that he was perhaps a closeted homosexual, and had I known how insecure he was about his sexuality I would not have made that post. My behavior towards that other person is no different than yours--I felt they "deserved" every bit of it...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...The only difference? I usually don't care. Standing on the moral high ground and sudden concern? You're the one pretending to stand on a moral high ground with your "THEY DESERVED IT!" and "I TRIED" selfish crap. It's annoying and it shows your faulty reasoning, and if you feel it's okay to respond to such behavior with a one line insult, then expect the same trash tossed back at you. Sorry Gustaf, but at the end of the day you're little more than another troll.

I see that this is not getting anywhere. I'm sorry that you are either intellectually inable to see that you are wrong on this or, which I'm more inclined to believe, morally unable to admit that you wronged someone you dislike. If you want to be the little forum rebel who dares call someone a fag or post swastikas in your signature, fine, but don't expect me to take you seriously when you call for good behaviour. I have always done my best to treat people with respect if they haven't disearned it by acting wrongly themselves repeatedly.

I will note about some of your more absurd personal attacks though that
1. I don't know of an easy way to quit as a moderator and I see no particular reason to either,
2. Noting something is not being a "cry-baby" about it,
3. I'll assume since you're not really responding to much of what I've said that you're not really contesting most of my post
and
4. the rest of your post, as noted, is too much of a rant to respond to. I think I can deduce that you think one should only judge people for what they do to posters on this forum, that you think I'm a troll and that you consider it selfish to pretend to stand on a moral highground. You also consider it annoying and evident of faulty reasoning. I'm not sure whether you're making some kind of argument there but if you are it's unclear to me.

And you may want to go a little easier on the personal attacks (retard, troll, cry-baby, dumb). The worse thing I've said to you in this thread is that you're mean and hinted that I don't consider most of your posts reflective. I could have done worse and maybe you should think about the fact that I didn't.

[bgwah]

I will note about some of your more absurd personal attacks though that
1. I don't know of an easy way to quit as a moderator and I see no particular reason to either,

That's an absurd personal attack? Ummm, okay...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, what? You're the one dismissing my post as a rant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're confusing me with Spade.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm mostly just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personal attacks? I suppose I should behave more like this:

...you morons...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BTW, that last part there is kind of funny. You're essentially saying I'm dumb (which you also supposedly think is awful?!) while at the same time using a made up word like inable. I guess I could say you're intellectually unable to say I'm dumb correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, basically I'm saying that you're

a damn hypocrite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or maybe someone finally said what a hypocrite you are and now you're in defensive mode.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fear the wrath of Gustaf!