John McCain - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

John McCain

kiwinator Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
Does he have any ears?
Other Links From McCain:
kiwinator Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
Options

All Comments

(42) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
He does not seem to listen! :roll:
banned#2
Dont slate the man...

hes a Nam veteran!
#3
I know he has one ! :p
[CENTER]http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/mcain3.jpg[/CENTER]
banned 1 Like #4
[COLOR=red]The guy is a hero![/COLOR]


Naval training, first marriage, and Vietnam assignment

McCain's pre-combat duty began when he was commissioned an ensign, and started two and a half years of training at Pensacola as a naval aviator.[14] While there, he earned a reputation as a partying man.[7] He completed flight school in 1960, and became a naval pilot of ground-attack aircraft, assigned to A-1 Skyraider squadrons[15] aboard the aircraft carriersUSS Intrepid and USS Enterprise[16] in the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas.[17] The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries.[17]
McCain requested a combat assignment,[22] and was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal flying A-4 Skyhawks.[23]His combat duty began when he was 30 years old, in summer 1967, when Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[18][24] McCain and his fellow pilots became frustrated by micromanagement from Washington, and he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn't have the least notion of what it took to win the war."[25][24]
By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967, when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[26] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[27] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[28][29] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany.[30]
banned#5
Prisoner of war

John McCain's capture and subsequent imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[31][32] McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[31] After he regained consciousness, some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[31] McCain was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[32]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/Vietcapturejm01.jpg/180px-Vietcapturejm01.jpg
McCain being pulled from Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi and becoming a POW[33] on October 26, 1967


Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information, and he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral.[34] His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of major newspapers.[35][36]
McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[31] By then having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[31] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[37] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[38] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he remained for two more years.[39]
In mid–1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release.[40] The North Vietnamese made that offer because they wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes,[41] and also wanted to show other POWs that elite prisoners like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[40] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. Such early release was prohibited by the military's Code of Conduct. To prevent the enemy from using prisoners for propaganda, officers were to agree to be released in the order in which they were captured.[31]
In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[42] He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[31][42] Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, which was stopped by guards.[31] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[31] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[43][44] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[45] He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[46] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements,[47] with many enduring even longer and worse treatment. Virtually all of the POWs who were tortured eventually yielded something to their captors.[48]
McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory.[49] From late 1969 onward, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable,[50] while McCain continued actively to resist the camp authorities.[51] McCain and other prisoners cheered the B-52 Stratofortress-led U.S. "Christmas Bombing" campaign of December 1972, which they viewed as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.[44][52]
Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[53]
#6
Having him as President would be like keeping George Bush in Office...........he's all about war........
#7
trekbabe
Having him as President would be like keeping George Bush in Office...........he's all about war........
i agree barrack oBama FTW!!
#8
The word 'hero' shouldn't be reserved for those who actively support or participate in wars. Yes, John McCain showed courage during captivity in Vietnam, but he and his comrades shouldn't have been there in the first place.

My sympathies lie with those who had the courage to be jailed for their anti-war stance. A conscientious objector who is willing to risk imprisonment for NOT wanting to kill others is more of a 'hero' in my mind than someone who will condone murder for political and economic advantage.
#9
Daddy President or chips :p
#10
in Vietnam, but he and his comrades shouldn't have been there in the first place.


I agree..........
banned#11
Liddle ol' me;3084221
The word 'hero' shouldn't be reserved for those who actively support or participate in wars. Yes, John McCain showed courage during captivity in Vietnam, but he and his comrades shouldn't have been there in the first place.

My sympathies lie with those who had the courage to be jailed for their anti-war stance. A conscientious objector who is willing to risk imprisonment for NOT wanting to kill others is more of a 'hero' in my mind than someone who will condone murder for political and economic advantage.



See...had you taken the time to read the article rather than jumping to an anti-war stance you may have learnt something:
McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well
THAT is why he is a hero...its a rare few that would do that

At the end of the day, a soldier does there duty..it is the politicians that decide if someone goes to war or not. A soldier pledges to fight for their country no matter what, it is the politicans that decide exactly what there fighting for, so saying they shouldnt be there has nothing to do with McCain himself, so that arguement is not valid here...

There lies the problem with the vast majority of anti-war protestors..they only see there own view, that war is wrong and the soldiers are the cause as much as the politicians...a soldier is doing their duty, fighting for their country...they do not choose where they are deployed or who they fight/protect, maybe a few do it for the love of fighting/killing but the majority dont, they do their duty and that is all. He was a soldier then and a politicain now...NOT the other way round

Obama has to much to prove...McCain doesn't..he has been in war...he wont take decisions to go to war lightly
banned#12
trekbabe;3083841
Having him as President would be like keeping George Bush in Office...........he's all about war........

Spot on! Another lame duck president being overseen by the elite.
#13
he wont take decisions to go to war lightly


No, but he will be quicker to go to war than not, whether we or anyone should be there or not; he has voted with Bush 98% of the time, and Bush has done nothing good for the U.S. ......
#14
it was interesting the recent presidential debate mcain was allowed to say the last words about how he was a POW and would represent the american people, seems like the broadcasters decided to give him free reign and were endorsing him, just seemed a little underhand how they finished up the debate
#15
AugQX
it was interesting the recent presidential debate mcain was allowed to say the last words about how he was a POW and would represent the american people, seems like the broadcasters decided to give him free reign and were endorsing him, just seemed a little underhand how they finished up the debate


To see who went 1st etc in the responses of the debate was decided by the toss of a coin although who knows that may have been a fake coin with 2 heads so that mccain could have the last word.:thumbsup:
#16
Liddle ol' me
The word 'hero' shouldn't be reserved for those who actively support or participate in wars.


A lot of the British Army are currently "participating in war". Are they not heroes either?
#17
ODB_69
See...had you taken the time to read the article rather than jumping to an anti-war stance you may have learnt something:
McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well
THAT is why he is a hero...its a rare few that would do that

At the end of the day, a soldier does there duty..it is the politicians that decide if someone goes to war or not. A soldier pledges to fight for their country no matter what, it is the politicans that decide exactly what there fighting for, so saying they shouldnt be there has nothing to do with McCain himself, so that arguement is not valid here...

There lies the problem with the vast majority of anti-war protestors..they only see there own view, that war is wrong and the soldiers are the cause as much as the politicians...a soldier is doing their duty, fighting for their country...they do not choose where they are deployed or who they fight/protect, maybe a few do it for the love of fighting/killing but the majority dont, they do their duty and that is all. He was a soldier then and a politicain now...NOT the other way round

Obama has to much to prove...McCain doesn't..he has been in war...he wont take decisions to go to war lightly


I know McCain's story well, and from what I consider to be better sources than the one you've used. But you have used some interesting (albeit tired) arguments. If I can take your central argument and rephrase the old justificatory cliche you've used to make it (first line of your second paragraph), perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from? At the end of the day, people do what they think is right.

As for anti-war protesters, in my mind they are the ones who are "doing their duty." The main difference is that they answer to something higher than a political chain of command. They answer their conscience. What's more, you'll find that they often approach the subject of war and peace from a more informed position than the average Joe who hands in his/her papers to murder for others. Muhammed Ali is well-known example from the Vietnam War era of someone who followed his conscience (and risked imprisonment and social scorn in the process) in a way that I think deserves more respect than McCain's decision.

But fair enough, we all get to choose our own 'heroes'. I'll stick with those who have made positive peaceful contributions towards humanity, and you can have your warriors. After all, 'at the end of the day' we all do what we think is right, and that includes choosing the people we think are worth following and/or listening to. :thumbsup:
#18
From a POW to a warmonger is not my idea of anything great, if anything one surely should have learnt at McCain's age and as a POW?

This guy McCain is bad for the world, just like his incompetent and pathetic predecessor! BTW has anyone heard of McCain's No2 (Palin) recent remark regarding bombing any country it deems necessary, WTF???

I think it's about time America grew up and learned to respect other people, countries, values, choice, beliefs, race........
banned#19
Liddle ol' me;3084682
I know McCain's story well, and from what I consider to be better sources than the one you've used. But you have used some interesting (albeit tired) arguments. If I can take your central argument and rephrase the old justificatory cliche you've used to make it (first line of your second paragraph), perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from? At the end of the day, people do what they think is right.

As for anti-war protesters, in my mind they are the ones who are "doing their duty." The main difference is that they answer to something higher than a political chain of command. They answer their conscience. What's more, you'll find that they often approach the subject of war and peace from a more informed position than the average Joe who hands in his/her papers to murder for others. Muhammed Ali is well-known example from the Vietnam War era of someone who followed his conscience (and risked imprisonment and social scorn in the process) in a way that I think deserves more respect than McCain's decision.

But fair enough, we all get to choose our own 'heroes'. I'll stick with those who have made positive peaceful contributions towards humanity, and you can have your warriors. After all, 'at the end of the day' we all do what we think is right, and that includes choosing the people we think are worth following and/or listening to. :thumbsup:

Liddle...yet again your trolling...I spoke about McCain, you turned it into an anti-war debate...I spoke about McCain again and commented on my view of what you put..yet again you ignore McCain....in my book for what he did by refusing to leave the others, hes a hero...you dont agree fine, but talk about him not ignore him for someother reason...

For your info it was taken from Wiki..agreed not the best source in the world but not as long winded as some of the others...amazing how thats always your retort though that you know 'blah blah blah' well...BOTH sides of this arguement are tired Liddle, everyone knows that, try not to use it as a dig all the time, as that in itself gets tiring...

This thread is about McCain....its not an anti war thread...you want one, create one...
#20
ants97
To see who went 1st etc in the responses of the debate was decided by the toss of a coin although who knows that may have been a fake coin with 2 heads so that mccain could have the last word.:thumbsup:


That's an interesting point and one that would not surprise me in the least, this is in America and anything is possible!:thumbsup:
#21
Nash
That's an interesting point and one that would not surprise me in the least, this is in America and anything is possible!:thumbsup:


your right and as I never even seen the actual coin toss( was listening on the radio) then who knows if there even was one.
I want congress, the senate and everyone in washington to stop trying to sort out the impending financial disaster and get to the bottom of this phantom coin toss so that in future none of the candidates have the last word. maybe they could both sppeak at the same time and try and shout over each other.:thumbsup:
#22
ODB_69
Liddle...yet again your trolling...I spoke about McCain, you turned it into an anti-war debate...I spoke about McCain again and commented on my view of what you put..yet again you ignore McCain....in my book for what he did by refusing to leave the others, hes a hero...you dont agree fine, but talk about him not ignore him for someother reason...

For your info it was taken from Wiki..agreed not the best source in the world but not as long winded as some of the others...amazing how thats always your retort though that you know 'blah blah blah' well...BOTH sides of this arguement are tired Liddle, everyone knows that, try not to use it as a dig all the time, as that in itself gets tiring...

This thread is about McCain....its not an anti war thread...you want one, create one...


:lol: Trolling?! Here we go again :roll: I didn't ignore him, but if it really is that difficult for you to join the dots and make the connections, I won't bother responding to any more of your posts. :thumbsup: Now, where were we? Ah yes, discussing Senator McCain's ears..? No hesitation, repetition or deviation allowed here! :w00t:
#23
Nash
From a POW to a warmonger is not my idea of anything great, if anything one surely should have learnt at McCain's age and as a POW?

This guy McCain is bad for the world, just like his incompetent and pathetic predecessor! BTW has anyone heard of McCain's No2 (Palin) recent remark regarding bombing any country it deems necessary, WTF???

I think it's about time America grew up and learned to respect other people, countries, values, choice, beliefs, race........


Yes, Palin seems to have been chosen as his attack dog (ironic as that might seem). She gets to say the things that will appeal to those on the further reaches of the right, whilst allowing him to keep his hands clean. It's a pretty good strategy as he can always distance himself in subtle ways from her remarks while letting those who agree with them understand that they represent his real position - the one he cannot afford to show publically. McCain's camp have learned much from Bush's election and reelection under Republican political strategist Karl Rove. It's basically a more sophisticated version of the strategy used so abysmally by Michael Howard with his election slogan for the Conservatives: "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" He was discussing immigration of course, but McCain is using Palin to let voters on the right (and importantly, stakeholders in the military-industrial machine) understand that despite his public noises to the contrary, he will be continuing the broad war-based strategy employed by Bush.
1 Like #24
Nash;3084723
From a POW to a warmonger is not my idea of anything great, if anything one surely should have learnt at McCain's age and as a POW?

This guy McCain is bad for the world, just like his incompetent and pathetic predecessor! BTW has anyone heard of McCain's No2 (Palin) recent remark regarding bombing any country it deems necessary, WTF???

I think it's about time America grew up and learned to respect other people, countries, values, choice, beliefs, race........

John McCain on the Issues of War & Peace:

[LIST]
[*]Global War on Terror


[*]We face transcendent evil of radical Islamic extremism. (Sep 2008)
[*]Since 1998, championed policy of "rogue-state rollback". (Oct 2007)
[*]Follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell. (May 2007)
[*]Prefers not to take troops out of Afghanistan. (Jan 2007)
[*]The War on Terror is the overriding and transcendent issue. (Oct 2004)
[*]The War on Terror is a fight between good and evil. (Aug 2004)
[*]The War on Terror a war we must fight. (Aug 2004)
[*]Avoiding the War on Terror has cost us dearly. (Aug 2004)
[*]Bush promised enemies would soon hear from us and they did. (Aug 2004)
[*]Our adversaries express a hatred for all good in humanity. (Aug 2004)
[*]2000: Warned against radical Islamic terrorism. (May 2002)
[*]2001: No pin***** responses to 9/11; it's a long haul. (May 2002)
[*]2001: Nuclear weapons unnecessary against terrorists. (May 2002)
[*]Palestine: Against declaration of statehood. (Feb 1999)
[*]
[*]
Iran


[*]Strategic bombing of Iran OK only if imminent threat. (Dec 2007)
[*]Congress can only declare war; not micromanage wars. (Dec 2007)
[*]Keep military option open against Iran, even if no nukes. (Dec 2007)
[*]No direct talk with Iran; talk is over-rated. (Dec 2007)
[*]Iran & Syria must not get nukes; they'll exterminate Israel. (Nov 2007)
[*]Iran is state sponsor of terrorism; no more evidence needed. (Nov 2007)
[*]Congressional consultation before attacking Iran's nukes. (Oct 2007)
[*]Sanctions to prevent Iranian nukes; but don't count on UN. (Sep 2007)
[*]Iran is sponsor of terrorism; US strike if they get nukes. (May 2007)
[*]
[*]
Iraq War


[*]Obama would lose a war to win a political campaign. (Sep 2008)
[*]Quoting "100 years in Iraq" is out-of-context. (Apr 2008)
[*]Despite deserters & Basra loss, Iraqi military doing better. (Apr 2008)
[*]Costs will be far greater should we fail in Iraq. (Feb 2008)
[*]Not a matter of how long in Iraq, but a matter of casualties. (Feb 2008)
[*]Don't let enemy lay in the weeds until we leave. (Jan 2008)
[*]Support the surge and bring troops home with honor. (Jan 2008)
[*]Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender. (Jan 2008)
[*]Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low. (Jan 2008)
[*]The Iraq war was worth the price in blood and treasure. (Jan 2008)
[*]Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
[*]FactCheck: Yes, criticized Rumsfeld, but not before invasion. (Jan 2008)
[*]Help Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible. (Nov 2007)
[*]I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. (Oct 2007)
[*]Stategy in Iraq: defeat al-Qaeda; limit Iran's influence. (Sep 2007)
[*]Iraq is now the central front in the war against al-Qaeda. (Sep 2007)
[*]Americans want to win; bin Laden thinks he's winning now. (Sep 2007)
[*]Democrats proposing failure in Iraq by withdrawing. (Sep 2007)
[*]Reducing military presence has never in history won a war. (Sep 2007)
[*]Bring troops home the right way: home with honor. (Sep 2007)
[*]Surge is working; let it continue until it succeeds. (Sep 2007)
[*]Tragic mistake of Iraq: no plan to deal with success. (Aug 2007)
[*]Support the surge even if benchmarks are not met. (Aug 2007)
[*]Did not read NIE before war vote, but was fully briefed. (Jun 2007)
[*]If new strategy not working by Sept., we still must succeed. (Jun 2007)
[*]Willing to be last man standing for US involvement in Iraq. (May 2007)
[*]Consequences of failure: regional chaos & we must come back. (May 2007)
[*]In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified. (May 2007)
[*]Timetable would be catastrophe, even if Iraq wants it. (May 2007)
[*]Advocated leaving Somalia, but no comparison to Iraq. (May 2007)
[*]War has been mismanaged, but we are now on the right track. (May 2007)
[*]War in Iraq has not gone well: dire but not hopeless. (Mar 2007)
[*]Al Qaeda may take over Iraqi oilwells. (Mar 2007)
[*]Prefers more troops for surge, but 20,000 is sufficient. (Jan 2007)
[*]Bush now has the right strategy, and it's our last chance. (Jan 2007)
[*]Generals advising "no more troops" was a failed policy. (Jan 2007)
[*]McCain Principle: Committing troops means completing mission. (Jan 2007)
[*]If we leave Iraq, terrorists will follow us home. (Jan 2007)
[*]Send in a heavy wave of troops to Iraq to establish order. (Nov 2006)
[*]Looting, terrorism in Iraq a result of US mistakes. (Sep 2004)
[*]The Iraqi war was necessary after years of failed diplomacy. (Aug 2004)
[*]Saddam would have acquired terrible weapons again. (Aug 2004)
[*]The Iraqi war was necessary, achievable and noble. (Aug 2004)
[*]The cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004)
[*]1991: Urged formally declaring war on Iraq over Kuwait. (Jan 2004)
[*]
[*]
Voting Record


[*]Congress has no authority to cut off funds for Iraqi use. (Jan 2007)
[*]Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
[*]Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
[*]Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
[*]Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
[*]Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
[*]Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
[*]Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
[*]Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
[*]Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
[*]Supports $48 billion in new spending for anti-terrorism. (Jan 2002)
[*]CIA assessments ib Iraqi WMDs were all wrong. (Mar 2005)
[*]Belief in Iraqi nukes was poor analysis of aluminum tubes. (Mar 2005)
[*]Belief in Iraqi BWs was based on one unreliable person. (Mar 2005)
[*]Belief in Iraqi CWs was based on flawed imagery. (Mar 2005)
[*]Iraq never had delivery systems to attack US mainland. (Mar 2005)
[*]CIA never questioned assumption that Saddam had WMDs. (Mar 2005)
[*]Conclusions on Iran and North Korea are all classified. (Mar 2005)
[*]Support the completion of the US mission in Iraq. (Feb 2007)
[*]Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)[/LIST]
#25
Liddle ol' me
he will be continuing the broad war-based strategy employed by Bush.


This is what I gathered from the Debate at the weekend. At that point I wasn't really leaning one way or the other, but Mccain came over as arrogant and rude. Obama was giving reasoned argument and citing sources, to which Mccain basically went 'pfffffffffffffffft whatever, you're wrong'. Actually, he reminded me a little of David Brent in that respect...

He also said this - 'when I look in the eyes of Putin I see 3 letters, a K, a G, and a B'

He might have been good in viatnam, but for President?
#26
Jonster
This is what I gathered from the Debate at the weekend. At that point I wasn't really leaning one way or the other, but Mccain came over as arrogant and rude. Obama was giving reasoned argument and citing sources, to which Mccain basically went 'pfffffffffffffffft whatever, you're wrong'. Actually, he reminded me a little of David Brent in that respect...

He also said this - 'when I look in the eyes of Putin I see 3 letters, a K, a G, and a B'

He might have been good in viatnam, but for President?


I'm a bit disappointed with myself, still haven't managed to get around to watching the full debate. But you inspired me to rectify that soonest! :thumbsup: I did read some commentaries the next day though, and a couple of interesting pieces in the Guardian said similar things. The broad thrust was that although on the face of it Obama perhaps came across as too reasoned and cautious for some people (there are always those who will take an anti-intellectual stance), McCain's aggressive approach would probably help swing some of those sitting on the fence against him who had, until that point, bought the spin about him being a reasonable man. On that point, that's also why I think his choice of running mate was inspired (see my post above). It gives him the opportunity to shift all those attitudes he holds onto here, whilst allowing him to keep working the 'All-American Hero' persona. Is it also any wonder that he tried to have the debate cancelled using the 'economic crisis' card? The great thing about extended debates is that the truth will out eventually. It's just too hard to keep up the persona under such close scrutiny. :thumbsup:
#27
snowtiger
I know he has one ! :p
[CENTER]http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/mcain3.jpg[/CENTER]


thats so funny!!!!
#28
Liddle ol' me;3085233
I'm a bit disappointed with myself, still haven't managed to get around to watching the full debate. But you inspired me to rectify that soonest! :thumbsup: I did read some commentaries the next day though, and a couple of interesting pieces in the Guardian said similar things. The broad thrust was that although on the face of it Obama perhaps came across as too reasoned and cautious for some people (there are always those who will take an anti-intellectual stance), McCain's aggressive approach would probably help swing some of those sitting on the fence against him who had, until that point, bought the spin about him being a reasonable man. On that point, that's also why I think his choice of running mate was inspired (see my post above). It gives him the opportunity to shift all those attitudes he holds onto here, whilst allowing him to keep working the 'All-American Hero' persona. Is it also any wonder that he tried to have the debate cancelled using the 'economic crisis' card? The great thing about extended debates is that the truth will out eventually. It's just too hard to keep up the persona under such close scrutiny. :thumbsup:


Watching these debates means nothing. It doesn't matter which party they are running for, they all make the same promises; Lower Taxes, Better Healthcare, Better Educational System, Better Economy, End the War, etc. which are all the things that people want to hear and want to have happen. But no matter WHO gets elected, they will do what they always do; whatever they want and whatever will benefit them the most, personally & professionally. And unfortunately for us over here in the U.S., most people just listen to these empty promises and then go and vote on who they think will actually keep these promises, when in reality they should all know by now that that will never happen. And then there are those who will vote strictly because of their party affilliation, never minding if it's the right decision.:?
1 Like #29
Liddle ol' me:
The word 'hero' shouldn't be reserved for those who actively support or participate in wars.

peodude
A lot of the British Army are currently "participating in war". Are they not heroes either?


To be honest I read "The word 'hero' shouldn't be reserved..." as in it shouldn't purely be reserved for them and should be applied to others with equal measure... I agree that it takes a lot of courage to stand by your beliefs and refuse to kill another human being just because a Government or Officer tells you to. War works because the 'enemy' is dehumanised and when that happens then horrible things occur, by that I include Sept 11th and things like Guantanamo. To take a stance against the dehumanisation of people takes strength just as much as overcoming fear in the field of battle, it depends on your personal belief as to which you feel is the more worthy option.

With respect to the politics side of it I think it would be a huge mistake if McCain became President as he seems very keen to bomb first, ask questions later. There's been 8 years of that and I don't think the world needs 4 more, the world is unstable enough. Obama certainly comes across as the better Statesman and (IMHO) he is the better choice. In the debate Palin just came across as vile and I hope the American public vote against her and McCain in droves. I take the point that politicians rarely what they promise, but either way I'd rather the Democrats were in power because of the policies and 'values' that are associated with that party.

In terms of McCain's lugs I think we need to look at it from a different angle...to see if he's got two!
#30
bjmcghee
To be honest I read "The word 'hero' shouldn't be reserved..." as in it shouldn't purely be reserved for them and should be applied to others with equal measure... I agree that it takes a lot of courage to stand by your beliefs and refuse to kill another human being just because a Government or Officer tells you to. War works because the 'enemy' is dehumanised and when that happens then horrible things occur, by that I include Sept 11th and things like Guantanamo. To take a stance against the dehumanisation of people takes strength just as much as overcoming fear in the field of battle, it depends on your personal belief as to which you feel is the more worthy option.


Thanks for that. I'm now even more glad I didn't answer the question myself; I couldn't have said it better. :thumbsup:

bjmcghee
With respect to the politics side of it I think it would be a huge mistake if McCain became President as he seems very keen to bomb first, ask questions later. There's been 8 years of that and I don't think the world needs 4 more, the world is unstable enough. Obama certainly comes across as the better Statesman and (IMHO) he is the better choice. In the debate Palin just came across as vile and I hope the American public vote against her and McCain in droves. I take the point that politicians rarely what they promise, but either way I'd rather the Democrats were in power because of the policies and 'values' that are associated with that party.

In terms of McCain's lugs I think we need to look at it from a different angle...to see if he's got two!


And again, can't fault a word here, although I'll need to get independent verification on the lugs issue, preferably with new photographic evidence rather than more detailed scrutiny of the one we already have. I have a haunch we'll only find one lug on this particular photo no matter how many angles we look at it from :)
#31
I'm going to go out on a limb here because I know many people are thinking what I'm thinking.

Why do we care about the US presidential election? Unless I'm mistaken I can't vote so I can praise / defend / attack either candidate as much as I like, but at the end of the day..... I'm still residing in Britain with no say in American affairs.

Now Brown, that's another matter altogether.
#32
abomination
I'm going to go out on a limb here because I know many people are thinking what I'm thinking.

Why do we care about the US presidential election? Unless I'm mistaken I can't vote so I can praise / defend / attack either candidate as much as I like, but at the end of the day..... I'm still residing in Britain with no say in American affairs.


haha - nice little reference there!

Why do we care? You could ask the same question about anything - better to care than not to is the simple answer. But in this case, it actually does matter who governs the USA - or rather how it is governed. You don't have to travel very far into the world of British politics and finance (not to mention culture) to find ways in which what happens 'over there' affects us here. Take the current financial crisis for example. Or nearly any aspect of British foreign policy you care to mention!
#33
abomination
I'm going to go out on a limb here because I know many people are thinking what I'm thinking.

Why do we care about the US presidential election? Unless I'm mistaken I can't vote so I can praise / defend / attack either candidate as much as I like, but at the end of the day..... I'm still residing in Britain with no say in American affairs.

Now Brown, that's another matter altogether.


One sure reason why we should care is we the British are/have been their "Partners" in war crimes and illegal occupations! This is nothing new for us British and is sadly a part of our history?

The alliance of these two countries has, is and continues to kill masses of innocent HUMAN BEINGS, those killed may not be white nor Christian but are HUMAN nonetheless and have every right not to be invaded under the false pretext of democracy when in reality it is anything but? "Wake up and smell the coffee," (emphases on; not the Sturbucks type either)!!!
#34
abomination
I'm going to go out on a limb here because I know many people are thinking what I'm thinking.


Sorry, completely off topic (everyone else can ignore :)), but I'm intrigued by this sentence after looking at it again. Why would you be taking a risk if you know people are thinking what you are thinking? That's a curious aberrance. And what would you be risking? A risk implies a negative result - what was the potentially negative result you thought you were risking? Hmmm ... there is something about this I can't quite put my finger on... :thinking:
#35
Liddle ol' me
Sorry, completely off topic (everyone else can ignore :)), but I'm intrigued by this sentence after looking at it again. Why would you be taking a risk if you know people are thinking what you are thinking? That's a curious aberrance. And what would you be risking? [SIZE="3"]A risk implies a negative result - what was the potentially negative result you thought you were risking?[/SIZE] Hmmm ... there is something about this I can't quite put my finger on... thinking:



I think you have answered him with this post :p
#36
Liddle ol' me
... better to care than not to is the simple answer. But in this case, it actually does matter who governs the USA - or rather how it is governed. You don't have to travel very far into the world of British politics and finance (not to mention culture) to find ways in which what happens 'over there' affects us here...


Everything is intermingled that goes without saying however I don't believe our future well being lies solely on the shoulders of the next US president, after all they are just one man (woman? maybe next time).

Nash
One sure reason why we should care is we the British are/have been their "Partners" in war crimes and illegal occupations! This is nothing new for us British and is sadly a part of our history?

The alliance of these two countries has, is and continues to kill masses of innocent HUMAN BEINGS, those killed may not be white nor Christian but are HUMAN nonetheless and have every right not to be invaded under the false pretext of democracy when in reality it is anything but? "Wake up and smell the coffee," (emphases on; not the Sturbucks type either)!!!


Okay... you've strayed a little off the path... or at least my chain of thought. I'd like to think that we'd be capable of making our own decisions (as a country) and that we wouldn't have to rely on a change of leadership over the pond. If that really is the case then what a sad place this has become.

Liddle ol' me
Sorry, *completely off topic (everyone else can ignore :)), but I'm intrigued by this sentence after looking at it again. Why would you be taking a risk if you know people are thinking what you are thinking? That's a curious aberrance. And what would you be risking? A risk implies a negative result - what was the potentially negative result you thought you were risking? Hmmm ... ¬ there is something about this I can't quite put my finger on... :thinking:


* Who are you and what have you done with Liddle ol' me.

I'd like to think people would stop to ask themselves why they seem to get so caught up in matters that they have no say in. Unfortunately this is not the world we live in and consequently it's not hard to find people sticking their (nose / M16 / missile defence shield / puppet government) [strike if deemed inappropriate] where it doesn't belong.

For me the US presidency is nothing more than a popularity contest, the winner becomes the figurehead of a nation. They come, they go...... people forget.. the world keeps spinning. Old Blair hasn't been in the news much of late, out of sight out of mind.

¬ You and me both

If my reply is incoherent - you haven't read it at least tree fiddy times :-D.
#37
abomination
Everything is intermingled that goes without saying however I don't believe our future well being lies solely on the shoulders of the next US president, after all they are just one man (woman? maybe next time).


Yes, world politics and the capitalist economic system are interdependent, if that's what you mean? Not quite sure what you mean by the second bit though - nobody has said anything as exaggerated as "our future well being lies solely on the shoulders of the next US president." But you underplay his/her importance (or imply it) by saying they are "just one (wo)man." Like me? Like you? No, vastly more powerful than that, and certainly more powerful than a UK Prime Minister. Their decisions matter and have effects, there, here and pretty much everywhere these days! But yes, I get your point that they don't act alone and certainly don't have supreme power.

abomination
I'd like to think that we'd be capable of making our own decisions (as a country) and that we wouldn't have to rely on a change of leadership over the pond. If that really is the case then what a sad place this has become.


Again, no has gone that far. We don't have to "rely on a change of leadership" "to make our own decisions". We are talking about power and influence here. [ see next point below ]

abomination
I'd like to think people would stop to ask themselves why they seem to get so caught up in matters that they have no say in. Unfortunately this is not the world we live in and consequently it's not hard to find people sticking their (nose / M16 / missile defence shield / puppet government) [strike if deemed inappropriate] where it doesn't belong.

For me the US presidency is nothing more than a popularity contest, the winner becomes the figurehead of a nation. They come, they go...... people forget.. the world keeps spinning. Old Blair hasn't been in the news much of late, out of sight out of mind.


These people make decisions that affect the lives (and deaths) of others. Yes, we can trundle blindly through life thinking that the 'world keeps spinning', but (a) that elides the crucial importance of politics in determining how it spins, and (b) we need to be in a privileged position to even think that way - not everyone is so lucky. But even if we are free from much of the dangers people face in less stable political environments, I think we should have a moral and ethical obligation to care about them - especially when many aspects of their lives are directly affected by political decisions taken elsewhere.

But hey, I realise many others don't care about such matters, let alone want to (or have the time to) resist those things they see as wrong with the political system. Life is difficult enough without having to take on everybody else's problems. Or they can care but retreat into the naive but comfortable view that what happens 'over there' has nothing to do with us. And that's fair enough too; there is something to be said about getting through life this way. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. Thanks for pushing my thinking forward :thumbsup:
#38
I think you'll find that we're both guilty of the same act, I underplay the importance of the US president while you underplay the importance of our own PM. Keep in mind that I'm only interested in our own little island when I make the above statement, I'm not bothered about the influence said person has on the world stage.

The scientist in me desperately wants to point out that the world does indeed keep spinning regardless of the human population, I just thought I'd bring that to light.

I'd love to know here the latter half of the third paragraph came from.

Indeed life is hard enough without having to 'take on everybody else's problems' regardless of their political stability. At a time when our country is rapidly going downhill we should not be looking afar, we should be looking within.

With that said by all means get caught up in the daily shenanigans over the pond, it won't be long before we're flying the American flag and singing 'The Star Spangled Banner' anyway with the way things are going.

... and with that gross overexaggeration I'll retreat to my original question - why do we care about the US presidential election, because it's better to care than not to (apparently); that's all folks!

*retreating into my naive (but comfortable) view, bliss!*
#39
abomination


*retreating into my naive (but comfortable) view, bliss!*


Fair enough answer - enjoy that space! :thumbsup:
#40
It's actually quite crowded but what can you do :thumbsup:.

Let me invite everyone back to the thread to discuss the important matter at hand, ears!

What about Obama's ears!

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!