It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

McCain Throws Temper Tantrum

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



There can't be a legitimate disagreement. Noooo... Its because McCain doesn't care about the troops. That's gotta be it.


I believe he does care. Thats what is so disappointing about him. He is lying his ass off just to get elected as he knows it is his last shot. When he started to pander is when all of his support disintegrated. Now he is not supporting the vets to appease the neocons even though he does care! If he sells out that fast now, what would be expected from a President McCain?



[edit on 24-5-2008 by wytworm]




posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Rilence
 


Lets be honest. He doesn't stand a chance of being elected.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 


You nailed it! Also watch out for the bait and switch they always do, pass a weaker GI Bill to defeat the real one, then take credit for it, print a whole bunch of car magnets saying we support the troops, send that money to China, then take all the funding away from it. Rinse. Repeat.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


RR, I noticed in your signature you have a quote from Ronald Reagan. Your comment is about singing kumbya before negotiating with terrorists. Now, did Reagan sing kumbya before he negotiated with the Iranian terrorists? Or was he against the singing part? How about the Contra terrorists? For or against the singing part? I was just a little confused. I understand the negotiating with terrorists part doesn't bother you, it's just whether they should sing kumbya prior to the actual negotiation. Maybe that's why the Rep's kept saying we need a new Ronald Reagan in all their debates. So they know exactly how to negotiate with terrorists while they tell the American people, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." Is Bush not negotiating with terrorists every time he goes to Saudi Arabia? After all Bush did say we will make no difference between the terrorists and the people who harbor and fund them. I think we all know the Saudi's have funded quite a few terrorists. Then again the Israeli's are no strangers to funding terrorists either.

Anyone who would keep our troops in Iraq for even one more day, can't say they support the troops. Well unless by support he means putting them in harms way with no real understanding what their purpose is. Nothing like killing a kid's dad or mom for no real reason to show them you support them.

I thought this election was about changing Washington. Does this article seem like anything is changing? Obama is talking about more spending and McCain is taking more war. Spending and war now there are two refreshing changes. We just haven't had enough spending and war lately. I can't wait for all that change to start taking place.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


Put it this way...

If you want to further alienate the US from the rest of the "democratic" world, go ahead and elect the man as president...

Frankly, if he is elected president, the final nail in the coffin of the empire of the USA will be nailed...

Careful how you vote, folks...



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I ask 1 question:

Is McCain prepared to use nuclear weapons to end arguements or remove elected governments that do not follow the `american view`?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by RabbitChaser
reply to post by RRconservative
 


And there is the problem in this damn country. Most of you think you only have two choices in every race. All of you... OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES!!

Throw ALL The Bums Out!!

I should know who the Libertarian nominee is by Monday. I anticipate Wayne Root... maybe Bob Barr. So... there's a 3rd choice, just in the Presidential race. There will be others on the ballot. Just as there will be other parties represented in most other races when they are up for a vote. It baffles me that the majority of voters continually WASTE their votes on these two corrupt parties who don't give a crap about the American people.

[edit on 5/24/2008 by RabbitChaser]


Amen and Hallelujia!!! Tell it brother tell it!!! The time for the Democrats and Republicans is long past. It is time to kiss these corrupt fools goodbye. We need a government that works for the people. Not for big business. What is good for business, is not necessarily good for America.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by wytworm
 


There was another version that he supported instead.

But it really just illustrates what's wrong with American politics at the top, IMO. There can't be a legitimate disagreement. Noooo... Its because McCain doesn't care about the troops. That's gotta be it.




Obama didn't say that, McCain took it out of context. He's not going to be able to run on his war hero credentials the whole time, he has to offer something different, and he's just a Bush clone. I used to like McCain, but after this race, I think the guy is going to alienate alot of people.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rilence
reply to post by wytworm
 


Put it this way...

If you want to further alienate the US from the rest of the "democratic" world, go ahead and elect the man as president...

Frankly, if he is elected president, the final nail in the coffin of the empire of the USA will be nailed...

Careful how you vote, folks...


The man in general or did you have someone specific in mind?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Seems like to me that Obama got what is commonly reffered to as a "smack down"
or also a synonym for this would be, "shut up fool! (insert a pimp slap here) you don't know what you sayin beeeotch!"



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I just cannot understand McCains premise. I have always respected the man, his service and his independance. I even voted for him in the Tn. primary, but to not vote for this due to cost is complete lunacy.

The GI bill this is supposed to emulate is the one that the greatest generation recieved after ww2. I am not an economist but look at the impact that bill had when those veterans put that education to use in the 40's and 50's. It was definately worth the cost.

I also have to say that if he actually had such an interest on this bill he would have, should have been on the senate floor and voted, instead of being at a $25000 a plate fundraiser.

I started a thread a while back asking the question if he was a sell out or a fake out in his attempt to get the nomination. This unfortunate performance is the sad answer to that question.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
reply to post by RRconservative
 


RR, I noticed in your signature you have a quote from Ronald Reagan. Your comment is about singing kumbya before negotiating with terrorists. Now, did Reagan sing kumbya before he negotiated with the Iranian terrorists? Or was he against the singing part? How about the Contra terrorists? For or against the singing part? I was just a little confused. I understand the negotiating with terrorists part doesn't bother you, it's just whether they should sing kumbya prior to the actual negotiation. Maybe that's why the Rep's kept saying we need a new Ronald Reagan in all their debates. So they know exactly how to negotiate with terrorists while they tell the American people, "We don't negotiate with terrorists."



It's amazing how people distort history. Reagan did not negotiate with the Iranian hostage takers. They were released a few minutes after Reagan took the oath of office. It's amazing what perceived strength will do.

Yes we did negiotiate with the Soviet Union, but in different ways. You have Kennedy's way...which led to the Bay of Pigs, then you have Reagans way (The bombing starts in 5 minutes), which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hussein Obama is no Ronald Reagan, heck he is not even close to JFK, so imagine the consiquences of his negotiations.

The Contras were not terrorists, they were fighting a communist regime led by a good friend of Democrats, Daniel Ortega, in Nicaragua. The Democrat controlled Congress couldn't have us messing with their favorite Communist leader, so they declared messing with him illegal...hence Iran/Contra.

Negotiation out of strength, and pandering are two different things. Hussein Obama would do that latter.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


The death of the Shah on July 27 and the invasion of Iran by Iraq in September 1980 made Iran more receptive to the idea of resolving the hostage crisis. Despite losing the November 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan, President Jimmy Carter, in the final days of his office, negotiated the release of the hostages through Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Algerian intermediaries and members of the Iranian government.

In the closing days of Carter's Presidency, Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib opened fruitful, albeit biased, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. This resulted in the "Algiers Accords" of January 19, 1981, which entailed Iran's commitment to free the hostages immediately.

Point I: Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs, "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Other provisions of the Algiers Accords were the unfreezing of $8 billion of Iranian assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by wytworm]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by blimpseeker
Seems like to me that Obama got what is commonly reffered to as a "smack down"
or also a synonym for this would be, "shut up fool! (insert a pimp slap here) you don't know what you sayin beeeotch!"


My god, what a marvelous display of intelligence. I certainly hope people like you make up the vast minority of the American Public.

Sadly, I feel I am mistaken.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The GI Bill's head sponsor is Jim Webb, a senator who is just as much as a war hero as McCain is. Obama supports Webb's bill because he believes - rightfully - that soldiers deserve to be given the opportunity of a college education for putting their life on the line for America.

Why does John McCain want to deny that to them? Would he rather have them serve their fourth or fifth tour in Iraq, then returning home to find nothing but minimum wage waiting?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
It's amazing how people distort history. Reagan did not negotiate with the Iranian hostage takers. They were released a few minutes after Reagan took the oath of office. It's amazing what perceived strength will do.

Yes we did negiotiate with the Soviet Union, but in different ways. You have Kennedy's way...which led to the Bay of Pigs, then you have Reagans way (The bombing starts in 5 minutes), which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hussein Obama is no Ronald Reagan, heck he is not even close to JFK, so imagine the consiquences of his negotiations.

The Contras were not terrorists, they were fighting a communist regime led by a good friend of Democrats, Daniel Ortega, in Nicaragua. The Democrat controlled Congress couldn't have us messing with their favorite Communist leader, so they declared messing with him illegal...hence Iran/Contra.

Negotiation out of strength, and pandering are two different things. Hussein Obama would do that latter.


Wait, you're kidding right? You know there is a well established back-story for why those hostages were released right after Reagan took office. Maybe you should check into it before you post another ignorant statement like that. Reagan and Bush are the biggest bunch of corrupt SOB's to ever occupy the White House. Reagan not only negotiated with terrorists, he armed and trained them! Leave the empty rhetoric and blatant lies to the politicians and newscasters, man. The CIA, under Reagan, created Al-Qaeda themselves! Yet you bow to that clown.

It also well documented that the CIA brought the Bay of Pigs plan to Kennedy, already planned, and he only signed off on it. The resulting fiasco led to his distrust of the CIA. That wasn't Kennedy diplomacy. It was CIA/Bush/Reagan dirty tricks diplomacy. The same diplomacy Bush Jr. and McCain love so much.

For the record, Obama is no better than McCain. They're both just stooges and figureheads.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I for one definitely won't be voting for the hot head McCain. His temper alone makes him a bad choice for a position were you have to negotiate or be diplomatic at the very least to reach agreements with other countries.

I just have a bad feeling that as president, with his temper, he will end up getting the US into more wars.

And he will only end up plunging us deeper into debt with his knowledge of economics.

Latest McCain Economic Proposal Seen As Incoherent

I did like this comment by the author of that article though.

McCain's Puts His Temper on Full Display with Anti-Obama Rant


The idea of that macho freak McCain at the helm makes visions of Cheney and Rumselfeld dance in my head.



[edit on 5/24/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


yes you guys have to be carefull with mcain he has been in the military for many years as well as "prison camps" how much does the iranians remind him of the vietnemese that once imprisoned him and is he yet to inflict revenge. A race of people that remind him of what he has gone through and maybe in his mind the country in question "Iran" represents the same level of threat to the next generation of American soldiers if he does see iran in this light who knows how far he will go if he gets elected



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


I guess I do have a distorted view of history. Reagan clearly negotiated for the hostages after he took office. Obviously you aren't very familiar with that event. There was a deal made for the hostages to be released in exchange for some F-4 fighter jets sent via Israel. Weird how after meetings held in Paris with CIA and Republican insiders, the Iranians cut negotiations with Carter and began to demand military equipment. Carter refused to make these kinds of deals with terrorists, but for some reason minutes after Reagan takes office the hostages are released and Iran has new F-4's in their fleet. Probably just a distortion.

My view of the collapse of the Soviet Union is a little distorted, too. Reagan saying the bombing will start in 5 minutes didn't cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Afghanistan war did. Yep those evil Islamofascists actually aided the US in the collapse of the Soviet Empire. And I'm sure you are aware that President Carter signed into effect large amounts of aid to the Afghani's 6 months prior the the Soviet invasion. Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, acknowledged this fact and said, “We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” If Carter would have just said, "The bombing will begin in 5 minutes" all could have been taken care of then. Weird how you give Reagan credit for that, though, but it's probably just my distorted view of history.

Saying the Contra's weren't terrorists also show a lack of familiarity of that issue, too. The Contra's regularly attacked innocent civilians. These attacks are well documented, and there is plenty of film footage showing these atrocities.

It's obvious, RR, you are just pro-Republican and anti-Democrat. Where has that gotten us? Where has the pro-Democrat anti-Republican stance gotten us? By voting for either of these corrupt parties, we have put ourselves $9 trillion in debt. I will choose not to be a part of the problem. My vote will not be for McCain or Obama. I choose to not waste my vote. If you don't see the corruption in the Republican party over the last 50 years, it's because you don't want to see it. Same goes for the Democratic party as well.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
McCain, Hillary, Obama, all are members of the CFR. They all have the same agenda and meet with each other secretly in the CFR meetings.

These fake attacks they conduct on each other are just for show, to make Americans think they are getting a real election.



[edit on 24-5-2008 by AgentStovkowski]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join