McCain cheated at Q&A Forum

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by maybereal11

 

You don't need to be a Captain( a very high rank in the navy) to be a commander. In 1976, he was appointed commander of the Navy's largest air squadron, based at Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Fla.(source) He wasn't promoted to Captain until August 1, 1979.

So your rebuttal is that he only flew in 23 combat missions and he was only a commander of the largest air squadron in the Navy, which received the Meritorious Unit Commendation and set safety records while he was in charge.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by dbates]

The very first post that you responded to began with me asking you to "Please elaborate". Thank you for finally doing so.

Also...I am unsure where you got my "rebuttal" since I never said any such thing. I enjoy your predilication for debating yourself though.

So back to the math...he was appointed the non-wartime Command of Cecil Airbase in Fllorida it was 1976 and he resigned from the navy in 81.

....when you said that he had "23 years of military experience and MUCH OF IT IN COMMAND" you meant the time at Cecil when he was appointed in 76?

According to Wikipedia...
in July 1977 McCain was appointed to the Senate Liaison Office within the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs[49] (an assignment his father had once held).[182][181] The office's role mostly consisted of providing constituent service and acting as a facilitator among legislators, the Department of Defense, and lobbyists.

I am having a hard time reconciling the math to equate to your initial claim that he spent 23 years in the military and "much of it in command"

I am all ears if you can back up the "much of it in command" claim, because as best I can tell it is starting to narrow down to less than a year in a 23 year career. "Much of it in command?"

It would be great if you addressed my questions rahter than responding to things I haven't said or general sentiments of Senator McCain detractors.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by maybereal11

 

In 1976, he was appointed commander of the Navy's largest air squadron, based at Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Fla.(source) He wasn't promoted to Captain until August 1, 1979.
[edit on 19-8-2008 by dbates]

Lets try it this way...he was sent to DC as a Laison in 77. Thats less than a year. 23 years of military service and "Much of it in Command"? Still unclear as to what you are referring to.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by nyk537


Hehe, i see what you're saying now


wouldn't that, in turn, be....hypocritical of the "other side" ?

holding Obama to the words of other people? Sounds kind of....silly to me.



edit


maybereal:

I am having a hard time reconciling the math to equate to your initial claim that he spent 23 years in the military and "much of it in command"

I am all ears if you can back up the "much of it in command" claim, because as best I can tell it is starting to narrow down to less than a year in a 23 year career. "Much of it in command?"

It would be great if you addressed my questions rahter than responding to things I haven't said or general sentiments of Senator McCain detractors.

can you please get back on topic.

This is about mccain cheating and has nothing to do with this length of time in the military.

For the sake of things like the pledge

will you PLEASE get back on topic.

[edit on 8/19/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


It may be.

The fact remains though, that for a lot of undecided voters, hearing accusations such as this are a big turn off. Voters are looking for someone who can stand on his own and "take it like a man" as it were.

This is a case of a candidates supporters doing more harm than good in my opinion.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by nyk537]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin



Yes of course. I was derailed by an off duty Mod of all things.My bad and apoligies.

McCain didn't keep his word that he would sit in isolation during Senator Obama's portion of the debate. Whether he heard anything is speculation. The fact that he agreed to sit in isolation as to not be unduly advantaged and chose not to means...well, he cheated. That's about all I have to say on it.

Here we go.

Just thought I'd post another article with yet another quote from Rick Warren saying McCain did not cheat.

No Cheating Here

reply to post by nyk537


Okay ...lets get down to Nitty Gritty truth. Where was McCain during that time? Who was with him? And what specific people have come out and said I was sitting/standing with the Senator the entire time and he was not listening to or being coached in anyway with regards to Obama's Q&A.

I say what "specific" people who were with him have stated clearly that McCain in no way was recieveing info on Obama's Q&A. Because I think all we have heard from are general statements from McCain Campaign supporters etc.

Why hasn't McCain himself (no campaign spokesperson) come out and put it to rest and simply said something like "It's a ridiculous accusation and I wasn't coached at all as to Senator Obamas Q&A and wasn't listening either."? It is an easy slam for him.

I am genuinely interested in exactly where Senator McCain was and who he was with and what they have to say. If there is nothing to hide.....

I suspect the answer is that he is not sure he can get away with the lie.

I "suspect"...but don't know.

Well, I am really surprised that you guys don't think he cheated. I don't see why he wouldn't cheat. He had the upper hand in that he "could" have looked at or heard the questions before.

Am I wrong for saying I would have looked at it. Aren't both of them in it to Win. I asked about 15 other people and they said they would have and they have no doubt he did.

Bottom line is, I think he cheated just based on how he answered some of the questions. The one that stuck out was when he said something along the lines of, when are we going to get back to supreme court judges when that question was supposed to be asked later.

Don't get me wrong. The answers were good and I believe some of those quick answers will come back to haunt him but I do think he cheated.

On a side note. When Pastor Warren said they flipped a coin and by the results Obama went first, I thought, wow, how unlucky is he to go first (as I would prefer going second). Then Last Night on Larry King Pastor Warren said that Obama and Mccain wasn't even there for the flipping of this Coin. It was him and his staff that flipped the coin and by the results Obama got first shot at answering the questions. I just found the whole thing weird. I would expect the same for you guys if the table was flipped and honestly would not be upset as something just smells fishy. What's wrong with both men meeting in the back room before the forum and flip a coin and the loser decides who goes first. Just seems weird.

Ok. I am all Obama'd out. Where is Ron Paul when you need him. I missed the days when it seemed as though Ron Paul had a chance of winning.

God Bless America and May the Best and Right Person Win..

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

 

It may be.

The fact remains though, that for a lot of undecided voters, hearing accusations such as this are a big turn off. Voters are looking for someone who can stand on his own and "take it like a man" as it were.

This is a case of a candidates supporters doing more harm than good in my opinion.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by nyk537]

I personally detest it when a supporter of my candidate can't leave well enough alone.

I know what you mean.

I repeat my original question, WAS THERE A CONE OF SILENCE? or was the whole concept just a bunch of media make believe? My money says that no such special room was ever established. The people sponsoring the event never bothered to worry about McCain's location at the time the questions started. It was all to be done on the honor system from the beginning.

Guess what, I believe McCain held up his end of the bargain, and didn't listen to Obama's answers. I think McCain has that kind of integrity, and I bet most people feel the same way, even the Obama supporters, even though they don't want to admit it.

This whole accusation by the Obama camp just continues to make them look like a bunch of whiners, who always have to blame the other side for the poor performance of their candidate. This is what a lot of people are starting to think about the Obamaphiles. They can never admit when their candidate looks weak, or fails to impress people. The constant cry of foul is moving beyond annoying to unacceptable. If you can't take the heat, get out of the Kitchen.

If Obama had done far better, we wouldn't be hearing any of this. Just because McCain came off as far more in command of the issues, he must have cheated, according to the Obamaphiles.

reply to post by poet1b


The guy asking the questions, the first question, "How did you like the cone of silence?"

So they knew one existed, McCain just didn't do it. Instead he cheated.

reply to post by Krieger


Actually, McCain cracked a joke. Otherwise, wink, wink, nod, nod, we all know there is no Cone of Silence, and its just a joke.

Do you know for a fact that there was a "CONE OF SILENCE"? Sounds like a metaphor to me. If there wasn't a cone of silence, then the whole cone of silence thing was a joke from the beginning. Obama's people knew it, and have purposely distorted the whole thing to cover up their candidates poor performance.

If this wasn't an honor thing, and McCain was supposed to be in some room secluded during Obama's interview, why didn't the show verify that this was the situation from the beginning. McCain wasn't even in the building. Now if McCain had someone slip a radio or something into this CONE OF SILENCE, then that would be evidence of cheating.

Unless someone provides some evidence that the people setting up the event actually had a designated place that they were refering to as the Cone of Silence, then it is obvious that it didn't exist, and this was an honor system, and the Obama camp is guilty of playing dirty politics.

Originally posted by poet1b
Actually, McCain cracked a joke. Otherwise, wink, wink, nod, nod, we all know there is no Cone of Silence, and its just a joke.

Right. Anyone who's ever seen Get Smart would understand right away that whole notion is a joke. The "Cone of Silence" never worked at all. It was all just for show.




As to the exact question of where Sen. McCain was during Obama's questioning.

McCain's motorcade left his hotel at 5 p.m. Saturday — that's the time Obama went on stage at Saddleback. Black told me the trip took 35 minutes, and that McCain was in the car with the Secret Service guys, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and press aide Brooke Buchanan. (Charlie Black was in another car.) Black says that McCain did not hear any of Warren's questions or Obama's answers during the car ride. Then: "We arrived at Saddleback and went into a holding room, which is a separate building from the main church. In the room there were four or five staff people, plus McCain, and there was no TV, no audio, no nothing. We talked through a few of the topics. We had spent time in the afternoon preparing, doing Q&A, and we did a few more questions to warm him up. At about ten til six, the advance guys came to get McCain to take him to the stage, because the handshake with Obama was a few minutes before 6 p.m. McCain never heard any of this stuff."

corner.nationalreview.com...

So there you have it. Sen. McCain was with secret service members, Sen Lindsey Graham, and Brooke Buchanan. Then upon arriving at Saddleback, McCain was with even more people. As Charlie Black points out, "you didn't have to be a genius to know that we were going to get asked about life, marriage, personal faith, staffing for faith-based organizations." Yeah, the questions were a given.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by dbates]

reply to post by dbates


Exactly! Perhaps these people will listen to you on these points, because they seem to be ignoring me. I have shown several times that the reference to a “cone of silence” was just a joke for the old “Get Smart” fans, and that there are several sources WHO WERE THERE who assert there was no way McCain cheated.

It’s like these Obama people just have their hands over their eyes and ears. It’s like dealing with a bunch of children.

reply to post by nyk537


I wouldn't say all of the Obama people. I would say some. I have come across quite a few like Quazga who will defend Obama but are more than willing to admit that Obama is wrong if somebody can prove it.

On the other hand I have seen some who won't give an inch. They act as though Obama makes no mistake, does no wrong, and will never do no wrong. No matter what proof you provide they will deny it, refute it, twist it, or just ignore it.

Of course there are some McCain people who do the same thing.

Personally McCain didn't cheat. You will see the same thing happen at the first debate. Guess they will have to call McCain a cheater again for winning that one.

reply to post by jam321


That's what I'm really excited for. There was never a doubt in my mind that Obama couldn't go toe to toe with McCain and not look like a fool, and the Saddleback forum proved it.

I think the first real debate will completely expose Obama for the empty suit that he is. Although I think more and more people are beginning to see that for themselves already.

Originally posted by nyk537
That's what I'm really excited for. There was never a doubt in my mind that Obama couldn't go toe to toe with McCain and not look like a fool, and the Saddleback forum proved it.

I think the first real debate will completely expose Obama for the empty suit that he is. Although I think more and more people are beginning to see that for themselves already.

OK... I can't stay quiet any longer. I suppose I could find something I care less about than whether McCain cheated at this event, but I'd have to look.

What I don't understand, however, is why it is that the person who responded with pre-established, sound-bite answers to questions is considered as having 'won' the debate (such as it was... not really a debate).

Yeah, Obama stuttered around, and did not deliver a smooth speech... so what? After nearly 8 years of W's mangling of English, does anybody really care about that? Or only if it is a member of the "other team" that does it?

From my viewing of the event, Obama was putting actual thought into his answers... agree or disagree with his positions, he was providing, or attempting to provide, actual answers to complex questions.

McCain, on the other hand, could have been replaced by any semi-intelligent 8 year old:

"When the nice man asks this, honey, you say this."

Big freaking deal. There was NOTHING of substance in McCain's answers... just more drivel. Of which both are plenty guilty.

And McCain's obvious pandering via his frequent use of "my friends"... to people he wouldn't give the time of day to if he wasn't whoring for their votes.

Has the US sunk so low that the thought-out, real answers to real questions are less valued than regurgitated pablum?

Note: While I'm quoting nyk537 here, this response is not necessarily directed at him/her specifically. This is merely the most recent example of a puzzling trend I have observed.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


As I've said in regards to other topics on this thread…it's all perception. What you perceived as McCain providing "sound-bite" answers to, I perceived as decisive answers that he actually believes in wholeheartedly. On that same hand, what you perceive as Obama putting thought into his responses, I perceived as fumbling around trying to come up with something that wouldn't sound stupid.

By the way, I also find it very amusing that people have been bashing Bush for the way he speaks for 8 years now, but now all of a sudden "it doesn't matter."

reply to post by nyk537


Yeah, I suppose it is largely, if not completely perception... but I ask you - if McCain believes so strongly in his answers, for instance drilling and abortion, why are his current positions on these diametrically opposed to his positions on them a few months or years ago? Will he still hold these same opinions a few months or years from now? Or will he change his mind if somebody gives him money?

And for the record: I consider Bush a total butt monkey. I have no respect for the man at all. But his mangling of the language is one thing I've actually defended him on... I'd rather have a President who can speak intelligently, but I'll take an honest, competent, honorable president who cannot.

Bush, sadly, is dis-honest, incompetent and has no discernable honor at all, AND cannot speak intelligently. His speaking skills are the least of my concerns regarding him and his administration.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
...if McCain believes so strongly in his answers, for instance drilling and abortion, why are his current positions on these diametrically opposed to his positions on them a few months or years ago? Will he still hold these same opinions a few months or years from now? Or will he change his mind if somebody gives him money?

What is it that Obama calls that…reassessment?

But it's fine when he does it though isn't it? When Obama reassess a situation, it's for the best and he has the best interests of the country at heart, but when McCain does it, it's evil flip-flopping.

I can't imagine that you can hold everything McCain says to him on some issues where he has changed his mind. However, I do believe him to be a man of strong principle, who will stand up for this country and defend it when necessary. I honestly couldn't tell you what Obama stands for, as it appears he only repeats what he has been told by his radical friends.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by nyk537]

[edit on 20-8-2008 by nyk537]