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 speech discussion, before, during, and after

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Modulus
What I do find frightening is his 'refresh the White House', 'out with the vested interest groups' rethoric that... I honestly cannot believe how anyone can take seriously.


That is the one issue I cannot believe people are buying in this election.

McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time.
Sarah Palin (as if she is going to matter) is MORE conservatively extreme, religious and bull-headed than Bush.

And people are being convinced that there will be a "change" from the past 8 years? It's totally perplexing.




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time.


You need to look into that figure as it is something that Obama likes to tell people and then they go around and repeat it without knowing what that means.

I can't remember all of the details right now but those 90% votes were on unanomous issues and it was said that based on the formula Obama is using, he too could be shown to vote with Bush 90% of the time.

Seriously, dont' just let Obama spoon feed you lines like that. Do some research rather than just assume he is right. You may discover he is as misleading as most politicians.

Jemison



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Well you are right. I'll find a source for this momentarily, but generally somewhere around 90% of all senate votes are unanimous as you said. So just about everyone can be said to "agree" with Bush that much, even Obama.

Well...maybe not Obama. I guess he could say that never taking an opinion on anything and voting "present" doesn't count. But that really doesn't help him either does it?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I just don't get this 90% BS..

First of all, Bush doesn't vote. So how can McCain have voted with Bush 95% of the time. Agree ok, vote -no way.

Second, both parties agree with the President on the majority of things like passing a budget, taking care of our troops, funding VA, fixing social security, etc. etc. Most of what Congress does is routine business.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I have heard all candidates mention change since I was a little boy. Now Obama is touting change. Well the job of President of the United States doesn’t lend itself to on the job training.

This fact remains. Obama has never run a city, never run a state, never run a business, never run a military unit. He's never had to lead people in crisis. Barack Obama has never led anything." Rudy Giuliani



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time.


You need to look into that figure as it is something that Obama likes to tell people and then they go around and repeat it without knowing what that means.

I can't remember all of the details right now but those 90% votes were on unanomous issues and it was said that based on the formula Obama is using, he too could be shown to vote with Bush 90% of the time.

Seriously, dont' just let Obama spoon feed you lines like that. Do some research rather than just assume he is right. You may discover he is as misleading as most politicians.

Jemison

I dont recall all the details either but its also for 2007 "I believe" and McCain only voted half the time.

This is just an a example, but lets say he only voted 2-3 times, it would be very easy to be 90% like Bush.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
My comment on the speech was the he sounded a LOT better than he has in the past to me. I still don't buy either candidates view on unity since this has been stated many times over and over throughout the past. It's just something to appease everyone until one or the other gets in and then it's back to business.

One thing that I did notice was that there seemed to be a lot more resistence at this convention during the speech than with Obama. There were a lot more boos that were conveniently covered up by the frantically started chant of 'USA, USA'. At least he acknowledged this but then he made a stab at the people that were opposing him by saying we should just 'ignore the (unintelligible) and static' referring to these people that were voicing their disapproval. Although I can understand trying to keep his speech nice and clean this kind of action disturbs me.

Why?

Because it shows, in a much lighter way, how they view opposition within their own party. That the best way to deal with it is to ignore it and drown it out with their own words. That is NOT what this country is supposed to be about. The voices of the people have been drowned out for much too long and it is very evident that it will not change with either of these candidates.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


He wasn't referring to his party. He was talking about the protesters that kept crashing his speech.

This is when his party started to shout USA USA.....

Somebody posted a thread about it here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
There were a lot more boos that were conveniently covered up by the frantically started chant of 'USA, USA'.


I think they were chanting USA when outside protestors acted up, not grumbles within the party. I could be wrong but a lot of the chanting was planned in case trouble makers tried to disrupt things.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70

Hope your not the speech writer. [looks for stick poke emoticon and quickly ducks out of room]


In my native language I imagine that no even you will get pass my feet, but English is not my first language and guess what I do a heck of a good job with it.

Remember ATS is multicultural, we come in different sizes, colors, background and languages.


[edit on 5-9-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


I thought this may be the case at first but then I saw the video of the speech on the GOP website and it clearly shows people being shut up and some being escorted out of the crowd. Not people outside.

I want to make it a point that I am not trying to harp on McCain or the republicans here. I just didn't notice this at the DNC with Obama's speech. I am making it a point to listen to everyone for all parties including the Independents. That is what I feel a 'true' American patriot should do. Try to listen to all sides before calling BS.

It's not the fact that these people were voicing their concerns and then being shut up by the 'USA' chant that bothers me. It was McCain's response.

I listened again and his words were as follows:

"Please don't be diverted by the 'ground' noise and the static."

In referring to people who voice their disapproval with a point of view or statement in this manner it shows quite a bit of what he truly stands for.

Everyone (both sides) are speaking of 'unity' for this country. Of trying to bring people back together as 'Americans'.

This has been part of the message for many of the past elections yet each time it goes straight out the window once they are elected.

One who will so casually disregard people voicing their concerns in such a manner is NOT about unifying and listening to the voice of the people. He is about keeping government in charge. Period.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   


"Please don't be diverted by the 'ground' noise and the static."


What would you have liked him to do?

That was to be HIS night. He was officially accepting the nomination.

When it was Obama's night, McCain took the 'day off' to acknowledge Obama's job well done and let Obama enjoy his day.

The same respect should have been shown to McCain, but instead, Obama tried to 'steal the thunder' by FINALLY appearing on O'Reilly.

I wanted to hear what McCain had to say during his speech. I had no interest in hearing what the protesters had to say.

There is a time and place for everything and last night was NOT the time for protestors to try to make their point ... just as the Oscars was not the place for Michael Moore to try to make his political views known.

I think McCain did a great job and considering that he PREFERS to be in a town hall setting where ANYONE is allowed to come in and voice their opinions, good or bad, I would say that McCain DOES allow people to sound off and he DOES address them, when it's in an appropriate forum.

Jemison



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Yes, I realize that he was accepting his nomination. Like I said, the chants of USA by the supporters is fine. But he truly should have handled it differently. Not calling them 'ground noise and static'. Just trying to make a simple unbiased point.

There are better 'political' ways to handle situations like that.

If it were me, I would have still made it funny by simply thanking them for coming and voicing their concerns.

Silencing people by belittling them is NEVER the path that government should take. All voices should be heard but this country has a pretty violent history of squashing the dissenting voices. It appears that the same will continue with this man and Obama.

What we need is REAL CHANGE in the White House.

Edit to add: To make sure I was clear. I understand that there is a time and place. He simply should have handled it without belittling them in that manner. He has made comments like this in the past that have caused me to question how he views the general population.

Also, he made a remark about Iran that was very stupid in my opinion in an interview he had where he did a pink panther joke. Instead of the "What did the Pink Panther say when he stepped on an ant." He put the Iran twist to it and said "Babomb, babomb, babomb...." to the Pink Panther tune.

You see what I am trying to say? When he doesn't speak off of the prompter (just like with Obama), he makes some pretty stupid mistakes that actually let slip what their true thoughts and intents are.

I guarantee you that, with that stupid joke he made, Iran is a key target for him if he gets in. Regardless of the 'Intel' on them or not. We WILL go to war on yet another front.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by dariousg]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   


Silencing people by belittling them is NEVER the path that government should take.


I didn't feel that he was 'belittling' them.

I guess it's all a matter of perception.

Jemison



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


I'll give you that. It was simply (as I put it) my opinion. I am a student and fan of psychology so I like to look at things from the 'Freudian' slips of the tongue point of view at times.

Again, I'm not trying to slam him. I'm just concerned with some of the things he is saying when not prompted. Just like with Obama. Obama has said some things off prompter and then recanted or changed them a week later.

Generally what it means is that these people are saying what they truly mean and then have to do damage control later on. Happens all of the time.

Regardless of this down moment (in my opinion), I did like the rest of the speech. Like I said, he sounded more 'there' than I have heard him in previous speeches which is great.

I just could have done without so many thank you's in the beginning! LOL



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   


I am a student and fan of psychology so I like to look at things from the 'Freudian' slips of the tongue point of view at times.


We are in the same field! I have my Masters in Psych and when my children are out of school I will re-start my career. I love it!

I'm not sure where you are in your studies but they generally teach you your first year in grad school to avoid 'analyzing' people and their behaviors unless you are getting paid to do so.


Jemison



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I just wish some of his handlers would explain to him that there is no R in Washington. He always pronounces it Warshington, which is irritating to me, and I'm not even from the USA.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   


I just wish some of his handlers would explain to him that there is no R in Washington. He always pronounces it Warshington, which is irritating to me, and I'm not even from the USA.


I have never noticed that ... I DVR'd the speech so I might just have to watch it again just to listen to him say Washington ... or Warshington.


Has anyone found that info on the 'voting 90% of the time with Bush' garbage?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkStormCrow
 


I think it should be noted that Cindy McCain is not a trophy wife, she is the one with the money. John McCain is her trophy husband. From what I have gleaned, haven't looked that much into it, looks like she pursued him when he was a naval officer.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   


From what I have gleaned, haven't looked that much into it, looks like she pursued him when he was a naval officer.


He may have been a naval officer but I don't know that saying she persued him is accurate. They met at a party and it was 'love at first sight' on both sides.

Jemison




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join