Why did McCain vote Yes on the Akaka bill along with Obama?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
This question has come out of the thread started about Obama backing a bill that supports Hawaii splitting fomr the U.S


that topic is much up for debate.... It is a poorly worded title that has yet to be edited. We have found that McCain himself voted along with Obama.

the only answer from the right, here on ATS, is that he was voting YES on a bill he knew was going to be a NO.

Thats politics as usual from the straight talk express, dont you think?

Or maybe McCain actually supported the bill. Either way, it is something being used against Obama when life just aint that simple.




posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   




Now that is an interesting comment. One that could be applied to the liberals, conspiracy theorists, etc.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Do you have a bill number or what bill you are referring to.

I guess this must be in reply to another thread not 100% sure.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


This should help...
ats thread



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I gave him the explanation in the other thread. Apparently he felt the need to start a thread about it.

From the same article the OP quoted:

www.hawaiireporter.com...

But Republicans played let’s make a deal with theirs, negotiating up until the very last minute. Organized in caucus beforehand, some Republicans who knew they would kill the cloture vote, cast their ballot in favor of the Akaka Bill because they either served on the Senate Appropriations Committee with Inouye, the co-chair, and wanted to show him the courtesy, or because they’d traded their vote with Inouye in previous sessions. Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, one of the biggest opponents of the bill, promised the Hawaii delegation he would not stand in the way of the cloture vote because of a previous deal he made, but he told them if it passed cloture, he’d be their toughest opponent.


Its pretty stupid in my opinion, but its not an uncommon practice.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Drone, please re-read the OP

from it.....




the only answer from the right, here on ATS, is that he was voting YES on a bill he knew was going to be a NO.



Do you think I got that out of thin air?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by bknapple32]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   




What exactly are you looking for? Whats the point of this new thread?



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


I want the right of this site to come out and answer for this. This isnt some dumb Palin daughter thread...

This is completely contradictory to the straight talk express, and I want to hear the opinions of the right winged posters.

Its a thread against the talk of Mccain, perhaps you dont see a point, but I do.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


H.R.505 is the bill name.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator


NOTICE how the foaming NEOCONS have completely avoided a reasonable thread?


SHILLS---- FOX has not provided them with a talking point yet...( I'm serious on that)



Can you please at least try to raise the level of discussion here. Name calling, etc., really has no place on ATS. The thread is about McCain, not about other ATS members.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Jamie, what do you think about it? Either McCain was in favor of this, in which case all arguments saying Obama favors succession are null. Or McCain voted yes when he wasn't even for the bill.. Politics as usual? What do you think?



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Yes, its politics as usual. Just as Obama has displayed again and again throughout his campaign. That still doesn't change that Obama supported the bill. If there's nothing wrong with the bill, than why are you trying so hard to divert attention from Obama?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Time to get back on topic...

Further detours and diversions will be dealt with administratively...



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by mental modulator


NOTICE how the foaming NEOCONS have completely avoided a reasonable thread?


SHILLS---- FOX has not provided them with a talking point yet...( I'm serious on that)



Can you please at least try to raise the level of discussion here. Name calling, etc., really has no place on ATS. The thread is about McCain, not about other ATS members.




A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims


I submit that I have yet to see FNC address this. I also suspect that this is why there has been little effect to discuss this by the NEOCONS, conservatives, Pro MCcains, anti OBAMA, GOP members and shills...

is that better?




[edit on 6-9-2008 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Yes, its politics as usual. Just as Obama has displayed again and again throughout his campaign. That still doesn't change that Obama supported the bill. If there's nothing wrong with the bill, than why are you trying so hard to divert attention from Obama?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Dronetek]


If you cant see the point I am making then all is lost.

Few things here...

1. I dont view the bill as wrong at all. Its a Hawaiian bill for Hawaiians. I went into DETAIL on how the bill will not provide anything towards succession.

2. Obama was legitimately in favor of said bill. AS a native Hawaiian, I can understand why.

3. McCain voted yes on the bill.

4. You attack bill and thus attack Obama's yes. Yet, if Mccain votes yes, its just politics...

So whats worse?

Obama voting on a bill he feels is legit and truly believes...? Or McCain preaching the straight talk express, then just doing politics as usual, by voting on a bill he doesn't even believe in?



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



1. I dont view the bill as wrong at all. Its a Hawaiian bill for Hawaiians. I went into DETAIL on how the bill will not provide anything towards succession.


Yet that's what the guy who the bill is named after said it was.


2. Obama was legitimately in favor of said bill. AS a native Hawaiian, I can understand why.


If the bill was a first step toward succession, than he was helping that step. Again, the only reason I brought this up, is because the media spent a few days bashing Palin with that Alaskan group. Why one and not the other is my question and I was using this as an example.


Or McCain preaching the straight talk express, then just doing politics as usual, by voting on a bill he doesn't even believe in?


Yup, which is why I didn't support McCain for President. That being said, McCain is still a much better choice for president.

Just like Biden said on many occasions that Obama had no business being president, but now supports him.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Ok I read the whole Bill.

1. It doesn't want to split Hawaii. We will still have 50 states.

2. From what I can find it hasn't been voted on but was referred to a committee, unless they changed the title which sometimes they do. I am looking at s310. Maybe both voted to send it to committee.

3. This is nothing more than trying to set up a place for NATIVE Hawaiians. Kind of similar to our Native Indian tribes we have here. This is due to injustice that was done to the Native Hawaiians in the past.

Obama is not trying to split Hawaii. Guess somebody could interpret that way because there is a part that can be misleading.


Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to provide a process for the reorganization of the single Native Hawaiian governing entity and the reaffirmation of the special political and legal relationship between the United States and that Native Hawaiian governing entity for purposes of continuing a government-to-government relationship.


source

I am talking about that government to government part. But this is the same thing our Indian tribes have.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 



1. It doesn't want to split Hawaii. We will still have 50 states.


I never claimed it did. I was just quoting what the creator of the bill said.

Once again, I only posted the article to show the double standard in the media and on the forums.





new topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join