Why/Why not McCain?

[Hammer_of_Thor]

It looks like McCain will be the GOP nod.
Here is just a small pick of issues about McCain.

From this website http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm


Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

How do you feel about these stances?

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?

[Richard Masters]

It looks like McCain will be the GOP nod.
Here is just a small pick of issues about McCain.

From this website http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm


Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

How do you feel about these stances?

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?

Iraq War. Torture stance is just a way to stand out. I prefer McCain over Hillary, though.

[Billdave2]

Iraq War. Torture stance is just a way to stand out. I prefer McCain over Hillary, though.

I would say that McCains anti-torture stance is a little more than just a way to stand out.

[Loss Leader]

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)



The only ones I think are not insane. McCain's stance as a "maverick" is nothing more than media myth-making. He is a loyal Republican who has voted with the President almost every single chance he's had.

I'd rather see a small vial of the ebola virus as President than McCain. It would certainly kill fewer people.

[Lurker]

I find it odd that some people seem on the fence whether to vote for Hillary or McCain (assuming it comes to those two). Upchurch, whom I respect, is one.

I think many of their stances are quite opposed to each other on most issues. So are the issues no longer important or do other less tangible factors decide the vote for an individual? Why do the less tangible factors outweigh the actual positions and goals of the candidates?

[Brainster]

It looks like McCain will be the GOP nod.
Here is just a small pick of issues about McCain.

From this website http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm


Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

Agree. It's a horrid example of legislating from the bench. Send it back to the states and maybe, maybe one state or two will ban it.

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)

Agree.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

Agree, but the full faith & credit clause is a problem here.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Agree. I don't support creationism, and it's junk science. But education has always been a local issue and should remain that way.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

Agree strongly. As long as it takes. Nobody really thinks it will be 100 years.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

Disagree. If miracle cures are out there, let private industry find them. This stance has been superseded.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Somewhat agree. Increase usage of nuclear energy, reduce reliance on foreign oil.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Agree, non-controversial.

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Agree, non-controversial.

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

Moderately disagree but apparently we haven't been doing this for the last several years, since part of the effectiveness of this technique is convincing the person they are drowning, and the terrorists now know we won't drown them in reality. As a matter of policy we should not allow torture; I am hopeful that Jack Bauers are out there to ignore policy when necessary.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

Not sure what this one means. If it's referring to his time in the Hanoi Hilton, it's indisputably heroic.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

South Carolina's decision to make.

How do you feel about these stances?

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?

I will proudly vote for Senator McCain, because he is a man of principle. He is solid on the War on Terror, he is firm in his determination to succeed in transforming Iraq. He has stood strong on battling pork-barrel spending and the growth of government. He has served his country admirably and will not "go along to get along".

[Tsukasa Buddha]

He has flipped around a lot on gays. From what I've gathered so far, he didn't support a constitutional amendment then. But later he told Fallwell et al. that he would support it if enough States had started redefining marriage. So it's a State's right as long as they agree with him.

On civil unions... He's vague. He says he supports people getting together with lawyers and setting up who has legal authority, who gets what, joint property etc. But he doesn't seem to actually support civil unions.

However, he changes his answers a lot and it is kinda confusing, but that is the overall picture I get.

I don't like him because he slutted hard for the "agents of intolerance", and now he is pretty much in line with the Republicans on the war and other issues. Kinda betrayed his "maverick" title.

Oh, and if his VP is Huckabee, or someone comparable, then definitely no. He isn't getting younger and he is quite the hawk.

And he recently talked about there being "other wars".

Oh, and though I like him talking about stopping pork barrel spending, it will take a lot more than that to get spending under control. I haven't seen any of his plans for that.

And he took more lobbyist money than anyone but... ;)

[Richard Masters]

I would say that McCains anti-torture stance is a little more than just a way to stand out.

That's just how he gets to bring up that he was a POW.

Apparently he doesn't remember the pain of his own facial reconstruction, as he is willing to send more people to die in Iraq.

[Billdave2]

That's just how he gets to bring up that he was a POW.

Apparently he doesn't remember the pain of his own facial reconstruction, as he is willing to send more people to die in Iraq.

His stance on the war has nothing really to do with his stance on torture. If anything service makes him the only candidate that can actually know what he is asking our troops to do. Whatever your personal feelings for the man and what he stands for, to say that his stand against torture is somehow only for show is uncalled for.

[Billdave2]

I will proudly vote for Senator McCain, because he is a man of principle. He is solid on the War on Terror, he is firm in his determination to succeed in transforming Iraq. He has stood strong on battling pork-barrel spending and the growth of government. He has served his country admirably and will not "go along to get along".

I agree with most of of his stances on this list. Any of the ones I disagree with, his eventual opponent and I will also disagree with (and much more). McCain was my second choice from the beginning (I voted for Fred Thompson in the primary's) and was my first choice in 2000.

I too will proudly and gladly vote for him.

[Richard Masters]

His stance on the war has nothing really to do with his stance on torture. If anything service makes him the only candidate that can actually know what he is asking our troops to do. Whatever your personal feelings for the man and what he stands for, to say that his stand against torture is somehow only for show is uncalled for.

Well, he is against torture, but he is for killing people.

:boggled:

[ZenFountain]

If the GOP ticket ends up being McCain / Huckabee, the platform drawn up at the convention is sure to be a riot.

[Donal]

It looks like McCain will be the GOP nod.
Here is just a small pick of issues about McCain.

From this website http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm)

Kind of skimpy there. They just give you the quick "voted yes or no". They don't seem to go indepth about the specific bills themselves.


Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

Agree.

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)

Depends on who he is talking to.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

The states regulate marriage now (I don't like that by the way), so I guess.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Not in science class.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

I think he was being figurative there. I agree we need to be there as long as it takes to make a secure, functioning society (or societies)

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

agree

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Agree

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Agree

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Agree

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

agree

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

Gonna need clarification on that one.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

Its a sign of frickin treason. Why the hell do rednecks hold so much influence?

How do you feel about these stances?

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?

Over all, I agree with him. Not on everything, but most. I also feel he is the most consistent of all the major candidates.

[OneShotKi11]

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

I agree with this. So does Ron Paul

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)

He said this is regards to the economy. Do you people believe we are actually better off right now then we were in 2000 in regards to our economy???

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
I agree with this. So does Ron Paul

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
I agree with this. So does Ron Paul.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
I couldnt disagree with this more. Its like trying to fit your car into a parking space that clearly isnt big enough.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
This issue i dont care much for so i have no real opinion on it. Either way i would be fine.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)
I agree with this.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)
This is nice i guess id be for it

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
I agree with this. So does Ron Paul

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)
I agree with this and would believe RP would be against this, but im not sure.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)
I lack information on the topic. Can not pass judgement.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)
**** that Flag. Personal belief but actually doesnt bother me much.

feel the man is untrust worthy and unintelligent. I would not vote for him!

[Hammer_of_Thor]

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)



This is in regards to McCain's father being an Admiral in the navy. The Vietnamese were going to release him from captivity because of who his father was. He said he would not be released early. He remained loyal to POWs.

[Tiktaalik]

I have always had a soft spot for McCain, and would have voted for him in the last election had he been a candidate.

However, I just watched his speech on TV and it was the single scariest speech I've heard this campaign. I was particularly put off by his desire to increase warrantless detention overseas and increase the US' ability to monitor phone and other messages. I didn't like his assertion that he would make the (stupid) tax breaks Bush has put in place permanent. I didn't like that he would NEVER sign a budget with earmarks in it. I didn't like that he would drastically decrease the tax percentage for business, but made no mention of tax breaks for the middle and working classes. I pretty much didn't like anything he said.

There is no way I want this guy in the White House. Despite what he maybe once was, right now it looks like Bush Redux to me. That is not acceptable to me.

I immediately went on-line & made a campaign contribution to a Democratic candidate...

[IchabodPlain]

It looks like McCain will be the GOP nod.
Here is just a small pick of issues about McCain.

From this website http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

Agree.

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)

Mostly Agree.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

Agree.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

I disagree with creationism. However It's more of a local issue that should be decided by the district, so I agree.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

This was a bit rhetorical, but I agree. Keep in mind we have had troops in S. Korea for 50 years, and for good reason.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)


Disagree.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Mostly agree. Global warming can only be addressed as a *global* issue, which includes Inda and China. But I do support cutting our reliance on foreign oil by supporting alternatives such as nuclear and proven viable renewables and conservation efforts in the spirit of Roosevelt.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Agree.

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Agree.

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

Agree.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

I don't think this is a political position, but for some clarification:

"I spelled out the reasons [to my fellow inmates] why I should not [accept the Vietnamese offer of release from the POW camp]:

Just letting me go is a propaganda victory for them. I can tell they really want me to go. And if they want something that much it’s got to be a bad thing. I can’t give them that satisfaction.

Second, I would be disloyal to the rest of you. I know why they’re doing this-to make every guy here whose father isn’t an admiral think the [Army’s Code of Conduct] is ****. They’ll tell all of you, “Your father’s not an admiral and nobody gives a damn about you.” And I don’t want to go home and see my father, and he wouldn’t want to see me under those conditions. I’ve got to say no.

Eventually, [the Vietnamese asked if I considered their release offer]. “What is your answer?” “No, thank you.” “Why?” “American prisoners cannot accept parole, or amnesty or special favors. We must be released in the order of our capture.. My final answer is no.”
Source: “Faith of My Fathers”, p. 235 Nov 9, 1999


Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

Disagree.


How do you feel about these stances?

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?

I agree with McCain on most of the basics. His stance and subsequent banning the use of torture lends America credibility abroad, while keeping our eyes on the problem of terrorism. I don't think it's show or "a way to stand out", given his life experience, and many military men feel the same way.

http://tinyurl.com/2gbsso
http://tinyurl.com/2gvp7q

[davefoc]

I was slow to realize that there was this big anti-McCain campaign going on.

And now that I know about it I don't understand it. OK, McCain has a few opinions out of the Conservative Republican Mainstream. But are these mostly minor diversions from the right wing mainstream enough to justify all the rancor?

We are living through what is almost certainly the worst administration of my life. It is the worst by standards that would be agreed to by almost all people. Yes there are a few partisans that have decided to overlook the corruption and incompetence, the massive unfunded spending and the disastrous management of the Iraqi occupation to defend Bush. But now these same partisans have decided that McCain is the devil? Based on what? What are the driving issues for a McCain hater/Bush lover?

One theory I have is that this is all about setting McCain up as the big scape goat for what is likely to be another election with huge Republican losses. The argument will go that the Republicans failed because they didn't put up a "real" conservative for the presidency.

[BPSCG]

It looks like McCain will be the GOP nod.
Here is just a small pick of issues about McCain.

From this website http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
Assuming nothing more complex in the issues than what is presented below:

> Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)
That's up to the Supreme Court, not the president. I think it's a bad decision, but I'm still moderately pro-choice (guess you could say I'm moderately pro-life, for that matter). Even if SCOTUS were to overturn it, I'm convinced abortion would remain widely available throughout the country.

> Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)
Well, I'm better off. I think the country is safer today from terrorists than in 2000, when we were barely aware of them. Question is really too vague to answer intelligently.

> Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
Someone else aptly pointed out the problem with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. I don't see how you can have some states recognizing gay marriages and some not. House divided and all that. I'd like to see gay marriages recognized nationwide, but the country won't be ready for that for another 10 or 20 years.

> Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
This bothers me. Kids aren't even taught how to read, write, add, or subtract, but we argue about whether they should be taught some mythology about how life arose. Jeezum crow.

> Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
We've been in South Korea for 57 years. Of course, there hasn't been any significant shooting there since 1954.

> Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
That's a non-issue now, since scientists have figured out how to make stem cells without embryos.

> Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)
Mildly agree with the first part, but since we don't know how much of it is our doing and how much of it is simply cyclical in nature, disagree with the rest.

> Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)
Yeah, okay, and honor your mom and pop, too. Everyone loves national parks.

> Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Agree.

> Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)
Disagree. A few minutes of pain and suffering for one man planning to blow up a building is a fair price to pay to save the lives of the people in that building.

> Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)
That's not an issue, but it speaks volumes about his character; I consider that very important.

> Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)
Not a federal issue at all, irrelevant.

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?Now that Romney is gone, I'll vote for McCain, because national security trumps every other issue for me. I've actually gone to the trouble of visiting Clinton's and Obama's web sites to see where they stand on it, and they basically talk about fighting a defensive war against Islamist terrorism. You can't win a war if you don't hit back, and neither Clinton nor Obama says how they would hit back, or that they would hit back at all. Romney had the clearest vision of how to win, which involved getting other countries to fight with us; he recognized that we can't do it alone. McCain is vaguer on that, but he's still better than Clinton and Obama. Obama says pointedly about the war in Iraq that he will "end the war." Note he doesn't say he'll win it; we'll just leave.

I have problems with McCain, the biggest being the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which was going to take the corrupting influence of money out of presidential politics. We saw how that worked. What McCain-Feingold does is limit political speech, and that's an attack on the first amendment, and I hate that.

So I won't be completely happy about it, but I'll vote for McCain, and hope that that strength of character he displayed at the Hanoi Hilton comes out as president. But I really believe that this country is going to elect Obama - the adoring press coverage makes it inevitable, to my mind.

[UserGoogol]

I'm too lazy to go through the list at the moment, so I'll just say that I'm a pretty down the line liberal (at least on those issues) and in the end oppose him although I think he might be a lesser evil as far as Republicans go.

Well, he is against torture, but he is for killing people.

:boggled:

A big argument against torture is that it doesn't actually work. You're just causing great suffering to a person and disgracing yourself while getting little but unreliable information in exchange. To contrast, killing people often gets quite tangible results, although I don't think it gets terribly meaningful results in Iraq (or in other areas, although I'm not an absolute pacifist).

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

Well I'm not a fan of abortion either, if I were to impregnate a woman I would want to raise the child or at least give it up for adoption. But I've learned sometime ago not to fight battles on the shoulders of others. Repealing Roe v. Wade would open up a firestorm of medical and bodily privacy issues that I wouldn't want to touch from legal standpoint in my dumbest days.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

I consider this an issue of equality and the world has demonstrated to me that state and local governments don't always have the best interests of minorities in their hearts, neither does the federal government but federal law (I.E. the Supreme Court) has shown to be a brilliant tool in demolishing regional bigotry from a legal standpoint. In my opinion, it should be unconstitutional to outlaw gay marriage at either federal, state, or local level. I've heard the argument that gay marriage is a "slippery slope" to other things. Namely marriage involving pedophillia or Zoophilia, I consider this a cop-out from homophobes who have no legitimate argument. We're talking two consenting adults here, two adult males of normal intelligence and rationality can consent to sex and marriage. A horse cannot consent to sex nor marriage, neither can a child.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Again, disagreed. Unscientific theories and beliefs should not be treated as having the same validity by being taught in a school district. Very much the same as teaching Holocaust Denial, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, or the Flat-Earth, heh, "theory" wouldn't be ok either. And from a religious standpoint, sure, I'll allow you to teach creationism in schools...but only after you let Dawkins teach Evolution in church.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

:jaw-dropp *que dramatic chipmunk* This is the primary reason why he would not get my vote. I'm hoping for Obama, because if it came down to him and Hilary I don't know what I would do.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

Agreed

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Agreed

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Agreed

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Agreed

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

Agreed

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

:confused: Can someone fill me in on this one?

[BPSCG]

A big argument against torture is that it doesn't actually work. That's not true.


It's a bad method of getting confessions to crimes already committed, because if you torture someone long enough, he'll confess to anything if he knows his confession will stop the torture. And you haven't accomplished anything.

Torturing for the purpose of getting information about crimes not yet committed can be effective. The classic case is Sheikh Khalid Muhammad, who gave up the names and locations of his al Qaeda buddies within seconds after his waterboarding started. When you torture someone who has information about an impending terrorist act, he knows the only way to stop the torture for good is to give you the truth, because if he lies, you're going to come back and say hello to him.

Please, stop the nonsense that torture isn't effective. If you want to say it's not a perfect interrogation technique, you'll get no argument from me, but until you find such a technique, it's foolishness to prohibit the infliction of temporary pain on one man in order to save the lives of thousands of innocent ones.


Apologies for the derail. There's (yet another) extensive debate going on in Social Issues about this, and I'll be happy to pick it up there with you if you like.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

That's not true.


It's a bad method of getting confessions to crimes already committed, because if you torture someone long enough, he'll confess to anything if he knows his confession will stop the torture. And you haven't accomplished anything.

Torturing for the purpose of getting information about crimes not yet committed can be effective. The classic case is Sheikh Khalid Muhammad, who gave up the names and locations of his al Qaeda buddies within seconds after his waterboarding started. When you torture someone who has information about an impending terrorist act, he knows the only way to stop the torture for good is to give you the truth, because if he lies, you're going to come back and say hello to him.

Please, stop the nonsense that torture isn't effective. If you want to say it's not a perfect interrogation technique, you'll get no argument from me, but until you find such a technique, it's foolishness to prohibit the infliction of temporary pain on one man in order to save the lives of thousands of innocent ones.


I'm not at all convinced that your average fanatic martyr would be willing to give up sensitive information like that, or what of the validity of his confessions? He might talk but he might say the wrong thing. Let's apply the basic gist of your first paragraph with the scenario of your second; say you torture an Islamic Terrorist for information and he tells you the location of a bomb in Chicago, you investigate, and the bomb blows up in New York. He'll be executed but this is a person who would gladly strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself up for other people, I don't expect him to come anywhere near being able to tell the truth under torture.

It’s my opinion; take it for what it’s worth, that someone with significant motivation and emotional investment in a certain cause, in this case Islamic Extremism, wouldn’t confess even under torture. And what of retaliation? Terrorists can, and have, used the torture and mistreatment of their own as justification for the torture, mistreatment, and execution of our own. Following this logic you’ve applied here it’s perfectly acceptable for any organization, either foreign or domestic, to torture US citizens for information.

[maxpower1227]

I seem to agree with McCain on several issues, certainly enough to vote for him.

McCain > Obama >>> Clinton

That's basically what the score is.

[maxpower1227]

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Not bad, but...

Climate change is real; nuclear power is solution. (Oct 2007)

WIN

[fuelair]

Not McCain - but, then, not republicker.

[UserGoogol]

Apologies for the derail. There's (yet another) extensive debate going on in Social Issues about this, and I'll be happy to pick it up there with you if you like.

Perhaps you're right, (I disagree, but I'm willing to be persuaded since it's a question of fact and I don't claim to have a lot of evidence on hand) and I might head into that thread, but I was merely stating what the argument is.

[KingMerv00]

Why/Why not?

Not. I dislike him on social issue.

[Tricky]

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)
No. Bad mistake. Even with modern medicine and the abortion pill, he's throwing a bone to the religious right. If he said "modifying" I might give him a break.

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)
Very wrong, although there are similarities. At both times, we were headed toward a recession. But in 2000, we did not have our troops engaged in a hopeless, expensive pointless war that drained the economy and caused a lot more anguish than Clinton's sex life.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
What's the deal with "state's rights"? Why not county rights or city rights or neighborhood rights or just total fricken anarchy? If a couple is married in Massachusetts, then they're married in Wyoming. If not, then why don't states have the right to ban interracial marriage?

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
Wrong in so many ways I can't count. Can the school district decide to teach Lamarkism? Why not?

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
Depends on what he means by "presence". Advisors? Okay. Troops? They've been there too long already.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
Obviously okay, and really, non-controversial except among the most right wing of fundies.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)
Even Bush admits this. Again, not controversial. But it depends on what he means by "addressed". Admitting it is not addressing it.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)
The devil is in the details. How does he plan to do this? By selling parts of them to raise money to "preserve" the other parts? This is just a sound bite.

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
I'm unaware of many places that prosecute people for gun ownership. Every place I've ever seen prosecutes criminals. This is nothing but a straw man. If he has something specific in mind, maybe he'd like to detail it.

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)
I don't know if waterboarding is or isn't torture. I'm not even sure torture isn't a legitimate technique. But I know this. If you do it to them, you'd better not complain if they do it to you.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)
This is not even a position. This is a brag. Maybe a justifed brag, but not anything that is an issue.
Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)
Stupid stupid stupid. If displaying the Confederate flag on government grounds is wrong (as I believe it is) then it doesn't matter if you put it in the bottom left corner of the lowermost windowpane in the guests' bathroom. And if it's not wrong, then flying it on top is really the right thing to do. If you are going to support a flag that, for whatever reason, has become a symbol of racism, then a whisper is less honest than a shout.

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?
I would vote for McCain if there were no better candidate (like if he were running against Jesse Jackson). But there are at least two better candidates still in the race. Maybe three, if Bloomberg runs.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not bad, but...



WIN

And does he propose a long term solution for the waste?

I mean, every energy plan is going to have nuclear, but there has to be a lot more than just that. And nuclear can't be the final answer.

[Tricky]

And does he propose a long term solution for the waste?

I mean, every energy plan is going to have nuclear, but there has to be a lot more than just that. And nuclear can't be the final answer.
What's the long term solution for greenhouse gasses? Nuclear waste has dangerous by-products, but so does every other form of energy, including solar.

The final answer is that we have to use less energy. A lot less.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay, now to highlight all the bad stuff from the same website:

Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007)

Ten Commandments would bring virtue to our schools. (Jan 2000)

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Administration is AWOL on the war on drugs. (Mar 2000)

Stricter penalties; stricter enforcement. (Jul 1998) [On Drugs]

Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)

Unfiltered Internet robs our children of their innocence. (Dec 1999)

The problem with health care in America is inflation. (Jan 2006) [WTF?]

GOP lost 2006 due to corrupt spending, spending, spending. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)

Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)

The cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004)

In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified. (May 2007)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What's the long term solution for greenhouse gasses? Nuclear waste has dangerous by-products, but so does every other form of energy, including solar.

The final answer is that we have to use less energy. A lot less.

That's not really a solution at all, now is it :p ? (I know it's true, but just saying it doesn't really do anything)

I happen to think that by comparison, the waste of solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc. are much more manageable than all the nuclear waste we would generate if we switched the bulk of energy needs to nuclear.

[Tricky]

Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007)
It's better than nothing, but honesty and tolerance would be better still.

Ten Commandments would bring virtue to our schools. (Jan 2000)
LOL. You think? How would he enforce them?

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Actually, this depends. If it were demonstrable that certain jobs required heterosexuals in order to do the job, this might be legit, just like Hooter requires women with big boobs and basketball teams usually hire tall guys. But I'm guessing there aren't many jobs that require heterosexuals. Maybe if prostitution were legalized...

Administration is AWOL on the war on drugs. (Mar 2000)
I'd like to hear McCain's plan. If it's just more "get tough", then he's not exactly a visionary.

Stricter penalties; stricter enforcement. (Jul 1998) [On Drugs]
Fill up the prisons with drug abusers? They're pretty full already. Has it worked? If not, hit yourself on the head with a hammer, McCain and see if you can't come up with something better.

Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)
Like the virtues of a good education? What other "virtues"? Another stupid sound bite.l

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
If it was "abstinence only" then he's a bloody idiot. It has been tried. It not only doesn't work, it achieves the opposite effects of what was intended.

Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
No school has ever been able to prevent voluntary prayer. Public prayers or public announcements of prayer, on the other hand, are a violation of civil rights, unless students are allowed to pray aloud to Satan (or James Randi, as some call him) as well as the well-known gods.

Unfiltered Internet robs our children of their innocence. (Dec 1999)
Better internet controls are needed. Parents need to keep track of what their kids are doing. But you can't get the genie back in the bottle. The information age is upon us, and if you think you can stop the tidal wave of information (of all kinds) then stick your finger right in this hole in the dike. And good luck.

The problem with health care in America is inflation. (Jan 2006) [WTF?]
Inflation of health care costs is one problem. Another is that health care is so effective that people live long past their first need to have more and more needs. It is a case of being the victim of our own success. If your 80-year-old grandfather is complaining because his health care won't cover his Viagra, then there is some sort of inflation problem, but maybe not the one McCain is talking about.

GOP lost 2006 due to corrupt spending, spending, spending. (Jun 2007)
No. They lost because of Bush Bush Bush.

Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)

Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
BFD. So did a number of Democrats.

The cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004)

In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified. (May 2007)
Not many people, not even Republicans, will buy into this. They will rightly see that the invasion of Iraq by Islamic extremists happened after the US invasion, and that we have been recruiting for them since we made this incredibly stupid mistake. And if we'd kept most of our troops in Afghanistan and near the northern border of Pakistan, we'd have a lot fewer problems now.

[Tricky]

That's not really a solution at all, now is it :p ? (I know it's true, but just saying it doesn't really do anything).Well the solution IS to use less, but of course, that is much easier said than done. It means major lifestyle changes, mostly for the worse (for Americans, anyway). It means biting the bullet. The solution means to make rules that force these changes and put some teeth into them. This is not something that any of our current crop of politicians have the nads to do.

I happen to think that by comparison, the waste of solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc. are much more manageable than all the nuclear waste we would generate if we switched the bulk of energy needs to nuclear.
I tend to agree with you, but it is not that big of a difference, with a few exceptions. Wind power doesn't have too many downsides in long-term problems but of course, it is limited. Truthfully, so is nuclear power. There is not enough uranium to replace fossil fuels, so efficient though it is, it can't replace them even IF we could be 100% certain the waste would never cause a problem.

Maybe technology will save us. Maybe we will have to revert to more simple lifestiles or, (shudder) reduce our population subtantially. We're in the golden age right now. We'd better use that gold to try to make the next age silver rather than returning to stone.

[Corsair 115]

Truthfully, so is nuclear power. There is not enough uranium to replace fossil fuels, so efficient though it is, it can't replace them even IF we could be 100% certain the waste would never cause a problem.You may be interested in reading this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77079) thread from the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum. It goes into considerable depth about nuclear power and the issue surrounding it, including the idea of whether there is enough uranium to meet the world's energy needs.

A thread well worth reading in my opinion.

[Tricky]

You may be interested in reading this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77079) thread from the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum. It goes into considerable depth about nuclear power and the issue surrounding it, including the idea of whether there is enough uranium to meet the world's energy needs.

A thread well worth reading in my opinion.
Interesting.

Quite long though, with the expected number of pointless, ignorant, agenda-driven and incomprehensible posts. I'll have to sift. Thankfully, I've been here long enough to know which posters I can ignore without missing anything substantial, and which ones need careful attention.

[HereticHulk]

If anything service makes him the only candidate that can actually know what he is asking our troops to do.

Like what? Get shot down and captured? Well done John 'warmonger' McBush.

Like Buchanan said, McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi.

I'll be moving up the Canada with TAM if McCain is our next president eh?

[Corsair 115]

I'll be moving up the Canada with TAM if McCain is our next president eh?Uh, who said we'll let you in? :D

[BPSCG]

I'm not at all convinced that your average fanatic martyr would be willing to give up sensitive information like that, or what of the validity of his confessions? He might talk but he might say the wrong thing.Again, you mustn't confuse torturing for purposes of getting a confession to a crime already committed with torture for the purpose of getting information to prevent a crime that has not yet been committed.

...this is a person who would gladly strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself up for other people, I don't expect him to come anywhere near being able to tell the truth under torture.

It’s my opinion; take it for what it’s worth, that someone with significant motivation and emotional investment in a certain cause, in this case Islamic Extremism, wouldn’t confess even under torture. That's a lovely theory. Now please explain why it failed in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who caved after only a few seconds of waterboarding. Do you really believe the guy who masterminded the September 11 attacks didn't have "significant motivation and emotional investment" in his cause?

Or is it possible that your theory doesn't stand up to experimentation, and that torture can indeed be effective in getting information?

A popular claim among anti-torture advocates is that people will say anything to stop torture. That is correct.

You understand, don't you, that "anything" includes the truth? As you point out, "he might say the wrong thing," but he knows that if he does, the torturers are going to come back to discuss his answers with him, repeatedly, until they are satisfied he's given them the truth. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad apparently understood that.

[marksman]

FYI: I have no idea where ontheissues,org got the notion that McCain still supports letting States decide whether to allow creationism to be taught. He floated that out in 2005, but in 2007, he specifically stated that creationism should not be taught in science classes, but might be appropriate in a philosophy or some other class.

Sadly, this bit of misinformation has been popping up a lot recently. So I have to say I'm a bit skeptical of ontheissues.org's research on McCain's other less-known positions.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, he is against torture, but he is for killing people.

:boggled:

It that is how you want to parse it, so is Hillary, she voted for the war.

Obama then makes for a better choice.

Ron Paul hasn't run a sound enough campaign to get the nom.

So, who do you root for?

Best reason to vote for McCain: Mitt quit, Huckabee is a non starter.
Best reason to vote against: you like Hilly or Obama better
or
you support the Paul/Nader ticket for 2008. :p

H Hulk, you'd be better off heading to Mexico. It is more of a libertarians' paradise, if you are in the top 3% of wealthy in that so called republic.

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

That's a lovely theory. Now please explain why it failed in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who caved after only a few seconds of waterboarding. Do you really believe the guy who masterminded the September 11 attacks didn't have "significant motivation and emotional investment" in his cause?

Or is it possible that your theory doesn't stand up to experimentation, and that torture can indeed be effective in getting information?


You are wrong. It might serve you better to listen to less chauvinistic claims. KSM never gave up information about Al Qaeda spies in South Africa and California, despite Hambali and Dhiren Barot saying otherwise.

[BPSCG]

You are wrong. It might serve you better to listen to less chauvinistic claims. KSM never gave up information about Al Qaeda spies in South Africa and California, despite Hambali and Dhiren Barot saying otherwise.Are you saying no useful information was extracted from any of the three waterboarded prisoners?

If so, please explain how you know this.

[Upchurch]

I find it odd that some people seem on the fence whether to vote for Hillary or McCain (assuming it comes to those two). Upchurch, whom I respect, is one.
That's fair. I should plead guilty of not having researched McCain's positions in any great detail. I mostly liked what I had heard of him before he started his ramp up for this latest presidential campaign. I've heard a number of things from McCain since he started campaigning that make me cringe. I've been kinda holding out until the national campaign (when he starts pandering to all of us, not just the conservatives) to really dig in.


Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)
Disagree.

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)
Dunno what "things" he's referring to. In my opinion, neither the economy or foreign policy are any better than in 2000.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
Double edged sword, there. It's not my first choice, but I can live with it.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
Disagree. There are national standards of education for a reason and this is very definitely one of them.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
Strongly disagree.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
Agree, assuming it is necessary for much longer.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)
Agree.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)
Agree. (I would say this is a non-issue, but the Bush Administration has done horrible things to the National Park system. There is need for some repair work.)

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Not sure what this means. Are citizens being prosecuted for legally owning guns? How is that possible?

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)
Strongly agree.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)
Not sure what this means.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)
Agree with the first part. Disagree with the second. (If it's part of a historical display of some kind, maybe.)

Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007)
Disagree.

Ten Commandments would bring virtue to our schools. (Jan 2000)
Disagree.

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Strongly Disagree.

Administration is AWOL on the war on drugs. (Mar 2000)
I have no idea if they have been or not. If they have, I don't see that as a bad thing. The "war on drugs" was generally a bad idea.

Stricter penalties; stricter enforcement. (Jul 1998) [On Drugs]
Disagree.

Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)
Virtues? Whose virtues? Virtues and responsibilities of citizenship, sure. Anything else, not so much.

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Disagree.

Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
Don't follow. How do schools stop voluntary prayer? Or are we talking about teacher lead "voluntary" prayer?

Unfiltered Internet robs our children of their innocence. (Dec 1999)
Don't follow. I'm all for keeping the porn away from the kids, but how much filtering are we talking about, who is doing the filtering, who will be effected by the filtering, and who decides what is filtered?

The problem with health care in America is inflation. (Jan 2006) [WTF?]
Gotta agree with the "WTF?"

GOP lost 2006 due to corrupt spending, spending, spending. (Jun 2007)
Disagree.

Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Disagree. (I mean, I'm sure he did. I just disagree with the decision.)

Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Disagree.

The cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004)
Mega-Ultra Disagree.

In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified. (May 2007)
Disagree. That's just stupid.

[Almo]

Agree. I don't support creationism, and it's junk science. But education has always been a local issue and should remain that way.

But seperation of church and state is NOT a local issue. Otherwise, I'd agree with you here.

[Undesired Walrus]

The problem with McCain is that he is trying too hard to replicate the sound of a politician when he is on the podium.

Whenever you see him interviewed, on Charlie Rose for example, he sounds charming, intelligent and perhaps most importantly, is a laugh.

Then, when he is talking to a debate crowd, he appears to take on the form of a loudspeaker trying to shout out through a wet dishcloth. I understand he cannot put his hands above his head because of the torture he suffered in Vietnam, and you can see him as someone who wishes he could do this. He has no need too.

Perhaps most Americans prefer a politician who cheers single word rhetoric, but I somewhat doubt it. If he comes up against Hillary, his greatest advantage is going to be acting like the sound, intelligent bloke he is. Otherwise he is going to loose out to the shrieking plastic face he is debating with.

[Skeptic Guy]

No. Bad mistake. Even with modern medicine and the abortion pill, he's throwing a bone to the religious right. If he said "modifying" I might give him a break.


Very wrong, although there are similarities. At both times, we were headed toward a recession. But in 2000, we did not have our troops engaged in a hopeless, expensive pointless war that drained the economy and caused a lot more anguish than Clinton's sex life.


What's the deal with "state's rights"? Why not county rights or city rights or neighborhood rights or just total fricken anarchy? If a couple is married in Massachusetts, then they're married in Wyoming. If not, then why don't states have the right to ban interracial marriage?


Wrong in so many ways I can't count. Can the school district decide to teach Lamarkism? Why not?


Depends on what he means by "presence". Advisors? Okay. Troops? They've been there too long already.


Obviously okay, and really, non-controversial except among the most right wing of fundies.


Even Bush admits this. Again, not controversial. But it depends on what he means by "addressed". Admitting it is not addressing it.


The devil is in the details. How does he plan to do this? By selling parts of them to raise money to "preserve" the other parts? This is just a sound bite.


I'm unaware of many places that prosecute people for gun ownership. Every place I've ever seen prosecutes criminals. This is nothing but a straw man. If he has something specific in mind, maybe he'd like to detail it.


I don't know if waterboarding is or isn't torture. I'm not even sure torture isn't a legitimate technique. But I know this. If you do it to them, you'd better not complain if they do it to you.


This is not even a position. This is a brag. Maybe a justifed brag, but not anything that is an issue.

Stupid stupid stupid. If displaying the Confederate flag on government grounds is wrong (as I believe it is) then it doesn't matter if you put it in the bottom left corner of the lowermost windowpane in the guests' bathroom. And if it's not wrong, then flying it on top is really the right thing to do. If you are going to support a flag that, for whatever reason, has become a symbol of racism, then a whisper is less honest than a shout.


I would vote for McCain if there were no better candidate (like if he were running against Jesse Jackson). But there are at least two better candidates still in the race. Maybe three, if Bloomberg runs.

There's no point in going over the list again. Tricky detailed my stance pretty darn well. The only thing I would change is the stance on waterboarding. Torture is torture and we shouldn't use it.

But since I'm on the other side of the aisle as far as my political views are concerned, I wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I do have to say that of all the other Republican candidates, he's the least dangerous. I think he's a good man and a war hero, but I wouldn't vote for him.

[Almo]

You understand, don't you, that "anything" includes the truth?

"Includes" is exactly the problem. There's no way to verify at the time if it is in fact the truth. My stance on this issue is the same as capital punishment; if the state says we can't kill then it is hyopocrisy for them to kill and say it's justified. Torture is wrong for you, me, and the government.

[Lurker]

Torture is wrong for you, me, and the government.

Is it? In an extreme situation? What if you had captured a terrorist who you knew had just planted a nuclear bomb (assume you know somehow) in NYC that was set to go off in five hours.

All else fails to persuade the man to give up the location and code to disarm it. Do you resort to torture or do you allow the population of NYC to be incinerated so you can stick to your morals?

Yes, yes. I know this is a rather ridiculous scenario but I think it does illustrate that perhaps torture may be wrong but not always.

Sorry for the derail.

[BenBurch]

His elevator no longer goes all the way to the top. Huge negative. And expect many negative ads talking about outbursts of his and odd things he has said.

[Undesired Walrus]

Is it? In an extreme situation? What if you had captured a terrorist who you knew had just planted a nuclear bomb (assume you know somehow) in NYC that was set to go off in five hours.

All else fails to persuade the man to give up the location and code to disarm it. Do you resort to torture or do you allow the population of NYC to be incinerated so you can stick to your morals?

Yes, yes. I know this is a rather ridiculous scenario but I think it does illustrate that perhaps torture may be wrong but not always.

Sorry for the derail.

McCain has said under this circumstance he would authorise 'whatever it takes' but then take repsonsibility for it after the threat was averted.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Again, you mustn't confuse torturing for purposes of getting a confession to a crime already committed with torture for the purpose of getting information to prevent a crime that has not yet been committed.

I haven't confused them, I simply demand to know where the line should be drawn. If it's acceptable to force confessions for a crime that hasn't happened why on earth is it unacceptable to force confession for crimes that have already happened (Bare in mind that Khalid Skeikh Mohammed was also tortured into confessing several of his crimes that had already been committed)? If the US government can extract confessions via torture then why isn't it acceptable for police to bash someone's face in until they confess where they hid twenty thousand dollars for that matter?

Or how about we go into the allegations that Mohammed's children were tortured? Six and eight year old children deprived of food and water and mentally abused by guards demanding where their father was hiding? Can you tell me exactly where this stops? If I can torture a terrorist and he won't confess than why should I stop with him? Why not bring his wife and kid in, beat the ever-loving crap out of them and maybe shoot one in the leg if he doesn't talk.

That's a lovely theory. Now please explain why it failed in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who caved after only a few seconds of waterboarding. Do you really believe the guy who masterminded the September 11 attacks didn't have "significant motivation and emotional investment" in his cause?

Because he was upper class and used to living a lavish lifestyle? Because he wasn't a foot soldier? Because he had probablly already been privy to the abuse of his children? Because he was forced to confess to crimes he had already committed? And I have doubts about some of the things he confessed to, maybe I'll have to look into the individual confessions more to see if all or most of them even panned out with government investigation or if he was simply making up future crimes so he'd have something to confess to. What do you think?

The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
A failed "shoe bomber" operation
The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks to be set in the spring or summer of 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, which includes more hijackings of commercial airlines and having them flown into various buildings in the U.S. including the Library Tower in Los Angeles , the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter
A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand
A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets
A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.
Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok
Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them
The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya
Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
A plot to attack NATO's headquarters in Europe
Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets
The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines.
"Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger"
The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl

Or is it possible that your theory doesn't stand up to experimentation, and that torture can indeed be effective in getting information?

Smugness...how I missed you. :D

A popular claim among anti-torture advocates is that people will say anything to stop torture. That is correct.

You understand, don't you, that "anything" includes the truth? As you point out, "he might say the wrong thing," but he knows that if he does, the torturers are going to come back to discuss his answers with him, repeatedly, until they are satisfied he's given them the truth. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad apparently understood that.

I agree to an extent, they will say anything. And anything he says is up to our intelligence to verify. A terrorist could very well give them information about an attack that would never even happen but would be confirmed as true anyways or would never even be investigated for that matter! Bare in mind our intelligence only recently found out that Iran had abandoned it's nuclear weapons program in 2002 and helped make the case for WMDs in Iraq. The price of dealing in a business where most of your informants are criminals...and what do criminals do? They lie of course!

[BPSCG]

Yes, yes. I know this is a rather ridiculous scenario but I think it does illustrate that perhaps torture may be wrong but not always.And this has been my point all along. Torture should only be a last resort, when there are lives hanging in the balance and there is no other way to get the information. But it shouldn't be off the table completely.

People argue against the death penalty because it is irrevocable - if you wrongly execute someone, there is no way to make him whole again. The same holds true with a "ticking bomb" scenario; there is no way to bring murdered people back to life, and I hold that it is a greater wrong to allow people to be murdered than to torture someone to get the information that would save their lives.

[davefoc]

I was a little disappointed to see this thread digress into a torture discussion.

For me, this is similar to the death penalty discussions. People form an opinion about it and they try to justify their opinion with their interpretation of the facts.

In the end, though, it is just a subjective decision that can't be proved right or wrong. I favor the death penalty because I believe in retribution as a reasonable purpose of government. I would favor the death penalty even if it had no deterrent value or if it was ineffective at preventing future crimes.

Similarly, I am opposed to the organized use of torture by my government. Even if it could prevent some terrorist crimes, I would still be opposed to it. There are other reasons to be opposed to it, but in the end these all come down to a subjective balancing act between unknowable factors. I don't want my government involved in torture (and waterboarding is absolutely a form of torture) and I am going to vote against people that favor the use of it. But I also understand that no amount of discussion or analysis about this issue is going to prove me right or wrong.

The topic that I was most curious about was why do some right wing people so dislike McCain? Is this just as simple as you don't agree with me on every issue so I'm going to hate you? It doesn't seem like it could be that. The right wing is not a monolithic block. They have to be used to at lease some variation of opinion in their group. It still seems amazing to me that they could routinely overlook the foibles of Bushco and focus such hatred on McCain. What is really going on here?

[BPSCG]

If it's acceptable to force confessions for a crime that hasn't happened why on earth is it unacceptable to force confession for crimes that have already happened Because you can't bring the murdered people back to life, so torturing the guy won't accomplish anything. See my last post above.

That's a lovely theory. Now please explain why it failed in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who caved after only a few seconds of waterboarding. Do you really believe the guy who masterminded the September 11 attacks didn't have "significant motivation and emotional investment" in his cause?

Because he was upper class and used to living a lavish lifestyle? Because he wasn't a foot soldier? Because he had probablly already been privy to the abuse of his children? Because he was forced to confess to crimes he had already committed? You realize you sound like the failed claimants for the JREF million, don't you? They make their claims unchallenged, repeatedly but when cornered into making a testable prediction, they have a million excuses why it failed.

"Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!!" And then when you're presented with a case where it did work, well, the auras weren't right that day or there were bad vibes from the testers, or Randi doesn't really have the money...

[BPSCG]

I was a little disappointed to see this thread digress into a torture discussion.I've already apologized for one torture derail and asked the participants to take it over to the waterboarding thread in "Social Issues." I won't discuss it here any further. My apologies, again.

[Lurker]

The topic that I was most curious about was why do some right wing people so dislike McCain? Is this just as simple as you don't agree with me on every issue so I'm going to hate you? It doesn't seem like it could be that. The right wing is not a monolithic block. They have to be used to at lease some variation of opinion in their group. It still seems amazing to me that they could routinely overlook the foibles of Bushco and focus such hatred on McCain. What is really going on here?

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:

1. McCain-Feingold they see as against the 1st Amendment
2. McCain is against waterboarding and thus will not protect them from terrorists
3. McCain favors a form of amnesty for illegals (this is probably their big one)
4. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts

There are some other minor issues but these are the main ones that seem to get them frothing the most. It is interesting that as Bush became a lame duck they started calling him a non-conservative because of his position on illegals and amnesty. Note that they pretty much LOVED Bush before his lame duck status.

[BenBurch]

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:...

I have seen the same. I wonder if there will not be a schism in the GOP this turn? Ron Paul could easily jump and take most of the ultra conservatives with him. As this is about 10% of those who vote, it would essentially elect Obama. (Hillary, however, would unite the opposition and be defeated.)

[BPSCG]

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:

1. McCain-Feingold they see as against the 1st Amendment
2. McCain is against waterboarding and thus will not protect them from terrorists
3. McCain favors a form of amnesty for illegals (this is probably their big one)
4. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts

There are some other minor issues but these are the main ones that seem to get them frothing the most.Friend of mine emailed me some pretty woo CT-type stuff today, to wit:

McCain isn't really a war hero. He got preferential treatment from his Vietnamese captors; they even gave him nights with prostitutes in Hanoi, and kept him separate from the other U.S. POWs (makes you wonder why nobody has Swift-Boated McCain yet...)
He was dying in the polls several months ago and suddenly he's resurrected when the Dems have Clinton or Obama as the likely nominee; with McCain, they have a guaranteed socialist (= communist) in the White House. How the socialists who she claims really run this country engineered this feat, I don't know...
His preferential treatment by the Vietnamese explains why he's for amnesty for illegals. No, I have no idea what the reasoning is behind that.
The business about the Vietnamese prostitutes is based on a semi-anonymous Russian translator (the Soviets ran all the North Vietnamese prisons, don'tcha know) who transcribed all the interrogation sessions into Russian and has shared them with some PhD who's written a book...My friend can be something of a nutcase.

[marksman]

makes you wonder why nobody has Swift-Boated McCain yet...)
It's early yet. If it's McCain v. Obama, we'll be forced to choose between the closet brainwashed socialist and the closet brainwashed Muslim.

All aboard the crazy train!

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Because you can't bring the murdered people back to life, so torturing the guy won't accomplish anything. See my last post above.

And this has been my point all along. Torture should only be a last resort, when there are lives hanging in the balance and there is no other way to get the information. But it shouldn't be off the table completely.

People argue against the death penalty because it is irrevocable - if you wrongly execute someone, there is no way to make him whole again. The same holds true with a "ticking bomb" scenario; there is no way to bring murdered people back to life, and I hold that it is a greater wrong to allow people to be murdered than to torture someone to get the information that would save their lives.

Well then if that's your position than I would have to agree. However, if I had say about it, and I don't, I would need pretty good intel before I signed off on any form of torture.

You realize you sound like the failed claimants for the JREF million, don't you? They make their claims unchallenged, repeatedly but when cornered into making a testable prediction, they have a million excuses why it failed.

"Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!!" And then when you're presented with a case where it did work, well, the auras weren't right that day or there were bad vibes from the testers, or Randi doesn't really have the money...

Wow...I failed to care who exactly I sound like. There are a million reasons why this form of torture would be effective against one person and not on another. And at no point in time did I state "Torture doesn't work!!!", that wasn't at all part of my argument for why I don't consider torture an overtly acceptable form of interrogation. Are you even reading my posts? You've danced around the other issues I've raised, namely, where does the line get drawn? Answer me this question and I'll be happy; what do you think of Mohammed's children being tortured and/or abused for information?

[dudalb]

To try to paint McCain as crazy is a card I really think the Dems should not play. It might backfire on them,bigtime.

[BPSCG]

Well then if that's your position than I would have to agree. However, if I had say about it, and I don't, I would need pretty good intel before I signed off on any form of torture.



Wow...I failed to care who exactly I sound like. There are a million reasons why this form of torture would be effective against one person and not on another. And at no point in time did I state "Torture doesn't work!!!", that wasn't at all part of my argument for why I don't consider torture an overtly acceptable form of interrogation. Are you even reading my posts? You've danced around the other issues I've raised, namely, where does the line get drawn? Answer me this question and I'll be happy; what do you think of Mohammed's children being tortured and/or abused for information?Please take this to the Social Issues forum, where there's a merry debate on waterboarding going on. This thread is about McCain's pros and cons.

[BPSCG]

It's early yet. If it's McCain v. Obama, we'll be forced to choose between the closet brainwashed socialist and the closet brainwashed Muslim.

All aboard the crazy train!...and don't forget the closet dyke... :goat

This isn't the actual link my CT friend sent me, but the weirdo allegations are the same (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016866.php).
What worries a small group of GOP Senators and Congressmen even more is a deep and dark skeletal secret in McCain's glorified past to which they are privy, and which the Clintons will use to blackmail him. .... McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March of 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators' notes and reports regarding John McCain.

According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.

Except that the claim that his fellow POWs saw little of him is refuted in the very next paragraph:Even when he was in solitary confinement, he was constantly in contact with others. Further, we always knew about movements within the camps because the Communists simply were not competent at preventing us from gaining intelligence. Men who were in the camps with him agree that they are not aware of a single night that he spent out of his cell.:boggled:

[davefoc]

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:

1. McCain-Feingold they see as against the 1st Amendment
2. McCain is against waterboarding and thus will not protect them from terrorists
3. McCain favors a form of amnesty for illegals (this is probably their big one)
4. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts

There are some other minor issues but these are the main ones that seem to get them frothing the most. It is interesting that as Bush became a lame duck they started calling him a non-conservative because of his position on illegals and amnesty. Note that they pretty much LOVED Bush before his lame duck status.

My sense of it is that those are the excuses that they put forward for hating the guy rather than the underlying cause. For me they seem like routine policy differences. Although my view of this might be clouded a bit by my personal set of views that make it so that I don't align well with any political group so I'm used to the idea that almost nobody agrees with me on most issues. If I hated everybody that didn't agree with me I don't think I could find a person not to hate.

I can see illegal immigration as a hot button issue, but Bush did absolutely nothing about it for six years except watch the problem grow and now it seems like they're mad at McCain because he wants to do something to begin to clean up the mess.

The sense I get is that the enmity towards McCain is more like the enmity that some religious folks have toward atheists. They're mad at somebody less because they don't like people disagreeing with them and more because the non-believers make them feel uncomfortable about their own doubts.

[HereticHulk]

Are you saying no useful information was extracted from any of the three waterboarded prisoners?

If so, please explain how you know this.

If there was anything it was destroyed. :boggled:

Straight Talk Express :dl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

ETA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkkTFVIxMQs
zzzzzzzzzz

Ron Paul 2008! Intelligence and foresight are the new definitions of crazy and nutjob I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0QpCs0XpRY

[Tricky]

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:

1. McCain-Feingold they see as against the 1st Amendment
2. McCain is against waterboarding and thus will not protect them from terrorists
3. McCain favors a form of amnesty for illegals (this is probably their big one)
4. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts

There are some other minor issues but these are the main ones that seem to get them frothing the most.
There's probably more. Many of the ultra-right also see him as soft on abortion and stem-cell research (using discarded embryos). But you're probably right that the question of illegal aliens is probably the killer for him. If he loses Texas, he's dead meat, and there are a LOT of Texans who don't like him, not just because of this, but because of all the nasty things he said about Dubya when he was running against him.

I was actually going to vote for him in the Texas primary (Texas has open primaries) because my logic is, if there is a chance that we may have a Republican, get the one who is not a total right-wing nutcase. Now that he's got the nomination in pocket, I can go vote for Obama.

[SezMe]

We are living through what is almost certainly the worst administration of my life. It is the worst by standards that would be agreed to by almost all people. Yes there are a few partisans that have decided to overlook the corruption and incompetence, the massive unfunded spending and the disastrous management of the Iraqi occupation to .....
....support McCain, who promises to continue the disasterous Bush policies if not compound them. He is Bush III.

I simply cannot get my head around the contradiction.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Well, he is against torture, but he is for killing people.

:boggled:Would that mean he for a very short, intense period of torture ...

Charlie (measured in seconds) Monoxide

[Brainster]

His elevator no longer goes all the way to the top. Huge negative. And expect many negative ads talking about outbursts of his and odd things he has said.

So this isn't going to be an issues-oriented campaign? :D

I have engaged in about a dozen blogger conference calls with Senator McCain, and found him to be alert, responsive, sharp and incredibly involved with the details. He is feisty and does not back down easily, but then I always remind folks that Ronald Reagan's winning moment in 1980 was when he said "Mr Moderator, I paid for this microphone!"

[SezMe]

Apparently he doesn't remember the pain of his own facial reconstruction, as he is willing to send more people to die in Iraq.
I was unaware that he had undergone facial reconstruction. Can you provide a link that describes what he has been through? Thanks.

[SezMe]

Moderately disagree but apparently we haven't been doing this for the last several years, since part of the effectiveness of this technique is convincing the person they are drowning, and the terrorists now know we won't drown them in reality.
How do you know what the terrorists know about our torture techniques? And since at least one person subjected to this technique has, in fact, died, what basis do you have for your description of "reality"?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay, now that we've highlighted the important issues, what are your overall opinions of McCain? I mean, there have been a lot of stances brought up. But I want to hear some opinions about the messsage on the whole.

Should you vote for him? We know his opponents, and that there is hardly any difference between them. So overall, what is your view as a voter?

My view is that he would be bad for our nation. He supports a foreign policy of preemptive wars in the overall framework of a Clash of Civilizations with Muslim extremists. He makes token gestures of being progressive on issues like the environment, but he doesn't give the issues the backing required to fully address them. His policy is all fluff.

On healthcare he is vague. He says he would lower costs, but I haven't seen a plan. But he wants to put more decisions making and "choice" in the hands of people, whatever that means. I'm not seeing much meat here.

His education plan is just to give parents more "choice". Which does nothing to address the unequal funding of shools, go for uniform curriculum, get well trained teachers, or really do anything for that matter (The studies I've read that followed school choice programs didn't show any substantive changes).

I mean, he should be likeable, but he acted like a jerk in debates and acted like a complete slandering ***** in the primary. He can't give speeches for a damn and his jokes are god awful.

But he is a war hero, and that certainly makes his hawkish policies legitimate.

And need I comment on his stroll through Bagdhad to show how nice it was, when he required a hundred soldiers, tanks, and a helicopter to accompany him?

I nominate him for being the biggest douche left standing now that Romney is out (To put it in TDS terms).

[NeoRicen]

McCain is OK in some areas, others he's atrocious. Worst of all, he'll put another conservative on the Supreme court (if given the opportunity) making homosexuality practically illegal, church state separation would disappear, Roe v Wade would be out and all sorts of other theocratic, conservative crap would come into play.

His foreign policy is worse than Bush's, it's almost bomb anyone who calls you names with him.

He panders a lot too. Like backing down on his immigration thing and the whole 'agents of intolerance' speech.

His visit to Iraq and his comments afterwards were a bloody joke.

The more I think about it, the more I realise I'd probably actually prefer Huckabee, if he didn't have those HORRIBLE views on religion and church/state issues he'd be a much better candidate than McCain. However, with the whole supreme court thing, you'd probably get the same results from both unless McCain dives to the center for the general election.

[Richard Masters]

I was unaware that he had undergone facial reconstruction. Can you provide a link that describes what he has been through? Thanks.

Oh, I was just guessing from the look of his face.

[Richard Masters]

I'm too lazy to go through the list at the moment, so I'll just say that I'm a pretty down the line liberal (at least on those issues) and in the end oppose him although I think he might be a lesser evil as far as Republicans go.

Probably, except for the war issue, although, even there he's probably better than Hillary and Obama.

A big argument against torture is that it doesn't actually work.

Depends on what you mean by torture. Psychological coercion works pretty well, but then I don't think that is necessarily what is meant by "torture".

You're just causing great suffering to a person and disgracing yourself while getting little but unreliable information in exchange.

I agree.

To contrast, killing people often gets quite tangible results, although I don't think it gets terribly meaningful results in Iraq (or in other areas, although I'm not an absolute pacifist).

Well, the lack of effectiveness of torture isn't a very good "reason" for killing people. That is, killing isn't a very good alternative to torture, although I know that's not exactly what you meant.

[davefoc]

McCain is OK in some areas, others he's atrocious. Worst of all, he'll put another conservative on the Supreme court (if given the opportunity) making homosexuality practically illegal, church state separation would disappear, Roe v Wade would be out and all sorts of other theocratic, conservative crap would come into play.

His foreign policy is worse than Bush's, it's almost bomb anyone who calls you names with him.

He panders a lot too. Like backing down on his immigration thing and the whole 'agents of intolerance' speech.

His visit to Iraq and his comments afterwards were a bloody joke.

The more I think about it, the more I realise I'd probably actually prefer Huckabee, if he didn't have those HORRIBLE views on religion and church/state issues he'd be a much better candidate than McCain. However, with the whole supreme court thing, you'd probably get the same results from both unless McCain dives to the center for the general election.

I tend to agree with this somewhat. The bomb,bomb Iran joke was enough to keep me from ever voting for the guy. Somehow the Republican Party has been taken over by pro-war nut jobs. It is true lunacy. The idea that with sufficient bombing and warring the US can achieve perfect safety is in the end going to destroy the US unless it is stopped. We are driving fast for the cliff and bomb, bomb Iran McCain is just another Republican all fired up to push down harder on the accelerator.

[Richard Masters]

It that is how you want to parse it, so is Hillary, she voted for the war.

Obama then makes for a better choice.

I actually agree.

Ron Paul hasn't run a sound enough campaign to get the nom.

So, who do you root for?

I'm still rooting for Ron Paul. That doesn't mean he has a chance, but he will get my vote at the state primaries. Now, if you are asking who would I prefer among the currently viable Republican candidates, I'd say McCain and Romney.

Best reason to vote for McCain: Mitt quit, Huckabee is a non starter.
Best reason to vote against: you like Hilly or Obama better
or
you support the Paul/Nader ticket for 2008. :p


I don't really like Nader's political platform enough to vote for him, though I've watched his interviews. He is a very intelligent man.

I fully agree that Huckabee is a non-starter


The best reason for me to vote for McCain is because I dislike Hillary

That's quite understandable. I've pretty much decided against Hillary almost from the start. I would have only voted for her if she was up against Giuliani (although I might have abstained). But fortunately, Giuliani is a non-factor, now.

H Hulk, you'd be better off heading to Mexico. It is more of a libertarians' paradise, if you are in the top 3% of wealthy in that so called republic.

DR

I respectfully disagree. It's more of a libertine's paradise. You can do what you want if you have enough influence, but you are also subject to the unlawful whims of others, for the same reasons.

Mexico has a decent political framework; it's just not enforced strictly or regularly.

[BPSCG]

I tend to agree with this somewhat. The bomb,bomb Iran joke was enough to keep me from ever voting for the guy. Somehow the Republican Party has been taken over by pro-war nut jobs. It is true lunacy. The idea that with sufficient bombing and warring the US can achieve perfect safety is in the end going to destroy the US unless it is stopped. We are driving fast for the cliff and bomb, bomb Iran McCain is just another Republican all fired up to push down harder on the accelerator.Please. Guy makes a joke and all the lefties start wetting their pants that he's gonna start World War III. Y'all did exactly the same thing when Reagan was testing a microphone before a Saturday morning radio address and said, ""My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

Get a grip. As it turned out, Reagan was able to figure out a way to destroy the Soviet Union without dropping any bombs on them - something none of his predecessors had been able to do.

ETA: And before that, in 1964, Barry Goldwater was gonna launch World War III. LBJ's people even made a commercial. Of course, Goldwater was defeated and LBJ proceeded to ramp up the war in Vietnam and... Hey! Why are you walking away with your fingers in your ears?

[maxpower1227]

McCain is OK in some areas, others he's atrocious. Worst of all, he'll put another conservative on the Supreme court (if given the opportunity) making homosexuality practically illegal, church state separation would disappear, Roe v Wade would be out and all sorts of other theocratic, conservative crap would come into play.

Nothing like some good ol' over the top fear mongering. "Elect McCain and this country will be turned into a religious theocracy" :rolleyes:

[BPSCG]

Nothing like some good ol' over the top fear mongering. "Elect McCain and this country will be turned into a religious theocracy" :rolleyes:It already is, if you believe Tony and a few others on this board. :boggled:

[proxywar]

You for got to add he is pro-global-trade, is not an xenophobe, and almost switched parties twice.

He is a hell of alot more of a realistic choice than hilary clinton could ever be. The dirt on mrs. clinton is just too much for me to handle I can't vote for her ever. America does not need to leave one dynasty for another. Espeically knowing ann coulter is voting for her means voting for mccain is the proper choice.



http://www.usglobalengagement.org/JohnMcCainForeignPolicyQuoteArchive/tabid/1623/Default.aspx

John mccain quotes on Foreign Policy Topics: As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims -- women's rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others -- who are resisting the well-financed campaign of extremism that is tearing Muslim societies apart.

The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

[proxywar]

Are you saying no useful information was extracted from any of the three waterboarded prisoners?

If so, please explain how you know this.

george tenet's threat matrix agrees with you on KSM.

[proxywar]

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

What is his reasoning? e.g. Does he think the man should have some input? E.g. or is he against abortion period? I've never paid attention to this stance. Honestly, it Doesn't really bother me either way.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

As it should be.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Disagree harshly, creationsim should only be taught in private school or charter schools.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

He exaggerated alittle here seeing how he won't be in office for 100 years and therefore can't predict the future. But I agree with him about stablizing Iraq during his term.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

This would Sort of I guess contradict his roe vs wade stance. But I agree with embryonic stem cell research supported by federal funding.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

I harshly disagree, but neoliberals will like this stance.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Of course why not, Theodore Roosevelt was a Conservationist who did similar activities.

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

I agree. I Just hope those citizens attained those guns properly.
i.e. Worded kinda of ambiguously.

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

I don't think it is torture, but again neoliberals will like this stance.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

True patriot, didn't sell out his country or his POW buddies, though they brutally beat him.



Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

It's a flag, I don't give a care. I know the racist meaning behind it, but for crying outloud I'm black and it doesn't offended me. lynard skinner rocks it all the time.


Why or why not would you vote for McCain?

Anything is better than hilary even obama. Sadly obama can't beat her due to superdelegates.

[davefoc]

BPSCG's reply to davefoc's comment about McCain's bomb Iran joke:
Please. Guy makes a joke and all the lefties start wetting their pants that he's gonna start World War III. Y'all did exactly the same thing when Reagan was testing a microphone before a Saturday morning radio address and said, ""My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

Get a grip. As it turned out, Reagan was able to figure out a way to destroy the Soviet Union without dropping any bombs on them - something none of his predecessors had been able to do.

ETA: And before that, in 1964, Barry Goldwater was gonna launch World War III. LBJ's people even made a commercial. Of course, Goldwater was defeated and LBJ proceeded to ramp up the war in Vietnam and... Hey! Why are you walking away with your fingers in your ears?

I think you realize this, but for the record I am not a lefty by most definitions of the term.

Of course, my view of this joke and your view comes down to our subjective thoughts about it. For me the joke was highly distasteful for several reasons.
1. There was considerable tension that existed between the US and Iran at the time. A stupid joke like that could easily have exacerbated it. Think how a similar statement by Ahmadinajad would have played in the US.
2. One of the things I am looking for in a leader is a propensity for diplomacy. This kind of joke indicates a personality that finds pleasure in war and that will, from my point of view, be insufficiently motivated to pursue diplomatic solutions.
3. There are many Iranian Americans. This kind of joke might be particularly troubling to them. I know that as a friend of some Iranian Americans I was embarrassed and troubled by it.

Of course, some of this is redundant with respect to me. I believe strongly that the US needs to change its middle east strategy. McCain is an advocate for doing more of what I think is bad. Ending the war is now the most important issue for me when selecting a president. So with or without the joke I wouldn't vote for McCain.

[HereticHulk]

Get a grip. As it turned out, Reagan was able to figure out a way to destroy the Soviet Union without dropping any bombs on them - something none of his predecessors had been able to do.


Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union? OMFG!

NO! The Soviet Union (mainly) collapsed because they were trying to do essentially the same thing we are trying to do right now. Trying to maintain their empire, spreading themselves too thin. They were in a ill-conceived non-winnable war that bled them financially dry and it collapsed. History repeats.

[supercorgi]

I tend to agree with this somewhat. The bomb,bomb Iran joke was enough to keep me from ever voting for the guy. Somehow the Republican Party has been taken over by pro-war nut jobs. It is true lunacy. The idea that with sufficient bombing and warring the US can achieve perfect safety is in the end going to destroy the US unless it is stopped. We are driving fast for the cliff and bomb, bomb Iran McCain is just another Republican all fired up to push down harder on the accelerator.

I agree with this. I didn't use to think McCain was such a warmonger but he's really, really turned me off during this campaign. I wouldn't have voted Republican anyway but I used to have more respect for McCain.

[godless dave]

McCain supported the invasion of Iraq, has not recanted that support, and supports a continued American presence there. Dealbreaker for me.

[Kopji]

Being from Arizona I have a rather long and in some ways, admittedly distorted view of the man.

I think the OP does not represent my issues with him as much as a couple of other positions he has taken.

First, the McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" law needs a closer look by those who would vote for him. Some sections have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and its provisions definitely served to preserve and edify the major two parties at the expense of small party candidates.

The other issue is McCains fervent support of an extreme right wing Republican candidate for Arizona governor (who lost despite McCain's endorsement). Still another issue is McCain's support for not only forbidding homosexual partnerships, but overturning a long standing Arizona state policy of providing benefits to heterosexual partners outside of traditional marriage (common law marriages).

[BPSCG]

I think you realize this, but for the record I am not a lefty by most definitions of the term.Understand that anyone to the left of me is a goddam pinko. :)

Of course, my view of this joke and your view comes down to our subjective thoughts about it. For me the joke was highly distasteful for several reasons.
1. There was considerable tension that existed between the US and Iran at the time. A stupid joke like that could easily have exacerbated it. Think how a similar statement by Ahmadinajad would have played in the US.Substitute "Soviet Union" and "Gorbachev" (or whoever was running the USSR at the time) for "Iran" and "Ahmedinejad" and you have exactly the same situation. And yet, Reagan never bombed the Soviet Union; instead, he maneuvered it into an arms race that led to its eventual collapse.

2. One of the things I am looking for in a leader is a propensity for diplomacy. This kind of joke indicates a personality that finds pleasure in war and that will, from my point of view, be insufficiently motivated to pursue diplomatic solutions.Just like Reagan. Oh, wait, he never bombed the Soviet Union.

As regards your claim that McCain "has a personality that finds pleasure in war," I submit that he's experienced the horrors of it a lot more closely than you have, so unless you have some privileged insight into his psyche as the result of your years of personal interaction with the man, I call BS.

3. There are many Iranian Americans. This kind of joke might be particularly troubling to them. I know that as a friend of some Iranian Americans I was embarrassed and troubled by it.And there were Russian-Americans in 1984. So what? Are they Americans, or are they Iranians? If they're Americans, they recognize that Iran - certainly the current regime there - is no friend of America. If they're Americans, they understand that the current regime in Iran has bought and paid for weapons being used today to kill their fellow countrymen in Iraq. If they're Americans, then when they were naturalized, they swore an oath that they would no longer give any allegiance to any foreign country. So the fact that they are Iranian-Americans should be as irrelevant to them as the fact that my parents were French-Americans is to me when I hear a French joke.

If you have honest policy differences with McCain that make him lose your vote, fine. But spare us the faux horror at his joke about bombing Iran.

[SezMe]

And yet, Reagan never bombed the Soviet Union; instead, he maneuvered it into an arms race that led to its eventual collapse.
He also doubled the national debt to do so. And instituted tax and fiscal policies that have led to the disasterous fiscal position that our nation is now in. Unless these policies are reversed - something McCain will not do - we are headed for the same cliff.

[Kopji]

Here is a Phoenix editorial from a couple years ago on the McCain-Feingold act. Curiously, it looks like this may rise to being an issue again come about June.
(Yes, the Examiner has its biases.)

http://www.examiner.com/a-256840~Editorial__McCain_Feingold_was_a_mistake.ht ml

From memory - the issue here in the last Arizona state elections centered around small parties like Green and Libertarian that had not traditionally invested in fielding candidates a long time in advance. When election time came around, they found that their traditional tactics of criticizing on "issues" were now illegal. They would have needed to have a long term strategy and finances similar to the major parties to compete with the Democrats and Republicans.

So a concern with McCain then, (and the editorial happened to mention it), is his support of transparency in government. Bush's has been one of the most closed and secretive administrations ever, and openness should hopefully be an issue by November. Where does McCain stand on allowing us to see into the workings of his government?

IMHO the Iraq war is a subject that McCain has always been courageous and forward about. He knows that his viewpoint will be unpopular with some and he stands by it. When he says 'long term presence' he means something more like we do in South Korea. I am not any more concerned about him being a warmonger (with Iran) than other candidates.

[davefoc]

If you have honest policy differences with McCain that make him lose your vote, fine. But spare us the faux horror at his joke about bombing Iran.

BPSCG, I am not sure that there is much to be said here. I was disappointed in your response in that it seemed unnecessarily hostile and it didn't seem to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

I am the only one who can no whether my horror is faux or not. You might reasonably enough have found the joke to be trivial and insignificant. I do not question that you have honestly conveyed your reaction to it. I don't even assert that the nature of the joke proves you wrong and me right. In the end it is a subjective judgment.

That Reagan made a similar joke is not proof that my judgment about the joke was wrong. Although it might be noted that Reagan made his joke privately and it was only happenstance that it became public. This suggests that Reagan might have shared my view that this kind of joke by a national leader is inappropriate.

I would also note that I made it clear that I would not vote for McCain regardless of the joke. I was not hiding this and did not imply that the joke was the sole basis for the reason that I wouldn't vote for McCain.

As to me being more left wing than you: Hmm, I'm not sure. I have fairly right wing opinions about the appropriate role of government and economics. Even where I favor government intervention, I generally believe that the government programs should be financed and run by the states. I am at least more right wing than the average Republican political leader on economic issues. I will concede that on the left/right scale of foreign policy I am more left wing than the average Republican politician and more left wing than you. But at one point my views on that might have marked me as right wing, but lately right wing seems to be used to describe people who favor nation building and military intervention more than the average citizen. I think the issue of whether you are more right wing than I am in total is murky and might swing on how you decided to weight different views of mine and yours.

Either way, I suspect that Rush Limbaugh is unlikely to favor the views of either one of us on many issues and I suspect that if we were national politicians he'd have plenty of bad stuff to say about both of us.

[Richard Masters]

You for got to add he is pro-global-trade, is not an xenophobe, and almost switched parties twice.

He is a hell of alot more of a realistic choice than hilary clinton could ever be. The dirt on mrs. clinton is just too much for me to handle I can't vote for her ever. America does not need to leave one dynasty for another. Espeically knowing ann coulter is voting for her means voting for mccain is the proper choice.



http://www.usglobalengagement.org/JohnMcCainForeignPolicyQuoteArchive/tabid/1623/Default.aspx

John mccain quotes on Foreign Policy Topics: As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims -- women's rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others -- who are resisting the well-financed campaign of extremism that is tearing Muslim societies apart.

The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

Don't forget he tried to kick Iran out of the World Cup. Fortunately, he failed.

[Rika]

Eh. As sad as this sounds, if the choice is him vs. Clinton, I'd vote for him. But I'm devoutly hoping that Obama gets the Dem nomination.

[Richard Masters]

Eh. As sad as this sounds, if the choice is him vs. Clinton, I'd vote for him. But I'm devoutly hoping that Obama gets the Dem nomination.

Maybe this belongs in another thread, but Why Obama, not McCain? In fact, I will start another thread.

[Darth Rotor]

I find it odd that some people seem on the fence whether to vote for Hillary or McCain (assuming it comes to those two). Upchurch, whom I respect, is one.

I think many of their stances are quite opposed to each other on most issues. So are the issues no longer important or do other less tangible factors decide the vote for an individual? Why do the less tangible factors outweigh the actual positions and goals of the candidates?
Turn on your stereo, and cue up the band "Living Color."

Cult of Personality

A timely tune for our electoral skullduggery, don't you think?

It's also what is going on. Person packaging.

Want to pick who to vote for? Figure out what the packagers stand for. It's a bit trickier than listening to the news, but I think it will be worth the effort. I am still working on that one.

DR