McCain in 2000: "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

[Alex+R 0]

If they win this year - I hope they seriously clean house... McCain I think is the only Republican candidate who would do that - and I do respect him for standing up to Bush.

That's what we all used to think about McCain until he started appeasing Bush. Make no mistake, he's of Bush's club.

You mean on the troop surge?

etc etc and lots of lip service

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think he was right on the troop surge - less so about the future of Iraq. Doesn't he support some sort of indefinite US military presence there?

That whole issue needs a bit of pragmatism - the folks who are arguing for specific pull out dates aren't being realistic IMO. We broke the country, it was a terrible bad idea - but its the reality we're faced with. Bush might be out in November - but everyone else has to inherit his 'legacy'. I don't think that means we should 'run away' from a committed responsibility, regardless of how much money we throw into it or how bad an idea it was to begin with.

Of course - very few post-war presidents have won an election on the basis of an isolationist stance on foreign policy. I don't think McCain is all that different in that respect - likely he won't be a profound about face for the country that people seem to want, but a competent leader... maybe.

Edited February 1, 2008 by Number 6

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Now back on topic here. McCain said the epthet. Now the liberals in this forum, lofty as they always tell us they are, want to hang their hat on a technicality- yes....he said and probably shouldn't! So what?

I think nearly everyone who has posted in this thread agrees that McCain was careless to have used that term, even if he was referring only to his captors. You just can't throw around a term like that--especially one so evocative of a horrendous, relatively recent conflict--and expect people to nod politely. Acknowledging this in no way dismisses McCain's experience. I imagine that he wishes he'd never said it.

And your friend Al Sharpton has nothing to do with this.

Al Sharpton mention was to express an analogy. I'm not retreating from what I said. The point was that the supposed people hurt by this egregious act are not complaining about it at all, but rather the liberals that purport to sit in judgement of all the rest of us time and again.

No, not "everyone in this thread" agrees he was careless but some have said that they give him a pass given the circumstances. It appears to be the liberals that project indignation over minutia that frankly is mostly irrelevant, and clearly most don’t care about.

It's been said many times in this thread that the majority of responders are willing to give McCain a pass except those that hang on to the only argument that they have; the technicality that he actually said it.....

Well, guess what? He did say it and it's been rehashed over and over....

What this really is about is to establish a platform for lefty types to pontificate to the rest of us as to how righteous they are, so as to maintain that delusional plateau they believe themselves to be perched upon...

Ever wonder why left leaning liberals are so hated in this country? This is exactly the reason…….

I think you'd do better to stick to the topic and avoid "damn those liberals" foot stamping. It's not becoming and weakens your argument. Which, truth be told, I'm having a hard time following. You did say that McCain shouldn't have said it (which, apparently, is different from being careless), but you're also saying it doesn't matter that he said it. So, which is it?

We're all aware that this is an old story that's resurfaced because McCain is looking like a viable candidate. ####### like this muddies the political waters for pretty much all elections in the U.S. Will it affect his chances? I really don't think so.

By the way, what is this "technicality" of which you speak? Does it have anything to do with Al Sharpton?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I love the way Libs. feed on each others comments for reassurance. I have found that lefties are so insecure, that they depend on others to back-up their statements. There always seems to be this come to the rescue shite goin on between you guys.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I love the way Libs. feed on each others comments for reassurance. I have found that lefties are so insecure, that they depend on others to back-up their statements. There always seems to be this come to the rescue shite goin on between you guys.

Assisting one another and acquiring strength in numbers is by no means a "liberals-only" ideal. Conservatives do it as well, as do most human beings (and many animals). So I see nothing wrong with this behavior.

I would instead say that someone is "insecure" if they refuse help, even if (and when) they need it.

[garya505 2]

I love the way Libs. feed on each others comments for reassurance. I have found that lefties are so insecure, that they depend on others to back-up their statements. There always seems to be this come to the rescue shite goin on between you guys.

Assisting one another and acquiring strength in numbers is by no means a "liberals-only" ideal. Conservatives do it as well, as do most human beings (and many animals). So I see nothing wrong with this behavior.

I would instead say that someone is "insecure" if they refuse help, even if (and when) they need it.

The problem with liberals is that they're sort of a bunch of malcontents and whiners, but they seem to be pissed-off about too many different things. Maybe that's why the Democrat Party couldn't come with anyone better than Hillary or Obama. There must be a better candidate somewhere within their ranks, no?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno - I've heard that before, along with the other favourite cliche about "being full of hate". Its a poor argument at best IMO - along with the seemingly implied assertion that only liberals care about these things (If that were the case - the majority of these threads would be a pretty one-sided, one-dimensional affair - and the folks who presumably "don't care" surely wouldn't invest so much energy in replying).

[Ban Hammer 13,353]

I love the way Libs. feed on each others comments for reassurance. I have found that lefties are so insecure, that they depend on others to back-up their statements. There always seems to be this come to the rescue shite goin on between you guys.

Assisting one another and acquiring strength in numbers is by no means a "liberals-only" ideal. Conservatives do it as well, as do most human beings (and many animals). So I see nothing wrong with this behavior.

I would instead say that someone is "insecure" if they refuse help, even if (and when) they need it.

The problem with liberals is that they're sort of a bunch of malcontents and whiners, but they seem to be pissed-off about too many different things. Maybe that's why the Democrat Party couldn't come with anyone better than Hillary or Obama. There must be a better candidate somewhere within their ranks, no?

[Sprailenes 47]

So maybe he understands why some people from other countries would hate this one. Just sayin.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I love the way Libs. feed on each others comments for reassurance. I have found that lefties are so insecure, that they depend on others to back-up their statements. There always seems to be this come to the rescue shite goin on between you guys.

Assisting one another and acquiring strength in numbers is by no means a "liberals-only" ideal. Conservatives do it as well, as do most human beings (and many animals). So I see nothing wrong with this behavior.

I would instead say that someone is "insecure" if they refuse help, even if (and when) they need it.

The problem with liberals is that they're sort of a bunch of malcontents and whiners, but they seem to be pissed-off about too many different things. Maybe that's why the Democrat Party couldn't come with anyone better than Hillary or Obama. There must be a better candidate somewhere within their ranks, no?

I'm not going to say I disagree; however, I'd think that would make sense.

Conservatives generally wish to keep the "status quo" and how life is at the moment or in some cases, push time back to "how it was" beforehand. Liberals (or as they like to be called nowadays, "Progressives") want to shake the system up and change things. Well, one of the main reasons people try to change things is because they aren't content with the way the situation is at the present. Unfortunately, the most common way to voice the complaint is to seem angry or pissed off and act like you're whining about it. Some people genuinely aren't "whining" but others are just hamming it up for the media, since the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" as they say.

[SteveLaura 0]

I heard that McCain was misquoted. He actually said, "I hate the goose" It's unclear, at this stage, whether he was talking about the aquatic bird or being pinched on the buttocks.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I love the way Libs. feed on each others comments for reassurance. I have found that lefties are so insecure, that they depend on others to back-up their statements. There always seems to be this come to the rescue shite goin on between you guys.

Er, what about our buddy Rush Limbaugh's "Dittoheads"?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I heard that McCain was misquoted. He actually said, "I hate the goose" It's unclear, at this stage, whether he was talking about the aquatic bird or being pinched on the buttocks.

I think he was talking about Maverick's long-since deceased RIO.

[Nessa 23]

McCain in 2000: "I hate the goose. I will hate them as long as I live."

[Empress of Groovy 373]

That's one nice-looking bird!