McCain Flips Again

WOW ... now McCain supports a 16 month withdraw from Iraq ... infuckincredible! Whatelse will this man sell off for the Presidency? Before long he might be willing to trade his rich trophy pill popping beer distributing wife off for a hispanic or black lady to help his chances?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/mccain.larryking/index.html

Uh yeah, an obvious flip there.

Bman wrote:...black lady to help his chances?

Would her name be Michelle?

Bman wrote:WOW ... now McCain supports a 16 month withdraw from Iraq ... infuckincredible! Whatelse will this man sell off for the Presidency? Before long he might be willing to trade his rich trophy pill popping beer distributing wife off for a hispanic or black lady to help his chances?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/mccain.larryking/index.html

Seriously... you're going to actually post this as a serious flip in position? Tell me you're joking...

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:WOW ... now McCain supports a 16 month withdraw from Iraq ... infuckincredible! Whatelse will this man sell off for the Presidency? Before long he might be willing to trade his rich trophy pill popping beer distributing wife off for a hispanic or black lady to help his chances?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/mccain.larryking/index.html

Seriously... you're going to actually post this as a serious flip in position? Tell me you're joking...

Ummm, no joke! Show me one time in the past 5 years where McCain has stood for a time table for a withdraw, he slammed Obama for suggesting a time table and now SHAZAAM that appears that he (McCain) was INCREDIBLY wrong he now says he is in favor of a time table. Total Flip Flop ... hell Markwes even agreed and we never agree on this stuff. Educate yourself Card ... take the blinders off and actually get some facts before you vote ... deal?

he will luckily be tucked away in the senate 6 months from now, reminding everyone he knows how to win a war...

and yes its definately a big flip. since the debates started the republicons had derided the dems at every opportunity for being idiotic and inexperienced enough to actually say there needs to be a time table.

Speaking from Bakersfield, California, the Arizona senator said he would not stick to a "hard and firm date" suggested by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

"Now whether that fits into 16 months or not, or one month, or whatever, the point is it's got to be conditions-based," he added, saying that's the point Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, "is trying to get over as we go into this political season."

The democraps are really stretching to call this a flip. But of course CNN's headline makes it sound that way. "McCain says he could support 16-month Iraq timetable".

Markwes wrote:

Speaking from Bakersfield, California, the Arizona senator said he would not stick to a "hard and firm date" suggested by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

"Now whether that fits into 16 months or not, or one month, or whatever, the point is it's got to be conditions-based," he added, saying that's the point Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, "is trying to get over as we go into this political season."

The democraps are really stretching to call this a flip. But of course CNN's headline makes it sound that way. "McCain says he could support 16-month Iraq timetable".

Ok Ok, so you would prefer the Spinnage "McCain has acquiesced to a more detailed, step-based horizon?"

Markwes wrote:

Speaking from Bakersfield, California, the Arizona senator said he would not stick to a "hard and firm date" suggested by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

"Now whether that fits into 16 months or not, or one month, or whatever, the point is it's got to be conditions-based," he added, saying that's the point Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, "is trying to get over as we go into this political season."

The democraps are really stretching to call this a flip. But of course CNN's headline makes it sound that way. "McCain says he could support 16-month Iraq timetable".

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Yea he has went from 100 years to 4 years to 16 months to maybe 1 month ...

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Call it want you want Mark, but Americans call it flip flopping. You guys (yea I said YOU guys) tried to make Obama a flip flopper for saying he would consult the Joint Chiefs of Staffs as a flip flop ... so oh yea ... OH YEA ... this is a flip flop.

McCain is IMPLODING! Ben Stein said "this McCain campaign has been the worst run campaign in his LIFETIME" and Ben Stein is a conservative republican from the Nixon and Ford Administrations.

Allow me to spell it out.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

Point is he doesn't want to set a definite timetable. Ooh, difficult concept to understand. Let me know if I need to go into further details.

Markwes wrote:Allow me to spell it out.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

Point is he doesn't want to set a definite timetable. Ooh, difficult concept to understand. Let me know if I need to go into further details.

your spin, if that works for you drink more right wing kool aid. Swallow some more for Rush and Hannity and Beck.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

We COULD be Iraq for 100 years.
We COULD be Iraq for 16 months.
We COULD be Iraq for 1 month.

Mark, is McCain's new NO NEW TAXES pledge a flip? Read this article. This man, McCain is all over the freakin place, imploding right before our very eyes. How could we even imaginably elect this guy.

For your reading pleasure ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25926448/

flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop

I am fired up today! lol

I love flip flops. Basically, when I get off work on Friday afternoon, I put on flip flops and don't put shoes back on until Monday morning. How's that for a flip flop?

Bman wrote:Mark, is McCain's new NO NEW TAXES pledge a flip? Read this article. This man, McCain is all over the freakin place, imploding right before our very eyes. How could we even imaginably elect this guy.

For your reading pleasure ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25926448/

flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop

I am fired up today! lol

Geesh Bman, I really don't have time to go out here and debunk everything you say.

Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security. "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table," he said.

He went a step farther Sunday on ABC's "This Week," in response to a question about payroll tax increases.

"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."

So your stance is that by originally saying nothing's off the table and now saying no taxes, he is "all over the freakin place"? You really need to stop drinking the kool-aid, as you like to say, and put down those pom pons. And get some help for your obsessive disorder where you feel you need to spend hours looking for dirt on McCain.

So going from "nothing is off of the table" to NO NEW TAXES after the conservative base gets upset is not flip flopping? Hmmm ... If Obama had said this you guys would be screaming "the muslim is flip flopping and he can't be trusted". To me, the "nothing is off the table" means tax increases are possible, now they are not because he ruffled the right wing. lol Obama flipped to you guys when he supported the FISA bill and said "civil" litigation was out but Criminal was in ... McCain can't even have a coherent policy on tax and some how you defend him.

By the way, I don't think you guys are swallowing kool aid from Rush, Hannity and Beck ... it is something much more sinister.

WHEN is a president going to bring our troops home from Korea? Man, what a long war, conflict that has been! At least 50 years! And get our troops home from Turkey and Germany too while they're at it. I don't remember ever declaring war on Turkey, except maybe late in November.

Of course, I'm being silly. But I personally think when McCain was talking about being in Iraq for 100 years, he wasn't saying we'd be at war for 100 years, rather be there as support, or have a military base like we do in other parts of the world.

Believing we'll be at war for 100 years in Iraq is weak...at best.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:WHEN is a president going to bring our troops home from Korea? Man, what a long war, conflict that has been! At least 50 years! And get our troops home from Turkey and Germany too while they're at it. I don't remember ever declaring war on Turkey, except maybe late in November.

Of course, I'm being silly. But I personally think when McCain was talking about being in Iraq for 100 years, he wasn't saying we'd be at war for 100 years, rather be there as support, or have a military base like we do in other parts of the world.

Believing we'll be at war for 100 years in Iraq is weak...at best.

Very well said. But you know the old expression about talking to a brick wall.

By the way, I have noticed that for many people, a perceived change of stance by their candidate's opponent is a "flip flop", whereas a perceived change of stance by their candidate is "making an informed decision based on new information".

I think if you're not a flip flopper, that shows you have a closed mind and won't listen to anyone about anything. It's my way or the highway! Now if you have ALL of the facts regarding something, and you choose one side to appease a group of people then choose another side to appease a different group, that ain't good.

For instance, as you're growing up and if you're interested in sports, you might root for a football team based on the color of their uniforms. But after awhile and you see that there is indeed another team that is by all accounts the "Best Damned Team In The Land", then you'd come on over to THE BUCKEYE BANDWAGON. But please know that the front two seats are taken by me and Bman.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:WHEN is a president going to bring our troops home from Korea? Man, what a long war, conflict that has been! At least 50 years! And get our troops home from Turkey and Germany too while they're at it. I don't remember ever declaring war on Turkey, except maybe late in November.

Of course, I'm being silly. But I personally think when McCain was talking about being in Iraq for 100 years, he wasn't saying we'd be at war for 100 years, rather be there as support, or have a military base like we do in other parts of the world.

Believing we'll be at war for 100 years in Iraq is weak...at best.

Aside from sillyness, I agree. Still McWeak hasn't convinced me to even consider voting for him or his policies yet. I am not kidding, I will give the guy a chance but it seems his campaign is going horribly. To me is just foreshadows that he'll be nothing more than a puppet for the GOP to use as a megaphone against Obama and the Democratic party in general. They are, and will continue to use him as a skeleton ( no pun intended ) to prop up their positions and rhetoric.

Gas around $3.80 today... yay! I hope McCain gets some points for it.

Thanks Meta...and it seems we're about of the same mind here. Right now, knowing what I know, I'd probably vote for the Presumptive Democratic Candidate whose middle name has nothing to do with terrorism or the deposed Iraqi dictator. But we'll see how this thing shakes out.

meta4 wrote:
Aside from sillyness, I agree. Still McWeak hasn't convinced me to even consider voting for him or his policies yet. I am not kidding, I will give the guy a chance but it seems his campaign is going horribly. To me is just foreshadows that he'll be nothing more than a puppet for the GOP to use as a megaphone against Obama and the Democratic party in general. They are, and will continue to use him as a skeleton ( no pun intended ) to prop up their positions and rhetoric.

Gas around $3.80 today... yay! I hope McCain gets some points for it.

You may be right. I may be crazy. But the funny thing about it is, and this is just my personal observation, I think you and Cincy are in the minority. By that I mean an Obama supporter who is not maniacal about it. I came into this election with an open mind, and for awhile I was really at a crossroads as to who I would vote for. But the McCain supporters by and large are able to talk about the issues and why they support McCain, while Obamaniacs can only say McCain = Bush and Bush = Bad. Call me gullible, but I get turned off by those who pick a party and look for dirt on the other candidate as opposed to looking at the issues and picking a candidate.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Thanks Meta...and it seems we're about of the same mind here. Right now, knowing what I know, I'd probably vote for the Presumptive Democratic Candidate whose middle name has nothing to do with terrorism or the deposed Iraqi dictator. But we'll see how this thing shakes out.

I'll admit that the inexperience factor is a concern, but I can point to GWB and say the same thing. I respect GWB for being a puppet. I say that in the sense that my hope is that BHO doesn't get pigeonholed into a similar position by the parties hefty partisan maneuvering. Balancing that with not placing too much expectation on the PUSA office in general. GWB has ASSumed a great deal more authority and power for which I place blame at a 50/50 between his personal imperialist ego maniacal self and pressure from specific ideologies and interests held by certain corrupt members of his cabinet and the GOP party.

Current events aside, in hindsight Bill Clinton wasn't a half bad president, he wasn't half good either. Consider leaving a budgetary surplus, and doing a half-way decent job with foreign diplomacy. I suggest that this is a reasonable perspective for any citizen, regardless of what color cool-aid you drink. The reader should consider this in light of the events, and world political environment of his term in office.

In a few years, perhaps the GWB legacy will mellow nicely and we can find a few good things that he did accomplish, wantonly ignoring his glaring blunders in fashion similar with same from Clinton.

First whenever a party in power is up for reelection the opposing party almost always tries to link the new candidate to the old candidate. In 2000 you guys attempted to make Al Gore the clone of Bill Clinton. Bush has failed, and the "maniacal" Obama supporters have just pointed out that there is hardly a policy where McCain differs from the current occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave. Ok, maybe he differs on global warming, that is really it. Iraq is the same, tax cuts is the same, abortion is the same, gay rights is the same, gun control is the same, education is the same .. that is why we link McCain to Bush.

Secondly, I believe Obama supporters do talk about issues because Obama differs drastically from the McCain/Bush stances on the issues. I threw that McCain/Bush comment in just for good measure. Obama is going to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 McCain is not. Obama supports a woman's right to choose, McCain does not, Obama wants to get out of Iraq, McCain just recently has adopted that policy.

I think it is great that the Obama supporters across this country are fired up, sad for McCain that his followers are not. McCain generates NO enthusiam, Obama does.

Personally Mark after being on this forum (JG and Here) with you for about 4 years I never considered you at a crossroads, nice attempt at spin there. That would be like me saying that I considered voting for Mike Huckebee for awhile.

If there was no enthusiam behind Obama he would stand no chance because there is a segment of this society who will NEVER vote for a black man, so I am impressed with the crowds he draws and the excitement generated around his campaign. I think it is really spectacular the way he has motivated the younger generations to get involved ... sorry our enthusiam has turned you off, but you were never going to vote for Obama or Clinton any ways. Nothing lost here ...

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:
Aside from sillyness, I agree. Still McWeak hasn't convinced me to even consider voting for him or his policies yet. I am not kidding, I will give the guy a chance but it seems his campaign is going horribly. To me is just foreshadows that he'll be nothing more than a puppet for the GOP to use as a megaphone against Obama and the Democratic party in general. They are, and will continue to use him as a skeleton ( no pun intended ) to prop up their positions and rhetoric.

Gas around $3.80 today... yay! I hope McCain gets some points for it.

You may be right. I may be crazy. But the funny thing about it is, and this is just my personal observation, I think you and Cincy are in the minority. By that I mean an Obama supporter who is not maniacal about it. I came into this election with an open mind, and for awhile I was really at a crossroads as to who I would vote for. But the McCain supporters by and large are able to talk about the issues and why they support McCain, while Obamaniacs can only say McCain = Bush and Bush = Bad. Call me gullible, but I get turned off by those who pick a party and look for dirt on the other candidate as opposed to looking at the issues and picking a candidate.

YOU may be right, I may be gullible. It just seems to me that the public will not withstand political corruption masked behind the guise that at American liberty depends on corruption. Has anyone else notice a gradual increase in corruption charges, allegations, and investigations by the FBI and related agencies? It's time to clean house and I think the McCain = Bush = Bad is a crude expression of the nausea caused by corruption in the current administration. It's a weak form of the reform that some independent candidates were attempting to build most of their platform upon. He has no chance of winning, but perhaps a little bit of the spirit of Ron Paul lives vicariously in hopes of America to dream of a political system that does not need to be corrupt to be effective.