McCain Flips Again

Bman wrote:

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?

I've seriously reached Dope and Gimme limits with you on this election.. you can't comprehend anything that is said unless it comes from the Messiah, and even then, you don't understand it, you just regurgitate it and hope it brainwashes others.

So have fun with this election, there's no point in even entertaining your mindless drivel with a response because you can't win an argument with a 5 yr old.

cardinal5150 wrote:
I've seriously reached Dope and Gimme limits with you on this election.. you can't comprehend anything that is said unless it comes from the Messiah, and even then, you don't understand it, you just regurgitate it and hope it brainwashes others.

So have fun with this election, there's no point in even entertaining your mindless drivel with a response because you can't win an argument with a 5 yr old.

Talk about the kettle calling... and since you offer your critique in public, I hold up a mirror.

Reading your posts would be a lot more interesting for me personally if you spoke to the specific arguments or ideas that Bman posts. I mean, you DO expect us to read your posts as well, don't you? It seems YOU saying this: "I haven't read, nor do I care to, but I know so much about this I'll tell you my opinion anyway" and maybe you haven't noticed but that chit is everywhere on the internet, you don't hold a monopoly or patent on it's manufacture.

So, bring it. I wore my boots today.

cardinal5150 wrote:So have fun with this election, there's no point in even entertaining your mindless drivel with a response because you can't win an argument with a 5 yr old.

LOL. I have tried that approach but it hasn't worked too well for me. It's like how a 5 year old keeps bugging you and you try to ignore him, but after awhile, you can't help but respond.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:
I've seriously reached Dope and Gimme limits with you on this election.. you can't comprehend anything that is said unless it comes from the Messiah, and even then, you don't understand it, you just regurgitate it and hope it brainwashes others.

So have fun with this election, there's no point in even entertaining your mindless drivel with a response because you can't win an argument with a 5 yr old.

Talk about the kettle calling... and since you offer your critique in public, I hold up a mirror.

Reading your posts would be a lot more interesting for me personally if you spoke to the specific arguments or ideas that Bman posts. I mean, you DO expect us to read your posts as well, don't you? It seems YOU saying this: "I haven't read, nor do I care to, but I know so much about this I'll tell you my opinion anyway" and maybe you haven't noticed but that chit is everywhere on the internet, you don't hold a monopoly or patent on it's manufacture.

So, bring it. I wore my boots today.

In this particular topic... Here's your argument if you support B..

The following statements contradict each other..
"We'll stay in Iraq until they meet certain conditions, if that means 100 years, we'll be there for 100 years"
"If certain conditions are met in Iraq in 16 months, we'll leave"

If that's really your argument, then you'll need your boots just to get out of your own house and all the shit you're swimming in.

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:
I've seriously reached Dope and Gimme limits with you on this election.. you can't comprehend anything that is said unless it comes from the Messiah, and even then, you don't understand it, you just regurgitate it and hope it brainwashes others.

So have fun with this election, there's no point in even entertaining your mindless drivel with a response because you can't win an argument with a 5 yr old.

Talk about the kettle calling... and since you offer your critique in public, I hold up a mirror.

Reading your posts would be a lot more interesting for me personally if you spoke to the specific arguments or ideas that Bman posts. I mean, you DO expect us to read your posts as well, don't you? It seems YOU saying this: "I haven't read, nor do I care to, but I know so much about this I'll tell you my opinion anyway" and maybe you haven't noticed but that chit is everywhere on the internet, you don't hold a monopoly or patent on it's manufacture.

So, bring it. I wore my boots today.

In this particular topic... Here's your argument if you support B..

The following statements contradict each other..
"We'll stay in Iraq until they meet certain conditions, if that means 100 years, we'll be there for 100 years"
"If certain conditions are met in Iraq in 16 months, we'll leave"

If that's really your argument, then you'll need your boots just to get out of your own house and all the shit you're swimming in.

I honestly don't understand what you just said at all. Does your post related somehow to the quoted text? I'm not completely sure, but I don't think you've used one grammatically correct sentence.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:
I've seriously reached Dope and Gimme limits with you on this election.. you can't comprehend anything that is said unless it comes from the Messiah, and even then, you don't understand it, you just regurgitate it and hope it brainwashes others.

So have fun with this election, there's no point in even entertaining your mindless drivel with a response because you can't win an argument with a 5 yr old.

Talk about the kettle calling... and since you offer your critique in public, I hold up a mirror.

Reading your posts would be a lot more interesting for me personally if you spoke to the specific arguments or ideas that Bman posts. I mean, you DO expect us to read your posts as well, don't you? It seems YOU saying this: "I haven't read, nor do I care to, but I know so much about this I'll tell you my opinion anyway" and maybe you haven't noticed but that chit is everywhere on the internet, you don't hold a monopoly or patent on it's manufacture.

So, bring it. I wore my boots today.

In this particular topic... Here's your argument if you support B..

The following statements contradict each other..
"We'll stay in Iraq until they meet certain conditions, if that means 100 years, we'll be there for 100 years"
"If certain conditions are met in Iraq in 16 months, we'll leave"

If that's really your argument, then you'll need your boots just to get out of your own house and all the shit you're swimming in.

I honestly don't understand what you just said at all. Does your post related somehow to the quoted text? I'm not completely sure, but I don't think you've used one grammatically correct sentence.

The story said McCain now supports a 16 month timetable... when actually he's only supporting withdrawing troops after conditions are met.. if that's 16 months, great, if it's 100 years, great. It's not rocket science.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:In this particular topic... Here's your argument if you support B..

The following statements contradict each other..
"We'll stay in Iraq until they meet certain conditions, if that means 100 years, we'll be there for 100 years"
"If certain conditions are met in Iraq in 16 months, we'll leave"

If that's really your argument, then you'll need your boots just to get out of your own house and all the shit you're swimming in.

I honestly don't understand what you just said at all. Does your post related somehow to the quoted text? I'm not completely sure, but I don't think you've used one grammatically correct sentence.

Okay, I'm really beginning to think you are drawing this out for your own amusement. Right? Right?

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:
In this particular topic... Here's your argument if you support B..

The following statements contradict each other..
"We'll stay in Iraq until they meet certain conditions, if that means 100 years, we'll be there for 100 years"
"If certain conditions are met in Iraq in 16 months, we'll leave"

If that's really your argument, then you'll need your boots just to get out of your own house and all the shit you're swimming in.

I honestly don't understand what you just said at all. Does your post related somehow to the quoted text? I'm not completely sure, but I don't think you've used one grammatically correct sentence.

The story said McCain now supports a 16 month timetable... when actually he's only supporting withdrawing troops after conditions are met.. if that's 16 months, great, if it's 100 years, great. It's not rocket science.

Markwes wrote:
Okay, I'm really beginning to think you are drawing this out for your own amusement. Right? Right?

I was trying to draw a point from Card's drivel. I'm not playing with anyone or poking fun. If I wanted to poke fun, I'll use a smiley or something.

I'm in agreement with Card's summary... that McCain's recent statements support his original "time horizon" position, but has dropped the references to "horizon" to appear closer to Obama's determined time table.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote: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.

so does this bit of newfound wisdom apply to obama too, or just mccain? and maybe a whole lot of topics other than politics, or just when mccain flip-flops?

floridafun wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote: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.

so does this bit of newfound wisdom apply to obama too, or just mccain? and maybe a whole lot of topics other than politics, or just when mccain flip-flops?

I think it applys to a lot of different subjects.

floridafun wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote: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.

so does this bit of newfound wisdom apply to obama too, or just mccain? and maybe a whole lot of topics other than politics, or just when mccain flip-flops?

The picture that came to mind when I read Cincy's post was Judge Felts flip flopping over a drunk driving charge for a defendant in his court. I suppose it fits but doesn't say much about the mans judgment. Maybe that's not an apples to apples comparison because politicians exist to represent the people, not necessarily for their good judgment.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote: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.

I think time is a big issue as well... If you really want I bet you can go back and find McCain has changed his stance on a lot of issues, but he's been around for a long time as well, so it's bound to happen, especially if given new materials to base your stance on.

Plus I don't think anyone will ever really have 100% of the facts regarding broad issues that the president's debate. They'll have a good grasp, but to be an expert on everything is pretty unrealistic.