The ..2012.... Political thread
-
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
-
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
-
Very interesting article in The New York Times today about McBushs response to 9/11. Scarey http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1219071688-dY0WzMb/fzn2YAKFUwm3zg
-
mustangsally10:
Very interesting article in The New York Times today about McBushs response to 9/11. Scarey http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1219071688-dY0WzMb/fzn2YAKFUwm3zg
Thanks for the post, Sally I haven't gotten to reading the entire article as yet - but will be doing so. I'm not scared I'm especially thankful for the attached video to the article, Politics Forged in A prison cell. As one person said (on the radio early this morning), we are living in tough times And the one person who has the Russians leaders attention, is John McCain. He survived a Soviet built missle that brought his plane down over Northern Vietnam. He is a military man who has the guts to stand up to P.M. Putin.
-
Yep, if you like bu$h you'll LOVE McSame
-
I believe, even today, there are things worth fighting & dying for It's interesting to me that those of us who are in the northeast corridor (Boston-NY-Washington) still retain a different pov on 9/11.
-
You mean you approve of the shocking unprecedented brutal Iraq invasion & war?
-
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
-
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact :
-
mustangsally10:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact :
I think everyone already understands that, mustangsally10. I'm not sure what your rolling eyes mean...is that meant to bolster support for Obama or unite everyone? I'm not sure it would make me feel welcome especially since I am uncommitted as yet. I believe that others opinions should be respected.
-
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact :
I think everyone already understands that, mustangsally10. I'm not sure what your rolling eyes mean...is that meant to bolster support for Obama or unite everyone? I'm not sure it would make me feel welcome especially since I am uncommitted as yet. I believe that others opinions should be respected.
Don't let it bother you, she is always like that. It's like she's been brainwashed by a cult sometimes. And you're right, it's not very welcoming.
-
PHILLIP:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact :
I think everyone already understands that, mustangsally10. I'm not sure what your rolling eyes mean...is that meant to bolster support for Obama or unite everyone? I'm not sure it would make me feel welcome especially since I am uncommitted as yet. I believe that others opinions should be respected.
Don't let it bother you, she is always like that. It's like she's been brainwashed by a cult sometimes. And you're right, it's not very welcoming.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't intend to. Facts can be very offensive especially on this thread. Phillip you really are funny, I just read on another thread your remarks calling a country "a loser country" I guess you won't be welcomed in that country
-
mustangsally10:
PHILLIP:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact :
I think everyone already understands that, mustangsally10. I'm not sure what your rolling eyes mean...is that meant to bolster support for Obama or unite everyone? I'm not sure it would make me feel welcome especially since I am uncommitted as yet. I believe that others opinions should be respected.
Don't let it bother you, she is always like that. It's like she's been brainwashed by a cult sometimes. And you're right, it's not very welcoming.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't intend to. Facts can be very offensive especially on this thread. Phillip you really are funny, I just read on another thread your remarks calling a country "a loser country" I guess you won't be welcomed in that country
I never plan on visiting Canada or Spain. Two of the worst countries concerning animal abuse.
-
WOW very interesting article by Philip Butler PhD , who was a classmate of McCain at the Naval Academy and who also was a POW at the same time as McCain. He knows him very well. Here from military.com: Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008 As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States. When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President! John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates. People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW. John's treatment as a POW: 1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals. 2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda. 3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first. 4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did. I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate. Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years. I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button. It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration. I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be. Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States. << Page 1 | 2 | About Phillip Butler Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
-
mustangsally10:
PHILLIP:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact :
I think everyone already understands that, mustangsally10. I'm not sure what your rolling eyes mean...is that meant to bolster support for Obama or unite everyone? I'm not sure it would make me feel welcome especially since I am uncommitted as yet. I believe that others opinions should be respected.
Don't let it bother you, she is always like that. It's like she's been brainwashed by a cult sometimes. And you're right, it's not very welcoming.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't intend to. Facts can be very offensive especially on this thread. Phillip you really are funny, I just read on another thread your remarks calling a country "a loser country" I guess you won't be welcomed in that country
I don't know if you have offended anyone else, but you have offended me. I can only assume you were responding to my post with your "rolling eyes" since you quoted me directly. I was responding to the post above regarding "if the Iowa caucus were held today...." Please do explain the....: Also, I did not find your last response amusing at all, but rather dishonest...hiding behind words. It was not your "facts" that were offensive...it was your rather rude, non verbal commentary which I consider, albeit small, a rather subtle, but personal attack. Why not lend credibility to your posts and steer clear of this? As I have said above, I believe that everyone's opinions should be respected. I have read many of Phillip's posts, and while I may not always agree with everything he says, he articulates his positions well (often in a colorful way ), and without personally attacking me.
-
mustangsally10:
WOW very interesting article by Philip Butler PhD , who was a classmate of McCain at the Naval Academy and who also was a POW at the same time as McCain. He knows him very well. Here from military.com: Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008 As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States. When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President! John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates. People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW. John's treatment as a POW: 1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals. 2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda. 3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first. 4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did. I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate. Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years. I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button. It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration. I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be. Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States. << Page 1 | 2 | About Phillip Butler Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
Here is more info re McCains refusal to allow release of Vietnam POW intelligence...very interesting stuff..
-
McCain takes lead over struggling Obama. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820/ts_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc
-
McSame open to draft......here from town hall..
-
Can't open the attachment, but if you're talking about the military draft, I hope everyone remember that it was a democratic president, the loser Carter, who brought back registering for the draft.
-
opens for me..but I'm a democrat yep military draft