McCain Throws Temper Tantrum

reply to post by grover


"Temper tantrum"? If you can call it that. It wasn't anything more than a fully explanative counter to Obama bin Laden's brief attack on McCain's reasoning behind his voting. McCain is concerned about the calibre of recruit signing up once such a nebulous bill is enacted.

This bill in its current form will, like Obama's campaign tactic, promise too much and deliver too little. This large-enough-net will possibly ring in deadbeats who only care about the money and not the service. The quality will be sacrificed for the quantity.

But this would be a way for Obama to say that "he created new jobs for the less well-to-do" by making it luring to enter the military. Obama's just dangling new carrots in an old direction which is typical politicizing. He's suckering the poor vote in with this sponsorship but what will he do AS the commander-in-chief with this "new army"?

I'm certainly not voting for Obama now come the general election. Nor am I casting in with McCain. You figure it out Grover.

Although I don’t agree with the occasional ‘flare-ups’ (get it?) expressed as temper tantrums by Senator John McCain, I’ve notice senior citizens do tend to be more sensitive. I don’t know which is worse -- someone who is inexperienced or someone who uses ‘bad’ words in public. Many Presidents of the United States served their country, by the way. So his defense for the military is warranted against what Obama asserted (per the article) about not giving veterans a chance to go to college.

Originally posted by qxlb52
reply to post by grover

 

"Temper tantrum"? If you can call it that. It wasn't anything more than a fully explanative counter to Obama bin Laden's brief attack on McCain's reasoning behind his voting. McCain is concerned about the calibre of recruit signing up once such a nebulous bill is enacted.

This bill in its current form will, like Obama's campaign tactic, promise too much and deliver too little. This large-enough-net will possibly ring in deadbeats who only care about the money and not the service. The quality will be sacrificed for the quantity.

But this would be a way for Obama to say that "he created new jobs for the less well-to-do" by making it luring to enter the military. Obama's just dangling new carrots in an old direction which is typical politicizing. He's suckering the poor vote in with this sponsorship but what will he do AS the commander-in-chief with this "new army"?

I'm certainly not voting for Obama now come the general election. Nor am I casting in with McCain. You figure it out Grover.

So lowering recruiting standards isn't worrying him but paying for an education for those who serve is? Fascinating analysis and even more reason not to vote for him.

I wish we had a word for those who serve for money instead of love for the service...Lets make one up...mercenaries! Lets see...Blackwater!

I resist your impugning the integrity of the World War 2 vets who benefited from the original GI Bill. Shame on you!

This bill is by Webb, go look up his record and tell us how you are more of an expert on building an army and taking care of the troops than he is.

[edit on 25-5-2008 by wytworm]

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
The GI Bill's head sponsor is Jim Webb, a senator who is just as much as a war hero as McCain is. Obama supports Webb's bill because he believes - rightfully - that soldiers deserve to be given the opportunity of a college education for putting their life on the line for America.

Why does John McCain want to deny that to them? Would he rather have them serve their fourth or fifth tour in Iraq, then returning home to find nothing but minimum wage waiting?

Why you ask? Answer: McCain isn't here to make any real change. War is a reality that we have to face right now, and I think those who go and fight should get all the medical attention they need, a chance to build upon their military experience and go to college to create a prosperous life.

Obama wasn't in the Military, who really care Thats not what being a President is all about, it's about having the ability to lead and make right decisions for the country.

Now with McCain, who is basically preparing to serve Bush's 3rd term, how does that help us face serious issues like the Economy, Independent Energy, Climate Change, Health care, the War in Iraq, Education and so on?
You could be cynical and say Obama has too much "hope" or wants to create too much "change", or that these are simply nice ideas and not founded in reality.
You could say that and perhaps be right or wrong, but that is not my point. The point is, Obama has clear plans to help America move forward and the GI Bill is one of these steps toward change.
Yet McCain's responses to Obama's remarks are fueled with defensive remarks. Not filled with logic and reason as to why he won't or doesn't support the GI Bill. Maybe because the lobbyists who fund his campaign or the same lobbyists he wants to put in the white house have other plans on how to spend that money, the same money we could be using to show honor to and truly support our brave troops who return home from war with more than words. I think giving these veterans a college education & health care should be a given, some may even need more support like psychiatric health or whatever the case may be. So to see a veteran be so against the support of the veterans of the past, present and future only hurt what small chance McCain has to find support from any veteran.

reply to post by wytworm

I think there was no impuignment of WW2 vets and the GI bill in Qxlb52's statement, only the concern that McCain and others make about the sweeping "carte-blanche" attraction of the bill that MIGHT tempt people into recruitment just for the pay. It appears that McCain and other vets are afraid this bill will create "mercenary class soldiers" and not true soldiers. We want tough fighting men for our country's defense and not a bunch of trigger-happy, disgruntled mercenaries for anyone who'll pay them enough.

And who's to say that gang bangers might not enlist just to sharpen their urban combat skills before taking the money and running? Another justifiable fear.

No I think Qxlb52's statement impuigned nobody, bit did warn of the fears many active, reserve, and veteran soldiers have.

reply to
post by grover


Temper Tantrum?
As I read Sen. McCains reply recounted above I see a factual reasoned response to an ad hominem attack on him.
If this post were left open to me I could return the favor to Sen Oboma. How about his associations with bomd throwers. Raciest.......
If so inclined I could go on for hours but I have been making these arguments for 60 years and I have grown weary of them factual though they are
As for Temper Tantrantrums I could fuse your hard drives into an 8" floppy.
Ron Miller Vienna VA

Senator McCain's response seemed less like a temper tantrum than a passionate response in disagreement of what Senator Obama portrayed as Senator McCain's reasons for not supporting the expansion of the G.I. Bill. Senator McCain seems to be making the point that he would not stand for Senator Obama using the Senate floor to "play politics and score cheap points" while supposedly working for the taxpayers. The Senate floor is not the campaign trail, so I have to agree with McCain about this (something i rarely do). I wonder if his passion about the topic has been misunderstood as being a "temper tantrum".

Obama wants to run a campaign where his opponents arn't allowed to attack him and now he wants to run a campaign where their not allowed to defend themselves. Look at this unexperienced lawyer hiding behind his politically correct liberals who pull the race card for him so he don't have to, allthough he has and will again. I don't like McCain, but Obama represents what a double standard are society has become and It just blows me away that someone with no experience can be taken serious.

What is it about him that makes him stand out, Hmmmm, it's not experience, it's not his ability to debate unless stuttering when confronted with a tough question is good, it's not his political connections because he don't really have any, It's not his views because they Hillary's arn't really much different, could it be his fluffy happy speeches, well he didn't write them, so no. hmmmmm what could it be? I really really wonder just what is it about him? Your Sheep that don't know their sheep, you sheep are getting so owned.

“It was usually an effective TACTIC, another one of those TRICKS I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made NO SUDDEN MOVES"-Barrack Obama on dealing with white people.........OWNED!

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by AgentStovkowski
McCain, Hillary, Obama, all are members of the CFR. They all have the same agenda and meet with each other secretly in the CFR meetings.

These fake attacks they conduct on each other are just for show, to make Americans think they are getting a real election.



[edit on 24-5-2008 by AgentStovkowski]

Barack Obama is not on the list sorry.

www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com...

Hi, what site should I trust more to know CFR membership, yours, or the CFR's website ITSELF?!

www.cfr.org...

November 1, 2005

Speakers: Richard G. Lugar, Member, U.S. Senate (R-IN)
Barack Obama, Member, U.S. Senate (D-IL)

reply to post by AgentStovkowski



CFR.org lists him as a member of the SENATE not of CFR. They follows his campaign because presidents help shape foreign policy. Obama is not a member of the CFR.


Edit to add:

Richard Lugar is not on the list I posted either. This is a comprehensive list which is compiled from the actual membership list. CFR.org does NOT publish a member list online. The only way to get it is to call them and ask, or get it free through a 3rd party. Get your facts straight and learn what commas mean.



[edit on 25-5-2008 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by AgentStovkowski

 

CFR.org lists him as a member of the SENATE not of CFR. They follows his campaign because presidents help shape foreign policy. Obama is not a member of the CFR.


Edit to add:

Richard Lugar is not on the list I posted either. This is a comprehensive list which is compiled from the actual membership list. CFR.org does NOT publish a member list online. The only way to get it is to call them and ask, or get it free through a 3rd party. Get your facts straight and learn what commas mean.



[edit on 25-5-2008 by projectvxn]

Perhaps you missed the part where it says he is a "speaker" for the CFR?

Even if he's not an official member, he still attends their meetings, speaks at their meetings, and supports their agenda.

Do you honestly think a non-member of the CFR could be the frontrunner in an election?

reply to post by AgentStovkowski



Yes that means he was invited as a speaker at a CFR conference. All that does is allow for some politicians to be able to address people who drive and influence foreign policy.

That doesn't make him part of the membership roster. Do some real research. Call these people and ask. Their contact information:

#
Contact the Council on Foreign Relations

New York Office
The Harold Pratt House
58 East 68th Street
New York, NY 10065
Tel. +1-212-434-9400
Fax: +1-212-434-9800

Washington Office
1779 Massachusetts
Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Tel. +1-202-518.3400
Fax: +1-202-986.2984

For further information:

Corporate Communications and Media Relations
Go to this site’s Media section

Membership and Corporate Affairs
L. Camille Massey, Vice President, Membership and Corporate Affairs
Tel: +1-212-434-9797
Nancy Yao Maasbach, Managing Director, Corporate Affairs
Tel: +1-212-434-9684
Email: [email protected]

* Membership: +1-212-434-9487 or [email protected]
* Membership applications: +1-212-434-9484 or [email protected]
* Fellowship: +1-212-434-9489 or [email protected]

New York Meetings Program
Nancy Bodurtha, Vice President, Meetings
Stacey La Follette, Deputy Director, Meetings
Tel: +1-212-434-9600
Email: [email protected]

Washington Program
Kay King, Vice President, Washington Program
Tel: +1-202-518.3400
Email: [email protected]
Email 2: [email protected]

National Program
Irina Faskianos, Vice President for National and Outreach Programs
Tel: +1-212-434-9465
Email: [email protected]

Development and Giving
Suzanne E. Helm, Vice President, Development
Betsy Gude, Deputy Director, Development
Tel: +1-212-434-9788
Fax: +1-212-434-9852
Email: [email protected]

Publications
Patricia Dorff, Director of Publishing
Tel: +1-212-434-9514
Fax: +1-212-434-9859
Email: [email protected]

CFR.org Webmaster
Email: [email protected]

www.cfr.org...



[edit on 26-5-2008 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


Interesting. But if he's not a member, why doesn't he just say he's not? Back when the presidential primary race was interesting and heated up, I watched a debate, and someone actually asked Obama if he was a member of the CFR. I think it was the Youtube debates, but I'm not sure. He just dodged the question, didn't say yes or no.

Originally posted by AgentStovkowski
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Interesting. But if he's not a member, why doesn't he just say he's not? Back when the presidential primary race was interesting and heated up, I watched a debate, and someone actually asked Obama if he was a member of the CFR. I think it was the Youtube debates, but I'm not sure. He just dodged the question, didn't say yes or no.

I remember that. He said he showed up gave a speech and talked to a few people. But that he wasn't "A card carrying member or anything."


If he were a member I wouldn't be supporting him. People have flung so many accusations at Barack Obama over everything that may imply something. But when you dig deep enough, there just isn't anything there to make it some sort of conspiracy. I think he's where he is because of the people not because of the establishment. I've noticed that no establishment figures have anything good to say about Obama, especially not the Neo-Cons. And they have been the most responsible for all of the lies circulating about Obama.

He may not be perfect(None of these candidates are) but he's not some cartoonish evil-doer. He's been accused of brainwashing people into a trance with his speeches. He's been accused of being a terrorist in disguise, accused of hating this country, accused of being an "elitist" when everything this man has done can be traced. These people put this information out for one reason, it doesn't have to be true, they count on people not doing the research in order to find out whether it is or not. They know people aren't going to call the CFR, they're not going to call his Senate office and get documents, they're not going to go to the media to find out what was actually said. They stamp an official seal on it and let the fireworks fly..That's why this campaign has been about gaffs and false accusations instead of real issues. Obama has not been able to address some issues due to some of these false attacks. Hillary Clinton hasn't been addressing certain things because she's been busy creating this # storm. And McCain is just sitting on the sidelines, peddling Bush ideologies, and watching the Democratic party separate at the seams.

Obama has gone up against the Clinton machine and beat them. Why? Because Obama attacked voting records and policy stances, and Hillary spread rumors and attacked Obama's legitimacy as a person, an American person who has done alot in his short time in politics and public service.

But all of that gets pushed aside...Somehow Obama is being "treated like a star in the Media" when it is his campaign that has had to defend from accusations ranging from secret muslim jihadist to anti-american racist.

Instead of creating a real debate, these idiot have created a divisive firestorm that shows the true colors of not just some citizens of the united states, but large elements of the politically established as well.


[edit on 26-5-2008 by projectvxn]

He does speeches for the CFR and his wife is a member of the CCFR which is the Chicago branch of the CFR. Many of the directors are one in the same. You can not deny the obvious connections. So like you said you should not vote for him, infact none of these cantidates are any good.

reply to post by projectvxn


project.....sorry to jump in, liked the link you put up just above....but hate to ask a dumb question.

I've heard of the CFR, usually not in a good light....sometimes implied connections to the Bilderbergs, or the IMF or World Bank....

In simple terms, how is the CFR different from the UN? (I am not asking to be cute, I want some feedback, guess I'll get it from different sides....but it should be good to discuss openly....pros and cons....)

Thanks

Originally posted by Sheeper
He does speeches for the CFR and his wife is a member of the CCFR which is the Chicago branch of the CFR. Many of the directors are one in the same. You can not deny the obvious connections. So like you said you should not vote for him, infact none of these cantidates are any good.

She is a Member of the Chicago Council of Global Affairs which is not the CFR.

Michelle Obama is the Vice President for Community and External Affairs, The University of Chicago Medical Center.

CCGA Mission Statement

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning.

This is a Chicago based initiative that deals with global social issues and it's work and research are used to shape politics that deals with these issues locally. It isn't related to the CFR.

reply to post by projectvxn


Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Michael H. Moskow, Henry S. Bienen, and Richard Joseph. Are members of both the CCFR and CFR

From the CCRF website.
Corporate membership in The Chicago Council delivers:

* Access to U.S. and international government officials at the HIGHEST LEVELS.

No, no, there is no connection, that is with about 1 minute of digging, imagine if i was a loser with nothing better to do than research.

Originally posted by Sheeper
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Michael H. Moskow, Henry S. Bienen, and Richard Joseph. Are members of both the CCFR and CFR

From the CCRF website.
Corporate membership in The Chicago Council delivers:

* Access to U.S. and international government officials at the HIGHEST LEVELS.

No, no, there is no connection, that is with about 1 minute of digging, imagine if i was a loser with nothing better to do than research.

And yet in your one minute of digging you didn't get Where Michelle Obama is part of the CFR.

And it's the CCGA not the CCFR or CCRF.

Keep reaching it's funny.

Well I was saying CCFR because thats the website and I never said she was a member of the CFR only pointing out the connections between the two groups, their is no reaching, because the implications are obvious, you are just being stubborn. And that is funny!