Talk:John McCain/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 28 August 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Ma bober

I'd like to bring this up to code to submit it to the front page thingy ma bober.-αmεσ (ninja) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (EST)

This is seriously how you left-wingers thing? That any Republican is a Bad Republican? And that somehow it's wrong when Andy & Co. thinks the same things about people from the Democratic Party? What hypocritical, ignorant drivel. Lurker 19:11, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Perhaps you could be a little more specific in your critique of this article? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:27, 6 February 2008 (EST)

As an outsider (UK) it seems fair, from a Democrat viewpoint. They don't want a Republican and do believe that any Republican is bad for the nation.
From some of what's been aired over here, McCain wouldn't suit all Republicans either but might get in as least bad. This might allow some Democrats to believe that he's not so bad, but he's still a Republican. I don't think Lurker's objection is valid - it seems quite moderate to me. Susan^Purrrrrrr 19:29, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Lurker, he'd pack the Supreme Court and fuck it up more than it already is. he's said as much. Done and done.-αmεσ (ninja) 19:35, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Lurker has a very good point. Why is it wrong for Schlafly to do it, but not for you? Locke 20:32, 6 February 2008 (EST)

I think it'd be wrong to say that "by being a republican, this politician ought not be president," but where there's cause - i.e., something lurking behind the surface that makes the Republican nature of his presidency particularly worrisome - the objection to being a republican is not spurious. McCain has made the overtures to the religious right, and he's said he'll put "strict constructionists" on the bench. That's right-wing code for "nuke Roe." That's enough for me, and if I'm not mistaken about your politics, it's probably enough for you. I absolutely agree that we shouldn't dismiss politicians for merely being Republican, but McCain is not just a Republican. He's one of the more moderate ones, but he still has enough issues that give me concern.-αmεσ (ninja) 12:35, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Maybe you should work on the wording a tad then, because what you just said here is not the impression that the article gives. "A Republican victory in 2008, no matter the candidate, would probably seal the end of this generation of the Democratic Party, leaving it a castrated permanent opposition party...." Lurker 13:35, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Feel free to change it yourself, but since that's only one part of "the bad," while there are a few others and "the ugly," I don't get that impression...αmεσ (ninja) 13:40, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Well of course you wouldn't get that impression; you wrote it. I'm not going to bother changing it, though. The article is an opinion piece, and I don't agree with the opinion. I can't reasonably change it to something that would be agreeable to most of the people on this site. Lurker 13:48, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I'd like you to change it that way though... I want it to be a mission piece, so if I misconceived the mission approach to McCain, plz help -αmεσ (ninja) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (EST)

AFAIK it does fit into the mission, at least it's written in the same style of many other articles which have been around for a while. It's just that I myself don't really fit into the mission. (In Soviet Russia, mission fits you!) Lurker 23:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)

What the hell? Am I seeing things?

Obviously, yes I am seeing things. But, does the flag in the picture on this page look like it's burning? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{...and a hotplate!} 10:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Nationality

As a Panamanian-American, it is questionable whether McCain is eligible to assume office should he be elected.

He's an American-American! Seriously, he was born to American parents in a Panama military base, making him a US citizen (And hero, in my eyes) I'd like to see some of you guys endure 5 years of torture to the extent you still can't even lift your arms to comb your hair... 134.226.1.234 10:20, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure that torture qualifies one to be an American citizen, and thus eligible to be president. If so, we have a number of alleged terrorists, and even a few who have proved to be innocent after torture, who might want to run. Being born to American parents, however, makes McCain an American citizen unless he had opted to become a Panamanian citizen at the age of 21. Rational Ed^evidence 10:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not saying that the torture makes him a citizen. I'm saying that it makes him a hero. This is MarcusCicero by the way. 134.226.1.234 11:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we got the drift. I was just trying to point out that the question was about the qualifications for president. Far be it from me to get between a boy and his hero. Rational Ed^evidence 12:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You think it doesn't show enormous personal character and resolve to not give information to his captors during his internment? MC 62.231.34.211 17:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I was still trying to get over his stupidity in suggesting that the cost of health insurance would go down if everybody was forced to get it privately or not at all - do you have any idea how much more expensive it is if you don't get it at a group rate (like at work or as a student) with a company that has enough customers to be able to negotiate prices down? And his idiotic insistence that it was a great idea to invade Iraq and we should continue fighting there as long as it takes? And his voting against giving Iraqi vets a G.I. bill that would give them the opportunity to get a good university education? We're voting for a president here, not an ex war hero. If I wanted that I'd vote for Kerry again. Rational Ed^evidence 20:17, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wah wah wah. I wouldn't vote for him. I'm saying he's a war hero and fanning the flames that 'he isn't really American' is a huge double standard, considering we don't like it when people peddle the lie that Obama is a Muslim. MarcusCicero 07:19, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

So ignorance is rational now? Seriously, if you are born to American parents, or even just one, you are an American.

Bear in mind that the Republicans have been making similar points about Obama, both this and his voting record. We are in agreement, it seems, that it's a non-issue in both cases, for both men. Bondurant 02:51, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Just to comment here, I have no problem with Obama being a Muslim. You can be a Muslim and an American, you can be a Jew and an American, you can be a Buddhist and an American. However, do facts actually support that Obama is a Muslim? Hm... nope, they don't support that idea at all. Now, in this case with McCain, the requirements for the job require that he was born as a "natural born citizen" of America. That he was born in Panama, leads credence to wonder if he actually qualifies. Although, as pointed out, it is consistently held that a child born to American citizens during military activities abroad are to be treated as if born on American soil. If one of his parents was in Panama for the navy (and not say, just on vacation, or them being temporary alien residents) then the point is entirely moot, he was born to an American service man abroad. The same question would have come up if Bill Richardson were the democratic ticket. It would come out that "hey, he was born to two Mexican parents, and then lived in Mexico City, until High School", at which time, the 14th amendment would be pulled out showing "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." And you would see that even though he's an "anchor baby" he's still a natural born US citizen. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 18:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Flip-Flops

While some of his changes of position can be seen, mostly the reaching out to rich folks, as flip-flopping for political gain, but couldn't he honestly have just changed his mind on other issues? Could it be that he is open-minded enough to accept that the views he hold are not perfect and that other views have merits too?

For instance when the republicans refused to even debate the recent taxes on oil. We could see that they were closed-minded. They refused to even consider that anything in the bill could even be remotely helpful to the American people. So I ask you, If we have to have a republican would you want one who could consider all sides of an issue, or just blindly follow the party path? Just my 2 cents. 216.67.3.26 04:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The only reason it really matters as an "issue" is that the GOP made it a big one (and invented the term, basically) in order to attack John Kerry in 2004. And of course, as you say, there are two reasons for changing one's stand - raw political gain (pandering to the religious right, eg), and learning. ħuman 17:36, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Missing Votes

After all the nonsense that Andy put up about Obama's voting record, I'm amused by this thing I got pointed to about McSame's absentee record. He's even worse than the guy who missed time for a brain hemmorhage! Anyone who wants to add it to the article, or just go pester Andy with it, feel free. --Kels 16:43, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't know if you noticed or not, but all the top vote-missers are the ones who have been running for election. And the further down the list you go you the earlier they dropped out of the race. But I guess such a reasonable explanation is too rational for a site called "rational wiki." ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.123.168.76 / talk / contribs}

While what you say has some merit, BON, note the huge difference between Obama and McCain, who are both arguably still in the race:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

Votes: 411 votes missed (64.0%), 231 votes cast

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)

Votes: 294 votes missed (45.8%), 348 votes cast

Just saying, is all. ħuman 16:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Also, keep in mind that Obama and Clinton were in a tight primary race long after McCain had cinched the GOP nom and could "go back to work". ħuman 16:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Isn't his work right now to win the election? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Sort of, yes. Although, they are all getting paid to work as Senators. My point was partly that he had a temporary layoff from needing to campaign once he sewed up the nom - at that point, "politics" says "sit back and let the other side rough itself up". Meaning he could have gone to DC and done some of his "day job". ħuman 18:44, 18 September 2008 (EDT)