erathoniel erathoniel

Why John McCain is best suited for Presidency

▼

Why John McCain is best suited for Presidency

Politics. How boring.

from JoeUser Forums

    John McCain would make the best president for three reasons. He will get respect from foreign nations, he has all the necessary experience, and he will lead the nation through the turbulent times we face.


    First, John McCain would make the best president because he will get respect from foreign nations. Our opponents are known to have racist and sexist members, and therefore having a female or African American president, while an important civil rights goal, is not best suited for our nation right now. Second, John McCain would make the best choices for America because he has the necessary experience. An ex-POW and an experienced politician, John McCain knows war and peace greater than any of the other candidates. Third, John McCain is the best presidential candidate because he will lead the nation through the dangerous times ahead safely. He knows what to do in an emergency due to his experience, and he is acceptable by all foreign nations.

    John McCain is America's best Presidential Candidate because he can lead the nation through the dangers ahead, he is experienced, and will recieve respect from our opponents and allies alike.

john mccain for president republican
42,163 views 75 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
He allows straight couples to get married but not gays. Yea that's an absence of privileges to a group of United States citizens due to bigotry and a self imposed moral rule not shared by all.
They are both relevant.

You should think clearer as well.


NO, you are confusing issues. Marriage is not a right. And he is denying nothing. Marriage is a religious institution that the government has no business involved in. Civil unions are another ball of wax and as some states have demonstrated, all that the government needs to have a say in. But Bush has not denied anything. He cannot. The president does not have the power. He has stated his opinion. And no where does anyone say that gays cannot get married. They can marry anyone just like any heteros can - of the opposite sex.

What you are trying (poorly) to blast is his opinion, not policy (as there is none at this point). And then not even an issue of rights as marriage is not one (please check your verbage closer in the future). You can try to prove you allegation, but if you are honest, you will see that you used inflamatory - and inaccurate - rhetoric to blast him for something you disagree with his opinion on, not practice or policy.

That is where you are failing to think and write clearly.

So even if his opinion became law (doubtful), he would not deny them any rights - rights are not at issue here, nor any priveleges - as they would still have the same ones as everyone else - just not extra priveleges.
Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Dr,
He allows straight couples to get married but not gays. Yea that's an absence of privileges to a group of United States citizens due to bigotry and a self imposed moral rule not shared by all.They are both relevant.You should think clearer as well.NO, you are confusing issues. Marriage is not a right. And he is denying nothing. Marriage is a religious institution that the government has no business involved in. Civil unions are another ball of wax and as some states have demonstrated, all that the government needs to have a say in. But Bush has not denied anything. He cannot. The president does not have the power. He has stated his opinion. And no where does anyone say that gays cannot get married. They can marry anyone just like any heteros can - of the opposite sex.What you are trying (poorly) to blast is his opinion, not policy (as there is none at this point). And then not even an issue of rights as marriage is not one (please check your verbage closer in the future). You can try to prove you allegation, but if you are honest, you will see that you used inflamatory - and inaccurate - rhetoric to blast him for something you disagree with his opinion on, not practice or policy.That is where you are failing to think and write clearly.So even if his opinion became law (doubtful), he would not deny them any rights - rights are not at issue here, nor any priveleges - as they would still have the same ones as everyone else - just not extra priveleges.

 

I'm mature enough to know when I being proven wrong. I took the time to look up on McCains gay marriage policies and i was a bit surprised. I was mistaken with my argument, I apologize. While he is against gay marriage his policies does not reflect those sentiments, he voted NO against on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage and he believes the states should decide the matter of civil unions. Again I apologize, however I hope this does not overshadow the rest of my points which is still hold to be true.

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again I apologize, however I hope this does not overshadow the rest of my points which is still hold to be true.


No, it adds legitimacy to them. Well said.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
No, it adds legitimacy to them


Leave it to a republiscum to argue being proven wrong enhances your credibility.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leave it to a republiscum to argue being proven wrong enhances your credibility.


I can understand why someone who is never right, and stubbornly refuses to admit their errors, would not understand that when someone is wrong, and admits it, that lends credence to their other statements. An honest person who admits errors will always have more credibility with their other statements than a mindless bot that only knows how to spew sewage from their finger tips.

But I dont expect you to understand that, as you have no connection to reality or truth.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top


 He allows straight couples to get married but not gays. Yea that's an absence of privileges to a group of United States citizens due to bigotry and a self imposed moral rule not shared by all.

Actually, I do believe that Dubya made a religious, not political decision here. Marriage is a religious, not civil right.

Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
I can understand why someone who is never right, and stubbornly refuses to admit their errors


What does Bush have to do with this?

You were the one who argued that you being too stupid to comprehend my answers means that my answers don't count.

And that's not even counting the thread where you shit your pants because I wasn't responding to your idiotically slanted anti Obama post.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
What does Bush have to do with this?


Reading is fundamental. Why cant you stick to the subject and not libel with every post? No one was talking Bush. He is not even running (although in your psychotic haze, I am sure you think so). Clearly you have multiple problems, not the least of which is the lack of any human friends, or a brain.

Turnip.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reading is fundamental.

No, no, no. You are not getting this. He thinks he is clever because he wants to associate any talk about a dumb person with George Bush (a man who can fly an airplane). He thinks you are a moron because you didn't notice that you gave him an opportunity to play that little word game.

He is probably 13.

 

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
He is probably 13.


Thatis insulting to 13 year olds. ;)
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Airplanes are rumored to be easy to fly. The landing part can hurt, though.

Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
Marriage is a religious institution that the government has no business involved in.


But they are involved in it. Arguing that its okay to ban marriage but then cry that its not discrimination because they shouldn't be involved in marriage is a load of crap.
Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top

Well, at least I'm getting some hits on this article any more, despite it being off-topic and more applicable ones being up on JU already (and pending, given your viewpoint).

Second, the civil right of marriage is different than the religious rite. When there is a homosexual marriage, it's not a true "marriage" by textbook definition.

Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top

The best candidate for republicans was mike huckabee followed by romney. 

Rebuke to the author

1. No reason to believe onl McCain will get respected more than any other candidate.  Its clear the world doesn't like Bush and will gladly respect anyone but him.  Lets be honest here, we didn't get into this race and gender mess by having black and women lawmakers.  We had 43 white presidents, and any problems with race or gender in our society are all their fault.

2. McCain is not a good conservative and I question his miltary INTELLIGENCE not experience.  Yes he is experienced but he has not learned much in his years.  A truly good soldier would not have got caught in war like Bush41 even when his plane was shot down. That is a good conservative. What exactly are McCains great experiences that Clinton and Obama lack? 25 years of flip-flopping in the senate. I'm scarred as hell to vote for McCain because no one really knows what this guys stands for. He votes against civil rights so I have a hard time believing that he would do anything to fix race relations.

3. The fact he was caught in war, voted for the war in Iraq, which we all know we shouldn't have, flip flopped on the war, flip flops on tax cuts, flip flops on illegal immigration and every issue important to conservatives we are better off just giving the democrats this election and take a whipping like Ronald Reagan in 1984 but in reverse and in 2012 we come back with huckabee or a real conservative.

Reply #40 from Stardock Forums Top

We had 43 white presidents, and any problems with race or gender in our society are all their fault.

Bullcrap. None (ok, so almost none) of them wanted any sexism or racism.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bullcrap. None (ok, so almost none) of them wanted any sexism or racism.


Think again. Anyone who calls the Native Americans 'savages' is racist.

Who did that?

Washington. T. Roosevelt.

Or how about that whole 'Manifest Destiny' thing? That's what we call racism in pretty little packages.

My, my, your ignorance is showing again, erathoniel. Better pull up your diapers.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Think again. Anyone who calls the Native Americans 'savages' is racist.


No. They may be culturalists. They may be snobs. But making that statement by itself is not racist. It is also the height of arrogance of the speaker to contend that. It shows they suffer from the exact same crimes the founders were guilty of, and one of them may have been racism. But the belief that ones culture is superior to other cultures is not racism.
Reply #43 from Stardock Forums Top

Think again. Anyone who calls the Native Americans 'savages' is racist.

I'm somewhat N.A., so don't pull that crap on me. That's why I said almost none of them. Also, like Dr Guy said, it's not necessarily racist. It's merely a snobbish remark.

Washington. T. Roosevelt.

Two out of forty-three.

Or how about that whole 'Manifest Destiny' thing? That's what we call racism in pretty little packages.

It's more of an unregulated land-grab with no thoughtfulness for others. It's not really racism so much as a morale booster, as far as I got from it.

Reply #44 from PolMach Forums Top
No one was talking Bush.


You referenced someone who was never right and refuses to admit their errors. That is practically Bush's middle name.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
You referenced someone who was never right and refuses to admit their errors. That is practically Bush's middle name.


No, but it appears to be your only talking point. Like a broken record, you dont seem to know how to write anything intelligent or original.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Like a broken record, you don't seem to know how to write anything intelligent or original.


Let me take this one!

"Why are you talking to George Bush?"

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let me take this one!

"Why are you talking to George Bush?"


:LOL: Hey! maybe we can do a whole blog on stupid and inane statements that waste space!

Oh wait, I think she already did a couple of them. ;)
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hey! maybe we can do a whole blog on stupid and inane statements that waste space!


Like the HuffPo?
Reply #49 from Stardock Forums Top

Get back on topic, or I'll start deleting.

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

You referenced someone who was never right and refuses to admit their errors. That is practically Bush's middle name.

Or yours, Politico.