McCain responds to Obama in tough enough, if predictable, language:
"While Senator Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security.
"But, McCain being McCain, he can't help himself and goes the next step in the statement's kicker:
"By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket.
"Which is to say, "there is only one of us in this argument who has ever worn the uniform." (my words)
And if you still don't get it, a McCain aide blows away the anthill with, well, a rocket.
"Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
Here's what got McCain so angry.
Obama's spokesman came back later, taking the high road.
Friday, May 25, 2007
McCain with the greatest response to a vote EVER
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
McCain proves that he's an ass by making spelling the issue. Several dictionaries that I researched listed "flack" as an acceptable variation of "flak". And flack is a common spelling by military writers and military publications.
"Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
Isn't that the truth.
Some people bitch about Bush, but Obama is the Democrat Dan Quayle. He thinks 10,000 got killed in a tornado in Kansas. The debate response about what he would do if al Queda without **a shadow of a doubt** incinerated two of our cities was priceless. A mumble about Katrina, then a mumble about questioning our intelligence, and then a comment about consulting the International Community^tm. (This must mean China and Russia, since France is now conservative.)
At least Comrade Clinton answered that she was willing to strike back after the People's Republic of America was attacked. Though the Republican approach of not letting things get to this point is the better way to proceed.
"Why is it that only Republicans are made up to be dumb, when Dem's ARE actually dumb"
Because if the Dem's can convince enough people that Repub's are dumb - with the help of all the comics and late night shows, then the Dem's don't have to actually debate tough questions.
It's a strategy they've used with some effect (with the help of the alaphabet media) for decades.
You don't actually expect a Democrat to try and answer tough, unpleasant questions while campaining, when they can just utter sweet platitudes and caress the ears of their automatons, do you?
jim said:
"McCain proves that he's an ass by making spelling the issue."
You mean like the legions of Democrats and their sycophants in the main stream media, made such a big deal of Dan Quayle and his spelling of potatoe?
Just goes to show how long term Democrats have a lack of long-term memory (how else would they continue to support failed philosophies?). Show me a Democrat with a working long-term memory, and I'll show you someone expecting to get something.
Who wing-nutty of you to think that flack and flak and potatoe are equivalent!
Jim, do they have some sort of meth sale in san fran the last month?
jim,
Not to bust your kos inspired little bubble, but flack & flak are two different words.
Know for the 20,000 dollar question. If Dan Q found others that mispelled potato (he did), would that have lessened the media feeding frenzy?
Of course not! We all know there's a double standard at work here - as there are with sooo many other issues (racism/descrimination to name a recent topic).
Dear bubble,
No shit? Well explain this:
Dictionary.com: "flak, also flack"
American Heritage Dictionary: "flak, also flack"
New Oxford American Dictionary: "flak, also flack"
Here's a quote from the Army Times:
For generations, soldiers have come back from war with mementos of time spent in battle: The canteen that got them through long days in the Vietnamese jungle; the Lugar they wrested from the German who jumped into their foxhole; the torn flack jacket that showed they were among the lucky who survived the D-Day invasion of the Normandy beaches.
There's no double standard here. Obama, or whoever typed the statement, did not make a mistake here. Qualye was well-known for his mis-cues.
So step off.
I think we should all observe by marking our calenders the fact that Jim has real support for his position. Of course, the use of accepted alternatives doesn't negate that the proper spelling is "flak", but why quibble? I concede this very minor point to the much dumped on Jim. A round of applause please.
sounds like he is correct...I still enjoyed McCain going off
Jim
I was going by The American Heritage Dictionary – 2nd college edition. Which has one spelling of “flak” and no “flack” listed. Ditto for The Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
I was thinking the problem is the publishing dates, which are 1974 and 1982 for the two I used above. I’m guessing this is one of those deals where the various editors “threw in the towel” and recognized an alternate spelling.
Then just for the hell of it I looked it up in The Scrabble Dictionary – 4th edition, by Merriam-Webster, published 2005. This has flak and flack, but two separate definitions, and no alternate spellings.
So it definitely appears some of the editors have throw in the towel because of long-term and widespread misspelling. But good old Merriam-Webster appears to be holding out – at least for now.
Whoop di- doo! You are going through all this to prove that Obama is some kind of dummy or doesn't have the right to criticize the management of the Iraq war? Are you also now applying the "cut and run" characterization to dictionary editors?
Tell me, do you think that Obama himself actually typed the press release in which the word in question appears?
Jim
Not at all, – Oh highly excitable one – Obama’s voting record proves he’s “some kind of dummy” (your words), or, “dangerous to the well-being of this country” (my words).
I could care less how well he spells. My main concern is with how many simpletons will support him.
You define dummy as one who votes differently from you? That would make the majority of Americans dummies, I guess. Why do you care about protecting them then?
And I note once again that you bring up "excitable" or "angry" as if that negates anything I might have to say. It doesn't, of course. It simply makes you look like you have no better argument.
Come on now, Jimmie, you're projecting again.
Also, you need to s-l-o-w down and try to actually comprehend what you’re reading. I didn’t necessarily claim he was a dummy, I claimed he was a dummy or dangerous.
Just so you’re clear as to why, it’s not because he disagrees with me, but because he agrees with Socialist. If you think that’s a good thing, we can debate who the dummy really is.
"I didn’t necessarily claim he was a dummy". What kind of nonsense is that? Is that supposed to be a defense? A disclaimer?
Obama agrees with socialists the way that Bush agrees with Fascists. Prove me wrong!
a) Depends on what the definition of "or" is!
b) Prove you're right.
Jim do you even know what Socialist believe? You may want to change your question.
Look up the definitions of fascism and socialism, and then you’ll see that the lefties in this country are closer to both definitions. Maybe you should go back to the kiddy pool.
The lefties that post on this site amaze me with their capacity for denial!
“Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see…”
b) Right back at ya. That's the point. You throw out these assertions with no proof and expect me to refute them.
Please cite an Obama vote which demonstrates that he agrees with Socialists as far as socialist doctrine or policy.
Jim--
If a person believes in socialized medicine, socialized retirement, socialized education, social racial engineering, and generally has the audacity of hope to believe everything takes a village, you're probably a socialist. Just a guess.
You need to look at what socialist parties advocate around the world. In most countries, "liberal" means what we call conservative, and "socialist" refers to the laundry list of issues us Americans wrongly call liberal. For example, in France, Sarkozy, the rightwing pro-market individualist liberal democracy guy, is called liberal. Royal, who is into multiculturalism, government programs, union thugs, and "peace" with dictators, is called a socialist.
Read the 25 points of the Nazi party. Many of them read like the Democrat Party agenda, from the obsession with race, to the government takeover of the market, bashing of defense contractors and so forth. I find it touching how they make it a point to write 'COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD' in bold to make the point, which is the most evil thing ever written if you believe in the individualist tradition of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and so forth.
So by your logic that makes Obama dangerous, you and many of your wing nuts are dangerous because you agree with Nazis:
"We demand that the [American] people have rights equal to those of other nations."
"Those who are not citizens must live in [America] as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens."
"The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens."
"All citizens must possess equal rights and duties."
"The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically."
"We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare."
"We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence."
If you agree with any of these, does that make you a Nazi?
Jim,
You really need time in the rubber room. Sen. Dodd, the elder, not the son who holds the Senior Senate seat from CT, used Nazi gun control laws to craft the 1968 Gun Control act. Are the Liberal Democrats that voted for that piece of crap Nazis??? Jim, are you a Nazi for supporting that gun control language?
Jim,
Your cherry-picked list doesn't help your agrument. Here's an example:
"Those who are not citizens must live in [America] as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens."
This, on the surface, is something I have no problem with. But then, when you look at the list (this is point 5, I believe), this is based on the previous point, which isn't possible in the US. There's no such thing as "American" blood. But beyond that, right now, those who are not American citizens ARE foreigners. Funny how that works.
And here's another act by the socialist Obama: in this morning's paper, there's a piece about him trying to "fix" health care by taxing the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth (of the forced variety, that is taxes) is a socialist tactic.
Socialist, bad speller. He just ain't no good for America.
No he aren't ! ;)
Jim, anyone can find some good in just about any philosophy.
I'm assuming your contention is that Barack Hussein Obama only supports the "good" aspects of socialism.
But you see, that's the whole contention, there is very little that is good about socialism.
It's a destroyer of freedom, individual initiative, and most importantly, hope for a better tommorow.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but those that support (or those that support, those that support) socialism are either ignorant, just plain stupid, or want something (at the expense of their fellow citizens).
Post a Comment