DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on September 13, 2008, 10:26:03 PM
-
The Timebomb Who Would be President
Those who know him well regard him as a deceitful, violent, unstable liar who collaborated with the enemy and then postured as a hero. Meet the Real John McCain in this special, subscriber-only issue of CounterPunch newsletter, reported by Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair and Douglas Valentine. Why did Cindy McCain become a drug addict who, Phoenix doctors claim, at least three times sought medical attention for injuries consonant with physical violence? Why did Ron and Nancy Reagan shun him and try to derail his political career? Under the terms of the 14th Amendment is McCain actually barred from ever sitting in the Oval Office? Find the answers in CounterPunch newsletter.
www.counterpunch.com (http://www.counterpunch.com)
==============================================================================
So how many more days is this stuff gonna stay bottled up in the Counterpunch newsletter? How many hours left for John Insane before the shit hits the fan?
-
Looks like Counterpunch is launching a fundraiser.
-
Even so, looks like they've got the goods on your man.
-
you buy their pitch?
Reminds me of a sham-wow commercial.
-
Except I KNOW this guy's a piece a shit. How he treats his wives is one small piece of the puzzle, collaboration with the enemy is another. If his broadcasting had been from genuine ideological conviction, a genuine change of heart and repentance for his war crimes, it would have been OK, but he never changed his ideological conviction (as his jailer attests,) never repented his war crimes - - his broadcasts were purely for self-interest. To secure the privileged treatment he actually received.
I have a feeling the wheels are going to fall off McCain's jalopy in the next week or so. If they don't, I blame Obama and he'll deserve to lose this campaign because the Republicans always fight dirty (think "Obama Waffles") and he's gotta get down into the mud with those racist pigs or lose the fight.
-
I have a feeling the wheels are going to fall off McCain's jalopy in the next week or so.
Here we have this dolt saying that "Change is Coming" like he was John the Baptist instead of John the nonattending Episcopalian, when most of what people want changed in the GOP and its warmongering, stubborn, corrupt, incompetent stupidity.
A guy who crows about family values who left poor crippled wifey #1 to marry the trophy millionheiress daughter of a convicted corrupt purveyor of booze.
What a jerk. Not as totally incompetent a jerk as Juniorbush, but still well within the boundaries of jerkdom.
Vote for an oilman and get $4.00 gasoline. Now we should vote for a military toad and what do we expect to get? Peace?
Please.
But realistically,
How would Obama cause the wheels to fall off McCain's jalopy? I agree that McCain is a desperate little turd, but how does Obama do this?
Obama can't gain votes by being an "angry Black Man". White Americans do not like Angry Black Men.
This clown I know said that he thought that Obama was "uppity". How does anyone run for president by being servile, which is the opposite of uppity?
The only party that ever deserved to lose as big as the GOP in 2008 was the Falangista Party in Spain after Franco died and Juan Carlos had guaranteed free elections in Spain. People were predicting a slight loss. They got 11%, I think.
-
<<How would Obama cause the wheels to fall off McCain's jalopy? I agree that McCain is a desperate little turd, but how does Obama do this?>>
Look at the Counterpunch link I posted, their blurb for their newsletter. Cindy McCain had three medical treatments for injuries consistent with the application of violent force. How many times do you think she can realistically "trip on the basement stairs" or "walk into a door?" Are all of their eight houses THAT poorly designed? And McCain was never tortured - - that's total bullshit. Why on earth would they torture the son of a serving admiral? The Swedish newsreel shows him walking normally with a slight limp immediately upon his release, but when he got back to the States, every fucking newsreel shows him as the Hunchback of Notre fucking Dame. It's hilarious. He made broadcast tapes for the Vietnamese to secure special treatment for himself, including treatment in the best hospital they had - - there must be plenty of former POWS who hate his fucking guts, you just have to find some who'll talk about it. And find the tapes of the broadcasts. Somebody's got 'em.
Obama's got to take the gloves off, gather the material and crank out the attack ads or blogs to blast McCain on all these issues. Through surrogates of course, but the fires have got to be started and stoked. This shoulda bin attended to months ago.
-
>>Reminds me of a sham-wow commercial.<<
What amazes me is after all these years of, "Bush is Hitler," "Bush is a war criminal," Bush is a drunk," "Bush is a coke head," and now all these vile hateful attacks against Governor Palin, and now this (McCain is a wife-beater), some of these leftist cockroaches have the balls to claim democrats don't fight dirty.
Whatever the left gets they deserve it. Ten fold.
-
Suppose he IS a wife-beater.
Shouldn't we know before the GOP foists another incompetent dolt on the country?
And Juniorbush IS a war criminal, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld.
-
<<"Bush is Hitler," >>
never said it
<<"Bush is a war criminal,">>
true in spades
<< Bush is a drunk,">>
never said it
<< "Bush is a coke head,">>
never said it, was probably true at one time, I personally have nothing against coke and would never diss anyone for using it in moderation, there were plenty of better drugs available for less money
<< and now all these vile hateful attacks against Governor Palin,>>
true that she's a liar and is not The Great Earmarks Fighter she claims to be, true that she billed the state $17K accommodation allowance for nights spent in her own home, true that she promoted the Bridge till adverse national publicity exposed it, true Alaska got more earmarks per capita than any other state, true she hired a PR guy to get Wasilla more earmarks, true she's a lousy mother who doesn't give a shit about her own family; but I admit, she still looks pretty good.
<< and now this (McCain is a wife-beater)>>
all Cindy's gotta do is release her medical records with her explanation of how she got those injuries in the first place - - maybe she really did walk into a door and fall down the basement stairs and get hit by a popping champagne cork. Such things can happen.
-
Except I KNOW this guy's a piece a shit. How he treats his wives is one small piece of the puzzle, collaboration with the enemy is another. If his broadcasting had been from genuine ideological conviction, a genuine change of heart and repentance for his war crimes, it would have been OK, but he never changed his ideological conviction (as his jailer attests,) never repented his war crimes - - his broadcasts were purely for self-interest. To secure the privileged treatment he actually received.
I have a feeling the wheels are going to fall off McCain's jalopy in the next week or so. If they don't, I blame Obama and he'll deserve to lose this campaign because the Republicans always fight dirty (think "Obama Waffles") and he's gotta get down into the mud with those racist pigs or lose the fight.
In his book "Faith of my Fathers " McCain tells of his breaking , I think it still bothers him , but guys that did not break were sometimes beaten untill dead , I think that I myself would break somewhere before death , but I don't really know , I have never been beaten hourly for weeks.
-
all Cindy's gotta do is release her medical records with her explanation of how she got those injuries in the first place - - maybe she really did walk into a door and fall down the basement stairs and get hit by a popping champagne cork. Such things can happen.
==================
I think any of these could have happened to someone.
But all three seems a bit against the odds.
She must be a terrible klutz, or McCain is a wife-beater.
I don't think McCain WEARS wife-beater A-shirts. I think he's a t-shirt man.
Navy will do that to a person, I guess.
-
Or perhaps the allegations aren't true.
Mikey seems to think that anytime he or his ilk launch a slur, if the McCains don't respond like some Pavlovian dog then the charges are true. That's a no win game.
And he accuses others of living in bizzaro-land.
-
<<In his book "Faith of my Fathers " McCain tells of his breaking , I think it still bothers him , but guys that did not break were sometimes beaten untill dead , I think that I myself would break somewhere before death , but I don't really know , I have never been beaten hourly for weeks.>>
That's OK, neither was McCain.
Funny that these guys who were "sometimes beaten until dead" have no names, no witnesses, no war crimes prosecutions launched for them - - this is just more of McCain's lies and bullshit. There is no known case of any such thing happening.
Fact is, he cooperated for special treatment and did pretty well there. They gave him the best hospital care available, which is pretty magnanimous considering he's a fucking war criminal.
-
<<Or perhaps the allegations aren't true.>.
No, and Schecter's allegations aren't true either. There's a vast left-wing conspiracy against the poor guy.
<<Mikey seems to think that anytime he or his ilk launch a slur, if the McCains don't respond like some Pavlovian dog then the charges are true. That's a no win game.>>
I knew you'd have to invent some bullshit reason for the McCains not to have responded, but that one was particularly lame. This "slur" referred specifically to Cindy seeking medical treatment on three separate occasions, which would obviously have left a paper trail. If they regard a little wife-beating as a trivial accusation, then no, why bother to respond. Most people take this stuff rather more seriously. McCain, always nattering on about "Duty, Honour, Country" being the most important things in his life, is a little casual about the smear on his precious war-criminal's "honour" when he lets the smear stand uncontradicted, especially when a simple production of medical records would set the whole matter at rest.
I don't know any Pavlovian dogs who can order up their own medical records and produce them to the press, so it's kind of misleading to describe such a simple, normal and reasonable reaction to the "slur" as being that of a "Pavlovian dog," but I guess in the Bizzarro World that Republican crypto-fascists inhabit, Pavolvian dogs must be their lingo for "rational response."
<<And he accuses others of living in bizzaro-land. >>
Yeah, if the shoe fits . . . >>
-
This "slur" referred specifically to Cindy seeking medical treatment on three separate occasions, which would obviously have left a paper trail.
Please provide the paper trail.
-
>>And he accuses others of living in bizzaro-land.<<
I'm glad you said it. I wanted too, but I'd get 24 hours off.
-
What Schecter and Counterpunch have in common is they are both shilling slurs for dollars.
You notice a pattern here?
bet you that the counterpunch article lists anonymous sources to back up their claim.
Cowardly whores if you ask me.
-
>>Cowardly whores if you ask me.<<
WOW!
Finally!
You go boss!
-
<<Please provide the paper trail.>>
As you probably know, it's not mine to provide. A Counterpunch journalist says Cindy's sought medical treatment three times for injuries consistent with the application of violent force. The medical records for each visit are subject to doctor-patient privilege, meaning they can't be released either by the doctors involved or by the insurer which processed the claim, without Cindy's permission in writing.
Ball's in their (the McCains') court. It's easy enough to produce the records and prove Counterpunch wrong. All Cindy's gotta do is sign the consent.
But don't hold your breath waiting for her.
-
<<Cowardly whores if you ask me.>>
Ethical journalists protecting their sources, if you ask me. Finally got the goods on this guy who roasts women and children in napalm and are going public with it.
Cowardly whores would be the MSM journalists who took John Insane's phony claims of torture at face value and were too fucking scared to question it. That's gonna change pretty soon - - the jailer's gone public and the Swedish TV footage showing McCain without his Hunchback of Notre Dame act is out there too, if Obama's got the balls to use it.
-
Finally got the goods on this guy who roasts women and children in napalm and are going public with it.
They are selling the information. And if they make accusations they need to back them up. It is not the McCain's job to disprove them, it is the accusers job to prove them. Else the accusers credibility, which is their medium of exchange, suffers. Ask Dan Rather if you have doubts.
-
<<They are selling the information. >>
They sure are. Other journalists give it all away for free.
<<And if they make accusations they need to back them up. >>
Which they've done to the limit of the law. They can't be expected to burglarize Cindy's doctor's office and steal his notes. They're not, after all, the Republican National Committee.
<<It is not the McCain's job to disprove them . . . >>
Ball's in their court - - it's easy enough to disprove, all Cindy has to do is sign a single sheet of paper.
<< it is the accusers job to prove them. >>
Which they've done to the limits permitted by law. Without the permission of the patient, doctor-patient confidentiality prohibits publication of the patient's medical records.
<<Else the accusers credibility, which is their medium of exchange, suffers. >>
Not in the eyes of anyone blessed with a modicum of common sense. They know the limits the reporters have reached, they know who alone can take the next step, they know how easy it would be to refute the charges if they weren't true, they know who's stonewalling the story at this point after the reporters have brought it along as far as they can. And choose not to take the one simple step which could prove that the story was wrong.
And finally, they know the only logical conclusion to draw from Cindy's failure to take that one simple step which would allow the story to be proven true or false.
<<Ask Dan Rather if you have doubts.>>
LOL. I was wondering how long it would take for you to drag out your Dan Rather reference, the catch-all crypto-fascist answer to any media reference to Republican wrongdoing. Dan Rather won't save your man's ass this time, BT. Only Cindy can do that by consenting to the release of medical records which could obviously decide this controversy one way or the other. But her silence is deafening. It tells the whole story right there.
-
<<In his book "Faith of my Fathers " McCain tells of his breaking , I think it still bothers him , but guys that did not break were sometimes beaten untill dead , I think that I myself would break somewhere before death , but I don't really know , I have never been beaten hourly for weeks.>>
That's OK, neither was McCain.
Funny that these guys who were "sometimes beaten until dead" have no names, no witnesses, no war crimes prosecutions launched for them - - this is just more of McCain's lies and bullshit. There is no known case of any such thing happening.
Fact is, he cooperated for special treatment and did pretty well there. They gave him the best hospital care available, which is pretty magnanimous considering he's a fucking war criminal.
Ed Atterbury was beaten to death in frount of John Dramesi.
Lance Sijan was beaten to death with Bob Cramer and Guy Gruters as witnesses.
You are mistaken to consider McCain boastfull of his endurance , he knew of many who were treated worse and says so in his book , you are makeing the mistake of responding to the second hand accounts that either maximise or minimise diffrently than McCain himself.
Does special treatment mean any medical treatment at all?
McCain seems to have gotten treatment because of the Class conchousness of the Vietnameese , they began to give him some very basic medical treatment after they realised he was from a family prominent in the military , they seemed willing to allow him to die completely untended before this.
Have you noticed that you have two standards for prisoner treatment? Prisoners of Americans are submitted to outrages , but Americans who are Prisoners don't even deserve it if they get first aid.
-
Mikey are you still beating your wife?
I heard it from sources who prefer to remain anonymous.
All you have to do is have your wife release all her medical records so we can get to the bottom of this.
Please do reply that McCain is a public figure so he is fair game.
All things being relative, you are a public figure in this forum.
And the last i heard the rules of decency are not suspended based on race, creed, ethnicity, political affiliation or net worth.
-
I didn't say he was boastful, I just pointed out that he won't shut up about it, even though he admits that it's not a qualification for office.
I don't think that I would fancy being in Gitmo or Abu Graib any more than being in the Hanoi Hilton.
At least some of the people in Gitmo and Abu Graib were innocent.
I think all the pilots in the Hanoi Hilton actually were dropping bombs on the Vietnamese.
I favor humane treatment for all prisoners of war, but I imagine that if some guy napalmed my falily to death, I might be a bit resentful, and might not care all that much.
Not too many lamented it when John Wayne Gacey was murdered by his fellow inmates. But still, it should not have happened. Sorta like that.
-
All you have to do is have your wife release all her medical records so we can get to the bottom of this.
===========
This would be appropriate had you read that Mikey's wife's doctors reported that they found wounds of the sort that looked like wife abuse on three separate occasions.
But they didn't, so it isn't. At least not to the same degree.
Could a wife-beater still be a good president? Can we be certain that we have not had a wife-beating president already? Did James get ticked at Dolly Madison and sucker-punch her?
I have always wondered about Jackson and Fillmore and Van Buren...something about those guys...
-
<<Ed Atterbury was beaten to death in frount of John Dramesi.
<<Lance Sijan was beaten to death with Bob Cramer and Guy Gruters as witnesses.>>
Where does this information come from? What's the source?
<<You are mistaken to consider McCain boastfull of his endurance , he knew of many who were treated worse and says so in his book , you are makeing the mistake of responding to the second hand accounts that either maximise or minimise diffrently than McCain himself.>>
No, I'm not mistaken, the man never shuts up about it, it's the high point of his miserable existence. You can bet that for every word I've ever heard about the suffering of his victims, I've heard ten thousand times as much about McCain's purported "sufferings" and "tortures" and those of his fellow war criminals.
<<Does special treatment mean any medical treatment at all?>>
Special treatment means he was sent to the best hospital in Hanoi at the time and attended by their doctors. It's too bad his victims never had the equivalent and died in agony from their burns.
<<McCain seems to have gotten treatment because of the Class conchousness of the Vietnameese , they began to give him some very basic medical treatment after they realised he was from a family prominent in the military>>
What might be "very basic" to you was the best available for them. And a lot more than he deserved, IMHO.
<< , they seemed willing to allow him to die completely untended before this.>>
Cry me a river. Did you ever stop to consider the world would be a much better place with a few less war criminals taking up its air and space?
<<Have you noticed that you have two standards for prisoner treatment? >>
Actually, I've got three. The first is what I myself would do if God forbid one of my own children were burned alive in napalm and the guy that did it ever had the misfortune to fall into my hands, the second is how the victims of aggression should treat captured enemy war criminals and the third is how aggressors should treat their captured victims.
<< Prisoners of Americans are submitted to outrages , but Americans who are Prisoners don't even deserve it if they get first aid.>>
Sure they deserve first aid. I like to vent, but there's a point to my venting - - I'd like you to realize that as Americans, you have absolutely no moral right to point a condemnatory finger at anyone who has mistreated your prisoners because you yourselves are guilty of much, much worse. So, a little humility if you don't mind. I hear lots of indignation about the mistreatment of John McCain, I hear almost no recognition of the fact that America invaded Viet Nam in 1965, conducted an illegal and unprovoked war of aggression against the Vietnamese people in the course of which 2 million Vietnamese were killed, many of them women and children, dying agonizing horrible deaths in burning napalm and white phosphorus, and 60,000 civilian infrastructure were tortured to death in the infamous Phoenix program of the CIA.
Of course, McCain and his fellow POWS should still have been treated as per the Fourth Geneva Convention, but they weren't and of course it's not right - - but how does it happen that all of the moral indignation that America is capable of is focused on the Vietnamese and none on the misdeeds of America itself? How is it that a participant in that horrible slaughter is able to return home, pose not as the war criminal that he is, but as a victim and then has the God-damn fucking gall to run for the Presidency of his country with the blood of thousands of Vietnamese dripping from his fingers? This is a guy who by any civilized principle ought to be in a cell on Death Row waiting for the noose to slip over his ears and instead he's running for PRESIDENT? ? ? What is wrong with this picture?
-
Its' time to put Viet Nam behind us.
No good came from that stupid, entirely avoidable war, unless you count improvements in medical care for the wounded.
Let McCain retire, relax in one of his nine homes with his trophy wife Cindy, and slowly fade away.
-
Its' time to put Viet Nam behind us.
No good came from that stupid, entirely avoidable war, unless you count improvements in medical care for the wounded.
Let McCain retire, relax in one of his nine homes with his trophy wife Cindy, and slowly fade away.
I hope the RW kooks continue to remind themasses of the evil Nam war. I think it helped lose Kerry the election and it will do the same for the McsamasBushidiot.
-
<<And the last i heard the rules of decency are not suspended based on race, creed, ethnicity, political affiliation or net worth.>>
Gee, it's nice to hear such heartfelt concern. What do the "rules of decency" have to say about dropping napalm on peasant families? What do they say about beating one's wife three times, to the point where she needs to seek medical attention, or calling her a "cunt" and a "trollop" in public?
What, in fact do the "Rules of Decency" have to say about publicly calling the teenage daughter of a political opponent so "ugly" that her father must have been another female poltical opponent, Janet Reno, in a love match with the child's mother, Hillary Clinton?
There is nothing like the "Rules of Decency" in the eyes of the GOP, so long, of course, as they are very carefully and selectively applied.
Hey, have you ever heard the word "hypocrite?" Good word, you should look it up sometime.
-
or calling her a "cunt" and a "trollop" in public?
==================================
Which wife did McCain call these names?
-
What do they say about beating one's wife three times, to the point where she needs to seek medical attention, or calling her a "cunt" and a "trollop" in public?
The rules of decency say you don't make the charges unless you can back them up.
-
<<The rules of decency say you don't make the charges unless you can back them up.>>
They say a lot of other stuff too, which you conveniently choose to ignore.
However, rest assured, the Rules of Decency have been honoured as far as possible by the press to date. At this point the only person who can clarify the issue one way or the other is Cindy herself, and she ain't talkin'.
Far as I'm concerned, her silence is the last piece of the puzzle. Problem solved. Conclusion obvious.
-
Far as I'm concerned, her silence is the last piece of the puzzle.
Actually no. The source needs to step forward and provide the backup.
-
Which wife did McCain call these names?
Cindy.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html)
The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month (May '08), reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
-
"The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter ... "
Cliff Schecter ... LMAO!
-
<<Actually no. The source needs to step forward and provide the backup.>>
LMFAO. Republican Rules. When the only one who has a key to the locked-up evidence is a Republican, it's the Republican's accuser who has the onus of illegally busting into the box to prove the accusation, otherwise it will be "obvious" that the accuser is lying.
We seem to be going round in circles on this one, BT, so I'll tellya what: you go on and form your own conclusions based on "Republican Rules" and the rest of us, using nothing but common sense and the facts that are presently known (including Cindy's failure to produce the key medical records) will try to figure out if the accusers are telling the truth or not.
You come to your conclusions your way, and we will come to ours our way.
-
When the only one who has a key to the locked-up evidence is a Republican
Apparently that isn't so. The Schecters and counterpunches of the world had to have something concrete to base their accusations upon. Right?
That is what credible journalists do.
-
<<Apparently that [that only a Republican, Cindy, can release Cindy's medical records] isn't so.>>
No? Who else can release her medical records?
<< The Schecters and counterpunches of the world had to have something concrete to base their accusations upon. Right?>>
They do. They have the word of anonymous sources. Something like Cheney telling the American people th at the NYT articles of Judith Miller were convincing evidence of Saddam's WMD, even though they were based on anonymous government sources. I don't recall any of you guys at the time complaining, Hey! those NYT articles are based on anonymous sources! Hey! Cheney's referencing unreliable NYT articles! Nope, nary a peep from any of yiz. Suddenly when the "character" of a man ALREADY KNOWN to be a liar and a cheat is in issue, the Pharisees gather up their skirts and start screeching in his defence something they've never screeched before, "Anonymous sources!! Anonymous sources!!" ROTFLMFAO. That's hilarious.
Well, Schecter and the Counterpunch journalists are doing what journalists always do when a story is breaking and they haven't nailed down all the evidence - - go with the best they have, in this case the word of men who so far have not been tarnished in their professional reputations, who have no past scandals of fake stories to live down and figure they are not likely to be blowing their own careers over this not-all-that-big story anyway. They claim they have anonymous sources. I believe 'em, you don't.
<<That is what credible journalists do. >>
When were you ever concerned with "credible journalists?" You took the word of the worst media whores on record as long as it promoted your crypto-fascist agenda.
-
go with the best they have, in this case the word of men who so far have not been tarnished in their professional reputations, who have no past scandals of fake stories to live down and figure they are not likely to be blowing their own careers over this not-all-that-big story anyway. They claim they have anonymous sources. I believe 'em, you don't.
And you know this how? The sources are anomynous. So how do you know their prior reputation.
When were you ever concerned with "credible journalists?" You took the word of the worst media whores on record as long as it promoted your crypto-fascist agenda.
Perhaps you can show me an example of this from my postings on this board. Otherwise i'll just have to assume yo are just making spurious charges on the fly. With no concern whatsoever for your own credibility.
-
<<And you know this how? The sources are anomynous. So how do you know their prior reputation.>>
Nobody's brought out a single word against their past credibility. They've never before been burned on a story as far as I know, and I assume if they had, the Republican attack dogs would be all over them like (mixed metaphor warning!) flies on shit.
<<Quote [from MT]:
<<When were you ever concerned with "credible journalists?" You took the word of the worst media whores on record as long as it promoted your crypto-fascist agenda.>>
<<Perhaps you can show me an example of this from my postings on this board. >>
Nope. I don't recall you ever challenging the WMD reports as based on anonymous sources. I go on my memory which is possibly wrong but more likely right.
<<Otherwise i'll just have to assume yo are just making spurious charges on the fly. >>
Assume whatever you like, I'm speaking from memory. If you've got an example of challenging Judith Miller's or anybody else's anonymously sourced BS of WMD, feel free to post, and I'll apologize. Otherwise, I've got enough confidence in my own memory to say what I said. That's my opinion and I don't give a shit whether you want to pretend it's no good or not. I think I've nailed you on this one whether you want to admit it or not.
<<With no concern whatsoever for your own credibility.>>
The full extent of my concern for my credibility with you is as follows: prove me wrong and I'll apologize, otherwise I'll stand by what I said. End of discussion.
-
I never paid attention to the Judith Miller stories. My conclusions about the WMDs were based on the Intelligence Estimates and the revolving door of UN inspectors being blocked at every turn.
Your memory serves you wrong.
And as far as credibility concerning counterpunch and Schecter. How can we question their sources veracity if we are not told who they are.
And with out that second sourcing, the above have nothing.
-
<<I never paid attention to the Judith Miller stories. My conclusions about the WMDs were based on the Intelligence Estimates and the revolving door of UN inspectors being blocked at every turn.
<<Your memory serves you wrong.>>
Well, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My apologies, BT.
<<And as far as credibility concerning counterpunch and Schecter. How can we question their sources veracity if we are not told who they are.>>
You can't. I didn't claim they proved their respective stories to the highest standard of proof possible, short of catching it all on videotape. I say they are credible individuals who - - unlike McCain - - are not known to be liars and perjurers. These credible and unblemished individuals claim to have credible eye-witnesses, two or three of them in the case of Schechter, a number I'm not certain of in the Counterpunch story - - who can testify as to the fact of what McCain called his wife in public and I woiuld assume can testify either as eye-witnesses or as to the existence of medical or hospital records showing that on three occasions Cindy McCain sought help for injuries consistent with the application of violent force.
Now these guys are not raving lunatics and they are not known to be liars and perjurers, or psychopaths, so when they have something to say, I think it's logical to believe them unless and/or until they are proven to be liars. madmen, mental incompetents or otherwise unreliable. This has not happened. So I believe what they say and I believe that they must consider the witnesses with whom they spoke to be reliable as well.
Are there firmer foundations on which their respective stories could theoretically stand? Of course - - named sources, for one. However in the real world every story isn't an ideal story. Sometimes the higher forms of proof are lacking and we have to go with a lower form. When a higher form of evidence IS available on the request of a person injured by the lower-form evidence and the person injured refuses to produce it, whatever the reason, you have to take that as additional evidence that substantially strengthens the case against her.
<<And with out that second sourcing, the above have nothing.>>
If you could rate the reliability of a news story on a scale of 0 to 10, what we have is neither a 10 nor a 0, but it's as absurd to place the reliability of this story at zero as it would be to place it at 10. We have stories that I have no reason to disbelieve - - none at all. And, quite frankly, YOU have no good reason to disbelieve. A book contract coming out does not make everyone a liar. People can publish books and still retain their integrity. So I'd say, it's not a 10 (caught on videotape!) and it's not a 9 (named, reliable eyewitnesses) so it's a seven or eight. And unless and until you can provide me with some kind of evidence that Schecter and the Counterpunch reporters are (like McCain himself) proven liars and perjurers, or prone to place undue reliance on unreliable sources, then I keep the reliability of the story at a 7 or 8.
-
However in the real world every story isn't an ideal story. Sometimes the higher forms of proof are lacking and we have to go with a lower form.
What we have then is rumor and innuendo.
Your guys aren't altruistic.They are paid mercenaries. And their mission is not to report the truth it is to profit from their innuendos.
This is nothing more than the tease on the 11 o'clock news.
-
McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.
Why would he need an excuse, if the incident did not happen?
-
Maybe that's a quote from the "unnamed sources"? (I don't know)
-
Why would he need an excuse, if the incident did not happen?
How do we know he offered up the excuse? Because Schecter says so?
Feel free to believe the hearsay, but Mikey touting it as gospel is a bit much.
-
<<What we have then is rumor and innuendo.>>
No, what you have are some unproven stories by men whose word we have no sound reason to doubt and a deafening silence from the only people who - - if the reports are false - - would be the only people able to rebut the source. That adds up to a story that maybe I wouldn't bet my life on, but nevertheless remains much more likely to be true than false.
<<Your guys aren't altruistic.They are paid mercenaries. And their mission is not to report the truth it is to profit from their innuendos.>>
Every single reporter, every single journalist, is a mercenary. None of them work for nothing. They all want their stuff to sell, to be read, it increases their value as journalists and writers.
<<This is nothing more than the tease on the 11 o'clock news. >>
Oh, it's a lot more than that. It's a plausible story, consistent with what we know about a man who's a proven liar, perjurer and cheat, by different people with no prior record of fabricating evidence or making up stories.
-
Every single reporter, every single journalist, is a mercenary.
Schecter and counterpunch both use their stories to hawk books or newsletters.
What they are doing is no different than selling those xray glasses on the back of comic books.
Plausible, perhaps. True, well that is a whole different issue.
-
<<Schecter and counterpunch both use their stories to hawk books or newsletters.>>
So what? They're not hawking fiction. If word gets out that it's all fake, their reputations are shot and their chances of selling stuff in the future becomes minimal. They could lose their reputations for honesty.
-
So what? They're not hawking fiction. If word gets out that it's all fake, their reputations are shot and their chances of selling stuff in the future becomes minimal. They could lose their reputations for honesty.
Not when you have the likes of Nan A. Talese at Doubleday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nan_Talese)telling people that "non-fiction" does not mean that it's true. (See the James Frey / A Million Little Pieces fiasco).
-
<<Not when you have the likes of Nan A. Talese at Doubleday telling people that "non-fiction" does not mean that it's true. >>
How trite can you get? Who didn't already know that?
<<(See the James Frey / A Million Little Pieces fiasco).>>
One guy makes up stuff for a supposedly "non-fiction" book, therefore all non-fiction books are just packs of lies?)
-
So what? They're not hawking fiction. If word gets out that it's all fake, their reputations are shot and their chances of selling stuff in the future becomes minimal. They could lose their reputations for honesty.
That presumes they have a reputation for honesty. And it also assumes that there are other book deals in the works.
Look it isn't like Schecter is a well known author. Remember he was hired by the third largest contributor to "progressive" causes to write the book in the first place.
-
One guy makes up stuff for a supposedly "non-fiction" book, therefore all non-fiction books are just packs of lies?)
There is more than one example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Literary_hoaxes)
-
Maybe that's a quote from the "unnamed sources"?
Could be; the article doesn't really make it clear.
McCain does have a reputation as a hothead, and is known to have used similar language in the past. Those incidents are well documented. I think it's entirely possible he did make the comment about Cindy, though I don't think most people would consider it a huge deal. I will say that, in over twenty years of marriage, I've never used language like that about my wife, nor ever raised a hand (or my voice) to her, and we've had some pretty rough patches. If he did beat her, that would be a different story, but unless some proof comes out about that, it's a non-starter.
Also well documented is his treatment of his first wife, Carol. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/carol.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/carol.asp) for more information.
-
<<That presumes they have a reputation for honesty.>>
Nope. It presumes they DON'T have a reputation for dishonesty.
<< And it also assumes that there are other book deals in the works.>>
Ha. We have a published writer in the family. I personally proof-read the MS before they went to her editor. Let me tell you, every writer is always looking ahead to his or her next book deal. None of them intends to be a one-hit wonder.
<<Look it isn't like Schecter is a well known author. Remember he was hired by the third largest contributor to "progressive" causes to write the book in the first place.>>
Let me suggest a little experiment to you. Place a two-line classified ad in the biggest regional newspaper in your end of the state, "Writers wanted for new publication, no experience necessary, mail resume and samples to P.O. Box 9999, Athens, Ga." Along with the (literally) hundreds of unpublished wannabes, you will get dozens of applications from published writers, some of them undoubtedly recognized by you.
My point being, NOBODY with good money to spend on a writer has any need to settle for some unpublished, untalented schmuck because good writers, published writers, are a dime a dozen. If Schechter was hired to write a book, you can bet your ass he was a writer of some ability, not necessarily a James Joyce or a Dostoyevsky, but somebody who knows how to write and how to turn in a product on deadline, has proven this in the past, and is not looking to publish his last work at this point in time.
-
<<There is more than one example.>>
No shit, Sherlock.
89 Examples? Out of how many MILLIONS of books? At least one example in your list, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, dates back to 1903 and first appeared in Russia, so you are looking at 89 hoaxes published all over the world since 1903.
Keeping in mind that the Library of Congress catalogues about 300,000 titles a year, what are the odds that Schechter's book is a hoax?
-
My point being, NOBODY with good money to spend on a writer has any need to settle for some unpublished, untalented schmuck because good writers, published writers, are a dime a dozen. If Schechter was hired to write a book, you can bet your ass he was a writer of some ability, not necessarily a James Joyce or a Dostoyevsky, but somebody who knows how to write and how to turn in a product on deadline, has proven this in the past, and is not looking to publish his last work at this point in time.
Please provide a list of previous works by Schecter. It's my understanding that his previous works are all blog type posts (mostly hit pieces on Republicans). I would like to know what previous articles / books he's written.
-
Keeping in mind that the Library of Congress catalogues about 300,000 titles a year, what are the odds that Schechter's book is a hoax?
How many of those 300,000 are books claiming to be fact, and not compilations of data (dictionaries, encyclopedia, research reports, etc)?
-
<<How many of those 300,000 are books claiming to be fact, and not compilations of data (dictionaries, encyclopedia, research reports, etc)?>>
I don't get it. Aren't "books claiming to be fact" the same as compilations of data, which also "claim to be fact?"
Don't you mean, "How many of the 300,000 are fact and how many are fiction?"
-
I don't get it. Aren't "books claiming to be fact" the same as compilations of data, which also "claim to be fact?"
A biography or autobiography "claim to be fact" and are not just compilations of data.
Such as a book about McCain or a book about Frey.