The Timebomb Who Would Be President

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

or calling her a "cunt" and a "trollop" in public?

==================================
Which wife did McCain call these names?

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[hnumpah]

Which wife did McCain call these names?

Cindy.

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.

[richpo64]

"The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter ... "

Cliff Schecter ... LMAO!

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.