On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Giuliani uses 9/11. Hillary uses the fact that she's a woman. The > "what" doesn't matter > So... in the other thread, you suggested that Obama was "just telling his story". Now you're saying that Guiliani was being manipulative. Hillary was being manipulative. And of course, McCain is being manipulative. But Obama's just telling his story? Got much of a personal agenda, Gruss? :) In all seriousness, I have to agree with the others (who are disagreeing with you) to an extent. I'm sure we've all had shit happen to us in our lives that we can bitch about. I know I've gone thru shit, I'm sure you've gone thru shit. I'm *fairly* certain that whatever shit we've gone thru is nothing (*nothing*) compared to being a POW (i know how bad it is because i've seen Rambo and Missing in Action (both parts 1 and 2)). I've also seen the term "was a prisoner" thrown about... let's really take a second to clarify that. He wasn't a prisoner because he broke the law, or even bent the law. He was a prisoner because he was serving his country, and was captured in the line of duty. I'm sure we all realize that, but when I read "was a prisoner" it almost seems to have a slightly different connotation (for me, at least) and focuses more on the fact that he was incarcerated, but largely ignores the circumstances surrounding that incarceration. The whole thread seems to have started with the suggestion that McCain seems to think that just because he was a POW, that he's qualified to be commander-in-chief. I'll admit that I haven't followed the thread from post #1, so maybe I'm off here, but I don't believe that was ever the statement that came out of McCain's mouth. Let's be realistic here. It's an election year, and there's nothing wrong with accentuating aspects from one's past that serve to illustrate the character of the candidate. If there's "bad stuff", the opponent will be more than happy to talk about it at great length. If it's "good stuff", it's fair game to bring it up early and often. If he ran to Canada during the war... if he fathered illegitimate children while married... if he cheated on his taxes... if he had the unmitigated gall to be successful and own a number of houses... all things his opponent(s) would bring to the forefront of the conversation early and often. Would you chastise his opponents for bringing up negative aspects? I mean, this is a _campaign_. Both parties are actively campaiging for your vote. This is what campaiging is all about. McCain's time as a POW is *very* relevant (IMHO) as it speaks to his courage, his honor, his willpower, and his resolve. Does that and that alone qualify him for the office? Certainly not. But it is definitely a factor that shouldn't be ignored.... nor do I think he should be chastised for accentuating aspects of his life that *contribute* towards illustrating why he feels that he's a viable candidate, or even the best candidate, for the office. For the record, I do get that you're not saying, "oh big deal, he was a POW". I get that you understand what that means, and that you have an understanding of how horrific it must have been. But I disagree with your stance that he shouldn't use it "often". What *is* your stance on how often he can refer to it? Once a day? Once a week? Once every other Thursday night and twice on weekends? -- A byte walks into a bar and orders a pint. Bartender asks him "What's wrong?" Byte says "Parity error." Bartender nods and says "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:266630 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
