The case against McCain

It's only a smear if it's a lie.

This information is about special treatment of the wife of a politician that's a strong advocate of the War on (some) Drugs.

That's all it's about.

Further:
Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Attribution
 
Oh I see. Your just being factual.........;)

Well it does seem you have finally found a target that you are able to hit. Women that develop addictions to pain meds do to treatment for chronic pain take heed.......
 
Bruxley,

you're still not getting the point. It's not about Mrs. McCain, but her husband's support of policies that should have meant jail time for his wife.
 
But now that the Democrats are failing to oppose Bush on Iraq, their approval rating is similarly low.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. It is funny Conservatives believe Democrat congress low poll numbers are because people don't like their liberal values. They could not be more wrong. The reason the Dem poll numbers are so low is because they have not pushed hard enough to end the "War on Terrorism" and bring our soldiers home. Republicans are going to be in for a shock when their pro-war, same as Bush candidate is trounced by a Liberal anti-war Democrat in the election.
 
She was smuggling drugs into the United States or trafficking them inside the US, or selling them? I think the stretch from addicted to pain killers because they were prescribed for chronic pain and out of that addiction stealing some pills is a VERY strained one to those that are targeted in the 'War on Drugs'.

The program that kept her from criminal prosecution is widely used throughout the United States. A first offender program for drug addicts that puts treatment and follow-up conditions on the offender and offers those in genuine crisis (remember the thread about helping those in need) an opportunity to have their offenses dropped if they meet the conditions. Actual help for those that actually are willing to do the work of helping themselves.

It's not exclusive to the powerful or their friends/family. The attempts to make it seem so prey on the naiveté and animosity of those either on the fence or against McCain.

As I asked before.....Got addiction?

Wasn't being facetious. Addiction is far too common. They all eventually hit a crossroads where their addiction has them trapped. Three types of addicts, one that has had it and does the life long work of overcoming it (Cindy McCain), the second that has had it so they punch the throttle full forward and go balls out toward self destruction, and the third that claims it's nobody's business but their own and continues on despite the wake of destruction in they leave. The third type wants everyone else to get over it and it should be legal, and it's a personal decision, etc. - the narcissistic addict.
As I said. Those that face adversity such as addiction and do the hard life long work to overcome it are usually respected as it shows character. They are also soft targets for those looking for just such a thing.

But, as usual, Repulicans are recognized as a higher standard and thus are held to one.
 
Brux, marko Kloos does have a point about McCains hypocrisy on it's face.

On the other hand, we don't have drugs qua drugs here, we have prescription medication abuse. Query as to a qualitative difference between the two facets of the problem.

WildgoodthreadAlaska TM
 
I would view MCain automatically as hypocritical if the wife was tweaked on crack but pills...

Hmmmm

WildrathercommonproblemAlaska TM
 
Bruxley said:
She was smuggling drugs into the United States or trafficking them inside the US, or selling them?
Click to expand...

(wikipedia) said:
In spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft.[26] Her activities violated federal statutes, so a federal investigation was conducted. McCain's defense team, led by Washington lawyer John Dowd,[26] secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, [4][26] without anything being made public.
Click to expand...

She was stealing them in or affecting interstate commerce.

Wildalaska, they're all "drugs" so let's talk about something objective. Do you mean to distinguish between schedule 1 and schedule 2? They're all interstate commerce anyway...
 
I don't get your connection between my quote and the wiki quote.

Further I don't think interstate commerce was the problem.....:rolleyes:
 
I think the stretch from addicted to pain killers because they were prescribed for chronic pain and out of that addiction stealing some pills is a VERY strained one to those that are targeted in the 'War on Drugs'.
Click to expand...

She WAS targeted in the War on Drugs, authorized, so it is said, by the commerce clause.
 
I'm not sure about "crack" or even the exact chemical definition, but I believe cocaine and whatever the active in Percodan is are Schedule 2. That makes them both the same to the feds. The more commonplace cannabis, of course, is viewed by the feds as Schedule 1, so it is different in that sense, but it's all still interstate commerce.
 
Gee, now McCain's just now realizing he's got to convince the people that the war in Iraq is justified so he can get elected. Good lord and Bush 41 endorses him and then McCain uses Bush's "No New Taxes" line. CHANGE, however vapid looks better all the time when faced with McCain the dino rino.

To the "pouncers" out there, don't get me wrong I won't support the CHANGE candidate. But many will unless something drastic happens.
 
And here's McCain's latest comment regarding the 10,000 years in Iraq statement:
By the way, that reminds me of that “100 year thing”. My friends, the war will be over soon. The war, for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us.
Click to expand...
 
SecDef;

You may have missed the preamble to McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment in which he mentioned US forces being in Japan for 60 years and Korea for 50 years. In that perspective, the comment is not nearly as inflammatory as the MTM has tried to portray.
 
US forces being in Japan for 60 years and Korea for 50 years.
Click to expand...

We aren't going to be leaving Iraq any time soon.

If the anti war left thinks their upset now that the Dems in congress have not cut off funding and got us out, wait until 'if'(and thats still a big if despite conventional wisdom) Obama gets elected and announces that circumstances and information of which he was unaware make withdrawal impossible at the present time.

'If' we are not already at war with Iran by then.

No one who would actually change our current mideast policy has the slightest chance of assuming the presidency.

Clinton and Obama's empty rhetoric aside
 
You may have missed the preamble to McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment in which he mentioned US forces being in Japan for 60 years and Korea for 50 years. In that perspective, the comment is not nearly as inflammatory as the MTM has tried to portray.
Click to expand...

He has been so back and forth regarding "this war will be easy" "nobody said this will be easy" "The streets of bagdhad are safe to walk down" it's definitely not funny.

Reread the quote I posted again. I was less interested in the 100 years part as much as the "war will be over soon" and "handled by the iraqis" part. They CLEARLY don't have the trained force in place for that to be true, that we can pull back to Japan/Korea sized troop levels.
 
At what levels are the Iraqi security forces currently at SecDef? How much of Iraq do they currently secure independently?

If the answers don't fit your preconceptions please feel free to ignore them, otherwise please share what you discover.

Last year was a year ago.. The '06 election talking points are aged. It's not the fall '06 Iraq anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top