the "joke" was the same "joke" that McCain is himself quoted as saying by Scientific American.
The Scientific American article you posted does not, at any point, quote McCain as having claimed to invent either the Blackberry or WiFi.
So the only inventing I see here is you inventing another fake source.
It looks like it's got about as much merit as the "Al Gore invented the internet" line that partisan republicans were able to say with a straight face way back in 2000.
And the internet, McCain didn't invent that. Algore did.
McCain invented WiFi and the Blackberry. So he's one up on Al Gore. Plus he also invented the "Fundamentals". They're the new American work force who he believes in, even as he denies them wage increases repeatedly despite year after year of increased productivity.
Captain Sammitch talkative Moderator tantillo taunter 10000+ posts Tue Sep 16 2008 08:31 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
A top Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser threw her support behind Republican John McCain on Wednesday, saying he will lead the country in a centrist fashion and accusing the Democrats of becoming too extreme.
"I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party — and they will continue to — too far to the left," Lynn Forester de Rothschild said. "I'm not comfortable there."
Rothschild is also a member of the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee. She said she would be stepping down from her position on the committee but will not switch political parties.
She praised McCain for working with Democrats to pass legislation and for standing up to President Bush on the Iraq war.
"I just ask, who has Barack Obama ever stood up to? And that troubles me a lot," she said.
Rothschild also disputed Obama's argument that a McCain administration would be an extension of Bush's presidency. Democrats cite McCain's own account of having voted in support of Bush's policies 90 percent of the time.
She said the Arizona senator has broken with Bush to support funding for stem-cell research and to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"It is the classic cheap shot. Just not true," she said.
Rothschild said she was also excited by the prospect of a woman being in the White House, even though she and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin disagree on issues. The Alaska governor opposes abortion except in the case of a threat to the mother's life. Rothschild said she supports abortion rights.
"I believe that the McCain-Palin government will be a centrist government," Rothschild said. "It's not going to be an ideological government."
Rothschild is a member of the DNC's Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York. She was one of Clinton's top fundraisers, bringing in more than $100,000 for her presidential campaign. She built a multimillion-dollar telecommunications company before marrying international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild.
Rothschild said she has not discussed her support for McCain with Clinton.
"I'm sure she is not pleased with what I'm doing today," she said. "But you know what? I have to do what I believe in."
how long till the liberal smear machine tries to dig up dirt on her and eat another of their own?
John McCain has a John McCain moment talking to a crowd tonight:. It seems his mind went to hell after inventing the blackberry.
and if you think this is some isolated incident, your boy McCain went on some semi-coherent rant with a Spanish reporter. He thinks Spain is in Latin America, the stupid doddering fucker.
I'd start worrying about your boy's mental stability about now.
The Democrat party and its acolytes try go after every Republican running or in office on the same two or three personal attacks: [Republican] is lying/stupid/senile. It's been the same since at least Ronald Reagan.
But all it accomplishes is turning off the independents who, even if they disagree with the Republican on some issues, think the attacks are both too broad and too mean-spirited.
The last time the Democrat party took back the White House it was because they ran a guy who didn't do that, Bill Clinton. Say what you will about Slick Willie, but he at least appeared to run on issues and treated his opponent with respect, while still running a tough campaign.
You guys are calling a war hero senile, attacking a woman's kids and generally looking like a group of beer hall thugs.
Even if you get in, you'll have so divided the country that Obama can never lead. Is that what you really want?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
The Democrat party and its acolytes try go after every Republican running or in office on the same two or three personal attacks: [Republican] is lying/stupid/senile. It's been the same since at least Ronald Reagan.
But all it accomplishes is turning off the independents who, even if they disagree with the Republican on some issues, think the attacks are both too broad and too mean-spirited.
The last time the Democrat party took back the White House it was because they ran a guy who didn't do that, Bill Clinton. Say what you will about Slick Willie, but he at least appeared to run on issues and treated his opponent with respect, while still running a tough campaign.
You guys are calling a war hero senile, attacking a woman's kids and generally looking like a group of beer hall thugs.
Even if you get in, you'll have so divided the country that Obama can never lead. Is that what you really want?
Yeah Whomod, take the high road in attacking an opponent like G-man does
Seriously though both of you could tone it down a titch. Granted the RKMB is powerful & could decide who gets into the White House, we should all remember with great power comes great responsability.
I'm not specifically referring to whomod's attacks. I recognize we all joke around here and say things that aren't necessarily how we would conduct an actual political campaign.
I'm referring to the fact that the Democrat party and/or its surrogates seems to be starting to utilize the smears or least tolerate them in its name.
I'm not specifically referring to whomod's attacks. I recognize we all joke around here and say things that aren't necessarily how we would conduct an actual political campaign.
I'm referring to the fact that the Democrat party and/or its surrogates seems to be starting to utilize the smears or least tolerate them in its name.
Yeah, I think we're about even with your party now.
I'm not specifically referring to whomod's attacks. I recognize we all joke around here and say things that aren't necessarily how we would conduct an actual political campaign.
please. whomod isn't joking. that's genuine hatred boiling off the guy. anyone smarter than wanky (everyone?) can tell that.
there are a lot of good, decent people in the democrat party. unfortunately, there are also a lot of elitist, extremist, far-left, moonbat bitchtards™ dragging the party in leftward spirals down the toilet bowl toward the vast sea of marxist sewage waiting at the bottom. here's hoping the good, decent people will stop tolerating their nonsense before it's too late.
Apparently to G-Man, talking about how McCain sees to have these frequent bouts of confusion is being mean. Never mind the fact that John McCain is 71 years old and seeks the highest most powerful office in the entire world. Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Here's CNN being "mean" to John McCain as well.
Yeah, G-Man, I know... I know.. why oh why can't they just talk about how he was a POW and how he's a "maverick"?
Here's the AP being mean as well. It's all a Democratic Party "conspiracy" to attack John McCain apparently (oh yeah, G-Man, it' still the "Democratic" Party not the "democrat" party, numbnuts). The fact that John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator should be news and not dismissed as being mean:
Quote:
Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.
In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.
"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.
McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."
Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.
AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.
In response to this embarassment from John Mcain, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:
Quote:
In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.
That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?
Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"?
...talking about ... frequent bouts of confusion... Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Apparently to G-Man, talking about how McCain sees to have these frequent bouts of confusion is being mean. Never mind the fact that John McCain is 71 years old and seeks the highest most powerful office in the entire world. Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Here's CNN being "mean" to John McCain as well.
Yeah, G-Man, I know... I know.. why oh why can't they just talk about how he was a POW and how he's a "maverick"?
Here's the AP being mean as well. It's all a Democratic Party "conspiracy" to attack John McCain apparently (oh yeah, G-Man, it' still the "Democratic" Party not the "democrat" party, numbnuts). The fact that John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator should be news and not dismissed as being mean:
Quote: Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.
In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.
"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.
McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."
Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.
AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.
In response to this embarassment from John Mcain, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:
Quote: In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.
That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?
Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"?
That's probably why you support McCain. It's called being a "Low information voter". They're the ones who get all their "facts" from Rush Limbaugh and what their equally uninformed relative tells them with info that he also heard on talk radio. Y'know he ones who really believe Obama is a Muslim and that he wants to raise EVERYONES taxes. It's the people that Mccain makes commercials and sound bytes for. It's the stuff that gets exposed as LIES by every newspaper in America but that his duped supporters still believe.
No, I support him because he's not an American hating commie.
Quote:
It's called being a "Low information voter". They're the ones who get all their "facts" from Rush Limbaugh and what their equally uninformed relative tells them with info that he also heard on talk radio.
limbaugh was born and raised in rio linda california. Nothing good has ever come out of that white trash shit hole. I've never listened to his show and I don't know anyone that listens to it.
Quote:
Y'know he ones who really believe Obama is a Muslim and that he wants to raise EVERYONES taxes.
I'm one of the people that correct it when someone says obama is muslim. He's got enough bad things going for him. I don't see why we should make up lies to make him look bad.
Obama will raise taxes. That's what commies do. That's what democrats do.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
limbaugh was born and raised in rio linda california.
Actually, no. Rush was born and raised in Missouri. He rags on Rio Lindo as a bit on his show because, I think, he used to have a radio show there (or something).
Apparently to G-Man, talking about how McCain sees to have these frequent bouts of confusion is being mean. Never mind the fact that John McCain is 71 years old and seeks the highest most powerful office in the entire world. Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Here's CNN being "mean" to John McCain as well.
Yeah, G-Man, I know... I know.. why oh why can't they just talk about how he was a POW and how he's a "maverick"?
Here's the AP being mean as well. It's all a Democratic Party "conspiracy" to attack John McCain apparently (oh yeah, G-Man, it' still the "Democratic" Party not the "democrat" party, numbnuts). The fact that John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator should be news and not dismissed as being mean:
Quote:
Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.
In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.
"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.
McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."
Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.
AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.
In response to this embarassment from John Mcain, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:
Quote:
In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.
That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?
Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"?
Back on the topic of the day.. *ahem* G-Man...
Wonder what time of the day this interview was held. He seems to do fairly well when giving his stump speeches earlier in the day. If this was later in the afternoon or evening, it could be "sundowning" a symptom of dementia. Could make for some very entertaining debates.
Or also I can see the fun: Palin can see Russia from her back window ("I'd swear you could see it if'n you look hard enough over that hill next to that dead moose..." as she pulls away the kitchen curtains) and McCain wants to meet with the Spanish President to finish the border fence along his home state AZ.
Now just get your reading glasses out and see if Zapatero sent you one of those 'texas' messages on the raspberry you invented.
Another publication caught on to the latest McCain bout of confusion and sees a pattern. Steve Benen over at Political Animal/Washington Monthly notes that McCain's recent confusion, thinking Spain was located in Latin America and run by a dictator, is on the most recent of McCain's increasingly odd foreign policy gaffes:
Quote:
Let's also not lose sight of the broader pattern. McCain thinks the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border. He believes Czechoslovakia is still a country. He's been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia. He's been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both. He's been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq. He's been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He's been confused about Iran's relationship with al Qaeda. He's been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia. McCain, following a recent trip to Germany, even referred to "President Putin of Germany." All of this incoherence on his signature issue.
I'm curious. What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama's ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?
I think an intellectually honest person would agree that if Obama had made these same mistakes he'd be labeled "clueless" on foreign policy. So, why the double-standard?
Plus he also invented the "Fundamentals". They're the new American work force who he believes in, even as he denies them wage increases repeatedly despite year after year of increased productivity.
