Rico,

You are really off your rocker here. You are not making any sense - you claim you haven't accused McCain as unfit yet you constantly refer back to three generals (supporting Obama) who apparently don't like McCains temperment and see him as unfit. You obviously are putting a great deal of stock in the opinion of these 3 generals.

I have really no idea what you want "investigated" -- the generals have expressed OPINIONS that McCain has a poor temperment and would not make a good commander in chief -- what kind of investigation can be done of an opinion? They are concerned he may start more wars - ok - again an opinion they hold.

Quote:
Not theory, but investigation of 3's accusations.

I have no idea what you mean by "accusations" -- as far as I can tell in the video they have expressed opinions about McCain (i.e. he has poor temperment and might start wars) not made any accusations. What are you talking about?

On the credibility of their opinions one of the generals (according to the reporter) supposedly made reference to his "reputation" which suggests the general in question may not know McCain very well personally.

Quote:
The search for truth is the 3 guys, are they lying then expose them, are they telling a truth then the public should hear it prior to 11/4.

The there is this nonsense you keep going back too about are these generals lying??? Lying about what? they expressed an opinion (which I presume is sincere) that McCain would not be a good CIC. I believe they expressed a sincere opinion but I have no idea what you mean are they lying?? Once again you are making no sense.

Quote:
We will just have to trust Brian's opinion whether or not he is a true left wing reporter. Besides only lies can come out of left wing reporters/people. Perhaps thats a good reason to investigate the 3?

Rico -- what are you talking about?? - the guy said he works for Salon.com -- a left wing online magazine -- he's a efty just like all reporters for Salon ---- newsflash all of the reporters for national review are conservatives! You don't have to take my word for it -- make up your own mind after doing some reserach about salon.com.

Here a quote from Wikipedia:

Quote:
Salon.com, part of Salon Media Group (OTCBB: SLNM), often just called Salon, is an online magazine, with content updated each weekday. Liberal politics of the United States is its major focus, but it covers a range of issues. Reviews and articles about music, books and films are also a prominent feature of the site. Salon's headquarters are located west of downtown San Francisco, California. Its current editor-in-chief is Joan Walsh.

I never said only lies come out of left wing reporters (now who's putting words in my mouth!) - I merely pointed out his obvious bias and the fact that he was being interviewed by a friendly host who supports his attack on McCain.

Quote:
I've done my homework, now you do yours & convince me, with proof not trust me I know garbage.

At this point I have no idea what I am supposed to convince you of so I am at a loss....I will say that at no point have I been as arrogant as to say anything like "trust me I know" - I have consistently pointed to facts/evidence to justify my position -- like the fact that 100 generals and admirals have endorsed McCain.

Quote:
Conservative trickery say the same thing the accuse your opponent of it.

I don't engage in trickery and I resent the implication that I am not sincere in what I express here - what I was disappointed about was that you made a pointless personal attack about my views being biased. You now ackowledge that all views are biased yet you felt the need to single me out for having biased views, among other silly attacks (I overlook things etc.) Why say it then if it's pointing out the obvious.

The notion that the there is such a thing as "conservative trickery" is also laughable as it suggests there is some distinction between liberal and conservative trickery. Give me a break.....

Quote:
Lets ask some hard questions to the generals, grumbling against the grain, myself & many others would like to know why they make those particular claims!

Once again you have me flummoxed -- what claims? what questions should we ask? These guys (again from what I can tell) have merely expressed an opinion that McCain will start wars and would be a poor CIC. That's nothing to investigate -- that's their opinion.

Since I have literally no idea what you want proof of I can't provide it. I have responded to the actual stuff you submitted and not some bizarre notion you have apparently come up with out of thin air!!

I suggest you watch your video again and tell when in the video about the 3 generals they make any accusations about McCain - they say nothing of the sort. Furthermore most of the video has a liberal reporter telling us what the military told him (supposedly) no direct quotes or extended questions just a liberal reporter purporting to discover all of this widespread military concern about McCain. It this reporter's summary of his purported findings - which "findings" just happen to smear a man who politics he opposes. If you can't see that this a essentially baseless smear piece you have limited ability to distinguish bias.

I might as well call Rush Limbaugh interviewing a National Review reporter as hard objective news....

The evidence I cited in response is directly on point to what is actually in the video - the fact that 100 admirals and generals endorsed McCain suggests these guys are pretty much alone in seeing McCain as problematic as CIC.

I have always had a cordial relationship with you Rico so please sincerely understand that when I say you are not making sense I mean that - please review the video and see if you agree.

Brian

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Guys,

Quote:
Rifter wrote:
When have 20 odd generals endorsing McCain, and three or four the other guy, it should be obvious which way the military feels is right.  As anyone who has spent time in the military or around it will tell you, there are some who rise to command grade via the political side of things, not the military/combat side.  We all know who those officers are, and they are roundly rejected by most military people as far as their opinions are concerned.

Well it may give a inkling how or who the military will vote for; that was not the question here. The question is why do these generals fear McCain will start more wars.

Why is it so difficult for conservatives like your self to to factually honestly dis-credit the 3 - 4 high ranking military men depicted in the video?

Brian claimed the video I've posted is most likely (my words, most likely) fake. To counter my claim he posted very crude & unbelievably altered videos. That counter proves absolutely nothing. In an attempt to defend my post, I've looked at other sites and have posted for your inspection. At least this is an honest attempt to ferret out the truth, regarding McCain & more wars.

Quote:
Rifter wrote:
Hate to say it, but somehow that doesn't surprise in the least.

Your obviously very knowledgeable in history politics in general. I can only assume your goal is to convert (with your posts) folks over to conservatism. Statements like 'We all know' etc. says to the reader "Trust Me" but offers no proof.

Take Care
Rico

I number among my friends and acquaintances several veterans who know many of those generals personally, having served with them at various times and places.  I know that Skip knows a lot of people who know them as well.  When those friends tell me that those few who oppose McCain and appear to be left leaning Democrats are less than trustworthy, I listen.  As for the rest, I am glad whenever what I have to say brings someone over to the conservative side, but I don't try to do anything except make sure the truth is told, because it seldom comes from the other side of the fence.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
It'll be a tossup as to whether he starts another world war or we go into a full blown depression first.

Obama starting another world war? Don't make me laugh.

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
It'll be a tossup as to whether he starts another world war or we go into a full blown depression first.

Obama starting another world war? Don't make me laugh.

What do you suppose will happen if Obama wins the election and attacks Pakistan as he said in the second debate? Just so you aren't confused by what I mean by that question, I am not suggesting that attacking Pakistan alone will cause another world war. I am asking precisely what the words imply. There is always a cause and effect. What do you suppose the effect will be of Obama's military attack on Pakistan?

Just what kind of military leader broadcasts his plans the way Obama does? It doesn't take a military genius to realize that when you tell your enemy your plans, they make preparations to counter those plans. So, if Obama wins the election, Pakistan and our enemies in that country will take action knowing that an attack is eminent in Pakistan.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Guys,

Rico isn't listening to you and I doubt anything you tell him will make any difference regardless of factual evidence. If he were seriously considering a change in his position, he would still be looking through the vote list I gave him a link to. It's time to move on.

You know, you're right, Dan.  I hadn't thought of it before, but Rico constantly gives US links and practically DEMANDS that we look at them, but it surely doesn't seem like he looks at any links people ask him to look at.  Brian has taken Rico's "arguments" (?) apart point by point, but all Rico does in response is talk about the need to "investigate" things.  I guess his definition of "invesitigate" is find out all the sources that support his positions and disregard anything that refutes his position.  You're right, Dan, it's time to let him rant without comment -- since he clearly doesn't have any intention to consider anything that might refute his beliefs.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
What do you suppose will be the effect of Obama's military attack on Pakistan?

I don't know. It all depends on the circumstances.

Mr. McCain has said that military options on Iran must be kept open. So I don't see much difference between him and Mr. Obama in that respect.

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Mr. McCain has said that military options on Iran must be kept open. So I don't see much difference between him and Mr. Obama in that respect.

The fact that you fail to discern a difference in this respect says a lot. 

1) it is a bad idea to telecast to your enemies future military plans. (it allows them to counter beforehand)
2) keeping options open is tantamount to future maneuvers. (closing your options limits future abilities)

Just suppose that Obama does what he proposes and he begins by setting and keeping his time-line for evacuating Iraq (telecasting future plans). Then lets say he holds to his promise of redeploying the troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan (again, a well telecast plan).

This gives us a new and hostile government in Iraq, a new, full-on war in Pakistan and a full-on war in Afghanistan. We have all been reading the latest news of the Chinese supporting Pakistan and their plans to build two nuclear plants in Pakistan. Now, we have exponentially more strained relations with China to deal with. This effects world trade. Add to this the free passage and support of terrorists in and out of Iran. If we take him at his word, Obama must now attack Iran because he vows to attack the terrorist where they are. At present, these terrorists are in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq. Let's not forget the problems we still have in Syria, Lebanon, and the already strained relations with Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

This should take less than two years.