and you like to laugh about kiddie porn — you loser

I suppose that you prefer your politicians to be geldings.

Thanks though, from the McCain campaign!

“STROM THURMOND In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, “Is the senator about through?” McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his “courtesy” (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn’t part friends.

SAM NUNN When John Tower’s 1989 bid to become Secretary of Defense was shot down in a blaze of leaked memos about Tower’s womanizing and drinking problems, McCain took his good friend’s demise personally. “It should have been handled differently,” he says. Looking for culprits, an irate McCain took to the Senate floor and fingered then-Senator Sam Nunn. The two would later collaborate on other projects. “I try not to make it personal,” McCain says.

CHARLES KEATING While building a vast financial empire, flamboyant Arizona banker Charles Keating lavished campaign contributions on key politicians, including McCain. When federal officials launched a criminal investigation of his dealings, Keating bluntly asked McCain and four other senators to block the investigation. McCain refused, and after a testy confrontation in McCain’s office, he threw Keating out.

ROBERT TORRICELLI Does a 1987 Supreme Court decision protect Indian gaming? Representative Robert Torricelli testified before a 1995 hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that he’d read the decision in question and concluded it did not. “Well, read it again,” McCain said, “because you didn’t understand it if you read it. You couldn’t have understood it if you did read it because your interpretation of it is flat-out wrong.” Torricelli got in all of eight words before the hammer came down. “I’m running this committee hearing, Congressman Torricelli,” McCain said. “And I will allow you to speak when you are requested to do so.”

JOHN DALTON Navy Secretary Dalton came to McCain’s office one day and vowed to protect Commander Robert Stumpf. The onetime leader of the Blue Angels and a decorated pilot in the Persian Gulf War, Stumpf was under attack for a fleeting involvement in the notorious Tailhook escapade. When McCain thought Dalton had backed off by sending a Navy lawyer to interrogate Stumpf, he called the Secretary and said: “I don’t believe you’re standing up for the Navy. We will have nothing to do with one another anymore.” And he hung up the phone.

ROSS PEROT MIA/POW groups denounced McCain when he backed President Clinton’s efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam. When Ross Perot, who had financed the POW cause, joined the attack, McCain told a reporter that Perot is “nuttier than a fruitcake, and you can quote me.” When Perot phoned to complain, McCain called him “nutty” again.

ROBERT BYRD The prince of pork, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, has disciplined Senate colleagues by dispensing or withholding federal largess. Not McCain. He took to the Senate floor to challenge Byrd’s spending “billions of dollars” on projects “directly related to virtues other than merit” and finally beat Byrd to win the line-item veto for the President.

DAVID PRYOR The Senate’s special counsel recommended in 1990 dropping charges against McCain for doing anything illegal or even unseemly to shield savings-and-loan operator Charles Keating from federal investigators. Yet Democrat David Pryor of Arkansas kept voting against freeing McCain from the Senate’s Keating Five investigation. “It was purely political,” says McCain, who didn’t speak to Pryor for nearly six years. Alabama’s Howell Heflin got the same silent treatment.”

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/6506.html

Classy guy, that McCain. Very much in control of his temper and able to make rational, well-advised decisions.

So, one Republican senator losing his self-control to the extent of yelling “F*ck you!” at another, in public isn’t a big deal in your book, evidently. I’d never have guessed it from your regular trips to the fainting couch in “horror!” at the nasty things that folks on the left have to say.

Not that your flexible standard of what counts as acceptable discourse is any surprise: what your side does it fine when your side does it, after all.

By my reckoning, when someone isn’t man enough to be called out by someone who disagrees with him, and responds by acting out with a childish temper tantrum, that’s not the person I’m guessing that most Americans want in charge of a nuclear arsenal.

Now, should McCain try to tone down his colorful language? I’d like to see it, although it doesn’t concern me. Does it have anything to do with whether he is fit to serve as prez? Of course not.

I provided the link upthread: here it is again.

“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 c*nt.”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

outlander,

If a source is anonymous, you reject it outright; if it is on the record, you impute various motives that permit you to dismiss it. Nice version of “heads I win, tails you lose,” even if it says more about your need for denial than it does about the veracity of the source.

It is worth noting, outlander, that in a REFUTATION you disprove the assertions made by another. Here you have done nothing of the sort; all you’ve done is to impute various motives in an effort to destroy the credibility of those with whom you disagree. That isn’t a refutation.

And, as further evidence for my assertion, here’s a nice exchange between McCain and Senator John Cornyn (TX-R):

“At a bipartisan gathering in an ornate meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain complained that Cornyn was raising petty objections to a compromise plan being worked out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House. He used a curse word associated with chickens and accused Cornyn of raising the issue just to torpedo a deal.

Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. “Wait a second here,” Cornyn said to McCain. “I’ve been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You’re out of line.”

McCain, a former Navy pilot, then used language more accustomed to sailors (not to mention the current vice president, who made news a few years back after a verbal encounter with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont).

“[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” shouted McCain at Cornyn. McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 that passed the Senate but couldn’t be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_cornyn_cursing_showdown.html

I suppose, outlander, you can dismiss the “multiple sources, Republican and Democratic,” who confirm the story. But as has been demonstrated and exploited by Repukes so well, the meme is “out there,” and there’s not much you can do or say about it. McCain is who McCain is. The fact that you will go to any length to deny the evidence says little about McCain, but everything about you.

In fairness to McCain, he responded to someone’s question about beating the “B-word” - he did not call her the C-word or anything else that I know of. P-Mom, pay attention, I do hate defending Republics…

The whole C-word controversy, is a different subject, if I am recalling correctly.

Do you mean like his tremendous judgment when it came to invading Iraq or do you mean his current 100 year plan for Iraq?

If you will recall the original discussion was spurred by my pointing out your willingness to link crappy partisan websites quoting anonymous sources as if they were relevant. McCain’s personality was our underlying canvas.

So now the subject you wish to discuss is the one underlying our previous discussion. That being whether McCain’s temper could be a problem if he were elected president.

Having set the table, let’s take a look at your evidence. McCain been in Congress about 26 years according to Wikipedia. You presented two people who have complained about Mr. McCain’s nastiness. I don’t know about the relationship between McCain and your linked sources, other than they don’t like him. Did they get a taste of his temper for good reason? I notice one of them dropped his pants because McCain made him. That’s a good one! The other was a candidate for president with McCain. So the motives of your sources are yet to be determined, but suspect.

I’m sure there are others. I would be shocked if there were not. In 26 years dealing with hot political issues how could there not be? But I don’t see so many that it is overly concerning. And did McCain lose control in any of those alleged incidences?

Also, you quoted the following: “He is a vicious person,” LeBoutillier said. “Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn’t support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior.”

Now this is the same guy that says McCain had him drop his pants. (snicker.. ahem, sorry) And just where all of those senators now CF? Only the pants dropping Senator knows.

So, how’s that for methodical examination and analysis of your evidence CF? I continue to keep an open mind. But I have seen nothing that comes close to outweighing McCain’s tremendous qualifications. Which are in stark contrast to the Democrat candidates lack.

Thanks for saving me the pointlessness of arguing with Nathan over what “causes” what. Given his tendency to redefine words in whatever way suits him at the moment, I decided it wasn’t worth my while.

Nathan,

You’re a pointless little person who argues dishonestly. When I feel like it, I’ll argue with you. The rest of the time you’ve proven that you’re not worth the bother.

outlander,

And what your post so pointedly ignores are the Republicans, one former U.S. Senator and one U.S. Representative, who testify as to McCain’s repeated inability to control his temper.

“I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues,” said former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees. “He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We’ve all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I’ve never seen anyone act like that.”

And then a bit further on, the following:

“”People who disagree with him get the f— you,” said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. After LeBoutillier had openly tape recorded comments at a conference, McCain got the idea that LeBoutillier was secretly tape recording him.

“Are you wired up?” LeBoutillier quoted McCain as asking. “Of course not,” LeBoutillier said.

“Prove it,” McCain said.

LeBoutillier said he lowered his pants, apparently satisfying McCain that he was not taping him.

“He is a vicious person,” LeBoutillier said. “Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn’t support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior.”

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/5/00548.shtml

So are these folks lying, outlander? And if they are not, where is your refutation of the statements they were willing to publicly make? And if you have NO refutation, as you have not, can you really do no better than to hurl ad hominem arguments at me and then adopt an unctuous tone of superiority?

You know, outlander, if you didn’t so consistently exhibit a great willingness to ignore facts that contradict your views, folks such as me might be more willing to credit you with arguing in good faith. If somebody puts up facts you don’t like, refute them. But lacking refutation, you have literally ZERO grounds to so casually dismiss sources that dispove you.

Disprove me if you can. But if you cannot, your statements and objections are without merit and empty.

I return to my original point: can America afford to elect such a reckless and intemperate man, so lacking in self control and deliberation?

Yep, ignore those pesky dead bodies behind the curtain - nothing to see here - move on.

As usual, the mantra is IGNORE………….. the facts.

Really. His last link has this note:

In previous reports on ilrearm
mortality (1,3), the definitions of
firearm homicide excluded legal
intervention by firearm. In this repo~
as in others (4#), the definition has
been amended to include those
deaths. The inclusion of these deaths
results in an increase in the overall
firearm death rate and the firearm
homicide rate with a concomitant
decrease in the nordirearm homicide
rate

I resent that remark.

I swear much better than a drunken sailor. Hell, I put a drunken sailor to shame with my swearing.

I do know what I was asked to prove–more guns equals more gun death, especially among children and young people.

See graph on page 4.

This shows the homicide rate rising from 1985 to 1990 for males aged 15-19:

whites 18/100,000 in 1985 to 28/100,000 in 1990
blacks 49/100,000 in 1985 to 130/100,000 in 1990

More guns = more gun death

Obama leads Clinton nationally in polls and has opened a ten point spread in Oregon.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=e70ecbfe-c65e-4f34-a030-1d9c805f6b35&q=45558

I’m not going to argue further with someone who is able to claim with a straight-face that the Earth is only 8,000 years old.

One either agrees to what constitutes proof or one doesn’t.

You don’t.

End of story.

From 1968 to 87? LOL That is over 20 years ago. Try to come up with some better numbers than that.

What a tool you are Capn…

What about the other sources? They are a Red Herring to the claim you made.

In that category firearms are a leading cause of death.

When we start looking at many other things like Prescription drug deaths the number of firearms deahts pales in comparison.

Back up your claim or admit you were wrong.

From 1968 to 1987, little overall change occurred in total firearm-related mortality in the United States except among teenagers for whom the death rate rose from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1968 to 14.7 in 1987.

*****

More guns equals more fire-arm related mortality.

Asked and answered.

Perhaps you should just put up or shut up.

The fact remains, the United States has the highest teenage homicide rate in the world and over 80 percent of those homicides are perpetrated by guns.

Firearm death is the second leading cause of death among American children and young adults after cars.

You’d have to be a CON to deny the obvious link between easy access to guns and easy death by them.