<p>These words by John McCain put Michelle Obama's comments in perspective.</p>
<p>msnbc.com</a> Video Player</p>
<p>Most people have no need to love a country until they loose it. Its the same with most things. Go survival camping and you will then say that you absolutely love and are grateful for Civilization, but right now, not being a survival camper, you take things for granted.</p>
<p>Whatever the media says about McCain, he is more American than Obama as he has stood for his country and his son also does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whatever the media says about McCain, he is more American than Obama as he has stood for his country and his son also does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting construct of "more American." Where does that put GW "draft dodger" Bush or Dick "five deferments" Cheney? I'll guess they are Chinese.</p>
<p>Dr. Horse, as someone who didn't serve in the military but who cares for the sick every day and pays my share of taxes and takes my responsibility as a citizen seriously-I resent your comment. I am tired of people placing one person as "more American" than another-you insult most women who have not traditionally served in the military-there are other ways to serve one's country and surely there are veterans who have not been the greatest of Americans. Can we get over the Viet Nam split finally?</p>
<p>Reverend Wright was a former marine. That makes him more American than most Republicans!</p>
<p>But I suppose being Black, and being aware of it, gives you a -10 patriotism penalty.</p>
<p>i'm tired of all these character assassination, the trivial questioning of a war hero's patriotism, the nitpicking and quoting of the smallest careless statements from years ago. That is all irrelevant to the job. So what if McCain's wife was a drug addict? Isn't she clean now? Wait, is she even the one running for President? So what if Obama didn't have military experience? A President needs to run many other aspects of government as well. Obama has never been a banker or an economist, so how come that doesn't mean he can't run the economy? Does the President need to have been a schoolteacher, a doctor, a banker, a lawyer, a police officer and a war veteran to take care of education, healthcare, the economy, law and order, and the military? Obviously not. It's not a one man job - that's why the President has advisors. It's ridiculous that we think that a President without military experience would lead us to doom despite how he would have a dozen or so experienced 4-star generals to advise him. Same goes for the team of economists. I would even go as far as to say that being a war hero and POW doesn't mean you're so much more qualified than the other guy to run the military - how has being imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam make you a good commander in chief when it's a totally different job to run a military from the top? and many other things. </p>
<p>What is REALLY important, and what affects YOU, is what either McCain or Obama could do and would do in office. I'm a pragmatist - hell, I don't care if Adam Sandler becomes President as long as he could do a good job and my life gets better.</p>
<p>"I'm more American than you" has the same sort of logical sense as "I'm more pregnant than you."</p>
<p>you can be more pregnant than another person, it is by experience. a woman in month 7 is more pregnant than a woman in day 3.</p>
<p>Uh, no, "pregnant" is a state; you are or you aren't. If you want to talk about development and gestation, then you wouldn't use just "pregnant," but something that has a temporal dimension to it.</p>
<p>John McCain was born in Panama. At least Obama was born in one of the fifty states.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i'm tired of all these character assassination, the trivial questioning of a war hero's patriotism, the nitpicking and quoting of the smallest careless statements from years ago. That is all irrelevant to the job. So what if McCain's wife was a drug addict? Isn't she clean now? Wait, is she even the one running for President? So what if Obama didn't have military experience? A President needs to run many other aspects of government as well. Obama has never been a banker or an economist, so how come that doesn't mean he can't run the economy? Does the President need to have been a schoolteacher, a doctor, a banker, a lawyer, a police officer and a war veteran to take care of education, healthcare, the economy, law and order, and the military? Obviously not. It's not a one man job - that's why the President has advisors. It's ridiculous that we think that a President without military experience would lead us to doom despite how he would have a dozen or so experienced 4-star generals to advise him. Same goes for the team of economists. I would even go as far as to say that being a war hero and POW doesn't mean you're so much more qualified than the other guy to run the military - how has being imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam make you a good commander in chief when it's a totally different job to run a military from the top? and many other things.</p>
<p>What is REALLY important, and what affects YOU, is what either McCain or Obama could do and would do in office. I'm a pragmatist - hell, I don't care if Adam Sandler becomes President as long as he could do a good job and my life gets better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This thread was posted to be anti-nitpicky. The point wasn't that McCain said something bad. The point was that when Michelle Obama made a statement about "feeling patriotic for the first time" -- no doubt a way of putting her enthusiasm that she regrets -- she wasn't expressing enthusiasm in a way different from how McCain does here.</p>
<p>I actually agree with what you wrote. But there are a lot of people that are really playing up her comments, and this is just an antidote to that.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
John McCain was born in Panama. At least Obama was born in one of the fifty states.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>So does this fact determine which candidate you support?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So does this fact determine which candidate you support?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course not. But I was just trying to point out how arguing that somehow McCain was more "patriotic" was contrived and was only an expressing of one's own bias.</p>
<p>despite my democratic leaning I don't think McCain or Michelle Obama said anything wrong. Can you really love a country that has a large racist and uneducated population. I'm as patriotic as the next guy but I don't feel McCain said anything wrong at all.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I agree completely, Tamarind. Again, the point of this thread was what you just said, but there are lot of people smacking down MO because they are claiming she's not patriotic or is an angry black woman.</p>
<p>I think we should focus on the real issues.</p>
<p>I'd rather not have socialized medicine and I want to keep my guns, especially the ones that liberals call "assault weapons". Give me a break.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd rather not have socialized medicine
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Medicare is.</p>
<p>Would you not want to reform a medical system that costs quite a lot more, doesn't perform as well, and doesn't cover nearly as many people as the medical systems of our peer economies -- the developed countries of the OECD? </p>
<p>We are going to have do something about this system. It is really broken.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I want to keep my guns, especially the ones that liberals call "assault weapons".
[/quote]
Assault weapons isn't a term that "liberals" (honestly, it's hard to find a true liberal in America) created to make some guns sound worse. It's a derivative of the word "assault rifle" which is a type of gun with a strict definition. And why do you want an assault rifle, anyway? That's completely ridiculous.</p>
<p>As for socialized medicine... what do you have against that?</p>
<p>An assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of having select fire.</p>
<p>My "assault weapons" are semi-auto weapons that are labeled so because they look like machine guns to the misinformed. They would have called all these guns assault rifles, but they also included carbines and shotguns in the category as well.</p>
<p>No one calls a Ruger Mini-14 an assault weapon. However, if I replace the stock with a plastic pistol grip stock and put a high-capacity magazine in the magazine well, the same rifle becomes an "assault-weapon".</p>
<p>Why do I want an "assault rifle"? Because they are fun to shoot, serve as protection, and because I simply have the right to own one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My "assault weapons" are semi-auto weapons that are labeled so because they look like machine guns to the misinformed.
[/quote]
Just because some people call them assault weapons does not mean that they are. You cannot base an argument around that. It makes no sense to say "Billy Joe says that this gun is an assault rifle. He's wrong, but there's nothing wrong with this gun and he calls it an assault rifle so there's nothing wrong with assault rifles." But there is more to the definition of an assault rifle than selective fire. It must also have a large, detachable magazine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one calls a Ruger Mini-14 an assault weapon.
[/quote]
That's probably because, depending on the type of Mini-14, it isn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a high-capacity magazine
[/quote]
Well, no duh that would make something an assault rifle - it's the definition of an assault rifle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I simply have the right to own one
[/quote]
No, you don't. Please. Read the *entire*2nd Amendment, rather than just the short section that some people quote about "the right to bear arms."</p>