McCain can't answer simple question

[Ravi]

Not having a rock hard erection when you're an old man is not a disease, folks.

It's a fact of life unless you take drugs to artifically make and keep yourself turgid.

Please. It's all those feminists ranting against male-dominated medical research.

 

[Jon]

I forgot and broke my own rule about chatting with people who aren't being intellectually honest with me.

You are 100 wrong, but that's your right.

You make me so glad Hillary lost.

Exactly what am I 100% wrong about?

See, people like you really piss me off. Instead of actually debating, you tell people they're wrong and walk away. Supporters like you make me understand more and more why Obama is an elitist prick.

 

[frazzledgear]

The differences between Hillary's positions and Obama's were minimal.

The difference between Hillary and McCain's positions is night and day.

So I can only assume two things:

A. You are not really a Hillary supporter, you are just trying to pull Hilllary supporters to McCain or

B. You are a racist.

Well that is the current and PC liberal interpretation, isn't it?

Hillary and Obama discussed only a few issues in the broadest generalities during the primaries because they were trying to appeal to the same far left liberals that dominate Democrat primaries and spoke to just a few of their issues in generalities. But Obama is actually far more to the left than Hillary and on many more issues than were discussed in the primaries. Based on his record in the Illinois legislature, his two unremarkable years in the Senate, years of association with far leftwing hatemongers like Rev. Wright and that Catholic priest and his years of association with the far leftwing organization ACORN, he could be considered even radically leftwing. He has the track record supporting such a conclusion -one that is impossible to hide.

Obama's bulk of hardcore supporters during the primaries were the far leftwing but Hillary's core supporters included many more moderate and conservative Democrats than Obama had then. Hillary is a far more experienced and savvy politician who knows what sells best to voters in the general election. She spent her 7 years in the Senate building a voting record that reflects a more moderate record than her liberal campaign rhetoric would suggest she had and she deliberately did so with the intention of having a record that would support her (phony but) inevitable shift to the center for the general election. It is a voting record that shows much less difference between her and McCain than you appreciate. It is NOT "night and day". Obama has no such record to support any move to the center -and his shift just isn't believable as a result. No way he can believably palm himself off as some kind of moderate with that track record.

While liberals dominate the Democratic primaries, there are far more moderate and conservative Democrats than far left liberal ones -many of whom don't vote in primaries but do vote in the general election. And most of those Democrats have not voted for their own party's leftwing extremist candidate when one got the nomination. Which is why leftwing extremist McGovern only won a single state and why they abandoned Jimmy Carter and his leftwing policies in favor of Reagan.

For more moderate and conservative Democrats -their choice will be a leftwing extremist with a visible track record of that extremism and one they are uncomfortable with, if not downright opposed to - or the RINO McCain whose track record shows a long history of sharing many of their own views too that isn't dramatically different from Hillary's own voting record. Not a darn thing "racist" involved if Hillary's moderate and conservative supporters decide their second choice isn't Obama -but McCain. Republicans have no such decision to make. Democrats put up a leftwing extremist they aren't going to support at all no matter what color he is. And that leaves them stuck with a candidate they aren't thrilled with either but will end up voting for - because in spite of him being a RINO, is still nowhere near the level of Obama's extremism. Race is not an issue for them either because Obama's political views are much too liberal for the vast majority of Republicans. Period.

I think liberals are OBSESSED with Obama's race, certainly WAY more than Republicans. KS Governor Kathleen Sebelius went so far as to say that Republicans would make a massive effort to scare people off from voting for Obama for no other reason EXCEPT his race. And said they would be using "code words" to do it that all meant the same thing - "don't vote for him because he is black". She said to remember whenever they used those "code words" like "too inexperienced" and "too liberal" -it really meant "he's black". RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN YOU LYING DUMB ASS IDIOT! Of course Republicans have never said their opponent lacked experienced or was too liberal before -just about every election is all. And as if Republicans would be flocking to support this guy and his liberal extremism if he were just white instead. ROFL There is no logical reason for Republicans to try and "scare" people by pointing out what everyone already knows. Republicans will point out what Obama doesn't want everyone to know -that he is a leftwing extremist. In spite of the fact that I have and will again vote for other black candidates and did so for NO reason except that person's views more closely matched my own over those of those of the other candidates - according to Sebelius, if I don't vote for THIS particular black candidate when his views are diametrically opposed to my own -I'm a racist? Huh?

Liberals like Sebelius who love to hurl "racist" at Obama's political opponents when they would be the same ones even if he were white, are trying to squelch legitimate debate on issues that would expose Obama's extremist views by substituting this phony, nonexistent one of race. Many liberals seem to suggest that no one, not even Republicans, much less the Democrat moderate/conservative Hillary supporters - could POSSIBLY find Obama's even more extremist leftwing political views objectionable and suggest that even if they did, it still isn't a legitimate reason to not vote for him. Sebelius was among the first but won't be the last to suggest that unless you abandon your own core values and vote for him anyway -why you are just a racist! That can only mean that for them, Obama's skin color supercedes all else and are insisting it should for everyone else too. That isn't just racist in my book -its downright stupid.

 

[frazzledgear]

Fraz, I only got through your first paragraph where you talked about carefree sex only being important to guarantee for men.

That's big of you.

Then you have a reading comprehension problem and no one can help you with that.

 

[Ravi]

Then you have a reading comprehension problem and no one can help you with that.

That's possible. But your rant had nothing to do with the fact that Viagra is covered and birth control pills aren't. I can sympathize with you that your father-in-law died of a disease while wondering what made you even bring it up.

Erectile disfunction is a symptom of some other problem, no? By treating it, and ignoring the cause, what exactly is being accomplished but a little nookie? I have no problem with Viagra being covered, I have a problem with birth control pills not being covered...even when they are to treat an actual medical problem and not just to keep someone from becoming pregnant (which is also a valid reason).

 

[Charles_Main]

That's possible. But your rant had nothing to do with the fact that Viagra is covered and birth control pills aren't. I can sympathize with you that your father-in-law died of a disease while wondering what made you even bring it up.

Erectile disfunction is a symptom of some other problem, no? By treating it, and ignoring the cause, what exactly is being accomplished but a little nookie? I have no problem with Viagra being covered, I have a problem with birth control pills not being covered...even when they are to treat an actual medical problem and not just to keep someone from becoming pregnant (which is also a valid reason).

Call me a liberal if you must but I have to agree with Ravi on this one. Maybe if Birth control Pills were covered there would be less abortions.

 

[sealybobo]

I'll break my rule and talk to someone I know won't hear me.

obama isn't liberal. I pay close attention and I see an honest man who has to play the game in order to win. And I see the negative smears coming. You are doing it now. He couldn't be clean enough for you, He is the least corrupted candidate and yet you won't stop until he is more corrupt than mccain. And you won't stop after he wins. Just like you constantly bashed bill while he did a great job. Obama could walk on water and you would still fault him. I know you are wrong because I follow politics closely. At what point did you stop defending Bush? i'll try to go back and see your oldest posts.

So you don't like rev wright but you excuse al mccains lobbiest buddies?

And if obama is so bad, why is it that all you have on him are lies or exxagerations? Or you give mccain a pass? Not buying t. madrasas, muslim, etc. all the stuff you say are the lies the gop are putting out there to appeal to the ignorant vote, and your buying it! lol.

obama is appealing to the left and center. that's great. the right are ruining america, and that's who mccain is sucking up to.

I know i'm smart and voting for obama, so I know you are wrong. that's why I usually don't even bother with ppl from west virginia.
mccain is the elitist. he never worked. he married a rich woman who fights madd. mothers against drunk driving. why don't you know that? because mccain learned from dole. he courted the mainstream media since 1999 so you don't know all mccans issues, but I do.

far left or people sick of poltics as usual?

hillary appealed to poor white racist men and also to women. that was her base. mccain now wants to ban abortion. i'm practically a history scholar. not the history you learn in school either. So I know what you are doing to obama is nothing new. You only have 4 months so you are working overtime. I know you are so wrong about everything you are saying. I don't know why I bother. but I guess I like telling you?

Hillary isn't runing and she is campaigning for obama. if she isn't sincere, neither are you.
your history on reagan and carter is cute.

Obama is not liberal. clinton wasn't either, but I heard these sme arguments against hillary and bill.

I truly believe you are a right winger pretending to be one of us.

mccain is on both side of every argument, so he can't lose.

You are right race isn't an issue. You wouldn't vote for any democrat.

no, you aren't a racist. after reading your post, you are just a dumb voter or a republican. no offense.

and I think liberal policies are great. look what gop policies got us.

I think somethings wrong with you if you aren't liberal. not far left, but liberal is not a dirty word.

 

[frazzledgear]

Not having a rock hard erection when you're an old man is not a disease, folks.

It's a fact of life unless you take drugs to artifically make and keep yourself turgid.

Where did you get that little pearl of wisdom? So many misconceptions, so little time.

No one said erectile dysfunction was a disease. It is a physical disorder that is a known consequence of very real medical conditions and diseases such as diabetes and is a known side effect of many medications prescribed to treat all sorts of illnesses and conditions. Loss of any body function at any age is never the result of anything "normal" and no one must just kiss off a lost body function for the rest of their life when treatment is available - but pretty weird you think THIS particular loss of body function is.

The average age of a man who develops erectile dysfunction as the result of some disease, medical condition or as a side effect of another medication and is prescribed Viagra -is 53. I don't care how young you happen to be to be right now, that isn't some "old guy". And even if YOU think you would be willing to kiss off your sex life forever at that age, don't expect middle-aged men OR women to jump on that bandwagon -or even older ones. But I'm sure every man here is glad to know you find the idea of a man retaining HIS normal body functions to be such a trivial thing.

The only possible reason you could believe it is somehow normal for an old man to have erectile dysfunction is because the odds of developing erectile dysfunction increase with age -but that is ONLY because the risk of developing some medical condition that affects that function increases as well. But the loss of a normal body function is never the result of anything "normal" -including this one. You should check the research regarding how often people in their 70s and 80s are still having sex -even before the development of Viagra.

But regardless of the age of a man who develops erectile dysfunction -who are you to pass judgment on the value of anyone else's ability to have as normal a life with as normal body functions for as long as possible? Do you feel the same way when old people frequently end up with walking or vision problems too -they should just kiss off those body functions too even though treatment is available for those kinds of body function impairments? Or are you just assuming some kind of "moral authority" you don't have to make that judgment only about THIS particular loss of body function?

The reason for seeking treatment to restore ANY loss of body function at any age in life is the same regardless of the nature of that loss of function. It is because restoring even partial function in an impaired body function increases the quality of life. A known fact. And YOU cannot arbitrarily deem the restoration of some lost body functions to be of no real value, somehow "unworthy" or declare that certain types of loss in body function should go untreated -for anyone but yourself. Most people get that.

 

[sealybobo]

I meant obama isn't a left liberal. he is a liberal though, and that's a great thing. you neo's have just made it a bad word. use progressive from now on.

 

[Charles_Main]

we neo's? so we new people? lol

God I love the labels

 

[sealybobo]

Well that is the current and PC liberal interpretation, isn't it?

Hillary and Obama discussed only a few issues in the broadest generalities during the primaries because they were trying to appeal to the same far left liberals that dominate Democrat primaries and spoke to just a few of their issues in generalities. But Obama is actually far more to the left than Hillary and on many more issues than were discussed in the primaries. Based on his record in the Illinois legislature, his two unremarkable years in the Senate, years of association with far leftwing hatemongers like Rev. Wright and that Catholic priest and his years of association with the far leftwing organization ACORN, he could be considered even radically leftwing. He has the track record supporting such a conclusion -one that is impossible to hide.

Obama's bulk of hardcore supporters during the primaries were the far leftwing but Hillary's core supporters included many more moderate and conservative Democrats than Obama had then. Hillary is a far more experienced and savvy politician who knows what sells best to voters in the general election. She spent her 7 years in the Senate building a voting record that reflects a more moderate record than her liberal campaign rhetoric would suggest she had and she deliberately did so with the intention of having a record that would support her (phony but) inevitable shift to the center for the general election. It is a voting record that shows much less difference between her and McCain than you appreciate. It is NOT "night and day". Obama has no such record to support any move to the center -and his shift just isn't believable as a result. No way he can believably palm himself off as some kind of moderate with that track record.

While liberals dominate the Democratic primaries, there are far more moderate and conservative Democrats than far left liberal ones -many of whom don't vote in primaries but do vote in the general election. And most of those Democrats have not voted for their own party's leftwing extremist candidate when one got the nomination. Which is why leftwing extremist McGovern only won a single state and why they abandoned Jimmy Carter and his leftwing policies in favor of Reagan.

For more moderate and conservative Democrats -their choice will be a leftwing extremist with a visible track record of that extremism and one they are uncomfortable with, if not downright opposed to - or the RINO McCain whose track record shows a long history of sharing many of their own views too that isn't dramatically different from Hillary's own voting record. Not a darn thing "racist" involved if Hillary's moderate and conservative supporters decide their second choice isn't Obama -but McCain. Republicans have no such decision to make. Democrats put up a leftwing extremist they aren't going to support at all no matter what color he is. And that leaves them stuck with a candidate they aren't thrilled with either but will end up voting for - because in spite of him being a RINO, is still nowhere near the level of Obama's extremism. Race is not an issue for them either because Obama's political views are much too liberal for the vast majority of Republicans. Period.

I think liberals are OBSESSED with Obama's race, certainly WAY more than Republicans. KS Governor Kathleen Sebelius went so far as to say that Republicans would make a massive effort to scare people off from voting for Obama for no other reason EXCEPT his race. And said they would be using "code words" to do it that all meant the same thing - "don't vote for him because he is black". She said to remember whenever they used those "code words" like "too inexperienced" and "too liberal" -it really meant "he's black". RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN YOU LYING DUMB ASS IDIOT! Of course Republicans have never said their opponent lacked experienced or was too liberal before -just about every election is all. And as if Republicans would be flocking to support this guy and his liberal extremism if he were just white instead. ROFL There is no logical reason for Republicans to try and "scare" people by pointing out what everyone already knows. Republicans will point out what Obama doesn't want everyone to know -that he is a leftwing extremist. In spite of the fact that I have and will again vote for other black candidates and did so for NO reason except that person's views more closely matched my own over those of those of the other candidates - according to Sebelius, if I don't vote for THIS particular black candidate when his views are diametrically opposed to my own -I'm a racist? Huh?

Liberals like Sebelius who love to hurl "racist" at Obama's political opponents when they would be the same ones even if he were white, are trying to squelch legitimate debate on issues that would expose Obama's extremist views by substituting this phony, nonexistent one of race. Many liberals seem to suggest that no one, not even Republicans, much less the Democrat moderate/conservative Hillary supporters - could POSSIBLY find Obama's even more extremist leftwing political views objectionable and suggest that even if they did, it still isn't a legitimate reason to not vote for him. Sebelius was among the first but won't be the last to suggest that unless you abandon your own core values and vote for him anyway -why you are just a racist! That can only mean that for them, Obama's skin color supercedes all else and are insisting it should for everyone else too. That isn't just racist in my book -its downright stupid.

why did edward and bill richardson endorse obama over hillary? I respect these men, so saying they are left wing will only discredit you.

if you agree all politicians are corrupt and if you agree our system is broken, then you know that mccain and hillary are both good old boys and neither represent change. mccain will carry on bush's bad policies. so get over hillary. shes not running. far left conspiracy. is that all you got? 58 percent trust obama more on the economy and 38 for mccain.

 

[Charles_Main]

why did edward and bill richardson endorse obama over hillary? I respect these men, so saying they are left wing will only discredit you.

if you agree all politicians are corrupt and if you agree our system is broken, then you know that mccain and hillary are both good old boys and neither represent change. mccain will carry on bush's bad policies. so get over hillary. shes not running. far left conspiracy. is that all you got? 58 percent trust obama more on the economy and 38 for mccain.

Don't fool yourself, Obama is nothing new at all. Just another politician.

 

[frazzledgear]

That's possible. But your rant had nothing to do with the fact that Viagra is covered and birth control pills aren't. I can sympathize with you that your father-in-law died of a disease while wondering what made you even bring it up.

Erectile disfunction is a symptom of some other problem, no? By treating it, and ignoring the cause, what exactly is being accomplished but a little nookie? I have no problem with Viagra being covered, I have a problem with birth control pills not being covered...even when they are to treat an actual medical problem and not just to keep someone from becoming pregnant (which is also a valid reason).

Actually it was a rant about the blatantly sexist positions of feminists pushing policies they have no problem insisting should be enacted at the expense of men's health. The thing about prostate vs. breast cancer was an example of that.

The fact is, insurance companies can and do refuse to cover all sorts of medications and nearly everyone has what they consider to be legitimate complaints about what their drug insurance will and will not cover. The fact they choose not to cover birth control pills doesn't bother me nearly as much as much as my own complaints about drug companies -because wanting to avoid pregnancy is not a medical condition and they sure don't cover condoms for men who want to avoid pregnancy.

Medications used to treat vaginal atrophy, a condition that can result in a woman being unable to have sexual intercourse at all -are also covered by drug insurance. It is intended to help restore that function in a woman. But they certainly aren't suggesting that birth control pills are comparable to those medications and that because they cover those medications, they should cover birth control pills. Why not? Only medication used to restore a man's function is comparable? Bah.

For just about any disease or medical condition that can result in erectile dysfunction, a man will already have had other signs and symptoms of that condition that would have led to diagnosis and treatment of the disease and the dysfunction is usually something that occurs later during the course of the disease. Diabetes is one of the most common causes of erectile dysfunction but does not occur early in the disease. It is a function that once damaged by the nature of some disease -is not so easily fixed even if the disease is being properly treated and is stable.

Likewise, if a man's high blood pressure or other medications for some chronic condition are resulting in erectile dysfunction and a change in medications didn't resolve the dysfunction, the answer isn't to keep changing and changing medications until one is found that resolves the problem but only by producing a less than desired response - or to stop treating the condition entirely. The list of medications that can result in erectile dysfunction is only growing and many of the conditions those medications are used to treat are serious enough that it is less risky to prescribe Viagra to counter the unwanted side effect of erectile dysfunction than risk destabilizing the medical condition by repeatedly and blindly switching up medications and hoping to find one that doesn't produce that side effect while not also compromising the treatment.

Most doctors will not indefinitely prescribe Viagra unless they have reason to believe the person's medical condition or required medications means it is unlikely to resolve on its own. Doctors who prescribe Viagra indefinitely without knowing whether that person really even has erectile dysfunction and don't have a good idea why he does have it still doesn't make this a woman's issue about birth control. It might make insurance companies start requiring certain tests to support a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction before covering those prescriptions -but it won't make them start covering birth control pills.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Don't fool yourself, Obama is nothing new at all. Just another politician.

From the most corrupt political machine in the Country to boot.

 

[frazzledgear]

why did edward and bill richardson endorse obama over hillary? I respect these men, so saying they are left wing will only discredit you.

if you agree all politicians are corrupt and if you agree our system is broken, then you know that mccain and hillary are both good old boys and neither represent change. mccain will carry on bush's bad policies. so get over hillary. shes not running. far left conspiracy. is that all you got? 58 percent trust obama more on the economy and 38 for mccain.

I have no respect for Edwards at all. A frigging ambulance chaser who made millions foisting off junk science to gullible juries -so why would I care who he endorsed. Your nuts if think he isn't leftwing though -but he is not a radical leftwing. He needed no other reason than the fact he despises the Clintons and he knows it mutual. In spite of letting her try to "woo" his endorsement, I'm sure he got some kind of thrill out of kicking her in the teeth by endorsing Obama.

Richardson endorsed Obama for a different reason entirely and I agree, he is not left wing. Richardson endorsed Obama when the numbers made it clear that regardless of the remaining primaries Clinton may win, she would not have the numbers for an outright win and was clearly hoping to keep superdelegates on the fence and win by means of their vote. Even though that meant superdelegates would have to go against their own constituents' votes in their states and would result in a HUGE problem come time for their convention. He didn't endorse Obama because he thinks he has superior policies or is the best person for the White House but because he believed it would lead other superdelegates to get off the fence and declare themselves too - in order to get the party united behind their presumptive nominee and start campaigning against McCain instead of each other. It is what someone who wanted what was best for the party would do -and Richardson is a good party man who does try to protect the best interests of his party. The Clintons aren't and never have been. They do what they thinks is in THEIR best interests and even if they know it will cost their party by doing it. Only a Clinton would have stayed in that race even after knowing there was no way to get to the magic number and Obama would.

The bs that McCain is just Bush by another name was a deliberate political tactic. Bush isn't running for re-election -so how best to keep voters focused on Bush and wallowing in any rabid Bush hatred they may have? Let's say McCain is just another Bush! The fact that tactic is being used by Democrats -still does not make it true and they would have done it regardless of who the nominee was. It doesn't take much effort to figure out McCain is no Bush at all and is highly unlikely to have an administration that is a repeat of all Bush policies instead of his own. Bush sure wouldn't have joined up with Democrats for the HORRIBLE campaign reform bill they came up with -or go with Democrats trying to craft another version of their illegal immigrant amnesty whose only effect would be to encourage millions more to enter illegally and just wait for the next inevitable amnesty. But McCain can't afford to antagonize his own base by trying to distance himself as far from Bush as he would no doubt love to do or by even criticizing him at this point. You can't win by criticizing the outgoing President of your own party when that guy isn't running for election himself ever again anyway.

And "change" for change's sake isn't a smart idea either -in fact I think that is a really stupid campaign slogan. Especially since Obama's "change" isn't NEW, he isn't some kind of "new" politician with brand new wonderful ideas. They are rehashed proven failures of policies of past politicians. Most of whom couldn't get themselves elected as President because of those policy positions - and MANY of which are frighteningly similar to those of Herbert Hoover -right down to his anti-free trade position. Want to revisit what happened as a result of Hoover's anti-free trade policies and hope the next generation can repair the damage?

How about Obama's claim he is going to re-negotiate NAFTA or threaten to unilaterally withdraw? Heard what the Canadian Minister of Energy or whatever they call it had to say about that? He said that if Obama demanded a renegotiation of NAFTA, that Canada -who is our largest supplier of oil -should impose an oil embargo on the US. What a fresh new idea and exactly the kind of change we are all looking for no doubt!

 

[sealybobo]

Then you have a reading comprehension problem and no one can help you with that.

what is it you like about mccain?

coservative judges he promises to appoint?

position on the war?

tax breaks to the rich?

you are no democrat or hillary supporter

 

[sealybobo]

Don't you remember Hillary and Edwards wispered to each other about getting rid of the other candidates in their debates and they got busted? They don't hate each other. At least they didn't.

And you calling Edwards an Ambulance chaser is the GOP tactic they used against him when he ran for VP. Lobbyists and politicians aren't ruining America, no, it's trial lawyers. What a joke. Busted. You are a Republican. Maybe you were willing to switch sides for a woman because you are a woman? But the GOP can have you back. Good riddence.

Wrong about Richardson: Before he endorsed Barack Obama, before he drew the wrath of the Clintons and was likened to Judas, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson nearly endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.

He was impressed by the mostly positive tone of Obama’s campaign, and grew to appreciate the substance and depth of their private conversations. The more Richardson heard from the Washington heavyweights backing Clinton, the more convinced he became of the need for a change inside the Beltway.

No, Obama isn't saying anything new. It's common sense. Kerry said it, Gore said it, Biden, Hillary, etc. Only the GOP disagrees. You are right about that.

And as for NAFTA:

Almost all of today’s rich countries use tariff protection and subsidies to develop and protect industries that are vital to their success. Japan does it, Mexico, Canada.

Mexico won't let cars newer or older than 10 years in. In other words, no new car imports into Mexico.

Manufacturing Vital to Australian Economy
Jun 05, 2008

“If manufacturing disappeared, thousands of jobs in other sectors would disappear with it.

“This is an industry that should not be ignored by the government.”

AMWU - Manufacturing Vital to Australian Economy

You are just wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

Exactly what am I 100% wrong about?

See, people like you really piss me off. Instead of actually debating, you tell people they're wrong and walk away. Supporters like you make me understand more and more why Obama is an elitist prick.

The HUGE McCain Blunder No One Knows About....Yet
by slinkerwink
Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 0335 AM PDT

I was researching McCain's past position on the war in Afghanistan, and came across this very interesting Meet The Press transcript from October 21st, 2001. This transcript reveals a very intriguing blunder by John McCain that should be discussed in the press today.

He said that he thought the war in Afghanistan should be settled first before going to war with Iraq. This simply puts to lie his arguments on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He used to think that it was important to have everything in Afghanistan settled first, Osama bin Laden caught, and the Taliban regime extinguished before going to war with Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman also makes a cameo in this transcript.


Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman On Meet The Press, October 21st, 2001:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/at...

RUSSERT: Would you have any problem expanding President Bush's orders to the CIA to go after Osama bin Laden to include Saddam Hussein?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I leave that to the president. But as a matter of principle and morality, of course not.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I think Joe's right.

And I would just like to add one additional point. I believe that we will succeed. We will endure in Afghanistan. We will take out bin Laden, and we will take out the Taliban. And then we've got a major challenge of a stable government, but...

RUSSERT: How long will that take?

MCCAIN: I think the longer we give the impression that we're there for, the shorter it'll be. Because, as you quoted from articles earlier, they think they can outlast us. I don't think they can this time.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the American people will continue to stay with that campaign?

MCCAIN: Absolutely, and I think the president is doing a great job in leading America and making us aware of the challenge we face.

But I think the real crunch is going to come after Afghanistan is settled and then we have to address the other countries, including Iraq. That's where the coalition may not be so strong. That's where people like the Saudis and the French and many others may have real reservations.

And so, we're going to have to be steadfast. And again, the president will continue and, I think, very eloquently stated, countries that harbor these terrorist organizations will be held responsible, so it'll be their choice, not ours. It'll be their choice.

 

[Wow]

I gotta say, I agree completely with his adviser...it IS unfair for a provider to cover a man's Viagra but not a woman's birth control pill...

and I still say, who give's a hoot?

So McCain hasn't honed his fine-tuned policy on whether private health-insurance companies should be required to cover any or all medications that a customer wants - oh, no! Obviously this points to him being woefully under-qualified to be President!

Excuse my sarcasm, but come on - if anything, I'm impressed that McCain didn't do what most politicians would have done, and quickly give a politically correct blow-off answer, "I think that a woman has an absolute right to receive equal healthcare under her plan - and if a man is getting a Viagra prescription covered it should be a given that a woman can get her birth control covered..." McCain at least had the guts to eventually pony up to the fact that he didn't know what he wanted to say about it and therefore wouldn't say anything about it.

Additionally, I have had 7 insurance plans in my life - including the 3 I had when I was still in college and being covered by my parents. 6 of those 7 covered my birth control prescription - no questions asked. The 7th didn't, but covered several other types of birth control pill - I consulted my doctor and switched prescriptions. Bottom line, I would be fascinated to learn just how many women are affected by this problem.

You make a good point.

This issue simply points out the bigoted hatred some women have for men because men like sex with women.

These women have so much hatred for men, that they do not care that Viagra is used to treat heart failure in men.

Some women would like to have men die from heart failure if they could get birth control covered by Insurance.

American culture has turned into a hate fest!

 

[jillian]

You make a good point.

This issue simply points out the bigoted hatred some women have for men because men like sex with women.

These women have so much hatred for men, that they do not care that Viagra is used to treat heart failure in men.

Some women would like to have men die from heart failure if they could get birth control covered by Insurance.

American culture has turned into a hate fest!

That's retarded... there are women who take birth control pills to regulate their cycle and prevent ovarian/endometrial cancer.

Your point?

Methinks you're the one who needs to deal with the hatred issues.