Stephen Best

How pedantic! But you're right. McCain has the basic qualifications. He's a natural born US citizens and over the age of 35 as are tens of millions of other people.

Really? So you haven't been reading the news about the murder of prisoners held by the United States? It was revealed in testimony before a Congressional committee by a former aide to Colin Powell. And you've provided a source! How cute.

Where do you get these ideas? He was a rube in the military, a total screw up. As a pilot he flew into power lines. He lost 5 planes. As a POW, he did everything his captors asked of him.

The North Vietnamese did nothing to John McCain that the United States has deemed does not rise to the level of torture. And here comes another source for our consideration, "Does Bush Believe McCain Was Tortured?"

As I've stated on numerous occasions, McCain has shown himself to be an inconsiderate, reckless, incompetent, unethical, shady braggart. He barely got through the Naval Academy. He cheated on his first wife, when she was most in need. Was an incompetent pilot who lost 5 aircraft and got himself shot down. The Navy put him in A4s because they couldn't trust him in a Phantom. He was part of the Keating Five savings and loan scandal... And, the list goes on. He's an embarrassment and unfit to be a President.

Remind us when I asserted that the majority of BC MPs have been Liberal.

The question is were the orders legal.

I can read.

Did you not notice how much of McCain's past was omitted from the Wikipedia article? For example, how poorly he did at Annapolis. You also might notice that it says he was tortured. McCain was never tortured by the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese did nothing to McCain that the Bush Administration has not approved as lawful enhance interrogation techniques and deny constitute torture. The Wikipedia article about McCain is incomplete. Consequently, it does not follow that additional information constitutes a lie.

Was it about plagiarism? Spelling counts.

Are you suggesting that relying on the considered views of highly qualified experts puts my credibility in question? That's truly weird and perverse. Now to your question, am I more fit to be President of the United States than John McCain? In fact, I am. I pale in comparison to Obama. But the fact is that the United States and the world would be better off if I was the U.S President rather than McCain. That's not a comment on my abilities, but rather McCain's dangerous deficiencies. Even I would be a better President than John McCain.

Please review the numerous references in previous posts.

Actually, I'm not making the claim. It's military people who served in Vietnam and/or with John McCain. Unlike you, it would seem, I consider the various views, assess the credibility of those reporting, and form an opinion which, if new facts warrant, might change. As of now, the evidence seems clear. McCain is a disreputable, incompetent, unethical braggart who advanced thanks to his family's connections and his second wife's inherited fortune. He is an embarrassment to the U.S. Military and U.S. Congress. He is unfit to be President of the United States.

It's plagiarism when you don't credit your sources, Rapier. Did you not know that? Did you read my thesis? Or are you offering another unsupported, uninformed opinion?

Actually, it is international law. Following orders is not a defense against war crimes. Or did you not know that, Rapier.

Actually, Rapier, since McCain has refused to release most of military records (unlike Senator Kerry) what's your source that McCain's last sortie was against an NVA airfield? According to McCain, "The date was Oct. 26, 1967. I was on my 23rd mission, flying right over the heart of Hanoi in a dive at about 4,500 feet, when a Russian missile the size of a telephone pole came up—the sky was full of them—and blew the right wing off my Skyhawk dive bomber. It went into an inverted, almost straight-down spin." [source: The POW Years - Part 1: John McCain in His Own Words - "Shot Down"]

You're repeating your self now. By cut and past, do you mean "source"? Do you have an sources that support your assertions? Do you understand or appreciate the fundamental, universally-accepted (apart from you) aspect of scholarship or debate that referencing a "source" represents? Or do you assume whatever detritus is floating around in your head has some inherent validity. If the latter, there's little to be gained by me answering your questions by giving you verifiable facts--verifiable by reputable, trusted sources. Something you've yet to offer, Rapier.

Do I need to walk you slowly through the universally accepted notion of "source"? Each source, I so generously offered you contains facts. Did you miss them? Go back, review the sources, and let me know which facts that are stated are false. It's really quite simple. Even someone with half a rapier could do it. The reason I offer you sources is that I'm sure you would not accept a fact stated by me that was unsupported? Am I wrong? Or will stipulate that everything I say is a fact? In which I case I will be delighted not to have to burden you with sources of well-researched material.

You might want to use the double edge sword. The rapier demands skill.

It takes far more courage to speak truth to power and say that a war is wrong than parrot "Yes, sir! Yes, sir!" and go on to unnecessarily kill innocent people who pose no threat to your country. Kerry was a hero. Fonda was hero. We know now that they were right and the official hero-mongers like McCain were dead wrong. Supporting the troops by encouraging them to follow the orders of venal commanders and political masters is no support at all. It's betrayal. It's treason of the highest order.

Wouldn't success or failure depend on what you actually did in your military career and in Congress? Or is that a heretical thought? You think McCain learned from his failures? I think not. But at least you acknowledge that McCain is a failure. It's not necessary to Swift Boat McCain, his dismal record speaks for itself. Swift Boating is a tactic based on lies, not truth. What fact mentioned in all the sources I've posted is incorrect? Name some.

British Columbia is represented by Members of Parliament from the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. None of the parties "believe Canada ends at the Rockies." That's a delusional whine that BC people have been weeping since I was born their many decades ago.

Once more a conservative apologist create an alternate reality in fantasy land where all conservatives are smart and honorable and all liberals are dumb and dishonorable.

It seems you're reduced to ad hominen attacks and baseless charges of lying. One minute you accuse me of not give you "proof", then when you get the proof of my assertions, you want to hear my own words. Get back to me when you make up your mind. Perhaps you can give me some evidence about McCain's brilliant military career and heroics in the mean time. By "partisan", do you mean anything that doesn't agree with you? Are you not a partisan? Just checking.

Does "McCain's Secret, Questionable Record" and all the other sources I've posted on this thread not add up to "abject failure" or worse? I think it does, but then perhaps your and other's standards of what comprises competence and success are much lower than mine.