John McCain Caught Playing iPhone During Senate Syria Hearing

[rasputin0009]

Pssh, at least he showed up. Canada's Senators only show up to around 40% of meetings. And they still get paid $190, 000 a year. With the ability to take their $120, 000 yearly pension before they retire. And all expenses paid traveling wherever the fuck they want. And they still have massive scandals for claiming personal expenses as government expenses. I actually hear about McCain doing things in the news.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

What I want to know (this doesn't really relate to the article but this is the only one I found that deals with Syria) is why does America (or at least the government) feel the need to shove themselves into other people's business?

I feel like this is Vietnam all over again... but for different reasons. (By that I mean, they went to Vietnam for no reason or at least no solid justified reason) Does Syria have any ties to the States?

 

[Jumwa]

I'm not saying U.S. strikes won't lead to deaths, what I was reacting to was your characterization of the hearing as being about a declaration of war that would lead to 'murdering countless people'. That characterization is sensationalized, as any U.S. strikes being currently debated do not involve a war declaration nor will they lead to 'murdering countless people'. What's more, I am not deluding myself into anything, I am simply stating that the way you framed the debate is far from what the debate is actually about.

The supposed merit of the strikes is that they are meant to serve as punitive against the regime for using banned chemical weapons against civilian populations, because if nothing is done by anyone it may embolden the regime to continue to use such weapons. Inaction may also lead to other regimes thinking that, since there will be no international reaction to the use of chemical weapons on civilians, that they too can do it with impunity.

I'm not weighing in on one side or the other myself, I am simply rejecting your notion that punitive strikes over the use of chemical weapons equates to a declaration of war and the murder of countless people.

You place a lot of emphasis on the distinction between waging an undeclared war vs. a declared one. I don't particularly see the difference beyond a lot of semantics. International law still defines it as a war, it's just that the UN has no ability to enforce anything upon the US.

Would you not think it an act of war if China dropped some bombs on the US as a "punitive measure"? I can guarantee you that your government would define it as war.

And the death toll will indeed be countless, as they always are in these things. Lives will be lost and we'll never know exactly how many individual persons are snuffed out of existence, their lives eradicated by the will of some men across the world who couldn't be concerned enough in their decision making to look up from their virtual poker game.

Also, you are presuming that the Assad regime has indeed used chemical weapons. As of now the only indication we have that it's so, are the rebels who have long been trying to concoct reason for western involvement, and the US and Israel. Neither of those two countries has any credibility on this issue. Though the Bush administration is over, the same people who were behind concocting "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs are in place now, and in fact many of whom have been promoted to even higher positions in the intelligence community under Obama.

There's more to debate whether than simply war is the right action, but whether the purported cause for it is even genuine.

 

[teebeeohh]

when world cup time comes around and you have a look around the parliament you have grown ass men secretly putting player stickers into little albums, it's kinda adorable.
and our minister of finance frequently plays games on his ipad during sessions but he is also more capable of doing his just than just about everyone else in there.

and in general while getting caught is kinda dumb if you already informed about the topic and know how you are gonna vote(and you should be by the time the actual hearing is on) it doesn't really matter if you listen attentively or not since the "debate" is mostly for show and to score PR points anyway. as long as they are physically present(looking at you, EU parliaments, where most people just have their aides sing them in) and are able to make an informed decision(and not just vote along party lines) i don't really care what they do during the debate.

 

[Zeldias]

Loving the fact that one of the folks who are part of the country's decision to go to war can be excused by people going "lol it was a long meeting." Maybe we should start letting surgeons do this when they're supposed to be reviewing the procedure before cutting someone open. This is a fucking sham.

 

[Brian Tams]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

 

[Jumwa]

Really? That's why Reagan had the cooperation of both democrats and republicans and was one of the few presidents in "recent" history to actually listen to both sides of an argument and wasn't afraid to go with the option offered by his "opposition" if he thought it had merits? But yeah, you're right, Reagan was the anti-christ, sorry for bringing him up.

I should inform you though that I truly hate discussing politics on the internet, it's about as useless a lightbulb on the sun. You've taken your shot, I offered my response, if you wish to discuss politics beyond that I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.

Your reaction is a bit over the top there. I never took a "shot" at you, and I never phrased things in such dramatic terms as you've gone on to do (anti-Christ, really?).

If you have trouble debating politics online, you might want to relax and not take a simple disagreement so personally.

 

[Jumwa]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

I would not define Obama as a liberal, all of his administration has been marked by exceedingly right-wing authoritarian actions, from sheltering Wall Street to his unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers.

But I wasn't talking about it on a partisan level necessarily. Perhaps you haven't noticed (and I don't say that glibly) but opposition/support for a war against Syria is not falling along partisan lines. And ideologies in both American parties are not uniform. Ideologically there's little that unites, for example, Rand Paul and John McCain. Or President Obama and left-wing Democrats.

Just like the recent move to do something about the NSAs spying on the public, it's been largely an ideological issue, but not a partisan one.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

All I get from this is how pointless his job is, the people who want this war won't give two fucks about what the senate says or does, this war will happen, John McCain just knows the score and plays a few hands of poker to kill some time before the army does to kill some Syrians.
You think this is a democracy but that might never have been true and sure as fuck hasn't been for the last twenty years.
I'd tell you to get your gun and go demand some change but let's face it, you're all better off just rolling over and accepting the rather obvious police state and hope it doesn't go nuclear anytime soon.

 

[RJ Dalton]

And during the SOPA debate, several senators were quoted as saying "We don't need to bring in the nerds" when someone suggested they call in some experts in networking technology to explain a few things about stuff they knew nothing about. Yet, we elected them again come the next election, because we don't give a fuck about who we put in office, unless it's the president, which has become perhaps the most powerless figurehead in our entire government.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

I would not define Obama as a liberal, all of his administration has been marked by exceedingly right-wing authoritarian actions, from sheltering Wall Street to his unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers.

The biggest con the American government has pulled off is managing to convince the public that there's still an actual difference between the democrats and the republicans in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[NeedsaBetterName22]

Pssh, at least he showed up. Canada's Senators only show up to around 40% of meetings. And they still get paid $190, 000 a year. With the ability to take their $120, 000 yearly pension before they retire. And all expenses paid traveling wherever the fuck they want. And they still have massive scandals for claiming personal expenses as government expenses. I actually hear about McCain doing things in the news.

To be fair, Canada's Senate is pretty much designed as the place where useless political elites end up after they've curried good favour with whomever is in power at the time. They're at a best an incredibly poorly designed stop-gap for legislation, and at worse a comfy position for aging party hacks. The U.S. Senate has a much more, shall we say, legitimate process?

 

[Gorrath]

I'm not saying U.S. strikes won't lead to deaths, what I was reacting to was your characterization of the hearing as being about a declaration of war that would lead to 'murdering countless people'. That characterization is sensationalized, as any U.S. strikes being currently debated do not involve a war declaration nor will they lead to 'murdering countless people'. What's more, I am not deluding myself into anything, I am simply stating that the way you framed the debate is far from what the debate is actually about.

The supposed merit of the strikes is that they are meant to serve as punitive against the regime for using banned chemical weapons against civilian populations, because if nothing is done by anyone it may embolden the regime to continue to use such weapons. Inaction may also lead to other regimes thinking that, since there will be no international reaction to the use of chemical weapons on civilians, that they too can do it with impunity.

I'm not weighing in on one side or the other myself, I am simply rejecting your notion that punitive strikes over the use of chemical weapons equates to a declaration of war and the murder of countless people.

You place a lot of emphasis on the distinction between waging an undeclared war vs. a declared one. I don't particularly see the difference beyond a lot of semantics. International law still defines it as a war, it's just that the UN has no ability to enforce anything upon the US.

Would you not think it an act of war if China dropped some bombs on the US as a "punitive measure"? I can guarantee you that your government would define it as war.

And the death toll will indeed be countless, as they always are in these things. Lives will be lost and we'll never know exactly how many individual persons are snuffed out of existence, their lives eradicated by the will of some men across the world who couldn't be concerned enough in their decision making to look up from their virtual poker game.

Also, you are presuming that the Assad regime has indeed used chemical weapons. As of now the only indication we have that it's so, are the rebels who have long been trying to concoct reason for western involvement, and the US and Israel. Neither of those two countries has any credibility on this issue. Though the Bush administration is over, the same people who were behind concocting "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs are in place now, and in fact many of whom have been promoted to even higher positions in the intelligence community under Obama.

There's more to debate whether than simply war is the right action, but whether the purported cause for it is even genuine.

I am making a distinction because there is a huge difference between sending a few cruise missiles to wipe out chemical weapons sites and sending five combat brigades in to seize a capitol. This is the actual distinction that is important and why it needs to be understood that a limited strike =/= a declaration of war. Whether the Assad regime thinks it is a declaration of war is meaningless. Whether the U.S. Congress chooses to declare war is most certainly not meaningless.

The issue with your phrasing is that it is emotionally loaded in order to sway opinion. But your whole paragraph about what you mean by that phrasing continues the same loaded trend. You continue by saying the 'men' (even though it was one man) across the world (as if McCain's current physical location has any bearing) couldn't be bothered to look up (as if he paid no attention for the whole thing) in order to inform their decision making (as if the man in question hadn't already informed himself about the situation and come to a conclusion). It is this sort of gross misrepresentation of what's actually going on that I'm objecting to.

You also continue to misrepresent what I'm saying, as at no point did I presume anything at all. I did not claim that the regime had used chemical weapons, I simply explained what the supposed merit of the attacks was supposed to be. I even used the word 'supposed' when explaining that point, illustrating that I was not taking it as fact and I also said that I, myself, have not even come to a conclusion on the matter. It's these minor 'semantic' distinctions that turn things from rational discourse into emotional pandering.

Honestly, I could just come back and say something like: Brave men sit in council for hours on end hashing out every detail of how to save countless people without resorting to war. But since you would prefer to do nothing, you must think that dumping nearly endless deadly, lethal chemicals on children is a good thing.

I've more respect for your mind than that though. I seek not to offend you, but simply to point out why the things you're saying are not a good representation of what's going on.

 

[Gorrath]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

I would not define Obama as a liberal, all of his administration has been marked by exceedingly right-wing authoritarian actions, from sheltering Wall Street to his unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers.

The biggest con the American government has pulled off is managing to convince the public that there's still an actual difference between the democrats and the republicans in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, the whole idea of 'picking a side' is almost meaningless in America. If you look at things like immigration, debt, military action, social services ect. they love to talk about how different the ideologies are, but in practice it's always the same things that are done. The only real issues where there is actual disagreement is on social issues such as defining marriage or whether homosexuals are born that way or if it's a choice. THey play up these social issues every election to try and get their base riled up and turn out a vote, but once people are in office, almost nothing changes. It's a sham on the highest order.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I see nothing wrong with this, and this actually makes me like the guy a tad more rather than less. He is of a military background, and has already viewed all of the evidence he needs to make his decision on the matter and has been quite vocal about his decision in the press as it is already and has been attempting to sway others as well. All the jawing in the world that takes place during this hearing isn't going to change his mind on the matter, and I see no reason why he should not be playing online poker during this hearing, it beats falling asleep and for a man of his age to be playing with his electronic device in order to keep his brain stimulated is of more benefit to him than listening to people talk for hours on end. This actually stimulates his brain to improve his cognitive skills so he will be able to think better, rather than necessarily taking away from his actual work.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/TheGuptaGuide/Neurology/38857

 

[ThunderCavalier]

"So are we prepared for this gentlemen? This declaration, if passed, will risk the lives of Americans, cause the loss of life of Syrian soliders and potentially innocent civi-"

"YES ROYAL FLUSH. TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS!"

First thing that came to mind. Thank you.

McCain has already made his decision, and announced it to the public. It wasn't a decision made willynilly, but one done with a foundation of information and influenced by his political philosophy. Him, and every other Senator who already knows how they are going act, are only there because it was expected for them to be there and that there is the possibility of new information (Which a Poker game wouldn't make him miss). This isn't a situation of him not caring about the topic, or about him refusing to accept new information on the topic. This is a situation of him not being bored about arguments that aren't even targeted towards him, and most likely ones he has heard before in private.

I see nothing wrong with this, and this actually makes me like the guy a tad more rather than less. He is of a military background, and has already viewed all of the evidence he needs to make his decision on the matter and has been quite vocal about his decision in the press as it is already and has been attempting to sway others as well. All the jawing in the world that takes place during this hearing isn't going to change his mind on the matter, and I see no reason why he should not be playing online poker during this hearing,

Yeah, but the thing is, he's still a fucking Senator and he still has responsibilities in this matter. Now, this isn't as bad as the one guy that watched porn during an abortion debate (this happened, btw. Go Google it), but even if McCain didn't mean any offense in this, it looks pretty damn immature and irresponsible for a man of his position to play a game on his phone instead of paying attention.

Yes, he probably already knows all this stuff and nothing's gonna change his mind, but the thing is that he DOES represent an authority figure and a leader to people in this country, and it's simply not acceptable in society nor acceptable for one of his standing to be doing something like this. Now, I'm not saying that we always have to be socially acceptable or blindly follow all of the conformities that people are used to (since, if we did, we would have never gotten as far into the gay rights debate as we have now, but that's an entirely different bonfire that I don't want to get into), but what I AM saying is that, even if the guy is bored, he needs to at least pretend he gives a shit.

Otherwise you end up with a shitstorm like, you know, the one you have right now.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"So are we prepared for this gentlemen? This declaration, if passed, will risk the lives of Americans, cause the loss of life of Syrian soliders and potentially innocent civi-"

"YES ROYAL FLUSH. TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS!"

First thing that came to mind. Thank you.

McCain has already made his decision, and announced it to the public. It wasn't a decision made willynilly, but one done with a foundation of information and influenced by his political philosophy. Him, and every other Senator who already knows how they are going act, are only there because it was expected for them to be there and that there is the possibility of new information (Which a Poker game wouldn't make him miss). This isn't a situation of him not caring about the topic, or about him refusing to accept new information on the topic. This is a situation of him not being bored about arguments that aren't even targeted towards him, and most likely ones he has heard before in private.

I see nothing wrong with this, and this actually makes me like the guy a tad more rather than less. He is of a military background, and has already viewed all of the evidence he needs to make his decision on the matter and has been quite vocal about his decision in the press as it is already and has been attempting to sway others as well. All the jawing in the world that takes place during this hearing isn't going to change his mind on the matter, and I see no reason why he should not be playing online poker during this hearing,

Yeah, but the thing is, he's still a fucking Senator and he still has responsibilities in this matter. Now, this isn't as bad as the one guy that watched porn during an abortion debate (this happened, btw. Go Google it), but even if McCain didn't mean any offense in this, it looks pretty damn immature and irresponsible for a man of his position to play a game on his phone instead of paying attention.

Yes, he probably already knows all this stuff and nothing's gonna change his mind, but the thing is that he DOES represent an authority figure and a leader to people in this country, and it's simply not acceptable in society nor acceptable for one of his standing to be doing something like this. Now, I'm not saying that we always have to be socially acceptable or blindly follow all of the conformities that people are used to (since, if we did, we would have never gotten as far into the gay rights debate as we have now, but that's an entirely different bonfire that I don't want to get into), but what I AM saying is that, even if the guy is bored, he needs to at least pretend he gives a shit.

Otherwise you end up with a shitstorm like, you know, the one you have right now.

I would be perfectly fine with them holding hearings over an actual poker game as well, and feel that would be better than what they currently do to decide these things. I don't see that it diminishes the capability nor does it diminish their public view. I see it is those who actually get their undies in a wad over such things as the ones behaving immature and irresponsibly considering handling important issues such as this is better done with a cool head than an uptight environment. Considering Neurologists actually prescribe video games for men his age to improve their cognitive function, him playing games improves his actual ability to make better decisions, as such would improve his ability to make better decisions in regards to the topic of the hearing as well.

So when looking at the actual effect of him playing a game during this, I view that as behaving more responsibly to ensure he has the cognitive ability to think clearly rather than dull his cognitive abilities by boring himself to death through a 3 hour lecture about a subject he has already thoroughly studied.
The " pretending to give a shit" is far more immature than increasing your cognitive function, and should be considered far more irresponsible than actually doing something to help you make better decisions.

 

[Verlander]

*shrug* I doubt he cares, and employees in other businesses do far worse. Also, technically, his job was done and he was waiting on other people to come to a conclusion. I can see the temptation

 

[Taurus Vis]

Anyone ever been in a VERY LONG ASS lecture or speech or seminar?

You could play a game of Monopoly in some of them and not miss anything!
Now granted this does look bad.

But at which point he is playing may lessen it.
I mean it could have just been two people arguing in circles.
Or something they went over already.

Admit it...most of us could not sit through three straight HOURS of something without letting our mind wander.

I had three hour once a week courses.
We NEEDED a 15 minute break in it because no one could pay attention through the entire damn thing.

Still it does look bad for an elected official in a war committee to be doing that.
At least he was not looking at porn.

Except this isn't a boring lecture, this is a decision that has more weight than anything in history. This is bigger than the Cuban missile crisis. If the decision is made to attack Syria, then Iran is in the war, due to there mutual defense agreement. Also, China and Russia back Syria and Iran, and Russia has made claims this could go Nuclear if the US makes the wrong decision. This doesn't just put Syrian lives at risk, it puts the whole world at risk. This is as close as we have ever come to WW3, and the fact that the man so vocally endorsing this war is playing a fucking iphone game during the session is despicable.

 

[Yabba]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

I would not define Obama as a liberal, all of his administration has been marked by exceedingly right-wing authoritarian actions, from sheltering Wall Street to his unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers.

The biggest con the American government has pulled off is managing to convince the public that there's still an actual difference between the democrats and the republicans in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Fine humor me, why are they so close that is just an illusion that they are different?